« October 2007 | Main | December 2007 »

The 2-Story-Tall Red Ribbon

November 30, 2007 8:51 AM

White House Correspondent Ann Compton blogs:

The nation’s capital awoke to a surprise at the White House front door. Overnight cranes draped a giant AIDS red ribbon, two stories tall, on the North Portico of the White House. It will remain in place for two days marking World AIDS Day December 1st.

Such a dramatic symbol is a first here, but the Bush administration has long felt it is not getting the credit due for the President’s “PEPFAR” initiative (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) which has spent something approaching $15 billion on HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment in vulnerable African and Caribbean nations. President Bush has also asked Congress to double that amount up to $30 billion over the next five years.

Along with the humanitarian cause, there is a strategic political motivation for President Bush. AIDS is so rampant in some African countries it could become a political destabilizing force in nations where a significant percentage of adults fall ill and die, weakening an entire generation.

November 30, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Pakistan Power Transfer

November 29, 2007 2:27 PM

Asia Correspondent Stephanie Sy blogs about attending the handover ceremony:

As a general rule, military men don’t cry. But when General Pervez Musharraf gave his final address as Chief of Army Staff, observers could swear they saw tears in his eyes. I was sitting too far away to confirm that.

As the only American reporter invited to the handover ceremony, I sat in a sea of uniforms. In fact, I sat next to some tough-looking army women wearing heavy lipstick and head scarves. They eyed me and my notepad with suspicion. The handover event was held at the Army Hockey Stadium in Rawalpindi, which is about the same size as I remember my high school football field being, seating about 3,000. At least they thought of replacing the bleachers with velvet-covered chairs. Somehow, I expected more grandeur for Musharraf’s retirement. There was barely an Officer Club’s worth of people there. I was told later by a military spokesperson that it was because it was a “last-minute thing.” A lot of people that were invited apparently didn’t have time to travel to Islamabad. And yet, I knew I was witnessing history. Here was a man who had controlled the most powerful institution in Pakistan, the military, for 9 years (far longer than this nation’s constitution allows). All of his power came from his uniform, and now, under intense international pressure, he had to take it off. It was probably not the way he envisioned the end of his 46-year-long military career.

A special honor guard stood in the middle of the hockey field. A band played (a much smaller band than my high school’s). And a half-empty stadium sat under a dusty sun waiting for the ceremony to begin. Musharraf arrived in a black Mercedes in full ceremonial dress uniform. He carried a baton under his arm. He reviewed the honor guard, per military tradition, and then he took to the podium for his farewell address. Even though I don’t understand Urdu, I could tell by the tone that this was not a happy man. It sounded as if he was reading his own eulogy. He spoke in terms of mortality (“every good thing comes to an end”). He may have been referencing his own political survival. He said the Army would always be his family.

Continue reading "Pakistan Power Transfer"

November 29, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Fresh Nixon Papers

November 28, 2007 4:45 PM

Senior Washington Correspondent John Cochran blogs:

Just when we think we know all there is to know about the Nixon years, another batch of papers or audiotapes emerges with more chewy morsels.

As a reporter who occasionally covered Richard Nixon's presidency, I was fascinated to see the latest "dump" of Nixon documents released Wednesday by the National Archives.

So far, the most interesting papers I have seen today are not about the Watergate scandal or domestic issues, but about national security. The new revelations would have made big headlines back then, but some people may now find this all a bit arcane. Not me.

Let's start by going back to the summer of 1969 when the CIA was telling Nixon and Henry Kissinger that Israel had either already developed a nuclear bomb or was on the verge of developing it. Even if Israel did not yet have the bomb, Nixon saw no way to stop the Israelis. He, like previous American presidents, did not want Israel to have nukes because he feared it would further de-stabilize the Mideast and possibly cause the Soviet Union, then an ally of many Arabs, to bomb Israel.

In what was then a Top Secret memo, Kissinger told Nixon that since the U.S. could not stop Israel from having nukes, the important thing was to protect Israel's secret: "While we might ideally like to halt actual Israeli possession, what we really want at a minimum may be just to keep Israeli possession from becoming an established international fact."

The policy Nixon and Kissinger adopted was essentially "Don't Ask; Don't Tell." That policy is still in effect today. There have been many leaks about the Israeli nuclear program, but no official confirmation either from Israel or the U.S.

Some of the newly released Nixon papers have virtually nothing to do with the present, but they can still be riveting. Just below is a good example of the Realpolitik hardball that Nixon and Kissinger loved to play.

It's December, 1973. Kissinger is meeting with Rui Manuel Patricio, the Foreign Minister of Portugal which was then a dictatorship fighting against guerrillas in its African colonies. American law forbade selling weapons to Portugal to fight the Africans.

The Portuguese F.M. said Soviet MIG planes would soon attack a Portuguese colony, Guinea.

Read an excerpt of their conversation after the jump… Including a possible hint as to who would be the middle man in getting Hawk missiles to Portugal for use against Africans.

Continue reading "Fresh Nixon Papers"

November 28, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

Bush and the Mideast Peace Process

November 27, 2007 11:52 AM

Chief White House Correspondent Martha Raddatz blogs:

President Bush was able to announce a broad framework in Annapolis today -- a joint declaration between the Palestinians and Israelis to move forward with the 2003 roadmap -- but they have a long, long way to go. What is key is what happens next -- and how much visible and consistent effort the president puts into the process.

Much has been written about the fact that the President has not visited Israel since he was elected, but that really does matter in the world of diplomacy. President Clinton’s three trips said something about his commitment. It didn’t result in anything -- but sent a strong message about how much he was willing to stake on the peace process. Will Mr. Bush go now? The White House won’t say. And does the President really want to put that much of his reputation on the line? Judging from the speech today, he wants to avoid the level of personal involvement that President Clinton had. (Bush is on record criticizing Clinton’s involvement.)

While President Bush endorsed the Mideast peace process today in his speech in Annapolis -- affirming “the path to peace” -- he made it quite clear it was not up to him -- it was up to the parties involved. The President said, “the time is right because Palestinians and Israelis have leaders who are determined to achieve peace.” And “the time is right because a battle is underway for the future of the Middle East and we must not cede victory to the extremists.” He also said that the world now “understands the urgency of supporting these negotiations.” The President pledged to work hard and offered the resolve of the American government and his own efforts. The President also stressed that Mideast peace is part of a broader battle against extremists -- his favorite topic.

November 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Inside Camp David

November 20, 2007 2:35 PM

World News Senior Producer Stu Schutzman blogs:

The sign reads "Camp #3. Closed to the Public". No hint that you are entering the mountain retreat of the leader of the free world. Camp David appears on no map. It is one of the most restricted and secure places on the planet. Secured by US Marines with automatic weapons in plain sight; fingers very near the trigger at all times. Very serious business. Marines take you in, take you out and escort you everywhere in between.

The camp opened in 1942, President Roosevelt named it Shangri-La, and he was right on. By 1942, FDR, his health deteriorating, needed a respite from the hot muggy DC summer. This cool, rustic private piece of earth in the mountains of northern Maryland fit the bill. It's dotted with cabins: Laurel, Aspen, Sycamore, Holly to name just a few. In the small confines of Holly cabin, Jimmy Carter, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat hammered out the Camp David Accords -- the historic treaty between Israel and Egypt in the perfect place to talk peace.

In the early 1950s, President Eisenhower renamed Shangri-La "Camp David" after his Grandson. For more than half a century, Presidents have taken the opportunity to leave the pressures and demands of the job back at the White House at least for a little while.

This week the Bush family will gather here to celebrate Thanksgiving. The President agreed it's a great place to relax and escape to but, as he told Charlie Gibson, the president can never escape the presidency -- not even in this magnificent place.

November 20, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Cyclone's Trail of Misery

November 19, 2007 11:59 AM

Nicholas Schifrin, part of our recent expansion of reporters stationed around the globe, blogs from Bangladesh:

Along the Kocha river in Bangladesh in the days after Cyclone Cidr, only the moon can stop you from seeing the stars.

I was traveling back from the southern coast on a hired boat (top speed about 2 mph) that earlier in the day took me and my team to the town to Chaltabunia, which had been ripped apart by the wind and the rain. Hundreds of lakeside villages line the riverbanks here. They do not have much, but they do have electricity, or they did. Tonight, there wasn't a single light on for 50 miles. In the dark, the villages were scenes of rebuilding and sadness. (At left, Cyclone affected villagers carry corrugated iron sheeting to repair their damaged house in Potuakhali, 152 kilometers (95 miles) south of Bangladesh's capital Saturday, Nov.17, 2007.)

The cyclone hit this area the hardest, not only because the force with which it traveled was equivalent to a strong category 4. It's because this is one of the poorest places on the planet. The U.N. Human Development Index ranks this country 137 out of 177. The per capita GDP is one-sixth of what it is in the United States. And it's one of the most crowded countries in the world.

Shaparjat is one of the countless poor, crowded villages we saw. Residents tried to tell me that thousands of people live there, but it felt like a one-horse town with a few hundred residents. There is a main building used as a school and there are homes tightly packed around walkways and small streams that run through the town. The residents are mostly fisherman, as are the vast majority of people in this area. The Kocha river is only about a five-minute walk. There is nowhere else to go, nothing else to see. Houses, a single building, and the fish swimming in the water. That's all these people have.

Continue reading Nick's entry here.

November 19, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Deserting the Army

November 16, 2007 7:14 PM

Pentagon producer Luis Martinez blogs:

The Army reported today that its desertion numbers are at the highest levels in 20 years, 42 percent higher than they were last year and almost 80 percent higher than at the start of the war in Iraq. The ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may be a motivation for some soldiers to desert though Army officials say it's hard to pinpoint exactly what motivates a soldier to go AWOL. The Army notes that 76 percent of deserters are new soldiers and that the total number of deserters remains less than one percent in an active duty Army of 510,000 soldiers.

Soldiers have four ways of getting out of the Army : being discharged for homosexuality under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, not meeting physical standards, being deemed unsuitable for military service or going AWOL. An Army Information Paper says the higher deserter numbers are an "unintended consequence" of Army-wide efforts to reduce what they call entry level separations or attrition. It says the Army benefits "from keeping attrition low and dealing with the high desertion rate because of the sheer number of soldiers who would attrite compared to the number who are willing to desert."

For example, new boot camp standards are designed to keep soldiers in the ranks and not boot them out.

In 2005, the Army decided to shift the training emphasis in boot camp so that new soldiers would have more training for the skills they might need in combat. A shift that reflected the reality that with the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan they were likely to see combat. The result has been lower attrition rates. In the summer of 2005, more than 18 percent of soldiers in their first six months of service left under the four provisions cited above. By June, 2007, that number had dropped to about 7 percent. Army officials say the decline reflects a drop in the number of soldiers who leave due to physical fitness or health reasons, that means a more likely option for new soldiers who say the army's not for them is to go AWOL.

Full deserter statistics are after the jump.

Continue reading "Deserting the Army"

November 16, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

UPDATE: Diplomats and Iraq

November 15, 2007 3:51 PM

State Department Producer Kirit Radia blogs:

Today State Dept spokesperson Sean McCormack didn't have an update on the number of open spots, but he did say he believes there have been additional volunteers this week that brought the number of open spots into "single digits." (At left, the new U.S. embassy in Baghdad under construction in May. Seen from across the Tigris River, the complex will be two-thirds the size of Washington's National Mall.)

Officials are loathe to provide numbers, but another official confirms that whereas there were about 11 open spots on Tuesday, that number has dropped because more diplomats have stepped forward to volunteer.

McCormack said that the window remains open if other foreign service officers wish to volunteer, leaving open the possibility that few if any diplomats will actually be forced to serve in Iraq.

"We're doing really well," one official insisted, pointing out that when the possibility of direct assignments arose 2 weeks ago there were 48 open spots and nearly all of them can now be filled by volunteers.

It may still be several days before the department can determine whether it will have to force anyone to go to Iraq, but it's clear they are allowing the window for volunteers to remain open as long as possible to avoid that option.

Read Kirit's original entry from Oct 26 here.

November 15, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

From Battlefield to Classroom

November 12, 2007 7:07 PM

Today, of course, is Veterans Day and we would like to update a story we featured several months ago.

Back in May, we told you about Jim Wright, a former Marine, who as the current President of Dartmouth College started a program to help wounded veterans. Back then we named him our Person of the Week. [WATCH]

This fall, three war veterans joined the student body of Dartmouth. Last week, we had the pleasure of chatting with one of those students -- sophomore Brendan Hart -- a Marine who served in Iraq.

We asked him about making the transition from battlefield to classroom on today's webcast. [WATCH]

 

.

November 12, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Covering the OJ Trial: Then and Now

November 09, 2007 5:43 PM

Senior Law and Justice Correspondent Jim Avila blogs:

It's been 12 years since I sat in a courtroom with O.J. Simpson on trial before me. But so much has changed.

Back then, Simpson was facing double homicide charges in the most dramatic and sensational case Los Angeles had seen in decades. The case divided the city and gripped the nation.

This time around, it all seems so much smaller.

The media village, parking lots full of satellite trucks and wires everywhere, is still here, but the stakes -- for everybody but Simpson himself -- are so much lower. Only a couple dozen reporters fill the courtroom, many of them oscillating between boredom and amusement as witnesses for the prosecution recount the details of what seems like a low level break in.

Former Los Angeles County prosecutor Marcia Clark is back in court for this second go-round, but now her hair is blond and she sits in the gallery with the reporters, working as a correspondent for a celebrity entertainment show.

Back in 1995, reporters were as riveted as the country was, and endlessly analyzed every little detail of the case -- from limousine driver Allan Park's testimony to the chain of custody of the blood evidence and the heart-wrenching 911 call Nicole Brown Simpson had placed to police in 1989, expressing the fear that Simpson would harm her.

Testimony in the Las Vegas case has included lengthy descriptions of a sports memorabilia dealer's heart and back pain medications.

But perhaps the most telling difference between the two cases comes from above.

When the now infamous low speed car chase that preceded Simpson's arrest began, only one local television station's helicopter was following, but by the time it was over more than a dozen choppers filled the sky, as virtually the entire nation watched, fascinated, as police followed the white Bronco down Interstate 405 in California.

On Thursday evening after court, a single local television station judged the situation urgent enough to follow the Simpson entourage of Hummers from above to their destination -- a local Howard Johnson’s restaurant.

November 9, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

One Family’s Decision: How Genetic Screening Saved a Young Girl's Life

November 09, 2007 12:59 PM

Correspondent John Donvan blogs about covering the story of a baby boy who saved his sister just by being born:

VIDEO: Watch the original story here.

It is easy to "undertell" one side of a story sometimes, and this could have been one of those times.

What made the difference, in my view, was a single photograph: the one that showed baby Michael as a clump of cells.

Michael's dad John lent it to us for this report. It actually showed TWO embryos, but John said as he handed it to my producer: "I'm not sure which one is Michael."

The important thing is that John himself gave that embryo a name. I have seen and covered several stories where the ethical questions central to a debate can be commandeered by the passions and sympathy for the individuals who are making controversial decisions.

There's nothing wrong with passion and sympathy: they certainly tell us when the stakes are high. In this story, the passion and sympathy certainly attached to the Hartmann family and everything they have gone through. They saved Michael’s sister Elisabeth. Who cannot cheer for that? (At right, Michael and Elisabeth.)

The "undertold" story, however, could well have been The Other Side of the Argument. It is difficult to connect viewers passionately to the rather abstract-seeming concept that unseen embryos -- human life some say, and others disagree -- were a byproduct of the process that saved Elisabeth. To posit "their dilemma," and give any standing to the notion that they have existence or rights or destinies that may conflict with the wants and needs of an actual family you can see on your TV screen, can seem pretty pointless when only the family on the screen can talk and persuade and celebrate how things all turned out in the end.

But seeing a clump of cells named Michael made the point: his embryo was chosen, the others were not. To that extent, The Other Side of the Story became slightly less abstract, and the nature of the ethical debate slightly more clear.

VIDEO: Watch the original story here.

November 9, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Democrats and the Iraq Drawdown

November 08, 2007 12:13 PM

ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf blogs they're plotting another vote:

When Democrats attached language to mandate a withdrawal from Iraq to the supplemental war funding bill for this past fiscal year, President Bush vetoed it. And Democrats lacked the vote to override his veto.

Though there has not been an election between then and now to drastically change the number of votes in the House or Senate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that her chamber will vote as early as Friday a new supplemental war funding bill essentially written using the same language.

The President has asked for nearly $200 billion to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Pelosi said Congress will only give him a quarter of that -- $50 billion. That funding, she said, Bush would have to use to withdraw combat troops by the end of 2008 with the token force left behind focused on training Iraqis forces, tracking down terrorists, and securing Iraq's borders.

Pelosi said it is important for congressional Democrats to reassert their platform for a change in direction in Iraq.

Continue reading on the Political Radar blog.

November 8, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Robertson and Rudy: Does it Matter?

November 07, 2007 11:15 AM

Polling Director Gary Langer blogs:

It’s an open question whether Pat Robertson’s endorsement will do more to help Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign - or to call into question Robertson’s own credibility among a substantial number of evangelical white Protestants.

Giuliani clearly could use help in this core Republican group. He only runs about evenly with John McCain and Fred Thompson among evangelicals in the latest ABC/Post poll, while holding a 20-point lead among all other Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.

It may matter: Evangelical white Protestants account for nearly three in 10 leaned Republicans, and their motivation and cohesiveness can make them a dominant force particularly in low-turnout primaries.

Continue reading on Gary's The Numbers blog.

November 7, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Mumbai, India: In Between

November 06, 2007 3:43 PM

Karen Russo, part of our recent expansion of reporters stationed around the globe, blogs:

There is something about being away from home that is making me crave American music -- really outdated, really uncool, sappy American music from the 90s. (I know it's uncool and a friend told me I shouldn't admit this to anyone, but...) There’s a line in a Counting Crows song ("Round Here" YouTube video) about being "in between" and I didn't understand it until now because in India, most days, that's what I feel: "in between."

In between reporting, in between uploading files, in between shoots, stressing, checking in with my mom, traffic jams, endless meetings for my apartment. In between all of that and much more, I find myself in between being a part of this country and watching it move past me like it's a film. When I am stopped in traffic and a beggar outside my window holds out their hands or touches my arm, I feel like I am viewing something, not experiencing it. What do I do? Do I avert my eyes? Do I give money? I breathe a sigh of relief when the traffic light changes.

I feel proud of myself for learning my way around the city, but within moments, that emotion turns to anger -- because I nearly get run over by a cab. I’ve been here long enough to confuse myself into thinking driving on the right side is normal. Wait is it? No, it's not. All this is "in between," this comparison, this asking myself -- Was it like this in New York? When did it become normal for me to fight a taxi driver for cheating me out of 10 rupees? 10 rupees? Would I scream at someone over a penny in New York?

So this "in between" is what broke my heart the other night when I realized I was not "in between," that this isn't a movie and when I saw a little boy asleep on the sidewalk, he was really there. I thought he may be dead. He must have been about 8 years old, but I have seen toddlers bigger than him. His body was tiny, the size of a doll. His limbs so skinny, he must have weighed 25 pounds. Maybe. I wanted to pick him up and take him home, clean the city's filth off of him. But then what? What could I do with him? There were no parents around. I had no money on me, but grabbed my friend who was walking ahead of me. "Give me some money," I said. I took 10 rupees and placed it in the boy's hand, thinking it would wake him and he'd clutch it. But he didn't stir. I was afraid someone would steal it so I sort of tucked it into his sleeve. He didn't move. I walked away.

November 6, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Inside Pakistan as Troops Hit the Streets

November 03, 2007 8:09 PM

Martha Raddatz reports:

The declaration of emergency came quietly.

We were driving around the streets of Islamabad at dusk, when a small number of police began gathering outside government buildings and at a few key checkpoints.

Within hours those numbers would grow. When the declaration was made official, hundreds of police in riot gear gathered in front of President Pervez Musharraf's palace, the parliament building and the Supreme Court.

Steel and cement barriers were hastily put in place outside the buildings, independent local media outlets and major hotels. Once the police were in place, we watched several hundred paramilitary forces outside the palace disappear into a tree lined area leading up to the palace. Those forces would be called in if police were unable to handle the situation.

But very few civilians gathered outside the buildings: Life in the city seemed quite normal. Shops were open, and traffic was moving. People seemed oblivious to what was happening.

We were in an incredibly unique position watching this unfold. I had long planned to accompany Adm. William Fallon, who is the head of Central Command, on a trip to Pakistan and Afghanistan this week. And he had long planned meetings with President Pervez Musharraf. No one had any idea when the trip was scheduled that this would be the weekend that Musharraf would declare a state of emergency.

On Friday, I had a scheduled interview with Adm. Fallon after his meeting, but when the admiral returned from his meetings, it was clear that the session had gone far longer than planned and that things had not gone well.

Fallon warned Musharraf not to make a declaration of emergency, but Musharraf told the admiral he was going ahead with it anyway.

Fallon, it turned out, was the last U.S. official to meet with Musharraf before the declaration. But other U.S. officials had been trying to talk Musharraf out of it as well.

Fallon continued on with his prepared schedule. On Friday night, he attended a dinner with the newly named Army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, and senior officers at Army headquarters.

I attended the dinner as well. It was very formal, and no one was saying a word about what was about to happen. After the dinner, a Pakistani army band performed, Fallon and the general shook hands, and the admiral headed off.

Just hours after Fallon left Pakistan this morning for Afghanistan, Musharraf made his move. I changed plans and did not go onto Afghanistan with the admiral, having confirmed last night for "World News" that Musharraf was on the verge of declaring an emergency.

November 3, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Dubai: Week of the Woman

November 02, 2007 6:34 PM

Lara Setrakian, part of our recent expansion of reporters stationed around the globe, blogs:

I witnessed the week of the woman in the United Arab Emirates. First lady Laura Bush passed through on her tour to promote breast cancer awareness. A popular picture circulated the web of the first lady meeting with women covered head to toe in black abayas, set in the Abu Dhabi's 'pink majlis' - one hospital's take on the traditional Arab sitting room where people leaders and their subjects discuss their troubles in eye-to-eye candor.

The point of the pink majlis is to create a space where women can talk about their breast cancer experience, free from the stigma or embarrassment that traditionally surrounded the disease. The breast cancer survivors generously told their stories in that woman-only forum. It made me realize how lucky I am to be a female reporter in the Middle East. I have access to places and perspectives that men cannot access. Here in the UAE, at least, there are few places outside the prayer room that are the reverse - men only.

"Good Morning America" anchor Robin Roberts accompanied the first lady on her trip. Robin and I went with Mrs. Bush as she met with young Emirati women, in Abu Dhabi, the UAE's capitol, all were just short of my age, who've been in U.S. state department programs for education and cross-cultural exchange. They lit up when they saw Robin. (GMA plays daily here on two satellite TV networks.) It was fun to watch them snap pictures of each other with the visiting anchorwoman.

There was, though, also a counter-sentiment I picked up from local doctors and activists here, feeling patronized by the first lady’s visit. “Tell her we’re doing just fine, we don’t need saving,” was the line I heard from one man. He cited the various breast cancer clinics and charities in place, while noting that America’s health care system is not one the Middle East wants to use as a model.

Continue reading "Dubai: Week of the Woman"

November 2, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Rumsfeld’s Snowflakes

November 01, 2007 7:55 PM

Correspondent John Hendren blogs:

Donald Rumsfeld was known as a hard-charging, often abrasive Secretary of Defense. But those who were well-placed enough –- and often unfortunate enough -– to receive his daily flurry of memos also know him as a demanding boss and a severe critic. (At left, Rumsfeld in 2006.)

"Keep elevating the threat" Rumsfeld wrote in a memo obtained by The Washington Post after a meeting with military analysts last year, as the press and public sentiment over the Iraq war grew more critical in the months before his ouster. "Talk about Somalia, the Philippines, etc. Make sure the American people realize they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists."

The memos were known in the Pentagon as "snowflakes" because they descended so prolifically from Rumsfeld's third-floor office. Rumsfeld, once the youngest Defense Secretary under Gerald Ford, maintained his energy as the oldest secretary under President Bush, firing off 20 to 60 such memos a day from his standing desk, where he worked without a chair. (At right, naturally-occurring snowflakes dust the hood of a car in downtown Iowa City, Iowa.)

Everyone, it seemed, had a file of Rumsfeld memos. I once walked into the office of the senior military assistant to then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and saw an in-box stacked six inches high. It was labeled "snowflakes." 

Some are quite pointed, as is to be expected when coming from a man once named one of America's toughest bosses by Fortune magazine. A former senior Pentagon official likes to tell the story of the time Rumsfeld scolded an assistant for some perceived error, then dictated a memo explaining what she'd done wrong -- and asked her to type it and deliver it. To herself.

Continue reading "Rumsfeld’s Snowflakes"

November 1, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (36) | TrackBack (0)