When Senator Diane Feinstein’s (D-CA) staff contacted the FBI San Diego office regarding Dzwilewki’s comments, her staff was advised by that office that Dzwilewski had indeed made such comments to the San Diego Union-Tribune, but according to Senator Feinstein, as quoted by Reuters, “they also said they'd been warned to say no more." The media, believing this to be a smoking gun likely to further damage Bush administration credibility, presented this story under the gripping headline, “FBI agent told to keep quiet over attorney firings.” What should be the response of wise news observers? A shrug of the shoulders and a dismissive “so what?”
A more accurate headline would have been, “All FBI Agents, and for That Matter All Agents or Officers of All Agencies in Government, Including the Military, are Told to Keep Quiet About, well, Everything.”
Before I explain why this Reuters “silencing” hype should be downplayed, it will be helpful to provide the context by including Dzwilewski’s comments about Lam’s firing as they appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune on January 13, 2007:
I don't think it's the right way to treat anybody. What's the decision based on?” Dzwilewski said. “I don't share the view of whoever's making the decision back there in Washington that they'd like her to resign. I feel Carol has an excellent reputation and has done an excellent job given her limited resources”. . . .
Lam's continued employment as U.S. attorney is crucial to the success of multiple ongoing investigations, the FBI chief said.
As for the reason for any pressure to resign, Dzwilewski said: “I can't speak for what's behind all that, what's the driving force behind this or the rationale. I guarantee politics is involved.”
Every government agency I have dealt with in my career, at all levels local, state, and federal, have a “one voice policy” that employees agree to abide by during their term of employment, and for many agencies that policy extends even into retirement or separation. Government and military departments and agencies have Public Affairs or Media Relations sections through which the “one voice policy” is expressed. I have never attended a briefing or participated in an operation or assignment where all participants were not reminded that they are not authorized to talk to the press, or represent the department or agency to the media. The reasons for a “one voice policy” are numerous, but all boil down to a single theme: the agency’s or department’s public image is critical to success; we all have our own opinions, but we do not all have access to “need to know” information, thus our personal opinions should not be published in the media, where they can taint the agency’s or department’s public image.
No one familiar with government or military protocols should be surprised that the FBI and presumably its parent Department of Justice warned the FBI San Diego office not to talk to the media about the firings or Dzwilewski’s comments. The warning, however, does not provide any smoking gun evidence of a cover-up or conspiracy. Instead, the warning was likely nothing more than a stern reminder, given the current anti-Bush witch hunt culture rampant in Washington these days, to utilize the “one voice” policy of the FBI as agreed by all employees, even special agents in charge.
The example of Special Agent Dzwilewski is a perfect example of why “one voice” policies exist. Dzwilewski, despite his senior position as an FBI Special Agent in Charge in San Diego, did not attend the Justice Department meetings and briefings at which the decisions to fire the 8 Attorney Generals were made. He also was not privy to the thought process that went into the decisions. His published comments quoted above clearly confirm that he disagreed with the reasoning behind Lam’s firing but did not know what that reasoning was. That did not stop him from “guaranteeing” that the firing was motivated by politics. Thus his opinion regarding Lam’s firing, even if proven later to be accurate, is missing the key ingredient of firsthand knowledge because he had only heard Lam’s (or the media’s) side of the story. The legal term for that is “conjecture based on hearsay”. The media term most applicable to that is “a ratings boost”.
Dzwilewski should have referred the San Diego Union-Tribune immediately to the FBI’s or Justice Department’s public affairs or equivalent sections rather than entangling himself in a political spider web designed to cocoon and paralyze the Bush administration. With no firsthand knowledge of the deliberations prior to the decision to fire these 8 attorneys, he was uniquely unqualified to speak, even unintentionally, as an FBI spokesman. Biting the hand that feeds you is unwise, and Dzwilewski bit his current employer and its parent department simply by opening his mouth and sharing his opinion.
I once worked an assignment with a Roswell, New Mexico Police detective who, despite appearing to be a normal, intellectually sound individual, insisted that aliens did in fact crash a spaceship in a Roswell field in 1947, and that our government arrived on scene, seized the alien craft, and continues to this day to conceal this fact from the American people. For the first hour or so, I believed he was joking, playing a corny but quaint prank on his government guest. After more than 8 hours of observing his behavior and studying his body language and voice inflexions, it was obvious to me that he truly believed the alien story (he was old enough that he could claim to have witnessed the government’s arrival and seizure of the spacecraft) and he openly shared it not just with me but with anyone who would listen.
This detective had an opinion about something, but that did not make it fact. Most people have a crackpot opinion about something, and many people have wild opinions of government conspiracies. Likewise, Dzwilewski had an opinion about Lam’s firing, but unlike the Roswell detective, Dzwilewski was not authorized to openly share that opinion with anyone who would listen, especially the news media, as explicitly explained in the “one voice” policy.
FBI Director Robert Mueller apparently felt similarly. During his grilling by Senator Feinstein over this alleged “silencing” of Dzwilewski, the FBI Director explained:
I do not believe it's appropriate for our special agents in charge to comment to the media on personnel decisions that are made by the Department of Justice.
Mueller captured the essence of the “one voice” policy in this sentence. First, he rebuked his Special Agent in Charge in San Diego for violating the “one voice” policy with the media, and consequently reminded all special agents in charge that they are not authorized to comment to the media. Mueller’s statement extends the reminder of the “one voice” policy to the entire FBI, including himself, by implying to Senator Feinstein that personnel decisions made by the Department of Justice are not an FBI matter and thus only the Justice Department, not the FBI, should comment on the motives, political or otherwise, for the firings.
The media spin on this aspect of the U.S. Attorney firings is nearly as hyperbolic as the media’s overall portrayal of the firings as a scandal. The Wall Street Journal editors recently published an insightful brief comparison of the Bush administration’s and Clinton administration’s firings of U.S. Attorneys. In that summary, the editors reminded readers that Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorney’s upon taking office in 1993 and claimed that he was following precedent set by White House predecessors. This was, of course, historically inaccurate. More sinister though was the fact that among those fired was a U.S. Attorney investigating the White Water investment scandal in which Bill and Hillary Clinton were intimately involved. Another fired U.S. Attorney in that group was preparing to indict House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, who later was convicted for mail fraud and pardoned by Clinton. No scandal in that, according to the media at the time.
Attorney General Gonzalez fired 8 out of 93, and the Democrats in Congress are now conducting hearings and investigations into the reasons for the firings. Never mind that all U.S. Attorney positions are political appointments and those who accept them serve at the pleasure of the President, please don’t cloud the issue with facts, as that would take away this “scandal” from the Democrats and the collusive media.
This Congressional “gotcha” investigation will likely continue until the media finds a better story. There remains the possibility that some kind of smoking gun evidence will arise and implicate highly placed administration officials. If there was any impropriety in the firings, punishment should be swift and appropriate. The fact that Bill Clinton fired 93 U.S. Attorneys, including two investigating Democrat scandals, without the media raising an eyebrow should not serve as an excuse if evidence is ever presented that this administration acted similarly. Moral equivalency is always wrong, and both parties should be striving to outdo each other in integrity and ethical behavior rather than living down to the low bar of expectations set by a previous administration.
Despite Reuters’ action thriller headlines about agents being “told to keep quiet,” the only smoking guns found in the San Diego FBI office appear to be at the firearms range.
No comments:
Post a Comment