Four decades ago when I was a radio talk show host in Baton Rouge, I heard an unforgettable put down of a politician. By a sizeable majority, Woodrow Wilson (Woody) Dumas—a likable good old boy from what was then a rural town in the East Baton Rouge Parish—had just been re-elected to the second of his four terms as Mayor-President.

On the same ballot was a measure seeking approval of a massive recreational and flood control reservoir that was to be constructed at little expense to local taxpayers. Ninety percent of the cost was underwritten by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and local government would pick up the tab for the remaining ten percent. It seemed like a good deal, But voters turned thumbs down for no reason other than a Tea Party-like tax revolt. 

I questioned Mayor Dumas about the surprising rejection of a project that would have brought a lot of benefits to the area. “It failed because the voters are stupid,” he replied.

Minutes later, a call-in listener offered a response. “I hope you realize, Mayor, that the same stupid voters elected you to another term. I hope they get smarter before the next election.”

Woody Dumas, who died in 1993, was, for the most part, a colorful, effective and progressive Mayor. His mouth, however, accelerated at a greater speed than his mouth. And he was also a guilty of a shortcoming that takes a toll on many politicians as soon as the polls close and they are declared a winner. The results often mark the beginning of a journey toward omnipotence—a state of mind causing them to believe they are unaccountable for sins of commission and omission. A visible symptom is outrage when confronted with their missteps.

Take, for example, Harlem’s iconic 20-term Congressman, Charles Rangel. Yesterday, he launched into a 30-minute diatribe on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. He was defending himself against ethics charges involving personal dealings and the failure to abide by rules related to his finances. He faces thirteen specific compaints, none of which are criminal. But regardless of his guilt or innocence, the tone of Rangel’s rant was typical of his longevity as a ranking Congressman.

“I made a few mistakes, overlooked a couple of ethical issues but so what?”

http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/MEPMRJ/3OO23B/161KK4/4IBNZR/HUF1V/4O/h

While working on a documentary at CNN, I had a single encounter with Representative Rangel. It was enough to convince me that he did not have an ego deficiency. My one interview dealt with a congressional probe of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega by a House Committee he chaired. Based on intelligence documents I had acquired and information provided me by folks in the know, my questions focused on the reliability of witnesses who testified before the committee. Rangel barely allowed me to finish questions before bragging about his background as a federal prosecutor twenty years earlier. He indicated that there was no way he could be snookered by a lying witness. He was.

I came away with the impression that Rangel’s office was barely big enough to contain his massive ego. In fact, it was a big day for me to observe the egotism of Washington lawmakers. Following the Rangel interview, I questioned Senator John Kerry on the same subject. He was Chairman of a Senate committee that took testimony from the same witnesses. His response echoed that of Rangel. Kerry cited the  expertise he gained in assessing witnesses while working for a few months as a local prosecutor in Cambridge, Massachussets. 

The size of Kerry’s ego did not come as a big surprise. We had a couple of prior encounters in the 1970’s when he did part-time commentary for the Boston television station where I was Director of Investigative Reporting. Even then, Kerry projected the kind of arrogance that would subsequently undercut his 1996 campaign for President.  

In demeanor and deed over the years, Kerry and Charles Rangel have both shown a disdain for lesser mortals. They are not alone. It is manifest in contemporary politics. In the weeks preceding the 2010 November elections, voters will be tested by candidates to determine our level of stupidity and the extent of our memories. Populist proposals are now quite abundant—many of them impractical.

Take, for instance, the rhetoric about repealing the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States. Accomplishing this feat is the equivalent of climbing to the peak of Mt. Everest in shorts and tennis shoes. Amending the Constitution requires two/thirds vote in both the House and Senate, and ratification by three/fourths of the states. It ain’t going to happen in my lifetime. But politicians insult the intelligence (I’m taking a quantum leap) of voters with such pie-in-the-sky proposals.

And how about the partisan politics of Republicans who vote down legislation they previously supported in an effort to demean the Obama Administration? And no exemptions here for cry baby liberal Democrats, who criticize health care and financial reforms because the legislation does not pass their taste test of ideal. Surely, they know politics is a game of compromises. But then gain, they believe voters are stupid and will hail them as candidates standing by their principles.

It is a strange phenomenon, one that begins when the final vote tally is in. Like Sally Field in her 1993 Academy Awards acceptance speech, victorious politicians are overcome with a desire to shout, “I can’t deny the fact that you like me. Right now, you really like me.”

Watch out, though. As Woody Dumas was warned, even stupid voters may get smarter before the next election.  

My memoir, Odyssey of a Derelict Gunslinger, is available at amazon.com and independent bookstores. It offers much more than $19.99 worth of laughs. The book is an account of my illustrious (I choose the adjectives) career. 

The release of more than 90,000 classified documents by Wikileak this week has opponents of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan peeing in their drawers. Journalists are also staining their britches. Nothing causes a reporter to get more excited than acquiring a document marked “Secret.”  Having spent three decades of my life in pursuit of secrets, I’m quite familiar with the loose bladder syndrome.

As an investigative reporter, most of the secrets I revealed were non-military—notable exceptions being my disclosures about the U.S. invasion of Panama to capture dictator Manuel Noriega, and my futile effort to uncover evidence to save the jobs of colleagues who produced a CNN segment accusing the American military of using a nerve chemical to kill enemy forces in Vietnam.

As an aside, what I found out in the aftermath of the nerve gas controversy makes interesting reading in my non-best selling memoir, Odyssey of a Derelict Gunslinger. (I’m getting damn good at sneaking in book plugs).

Anyway, uncovering secrets and secret documents is often a waste of time. But the sheer bulk of the Wikileak material suggests there is important information included that will shed new light on the Afghanistan war. Even so, the initial response by the Obama Administration and the Defense Department indicates much of the material is old news—information that has already been reported, or falls into the category of undocumented raw intelligence.

Regardless, the threshhold for causing controversy is low nowadays. Viral e-mail and video currently flooding the Internet is proof that proof is not required to spread to false information. Still, my guess is a thorough analysis of 90,000 classified documents will uncover a few revelations to embarrass people in both the current and past administrations.

After reading about the Wikipedia material, I decided to skim several thousand de-classified CIA documents that I acquired in my follow-up of CNN’s Vietnam nerve gas fiasco—stories stemming from a military operation called “Tailwind.”

http://www.aim.org/publications/special_reports/NewsStand06-07.html

While scanning the dated CIA material, I paused to read excerpts from a couple of documents that seemed eerily contemporary. They were cables distributed to top echelon military and diplomatic officials in April, 1968, shortly after President Lyndon Johnson announced his decision not to seek reelection.   

THE PRESIDENT SAID HE WAS SINCERE WHEN HE DECLARED IT WOULD PROBABLY BE POSSIBLE FOR THE ALLIES TO REMOVE SOME OF THEIR TROOPS BY THE END OF 1968. HE THOUGHT AT LEAST ”SEVERAL BATTALLIONS” SHOULD BE PHASED OUT AT THAT TIME AS A TOKEN INDICATION OF GVN (government of Vietnam) DETERMINATION TO PLAY A LARGER ROLE IN ITS OWN DEFENSE. 

HE (the South Vietnamese President) IS TAKING SOLACE IN THE PRESIDENT’S STATEMENT THAT THE U.S. HAS NEVER LOST A WAR AND IS NOT ABOUT TO LOSE THIS ONE.

These excerpts relate to an attempt by U.S. officials to assure the leadership of South Vietnam that the U.S. commitment to the war remained solid. In short, classifying a document as “Secret” or higher is not a testimonial to accuracy. The content is frequently propaganda. Indeed, secrets are in the eyes of the author. Consequently, much information under the label of confidentiality is relatively mundane. And plodding through stacks of classified material often raises the question, ”What is the big secret?”

Now for my secret. While serving in the Air Force many years ago in Okinawa, I was dispatched to mainland Japan as part of a two man team assigned to measure radar bomb scoring. Basically, we plotted the likely location of phantom bombs aimed at designated targets. Based on an array of factors—altitude, heading, wind drift, the point of “bombs away,” etc.—the score was calculated on a chart laminated to a flat 12-by-12 wood board. The chart was classified “Secret” because it allegedly mirrored the bombing approach to potential targets in the Soviet Union.

After 90 days on temporary duty in southern Japan, a plane was sent to return me to Okinawa’s Kadena Air Force Base. The aircraft was a B-25, which even then had been retired from strategic and/or combat use by the military (damn, I’m old). Unfortunately, the huge scoring chart was too big to fit into the bomb bay of plane. Following  after a few minutes of deep thought, everybody agreed that we throw the damn thing in the trash. Although I tried, I could not destroy the “secret” information on the chart. Thus with the acquiesence of the pilot, co-pilot and navigator—all of whom helped me haul it away—American secrets were stacked next to an air base trash pile. Given the fact that the U.S. never went to war with the Russians, I now feel comfortable revealing my secret.

I know the long ago tale is boring. I couldn’t even keep barroom pals interested in my drinking days. But in the future I promise to write about more intriguing secrets—like Elvis Presley’s income tax returns.

My memoir, Odyssey of a Derelict Gunslinger, is available at amazon.com and independent bookstores. It offers much more than $19.99 worth of laughs. The book is an account of my illustrious (I choose the adjectives) career.

Former Panamanian Dictator, General Manuel Noriega, took an all expense paid flight from Miami to Paris this week to go on trial for money laundering. His extradition gives me flashbacks of a journalistic nightmare two decades ago when I found myself in the middle of a pissing match between CNN and a U.S. District court  judge in Miami. The controversy stemmed from a story I reported during my first year as the cable network’s Senior Investigative Correspondent. It was an example of a story getting out of hand.

In a nutshell, CNN extended its middle finger at a federal judge and he overreacted. An excerpt from the book tells why.

My involvement in the story began after a young reporter for CNN’s Spanish language network acquired copies of audio tapes of Noriega telephone calls, which were routinely recorded by the Bureau of Prisons. The tapes were slipped to Marlene Fernandez by former Panamanian diplomat Jose Blandon. I’m not violating confidentiality in revealing his identity. He has since been identified as CNN’s source in newspaper stories and court testimony.

As a former Noriega confidante, he was recruited by DEA agents and prosecutors to identify voices on the tapes and evaluate the conversations. Unbeknownst to the feds, Blandon made his own copies of the recordings. Because lawmen are barred from listening to attorney-client discussions under any circumstances, I was assigned me to work with Marlene to authenticate the tapes.

 Thus began a whirlwind series of on-camera interviews beginning with New York University law professor, Stephen Gillers. He confirmed that monitoring lawyer/client discussions is prohibited. He said the tapes could seriously jeopardize the case. The next day, I flew to Miami for interviews with Noriega lawyer Frank Rubino, former Assistant U.S Attorney Dick Gregorie and Neal Sonnett, then President of the National Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. 

I had a long acquaintance with Gregorie. He successfully prosecuted drug traffickers indicted based on the testimony of my late Baton Rouge smuggler pal, Barry Seal. After hearing tape excerpts, Gregorie agreed with Gillers’ assessment. 

A couple of hours later, Neal Sonnett described the tapes as an appalling violation of Noriega’s rights. Following the Sonnett interview, I made what turned out to be an expensive goof. I hit the record button while turning off the tape machine. Excerpts we brought to Miami were erased. 

Already an hour late for the Rubino interview, I asked him to be patient while arranging for an Atlanta producer to play the original tape over the telephone. The quality was terrible. But Rubino and a Spanish-speaking paralegal understood enough to confirm the tape was authentic. The lawyer said he planned to report the violation to the trial judge. I was now confident we had information exposing government overstepping in an extremely high-profile case. Returning to Atlanta, we made plans to break the story during a Wednesday evening newscast. 

Early Tuesday afternoon, however, Rubino asked me to delay the story. He feared the on-camera confirmation of the tape could be interpreted as a waiver of Noriega’s attorney-client confidentiality. I explained that the focus of our story was government misconduct, not defense strategy. As a courtesy, though, I agreed to inform CNN’s legal department about his request for a delay.  

Given clearance to run the segment by our chief counsel, I called Rubino to tell him the story would air the next day. He angrily threatened to seek a restraining order. CNN’s lawyer recommended we beat him to the punch by running the story early Wednesday morning before the courthouse opened. Hence, we spent all-night writing a script, gathering archival video and editing the piece. The story ran at 7:00 a.m.

By hastening the report, I did something I’ve since condemned. I rushed a story to air to protect a scoop and in so doing failed to exercise proper caution, even though nobody else possessed the tapes. The decision would prove costly.

Exhausted, I went home to get some sleep. However, my snooze was interrupted by CNN President, Tom Johnson. He said the Justice Department denied recording any attorney-client conversations, perhaps because the quality of the tapes was inaudible due to my mistake in Miami. Tom wanted me back to the office. 

Meantime, Rubino had followed up on his threat. To the surprise of CNN lawyers, the judge granted a temporary restraining order. The ruling set off a series of Atlanta meetings involving Johnson, corporate eagles, and legal beagles from private firms. While they met, we put finishing touches on a follow-up report. I believed the Justice Department’s denial demanded a response. Our second story contained audible portions of the tape, as well as an on-screen translation of the conversation and the identity of the participants.

Friday afternoon while network lawyers were trying to overturn the restraining order, I sat in a conference room with CNN executives and lawyers waiting for the verdict. The updated version was scheduled to lead the 5:00 p.m. newscast. Thirty minutes prior to air time, one of the attorneys called from Miami. Not had the judge refused to lift the order, he demanded that CNN immediately turn over the tapes for his inspection. It was nut-cracking time. Tom looked around the room for dissent. “If anyone believes we should delay the report, speak now.”

There was silence. So he called the newsroom and gave the go-ahead. Watching the newscast, everyone in the conference room cringed when the story was introduced by anchor Bernard Shaw with words to the effect, “Today, a federal district court Judge in Miami, Florida ordered CNN not to air secret recordings of Manuel Noriega’s discussions with his legal defense team. F–k you, Judge.”

Federal judges do not react well to violations of their orders. Many have God-like complexes. From high above, they exercise absolute authority over their courtroom domains. The network’s defiance angered every God-like judge in the country. CNN was cited for criminal contempt, and when attorneys later tried to overturn the ruling at the appellate levels, they were treated like court jesters.

In my opinion, Tom made the right call, but made a tactical error. He should have gone on the air prior to the story and explained the reasons for our decision to defy the judge. Although the news media must abide by the nation’s laws,  journalists must have broad freedoms to expose government misconduct without interference from the courts. In this case, the restraining order shielded prosecutors under intense pressure to convict Noriega to justify the invasion of Panama.

Before all was said and done, CNN’s defiance would cost the network about a million dollars in legal fees, fines and related expenses. And we still lost on appeal. So did Noriega.

He was convicted based on the testimony of a line-up of drug-dealing criminal witnesses, who were given sweetheart deals. I’m not implying that Noriega was innocent. My criticism in the book directed at the overzealousness of prosecutors and their willingness to conceal evidence and make deals with characters whose stock in trade was deceit.

Odyssey of a Derelict Gunslinger gives details of the compromises—many of them outrageous and some borderline illegal. Worse, the invasion of Panama was probably unnecessary. 

But those are stories for folks who buy the book. I’m going to hit golf balls.

My memoir, Odyssey of a Derelict Gunslinger, is available at amazon.com and independent bookstores. It offers much more than $19.99 worth of laughs. It is an account of my illustrious (I choose the adjectives) career.