February 13, 2007

  •  

    On the Run

    Eugene Richards/VII, for The New York Times

    Eugene Richards/VII, for The New York Times

    Crossroads Boquete retracing his path out of Glades Correctional Institution.

    February 11, 2007

    Fugitive

    “Orlando.”

    In a dim, nearly deserted Everglades farm stand, nothing moved.

    Orlando Boquete, hybrid of youth and age — his body springy and athletic at 52, but knitted to a startlingly ancient head — peered at the stalls through thick eyeglasses.

    Other than a faint buzz, the shimmer of heat trapped in a tin roof, the word “Orlando” was the only sound.

    An impatient companion called to him.

    “Orlando. Hey, Orlando.”

    Not a flicker, head to toe. For more than a decade, Orlando Boquete lived as a fugitive, his very identity a shackle he slipped out of, again and again. He hid bits of sandpaper in his wallet so that in a pinch, he could abrade his fingerprints. Every bit as revealing as the ridges of his fingers, the ordinary, reflexive responses to his own name — a grunt, a sideways glance, a shifting foot — also vanished under the grind of fugitive life. It was as if someone had suddenly clapped hands in front of his eyes and he did not blink. Standing still, not saying yes or hello or uh-huh became a martial art.

    The word “Orlando” floated in the thick, steaming air, then sank without trace into the wizened face.

    Technically, he was no longer running from anyone, so this denial was vestigial habit. He could say who he was. He lifted a mango, rolled the fruit in the palm of his hand, half-smiled and turned to greet the man behind the counter. He announced that he was Cuban. Then he asked a question.

    “Es Mejicano?”

    The fruit man nodded, yes, he was Mexican.

    At that, the words erupted from Boquete’s mouth, personal history as volcanic rush.

    “These Mexicans in the sugar-cane fields helped me,” he began. “Twenty-one years ago, when I escaped from Glades, I hid with them. Right here, by choo-choo.”

    He pointed toward the railroad tracks, but the fruit-stand man did not shift his blank gaze. It was almost possible to see him rewind to the phrase “when I escaped from Glades.”

    On the way into the town of Belle Glade, the welcome sign in this capital of sugar cane declares, “Her Soil Is Her Fortune,” but another gravitational force goes unmentioned: Glades Correctional Institution, the state prison one mile down the road. The prison had brought Orlando Boquete to Belle Glade, but it could not keep him there.

    He started speaking in gusts of alternating language, Spanish one sentence, English the next phrase, a saga of life in flight — of hiding places in the sugar cane, disguises that tricked the police, gratitude to the Mexicans who helped him.

    Fugitivo.

    The fruit man did not bother to mask his anxiety. As he listened to Boquete, he slid the mango off the counter, with no sign that he was going to bag the purchases of this garrulous criminal. Boquete realized he should present his bona fides. He turned and pointed to me — here, this white newspaper writer from New York has come to look at the canals where he hid with alligators, the mucky fields where he crawled like a snake.

    “I don’t read newspapers,” the fruit man said blankly.

    At Boquete’s shoulder, his nephew, José Boquete, spoke into his ear.

    “Tío,” he said. And he stage-whispered into his uncle’s ear, “DNA.” Not missing a beat, the older man spoke the word “exonerated” and the abbreviation DNA and finally, three more letters that registered with the fruit man.

    “CNN,” Boquete said.

    “Ahh,” said the fruit man, who pointed to the television in the fruit stand, reciting the shards of the tale that lodged in his memory. A Cubano broke out of Glades Correctional. He ran for years. Then he was caught. And finally, he was proved innocent. There must be more to the story, but it was enough for the fruit man. He pushed the mango across the counter. On the house. Boquete protested. The fruit man insisted.

    By Feb. 6, 1985, the night he fled prison, Orlando Boquete, 30 years old, had already spent two years behind bars for a sexual assault and burglary he had nothing to do with, the victim of a victim who mistook him for the man who climbed in her window. Ahead of him, as far as the eye could see, were mountains of time: five decades.

    He bolted.

    Of the 194 people exonerated by DNA tests since 1989, only Orlando Boquete undid society’s mistake by fleeing. And he kept undoing it: over the next decade, he was in police custody again and again, only to vanish in a forest of identities that were false, borrowed and stolen. His prison break was the start of a decadelong journey of near-disaster and daring inches, with no money, no home, no name — but with good looks, charm and a quick mind. Craving family and a bed to call his own, Boquete instead found refuge in an underworld of outlaws. “I did certain things that I had to do,” he said. “To survive. But I never, never harmed anyone.”

    He would appear at family gatherings, enchanting the children in stolen moments when he again became, without worry, Orlando Boquete. Then he would quietly slip behind the mask of fugitive life. (A niece, Danay Rodriguez, remembers her parents coming home with a flier that showed her tío Orlando as one of the state’s most wanted men — a mistake, the grown-ups assured her.) He held dozens of jobs, legal and illegal; at times, he worked as legitimately as someone with a fake name could. Other times, he worked por la izquierda, on the left — meaning, he said, under the table.

    He had always been good at running. Boquete (pronounced bo-KETT-eh) boarded a shrimp boat in the port of Mariel, Cuba, in 1980, when he was 25, leaving behind one son, two marriages, a career as a diesel mechanic in Havana and a jail record as a Cuban Army deserter — this last credential essential, he believed, to helping him clear bureaucratic hurdles for departing Cuba. He joined 125,000 Cubans, known as Marielitos, who formed an extraordinary exodus that year, when Fidel Castro felt pressure from a poor economy and allowed them to leave.

    For two years, Boquete led a life that was pretty much on the level. He worked construction, then in Cafetería La Palma in Miami’s Little Havana and later as clerk in a convenience store on the midnight-to-dawn, no-one-else-will-do-it, armed-robbery shift. By June 1982, Boquete was living with an uncle in a trailer in Key West, hoping for work as a commercial fisherman along the archipelago.

    On June 25, with the summer heat at full blast, he had a cousin shave his head of thick black hair, leaving only a mustache. That night, various Boquetes later testified, they sat in the trailer, watching baseball and the World Cup from Spain. Afterward, they strolled to a Tom Thumb convenience store for cigarettes and beer. As they approached, police officers asked them to wait in the parking lot. Another police car pulled up. Inside was a woman who had awoken from a sound sleep in her bed in the Stock Island apartments, a few blocks away, to find a man on top of her. He ejaculated on her bedclothes. He had no hair on his face, she said, and a buzz cut on his head. Another man lurked in the apartment with him, she said, but had not taken part in the assault. They grabbed a few items and left.

    From the police car, the victim saw Orlando Boquete and told the officer, “That’s him.” Although he had a prominent mustache, he was the only person in the vicinity with a shaved head. That single glimpse shaped Boquete’s life for decades.

    Before trial, the prosecutors offered him a deal: plead guilty and give evidence against the other man who had broken into the apartment, and he would have to serve only one year in jail, followed by two years probation.

    On the witness stand, Boquete explained why he had declined. “If my freedom depends on my falsely stating that I’m a culprit or guilty,” he said, “I would rather go to jail. I’m conscious of the fact that if the gentlemen of the jury and the ladies of the jury, if they vote against me, they are going to destroy my life, and I’m not afraid to stand here.”

    Besides the alibi provided by his cousins and uncle, the defense seemed to hold one other card. A second man, Pablo Cazola, was arrested for the attack and pleaded guilty. He also signed an affidavit stating that Boquete was not his accomplice. But he refused to testify at trial. At the time, DNA testing — the ultimate proof of identity — had not yet been used in court. So the jury was left to weigh the eyewitness identification of a very confident victim, on the one hand, against the alibi of Boquete and his relatives, all of whom testified he had spent an evening watching television and drinking beer.

    It was January 1983, a particularly poor moment for a Marielito accused of a violent crime; there had been many fevered stories about their supposed rampant criminality. Convicted after brief deliberation, Boquete was sentenced to 50 years for the burglary and another five years for attempted sexual battery. The case was over and, so it seemed, was the life Orlando Boquete had sought in America. He was 28 years old.

    He moved into the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections with one treasured possession, he told me, passed along by an inmate he met in the county jail: a Spanish-language edition of “Papillon,” the prison memoir that became a movie starring Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman. It is the account of Henri Charrière, who wrote — perhaps accurately, though some scholars are skeptical — of his many escapes from French penal colonies over the years.

    “This is a real book,” Boquete told me. “He gives to you power. Esperanza. Hope.”

    He set about adapting Charrière’s lessons to his own life, finding principles and tactics that could transfer from penal colonies of the 1930s to a state prison in Florida in the mid-1980s. On one occasion, Charrière was undone by an informant. The lessons, by Boquete’s light: study and silence. “Be patient if you want to escape from somewhere,” Boquete said. “You have to be observant. Don’t run your mouth.”

    He studied the terrain. Two fences ran around Glades Correctional. The first was short, easily scalable. Between it and the second was a strip of boundary area, about 10 feet wide, mined with pressure detectors. A footstep would set off alarms. Beyond the boundary was the second fence, about 15 feet, with curls of razor wire running along the ledge. Guards watched from towers, but the pursuit of escapees was left to officers who circled the perimeter in a van, on a road just beyond the outer fence.

    A natural, compact athlete, Boquete ran every day, processing the details of prison life. Inmates occasionally were taken by a shotgun squad to work in sugar-cane fields near the prison. On one such excursion, Boquete saw a swampy irrigation canal, about 300 yards beyond the outer wall. It served as a moat, complete with resident snakes and alligators. This gave him pause. “Alligators have territory,” he explained. “If they have babies over there, and you go there, you’re in trouble.”

    He made a pinpoint search for useful, secret-worthy inmates and found one man from the town of Belle Glade, who agreed to map the roads and landmarks. He was staked $30 by a Colombian inmate with ties to organized crime.

    Charrière wrote in “Papillon” of the ocean waters around Devil’s Island, noting that every seventh wave slapped against the shore with greater strength than the ones that came before or after. Ultimately, he marshaled the power of a seventh wave to get clear of the island. At Glades, Boquete timed the orbit of the van, to see how long he would have from the moment he triggered the ground alarms until his pursuers could get back to him. About a minute, he figured.

    In “The Fugitive,” a movie starring Harrison Ford, an innocent man on his way to death row seizes a chance to run for his life. In the unyielding reality of prison, innocent people often do the precise opposite of running. They dig in their heels. Many go before parole boards and refuse to apologize for “their” crimes, unwilling to offer themselves as exemplars of how the penitentiary really is a place of penance. In Pyrrhic glory, these innocent people prolong their incarceration by refusing to fake remorse for things they did not do, while the guilty quickly learn that the carrot of parole awaits those who muster the necessary show of contrition.

    Even if Boquete had been willing to profess regret for something he had not done, parole was years away. Still, running would inevitably land him in a purgatory of deception and evasion. Moreover, the law does not permit innocent people to flee prison any more than it permits them to resist arrest. The guards would be armed and ready to shoot.

    “I know that can happen,” he reflected years later. “I don’t care. If they kill me, anyway, I’m gone. I finish my sentence. I was ready, physically, mentally, spiritually. I don’t be scared about nothing when I escaped. Only a little scared of alligators.”

    The evening of Feb. 6, 1985, was miserable, wet and cold. Perfect. “Nobody likes to jump in the cold water,” Boquete said of the guards. “Nobody wants to stay in the sugar-cane fields in the cold weather. The cold weather makes their job more difficult.”

    Just before 8 p.m., as he sorted carrots on an assembly line, he caught the eye of George Wright, a 29-year-old man serving 75 years for robbery. Boquete said they had joined forces while jogging in the yard; Wright, who is back in prison and due to be paroled next month, has a somewhat different version of events but declined, through a relative, to be interviewed.

    They slipped outside, unnoticed, and walked past the prison’s construction warehouse. They grabbed a door frame someone had left out for them to use in scaling the two fences, Boquete said, then pulled the frame with them over the first fence. Now they were on the pressure-alarmed land. The 60-second clock started running. They propped the frame against the tall fence, then scrambled up to the barbed wire summit. Boquete, who stands 5-foot-4, went first. He briefly got in the way of the 6-foot-4 Wright, who simply brushed past him.

    Once they hit the ground outside, they sprinted to the wide, swampy irrigation canal. They paused, caught their breaths. In the distance, they could hear the dogs. Boquete had steeled himself for this moment, but in his heart, had hoped that perhaps he would not have to get into the water. The advance of the dogs convinced him. They had no choice. They plunged ahead and never saw each other again.

    Soon, the baying of the hounds was joined by another sound: the beat of helicopter rotors. Boquete immersed himself, surfacing his nose for a gulp of air, seeing beams of a searchlight sweeping across the fields and water. The dogs barked. He had no religious upbringing but wore a crucifix on a chain around his neck, and he put the cross in his mouth to calm himself.

    He later guessed that he had been in the water two hours or so, most of it fully submerged, when he finally pulled himself, shivering, onto the bank of the canal. He crawled on his belly into a field, then dug a shallow burrow with his hands. He dropped into the hollow and covered himself with dirt and grass. He could hear his pursuers shout. He tried to lie still.

    Something pinched his face. Then one arm. Thousands of biting ants, resident in his hideout, swarmed over his skin. He shielded his eyes with his hands, and listened as the clatter of the search receded. Finally Boquete climbed out of the canal on the same bank that he went in, the prison side of the moat. His pursuers expanded their search but he had hardly gone any distance. As they moved on, he oriented himself, then half-crawled to an orange grove. He ate five oranges, slumped under a tree, ant-bitten, filthy, exhausted. He was quite happy. This grove was near railroad tracks, a less conspicuous route than the main road. The next stop was a sugar-cane field. There, he dug another hole, and after checking for ants, covered himself and slept.

    At daylight, he moved like a snake, belly-crawling short distances, cringing when the cane rustled or popped, then pausing to listen. With a small knife he peeled bits of the cane to eat.

    He was running for his life, but barely moving. After his second night in the fields, he saw farm workers nearby and realized he had lingered near the prison long enough. He crossed four more canals, the last so wide that he worried he would not make it to the other side. Finally, he reached the railroad tracks, picked up a stick and, bent like a hobo, followed the rails southwest toward Belle Glade.

    By late afternoon, he had emerged from the apron of farmland on the prison outskirts and came to Avenue L. Across the road, big trucks were lined up, leaving for everywhere; the map had shown a depot. In the escape of his imagination, he simply hopped a truck; as a tireless runner in the prison yard, he had not foreseen the toll of a slow-motion sprint. He was spent.

    Just east of the tracks was a pay phone. Surely, the authorities would be checking with all the relatives who had visited him. He dialed a cousin in Miami. She was shocked to hear his news; the family knew nothing of his escape. He proposed that she pick him up.

    She hesitated.

    “No, mi primo, no,” she said. No, my cousin, no.

    He would stay clear, he told her; she should not worry, he said. “No se preocupe.”

    He hung up.

    Just beyond the pay phone, a few Mexican migrants idled in front of shacks. The Belle Glade man had told him he might be able to take refuge with them.

    It was two full days since he had escaped from Glades Correctional Institution; he had risked getting maimed on razor wire, shot by guards, mauled by dogs, eaten by alligators, poisoned by snakes. It had taken every ounce of strength in his fleet, 30-year-old body to avoid those fates, and he had covered all of 1.2 miles. He was transformed: the innocent person, wrongly accused, now was an outlaw who could be shot on sight. He didn’t care.

    “Oye, hermanos,” Boquete called. “Necesito ayuda.”

    Hey brothers, I need help.

    The Mexicans looked at the bedraggled specimen. Then one of them spoke, Boquete recalled.

    “He says, ‘Why do you need help?’ I said, ‘I need help because I run from immigration.’ “

    A day later, one of them asked the logical question: why was a Cuban running from immigration, since Cubans were never deported?

    “I tell them the truth. And they laugh, and said, ‘Oh, that was you.’ Because one of them got stopped the night I escaped. They heard the helicopters.”

    He worked in the fields for two months, picked up every morning in a truck. Had anyone been looking for the fugitive in the first few days, it is possible that his swollen face would have been hard to recognize. By springtime, he and the migrants decided to pool their earnings and head for Miami. They bought a car for $800. It was mid-April, about 10 weeks after the breakout. Somewhere, Boquete had acquired an Army uniform. Raw as Boquete’s English was, the Mexicans had none. He would drive.

    On the road south, a radiator hose burst. As Boquete patched it, a police car stopped. He spoke a phrase he had used often in the previous two years.

    “Yes, officer?” he said.

    What was going on, the cop wanted to know. Boquete explained about the radiator hose. “Be careful,” the officer advised.

    He was. The Mexicans dropped him in Miami, near Little Havana.

    Though Boquete’s escape was brave and harrowing, his flight does not particularly distinguish him. In the 1980s, the Florida prisons virtually leaked prisoners: 972 prisoners broke out the year Boquete ran, 1,234 the next year and 1,640 the year after. Most walked away from work crews. Prisoners also left in file cabinets, garbage trucks, dressed as women. From Glades, six murderers dug a tunnel from a chapel, a spectacular breakout that roused alarm and moved state officials to clamp down. The trick was not just getting out but staying out. After the initial burst of excited hunting around a prison, the pursuit of fugitives can be anemic; the search for Boquete and Wright lasted four hours. Prisoners are less often caught than found, unable to sustain endless caution in their affairs. Somewhere, they trip a bureaucratic circuit — they use or respond to their real name, are arrested for crimes much like those that brought them to prison or are bartered by someone else trying to get out of trouble. George Wright, who escaped with Boquete, avoided the authorities for a year and a half, then was caught in the Pacific Northwest.

    Boquete turned himself into a hermit crab, sheltered in identities abandoned or left by the dead, an endless scuttle. A résumé, pieced together from his memories and public records, traces a route of dizzying turns and determination.

    He worked in sugar-cane fields and danced in the Orange Bowl when Madonna came to perform “La Isla Bonita.” He hauled food in the Florida Keys as a truck loader and sledgehammered into the wall of a clothing store in Miami as a burglar.

    He learned to ride a Jet Ski. He taught nieces and nephews to snorkel. He washed dishes in a New Jersey restaurant and ran errands for players in the underground economy of South Florida. One night, with cash in his pocket, he settled at the bar of a fancy hotel in North Miami and proclaimed that he was a boxing trainer who had just won a big bet on a Hector Camacho fight. He bought rounds of drinks for the house and met a real-estate woman from New York. They jogged together on the beach.

    All those years, he walked barefoot along a borderline as thin and treacherous as the blade of a knife, the boundary between tension and exhilaration, where freedom was just one unguarded moment — Hey, Orlando! Oye, Boquete! — from vanishing.

    He called himself Antonio and Eddie and Hilberto, dead or missing people whose Social Security numbers kept a pulse for a year or so after their demise. A half-dozen times, Boquete said, he was arrested while a fugitive: some of his benefactors left unfinished court business when they departed, and Boquete inherited their petty troubles: drunk-and-disorderly summonses, driving under the influence. He did a week here, 30 days there, he said. He also got into trouble of his own devising.

    Rolling his freshly sanded fingertips into police ink pads, he was not connected by the authorities to the man who owed five decades of time to the state. It was simple enough for him to do the short bits, not that he had much choice. In the early days of a six-month sentence, he simply walked away from a jail work crew, making him a fugitive under two identities.

    He agreed to take me back over some of the territory he had covered. We traveled through 300 miles of southern Florida, hunting for traces of the self he had worked to keep invisible.

    After his Mexican patrons dropped him off in Miami, he returned to Little Havana, a place he knew well. On one of his first days back, with nothing in his pockets, he followed an acquaintance to a utility room in an apartment complex. Someone was using the space to hoard stolen goods, and they found a boom box with detachable speakers. They sold it in three parts. He found a room in an apartment on Northwest Seventh Avenue and took a job at a grocery store, and anywhere else he could find work with no unanswerable questions asked.

    The 1980s were years of staggering opportunity and danger in that part of the world. South Florida was the loading ramp for the illegal-narcotics trade in the United States. The Miami River runs through Little Havana. “Lots of boats,” Boquete said. “Lots of drugs.” Some had been handled by a woman he knew as a child in Cuba. Around 1987, she was caught in a federal drug case and was being held in central Florida. She sent word back to Little Havana that she needed clothing, cigarettes and money. Boquete said he went along for the ride to prison, but others in the car balked at going inside, so he did. “I told the guard that everyone else was afraid to see her, I don’t have ID, but I am her cousin,” Boquete said. “They took the clothes.” He relished the audacity of that visit. From the first moments of his escape, when he doubled back toward the prison, hiding in plain sight had proved both tactically shrewd and psychically satisfying.

    One of the people who helped him get by — the man who led Boquete to the boom box on his first day back — went on to prosper in the drug trade. On the condition that he be identified only as Ulises because of his own legal problems, the man spoke with wonder at Boquete’s stamina, the new homes every few weeks. “He was not really involved in our group,” Ulises told me. Still, there were many groups and plenty of mundane, if risky, work.

    “This guy, Kiki, asked me to hold a package for this guy who would come to my apartment that night,” Boquete said, recalling one incident. Though he did not open it, he guessed that it was a kilogram of cocaine. That evening he heard a car pull up. From the window, he saw a uniformed police officer. In a panic, Boquete dialed his contact. “I tell him, ‘The police are here!’ ” he said. “He said, ‘That’s right, just give him the package.’ “

    Even innocent moments could turn harrowing. One night, he stayed at a friend’s apartment after a party. In the morning, he washed dishes with the front door open. A figure appeared in the corner of his eye.

    “Hey, Boquete!” said the man.

    Boquete did not lift his gaze from the suds. The man — a uniformed police officer — stood in the doorway calling his name, and finally, Boquete asked what he wanted. A team of officers was on the scene, apparently tipped off to the presence of a fugitive. In a few minutes, all the Mexicans and Cubans in the building were lined up outside.

    “If you’re looking for this Boquete, why don’t you bring a picture of him?” Boquete said he demanded.

    Another man grumbled loudly about suing for some indeterminate civil rights violation, Boquete recalled, and the officers eventually withdrew.

    The encounter rattled him. To find some peace, he flew to Illinois in 1990 and got work in a Weber grill factory. He called himself Antonio Orlando Moralez, a real Marielito who was killed while Boquete was in prison. (The company, Weber-Stephen, does not have payroll records from that time and could not confirm his employment.) A cousin of Moralez’s, who did not want to be named because of immigration concerns, said of Boquete, “He didn’t do anything wrong, and he needed help, so I gave him my cousin’s Social Security number for him to work under.”

    The change relaxed Boquete; he did not feel himself under direct police scrutiny. After a year or so, though, worried about how long the Moralez identity would hold up, he moved again, back to Miami for a while, and then to Arizona. It was 1991; he’d been on the run for six years. He was starting to wear down. He returned to Miami, apathetic about being recaptured.

    “I was hanging out on the street,” he said, meaning his living came from activities outside the law. One day, he and two other men broke into a clothing store. As they drove off with the loot, a police car followed. They tried to speed away and heaved stolen clothes out of the car, but were quickly caught. In the back of the car was the sledgehammer they used to enter the store. Boquete gave his name as Eduardo Jeres, and a judge put him on probation.

    At 37 years old, he had no checkbook, credit cards or bank accounts; he lived with his money, the cash hidden under the kitchen floor of an apartment on 27th Avenue. He welded bars on the windows and doors.

    For all that caution, he had not broken out of one prison just to live in another. He often dropped in on his family, went swimming with the children and doted on Danay Rodriguez, his half-brother’s daughter. “He watched us when our parents went out,” said Rodriguez, now 24, recalling that he would bring her the White Diamonds perfume she loved as a girl. To visit them was a heart splurge. They lived aboveground. He could not.

    In the summer of 1992, hungry for a quieter, more domestic life, he sent for a nephew, José Boquete, 12, then living in California, to stay with him in Miami while school was out. “I love him from when he was a baby, when he first came from Cuba,” Boquete said. He had a son back in Cuba, not much older. The family trusted him, Boquete said.

    For José, it was a thrilling summer. He made friends in the apartment complex. His uncle indulged him and charmed the neighbors. “I made a best friend right away,” José said. “My uncle had these parties, just barbecues, and people came to hang out. It was the greatest.”

    One day in August, young José watched the canaries his uncle kept in a cage flapping their wings in agitation. The birds had detected the approach of Hurricane Andrew, soon to become the second-most-destructive storm in United States history.

    “I asked my uncle, ‘What’s happening?’ He said, ‘Don’t worry about it, everything’s O.K.,’ ” José recalled. “He just stayed there on the sofa.”

    Behind his barred door, Boquete was content, unwilling to fight a storm. Afterward, with electricity knocked out for days, he rigged a line from a car battery into the apartment and even scavenged contraband ice.

    At the summer’s end, José returned to California. His uncle looked for work: the hurricane was a boon to the construction trades, and Boquete found odd jobs at a small company, Fantasy Cabinets, which had contracts with police stations and jails, said Mercy Fleitas, who ran the business with her husband, Serafín.

    The Fleitas household knew Boquete as Loquito, the little crazy one, for the high-speed pace he kept at work and play. They did not realize that the wiry man was a fugitive. But Mercy Fleitas had a vivid memory of his anxiety about going into a correctional facility where they were doing work. And nearly 15 years later, hearing about his true identity and exoneration, Fleitas remembered a strong streak of decency.

    “You know what about him?” she said. “My husband’s brother had died, and he couldn’t do enough for the kids. He was always bringing them food.”

    His life was far from tranquil. Tipped off by a trailer-park neighbor that he was “hot,” Boquete drifted to North Carolina, settling in a rural area before returning again to Florida. At times, Boquete said, he craved to sleep with both eyes closed. To answer to his own name. Instead, over the next four years, he landed in police custody again and again.

    In March 1995, acting on a tip about a wanted man, the police came to an apartment where Boquete was staying under the name Hilberto Rodríguez. A gun was found, and he was sentenced to a year. He was assigned to a work crew to clean up around apartments for the elderly across from the Orange Bowl. When he spotted a pay phone in front of the stadium, he could not resist. He called Ulises, the friend who met him when he first returned to Little Havana — now a successful drug dealer — and when Ulises pulled up in a van, Boquete dropped his rake and got in.

    He stayed with Ulises and his wife in south Miami. Very early one morning in July 1995, Boquete left for his usual exercise routine in a local park: running and 600 sit-ups, beginning at 6 a.m., before the heat of the day. On the way, he was stopped by a drug-enforcement agent, who asked him if he lived there.

    No, he said, “I’m just visiting for a few days from Key West.” The agents searched the house and found two pounds of marijuana. Ulises was away, on a trip to New Orleans with a girlfriend. That left his wife to answer for the pot. Suddenly, Boquete’s status as a fugitive took on a high value. She did not know his real name but knew that he was on the run.

    As the officers sorted through his tangle of identities, they decided to process him as Hilberto Rodríguez, the fugitive who had walked away from the Orange Bowl work detail.

    “In the police station, the cops say, ‘Let’s go,’ ” Boquete recalled. “I am walking to the door. Then a lady sitting at a computer says: ‘Hold on. Palm Beach has something on him, too.’ ” The Glades prison was in the jurisdiction of Palm Beach County. After 10 1/2 years, his fingerprints were linked to Orlando Boquete.

    Sentenced under the Hilberto Rodríguez pseudonym for escaping from the county jail, he was returned to the state prison system as Rodríguez, with “Orlando Bosquete” listed as an alias.

    After years of running from his true identity, it would turn out that proving who he really was would not be bad at all for Orlando Boquete. That, however, took another decade.

    During the 1990s, many prosecutors in Florida, and elsewhere, fiercely resisted DNA testing for people already in prison. Such tests often poked embarrassing holes in the original investigations. After an innocent man died on death row — the prosecutors opposed testing until the man, Frank Lee Smith, was terminally ill — the State Legislature passed a law that explicitly permitted convicts to seek DNA testing, as long as they asked by Oct. 1, 2003. More than 800 prisoners wrote to the Innocence Project of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, which set up the Florida Innocence Initiative to manage the requests. As the deadline approached, Nina Morrison of the Innocence Project sent forms to Boquete and others, so that they could start the process without an attorney.

    With help from another inmate fluent in English, Boquete filed the paperwork. One day in the spring of 2006, Morrison called him: the test results proved he was not the man who had attacked the woman in Key West. He flushed his parole rejection papers down the toilet. Boquete now had a lawyer in Key West, Hal Schuhmacher, representing him, along with the Innocence Project’s Morrison and Barry Scheck (with whom I wrote a book about wrongful convictions in 2000).

    Last May 23, Boquete was delivered in shackles to the county courthouse in Marathon for a hearing. At his request, Morrison brought him a white jacket and pants, 30 waist, for his appearance. His family gathered in the courtroom. The moment swelled with uncommon forces: liberation, vindication, resurrection, humility. “I could sit here and talk for as much time as anybody wanted to give me,” the state’s attorney, Mark Kohl, told the judge, “but every minute that I spend talking to you is another minute that an innocent man sits in jail on this charge.”

    The judge, Richard Payne, made the same point. “No words spoken by this court today . . . would do justice to the penalty that you have been required to pay for offenses that now we know conclusively that you were not guilty of committing,” he said. “You are hereby ordered to be immediately released from the custody of Florida.”

    The state had measured the system against the case of Boquete and recognized its failure. Still, that would not be the end. The federal government, through the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also took its measure of Boquete. While he had been legally admitted to the United States in 1980, he had never completed the application to gain permanent status. So instead of being freed at the moment he was declared innocent, Boquete was taken in handcuffs by immigration agents to a federal detention center.

    Yes, Boquete was cleared of the 1982 case. But had he proved himself a menace to society while on the run? Faced with a large question, immigration authorities seemed to use a microscope to answer it. The burglary of the clothing store and a gun found where he had been staying were “a concern with regard to his potential danger to the community,” wrote Michael Rozes, the field office director for immigration enforcement in Miami. “An escape for which he was eventually convicted, regardless of the fact that this conviction has since been overturned, shows your client’s propensity toward absconding.”

    Prosecutors in two counties, Miami-Dade and Monroe, weighed in to urge that the immigration officials look beyond a rap sheet that, in Boquete’s case, was singularly unilluminating.

    “Public employees exist to serve the public,” Mark Kohl wrote. “If you cannot conclusively determine that he is a dangerous person, I urge you to release him at once so as to not compound the mistakes made 23 years ago.”

    Finally, immigration officials released Boquete on Aug. 21, only after he signed papers conceding that he could be deported for his crimes as a fugitive.

    That night, he ate two croquetas and drank a batido de mamey at a quiet dinner with family members, his immigration lawyer, John Pratt, and another innocent Florida man, Luis Díaz, who served 26 years. He corrected what he said were misspellings of his name in official records as Bosquette or Bosquete. The next morning, he went for a run on the beach at 6 a.m. Through Hal Schuhmacher, he got a job doing landscape work for two real-estate agents in the Florida Keys, Morgan Hill and Paula Nardone, who gave him a place to stay. Once a month, he makes a four-hour trek by bus and train from Marathon to Miami, to report to immigration.

    A few weeks after his release, Boquete agreed to go with me on a trip back to the prison town of Belle Glade, along with his nephew José, now a musician living in Miami. In the prison parking lot, he squinted at the new buildings. He pointed out the perimeter road and the high fence. An officer told us to move.

    As we drove along Main Street in Belle Glade, he spotted Avenue L. “Turn here, this is where I saw the Mexicans,” he commanded. We got out. Not surprisingly, no one remembered an ant-eaten hobo who suddenly appeared on a winter day 21 years earlier.

    Yet here were the simple landmarks of his story. He darted along Avenue L, running from one spot to the next. The railroad tracks that he followed away from the prison. A square patch of ground of faintly different hue than the surrounding area. “This is where the pay phone was,” he shouted. He found the lot where he stayed with the Mexicans, but the migrants and their shacks were gone. In front of a deserted, sun-bleached wooden building, he said, “I think this might have been where the trucks were.”

    Charged with memory, he looked back from age 52 on the 30-year-old who crawled out of canal waters and sugar cane to reclaim his life. The places were faded; the decades were mapped in the gullies and ravines that run through his face.

    What if he had not gone out for beer on that June night in 1982, at the very moment the police were looking for the man with the buzz cut?

    What would have come of his life?

    “Oh,” Boquete said. “Oh. That’s a real question. Too many beautiful things to do, I believe. Exactly what would have happened, I don’t know. I believe I’d have gotten married, I’d have a little business, property, boat. I’m not talking only about material things.

    “Maybe I pass away already. I believe, if I am still alive, like I am now, I’d be much better. “

    His words, while true, suddenly ring in his ears as impolitic. “I’ve got people around me,” he said, citing lawyers, benefactors, family.

    Then he paused. “In reality, I don’t have nothing,” he said. It has been 21 years since he last saw the spot where the railroad tracks met Avenue L — the crossroads of his life, the point where he passed from captivity to, well, what? Did he know actual freedom on the run?

    “Sometimes,” he said, instantly. “Sometimes. When I have a party, when I have made money, when I feel good, when I got a nice place. It doesn’t have to be a nice place — my own place. When I’m cold — when the police don’t look for me.

    “I feel free many, many times. Why did I escape from prison? Because I want to be free. I want to feel free. I see the police, I don’t be scared.”

    We turn back toward the car. Then we see it: a sign on the wall of the abandoned wood building, paint-dimmed, the words still legible. “Glades Logistics, Truck Broker.” All those years before, he might have jumped one of their trucks and gone wherever it took him. Instead, step by step, he made his own road, finally circling back. Orlando Boquete: walking, not running.

    Jim Dwyer, a reporter for The Times, is the author, with Kevin Flynn, of ’102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers.”


    6:12 PM0 Comments0 KudosAdd CommentEdit - Remove

    Cheney’s To-Do Lists

    Related

    Notes From a Cold War Case Dick Cheney’s notes from 1975 concerning Seymour Hersh’s New York Times article. (pdf) (source: National ArchivesSubmarmines of U.S. Stage Spy Missions Inside Soviet Waters,” by Seymour Hersh, The New York Times, May 25, 1975 (pdf)

    Additional information and documents are available at the Frontline “News War” Web site.
    February 11, 2007
    The Press Patrol

    Cheney’s To-Do Lists, Then and Now

    RETURNING to the White House after the Memorial Day weekend in 1975, the young aide Dick Cheney found himself handling a First Amendment showdown. The New York Times had published an article by Seymour M. Hersh about an espionage program, and the White House chief of staff, Donald H. Rumsfeld, was demanding action.

    Out came the yellow legal pad, and in his distinctively neat, deliberate hand, Mr. Cheney laid out the “problem,” “goals” while addressing it, and “options.” These last included “Start FBI investigation — with or w/o public announcement. As targets include NYT, Sy Hersh, potential gov’t sources.”

    Mr. Cheney’s notes, now in the Gerald R. Ford presidential library, collected and synthesized the views of lawyers, diplomats, spies and military officials, but his own views shine through. He is hostile to the press and to Congress, insistent on the prerogatives of the executive branch and adamant about the importance of national security secrets.

    Fast forward three decades and that same handwriting appears on a copy of the Op-Ed article in The Times that set in motion events that led to the perjury trial of I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff.

    Then, as in 1975, Mr. Cheney played a central role in managing the White House’s relationship with the press. It was not precisely the same, however. In 2003, for instance, Mr. Cheney was not protecting secrets but authorizing Mr. Libby to peddle them to Judith Miller, then a reporter for The Times, in an effort to counter the points made in the opinion article, according to Mr. Libby’s grand jury testimony. But his combative relationship with the press and the goals that animate it have not changed.

    “He’s had the same idea for the past 30 years,” said Kathryn S. Olmsted, a history professor at the University of California at Davis, who wrote about the Cheney file in her 1996 book, “Challenging the Secret Government.”

    “His philosophy is that the president and the vice president and the people around the president decide what’s secret and what’s not,” she said. “They thought they had to aggressively go after the press and Congress to reclaim the powers the president lost in Watergate.”

    The 1975 article by Mr. Hersh disclosed details about American submarines tapping into undersea Soviet communications. Among the goals Mr. Cheney methodically listed in considering a response were enforcement of the espionage laws, discouraging “the NYT and other publications from similar action,” locating and prosecuting the people who leaked to The Times and demonstrating “the dangers to nat’l security which develop when investigations exceed the bounds of propriety.”

    Mr. Cheney also sensed an opportunity. Congressional investigations of the C.I.A., including one by a select committee led by Senator Frank Church, were under way in the post-Watergate era.

    Under the heading “Broader ramifications,” Mr. Cheney wrote: “Can we take advantage of it to bolster our position on the Church committee investigation? To point out the need for limits on the scope of the investigation?”

    More immediately, Mr. Cheney considered possible responses to the article. One was to “seek immediate indictments of NYT and Hersh.” A second was to get a search warrant “to go after Hersh papers in his apt.”

    Next to last: “Discuss informally w/ NYT.”

    Last: “Do nothing.”

    In the end, the administration pursued the last option, based largely on the advice of Attorney General Edward H. Levi.

    There were two fundamental reasons for that decision. First, the Soviets apparently did not read The Times. “The White House feared,” Ms. Olmsted wrote in her book, “that any sort of government investigation would alert the Soviets to the importance of the story.”

    Indeed, as Mr. Levi told President Ford, any legal action by the government “would put an official stamp of truth on the article.”

    The second reason the government stood down had to do with its just having lost an effort to stop the publication of a classified history of the Vietnam War by The Times and The Washington Post, the Pentagon Papers case. Mr. Levi said he was wary of turning the Hersh matter into “a journalistic cause célèbre without securing any conviction on the merits.”

    He also predicted that Mr. Hersh would “accept imprisonment for contempt” rather than name his sources.

    That prediction was correct, Mr. Hersh told the PBS program “Frontline,” which interviewed him for “News War,” a documentary series that has its premiere on Tuesday.

    “You can’t trample the Constitution,” Mr. Hersh said. “I’m going to scream and moan and be a hero, you know, and give more trouble than they would if they’d just left me alone, which is the same thing they did in this case.”

    Ms. Miller did accept imprisonment for contempt, spending 85 days in jail to protect her source, Mr. Libby. Mr. Cheney has said little, but he is on Mr. Libby’s witness list, and the defense begins its case tomorrow.


    Invitations

    February 11, 2007
    The Age of Dissonance

    Uninviting Invitations

    There it is. Addressed personally to you, but not quite glamorous looking enough to be a formal invitation. What could it be? Tada! It’s a “Save the Date” notice.

    For many people, those three words inspire a gnashing of teeth and soul.

    My cousin Robert is a pretty relaxed lawyer who has a great sense of humor and lives in central Vermont. But when a “save the date” notice arrived in his mailbox last month for a party in honor of friends this June, he became incensed. All winter he waits for summer to come so he can spend weekends on his sailboat on Lake Champlain or the Hudson River.

    Then this piece of mail arrives.

    “It’s invitation by intimidation,” he said. “Instead of notifying you about an event the normal six weeks in advance, these save-the-date people feel compelled to impose on you six months in advance. Why do they do that?”

    Good question. Is it a lack of confidence that one invitation isn’t enough and that you need to be held down by a head’s up twice? Is it the sheer amount of events in this over-programmed and overly ambitious world, all vying for the precious time of every guest? Certainly anyone on the benefit-party hit list has seen as many save-the-date notices lately as credit card bills, often with checks to be written that are just as big.

    At least that’s for the serious purpose of raising money for good causes.

    But does every wedding hold as much urgency for every single guest? What about 25th anniversary parties? Fortieth birthdays? Retirements? Showers? Is every celebration now due cause for declaring by early edict that a summer weekend must be given away in addition to a gift?

    “I just got one for a wedding in London in June,” said Jamee Gregory, an author, columnist and popular figure on the New York social scene. “I already feel traumatized because I don’t like to leave my garden on Long Island in June. When someone invites you that early, you can’t just say you’ve already made plans to be in Capri at a friend’s villa. It’s too early for that, so it actually stops you from lying.”

    So how did we get into this save-the-date overdrive anyway, when the latest editions of “Emily Post’s Etiquette” and “Amy Vanderbilt’s Complete Book of Etiquette” still advise that even the most formal of invitations go out only six weeks in advance?

    Marcy Blum, a New York party planner who wrote “Weddings for Dummies” with Laura Fisher Kaiser, has watched these save-the-date mailings go from rare to standard in just three years. Ms. Blum thinks it’s because weddings that used to take place in one afternoon or evening have expanded into full weekends, often in destinations that require advance travel booking.

    “If you’re having a party where most of your friends and family are nearby, sending a save-the-date is preposterous,” she said. “On the other hand, now that people think their parties are the be all and end all of everything, what else can you expect?”

    Of course, there are plenty of occasions when you wouldn’t want to miss an event. And there are times when getting some notice well in advance is helpful.

    The other day my sister-in-law, Janet, informed me that I should save a date in April 2008 for my nephew’s bar mitzvah and lunch to follow at the Central Park Boathouse. I’m delighted to know about it. But where do I write it down? My diary only runs through next January. And here is another question: Given the recent global warming reports, might it be a little early to assume the facility will still be above ground at that time?

    “So you’ll wear hip boots like they do in Venice,” said Janet, who, by the way, once received a save-the-date for a birthday party nine months in advance.

    “I thought it was bizarre,” she said. “But hey, whatever floats your boat.”

    Which brings us back to my cousin Robert and his beloved sailboat. What is he going to do about the save-the-date he received for that party six months away?

    “My wife doesn’t want to be unpleasant, so I’m going to have to go,” he said. “But at least now I’ll have the pleasure of going with a reason to be unhappy.”

    Nothing like some bubbling resentment to go with your choice of salmon or chicken.


     

    A Paparazzo?Celebrities Smile

    Greg Scaffidi for The New York Times

    Johnny Nunez at the Baby Phat fashion show.

    February 11, 2007

    A Paparazzo? Celebrities Smile and Say ‘Friend’

    JOHNNY NUÑEZ hadn’t slept in nearly 18 hours, but there he was backstage at the Baby Phat fashion show on Feb. 2, whizzing about Roseland like someone who had just inhaled a six-pack of Red Bull. His ever-present camera — an $11,000 Canon — hung dutifully on his right shoulder, as his eyes scanned the room for celebrities.

    “Tonight’s going to be big,” Mr. Nuñez said, “because everyone comes out to this event.”

    Moments later, Russell Simmons, the music mogul, sauntered over and shook his hand. “Russell, can I get a shot of you and Kimora,” Mr. Nuñez asked, gesturing at Kimora Lee Simmons, Mr. Simmons’s estranged wife and Baby Phat’s designer. Mr. Simmons happily obliged, posing with Mrs. Simmons cheek to cheek.

    “Johnny has a great eye and he’s everywhere all the time,” Mr. Simmons said. “You can’t go to a party and not see Johnny.” That thought would be echoed throughout the evening.

    “When I see Johnny, I feel like I’m seeing an old friend,” said Ice-T, who gave Mr. Nuñez a hug when he approached. “He’s a real cool cat and everybody, and I mean everybody, knows Mr. Nuñez.”

    Affection is rarely heard for the paparazzi who stalk the stars. But Mr. Nuñez, 35, is not a typical paparazzo, though his photos are sold through a news service and appear in newspapers and magazines.

    In the 10 years he has been taking pictures of celebrities, he has used his charm and his tenacity to work his way into the very seam of the hip-hop world. And one more trait has won him their esteem: He won’t take a photograph that shows them in an unflattering light.

    At a time when photographers seem intent on capturing photos of celebrities in compromising positions — starlets without panties, veterans with cellulite — Mr. Nuñez is not interested in destroying illusions. He has become as known for the pictures he won’t take as for those he does.

    “There’s a tendency for photographers to try and get the unflattering shots, to try and catch you at an awkward moment,” Vivica A. Fox, the actress, said at the Baby Phat after-party at Cipriani 23nd Street. “Johnny gives you time to get yourself together. He’s not interested in making you look crazy.”

    With his pose-and-smile style, he is no Annie Leibovitz. He does not capture personas or create moments. He takes snapshots. But that approach has brought him what many other celebrity photographers do not have: access.

    “He’s hip-hop’s Patrick McMullan,” said Emil Wilbekin, former editor-in-chief of Vibe magazine. Like Mr. McMullan, who in a 25-year career has captured significant moments in the worlds of society and Hollywood, Mr. Nuñez and his camera have been witnesses to many of the major private and public events in hip-hop.

    “Hip-hop is based on trust and these guys know that Johnny’s not interested in humiliating them and that’s why they like having him around,” said Norma Augenblick, who before becoming director of special events at Cipriani spent seven years as Puff Daddy’s executive assistant. “For a long time, Johnny was the only photographer allowed in Puffy’s events.”

    In the coming weeks, Mr. Nuñez will shoot more than 40 events, including Clive Davis’s annual Grammy pre-party, Magic Johnson‘s charity pool tournament in Las Vegas and the Mary J. Blige Oscar party.

    “He’s one of our top five most connected photographers,” said Josh Tang, president of Wire Image, the photo agency with more than 2,500 contributors. “People ask for him specifically all the time.”

    Beyond his photography, he is featured as a model in campaigns for the urban lines LRG and Phat Farm (a giant photo of him in a Phat Farm polo shirt hangs in Macy’s). Next month, he’ll be seen alongside artists like Fat Joe and Young Jeezy in Def Jam: Icon, a video game in which he battles fledgling artists and superstars.

    “Ludacris could use your help bypassing a paparazzi named Nuñez who won’t leave him alone,” the instructions in one round read. “Find this guy and deal with him.”

    Mr. Nuñez’s character delivers roundhouse kicks and body blows and says lines that are unprintable in this newspaper. “It’s so cool,” Mr. Nuñez said, grinning.

    LAUREN WIRTZER, vice president of marketing at Def Jam, said including Mr. Nuñez in the game was, “a no-brainer.” “He’s as important a character in this world as the artists,” she said. The difference between the game and real life is, “no one wants to beat up Johnny; they want him around.”

    Mr. Nuñez knows how to ingratiate himself with the behind-the-scenes players too. Every Valentine’s Day, he takes roses to the women at BET, said Marcy Polanco, director of corporate communications at the network.

    “And it’s not just the women in top positions,” she said. “Every woman gets a flower.”

    Mr. Nuñez was sitting with Ms. Polanco backstage at “106 and Park,” BET’s answer to MTV’s “TRL.” He had just finished shooting the duo Gnarls Barkley (“they’re my favorite group right now,” he said) and was doling out trinkets from gift bags he had received earlier in the afternoon. One woman walked away with perfume and NV diet pills — “not that you need them,” Mr. Nuñez told her. Another received a scented candle.

    “These people help me pay my rent and keep my lights on,” he said, “so I’ve got to reciprocate the kindness.”

    Mr. Nuñez’s career took off when Damon Dash, a founder of Rocafella Records, hired him as his personal photographer in 2002. He traveled the world with Mr. Dash — Cannes, Ireland, South Africa, Milan.

    “I’m calling my boys back home like ‘Yo, I’m on a yacht in the middle of the Mediterranean with Kid Rock, Tyson Beckford and Playmates,’ ” he recalled. “I knew God was going to bless me, but I didn’t know it’d be like that.”

    It wasn’t always a party. One late night in Paris, a gang attacked Mr. Dash and his entourage. “Everybody else ran,” said Mr. Dash. “Johnny was the only who stayed and fought with me. That said a lot about his character.”

    Mr. McMullan said Mr. Nuñez’s willingness to mingle with some of hip-hop’s more unsavory elements explains part of his appeal. “Some of those parties are little rough,” he said. “You have to have real dedication to work that scene and Johnny is dedicated.”

    Mr. Wilbekin said: “He will jump over tables and knock down bodyguards to get that money shot,” — the one he will see in InStyle, Us Weekly or The New York Times (which has purchased Mr. Nuñez’s shots through his agency).

    “One year at Clive Davis’s pre-Grammy dinner he was literally climbing on top of tables to get pictures of Jennifer Lopez and Puffy,” Mr. Wilbekin said. “I’ve been at parties and he’ll drag me across the room to pose next to a complete stranger. ‘Uh, hello, nice to meet you, Terrence Howard. Smile.’ It’s a little unorthodox, but he gets that shot.”

    Not everyone welcomes Mr. Nuñez. For many publicists he is a threat to their control over their clients. “Sometimes he won’t stop taking pictures until you tell him to go away, and that can be really annoying,” said one music industry publicist, who asked to not be identified because his clients like the photographer.

    A Puerto Rican family adopted Mr. Nuñez, whose biological parents are from Venezuela and Trinidad, as an infant, he said. He was often teased for wearing hand-me-down clothes and Fayva knockoffs of designer sneakers, he said. “I vowed that no one would ever laugh at the way I dressed when I got older,” said Mr. Nuñez, who likes to mix his Phat Farm with Prada and Valentino.

    After graduating from Suffolk Community College, Mr. Nuñez had no idea what he wanted to do with his life. One morning, after months of delivering pizza and chicken, he had an epiphany. “Hip-hop greeting cards,” he said. “That’s the reason why I even began taking pictures.”

    To raise money for his card business, “I went to anything and everything,” he said. “Album release parties, birthdays, artist showcases.”

    Mr. Nuñez is now working on a coffee-table book and plans to donate part of the proceeds to charities for the blind. “God gave me the ability to see, and I’ve been fortunate enough to make a career out of what I see,” he said. “It’s only right that I help those who are less fortunate.”

    He paused for a moment. An idea for a photo came to mind: a blind girl feeling Kanye West’s face. “If that’s not a hot picture,” Mr. Nuñez said, “I don’t know what is.”


     

     

    Allan Tannenbaum/Polaris

    On Jan. 20, a retired New York City police officer, Cesar A. Borja, 52, lay surrounded by his family at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan. He died three days later. More Photos >

    Polaris

    Officer Cesar A. Borja, who died of lung disease last month, became a symbol for ailing ground zero workers, but there is little evidence to confirm accounts of his story. More Photos »

    February 13, 2007

    Weeks After a Death, Twists in Some 9/11 Details

    For days, a New York City police officer, Cesar A. Borja, who died of lung disease last month, was held up as a symbol of the medical crisis affecting the thousands of emergency personnel and construction workers who labored on the smoking remains of the fallen World Trade Center after the 9/11 attack.

    The Daily News published an article describing how Officer Borja had rushed to the trade center site after the twin towers fell, breathing in clouds of toxic dust that seared his lungs, and how he had chosen not to wear protective gear because the federal government had declared the air safe.

    Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote to President Bush seeking more federal money to care for the workers and citing Officer Borja’s months of “16-hour shifts” at the disaster site. The priest at his funeral in Queens pointed out that Officer Borja had worked as a volunteer in the recovery and cleanup efforts.

    It was a powerful story, one that brought the officer’s eloquent son to the State of the Union address in Washington on Jan. 23, the day of his father’s death. The son later met with President Bush, and afterward Mr. Bush, in discussing more aid for rescue workers, said he was eager to see money directed to “first responders,” those first on the scene in the days and weeks after the attacks. “If they were on that pile and if they were first responders, they need to get help,” he said.

    It turns out, though, that very few of the most dramatic aspects of Officer Borja’s powerful story appear to be fully accurate. Government records and detailed interviews with Officer Borja’s family indicate that he did not rush to the disaster site, and that he did not work a formal shift there until late December 2001, after substantial parts of the site had been cleared and the fire in the remaining pile had been declared out.

    Officer Borja worked traffic and security posts on the streets around the site, according to his own memo book, and there is no record of his working 16 hours in a shift. He worked a total of 17 days, according to his records, and did not work as a volunteer there. He signed up for the traffic duty, his wife said, at least in part as a way to increase his overtime earnings as he prepared to retire.

    “It’s not true,” Eva R. Borja, the officer’s wife, said of the Daily News account of his rushing there shortly after the collapse of the trade center. In two extensive interviews, Mrs. Borja displayed her husband’s memo book, where he kept detailed notes about his work across his career. The first entry for working at ground zero is Dec. 24, 2001. Almost all the rest come in February, March and April 2002, five or more months after the attacks.

    Mrs. Borja said she still believed her husband was sickened in his work around the site. Shown his father’s memo book, Ceasar Borja, who had become something of a spokesman for ailing 9/11 workers, said it was the first time he understood what his father had actually done. “They kept saying my dad’s a first responder,” he said of the newspaper accounts. “I honestly never knew if he was a first responder.” Asked why he had not corrected the seemingly erroneous or unconfirmed public accounts, he said, “The reason I never tried to correct that impression is I never knew the truth of whether my father was there or not. It was always a mystery for me. I never thought of correcting them because I honestly believed it myself.”

    It is hard to determine precisely how the apparent misinformation about Mr. Borja’s work at ground zero came to be reflected in newspapers, as well as in television and radio broadcasts. The family says it was not the source of the claims about working on the smoking pile. A spokeswoman for The Daily News insisted the paper had never explicitly said Officer Borja had rushed there soon after Sept. 11, only that at some point he had rushed there. Despite a number of articles and editorials that referred to him working amid the rubble and within a cloud of glass and concrete, she said the paper never actually reported his arriving there before December.

    The spokeswoman, Jennifer Mauer, continued to maintain that Officer Borja had worked “200 hours on the pile.”

    Other newspaper accounts repeated the account of Officer Borja’s work on the rubble without attributing it to anyone.

    Mrs. Borja and her son said that The New York Times was the first newspaper to ask them for documents showing Officer Borja’s actual duties at ground zero.

    Doctors and coroners may yet draw a connection between Officer Borja’s death and his more limited duties around ground zero. A city autopsy is under way. Experts say his illness, diagnosed as pulmonary fibrosis, is a rare and little-understood disease, which, depending on a variety of factors — genetics, for instance — can conceivably be caused by modest exposure to certain toxic substances or pollutants.

    Then again, doctors may find that Officer Borja, who spent much of his police career at a tow pound in Queens, had other, pre-existing problems. His family says that he smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for years before giving it up around the mid-1990s.

    Officer Borja’s son said that it was possible his father had gone down to ground zero as a volunteer at some point soon after the disaster, but that his father had never mentioned it, and he had no evidence of it. He said several police officers had approached him at his father’s wake and told him they recalled seeing his father on the pile, but he did not know their names.

    The Police Department said informal rosters had been kept at ground zero in the first weeks after the attacks including the names of officers who showed up to work. But the department said it could not easily retrieve the records. The department had no other comment about Officer Borja, who did not officially die in the line of duty and retired with a regular service pension.

    But when Officer Borja, who was seriously ill by 2005, filed paperwork with the city seeking an enhanced pension, he made no mention of any work before December 2001.

    An Emotional Fight

    Officer Borja’s death came amid an unfolding and emotional fight over the health of ground zero workers and the role of city, state and federal officials in caring for those who might have been sickened by their work in and around the site. A federal lawsuit has been filed on behalf of hundreds of workers, whose lawyers say they are sick and in some cases dying because of their exposure to dangerous pollutants. That suit charges that the city and federal government failed to protect them from exposure. (The Borjas said they had no plans to sue.)

    The city’s Law Department, which declined to comment for this article, has said drawing connections between 9/11 work and subsequent health problems has to be judged case by case. Congress set aside $75 million in 2005 for monitoring and treating 9/11 workers, and the White House agreed to add another $25 million last month. In a September study, Mount Sinai Medical Center found that roughly 70 percent of nearly 10,000 workers it tested from 2002 to 2004 reported that they had new or substantially worsened respiratory problems while or after working at ground zero.

    It was into that charged environment that Officer Borja’s case came to light. Officer Borja, who retired in June 2003, became very sick in 2005, and was admitted to Mount Sinai in December 2006. He was determined to be suffering from pulmonary fibrosis and in need of a lung transplant to save his life, officials have said.

    The family, according to Mrs. Borja, reached out to the press. A Manhattan newspaper, The Filipino Reporter, published an article on Jan. 5 saying that Officer Borja had been assigned to security duty immediately after Sept. 11, and that he had done that work for months. It cited 16-hour shifts, and it quoted one family member as saying that Officer Borja had believed the air to be safe.

    Officer Borja’s son, according to his mother, e-mailed other newspapers, as well. The Daily News responded. Throughout January, The News and other papers published numerous articles on Officer Borja’s case. The News, which has mounted a campaign of stinging editorials on behalf of those believed to have been sickened at ground zero, eventually paid for Ceasar Borja, 21, to fly to Washington and back for the State of the Union address.

    The son said he had been prepared to drive, but accepted the offer. “The Daily News comped me,” Ceasar said. The Daily News spokeswoman said the paper was proud to have paid for the young man’s trip.

    The initial accounts are full of dramatic details: The Daily News of Jan. 16 said Officer Borja “volunteered to work months of 16-hour shifts in the rubble, breathing in clouds of toxic dust.” That same article added: “Borja was working at an NYPD auto pound in Queens when the twin towers fell. He rushed to ground zero and started working long days there.”

    Some of those claims were repeated in other stories in The Daily News and other papers, in both news articles and editorials. Sometimes the articles said Officer Borja had worked 14-hour shifts. Some identified him as having worked on the pile, and one Daily News editorial said he had “labored in the pulverized concrete, glass and smoke that formed a cloud over the rubble.”

    The New York Times published one full article on Officer Borja, after he died at 52 on the evening of the State of the Union address. The article said he had become sick after working at ground zero. It said federal officials had agreed to pay for the officer’s medical care as a reflection of their belief that his illness was connected to his work at ground zero.

    Politicians quickly began to speak out about the case, and the larger question of 9/11 health issues. Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of Manhattan, who has made 9/11 health a focus of her efforts for years, said of Officer Borja: “If his death does not convince the president to come up with a plan to deal with this medical crisis and fund medical monitoring and treatment, I don’t know what else will.”

    ‘A Hero’ to Clinton

    Senator Clinton sent a letter to President Bush. It cited “many months” of Officer Borja’s 16-hour shifts at ground zero, and it stated: “Cesar Borja was a hero who served his country in her hour of need and sacrificed dearly for that service. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, as Cesar’s health deteriorated, he and his family endured a great deal of hardship but never lost sight of the needs of the other workers, volunteers, first responders, and victims who survived the attacks but did not survive unharmed.”

    The praise extended to Officer Borja’s funeral on Jan. 27 at St. Josaphat’s Church in Queens. The Rev. Thomas C. Machalski, who celebrated the funeral Mass, said he never discussed the details of the officer’s work at ground zero with his family before speaking, and relied on press accounts when he referred to his having served as a volunteer. In fact, he said he thought the officer was, “already retired when he went back to work at ground zero.”

    The fifth of 12 children, Cesar Ante Borja was born on June 30, 1954, in Polangui, a city in the Bicol region of the Philippines. The son of a farmer, he came to the United States in 1976. He joined the Army, and Army records show he was an active-duty soldier for four years, and was eventually discharged from the Army Reserve in 1983 with the rank of specialist.

    He married Eva in 1982, and he soon joined the Department of Correction. He became a police officer in 1987. He served first in the 109th Precinct in Queens before settling in to many years of work in the property clerk’s office and at the tow pound. There he earned a reputation for diligent work and exemplary attendance. Mrs. Borja said he liked the short commute to the pound from their home in Bayside, Queens, and the idea that he could retire from the city after 20 years with a sizable pension.

    “He was the type who wouldn’t complain,” she said of her husband. “Or maybe he didn’t like it, and just didn’t say. He would adjust to whatever situation.”

    On 9/11, Officer Borja reported for duty at the tow pound, records show. Over the next several months, there is nothing in his memo book recording any work, assigned or volunteer, at ground zero. Mrs. Borja remembers him mentioning being briefly posted in Brooklyn, near ground zero, shortly after the attacks.

    Interviews with several friends, relatives and officers who worked with him at the tow pound failed to turn up anyone who worked with him at ground zero before the end of 2001.

    Mrs. Borja said that her husband began to see the appeal of overtime pay for working shifts near ground zero late in 2001. He was close to retiring, and realized he might be able to improve his pension with the overtime hours. She said he even called his nephew, a fellow officer, to encourage him to put in for the overtime shifts, as well. Mrs. Borja said the nephew declined.

    And so Officer Borja reported on Dec. 24, 2001. The fires at the site, which had been burning for months, had been declared extinguished on Dec. 19. Considerable progress had been made in cleaning up the site.

    Officer Borja’s log book makes clear where he worked during what would be 12-hour, 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. shifts: On Jan. 21, 2002, he worked at Albany and Washington Streets, three blocks south of ground zero. He worked several shifts elsewhere in Manhattan during the World Economic Forum. Then, he was back at Fulton Street and Broadway on Feb. 4, 2002. Ten of his shifts came in March or April.

    Three years later, Officer Borja became seriously ill. But in January 2006, when he filed a notice of participation — a document required to enhance his pension under a 2005 state law allowing city workers who labored at ground zero to be declared disabled — he was modest about his duty: he listed eight shifts around ground zero.

    On Dec. 19, 2006, he entered Mount Sinai, and soon he was near death. Mount Sinai’s records indicate he listed his first shifts around ground zero as starting in December 2001, although there is a reference to him working 72 days there. There is no additional information about that notation, but the Borja family does not contend he ever worked 72 days at or around the site.

    Mrs. Borja, asked to explain how all the differing reports appeared in the press, suggested that things had simply spiraled out of control. “When I would read it, I would say, ‘Why did they put that there?’ ” she said. She said she was too distracted caring for her husband and handling his funeral to correct the record.

    An Emerging Role

    Ceasar, though, played a very prominent role. He spoke with Mrs. Clinton at an event at ground zero. He went to the State of the Union address. He later met with President Bush in Manhattan. Articles variously quote him talking about how his father died as a public servant and saying that heroes should be looked after.

    “That was my first, inaugural speech as a political activist, which I never expected,” he said yesterday. “I was just there expressing my emotions. I didn’t know any facts. I was just speaking from the heart, and everything took off from there.”

    At one point during those hectic days, the son put on his father’s pea coat. One newspaper account said the son had suggested it was the uniform his father wore on Sept. 11. Ceasar, in an interview yesterday, denied having said that.

    But he did address a gathering of family and friends in Queens after the State of the Union address.

    “I made everyone in the U.S. know who Cesar Borja is, what he did for this country, and what he did for the city of New York,” he was quoted as saying in The New York Post. “He is the symbol of the World Trade Center, and 9/11 and New York.”

    Aides to Mrs. Clinton issued a short statement when told of the apparent discrepancies. “She knows that sacrifices were made by so many, whether it was in the hours, days, weeks or months after the attacks of Sept. 11, and believes that they all deserve our help.”

    Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, would not talk about the details of the Borja case. He said the president respected the officer and his son and all who worked at ground zero.

    “Ceasar Borja is someone who loved and cared for his father, and his father was a hero from what we know of New York law enforcement and his work at the World Trade Center,” Mr. Fratto said. “It is almost beside the point what the specific details were.”

    Officials at Mount Sinai said in a statement: “The fact that Mr. Borja worked there for many days (and nights) provided ample opportunity for exposure to dusts.”

    Finally, Ceasar Borja, after having absorbed the implications of his father’s records, said he was no less proud. “I’m actually happy to know he wasn’t on the pile,” he said, adding that those who were must be in even graver shape. He concluded: “I don’t believe my father to be any less heroic than I previously thought, any less valiant than the other papers previously misreported on.”

    Alain Delaquérière, Sandra Jamison and Carolyn Wilder contributed research.


     

    Neal Pollack’s Alternadad.

    Neal Pollack's Alternadad.

    Pop Culture
    Neal Pollack’s Alternadad.
    By Michael Agger
    Posted Monday, Feb. 12, 2007, at 2:18 PM E.T.

    The trend came into the world naked, innocent, screaming. It demanded attention and round-the-clock care. In just two years, it grew and became more self-aware. Some people thought the trend was cute, others were simply annoyed. Yes, the daddy blog has accomplished much in its young life—scoured the world for Bauhaus children’s furniture, discovered vintage R.E.M. Sesame Street appearances—but with the publication of Neal Pollack’s Alternadad, the cuddly stage is officially over. The trend has grown into a book, and a target. The “alternadad” threatens to become the new “soccer mom,” a vague sociological category that people have strong, unwarranted opinions about. The kid-free are already annoyed, the boomers sniff “been there, done that,” and the “new urban parent” site Babble stokes the debate. But Pollack shouldn’t simply be lumped in with a spurious hipster parenting movement. His book reveals that the core aim of fatherhood has barely budged: provide food, clothing, shelter.

    Most people know Pollack as an arch McSweeney’s ironist, the self-proclaimed “greatest writer in the world” who satirized men’s magazine writing and journalistic machismo with a Hunter S. Thompson alter ego. Saddled with this rep, Alternadad makes a bad first impression—with its title and the rubber duckie sporting a nose ring on the cover. The idea of a father writing a parenting memoir is also faintly shameful, since men bypass pregnancy, labor, and breast-feeding—the Bermuda Triangle into which many women’s lives temporarily disappear. Pollack acknowledges this: “[W]hether you’re a dad or not a dad, your life stays basically the same. It’s just a matter of increased responsibility.” His book is in earnest; it’s Pollack unplugged. And despite his overdetermined musical taste, Pollack is not really an alternadad. He’s a newly uptight, first-time dad.

    The actual alternadads appear in the book’s opening section. Pollack describes the life he led in Rogers Park, a Chicago neighborhood that in the early ’90s was neither hip nor scary, and so was filled with bona fide slackers. Pollack wrote a story for the alternative weekly in which he followed Jill, a journalism student, and her older boyfriend, Ned, a shiftless depressive, through birth classes and an actual birth. Ned had already fathered a child in his hometown, and he wanted to “be a real dad” to this new child. Their son is born, and six months later Ned is not around much and acting as spacey as ever. Jill takes the child to be with her dad in Montana. Although Pollack never explicitly states this, his own dadly path charts a middle way between the emotional and economic failure of Ned and the comfortable, conventional success of his own father.

    Pollack embarks into parent-land from a different starting point than those two. Like many men of his generation and class, he marries a woman with similar ambitions. Regina is an artist and teacher. They both partook of the extended American adolescence, and their “artsy-fartsy” life together is fun, filled with concerts and road trips. Their marriage has an ungendered, unscripted equality. They do what they want. Slowly, Regina leads Neal down the road to reproduction. Unlike a lot of dad writing, Pollack describes a critical stage: the hazy confusion of the “should we get pregnant?” time and the gray period once the seed is sown. Women’s lives change at conception (and even before), but men have a nine-month grace period when they awake to the old-fashioned bread-winning commitment they still feel. Pollack describes this economic awakening through conversations with Regina. Note how he captures the drastic mindset of the newly pregnant—and note too that they’re not talking about whether to buy a Bugaboo:

    “Maybe we shouldn’t live in the city.”

    “I was thinking the same thing,” she said. “But I don’t not want to live in the city. We should at least live in some city, somewhere.”

    “I feel guilty.”

    “Why? You don’t owe anything to Philadelphia.”

    “Yeah, but I made a commitment …”

    “Do you want to honor your abstract commitment that no one cares about but you?” she said. “Or do you want your child stepping on a needle in the park?”

    “So where should we raise our child?”

    “I don’t know.”

    Perhaps, we realized, we should have thought this detail through a bit more carefully. Life’s learning curve, once you get pregnant, is steep and immediate.

    So, here is our “alternadad,” wrapped up in a most traditional parental concern, the “good neighborhood” question. Pollack spends a lot time searching for the “good school” and the “good health care.” And, while I’m making the book sound like an op-ed, it’s actually very funny. Pollack wades through the indignities of contemporary dad-dom, which include: the aerobic cheerfulness of Little Gym, “helpful” people in the supermarket, odious “Is he walking?” comparisons, the gateway drug Noggin, rude playground moms, and the inescapable paranoia of Internet message boards. But these sorts of developmental and kid-culture issues (which can dominate any media or writing about parenting) are a sideline to Alternadad‘s central anxieties of where to live manageably and how to support a child.

    Pollack and Regina leave Philly and resettle in Austin, Texas. Pollack has been amenable to the whole kid thing but wants to pursue his writing career, and, after all, how’s everyone going to eat? This is where feminism, previously confined to the safety of college campuses, comes roaring into their lives. Eli is born (in harrowing fashion). He gets older and requires more care. Pollack and Regina, both self-employed, divide the day into “Mommy Time” and “Daddy Time” for watching Eli. You can guess who wins. Pollack writes: “Initially Daddy Time was from three to five p.m. on weekdays, with longer shifts on the weekend. Some days, that was fine. But on other days, three p.m. would nearly arrive and I’d realize that I’d been sitting in my underwear at the computer all day but that I hadn’t actually written anything.” Daddy Time (a sweet deal already!) gets extended. Pollack doesn’t pull his weight, yet unlike his predecessors, he’s made to feel both guilty and annoyed. Guilty for not parenting. Annoyed because he earns most of the money, and Dad’s schedule should trump Mom’s.

    What’s fallen away from marriage for artist-intellectual-professional types are the traditional genders and gender roles. But, as new moms have been observing for years, the arrival of a child has a nasty way of reinstating the old dynamic. Pollack, who feels the need to make money and provide a safe place to live, is among the first to relate the re-emergence of breadwinner angst among men. (Although he fights this pressure by smoking pot and forming a rock band.) Regina is divided by wanting space for her artistic ambitions and her feelings of being a “bad mother.” Parenthood, which looks from the outside like a step into maturity, is actually a descent into a new set of insecurities. Including renewed tension with your parents, who are often willing to overlook a funky wedding ceremony but want to see you step in with tradition and/or religion when a grandchild appears. An infamous chapter in Alternadad details the three-way gunfight among Neal, Regina, and Neal’s Jewish parents over whether Eli should be circumcised.

    What Alternadad drives home is that having children has become more of a lifestyle choice, with “Dad” and “Mom” seeming like an identity along the lines of “med student” or “poet.” As a result, there is a lot more anxiety about parenting—unlike the mythic good old days, where you had kids, tossed them into the back of the Pinto, enrolled them in public school, and didn’t worry about things too much. The trappings of the alternadad—the T-shirts, the stubble—actually express a nostalgic wish for the old style, a time when parents had lives that weren’t totally consumed (and infantilized) by care for their kids. As Alternadad shows, the attentive scorched-earth parenthood of today may be tiring, but it’s not life-altering: Pollack is a dad, and he is still self-absorbed, distracted, and judgmental.

    The anger surrounding alternadad and hipster parenting derives from the idea that these new parents don’t want to “grow up” and act like parents. Instead, they give their kids fauxhawks and inculcate them with a precious taste in music and “film.” I agree that this can be irritating, but find me the set of parents who haven’t, consciously or not, indoctrinated their kids into a little family cult. And who’s more annoying: the 3-year-old who knows Mandarin or the one who loves Devo? The difference between an alternadad, a banker dad, and a soccer dad is ultimately aesthetic and pointless. Sure, Pollack is psyched when Eli develops a love of the Ramones and Spider-Man, but most of his book recounts his struggle to find what America used to offer easily: a solid house, a living wage, a decent public school.

    Michael Agger is a Slate associate editor. You can reach him at michael.agger@gmail.com.

     

     

    No New Nukes
    By Daniel Politi
    Posted Tuesday, Feb. 13, 2007, at 5:12 AM E.T.

    The New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times lead, while the Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox, with word that negotiators from six countries reached a tentative agreement that could be the first step in getting North Korea to dismantle its nuclear program. Under terms of the agreement, which wasn’t released but the papers all have sources, North Korea would be given energy assistance and aid in exchange for the closing down of its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon and readmitting nuclear inspectors into the country. Discussions about North Korea’s existing nuclear weapons and fuel would be left for a later date.

    USA Today leads with a new poll that reveals 63 percent of Americans want troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2008. Also, 57 percent want Congress to put a cap on the number of troops that are sent to fight in Iraq but 58 percent oppose denying funding for these additional troops. By 51 percent to 19 percent those surveyed place the blame on Republicans for the Senate stalemate. Lawmakers should take note, because approximately 70 percent of those surveyed said votes on the war will affect their choice in the next congressional election.

    Everybody notes any agreement with North Korea should be met with some skepticism because the country has changed its mind in the past, and leader Kim Jong-il still has to give his blessing. While the LAT reports that most of the aid would come from South Korea and Japan, the NYT says South Korea, China, and the United States would be responsible, meaning President Bush would have to get congressional approval.

    Although negotiators in Beijing were optimistic, not everyone was happy. Republican hawks have never liked the idea of compromise with North Korea. Everyone quotes former U.N. ambassador John R. Bolton, who said, “This is a very bad deal” because, among other things, “it makes the administration look very weak.” The Post notes that Democrats in Washington are likely to criticize the administration for allowing North Korea to get nuclear weapons in the first place. The WSJ points out the agreement will almost certainly be criticized by those who will say “Bush is getting essentially the same deal Clinton got in 1994.”

    Yesterday, the NYT led with what it said was the apparent collapse of the North Korea talks. Everyone mentions the talks appeared to be at a standstill and the agreement was only reached after marathon talks (16 hours, according to some accounts). But doesn’t the NYT owe its readers some sort of explanation, or at least acknowledgment, of how it got the main story in yesterday’s paper wrong? Besides a brief mention of how “negotiations had appeared near collapse on Sunday,” and mention of a “shift” in the headline, it’s as if yesterday’s story never happened. Regardless, the NYT has the most complete coverage of the intricacies in the agreement.

    All the papers front or reefer the four bombs detonated at two predominantly Shiite markets in central Baghdad that killed approximately 70 people (the LAT fronts a particularly harrowing picture). The attack came on the same day the Iraqi government and Shiites across the country marked the one-year anniversary (according to the Islamic lunar calendar) of the bombing that destroyed one of the holiest sites for Shiites, the mosque in Samarra.

    Both the NYT and LAT front stories of last year’s bombing in Samarra. The NYT focuses on how the sacred Shiite shrine has not been rebuilt, and in fact, most of the rubble still remains. The LAT mentions the rubble but goes deeper and provides an interesting look at the bombing itself and the aftermath, describing in detail the great significance the event still holds for many Iraqis. The LAT says the bombing was “the dawn of Iraq’s civil war.” That echoes the views expressed by President Bush when he presented his plan to send more troops to Iraq, but is it the whole story? No one doubts the bombing was significant, but as McClatchy detailed in an analysis piece last month, “the president’s account understates by at least 15 months when Shiite death squads began targeting Sunni politicians and clerics. It also ignores the role that Iranian-backed Shiite groups had in death squad activities before the Samarra bombing.”

    Several prominent Washington journalists testified yesterday that I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby never mentioned Valerie Plame to them even though they had conversations with him shortly before her identity was made public. Everyone notes the Post‘s Walter Pincus had a surprise revelation yesterday when he testified that Ari Fleischer told him about Plame. The statement contradicts the former White House press secretary’s testimony. “It seems possible prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald would have had an easier time finding out who in the administration didn’t leak Plame’s identity,” says the Post‘s Dana Milbank.

    Most of the papers catch news out of Salt Lake City, where a man opened fire in a shopping mall last night, killing five people and injuring several more before he was killed.

    In preparation for the debate that is scheduled to begin today in the House, Democrats unveiled a simple resolution that only has two clauses. The nonbinding resolution declares opposition to President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq, while also expressing support for U.S. troops on the ground. There will be three days of debate on the war, and a vote is expected on Friday.

    Funny ’cause it’s true … In an editorial about the Grammy sweep by the Dixie Chicks, the NYT focuses on the consequences the group faced after their lead singer, Natalie Maines, criticized Bush at a concert in London. “Had Ms. Maines been a senator at the time, she might be a shoo-in candidate for president,” says the NYT.

    Daniel Politi writes “Today’s Papers” for Slate. He can be reached at

     

    Monday, February 12, 2007

    COMMENT Too Many Chiefs




    COMMENT
    TOO MANY CHIEFS
    by Hendrik Hertzberg
    Issue of 2007-02-19
     
    Posted 2007-02-12

    According to some of the calendars and appointment books floating around this office, Monday, February 19th, is Presidents’ Day. Others say it’s President’s Day. Still others opt for Presidents Day. Which is it? The bouncing apostrophe bespeaks a certain uncertainty. President’s Day suggests that only one holder of the nation’s supreme magistracy is being commemorated—presumably the first. Presidents’ Day hints at more than one, most likely the Sage of Mount Vernon plus Abraham Lincoln, generally agreed to be the greatest of them all. And Presidents Day, apostropheless, implies a promiscuous celebration of all forty-two—Jefferson but also Pierce, F.D.R. but also Buchanan, Truman but also Harding. To say nothing of the incumbent, of whom, perhaps, the less said the better.

    So which is it? Trick question. The answer, strictly speaking, is none of the above. Ever since 1968, when, in one of the last gasps of Great Society reformism, holidays were rejiggered to create more three-day weekends, federal law has decreed the third Monday in February to be Washington’s Birthday. And Presidents’/'s/s Day? According to Prologue, the magazine of the National Archives, it was a local department-store promotion that went national when retailers discovered that, mysteriously, generic Presidents clear more inventory than particular ones, even the Father of His Country. Now everybody thinks it’s official, but it’s not. (Note to Fox News: could be a War on Washington’s Birthday angle here, similar to the War on Christmas. Over to you, Bill.)

    Just to add to the Presidential confusion, Washington’s Birthday is not Washington’s birthday. George Washington was born either on February 11, 1731 (according to the old-style Julian calendar, still in use at the time), or on February 22, 1732 (according to the Gregorian calendar, adopted in 1752 throughout the British Empire). Under no circumstances, therefore, can Washington’s birthday fall on Washington’s Birthday, a.k.a. Presidents Day, which, being the third Monday of the month, can occur only between the 15th and the 21st. Lincoln’s birthday, February 12th, doesn’t make it through the Presidents Day window, either. Nor do the natal days of our other two February Presidents, William Henry Harrison (born on the 6th) and Ronald Reagan (the 9th). A fine mess!

    Here is the question thus raised: at this chastening juncture in our republic’s history, wouldn’t everyone welcome a moratorium on Presidential glorification? Isn’t the United States a little too President-ridden, much as post-medieval Spain was a little too priest-ridden? Our capital city groans under the weight of obelisks, equestrian statues, and grandiose temples fit for the gods but devoted to the winners of Presidential elections. “Presidential historians” populate the greenrooms of our cable-news networks. Presidential suites sit atop Vegas hotels. Presidential libraries gobble up ever-growing swathes of urban and, as the unhappy faculty of Southern Methodist University recently learned, campus real estate. Time to throttle down.

    A good place to start, after securing the retailers’ and calendar-makers’ agreement to call Washington’s Birthday by its true name (if not its true date), would be with the most sacred object our society mass-produces: money. At the moment, of the seven denominations of banknotes in general circulation, no fewer than five have Presidents on them, ranging chronologically from Washington (who would have frowned on the honor, as smacking of monarchy) to Grant (who would have appreciated the irony, given that he was habitually broke and presided over an Administration rife with financial scandals). The two others are the ten-spot (Alexander Hamilton, who might have been President if he hadn’t been a duellist) and the hundred (Benjamin Franklin). On the coins, it’s pretty much Presidents all the way, except for Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea, who are on dollar coins that barely circulate and are obvious affirmative-action benchwarmers, destined for the hook once a female President or two comes along, or even sooner. Beginning this year, the Mint plans to roll out new circulating dollar coins, four different ones a year, for as many years as it takes. Who will be on them? Why, Presidents, of course—all of them, in the order they served, scoundrels and heroes alike. Someday, like a bad penny, a George W. Bush dollar will turn up. Heads you lose.

    As it happens, a federal district court has ordered the Treasury to redesign our paper money to make it friendlier to blind people. Why not take the opportunity to go further than changing sizes or adding texture? Franklin shows the way. Yes, he was a politician, but he was equally or more famous as a scientist, a diplomat, a newspaperman, an aphorist, a satirist, and a boulevardier. Let’s keep Washington on the single, and then let’s start printing bills with pictures of the other sorts of people that make us proud to be Americans. With rotating portraits, we can have a musicians’ fin (Foster, Gershwin, Ellington), a scribblers’ sawbuck (Twain, Melville, Dickinson), a performing-arts twenty (Caruso, Keaton, Balanchine), a secular saints’ fifty (Douglass, Jane Addams, King), and a scientists’ C-note (Franklin, Edison, Einstein). As a three-fer (President, saint, writer), Lincoln could have the two-dollar note all to himself. A three-spot could be introduced, with Whitman (“What you give me I cheerfully accept,/A little sustenance, a hut and garden, a little money, as I rendezvous with my poems”). As with Presidents, a decent interval would be required. The Dylan fiver will have to be deferred until another decade of the sixties rolls around.

    One can dream. Meanwhile, if you think you’re sick of Presidents, wait till you see the parade of Presidents-in-waiting. Wait? You don’t have to wait. Decision 2008 is already upon us, full-bore. A generation or two ago, political scientists used to complain that American campaigns dragged on for eight or nine months, in contrast to the three to six weeks that is normal elsewhere. Those were the days. As of last week, ten Republicans and nine Democrats, all of them plausible enough to claim a place in televised debates, have either filed formal exploratory committees or declared their candidacies outright, and another half-dozen or so are on the verge. The first such debate is ten weeks from now—even though the first primary is nearly a year away, the conventions don’t convene for a year and a half, and the election itself is twenty-one long months down the road. Unsurprisingly, as the Washington Post reported last week, 2008 is fated to be “the nation’s first billion-dollar presidential campaign.” No doubt “the issues” will get a full airing, but, more than ever, it’s going to be all about the Benjamins, and not just who gets his picture on the

     

     

    Justin Steele for The New York Times

    Jeff Zucker, to be named chief of NBC Universal, must chart a new direction for the company as the digital revolution disrupts the media.

    February 6, 2007

    A New Boss at NBC, and Even Newer Issues

    When Jeff Zucker is named the new chief executive of NBC Universal today, succeeding Bob Wright, he will be completing one of the most spectacular ascents of any recent media executive: from part-time sports researcher in 1986 to corporate C.E.O two decades later.

    And now for the hard part.

    According to NBC executives, Hollywood producers and agents, and many of the financial analysts who follow NBC, Mr. Zucker, 41, faces many pressing issues. Foremost among them: how he will deal with the rapid technological and financial changes that are throwing many traditional media businesses into upheaval. He will also have to choose a team of executives to back his efforts as he sets a new direction for the company.

    Mr. Zucker will answer questions about his supporting cast today shortly after he is formally named C.E.O., a senior NBC executive said yesterday.

    Mr. Zucker is leaving the job he currently holds, president of the NBC Universal Television Group, but no one will be named to fill that job, the NBC executive said.

    But Mr. Zucker is expected to elevate three other senior NBC executives, effectively dividing many of his current responsibilities among them.

    Marc Graboff, who is now president of NBC Universal Television West Coast, will be given added supervisory duties over NBC’s entertainment division in California. Beth Comstock, who is president of NBC’s digital and marketing division, and Jeff Gaspin, who heads up the company’s cable operations, will also take on new responsibilities.

    Another important NBC West Coast executive, Kevin Reilly, is in talks to extend his contract as president of NBC’s entertainment division.

    The most urgent questions facing Mr. Zucker relate to the digital revolution now roiling the media marketplace.

    Bill Simon, senior client partner for the global entertainment division of Korn/Ferry International, an executive search firm, said the arrival of digital outlets for television programs had made what was formerly a simple equation for NBC much harder.

    “It comes down to this,” Mr. Simon said. “He has to figure out how to grab an audience, how to hold an audience and how to monetize an audience.”

    All three jobs will be harder with the advent of Internet sites like YouTube that offer television programming, including shows from NBC, with little financial gain for the networks.

    Nicholas P. Heymann, an analyst at Prudential Securities who follows General Electric, NBC’s parent company, said that Mr. Zucker’s task is threefold: he has to continue to create successful programming while also cutting costs in the TV business and elsewhere.

    At the same time, Mr. Zucker is charged with trying to figure out what the next disruptive digital media outlet like YouTube will be, and how the company can capitalize on it.

    Given the complexity of the task, Mr. Heymann said it made sense for Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chairman of G.E., to select as Mr. Wright’s successor someone who was brought up in the G.E. management ranks. Mr. Zucker has some blemishes on his track record — NBC’s slide in prime time among them — but he has shown recent success.

    Compared with hiring an executive from the outside, Mr. Heymann described Mr. Zucker’s hiring as having “the potential to be the lowest-risk alternative with the most potential for upside and success.”

    In the near term, Mr. Heymann said, G.E.’s challenge is to return NBC Universal’s earnings to the peak levels they achieved in 2003.

    The media company recently reported an increase in earnings for the quarter ended Dec. 31 to $841 million, from $801 million the previous year. It was the first year-over-year profit increase for NBC Universal in five quarters.

    The challenges facing Mr. Zucker have little to do with the current state of NBC, which, some detractors notwithstanding, is mainly solid across almost all of its divisions.

    Under Mr. Wright, the company has expanded with great success in recent years, adding the Universal movie studio and highly profitable cable channels like USA and Bravo. Until the last couple of years, NBC under Mr. Wright was among the most profitable divisions of G.E.

    NBC has been the network leader in news and late-night programs, but trails the other networks in prime time.

    One of the downturns for the company occurred on Mr. Zucker’s watch when he ran the network’s entertainment division in California. NBC fell from first place to last in prime time in 2004, just after Mr. Zucker finished his run as president of NBC Entertainment.

    Some of collapse of the network’s prime-time fortunes had to do with NBC’s long-term failure to develop new programs. Mr. Zucker was credited with maintaining NBC’s success much longer than might have been expected, given the dearth of hits, because of his ability to manage NBC’s remaining assets, like the comedy “Friends.”

    Twice he managed to keep that show on the air (in high-cost negotiations) when it was expected to finish production.

    But competitors in Hollywood — and some critics in the press — have pointed to those struggles and asked why Mr. Zucker was not held more responsible for them. Mr. Zucker mainly put his head down, focused on NBC’s more successful cable channels and tried to change the momentum at the network.

    Now, thanks to new hits like “The Office” and “Heroes,” NBC’s prime-time lineup has begun to show some improvement.

    Longer term, NBC will have to show that it can continue to create hit entertainment content, its chief source of profit. Recent signs have been favorable in that area, according to some of NBC’s most prominent producers, and Mr. Zucker’s relationship with the Hollywood community, once thought to be strained, has been shored up.

    Dick Wolf, who has been NBC Universal’s most important producer for a generation because of his “Law & Order” dramas, said in a telephone interview, “I think Jeff will get a very strong endorsement from the community.”

    He said misperceptions of NBC had been rife in recent years. “You would think from reading some accounts that this was a company literally going down the tubes,” Mr. Wolf said. “For a company going out of business, it seems to me NBC is generating a lot of cash.”

    He said he favored the selection of Mr. Zucker not just because of their friendship but also because “he’s just a really smart guy, and people know I like really smart guys.”

    That view was echoed by Ben Silverman, who has become one of NBC’s biggest suppliers of programs, with shows like “The Office” and “The Biggest Loser.” Yesterday NBC announced it had signed a new deal with Mr. Silverman that will give the company first access to all the programs his company develops.

    Mr. Silverman noted that Mr. Zucker took pains to make sure the deal was announced as his personal decision, to underscore his Hollywood credentials.

    “The guy makes decisions,” Mr. Silverman said. “Sometimes that ruffles feathers in an industry that likes to be coddled, but as a producer I like that kind of transparency.”

    Richard Siklos contributed reporting.


     

     

    February 6, 2007

    3 Deaths May Put Focus on Elevators’ Hardware

    The deaths of three men who plunged down elevator shafts over the weekend underscore a danger that experts say is not widely recognized in a city of more than 50,000 elevators: a door can come unhinged from its bottom tracks, leaving a sudden gaping hole over an empty shaft.

    “It usually results from horseplay,” Patrick A. Carrajat, an elevator consultant from Queens, said yesterday. “If two people push violently up and out against a door, it can come off the track.”

    That was what apparently led to the three weekend fatalities, one at a nightclub in Chelsea and two at the Lefrak City apartment complex in Queens. In both cases, the men who fell to their deaths were scuffling or fighting when they were shoved or banged into closed elevator doors that appeared to be in normal working condition.

    The deaths seemed likely to renew a longstanding dispute over how far the city should go in requiring security hardware on all elevator doors.

    In particular, the City Department of Buildings is recommending that the owners of all buildings install stabilizing brackets known as Z-bars on the inside of each elevator door. The devices, already required in public housing and new doors in other buildings, are intended to prevent the bottom of the door from being pushed in.

    “The law does not mandate building owners to update old hoistway doors,” said Kate Lindquist, a Buildings Department spokeswoman.

    A hoistway door is the one that opens onto each floor, and is not attached to the elevator cab.

    She said the department, which is reviewing the city building code, could recommend that it be updated to require Z-bars citywide. “This is certainly something we are considering,” she said.

    Even if the hardware were required, however, it is not clear that it would prevent accidents like the ones in Chelsea and Queens. The elevator doors that gave way had both been fitted with Z-bars, according to the Buildings Department.

    Although the brackets can improve safety, Mr. Carrajat and Ms. Lindquist said, they cannot prevent every accident, as evidenced by the three fatalities. They also pointed out that other flaws, including improper installation of doors, can render the brackets ineffective. While the Buildings Department is investigating the doors’ failure, any proposal to mandate the brackets is likely to be resisted by the real estate industry.

    “I would have to look at the big issue of whether you can really do it,” said Marolyn Davenport, senior vice president of the Real Estate Board of New York. “Can you make it a requirement that you retrofit every door if they don’t have the appropriate tracks?”

    Charles Mehlman, senior vice president of the Mid-State Management Corporation, which maintains the 20-building Lefrak City complex in Corona, said, “This was just a tragic accident, and I know of no device that would have prevented it.” The building where the two men fell is an 18-story red brick tower at 96-04 57th Avenue.

    Mr. Mehlman said yesterday that elevator cameras had captured images of the two men who died riding to the 11th floor, where they got out, then fell into another of the building’s three elevator shafts.

    “They were fighting violently on the way up, and you have to assume they continued fighting on the 11th floor before they broke through the door,” he said.

    The police identified the men as half-brothers, Julian Jones 25, of Queens, and Leslie Jones Jr., 23, of Brooklyn. Neither man lived at Lefrak City, and it was unclear yesterday why they were there early Saturday morning, Mr. Mehlman said, when the accident took place.

    Mr. Mehlman said the two men fell about 4 a.m. on Saturday, but their bodies were not discovered until more than 30 hours later, on Sunday afternoon. In the intervening hours, the building’s three elevators continued to function normally, even though building engineers were called to the 11th floor on Sunday morning after residents discovered that one hoistway door had been pushed off its tracks.

    The fatality in Chelsea took place early Saturday after a fight broke out in the BED nightclub. The police said the man who died, Orlando Valle, 35, had been shoved into the elevator door by an employee of the club, Granville Adams.

    Mr. Adams, a 43-year-old actor who had appeared in the television show “Oz,” was charged with criminally negligent homicide.

    City records of violations and inspections of both elevators reveal nothing exceptional. Ms. Lindquist said the owner of the Queens building had been cited recently for two elevator violations, dirty conditions, in April 2005 and January 2006. In both cases, the violations were corrected, she said.

    She said the owners of the building that houses the nightclub BED, at 530 West 27th Street in Chelsea, had been issued a permit to renovate its elevator in November 2004, and that an inspection in June had determined that the completed work was up to code.


     

     

     

    February 6, 2007
    Editorial

    The Price of Corn

    The current price of corn is $3.23 a bushel, more than half again what it was a year ago, and beginning to bring to mind the record $5.545 a bushel set in July 1996.

    There are many reasons for this price spurt. The ethanol boom has created a sharp new demand for corn. The Department of Agriculture revised its estimate of the 2006 corn harvest downward by some 200 million bushels because of weather and other factors. There is also a smaller corn reserve on hand than usual — the smallest in a decade — which parallels shortages around the world.

    Add to this the growing weight of commodities funds investing in agricultural markets, and you have daydreams — or nightmares — of that $5 mark.

    Yet all this has taken place against the backdrop of three record harvests in a row, a sure sign of how strong the ethanol appetite for corn production is turning out to be. It’s tempting to assume that the effect of sharply higher prices is confined primarily to the agricultural sector. But where corn is concerned, we are all part of the agricultural sector. The historical cheapness of corn has driven it into nearly every aspect of our economy, in the form, most familiarly, of corn syrup. The low price of corn over the past half-century lies at the very foundation of America’s historically (and unrealistically) low food prices.

    Gratifying our two major appetites — cheap food and cheap gas — used to seem easy because both corn and oil were abundant. Cheap oil helped keep corn prices low because it cost farmers less to run their tractors and combines.

    But we are entering a new dynamic now. While there has been talk recently about refining ethanol from sources other than corn, that could take a while. So at the moment what we are trying to do is gratify those appetites from the same resource: agricultural land. No matter how high prices go, what will need to change isn’t the amount of corn acreage available or even the size of the enormous harvests we are already getting. What will need to change is the size of our appetites.


     

     

    February 6, 2007
    Editorial

    A Vaccine to Save Women’s Lives

    Congratulations to Texas for becoming the first state to require vaccinating young schoolgirls — ages 11 and 12 — against a sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer and genital warts. Other states would be wise to follow the same path.

    There is no doubt that Merck’s vaccine against the human papillomavirus, given in three shots over eight months, is highly effective. It provides nearly perfect protection against two strains that cause 70 percent of all cases of cervical cancer, and against two other strains that cause 90 percent of genital warts cases. (That still leaves 30 percent of the cervical cancer cases to worry about, so women are urged to keep getting regular Pap tests to screen for signs of the cancer.) The side effects are generally mild: pain or tenderness at the site of the injection.

    Many parents are appalled at the notion of vaccinating such young girls against a sexually transmitted disease. But the medical reality is that the vaccine will generally not work after a woman has been infected, so it is best for girls to be vaccinated well before they become sexually active. The nation’s top advisory committee of immunization experts has recommended that the vaccine be routinely given to girls 11 and 12 years old.

    The most contentious issue is whether the shots should be required or simply recommended to parents through a strong educational campaign. Those opposed to compulsory vaccination complain that there are already a slew of required vaccinations, so why heap on another, especially for a disease that is spread only through sexual contact? Critics also fear that HPV vaccination may lead some students to wrongly assume that they are protected against all sexually transmitted diseases, perhaps encouraging them to engage in risky behavior.

    None of these objections seem strong enough to forgo the protection against a devastating disease. The United States records some 10,000 new cases of cervical cancer each year, and 3,700 cervical cancer deaths. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, a conservative Republican, has taken an “opt out” approach, in which vaccination is required but parents can seek an exemption for reasons of conscience or religious beliefs.

    That makes sense to us. All students deserve protection against HPV infection, and the presumption should be that they will get it.


     

     

    Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

    The newspaper columnist Robert D. Novak leaving Federal District Court in Washington after testifying in the trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr.

    February 12, 2007

    Novak Says Libby Didn’t Leak Agent’s Name to Him

    WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 — The newspaper columnist Robert D. Novak testified today that two high officials in the Bush administration told him the identity of a C.I.A. agent whose unmasking touched off a scandal, but that Vice President Dick Cheney‘s former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., did not.

    Mr. Novak recalled in Federal District Court how former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and the White House political adviser Karl Rove told him the identity of the covert agent, Valerie Wilson. But, Mr. Novak said, “I got no help or no confirmation from Mr. Libby on that issue.”

    Nor was Mr. Armitage helpful early on, Mr. Novak said, recalling how Mr. Armitage refused his requests for an interview again and again. “He just didn’t want to see me,” Mr. Novak said.

    But finally Mr. Armitage relented, confirming the agent’s identity in a one-on-one interview on July 8, 2003, Mr. Novak said. A day later, Mr. Novak said, Mr. Rove provided additional confirmation.

    Mr. Novak was one of several well-known Washington journalists who were called to the stand by the defense today. In addition to Mr. Novak, two others, Bob Woodward and Walter Pincus, both of The Washington Post, also testified that they learned of Ms. Wilson’s identity from administration officials, but not from Mr. Libby. His defense is arguing that he was made a “scapegoat” by the White House to protect Mr. Rove.

    Mr. Novak’s appearance at Mr. Libby’s criminal trial was at once dramatic and anticlimactic, since the roles of Mr. Armitage and Mr. Rove have been known for many months. But the white-haired columnist, whose soft-spoken voice was markedly different from the confident tone he takes on television, provided insights into how news is gathered in the nation’s capital.

    Mr. Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. Prosecutors maintain he tried to thwart an investigation into who leaked the name of Mrs. Wilson, whose husband, the former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, had traveled to Africa to investigate rumors that Iraq had tried to obtain uranium from Niger.

    Some Bush administration critics have asserted that Mrs. Wilson was unmasked in retaliation against her husband, who wrote an Op-Ed article for The New York Times on July 6, 2003, that cast doubt on the uranium rumors and the administration’s rationale for going to war against Iraq.

    Mr. Novak’s column of July 14, 2003, first revealed to the public that Mr. Wilson’s wife was “an agency operative” specializing in weapons of mass destruction.

    The columnist testified that in his July 8 meeting with Mr. Armitage, he wondered aloud why Mr. Wilson — who had served in the Clinton administration and had no wide experience in nuclear weapons as far as he knew — had been sent to Africa by the Central Intelligence Agency.

    “It was suggested by his wife, Valerie,” Mr. Armitage replied, in Mr. Novak’s telling. Mr. Armitage, who did not divulge her last name, went on to explain that she worked for the agency, the columnist related. Mr. Novak said he consulted Who’s Who in America soon afterward and found the name “Valerie Plame” listed as Mr. Wilson’s wife. (“Plame” was the agent’s maiden name.)

    Mr. Novak said he talked to Mr. Rove on the phone the day after his meeting with Mr. Armitage and mentioned that he understood that Mr. Wilson’s wife was a C.I.A. “operative,” a term the columnist said he probably used too often.

    “Oh, you know about that too,” Mr. Rove commented, in Mr. Novak’s recollection. “I took that as confirmation,” Mr. Novak said.

    The columnist said he did not realize when he disclosed Mrs. Wilson’s agency role that she operated covertly.

    Mr. Novak said he had learned to read Mr. Rove’s signals very well, since the White House aide was “a very good source” to whom he talked two or three times a week. Asked what he thought Mr. Rove’s main job was, Mr. Novak said it was to aid the president politically.

    “I think he was trying to do a good job for the country, too,” Mr. Novak said.

    Under questioning by Mr. Libby’s lawyer Theodore V. Wells Jr., Mr. Novak said he finished writing the July 14 column on the morning of July 11, after which it was edited and distributed by his syndicate.

    Mr. Wells was apparently trying to show that the contents of the column might not have been a deep secret days before its publication. But under cross-examination from the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Mr. Novak said in effect that only a relatively small cadre of journalists could have seen the column ahead of time.

    Mr. Libby told investigators and a grand jury that the television journalist Tim Russert told him about Mrs. Wilson on July 10, 2003, an account that has been contradicted by several prosecution witnesses, including Mr. Russert and Ari Fleischer, the former White House spokesman. Mr. Fleischer testified that Mr. Libby told him about Mrs. Wilson on July 7, 2003, and that the information was “on the q.t.”

    Mr. Novak’s testimony followed an appearance on the witness stand by Mr. Woodward. He testified that Mr. Armitage disclosed Ms. Wilson’s identity in June 2003, but that Mr. Libby knew nothing about the agent when Mr. Woodward talked to him two weeks later.

    Mr. Woodward, an assistant managing editor at The Washington Post who gained fame for his reporting of the Watergate scandal, recalled at Mr. Libby’s criminal trial that Mr. Armitage told him about the agent in a telephone conversation laced with salty language.

    Mr. Woodward testified that he already knew, when he talked to Mr. Armitage on June 13, 2003, about the trip her husband took to Africa. Mr. Woodward said he asked Mr. Armitage how Mr. Wilson happened to go to Africa in the first place.

    “His wife works at the agency,” Mr. Armitage replied, in an audiotape of the conversation between the two men that was played in court.

    “His wife’s an (expletive deleted) analyst,” Mr. Armitage went on, in a husky voice marked by chuckling. “How about that?”

    In contrast, Mr. Woodward said, Mr. Libby said nothing about Mr. Wilson’s wife.

    Recalling his meeting with Mr. Libby on June 27, 2003, Mr. Woodword said he was sure he would have included a reference to such a disclosure in the voluminous notes he was compiling of his interviews for a book about the prelude to the Iraq war. There was no such reference, Mr. Woodward said.

    The defense is arguing that Mr. Libby was far too busy with weighty matters of state to keep track of conversations he may or may not have had about Mrs. Wilson, and that any inconsistencies in his accounts can be attributed to faulty memory.

    In Mr. Woodward’s telling, and in the audiotapes, Mr. Armitage discussed the problems arising from Mr. Bush’s State of the Union address in January 2003, in which the president alluded inaccurately to what British intelligence had found about Iraq’s supposed attempts to acquire uranium — even though a presidential speech in Cincinnati some three months earlier was accurate on that point.

    The Cincinnati speech was “clean as a whistle,” Mr. Armitage said, telling Mr. Woodward that George J. Tenet, then the head of the Central Intelligence Agency had managed to get the questionable references excised, only to have them resurface in January.


Comments (1)

Post a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *