David Corn is Washington editor of The Nation magazine, the oldest political weekly in America. He writes on a host of subjects, including politics, the White House, Congress, and national security.

He has broken stories on Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, Colin Powell, Richard Gephardt, Hillary Clinton, Rush Limbaugh, Clarence Thomas, Senator Paul Laxalt, Senator Robert Bennett, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon, and other Washington players.

Corn has contributed articles, including political satire and book reviews, to The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Boston Globe, Newsday, Harper’s, The New Republic, Mother Jones, The Washington Monthly, The Village Voice, The New York Press -- which features his weekly column "Loyal Opposition" -- and many other publications. He also writes for several on-line magazines, including Slate, HotWired, and Salon.

He is the author of Blond Ghost: Ted Shackley and the CIA's Crusades (Simon and Schuster, 1994). The Washington Monthly called Blond Ghost "an amazing compendium of CIA fact and lore." The Washington Post noted that Blond Ghost "deserves a space on that small shelf of worthwhile books about the agency." The New York Times termed it "a scorchingly critical account of an enigmatic figure who for two decades ran some of the agency's most important, and most controversial, covert operations."

Corn was a contributor to Unusual Suspects, an anthology of mystery and crime fiction (Vintage/Black Lizard, 1996). His contribution to the book -- a short story entitled “My Murder” -- was nominated for a 1997 Edgar Allan Poe Award by Mystery Writers of America. The story was republished in The Year's 25 Finest Crime and Mystery Stories (Carroll & Graf, 1997).

Corn frequently is a guest on television and radio talk shows. He has been a panelist on CNN's Capital Gang, and he is a regular on C-SPAN. He has appeared on ABC News, CBS Morning News, Fox Television News, Fox New Cable, Crossfire (CNN), Washington Week in Review (PBS), Equal Time (CNBC), Tim Russert (CNBC), Tribune Television, MSNBC, and other shows and networks.

He was a co-host (with Pat Buchanan) of the nationally-syndicated radio show Buchanan and Company. He has appeared often on the syndicated Diane Rehm radio show, and provided commentary to National Public Radio. He is a featured guest on RadioNation, a nationally-syndicated show. He has contributed political commentary to BBC Radio, CBC Radio, Pacifica Radio, Australian National Radio, and has been a guest on scores of call-in radio programs.

Corn, thirty-nine years old, is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Brown University. Before joining The Nation, he worked for Ralph Nader's Center for Study of Responsive Law and Harper’s magazine.

Click here to read more of David Corn's Loyal Opposition.

Selective Mongering

What makes a scandal? The answer: not all that should. In Washington, Kenneth Starr snoops after old land deals and sorts through personal rubbish. Years ago, the White House's messy dismissal of several travel office employees became a raging controversy. But what if an Administration worked with drug dealers to implement official policy? You'd think that might warrant a little scandal-mongering. In March, Frederick Hitz, then the Inspector General of the CIA, publicly testified to the House intelligence committee that during the wild and crazy Reagan days of the 1980s, the CIA, in assisting the contras in Central America, collaborated with individuals suspected of drug dealing. Hitz's admission did not spark outrage on Capital Hill or among media commentators. There was silence.

Then, this past Friday, The New York Times front-paged a story on a classified CIA report written by Hitz that backed up his testimony and detailed the agency's links to two dozen (!) possible drug runners. The CIA, though, is refusing to declassify the 500-page study. I'm betting the Reagan CIA's drug-connection and the agency's current attempt to smother this report will not engage the chatterers of the political-media class as much as a certain (and apparently nonexistent) semen-stained dress did. Will Tim Russert and Maureen Dowd jump on this story and howl about the coverup? Will Chris Matthews hurl hardballs at the CIA and the White House, which could order the release of the report? Will William Safire decry Contragate, pronounce it worse than Watergate -- heck, that was just a break-in, not a drug buy -- and call for an investigation? C'mon guys, surprise me.

Perhaps that nasty CIA business occurred too long ago to engage the public, press and politicians of today (though it is far fresher than parts of the aged Whitewater tale). Let's examine another scenario: a prominent and powerful lawmaker accepts a contribution from an organization credibly accused of supporting terrorism and murder. No, make that a dozen or so lawmakers. Think people ought to pound their chests about that?

Well, it has happened, and there's been no pounding. In an exceptional series last week, The New York Times profiled the notorious Luis Posada Carriles, a 70-year-old Cuban exile who for decades prosecuted his own war of bombings and assassination attempts against Cuba and Fidel Castro. The Times pieces, written by Ann Louise Bardach and Larry Rohter, were based on interviews conducted with Posada somewhere in the Caribbean. Posada's murderous antics have long been known. In the 1960s, he was a recruit for the CIA's absurd assault on Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. From 1976 to 1985, he was imprisoned in Venezuela after having been arrested for arranging the in-flight bombing of a Cubana jetliner carrying 73 people. After escaping jail, the fugitive found work in Oliver North's covert contra supply operation. More recently, last year, Posada waged a series of bombings in Cuba at hotels, restaurants, and discos. One blast killed an Italian tourist.

It was not shocking that Posada expressed no regrets over the death of the Italian. But what was surprising was his acknowledgement that his terrorism had been underwritten by the leaders of the Cuban-American National Foundation. This outfit is the primary lobby of anti-Castro Cubans. For years it has maintained a stranglehold on U.S. policy toward Cuba, blocking moves to relax relations with Havana. Its longtime jefe, Jorge Mas Canosa, who died last year, was chummy with the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill Clinton. Posada estimated that Mas Canosa through the years sent him $200,000 to support his terrorist activity. At the same time, the Mas Canosa gang gave bundles of money to politicians of both parties.

In the last election cycle the Free Cuba Political Action Committee, which is closely allied with the foundation, dished out $136,550 to Democrats and Republicans. In the past year-and-a-half, it funnelled $39,500 to House and Senate members. (The spigot is likely to open much wider in the coming months, as the congressional elections approach.) Favored candidates have included Senators Jesse Helms ($10,000), Bob Torricelli ($10,000), Judd Gregg ($10,000), Bob Graham ($5000) and Alfonse D'Amato ($5000) and Representatives Benjamin Gilman ($7750), Robert Menendez ($8000), Patrick Kennedy ($3000) and Dan Burton ($4000). These figures, by the way, do not include the donations made by individuals affiliated with the foundation and the Free Cuba PAC. A National Journal story in 1993 noted that the PAC handed out more that $670,000 to congressional candidates in the previous decade.

In response to the Times articles, the foundation has claimed that none of its members financed any violence against Cuba. Despite this thin denial, Posada's charges deserve front-burner investigation. The IRS ought to probe the foundation. The FBI should see if any American-based individuals facilitated Posada's murderous actions. (Posada is not the foundation's only connection to terrorism. In 1990, the organziation's "information commission" included two men who had been implicated in the 1976 car-bomb assassination in Washington of Orlando Letelier, a former Chilean ambassador, and his American assistant.)

Not much of a clamor was created by these articles. Where are the tough-on-crime Republicans? They're not rushing before television cameras to call for hearings. Neither are the Democrats. Posada's revelations are a bipartisan embarrassment, for each party has been overly sensitive to the exiles' pressure and big bucks. Talk about being unduly influenced by special interests with a foreign policy agenda.

If the President gets a blow job from an intern-- I said if --that's a scandal. If a Senator gets a big check from a group that allegedly supports terrorism, that's not a fuss-worthy matter. The recipients of the Free Cuba PAC's largess ought to give the money back. At the least, they should agree not to pocket any more until the group is fully investigated and cleared of being tied to terrorism. Even if this is not yet a bona fide, pundit-certified scandal.

In Dutch

Neither Newt Gingrich or Bill Clinton seem the ideal spokesmen for caution, moderation, and self-denial. Yet the two of them paired up to announce a $2 billion p-r blitz against drugs. The thinking underlying this campaign appears to be that the way to stop kids from having fun with drugs is to bombard them with ads proclaiming "it's not cool." Right. You wonder if the rocket scientists who hatched up this latest just-say-no scheme were ever 14-years-old. Days after Clinton and Gingrich happy-faced this bipartisan endeavor, the man guiding the nation's antidrug policies showed that one problem the drug warriors have is a deficiency in the category of mental firepower.

At the start of an eight-day trip to Europe, White House drug policy director Barry McCaffrey told a group of journalists in Sweden that the "murder rate in Holland is double that in the United States." The retired Army General said that the United States had a killing rate of 8.22 murders per 100,000 people in 1995 compared to 17.58 in the Netherlands. And McCaffrey had an explanation for it. "That's drugs," he declared. He whacked at Hollands' liberal drug policies, which tolerate the sale of marijuana and the possession of small quantities of heroin and cocaine, and said that he was anxious to visit The Netherlands to discover "why is it that they're happy about what they're doing."

But McCaffrey had his numbers wrong. Way wrong. The Dutch murder rate in 1995 was 1.8 per 100,000--a tenth of what he claimed and one-fifth of the U.S. rate. Apparently, the general had confused the Dutch murder rate with the attempted murder rate. On that score, too, the Dutch do better than violent Americans. The attempted murder rate in Holland was 17.6 per 100,000 in 1995. In the United States, aggravated assault--which is roughly comparable--was 418.3.

If McCaffrey is correct about the association between crime rates and drug policy, then the United States should emulate the Dutch and immediately decriminalize marijuana and other drugs. He also owes an apology to the Dutch. But when the Drug Reform Coordination Network contacted McCaffrey's office to ask about McCaffrey's misinformed view of reality, a McCaffrey spokesman said, "The General stands by what he said."

Alas, this is not the first time the General has misrepresented facts.

• He said there is "not a shred of evidence" that marijuana has medicinal values. Yet dozens of studies claim that it does.


• In arguing that needle-exchange programs do not work, he cited two Canadian studies. In a New York Times op-ed in April, the authors of those studies bopped McCaffrey for having mischaracterized their findings. And they referred to a study that found that in 29 cities around the world with needle-exchange programs HIV infection had dropped, while in 51 cities without such programs infection had risen.


• In March, the Drug Czar said that the "cultivation of hemp is economically not feasible in the United States." It certainly used to be. Statesman Henry Clay was a prominent hemp farmer. More recently, a University of Kentucky study found that industrial hemp production could be more profitable to Kentucky farmers than any other crop except tobacco.

Flags and Fornication

The Senate is once again considering whether to pass a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the American flag. Is this a pressing problem? How many flag-burnings do you run across these days? Not nearly as many as horror stories about HMOs. Forget all the high-minded arguments about the First Amendment, freedom of speech, and the beauty of a system that allows in-your-face dissent. How do you even enforce -- or even define -- flag desecration? If Gingrich wears a Speedo bathing suit bearing the Red, White and Blue, is that an insult to the national symbol? Imagine someone paints a flag on the side of your house. Does that mean you cannot whitewash it? What if a Buddhist wants to burn the flag in a purification ceremony? Is that desecration?

I confess I find it hard to understand why people can't shrug their shoulders when one of those rare flag-torchings occurs and say of the burners, what a bunch of jerks. But now, thanks to religious right kingpin Paul Weyrich, I know what's at stake. "The Christian understanding of the flag," he observed, "is connected with the Fourth Commandment to love thy father and mother. Church fathers extrapolated from that commandment love of one's heritage and one's country, of which the flag is a symbol." Thus, Weyrich reasons, to inflame the flag is to defy the Ten Commandments and Mr. Big Stuff. Ahhh -- motivation. But what of separation of church and state?

My favorite recent blast from the Christian right was spewed by J. Bradley Keena, who toils with Weyrich at the Free Congress Foundation. In response to all the latest political talk about homosexuality, Keena remarked, "Missing from the zeal of many conservatives who denounce homosexuality is an equal condemnation of heterosexual sex outside of marriage." Referring to Apostle Paul's command to "flee fornication," Keena noted, "Conservatives who oppose the presidential appointment of an openly homosexual ambassador ought to also oppose the appointment of an openly immoral straight appointee. Conservatives who dencounce a TV sitcom about the sexual conquests of a lesbian ought to also denounce sitcoms that glorify other forms of sexual immorality." To this, one can only say, "Please, please." Let's have the religious right demand that appointees appearing before Congress state for the record if they ever frolicked beyond the confines of marriage. Let's have the religious right slam television shows, movies, and literature in which the unmarried dare copulate. And let's have the religious right push for a constitutional amendment to limit the right to this type of free association. (Hey, if God wants an amendment to ban flag-burning, surely he's all for one to prohibit extramarital whoopie.) Those who oppose the religious right would have a much easier time if all of the movement's leaders expressed themselves as freely as Keena. Here's hoping his star rises.

Bush League

The CIA's pals in Congress are moving to rename the spy agency's headquarters after George Herbert Walker Bush. Actually, attaching the four-part name of the former president to the complex in Langley, Virginia, would be highly appropriate.

In early 1976, Bush became CIA director and served for a year in the post. During his stint, he routinely defended his scandal-ridden agency from criticism and did his best to thwart or diminish congressional probes into CIA misdeeds. He protected the agency's relationship with Panama's thuggish Manuel Noriega. (When the Defense Intelligence Agency discovered that Noriega had purchased information from three U.S. Army noncoms in Panama, Bush elected not to prosecute the Americans. Doing so would expose the embarrassing fact that Noriega, a CIA asset, had been spying on his patron.) Bush, according to a Washington Post account of the time, told the Ford White House that the Chilean dictatorship had not orchestrated the car-bomb assassination of ex-Ambassador Orlando Letelier. In fact, the Chilean security service had engineered the terrorist act, and the Agency had possessed partial warning of the murder and done nothing to stop it.

Bush also tried to prevent the Justice Department from investigating whether the Agency had misled Congress about its actions in Chile (where the CIA had run a massive covert program designed to undermine the democratically elected government of socialist Salvador Allende, who was ousted in a bloody coup). And when Florida police were investigating the death of John Rosselli, a mobster who in the early 1960s had plotted with the CIA to assassinate Castro, Bush refused to allow the cops to talk to the CIA man who ran the Miami station in those days. Such protective actions made Bush a popular man at Langley.

During his years in the White House, Bush remained protective of the agency, which continued to add to its less-than-stellar reputation for integrity and effectiveness. It was when Bush was Vice President that the agency's contra program -- which Bush's national security team monitored -- relied on suspected drugrunners. And when Bush was President, the CIA missed the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It's fitting that Congress name CIA's HQ after a fellow who tried to smother information of CIA improbity and who championed an agency that hobknobbed with criminals and that failed in its primary mission. What's in a name? In this case, a lot of disgraceful -- and shared -- history.