What would Christopher Hitchens say to this?
Aargh. Timing is everything in this blogging environment. I wrote the following post yesterday, only to find that blogger.com had an "equipment problem" and couldn't accept any posts. Anyway, I still think it's an important story...
The blogosphere is in an uproar over the front page story in [yesterday's] Wall Street Journal over some guy's theory that Bob Dylan lifted a number of lyrics on "Love and Theft" from an obscure Japanese biography titled "Confessions of a Yakuza."
Maybe so. But it's weird how no one seems to be paying much attention to the other front page story in today's Journal, with the headline "Full Disclosure: White House Hurdles Delay 9/11 Commission Investigation." Can't give a link because the Journal charges a subscription.
It seems that the White House is doing everything it can to avoid turning over sensitive documents to the so-called 9/11 Commission and hampering the investigation at every turn. Two reasons: First, make sure that as little as possible evidence is found showing that the administration ignored warnings that al Qaeda was an imminent threat (a real one, unlike other threats), including Sandy Berger's discussion with Condi Rice, in which he told the dainty doctor that al Qaeda would prove to be her "biggest issue." Second, drag the thing out so as little as possible is found before the deadline in May of next year (Congress had asked for a two-year commission, which would have had the findings coming out in September 2004, just in time for the presidential election, but the administration insisted on an 18-month, rather than 24-month, investigation).
"…from the commission's inception…the White House has put obstacles in its way," writes Scot J. Paltrow in the Journal.
"At the White House's insistence, an adviser to Attorney General Ashcroft has been reviewing all of the commission's requests for documents and interviews sent to federal agencies. While the law establishing the commission requires it to build on a classified, nearly 900-page report of a Congressional inquiry into intelligence agencies, the White House blocked the commission's access to that report until two months ago.
"…President Bush successfully opposed the creation of the commission for more than a year. He said publicly that an independent investigation would distract leaders from his newly declared war on terrorism. After a joint House and Senate intelligence committee inquiry found that some information related to the Sept. 11 hijackers had been mishandled by the [FBI] and [CIA], Congressional support for a commission mushroomed. The White House then reversed itself and on Sept. 20, 2002, announced its 'strong support' for a commission.
They then haggled with Congress over the deadline, because "'The quicker we learn the information that can come from the commission, the better we can protect America from another 9/11,'" [according to an administration spokesman]. The White House doesn't want the commission's work to drag late into the presidential campaign, he adds, because 'the last thing we want is for the 9/11 commission to become politicized.'"
Hmm.
The commission is divided evenly, with five republicans and five democrats, but Bush demanded that he pick the chairman, originally choosing that great American, Henry Kissinger, then deciding upon former Jersey guv, Tom Keane, who has not proven to be very aggressive when dealing with the administration's obstacles.
To issue a subpoena, six of the 10 commissioners have to approve. Originally, the co-sponsors of the bill, McCain and Lieberman, want five to be sufficient. The White House would have none of that, ensuring that votes fall on party lines.
"The administration also decided that the commission would have to channel its requests to obtain documents and interview personnel from the justice department through Adam Ciongoli, counselor to the attorney general.
"…Commissioner Max Cleland, a former Democratic senator from Georgia, says that Mr. Ciongoli is acting as a political gatekeeper, 'cherry picking' the documents the White House wants to withhold. 'It's obvious that they're sifting the information to the 9/11 commission now,' he says. 'We're way, way late here. The picture is not encouraging."
The plot thickens as Ciongoli is leaving the DoJ to accept a job at AOL!
Meanwhile, the administration has been playing stupid budget tricks to hem the commission in, but was embarrassed by Congress into coming up with funds that had already been allocated.
And they're playing fast and loose on whether Bush would testify or not, if asked (Clinton's spokesman wouldn't comment). Don Bartlett, the White House spokesman, says "President Bush isn't likely to testify under oath but said 'we have not ruled out' some sort of interview. 'Our concern is that enemies who hate America do not get information which could help them attack America,' he says. 'Our goal is to remove politics from the process.'"
Let me parse that last statement for you: "Our concern is that enemies who hate Bush do not get information which could help them attack Bush. Our goal is to remove any political advantage the Dems may get from this process."
Meanwhile, the families who lost loved ones in the World Trade Towers wonder if they'll ever get any answers and also wonder if they'll have to witness another devastating attack, simply because the FBI and CIA - and the Bush administration - sweep the blame under the Oval Office carpet.
Today, of course, the administrion caught a break. They can now deflect criticism back to Clinton. What liberal bias in the media? The story leaves the impression that the DoD and DoJ are footdragging against Bush/Cheney wishes. I don't buy it. This administration is the most secret-obsessed since Nixon and Kissinger were hiding foreign affairs issues from their own Secty of State.
At least they might have to reveal one or two secrets, but I'm not all that hopeful, and if they do, it will probably be after the 2004 election. After all, the Bush/Cheney track record with the courts has been uniformly positive.
What liberal bias II? Michelle Norris's interview of Condi Rice on Monday's "All Things Considered" was maddening. Softball after softball is lobbed at Rice, and she lets Rice get the last word and change the direction about "no nukes" in Iraq, by saying that "everyone knew Saddam had WMD." The issue is, why did the administration knowingly use forged documents, disingenuously say that they were from "British intelligence," then rush us into a war to stop Hussein from developing a nuclear capability in one or two years? Why, knowing the Niger documents were bogus, did we have to weaken NATO, further alienate most of the western world, and ensure that we'd have virtually no international support in post-war Iraq?
Talking Points Memo has a string of interesting posts on this evolving story.
What liberal bias III: Eric Alterman catches this story in today's Times. I was struck by the same thing. Suddenly, the Saddam-9/11 connection is taken as confirmed reality by the press, when it's been the subject of intense debate for two years?
*****
As good as the Red Sox are offensively, they are psychologically not in a great place, letting Steinbrenner rattle them no less. They seemed totally dispirited after a weekend in which they blew the Yankees away in two games, then got beat by two amazing pitching performances by Pettite and Mussina. Geez, guys, if the results had been reversed, I'm betting the Yankees would have said they were disappointed in not winning 3 of 4, but all-in-all, not a bad weekend.
Alex Belth finds a story that Alan Barra's been fired by the Times. Only the New York Times can manage to make their sports section controversial. Too bad he got caught in the Raines cross-fire. His columns were usually pretty interesting.
Aargh. Timing is everything in this blogging environment. I wrote the following post yesterday, only to find that blogger.com had an "equipment problem" and couldn't accept any posts. Anyway, I still think it's an important story...
The blogosphere is in an uproar over the front page story in [yesterday's] Wall Street Journal over some guy's theory that Bob Dylan lifted a number of lyrics on "Love and Theft" from an obscure Japanese biography titled "Confessions of a Yakuza."
Maybe so. But it's weird how no one seems to be paying much attention to the other front page story in today's Journal, with the headline "Full Disclosure: White House Hurdles Delay 9/11 Commission Investigation." Can't give a link because the Journal charges a subscription.
It seems that the White House is doing everything it can to avoid turning over sensitive documents to the so-called 9/11 Commission and hampering the investigation at every turn. Two reasons: First, make sure that as little as possible evidence is found showing that the administration ignored warnings that al Qaeda was an imminent threat (a real one, unlike other threats), including Sandy Berger's discussion with Condi Rice, in which he told the dainty doctor that al Qaeda would prove to be her "biggest issue." Second, drag the thing out so as little as possible is found before the deadline in May of next year (Congress had asked for a two-year commission, which would have had the findings coming out in September 2004, just in time for the presidential election, but the administration insisted on an 18-month, rather than 24-month, investigation).
"…from the commission's inception…the White House has put obstacles in its way," writes Scot J. Paltrow in the Journal.
"At the White House's insistence, an adviser to Attorney General Ashcroft has been reviewing all of the commission's requests for documents and interviews sent to federal agencies. While the law establishing the commission requires it to build on a classified, nearly 900-page report of a Congressional inquiry into intelligence agencies, the White House blocked the commission's access to that report until two months ago.
"…President Bush successfully opposed the creation of the commission for more than a year. He said publicly that an independent investigation would distract leaders from his newly declared war on terrorism. After a joint House and Senate intelligence committee inquiry found that some information related to the Sept. 11 hijackers had been mishandled by the [FBI] and [CIA], Congressional support for a commission mushroomed. The White House then reversed itself and on Sept. 20, 2002, announced its 'strong support' for a commission.
They then haggled with Congress over the deadline, because "'The quicker we learn the information that can come from the commission, the better we can protect America from another 9/11,'" [according to an administration spokesman]. The White House doesn't want the commission's work to drag late into the presidential campaign, he adds, because 'the last thing we want is for the 9/11 commission to become politicized.'"
Hmm.
The commission is divided evenly, with five republicans and five democrats, but Bush demanded that he pick the chairman, originally choosing that great American, Henry Kissinger, then deciding upon former Jersey guv, Tom Keane, who has not proven to be very aggressive when dealing with the administration's obstacles.
To issue a subpoena, six of the 10 commissioners have to approve. Originally, the co-sponsors of the bill, McCain and Lieberman, want five to be sufficient. The White House would have none of that, ensuring that votes fall on party lines.
"The administration also decided that the commission would have to channel its requests to obtain documents and interview personnel from the justice department through Adam Ciongoli, counselor to the attorney general.
"…Commissioner Max Cleland, a former Democratic senator from Georgia, says that Mr. Ciongoli is acting as a political gatekeeper, 'cherry picking' the documents the White House wants to withhold. 'It's obvious that they're sifting the information to the 9/11 commission now,' he says. 'We're way, way late here. The picture is not encouraging."
The plot thickens as Ciongoli is leaving the DoJ to accept a job at AOL!
Meanwhile, the administration has been playing stupid budget tricks to hem the commission in, but was embarrassed by Congress into coming up with funds that had already been allocated.
And they're playing fast and loose on whether Bush would testify or not, if asked (Clinton's spokesman wouldn't comment). Don Bartlett, the White House spokesman, says "President Bush isn't likely to testify under oath but said 'we have not ruled out' some sort of interview. 'Our concern is that enemies who hate America do not get information which could help them attack America,' he says. 'Our goal is to remove politics from the process.'"
Let me parse that last statement for you: "Our concern is that enemies who hate Bush do not get information which could help them attack Bush. Our goal is to remove any political advantage the Dems may get from this process."
Meanwhile, the families who lost loved ones in the World Trade Towers wonder if they'll ever get any answers and also wonder if they'll have to witness another devastating attack, simply because the FBI and CIA - and the Bush administration - sweep the blame under the Oval Office carpet.
Today, of course, the administrion caught a break. They can now deflect criticism back to Clinton. What liberal bias in the media? The story leaves the impression that the DoD and DoJ are footdragging against Bush/Cheney wishes. I don't buy it. This administration is the most secret-obsessed since Nixon and Kissinger were hiding foreign affairs issues from their own Secty of State.
At least they might have to reveal one or two secrets, but I'm not all that hopeful, and if they do, it will probably be after the 2004 election. After all, the Bush/Cheney track record with the courts has been uniformly positive.
What liberal bias II? Michelle Norris's interview of Condi Rice on Monday's "All Things Considered" was maddening. Softball after softball is lobbed at Rice, and she lets Rice get the last word and change the direction about "no nukes" in Iraq, by saying that "everyone knew Saddam had WMD." The issue is, why did the administration knowingly use forged documents, disingenuously say that they were from "British intelligence," then rush us into a war to stop Hussein from developing a nuclear capability in one or two years? Why, knowing the Niger documents were bogus, did we have to weaken NATO, further alienate most of the western world, and ensure that we'd have virtually no international support in post-war Iraq?
Talking Points Memo has a string of interesting posts on this evolving story.
What liberal bias III: Eric Alterman catches this story in today's Times. I was struck by the same thing. Suddenly, the Saddam-9/11 connection is taken as confirmed reality by the press, when it's been the subject of intense debate for two years?
*****
As good as the Red Sox are offensively, they are psychologically not in a great place, letting Steinbrenner rattle them no less. They seemed totally dispirited after a weekend in which they blew the Yankees away in two games, then got beat by two amazing pitching performances by Pettite and Mussina. Geez, guys, if the results had been reversed, I'm betting the Yankees would have said they were disappointed in not winning 3 of 4, but all-in-all, not a bad weekend.
Alex Belth finds a story that Alan Barra's been fired by the Times. Only the New York Times can manage to make their sports section controversial. Too bad he got caught in the Raines cross-fire. His columns were usually pretty interesting.
posted by John at 4:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home