SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (13132)6/6/2002 3:08:23 AM
From: jttmab  Respond to of 93284
 
There are some very excellent points made in the article...[not in order]

The attorney general was obviously completely confident of the rightness of these changes, and their necessity in fighting terrorism, but it surely doesn't hurt that he can be equally confident of the overwhelming support of the U.S. public.

Some observers just shook their heads in world-weary disbelief. Do these guys really remember nothing of our history, several people asked me. One former Justice official promised to contact me in five years and we would share a laugh about what he predicted would be a huge FBI scandal resulting from these changes. ...

...Further, the Center pointed out, "There is no indication that the FBI's Sept. 11 failures were in any way a result of those guidelines, but rather bureaucratic and cultural failures."


Yup, they are 'fixing' a non-problem and in the process setting up a system with huge potential for abuse.

And much of the reassignment of agents had been leaked and anticipated for weeks if not longer; my Gentle Readers have known for months that the bureau would be pulling out of most drug investigations, except for those of major organizations or where removing agents from multi-agency task forces would be detrimental to an investigation.

I know that I've taken issue with the topic of drug money and terrorism. But the Administration has made a big point of saying that drug money funds terrorism and they control investigative asset allocation. So, if the Administration believes that drug money funds terrorism, why would they remove agents from drug investigations? On the other hand, from a previous article I posted, the FBI was conducting a 13 month investigation on one brothel in New Orleans. Why didn't they pull those investigative resources off and redirect them to terrorism. [Scratch head]

In fact, in the past week to 10 days, the FBI's press coverage got so bad one almost would have thought that former Director Louis Freeh's chief of staff was again honchoing its public relations.
P.R. 101 would have dictated that as soon as Minneapolis Agent Coleen Rowley's letter became public (which of course it did within nano-seconds of being delivered to Capitol Hill), Mueller should have gotten out in front of it, declaring that the problems she complained of were just the very thing that he was planning to fix, that this is why he needs to make these changes, why he needs new agents, new technology, new resources, etc., and by the way, none of this happened on his watch.


That definitely would have been smart, but that's not the policy of the Administration. The policy of the Administration is to deny everything negative; lie if need be [see New Republic editorial on the White House press Secretary].

But more than a few cynical reporters leapt to the assumption that since Mueller was being lauded so highly [by Ashcroft], it must mean he was in trouble.

Sometimes it's hard to differentiate cynicism from consistent experiences.

jttmab