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 : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (3741)7/23/2004 10:34:26 AM
From: Andrew N. Cothran  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
Kerry: War Zero By Don Feder

FrontPageMagazine.com | February 2, 2004

frontpagemag.com

I’m a citizen of Massachusetts. (God help me.) For going on 30 years now, I’ve watched John Kerry’s career with a mixture of fascination, revulsion and amusement.

John F. Kerry. The “F” stands not for fraud or fabulously coiffed – as one would suspect -- but for the Forbes family of Boston-Brahmin fame. His mama was one of the Back Bay elite, don’t you know.

However – a la the chameleon-like Zelig of the Wood Allen movie – nothing about Kerry is what it seems. He’s Irish, right? Well, actually, he’s part Jewish. (His paternal grandparents were Kohn, before they goy-icized their name.)

He’s a war hero who became an anti-war activist, when it looked politically advantageous. He’s a man with a common touch -- who married two rich women. One he dumped, when she was suffering from depression, after she bore him two kids.

A graduate of the snooty St. Paul’s and Yale – member of Skull and Bones, currently married to a lady worth over half-a-billion dollars -- nevertheless, he can prattle about this nation belonging “not to the privileged few, but to all Americans.”

He’s a moderate with a voting record more liberal than either Ted Kennedy or Dennis The Red Kucinich. Kennedy’s lifetime congressional rating from the if-it-moves-tax-it Americans for Democratic Action is 88 percent – compared to 93 percent for Mr. Middle of the Road. Kucinich’s lifetime score from the American Conservative Union is 15 percent. Kerry’s is 6 percent.

Is there anything about the war-hero/VC symp, “Irish”-Jewish-Brahmin, left-wing moderate, pro-abortion Catholic, patrician-tribune-of-the-people that’s real?

Actually, there is a stark consistency that runs through Kerry’s career – He’s an opportunistic, back-stabber who never met a commie he didn’t like. He also has chutzpah to spare.

In the late Sixties, Naval Lt. JG Kerry went to Vietnam, probably to round out a resume for the political future he was planning even then. He picked up some tin, which he later tossed over the White House fence as part of an anti-war demonstration. But, wait, they weren’t his medals, he latter revealed, but someone else’s who couldn’t make it to the protest. (This caused a Boston politician to quip: “Just like a Yankee. Throw’s away things that aren’t his.”)

One of Kerry’s medals was for killing an enemy soldier who supposedly was armed with a rocket launcher. Except, evidence suggests the fearsome foe was wounded at the time and may have been shot in the back. Perhaps this was a dress rehearsal for young Benedict’s eventual betrayal of the guys he fought with.

Anyway, upon arriving home, Kerry sniffed the political wind in Massachusetts – the only state McGovern carried -- and decided there was hay to be made opposing the war. Without missing a beat, the hero enlisted in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, nobly serving with such VC-lovers as Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark in the so-called Winter Soldier Investigation. Wonder if they’ll campaign for Johnny this year? The nascent New Leftist had no qualms about marching with scruffy Marxists carrying Viet Cong flags and signs with slogans praising Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung and Fidel.

But it wasn’t enough to merely oppose the war. Kerry had to smear his former comrades-in-arms as a bunch of degenerate, mutilating baby-killers.

The man who’s now running on his war record – and mentions his medals in every other breath – told a Senate hearing that Americans then bleeding and dying in the rice paddies were the moral equivalent of the Waffen-S.S.

In his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (April 23, 1971), Kerry charged that American soldiers had “raped, cut off ears, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of Vietnam.” Sounds like an Oliver Stone movie, scripted by Osama bin Laden.

No wonder a group of Vietnam vets turned their backs on Kerry when he spoke at the Vietnam War Memorial in 2002. Gen. George S. Patton (namesake of the World War II general) -- who led troops into combat in Vietnam – said Kerry “gave aid and comfort to the enemy.” Jeremiah Denton – who was being tortured at the Hanoi Hilton while Kerry was collaborating– could barely maintain civility toward the war hero, when they served together in the Senate.

If Americans in Vietnam were butchers and war criminals, what about the Viet Cong? Agrarian reformers, one and all, according to the sage of Boston. In those halcyon days of pot and protest, Kerry insisted the conflict was a “war of the people” fought by indigenous peasant reformers. The senator-to-be apparently had never heard of North Vietnamese regulars, Soviet aid or the Ho Chi Minh trail.

Kerry demanded not only an American withdrawal, but the cut-off of all aid to Saigon. If the wicked puppet state fell, at most 2,000 to 3,000 of its lackeys might face recrimination, Kerry assured us.

After Saigon became Ho Chi Minh City, an estimated 700,000 went through communist reeducation camps. Many never came out. Over a million boat people fled the indigenous, peasant reformers. The fall of South Vietnam led to the fall of Laos and Cambodia – and the genocide of the killing fields. And Kerry is actually trying to sell this foreign-policy expertise as a presidential credential.

When it comes to communism, terrorism and thugocracies, Kerry is hopelessly naïve—or willfully blind. As a senator, he fought against American aid to the government of El Salvador during the communist insurgency of the 1980s. He also opposed support for the freedom-fighting Nicaraguan Contras.

At the time, he described the Salvadoran military as “some of the most blood-drenched men on the planet.” Were the leaders of the Marxist regime which ruled Nicaragua equally savage? Kerry never said so. Daniel Ortega and Company must also have been indigenous, peasant reformers fighting “a war of the people.”

He’s never known to have uttered a word of criticism about Cuban intervention in the Central American conflicts or spoke harshly of Soviet imperialism. Oh, and our rescue mission to Grenada was “a bully’s show of force against a weak, third-world nation,” according to the likely Democratic nominee.

While Ronald Reagan was winning the Cold War, as a senator, Kerry was trying to hamstring the effort. He opposed the MX missile, B-1 Bomber and a missile defense system. Had the war hero prevailed, the Kremlin would still be in business, and opening branch offices all over the world.

The foreign-policy genius was still going strong in the ‘90s. In 1991, he voted against the first Gulf War. (Body-bags would becoming in by the thousands, the military expert predicted.) Chagrined at being on the wrong side of a popular war, and with the collapse of the World Trade Center still echoing in his ears, Kerry voted to authorize the president to use military force to rid humanity of Saddam Hussein.

But wait, that’s not what he really meant, the senator now endlessly explains. He was voting to give Bush the authority to spend the next decade in a futile quest for the UN’s approval. He was voting to give Bush the power to oust the loathsome tyrant once W had assembled a coalition including the valiant French, the altruistic Germans, the impartial and totally fair Belgians and everyone else from Eskimos to Fiji Islanders. AKA: How to support a war (in theory), while keeping your head-in-the-sand credentials intact for the surrender wing of the Democratic Party.

Besides attempting to undermine the war on terrorism on the Iraqi front – as he sabotaged the war against communism in Indochina – Kerry has even found time to bestow understanding on Columbia’s drug-dealing FARC terrorists. A year ago, in a speech in Boston, Kerry said Columbia’s narcotics-fueled insurgency “seems to be a renewal of a kind of chaos fueled partly by guerrillas who have legitimate complaints and the combination of drugs and war and the drug lord.” Can you say indigenous, peasant reformers? Of course you can!

Try imagining Kerry as commander in chief in the war on terrorism. What will he do, empathize with Al-Qaeda? (Surely, it has legitimate complaints.) Offer to send the junior Hamas members to St. Paul’s Prep School? Find rich widows for the mullahs and suicide bombers to marry? Or concoct stories of American atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan to feed to a credulous Congress?

John Forbes Kerry/Kohn is a man whose time came and went – roughly 30 years ago. He could be elected president of Hollywood, president of the Ivy League, president of the National Council of Churches, president of the Dixie Chicks or president of CNN. But president of the United States? Only if the American people have a complete and total memory failure – if the nation has collective amnesia for the next nine months.



To: Sully- who wrote (3741)7/23/2004 1:30:46 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT:

<font size=4>WHO'S THE LIAR?<font size=3>
John Porhoretz - NY Post

July 23, 2004 -- <font size=4>WHEN it comes to the historical record on the American response to al Qaeda, you now have to ask yourself: Whom do you believe, Clinton or Bush?

The 9/11 Commission report, which was released yesterday, features the following two disputes:

Dispute No. 1, between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush: <font color=blue>"Clinton recalled saying to Bush, 'I think you will find that by far your biggest threat is bin Laden and the al Qaeda'...<font color=red>

. . . Bush told the commission he felt sure President
Clinton had mentioned terrorism, but did not remember much
being said about al Qaeda. Bush recalled that Clinton
had emphasized other issues, such as North Korea and the
<font size=5>Israeli-Palestinian peace process.<font size=4>" <font color=black>


Dispute No. 2 is between <font color=blue>Samuel Berger<font color=black>, Clinton's national security adviser, and Condoleezza Rice of the Bush administration.
<font color=blue>
"In early January,"<font color=black> the report says, <font color=blue>"Berger met with Rice. He says he told her the Bush administration would spend more time on terrorism in general and al Qaeda in particular than on anything else.....<font color=red>

....Rice's recollection was that Berger told her she would
be surprised at how much more time she was going to spend
on terrorism than she expected, but that <font size=5>
the bulk of their conversation dealt with the faltering
Middle East peace process<font size=4> and North Korea." <font color=black>
<font size=5>
Two people are lying here, and two people are telling the
truth. <font size=4>

The question is, how can we tell the liars from the truth-tellers?

Clinton defenders will probably have no problem deciding that the current president and his Condi are trying to cover their tracks. They will believe anything that advances the <font color=blue>"Bush Lied"<font color=black> line.

Conservatives would argue that there's no contest. The Clintonites are lying. Bill Clinton is an astonishingly adept dissembler, after all, and Sandy Berger is right now trying to dig himself out of a preposterous lie he told by saying he <font color=blue>"inadvertently"<font color=black> removed classified material from the National Archives and then destroyed it.

I say unambiguously that he's lying because there's now no question he spirited away several drafts of the same document from the National Archives on two separate occasions. And yet he dares to claim his action was <font color=blue>"inadvertent."<font color=black> I mean, that's not even a good lie.

There's more evidence in the 9/11 report that Berger tried
to rewrite recent history during his testimony to the 9/11
commission.


The section of the report that deals with the American response to the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen includes this conflict between Berger and former CIA director George Tenet:
<font color=blue>
"Berger recalled that the intelligence agencies had strong suspicions, but had reached 'no conclusion by the time we left office that it was al Qaeda.'<font color=red> . . . Tenet told us he was surprised to hear that the White House was awaiting a conclusion from him on responsibility for the Cole attack before taking action against al Qaeda. He did not recall Berger or anyone else telling him that they were waiting for the magic words from the CIA or the FBI." <font color=black>

The commission report says explicitly that the failure to respond to the attack on the USS Cole was a missed opportunity that emboldened Osama bin Laden. It lays the blame for the failure to respond at the feet of both the outgoing Clinton and incoming Bush administrations.

Here we can see how the commission's failure to avoid the problem of hindsight becomes a fatal flaw.

Now, to be sure, had we launched the same war against al Qaeda in early 2001 that we did in October 2001, we surely would have disrupted the 9/11 attacks. But that's an unreasonable suggestion even in hindsight. The Cole attack, vicious though it was, killed 18 American servicemen and wounded more than 100. This nation would not have gone to war in Afghanistan to avenge such an assault before 9/11, even if Presidents Clinton and Bush had made 50 Oval Office addresses on the matter to rally public support.

The only possible retaliation would have been some kind of airstrike or Special Forces assault. The report itself casts doubt on the idea that a measured American response to the Cole attack would have been effective. Indeed, it suggests that bin Laden was eager for the United States to attack him.
<font color=blue>
"Back in Afghanistan, bin Laden anticipated U.S. military retaliation,"<font color=black> the commissioners write. <font color=blue>"There was no American strike. In February 2001, a source reported that an individual whom he identified as the big instructor (probably a reference to bin Laden) complained frequently that the United States had not yet attacked. According to the source, bin Laden wanted the United States to attack, and if it did not he would launch something bigger."<font color=black>

This detail supports President Bush's contention that a
tit-for-tat response would have been counterproductive.
<font color=red>"The president explained to us,"<font color=black> the report states, <font color=red>
"that he had been concerned lest an ineffectual airstrike
just serve to give bin Laden a propaganda advantage."
<font color=black> Evidently that's what Osama was hoping for.

I think there's a reason why an honest liberal Bush-hater could conclude that Clinton and Berger are lying. All they need do is apply Occam's razor (the principle that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one), and seek the most obvious answer to any question.

We know that at the time they were supposedly telling
their replacements that terrorism was the world's No. 1
problem, Clinton and Berger were making a last-ditch
effort to save the deal worked out at Camp David between
the Israelis and the Palestinians.


We know what was preoccupying them right then and there. It wasn't terrorism. It wasn't al Qaeda. It was the Middle East peace process.

That jibes with what Bush and Rice told the 9/11 commissioners.

It doesn't jibe with what Clinton and Berger told the commissioners.

Occam's razor slices pretty deep on this one.
<font size=3>
E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.com

NEW YORK POST



To: Sully- who wrote (3741)7/23/2004 2:14:09 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
McVisas for Saudis

By Joel Mowbray
Washington Times
<font size=4>
In an epic-sized 567-page report, the September 11 commission glossed over one of the most important aspects of the attack: All 19 of the hijackers entered the United States on legal visas, even though at least 15 of them didn't qualify under the law. And the panel mostly shrugged off the U.S. policy that Saudis were granted easier access to visas than any other Arab country.
<font color=red>
The commission's latest interim report emphasizes, perhaps unintentionally, the importance of easy visas to the September 11 plot.

The panel revealed that one of the biggest difficulties
faced by al Qaeda was getting Osama bin Laden's hand-
picked hijackers into the United States -- unless they
were Saudis.

<font color=black>
So easy visa access for Saudis cleared a major obstacle: Had al Qaeda had even one more hijacker, the White House or the Capitol might have met a different fate that day.
Three non-Saudis identified by the commission tried and failed to receive visas, including the would-be fifth pilot, Ramzi bin al Shieb, a Yemeni national. September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed didn't even bother having two other Qaeda operatives selected by bin Laden to apply for visas.

Why? Because, as an earlier staff statement noted, <font color=red>"It soon became clear to KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] that the other two operatives, Khallad bin Attash and Abu Bara al Taizi -- both of whom had Yemeni, not Saudi, documentation -- would not be able to obtain U.S. visas."

Afforded only a brief mention -- buried in a footnote on page 492 -- was a reference to what Mr. Mohammed reportedly told U.S. interrogators last year: that 15 of the hijackers were Saudis because they had the easiest time getting visas.
<font color=black>
The Saudi visa policy was the natural result of the <font color=red>"courtesy culture,"<font color=black> an effort spearheaded by the head of Consular Affairs, Mary Ryan, which started with her appointment in 1993. The goal was simple: make <font color=red>"customer"<font color=black> service and satisfaction the top priority in visa policy, where the <font color=red>"customer"<font color=black> was not American national security.

Though there is nothing inherently wrong with customer service, Ms. Ryan's regime advanced it to the detriment of security. Whereas <font color=red>the law known as 214(b) is very clear that all visa applicants are presumed ineligible until they prove otherwise, policies implemented by Ms. Ryan -- literally -- turned the law on its head.<font color=black>

Ms. Ryan systematically dismantled the interview requirement, something she described in a cable as <font color=red>"a very worthy goal."<font color=black> In fact, by 2001 the only required interviews at most posts were for refused applicants -- in order to give them an opportunity to overcome an initial denial.

Saudi Arabia, though, was at the cutting edge of the <font color=red>"courtesy culture."<font color=black> The General Accounting Office, in a report from October 2002, found that <font color=red>"consular officers in Saudi Arabia issued visas to most Saudi applicants without interviewing them, requiring them to complete their applications, or providing supporting documentation."<font color=black> GAO-compiled statistics show that pre-September 11 less than 3 percent of Saudis were interviewed, and less than 1 percent were refused. Compare that to neighboring Egypt, which had a 38 percent refusal rate in the year before September 11.

Practice in Saudi Arabia allowed the hijackers' woefully insufficient applications to be approved, yet this was only referenced in passing. From the first staff statement: <font color=red>"All 20 of these applications (from the 15 hijackers) were incomplete in some way, with a data field left blank or not answered fully."<font color=black> But then this issue is immediately dismissed as inconsequential: <font color=red>"Such omissions were common." <font color=black>

In truth, such omissions were only common in Saudi Arabia.
What the commission should have explained is that the errors and blank fields would have been serious enough for all of the applicants to be refused. A telling example is the U.S. destinations listed on the applications. This is hardly a trivial tidbit, as it is supposed to be used to determine if the travel plans are legitimate. The hijackers listed such specific locations as <font color=red>"California," "New York," "Hotel D.C."<font color=black> and simply <font color=red>"Hotel."<font color=black>

Practices have gotten somewhat better in Saudi Arabia since September 11. The most egregious program, Visa Express, which allowed Saudis to apply for visas at travel agents, was shut down in July 2002. Simply ending the worst policies, however, is hardly enough.

Thanks to two brave U.S. officials, though, not every potential Saudi hijacker got in. One unnamed consular officer in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, made the unusual move of interviewing Saeed al Gamdi. The Qaeda operative, whose nickname was <font color=red>"Jihad,"<font color=black> was refused by a consular officer who apparently followed the law instead of Ms. Ryan's dictates.

On Aug. 4, 2001, Qaeda operative and Saudi national Mohamed al Kahtani was moments away from meeting up with Mohammed Atta. That is, until he ran into an <font color=red>"experienced and dedicated"<font color=black> U.S. Customs inspector named Jose Melendez-Perez. Mr. Perez testified to the commission that he turned back Kahtani because the Saudi gave him the <font color=red>"creeps."<font color=black> But since Kahtani didn't have a return ticket or hotel reservations, Mr. Perez was correctly following the law.
<font color=red>
In highlighting these stories -- as well as the tales of
non-Saudis' difficulty in obtaining visas -- the
commission informed us that easy Saudi access to visas was
key to the plot. Too bad the panel leaves it to the public
to connect those dots.

<font size=3>
Joel Mowbray occasionally writes for The Washington Times.



To: Sully- who wrote (3741)7/23/2004 2:37:07 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Berger's Top Secret BVDs - Kerry Caught in Security Flap

Charles R. Smith
Thursday, July 22, 2004

There is an old proverb that reads, <font color=blue>"Anything important should go in your pants."<font color=black> Unfortunately, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger took this truism beyond its intended meaning.

Berger stands accused of stuffing his pants and socks with classified materials smuggled out of the National Achieves. Berger reportedly was examining a TOP SECRET - with code word - report on terrorism complied in the waning days of the Clinton administration.

Berger's mission was to assist Bill Clinton in his testimony before the 9/11 Commission by reviewing the documents. Instead, he now resembles a common shoplifter pirating CDs into his oversized pants on a cheap surveillance video camera.

Despite the denials by Berger and his attorney, Achieves staff caught the prominent advisor taking highly classified materials not once but twice. The second time the FBI got involved, searching Berger's home and office.

Berger has been under investigation since January for the strange actions. <font size=4>Democrats, trying to deflect the real issue of a major security breach by a major party figure, claim that this is all a Republican conspiracy since word of the investigation leaked just before the 9/11 report was to be issued.<font size=3>

Clinton Knew of Berger Bungle

Ironically, it appears that the news that Berger was being investigated leaked much earlier and not to a leading Republican figure.<font size=3>

According an interview given to the Denver Post, former President Bill Clinton said he has known about the federal probe of Berger's actions for several months, calling this week's news a <font color=blue>"nonstory."

"We were all laughing about it on the way over here,"<font color=black> stated Clinton at a book signing in Denver.
<font color=blue>
"I wish I knew who leaked it. It's interesting timing,"<font color=black> said Clinton. While Democrats may be pointing the finger at the too-frequently accused target of the <font color=blue>"Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"<font color=black> for the Berger leak - they managed to avoid certain obvious facts.

Clinton knew that Berger was under investigation. Yet, no one told current Presidential hopeful John Kerry. The news that Kerry's top <font color=blue>"unpaid"<font color=black> foreign policy advisor was being investigated for stuffing his BVD's with classified documents hit the candidate like a ton of dirty socks.

The Kerry camp cut Berger barely 24 hours into the scandal. The error in judgment has clearly cost the Kerry campaign, raising many questions about the Senator's ability to bring loyal staff into his camp.
<font size=4>
Why Didn't Kerry Know?
<font size=3>
It is a fact that Berger obviously knew he was being investigated. The FBI agents crawling all over his office was certainly a clue. Why not resign from the Kerry camp months before any story could possibly hit, therefore disconnecting the issue from Kerry?

There is no question that President Clinton certainly knew and the <font color=blue>"open-mouth-insert-foot"<font color=black> former President was happy to admit it. The fact that Berger was assisting Clinton in his 9/11 testimony by going to the National Achieves in the first place is a clue that he was talking to Berger.

Why didn't Clinton pass the information along to the Kerry camp months before any story could possibly hit, therefore disconnecting the issue from Kerry?

Topping the question of why not tell Kerry is an even more obvious clue. What possible political or personal mission could be served by Clinton not telling Kerry about the investigation?
<font size=4>
What Did Kerry Know?
<font size=3>
According to the latest news, some parts of the classified report are still missing. This brings on a second and larger problem of how much of this classified report may have been leaked to Kerry himself. It is quite possible that the Kerry campaign may face a visit from the FBI, asking some interesting questions.
<font color=red>
Kerry introduced his new anti-terror policy just days after Berger filled his socks at the National Achieves. One has to wonder where these brilliant ideas originated.

Take for example the fact that the Kerry camp has suddenly removed its set of talking points on "Kerry's plan to fight the war on terror" from its internet site. Why now when the 9/11 report is being issued? It would seem that now is exactly the right time to trumpet these ideas for fighting Osama and company.
<font color=black><font size=4>
Clinton Classified Comedy

All of this political comedy reminds me - a leading member of the vast right wing conspiracy - of the Clinton days in office. The mishandling misadventures of the boy-turned-president are enough to make any eye glaze over and roll up in the back of the head.

All too often secret materials would turn up lost or stolen and nothing ever happened. Clinton pardoned his former CIA chief John Deutch after top-secret documents were found on his home computer. Never mind the porno also found on Deutch's computer, which he blamed on his teenage kid.

Ira Sockowitz, a co-worker of John Huang, marched out the Commerce Dept. with over 2,000 pages of classified materials and no one asked him to stop. Sockowitz, who left right after Ron Brown died, took these highly classified materials and stored them in his personal safe at his new work site in the Small Business Administration.

The list of items taken by Sockowitz included details of satellite sales to China, secret encryption files from the NSA and uranium deals with Russia. Sockowitz was never charged. In fact, no one in the FBI or Justice Dept. ever even interviewed Sockowitz.

Then there were the 500 FBI files, including the file of former CIA Director Bob Gates, that landed inside the Clinton White House and the missing Whitewater files that disappeared down a wormhole in the D.C. universe, then somehow materialized again inside Hillary's reading room.
<font color=red>
Even Clinton's selection of Sandy Berger for National Security Advisor was curious since Berger served as a paid lobbyist for the Chinese communist government prior to taking the White House job offer.
<font color=black>
It is no surprise that Bill Clinton considers this most recent episode of classified comedy something to laugh about. Clinton never took the job seriously anyway. During Clinton's years in office, hardly a day passed without something or someone turned up violating national security.

The strange case of Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor to Bill Clinton and foreign policy advisor to John Kerry, appears to be a weird comedy skit.

However, to those of us who followed the sad tales of security screw-ups inside the Clinton White House the Berger story is pretty standard fare.
<font size=3>
www.newsmax.com



To: Sully- who wrote (3741)7/23/2004 5:37:58 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
<font size=4><font color=blue>It really doesn’t matter now what was in the documents from the National Archives that Mr. Berger says he inadvertently misplaced. The evidence in the commission’s report yesterday is more than enough to embarrass him thoroughly. He is a hardworking, warm man with a wonderful family, but his background as a trade lawyer and his dovish, legalistic and political instincts made him, in retrospect,the tragically wrong man to be making national security decisions for America in wartime.

That Senator Kerry had Mr. Berger as a campaign foreign policy adviser even before the archives scandal is enough to raise doubts about the senator’s judgment.<font color=black><font size=3>

The Boldness of the President ~~[More on the Berger story]
daily.nysun.com.

Publication:The New York Sun; Date:Jul 23, 2004; Section:Editorial & Opinion; Page:10

Reading the report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, we couldn’t help thinking of Justice Scalia’s great dissent in Morrison v. Olson. It’s the case in which the Supreme Court upheld the idea of an independent prosecutor. Justice Scalia warned of the danger that unleashing an uncontrollable prosecutor against a president could shake his courage. <font color=blue>“Perhaps the boldness of the President himself will not be affected — though I am not so sure,”<font color=black> he warned.

Well, look now to what the 9/11 report has to say about the man to whom President Clinton, under attack by an independent counsel, delegated so much in respect of national security, Samuel <font color=blue>“Sandy”<font color=black> Berger. The report cites a 1998 meeting between Mr. Berger and the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, at which Mr. Tenet presented a plan to capture Osama bin Laden.
<font color=blue>
“In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted,”<font color=black> the report says, citing a May 1, 1998, Central Intelligence Agency memo summarizing the weekly meeting between Messrs. Berger and Tenet.

In June of 1999, another plan for action against Mr. bin Laden was on the table. The potential target was a Qaeda terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. The commission report released yesterday cites Mr. Berger’s <font color=blue>“handwritten notes on the meeting paper”<font color=black> referring to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties." <font color=black>According to the Berger notes, <font color=blue>“if he responds, we’re blamed.”<font color=black>

On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: <font color=blue>“In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’ ”<font color=black>

In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden.This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a <font color=blue>“Predator”<font color=black> drone. Reports the commission: <font color=blue>“In the memo’s margin,Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’ ”<font color=black>
<font size=4>
In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times — Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today.

It really doesn’t matter now what was in the documents from the National Archives that Mr. Berger says he inadvertently misplaced. The evidence in the commission’s report yesterday is more than enough to embarrass him thoroughly. He is a hardworking, warm man with a wonderful family, but his background as a trade lawyer and his dovish, legalistic and political instincts made him, in retrospect,the tragically wrong man to be making national security decisions for America in wartime.That Senator Kerry had Mr. Berger as a campaign foreign policy adviser even before the archives scandal is enough to raise doubts about the senator’s judgment.

Neither Mr.Berger nor any other American is to blame for the deaths of Americans on September 11, 2001. The moral fault lies only with the terrorists, not with the victims. With the war still on,one can’t help but to ponder who might best defend the country going forward, and how.
<font size=3>
The commission’s report contains plenty of other valuable information. Many of the recommendations — to move operations functions to the Department of Defense from the CIA, to speed the transition between administrations so that key defense positions are not left vacant, to stress <font color=blue>“widespread political participation”<font color=black> in the Arab and Muslim world,to declassify the intelligence budget, to provide a written national security transition handover memo when administrations change — make sense.

Other aspects of the report, including the absence of serious recommendations for dealing with the terrorist threats from Syria or Iran, are harder to understand. The report is being taken seriously for its political ramifications for the Bush administration and for its policy recommendations. <font size=4>But perhaps its greatest value is
as a history — more, a sad epitaph — of the Clinton-Berger administration.

Why was it Mr. Berger rather than President Clinton himself making all these judgment calls? As the report puts it, these decisions <font color=blue>“were made by the Clinton administration under extremely difficult domestic political circumstances. Opponents were seeking the president’s impeachment.”<font color=black>
<font size=3>
One can blame the special prosecutor law or Mr. Clinton for agreeing to name a special prosecutor, or one can blame the underlying reckless behavior by Mr. Clinton that got him into the <font color=blue>“difficult domestic political circumstances.”<font color=black> Or one can blame the Republican Congress. No matter what one’s view of the underlying merits, it is hard to deny that one of the costs to the country was a preoccupied president. There’s no guarantee that, in the absence of the scandal and the prosecutor, Mr. Clinton would have acted against Mr. bin Laden. But the chances would have been at least somewhat increased, and it would have been Mr. Clinton rather than Mr. Berger making the call.
<font size=4>
The boldness of the president, in Justice Scalia’s phrase, had been lost, and the man left in charge, Mr. Berger, was not up to it. When we think of the repairs that need to be made in the coming months, it is of this: The need to carry on our national politics with an eye to protecting the boldness of our leaders and particularly in a time of war. It is something to think about amid one of the bitterest, most adhominem political seasons in the history of the Republic.



To: Sully- who wrote (3741)8/2/2004 3:02:34 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Excellent summary. Silent Running Blog

The 9/11 Commission Final Report (Round 1)

I've just spent good portions of the last three days reading the entire 9/11 Commission Final Report.

Incredible.

I've also caught a few interviews of some of the principals from the Commission - and it has been a lot easier to follow exactly what they're talking about, having seen the actual report.

The extracts that they're pushing as sound bites and interviews are only a small portion of what this thing contains. The detail that the report goes into is phenomenal. The report is imminently readable, but very, very long. The Executive summary does give a good overview - if you don't feel like plowing through the entire thing, it is a good extract/representation of the overall contents.

For all the ballyhoo surrounding the Commission - the grandstanding and posturing at the public sessions, the kafuffle about Gorelick's conflict of interest, the speculation swirling about the testimony of notables such as Clarke, and the recent revelations about Berger's antics - they all just sort of fall away as irrelevant. Because ultimately, the acts of these individuals, and the circumstances of the public displays, they don't translate as being evident in this final product. It's just too big and comprehensive to have been significantly damaged by any of that stuff.

Kean and Hamilton are basically correct in that it isn't a blame game document. While people will eventually read, dissect, and interpret certain portions as being reflective of blameworthy action, for one reason or another - as the report is, it doesn't pass judgments on individual circumstance - it just reports the facts, and draws overarching conclusions - without 'reaching out and touching anyone'. It is not, however, kind in its treatment of institutional or policy constructs that were found lacking on 9/11, or ineffective leading up to it.
<font size=4>
Several things do become clear from the accounting rendered within - it's a bit more obvious why Richard Clarke <font color=blue>'had the nerve'<font color=black> to offer a public apology during his testimony. Throughout the Clinton years, and into the early months of the Bush administration, he was THE terrorism guy at the NSC - if he wasn't pushing stuff, in a lot of cases, it wasn't getting done. And the evidence of that is provided by much more than Clarke's own testimony to that effect.

Also clearer are the potential motivations for Sandy Berger to want to shuffle documents at the National Archives - keep in mind, at the time he was conducting his hijinks, he had no idea how the results of the Commission's investigation were going to go - and from the events detailed in the final report, there is ample material to give rise to the notion that he probably had some sort of desire to make his, and possibly his boss' record on things look a bit better - although, on the other hand, there was just so much from that time period liable for criticism, that it could be argued that if that was his goal, he'd have had to back up a U-Haul truck to remove the material necessary to completely <font color=blue>'un-paper'<font color=black> what had gone on, or not gone on, in the Clinton White House. As it is, however, even if there had been embarrassing handwritten notations that Berger didn't want to see on preliminary draft material, it probably wouldn't have been highlighted as particularly damning to the Clinton folks, or Berger personally - but remember, he didn't know that, at the time.
<font size=3>
There will be a furious debate and discussion which is going to break out over the Commission's recommendations section, and not least of all because it is an election year. Half of the valid concerns are going to be slapped around with charges of parochialism, desires for foot dragging, not enough strawberry ice cream, and whatever else can be thought of. The other half of the discussions will probably receive the same treatment from those that put forward opinions on the first part.

I'd strongly urge anyone that intends to follow the debate of the recommendations to read the entire recommendations section before plowing into the noise that talking about it will certainly generate. The Commission has anticipated some of the obstacles that implementation will face, but there are some pretty imaginative folks out there that will certainly think of other reasons for complaints.

I can't say as I fully endorse all of the recommendations - some of the concepts are fairly complex, and it's going to take a while for it to percolate around. But I do agree with the Commission, that change of the structure and system is imperative to the continued Safety and Security of the United States of America.

No other proof than the fact that 19 guys barely beyond the level of buffoonery, directed by two other guys in a cave halfway around the world, were able to kill 3000 people in under two hours by exploiting our current weaknesses should be needed.
<font size=4>
The report gives a very explicit, and extremely chilling description of the enemy we face. Militant Islamic Extremists. They cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be bought, they cannot be pacified, and they want to kill us, even if they die in the attempt. And the only way to stop them is to deny them or disrupt their opportunities to act, until they are either arrested, or we kill them, before they attempt to act.

The report also points out that we are involved in a total war against these enemies - although we are not completely fighting a total war on all possible fronts. And it gives some examples of how the fight needs to be extended - because at the heart of it, it is a war of ideals - more starkly than the ideological battle of the Cold War between Democracy and Communism.

And this is just the beginning of my thoughts on this report - like I said, there is a LOT of stuff in there.
<font size=3>
silentrunning.tv



To: Sully- who wrote (3741)8/4/2004 5:28:05 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
GETTING SECURITY RIGHT

By JAMES JAY CARAFANO

August 3, 2004 -- <font size=4><font color=red>'HOMELAND Security System Actually Works."<font color=black>

No one head lined coverage of the 9/11 Commission report that way. But they should have.

Of course, the commissioners couldn't bear to say it outright. And few in the press could read it between the lines. <font color=red>But the panel's report pretty much endorsed everything that's been done since 9/11 to make us safer.
<font color=black>
On Sunday afternoon, we got another reminder that maybe some folks in Washington know what they're doing. The specific alerts — warning of potential terrorist attacks against key financial institutions in New York and other targets in Washington — showed that we are much better at identifying and responding to these threats than we were just three years ago.

Winston Churchill once said that Americans will always do the right thing . . . but only after they have exhausted all other options. He was a smart guy. After ignoring and fiddling with the threat of transnational terrorism for over half a decade, America finally got serious after 9/11.

The events leading up to Sunday's announcement from Homeland Security Czar Tom Ridge were most significant. The key decision didn't come as the result of Cabinet members huddling around an Oval Office coffee table and swapping Post-It notes. We were warned because a bunch of men and women tasked with protecting the homeland were out there doing their day jobs.

It all started with a <font color=red>"preemptive"<font color=black> strategy that calls for getting the terrorists before they get us. We found the terrorists because we practice international cooperation where it counts — working with friends and allies to ensure mutual security. In this case, the big break came from joint U.S.-Pakistani cooperation that rooted out at least two key al Qaeda operatives.
<font color=red>
Intelligence from computer records seized during the arrests in Pakistan was shared among the intelligence community. And it was shared within hours. Not only was it passed around, but representatives from intelligence and law enforcement got in one room and talked about it — something that would actually have been illegal before 9/11 and the passage of the Patriot Act.

Effectively sharing intelligence and connecting dots was one of the most strident recommendations of the 9/11 report. It's good to see Washington isn't waiting to put the principle into practice.

By Friday night, the Homeland Security Operations Center in Washington, D.C., had come alive. It's nothing sexy, just a nondescript room crammed with computers and flat-panel displays in the department's headquarters on Nebraska Avenue. But nothing like the center existed before 9/11. In those days, federal officials from across the government had no place they could go and coordinate a response to an imminent terrorist threat. Now they do . . . and they did.

Importantly, those federal officials did more than talk amongst themselves. They brought in key state and city representatives from the get-go, as well as CEOs from Wall Street and other commercial centers.

Even more remarkably, everyone knew what to do. There was no contentiousness, no complaining, no confusion. New precautions were ordered.

All this was done while Congress was away, without the
president having to tell everyone what do, and indeed,
with so little fanfare that the press didn't even know it
was happening until an hour before Ridge made the
announcement that the capital was going to <font color=orange>"orange."<font color=red> And,
you know what? That's the way it should be.


Perhaps most important, Ridge came out and told us what he is doing. The color-coded Homeland Security Advisory system created after 9/11 has rightly been criticized as a blunt instrument. Ridge's Sunday announcement was a vast improvement.

A good warning has to be recognizable, credible and
actionable. Sunday's warning was all three.

The rules are simple: Tell Americans what you can, when
you can — and let them live their lives. That's what
Homeland Security did, and it was the right thing to do.
<font color=black>
There is little room for complacency. There is still much to be done to make America free and safe, but Ridge's warning was a step in the right direction.

The terrorists we face are a dangerous enemy. But they're not 10 feet tall. They can be beaten. All we need is the courage, the confidence and the system to do the right thing. <font size=3>

James Jay Carafano is senior research fellow in defense and homeland security at The Heritage Foundation.

nypost.com



To: Sully- who wrote (3741)11/18/2004 3:21:16 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Clarke Testimony Released

It has been widely speculated that the Democrats will use Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearing as an opportunity to resurrect the charge that she failed to heed warnings about al Qaeda given by Richard Clarke during the transition from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. The point would not be to refuse to confirm her, but to once again use Clarke's charges to discredit both Rice in particular and the Bush administration in general.

We have repeatedly critiqued Clarke's baseless attacks on the Bush administration, which grew out of his disagreement with the administration's policy on Iraq. Examples are;
"Richard Clarke, Fraud,"
powerlineblog.com

"Clarke Takes a Beating,"
powerlineblog.com and

"Richard Clarke, Liar."
powerlineblog.com

If you search our site, you will find many other posts discussing Clarke's fictitious charges.

Clarke's credibility has long been in tatters, but the final blow was delivered today when the joint Select Committee on Intelligence released the transcript of his testimony before that committee on June 11, 2002. Clarke's testimony, with only slight redactions for security reasons, can be accessed here.


intelligence.senate.gov

Clarke's testimony is completely devoid of any suggestion that he delivered any warning of any kind to Rice or any other member of the Bush administration, let alone any claim that any such warning was disregarded. In fact, what is notable about Clarke's appearance before the Joint Committee is that the Bush administration was scarcely mentioned at all. There was a great deal of discussion about what happened during the Clinton administration, and Clarke generally tried to defend Clinton against criticism. But, with a single exception noted below, not even the most partisan Democrats on the committee, like Nancy Pelosi, tried to suggest that there was anything the Bush administration could or should have done differently during the brief time it was in office prior to September 11, 2001.

This is the complete text of Clarke's prepared testimony as it related to the Bush administration:


<<<
In 2001, the Bush administration, immediately upon coming into office, asked for a review of how we were organized on terrorism, on homeland security and on cybersecurity. The recommendation of that review was that we split the counterterrorism portfolio from the cyberterrorism portfolio. That was agreed by May in the principals committee, and I asked to be assigned to the cybersecurity portfolio, since I had done counterterrorism for 10 years.

The Bush administration also tasked in February [Ed.: That is, within a matter of days after taking office] a policy review of al-Qa'ida. That was developed over the course of the spring and resulted in a draft Presidential directive to eliminate al-Qa'ida. That Presidential directive was finalized by the principals in the first week in September.
>>>

That is precisely consistent with Rice's testimony before the Intelligence Committee.

Later on in Clarke's testimony, a Congressman asked whether the Bush administration failed to support the approval of two memoranda of notification relating to al Qa'ida (i.e., approvals for covert action). Clarke denied that this had happened:

<<<
You said they were not supported by the NSC [Ed.: The National Security Council, headed by Condoleezza Rice] during this administration in 2001. I think that is inaccurate. What occurred during the spring was that the Deputies Committee of the NSC, Deputy CIA Director, Deputy Secretary of State, et cetera, met four or five times to go over our policy with regard to these MoNs and with regard to [deleted] Afghanistan, al Qa'ida in general. Those MoNs were designed to be signed after the President signed the national security directive. Now, that national security directive on the eliminatin of al Qa'ida was approved by the principals on September 4th and was on its way to the President's desk on 9/11. So they were never disapproved. In fact, they were being incorporated in an overall package.
>>>

Specifically relating to the "warnings" that came out in the spring and summer of 2001 based on intelligence gathered overseas, Clarke testified that the Federal Aviation Administration and the FBI did what they could. They passed alerts on to 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies and to all airports and airlines. But the information was so general that nothing more effective could be done. See pages 62-63 of the transcript.

Clarke's testimony is actually very interesting. The thrust of the questioning is about why the Clinton administration didn't do a more effective job of pursuing al Qaeda during the 1990s. Clarke says that they tried, but were frustrated by institutional weaknesses whose roots went back at least to the 1970s. The biggest problem, Clarke argues, is that over a period of decades, the CIA was beaten up on so repeatedly by Congress over failed operations that the agency became too risk averse ever to act.

What happened here is pretty obvious. Clarke testified reasonably candidly in June 2002. But a year later, he had broken with the Bush administration over Iraq, and, like a number of other former bureaucrats, he turned his policy disagreement with the President into a personal attack. Clarke fabricated the story that he had delivered some kind of warning or secret plan to Condoleezza Rice, which she ostensibly failed to understand or to act upon
.

Clarke's tale briefly caused problems for the administration, until Clarke's credibility collapsed when it was revealed that his story was contradicted by his own contemporaneous words, as, for example, in a briefing that he gave to reporters in August 2002.

The Intelligence Committee's release of the complete transcript of Clarke's June 2002 appearance should be the last nail in the coffin of the Democrats' plan to use him to discredit Rice.


Posted by Hindrocket

powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (3741)11/22/2004 8:38:27 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
At his breakfast with reporters, Scheuer said that on 10
separate occasions his unit, codename "Alec," provided key
policymakers with information that could've lead to the
killing or capture of Osama bin Laden. "In each of those 10
instances," Scheuer said, "the senior policymaker in charge,
whether it was Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke, or George
Tenet," resisted taking action, afraid it would result in
collateral damage or a backlash on the Arab street. According
to Scheuer, Clarke's story has changed in the time since.
Clarke says the Clinton administration did all that it could
to fight terrorism, while the Bush administration was
derelict.

One of the reporters raised her hand.

"Just to clarify," she asked. "Did all these 10 instances
take place prior to the Bush administration
?"

Scheuer nodded.

"</u>That's correct," he said.
__________________________________________________________

I think they are both right about each other.

Scheuer v. Clarke

Why Michael Scheuer and Richard Clarke don't have nice things to say about one another.

by Matthew Continetti
Matthew Continetti is a reporter at The Weekly Standard.

MICHAEL SCHEUER doesn't have many friends. Former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit and author, under the pseudonym Anonymous, of Through Our Enemies' Eyes and Imperial Hubris, Scheuer has clashed with the likes of the late John O'Neill (who was the FBI's point man on terrorism in the 1990s, and died in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001), Sandy Berger (national security adviser under President Clinton), and former CIA Director George Tenet. Scheuer's conflicts with his employers grew so heated, in fact, that two weeks ago he left the agency forever. In Imperial Hubris, Scheuer criticizes the Bush administration, to be sure, but also senior intelligence officials, Clintonites, American "elites" in general, and much else. During his many public appearances throughout the last two weeks, Scheuer has leveled criticism at a new target: Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar whose book Against All Enemies, released last spring, said the Bush administration dropped the ball on terrorism in the run-up to September 11, and then again in the aftermath.

Clarke is "self-serving" and "risk averse," Scheuer told reporters at a breakfast last Friday. He was echoing comments he made to CBS News correspondent Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes:

KROFT: Richard Clarke has said that you're really sort of a--a hot-head, a middle manager who really didn't go to any of the cabinet meetings in which important things were discussed, and that--that basically you are just uninformed.

SCHEUER: I certainly agree with the fact that I didn't go to the cabinet meetings. But I'm certainly also aware that I'm much better informed than Mr. Clarke ever was about the nature of the intelligence that was available against Osama bin Laden, and which was consistently denigrated by himself and Mr. Tenet. I think Mr. Clarke had--had a tendency to interfere too much with the activities of--of the CIA, and our leadership at the senior level let him interfere too much. So criticism from him I kind of wear as a badge of honor.

The feud between Scheuer and Clarke first became public in a November Vanity Fair story on whether September 11 could have been averted. In the piece, Scheuer says Clarke "was an interferer of the first level, in terms of talking about thing that he knew nothing about and killing them." A 25-year veteran of the CIA, Scheuer was never a political appointee, and part of his disdain springs from what he views as Clarke's incessant politicking. "Mr. Clarke was an empire builder. He built the community, and it was his little toy." In Scheuer's view, Clarke's political aspirations interfered with important national security decision making. "He was always playing the FBI off against [the CIA] or [the CIA] against the NSA," Scheuer told Vanity Fair.

For the most part, Clarke has kept a low public profile since his incendiary testimony before the 9/11 Commission last spring. (There's a rumor that he's written a spy novel, part of which will be excerpted in an upcoming issue of the Atlantic Monthly.) Whatever the reason, he hasn't attacked Scheuer in public--at least not yet. But here's how he described Scheuer to Vanity Fair : "Throwing tantrums and everything doesn't help. Fine that you came to the same conclusion that we all came to, fine that you're all worked up about it, and you're having difficulty getting your agency, the rest of your agency, to fall in line, but not fine that you're so dysfunctional within your agency that you're making it harder to get something done."

One's first reaction upon hearing about the Scheuer-Clarke feud is to blame the narcissism of small differences. In other words, Scheuer and Clarke dislike each other because they have so much in common. Both were early advocates of forceful action against al Qaeda, both saw the enormity of the threat posed by Islamist terrorism, and both faced entrenched bureaucracies that were averse to change.

But there may be another explanation. Scheuer thinks Clarke is a risk-averse poseur who didn't do enough to fight bin Laden prior to September 11, 2001. At his breakfast with reporters, Scheuer said that on 10 separate occasions his unit, codename "Alec," provided key policymakers with information that could've lead to the killing or capture of Osama bin Laden. "In each of those 10 instances," Scheuer said, "the senior policymaker in charge, whether it was Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke, or George Tenet," resisted taking action, afraid it would result in collateral damage or a backlash on the Arab street. According to Scheuer, Clarke's story has changed in the time since. Clarke says the Clinton administration did all that it could to fight terrorism, while the Bush administration was derelict.

One of the reporters raised her hand.

"Just to clarify," she asked. "Did all these 10 instances take place prior to the Bush administration?"

Scheuer nodded.

"</u>That's correct," he said.



To: Sully- who wrote (3741)6/6/2005 11:00:00 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (50) | Respond to of 35834
 
THE 9/11 GRANDSTANDERS ARE BACK

By Michelle Malkin
June 06, 2005 02:22 PM

Ugh. The 9/11 Commission is back for another round of self-aggrandizement, armchair general-ing, and Bush-bashing. Winfield Myers at The Democracy Project has predictions and some advice:

<<<

If you were worried about a dull season ahead, the media feeding frenzy that would result from the reconstitution of this committee should relieve you of those worries, albeit at the expense of adding a thousand more of considerably greater weight.

So it's with great anticipation that I await new opportunities by the likes of Democratic bulldogs Richard Ben-Veniste and Jamie S. Gorelick, especially in light of the conflict of interests the latter's infamous wall of separation brought to last year's grandstanding. The Times reports that the committee, predictably, once again hopes to call senior administration officials, such as Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld, to testify -- or, perhaps more honestly, defend themselves -- before what is increasingly looking like a new Fifth Column in the federal government: the eternal tribunal, accountable to no one, responsible for nothing, and hungry for attention.

The entire scenario is a disgrace and a charade, and Republicans in Congress, the administration, and members of the conservative press (that means you, fellow bloggers) had better start the drumbeat of opposition to these poorly laid plans. All summers in Washington are long and hot, but there's no reason to allow this partisan crew to roast our top public servants for a second year in a row.

>>>

***
Update:

Reader Dave R. points out the Seattle PI's headline on its 9/11 Commission redux story. It's :

"Sept. 11 Panel Returns to Critique Bush."


Sez Dave: "Well, at least they have finally admitted what they thought their charter was."

Yep.


***

Flashback:

Commissioner Buffoon: Bob Kerry
nationalreview.com

michellemalkin.com

cbsnews.com

nytimes.com

democracy-project.com

seattlepi.com