Comments on: “The 9/11 Commission Wants Internal Emails”

By: Citizen92

Citizen92 — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:48:49 +0000

Nice find on WHCA! I should have some stuff up soon on this. Everything that’s old is new again.

By: phred

phred — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:29:33 +0000

Late to this thread MadDog, but just wanted to compliment you on the fine homework you’ve been doing lately. I love how the same names keep cropping up over and over again from the Nixon-Reagan-Bush 1 eras to the present reign of King W. Looking forward to whatever you may find next…

By: JodiDog

JodiDog — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:07:39 +0000

You seem to make a statement that is correct about “intent” but try to somehow slide it over to counter my “marked drafts” statement.

That just doesn’t wash very well.

We are talking about a published document’s evolution through conception, editing, re-editing and so forth.

As for Plame, there were several questions about whether or not she qualified under the IAIPA.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 03:48:31 +0000

That’s definitely a distinct possibility, yes. On quick scan I didn’t find other non-Clarke NSC emails.

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 03:01:13 +0000

Jodi, Jodi, Jodi…you do realize that ascertaining INTENT is an important element in determining whether someone has committed a crime, do you not, That’s hardly thought control. If someone acts with intent (a state of mind) you can have the very critical difference between murder and an accidental death.

It’s the distinction between unintentional neglect and criminal intent.

The whole issue as to whether the individuals in the Plame case had an intent to reveal her identity maliciously is what prevented prosecution under the Intelligence Agents Identity Protection Act.

By: mamayaga

mamayaga — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:52:15 +0000

…on an email from Clarke to Condi and Hadley. So it’s clear the White House turned over some of its emails, even some damning ones, to the Commission.

Was Clarke still working at the WH at the time this was turned over? Wikipedia says he quit in 2003. Possibly the WH turned that one over because the Commission had already seen it…

By: Rayne

Rayne — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:34:09 +0000

And no, co-mingled topics would not at the top of the reasons why they would get rid of email — but it’s one of the key reasons why there’d be swaths of emails taken out, rather than a helter-skelter pattern.

Why are we not seeing the use of distribution lists more often, for example, in the emails that have been produced? Look at the Addington list of exclusion terms — how many are distribution lists? People reply to distribution-sent emails, but they don’t always reply in the manner the originator intended. Much easier to simply kill off all distlist emails, particularly if there was heavy chatter on a distlist inside a given time frame.

By: Rayne

Rayne — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:28:49 +0000

They have produced emails, EW, but how much of it was the singular one-of topic stuff versus the stuff where they may have co-mingled topics?

By: Rayne

Rayne — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:26:57 +0000

They knew about it all, they already knew damned well about the hazards of email. They learned it all at the breasts of three previous Republican administrations.

Bet you when we find the date of publication, it’ll coincide with an event that triggered this little brain dump by Blanton. No wonder at all that National Security Archives has been all over this with CREW; Blanton knows exactly what the OVP has been doing with EOP network based on previous experience.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:24:45 +0000

That’s not what you originally asserted. You suggested it was such a problem that WH couldn’t face having any of their email turned over, in spite of the fact taht they HAVE SINCE!

There are lots of nefarious reasons why they might want to get rid of email. I just don’t see that the comingling of topics would be at the top–or even close to the top–of their list.