Comments on: All the News That’s Not Fit to Print

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:22:12 +0000

I’m gonna move up to the other thread for the comprehensive response, but I’ll just say, again, on a fundamental point, I agree: Rice should have been fired. But I guess I would say the flaw in the 9-11 Commission Report in that regard was that it was all (or almost all) there – certainly there was more than enough in the report to compel the conclusion that she should be fired – but was less full-throated than it could and should have been in making clear that Rice should be fired. However, that was in part a failure in the reception of the report too.

I will add that, just as a reading experience, I was actually quite surprised at how damning of Rice the report was, given the closeness between her and the Commission’s Executive Director.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:32:14 +0000

I think it’s better about misleading as to facts, and some of it is in fact not there–particularly regarding the animosity bet Rice and Clarke, and her decision to freeze him out. That may not be Zelikow’s fault–before Holland, I didn’t blame it on Zelikow specifically, I blamed it on the fact that the WHOLE Commission was rife with conflicts, Zelikow most of all.

What Condi did in the lead-up to 9/11 should have gotten her fired, if only for political reasons (though I think she is in fact incompetent). Her role was soft-pedaled, she kept her job, and continued to be incompetent in Iraq and still in Iraq.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 04:27:58 +0000

I don’t disagree with that, to a large extent. Two separate things: a lot of what was in the Holland summary was pretty innocuous, or anyway not so damning. But second, I think the 9-11 Commission report, even if underplaying some things that it should play up, could be a lot worse – put it that way. It seems to be mostly there, and it’s not like the SSCI where it is consciously and deliberately, and effectively, misleading as to facts.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:18:43 +0000

Wow. I just absolutely disagree that Zelikow didn’t soft-pedal Rice’s role. The report describes her ignoring clear warnings in the most bureaucratic of language, and ignores a lot that Clarke was trying to do. And I disagree, too, that this stuff is innocuous.

But beyond that fact, Zelikow should never have been in this role. Taking it was a profoundly poor decision.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:02:23 +0000

If you look at the original excerpt/summary posted at that blog, most of the stuff is just extremely negative spin on pretty innocuous stuff. There are basically three troubling things: the contact with Rove; the phone message business with his secretary; and the notion that the report soft-pedaled the culpability of Rice. The latter I’ve already said what I thought about it. The abcnews report suggested that the Shenon book was flatly wrong about the rules regarding contact with someone like Rove; and the Newsweek suggests further that it had nothing to do with the Commission (though I’d like to know just how Rove was interested in the University of Virginia, which seems odd). And we’ll just have to see about the phone message stuff. Marcus appears to contradict elements of it, no?

So on the one hand, a lot of the specifics of what we’ve heard from Shenon melt away; on the other, as I’ve said, you’d have to be superhuman to face what your friend and colleague had done and not done and not be affected by it.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:50:06 +0000

What attacks on Zelikow do you see to be insubstantial?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:47:23 +0000

Look, I agree to the extent that it is almost impossible for me to imagine anyone directing something like the 9/11 Commission report and not going easier than he should on as close a colleague as Rice was to Zelikow. In that sense, it makes no real sense to have Zelikow doing the report, not because of anything particular about Zelikow, but sheerly because of his closeness to Rice. Still, the substance of the report is very damning of Rice, if you read it.

And all I was saying in that comment really is that just as some of the attacks on Zelikow seem to be insubstantial (as they really do), there seem to be criticisms of others involved as well.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:42:15 +0000

This comment came off to suggest I’m all in favor of using the espionage statute in such cases–I’m not. My point though is, we don’t know. There have been reports that there is a lot more there. If that were true, I might feel like they were trying what they needed to to get the bigger there there. But I don’t pretend to know the contents and direction of a secret grand jury inquiry.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:23:56 +0000

Not a lot of sympathy from the left? AIPAC is extremely influential among parts of the left. If they were looking for someone who wouldn’t be protected among the left they would have sought out someone who was stalking Hillary or leaking details about corruption of a left idol.

Plus, the notion that “DoJ is almost certainly using this case to set precedents to go after journalists” is pretty amazing. Don’t you think, for better or worse, they’re simply using subpoenas to go after people they believe traffic in classified secrets? If anything, the precedent would pertain to OTHERS (pointedly not journalists) who traffic in classified secrets.

We don’t know everything about this investigation–why they decided to focus on this and use such non-traditional means of prosecuting it. There has been a lot of reporting that they were investigating something they believed to be much larger than just Franklin and a couple of AIPAC guys. Who knows? If that’s true than perhaps they’re trying to use non-traditional means for a reason they feel is very important.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:17:55 +0000

No wait. I’m mistaken.