Sadly, No!

So where are they going?

Scott reminded us of President Bush’s all tough guy all the time approach
towards Iraq last Friday:

Remember that when we came into office, the President was
talking about Iraq very early on. He talked about the threat posed by Iraq
from the very early period in this administration. In fact, the very first time that the President and Prime Minister Blair met, they talked about how the sanctions on Iraq were not effective and how they weren’t working. And they talked about the importance of Iraq complying with all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. That was back in February of 2001.

Here is how William “Captain Hunch” Safire remembers Bush’s policy at the time (New York Times, February 26, 2001:)

George W. Bush’s foreign policy so far has made three mistakes
and missed one opportunity.

1) Pretending the easing of economic pressure on Iraq is the imposition of “smart sanctions.” Apparently Bush has decided to cave in to France, Russia and Syria and permit resumption of business-as-usual with Saddam Hussein. The trick is to acquiesce while looking fierce; hence our pinprick bombing of radar sites.

Although the mission was to “degrade” rather than destroy Iraqi air defense, all it degraded was our Air Force technology’s reputation for accuracy. Bush claimed success, however, in another mission — “to get his attention.” Saddam got the message, all right: Bush the Younger’s technique is to conceal a retreat from an inadequately enforced sanctions policy in a loud hail of ineffectual bombs.

We will now have what the administration labels “smart sanctions” — that is, few if any penalties for defying the world as Saddam uses new oil revenues to build his germ-war weapon in secret. [laughter] [Emphasis added]

Here is the New York Times (February 24, 2001:)

As the Bush administration tries to build international
consensus around a new, perhaps less punitive sanctions regime against Iraq, the reaction in the Iraqi capital runs from the contempt of Saddam
Hussein to something resembling a weary, believe-it-when-we-see-it shrug among the 23 million ordinary Iraqis who have endured a decade of incremental misery. [Emphasis added]

And the Jerusalem Post/AP (February 27, 2001:)

In a potential policy shift, US Secretary of State Colin Powell will recommend to President George W. Bush an easing of curbs on export of civilian goods to Iraq to make sanctions more palatable in the Arab world, a senior US official said yesterday.

Perhaps the sanctions were meant to be as smart as the President?

The mean spirited Seb contributed to this post. [Links added]

A rather strange exchange Friday (4/16/04) on Judy Woodruff’s Inside Politics between Tad Devine, senior adviser to the Kerry campaign and Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney campaign:

WOODRUFF: Very quick last word, because we’ve got to go to the Pentagon for breaking news.

DEVINE: I would just say this. Matt mentioned the [Bush] press conference. We would hope he holds a press conference in prime time every week between now and the election, because a few months of that is going to practically ensure John Kerry will win.

DOWD: That’s something we agree on.

Too good to be true?

Over at the Pentagon last Thursday (4/15/04), Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld breezed, blustered and bristled his way through a press briefing and offered these remarks about troop counts and the general situation in Iraq:

Q: And you’re fairly confident that after 90 days, you’ll be able to start drawing [troops] down to, say, 115,000, or you just don’t know?

SEC. RUMSFELD: You know me, I’m not going to set — it depends on the facts on the ground. We’ve said all along, from the very beginning, we’d use the level of forces that are necessary to prevail. That was true during the major combat operations, it’s been true during stabilization operations subsequently. And you can’t predict the future, you just simply cannot do that, so why bother? Why try?

And:

Q: I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying. Are you conceding that you didn’t anticipate that the level of violence that’s going on in Iraq now, the level of the insurgency, the fact that you’re taking more casualties now than you were a year ago when you were still in major combat, are you conceding that you didn’t anticipate that?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I am saying that if you had said to me a year ago, “describe the situation you’ll be in today one year later,” I don’t know many people who would have described it — I would not have — described it the way it happens to be today.

Rumsfeld’s dismissive, non-responsive, strategy-deficient comments are curious and infuriating, though hardly surprising. Remember, it was precisely a year ago when this same member of Bush’s Team Teflon? was just as contemptuous as he indignantly shrugged off international outrage and criticism about widespread looting and insecurity in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

While Chalabi and his merry band of mercenaries INC were scurrying off with Iraqi secret police and intelligence files, and as museums, ministries and munitions depots were being pillaged of anything and everything, Rumsfeld blamed the Chicken Little press and offered this incisive analysis:

Q: Do you think that the words “anarchy” and “lawlessness” are ill-chosen —

Rumsfeld: Absolutely. I picked up a newspaper today and I couldn’t believe it. I read eight headlines that talked about chaos, violence, unrest. And it just was Henny Penny — “The sky is falling.” I’ve never seen anything like it! And here is a country that’s being liberated, here are people who are going from being repressed and held under the thumb of a vicious dictator, and they’re free. And all this newspaper could do, with eight or 10 headlines, they showed a man bleeding, a civilian, who they claimed we had shot — one thing after another. It’s just unbelievable how people can take that away from what is happening in that country!

Q: Yes, but Mr. Secretary, I’m asking about what plan was there to restore law and order?

Rumsfeld: Well, let’s just take a city. Take the port city, Umm Qasr — what the plan was. Well, the British went in, they built a pipeline bringing water in from Kuwait; they cleared the mine of ports (sic); they brought ships in with food; they’ve been providing security. In fact, they’ve done such a lousy job, that the city has gone from 15,000 to 40,000. Now think of that. Why would people vote with their feet and go into this place that’s so bad? The reason they’re going in is because they’re food, there’s water, there’s medicine and there’s jobs. That’s why. The British have done a fantastic job. They’ve done an excellent job.

And, does that mean you couldn’t go in there and take a television camera or get a still photographer and take a picture of something that was imperfect, untidy? I could do that in any city in America. Think what’s happened in our cities when we’ve had riots, and problems, and looting. Stuff happens! But in terms of what’s going on in that country, it is a fundamental misunderstanding to see those images over, and over, and over again of some boy walking out with a vase and say, “Oh, my goodness, you didn’t have a plan.” That’s nonsense. They know what they’re doing, and they’re doing a terrific job. And it’s untidy, and freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They’re also free to live their lives and do wonderful things, and that’s what’s going to happen here.

How does Rumsfeld get away with continually spewing this kind of lame crap, year in and year out? Isn’t it time he be held accountable for at least some of the glaring strategic and military mistakes that the Bush administration has made in Iraq?

Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, who served for 39 years in the military and is a former chief of the U.S. Central Command, seems to think so. In an interview published Friday (4/16/04) in the San Diego Union-Tribune, Zinni had this to say about Rumsfeld’s comments the day before:

“I’m surprised that he is surprised because there was a lot of us who were telling him that it was going to be thus,” said Zinni, a Marine for 39 years and the former commander of the U.S. Central Command. “Anyone could know the problems they were going to see. How could they not?” …

“I think that some heads should roll over Iraq,” Zinni said. “I think the president got some bad advice.”

The article continues:

Out of uniform, Zinni was a troubleshooter for the U.S. government in Africa, Asia and Europe and served as special envoy to the Middle East under the Bush administration for a time before his reservations over the Iraq war and its aftermath caused him to resign and oppose it.

Not even Zinni’s resum? could shield him from the accusations that followed.

“I’ve been called a traitor and a turncoat for mentioning these things,” said Zinni, 60. The problems in Iraq are being caused, he said, by poor planning and shortsightedness, such as disbanding the Iraqi army and being unable to provide security.

Zinni said the United States must now rely on the U.N. to pull its “chestnuts out of the fire in Iraq.”

“We’re betting on the U.N., who we blew off and ridiculed during the run-up to the war,” Zinni said. “Now we’re back with hat in hand. It would be funny if not for the lives lost.”

Indeed.

We will return to our Three Stooges weekend marathon after this important word from the U.S. Department of Hooey:

Q Scott, yesterday, the senior administration officials who briefed us on the Middle East plan suggested that the early reaction, adverse reactions, from the Palestinians were based on the fact that they hadn’t seen the plan and that they were responding to three weeks worth of media reports about the plan. Now, presumably, they have had a chance to see the letters, the exchange of letters. They’re still reacting adversely. What is the administration doing to assuage the Palestinians that this deal actually is in their interest?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, we have remained in consultation with all parties. I don’t have any update on any consultation since yesterday, but we are going to, as the President pointed out, continue to consult with the Quartet, continue to consult with Arab nations, and continue to consult with all parties. The President said that this represents a real opportunity to move forward toward a viable, democratic state for the Palestinian — viable and democratic state for the Palestinian people.

Q Then why are they so opposed?

MR. McCLELLAN: And we will — we will continue to consult with all parties, including —

Q Why are they opposed?

MR. McCLELLAN: — including the Quartet, and make it known that the President’s views — the President remains committed to the two-state vision that he outlined and remains committed to the road map as the best way to achieve that two-state vision. And the Quartet has talked about that, as well. And Prime Minister Sharon reiterated his commitment to the two-state vision the President outlined.

This is — it is historic step that Israel will be withdrawing from Gaza, and withdrawing from parts of the West Bank. And that represents an opportunity to, as the President called it, it opens the door for progress toward a — toward a Palestinian state.

Q But the Palestinians don’t seem to think so.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we’ll continue — we’ll continue to talk with all parties in the region and make it clear that any issues involving final status negotiations are to be worked out between the parties. (WH Press Gaggle 04/15/04)

Just throwing stuff out here but, as with the August 06, 2001 PDB titled “Osama bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US”, one red flag might be the title of the negotiators’ recent hooey: Bush, Blair Discuss Sharon Plan. [Transcript of 04/16/04 Bush/Blair public appearance as a still-together couple in front of the press. Excerpt in the extension.]

The other might be the reluctance of the Palestinian people to define “a state“ as living in perpetuity in noncontiguous ghettos under the jackboot of the Israeli military. (For those who missed it, Mr. Blair will represent the Duchy of Palestine in the “negotiations”.)

And now back to our Stooges marathon. In the classic, Nyuk Nyuk, A Roadmap!, three bumbling auto valets knock coconuts trying to refold Schmoe’s roadmap nice-like and drive Mrs. Parkyurkarkus’s swank Bugatti off a cliff.

[Excerpt from the Bennifer of world leaders’ press conference in the extension.]
Read the rest of this entry »

Bush and his administration neatly (and sadly) summed up:

One of his senior advisers broke out laughing Wednesday as he recalled the persistence of reporters pressing Mr. Bush on the subject of remorse, suggesting that contrition would have been a sign of weakness that was both alien to Mr. Bush and more typically found in the corridors of the Democratic Party.

“We must return to the days of Jimmy Carter!” the aide said in a sarcastic invocation of a Democratic president that Republicans have long sought to equate with presidential weakness. “We must have malaise! We must have a weak president! We must have a morose Kerrylike apology!”

– New York Times, April 15, 2004

In what was billed as an unveiling of the President’s latest outfit, he once again appeared naked but for his usual flashy cowboy boots, big hat, and tie. White House watchers have long grown accustomed to the media not remarking on the President’s public nudity, but last night he made several astonishing announcements as well, which the mainstream media have chosen not to analyze in any way.

He announced that WMDs were found in Iraq. Though a prime justification for invading a sovereign nation which had not formally declared war nor in any discernable way threatened the US, this discovery didn’t elicit comment in follow-up questions. No one asked what kind of WMDs the President found, in what quantity, and the location of the discovery.

In another remarkable announcement that contradicts the findings of worldwide intelligence agencies and the 911 probe, the President also announced that Saddam Hussein was indeed involved with the 9-11 attacks. Except for 911 commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste’s categorical denial of any evidence suggesting such a thing on Air America this morning, other media had no reaction to the President’s shocking claim. His additional announcement that the invasion and occupation of Iraq prevented Libya’s application of mustard to a turkey on rye went similarly unexplored.

Nor did the unexpected appointment of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to the office of Secretary of State elicit post-speech questions, or even mild surprise. This isn’t really news as Rumsfeld has served as the administration’s de facto diplomatic representative abroad, showing his diplomatic skills with pithy statements like, “Hey France, fuck off!” and “Hey UN, fuck off.” Apparently, no media source has sought statements from former Secretary of State Colin Powell or newly-appointed DoubleSec Rumsfeld.

Reviews of the President’s latest outfit were largely positive, with more focus on the Great Leader’s confidence in his faith-based approach to clothing than on the actual items of clothing worn. (Real quotes and attributions in the extension.)

Calvin Woodward, Associated Press:

Well, he forgot his suit again but he’s not apologizing for the look. He’s sincere in his belief that he’s wearing one, though, which counts for something. On that he’s firm, which is also something. Hell, that’s the most important thing, because, as the President points out, Osama bin Laden dresses like shit. (04/14/04 AP/Woodward)

The Scotsman, op-ed:

First off, lefties dress like shite, alright? They make no apology, just sit back looking like shite. Shiites dress like shite. That bastard al-Sadr dresses like shite. Neo-cons might not make the appropriate choices in attire at all times, but Iraqis sure as shite dress like shite. Sure, John Kerry looks snappy occasionally but I’ll tell you who knew how to put himself together: Kissinger. And Condi? She knows how tough it is to dress appropriately all the time. The President looks fabulous and Mr. Blair looks snappy standing next to him. Maybe they’re not wearing pants, but what’s important is getting some clothes on those damn Iraqis. (04/13/04 Scotsman/Massie)

Christian Science Monitor:

Not everyone can pull off this look, but pull it off he does! What would you rather have: a President who wears pants, or someone who pretends so darn hard it’s like he’s wearing two, three, even four pairs? With an entire administration pretending just as hard, even Kerry supporters have to admit that’s an important asset.

The President is forceful, bold and manly striding forth in his “pants”. Will he cover his naked ass in the future? Who knows. Someday, at some future point, the administration may answer that question but for now, I’ll only ask it rhetorically and in a very very quiet voice. (04/13/04 CSM/Chinni)

Washington Post, Dana Milbank and Mike Allen:

He’s not wearing pants or a suit jacket, okay? Ahhhhgain. He’s not wearing a shirt either. No boxers or briefs, no loincloth. Not even an amusing, striped, novelty banana sock. He pretended pretty hard for most of his appearance that he was clothed but most of the time shivered like an unemployable Chippendales has-been. He appeared stunned for a moment when a courtier asked, hey naked guy, what’s up with the fucking nakedness? Kerry released a statement yesterday criticizing Bush’s pantslessness. The Bush campaign disagrees with that characterization and points to the President’s outstanding felted cowboy hat, which is big enough to be an outfit in itself, and beautifully stitched cowboy boots trimmed with real gold. They have also declassified documents showing that Richard Clarke once went out to his lawn to pick up his morning paper wearing nothing but a bathrobe. (04/14/04 WP/Millbank/Allen)

Associated Press, Jennifer Loven:

He sure was stylin last night, carrying off a bold, manly look not many ordinary guys would attempt. You don’t see this look on ordinary guys, because the President is no ordinary guy. Kerry said something or other about the importance of clothing and — blah blah blah who cares — the President sure looked classy explaining his classic sense of style to people who didn’t get the look he was going for. That’s because he’s a giant among men. I’ll bet he has an incredible cock. If you want an example of someone who is fashion clueless, check out that Osama guy. 04/14/04 AP/Loven

Washington Times opinion:

What a suit! What. A. Suit. It was the kind of menswear that would make Dolce & Fagbana rip out each other’s heart and eat it while still pounding a final resentful beat. Impeccably cut, of classic fabric with meticulous hand-stitched details, the only thing that could improve it was the selection of the perfect shirt. Amazingly, the shirt was better than perfect. It was pluperfect. It was more perfect than the shirt of Nessus would have been had it not burst into flame and burned alive its unfortunate contents. Who can match our courageous trend setter? Not the Iraqis with their pathetic droopwear or Kerry and Kennedy, who borrow each other’s loud ties. Oh, the fashion losers will harp on our President’s choice of accessories, but he’s not going to apologize or explain. He’s busy looking good for the American people, who seek his impeccable fashion guidance. 04/14/04 Washington Times – Lakely/Sammon

The New York Times:

The President appeared in public naked again. Why we strive for novel ways of saying this anymore, we don’t know. He was naked yesterday. He will be naked tomorrow. He’s a chronic nudist. If anyone should wear clothing, it’s him because his body is nothing to shake a stick at. More likely than not, his body will be shaking at the stick even while standing still. (04/14/04 NYT opinion)

Larry King Live:

Larry King: The President showed off his new outfit and earlier today, John Ashcroft was seen wandering around with his shvang showing and wearing a piece of baloney on his head. Mr. Kean, your review of the President’s outfit?

THOMAS KEAN, CHAIRMAN, 9/11 COMMISSION: Well, he wore what he wore and it’s not my place to judge his fashion choices. He did look good wearing it.

KING: Congressman Hamilton

LEE HAMILTON, VICE CHAIRMAN, 9/11 COMMISSION: He wasn’t exactly wearing pants, was he? I can see why people might object to that important omission of pants in what would qualify as a great suit.

KING: What about Ashcroft? The shvang? The baloney?

KEAN: Pants, no pants, we’re still looking at the cracks in the intelligence system. We know that those agencies do want to appear in public clothed. The important thing is that they be pantsed so as not to embarrass the Attorney General or the President in the future.

KING: Congressman Hamilton?

HAMILTON: This administration has given us a lot of good pointers on addressing rampant pantslessness in the government outside the Executive Branch.

…

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), KY, MAJORITY WHIP: The President was, and has been, impeccably dressed. His suit was outstanding. Did you see that fabric? Nice weave. Beautiful weave. The Afghans and Iraqis would die for such a weave. He’s going to set a trend around the world, just you watch. …

GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D), NM, FMR. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: Well, he did carry it off, I think. He wasn’t exactly wearing pants, was he? As for a trend, no one seems to be riding his coattails, which he doesn’t have cause he never wears a jacket either. 04/13/04 CNN/Larry King

Newsnight with Aaron Brown:

[Half an hour of surveillance footage show the President appearing publicly in increasingly abbreviated costume. Various angles, closeups, times and places dispute in advance that charges of the Great Leader’s public nudity are partisan, irrational or based on jealousy about his firm ass and incredible man-rod. Also caught on film: John Ashcroft with his pants down.]

JONAH GOLDBERG, “THE NATIONAL REVIEW”: Not everyone gets the President’s sense of style, which figures, but he may have to, at some point, choose his outfits more carefully. He does look fabulous, mainly because he’s as comfortable in his suits as he is in his own skin, but some people don’t get his look. The not apologizing is part of the look. Perhaps he might consider throwing on some kind of garment that covers the legs and groinal area while still allowing freedom of motion.

JOHN HARWOOD, POLITICAL EDITOR, “THE WALL STREET JOURNAL”: Bottom line, he looked good. Not everyone could pull off that look. He can.

JUDY GOODFLUFF, CNN: Well some reporters made negative comments about the President’s outfit but he’s comfortable in what he’s wearing so I guess that’s something. I don’t know if he’s setting off a trend, though. I don’t know, I just don’t know. I barely pass the bare minimum requirement to be Soylent Green.

…

FAREED ZAKARIA: I’ve seen what people are wearing around the world. No one dresses like this or wants to. He looked ridiculous. He wasn’t wearing pants, a jacket, a shirt, a vest, underpants, socks, sock garters. He didn’t carry a linen hankie, a billfold, an appropriate watch. He had neither a collar bar nor a stickpin. No one dresses like this in the Middle East and what’s more, they have the same sense to cover their gonads as to come in out of the rain. Look, no one’s going to wear that atrocity Bush wore yesterday. Not NATO, not the UN, not France or Germany. He keeps comparing his look to the kind of classic styling of Truman and Roosevelt. Pardon me, they wore pants. They’d never appear publicly in that ridiculous get-up Bush was wearing.

…

HOSNI MUBARAK, PRESIDENT, EGYPT: Tell Ariel Sharon to put on some fucking pants. We’re sick of looking at his fat ass.

BROWN: Palestinians dress like shit or are often completely and offensivelynaked.

MUBARAK: They don’t have closets, dressing rooms, or a pot to piss in. But put some fucking pants on Sharon already. 04/13/04 CNN/Aaron Brown

(Actual quotes and sources in the extension.)
Read the rest of this entry »

In a recent newspaper interview, Karl Rove said:

“Take a look at the language of this president and how he has treated political opponents and compare it to previous administrations — particularly his most immediate predecessor,” says Rove, senior advisor to the president and the guy who runs Bush’s political operation.

“You will find that he treats political opponents with dignity and respect,” says Rove, who visited El Paso earlier this week for a Bush fund-raiser. “You will not see the kind of personal vindictiveness and vicious comments that came out of the previous administration.”

When Bush needles a political opponent, he usually does so with “a bit of good humor,” Rove says.

“He has definitely changed the tone in Washington,” he says. El Paso Times, 4/10/04

Personal vindictiveness? Not us!

A senior White House aide told NBC News on condition of anonymity this week that Bush personally ordered his aides to launch the counteroffensive against the book, which the aide said Bush saw as a political assault. MSNBC, 3/25/04

Vicious comments? Never!

President Bush’s top aides launched a ferocious assault on the former White House counterterrorism official who accused Bush of failing to act on the al Qaeda threat before Sept. 11, 2001, and strengthening terrorists by pursuing a misguided focus on Iraq.

… Vice President Cheney, on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, said the counterterrorism coordinator “wasn’t in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff.” Cheney suggested Clarke did not do enough to prevent three attacks during the Clinton administration and said “he may have a grudge to bear there since he probably wanted a more prominent position.”

… In addition to Cheney’s radio appearance, Rice was a guest on all five network morning shows, and by 11 a.m. the White House had booked more than 15 interviews on cable news channels, as well as numerous talk-radio appearances, over the next nine hours. White House press secretary Scott McClellan spent much of both of his briefings yesterday arguing that Clarke’s book was politically motivated and timed. “This is Dick Clarke’s ‘American grandstand,’ ” McClellan said.

“His assertion that there was something we could have done to prevent the September 11th attacks from happening is deeply irresponsible, it’s offensive, and it’s flat-out false,” McClellan said. He said Clarke had interviewed to be the deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, then left the administration after being turned down. McClellan said Clarke was repeatedly absent from Rice’s daily morning meeting for her senior directors after being told to attend.

McClellan sought to tie the book to Sen. John F. Kerry’s presidential campaign by saying that Clarke’s “best buddy” is Rand Beers, who resigned as a top counterterrorism official at the National Security Council after the invasion of Iraq and later became Kerry’s coordinator for national security and homeland security issues.

Rice, on Fox News, said: “Dick Clarke was counterterrorism czar for a long time with a lot of attacks on the United States. What he was doing was — what they were doing apparently was not working. We wanted to do something different.” Washington Post, 3/23/04

Dignity and respect for political opponents? Absolutely!

In their effort to undermine Clarke, Bush’s aides departed from some of their most cherished practices. They invited reporters into West Wing offices where they rarely tread, for on-the-record interviews with top officials. They released an e-mail from Clarke to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that they say is at odds with the account Clarke gave during his testimony to the independent panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They said he was disgruntled because his application to be deputy director of the Department of Homeland Security had been rejected.

An official also read reporters an e-mail that Rice had sent Clarke chastising him for skipping several of her morning staff meetings.

Perhaps most surprising, aides who routinely spar over such distinctions as “White House official” and “senior administration official” allowed Fox News to unmask Clarke as the anonymous briefer in an August 2002 White House conference call that highlighted the administration’s efforts in the war on terrorism. The administration’s allies say Clarke’s statements that day conflict with allegations in his book. Washington Post, 3/26/04

Thanks for setting us straight on this, Karl – I’m sure Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson are still chuckling over their encounter with the Bush administration’s “bit of good humor.”

Tuesday (04/13/04):
9:30am – 11:00am Louis J. Freeh (former Dir. FBI)
11:00am – 12:30pm Janet Reno (former AG)
12:30pm – 1:30pm Break
1:30pm – 2:00pm Staff statement
2:00pm – 3:30pm Thomas J. Pickard (ex Acting Dir. FBI)
—— Amb. J. Cofer Black (CIA Counterterrorism)
3:30pm – 4:45pm John Ashcroft (AG)

Wednesday (04/14/04):
9:00am – 9:30am Staff Statement
9:30am – 11:00am George J. Tenet (Dir. CIA)
11:00am – 1:00pm Mr. John O. Brennan (Terrorist Threat Integration)
—— Lt Gen Patrick M. Hughes (Homeland Security)
—— Mr. John S. Pistole (FBI Counterterrorism)
—— Mr. James L. Pavitt (Dep. Operations CIA)
1:00pm – 2:00pm Break
2:00pm – 2:30pm Staff Statement
2:30pm – 4:30pm Robert S. Mueller III (Dir. FBI)
—— Ms. Maureen Baginski (FBI)
4:30pm Hearing concludes. Press Availability.

Schedule from the (9-11 commission official site).

Preview of the questioning:

Much of the questioning of Ashcroft and others today is expected to center on the summer of 2001, when the U.S. government was experiencing an unprecedented surge in intelligence information indicating plans for a terrorist attack by al Qaeda. On Sept. 10 of that year, Ashcroft formally denied a $50 million request from the FBI to hire more counterterrorism agents and intelligence researchers, according to witnesses and Justice Department documents. Pickard, who took over as acting director after Freeh left in June 2001, has privately told the commission that he was frustrated by Ashcroft’s lack of interest in terrorism, officials familiar with his remarks say. …

“Since I became director of the FBI in September 2001, the Department of Justice and the attorney general have provided substantial support to FBI budget requests, including increases for our counterterrorism needs,” said Mueller, who is scheduled to testify tomorrow. But a budget document dated Oct. 12, 2001, shows that the White House slashed an emergency request for FBI counterterrorism funds by two-thirds and that Ashcroft, working within those limits, cut the FBI’s request for items such as computer networking, foreign-language intercepts and cybersecurity. (04/13/04 WP/Eggen)

A second memo given to “senior government executives” omitted several salient details that were included in the August 06, 2001 PDB:

Just one day after President Bush received a pre-Sept. 11 briefing on al-Qaida’s effort to strike on U.S. soil, senior government executives received a similarly titled memo that excluded information about current threats and investigations, say federal officials who have read both documents. The Aug. 7, 2001 memo, known as the senior executive intelligence brief or SEIB, didn’t mention the 70 FBI investigations into possible al-Qaida activity that Bush had been told of a day earlier in a memo entitled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S.,” the officials said Monday … [The memo] also did not mention a threat received in May 2001 of a U.S.-based explosives attacks or say that the FBI had concerns about recent casing of buildings in New York, the officials told The Associated Press. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the senior executives’ memo remains classified. (04/13/04 AP/Solomon)

Web access: NPR
Pacifica
C-Span has live streaming video and audio
CNN has it on CNN Radio (see the right hand column)

Update: added excerpt from AP article
Update: added times to schedule

Too chickenshit to schedule an impromptu press conference in his preferred Thursday prime time slot and incur the wrath of Apprentice fans tuned in for the finale, Preznit Photo-op will appear during prime time Tuesday (April 13, 2004) instead. He will pretend to take penetrating pre-screened questions from hard-hitting reporters he refers to as Stretch, BooBoo, Dr. ‘Zah, Animal and Buns of Steel. The drama comes in when the Preznit tries to deliver his pre-rehearsed focus-tested answers without slipping into candor or flashing some man-boob during a wardrobe malfunction. Described in reports as a rare prime time press conference, also rare in this administration is what’s known as an actual press conference, a quaint ancient tradition involving “journalists” questioning government officials about matters more relevant to the public’s needs than to the government officials’ needs. (Who knew?)

A note to cynics: the White House Department of Hooey was too modest to come come up with the idea of abusing the public airwaves for a choreographed, flattering presidential appearance. Maverick John McCain made the suggestion while munching on a homemade cream puff baked by Department of Hooey intern Tim Russert on Sunday (04/11/04) on Press the Meat):

MR. RUSSERT: Should the president address the nation?

SEN. McCAIN: If not an address to the nation, certainly a press conference, I would recommend.

Nor did Hooey come up with the idea to deny the 911 commission the 60-day extension required to offset Bush’s stonewalling and complete their report. (That was GOP polecat Dennis Hastert.) Public outcry quickly inspired the administration flip flop on that position, resulting in an additional flip flop on releasing one page of the Aug 06/2001 PDB, and a possible future flip flop on releasing the remaining 10/11ths of it.

The following is from CNN’s Late Edition. Carie Lemack’s mother Judy LaRoc was aboard AA Flight 11 when it crashed into the north WTC tower on 911.

CANDY CROWLEY: Is it possible that they did do all that could reasonably be expected? But in hindsight, of course, you’d rather they’d gone in a different direction.

CARIE LEMACK: Well, I’d look back at a book that was written by Bob Woodward, in which he quotes CIA Director George Tenet. Apparently on September 11th, that morning, he was breakfasting, and when he was told that two planes had been flown into the World Trade Center, he said, “That has to be bin Laden and those guys in the flight schools.”

If Mr. Tenet knew, and Dr. Rice didn’t know, and the president didn’t know, that causes some concern for me. We were also told on Thursday at the hearings, by Dr. Rice, that there were, as we see in this PDB, there were 70 FBI investigations. But Commissioner Gorelick said that, after interviewing thousands of people at the FBI, none of them knew about it.

So, there’s still a lot of information that hasn’t come out. And to say that everything has been done spectacularly — that this administration would have done nothing different, that does upset me, because I can tell you this: My mother was a CEO of a company, and if she had failures, or her direct reports had failures, then she was accountable. And we have not seen accountability in this administration.

I agree, I’m very happy that this PDB was declassified. But I have to tell you that it took the work of many family members many years. We fought for 14 months against the Bush administration, for this commission. He did not want to have it. When we finally got a commission, we had to fight for it to have subpoena power. We then had to fight to have it extended. We’ve been coming up against roadblock after roadblock from this administration. … I’d have a lot more faith if they hadn’t been so adamantly opposed to finding the truth. (04/11/04 CNN Late Edition)

(Extended excerpt in the extension)

Alternate viewing choices: Stanley Cup Playoffs (check your regional listings); your loved ones, reading the entire 04/11/04 CNN Late Edition transcript with LeMack and Richard Ben-Veniste.
Read the rest of this entry »