Sadly, No!

Hi. I’m director-schlockmeister Mel Gibson. When I started out as an actor-hunk, I never dreamed I’d one day add my contribution to a genre of filmmaking that’s been decidedly unspiritual in its rendering of sublime themes and subject matter. Typified by excessive hype, controversy, all around bad feeling and, dare I say it, BOFFO BOX OFFICE out of proportion to its quality and substance, I’m proud to say that my recent film, Mad Pax, The Passion, is now a crappy classic in a historically crappy genre.

But right now, I want to ask everyone to put all that “Good Friday” tsouris behind us — did I say that right? — and concentrate on the simple joys of Easter day. Let’s unite in a joyful celebration of Spring after a long hard Winter and look forward to a year of joy and prosperity. Let’s think of fresh green grass and frolicking baby animals, which like many symbols of the day represent Life’s perpetual renewal. Share some traditional delights like brightly colored eggs and sweet treats with your kids, because children embody what the day is all about. And in the spirit of giving, allow me to share with you an Easter dish that’s become part of my family tradition and I hope will become part of yours.

It’s called Cassoulet Lapin au Romarin or Rabbit Stew with Rosemary, a succulent, easy to prepare dish of rabbit, sausage and fresh spring beans, delicately scented with rosemary and bay leaf. It’s simple to prepare but your family and guests will think you endured extreme torture, slaving over a hot stove while brawny centurions flogged you senseless. If you’re unfamiliar with the traitorous French language, here’s the Franglais translation.

And please, if you don’t enjoy rabbit or have never tried it, do reconsider. It’s a lean, sweet meat that lends itself, as does game generally, to robust full-bodied flavors and hearty accompaniments. If you’re a hunter, set traps or aim your gun at some wild coney. Or do it Cheney style: set a few of the tame little buggers free in a penned enclave and open fire on them with totally legal and patriotic automatic weapons. Even horrendous sportsmen like Cheney and his hunting buddy Fat Tony Scalia should bag a few. If you’re watching your cholesterol, this pays off double for you, as the rabbit is both low in the artery clogging goo plus wily enough to give you a waddle in the fresh air that will do your ticker good.

Preparing them requires nothing more than a simple flaying, disjointing and pounding down of the parts. Before you know it, your kitchen will be filled with a delectable aroma that will drive your family and guests wild with anticipation. And lo, there will be wailing and lamenting like the sound of underpaid extras on the set of a biblical epic for you to get the stuff on the table already. A few recipe notes, if you can’t find Toulouse sausage, use chorizo, Macedonian or Italian sausage instead. Rosemary infused olive oil can be replaced with simple olive oil and fresh rosemary instead.

And there you have it, Cassoulet Lapin au Romarin, from my table to yours. Enjoy it with a crusty baguette and a crisp salad of microgreens dressed with a mustard vinaigrette, or as part of a more complex buffet. A musky, woody wine would be a nice accompaniment, or a crisp Pilsener lager. And whether my movie has you wallowing in a self-indulgent sense of false spiritual suffering — or, in the case of Jews, cinephiles, or people appalled by how I’m coarsening the culture, excrutiating real pain from my film — you can always try the dish with a sponge soaked in vinegar and bile. Whatever way you like it, it’s a delish dish. Cheerio, mates! Mel.

(Inspired by this Easter incident. If you have any difficulty with the Franglais translation, I’ll add a more legible one in an extension to this post. Happy Easter!)

I’m a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn’t true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it’s important for us to deal with them. – President George W. Bush, Meet the Press, February 8, 2004

Exactly what war is that man talking about? If he wants to run for election on his record as a “war president,” I certainly hope it’s not this one:

The array of challenges the United States now faces in Iraq seems to have emerged almost overnight but is actually the accumulation of mistakes, miscalculations and missed opportunities since Saddam Hussein’s government collapsed a year ago, say U.S. officials and Iraq experts, including some who worked with the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority.

So begins Robin Wright in her excellent piece “Series of U.S. Fumbles Blamed for Turmoil in Postwar Iraq” in today’s Washington Post. Here are some of the Bush administration’s mistakes, miscalculations and missed opportunities that Wright cites and analyzes in her article:

* failed to identify powerful Muslim clerics who might influence politics

* miscalculated the number of ground forces necessary to stabilize “postwar” Iraq (past peacekeeping and reconstruction missions have used a calculation of 20 men per thousand inhabitants; Washington calculated just over six per thousand Iraqis)

* failed to move quickly or decisively enough after Hussein’s sudden fall to fill the power vacuum

* appointed an Iraqi Governing Council made up largely of people who had limited following inside Iraq, with no outreach to the Sunni minority

* insisted that the Defense Department rather than the State Department run the postwar effort, something the Pentagon hadn’t done on this scale for at least 50 years

* abruptly disbanded the Iraqi military “leaving about 400,000 disgruntled men who were armed and trained” without jobs and, initially, pensions … and without any accounting of their arsenal of weapons

* summarily ejected all Baath party officials …

Well, you get the idea, though our “war president” doesn’t seem to. Maybe Bush was talking about Afghanistan and the war on terror?

AC-130 gunship raked insurgents Friday night after hundreds of women and children fled the besieged city of Fallujah during a U.S.-declared pause in the Marine offensive. On the anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein ‘s regime, Baghdad and parts of central Iraq were chaotic. … Many families, emerging from their [Fallujah] homes for the first time in days, buried slain relatives in the city football stadium. (AP 04/09/04)

Al-Sadr on Friday demanded U.S. forces leave Iraq, saying they now face “a civil revolt.” “I direct my speech to my enemy Bush and I tell him … you are fighting the entire Iraqi people,” al-Sadr said in a sermon, delivered by one of his deputies at the Imam Ali Shrine in Najaf, Shiite Islam’s holiest site. (AP 04/09/04)

Throughout the week, Arabic-language television networks have repeatedly aired images of U.S. tanks rumbling through Fallujah, a mosque damaged by a U.S. bomb and the corpses of Iraqis killed in the heaviest fighting in almost a year. … Leading Arab newspapers and clerics have praised Iraqi insurgents and the emerging anti-U.S. alliance among Sunni and Shiite Muslims as a turning point in the fight against the occupation. (WP 04/10/04)

There are rumors that many of the 25 Governing Council members have fled abroad, fearful of assassination because of their association with the Americans. The ones who are left appear on the verge of resigning. (04/10/04 Juan Cole)

AND THEN TRAGEDY STRUCK

As [OLN Host Roland] Martin and his crew cleaned the boat for another excursion on the pond, Bush’s entourage pulled up. “He said, `Hey, Roland, sorry it didn’t work out. I had things to do.’ … “He really wanted to finish [fishing], but he had all his things to do.” Martin believed that events in Iraq had forced Bush to cancel the Saturday shoot. (AP 04/10/04)

An Associated Press piece today discusses how George Bush is becoming more verbose, at least in his remarks to political audiences (but certainly not, of course, in his remarks at press conferences or to the Sept. 11 commission).

There are several other examples where Bush alone accounted for all the verbiage: a 54-minute speech in Charlotte, N.C., on Monday on job training, 51 minutes in Wisconsin late last month on the economic help from his tax cuts, and 45 minutes on the same topic in Cleveland on March 10.

Bush’s standard speech to purely political audiences also has swelled, from a reliable 24 minutes last year to routinely well over 30. …

… White House communications director Dan Bartlett said the trend is by design – the president’s. Bush has told his schedulers and speechwriters to build in more time so he can walk audiences through the many “really important things going on in our country and our world.”

“He takes that role seriously, as sort of educator-in-chief,” Bartlett said.

I’m with Tyler Crotty – wake me up when it’s over.

… But we can disclose contents of a classified July 4, 2001 memo while you wait because it serves our current political needs (even though it was issued from the offices of a man we have been calling Satan for the last several weeks).

From today’s New York Times:

Also on Friday, the White House offered evidence that the Federal Bureau of Investigation received instructions more than two months before the Sept. 11 attacks to increase its scrutiny of terrorist suspects inside the United States. But it is unclear what action, if any, the bureau took in response.

The disclosure appeared to signal an effort by the White House to distance itself from the F.B.I. in the debate over whether the Bush administration did enough in the summer of 2001 to deter a possible terrorist attack in the United States in the face of increased warnings.

A classified memorandum, sent around July 4, 2001, to Condoleezza Rice, the president’s national security adviser, from the counterterrorism group run by Richard A. Clarke, described a series of steps it said the White House had taken to put the nation on heightened terrorist alert. Among the steps, the memorandum said, “all 56 F.B.I. field offices were also tasked in late June to go to increased surveillance and contact with informants related to known or suspected terrorists in the United States.”

Parts of the White House memorandum were provided to The New York Times on Friday by a White House official seeking to bolster the public account provided a day before by Ms. Rice, who portrayed an administration aggressively working to deter a domestic terror attack. …

… The White House on Friday put off a decision on declassifying the document at the center of the debate ? the Aug. 6 briefing, titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.” But the administration appeared ready to release at least portions of the document publicly in the coming days.

The memo from Mr. Clarke’s group in July 2001 about F.B.I. activities adds another piece of evidence to the document trail, but it is unlikely to resolve the questions over whether the administration did enough to deter an attack.

White House officials, who spent several weeks attacking Mr. Clarke’s credibility, said Friday that they believed the memo from his counterterrorism group was an accurate reflection of steps the White House took to deter an attack. But they questioned whether the F.B.I. executed the instructions to intensify its scrutiny of terrorist suspects and contacts in the United States.

So, Dick Clarke was a disgruntled, partisan, racist, sexist, out-of-the-loop hack with a “weird” lifestyle, but we’ll certainly use his work product to try to point the finger of accountability at someone, anyone else?

So, the August 6, 2001 PDB memo was just a “historical” document with no fresh intelligence for us to act upon, but only a month earlier the July 4 memo clearly shows how seriously we took the terrorist threat and how quickly and efficiently we responded to it, but others didn’t?

I’m not really sure what to make of all of this; the discordance and contradictions that spew forth daily from this White House continue to amaze me.

But I certainly smell two things: dishonesty and fear.

The RNC’s latest drama of deflection — those unflappable steely-eyed conservatives always seem to be hurling themselves onto the fainting couch over something — was all about how debunking Condi’s spree of public lying was plain old racism. (See the extension for attributions and more extensive quotes in context.)

“If the Democrats want to slap around an African American woman, let them try.” – ex RNC head Rich Bond

“Congressman, do you believe, you’re a sophisticated guy, do you believe watching these hearings that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?” – Robert Novak

“Isn’t that just like a liberal? The chair-warmer describes Bush as a cowboy and Rumsfeld as his gunslinger — but the black chick is a dummy. Maybe even as dumb as Clarence Thomas. Perhaps someday liberals could map out the relative intelligence of various black government officials for us.” – stAnn Coulter

“Look, I’m going to answer the question. But first let me ask you something, Sean. And I’m serious about this. You know, if this were a Democrat administration and Condoleezza Rice were in it, as a black woman as she is, do you think all these assaults and attacks on Condoleezza Rice would be permitted by the Jesse Jacksons?” – Rush Limbaugh

“Perhaps Rice is a Valkyrie after all, but a newer model: beautiful, brown-eyed and dark-skinned. A carrion-eating raven feasting on the roadkill formerly known as the 9-11 commission. Horns of mead at the ready.” – Kathleen Parker

Is Condi a viable symbol of the “new” color-blind Republican party? Negro, please. I mean, Sadly, No! She’s the Preznit’s black chum, so to speak, useful as long as she puts the divinely-appointed Preznit’s election interests before the duties of her position, but one of the first to be tossed to the sharks if she doesn’t. (Look at the yo-yoing of Colin Powell. Good Negro when he was holding up that fake anthrax at the UN, but a Bad (Disposable) Negro when he was putting the State Department’s (and the American people’s) concerns before the immediate spin needs of Commander Codpiece’s excellent Iraq adventure.)

The anniversary of Dr. King’s assassination passed several days ago with very little commentary in the mainstream media, just as Easter week processions in many countries around the world were starting up. The hooded costumes of penitents in Spain and many other countries are striking for their resemblance to a group famous for it’s distinctly unrepentant use of costume and cross.

Lower Middle: Ku Klux Clan;
Left, Upper Middle, Right: Easter Week Penitents

You don’t have to look very far to see the appalling cynicism of the Bush administration in their attempts to exploit African Americans for expedient photo-ops. Whether it’s trying to engage the Black Congressional Caucus for an eleventh hour electioneering photo op after ignoring them all administration long, or compiling a flip-book of compassionate conservatism that’s a running racial joke, nowhere is his antebellum mentality more evident than in this astonishing media moment. But for a truly chilling insight into Bush’s and the GOP’s attitude towards racism, have a look at how the Preznit has commemorated — or rather, disgraced — the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

MLK observances, 2002: Upon being presented with a portrait of Dr. King by Mrs. King, the President said, “Well, thank you all very much for coming. Mrs. King, thanks for this beautiful portrait. I can’t wait to hang it. (01/21/02 WH transcript)

MLK observances, 2003: Bush tries to intervene in an important Michigan court case on affirmative action. At the same time, he uses Ebenezer Baptist Church as a photo-op backdrop to make the statement “There’s still prejudice holding people back. There’s still a school system that doesn’t elevate every child so they can learn. There’s still a need for us to hear the words of Martin Luther King to make sure the hope of America extends its reach into every neighborhood across this land.” (Here’s your bootlicking SCLM at work: the CNN headline was “Bush honors King”.)

MLK observances, 2004: When the MLK Day March Committee’s daylong observances complicated the Preznit’s last minute photo-op on MLK’s grave, the Secret Service “proposed locking them inside the church for the duration of Bush?s appearance.” … “[F]ar from having prepared the visit in consultation with the King Center or the King family, White House staff had simply contacted the Center and announced that Bush would be popping by to drop off a wreath while on his way to yet another two thousand dollar a plate fund-raiser.” Demonstrators converging on the scene before Bush’s arrival were placed behind a barricade of buses. The march, which included community leaders who knew and worked with Dr. King on civil actions like the Montgomery bus boycott, would have been at the site to honor King, regardless of Preznit Photo-op’s image needs. The Bush detail literally moved them to the back of the buses.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the president?s visit was a way to pay tribute to ?Dr. King?s legacy, his vision and his lifetime of service. Earlier Thursday, in New Orleans, President Bush said the ?miracle of salvation? is the key to solving some of society?s most intractable problems as he sought increased support among black voters with a renewed push for his plan to let religious charities in on more federal spending. (01/15/04 MSNBC)

President Bush used a (01/17/04) recess appointment to grant U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering a spot on the federal appeals bench. (01/17/04 CNN). A perjurer and racist, Pickering gave light sentences to thugs who burned a cross on the lawn of an interracial couple, excusing it as just “a drunken prank“. (PFAW Fact Sheet)

Anyone serious about discussing racism beyond buzz phrases can see that the timing and tone of these events with MLK observances are no accident, but the kind of direct wink and a nod to God-fearing cross-burning hood-wearing bigots that Reagan continually employed during campaigns and while in office. It’s the kind of unapologetically racist fuck-you Bush used during his AWOL period, when part of his job on the Blount campaign was to “smear” the opposition by painting him as someone who’d ruin white schools by busing in black children.

Much has been made of Bush’s vaunted Moral Clarity?. Once the First Gut forms its impressions, it doesn’t need the guidance of a moral compass, or to be checked against reality with elitist crap like facts, disagreeable intel or even newspapers. Bush intentionally surrounds himself with sycophants who find creative ways to corroborate what the God-endorsed First Gut “feels” about complex situations. The ones who can no longer do so without becoming unethical or wilfully incompetent are termed “disloyal” and thrown to the fire-breathing BushCo attack machine. For all their concern about cultural decency, isn’t it remarkable that this morally perfected administration has such difficulty simply being decent to others? (I don’t mean understanding or, Heaven forfend, kind — just not behaving like mindlessly vicious jerks.)

Any criticism or “disloyalty” to the First Gut, when taken outside the inner circle to threaten the sacred Presidential Image, mobilizes every skill and resource the administration can muster faster than news of, say, impending terrorist attacks. (Contrast how BushCo flopped around like uncoordinated buffoons for months when it was a mere case of terror warnings, but coalesced into an efficient well-oiled machine when Job One was tearing down rogue critics like Paul O’Neill, Joseph Wilson or Richard Clarke, among others.) Maintaining image is something they know and respect. Objectively weighing intelligence … not so much.

The Preznit’s vaunted Moral Clarity? is largely smoke and mirrors. It’s the work of more resources applied towards image than real leadership and governance, exaggerated by an echo chamber that attaches heroism to distinctly unheroic qualities: disengagement, lack of objective analysis, an almost comical inability to accept responsibility or be accountable for his and their actions, and a con man’s slippery avoidance of unscripted, unchoreographed public appearances.

As Easter Week coincides with many other traditions’ time of moral reckoning and this being Good Friday, billions the world over do recalibrate their moral compasses by weighing their shortcomings and repenting.

Except George.

He doesn’t apologize for stuff because Moral Clarity? means never having to say you’re sorry. If you support him, you don’t have to apologize either. Republican politicians or pundits bust their buttons with pride when the Preznit “doesn’t back down”, sticks to a reckless self-defeating course, or “isn’t apologizing”, especially when insulting the UN or dealing with those effete Frenchies. Despite badly needing international help in Iraq and on his own War on Terror and Stuff, the more shabbily he treated real allies who doubted The Word of George — sorry, Eritrea but I’m thinking outside the fig leaf — the more his boorish base liked it. The mainstream media dutifully cooperates with maintaining this horrifying approach to complex issues. The President isn’t backing down … the President isn’t apologizing … the President is resolute … The President is sticking to his guns. (Note how the First Flip Flopper’s recent slink back to France and the UN for desperately needed help in Iraq was paralleled by the same slinking motion of the story onto the media radar. I didn’t see any banner headlines screaming phrases like Massive Prezzie Flip Flop on U.N.-France Aid Shocks Media, Nation, World!)

Today, as the hooded penitents make the last leg of their journey to atonement, we remember that even Christ atoned for his sins. Jesus — a model Christian, a good observant Jew, a revered prophet to Muslims, an earthbound Bodhisatva to Buddhists and Hindus, Paganity’s sacrificial lamb — faced his moral struggles, as we all do in the material world, as all divine beings made flesh do in the material world.

It’s the continual struggle between the needs of the flesh and the sublime pull of spirit required in every religious tradition. In religious Christian language, it’s passion, which means “suffering” or more specifically, struggle (just as compassion means to suffer/struggle along with another), or crusade, literally, to bear the cross. Muslims call the daily struggle to be a better person jihad. In German, the word is kampf, now inextricably associated with a doctrine devoid of the constant weighing and recalibration that should accompany the daily, very human struggle even divinely inspired beings endure to be better humans (never mind full-fledged deities.) Jesus never considered himself so perfected — so possessed of Moral Clarity? — to stone a sinner, and his last moment of life on earth was one of doubt and weighing. He suffered, struggled, atoned and was redeemed.

Only God-appointed Preznits and his fervent disciples never apologize, never recalibrate, never examine their actions in the light of new facts and evolving wisdom. That would be backing down or worse, look like backing down. Wishy washy. Murky. Simply being Morally Clear excuses whatever wrong they engage in, whether it’s lying, extortion, bribery, stealing their opponents’ private correspondence, covering up wrongdoing and vitally needed health information, and inflicting massive death and chaos on people who posed no threat.

LARRY KING: It is black and white?
KAREN HUGHES: I think it is black and white, Larry, and I think for me, where I come down, I think the fundamental difference is, we value every life. And the terrorists value none, not even their own. We are a nation founded on the belief that every individual was endowed by our creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We believe in the dignity and the worth and the value of every life. And we’ve acted that way around the world. (04/07/04 CNN/King)

[Tucker Carlson describes Team Bush’s reaction on the campaign trail upon discovering that Carlson had precisely quoted Candidate Bush uttering a profanity.] It was very, very hostile. The reaction was: You betrayed us. Well, I was never there as a partisan to begin with. Then I heard that [on the campaign bus, Bush communications director] Karen Hughes accused me of lying. And so I called Karen and asked her why she was saying this, and she had this almost Orwellian rap that she laid on me about how things she’d heard — that I watched her hear — she in fact had never heard, and she’d never heard Bush use profanity ever. It was insane. I’ve obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness. (09/13/03 Salon/Carlson)

It’s no accident that those who shirk the largely unromantic but deeply necessary daily struggle simply to be good are so attracted to the purely material, martial, exaggerated “struggle” — armed Crusade or Jihad — to inflict their Armaggedons on “sinners” and “infidels” without apology. They don’t have to atone, you see, because they’ve achieved the kind of superior spiritual development that not even deities made flesh felt they achieved with such finality during their time on earth. Look at how pissed off BushCo and Bill Frist were over Richard Clarke’s simple apology to the 911 families. Bluster bluster … how dare the man apologize when we’re not finished handing down our judgment! (Hey Bill, how’s that perjury investigation coming?)

It’s this rigid attachment to unexamined action that binds Bush more closely to the unapologetic hoods in the KKK than to the similarly hooded penitents today, a day so near the anniversary of Dr. King’s assassination. When King spoke in religious language it resonated even for people outside his specific religion because he spoke not only from his heart but his soul.

Our God-appointed Misleader tries to cobble otherwise inspiring words onto missions no loftier than expanding his war chest or getting off a good soundbite against an opportune backdrop like Dr. King’s grave. If Bush has any kind of aura, it’s the cold fluorescence of strategically placed teevee lighting rather than the glow emitted by inspired and inspiring creatures like Dr. King, a blazing beacon of hope even in grainy, sloppy, unchoreographed footage.

Dr. King was a great man and a great soul — a Bodhisatva like Mohandas Gandhi and others who, in their time, led millions out of bondage, and long past our lifetimes, will shine for millions more. The certainty of truly great leaders was in having a sense of mission inextricable from their personal commitment to the everyday struggle of simply being good men first. It’s the same struggle Jesus endured even on the last day of his earthly life. It’s the struggle simply decent people of every culture and creed go through in the daily choices they make.

It’s the struggle a flickering hero like GW Bush avoids at all costs now, just as his whole life is a tale of accountability avoided, even to himself.

(Expanded quotes and attributions in the extension.)
Read the rest of this entry »

The incomparable Randi Rhodes brings up an excellent point the lazy SCLM airbrushes when echoing the latest administration dodge.

BushCo apologists and enablers like to point to the 1993 WTC attacks as “evidence” that Clinton fell down on the job. The Feb/26/93 World Trade Center attack occurred a scant 4 1/2 weeks after Bill Clinton’s Jan/20/93 inauguration.

Yet he didn’t waste time blaming the departing George HW Bush administration or working on talking points like “we didn’t want to swat flies” and “blah blah blah silver bullet”. Clinton showed some leadership and tracked down the perpetrators. (Nor did he try to vindicate old Carter-admin business by using the incident as an excuse to attack Iran. He focused on bringing those WTC attackers to justice.)

But this begs the question: if an attack 4-1/2 weeks after Clinton’s inauguration is his fault, how is an attack 8 months after Commander Codpiece’s inauguration also Clinton’s fault?

If Bush wasn’t interested in swatting flies, it’s because he more interested in fly fishing. Oh, and in reclassifying documents from his father’s and Reagan’s administrations relating to Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

(Here’s GW fishing in July/01, which is also how he spent August 6, 2001, immediately after being briefed about al Qaeda’s intention to attack.)

Who thinks knows for a fact that Condi’s lying?

“There may not be a silver bullet but we knew at that time there were terrorists in the country … We knew this prior to 9/11.” (Pat Sellitto, who lost his 23 year-old son in the WTC attacks, punctures a talking point on CNN 04/08/04).

The Center for American Progress busts the lies in Condi’s opening statement and in the Q&A portion. CAP also provides a sourced list of the Bush administration’s sorry history of stonewalling, impeding and attempting to suffocate the 911 commission.

Unable to dispute the facts that are in the public realm, the administration continues to distort information outside public scrutiny to diminish anticipated criticism:

“She was more than happy to visit with the commission. Only five members actually showed up, despite the fact that it was scheduled for the entire commission.” (“>03/09/04 WH briefing)

“What McClellan didn’t tell reporters was that on Nov. 21 — long before Rice met with the five commissioners in February — the White House counsel’s office had sent the commission a letter saying no more than three commissioners could attend meetings with White House aides of Rice’s rank.” (04/07/04 USA Today/Hall)

(Gotcha via Dan Froomkin, WP 04/07/04)

Maybe that’s why the BushCo spokesbots are already out, venting their “outrage” that the commission has been hijacked by politicking partisans … a politicking partisan spin if ever there was one. Selective declassification is one of the remaining arrows in the Bush administration’s quiver as they try to shift blame on the Clinton administration while burying documentary evidence that contradicts this.

On April 1, 2004, it was discovered that the Bush White House had not turned over about 75% of the almost 11,000 pages of Clinton records “that document custodians had determined should be released to the Commission investigating the terrorist attacks” to the Commission, even though the records were vital to the panel’s mission. Clinton “had given authorization to the National Archives to gather evidence from Mr. Clinton’s files that was sought by the independent Commission … But the Bush administration … had final authority to decide what would be turned over.” (9/11 Commission: Opposition and Obfuscation, CAP)

The Bush administration will probably attempt to sit on the 911-commission’s report until after the election, though it’s doubtful the public, the 911 families’ groups, or facts on the record will allow it:

The chairman of an independent commission looking into US counterterrorism activities prior to the September 11 attacks said he could not guarantee that the panel’s report will be released before the November presidential election because of a protracted White House vetting process.

Former Republican New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean said he was “surprised” by the situation, but saw no way around it. …

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” television program, Kean said White House vetters will go over his report “line by line to find out if there’s anything in there which could harm American interests in the area of intelligence.” A special clearance team led by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and made up of top US intelligence and counterterrorism officials has already been set up, he said.

But the report, expected to contain hundreds of pages of findings and testimony, is unlikely to be finished before July, according to congressional officials. That will leave the vetting team only three to four months to complete its work, if American are to see the document before they go to the polls on November 2. (04/05/04 AFP)

You can read the transcript of Kean’s appearance (with fellow 911 commissioner Lee Hamilton) on Meet the Press April 04/04, or access the online video here.

And check out these Sadly, No! archived posts for more detailed debunking of Condi’s talking points testimony: Battle Station Crawford, Condi, Now and Then and The Summer of George.

I didn’t see all of the testimony due to work rearing its ugly head, but I’ll definitely catch up at the official 911 commission site here, and access the video at CNN.

And tapping my feet to World o’Crap’s ditty while I’m doing it …

(Update: While publishing this, I received an error notice on some linkage. I double-checked and they all seemed fine, but if you have trouble with any, let me know and I’ll repair or provide an alternate source. Also added a link to CAP’s fact-check of the the Q&A portion of Condi’s testimony.)

Everybody Wants Condi

I know a girl who’s tough but sweet
She’s so fine, she can’t be beat.
She’s got the info that I desire
Unless she shreds it or puts it in the fire.

I want Condi, I want Condi!

But she’s testifyin’ that the warning didn’t come down.
Ain’t no finer girl in town.
She’s loyal and bland, just what the Preznit ordered
So sweet, she makes his mouth water.

We want Condi, We want Condi!

Condi under oath, there’s nothing better
But there’s nothing new, she could have just sent a letter.
Some day soon Colin Powell will resign
Then we’ll have Condi all the time

I don’t think I want Condi, I don’t want Condi…

Anway, here’s a transcript of the testimony.

I just skimmed through it, but I did find a few interesting parts:

The question was about whether the administration focused on Iraq instead of Afghanistan after 9/11

There was a discussion of Iraq. I think it was raised by Don Rumsfeld. It was pressed a bit by Paul Wolfowitz. Given that this was a global war on terror, should we look not just at Afghanistan but should we look at doing something against Iraq? There was a discussion of that.

The president listened to all of his advisers. I can tell you that when he went around the table and asked his advisers what he should do, not a single one of his principal advisers advised doing anything against Iraq. It was all to Afghanistan.

When I got back to the White House with the president, he laid out for me what he wanted to do. And one of the points, after a long list of things about Afghanistan, a long list of things about protecting the homeland, the president said that he wanted contingency plans against Iraq should Iraq act against our interests.

There was a kind of concern that they might try and take advantage of us in that period. They were still – we were still flying no-fly zones. And there was also, he said, in case we find that they were behind 9-11, we should have contingency plans.

But this was not along the lines of what later was discussed about Iraq, which was how to deal with Iraq on a grand scale. This was really about – we went to planning Afghanistan, you can look at what we did. From that time on, this was about Afghanistan.

So, we focused on Afghanistan — sure, some people like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz wanted to talk about Iraq too, and we did, but not like we talked about Afghanistan. And of course, there were, you know, contingency plans, in case it turned out, after we had invaded Afghanistan, that Iraq was really behind 9/11. But everything was really about Afghanistan.

I also thought Condi’s exchange with Ben-Veniste about whether the President’s Daily Brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States” indicated that he planned to attack the United States. (Per Condi, it didn’t — it was just a historic document. )

VENISTE: If you are willing to declassify that document, then others can make up their minds about it. Let me ask you a general matter, beyond the fact that this memorandum provided information, not speculative, but based on intelligence information, that bin Laden had threatened to attack the United States and specifically Washington, D.C. There was nothing reassuring, was there, in that PDB?

RICE: Certainly not. There was nothing reassuring. But I can also tell you that there was nothing in this memo that suggested that an attack was coming on New York or Washington, D.C. There was nothing in this memo as to time, place, how or where. This was not a threat report to the president or a threat report to me.

BEN-VENISTE: We agree that there were no specifics.

So, unless it said the time, place, and exact method of the attack, what good would it do for the President to worry his pretty little head about it, and cut short his vacation.

Anyway, did you have any favorite parts?

… Mr. “Who are you talking to?” President goes to a fundraiser, a baseball game, and back to Crawford for eight days.

From an article in today’s Washington Post discussing Bush’s reactions to current violence in Iraq:

Bush and his press secretary blamed the Shiite resistance in Baghdad — where bloody clashes killed scores over the weekend — on the work of “one man,” cleric Moqtada Sadr, who helped trigger a Shiite Muslim uprising. And except for a seven-minute exchange with reporters that was added to his schedule to address the turmoil, the president went about his schedule, including his last fundraiser for his reelection campaign and an appearance at a baseball game in St. Louis. …

… Other than the unscheduled remarks on Iraq, Bush did not alter his plans for the day. His stops in Charlotte and St. Louis were en route to an eight-day stay on his ranch in central Texas.