And (some) news media are giving our court-appointed president and his buddies a bad time for various reasons.
Salon blames Ashcroft's incompetance for the Bush admin's failure to prevent 9-11:
The problem wasn't that the feds lacked “intelligence.” They — like a lot of us — lacked perspective [...]
And given what we now know, which of the “solutions” rushed to passage by Ashcroft in the days after Sept. 11 — and sought for years by the antiterrorism lobby — would actually have made a difference? Eavesdropping without a warrant, secret anti-terrorism courts, black-bag jobs? Eviscerating the Freedom of Information Act? Putting the CIA back in the assassination business [...]?
In fact, this week's revelations suggest that an administration obsessed with high-tech and cloak-and-dagger “defense” failed to understand that effective public safety is about the mundane. Any one of a number of routine law enforcement procedures might — might — have made a difference before Sept. 11: a memo passed up the chain of command, a phone call to the airlines.
[...] No bureaucracies have ever looked more fatally entangled in red tape than the FBI and INS, both of whose bucks stop at the attorney general's desk. And if news accounts are accurate, shortly after Sept. 11 Ashcroft learned of Phoenix FBI agent Williams' prescient investigation but kept that crucial, embarrassing information from both president and public. Instead, he rushed forward the massively repressive USA-Patriot Act and immigrant sweeps [...]
So the who-knew scandal is more than anything bad news for the attorney general. All the more so because [...] Ashcroft's post-Sept. 11 security policy has been taking it on the chin from another direction: the courts.
[...] Seen in this light, the truly scandalous nature of the who-knew coverup becomes clear. Who knew? Ashcroft knew. Each time the attorney general went to Congress, insisting that only broader domestic spying and detention laws could make the country safer, he knew the truth: that in the weeks before Sept. 11, the White House and FBI, already well-equipped with intelligence and investigative tools, dropped the ball.
The Bush Administration, asleep at the switch regarding warnings about the Sept. 11 attacks, has now gone berserk about telling people about impending terror attacks.
[...] One would think the flood of terror noise would spur Ridge to turn his candy-colored terror warning system up a notch. Not so, says Cool Hand Tom. Even though Ridge has heard that terrorists might decide to rent a couple of apartments, pack them with explosives and blow the buildings to smithereens, the Director is sticking with “yellow.”
It also asks:
[...] Forget the 9/11 blame game, and focus on how the U.S. is conducting its widening world war on terror. How are the troops in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Philippines, Yemen, Somalia and Georgia doing? Why are they in some of those places?
Well, speaking of troops abroad, this Counterpunch article suggests that Cheney has basically admitted the invasion of Afghanistan was, erm, pointless at best:
That's the implication of Vice President Dick Cheney's damage control efforts on the Sunday talking heads news shows earlier this week. On NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS, the Vice President purported that the U.S. has made some progress in the war on terrorism but warned, “the prospect of another attack against the United States is very, very real. It's just as real, in my opinion, as it was September 12.”
It is? Even after seven-and-a-half months of war against Afghanistan? At more than $1 billion per month? A war that has killed and maimed and shattered the lives of thousands of people?
[...] At his [Cheney's] behest, Americans have killed and died to protect us, but we are no safer.
And the New York Times tells us that the White House acknowledges more contacts with Enron:
The White House document also disclosed that Enron executives, including Kenneth L. Lay, the former chairman, attended numerous White House functions, including the 2001 inaugural, the Easter Egg roll, T-ball games, speeches and social events.
[...] “It appears the White House is still providing only what it thinks is relevant, rather than what the committee asked for,” said Leslie Phillips, a spokeswoman for the [Governmental Affairs C]ommittee.
[...] In another battle with Congress over the same kind of issue, the Justice Department sought today to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the General Accounting Office seeking to obtain records of meetings last year between energy industry executives and Mr. Cheney's energy task force.
The Justice Department's motion in federal district court here argues that the G.A.O. is trying to “improperly inject itself and the courts into the president's exercise of his powers.” The G.A.O.'s position, the Justice Department said, “would revolutionize and violate the separation of powers doctrine that has made our nation's government so strong.”
Well, doesn't that betray massive ignorance on the whole concept of separation of powers? The separation was created so that branches of government would interfere with each other's work. It's called “checks and balances”, Johnny boy.
Do read this article, because:
The seven-page document, released by the White House this evening, illustrates how Enron officials approached many people in the Bush administration with specific requests or to discuss specific topics, like electricity policies, tax credits for wind power, the California energy crisis, and legislation governing power-plant pollutants.
Anything else about Enron? Oh, yeah, let's jump on Army Secretary Thomas White a little more– the man with the incredible shrinking resume.
The george hates you: international law by Lee Salazar, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Terms and conditions beyond the scope of this license may be available at leesalazar.com.