EPU’ed. on “little hans”

How will the McCain front runner situation play into the Toddler-in-chief hold out on FEC and Hans von Spakovsky? Eventually he’ll want matching funds, no? I know this is OT, but reflecting on the small and mean thing the White House does offers a kind of relife from thinking about the large and cruel one that were on display this afternoon.

I wonder if part of what Zeilkow stripped out of the 9/11 report was the meeting Tenet revealed in his book, the emergency meeting with Condi and Clarke in July, 2001, trying to spin her up to the threats that were being captured by Intelligence. When Tenet’s book came out describing that meeting, Kean and Hamilton noted that they had no evidence of that meeting, apparently it was not logged at the WH, and thus not disclosed.

Richard Clarke could have noted that meeting too, but didn’t. In the intro he makes the point that the WH censor stripped out much of his narrative, and he was able to restore material only where he could point to public information as an existing available source. So, I guess we have to assume that CIA pre-publication review let Tenet tell the tale, but the WH covered up the meeting. Was someone at CIA Censor Office twisting the knife a little?

“And I wonder whether Karl was the only one Zelikow heard from?”
Absolutely, Dick would not trust Rove being the only one.

ew – You’ve picked up on by far the most interesting of the tidbits from Shenon’s book so far available. A lot of the rest of it looks like very negative spin on what may well be innocuous stuff. And it’s worth remembering that Shenon did some of the Able Danger stuff.

Also let me add Zelikow is an exceptionally interesting and smart guy, and his piece “Legal Policy for a Twilight War,” a speech he gave in Houston in April 2007 is pretty amazing. He’s also been offering choice select words for reports on the internal controversy over torture, such as here. Plus of course he did a pretty nice job on the implications of the destruction of the torture tapes for the 9/11 Commission, in the report linked to here.

In other words, in my view Zelikow is another one of those conservative insiders in the Bush administration who was actively engaged in a variety of battles on the right side, and is doing something to get the story out now.

So Zelikow does a Fred Thompson (Watergate) and a Gerald Ford (Warren Commission)? Who knew. Thompson, a then former AUSA, kept Nixon’s White House “up” on developments in the Watergate investigation. Nixon was caught on tape describing Thompson, in effect, as dumb as a post, but useful.

Ford, of course, kept somebody informed about the Kennedy assassination investigation. The dog’s breakfast known as the Warren Report – eg, the Parkside Hospital, Dallas, doctors who operated on JFK in the emergency room weren’t interviewed for more than fifteen years – bears testimony to the ability to spike or soft-pedal commission findings for political purposes.

Does the 9/11 Commission get a Do Over?

Zelikow may have worked to spiked or water down important parts of the story, but conflicts arising out of his close ties with Condi Rice and others were written in twelve-foot letters on Cheney’s limo. Who signed off on him, kept signing off on his role, and why?

EW says…

(Condi, I can believe, but it seems like it’d take someone besides Rove to get Tenet and–moreso–Clarke to shut up.)

I’ve read through Clarke’s book several times, looking for something that is not indexed, and one thing that has always stood out is the fractured nature of his narrative during the summer of 2001. like he had a ham-handed editor. Otherwise his narrative flows nicely. I think this may explain my observation.

And yes, Clarke was included in the meeting with Condi, Tenet and Cofer Black, at least according to Tenet. The meeting was July 10, 2001, and in addition to the above, Stephen Hadley was included in the meeting, meaning I suppose that Cheney was quickly briefed on it, as Hadley was Cheney’s man Friday. Tenet also took along Rick B. (someone clearly operational as we have no name.) For those with the Tenet Book pp. 150-154.

Small Oops — in his book, Tenet claims that he did tell the 9/11 Commission about this meeting, and was surprised when it was not included in the 9/11 report. (Tenet footnotes to his classified testimony) and then says that it was a mystery to him why the commissioners ignored the testimony. The information about the meeting broke in 2006. Initially the Bush WH claimed the meeting did not occur, and then they changed their approach, yep, the meeting took place but it contained no new or urgent information. Tenet notes that one of the slides contained information collected in the last 24 hours. Tenet then says a couple of days later Steve Cambone came to see him, and wanted CIA to study whether the hot intelligence was just deception. Then Wolfowitz called Tenet, and piled on, using the same grounds, Deception. Tenet compliments Wolfowitz for coming to him with an apology after 9/11, Told Tenet he had been wrong.

With all this coming from Tenet’s little visit with Condi — like hell they forgot about this meeting. I think it a good guess that Rove wanted to pull this whole series of meetings and communications out of the 9/11 Narrative, and yep, he would have pushed Zelikow to accomplish that goal. Just look at who is involved, at least according to Tenet, in this scene. It is far more damaging than the August 6th briefing of Bush that covered his Ass — This involves Cheney, Hadley, Wolfowitz, Cambone in dismissing the hot intel. You know, perhaps that August 6th Briefing was really an Ass covering effort. They then played with the 9/11 Commission, making the Presidential Briefing document and the title the little shy girl who was hard to get.

Clarke would not talk about anything censored from his book, afterall he is a consultant, and depends on keeping his high security clearance. In essence a license to do business in counterterrorism. You have to read all these people with this in mind.

PS. Dick may be staying around for the continuity of government role
he has had for some 20+ years… not a good sign.

In these kinds of discussion I drag out the entry from my scandals list on the 9/11 Commission. It is pretty amazing that a Commission as rife with conflicts of interest and manipulation by the White House achieved the plaudits and credibility that it did. The Zelikow story in the wider context of the Commission’s history is completely unsurprising. My take on it is that if Bush had waken suddenly in the night, 2/3 of the Republican membership and staff of the Commission would have fallen out of bed.

33. Attempts to torpedo the 911 Commission. Although now largely forgotten, the Bush Administration fought the 9/11 Commission every step of the way and it was only pressure from the American public and most especially from the families of the victims of 9/11 that the commission was formed and was able to come up with some kind of a report however flawed and incomplete.
Bush and Cheney resisted calls for such a bipartisan commission for over a year arguing that the matter was best left to Republican controlled intelligence committees in the Congress. It was not until November 27, 2002 that Bush announced the commission’s formation. He did his best to see that it went nowhere. Members were to be chosen by both Congress and the White House raising questions about the commission’s independence. Democratic co-chair George Mitchell on December 11, 2002 and Republican chair Henry Kissinger (whom the White House had insisted on appointing) on December 13, 2007 resigned due to conflicts of interest. Kissinger did not want to make public the financial records (and connections) of his security consulting company Kissinger Associates. Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton were named to replace them. The specter of conflicts of interest remained. Through their careers in government and on corporate boards, essentially all of the commission members had such conflicts. Perhaps the most egregious of these was Philip Zelikow the commission’s executive staff director who had worked closely with Condoleezza Rice on the National Security Council in the first Bush Administration and co-written a book with her.
Bush also tried to limit the commission’s activities by giving it a budget of only $3 million to investigate the biggest terrorist attack in the country’s history. The Challenger investigation cost $50 million by comparison. Later Kean and Hamilton asked for a further $11 million to be included in the $75 billion supplemental slated to fund the invasion of Iraq. The White House initially refused the funds before reversing itself.
The White House also placed many roadblocks in the commission’s path slowing its work. The commission was originally given 18 months or to the end of May 2004 to make its report. When a 60 day extension was requested, this too was initially denied. The commission report was eventually released on July 22, 2004.
The White House sought both to shape and limit testimony. Before former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke testified, then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales contacted two commission members Fred Fielding and James Thompson with information to discredit Clarke which they duly presented.
On Presidential Daily Briefs, after dragging its heels for months, the White House allowed them to be viewed by only 4 of the 10 commissioners who were to report back to the others. However, the White House denied the full commission access to the notes made by the 4 approved commissioners. Moreover, of 360 PDBs requested, only 24 were made available by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. On March 14, 2004, the White House finally responded to the commission by releasing a 17 page summary of PDBs related to al Qaeda from the Bush and Clinton Administrations.
The White House refused requests for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify. The rationale given was that historically National Security Advisers had not testified before Congress. This was completely untrue, and Rice finally testified on April 8, 2004. Rice’s testimony, however, came with the price that no other White House aides were to be called.
Bush initially placed a one hour limit on his testimony before the commission. This was rejected. But his testimony was highly conditioned. On April 29, 2004, he and Dick Cheney together met with the commission in private with no oath or transcript and only one staffer to take notes which were not to be made public.
In an op-ed in the New York Times on January 2, 2008, chairmen Kean and Hamilton accused the CIA and the Bush Administration of obstruction by withholding information about taped interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri (see item 288).
Finally, it should be remembered the 9/11 Commission was bipartisan. This does not mean the same thing as non-partisan. In order to achieve consensus, there was a deliberate decision not to assign personal blame. This was a critical shortcoming. Because as the Bush Administration’s repeated obstruction of the investigation into its complacency and inaction before 9/11 showed, it had much to hide.

I am a fan of Stanley Kutler, the Wisconsin Law and History Prof who picked up on Watergate after impeachment was mooted, Nixon was gone, and the Ford Era of Better Feeling commenced. He has produced three massive books over the years, led the legal action necessary to getting out the Tapes and Nixon Papers, and trained a new generation of Historians up to dealing with the Watergate Era. Yep, he needed some money for travel, legal fees, Grad Student Fellowships and the like, and it was slow — he is still processing tape and paper. But now there are two and a half generations of good legal historians, and they will find positions, and train up others.

The best thing that could happen would be for funders to identify a few Stanley Kutler’s to pick up on the Bush II Administration, locate the project at a couple of good Universities, and get to work.

laws have been broken by bush, cheney, CIA, NSA. AG and other departments. Thw whole politicisation of career AG staff is not legal and their influencing elections amd other policies in government.
The run uo to and the iraq War, the handling of prisoners and camps. the torture that was questioned even this day by congessional committee all are reasons to investigate by impeachment powers.
Like the grand jury process which does not remove you drom an office it reviews the evidence of alleged crimes.
I don’t know who you commenters here are but it seems to me that practicing law has clouded your judgement. Even ib the eyes of Americans 70% see we did not have a smoking gum to attack, destro and occupy anouther sovriegn nation that has in the past been an ally against Iran ( a pawn) nevetheless. The oil that Iraqs neighbors covet is a motive for a crime. Duh.
Please recall that Kuwait was drawing that that oil out with their straws. Cheney as head of Halliburton adn supported by oil industry leader Enron was coveting that resource yo keep the engines of corporate economy reved up.
You plenty of motive and plenty of evidence and plenty of public outcry both domestic and international.
Their are mountains of damage. Their has to be illegal activity to produce such monstrous human suffering.
If you are the people that represent my constitution you should crawl baxk into your holes and do your obfuscating in your rat holes.
These crimes were done in my and my countries name. I you can sleep with this then we no longer have a denocracy we have a barter block sinilar to the one that sold slaves to the highest bidder.

At first I was angry at the law community. Now I see what you are all facing.
1. The US population that has been criminalised is reaching a tipping point where their behavior is so prevalent as to be legal by accepted prctices socially. I am referring to the wide class/crossing use of drugs…example the PRESIDENT OF THE USA is an admitted past drug user. Police academies have to accept candidates that have abused drugs.
The jails are filled with people who are using drugs in a culture where big PHARMA dispenses a pill for almost every complaint.
2.Almost the entire world sees us as criminals, thugs and bullies who RAPE, PILLAGE, STEAL AND DESTROY at will.
When the rules of engagement become shot first and aske questions later. When the war crimes are not tried but swept under the rug.
When Americans are not allowed to know what their governments are doing in their name. When our constitutional rights are denied by a rogue executive branch then we all know that the rule of law is not working. The world knows that the leaders of the free world have lost their moral compass. We all know that a great part of the wealth of the free…and I use the term loosely…world is owned by lawyers.
That means you hold the ring of power.
What other nations have done is centralize their wealth in the hands of a few just as you have done. We have created a model of power and wealth distribution that leaves most of the worlds billion in poverty. It is a fuedal system, run btycorporate governnmen not unlike the one we overthrew in the revolutionary war for american independence from Britian and the King of England. The rule of the NICE PEOPLE.
yOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS… YOU CANNOT BE NICE AND CRUEL AT THE SAME TIME. You are as they say wallowing in the mire and have lost your moral compass.

I wonder how many investigations kark rove has obstructed. Two sounds too low.

from zelikow’s speech:

the cool, carefully considered, methodical, prolonged, and repeated subjection of captives to physical torment, and the accompanying psychological terror, is immoral.

[my italics]

Let me offer this up. If ever there is need for someone to detail all the “psychological terror” that would result here, how the environment, and the deprivation, and the torment, and the way someone is treated, I am more than willing to sit down and write something up. Because I think too often any torture method is described as simply something physical that started and ended, without any explanation of the whole context that surrounds it and imbues it with “terror.”

When I read these words above, it simply makes my blood run cold:

cool,

carefully considered,

methodical,

prolonged,

and repeated
…
physical torment,

and the accompanying psychological terror

One reads that and there can be no doubt this was purposeful, calculated, insidious, and had to have been authorized “at the highest levels” – if not, observed at the highest levels.