This Site Has Moved...

...to the all-new Decision '08 version 2.0. Please join me there, won't you?...

More Crawford Pics

Hey, welcome back to my old home - looks kind of lonesome, doesn't it? Here are the pics, as promised:

The Complete FDNY 9/11 Records

Earlier today I linked to a small sampling of 9/11 audio clips released by the Fire Department of New York City; here, courtesy of the New York Times, is the complete set of records...

Able Danger: There Are Known Knowns, Known Unknowns, and Unknown Unknowns...

...as Donald Rumsfeld might say. Our man AJStrata (see his latest here) gets some great pub from Jim Geraghty's TKS blog at National Review Online; Geraghty says Able Danger has got folks stirred up, and he's right there:

I don't know about you readers, but I feel like the revelations about Able Danger have stirred a certain energy, anger, and analytical adrenalin in the blogosphere that we haven't seen since the Rather memos.

Geraghty also lays out the dos and don'ts of our knowledge of Able Danger thus far; highly recommended...

Just Click and Scroll

Few things in all bloggerdom are more fun than reading Mickey Kaus when he's on a roll - and he's on a big one now...reading his thoughts on the continuing debasement of CNN by the hopeless Jonathan Klein is hilarious enough, but all of his other recent items are quite good as well...If you've got the time, I suggest you follow the advice of this post title, here...

The WaPo Hits Another One Out Of the Park

I've commented before, and recently, on the pleasant surprises that can await a visitor to the Washington Post's editorial pages these days, particularly when contrasted with the farcical decline of the New York Times under Gail Collins. Once again, the Post has come out with an unambigious stance that would be almost unimaginable from its rival. Commenting on the despicable attempt by NARAL to smear John Roberts, the Post says:

The ad released this week by NARAL Pro-Choice America is a distressing exception [to the otherwise relative civility of the debate over the Roberts nomination]. Seizing on his role in a 1993 Supreme Court decision as a lawyer for the government, it graphically -- and wholly unfairly -- seeks to tar Judge Roberts with being an apologist for abortion clinic bombings.

In releasing the ad, Nancy Keenan, NARAL's president, said in a statement that she wanted "to be very clear that we are not suggesting Mr. Roberts condones or supports clinic violence." That's funny, because the ad does precisely that. It opens with the scene of a bombed clinic -- a clinic attacked years after the case in question -- and then shows a victim of the bombing. An announcer intones that "Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber." It closes with the announcer telling viewers that "America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans." A reasonable viewer can only conclude that Judge Roberts -- who served as deputy solicitor general in the administration of George H.W. Bush -- had somehow justified or defended a clinic bombing...

...NARAL is certainly within its rights to disagree with the position the government took in the case. But the impression it creates with this ad is not an argument but a smear-- a smear that will do less to discredit Judge Roberts than it will the organization that created it.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

When Commenters Attack...

...is not the latest crappy reality show from Fox, but rather a reality horrow show taking place at Erick-Woods Erickson's Confessions of a Political Junkie. Read the post, then look at the comments, for a picture perfect example of how a blog with open commenting can get hijacked by someone with an agenda (jeez, seems like something similar may have happened in these parts not too long ago, as I'm sure my regulars will recall)...

9/11: Listen As It Happened...

By now, you've probably heard that the NYC Fire Department has just released a ton of new 9/11 recordings and documents. You can listen to some of them here...a chilling reminder of why we fight...

I'm In the Wrong Line of Work

A research scientist has just left $105 million to the NYU School of Medicine. $105 million dollars - a research scientist. Have I mentioned before that I've wasted my life?...

More Progress From England

Blair's government is keeping up the heat on radical Islamists by intituting a ban on the return of the hateful cleric Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed, who fled Britain in haste to seek refuge in Lebanon. The details:

In a statement today, the Home Office said that Charles Clarke, the home secretary, had written to Sheik Mohammed to tell him he no longer has the right to live in Britain. "The Home Secretary has issued an order revoking Omar Bakri Mohammed's indefinite leave to remain and to exclude him from the U. K. on the grounds that his presence is not conducive to the public good," the statement said.

The government's move came a day after it announced that it had seized and planned to deport Abu Qatada, another British-based cleric accused of fomenting violence against the West, along with nine other foreigners suspected of posing threats to national security.

Good for England, and good for the world. We need more clear, unequivocal actions of this sort...

Better Late Than Never

After 15 days of complete silence, the New York Times has finally noticed the Air America scandal. Leon H, who suffered no such lapse, has the scoop...

So Close I Can Taste It...

Barring some totally unforeseen eventuality, this site will officially close this weekend, to be replaced by the new one, maybe tomorrow, maybe Saturday. I'm getting quite anxious, now that I'm almost there. Today, I solved what had been a really pesky obstacle, a Cascading Style Sheet problem that was killing me in Firefox (anyone who's ever banged their head in frustration at the different renderings between Internet Explorer and Firefox will know exactly what I mean)...I'm like a kid in a candy store, I can't wait!...

Able Danger, Everywhere!

It's starting to feel like a blogswarm...thanks to utron, AJStrata (read his latest Able Danger news here) and Greg Bullock (whose latest delicious takedown of MoDo can be found here) for pointing out these links from Little Green Footballs, Captain Ed, Rick Moran, and Dr. Sanity, and just for good measure, I'm throwing in the great Tom Maguire. The upshot: people are really excited about two possibilities:

1. Was the Atta connection left out because it interfered with the Commission's conclusions regarding Mohammed Atta's (alleged) trip to Prague to meet with Iraqis?
2. Does Sandy Berger's inexcusable destruction of documents relate to Able Danger?

There is a third possibility, much less exciting: perhaps Atta's name was not passed on because it was one of dozens or hundreds or even thousands uncovered in the data-mining. Regardless, I stand by my earlier call for congresssional hearings. Let's get it all on the table and see where it goes...

Will Vs. Carter: The Battle of the Briefing Book

Our good friend and disastrous one-term president Jimmy Carter is telling a fib, and George Will ain't gonna stand still for it. Read the whole thing, but the intro is particularly delicious:

A quarter of a century has passed since 44 states said "No, thanks" to Jimmy Carter's offer to serve a second term, yet he still evidently thinks his loss is explained not by foreign policy debacles, such as invading Iran with eight helicopters, and a misery index -- inflation plus unemployment -- of 22, almost triple today's index.

Ahh, that's satisfying stuff...

How Dishonest is the Huffington Post?

This Walter Pincus Washington Post story is linked from the front page. This is the conclusion:

Two other sources appear to support the view that Wilson's wife suggested her husband's trip. One is a June 2003 memo by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). The other, which depends in good part on the INR document, is a statement of the views of Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and two other Republican members. That statement was attached to the full committee report on its 2004 inquiry into the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The INR document's reference to the Wilson trip is contained in two sentences in a three-page memo on why the State Department disagreed with the idea that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa -- a view that would ultimately be endorsed after the Iraq invasion by the U.S. weapons hunter David Kay. The notes supporting those two sentences in the INR document say that the Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA was "apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue," according to the Senate intelligence committee report. But one Senate Democratic staff member said, "That was speculation, that was not true."

The full Senate committee report says that CPD officials "could not recall how the office decided to contact" Wilson but that "interviews and documents indicate his wife suggested his name for the trip." The three Republican senators wrote that they were more certain: "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee."

The Huffington Post's headline? CIA Officials, not Valerie Plame, Chose Ambassador Joe Wilson for Niger Trip.

You know, it's one thing to be partisan, but time after time, Arianna's site puts up headlines that have little to do with, or are directly contradicted by, the stories they link to. Tabloids would ashamed of these tactics...regardless of whether Arianna's venture is a success or failure commercially, it is an embarrassment of major proportions, and should signal the end of Arianna's credibility.

Jagger Doesn't Even Have the Courage of His Convictions

I think Mick Jagger is one of the great rock and roll stars of all time, but I'm gonna call 'em as I see 'em, and his current attempt to have his cake and eat it, too, isn't going to fly. Jagger has penned a song called 'Sweet Neo Con', as you may have heard, and as you may suspect, it's a diatribe against the Bush Administration. That's obvious to everyone but Jagger:

The Rolling Stones' upcoming album contains a song seemingly critical of President Bush, but Mick Jagger denies it's directed at him, according to the syndicated TV show "Extra."

"It is not really aimed at anyone," Jagger said on the entertainment-news show's Wednesday edition. "It's not aimed, personally aimed, at President Bush. It wouldn't be called 'Sweet Neo Con' if it was."

The song is from the new album, "A Bigger Bang," set for release September 6.

There is no mention of Bush or Iraq. But it does refer to military contractor Halliburton, which was formerly run by Vice President Cheney and has been awarded key Iraq contracts, and the rising price of gasoline.

"How come you're so wrong? My sweet neo-con, where's the money gone, in the Pentagon," goes one refrain.

The song also includes the line: "It's liberty for all, democracy's our style, unless you are against us, then it's prison without trial."

"It is certainly very critical of certain policies of the administration, but so what! Lots of people are critical," Jagger told "Extra."

Mick, Mick, Mick...rule number one: when you're in a hole, quit digging...

Air America: How The Weak Have Fallen

Leon H has the latest on the developing Air America scandal, and notes that it's finally penetrating some traditional media outlets two weeks in. Leon's been on this story like Garfield on lasagna, so be sure to look to him for the latest...

Woodward: It's Cheney in 2008

Bob Woodward is predicting that Dick Cheney will be the 2008 Republican presidential nominee:

If Bob Woodward is right, it will be The Old Man and the She in the 2008 showdown for the White House. Speaking in Colorado last night, the Washington Post journalist predicted that Vice President Dick Cheney and former First Lady Hillary Clinton would face off in the next election for president. Speaking as part of the Aspen Institute's McCloskey Speaker Series, Woodward explained why it is "highly likely" President Bush might implore Cheney to seek the Oval Office."He would be 67 if he ran and was elected," Woodward said, according to a Denver Post account. "Reagan was 69. Republicans always like the old warhorse….both parties like to nominate vice presidents. ... Cheney would do it, and I think it's highly likely, so stay tuned."

The Old Man and the She? Ouch! I think Woodward is wrong, wrong, wrong on this one, and I see no reason to change the analysis I provided here, except to add the additional disadvantage that he would be closely associated with the Iraqi intelligence debacle, nor my odds. I'd vote for him, but I think a campaign would, literally, kill him...

Able Danger: Congressional Hearings Seem To Be In Order

AJStrata joins the MinuteMan and others in broaching the subject of Congressional Hearings into the Mohammed Atta / Able Danger breaking story. For once, I'm gonna ignore my usual cautious impulses and agree; let's look into this thing fully...

UPDATE 2:01 p.m. central: Yet more from AJ here...

9/11 Commission: Oh, Yeah, NOW We Remember

On the heals of a New York Times story revealing that the 9/11 commission knew of, but ignored, the Able Danger/Atta angle, the always-excellent MinuteMan is now convinced, as AJStrata was from the beginning, that the Able Danger story represents a monumental intelligence foul-up:

...At this point we ought to await a description of the one hour condensed briefing that, per Weldon, was given to Gen. Hugh Shelton in January 2001 - that would seem to represent a clear, contemporaneous version of the Able Danger product. It is still dimly possible that the Able Danger briefing given to the 9/11 Commission conflated the initial effort with some post-9/11 updating, and that the original Able Danger briefing either had no names, or too many names to have been useful. Very dimly possible.

But assuming for a moment that Weldon is holding aces, how monumental an intelligence debacle is this, and who will be blamed? The obvious whipping boys of summer would be Clinton/Berger/Gorelick, for fostering an overly legalistic approach to the War on Terror; Bush/Tenet/Rice for failing to draw this information from the system in the summer of 2001, when we were at a high terrorist threat level and Tenet's hair was on fire; and Gen. Hugh Shelton and the Pentagon. Gen. Shelton (ret.) was Chairman of the JCS in Jan 2001 - if he heard and downplayed the Able Danger briefing then, he and the Pentagon might prefer to see it buried now.

As to how significant an error this was - obviously, after the fact Mohammed Atta was very important. Although I assume Able Danger did not offer any specific projections about hijacking planes, if Atta had been put under closer surveillance, the 9/11 plot might have been disrupted. Still, a point to ponder - was Atta noted by Able Danger as a key Al Qaeda figure even in 2001, or was he just one name among fifty, or five hundred?

I suspect that Congressional hearings into this will be forthcoming.

While the Democrats play with the pretend scandal of the publicity hound Joe Wilson and his wife, a truly deadly scandal may have played out under the watch of the last Democratic President. More to come, no doubt...