Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Here's an article from today's NYT that's a sort of primer on "the wall." I can't figure out why anyone would use this stuff to attack Gorelick -- I mean I can, but Ashcroft was the AG in August, 2001. I don't know enough about this area of law to know whether the FISC ruling should have been foreseen, but it sounds like a lot of smart people didn't think so over many years.

Is Ashcroft on the commission? Is Janet Reno on the commission? Is Louie Freeh on the commission? Is George Tenet on the commission? No, but Gorelick is. Why is she on the commission?

Here is a primer on the wall:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ar...aid=11704013_1

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Is Ashcroft on the commission? Is Janet Reno on the commission? Is Louie Freeh on the commission? Is George Tenet on the commission? No, but Gorelick is. Why is she on the commission?

Why don't you do a Google search about how the commission was selected and get back to me on that.

The fact that you are not exercised about Zelikow suggests that this is not a matter of principle for you. Imagine that.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
"In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning, imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the law required," Mr. Ashcroft said, adding that the wall specifically impeded investigations into two of the terrorists who hijacked aircraft on Sept. 11.

Bilmore would rather crucify the anonymous GS-12 who probably drafted that memo for her. No sense in the captain leaping on the bayonet, to mix a custom metaphor.

Of course, Ashcroft is a hero for recognizing the wrongheadedness of this policy, and reversing it within, um, years of his confirmation as AG.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Of course, Ashcroft is a hero for recognizing the wrongheadedness of this policy, and reversing it within, um, years of his confirmation as AG.

Yeah, but at least my kid no longer has to see Justice's left tit.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
You'll need to subpoena Adam Nagourney to find out.

Shit, I forgot to answer your post (I think it was your post) this morning before I ran off to where I ran off to.

If I read your post wrong last night, I apologize, but I thought you were supporting the position that, because 9/11 happened, and even in the absence of some fault, SOMEONE must be sacked.

I find that concept offensive. If you didn't mean that, sorry.

[Not Me]

Even the NYT sees how Gorelick's conflict is so significant:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/po...2377e2&ei=5062

But Ms. Gorelick's baggage seems somewhat heavier than the others'. Last week, questioning Ms. Rice, Ms. Gorelick asserted: "We have big systemic problems. The F.B.I. doesn't work the way it should, and it doesn't communicate with the intelligence community."

Why not just put Ashcroft on the commission?

eta - Oops, meant to quote myself but edited instead. See Ty's quotes of my earlier post below if you give a shit.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

The Institute of Politics at Harvard University has posted this little test so that you can see where you fall on the political spectrum (of college students).

Take the test.



Here's where I come out:

You are a Secular Centrist. Secular centrists like you tend to be:

Strongly supportive of gay rights.
Believe strongly in the separation of church and state.
Less supportive of affirmative action than most college students.
Less likely to be concerned about the environment than most college students.
Less likely to believe in basic health insurance as a right than most college students.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Gorelick needs to resign from the commission because she was significantly involved in setting up one of the very significant structural flaws in our intelligence/national security systems that directly contributed to the failure to prevent 9/11.

A federal appeals court, which I consider better informed than you, said otherwise. "The appeals court that demolished the wall said, however, that it had been erected earlier and was only codified by Ms. Gorelick."

Explain to me how Zelikow did something that contributed to the intelligence/security failures that directly lead to 9/11?

Educate yourself. You could have found this by typing even fewer words into Google, you know.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Take the test.

• You are a Traditional Liberal. Traditional liberals like you tend to be:
  
  Against pre-emptive strikes as a policy.
  Strongly supportive of gay rights.
  Of the belief that immigration has been good for this country.
  Supportive of affirmative-action.
  Oppose tax cuts as an economic policy.
  Of the belief that basic health insurance is a right.

Like a typical liberal, I'm concerned about the welfare of the little green dots who appear to be smothered by my blue-dot brethren. Or, at least, I'm concerned about the welfare of those green dots falling on the left side of the vertical.

ETA: I'm disappointed that it took one poll question about tax cuts and converted it into "Oppose tax cuts as an economic policy," which is not a fair summary of my response.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
A federal appeals court, which I consider better informed than you, said otherwise. "The appeals court that demolished the wall said, however, that it had been erected earlier and was only codified by Ms. Gorelick."

Did you read her memo? She admits that what she was doing in 1995 went beyond what the law required. So she made the wall higher.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Educate yourself. You could have found this by typing even fewer words into Google, you know.

That doesn't compare to what Gorelick did that directly contributed to the failure to prevent 9/11. See the NYT article I cited above in which even the NYT recognizes that Gorelick's role is more significatn.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Shit, I forgot to answer your post (I think it was your post) this morning before I ran off to where I ran off to.

If I read your post wrong last night, I apologize, but I thought you were supporting the position that, because 9/11 happened, and even in the absence of some fault, SOMEONE must be sacked.

I find that concept offensive. If you didn't mean that, sorry.

It was mine. As mentioned earlier, that wasn't what I meant. Thank you.

***


Ok, this is the part where I'm supposed to walk on, but I can't help it. As a separate matter, I can't resist the temptation to stop and observe that people in Washington get sacked all the time, for reasons ranging from justifiable reasons to the completely frivolous: mild incompetence, embarassing their superiors, blurting out truthful statements in a moment of weakness, etc.

If the concept of determining objective fault for getting somebody sacked in Washington is your threshhold for acceptability, you must be offended quite often.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Did you read her memo? She admits that what she was doing in 1995 went beyond what the law required. So she made the wall higher.

You're confused. The court more recently said the law required none of it. But what Gorelick did was to codify that they were already doing in 1995. So she didn't make the wall higher, she just set it down on paper.

That doesn't compare to what Gorelick did that directly contributed to the failure to prevent 9/11. See the NYT article I cited above in which even the NYT recognizes that Gorelick's role is more significatn.

You're a hack. Whatever.

OK, that wasn't patient. I'll try yet again. You seem to be alone in your view that Gorelick's action in codifying "the wall" directly contributed to the failure to prevent 9/11. To show this, you would have to show that under the practices in place in 1994, the FBI and CIA would have shared information in a way that would have prevented 9/11. Since this was 16 years after the enactment of the law in question, this seems unlikely. In addition, the reason for keeping information away from criminal investigators was seen as constitutional, relating to the Fourth Amendment. Unless you think that everyone else was prepared to forego criminal prosecution of suspected terrorists, or to say that the Constitution doesn't apply to them -- surely a radical move even in this DOJ -- then you're on thin ice. Also, you need to show that what Gorelick did couldn't have been changed. Since the Ashcroft DOJ re-affirmed what Gorelick did in the spring before 9/11, you lose here, too.

Zelikow's ties to the administration, and to Rice in particular, leave an appearance of impropriety that smells in a way that Gorelick doesn't.

'Nuff said.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The Institute of Politics at Harvard University has posted this little test so that you can see where you fall on the political spectrum (of college students).

Take the test.

Here's where I come out:

You are a Secular Centrist. Secular centrists like you tend to be:

Strongly supportive of gay rights.
Believe strongly in the separation of church and state.
Less supportive of affirmative action than most college students.
Less likely to be concerned about the environment than most college students.
Less likely to believe in basic health insurance as a right than most college students.

Here is where I came out.

You are a Secular Centrist. Secular centrists like you tend to be:

* Strongly supportive of gay rights.
* Believe strongly in the separation of church and state.
* Less supportive of affirmative action than most college students.
* Less likely to be concerned about the environment than most college students.
* Less likely to believe in basic health insurance as a right than most college students.

My answers in order were:

5,5,3,1,1,5,5,1,5,5,3

The best way to increase economic growth and create jobs is to cut taxes.

5

Our country's goal in trade policy should be to eliminate all barriers to trade and employment so that we have a truly global economy.

5

Basic health insurance is a right for all people, and if someone has no means of paying for it, the government should provide it.

3

Qualified minorities should be given special preferences in hiring and education.

1

Religious values should play a more important role in government.

1

In today's world, it is sometimes necessary to attack potentially hostile countries, rather than waiting until we are attacked to respond.

5


Protecting the environment should be as high a priority for government as protecting jobs.

5

Homosexual relationships between consenting adults are morally wrong.

1

If parents had more freedom to choose where they could send their children to school, the education system in this country would be much better.

5


I am concerned about the moral direction of the country.

5

Recent immigration into this country has done more good than harm.

3

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
A federal appeals court, which I consider better informed than you, said otherwise. "The appeals court that demolished the wall said, however, that it had been erected earlier and was only codified by Ms. Gorelick."

my problem is every argument you make for keeping gorelick on the commission would point letting lots of others on too. so far none of you can say why gorelick is allowed, but several others aren't.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
my problem is every argument you make for keeping gorelick on the commission would point letting lots of others on too. so far none of you can say why gorelick is allowed, but several others aren't.

Who's not allowed on the commission?