Sounds like the Bush administration is fighting back. First Rice reads back Kerrey's statement following 9/11 calling for the invasion of Iraq. Now Gorelick is revealed to have played a key role in hamstringing cooperation between the FBI and CIA. I think the administration is convinced some commission members are playing hardball with them, so they are playing right back.

Actually the chief culprit is OBL, but I see your point.

I wonder if she wants to apologize?

kh:

Perhaps. But it should be stressed that Gorelick DOES have a conflict. Her imposition of a draconian wall at the FBI - above and beyond the legal requirements - was the main impediment in our intelligence services sharing information.

Gorelick is on the wrong side of the witness stand.

Will the press ask Jamie Gorelick for an apology - seeing as how "there is no liberal media." Don't hold your breath.

Jeff:

You're right, of course.

The chief culprit for 9-11 is OBL.

But so long as the mainstream press is clammering to point a finger at someone in the U.S. Government, at least one logical place to start is with Jamie Gorelick.

nikita:

I knew it was your thread niki. This is such a non story. You certainly have a unique fingerprint.

Her imposition of a draconian wall at the FBI

A wall that came from Watergate and Edgar Hoover's excesses. A wall that started in the mid-80's. A wall that was reinforced by Ashcroft in August of 2001.

If only you were half-well inforned.

Professor Reynolds' hand twitches - watch Nikita dance...

I think Ms. Gore-lick owes an apology.

Non-story my Aunt Fanny. The investigation was at one time suppoesd to determine what was responsible for the intelligence failure that led to the successful attack.

I think the question has been answered - an inability to communicate between the intelligence agencies, and four consecutive presidents not taking the threats of OBL, among others, seriously (this was possibly due in part to the first problem - they were unable to understand the nature or extent of the threat due to poor intelligence assessments) and partly because, historically, the US had blinders on with regard to the degree of threat posed by state-sponsored terrorism (see the RAND report dated June 2001 that concentrates on small scale threats and the possibility of WMDs).

PATRIOT addressed the former. A nation-wide re-evaluation addressed the latter. Now, let us close the damn books and fight, already.

-BF

Gorelick's continued position on the 9-11 Commission will taint its findings. Congressman Sensenbrenner is right.

"Given the circumstances back then, Gorelick probably made the right decision. But that's beside the point. The issue is whether the media should be examining more closely her past statements and current commission acts. It's whether her hypocrisy -- being "especially aggressive in questioning Bush administration witnesses," as the Times points out, while having a history of staunchly defending the wall -- is undermining the credibility of the proceedings. It's whether she's unfairly using the benefits of hindsight to attack Republicans while saving herself from similar scrutiny. It's whether she, in fact, should also testify before the panel."

See:

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/015046.php

Anthony Do you think the CIA should be able to operate within the borders of our country? Do you think that the FBI should be interested in the issue of rogue states, their agents and anything that occurs outside our borders, including terrorist activities in other countries?

I have said all along that there was a willingness to horde information within these separate and disparate entities of our government, that although not the cause of 9/11, should be recognized as chink in our collective armor.

"A wall that came from Watergate and Edgar Hoover’s excesses. A wall that started in the mid-80’s. A wall that was reinforced by Ashcroft in August of 2001."

Quit playing the BlameGame.

These agencies rarely (if ever) 'shared' information.

nikita nikita nikita

Boy does Gorelick asks good questions or what? Lets examine every commissioner's statements. I'm sure fill find tons. I reiterate, this is a non-story.

anthony:

your spinning isn't working. it isn't Gorelick's "statements" that are at issue. it is her official actions as a high official in the executive branch of the U.S. gov't.

she should be in the witness stand like Tenet, Ashcroft, Reno, Freeh, Richard Clarke and the other executive branch officials who had responsibilities related to intelligence gathering and/or enforcement over the past several years.

Gorelick has more to add as a witness than most since she heightened the wall that prevented our intelligence services from sharing information.

I'm sure that you would deem it a conflict of interest if Condoleeza Rice - or Richard Clarke for that matter - was a Commission Member on the 9-11 Commission. The inherent conflict is plain.

Anthony, you're such a tool, LOL!

nikita

You're aware, of course, that the commission executive director Philip Zelikow was actually a member of the current administration, advised Rice throughout that difficult first 8 months when principal-level counter-terrorism meetings were sparse or simply non-existent and has actually co-authored a book with Rice. Raise a stink about that, there's a good citizen, or simply trot out instapundit's latest flimsy attempt to shore up Georgy's numbers.

bananas:

Zelikow was an advisor. He was never in a position to make official policy - and take official action - on behalf of the executive branch of the U.S. Gov't. Gorelick did make official policy and did take official action - i.e., heightening the intelligence "wall" - as the no. 2 person in the Justice Dept. in the Clinton Administration. She should be a witness like Mueller, Reno, Tenet, Ashcroft, Clarke, et al.

Indeed, as noted by Andrew McCarthy today:

- - - - - - -

Most sadly ironic, do you know what the rationale for the wall was? Read Gorelick's memo: It was to avoid the appearance of impropriety. It sacrificed national security in an effort to inoculate the government from a hypothetical, ill-conceived claim that national-security wiretapping power had been used as a pretext to build ordinary criminal cases. If the mere appearance of impropriety was a good enough reason as far as Gorelick was concerned in 1995 to gamble with American lives, why is it not a good enough reason in 2004 to promote the integrity of the 9/11 Commission by making sure its work is not tainted by a patent conflict of interest?

- - - - - - -

For the link, go here:

http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/011684.html

Today's front page story in the Washington Times on this topic:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040415-124435-3755r.htm

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: