IN THE NEWS
Josh Marshall has an excellent discussion of the ways in which Bush is not embracing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, while claiming that he is. I won't steal Marshall's thunder, but let me add a couple of thoughts beyond what I wrote yesterday:
- This shows, yet again, the value of primary sources. As boring as it may seem, it's important to read the 9/11 Commission report. Throw in the Senate select committee on Iraqi intelligence while you're at it. And the Taguba Report. Of course you don't need to read every single word, but even a light skimming is extremely revealing.
- As a corollary, don't have news analysts decide for you what's in these reports, what's important about them, or how they have or haven't been implemented. Read and decide yourself.
- If you're looking for reasons why Bush is effectively rejecting the 9/11 Commission's recommendation, I'll add my speculation into the mix. Bush seems comfortable with sweeping changes when he has a loyal lieutenant to whom he can hand responsibility for its execution. Here, John, the PATRIOT Act should be in good hands with you. Here, Tom, we need to get this Homeland Security Department going. Here, Don, we need to wage a pre-emptive war to make a point. Bush doesn't have such a person to whom he can hand any intelligence reforms. Worse, Rumsfeld's DoD stands to lose a great deal of power and influence if it hands over real authority over its intelligence operations to some higher intelligence "tsar." (I hate that word when it's used to mean some kind of new, powerful bureaucratic supremo. I can't help but think of Tsar Nicholas II's fate.) And Bush isn't someone who shuffles his Administration staff around much already, so urging him to make these changes is probably more irritating than welcome to him.
Comments