Hmmm...
 
As we approach the Democratic convention, I was about to do a retrospective posting about how we got here and where things stand, but I've been distracted by the Sandy Berger news and the 9/11 Commission report, as well as the Joe Wilson trashing.

First, on Sandy Berger, given the New York Times article today, isn't it clear that this was a well-timed leak by the Bush Administration to attempt to 1) overshadow the 9/11 Commission Report and 2) drown out the pre-Democratic convention press?  Here's the applicable quote from the Times, after noting that the White House Counsel's office knew about the investigation:

The White House declined to say who beyond the counsel's office knew about the investigation, but some administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they believed that several top aides to Mr. Bush were informed of the investigation.

Now, the next question is, which "top aides" were informed of the investigation?  It wouldn't happen to be the same "top aides" that have been called into the grand jury over leaking Valerie Plame's cover, would it?  Any one see a pattern here?

And on Plame, the effort to vilify Wilson now by the Republicans and the White House is a bit puzzling.  After all, didn't the White House and Condi Rice ADMIT earlier this year that in fact those 16 words did not belong in the State of the Union and that they were, if not inaccurate, suspect at best? That's sorta like trying to take back your guilty plea after evidence gets tossed under the exclusionary rule, isn't it?

Finally, the 9/11 Commission report -- I haven't read it, but I will read the executive summary.  (A la the Martin Short character in The Big Picture: "I have read almost all of these scripts almost all of the way through").  Here's a big hunch though -- Richard Clarke will be vindicated.

 

- posted by Joshua @ 4:33 PM