September 2006

From Yesterday's NYTimes:

On July 10, 2001, the book says, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice at the White House to impress upon her the seriousness of the intelligence the agency was collecting about an impending attack. But both men came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously.

Tomorrow's WaPo:

The book also reports that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, grew so concerned in the summer of 2001 about a possible al-Qaeda attack that they drove straight to the White House to get high-level attention.

Tenet called Rice, then the national security adviser, from his car to ask to see her, in hopes that the surprise appearance would make an impression. But the meeting on July 10, 2001, left Tenet and Black frustrated and feeling brushed off, Woodward reported. Rice, they thought, did not seem to feel the same sense of urgency about the threat and was content to wait for an ongoing policy review.

I wonder if Condi feels the urgency now?

Raw Story has much more.

Last night I reported about the discrepencies in the story between Hastert and Boehner. Hastert said he was never told of Foley and Boehner said he told Hastert. Now it looks like the story has taken another turn (big ht to Josh Marshall)

From the Washington Post

The resignation rocked the Capitol, and especially Foley's GOP colleagues, as lawmakers were rushing to adjourn for at least six weeks. House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of inappropriate "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he then told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Boehner later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert.

Emphasis mine

It is very interesting that Boehner would have made such a damming claim, only to give a mia culpa. This is has cover up written all over it. This story over took the House yesterday and you can not tell me that the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader did not talk about it. You can only call bullshit on that.

With this single revelation, it shows that outside investigation must be conducted. The Republican leadership does not give a damn about the facts of what happened, only about political futures. They will twist stories and conduct cover ups if it means saving a seat or two. They will twist stories and lie in order to protect themselves. Bush constantly says that we are a "land of laws". Well the laws must be enforced vigilantly on this case.

Not surprisingly, the right side of the blogosphere seems somewhat quiet on the Foley news. There is however a couple of items I do want to bring up.

First is this post in Redstate's comment section:

I just posted a blog about this as you were writing your post, apparently, having just seen the Drudge reference.

What Foley did wrong was create this scenario in the first place, and so close to the election that the RPOF probably can't get a good replacement candidate ready in time.

Yes Jonlester it is bad that he created this scenario. Being close to an election has nothing to do with it however. By the tone of this comment, I believe Jonelster feels it would have been better if Foley would have been allowed to continue his little emails until after the election. This is a case of winning seats outweighs child safety to some on the right.

In that same comment thread on Redstate, we also see how the right is trying to pass Foley off as a RINO (Republican In Name Only):

This RINO Rep Foley has been unveiled for who he always was. He was a media favorite because he fought his President & is liberal/moderate.

Recall he dropped from GOP primary for US Senate race earlier this cycle or last. The political insiders heard of rumors he was a homosexual even then. But, he could not win any statewide primary race as the "moderate" Bush-opposing RINO anyway.

He flirts then drops before he loses. Now, he's finally gone.

The only difference I could actually predict if Foley would have been a Democrat is that it wouldn't have gotten this far. Why? Because Republican leadership would have instantly acted when complaints came out last year. It would have become a great issue for them. Instead it was a Republican and the Republican leadership could not let that get out in the open.

According to this report, you were made aware of Foley's actions and it is apparent you did nothing. Why did you not take action? As majority leader, you should have addressed this situation. Perhaps a better situation for your party would have been vigilance and removed Foley from all positions of power pending an investigation. Instead it is obvious you ignored it.

I am not asking as a blogger. I am asking as a constituent. Considering the pure number of these acts we hear reported in our own area on a daily basis (and I do only live 10 miles from you so we hear the same news), couldn't you have exhibited some outrage and taken action?

Like anything else, I do not expect you to answer. You have turned your back on the residents of your district time and time again, and I am sure this time will be no different.

Perhaps the best thing I can do is encourage my readers to donate to the man running against you. I have met Mort Meier, and can personally say he would have taken action should he have been in the same position as you, instead of ignoring something so disgusting. So to all my readers - please give to Mort Meier and help replace the enabler John Boehner.

 Sincerely,

Jamie Holly

Blogger