Me: Frank Lynch
Home
(Current
commentary)
These are my mundane daily ramblings.
For something
less spontaneous, I maintain The
Samuel
Johnson Sound Bite Page (over 1,800 Johnson quotes), with a
weekly essay springing from one of
Johnson's quotations.
Email:
frank
dot
lynch2
at
verizon
dot
net
More Gowanus Canal shots?
I have more here.I'm probably going to need to assemble all my thoughts on Richard Clarke's book when Im through reading it, but so far I'm a little disappointed by it. For one thing, I can't really tell what the book is about. I mean, ostensibly, I guess it's about the events and presidential decisions leading up to September 11 and thereafter, but is it limited to Al Qaeda related events? (Iraq will get significant attention, I gather.) But taking a look at the index, I noticed some items missing which, if discussed in the text and not included in the index, is some kind of usability issue (e.g., the items are not listed where I would have expected to find them). Or, if not in the text at all, I don't see how it could be omitted in a book which is about America's response to terrorism. Here's the item:
- A 1997 bomb plot in Brooklyn (NY) which was planned for the Atlantic Avenue transit hub.
It was a significant news event, and it was fueled by
Arabs or Arab-Americans. There's nothing in the index under
Brooklyn. Is it not discussed? Clarke goes
back to the Reagan years...
Link 9:51 PM
No one should be happy about the
series of decisions accompanying yesterday's agreement that Condi
Rice would testify to the 9/11 panel in public under oath. The
idea that Bush and Cheney will testify together, even if in
private,
hinders the truth finding.
Link 8:56 PM
Now at Starbucks, secret memos to Donald Rumsfeld. Concerning his talking points when he speaks to the 9/11 panel anyway. Story at the Washington Post, and further details (a pdf) via the Center for American Progress. A sample, as written by the Washington Post:
There's an underlined notation "DR" in the margin and a quotation, apparently from DR, perhaps Rumsfeld, to "Stay inside the line -- we dont need 2 ruff [or puff] this at all. we need 2b careful as hell about it. This thing will go away soon and what will keep it alive will be one of us going over the line."
Too bad no one so interesting works in my neighborhood.
Link 8:49 AM
Tonight on "Who Cares?": Reuters
reports that two former leading actresses from
TV's "Cheers" have landed roles in new sitcoms slated for the
fall.
Link 8:48 AM
Friction between Rice and Cheney?
Mickey Kaus (scroll down to Yes, I'm from California
and I'm Stupid!) says that without living in Washington DC he
doesn't know all the gossip, including the repelling magnetic
forces between Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice. "That could
explain the uncoordinated, discordant nature of their attacks on
Richard Clarke last week," he writes. Perhaps it could also
explain Cheney's August (2002) statement that "inspections won't
work," a view which seemed to be reined in shortly afterwards.
But then, maybe it's not a Cheney-Rice split: this USA Today article discussed a
Cheney-Powell split. But then again, in early 2001 Bush was
claiming North Korea had violated agreements it had never signed.
And this past week on PBS NewsHour, Powell's approach to Richard
Clarke was completely different from everyone else's.
Would we have a better feeling of unity if we included Christine
Whitman, former head of the EPA? Or maybe Paul O'Neill, former
Secretary of the Treasury?
Link 3:21 PM
Your tax dollars at work. Josh Marshall points out that the CIA is being pushed by the White House to scour classified testimony for releasable information that can bolster the White House's defense against Richard Clarke. Sez Josh:
It's one thing to declassify the whole thing. Perhaps there's some rationale for that -- though why Clarke's testimony and no one else's should be released seems questionable.
But the whole thing won't be released -- which would be the only way to really judge what he said -- only portions which can be selected to highlight apparent contradictions.
We're moving on to dangerous enough ground when the White House starts using the nation's intelligence agencies for explicitly domestic political purposes. But you know we're really in trouble when they don't even try to hide it.
As we all know, searching for information which exclusively
supports hypotheses leads to poor conclusions. We saw that in
Iraq, of course, where disconfirming info was disregarded. Don't
they realize that this takes resources away from supporting
national security? Why does the White House hate America so much?
Link 9:03 AM
Details can appear in the preface,
but since so many readers skip over prefaces, perhaps we need a
new name for them. I decided to buy Richard Clarke's book last
night, and in the preface he explains the title of the book.
It's a very important concept, and an accusing argument to
boot. A quick Google search, however, showed that very few pages
had terms associated with the title (I searched using "Clarke,"
"oath," "title," and "Against All Enemies" at once, and only 175
pages came up. Of those I looked at, most of the "oath"
references referring to Rice or Clarke taking an oath). But I did
find one discussion, and rather than reinvent the wheel, I
urge you
to read it, because the point of the title is to label Bush
and his cronies as the enemy. I haven't read enough of the
evidence Clarke will offer, nor have I heard the final
conclusions of the 9/11 panel (no one has yet), but
because of the severity of Clarke's charge, you should read it.
Perhaps the severity of the charge helps explain the severity of
the reaction: I have yet to find the original msnbc.com article
which this
page claims to be based on, but it says "A senior White House
aide told NBC News on condition of anonymity this week that Bush
personally ordered his aides to launch the counteroffensive
against the book, which the aide said Bush saw as a political
assault." UPDATE: John McCrory has found the msnbc.com
article.
Link 8:49 AM
What might have fallen from the trees? One of Richard Clarke's persistent allegations is that the White House (Bush and/or Rice) should have been "shaking the trees" on a daily basis, just as was done with the Clinton administration, in order to get as much loose information circulating as possible. In turn, the thought is, the dots which needed to be connected might have been more visible and therefore easier to connect. Clarke has never expressed certainty that 9/11 could have been prevented, but he regrets the government not going through this information aggregating.
Well, on top of the what we've heard from suspicions about
Moussaui and from an FBI agent in Arizona, World Net Daily is
reporting that an informant in Afghanistan passed the FBI a basic
outline that included jet hijackings in
April, 2001.
Link 4:22 PM
Won't you please help us spend our
money? More and more is being learned about the coziness of
the relationship between the defense department and Boeing. There
had been news reports about how it was too easy to work at Boeing
after working at the pentagon, and some of those concerned had to
give up their jobs. (Too bad.) Now Knight-Ridder is reporting
that the Air Force let Boeing redraft the Pentagon's specs in
order to
ensure that Boeing would get the deal.
Link 4:02 PM
If it's only a question of degree, I guess Clarke would say the difference between the Clinton and Bush emphasis on anti-terrorism is a great degree of difference. I've only been able this morning to look at the transcript of Clarke's appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" yesterday morning, and Clarke's words read strongly. At one point, Clarke says:
Well, I think they deserve a failing grade for what they did before because, frankly, they didn't do--they never got around to doing anything. They held interim meetings, but they never actually decided anything before September 11.
That, obviously, is more critical than "important but not
urgent." It will be interesting to see if the Bush administration
changes its tactics this week: last week's didn't help their
cause much, so let's see.
Link 11:22 AM
Upping the ante. On Friday, senate
majority leader Bill Frist called to have classified testimony
which Richard Clarke had given to the senate declassified —
as part of a ruse to question Clarke's credibility, since Frist later admitted he wasn't personally aware of
any conflicts in anything Clarke had said. Clarke's response?
Declassify it. Declassify it all. Even Rice's testimony and their emails to
each other. Go for it, Frist. Bring 'em on.
Link 12:57 PM
Worth seeing, but not worth going to
see. Many are coming here in search of this famous quote from
Dr. Johnson, so let me point you to it on my Samuel Johnson site,
newly uploaded just for you all. You can find it here.
Link 10:11 AM
A link to send your best conservative
friends: from the people who bring you "Radical Walking
Tours," Today
In Radical History.
Link 3:18 PM
A little more about the neighborhood.
A couple blocks from here an airliner crashed some 40 years ago,
killing everyone on board. The building at the site was
demolished, and the lot was empty for quite some time, and
efforts to build on it have been frustrating. The New York Times
has an article on it, but a caution first about the present-day
picture: the lot in question is in the left of the frame, with a
building in progress; it's not the empty lot across the
street. Here's the
article...
Link 10:08 AM
Perhaps you're aware, or perhaps you're
not. Perhaps when you talk to some people you are
aware, but then when you talk to others you're not.
Because really, you're aware but your not. You see, you're both
aware and you're not. Right? In yesterday's senate chamber, the
majority leader Bill Frist charged Richard Clarke of having
conflicting testimony in two different sworn statements he's made
to the senate. So he was aware! But wait, Frist later said
he "wasn't personally aware" of such conflicts. So he
waaasn't aware. See? You can be aware and unaware
at the same time. Josh Marshall has more. But InstaPundit only wants
to talk about the first part, and only the first part, even
though I've emailed about the second part some 18 hours ago. So
maybe he's unaware Frist is unaware? But I emailed him, so maybe
he's aware Frist is both... It's soooo confusing.
The most wonderful explosion of color
awaits you in this
post at two-muses.com. Click the pics for larger views.
Did Powell save Bush's presidency?
Well, to the extent that it could have been saved? Tonight
on PBS News Hour, Powell corroborated a Richard Clarke charge
which has been lost in the shuffle while the White House has
tried to discredit him in every way possible: the
Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz push to act against Iraq in the days following
9/11. Powell says that at Camp David he argued for going into
Afghanistan, while Wolfowitz argued to keep Iraq on the table.
Powell artfully demurred from taking credit for having given Bush
the correct guidance; rather he said what guidance he gave, and
that Bush made the correct decision. But think about the fix Bush
would be in now if Afghanistan and Iraq were dual, immediate
targets. If Bush has any chance at all of being re-elected, he
has Colin Powell to thank for it.
In other words, don't hold your
breath. This, from yesterday's White House press briefing: Q A lot of the September 11th families were very moved by
Clarke's apology. Does the President plan to apologize, as
well? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first and foremost, our thoughts and
concerns are always with the families of the victims of September
the 11th. And through our grief and anger, I think it's important
to remember that it is the terrorists that were responsible
for the attacks of September the 11th. (Emphases mine.) OK, but isn't the protection of the nation one of the primary
responsibilities of government? And isn't it supposed to do
everything it can in order to protect it? Here's what CIA
Director George Tenet said this week, when testifying to the 9/11
commission: So, it's the government's fault. But since Bush is in charge,
it's the terrorists fault.
Donating your money wisely. My wife
and I talked last week about how little we'd given to charity
last year, and how we needed to make amends this year. A letter
from my old high school had arrived a few days prior, and they
were high on our list for a few hundred bucks. But then I thought
hard about where our money would be of most use, and, no offense
to my old school or several million charities, but we decided the
best use of our dough was the John Kerry campaign. A donation
there could help
overturn the abysmal administration we currently have,
leading to
nation-wide improvements in so many ways. When we thought
about it in those terms, it was a no brainer.
Do over!! Do over!! OK OK Ok, says
Condoleeza Rice. All right all right all right, my stonewalling
over Richard Clarke isn't going so well. She'll testify again in
front of the 9/11 commission, but not under oath. That's
right, she'll answer their questions, only, don't hold her to her
answers, OK? Last night on the NBC Nightly News, White House counsel
Alberto Gonzales had said that an oath would be unnecessary
because Bush had already told all the staff to be completely
truthful. But you know how I feel about arguments like that: if
it's unnecessary, then what would be the problem with
administering it? Testifying under oath is not unprecedented. But I still like my idea.
The Dutch had an incredible influence on
the city of New York, and that includes Brooklyn (which was
not part of NYC until about a hundred years ago). It's
well known that New York City used to be called "New Amsterdam,"
ages ago. And, in Washington Irving's hilarious History of New
York (available in a Library of America volume, used copies as little as $10), his fictional
historian Deidrich Knickerbocker tells the story of his
ancestors' early days in Manhattan, and how, to make themselves
feel at home, they dug canals. Most Brooklynites also know that the name "Brooklyn" comes from
the Dutch, "Breuckelen," for "Broken Land." The name was thanks
to the many rivers and creeks running throughout. The Dutch
influence on Brooklyn can be seen in many street names (such as
Schermerhorn Street), neighborhoods (such as New
Utrecht), as well as the wide availability of donuts, which
are based on the olykoek. In
addition, the hardware store down the street from me sells Dutch
Boy paint. Now, here's an interesting tidbit: more people live in
Brooklyn than in Amsterdam. The divisiveness I've seen in the US in
the last 20 years or so sometimes seems unprecedented to me,
but I don't know why I would draw that conclusion, because
working on my 47 years, looking over 20 isn't that big a field.
Certainly the 2000 election looms large, and it's not helped by
the red state/blue state maps one often sees, which over-
represent differences, do nothing to show the continua, and pay
no attention to population concentrations. But I have frequently
thought about the attitudinal differences within the "united"
states, and marveled that we are a nation. I don't know enough
about other countries' regional attitudes, and having nothing to
compare ours to, am amazed at our tense union. The 2004
presidential campaigns are promising to be similarly divisive
— this weeks' 9/11 commission hearings gave an additional
taste of that — and so I think we all have room to be
concerned. But deep in my heart I know this is not the most divisive
period we've ever been through, and tonight I watched the first
part of Ken Burns' "Civil War" series again. As I got embroiled
in it and felt what people of the time felt, of course I became
depressed; and as I compared it to what we go through, I was
encouraged. Another reaction I had was due to the sensory
overload... The music, pictures, and words are such an onslaught
on the viewer, and jumps from story to story in its kaleidoscopic
fashion, it put my brain on overdrive. I wanted to do so many
things at once: write songs, draw, email my senator, hug my
family. A diverse tidal wave swept over me. I also wondered if similar projects had been done in other
countries? Is there anything analogous from France or England or
the Netherlands or Korea or South Africa? Burns' series is so
riveting, it really drills right into you. And I am curious...
The protection of intellectual property
rights is advancing, because Reuters is hiring a company to
spider the web for sites that use its written material. I
happen to think this is great news. Regular readers here
know I think that too much of the web's content development is
under-compensated (that is, users can surf and read all they want
without any burden, in ads or fees). Further, those who are
bothering to write good content have their words cut and pasted
indiscriminately. I've seen posts where a blogger uses upwards of
eight paragraphs, without adding more than two sentences of
commentary. The web site with the original content doesn't even
get a click through: why should they? the words have already been
pinched!
A hunt is on. Because of other
content on my site, people are coming here after using search
engines to find information on Richard Clarke's political
donations. I can only imagine what their motivations are, but I
suspect that efforts are being made to discredit him. Last I
heard he was a registered Republican, gang. Don't snub a patriot
just 'cos he brought you bad news.
Looks French, don't you think? No rabbits in the White House's hat.
I'm a little late to this, I guess, but one of the
administration's arguments against what they inherited from the
Clinton administration was a strategic approach to dealing with
Al Qaeda. The White House lore is that President Bush
complained,"I'm tired of swatting flies," that he wanted a
strategic plan. And so they worked and worked and worked on a
strategic plan — there's been little discussion of the
short-term and whether or not it was being addressed, but the
long-term plan was going to take years to fully implement. And
what was in the vaunted strategic plan which the White House has
used as evidence for its forward thinking and attention to
terrorism? We'll never know. It's classified. But former Senator
Bob Kerrey, sitting on the 9/11 commission, said this: Again, I can only imagine what's in the document, but it
sounds like the White House should be ashamed if they
expect the delays to be explained by their fig leaf.
Can't we put them together in a room?
The past couple days I was too busy on the book to spend much
time watching the public testimony to the 9/11 commission —
I even tried pumping the audio in through the computer, but that
was too distracting, and I chose to work. But among the few
snippets I caught were the regular complaint that there were
conflicts in testimony from one person to the next. Each person
who testified did so under oath, but they always did it alone. It
seems to me that this makes it really difficult to iron out the
discrepancies between witnesses. And there have been numerous
instances when a witness would say, "you should ask so and so,
not me." Wouldn't it be more productive to have them together,
practically debating each other's version of the events? Of
course, this wouldn't solve the problem of those who refuse to
testify publicly, like Condoleeza Rice. She has refused to do so,
claiming it's a separation of powers issue (yet she has testified
to the commission behind closed doors, so go figure). But this
has not stopped her from sniping at witness Richard Clarke,
without being under oath or facing hard questions. (Josh Marshall has more.)
High winds may be tough to take sitting
down. A report in today's New York Times indicates that high
winds around the redesigned World Trade Center may occasionally
make sitting
in its plaza hazardous. Are we going to need the pedestrian
guide ropes like they have in front of the Tribune building in
Chicago?
A jarring moment of humanity which put
the Bushies to shame. I was concentrating elsewhere and
didn't realize what Fred Kaplan saw: Richard Clarke made his much-anticipated appearance before the
9/11 commission this afternoon and, right out of the box,
delivered a stunning blow to the Bush administration the
political equivalent of a first-round knockout. The blow was so stunning, it took a while to realize that it
was a blow. Clarke thanked the members for holding the hearings,
saying they finally provided him "a forum where I can apologize"
to the victims of 9/11 and their loved ones. He continued,
addressing those relatives, many of whom were sitting in the
hearing room: Your government failed you and I failed you. We tried hard,
but that doesn't matter because we failed. And for that failure,
I would ask for your understanding and for your
forgiveness. End of statement. Applause. KO. Among the many feckless or snarky statements that Vice
President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza
Rice, and White House spokesman Scott McClellan have issued about
Clarke the past few days, the observation they've recited with
particular gusto is that this disgruntled ex-official was in
charge of counterterrorism policy during the first bombing of the
World Trade Center in 1993, the attacks on the U.S.S.
Cole, and the bombing of our East African embassies. Their
implication was: How can this guy, who allowed so much
bloodshed on his watch, be blaming us? And so now here's Clarke, in an official, nationally broadcast
forum, announcing: I failed, I'm sorry, please forgive me. Which,
as one member of the panel noted, is more than any official in
the Bush administration has said to any victims of the far more
devastating 9/11 attacks. Do not expect such humility from the White House:
personnel there are too busy covering themselves (as they have
been for the last two and a half years) to think such thoughts,
much less express them.
Link 9:32 AM
Link 9:20 PM
Link 7:40 PM
"As a country you must be relentless on offense, but
you must have a defense that links visa measures, border
security, infrastructure protection and domestic warnings in a
way that increases security, closes gaps and serves a society
that demands a high level of both safety and freedom. We
collectively did not close those gaps rapidly or fully enough
before September 11." (Emphasis mine.)
Link 1:18 PM
Link 11:41 AM
Link 11:32 AM
Surprising, no? But it's true. If
you consider what each has to offer, the reasons aren't apparent.
I mean, it's true that you can get great food in both, but the
museums in Amsterdam are better than those in Brooklyn (even
though the Brooklyn Museum of Art is no slouch). In fact, for
practically everything you can think of — gardens,
transportation, arts, and so on — Amsterdam is superior to
Brooklyn. But I am convinced more live in
Brooklyn because of the superiority of our canals. Seriously.
The picture on the right shows two canals: the top one is in
Amsterdam, somewhere in the Jordaan; the bottom one is the
Gowanus canal, here in Brooklyn. Now seriously, isn't ours so
much better? Who would want to walk by that canal in Amsterdam
(better image) when they
could walk by the Gowanus Canal (better image) in Brooklyn? The
Gowanus Canal is truly beautiful, and you can even get t-shirts
celebrating its Yacht Club. You can
even, if you wish, stop for a bite to eat at the Gowanus
Yacht Club and Beer Garden. More shots of the Gowanus Canal here.
Link 9:36 AM
Link 10:51 PM
Link 10:29 PM
Link 1:42 PM
On the left, Donald Rumsfeld. On the right,
Jean Paul Sartre. See how similar their hair is? Notice how they
are both wearing neckties? What's up with that? OK, so
Rumsfeld's eyes may be in better shape, but don't you think it
says something about whether or not we can trust Rumsfeld, that
he looks French? Further, he's obviously tried to disguise the
fact by having normal eyes. He looks French to me.
Link 12:33 PM
I was briefed this morning on that plan, and I would say
fortunately for the administration it's classified because
there's almost nothing in it. . . . I mean, it's not, in my
judgment, what it was sold to be, and I just -- I have to say
that for the record. I would love to get Dr. Rice in front of
this commission in the public to have her answer a series of
questions about that.
Link 11:56 AM
Link 9:09 AM
Link 8:44 AM
Link 9:50 PM
