CIA Inspector General Report

Lots have been made about the CIA OIG Report on the failures running up to 9/11. Frankly it doesn't tell me anything I don't know, it is an executive summary after all and we don't know everything that went on and don't get me started on government "investigations". Anyway there is no way possible that means everything is Tenet's fault even though he deserves plenty. The Talk Radio Right have been trying to spin this to vindicate Bush, but if people actually read the summary they realize there is no way it would place blame on Bush or anybody else for that matter. The next to last paragraph on the third page of the report explicitly says:

This review focuses only on those findings of the Joint Inquiry that relate to the Central Intelligence Agency. The Team cooperated with the Department of Justice Inspector General and the Kean Commission as they pursued their separate inquiries. For this report, the Team interviewed officers from other agencies who had been detailed to the CIA in the period before 9/11, but did not undertake to interview systematically other officers outside CIA and the IC Management Staff. This report reaches no conclusions about the performance of the other agencies or their personnel.

So there you have it folks. Seriously read the summary and tell me that it tells you much more than you should already know. Take a look at this, this raw data alone covers much of what is in the report and might even give potential clues as to what is whited out. And as you peruse through the previous two links, remember it is raw data, consider the sources and decide for yourself, but please do a better job than this schmuck did when he considered raw data.

Frankly I don't know if we'll ever truly know the real people that are to blame for 9/11 happening. Clinton definitely should get a lot of blame and so should Bush. All those people rushing to Bush's defense need to refer to their weak argument for WARRANTLESS wiretapping, "if you don't have anything to hide, what are you worried about?" We should ask Bush the same question. If you don't have anything to hide, why refuse to go under oath? If you don't have anything to hide, why did you refuse to talk with the Commission unless Cheney was holding your hand the whole way? If you don't have anything to hide, why only let Philip Zelikow and Jaime Gorelick look at classified NSC documents? Zelikow worked on Bush's transition team and wrote a book with Condi Rice. As a side note this is an interesting little speech on page 5. Jaime Gorelick wrote this. Don't just skip over it, read it in full. So you have Condi's friend/Bush's employee on the Republican side and somebody who should have been interrogated by the 9/11 Commission on the Democratic side, instead of being on it. That is what we call in Washington a "bipartisan investigation." All those people who think laser beams melted the twin towers and all those people who think that the 9/11 Commission was legit should get a rubber room together.