About this site

  • Comments
    When you submit a comment, it won't be published until approved. This is to cut down on comment spam. However, I will also edit or block comments that are profane or offensive.
  • No Legal Advice
    Although I may from time to time discuss legal issues on this blog, nothing that I post should be construed as legal advice, nor as creating an attorney-client relationship between you and me. In fact, there's a good chance I'm not licensed to practice law wherever you are. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
  • Personal View
    This blog is neither affiliated with my employer nor hosted by it. It is maintained through TypePad, and I pay the hosting fees. Nothing that is posted here should be construed as anything other than the views of the particular author of the post.
  • Tung Yin's Recent Papers (SSRN)

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      


  • Check Google Page Rank

« Much Better Than Checking Out Your Date | Main | TBS' "He's a Lady": uh, yeah »

October 19, 2004


Tung Yin

Here's the problem: this story may or may not be true, but Scheer is such a partisan hack that I wouldn't trust a column of his based on anonymous sources. Presumably, the whole Rathergate fiasco has demonstrated that the more explosive the charge when based on secret sources, the more inherent credibility the reporter must have for the story to be believable.

Kevin Jon Heller

I obviously think more highly of Scheer than you, but I admit the story needs confirmation. Still, hiding the report would be in keeping with the general anti-democratic tendencies of the Bush administration, so I hope that Scheer's report will at least encourage the rest of the media to look into the issue.

Kevin Jon Heller

I also snipped the following from the block quote:

"When I asked about the report, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she and committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) sent a letter 14 days ago asking for it to be delivered. 'We believe that the CIA has been told not to distribute the report,' she said. 'We are very concerned.'"

The quote supports Scheer's story and is not an anonymous source.


First, let's consider the source. The CIA is second only to the State department in hating Bush's foreign policy. It can not be taken for granted that this is unbiased.

Second, even if it's true, so what? No one took the idea of a 9/11 style attack seriously before it happened. Barring basic competence and cooperation between the same agencies that are now pissed off at the administration, nothing sensible could have been accomplished until it happened and woke up the entire nation.

The "no one accountable" stuff is perhaps a little more worrysome, but not much. The only failures peculiar to the CIA and FBI had existed for far longer than the Bush administration and its officials. While I think cleaning house is a good precedent, and keeps the new guys on their toes, there's also something to be said for having the experienced hands around. It's not a devastating critique, in any case.


Second, even if it's true, so what? No one took the idea of a 9/11 style attack seriously before it happened.

Thus, we should censor the report? How does that follow...

paul a'barge

Paying attention to anything Sheer says is positive definite diagnostic of dementia.

It's in the medical school books. Go look it up.

The comments to this entry are closed.