John Podhoretz says that there may be much less to the “Able Danger” issue than meets the eye. This doesn’t, of course, relieve the commission of its (what I consider) disgraceful behavior in whitewashing Jamie Gorelick’s role, and allowing her to remain on the commission, instead of what she properly should have been–a witness.

Andrew McCarthy writes about hypocrisy in Turtle Bay.

Michael Totten writes about who we are at war with, and who they are at war with:

The overwhelming majority of Islamist killers aren’t terrorists. They are soldiers and members of state-sanctioned death squads. Most victims of Islamists violence aren’t Westerners…they’re the Islamists’ fellow Muslims. It’s easy to forget this — or not even be aware of it — if you aren’t interested in what happens inside the Muslim world when George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and the rest in the West aren’t involved.

Michael Totten writes about who we are at war with, and who they are at war with:

The overwhelming majority of Islamist killers aren’t terrorists. They are soldiers and members of state-sanctioned death squads. Most victims of Islamists violence aren’t Westerners…they’re the Islamists’ fellow Muslims. It’s easy to forget this — or not even be aware of it — if you aren’t interested in what happens inside the Muslim world when George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and the rest in the West aren’t involved.

Michael Totten writes about who we are at war with, and who they are at war with:

The overwhelming majority of Islamist killers aren’t terrorists. They are soldiers and members of state-sanctioned death squads. Most victims of Islamists violence aren’t Westerners…they’re the Islamists’ fellow Muslims. It’s easy to forget this — or not even be aware of it — if you aren’t interested in what happens inside the Muslim world when George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and the rest in the West aren’t involved.

Andrew McCarthy has some more good questions about Able Danger and Sandy Berger that the press doesn’t seem very curious about. He finishes with this one:

Why has the public not been told at this point what was in the classified documents that Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger illegally pilfered from the archives during preparation for his Commission testimony (as well as President Clinton

Well, here’s a huge story that the MSM won’t want to touch. At least not until they can conjure up some insane angle on it that will somehow make it Bush’s fault.

I never cease to be amazed that the same media that continues to give Cindy Sheehan wall-to-wall coverage, and help her promulgate the lie that the president hasn’t met with her, is so incurious about the fecklessness of the Clinton administration, and Sandy Burglar’s reckless acts.

I should add that I’ve never been able to be as impressed with the “bipartisan” 911 Commission as the press wanted me to be. When Jamie Gorelick wasn’t required to recuse herself on those things being investigated in which she was directly involved, it lost all credibility with me. The sad thing is all of the legislation that was rushed through on its flawed (and perhaps, as we see now, duplicitous) advice.

[Update at 9:37 AM EDT]

John Podhoretz isn’t impressed with the commission, either:

The 9/11 Commission staff did hear about intelligence-gathering efforts that hit pay dirt on the whereabouts of Mohammed Atta — in 1999 — and deliberately chose to omit word of those efforts.

And why? Because to do so might upset the timeline the Commission had established on Atta.

And why is that significant? Because the Mohammed Atta timeline established by the Commission pointedly insisted Atta did not meet with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague.

And why is that significant? Because debunking the Atta-Iraq connection was of vital importance to Democrats, who had become focused almost obsessively on the preposterous notion that there was no relation whatever between Al Qaeda and Iraq — that Al Qaeda and Iraq might even have been enemies.

Well, here’s a huge story that the MSM won’t want to touch. At least not until they can conjure up some insane angle on it that will somehow make it Bush’s fault.

I never cease to be amazed that the same media that continues to give Cindy Sheehan wall-to-wall coverage, and help her promulgate the lie that the president hasn’t met with her, is so incurious about the fecklessness of the Clinton administration, and Sandy Burglar’s reckless acts.

I should add that I’ve never been able to be as impressed with the “bipartisan” 911 Commission as the press wanted me to be. When Jamie Gorelick wasn’t required to recuse herself on those things being investigated in which she was directly involved, it lost all credibility with me. The sad thing is all of the legislation that was rushed through on its flawed (and perhaps, as we see now, duplicitous) advice.

[Update at 9:37 AM EDT]

John Podhoretz isn’t impressed with the commission, either:

The 9/11 Commission staff did hear about intelligence-gathering efforts that hit pay dirt on the whereabouts of Mohammed Atta — in 1999 — and deliberately chose to omit word of those efforts.

And why? Because to do so might upset the timeline the Commission had established on Atta.

And why is that significant? Because the Mohammed Atta timeline established by the Commission pointedly insisted Atta did not meet with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague.

And why is that significant? Because debunking the Atta-Iraq connection was of vital importance to Democrats, who had become focused almost obsessively on the preposterous notion that there was no relation whatever between Al Qaeda and Iraq — that Al Qaeda and Iraq might even have been enemies.

Well, here’s a huge story that the MSM won’t want to touch. At least not until they can conjure up some insane angle on it that will somehow make it Bush’s fault.

I never cease to be amazed that the same media that continues to give Cindy Sheehan wall-to-wall coverage, and help her promulgate the lie that the president hasn’t met with her, is so incurious about the fecklessness of the Clinton administration, and Sandy Burglar’s reckless acts.

I should add that I’ve never been able to be as impressed with the “bipartisan” 911 Commission as the press wanted me to be. When Jamie Gorelick wasn’t required to recuse herself on those things being investigated in which she was directly involved, it lost all credibility with me. The sad thing is all of the legislation that was rushed through on its flawed (and perhaps, as we see now, duplicitous) advice.

[Update at 9:37 AM EDT]

John Podhoretz isn’t impressed with the commission, either:

The 9/11 Commission staff did hear about intelligence-gathering efforts that hit pay dirt on the whereabouts of Mohammed Atta — in 1999 — and deliberately chose to omit word of those efforts.

And why? Because to do so might upset the timeline the Commission had established on Atta.

And why is that significant? Because the Mohammed Atta timeline established by the Commission pointedly insisted Atta did not meet with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague.

And why is that significant? Because debunking the Atta-Iraq connection was of vital importance to Democrats, who had become focused almost obsessively on the preposterous notion that there was no relation whatever between Al Qaeda and Iraq — that Al Qaeda and Iraq might even have been enemies.

(Former?) Democrat and radio ventriloquist Phil Hendrie has a blog. With a surprising name. He’s not impressed with Cindy Sheehan.