A Foley-Free Zone (for today, anyway)

Because John is doing such a bang-up job (no pun intended) of covering the latest in the Republican Congressional Pedophile scandal (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), there's no point in re-inventing the wheel, however tempting it might be to weigh in. So go pay John a visit and catch up there when you're done here. Then go see Pam and take special note of how Faux News is now identifying Mark Foley as a DEMOCRATIC Congressman. Creating your own reality indeed.

There used to be a not-very-funny joke about how the big Jewish dilemma was free ham. It has been fun, however, in that same not-very-funny way, to watch as Republicans get all holier-than-thou about not wanting to gay-bash, with guys like Newt Gingrich try to spin this thing by claiming that they couldn't have done anything about Mark Foley without being accused of gay-bashing -- as if the ever-spiraling rhetoric about gay marriage and how homosexuals are responsible for the downfall of western civilization is simply concern for the children. Disingenuousness, thy name is "Republican." It's also been fun to watch them draw parallels between Bill Clinton's liaison with a groupie who was a consenting adult with a Congressman preying on teenage boys.

But while there is a certain pleasurable schädenfreude about the whole thing, I fear that the "all pedophilia, all the time" news cycle is obscuring a far more important story -- the revelation in Bob Woodward's new book, now confirmed by the State Department, that then-DCI George Tenet met with Condoleeza Rice on July 10, 2001 to go over intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. by Osama Bin Laden was imminent -- and getting the brushoff from a National Security Adviser who regarded action on Bin Laden as "swatting flies." It was clear even back then that the Administration was already thinking "Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq and Iraq" -- and even Rice herself testified before the 9/11 commission that the Bush Administration wanted to include dealing with Al Qaeda as part of a broader Middle East strategy (read: the PNAC agenda). In case you missed it the first time, this is part of Keith Olbermann's terrific timeline on how the Bush Administration misjudged and neglected the terrorism threat every step of the way in the months leading up to the 9/11 attacks:

"I don't remember a so-called emergency meeting," Rice said on Monday, obviously understandably believing that the entirety of the U.S. press was still going to behave as the Bush Administration lapdogs they've been for the last five years. Well, I understand, as a woman only a year younger than Rice, that brain fog and forgetfulness is part of what happens temporarily at this time of life until you get through menopause. But one would think that the nation's National Security Adviser would have meticulous records of who told her what when.

Rice may not have kept notes, but the State Department did, and yesterday her spokesman tried to spin the department's confirmation of this meeting:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did receive a CIA briefing about terror threats just about two months before the Sept. 11 attacks, but the information was not new, her chief spokesman said.

In doing so, Sean McCormack confirmed a meeting _ on July 10, 2001 _ that his boss had said repeatedly she could not specifically recall. She had said earlier that there were virtually daily meetings at the time.

"The information was not new". Now where have we heard that before? Oh yes...in this very same Condoleeza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission:

RICE: If you'll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions that you've asked.

First of all, yes, the August 6 PDB was in response to questions of the president -- and that since he asked that this be done. It was not a particular threat report. And there was historical information in there about various aspects of al Qaeda's operations.

Dick Clarke had told me, I think in a memorandum -- I remember it as being only a line or two -- that there were al Qaeda cells in the United States.

Now, the question is, what did we need to do about that?

And I also understood that that was what the FBI was doing, that the FBI was pursuing these al Qaeda cells. I believe in the August 6 memorandum it says that there were 70 full field investigations under way of these cells. And so there was no recommendation that we do something about this; the FBI was pursuing it. I really don't remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don't remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

Now, the...

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste...

BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the...

RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.

RICE: Given that -- you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.

RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.

Now, wouldn't one think that if the head of the CIA briefs you on July 10 that attacks are imminent, and then you see a PDB on August 6 that says "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the U.S.", you'd do the math and figure that just maybe there was a risk of something significant happening?

YOU would, and I would, because if you see water puddling under the water heater, you don't wait till the basement is flooded before calling the plumber. But the Bush Administration doesn't. And it doesn't because it has this idée fixe about Iraq, which either makes them ignore all these warnings because they are obsessed with Saddam Hussein, or take the calculated risk that whatever attack occurs will provide the pretext they need without causing significant casualties and damage. And that's why you put Cheney in charge on 9/11 and ship Bush off to a first-grade classroom. And that's why you leave him there with that "Oh, shit, they didn't tell me it would be something like this" expression on his face for seven full minutes.

And this nitwit, this Condoleeza Rice in her Ferragamo shoes bought while people are dying in New Orleans, this woman who can't even lie credibly, is someone they're touting as a presidential candidate?

Even now, Dennis Hastert, in a desperate attempt to continue to play the fear card by saying "We are the insulation to protect this country" to voters who are growing ever-more disgusted with a Republican Congress that's acting as a procuring agency for pedophiles is still insisting that only Republicans can protect Americans. Except for teenaged boys, I guess, who are simply a perq of the office for Republican Congressmen.

But in light of the revelations about the now Secretary of State's blowing off of information that could have generated a Federal response much earlier on 9/11, or even before, how on earth can anyone possibly vote for the Republicans as the "protecting America" party?