In the LA Times today, we learn that The Bush administration is supressing a new report from the CIA until after the election.



Edited to add: Or if you don't want to subscribe to the LA Times - article here.

Edited to add: To add to the legitimacy of this claim, the LA Times also just published this story in the news section:


Questions for debate:
1. Should this report immediately be released so that the public and the media can analyze it before the election provided there are no national security issues? Why or why not?

2. Is the director of the CIA overstepping his bounds by waiting until after the election to release this report?

3. What is your interpretation of the reasons this report will not be released until after the election?

4. Assuming this report levels blame at the Bush administration, would it effect your vote if released? Would it effect the average voter?

1. Should this report immediately be released so that the public and the media can analyze it before the election provided there are no national security issues? Why or why not?
Of course it should. Regardless of the contents of the report the public has a right to know. And before the Bush supporters cry foul I'd be asking for release of this report if Gore were running for re-election as well. If senior administration officials are culpable as a result of these findings, it should be made known.

Secondly, the congress is currently working on enacting legislation related to intelligence reform and other recommendations of the 9-11 commission. Why, then, would the CIA's assessment not be taken into account with this legislation?

And finally, its safe to assume that this information could have an impact on the election. Deliberately witholding this information stops just shy of tampering.

2. Is the director of the CIA overstepping his bounds by waiting until after the election to release this report?
Its hard to speculate, as it would appear no official statements have been made by either director. Silence in this case is deafening, however.

3. What is your interpretation of the reasons this report will not be released until after the election?
See above in 1.

4. Assuming this report levels blame at the Bush administration, would it effect your vote if released? Would it effect the average voter?
For me? No. I don't hold Bush responsible for 9-11. I think terrorism should have been a greater focus for his administration prior but I've seen no evidence to indicate 9-11 could have been reasonably prevented given the disconnect between the FBI, CIA, and NSA.

As for the average voter? Perhaps. If anything, it might push a few undecided voters off the fence but I don't see much impact beyond that.

Doc

I say the report shouldn't be released until after the election.

If this were several months earlier, I'd say it needed to be shown. But at this stage in the game, it will have no credibility no matter what it contains because it'll be peddled as election propaganda.

We invaded a country that had not attacked us, we found no WMD, we found no credible ties to Al Quaida, we've lost 1100 fine Americans, our borrowing limit just tapped out at $8 trillion dollars because our deficit is out of control, Bush has never vetoed a bill, the government got 30% bigger under republican control, 600,000 less people have jobs than before Bush took office, we're granting amnesty to illegals, and Congress is the only ones getting pay raises and flu shots.

But the race is still a dead heat.

Does anyone actually think whatever this says will make any difference? I'd just as soon wait until after the election is over so the report gets the treatment it deserves.

Actually, that should be to add any legitimacy to this claim since Robert Sheer has no legitimacy whatsoever.

Also from the news article we have this.....



John McLaughlin is not a Bush appointee, he's a career CIA officer. It seems to me that if he felt additional information was required, then it was probably required. One doesn't trash people's careers just because a bunch of rabid liberals want to create an "issue" during an election season. And, that's exactly what's happening here. Why else would Robert Sheer be the first one "tipped off" by an "unnamed source" about this report? Nothing but politics going on here.



1. Should this report immediately be released so that the public and the media can analyze it before the election provided there are no national security issues? Why or why not?

No, because it's just politics.

2. Is the director of the CIA overstepping his bounds by waiting until after the election to release this report?

No, he is doing his job to make sure the report is accurate.

3. What is your interpretation of the reasons this report will not be released until after the election?

Because it's not complete.

4. Assuming this report levels blame at the Bush administration, would it effect your vote if released? Would it effect the average voter?

Why should we assume that? This is an internal CIA investigation and the vast majority of the CIA consists of career civil servants, not political appointees. If "names are named" the chances are they are career officers.

This is just an example of how far the Kerry people will go to get a couple of votes. Despite what they think, the American people are smarter than that.

In another time and another place, DR, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But what if, God forbid, there were another attack on the US next week - and this report revealed shortcomings which could have been addressed, possibly preventing that attack? Not, of course, that this administration would have done anything, anyway, but the longer this report is stonewalled, the longer we remain that much more vulnerable. if there are actionable, constructive criticisms in this report, the sooner Congress and the American people know about them, the better.

The fact is that the 9/11 Commission report, if anyone has actually read it, has already identified extreme institutional failings prior to the September 11 attack, which the Bush administration has utterly failed to address. The fact is that this CIA report should have been released last summer when it was completed. The fact is that the Bush administration is playing politics - and the stakes of the game are the lives of American citizens.

From the 9/11 Report (p. 265):
Our domestic agencies have still not been mobilized. They still don't have direction. There is still no plan to institute. Our borders are still not hardened. Our transportation systems are still not fortified. Electronic surveillance is still not targeted against a domestic threat. State and local law enforcement are still not marshalled to augment the FBI's efforts. The public - and Congress - is still not being warned. Why? Because the Bush administration doesn't give a damn about combatting terrorism. The Bush administration is too concerned with electioneering and maintaining their grasp on power. And the stonewalling of this report is more of it.

Further to the CIA, Adm. Turner, former head of the CIA, observed last July:
Scowcroft, Hart-Rudman, Berger, Clarke, FBI Report, 9/11 Commission... This administration could - and should - have been doing more to address the threat of terror before September 11, 2001. This administration could - and should - have been doing more to address the threat of terror since September 11, 2001. The fact is that it hasn't. It still isn't. And delaying this report is yet another sad instance of the Bush administration not only doing nothing, but also of preventing anything constructive from being done. Aquilla is quite right: Nothing but politics is going on here. Indeed, nothing but politics has been going on ever since George W Bush was "elected".

Aquilla is also right that John McLaughlin was not a Bush appointee. He was part of the ongoing problem with the corporate culture of the CIA since its inception in 1947. But Aquilla is wrong to suggest that Robert Scheer was "tipped off" by an "unnamed source" about this report. Robert Scheer was investigating the report and why it was being delayed, despite having been reported by the Inspector General's office as being complete as of last summer - as a good journalist should. I am amused that Aquilla scorns the statements made by "an intelligence official who has read the report" - as well as the word of the Republican head of the House Intelligence Committee, the ranking Democrat on that same committee, and the CIA Inspector General, yet accepts the claim by another unnamed "official" that the report was not complete. I guess some anonymous sources are more credible than others - even if their claims are backed up by no one.


Should this report immediately be released so that the public and the media can analyze it before the election provided there are no national security issues? Why or why not?

This report should have been released to Congress last summer when it was completed - precisely because it is a national security issue. The September 11 attack was the result of institutional failure - and the Bush administration has blocked every effort to determine the cause and extent of that failure and has further failed to address the remedies which have resulted from what investigations have been effected despite their efforts to thwart them. it's time this administration stopped worrying about their grasp on the reigns of power and started doing their damned job: protecting the American people.

Is the director of the CIA overstepping his bounds by waiting until after the election to release this report?

Hell, yes.

What is your interpretation of the reasons this report will not be released until after the election?

Because the Bush administration never wants the American people to know how directly responsible they were for failing to protect us on September 11, 2001 - especially not a few months - or, by now, a week or two - before their potential re-election.

Assuming this report levels blame at the Bush administration, would it effect your vote if released? Would it effect the average voter?

It wouldn't affect my vote since this report couldn't possibly lay more blame at the foot of the Bush administration than the 9/11 Commission Report - which clearly indicates the extent to which this administration was asleep at the wheel - has already done. As the implications of the 9/11 Report have been obscured by the complicit "liberal media", I doubt that this report would get much more coverage than the Commission Report - apart from those few brave men and women (like Robert Scheer) who still know what journalism means - and, consequently, wold have little impact on "the average voter".

That does not, however, prevent this paranoid administration from doing everything in its power to keep that which Congress and the public have every right to know from ever seeing the light of day. And, despite what some think, enough American people are not smart enough to see through them. Too few of the American people will ever demand the truth - and far too many will accept anything the Bush administration claims as a matter of faith.

What is important, though, is that this report could shed more light on exactly how our institutions failed us three years ago. And, should a responsible administration ever come to power, something might finally be done to address those failings - and the threat of further terrorist attacks on US soil.

That this report is being intentionally delayed is criminal - though not surprising in the least.

Definitely yes. It has to do with the current security of the United States, which has direct bearing on the Bush administration.
We have a right to know how well the administration has been doing.

Is it the right of American citizens to know what their government was doing, rightly or wrongly, to defend our country?
Of course he is overstepping his bounds--how dare he!

I dunno--why would a schoolchild hold back his report card until after he got his allowance? Hmmmm?

No, it wouldn't affect my vote. I already think this administration is the most secretive bunch of rascals in recent memory. This doesn't surprise me, but it keeps my blood pressure elevated.

It might affect the average voter, if s/he cared about issues and not scare tactics such as Cheney claiming that if George W. Bush is not re-elected there is going to be another attack on the United States itself. Truth trumps scare tactics.

Tell you what...how about we get the CIA report published/aired and, in exchange, allow the Sinclair Broadcast Group to air the tirade on Kerry in its entirety, both before the election?

1. Should this report immediately be released so that the public and the media can analyze it before the election provided there are no national security issues? Why or why not?

It should have been released to congress months ago! At this point we should have congress do an quick review, and then give it to the people.

Isn't this an issue of legislative oversight, one of our Constitutional checks 'n balances?

2. Is the director of the CIA overstepping his bounds by waiting until after the election to release this report?

Yes. This is unprecedented! The office of the Inspector General is meant to be coequal to the office of the director and fully independent.



3. What is your interpretation of the reasons this report will not be released until after the election?

I don't know. It doesn't matter.
What matters is this is a failure of the basic safeguards that are meant to keep us safe from a run-away government!

4. Assuming this report levels blame at the Bush administration, would it effect your vote if released? Would it effect the average voter?

The average voter will do what TV tells him to do. Just like the average Jo chokes down nasty burgers and wears footlocker crap because it is on TV. If advertising didn't work, nobody would pay for it.

No, it will not effect my vote. Bush has been against limited governmental power, and has made the government have unchecked power over us. He has claimed the right to strip people of their rights -- what could be more anti-American?

Bush has been anti-Bill-of-Rights every step of the way. Any self-respecting Libertarian would have to vote against Bush. What good are low taxes if we are not protected from the abuse of govermental power?

1. Should this report immediately be released so that the public and the media can analyze it before the election provided there are no national security issues? Why or why not?

No because like most of the reports so far it will be used and distorted by both sides and the truth will be left in the dust. If NAMES were to be named WHY were they not in the 9/11 report? The reason is that the Congress set this report up so that they would NOT have to assign blame – much of which would have fallen on THEM – for cutting CIA field agent budgets in the 90s and tying the hands of those that were left.

2. Is the director of the CIA overstepping his bounds by waiting until after the election to release this report?

No he is trying to keep the findings out of the politics of the election.

3. What is your interpretation of the reasons this report will not be released until after the election?

Same as above.

4. Assuming this report levels blame at the Bush administration, would it effect your vote if released? Would it effect the average voter?

How could it “blame” any administration? The CIA chief was a holdover as were most in charge. If there is blame it goes to the Congress that butchered the inte budgets from the early 90s.

If they released that report today, do you honestly think even the smallest thing the report highlights would be changed between now and election day?

I really doubt that a single security measure is being held up because it's in the report, but not released.

So, the "what if there's an attack" argument is a scare tactic to get our way. It's not as bad as the "If you vote for Kerry, you will die" scare tactic used by Cheney, but it's still politicizing terrorism to show further proof how big an idiot Bush truly is.

We don't need it to be politicized and no matter what it says, 2 weeks is not enough time for it's contents to make a difference. If we get attacked, it's because we poured $120 billion dollars into nation building, a foreign policy that creates anti-Americanism, and leaving our borders wide open. It will have had nothing to do with that report.

I want whatever's broken fixed more than another reason to want to fire Bush. And the less politicized it is, the better chance of that happening.

I think this is much ado about nothing. Don't take that wrong, I am sure the information in the report is critical to our national security, but according to report I read it's not all cloak and dagger as we've been lead to believe by the very biased articles provided here.

According to The NewStandard:



From the original link in the initial thread:



So the report isn't finished. Unfinished reports usually aren't broadcast for a reason.

JMHO

By the White House? Hell, no. By the House Intelligence Committee? Well, they could at least start reading the damned thing. Either way, that doesn't render the contents of the report any less urgent. Had this administration followed through on Clarke's counter-terrorism plan, had it heeded the Hart-Rudman Report or read its own PDBs, the September 11 attack might have been averted. While it is infinitely unlikely that the Bush administration will do any more about this report than they have about anything else, I still don't feel that these are the times to delay any intelligence which might help secure the American people - for any reason. While the White House may be totally inert when it come to national security, that does not necessarily mean that Congress will be.


Hard to say without knowing what's in the report. It could, of course, simply underline many of the failings outlined in the 9/11 Commission report. We will never know until this thing finally comes to light. I agree entirely that this administration will do absolutely nothing with whatever the report contains - that is, after all their forte - but that does not mean that the information contained therein might not be vital to a new administration which might actually care about the fate of the American people, to Congress, to other intelligence agencies, or to the military. George W Bush and his handlers are not, thank God, the only ones allegedly looking after national security.

And, if this report is released, maybe a few real journalists, rather than the panders in the popular press, would broadcast rather than cover up the results - and the American public might finally wake up and smell the napalm.


Not entirely. I will admit that it is a goad - but to affect national security, not a national election. Fox News could report tomorrow that George W Bush had a brief on his desk in January, 2001, stating that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon would be attacked on September 11 at around 9am, and most Bush supporters would still vote for him. My concern is with security. And the longer this report is delayed - for whatever reason - the less secure we remain.


So do I - but I'm afraid there's an extent to which the politicization might actually help what's broken get fixed. God knows, nothing else has moved this administration to lift a finger to secure the homeland. Maybe - just maybe - if this compounds all of what we already know about the egregious failure of this administration to avert an attack like that on September 11 - before or since - they might finally decide to do something out of sheer embarrassment. Or - real outside chance here - enough people might finally cop on to how absolutely useless this administration has been in terms of domestic security and actually do the right thing by helping to vote them out of office. While such salvation is a real long shot, having he information out there as soon as is humanly possible can't possibly hurt.



When it comes to CIA reports, Bela, you may be of the opinion that The New Standard, The New York Times, and the LA Times know more than the Inspector General of the CIA. I don't.

It is not up to the Director of the CIA to determine when a report is complete. It is up to the Inspector General. On the basis of named sources in all of these articles and columns, we only know two things for certain:

1. The report was completed last summer. The Inspector General of the CIA notified Congress of this fact. The report should then have been delivered to the House Intelligence Committee - without delay. Since the inception of the CIA fifty-six years ago, this has been standard procedure. For the first time in American history, such a report has been delayed beyond the date on which the Inspector General deemed it complete.

2. It is the bipartisan opinion of the House Intelligence Committee that the White House is stonewalling the report for political reasons.

The rest is window-dressing and spin.

4. Assuming this report levels blame at the Bush administration, would it effect your vote if released? Would it effect the average voter?

I voted early, for Kerry, so it wouldn't influence me. It might influence voters who may be undecided or leaning toward Bush. However, some seem willing to give Bush and his henchmen a pass on everything. That seems to have been a pattern all of his life. If it weren't for Neil Bush, I would liken the sympathy Bush gets to that of the runt of the litter. Is it possible for one family to have two runts?



Perhaps the appearance of a cover up will be more damaging to Bush than the actual report. On issues alone Bush should have imploded by now.