Can't Both Be Right

If I am telling you one thing, and Mickey Kaus (backed by Ron Brownstein!) is telling you something else, you have to put your money on Mickey. I, of course, am planning to back the longshot. Here's Mickey:

Ron Brownstein confirms that the voters have more sense than the press and the Bushophobes--and than Ron Brownstein, for that matter. According to Brownstein, voters care about the soundness of Bush's reaction to 9/11, not the current festival of hindsight that would blame him for failing to anticipate 9/11.

I, of course, said the opposite, predicting that the new CW would be that Bush and Rice failed badly pre-9/11, primarily by adopting a hands-off management style that overlooked some obvious problems at the FBI.

Here is the newly released 9/11 Commission Staff Report on the FBI; news coverage suggests it is pretty scathing.

MORE: Or split the difference - Mickey is describing the past, where I am Boldly Predicting the future.

Comments

[Cecil Turner]

The source document is less scathing than the news report. The AP piece is also misleading in a couple of places, most notably where it faults AG Ashcroft for rejecting a funding appeal on 9/10/01, while failing to mention it was for FY 2003 (or noting the eight percent AT budget increase in FY 2002). The commission report was also much kinder in the bottom line:

The FBI attempted several reform efforts aimed at strengthening its ability to prevent such attacks, but these reform efforts failed to effect change organizationwide.

As to political fallout, this report might actually help the Administration. Probably the biggest problem highlighted was the FBI's institutional failures in information-sharing. Combined with the PDB document's claims of 70 ongoing investigations, it likely lulled top leadership into believing things were under control . . . when in fact critical information was not being managed properly.

[TM]

I have excerpts posted somewhere, and it was scathing enough for my taste.

The budget figures are puzzling - it says that Although the FBI’s counterterrorism budget tripled during the mid-1990s, FBI counterterrorism spending remained fairly constant between fiscal years 1998 and 2001.

So if they weren't spending their budget, rejecting a budget increase is no big deal. But Ashcroft gets smoked in other parts, as does Reno.

My impression is that the problems with the FBI were well enough known even in 2001 that Rice should not have been lulled into thinking the FBI had things under control. Clarke can be faulted, too, for failing to disabuse her of that notion.

[Cecil Turner]

So if they weren't spending their budget, rejecting a budget increase is no big deal. But Ashcroft gets smoked in other parts, as does Reno.

I read that to mean the budget increased rapidly in 1994-7, plateaued in 1998-2001, and got another modest increase just prior to 9/11. Based on the rest of the document, it looks like they spent what they got.

The other AG criticisms were a lot more convincing. The AP story put that bit about 2003 spending in the opening paragraph and then repeated it in the body, and both times failed to provide background. (I'd also note it's completely absent from the new improved version.)

[bushgirlsgonewild]

You know what happened in the White House? The same thing that happenes at any office when the boss is never around: people screw off too much and don't get any work done. Bush should have taken his job more seriously and not taken so many vacations (assuming he's really capable of running things).

[Cecil Turner]

BGGW,

You really ought not to provide straight lines like that one . . .

The Herald reported yesterday that Kerry, the Democratic front-runner, has missed every one of the 22 roll call votes in the Senate this year and 292, or 64 percent, last year.

[bushgirlsgonewild]

Well, there's a vast vacation allowance difference when you've been on the same job for 20 years vs. 6 months...a 30-day vacation after 6 months? Running for President is a fair excuse; also, I’d say a note from his doctor regarding a battle with cancer counts too.

Prior to Sept. 11, 2001, The Manchester Guardian calculated that Mr. Bush, in his first seven months of office spent 42 percent of his time on holiday. He got a little more serious after 9/11 and has only been on vacation 27% of the time.

How about this: Why does Bush still take two-hour lunches when he is in Washington, and exercises at 11 a.m. when most people are still hard at work? Does he still play computer video games at "work" these days, as he did when he was Texas governor?

[Cecil Turner]

BGGW,
This is really a dumb argument. Even if presidents didn't work at Camp David or their home towns (and they do--e.g., Camp David Accords, various foreign dignitary visits). You can't seriously be suggesting we dump the guy who's been on duty 73% of the time, and replace him with the one who has a 36% record for last year and 0% in this one.