"Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the [9/11] attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance."fine - my question is: since when is 29% slightly higher than 22%?
more from rasmussen:
"Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.
Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.
However, just 8% of voters say the CIA was Very Truthful before the War in Iraq. Another 33% believe the CIA was Somewhat Truthful. Most, 52%, believe the CIA was Not Very Truthful or Not at All Truthful before the War."
* via holden:
"(Jill) Carroll "doesn't recognize the photo released by the military of Jubouri.""heh.
* ken asks Laura 6 Questions about Iran:
"2. Who are the major players in the regime change camp?
There are a few civilians who were brought into the Pentagon during the first term to essentially pursue a regime change option. Some are still there working for a small six-person Iran office whose de facto head is Abram Shulsky, who formerly led the controversial Office of Special Plans. In the White House, some in the Vice President's office are believed to be skeptical that Tehran will alter its nuclear plans in response to diplomatic or economic pressure. A few people who worked for Liz Cheney at the State Department also favor regime change for Iran, and Syria too. Outside of the administration, Richard Perle and Michael Ledeen at the American Enterprise Institute champion the idea of an Iranian opposition movement rising up to overthrow the regime with American support. There's another group of mostly conservative former officials who want the U.S. to take the Mujahedeen e-Khalq off the list of terrorist groups and work with them to overthrow the Tehran regime. But Ledeen has spoken negatively about the MEK, which is despised by other Iranian opposition groups for being a cult and having fought against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.
3. How do these people believe regime change will unfold?
The group led by Perle and Ledeen argue that with sufficient U.S. support, and training, a coalition of Iranian groups—students, exiles, ethnic minorities, unions, and civic society groups—could topple the Iranian regime. Yet many people who have recently spent time in Iran say that any such revolution in Iran can't be controlled from outside, isn't imminent, and that overt U.S. support could be dangerous for those involved. It's all about interpretations of reality, as it was with the debate about overthrowing Saddam Hussein. One wonders if those advocating for heavy Washington involvement see that strategy as a means of deepening U.S. involvement to a point that military confrontation ultimately becomes inevitable...."
"Is oversight partisan? I would argue that the lack of oversight is partisan; oversight is simply Congress doing its job.
But according to Yochi J. Dreazen, writing in the news section of the Wall Street Journal, Democratic investigations of the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq 'are part of the party's attempt to capitalize on the growing public opposition to the Iraq war and further weaken President Bush's hand in his current showdown with Congress.'
The heart of his story? The echoing of what has become an essential Republican talking point. Dreazen warns that 'the probes could prove politically perilous for the Democrats . . . if people were to view the inquiries as partisan fishing expeditions or attempts to simply embarrass White House officials.'
For some political journalists, used to splitting the difference on any story that has two sides, there's a temptation to treat the issue of oversight the same way. But as journalists, it is entirely appropriate for us to be biased in favor of oversight -- until or unless it becomes pretty clearly gratuitous.
To warn darkly of overreach just as the Democrats are restoring a modicum of investigatory muscle to the legislative branch -- after a long period during which a Republican Congress refused to fulfill one of its most basic duties -- does a tremendous disservice to a public that deserves answers to questions that have gone unasked for much too long."
"Here's the latest volley in the ongoing battle between Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Waxman, the chairman of the House committee on oversight, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice today to complain that State Department officials had attempted to prevent a nuclear weapons anaylst at the department from speaking with his staff. This comes after Waxman's committee issued a subpoena last week for Rice's testimony on how she dealt with claims before the war that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. Rice has said that she won't comply with the subpoena.
Waxman said that when his staff sought to meet with Simon Dodge, a nuclear weapons analyst at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, a State Department official called and objected. According to Waxman, the official "informed Committee staff that you [Rice] were prohibiting Mr. Dodge from meeting with Committee investigators. This official claimed that allowing Mr. Dodge to speak with Committee staff would be 'inappropriate' because the Committee voted to issue a subpoena to compel your attendance at a hearing on your knowledge of the fabricated evidence."
Waxman wants to speak to Dodge because he raised alarms about the Niger evidence two weeks before President Bush cited it in his State of the Union address in 2003."