Kissinger Quits 9/11 Panel
	found on Salon written by zaydoun, edited by Dylan (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Fri 13 Dec 4:55pm
		"It is clear that, although specific potential conflicts can be resolved in this manner, the controversy would quickly move to the consulting firm I have built and own. I have, therefore, concluded that I cannot accept the responsibility you proposed." "Well that sure didn't last," smirks zaydoun. "Now I wish I had taken bets to see how long Kissinger would last before calling it quits from the 9/11 panel. Let's just hope Bush appoints someone halfway decent to replace him, and lets also pray John Poindexter and Elliot Abrams have a similar awakening. That sound you hear? It's Christopher Hitchens gloating."

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 45 commentsbest: 5 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Help Wanted: Government Experience Required   by elforman       at Fri 13 Dec 5:07pm score of 2 astute     "Let's just hope Bush appoints someone halfway decent to replace him..." Like who? There's no way Bush will pick anybody who will come up with anything even remotely critical of the government's failures, at least not those failures that can be identified as occurring after Bush was sworn in.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Re: Help Wanted: Government Experience Required   by tomaxxamot       at Fri 13 Dec 5:28pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 1     There's no way Bush will pick anybody who will come up with anything even remotely critical of the government's failures, at least not those failures that can be identified as occurring after Bush was sworn in. And that's a mistake on his part. If 9/11 is sacrosanct and beyond politics, as both parties insist, a cynical and partisan appointment looks wholly hypocritical. Bush would have been better served giving a nominally centrist Democrat the #2 spot on the panel (or hell, selecting someone from the GOP's own ranks who's at least not totally odious to a large segment of the American population. He didn't though, which makes me wonder if Rove's vaunted machiavellian savvy is starting to slip. Spread the News - the Ego has Landed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  9/11 is more political than most events   by GodSpiral       at Sat 14 Dec 9:11am score of 1   in reply to comment 9     If 9/11 is sacrosanct and beyond politics, as both parties insist, a cynical and partisan appointment looks wholly hypocritical. In fact, any motherhood issue so sacred as to be above politics, is more political than contentious issues. You can end arguments/discussions with "revering 50 year old segregation policies is racist", or let freedom ring. 9/11 brings even greater untouchable issues, in that placing blame internally, deprecates government, and the thoughts that americans could conspire in such evil is unattractive and resisted. I think its pretty clear that the independent commission, because it is appointed by government (White house) exists to whitewash 9/11, and produce pro-government conclusions (More security/intel/defense spending recommended to take place to prevent such events). The two top resignations indicate two things to me. The political gains from serving on the commission, are outweighed by the political attacks that will/were going to take place. The fact that Mitchell (who was not being overtly targeted by op-eds, and in fact seemed to be getting a cozy reception) resigned strengthens my second suspicion: That a preliminary overview of the facts is intimidating appointees' promisses to the whitehouse to whitewash them. 9/11 timeline Beyond the political necessity to cover up behaviour from needed present and future allies, the above link also details an overwhelming amount of coincidences, that certainly could be further investigated by the media and law enforcement if there were (not) political motive to (not) do so. The 2 major questions implicating US problems in 911 are 1. For each of the 4 planes, the response time between knowing the plane was hijacked and Scrambling Jet fighters was over 30 minutes. Procedures are supposed to scramble within 5 minutes. 2. An october US military attack on Afghanistan was bing overtly talked about in Asian press in May and July '01, and forces were pre-deployed to react quickly to 911. If there wasn't going to be a gulf of tonkin-like war-ignition (911), then where were the congressional and talk show primings for a pre-emptive strike against terrorism. The buildup is inconsistent with the government not telling us, they were planning to strike against Afghanistan all along. All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Problem...   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Sat 14 Dec 2:29pm score of 1   in reply to comment 9     Regardless of what I might think about William Cohen, it'd be more than a little odd for Bush to tap him for an important post after slagging the Clinton Administration's mismanagement of the DoD so hard during the 2000 campaign. Moreover, one could argue that Cohen has a distinct conflict of interest, given that he was on watch during the early phases of Bin Laden's war on the U.S. Just off the top of my head, Warren Rudman, a veteran of the depressingly prescient Hart-Rudman Commission, would be a more likely choice, I suspect. Then again, he might be a little too unflinching and plainspoken for comfort. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Bush, 9/11, partisanship and the high road   by zanzibar       at Sat 14 Dec 12:57pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 18     In fact, any motherhood issue so sacred as to be above politics, is more political than contentious issues. You can end arguments/discussions with "revering 50 year old segregation policies is racist", or let freedom ring. 9/11 brings even greater untouchable issues, in that placing blame internally, deprecates government, and the thoughts that americans could conspire in such evil is unattractive and resisted. I think there's a big grain of truth in tomaxxamot's post, though. 9/11 was almost certain to be the subject of partisan, political warfare-- but it didn't necessarily have to be that way. If Bush had made a point of holding 9/11 above politics, he could have kept the partisan squabbling to a minimum and also made himself look like a bigger man. No Democrat would have been able to throw the first stone without making their party look putrid. Instead, the Bush administration almost immediately began using 9/11 to their political advantage. The high road was there for Bush (and only Bush), and except for a lot of talk, however, he spurned it. In a way, he's responsible for every political and partisan shot that's been fired since.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  There's no high road in the War of Ideas   by Arkestra       at Mon 16 Dec 5:28am score of 1   in reply to comment 27     If Bush had made a point of holding 9/11 above politics, he could have kept the partisan squabbling to a minimum and also made himself look like a bigger man. Sadly I reckon thinking that the Democrats would have done any different is indulging in wishful thinking. When a disaster like this happens, the first form the political response takes is: "what are the benefits and pitfalls of this to me and my power bloc?", not "what can I do to help these poor people?". Wishing something different from the political class in any society is like wishing that the sky wasn't blue. Of course, what this also means is that bullying people to fall in behind Bush because "we're at war and he's the Commander-in-Chief, dammit" is eyewash of the first order. The Big Picture here is how America's unchallenged hegemony is to be wielded in our unipolar world. The Democrats know this. The 9/11 panel is one of many battlegrounds the real war, the war over US foreign policy, will be fought. We know the US can defeat pretty much anyone militarily, so I view the war of ideas as the more important one. Just because you can wield the power, does that mean you should? The head of the 9/11 panel will lie to push the Bush Administration line. It's up to the Democrats to try and crucify them in response. Kissinger knew his business interests would suffer in the crossfire, and that's why he resigned. Say what you like about the guy, but he's no fool. Down pokey quaint streets in Cambridge / Cycles our distant spastic heritage   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  I'd even go further...   by zanzibar       at Fri 13 Dec 5:40pm score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 1     There's no way Bush will pick anybody who will come up with anything even remotely critical of the government's failures, at least not those failures that can be identified as occurring after Bush was sworn in. I think Bush'd rather cover up for even Clinton's mistakes than to uncover a need for serious reform in the current CIA, FBI or Pentagon.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Re: Help Wanted: Government Experience Required   by MAYORBOB       at Fri 13 Dec 5:46pm score of 2 helpful   in reply to comment 1     "Let's just hope Bush appoints someone halfway decent to replace him..." Yeah, well you know if Bush was really all that interested in a complete, factual investigation why would he have named a lying sack of shit like Kissinger in the first place? Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: Help Wanted: Government Experience Required   by abe       at Mon 16 Dec 12:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     i've always been a big bill weld fan, but after jesse helms targeted him in the whole absurd mexican ambassadorship fiasco, he is probably anathema to the right. still, if membership in the republican party and government service (law enforcement background as former reagan-era u.s. attorney, not to mention governor of massachusetts), as well as crossover appeal (which is as close as any pol is probably going to get to "credibility") are the criteria, he'd be a good match. of course, weld would be a loose cannon, and it does sound like that's what the government - republicans and democrats alike - don't want. i think if we knew how byzantine the national security system is and how rife the system is with red tape and bitter, petulant little quarrels over their own fiefdoms, we pee our collective pants.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  domino effect   by captainebo       at Fri 13 Dec 5:07pm score of 1     My, my, my, so many famous conservatives losing their jobs. Cardinal Law, Paul O'Neill, Mary Magdeline and now Henry Kissenger. Best of all, Trent Lott seems next in line.       When it rains it pours. I can only hope the fallout for Republicans will be huge. Ebo "In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds." -Martin Luther King   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Re: domino effect   by holgate       at Fri 13 Dec 5:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     Cardinal Law, Paul O'Neill, Mary Magdeline and now Henry Kissenger. Um, I think you mean Mary Matalin. Though as she's also Mrs James Carville, I'm sure there are certain people who'd associate her with Jesus's favourite woman of ill repute...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   5.  Re: domino effect   by captainebo       at Fri 13 Dec 5:19pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     you are exactly right, and I apologize. Ebo "In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds." -Martin Luther King   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   8.  Re: domino effect   by itf       at Fri 13 Dec 5:24pm score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 2     My, my, my, so many famous conservatives losing their jobs. Cardinal Law, Paul O'Neill, Mary Magdeline and now Henry Kissenger. Hmm...check your spelling. Mary Matalin is certainly no Mary Magdalene. For one thing, Mary Magdalene repented having been a whore, whereas Matalin will remain an informal political adviser to the White House. "Hey, Sam - mind if I drive?" "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the dashboard and shrieking like a cheerleader."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: domino effect   by captainebo       at Fri 13 Dec 5:32pm score of 2 clever   in reply to comment 8     again, I apologize for my hasty posting. Mary Magdalene, like her lover Jesus Christ, was a liberal. Ebo "In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds." -Martin Luther King   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: domino effect   by rdww       at Fri 13 Dec 6:57pm score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 2     "Mary Magdeline..." Cute error, even if possibly intentional. Mary Magdeline was the whore redeemed by a Saviour. Mary Matalin was a sweetie seduced by a serpent. (of course, so was Eve but, being Jewish, she was likely a Democrat)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  I heard..   by Advil       at Fri 13 Dec 5:17pm score of 1.5 brilliant     that TRENT LOTT might be looking for a new gig...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Re: I heard..   by eduardo       at Fri 13 Dec 11:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 4     Actually he's sticking with his current one, much to the dismay of his critics J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Fools -let him stay!   by gparizot       at Sat 14 Dec 12:43am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 14     And remind us every day what a bigoted neanderthal inhabits the soul of the Republican party. I can only help come 2004. "Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean it's there" - Radiohead   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  In other words...   by MAYORBOB       at Fri 13 Dec 5:22pm score of 1     ..."I ain't saying shit about who lines my pockets. Oh yeah, and then there is that whole thing about being served with arrest warrants." Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

25.  you are correct sir!   by kingraoul3       at Sat 14 Dec 12:31pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     got it in one.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  jeez   by Advil       at Fri 13 Dec 5:24pm score of 1.5 succinct     "the controversy would quickly move to the consulting firm I have built and own." Jeezz. You'd thunk he would've contemplated that one BEFORE accepting the gig.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  He Did   by uncarved block       at Sat 14 Dec 10:05am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 7     As the writeup indicated, Kissinger was doubtless reassured that due to the 'part time' nature of the employment, this information would never become public. Given the successes of the administration, it was neither naive nor gullible of Henry to think they could deliver, right?       Of course, nobody at the administration seems to have thought about the PR hit of having someone investigating the biggest attack EVER on US soil only working 'part time' . . . Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Runners Up?   by Norman108       at Sat 14 Dec 3:17am score of 1     So who's next on the list, Barry McCaffrey or Agim Ceku? In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Re: Runners Up?   by Airbag       at Sat 14 Dec 7:19am score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 16     I propose Ralph Nader for the job. He is hated equally by both sides of the aisle. He would put the independent back into "independent commission." It would be a Rovian masterstroke that would stun the pundits. Of course those new mind control collars the Secret Service has been experimenting with had damn well better work this time.....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  Next?   by plutocracywatch       at Sat 14 Dec 10:17am score of 1     Since Earl Warren's not around to appoint, how about Caspar Weinberger? Yea, that's the ticket. read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  Kissinger's Clients   by jhe       at Sat 14 Dec 10:57am score of 1     I'm sure everyone is way ahead of me here, but it occurs to me that the only real reason to be a client of Kissinger & Associates is secrecy: "If you don't vant certain facts to come into ze public domain, you may vant to consider putting my firm on retainer." Think about what happened here, a former Secretary of State turned down the lead of arguably one of the more important commissions since the end of the Cold War because he would not divulge his client list. What kind of clients need that kind of silence? Who would you be that embarassed of? The only name I could come up with was Pinochet. "Because a person's a person, no matter how small" -- Theodore Geisel   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

29.  My guess   by JC65       at Sat 14 Dec 2:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 21     The ruling family of Saudi Arabia. (Or maybe the government of Pakistan.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: My guess   by jhe       at Sat 14 Dec 2:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 29     I'm sure they're on the list, but why would that be so embarrassing (I mean for Kissinger)? I think Brent Scowcroft and Jim Baker have the Saudis on their client lists and you don't seem them running for cover. It might make Kissinger questionable as a guy to tap for this role, but "I represent clients who might be considered to have an interest in the findings and therefore would not be perceived as impartial" is very different from "Not if I have to tell you who I work for." "Because a person's a person, no matter how small" -- Theodore Geisel   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: My guess   by bradleytank       at Sat 14 Dec 6:30pm score of 2 intriguing   in reply to comment 31     it may not be a case of 'embarrassment' at all. Kissenger and Associates' clientele may have included non-disclosure terms into their contracts with his firm. So his resignation may be due to the fear of litigation if he were forced to divulge his client list. there is a judicial feel to the phrase 'might be considered to have an interest. . ." that leads me to believe this may be the case. ...you'll take what you're given.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

22.  A serious proposal   by mrwarmth       at Sat 14 Dec 11:07am score of 1 modappeal     This will never happen, but to me the obvious candidate is Jimmy Carter. He is truly objective, and this well-known objectivity and his Democratic party affiliation would make his conclusions unimpeachable (so to speak). Since most of the faults that would be uncovered in such an investigation would pre-date Bush's tenure, I don't see what he woudl have to lose if muck was raked, since he could always just point to Clinton and say, "Hey, talk to him". Carter would bring credibility to the enterprise at very, very low risk to Bush. At least, if I were president that's how I would look at it. But then, if I were president the winter White House would be in South Beach, so I may not be the best prognosticator on such things. :) -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  Re: A serious proposal   by plutocracywatch       at Sat 14 Dec 11:35am score of 1   in reply to comment 22     Right, he can bring the same credibility to this investigation that he brought to disarming North Korea. read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: A serious proposal   by mrwarmth       at Sat 14 Dec 12:01pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 23     So you think Carter - an individual citizen - had the power to override the dictates of a national government in relation to its own military programs, and simply failed to do so? Could you please point me to another citizen negotiator who would have been able to do that? I'd love to know who they are. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: A serious proposal   by plutocracywatch       at Sat 14 Dec 12:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 24     What the North Korean fiasco reveals is a politician who lent his name to a fraud. If he did not know better, he should have. When you sleep with a dog, don't act shocked, shocked when you wake up with fleas. The question isn't what other citizen could have trumped North Korea's duplicity and secrecy; the question is what other citizen would have allowed himself to be used by an oppressive, backwards dictatorship. And I won't ask you to provide me that list. read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: A serious proposal   by jhe       at Sat 14 Dec 2:18pm score of 1   in reply to comment 26     what other citizen would have allowed himself to be used by an oppressive, backwards dictatorship? I can't say for sure (because he declined to serve his country rather than disclose his client list), but I don't see why Kissinger's work as a private citizen would be much different from what he did as a government employee. "Because a person's a person, no matter how small" -- Theodore Geisel   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Bush has plenty to lose   by zanzibar       at Sat 14 Dec 1:13pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 22     I don't see what he woudl have to lose if muck was raked, since he could always just point to Clinton and say, "Hey, talk to him". It doesn't matter if Clinton's at fault or not. I would imagine there are a lot of problems with the current system-- some traceable to Clinton, some to Bush Sr and even Reagan and before-- that Bush just doesn't want brought to light. Maybe he's working on fixing them already and he thinks the publicity will slow him down. Or more likely, there are enough problems that bringing them to light would a) make him look bad for not actively working to fix them over the past year, b) take attention away from more "important" issues like Iraq, c) embarrass the hell out of Congressional allies, d) embarrass the hell out of his political appointees, e) reveal nasty secrets that would force him to make the intelligence agencies more accountable, f) reduce his own power over the CIA and Pentagon*. Even a skilled President could wind up spending years of their term bogged down in that kind of mess. And there's no guarantee that Bush will be so skilled when it comes to fixing problems. I don't think there are many Presidents that would want the hassle; however, I do think Bush will go to greater lengths than most to avoid it. * Note that people will complain like hell when a President from the other party exercises undue control over some agency, but they may not mind that extra power once the precedent's been set and they're in office.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Are You Kidding?   by uncarved block       at Sun 15 Dec 11:07am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 22     (Sorry for the inflammatory hed, but I wanted my point to be heard, and as your post is a couple days old, you might not notice a blander one).       The administration's conservative credentials are open to debate; despite the general hysteria at Plastic, a good deal of the hardcore right is seeing their agenda get sacrificed in the name of political expedience. Less open to debate is the 2004 Bush campaign's need to retain the trust of the shouters like Limbaugh and O'Reilly. A thousand votes here, five thousand there in 2000, and we're talking about president Gore. If Rove is even half as talented as he's made out to be, he can't assume the luck will hold next time around.       And one thing's for sure-- the shouters HATE Carter. During his presidency or after, in their eyes every single thing he's done is either wrong, or a cynical attempt to varnish the rotten woodwork of his public works.       Appointing Carter would be an unmitigated disaster for the adminstration, IMHO; when Kissinger was tagged for the job, only Hitchens really stood up in public and made a hard case against it. Now imagine a chorus of a dozen talking heads bemoaning all of Carter's 'sins', in even stronger language.       I agree that Carter would do a great job, but politics rarely intersects with reason, and this is going to be another beautiful possibility wrecked by a partisan fact. Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

33.  What about Rudy?   by hawkestein       at Sat 14 Dec 2:55pm score of 1.5 interesting     I had heard Guliani's name tossed around at one point, and he seems like a natural choice to head the commission. I'm sure the families of the 9/11 victims would have no problems with him being in charge.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

35.  Re: What about Rudy?   by Airbag       at Sat 14 Dec 5:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 33     I'm sure the families of the 9/11 victims would have no problems with him being in charge. I am not so sure about that. A lot of things went down in those weeks after the attack and not everyone was happy with a lot of the little decisions that were made. I suspect the families would like someone who has power and respect but wasn't there. While Rudy was a mensch during the crisis, his mayorality has left many in New York doubting his ahh... objectivity shall we say. I do like the idea of having a law enforcment guy doing the job however.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

34.  Makes you think, doesn't it?   by choodak       at Sat 14 Dec 3:31pm score of 1.5 intriguing     I'm a political realist and feel that as bloody as international politics is, and it's the blood of the innocent usually, there is little that can be done differently. So naturally I'm not as critical of Kissinger as some of my fellow Plasticians here. However, I am first to admit that the decisions Kissinger has made in his career have caused the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people who for the most part were completely innocent. That, I think, was the nature of his job. That's why I am petrified to think what he could have seen during his short tenure in this position to make his blood run cold and cause him to back out of it. I am not buying that lame-ass excuse of his.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

37.  Re: Makes you think, doesn't it?   by MC Nally       at Sat 14 Dec 11:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 34     I'm not as critical of Kissinger as some of my fellow Plasticians here. However, I am first to admit that the decisions Kissinger has made in his career have caused the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people who for the most part were completely innocent. That, I think, was the nature of his job. Hmmm, let's see: responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents, but he was "only following orders." Geez, I'd like to hear what you have to say about someone you're actually trying to criticize..   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

39.  It was a matter of Honor   by HenryVonFurstenberg       at Sun 15 Dec 3:29pm score of 1     I know Henry Kissinger. And I can assure you it was something out Henry's control. When you start an investigation you do so without set guidelines as to where you can look. An investigation should be fair and honest. All angles should be explored. The administration had all ready made conclusions the investigation was to reach. Am sure that is why Henry decided to resign.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

42.  Re: It was a matter of Honor   by Airbag       at Mon 16 Dec 8:23am score of 1   in reply to comment 39     Your comment is very interesting. I can certainly see that Kissinger would have little interest in being seen as a puppet for the Bush Administration. Would you go so far in this thinking to say that the furor over the identity of his clients was only a convenient way for him to discreetly turn down the appointment?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: It was a matter of Honor   by HenryVonFurstenberg       at Mon 16 Dec 2:59pm score of 1   in reply to comment 42     Henry knew what the requirements were before accepting the chair of the commission, enough said.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Re: It was a matter of Honor   by Airbag       at Mon 16 Dec 3:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 44     Indeed. But you are suggesting that he did not know that he was supposed to deliver a foregone conclusion until after he accepted the appointment. I would love to have been the fly on the wall when he was suddenly disillusioned. Do you think this moment of discovery was a specific incident or a collection of indications that finally broke the camel's back?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

46.  Tom Kean -- Henry Kissinger's replacement.   by MAYORBOB       at Mon 16 Dec 5:26pm score of 1     "Tom Kean is a leader respected for integrity, fairness and good judgment," Bush said in a prepared statement. "I am confident he will work to make the commission's investigation thorough. It is important that we uncover every detail and learn every lesson of Sept. 11." Kean, currently president of Drew University in Madison, N.J., was New Jersey governor from 1982 to 1990. He had a reputation as a fiscal conservative with a middle of the road philosophy when it came to social issues. Kean served as chairman of Republican Doug Forrester's unsuccessful campaign for U.S. Senate in New Jersey and had his candidate prepped to say, "I'm not Robert Torricelli" at any campaign stop. Unfortunately for Forrester and Kean, Torricelli withdrew from the race with a few weeks left and his replacement, Frank Lautenburg wiped up the Garden State Parkway with Forrester. Bush took all of two days to lapse from the time that Kissinger realized he would have to name names on his client list and withdrew from the commission. Oddly enough, Kean, who had served two terms as New Jersey governor, was the favored candidate to oppose Torricelli but he said that he didn't want to run for the Senate. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]