Mr. Ashcroft's Smear

Washington Post ^ | April 20, 2004 | WaPo Editorial

[liberallarry]

IN HIS TESTIMONY last week before the Sept. 11 commission, Attorney General John D. Ashcroft loosed a remarkable attack on Jamie S. Gorelick, a commission member who served as deputy attorney general during part of the Clinton administration. The "single greatest structural cause for the September 11th problem," Ashcroft said, "was the wall that segregated or separated criminal investigators and intelligence agents," and the "basic architecture for the wall . . . was contained in a classified memorandum" from 1995 -- which Mr. Ashcroft had conveniently declassified for the hearing. "Full disclosure," he said, "compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum is a member of the commission" -- that is, Ms. Gorelick. Mr. Ashcroft's allegations, which triggered criticism and demands for her resignation from prominent Republicans, are grossly unfair.

[liberallarry]

If this is true Ashcroft is unfit to serve and should be fired.

[TheConservator]

If what is true? (I refuse to register to read the Washington Com-post).

[woofie]

Your joking,right?

[swilhelm73]

What a bunch of crap.

The W Post is really going all out for Gorelick.

Face the facts. Gorelick is third, after Clinton and Clarke, in responsibility for why the American intelligence services were blind to the coming attack.

She should be testifying and explaining why she thought it such a good idea to make communication between intelligence and law enforcement so much more difficult - and make no mistake it was her choice to go above and beyond any previous such barriers.

[TheBigB]

Crapola. Gorelick was placed on the committee on Hillary's orders to nail Bush, nothing else. She was caught red-handed as being a liar and should herself be hauled in front of the commission to testify.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

For telling the truth?

What an odd world you live in.

[x1stcav]

Uh, Larry, you sure you're on the right forum.

I'm not saying you can't post liberal crap like this, I'm just wondering what mental process allowed you to arrive at the conclusion after reading this editorial that one of the best AG's the country has ever had should resign.

[MJY1288]

ROFLMAO, The Wash Post Editorial Board must not appreciate it when facts are placed on the table and blatant conflicts of interest are exposed.

As far as you Liberal Larry, Do some reading before you make such a foolish post

[sgtbono2002]

Since when has the truth become a smear? Lets speak of some of the smear the Dems have put on Judge Pickering.

[swmopatriot]

I went on Lexis-Nexis to read the article (I also refuse to register for the Washington Com-post) and the only smear in this situation is the editorial itself. It selectively ignores facts including the memo itself.

I am not just saying this because he is from my state, but Ashcroft is a man of impeccable character and I really hate to see him smeared like this. It would be nice if he, and President Bush, would receive credit at least once for taking action that has prevented any terrorist attacks on our homeland since 9/11.

[DoctorMichael]

What a stinky, poo-poo, ca-ca, pantload by the Compost.

I suggest reading the WashTimes. Their editorials are right-on, dude!

[liberallarry]

If what is true?

Ashcroft contended in his testimony that Gorelick was responsible for the separation wall, the single greatest structural impediment to collecting good intelligence and finding and prosecuting traitors and saboteurs. He declassified a 1995 Gorelick memo to support his charge.

The Post article, Gorlick in another article, and others elsewhere, all contend that's nonsense. The wall was built up gradually, starting in the '80s, by many people...A review by Ashcroft's people didn't mention the memo..the Bush administration continued to support its existance, etc., etc.

The evidence looks good to me, at first glance anyway. I'll believe it until I see substantive refutations.

[jwfiv]

I agree ... Gorelick is unfit to serve and should be fired.

Oh ... wait a minute ... you said Ashcroft.

Never mind.

Then, I must disagree.

Ashcroft is a hero.

Gorelick is a Clintonian stooge and her presence on the commission renders it completely irrelevant ... she's an absurd snot, just like her mentors, and her only purpose is to throw up a smokescreen for them, and to cover her own tracks.

[Cultural Jihad]

If this is true Ashcroft is unfit to serve and should be fired.

What did the AG do? Authorize a bunch of Boy Scouts to parade the American flag in public?!

[smoothsailing]

I don't read that rag.

What does the Washington Times say?

Why is a high ranking member of the Clinton administration even on the Commission?

This Commission has done what I thought it would.

Render itself irrelevent. It reminds me of the UN.

[TheBigB]

90% of everything the WP writes is utter nonsense. They're just like the NYTimes...Bush's actions afetr 9/11 were draconian and un-American...taking away civil liberties, etc. etc. Until they decided that he should've done the SAME things, only BEFORE 9/11. Horse hockey. As for Gorelick, she's doing the CYA, nothing more.

[liberallarry]

I'm just wondering what mental process allowed you to arrive at the conclusion after reading this editorial that one of the best AG's the country has ever had should resign

I posted a response which may answser you question.

I could easily be wrong since this is my first "investigation" of the subject. I'm waiting to hear substantive refutations. I learn a great deal from those. That's why I - a liberal - post to this site.

On the other hand, I couldn't care less about other peoples' unsupported assertions of a particular politician's character or the shortcomings of a particular news source.

[PMCarey]

If this is true Ashcroft is unfit to serve and should be fired.

I read the article (btw you can log on using the e-mail address, tacoprince@taconia.com with the password, "burrito") and I didn't see anything to justify Ashcroft being fired. In fact, all I read was a very tortured defense of Gorelick. So how can we determine whether this is an accurate defense? I know! Let's have Gorelick testify! Afterall, being on the commission isn't Gorelick's birthright and we do want to find out the truth ... don't we?

[jbstrick]

" I'll believe it until I see substantive refutations."

In other words. You'll believe everything except the memo itself. You will believe gorelick. You'll believe Ben Vinestie.

[Ben Hecks]

You evidently have not heard the term "ZOT".