I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
A couple of points:
Max Cleland, Bob Graham and others aren't going to allow this to go away. We are headed into the dimmest news part of the year, August, Congress is out of town and not much is going to happen before Labor Day. However, the Senate will begin hearings on the Plame affair and other things right after they return.
As Spikey implies, but doesn't say, the truth is that the Clinton people working on the transition were in Bushco's face with worry over OBL, and Bushco did nothing. Of course, Clinton should have started doing something about lack of coordination as soon as his NSA realized that there was a real problem. Given that he had Freeh at FBI, probably not much could have been done on that side, but the attempt wasn't even made.
I agree with Melanie. Very briefly, I worried that the Uday/Qusay killing, plus the strategically timed Cheney/Bremer press conference, would bury the 9/11 report. But all they really did was bury it in that news cycle and prevent the release from being a big splash. There are too many reporters eager to make a name, and too many folks like Cleland (not to mention Democratic presidential candidates) with axes to grind, for this stuff to stay buried.
Especially now that the media them of the month is that Bush et al. are serial dissemblers. Sure, they haven't nailed them on the aluminum tubes and other whoppers, but the CW has shifted: the SCLM have either started noticing or decided to start printing that Shrub is a liar.
They also smell blood in the water, particularly coming from Dr. C. Rice. There might be plenty of media whores for the right, but there are still plenty of others for whom there is nothing better than a scandal, irrespective of whose backside is in the fire.
Last, the CW is also catching on to this Administration's remarkable (even for Washington) level of secrecy and stonewalling. The redacted portions of the report are just going to make reporters salivate over what the government might be suppressing--the front page of today's NY Times reports on leaks about what the 9/11 report has to say about Saudi Arabia.
We do have to worry about how all this will be spun, and about how the whores will print flat-out lies about what the report even says, but I doubt we have to worry that it will just go away.
p
as far as Republicans and the three news Cable outlets are concerned, the congressional 9/11 report is already "history."
You don't need to read the report. These aren't the facts you're looking for. Move along. Move along.
Publius - I almost hate to say this, 'cause I don't want to jinx it, but it sure feels like the corner was definitely turned when the SOTUS story broke.
But then again, I haven't watched TV or read a newspaper other than the Lake City Silver World (an enlarged version of my Middle School paper, which was one long gossip column,) since the end of May.
Bear in mind, Tena, that I get all of my news from Jon Stewart, and take my analysis for what it's worth. 
Publius - I don't know, Jon Stewart seems like the most reliable source around these days. At least in this country.
Remember the African uranium!
August 6 - the day Tipsy McStagger was too concerned about getting back to his month-long vacation than taking a major intelligence briefing on an iminent attack on American soil seriously.
Let's not forget...
dave - I'm glad you reminded me of that. When I read that date I thought "whoa - no wonder they've been hacking at this report since the end of last year." Even with the redacting, the excerpts I've read so far certainly don't help Bush any.
I hope the Dean campaign makes a special presentation on 8/6...
Guys, I'm sorry. This whole 9/11 report is a goose chase with regard to defeating Bush. Important information will lilkely result, but 8 months in office is not long enough to build a good or bad record when it comes to this sort of thing.
There appears to have been a lot of trouble with the FBI and CIA, and Bush appears to have disregarded some things, but after the 1993 WTC attack, pretty much everyone is guilty of not paying this matter more attention.
aaron - all those "appearances" - you know, "there appears to have been trouble with the FBI and CIA, and Bush appears to..." must be popping up in front of your eyes because you got some bad drugs. It'll wear off in a few hours.
If it doesn't, see a mental health professional.
I haven't been paying too much attention to the news lately, but from what I've heard, the mainstream has decided already (in a familiar pattern) on the one little thing to be selected from a vast, complicated story: it's all about the failure of the various federal agencies to play ball with each other. Already I've heard talk of appointing an "intelligence czar". Why the informal title of "czar" was applied to these sinecure ad hoc cabinet-level positions I've no idea; did somebody hope that evoking the memory of a family of backward, inbred autocrats would show up how risible the idea of a "drug czar" or an "intelligence czar" is? In any case, we'll hear a lot of talk about the FBI not knowing what the CIA is doing and vice versa, some minor reforms will be proposed, maybe some new government bureau (or this "czardom") will be created with much fanfare, and the whole mess will be forgotten about.
the 9/11 story presents a very bad case of cognitive dissonece for the MWs For so long they have pumped up our naked chimperor and they find it hard to accept the image of his naked package.
I hope the Dean campaign makes a special presentation on 8/6...
That would be a great birthday present for me! 
Ernest Tomlinson - this isn't the first time that the idea of trouble between the CIA and FBI has come up. It seems to come up periodically. Like during Iran/Contra.
But I really don't think this is going away like that. This is different. This involves an attack on American soil in which a lot of Americans died, and many who weren't Americans. Other countries could conceivably start asking questions, wanting to know what happened to their citizens. This is too big to just go away.
For me the big question is why weren't the fighter jets on high alert on 9/11-- why did it take them so long to get in the air-- something like 45 minutes after they realized there were hijackings. There were plenty of warnings that hijackings might occur by Al Qaeda. Why weren't the fighter jets ready? This wasn't explained in the report. The commission couldn't get the responsible officers to testify-- very fishy. This failure to scramble the jets might stem from Rumsfeld, who after wanted to go after Saddam the minute the Pentagon was hit. My personal theory is that the administration knew something was coming-- they let it happen, and would use it to go after Saddam-- their REAL agenda. For what it is worth...
dude, you'd think they would have taken osama seriously after clinton tried to bomb him and missed him by hours? days?.
you'd think some of the intel people would think seriously about osama doing the retribution thing (and preparing for it).
you'd think.
I am an extreme partisan, and maybe inclined to look at things in a simple-minded way, but I am astonished that more is not being made of the news that Bush was notified, in the Summer of 2001 when everyone knew we were going to be whacked, that bin Laden had an interest in hijacking planes. Is it asking too much to expect that the President would set in motion processes leading to tightened airport security, making sure the FAA no-fly list which had two hijackers names on it was circulated to the airlines (according to Brill's book, this was not done until 9/12)?
This looks like a no-brainer to me. Bush should be fired for this act of negligence alone.
BobNJ - I couldn't agree more. I should think that the fact that intelligence agents went to Crawford in August specifically to warn Bush about AQ terrorists using planes to hit buildings, and were dismissed, would be a matter of grave national security.
It's absurd that more isn't being made of this.
Left out a word (again) -
Should have read: "...specifically to warn Bush about AQ terrorists planning to use planes to hit buildings,..."
"..but 8 months in office is not long enough to build a good or bad record when it comes to this sort of thing."
Is Aaron arguing that presidents have a probationary period with training wheels on during which they cannot reasonably be held accountable for derelection of responsibilities? Bush spent $100 million in buying and stealing the office, and it is only fair to hold him accountable for everything that happened from day one.
"...and they missed."
Yeah, they like to harp on that. Clinton took a shot at bin Laden and missed. Like he gave the coordinates to fire at, or perhaps had a video screen with a little bin Laden running around, and he had to line up the cross hairs himself.
He seems to have done a lot better with Iraq. I'm getting to think he (or the armed forces he built up and commanded) more or less destroyed Hussein's WMD capabilities in 1998.
Kip W. - It seems remarkably silly for the Repugs to harp on Clinton's miss, considering how many times Bush has missed both OBL and Saddam Hussein.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
