The Underlying Problems

Blaming the system is under any circumstance a bit of a cop-out for an administration, but in this case particularly so given that this administration created the system.

As Eric Lipton writes in the New York Times: "If adopted through both legislation and executive order, the recommendations would reverse some of the steps taken after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to centralize responsibility for responding to natural disasters or terrorist attacks at the newly created Department of Homeland Security."

Report author Frances Fragos Townsend telegraphed her findings earlier this month when she flatly stated: "I reject outright any suggestion that President Bush was anything less than fully involved."

Here is the report and a White House " fact sheet."

In her press briefing on the report, Townsend did make this acknowledgement: "Finally, we need a better structure at the White House to ensure that all aspects of the response are moving forward, a process to cut through the red tape and to referee any needless disputes that arise in the heat of an emergency. Under the auspices of the Homeland Security Council, we will form the Disaster Response Group, which I will personally oversee. The Disaster Response Group will be very much modeled along the same type of a group that we have that deals with terrorism threats and responses in the Counter-Terrorism Security Group."

Christopher Lee and Michael A. Fletcher write in The Washington Post: "The White House proposed a major restructuring of federal preparedness and response efforts for catastrophic natural disasters yesterday, saying the government's failures in coping with Hurricane Katrina had laid bare the inadequacy of steps taken since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. . . .

"The White House document lays no blame on any individual, and no resignations followed its release."

By contrast, a recent " House report, written by Republicans after Democrats boycotted the panel, was much more critical of failures at the top. It said leaders from President Bush on down disregarded ample warning of the threat Katrina posed to New Orleans and did not execute emergency plans or share information that could have saved lives."

Seth Borenstein writes for Knight Ridder Newspapers: "The White House acknowledged Thursday that the response to Hurricane Katrina was botched because federal officials were confused, poorly prepared and communicated badly. But instead of an overhaul of the Homeland Security bureaucracy, officials proposed 125 smaller fixes.

"The 11 most urgent recommendations, which the White House said are needed before the hurricane season starts this year, had been routine practices by the Federal Emergency Management Agency before it was folded into the Department of Homeland Security, two former FEMA directors said Thursday."

Townsend criticized the National Response Plan, which she described as having "enough government acronyms and jargon to make your head spin."

Blogger W. David Stephenson finds a little jargon in Townsend's report too, here and there. One example, from her recommendations: "Although the NRP base plan was predicated on the NIMS incident command system, the Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) were taken from the old Federal Response Plan and were not adequately realigned to fit within the NIMS structure. The ESFs should be realigned to fit within the NIMS structure to ensure coordination and efficiency."

Scooter Libby Watch

Carol D. Leonnig writes in The Washington Post: "Attorneys for Vice President Cheney's former top aide argued yesterday that a federal court should dismiss all charges against him because a special prosecutor lacked the legal authority to bring the charges.

"Lawyers for I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby argued that Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald was improperly appointed by the Justice Department instead of the president to investigate the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. That means his work and the charges of perjury, making false statements and obstructing justice brought against Libby in October are invalid, they said in court papers filed yesterday."

Here is Libby's motion to dismiss.

Who's Leaking Who?

David Morgan writes for Reuters: "President George W. Bush's disclosure of detailed intelligence about a thwarted al Qaeda plot to attack Los Angeles could prove damaging for U.S. national security, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee said in a letter released on Thursday.

"In a Feb. 17 letter to U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia echoed a warning from CIA Director Porter Goss that revelations about intelligence successes or failures against al Qaeda can aid America's militant enemies. . . .

"Rockefeller said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other senior officials have disclosed sensitive information for political purposes on a range of issues from prewar Iraq to National Security Agency eavesdropping.

"The disclosures have all been potentially damaging to U.S. interests, Rockefeller said. At the same time, the administration has sought to blame lower-level officials for damage caused by unauthorized leaks."

Here is Rockefeller's letter.

Murray Waas asks in his blog: "Did the Bush administration 'authorize' the leak of classified information to Bob Woodward? And did those leaks damage national security?"

Cheney Watch

Suzanne Goldenberg writes in the Guardian: "Vice-President Dick Cheney faced fresh questions yesterday about the shooting of his hunting companion on a Texas ranch, with the release of conflicting witness statements about whether alcohol had been consumed.

"The statements released by the local sheriff's office broadly confirm the circumstances under which Mr Cheney, wheeling about to shoot a covey of quail on February 11, sprayed Texas lawyer Harry Whittington with birdshot, wounding him in the face, chest and torso."

India Watch

Bush held a roundtable interview with Indian journalists on Wednesday. The transcript was released today.

Reuters reports: "U.S. President George W. Bush has said he hopes to clinch an agreement with India on a landmark nuclear energy cooperation deal during his visit to New Delhi next week and get Congress to approve it on his return.

"Bush's comments, made in an interview to an Indian newspaper and published on Friday, came amid talks between the two sides to bridge differences over New Delhi's plan to separate its civilian and military nuclear programs to prevent proliferation."

Chidanand Rajghatta writes for the Times of India about how he succumbed to Bush's charms.

"At the best of times, meeting the most powerful man on the planet can be intimidating. But when he walks into the Roosevelt Room of the White House quite unexpectedly a few minutes ahead of the scheduled interview time holding in his hands a book you have written, and quips, 'I've been reading a good book lately!' the most composed journalist can be knocked galley west. You could have felled me with a noodle. I barely managed a 'Thank you, Mr President' as he put the book in from of him and settled into his chair."

That book, presumably, is the out of print The Horse That Flew - How India's Silicon Gurus Spread Their Wings.

Neil Bush Watch

What's a scandal without a presidential brother?

Blogger Debbie Schlussel writes: "Neil Bush is a frequent visitor to and paid speaker in Dubai, showing up there right after 9/11 trying to get investors for his failed Ignite! educational software company. . . . Bush was in Dubai so much that he e-mailed his wife of his desire for a divorce from his Dubai hotel room. . . .

"I'm not saying the President's brother had anything to do with this absurd deal. He probably did not. But we don't know for sure, and even the appearance of impropriety is unacceptable in the War on Terror. Certainly, this is a huge conflict of interest. Does President Bush really want to give Michael Moore the grounds to make 'Fahrenheit Ports 911'?"