The most important story of the last week which you probably did hear

But just in case you missed it: Robert Scheer writes in Salon that the Shrub team is suppressing a report on 9/11 by the Inspector General of the CIA, completed in June, at least until after the election.

Scheer called the suppression "shocking." A CIA official he quoted called it "infuriating." Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), ranking minority member of the House Intelligence Committee, which together with its Senate counterpart mandated the study two years ago, said she is "very concerned." I call it SOP for the WHS* because this report, unlike the ones that preceded it, apparently names names.

"[T]he report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration,[" the intelligence official said, "]because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward." ...

The official stressed that the report was more blunt and more specific than the earlier bipartisan reports produced by the Bush-appointed Sept. 11 commission and Congress.

"What all the other reports on 9/11 did not do is point the finger at individuals, and give the how and what of their responsibility. This report does that," said the intelligence official. "The report found very senior-level officials responsible."

Scheer notes that by law, only a claim of national security allows for holding back the report - but the CIA has made no such claim. They are simply stonewalling, apparently figuring that with the backing of the self-interested jackasses populating the White House they can simply ignore the law, the Congress, and the public with impunity. Which actually makes me wonder if the plan is to withhold the report until after the election or just to withhold it, period.

I wonder what would have happened if the Nixon administration had simply refused to release the (in)famous White House tapes. No explanation, no claims of overriding national interest, they just never turned them over to Congress even after the Supreme Court said they had to. If in effect they'd just said "screw the law, screw the Constitution, screw separation of powers, screw oversight, protecting our position is more important than any of that." What would have happened?

I said the other day that our political life is in jeopardy because a combination of our economics and our culture serve to drive governing issues off our personal agendas. I say now that unless we can rouse ourselves enough to change the course, not only our political life is at risk but our already-anemic democracy as well

I'm also reminded of Bill Maher's remark that "Isn't it amazing that the only person who lost their job in the wake of 9/11 was me?"

*WHS = White House Sociopaths