Hitch, on Kiss: We know that Hitchens is far from unbiased when it comes to Kissinger (though that doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong in his assessment of the man) and this piece in Slate reminds me of the VRWC mumblings about Clinton (such as Vince Foster, Mena, cocaine smuggling - Google those keywords for an eyeopener!). My conclusion, though, is that putting Kissinger at the head of the 9/11 investigation will do little, good or bad. Firstly, these panels are always investigating things, finding out what most Americans already know (e.g., balancing the budget could make our national debt grow slower), and then being studiously ignored by Congress. Secondly, the Ameican news media has managed to dig up quite a bit on why 9/11 happened, where the failures were, and who should be pinkslipped for the breakdown. More realities that Congress and the Bush administration have studiously ignored, except for the attempt to midwife the birth of a giant bureaucracy (Homeland Security) as an improvement on many smaller bureaucracies. (Predictable results to follow.) No, this is a dog-and-pony show - an attempt to tell us that the government wants answers, dammit! Plus, in an affront to Descartes' discourse on methods, the government has chosen its response to the problems before the problems have been officially discovered. What, do you think that if Kissinger's panel comes back and says that the Homeland Security Department is a bad idea, Bush will just undo it?