More Ashcroft: Also in TNR, Jason Zengerle agrees with me that Ashcroft's performance before the 9/11 commission was pretty gutless.

Ashcroft went on the offensive in a way that no witness testifying to the Commission has before. The attorney general blamed the failure to prevent 9/11 on the "wall," a government-imposed legal barrier that prevented intelligence investigators from sharing information with criminal investigators . . . Ashcroft's testimony amounted to an attempt to blame his own failures on others--Clinton, Reno, and, most inappropriately, Gorelick.

Fair enough. But here's where I'll cut Ashcroft a tiny bit of slack. The commission evolved such that it is self-consciously pursuing an admission of guilt of any sort from the Bush administration. (Cf. the one-note samba at the press conference this week: "Mr. President, care to take some blame?") As others have noted, such an admission will not be played as forthright or courageous; instead, the one who breaks ranks will be the scapegoat. Secondarily, Ashcroft may not be blaming Gorelick so much as pointing to the absurdity of having a key architect of the "wall" policy (Zengerle's attempts to excuse her from that role fall short) asking why her successors were unable to see through that wall.

This is not a defense of Ashcroft in general. He was, in fact, prickly, defensive, and -- evidence suggests -- disingenuous before the commission. I don't see how one could expect any different, though, considering the atmosphere of televised public hearings in an election year. (Add in the fact that Gorelick has been one of the most prosecutorial members.)

These hearings are public for two reasons only. First, the Republicans thought they could score by keeping the subject in the news, parading members of the administration before the cameras, and talking up what they have done since 9/11 (and using the "we inherited this problem" excuse). Second, the Democrats thought they could score by publically whipping members of the administration. I mean, why else include Richard Ben Veniste? He's not exactly famous for thoughtful, evenhanded judiciousness. It's inconceivable that he could be anything other than an attack dog.

The damage is done. The report will be a whitewash, with a little bit of blame spread about in a politically acceptable way. But the very points made before the commission indicate that its recommendations will address what we should have done before 9/11. Not helpful, given that 9/11 already happened. Who is asking where the frontiers of asymetric threats are? Who is asking whether adapting to 9/11 means fighting the last war? It's clear that the terrorists deal in opportunity, not strategy. Where are the opportunities? We already know who dropped the ball before 9/11. I want to hear people like Ashcroft explain precisely how it is that they are not dropping it now.