Let us think all the way back to the Clinton administration, when these same conservative pundits predicted that any minute now the nation would rise up in disgust at a president who had sex with an intern and then lied about it.

And the nation kept failing to rise up. The nation, which is made up mostly of adults, just didn't have enough of those precious reserves of hypocrisy and self-righteousness to care much one way or the other.

[Note: this is a variation on a piece of doggerel first recited to me by Donald. J. Sterling Jr., editor of The Oregon Journal:

You cannot hope to bribe or twist
(thank God!) the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there's no occasion to.

--Humbert Wolfe (1885-1940), British poet, author. "Over the Fire," bk. 1, The Uncelestial City (1930).]

According to The New York Times (p. A1, "9/11 Report Says Saudi Arabia Links Went Unexamined" by David Johnston and James Risen, Saturday, November 23, 2002) (and various other allegedly journalistic outlets) the joint Congressional committee (mainly the negligent Congressional intelligence committees) inquiring into the 9/11/01 events has determined that the FBI failed to inquire seriously into clear evidence that the government of Saudi Arabia sent money to at least two (2) of the hijackers (the money trail is apparently Saudi Arabia to the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. to a friend of the hijackers in San Diego to the hijackers; the so far unsubstantiated excuse being offered for the ambassador's wife sending the money was that she (or the Saudi government) wanted to help pay some of the friend's medical bills copies of which have apparently not surfaced publicly yet). These are the same hijackers who were living with (or renting from) an FBI informant in San Diego. These are also the same hijackers whose identity and connection to the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole was known to the CIA since about January 2001 (or earlier) (as reported in PSACOT on about September 15, 2001). The CIA failed to notify the FBI about these two hijackers until August 2001 when the hijackers were safely inside the United States making plane reservations in their own names and with a listing in the San Diego phone book. For as yet unexplained reasons the FBI failed to find these hijackers prior to 9/11/01. Now the FBI and CIA are using public funds in an effort to force the congressional committee to delete or change its account of the Saudi money trail (and the FBI and CIA involvement).

Some may remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11/01 were reportedly citizens of Saudi Arabia (4th paragraph of the Johnston/Risen article in The New York Times, p. A1, of 11/23/02). The Times reported (p. A9, 11/23/02, More Foreign Men Told To Register, by AP) that "Some citizens of 13 additional countries considered at higher risk for terrorism" must register with the United States government according to an announcement by John Ashcroft. The new 13 countries are: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Eritrea, Lebanon, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Earlier in November, 2002, Ashcroft also required registration by certain men from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan, and Syria. What about Saudi Arabia, John? Are you and George more interested in protecting a supplier to Big Oil (which, led by Enron's chairman, financed the 2000 campaign) than in protecting the United States and its citizens?

E.J.Donne observed in his column in The Washington Post, p. A41, Friday, November 22, 2002, that as far as the Republicans are concerned "security should be above partisan politics" except when George Bush or his henchpersons want to win an election, distract public attention from their woeful neglect of national security prior to 9/11/01, pay-off campaign contributors (while knifing ordinary Americans in the back), or take a vacation over the holidays while making sure unemployed Americans lose their unemployment benefits a few days after Christmas (despite the efforts of just about every Democrat in either house of Congress to extend unemployment benefits). Dionne suggest that the next time George Bush or his thugs try to use security issues to deflect attention from his (or their) embarrassing or unsavory activity, the Democrats should remember how they were outmaneuvered in 2002. Dionne's suggestion is of course premised on the extraordinarily dubious assumption that the elected Democrats in a position to act on the suggestion have both the ability to read and comprehend the column and current events.

While we're on the topic of using the cry of "national security" for partisan political ends (or merely to stay out of jail), you may have missed the unremarked (as opposed to unreported) absolutely colossal major security breaches apparently committed by George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and (apparently) others who gave interviews discussing classifed information with Bob Woodward and/or gave minutes or notes of classified meetings to Woodward. There has been no indication that Woodward has a current clearance or a need to know what transpired at the "more than 50 National Security Council and other meetings" which were reported in unclassified form in his new book. There has been no indication that the minutes or notes were ever unclassified. There has been no indication of any prosecutorial action in progress against those who violated their security obligations. There has been no indication anyone has had a clearance revoked. This series of massive co-ordinated deliberate security breaches provides every indication that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Rumsfeld now have somewhere between precious little and no understanding of what is required to protect the actual security of the United States and its classified information. Of course, they are free to prove this analysis wrong by broadcasting live all future National Security Council and other defense and military planning meetings (CNN could probably be convinced to provide coverage). Bear in mind that Woodward is blameless in this matter; he was just doing his job (of course if it develops that he did have a current clearance one might ask precisely what his current job is and who is his employer).

Apropos precisely nothing, one may wish to read a review of Woodward's book (The New York Times, pages B29 and 39, "Inside Bush's War Room" by Michiko Kakutani) in which the following appears: "In the case of Mr. Tenet (n.b. CIA Director George Tenet), however, Mr. Woodward labors to provide a positive picture of the C.I.A., playing down the agency's failure to prevent the attacks of 9/11 while heralding its successful operations in Afghanistan." As a further non sequitur, check out "Silent Coup" by Robert Getlin and Leonard Colodny (St. Martin's Press, about 1992) which reports, among other things, on Mr. Woodward's service as an officer in the United States Navy conducting highly classified briefings in various locations and carrying highly classified documents to and from the White House during the Administration which started on January 20, 1969 (you read the date correctly).

COMDEX is dying. The show has shrunk so much that everything-including the show floor, registration, and press facilities-fits in the Las Vegas Convention Center (LVCC), with empty space left over! Attendance is way off-would you believe hotels on the strip advertising vacancies? Rumor has it that a room in the Stratosphere can be had for $35! The one bright spot is that session attendance is actually up, according to other speakers (my sessions not until 1:00pm today) probably because they're in the LVCC instead of across town. Oddly enough, there is some cool stuff here-Microsoft (and partners) are showing production Tablet PCs and prototype "Mira" displays. Mercedes-Benz is offering test drives of various models on a closed course across the street. There's probably more stuff on the show floor, though rumor has it the really cool stuff is in hotel suites as usual. I'm heading off now to walk the show-looks like it won't take more than 1 hr, with stops!

It's been 5 years since I've attended a face-to-face computer conference, and it's had zero effect on my business. No, that's not right; I've saved airfare, hotels fees, and time, so the net effect of not attending trade shows has been wholly positive.

It's so much easier to ship electrons around than to move human bodies. I'm kind of surprised Comdex lasted as long as it did.

Well, I am back from the annual pilgrimage to Vegas and a dispiriting Comdex. The show is a shadow of its former glory self, with attendance and the number of booths down from the post-911 depressed last year. Cabbies and attendees alike were talking about how this could be the Last Comdex. (It is interesting how the cabbies identify with the show, and want it to be the biggest tradeshow in the country. Given the number of trade shows that comes through town, it no longer has that distinction, to be sure.) I don't think we've seen the last of Comdex, and think that if the show continues into 2003 it will be a very different beast. It was odd to see such a small show floor, and so little product on display. Four of my six panelists didn't come (five if you count a last minute replacement who also didn't materialize), which has to be a new conference record for all the years that I have been moderating panels and a disappointing one at that. Given that Key3Media, the show's organizers have gone into Chapter 11 and laid off many staff (including closing the original office in Needham), it does seem like a sober time for our industry.

My first Comdex was back in 1986, and my entrance into computer journalism with PC Week. Ah, those were the days.