Want some amazing summer reading? Check out the Unclassified Report on the President's Surveillance Program.

The title may not be a grabber. But this report, which was produced by the inspectors general of the Defense Department, the CIA, the Justice Department, the National Security Agency, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, is a scorcher. It covers how the Bush administration went about implementing its warrantless wiretapping program--which, the report makes clear, was just one of several new and top secret intelligence programs initiated after 9/11 that were legally dicey.

The report was released on Friday--the day of choice for government spinners trying to draw as little attention as possible to information. (Saturday newspapers--especially during the summer--are the least read editions of the week.) The report did get full write-ups in the major papers, and these reports focused on the obvious point: the warrantless wiretapping was of limited value and did not, as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have claimed, lead to counterterrorism operations that saved countless lives. The news stories also zeroed in on another key element: that the legal analysis supporting the warrantless wiretapping program and the other hush-hush intelligence programs (which the report does not identify) was of questionable merit.

But to get a full view of how far off the tracks the Bush-Cheney administration went, you have to read the full 36 pages. They detail how one mid-level attorney in the Justice Department--the infamous John Yoo--was able to cook up for the White House legal justification for these intelligence operations without any oversight from others at Justice. it's hard to consider this part of the report without coming to a harsh legal conclusion: this was nuts. Completely nuts.

The report also notes that because the White House--at Cheney's insistence--wanted to keep information about the warrantless wiretapping restricted to a small circle, this data could not be put to good use. The IGs also reveal that after senior Justice Department officials and FBI director Robert Mueller raised questions about all these programs, the White House modified or nixed some of them. Ponder that for a moment: the Bush administration ended anti-terrorism intelligence programs because of legal objections. If the Democrats ever suggest or do anything like this, Cheney and other GOPers go ballistic. More rank hypocrisy.

So put down that thriller or romance novel, and grab a copy of this report--a compilation of five separate classified reports--and read all about Bush era hijinks. You'll laugh. You'll cry.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter.

Ex-veep Dick Cheney has claimed that there are two classified documents showing that the enhanced interrogation techniques (a.k.a. torture) used on US-held detainees were effective and helped his administration prevent terrorist attacks. Senator Carl Levin, the Democratic chair of the Senate armed services committee, this past week said these documents do not support Cheney's argument. On Hardball, conservative commentator Terry Jeffrey and I try to sort it out. Guess whose side Jeffrey was on. Guest host David Shuster was on fire, going after Jeffrey on the use of torture. But we did find consensus on a critical point: President Obama should declassify those two documents--and other material--so that the public can determine if Cheney is telling the truth or not.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

The Bush administration feels done. But examples and indications of Bush incompetence are going to be with us for a while. For example, it's remarkable that seven years after 9/11, not all the obvious security steps have been taken to protect Americans from a similar attack. From a press release issued by the Center for American Progress:

The Center for American Progress will release a new report that identifies the 101 most dangerous U.S. chemical facilities, which security experts say are possible terrorist targets. These facilities each threaten one million or more Americans who could be killed or injured in the event of a catastrophic chemical release.

The report also identifies safer, more secure chemical alternatives and processes that are readily available to these facilities. Adopting these alternatives would take tens of millions of Americans out of harm's way. With temporary chemical security standards set to expire in 2009, the report recommends that the incoming Obama administration and new Congress adopt measures to promote facility conversions.

Why has the Bush administration not moved assiduously on this front? You got me.

Meanwhile, USA Today reports:

Newspapers often don't like to call public figures liars or dissemblers. But read this passage from the Washington Post article on the recent attempt of the McCain camp to portray Obama as weak on terrorism because he praised how Islamic terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 were prosecuted:

Tuesday, the McCain team drew a direct line between the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, saying that submitting the bombers to the criminal justice system was, in the words of former Navy secretary and 9/11 Commission member John Lehman, "a material cause" of the 2001 attacks. Lehman participated in the McCain conference call.

Lehman said grand jury evidence in the 1993 bombing was "put under seal" and not made available to the CIA, thus denying the agency timely access to information that "would have enabled many of the dots to be connected well before 9/11 and . . . give a good chance to have prevented" the later attack. In particular, he cited information concerning a connection between Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged ringleader of the 2001 attacks who is imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, and the bombing.

But both the report of the 9/11 Commission, which investigated intelligence failures leading to the 2001 strikes, and the prosecutor of the 1993 case disagreed with Lehman's version of history. The commission's final report, which Lehman endorsed as a member of the panel, gives no indication that any failure to share information on the bombing with the intelligence community had "significance for the story of 9/11."

Instead, the report cites political and intelligence failures to understand the scope of the terrorist threat after the 1993 attack, as well as a failure to fully analyze the implications of the available information. It also blames the FBI and the CIA for failing to effectively communicate with each other, problems that were later addressed in the USA Patriot Act and the reorganization of the intelligence community.

Grand jury secrecy "could have operated in these cases as a barrier to information flowing from law enforcement to intelligence," former U.S. attorney Mary Jo White, who successfully prosecuted six major terrorism cases including the 1993 bombing, said Tuesday. But, she added, "as a matter of fact it did not."

White and several people involved in the 9/11 Commission disputed Lehman's assertion that "the CIA was not allowed to see that evidence." Lehman also described then-CIA Director George J. Tenet as "flabbergasted at what he found in that material" once it was made available to him. But Tenet made no such claim in his 2007 book.

Bottom line: the McCain campaign attacked Obama falsely. It made up facts. It distorted history.

But this was not the focus on the Post's article which was headlined, "Candidates Clash on Terrorism: In Sharp Exchange, Each Side Calls Other's Position a Risk." The story led with the cat fight: McCain attacks Obama; Obama attacks McCain. The yadda-yadda-yadda of political coverage. Yet the reporters--Anne Kornblut and Karen DeYoung--did the heavy lifting and demonstrated that the McCain squad was stretching the truth to make its case, and they placed this information at the end of the article.

But how about breaking out of the he said/he said box? Here's an alternative lead: "On Tuesday, the McCain campaign accused Barack Obama of having a weak position on terrorism, though it partly based its charge on assertions that were not accurate." That is, don't even give a candidate the room to make a charge that is supported by false information.

Throughout the media, there has been an increase in the factchecking of candidates' claims. The Post does this in a regular feature and awards Pinocchios to fib-telling pols. (Remember Hilary Clinton and the sniper fire in Bosnia?) But such vetting hasn't stopped politicians from playing with the truth. Perhaps it's time for the MSM to escalate and call out the truth-manglers in a direct manner within the news coverage. I don't know if that will slow down the flow of political lies. But it sure ain't likely to increase them.

It looks as if the staffers on the Overreaction Desk at McCain HQ are working overtime. First, they tried to make a controversy out of a Barack Obama throwaway line. Talking about his readiness to combat smears and negative attacks, Obama last Friday said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." That prompted this reax from the McCain camp: "Barack Obama's call for 'new politics" is officially over....[He] said that if there's a political knife fight, he'd bring a gun." Obama was merely quoting the Sean Connery character in The Untouchables: "You wanna know how to get Capone. They pull a knife, you pull a gun." Citing Connery is not going to be a loss for a presidential candidate. Now, how would the McCainers respond, if Obama said, "Go ahead, make my day"?

On the more substantive side, McCain's team also pounced on Obama for a statement he made regarding apprehended terrorist suspects:

Let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated. And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, 'Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.' So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws."

What's wrong with that quote, if anything? Well, the McCain-bangers say that it shows that Obama wants to use only law enforcement techniques in going after evildoing terrorists--and that would place every single American family at risk, for the only way to deal with radical Islamic terrorists is to hunt them down in military fashion without being bogged down by the due process niceties of police work. But is that what Obama actually said or implied? A fair reading seems to be that he was referring to what happens to terrorist suspects after they are captured. In fact, as the McCain people well know, last year, Obama said he would be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan unilaterally. How's that for being a global Dirty Harry?

So the McCain gang was trying a bit too hard to stretch Obama;s remark about the treatment of detainees into proof that Obama is a weak-kneed defeatist who cares more about the rights of the 9/11 perps than preventing them from hitting the U.S. again.

But on a McCain campaign conference call on Tuesday--during which campaign aides and advisers--tried to brand Obama as soft on terrorism, the McCain squad did latch on to a developing meme on the right. Referencing Obama's support of the recent Supreme Court decision that said that Gitmo detainees have a right to habeas corpus, the McCain surrogates--responding to a question from Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard--said they'd like someone to ask Obama if he believes that Osama bin Laden ought to be allowed to submit a writ of habeas corpus to a U.S. federal court if he is captured by U.S. forces. You can expect voices on the right to echo this talking point--until the question is indeed put to Obama. In the meantime, wouldn't it be nice if we really did have to worry about what to do with a captured bin Laden?

UPDATE: That didn't take long. About two hours after the McCain conference call, the Obama campaign held its own call to respond. During the first question, Bill Sammon of the Washington Examiner asked if Obama believes that bin Laden, if apprehended, should have the same rights as detainees in Gitmo. Senator John Kerry, speaking for Obama, said that the Supreme Court has decided what rights all Gitmo detainees must be awarded--and that McCain would have to abide by this, should he become president. The McCain team, Kerry said indignantly, is engaged in Karl Rove-style politics by claiming that Obama and the Democrats are legalistic and weak when it comes to terrorism, noting that the Democrats voted to support military action in Afghanistan. "This is typical of the Republican playbook," he said.