dayman

Honestly...I think we all get it...911 happened....and now we should move on. On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified reviewof the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal. On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity. That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it. The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible. But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day. In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real. “The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya. And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track. Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else. That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound. On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief. In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react. Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all. http://www.nytimes.c...1-warnings.html

You are living in fantasy land brother

Buffet rule. For real the basic frame work of simpson-bowles is where both parties should start...and there would hopefully be a way to get a little more revenue from the top and more cuts (mainly in defense but also discretionary)...of course that is a pipe dream b/c Simpson-Bowles was a nonstarter as is and pushing for more military cuts or revenue won't change that even if all discretionary spending were cut an additional 200B a year (which Dems would never go for). The point is with Gary's faux-view on American society and economy today and staunch support for the donor class as a result there's no discussion to be had at all!

There is basically no rational argument that can be seriously argued as one concerned with the debt that fits the modern GOP tax policy. I really don't understand why this "class warfare" stuff trumped up by the mass idiocy machine has got you all so incredibly tooth-and-nail clinging to the GOP position. It's transparent. Yes we have to cut spending drastically, no ****. Now...about the revenue....uh...uh....

The "rich" are far from the only people paying federal income tax. I really don't know what world you are living in. Additionally, do you realize the word "inequality' is an economic thing....not a mere talking point? We're broke, plain and simple. The money in society is vastly allocated top heavy...more so than in recent history of our country. The CBO shows since '79 the top 1% doubled their share of gross income from 10 to 20% http://www.nytimes.c...-says.html?_r=1 Bertelsmann Foundation ranks us 27th out of 31 in study evaluating among other things economic equality, social mobility, and poverty prevention... http://www.sgi-network.org/pdf/SGI11_Social_Justice_OECD.pdf There is no reason to be so indoctrinated as to honestly fight tooth and nail for the GOP donor class b/c you are "republican"

Makes sense the basic framework is to decrease spending by a much larger margin than increasing revenue then huh? The basic idea that we aren't going to increase revenue 1 dime on donor class (who are paying lower effective rates than they have in many decades while holding more of the wealth than in decades) AND are going to INCREASE military spending and then just cut everything else to balance the budget is 1) impossible the math literally doesn't work and 2) it's immoral (even though I know you guys don't care about that).

You said rich are the only people paying taxes. I said, payroll tax, sales tax, state and local...apparently don't count. Neither do the non-rich who pay federal income tax apparently. Why are you so indoctrinated? (once again according to Lofgren) the four hundred richest Americans have been paying an average effective federal income tax rate of 17% since the Bush cuts, a little more than half of what they paid in the '90s...while their combined income quadrupled. This idea that teachers, nurses, fireman, and cashiers are oppressing derivatives traders and CEO's and people w/ multi-million dollar annual incomes is just .... not reality.

Some glowing remarks he had about military spending: By a process of self-selection, acculturation, and groupthink, a majority of members of Congress currently sitting on teh defense committees of both House and Senate have become rigid advocates of ever higher military spending... .... As the cold war drew to a close the defense establishment had evolved into a rigid, bureaucratic institution strangely emulating the defunct Soviet system it believed it had vanquished. Its real mission had become inwardly focused: to preserve the status, privileges, and prerogatives it had enjoyed. The Pentagon developed a whole vocabulary to enable this. There is no such thing in the military as a problem; there are only "issues" or "challenges." Mistakes and errors never occur. I recall watching one prototype missile test launch that blew up perhaps three seconds after liftoff. A general pronounced it a "nominal success." ... There are many people active in politics who claim they would man the barricades to fight to the death against socialism. But these are the same people who also say they adore the US military, which is probably the largest - certainly the most lavishly funded - socialist institution remaining on Earth... .... Despite what secretary Gates and Panetta have claimed, the DOD budget has been, next to the Bush tax cuts, the single greatest contributor to the drastic swing from surplus to deficit since 2001. When debt service costs are included, the wars have cost about $1.7 trillion. Additionally, the Pentagon has spent about $1 trillion above inflation on its nonwar budget. Adding debt service makes that about 1.3 trillion, for a grand total of roughly $3 trillion added to the debt courtesy of DOD. I assume payroll taxes do not count either...despite being the most regressive form of all taxes. State and local taxes also..do not count.

In your warped universe federal income tax is the only tax in existence. And the top few percent are the only people paying it. I don't feel like searching for one data point all through is work...the point is that the bush tax cuts were huge drivers of debt. And they came when we were at war and Bush told us then to go shopping. The bottom line is regardless of what anybody has said in public THE most out of control spending that we have in the country is military. According to Lofgren...30 year military budget man.

According the Lofrgren under no circumstances things that would result in the wealthy paying more. 10-1 spending cuts for revenue increases got no love in the primaries. After roundly rejecting debt ceiling deals (something everyone loves to talk about here) they ultimately agree to a smaller debt reduction and fewer spending cuts in order to protect the donor class. Lowering taxes on the most favored elements of society is the sole object of the GOP fiscal policy. They are no serious about deficit reduction. - lofgren

Very good Gary, good boy!

It's his thesus not mine. He put the direct costs (not including funds funneled to agencies such as homeland security) to amount to about 1.7 trillion (nothing paid for) while the tax cuts themselves ... I can't recall what he had to say about the Bush Tax cuts in numbers but it was big...here's on graph a google search produces that is not his work so for what it's worth (it doesn't work for this discussion other than to show the tax cut impact relative to the war figure) and his overall criticism being a military spending nut was the institution of constantly increasing the budget no matter what perceived threat need be manufactured and no matter how superior our military becomes...he gave detailed descriptions of the lobby industry for military goodies and how they are in bed w/ the military itself and nobody on the hill dare question any of it lest they be "soft"... Basically his work is really depressing. He hits the entire spectrum and describes how he has seen it develop over 30 years. Senate tactics, money, military, anti-intellectual pandering, media, religion....he really harps on the tax and military issues b/c that's what he knows best. He blasts the Dems where they are the same for what it's worth although nobody on this board will see him as a credible source on anything I'm sure...

So we're waiting on this "replace" law that is so much better....

That's one of his other huge issues. Is he see the tax cuts at all costs + military adventures as huge problems they don't talk about while all the time insisting things like healthcare and retirement are things we can't afford...but of course we can afford to run the rest of the world just not the homeland (he has a interesting take on the term "homeland" also hehe)

Believe it or not, yes.

Lofgren's point is not that the religious right forced him out. His main point was the plutocracy forced him out. And he acknowledges the Dems are conflicted and ultimately very bad about it, but his experience in military budget and tax code analysis over time just led him to conclude after 30 years that the GOP exists almost exclusively at it's core to protect the wealthy contributors that keep them in power. Being a budget man at his core he concluded that the budget rhetoric spouted by the GOP is merely political manipulation as the Bush tax cuts and the 2 wars are more responsible for our debt explosion than anything else...and given that the GOP (notably Ryan himself) fought to kill Simpson-Bowles (which many Dems didn't mind) which lowered rates, broadened the base, eliminated loopholes and slashed trillions in spending (the same principles they claim to advocate) ... this could not happen if it resulted in revenue increase at the expense of their wealthy donors. He also talks about the war culture and the anti-intellectual thrust of the political advertising and that did irk him...but his primary concerns were clear hypocrisy on issues of money and war.

Preexisting conditions is not in effect yet for adults. There are two ways to deal with this regardless of what Romney says (btw Romney knows this). Single payor...or mandate. Now I know the mandate is terrible...despite the fact that it was a former GOP mainstay...but then again "we were always at war w/ mandates" (see: 1984). If companies have to take all comers, then everyone must have insurance at all times, of course you can't mandate something people can't afford so you must expand coverage for the poor and provide incentives for small business as well as discounts in the exchange, and to do all this you must have a funding source (however counterintuitive the scheme may be). There isn't some "common sense reform"...regardless of what the GOP would have you believe, that is so brilliant and different from what we have now...except for of course...single payor...which isn't perfect either but is probably the best option.

So you are here to tell me the current state of the GOP is every bit as sound as the current Democratic party and that it's pure finger pointing to suggest otherwise? There's no ingrained trends in political discourse, or platform...that would give a neutral observer reason to suspect one party may be a bit more rotten at the moment than another?

He knows that, it was his point. He would slit his mother's throat to avoid a public payer, but that doesn't stop him from bashing the only other reform that can cover preexisting conditions and accomplish a slew of other improvements (while admittedly bringing on new problems). Point being, don't tell anyone to get ready for 2016 or even 2014....that's our problem. If there was 1...that would be it.

And really if you don't want to get into everything (which is preferable I think from both our stand points) ... a simple explanation, as you see it, as to why Huntsman candidacy was DOA while every cook-and-cranny had a shot a Mitt for a few weeks a least will do. It's been a gradual shedding of what was once a coalition...but there is now a litmus test on fiscal (not 1 dime more from the rich, 39% w/ loopholes might as well be communism), social (abortion, gays, any threat at home that fits for the moment), and foreign policy (right of Dems at least, usually far right but now the country is a bit weary and they realize that). Following the election of Obama and the 2010 midterms...the insanity kicked into a new gear...the fringe controlled the center and congress turned into the biggest joke it has ever been....all of this culminating IMO w/ the freak show primary we saw unfold w/ awe. This is pointing the finger? Yes. I agree that the Dems suck, are useless, and are too busy fighting each other, keeping their own crazies under control, and too beholden to their own financial interests to do anything about anything (see healthcare, see financial reform). But that doesn't mean it's just all equal.

For the sake of discussion, and I'll listen with an open mind...what are some things you see as wrong with either party and how are the basically equal?

One 30 year/now retired GOP man venting worth reading, however much "finger pointing" you consider it to be. When the truth is that one party is in fact more dysfunctional. that's my what I end up saying. http://theragblog.bl...t-gop-cult.html

It's pure fairness bias to act like the GOP is equally dysfunctional in this moment. It's simply not true. Why do you feel this is somehow not a real "stand" to say this opinion out loud and merely "continues the cycle of division"?

I just say what I feel. And I think the statement speaks for itself. The GOP has real issues. The best candidates wanted no part and Huntsman was a joke...for some reason...he was a joke and Herman Cain held a lead for weeks...say what you will but at least on the Dems side strong candidates want in...

Both need a good clean out but the GOP really needs it the more...not to say that the Dems are close to good but the GOP is !@#$ed.