Bush Administration Playing Us Again.

[TWB]

Does anyone really believe that this guy they caught in Chicago was really planting a dirty bomb?

There was a lot of hype about it, and we were all made to feel good that Bushy and his buds were protecting us now, despite any Sept 11th foibles.

According to the NYT, Privately the adminstration acknowledges that the guy they caught in Chigago is far less than a mastermind, and likely could not have, even if he had inteded to, pulled off any such bombing. "The plotter was a Chicago street punk named Jose Padilla, a hothead with a long criminal record who was thrown in jail in Florida for shooting at a motorist in a road-rage incident."

"Even law enforcement officials and counterterrorism experts were skeptical about whether he had the brains, know-how and materials to build a dirty bomb from scratch, or whether he was even an officially sanctioned Qaeda terrorist.

"There is no indication he had the means to do it or was given the authority to do it," said a law enforcement official in New York familiar with the case. "It is a bit of stretch to say he was here to do it."

Our government got the tip about Padilla from Abu Zubaydaya, who was (is?) a Bin Laden associate being held by the US. Is this source trustworthy? Not likely.

So why all the hype? Bushes numbers? I think so.

 

[Ishmael]

Does anyone really believe that this guy they caught in Chicago was really planting a dirty bomb?

There was a lot of hype about it, and we were all made to feel good that Bushy and his buds were protecting us now, despite any Sept 11th foibles.

According to the NYT, Privately the adminstration acknowledges that the guy they caught in Chigago is far less than a mastermind, and likely could not have, even if he had inteded to, pulled off any such bombing. "The plotter was a Chicago street punk named Jose Padilla, a hothead with a long criminal record who was thrown in jail in Florida for shooting at a motorist in a road-rage incident."

"Even law enforcement officials and counterterrorism experts were skeptical about whether he had the brains, know-how and materials to build a dirty bomb from scratch, or whether he was even an officially sanctioned Qaeda terrorist.

"There is no indication he had the means to do it or was given the authority to do it," said a law enforcement official in New York familiar with the case. "It is a bit of stretch to say he was here to do it."

Our government got the tip about Padilla from Abu Zubaydaya, who was (is?) a Bin Laden associate being held by the US. Is this source trustworthy? Not likely.

So why all the hype? Bushes numbers? I think so.

While all that you have said is true, it is only part of the picture. I suggest that you read a little more aobut "how" the FBI was really put on this guy.

You should also do a little more research into how terrorist cells actually operate. It's called compartmentalization. While I too doubt that Padilla, acting alone, could construct such a device. He was perfectly capable of setting up 'safe houses' and arming and delivering the device once it was constructed by others. And that was probably his real mission anyway. He would have very few contacts with the other conspirators. That way, he could be sacrificed without the entire network being comprimised.

The mistake you, and others, are making is that you are thinking of this in terms of 'normal' criminal justice procedures, and that just isn't the case. It does not pertain to the laws under which he is held. He is NOT subject to 'due process' and can, and most likely will be, held for the duration. Given his background and his known association with people that have sworn to do grevious harm to this country, I have absolutely no sympathy for him at all.

Ishmael

 

[SINthysist]

There should be hype and rightly so.

War was declared on us once again. We united behind a leader who said, "We are going to go get the evil-doers." We ran the Taliban out. We got the captors of the Burnhams. Right now, Pakistan is cracking down in Kashmir and has arrested more American-connected traitors like McVey, Nichols, Jihad Johnny, Padilla. Arafat is under seige as well as the Intefada movement. Barbie dolls are banned in Iran in one last-ditch attempt to remain in power. We are winning the war and the press does not want to scream success. Why?

Bush's numbers...

 

[TWB]

The point is the PR the bush administration is doing is far in excess of the merits of this "catch." It is like the Attorney General holding a press conference because they arrested a drug dealer who works for a major drug ring.

The fact that they got him is good, I am getting the picture the guy is no mastermind.

 

[WriterDom]

TWB, do you hang your honorary al-Qaeda membership certificate next to your communist one?

 

[Scruffy]

TWB, do you hang your honorary al-Qaeda membership certificate next to your communist one?

Questioning the president?!?!?

He must be a terrorist!!!!!

 

[Marxist]

This whole thing worries me.

He didn't do anything yet people are jumping to make him look like a master criminal.

Expect a set-up of monumental proportions.

 

[fillmup]

TWB, do you hang your honorary al-Qaeda membership certificate next to your communist one?

Hell, he's not smart enough! They need terrorists with brains.

 

[Ishmael]

To TWB; so what? The FBI is after some good press after they dropped the ball last year. More or less to be expected.

To Marxist; Rumsfield is already on record as saying they aren't interested in prosecuting the guy. They want to milk him for every piece of information he has. Hope they get something useful from him.

Ishmael

 

[WriterDom]

Hell, he's not smart enough! They need terrorists with brains.

They need money too. That's why I said "honorary"

 

[TWB]

TWB, do you hang your honorary al-Qaeda membership certificate next to your communist one?

Ok Ok, resort to base accusations. I have done that before.

Doesn't say much for your position, whatever that is.

I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that our government is engaged in a massive PR campaign to make Dubya look good after all of the press showing his adminstrative agencies (CIA, FBI, INS, etc) screwing up.

Your response is much like Bush's/Cheney's: engage in unpatriotic name calling rather than look at the issues. "No No we don't need any investigation, you are all communists!"

 

[WriterDom]

Ok Ok, resort to base accusations. I have done that before.

Doesn't say much for your position, whatever that is.

I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that our government is engaged in a massive PR campaign to make Dubya look good after all of the press showing his adminstrative agencies (CIA, FBI, INS, etc) screwing up.

Your response is much like Bush's/Cheney's: engage in unpatriotic name calling rather than look at the issues. "No No we don't need any investigation, you are all communists!"

Just for the record, do you deny you have an al-Qaeda decoder ring?

I thought you were in Canada?

 

[John1980]

I know and i understand that many americans are touchy about this, but a person should be allowed to raise a critical voice without being accused of being a communist or a terrorist or a (god forbid) "goddamn liberal socialist democrat". Just my two cents.. we should be able to discuss the real problem the US is facing, not shouting at our fellow citizens.

 

[plasticman33]

I know and i understand that many americans are touchy about this, but a person should be allowed to raise a critical voice without being accused of being a communist or a terrorist or a (god forbid) "goddamn liberal socialist democrat". Just my two cents.. we should be able to discuss the real problem the US is facing, not shouting at our fellow citizens.

I agree John, each individual has the right to his opinion, just because someone disagrees with it does not automatically turn them into a socialist libertarian. TWB has some valid points, although I do not believe he understands the big picture, the PR twist to popularize the "War on Terrorism" is correct.

 

[TWB]

Just for the record, do you deny you have an al-Qaeda decoder ring?

I thought you were in Canada?

heh.

 

[TWB]

I agree John, each individual has the right to his opinion, just because someone disagrees with it does not automatically turn them into a socialist libertarian. TWB has some valid points, although I do not believe he understands the big picture, the PR twist to popularize the "War on Terrorism" is correct.

Hmm. Politics is never out of the big picture.

 

[SINthysist]

In TWB's defence, DrudgeReport.com currently has big headline about Bush Administration being upset the Ashcroft overstated the case.

I made a comment in another thread about probably just a guy shooting off his mouth. Report seems to drift in that direction. Much ado about nothing. Seems the Alphabet's need some security wins...

 

[Ishmael]

I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that our government is engaged in a massive PR campaign to make Dubya look good after all of the press showing his adminstrative agencies (CIA, FBI, INS, etc) screwing up.

Lets start with a little civics lesson TWB. It is NOT George W. Bush's FBI, INS, CIA, or whatever that is screwing up. It is YOUR FBI, CIA, INS, whatever that screwed up. YOURS and MINE and every other citizen of this country. We live in a representatinve democracy and as such it is WE that are the government. Those people in Wash. D.C. or your state capital are there to do YOUR business. Not their own.

All of these agencies were created by law and are regulated by law. These laws are passed by congress. A delegation of elected officials that WE, the people, send forth to do our business. The President has but three functions in the government. Head of the armed forces, required to adminster the agencies created by "congress" within the laws that delimit their powers, also passed by "congress". He is also the head of state with regards to negotiations with foriegn powers. The presidency is NOT the all powerful position that many here seem to think it is. The presidency is actually relatively weak.

Now, in a reflexive moment of vindictiveness following Watergate, our elected officials (Sen. Frank Church being the prime mover.) gutted the ability of the FBI to do domestic surveilance. And, by act of congress, prohibited the CIA from doing the same. A great part of this was a result of the FBI stings agaists elected officials, primarily democrats (but not limited to democrats solely), these were the 'Abscam' stings. Congress yelled bloody murder and wanted "to protect the average American" from these intrusive stings. When in reality they were covering their own ass. But the American people bought the goods, hook line and sinker.

By act of congress, our borders were flooded with foriegn aliens, who incidently were registered to vote, mostly democratic, with the 'motor voter' act.

Now these agencies are in a big mess. They are, by law, unable to cope with the new paradigm of terrorism. Congress is well aware of this and several roll backs of the previous restrictive laws are now under discussion in the various committees.

But don't for a minute sit there and blame President Bush, or any other president, for the short comings of these agencies, because the shortcomings are by act of congress, set in law. A Congress that you and I elect. So look in the mirror and ask yourself what you want your congressman to do to represent you and protect you as an American citizen. Because in the end YOU are at fault, as well as I, and your parents, and mine. And all the other citizens of this country that allowed themselves to be sold a bill of goods by their elected representatives.

Ishmael

 

[TWB]

Heh. Your ability to latch onto an idea and shake it like a retarded dog is impressive.

Last time I read the constitution, the executive branch had certain duties. The FBI and CIA are executive agencies. The Bush Administration is presently in power, despite my desires to the contrary, he is in charge of those agencies.

Any junior high civics student would have understood and placed the words "George W. Bush's FBI, INS, CIA" etc. in their proper context. I am sorry you wasted so much time because of your inability to do the same.

duh.

 

[Ishmael]

Heh. Your ability to latch onto an idea and shake it like a retarded dog is impressive.

Last time I read the constitution, the executive branch had certain duties. The FBI and CIA are executive agencies. The Bush Administration is presently in power, despite my desires to the contrary, he is in charge of those agencies.

Any junior high civics student would have understood and placed the words "George W. Bush's FBI, INS, CIA" etc. in their proper context. I am sorry you wasted so much time because of your inability to do the same.

duh.

Any any student of American government would understand that Mr. Bush can no more break the laws inacted by congress than Mr. Clinton before him. The laws that restrict and define the specific functions and limitations of the various agencies you speak of are enacted by congress, not by presidential fiat.

I enumerated the duties precisely. They are 'duties' not ownership. I reiterate, his powers are somewhat limited and are enumerated in Article II, section 2.

The president is responsible for the administration of the various agencies, this is true. However, he is not responsible for the laws that constitute the limitaions of said agencies, nor is he responsible for the enactment of said agencies budgets. His power is restricted to the preparation of a proposed budget and the accounting for monies allocated in the actual budget.

The failures occured long ago when the cold war was still the biggest thing going. No one in congress, or the executive branch, foresaw terrorism in it's current form. Specically, the laws restricting the various agencies were passed during the Carter administration, with the exception of the INS issue, which was passed during the Clinton administration.

In the mid-nineties the Congress appointed a 'blue ribbon' commission to address the issues of global terrorism. The commission was bi-partison and co-chaired by Warren Rhudman and Gary Hart. The commission made a series of reccomendations. A few of which were enacted by the House of Representatives, all of which were stopped in the Senate, and none of which made it to the presidents desk. Either Clinton or Bush.

Now, the entire infrastructure of these agencies is being realigned to face a new enemy. You may want to bemoan the fact that it is specifically at president Bush's impetus that this is occuring. He is fixing something that is broken, and has been for the last 25 years. And in that respect, he is doing exactly what he chief executive should do, fix what is broken.

So perhaps you might want to concern yourself with the specifics of the new Dept. of Homeland Security. Because many of the agencies that you have alluded to will be taken away from their now parent agencies and fall under Tom Ridge.

And input from the public is being sought. So familiarize yourself with what is happening and write your congressman and senator's. I will be doing the same.

Ishmael

 

[SINthysist]

One wonders what new duties the Homeland Security Office will create for itself once we've a handle on the war. Short of revolution, this is a forever thing, and agencies have a way of evolving...

 

[TWB]

FRANK RICH

Department of Homeland Insecurity

By FRANK RICH

When it comes to striking terror in a White House waging a war on terrorism, Osama bin Laden has nothing on a forthright American woman spilling her guts on daytime television.

This week began, you may distantly recall, with George W. Bush telling Americans that the F.B.I. and C.I.A. were now in "close communication" — even as they seemed to be mainly in close communication with the press, with each agency rabidly planting leaks to scapegoat the other for pre-Sept.-11 incompetence. As further reassurance, Mr. Bush added that he had "seen no evidence to date that said this country could have prevented the attack" — even though less than a week earlier his own F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, had said his agency might have been sitting on just such evidence.

Mr. Bush presented this rosy picture on Tuesday. On Wednesday Arlen Specter, a Republican, told CBS that the government possessed not just unconnected dots before Sept. 11 but a "veritable blueprint" for impending terrorist acts. On Thursday morning, just hours before the F.B.I. agent Coleen Rowley began to testify about why that blueprint was ignored, the administration announced the creation of yet another new scheme to fix everything the White House had previously claimed to be already on the mend.

Is the new Department of Homeland Security an antidote to a broken system? Or is it merely a hastily contrived antidote to Ms. Rowley's TV debut, knocking her out of the evening-news lead lest she wreak damage on this Bush administration akin to what Anita Hill, appearing before the same committee, inflicted on the first? It's not Ari Fleischer but Al Qaeda that will ultimately provide the answer.

What is clear is that the White House has lost control of a hagiographic story line that, as codified everywhere from Annie Leibovitz's triumphalist photos in Vanity Fair to a multipart series co-written by Bob Woodward at The Washington Post, portrayed it as a steely, no-nonsense team of razor-sharp executives running government like a crack Fortune 500 corporation. When it comes to domestic security, the administration turns out to mirror America's C.E.O. culture all right — but not that of Thomas Watson's I.B.M. or Jack Welch's General Electric so much as that laid bare by the dot-com crash. It's a slipshod business culture in which arrogant C.E.O.'s, held accountable by no one (including their own boards), cash out just before their own bad deals take their companies south. It's the culture that has wrecked Americans' trust in the market and that this week prompted Henry M. Paulson Jr., the chief of Goldman Sachs, to speak out, chastising "the activities and behavior of some C.E.O.'s" and concluding, "I cannot think of a time when business over all has been held in less repute."

Mr. Paulson, whose firm's clients include Global Crossing and Tyco, didn't name names. I'll name one: Dick Cheney, who from 1995 to 2000 ran Halliburton, the energy services company whose stock collapsed after he went to Washington. Halliburton has suffered not because of Mr. Cheney's departure but because of the damage he inflicted while there. It was his disastrous decision to merge with Dresser Industries, a company whose huge asbestos liabilities were somehow minimized during the due diligence that was his responsibility. It was also on his watch that Halliburton allegedly pulled a cute, Enron-like accounting trick, now under S.E.C. investigation, that allowed it to inflate revenues.

"C.E.O.'s are the ones who know what's going on in their companies," said Paul O'Neill, the Treasury secretary, in a blistering February speech. "There's no excuse for them not to know." But this tough talk doesn't apply to Mr. O'Neill's own peers in the administration. We are asked to believe that Mr. Cheney didn't know what was happening at his own company — he was a "hands-off" manager, says one Halliburton crony — much as Ken Lay, in the words of his wife, Linda, "wasn't told" about what was going down at Enron.


For those of us without a stake in Halliburton, it's not our problem. What is everyone's problem is the extent to which Mr. Cheney brought his management style into the White House. No one seems to remember anymore that President Bush put Mr. Cheney in charge of not one but two task forces last year. The first, of course, was the energy task force, whose secret deliberations have landed the vice president in court. But even more intriguing is the second. On May 8, 2001, the president charged Mr. Cheney with overseeing a "national effort" to coordinate all federal programs for responding to domestic attacks in league with a new Office of National Preparedness at the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

That day the vice president went on CNN to explain his duty. After noting that "one of our biggest threats as a nation" may include "a terrorist organization overseas," Mr. Cheney said: "We need to look at this whole area, oftentimes referred to as homeland defense. The president's asked me to take on the responsibility of overseeing all of that, reviewing the plans that are out there today."

Did Mr. Cheney take on that responsibility with the same urgency with which he met with Enron executives to develop energy policy? A FEMA spokesman this week said that the Office of National Preparedness was up and running by early last summer; Tom Ridge said on the "Today" show yesterday that the new Homeland Security Department would "continue the work the vice president started back in May of 2001." But when Ari Fleischer was asked to list the vice president's policy portfolio at a press briefing on June 29, 2001, he made no mention of such work, according to the White House transcript. When a reporter then specifically asked him if he could recall what task force Mr. Cheney had been appointed to head "after energy," Mr. Fleischer answered, "No." After Sept. 11, Barton Gellman of The Washington Post reported flatly that the government-wide review that Mr. Bush had entrusted to Mr. Cheney had never taken place. Even if it did, history will deem it about as successful as the Halliburton-Dresser merger.

Were the vice president to be quizzed about his pre-Sept.-11 efforts at preparedness, he'd likely either invoke secrecy or impugn the questioner's patriotism. But he's not the only one who avoids accountability for past inaction. After Mr. Mueller told the Judiciary Committee on Thursday of the F.B.I.'s primitive DOS-era computer capabilities, Charles Schumer, the Democrat from New York, indignantly asked, "But how was it we were so far behind the curve that it was almost laughable?"

One answer is that the Judiciary Committee, in charge of F.B.I. oversight, was itself asleep. As Ronald Kessler, the author of "The Bureau," points out, it was no secret that the technophobic director of the Clinton years, Louis Freeh, refused even to use e-mail himself, let alone make it viable for his agents to do so.

The cure Mr. Bush now proposes for such ailments — a big new federal bureaucracy with 169,000 employees that stands apart from the F.B.I. and C.I.A. bureaucracies — is still another avoidance of accountability and still another repudiation of the efficient, lean-government corporate Republicanism that he supposedly champions. (No wonder Democratic leaders are falling over each other to take credit for thinking of it first.)

This Rube Goldberg contraption will take months to pass in some form and may not be in action before Google arrives at the F.B.I. It allegedly requires no new funds (a feat to be achieved only by Enron off-balance-sheet bookkeeping) and reshuffles the same deck of lightweights we have now. That includes the irrepressible John Ashcroft, who this week announced a plan to have the I.N.S. fingerprint 100,000 Middle Eastern visa holders. The day after he did so, his own department's inspector general testified before Congress that the I.N.S. and F.B.I. were still "years away" from integrating the fingerprint files already in their possession.

Instead of creating a new organizational chart, Mr. Bush might have enlisted one man to hose down our security bureaucracy: Rudolph Giuliani. Instead of speechifying that "only the United States Congress can create a new department of government," he might have followed the suggestion of Stansfield Turner, the former C.I.A. chief who, like others, has called for the president, "with a stroke of the pen," to give the director of central intelligence the authority to coordinate the 14 entities in our intelligence apparatus. Rather than take such old-time C.E.O.-style action, the president wrapped himself in the mantle of Harry Truman. These days that's a sure sign that the buck- passing will never stop.

 

[SINthysist]

Rebuttal: Wag the Dog

Bush and Wag the Dog
Christopher Ruddy
Friday, June 14, 2002

On Wednesday night MSNBC anchor Brian Williams, heir to Tom Brokaw’s anchor job at NBC, started off his nightly broadcast bashing the administration for manipulating the news.

Citing the New York Times and other conspiracy-minded media critics of the Bush administration, Williams said that the Bush administration was essentially creating news to divert the media from stories critical of the administration.

One example cited was President Bush's announcement that he was creating a new Department of Homeland Security on the very same day Coleen Rowley was testifying about a cover-up at the FBI.

Based on a handful of other press announcements, the major media have woven a full-blown conspiracy on the part of the administration to manipulate the media.

Maybe the administration is indeed engaging in media manipulation.

But so far the evidence is very scant. In my mind, a much clearer pattern of events would have to develop to prove this – and to make such a serious accusation against the president and White House in time of war.

But the Williams report, the New York Times story and other media criticism on this point suggest that the media are desperate to hammer Bush and the Republicans – all in an effort to bring their poll numbers down.

One thing we know is that for the most part the major media in this country are an adjunct to the Democratic Party.

It's been that way for decades. I recall journalist Teddy White candidly revealing how the big press wanted Kennedy to win in 1960 so much, reporters actually wrote his speeches on the campaign plane.

In the '90s a Roper study found that 89 percent of the Washington press corps voted for Bill Clinton. And these folks have the gall to call themselves "mainstream."

In fact, the media apparatchiks in this country get their marching orders right out of the DNC and the editorial room of the left-wing New York Times.

With congressional elections fast approaching and Bush's poll numbers still above 70 percent, the Democrats are getting desperate. Expect just about anything.

The irony of all of this is that in eight years of Clinton I never heard the major press make an issue of the Clinton spinroom in the basement of the White House.

Bill Clinton epitomized the concept of "wag the dog."

The Clintons played each scandal like a volleyball, deflecting one scandal after another by contrived news events and even wars.

Bill Clinton's 1999 war over Kosovo was perhaps the most egregious use of presidential power to divert the public's attention and save a presidency.

Remember, when Clinton began the war he had just come out of the Lewinsky scandal, impeachment and near removal from office.

And yet the scandal was still top news on the TV shows. Worse, Kathleen Willey had come forward to say that Clinton made crude sexual advances toward her, right in the Oval Office.

Then in early 1999, still another woman, Juanita Broaddrick, also a one-time campaign supporter, claimed Clinton had raped her. Only days after her story aired on NBC, NATO's first war began against Serbia. Coincidence?

At the time, there was a lot of media hocus-pocus about Serbian war crimes in Kosovo, practically none of which turned out to be true, but it was enough to save Bill Clinton – again.

 

[Ishmael]

TWB,

I've read Rich before and he makes a few good points. Very few, but a few none the less.

My fear that the Republicans talk of "Corporate Executive" coming back to haunt them has come to pass. However;

1. To the list of Watson and Welch, you can also add Paul Allair of Xerox and several others. But these gentlemen did NOT turn their respective companies around over night. The 'turn-around' took several years.

2. Any CEO can reallign his budget at a whim. Not so the President, who not only inhierits his predecessor's budget, has little power to re-direct the funds because the funds are allocated for specific purposes by, yep you guessed it, congress.

3. Any CEO can close divisions, institute massive layoffs, or in any other way change the organization of his company. Not so the President. The President must have the force of law, as passed by, once again my friend, congress, inorder to effect any of the above changes.

No one can even say with any certainty that the 'ball' was dropped by these agencies prior to 9/11. The evidence that has been brought forth, even by the whistle blower from Minneapolis, indicates that there was little the agency could do other than 'tail' the individuals. Which would bring up the cruelest scenario of all. The FBI agents in Boston watching the terrorists board the aircraft and calling their fellow agents in Los Angeles telling them the flight number and it's scheduled arrival time.

It's interesting how many of the press have become "Monday morning quarterbacks". There is nothing that Bush could have done, or Clinton, or Reagan. The power of the various agencies to act on the information they had was lost during the Carter administration. And that is not to say that Carter was to blame. The changes were passed in an omnibus, veto proof, piece of legislation. While I believe that even Carter expressed 'concerns' he could not veto the legislation.

Ishmael

 

[SINthysist]

That's why you're the man.

You would have liked Texan...