Two Peas In An Elitist Pod


The United States of America may not survive. Campaigning in June against the (unsuccessful) effort to recall Governor Scott Walker, Representative Paul Ryan exclaimed "On Tuesday, we save Wisconsin.   On November 6th, Wisconsin saves America."

But Ann Romney, who believes "no one will move heaven and earth" (to help the country) more than her husband, knows that salvation lies not in party, but in man.    In a radio interview in March, she remarked of her husband "he's the only one who can save America."

This proved to be no gaffe, no slip of the tongue when in August she explained to Natalie Morales of Rock Center with Brian Williams

We have a reason why we're running and it's because I believe in my heart that Mitt is going to save America. That economically we are in such difficult times and that he is the person that's gonna pull us through this. And it's propelled me through the negative criticism. And I am stalwart and steadfast and positive and confident that still to this day Mitt is the person who's going to save America and he's gonna get us back on track.

August would have been reported as a bad month for Mrs. Romney, if the media had cared to pay attention.     Ann, ever the compassionate and caring soul, first told a Latino Coalition luncheon on August 29 “I spoke to women last night and I wanted women to understand how important this election is for their children."   Then it got a little ugly as she warned

You’d better really look at your future and figure out who’s going to be the guy that’s going to make it better for you and your children, and there is only one answer... It really is a message that would resonate well if they could just get past some of their biases that have been there from the Democratic machines that have made us look like we don’t care about this community.

You better do it, if you know what's good for you, the would-be Queen First Lady told a group of people she fears just cannot get past its prejudice.

It shouldn't be any surprise that her husband would express a similar disdain for Americans when he commented at the home of a fund-raiser in May

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

No compassionate conservatism, there.  The candidate does not pretend that students, the elderly, or people down on their luck ought to vote for Republicans (though sadly, many do). Notwithstanding the candor expressed in a room of fellow multi-millionaires to fellow multi-millionaires, Mitt Romney has a lot in common with his wife.   They are people who really, really are not fond of people who are unlike them.   As then- New Jersey Republican Governor Tom Kean would have put it, "Mitt and Ann- Perfect Together."



Share |

This Year's Twist On Class Warfare



Sometimes, at least occasionally, there is a leak from a fundraiser.   And when there is, it can be eye-opening.

In a video (below) obtained by Mother Jones of Mitt Romney at a fundraiser at the home of a wealthy supporter, Romney is heard saying

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

Republicans- and John Edwards- are right:  there are two Americas.   But Romney believes that the individuals who inhabit the one are not quite American.   They don't accept traditional American values and instead "believe the government has a responsibility to care for them."

This is traditional GOP boilerplate language, and theory.   The portion of the nation which doesn't pay federal income taxes are the takers- parasites, really.  The producers, the job creators, have no use for them.   Whereas John Edwards merely acknowledged, as few politicians are willing, that the middle class is declining and power is vested in a few, the GOP meme is that some Americans are worthwhile and some are not.

We've heard this before, repeatedly from Rush Limbaugh and to a lesser extent from other talk show hosts spouting the Repub line.  Most infamously, however, we got it four years ago from the party's vice-presidential nominee, who stated

We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe- We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom.

Different campaign and different gender; one elitist and the other a faux populism.   Either way, however, it boils down to the same construct, with one group meritorious and righteous, the other detestable and contemptible.   It's the old, ugly Republican class warfare, creating an artificial split and dividing Americans against each other.  Some kind of patriotism.

Share |

With No Thanks To Rush Limbaugh Or Mitt Romney


It's time to check in with our favorite plutocrat and blowhard.   Today, Rush Limbaugh maintained

Today, "General Motors Pushing US to Sell Stake -- The Treasury Department is resisting General Motors' push for the government to sell off its stake in the auto maker, The Wall Street Journal reports. Following a $50 billion bailout in 2009, the US taxpayers now own almost 27% of the company.

"But the newspaper said GM executives are now chafing at that, saying it hurts the company's reputation and its ability to attract top talent due to pay restrictions." General Motors is saying that they've got a branding problem because of Obama ownership. General Motors is saying that they cannot hire the best people, who love cars and could help revitalize the company, because they're governed by what Obama says people can make.

And as you all know, Barack Obama is at war with successful, high-earning individuals and wants to do something about it. So at his automobile company, there is a limit on how much anybody can make. And, as such, people called to go in there and perhaps reverse the direction of General Motors, want no part of it because GM is a joke. It's laughed at. It's called "Government Motors," and you can't make any money there. Barack Obama thinks this is "saving" the company.

Limbaugh links to a Market Watch report, which is a summary of a full article, which itself refers to the Wall Street Journal article Limbaugh presumably was touting.  It maintains

But GM executives have grown increasingly frustrated with that ownership, and the stigma of being known as "Government Motors." Executives have said the U.S.'s shadow is a drag on its reputation and hurts the company's ability to recruit talent because of pay restrictions.

Rush deprived us of the following line:   "Privately, executives are also irked at the continued curbs on corporate jet use."   So GM executives not only want to be paid more highly, they "chafe" at restrictions on use of corporate jets.

It is not he Obama administration or the left dragging down the reputation of the auto company.  Rather, Limbaugh and others on the right delight in referring disparagingly to General Motors as "Government Motors," hoping that the business saved by the President goes down in flames.

Nevertheless, it not this effort, nor government restrictions, nor the latter's reluctance to sell its shares until they bring a better price for the American people, which has slowed GM's growth the past two quarters.  The Huffington Post reports

Yet Itay Michaeli, an analyst with Citi Investment Research, said there's cause for optimism at GM if the company properly executes its plans. GM has kept its U.S. costs in line and hasn't resorted to wild cash incentives to juice sales. Its new pickups should hit showrooms next year as pent-up demand pushes up sales, he said.

But the company, he said, has to make its brands more identifiable to customers, and it still has to find a way to reassure jittery consumers so they have enough confidence to buy again.

General Motors' recent plight, like that of the economy generally, owes nothing to the allegedly heavy hand of government, but rather to a lack of demand.   The auto "bailout" saved nearly 3 million jobs and the auto industry while

GM is a much stronger company than it was before bankruptcy, where it shed billions of debt, closed factories and cut its work force to slash costs.  GM has a strong balance sheet.   It's sitting on $38.5 billion in cash and credit lines.   And the company still expects industry-wide US auto sales to total 14 million to 14.5 million this year, far above the 10 million level needed for GM to break even.

With costs down, employment down, and profits up, it would be a conservative wish list, were not a Democratic President the one to set it into motion.  However, Limbaugh is correct when he states  "Mitt Romney has had nothing to do with it, and Mitt Romney wouldn't get anywhere near replicating any of this!"  In November, 2008 Romney argued on the editorial page of The New York Times

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check. 

This past May, Romney modestly claimed "I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy, and finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet.    So, I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry has come back."

Pretty bold words for a guy who, in March, 2009, contended "Bailout of enterprises that are in trouble, that's not the right way to go. I know President Bush started it with the auto industry. I thought it was a mistake."   As if to remind us how wrong he was, the candidate in November, 2011 rambled "My plan, we would have had a private sector bailout with the private sector restructuring and bankruptcy with the private sector guiding the direction as opposed to what we had with government playing its heavy hand."  His version of a managed bankruptcy would have failed to save General Motors, as explained by AOL Autos Editor-in-Chief David Kiley:

What Romney leaves out of the discussion is that there was a prolonged political debate in Washington that lasted for months about how best, or whether, to rescue the auto companies. If the loans had not been granted by President Bush, the companies would have defaulted on obligations and forced into a messy, sudden bankruptcy. Romney says that rather than the government rescuing GM and Chrysler, the government should have provided loan guarantees to banks and private equity firms that would have then lent the automakers enough money to get through the financial crisis. President Obama funded the auto rescue out of the Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP] because he could not get the Congress to vote yes on a specific rescue package for the auto companies.

There are two big flaws in Romney's position. According to Steven Rattner, the private equity investor who was named by President Obama to the auto industry task force, banks and private equity firms had neither the capital nor the interest in providing some $80 billion in funds needed for a traditional managed bankruptcy. None came forth at the time. Additionally, recapitalizing the companies with all loans--debt-- would not have fixed the company's problems or led them back to profitability. It was decided that GM and Chrysler needed to shed debt, restructure by shutting down low-performing brands and factories, and that the government would have to take equity in GM and take a risk that it would it get its money back later. Romney and adviser Carly Fiorina have said that the government could have forced the banks to provide the loans given the atmosphere and the fact that the banks were being bailed out too. But the companies would still have more debt than they could handle.

You're correct, Rush:   Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive, and Mitt Romney had nothing to do with it.




Share |

Responding To Death By Demography

Patrick J. Buchanan sounded the alarm when in late July he wrote

Race, age and ethnicity are at the heart of the problem. And they portend not only the party’s death in California, but perhaps its destiny in the rest of America.

Consider. Almost 90 percent of all Republican voters in presidential elections are white. Almost 90 percent are Christians. But whites fell to 74 percent of the electorate in 2008 and were only 64 percent of the population. Christians are down to 75 percent of the population from 85 in 1990. The falloff continues and is greatest among the young.

Consider ethnicity. Hispanics were 15 percent of the U.S. population in 2008 and 7.4 percent of the electorate. Both percentages will inexorably rise...

Of the seven mega-states, California, New York and Illinois appear lost to the GOP. Pennsylvania has not gone Republican since 1988. Ohio and Florida, both crucial, are now swing states. Whites have become a minority in Texas. When Texas goes, America goes.

This year could be the last hurrah...

If your racial and ethnic voter base is aging, shrinking and dying, your moral code is being rejected, and the tax-consuming class has been allowed to grow to equal or to dwarf the taxpaying class, the Grand Old Party has a problem.

Buchanan followed that with "but so does the country."   Without the ethnic or class animus, CNN's Fareed Zakaria recognizes

a demographic problem for the Republicans. They are alienating too many large groups to be viable - at least in the long run. A recent Pew poll shows Obama with an 18-point advantage over Mitt Romney with women because of the recent discussions about contraception and abortion.  Polls show Latinos supporting President Obama 6-to-1 over Mitt Romney. African Americans poll something like 9-to-1 in Obama’s favor.

Seemingly panicked, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) summarized "The demographics race we’re losing badly. We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."

What's a party to do?     It could have (warning: awful cliche ahead) "doubled down," but that would have risked the opprobrium of the media, generally sympathetic to the plight of ethnic minorities, especially immigrants.   The GOP might have increased its appeal to minorities, but would risk its overwhelming support among men and with married women with children. The Party might have chosen to ignore the issue and hoped it went away, but with Obama ordering Dream Act Lite (and himself being black), it wasn't going to disappear.

No, the problem needed to be addressed.   And so it has.  In state after state, as noted by Timothy Noah, voter suppression efforts are underway, whether by targeting non-profit groups which conduct voter registration drives, shortening polling hours, automated phone calls discouraging registered voters from going to the polls, or requiring voter identification.

The latter, of course, has proven to be the suppression tactic of choice of Pennsylvania's GOP.    A Republican Commonwealth Court judge last month denied a preliminary injunction against the state, even after it stipulated that there have been no investigations or prosecution of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania, it is unaware of any incidents of such fraud anywhere in the U.S.A., and it would offer no evidence that any in-person voter fraud would be prevented by the new photo ID law.

The law is ineffective in combating a problem which doesn't exist, with ten cases (eleven, including Mitt Romney) of in-person voter fraud in the U.S.A. since 2000.    But in the Keystone State, as elsewhere, GOP officials have had to confront the demographic time bomb.  And if they're unable or unwilling to modify their tone or wish the issue away, and if going after the rights of blacks, women, immigrants, students, or the disabled is just too risky, there is only one option available.   And they've taken it.



Share |

Not Buyin' Lyin' Ryan


From Mitt Romney:

Unconditional love is a gift that Ann and I have tried to pass on to our sons and now to our grandchildren. All the laws and legislation in the world will never heal this world like the loving hearts and arms of mothers and fathers. If every child could drift to sleep feeling wrapped in the love of their family – and God's love — this world would be a far more gentle and better place.

Those days were toughest on Ann, of course. She was heroic. Five boys, with our families a long way away. I had to travel a lot for my job then and I'd call and try to offer support. But every mom knows that doesn't help get the homework done or the kids out the door to school.I knew that her job as a mom was harder than mine. And I knew without question, that her job as a mom was a lot more important than mine. And as America saw Tuesday night, Ann would have succeeded at anything she wanted to.

Like a lot of families in a new place with no family, we found kinship with a wide circle of friends through our church. When we were new to the community it was welcoming and as the years went by, it was a joy to help others who had just moved to town or just joined our church. We had remarkably vibrant and diverse congregants from all walks of life and many who were new to America. We prayed together, our kids played together and we always stood ready to help each other out in different ways.


From his wife:

And that is where this boy I met at a high school dance comes in.  His name is Mitt Roney and you should really get to know him.  I could tell you why I fell in love with him; he was tall, laughed a lot.  He was nervous.  Girls like that.  It shows the guy's a little intimidated.  He was nice to my parents, but he was also really glad when they were not around.

I don't mind that. But more than anything, he made me laugh. some of you might not know this, but I am the granddaughter of a welsh coal miner.

From the First Lady:

You see, even though back then Barack was a senator and a presidential candidate . to me, he was still the guy who'd picked me up for our dates in a car that was so rusted out, I could actually see the pavement going by through a hole in the passenger side door . he was the guy whose proudest possession was a coffee table he'd found in a dumpster, and whose only pair of decent shoes was half a size too small.

But when Barack started telling me about his family — that's when I knew I had found a kindred spirit, someone whose values and upbringing were so much like mine.

You see, Barack and I were both raised by families who didn't have much in the way of money or material possessions but who had given us something far more valuable — their unconditional love, their unflinching sacrifice, and the chance to go places they had never imagined for themselves.

From her husband:

Michelle, I love you. The other night, I think the entire country saw just how lucky I am. Malia and Sasha, you make me so proud…but don’t get any ideas, you’re still going to class tomorrow.

From the Vice-President:

Jilly, I want you to know that Beau, Hunt, Ashley, and I are so proud of you. We admire the way you treat every single student who walks into your classroom. You not only teach them. You give them confidence. And the passion you bring to easing the burden on the families of our warriors. They know you understand what they're going through. It makes a difference. And I'm grateful. So grateful that you said Yes on that fifth try.

From the individual who wants to replace him:

For my part, your nomination is an unexpected turn. It certainly came as news to my family, and I'd like you to meet them: My wife Janna, our daughter Liza, and our boys Charlie and Sam.

The kids are happy to see their grandma, who lives in Florida. There she is— my Mom, Betty.

My dad, a small-town lawyer, was also named Paul. Until we lost him when I was 16, he was a gentle presence in my life. I like to think he'd be proud of me and my sister and brothers, because I'm sure proud of him and of where I come from, Janesville, Wisconsin.

I live on the same block where I grew up. We belong to the same parish where I was baptized. Janesville is that kind of place.

Fortunately, excess of saccharin being dangerous to health, we were spared a speech by Mrs. Ryan and Mrs. Biden.  Still, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Michelle Obama, and Ann Romney all can claim to be great family men/women, inasmuch as we have no evidence to the contrary.

Bill Clinton, however, avoided talk of his family, though Hillary and Chelsea may be wonderful persons.  His remarks would have been (literally) incredible, given all that we know about Bill's checkered family history.  He didn't try to strain our credulity, and did not play on our emotions in the same fashion as did Mitt, Ann, Michelle, Barack, Joe, and Paul.

Bill Clinton, apparently, has at least some sense of shame.   Not so, the U.S. Representative from Wisconsin's First Congressional District.
  
WARNING:  RUN ON SENTENCE AHEAD

There were the lies (or clear intent to mislead) in his acceptance speech of August 29, in which he: strongly inferred that the automobile plant in his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin closed after Barack Obama became President than before; the stimulus "the working men and women of this country were cut out of" but which added more than one million jobs; the Medicare cuts in which "our parents and grandparents (are) being sacrificed," but which came almost exclusively from reductions in reimbursement to hospitals and insurance companies; the Simpson-Bowles commission which "came back with an urgent report," in response to which the President "did absolutely nothing," though the commission never issued a report; the triple-A credit rating which turned into "a downgraded America" because of Barack Obama, but whose downgrade was engineered by House Republicans (of whom he has been a leading member); his concern for "the strong to protect the weak," when his own budget pays for further, radical tax cuts for the wealthy primarily by cutting aid to the poor.

More recently, Ryan claimed "President Obama is rolling back welfare reform," even though he merely has granted the waivers requested by several GOP governors for flexibility in implementing welfare standards.   He has also criticized Obama for the defense cuts required by sequestration in the Budget Control Act, which he himself voted for, and whose cuts he pointedly endorsed and did not criticize until he became a vice-presidential nominee.

As a bonus, it's not only these consequential flights from objective reality which characterize the man and his character.   Consider the sub-three hour marathon he ran which, it turns out, was run in over four hours.  Consider also that Ryan, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel "has made close to 40 climbs of Colorado's "Fourteeners" (14,000-foot peaks)," which, unsurprisingly, turns out not to be true.

For good cause, he's called Lyin' Ryan- but not by the Family Research Council, which hosts the Values Voter Summit.   Yes, Paul Ryan spoke (transcript, here) at today's Values Voter Summit, and not to plead forgiveness for his sin of rampant dishonesty.    The man who is not ethically challenged but ethnically barren, and who has raised lying to an art form, was there to criticize President Obama.

At one point Mr. Ryan, who interrupted his lecture by reminding us he is Catholic- hardly an endorsement- accused President Obama of "trying to trade on the record of Bill Clinton."
With Republicans pretending they do not maintain for citizen Clinton the loathing they held for President Clinton, their vice-presidential candidate ought to consider emulating one of the former President's admirable qualities.   His record known, Clinton does not claim to be what he is not, a man of awesome personal integrity; and Paul Ryan, having been found to be a clone of Pinocchio, ought not to pretend he's a man with any sense of decency.




Share |

Coming Our Way


Optimism is such a fine thing.  But it won't be found here, at least not today.

In his interview on August 21 with Time's Michael Scherer, President Obama promised that if re-elected

I will continue to reach out to them and work with them wherever I can. And I think it’s important to note that even in the two years that Republicans have controlled the House, we’ve gotten a lot of stuff done. We have passed a payroll tax cut that affected almost every American. We’ve helped veterans get hired as they come home. We’ve gotten two major trade deals that open up markets and are contributing to us doubling exports.

So even in a pretty sour political circumstance, we’ve been able to get some things accomplished. And I believe that in a second term, where Mitch McConnell’s imperative of making me a one-term President is no longer relevant, they recognize that what the American people are looking for is for us to get things done.

Last August, Congress agreed as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (in which the debt ceiling was raised) a deal to create a super committee .   If this committee failed to devise a plan to trim at least $1.5 trillion from the national debt over the following ten years, $109.3 billion in cuts, half from the Defense Department and half from (mostly discretionary) social spending would take effect.

Several Republicans already have complained about the Pentagon's contribution to holding the line on the national debt.  And their presidential nominee, apparently satisfied with cuts to Medicare, education, transportation, and the like, a week ago Sunday on Meet the Press criticized the defense spending portion of the sequester when he argued "I thought it was a mistake on the part of the White House to propose it.  I think it was a mistake for Republicans to go along with it."     Romney was even more explicit when on September 11 he stated  "The return of our troops cannot and must not be used as an excuse to hollow out our military through devastating defense budget cuts."

That doesn't quite square with the approach last summer of Romney's running mate, who after voting for the bill bragged to Sean Hannity

What conservatives like me have been fighting for, for years, are statutory caps on spending, legal caps in law that says government agencies cannot spend over a set amount of money.  And if they breach that amount across the board, sequester comes in to cut that spending, and you can’t turn that off without a super-majority vote. We got that in law.

But now GOP leadership is appalled. On Tuesday, House Speaker John Boehner called a press conference to blast the President over the latter's alleged failure to suggest an alternative to sequestration.  But as Suzy Khimm explains

Of course, Republicans — Boehner included — had agreed to the deal as well. The defense cuts were part of those consequences. What’s more, House Republicans refused to agree to a debt-ceiling deal that didn’t include some kind of consequence if the supercommittee failed. The White House, conversely, would happily have signed a clean debt-ceiling increase. But the Republicans said there would be no deal if there wasn’t some kind of deficit-reducing backstop in the event the supercommittee failed. That’s where the sequester came from.

And Democrats insist that they chose their particular poison: Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told Politico that they offered the GOP the option of having “a lot of special interest tax loopholes” eliminated instead if the supercommittee failed, but that Republicans chose the defense sequester option instead.    

Majority Leader Cantor even claimed "How is he going to lead to make sure our military is not hollowed out?"

President Obama, though, has offered an option.  His 2013 budget, unanimously rejected by the Senate in a sort of political theater after Republicans brought it up without the policy language or specific proposals attached, calls for eliminating all the automatic cuts for the full ten years.

Congressional Republicans and the party's presidential nominee are not the only ones who want to protect the Pentagon at the expense of the poor and elderly.  Khimm notes "The president instead wants to avoid the cuts by allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire and by cutting spending on mandatory programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, among other changes."

"In a second term," Barack Obama tells the New York Times, they (will) recognize that what the American people are looking for is for us to get things done."  

Hopefully, the President is simply naive.   But he hinted in his nomination acceptance speech what those "things" might be.   In Charlotte, he declared

I refuse to ask middle class families to give up their deductions for owning a home or raising their kids just to pay for another millionaire’s tax cut.I refuse to ask students to pay more for college; or kick children out of Head Start programs, or eliminate health insurance for millions of Americans who are poor, elderly, or disabled – all so those with the most can pay less.

He will not support eliminating the deduction for interest paid on home mortgages, or increasing college tuition, or cutting Head Starts or eliminating- eliminating- health insurance for some of the poor, elderly, or disabled... not in order to reduce taxes for the wealthy.  But as part of a Grand Bargain including tax cuts for the rich (or for simply not reducing them), those "things" apparently are on the chopping block.   Quite a Socialist, that Barack Obama.




Share |

Total Failure, Total Disgrace

Maybe we have been a little too harsh on former President George W. Bush.    Perhaps it wasn't only Mr. Bush who was grossly ineffective in his/her job prior to the Obama Administration, and played a key role in the greatest foreign policy blunder in American history.

Today, not coincidentally on September 11, a commentary appears in The New York Times by Kurt Eichenwald, a Vanity Fair editor and former reporter for The NYT.    Eichenwald says he read excerpts from the (not released) presidential daily briefs preceding the famous one of 8/6/11, as well as other recently declassified reports, and found

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.

Neoconservatives believed Saddam Hussein was more dangerous than Bin Laden, whom they argued merely was pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration. On September 8, 2002- a year after the terrorist strike and prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq- CNN's Wolf Blitzer interviewed National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who maintained

We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon.  And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device.The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

To be fair to Rice, it was neoconservatives at the Defense Department who downplayed the threat of  bin Laden and played up the that from Saddam Hussen.   However, even after the terrorists struck on 9/11/01, the National Security Adviser, who had been lauded as the individual who taught Bush everything he knew about foreign policy, radically exaggerated the threat presented by the Iraqi dictator.   And it was partly on that premise that the Bush Administration began Gulf War II and minimized the menace posed by the leader of Al Qaeda- after largely ignoring those presidential daily briefs which warned of a possible attack by the evil Saudi national.

At the first GOP convention following his departure from office, George W. Bush is ignored at the party's national convention by all but his brother, who lamely protests "My brother, well, I love my brother" and claims- more bizarrely than ostentatiously- "during incredibly challenging times, he kept us safe."

Condoleezza Rice, however, was honored by being given a time-prime speaking slot during which she rhetorically asks "where does America stand?’ ... Indeed that is the question of the hour."   She answers "You see when the friends or foes alike don't know the answer to that question, unambiguously and clearly, the world is likely to be a more dangerous and chaotic place.

Noting that allies and enemies both have more respect for the U.S.A. under the current President than the one who was si disastrously served by Rice, Slate's Fred Kaplan responds "a top adviser in the most disastrous, reputation-crippling foreign-policy administration in decades—has no business lecturing anybody on this score."

Obviously, George W. Bush was a dreadful president in more ways, especially in the economic sphere, than in turning a figurative blind eye to Osama bin Laden.  But he has been, justifiably, pilloried; the individual who advised him first as a Director of the National Security Council and then as Secretary of State has been given a pass by her party, Augusta National Golf Club, and in the media reports following her speech at the Republican National Convention.   It is more than "chutzpah,"a term ably applied to Rice by Kaplan; it is virtual collective amnesia.




Share |