If a President had prior knowledge of an impending terror plot, and what the political fallout would be. Of course, history tells us how Democrats reacted to a certain PDB in the recent past. Will they react the same way to the news today from Newsweek?
President Obama received a high-level briefing only three days before Christmas about possible holiday-period terrorist threats against the U.S., NEWSWEEK has learned. The briefing was centered on a written report, produced by U.S. intelligence agencies, titled "Key Homeland Threats," a senior U.S. official says.
The administration official, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, says that nowhere in this document was there any mention of Yemen, whose affiliate of Al Qaeda is now believed to have been behind the Christmas Day attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to bring down a transatlantic airliner with a bomb hidden in his underpants. However, the official declined to disclose any other information about the substance of the briefing, including what kind of specific warnings, if any, the president was given about possible holiday attacks and whether Yemen came up during oral discussions.
Today marks seven years since the day President Bush received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” (See the memo here.) At the time, Bush was vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, TX and stayed on vacation the rest of August 2001. Here’s how the administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
— [President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so. [p. 260]
— We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262]
The day after he received the memo, “Bush seemed carefree as he spoke about the books he was reading, the work he was doing on his nearby ranch, his love of hot-weather jogging, his golf game and his 55th birthday,” the Washington Post noted. Today — 2,557 days later — Bin Laden still remains free and “determined to strike in U.S.”
I mean, it's not like Obama got his news prior to going on his vacation, and then continued to enjoy his time off after the attempted murder of 300 civilians or anything.
Climate Change: A peer-reviewed study by a respected Canadian physicist blames the interplay of cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons for 20th-century warming. The CFCs are now gone, and so is warming — perhaps for the next 50 years.
Much of the nation got a white Christmas this year, some in unprecedented quantities. A record-breaking storm deposited 12 to 30 inches of snow in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C. Many places set records for the most snow in a single December day as more than 50% of the U.S. was covered by the white stuff.
Scientists (and here we use the word loosely) at Britain's Climate Research Unit may have tried to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, but it's hard to hide two feet of snow. Their motto seems to be the immortal words of Groucho Marx: "Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?"
Qing Bin-Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy at Canada's University of Waterloo, is a believer in the value of drawing conclusions from observable data and not from selective data fed into computer models that are based on false assumptions and include "fudge factors."
In a peer-reviewed paper published in the prestigious online journal Physics Reports, Lu, who holds a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Newcastle, reports that CFCs, the compounds once widely used as refrigerants, and cosmic rays, which are energy particles originating in outer space, are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Lu puts the start of the cooling trend at 2002 and writes that "the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."
From 1850 to 1950, Lu notes, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the Industrial Revolution; the global temperature stayed constant or rose only 0.1 degree Celsius.
"Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases ... decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."
Other reputable scientists have also predicted decades of cooling ahead to, er, varying degrees and for varying reasons. Earth's climate is affected by many things and is more complicated than the CRU computer models.
It's time for the 22nd annual Media Research Center's awards for the most biased, manipulative or downright goofy quotes from liberals in the "mainstream" media. I'm honored to serve, once again, on MRC's distinguished panel of conservatively biased judges. Here are some of the lowlights from among the winners and runners-up of Best Notable Quotables of 2009:
The Obamagasm Award for Seeing Coolness in Everything Obama Does:"He had this fly that was persistently buzzing around him . . . . He swatted his hand and he said, 'I got the sucker.' He threw it onto the ground. It was a, you know, Dirty Harry 'make my day' moment."
Correspondent John Harwood
"An amazing interview . . . . It never fails — great weather, rainbows, incredible speeches, and three-point baskets. A fly and he nails it. Unbelievable. Unbelievable."
MSNBC anchor David Schuster, during an exchange on MSNBC after Harwood's CNBC interview with President Obama concluded, June 16
Media Hero Award:"I'm honored to be joined today by the Godfather of Green, the King of Conservation: Former Vice President Al Gore."
Katie Couric opening her Nov. 2 CBSNews.com webcast
The Barbra Streisand Political IQ Award for Celebrity Vapidity: Actor Denis Leary: I do have to say that I think that President Obama is the greatest president in the history of all our presidents, and that he can do no wrong in my book. So how's that for prejudice on the Democratic side?"
Fill-in host Joy Behar: "What do you think of Obama's pick of Sotomayor?"
Leary: "Fantastic!"
Behar: "You love her?"
Leary: "Everything you ask me about President Obama, I'm just going to say it's the greatest thing. I love the guy!"
Louisiana got a nice package. Florida and Connecticut, too. And Nebraska scored a really big present.
Just three days ago Uncle Harry said that if a senator didn't get his state "something" in the health-care "reform" package, then that senator wasn't doing his or her job.
And yesterday Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., upped the ante. He said that every state did "get something" in the measure.
OK. I'm excited. What's Nevada's gift? Uncle Harry, as everyone knows, is the Big Kahuna of the Senate. He "brings home the bacon," his TV commercials claim. So if Nebraska got dispensation from Medicaid increases forever, one can only imagine the magnitude of Nevada's present.
Flat screen TVs for every man, woman and child? No, no -- that's way too small.
A new military base ... for every county?
A lump of coal and a power plant to fire it?
Maybe double our water allotment from the Colorado River?
Oh, I know: Lifetime exemptions for Nevada residents and all of their descendents from federal income tax? That would be nice.
Whatever it is, I can't wait for the UPS truck tomorrow. The suspense is unbearable.
Nevada get's its gift in November, when Reid goes into voter-induced retirement.
Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.
To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.
Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.
Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.
Senator Jim DeMint confronted the Democrats over Reid’s language. In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian has repeatedly determined that any legislation that also changes the internal standing rules of the Senate must have a two-thirds vote to pass because to change Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required. Today, the Senate President, acting on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, ruled that these rules changes are actually just procedural changes and, despite what the actual words of the legislation say, are not rules changes. Therefore, a two-thirds vote is not needed in contravention to longstanding Senate precedent.
How is that constitutional? It is just like the filibuster. Only 51 votes are needed to pass the amendments, but internally, the Senate is deciding that it will not consider certain business. The Supreme Court is quite clear that it won’t meddle with the internal operations of the House and Senate. To get around the prohibition on considering amendments to that particular subsection of the health care legislation, the Senate must get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to waive the rule. In other words, it will take a super-majority of the people the citizens of our Republican elected to overrule a regulation imposed by a group of faceless bureaucrats and bean counters.
What's most curious to me is which part of the Bill Reid attached this to. It's attached to the "Death Panel" portion of the Bill. It raises an interesting question:
But here is what everyone saying this is no big deal is missing: to my knowledge and the knowledge of those who I have consulted with on this issue, there has never been any legislation passed by the Congress with a prohibition on future Senates considering changes to previously enacted laws or regulations.
We can argue over whether or not this would be upheld, but given the refusal of the Senate GOP Leadership to fight now, we can wonder if they would fight on this in the future.
Likewise, what exactly is Harry Reid trying to prevent future Senates from repealing? Bureaucratic regulations enacted by the Death Panels. So, for example, though the Death Panels are prohibited by statute from passing “rationing” regulations, under the definitions, the panels can pass regulations setting priorities for treatment. So, they can say a 40 year old must get treatment for the same condition suffered by a 70 year old before the 70 year old can get treatment, thereby letting the 70 year old whither and die waiting for their turn.
And Harry Reid intends for the Senate, in perpetuity, to be prohibited from every changing that regulation without a super-majority of the Senate agreeing to ignore that prohibition.
Lastly, why in God’s name would the Senate Majority Leader want to make the Death Panel regulations the only thing in the Obamacare legislation that is not subject to amendment, repeal, or change by the United States Senate?!
Share the video of DeMint far and wide. Harry Reid is circumventing Senate rules, and possibly the Constitution to get this Bill passed.
In this rush to pass legislation by Christmas, the most fundamental aspect of representative democracy is being lost. The Democrats are about to pass legislation which divests the Congress of its ability to change legislation.
This is what we have come to. A Democratic majority ready to hand over a fundamental aspect of our health care system to an unelected panel without any future Congress being able to change this procedure.
Some readers have e-mailed me asking if this is constitutional. The answer is that I don't know, and in the rush to pass this by the day after tomorrow, no one will have time to fully sort through this issue. But that is the point of the rush. Load up the legislation with so many controversial points that no one can figure it all out prior to the vote.
We are like lambs led to the slaughter.
[1] At page 1032 of the bill there is a procedure giving Congress the ability to vote in early 2017, by Joint Resolution only and subject to a 3/5 majority, to dissolve IMAB. This appears to be a one shot vote, meaning that nothing can be done prior to or after 2017.
THE health-care dance in Washington, D.C., has gone on long enough. Congress needs to focus on the economy and set health care aside.
This is a change of position for us. This page supported Barack Obama for president, enthusiastically. We have supported the health-care effort until now. We still support universal coverage as a social goal.
But the longer the fight goes on, the more it feels that the timing is all wrong. The economy is wounded. Employers are hurting. The time to think about loading employers with new burdens is when they are strong. Not now.
Right now, Congress needs to focus on the economy. It needs to follow the lead of Sen. Maria Cantwell and re-enact Glass-Steagall, the law that separated investment banking from commercial banking and for 50 years helped maintain sanity on Wall Street. It needs to bolster the antitrust laws. It needs to lower the estate tax.
It needs to target the rest of the stimulus money at things that really stimulate — all of these actions to provide breathing room to small- and middle-sized family businesses that were once the backbone of the economy and can be again.
It needs to rejuvenate a trade agenda, starting by ratifying the agreement with Korea.
It needs to get out of two no-win wars in Asia. These are "investments" that will never pay out.
President Obama has promised that any health-care bill he signs will not add one dime to the deficit, which already has swelled beyond anything since World War II. The president has put himself in a position where he cannot keep that promise. He has let each house of Congress come up with its own health-care bills.
The result has been chaos: The public option is in then out; the Medicare buy-in for 55-year-olds is in, then out. When the congressional dance stops, the Senate may have 60 votes, but for what? It will satisfy neither Obama's frugal promise nor progressives' lavish hopes. Already the Democratic Party's former chairman, Howard Dean, says the bill is not worth passing in this form.
You know he's right when you hear statements that something has to be passed, for political reasons. This issue is too important for that. It should wait for a unified proposal and an economy on the mend.
These Lefties that worked so hard to get Obama elected make me laugh. They seem surprised over what Obama is doing, with help from Reid and Pelosi. Too bad they weren't looking a little more critically into Obama on the campaign trail.
Watching the freak show in Copenhagen last week, I was alternately furious and filled with dread. The world has gone absolutely bonkers and lunatics are in charge.
Mugabe and Chavez are treated with respect and the United Nations is serious about wanting to regulate our industry and transfer our wealth to kleptocrats and genocidal maniacs.
Even more frightening, our own leaders joined the circus. Marching to the beat of international drummers, they uncoupled themselves from the will of the people they were elected to serve.
President Obama, for whom I voted because I believed he was the best choice available, is a profound disappointment. I now regard his campaign as a sly bait-and-switch operation, promising one thing and delivering another. Shame on me.
Equally surprising, he has become an insufferable bore. The grace notes and charm have vanished, with peevishness and petty spite his default emotions. His rhetorical gifts now serve his loathsome habit of fear-mongering.
"Time is running out," he says, over and again. He said it on health care, on the stimulus, in Copenhagen, on Iran.
Instead of provoking thought and inspiring ideas, the man hailed for his Ivy League nuance insists we stop thinking and do what he says. Now.
His assertion we will go bankrupt unless Congress immediately adopts the health monstrosity marks a new low. At least it did until he barged into a meeting in Copenhagen to insult the Chinese with the same do-it-now arrogance on carbon emissions.
Glad to see Mr. Goodwin has woken up from his November slumber. Thanks to guys like him, who now only realize what their vote did to this great Country, we are in this mess to start with. Too bad you didn't apply any of that critical thinking before you giddily fell in line with your fellow "journalists".
So welcome to the party, albeit late. Now work just as hard to undo the disaster Obama is creating, as you did to get him elected. ThHen you'll impress me.
Matt Taibbi has done it again -- written a nightmare of a story for Rolling Stone on Obama's
economic sell-out of his campaign. The piece is a factual mess, a
conspiracy theorist's dream, doesn't even indict Obama for his real
failures (which I'll discuss in a post later today) and of course
invokes the cold hands of Bob Rubin like a bogeyman at every
turn. This is pernicious for a lot of journalistic reasons, but
politically it's bad for progressives because conspiracy theories stand
in the way of good policy analysis and good activism, replacing them
with apathy and fear. Here we go:
To me, it appears TAP is splitting some hairs on issues, and focuses on some of Taibbi's loose ends on others. TAP glosses over that this mess was created with help from both Democrat and Republicans over the years, and plays the "Blame Bush" card.
They also throw a few more things out for the reader to consider:
Phew. That's just after a skim. Things he doesn't mention: Actual administration policy failures, like not fighting for cramdown, the slow-moving foreclosure mitigation program,
or the fact that the stimulus was too small. He doesn't mention the
efforts of the Chamber of Commerce or the Financial Services Roundtable
to defeat financial regulatory reform, which are much more pernicious
than anything the Administration has done. He doesn't mention key
economic adviser Christy Roemer, Assistant Treasury Secretary Alan Krueger, a highly regarded labor economist, or Larry Summers' strange journey to the left. It's almost as if he cherry-picked what he thought would fit with his narrative.
Is it disconcerting that employees of the financial industry make a
ton of money? Yes. Is it the revolving door between Washington and Wall
Street problematic? Yes. Does the Administration take it too easy on
the banks? Absolutely. Are White House advisers too centrist for
progressive tastes? Sure. But when you try and tell that story with a
lot of lies and innuendo, and misunderstand the basic policies that
these people are producing, you don't hurt them. Now anyone who
criticizes the Administration will just be lumped in with Taibbi's
meandering conspiracy. (Sidenote, I thought it was Goldman Sachs we all
had to be worried about?) The problems Taibbi tries to describe aren't
some kind of ridiculous cabal. They come from group-think and
structural influences and as a result of a complex interplay of
interests and institutions; the policies they produce aren't either
good or evil, they're in need of analysis to determine which help
regular people, which hurt them and how to change the latter into the
former.
Taibbi has clearly become disillusioned with Obama. TAP has not, and therefore must paint Taibbi as a nut-job crank (the commenters at the TAP piece seem to agree with Taibbi than with TAP).
I'm no supporter of Taibbi, and view him as more of a Left-wing crank, but it's still hard not to feel a little pity for him. Dude tries to shine some light on things Obama has mishandled in regards to Wall Street, and an outfit further to the Left lights him up.
Either way, it's fun to watch from the sidelines as the Left begins to implode.
— [President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so. [p. 260]
Recent Comments