Since Donald Trump now says that he will not accept a daily intelligence briefing (known as the Presidential Daily Briefing or “PDB”) because he’s so smart that he doesn’t need it, I want to remind you what can happen when a president doesn’t take his intelligence briefings seriously.
I’m going to highlight some things from the Presidential Daily Brief that was delivered to President George W. Bush at his vacation ranch in Crawford, Texas on August 6th, 2001. The first thing to note is the title of the brief, which was Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US. It clearly suggests that the point of what follows is related to attacks somewhere in our fifty states, not in some territory or foreign military or diplomatic installation.
The memo begins by giving some history and some information on the sources of their reporting:
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and “bring the fighting to America.”
Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, and he nearly succeeded. Bush was being told that al Qaeda operatives were seeking to “follow his example.”
After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [REDACTED] service.
An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told [REDACTED– probably “Egyptian”] service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.
The ringleader of the 9/11 attacks, Mohamed Atta, who was already in the country making final preparations, was an Egyptian.
The memo next details intelligence gathered from the interrogation of Ahmed Ressam, the so-called Millennial Bomber who wanted to attack Los Angeles International Airport but was caught at the Canadian border in 2000. He said that bin Laden was aware of his plot and that one of his lieutenants had encouraged him and had been planning his own operation for several years. Ressam also said that in 1998 this lieutenant was already planning his own U.S. attack. The CIA then noted that the preparations for the 1997 African embassy bombings had begun in 1993.
At this point, the PDF explained that al-Qaeda members had been in the country in the past, that some were even U.S. citizens, and they were trying to recruit young people to carry out attacks here.
Al Qaeda members — including some who are U.S. citizens — have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.
Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.
A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
Then the CIA got to the meat of the matter. There were signs that al-Qaeda was preparing to hijack airplanes. This information was “sensational” and came from both a foreign service and FBI observations in the field (see, for example, the July 10, 2001 Phoenix Memo).
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [REDACTED] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
All the pieces were in this memo, although no one had imagined that the hijacked planes would be used to attack buildings in New York.
Now, there’s a back story to the August 6th memo which is that the CIA had been trying mightily without success during the summer to get the Bush administration to focus on the threat of a domestic or foreign attack from al-Qaeda. On the same day that FBI headquarters received the Phoenix memo, CIA counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black burst into director George Tenet’s office and said “Chief, this is it. Roof’s fallen in.” The two of them were so freaked out that they made a special trip.
Tenet called Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, from the car and said he needed to see her right away. There was no practical way she could refuse such a request from the CIA director.
For months, Tenet had been pressing Rice to set a clear counterterrorism policy, including specific presidential orders called “findings” that would give the CIA stronger authority to conduct covert action against bin Laden. Perhaps a dramatic appearance — Black called it an “out of cycle” session, beyond Tenet’s regular weekly meeting with Rice — would get her attention…
…Tenet hoped his abrupt request for an immediate meeting would shake Rice. He and Black, a veteran covert operator, had two main points when they met with her. First, al-Qaeda was going to attack American interests, possibly in the United States itself. Black emphasized that this amounted to a strategic warning, meaning the problem was so serious that it required an overall plan and strategy. Second, this was a major foreign policy problem that needed to be addressed immediately. They needed to take action that moment — covert, military, whatever — to thwart bin Laden.
The outcome of that meeting was not satisfactory. Rice didn’t take their threats seriously enough to do anything urgent about them. Later on, Cofer Black said, “The only thing we didn’t do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.”
So, nearly a month later, on August 6th, the CIA decided to write a really alarming presidential brief for the president in the hope that it would spur him to leap into action. But that’s not what happened.
In Ron Suskind’s book The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America’s Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11, there is some reporting on how Bush responded to the August 6th warning.
The book’s opening anecdote tells of an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush’s Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president’s attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.” Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.”
The final part of the briefing told Bush what was currently being done, which the CIA clearly thought was inadequate:
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.
We can hang our heads that we elected a numbskull like George W. Bush, but at least it wasn’t a struggle to get him to accept the briefing. Trump says he will leave the briefing to his vice-president.
President-elect Donald Trump indicated “that as president, he would not take the daily intelligence briefing that President Obama and his predecessors have received,” the New York Times reports.
He said that it was often repetitive and that he would take it “when I need it” while noting his vice president, Mike Pence, would receive the daily briefing.
Said Trump: “You know, I’m, like, a smart person. I don’t have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years.”
He added that he had instructed the officials who give the briefing: “‘If something should change from this point, immediately call me. I’m available on a one-minute’s notice.’”
Now the CIA might be relieved that they won’t even have to worry about covering their ass in a Trump administration but everyone knows they’ll get blamed if we get attacked and the president wasn’t forewarned.
Maybe Mike Pence will be a better commander in chief than Dick Cheney?
That can’t be too hard, can it?
Obama got briefings every day and there was still a massacre in Orlando. He has, reportedly, killed 50,000 ISIS in Iraq and Syria and is waging war in Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc. too.
Add it up and you get spectacular failure. But I don’t imagine many see it that way. Apparently, the killing of 10’s of thousands is just what we do even with a Nobel Peace Prize winning democrat as president. I hope trump completely ignores all of it. He can’t do worse than the last two presidents. And if he does… Well I guess that will be some sort of cosmic justice.
This could end up becoming a real world experiment: is the death toll higher or lower if the POTUS doesn’t receive PDB. Not that it would be correct to cite a single variable as the cause of either result because Trump is erratic, thin-skinned, and doesn’t know much about anything anyway. I sure wouldn’t take either an over or under wager on this.
An experiment. Watch Afghanistan. The Taliban have been promised a gas pipeline since the 1980’s. Will our new oil exec. SOS make the deal? Declare we won and bring the troops home? That’s right…a deal with radical islam.
Oh, the USA has been making deals with “radical Muslims” for a long time. A pipeline deal with the Taliban would be more of the same.
Well last time they were in charge they put a dent in the opium trade.
dubya’s callow irresponsibility also led not only to the 3000ish 9/11 victims, but also to a million prematurely dead Iraqis (+/- a few 100K) and several thousand dead/tens of thousands damaged U.S./Coalition of the Billing military personnel.
The false equivalence in the complete ignoring of proportionality in indiscriminately lumping dubya with Obama isn’t just utterly ridiculous (though it’s certainly that), but shameful . . . disgusting, really.
Obama may have changed tactics, but is still waging the war started by Bush. There is little practical difference.
“Constructed in response to the disaster that was the Iraq War, the Obama doctrine abjures direct U.S. military intervention in countries that don’t represent a direct security threat to the United States, such as Syria. It favors working quietly through allies and proxies, such as Kurdish peshmerga forces, and even, where necessary, Iranian militias, to attack America’s enemies, and also through deploying U.S. military and technological assets that can be operated from afar, such as cyber-spying systems, reconnaissance planes, and drones.”
“It is a common mistake to interpret this policy as America drawing back into itself and turning against military intervention. The record shows that the Obama Administration has launched, or helped enable, military strikes in more countries than the Bush Administration did, extending the campaign against Islamist extremism to places like Mali and Libya. But, whereas the Bush Administration will always be known for the large-scale wars it initiated in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama seems to prefer “waging war in the shadows with a light footprint and if possible limited public scrutiny…”
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/how-much-of-the-obama-doctrine-will-survive-trump/amp
Shameful and disgusting is a good way to describe this endless war.
But I get it… rabid partisanship renders mass murder acceptable.
“Shameful and disgusting is a good way to describe this endless war.”
no doubt this is endless but I have come to believe this war on terror is nothing like an “ordinary war” such as WW2. The enemy in this conflict does not necessarily hold territory. They decide when and where to attack, not us. And having F35s ready to attack or a giant navy does about nothing to stop them. And thus far we have not found a way to stop it. They risk a few hardened fanatics to maim and kill and even plan how to kill people by driving vehicles into crowds. Hence the endless part. But they have no regard for life of either those in say the ISIS territory or in ours. They have already said if they “lose” in Iraq it will not stop them.
So what does an attacking army do to stop it? If you kill more people it may only embolden them and make their people hate us even more. Maybe Trump will try it and we can see if it works.
While I await the Trump victory march, I am happy for the limited conflict. I don’t have any suggestions for ending this war so long as the fanatics reign. This seems like a war of attrition. I suppose if you kill enough it may work, but killing innocents could just as likely extend it.
I can find lots to criticize Obama for, but not this. It seems to me he is going after the leaders or those doing the damage and not innocent civilians. I join you in condemning this endless war. What would you do to end it? And at least he listens to briefings and does not depend on a message coming to him from his tin cap. That is the only responsible thing to do unless you are a genius like Trump who thinks he can see if all with his very special crystal ball.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/middle-east-foreign-policy-afghanistan-unwinnable-213
778
“The answer to these questions starts with questioning the premise. The tendency to see the region and Islamic world primarily as a problem that will yield to an American military solution is, in fact, precisely the problem. To an unseemly and ultimately self-destructive degree, we have endorsed the misguided militarization of U.S. foreign policy. As a consequence, we have allowed our country to be pulled into the impossible task of trying to “shape” the region through martial means. It’s long past time to stop trying.”
I think that is what I am saying. A strict military approach cannot change this dynamic. There needs to be a way to stop the terror attacks. That may require more precise attacks and not army divisions or f35s bombing villages. But who will,stand for allowing attack on us without some kind of response? I think Obama has been trying to use a measured response. And he has had some success especially to the extent ISIS fields an army or trys to hold territory. Trump? We will see. Maybe army divisions and bombers?
What was our response to the attack in Orlando? Cops killed the shooter. Same in San Bernardino.
You can’t stop it any more than you can stop gang violence in Chicago. The threat comes from people already here – criminals and the mentally ill.
We don’t bomb Mexico or El Salvador every time some gang member commits murder or sells Boomans bad heroin. Why not? We know it won’t do any good.
Why do we think we can mediate a religious war by bombing the Middle East?
I suppose we can try to ignore al Queda and ISIS. But they are not like a hoodlum or crazy person. They are persistent and in it to inflict harm. And they attempt to inspire terror in others.
maybe you heard the story of the bee who got in the car, frightened and then stung the driver, who swerved all over the road causing a crash and killing four people. That’s kinda like what a terrorist wants to do. Cause harm and collateral damage. One little bee against a human and a car a gazillion times larger and more powerful. All that power turns out to be useless. And the bee may still be flying around.
Yes, and the US has so far been very accomodating.
To stop helping Al-Quaida and its IS offspring, there is experience to be found looking at UK and IRA, France and Corsica and Spain and the Basques.
First, don’t treat it as war, treat is as criminal acts. Pretend they are religious right-wing political criminals, which they already are, but act like they had less beards and melatonin.
As part of treating it as criminal acts, uphold or restore civil rights for the population where they recruit. This limits their recruitment, where as oppression increases it. Since the population where the recruitment happens is both in the US and abroad, it is important to both stop the police targetting of communities in the US and US military killings abroad.
Cut of their funding. For example the states of Saudi Arabia and Qatar as pointed out by Clinton here:
WikiLeaks – The Podesta Emails
Currently, the US backs Saudi Arabia all the way. See Yemen for example.
And another source of funding when it comes to Al-Quaida is US support to moderate rebels in Syria who has not been independent of Al-Quaida for years. So stop doing that.
Guerilla movements also recruit for “the cause”. This is trickier, as the state can rarely go all the way in accomodating the guerilla movement. But if the state implements measures that adresses some of the underpinnings for the cause, it becomes less important for the people the guerilla movement tries to recruit. For example, home rule in North Ireland and in the Basque Country. This can happen as part of a peace agreement (North Ireland) or unilaterally to side-line the terrorists (Basque Country).
When it comes to Al-Quaida, the US bases in Saudi Arabia has already been vacated. Then there is the matter of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where US bankrolls and arms the Israeli government. The US could either use that to twist the arms of the Israeli government to agree to decent peace terms or stop funding and arming Israel. Either way, the US will no longer be responsible.
And then, when they are cut of from recruitment and funding, you try to catch the people who are still doing terrorism. Or come to a peace agreement with them.
I know it is hard, conflicts are hard to solve.
It does seem like we play into their hands. And there are ways to help end it. But there are many arms and legs to this monster. We have allies in the gulf and they may actually support ISIS. And ISIS holds territory and promotes terror. I wish I knew the answer. That said I think Obama has helped solve it without initiating even more extensive killing. ISIS is shrinking. When Powell said if you break it, you own it, he weren’t kidding. And Bush broke it.
We can depend on the Mexican government and the US-trained troops in El Salvador to do the killing for us. We do not know that it will not do any good.
Why do we think we can mediate a religious war by bombing the Middle East? (1) It’s not a religious war; it’s a proxy war between two states and their non-state agents, plus some covert operations-funded or self-funded free-lancers. (2) We have a Congress that thinks the role of the government is limited to the military and law enforcement. (3) We have an ally in the Middle East that has acted exclusively by bombing its neighbors in order to preserve religious discrimination in an apartheid society. We have been mediating their religious war for over 60 years.
You write:
“We” don’t think that, Neil. That’s just an excuse. It’s all about control of the oil. The whole terrorist thing is just blowback from that one condition. It’s been building in the Middle East since the Lawrence of Arabia days. “Islam” is simply the primary organizing condition of the various opposition forces, and terror has turned out to be their most powerful weapon against superpowers. It took the U.S.S.R down through Afghanistan and now it’s about to take the various Western European/U. S./NATO so-called democracies down as well.
If you cannot beat them in open combat, beat them from the bushes. Bring down their cultural and political systems by the dual use of constant fear and the economic drain of prolonged, unsuccessful “normal” war.
Bin Laden 101.
So far?
It seems to be working.
Later…
AG
“a good way to describe” your defamatory conclusory sentence.
Yet you make my case throughout by claiming “little practical difference“[!!!!] between a million and 50,000 dead [presuming acceptance of that number as accurate, which I don’t presume absent evidence] (tell that to the 950,000 dead Iraqis making up that “little practical difference”. Sorry, but such an absurd false equivalence is likewise shameful and disgusting . . . morally reprehensible, in fact.
Same again with
Whatever criticism Obama may rightly merit for his side of that comparison, pretending “little practical difference” between them is dishonest, deceptive, clueless, and/or insane.
You’re a strict pacifist. We get it. Doesn’t give you license to misrepresent Reality.
The policy is a failure regardless of how many people are killed in the war. Opposing a failed policy does not make me a pacifist… not that there is anything wrong with valuing human life more than money.
pretending, implying, insinuating that I (or indeed anyone here) holds the position that “there is anything wrong with valuing human life more than money” (valuing human life, including more than money, has been a very clear and consistent theme of my comments here . . . duh!).
Completely spurious diversion/distraction.
Also too, you initially claimed, specifically, “little practical difference”.
Now, without acknowledging doing so, you’ve reversed yourself to, essentially, ‘a failed policy is a failed policy is a failed policy regardless of “practical” consequences, no matter how immensely “differen[t]”‘.
I have problems with some of what Obama has done. But overall I think he has done a good job. What is it you would have him do? Do you think he can just pull away and do nothing?
At some point it will occur to our leadership that more killing is not the answer in the ME. (Is it ever?) This would require someone with more courage and vision than anyone currently on the national stage at the moment. I just hope there is something left to save when they do.
From the beginning, Obama’s legitimacy as commander-in-chief was questioned. Trump was a prime mover in that questioning, which required Obama to move very carefully in exerting command as the commander-in-chief and even having to punish the insubordination of a General (McChrystal, and also Petraeus) who conspired to go over his head to the public about the number of troops to be committed to Afghanistan after failure to meet their mission.
And he had to deal with the McCain-Lindsay twin scolds of everything that he did and the GOP conspiring to maneuver him into failed policies. Support of the Syrian “rebels” was the prime one and also the stampede over supposed Syrian use of chemical weapons, violating his bright red line in the sand. Putin and Lavrov used diplomacy to save his chestnuts on that situation and it opened up the Iranian situation to negotiation and agreement.
How much of what Obama did was to satisfy the military as an institution and maintain the ability of Obama to continue to order the military to do what they didn’t necessarily want to do? How much was driven from a more militant State Department wanting to have a hand in the action? How much from interdepartmental rivalries and interservice rivalries seeking to expand their budgets with Congressional collusion?
I think that proportionality in judgement of the last two Presidents requires adequate consideration of the political context.
Killing is what we do when the majority of Congress decides that there are only two functions of government: law enforcement and the military.
Are you sure about this point? Trump was late to the Birther movement tea party — 2011 — which was after the Dem 2010 midterm losses and Trump was apparently testing the waters for a run against the guy in 2012. He was too chickens..t to go for it and waited for a weaker opponent.
No I’m not sure about this point. I would like someone to research an origin story of where this slur came from. There are a lot of Republican operatives with this talent, and Trump himself seems to have the requisite skills.
It absolutely did not start with Trump. I posted on this here just a couple of months ago:
http://www.boomantribune.com/comments/2016/9/27/112134/509/73?mode=alone;showrate=1#73
Not to be confused with the much older meme “Obama is a Muslim”, which has its own history:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13martin.html
This was later jazzed up a little by Edward Luttwak and Daniel Pipes:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2008/05/luttwak-and-oba.html
My comment wasn’t about the origin of the birther movement but only when Trump jumped on it. I came up with early 2011 as the date and so far haven’t seen any documentation for an earlier date.
Your links are interesting but the only documentation as to when this crap surfaced was by August 2008. This Politico article appears to me to be a more complete review of the facts. One being that Penn did push for HRC’s campaign to highlight that Obama wasn’t quite “American.” Others later claimed that Penn’s suggestion was dismissed and we do know that there was tension in the campaign between Penn and others and that he left the campaign on April 6, 2008.
If we back up further to 2007, Politifact was on the Clinton campaign’s charge that Obama had presidential aspirations when he was in kindergarten. These charges were based on 1/07 AP and 3/07 LATimes articles and not Clinton campaign sleuthing. Still, it was extraordinarily sleazy and petty for her campaign to run publicly with this and can’t be passed off as merely Penn’s doing.
A problem with the Politico article claiming that the birther movement began in 2004 with “fringe Illinois politician Andy Martin is that he appears not to have made such a claim. He claimed that Obama was a “closet Muslim” which is several steps from asserting that he wasn’t born in HI.
Snopes adds more to the timeline. Specifically:
Again — more with the claim that Obama is a Muslim (here’s the original email) but not questioning his birth. The earliest leap from “secret Muslim” to “not born in HI” that has been found is a Free Republic comment by FARS on 3/1/2008. Not warmly received even at FR. Who/what was FARS? (Apparently unknown.) From Snopes:
From there? Who knows? What’s unquestionable is that by early April 2008, HRC supporters were running with it. Cui bono? Usually a good question but generally not dispositive. However, intellectual honesty does require acknowledging all the possible culprits and that would include official, dark arts operatives, and rogue or independent supporters from both the McCain and Clinton campaigns and the RNC. The timing, 3/1/08, suggests the more likely direction in which to look, but again, it’s not dispositive because the GOP and rightwingers are known to engage in all sorts of dirty tricks. (Note: McCain secured the GOP nomination on 3/4/08.)
By 3/1, the pledged delegate count was 1,352.5 Obama and 1,216.5 Clinton. The March primary/caucuses were early in the month (3/4–3/11) and total pledged delegates from those contests were 415 with Superdelegates adding another 90. That was also the month when Obama was being pummeled over Rev Wright to which he responded on 3/18 with his speech. Regardless of the efforts by pro-HRC supporters and possibly rightwingers, there’s no evidence that the birther rumor played a role in the few remaining primary/caucus states. Also doubt it influenced many, if any, superdelegates. It wasn’t just a fact-free rumor but also contra known facts that nobody could credibly refute.
Did the Clinton campaign opposition researchers investigate Obama’s birth status? Don’t know, but wouldn’t it have been irresponsible or incompetent not to have done it? All we know is that her campaign didn’t run with this rumor, and some of her rabid supporters were running with this and the non-existent “whitey tape.” It surfaced again in late July and August, but again from supporters of McCain and HRC and not the campaigns and as an election issue was dead by the time of the conventions. It was barely on life support by a few nuts and rubes after that and Trump does have responsibility for fueling the embers in 2011.
Where people should be careful and responsible is not to equate the status or actions of unhinged or disgusting people that support a candidate with the candidate and his/her campaign. And candidates should be held to a standard of clearly and unequivocally rejecting false claims and rumors about his/her opponent. As McCain did with the woman that asserted Obama was a Muslim and I believe Obama would have been done had a similar opportunity presented itself during the ’08 primary or general election. Trump and
Clinton have repeatedly failed on this measure and their respective supporters have been much worse than that.
Thanks for clarifying. I didn’t know about FARS. March 2008 is early. He didn’t say Kenya, but he did say overseas.
The earliest one I knew of was Techdude, who I believed also faked a birth certificate, but did it so badly that even the other birthers didn’t accept it. In the stuff I posted about him, I overlooked that there were no dates given. But I believe Techdude surfaced in either June or July 2008. Certainly by July.
This is…as is usual for you, Tarheel…a very nuanced take on Obama’s situation. The only thing that I would like to add is this:
Never underestimate the power of the intelligence services…primarily the CIA…in the never-ending foreign policy battles that occur during any president’s term of office. You single out “the military” and “the State Dept.” but you do not mention the undoubted CIA influence on (and assured control in some instances of) many members of Congress…not just McCain and Lindsay. Add in the other areas where the CIA has a great deal of power such as the mass media, many layers of the both the military and the State Department and…by dint of its enormous wealth and almost impenetrable cloak of secrecy…the economic life of this country, and you have the (mostly invisible) 500 pound gorilla in the room.
Power?
It is often best used if no one…at least no one outside of the primary operators in any given situation…knows it exists.
That’s where we are today in the U.S.
What Trump appears to be doing out of some unholy mix of ADD-influenced…not stupidity, really, more like having a very broad view of things rather than sweating the details…exceptional, long-practiced craftiness in negotiation techniques (especially through the use of the media) and sheer self-worship, is that he is trying to cut the CIA down to size and control it rather than the other way around.
Will he succeed?
Who knows?
JFK and RFK certainly didn’t succeed, and it’s gotten much more powerful since then.
Much more.
We shall see, soon enough.
Trump’s only apparent ally in this battle is the FBI, and that holds true with his overall political principle of allying himself with the working/middle classes and opposing the upper middle/ruling classes. The CIA has historically been run by Yale/Princeton types, the FBI is more Hofstra/Penn State…middle class/working class.
He’s at least consistent, you have to give him that.
Later…
AG
This:
is hardly ever acknowledged by political pundits, either professional or ordinary people or those that weave conjectures about “what’s really going on.” Add to that the background of those that run the military — the military academies (a mix of middle/working class and military class) and public colleges. After the Vietnam War, military recruitment from elite colleges dropped. Although grad of US military academies may see themselves as being on the same footing as grads from elite colleges.
And all three — Pentagon, FBI, and CIA — are continuously jockeying for more power and money; so, turf battles are an institutional fact of life. Further compounded by the fact that the FBI isn’t as autonomous from the DOJ. Even at the DOJ level, there are divisions between DC and local operations. I don’t think the splits or divides are clear enough to say that “Trump has the FBI.” Guiliani may not have more than a few from NY FBI and/or DOJ operations that still whisper in his ears.
It would be fair to say that the FBI has long favored GOP administrations. What that means for Democratic administrations is that they need to take care not to run roughshod over the FBI to avoid creating what I’d call personal bad blood with the agency. The Clintons blew that practically from day one with the referral on the WH travel office which should have been handled as nothing other than a very minor administrative matter to clean up some outdated methods and procedures. It didn’t get better between the Clinton admin and FBI after that. IMHO neither was on high ground back then. (Institutionally both the DOJ and FBI became worse during the GWB administration.) And as institutions have long memories, not surprising that there was a split between between the rank-and-file and FBI/DOJ management over the issue of Clinton’s personal email server. While I would tend to favor the viewpoint of those on the rank-and-file side of this matter, it would only be fair if the split on the Petraeus matter was exactly the same. IOW there was no FBI employee rank partisanship favoring a go-easy on the Republican Petraeus. We don’t know that to be true.
Sorry — I should have checked the tip jar on your comment before adding one to it. Now it won’t let me remove my tip and return your comment to an unrated status based on a single troll rating from our resident troll rating abuser.
Ignore it.
I am.
Thanks for the thought, though.
If people like that get to the point where they rule this roost? Well, I guess we’ll just have to find another roost.
I don’t think that will happen, though. Short of a coordinated attack from some centrist lair of perfidy, most of the readers here are at least interested in the more…leftist…points of view. After all, look what happened to the so-called centrist right and left in the RatPub primaries and the preznidential electoon.
The got their centers kicked by a supposed clown.
Most people here don’t want to see that continuing to happen…including Booman.
Just ignore its ratings.
They are impotent in the scope of things so far.
Eventually it will get frustrated and scuttle back to the dKos crab shack or whatever other empty shell in which it last resided.
Bet on it.
Later…
AG
If Trump Donald I has indeed delegated all actual governmental functions to his Prime Minister Michael Pence, we might start focusing more on what he’s doing and paying less attention to the symbolic distractions of “leadership” of the monarch, whose only priority seems to be punishing lese majeste.
Focusing on the prime minister and his other ministers likely gives you a better idea of the capabilities and what is going on.
David Gergen (sympathetic to Trump) is of the opinion that Trump will focus on domestic policy and delegate foreign policy and national security to others. In that case, focus on the capabilities of those others. This news article essentially says that Trump wants his intelligence briefings on a management-by-exception basis. Only notify of a potential crisis.
But leave it to Trump Donald I to be as insulting to the intelligence community as possible about the PDB, which only began when a President didn’t read the memos.
The intelligence community’s next move should be to inquire which exceptions Trump Donald wishes to be notified about. About an FBI report that some guy in Minneapolis is wanting to learn how to fly in a straight line but does not think take-offs and landings that important to learn. (That piece of information never did make it up the FBI chain-of-command, blocked by managers.)
What experience does Pence have in national security or foreign policy?
Trump will concentrate on continuing to run and expand his businesses while Pence and his various appointees run the government.
Josh Marshall has speculated that Trump can’t divest himself of his various businesses even if he wished to (which I believe he doesn’t) because of their instability, debt, etc. Which leads me to believe that he will use the presidency to stabilize and expand his business interests. He cannot do both. The presidency is already more than one person can handle.
Or do a Cheney and start a war which just happens to enrich a company that his “blind trust” was invested in.
Or threaten to start a war unless … a Trump Tokyo, Trump Shanghai, Trump Tehran, etc. is seen.
I think he is in it to enrich himself and friends. Reportedly he will continue as Executive Producer of the Apprentice. Small beginnings you know.
Did Bush refuse Intel briefings or was he just too dumb to understand them and as a result Cheney took over? Trump seems to be ignoring a primary purpose of the office — national security. Seems almost impeachable to me.
Who’s going to impeach him?
The GOP has systematically stripped the Constitutional checks and balances by demanding partisan loyalty from its caucus.
Party before country.
Surely you jest?
We need someone to lay down a marker and say that a 9/11 type event is more likely to happen with Donald Trump as president and the will to politicize it from day one when it does happen.
Did you notice in Trump’s statement that he is assuming he will be President for 8 years?
Why wouldn’t he? The Democratic party is fractured beyond repair. Read the comments here.
And a third party doesn’t win the first time out. Ask President John C. Fremont.
Interesting story in the NY Times today about some centrist democrats meeting with Sen Heitkamp to plan a way forward and wanting to concentrate on economic matters (pockebook matters) and things that appeal outside of the coasts. And they are not alone in thinking the party lost some of its message and traditional middle class appeal.
“…things that appeal outside the coasts…” == code for Republican Lite, i.e. unaccountability for business, police, the Church, etc.
Never.
Never.
Never.
Never.
Never.
Sparkle ponies anyone? Moar of the same ? I bet you got a list five pages,long.
So this actually deserves some comment.
Is there actually a reasonable consensus around an economic agenda post election?
The difference might not be as big – because it is hard to fashion a policy agenda that isn’t rooted in economic populism.
How about keeping Medicare, Social security and health care and things like jobs. I suppose you want sparkle ponies that shit purple shit balls.
Well we could adopt the Democratic Party Platform that Hillary ran on and let the pony brigade keep on pretending she didn’t support it, then nominate some 9/11 truther. We get the most liberal set of economic policy proposals in US history and the paint-huffers can assure us that they kept their hands clean of supporting the establishment, man.
Bill Black spent an article on those “centrists”. Do they just want to ease up on the “politically correct” part of New Dems program and keep the economic austerity?
“On December 10, 2016, a New York Times article entitled “Democrats Have a New Message: It’s the Economy First” that unintentionally revealed that the Party’s “centrist” leadership and the paper remain clueless about how to improve the economy and why the “centrist” leadership needs to end its long war against the working class…
This non-centrist group was a gathering of five New Democrats. President Obama self-identified himself as a New Democrat. The Clintons and Al Gore are leaders of the New Democrats. The leadership of the Democratic National Committee was, and remains, New Democrats. On economic issues such as austerity, jobs, and full employment, the New Democrats are far more extreme than the (stated) views of Donald Trump. The New Democrats are infamous for their close ties with Wall Street. …The blindness of the non-centrists to the fact that it is their policies that launched the long war by the New Democrats against the working class is matched by the blindness of the paper.
Given the fact that they vented at length about the fear that they would begin to lose their jobs within two years, the subject of job security should have been paramount to the five New Democrats. The article, however, never even mentioned jobs or any of the related critical concepts – austerity, the faux trade deals, or the refusal to provide full employment.
The working class wants jobs and job security – not simply income. Working class people overwhelmingly want to work. Working class males who are unable to find secure, full time work often become depressed and unmarriageable. If you want to encourage marriage and improve the quality of marriages, full employment and job security are vital policies. There are collateral advantages to providing full employment. Full employment can reduce greatly the “zero sum” fears about employment that can tear a society apart. Each of these outcomes is overwhelmingly supported by Americans.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/bill-black-after-30-years-of-throwing-working-people-under-th
e-bus-democratic-partys-centrist-leaders-remain-clueless-about-voter-revenge.html
The article yesterday was titled ” Centrists Place Economy First….”. The senators Black is talking about are probably those who attended the dinner with Heitkamp. They are facing election challenges in 2018. And they have to face Trumps appeal in rural areas. They want to expand the message to economic matters to appeal to rural areas. The first challenge is to ensure Medicare is not privatized and they want to protect social security and to address income inequality.
Now here’s the thing. These senators are not Sander’s socialists by any means. So what does Black want to do? Throw them out of the party? Chasing sparkle ponies around or purity tests may leave us with nothing.
Status quo was rejected soundly by these voters. So these New Dems want to die on that hill again? Maybe their ground game will save them? Who knows.
The democratic party is becoming irrelevant in many rural areas of the country. It may even be unacceptable to say you are a democrat. I live in a small city in a very red state and I have one son in rural Ohio and one in Nebraska. (Another in a blue state.) We are almost outcasts. It is not that our neighbors are not interested in things like jobs, inequality, social security, health care or medicare. They will tell you the democrats are only interested in the big city and Wall Street. And they are corrupt to boot, like Clinton. So that is the status quo to them. And they indeed reject it.
So, if you want to expand the base and/or energize them you need to adjust your message. “Stronger together” really isn’t working. Maybe we will always be the most popular by vote count, but that vote doesn’t count.
Why wouldn’t he? The Democratic party is fractured beyond repair. Read the comments here.
The election should have been Moses Malone dunking on Spud Webb. Instead, we somehow got the opposite. Given what we do know for sure, that HRC had no where near the same number of field offices in swing states that Obama did(as one example), why should any self-respecting Democrat trust Clinton people to run the party any more?
I struggle with something – maybe it is cognitive dissonance.
The election was very close – so it is hard to argue the party’s position is irretrievably broken.
And yet – the future looks very bleak because of the way we assign Senate seats to land segments. And while the margin was very small, the consequences are very large.
I will confess I struggle with the contrast.
If you are looking to change our form of government, it is not going to happen anytime soon, if in your lifetime. And if we continue to ignore local contests we may find things will only get worse. You can go off and build the Green Party. Or you can find a way to rebuild the Democratic Party and take back our natural base.
It’s not just the House and Senate. Have you looked at the states lately? Have you paid attention to what Andrew Cuomo was doing in NY? Or what the Massachusetts and Maryland Democrats are doing, who both hold legislative super majorities?
In my rural Colorado county Obama had a field office headed by a staff member with 2 local employees. He won the county by 18 votes. Hillary had nothing. She lost by 530 votes.
When Trump says shit, does he believe it?
When he says he won in an historic landslide, do you think he actually believes he did?
I think he might.
I keep thinking that this supreme self delusion will catch up with him.
But it hasn’t yet.
His margin the electoral college is precarious, but better than Bush’s was.
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/nose/english/e_nose
“The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.”
“Landslide”
Does he believe it?
Yes.
But probably not on the level generally taken.
More like a sea change than a landslide.
His “landslide victory” was a victory over a far greater opponent than simply the DemocRats or Hillary Clinton. He beat the RatPublican party first…the right wing of the PermaGov Uniparty…then he beat the Permanent Government’s media machine and only then did he beat…by a nose…HRC.
He is perfectly conscious of what he accomplished. All you need to do is to pay attention to his various pre-inauguration actions to see that. Will what he is doing make things “better” in the U.S.? I dunno. How much worse can it get than a country at war with itself, loony bin candidates with automatic weapons plying their own terrorist war against the line-level sane here pretty much 24/7, a government that is actively engaged in totally surveilling every person in the country and a corporate system that has been selling said country down the river since at least Clinton I’s reign.
How much worse…or better…can it get?
We shall see.
Soon.
Watch.
AG
Surely any true progressive old enough to remember the Church Committee can only applaud Trump’s bold move to kick these covert killers and overthrowers of governments to the curb?
…the president doesn’t need Intel briefings. Next.
The risk the world faces with Trump is not Russian expansionism but European fragmentation and a rush toward nuclear armament.
Der Spiegel Editorial: Europeans Debate Nuclear Self-Defense after Trump Win
UK and France currently have their own nuclear weapons programs. This debate no doubt is whether Germany should start rapid development of nuclear weapons to replace and uncertain US.
Does the Trump team have the intent of moving forward on nuclear disarmament with Russia and China and bring in other nations, or is the nuclear industry hoping for orders from new nations cranking up their own nuclear programs under cover of commercial nuclear?