Media repeated Hayden's unsubstantiated claim that warrantless spy program would have alerted U.S. to 9-11 threat
SUMMARY: Many news outlets have uncritically repeated Gen. Michael Hayden's claim that the administration's warrantless spying program would have detected some of the 9-11 attackers.
Numerous media outlets -- including the Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal, ABC, CBS, and CNN -- uncritically reported Gen. Michael V. Hayden's January 23 claim that, if the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program had been in place before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, it "would have detected some of the 9-11 operatives in the U.S., and we would have identified them as such." The remark by Hayden, a deputy director for national intelligence and former head of the National Security Agency (NSA) who is closely associated with the spying program, was also touted as "a clincher" for the administration by syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. By contrast, The Washington Post, which noted that Hayden's claim echoed one made on January 4 by Vice President Dick Cheney, challenged Hayden's claim by noting that the Bush administration had information on two of the 9-11 hijackers well over a year before the attacks occurred and that, according to the September 11 Commission and congressional investigators, it was primarily bureaucratic problems -- rather than a lack of information -- that were responsible for the security breakdown.
From the January 24 Washington Post article by staff writers Dan Eggen and Walter Pincus:
Hayden echoed a claim earlier this month by Vice President Cheney that, if the NSA program had been in place prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States."
Like Cheney, however, Hayden did not mention that the NSA, CIA and FBI had significant information about two of the leading hijackers as early as January 2000 but failed to keep track of them or capitalize on the information, according to the Sept. 11 commission and others. He also did not mention NSA intercepts warning of the attacks the day before, but not translated until Sept. 12, 2001.
In a January 5 article that documented Cheney's original claim, the Post also cited the September 11 Commission to report that "bureaucratic problems -- not a lack of information -- were primary reasons for the security breakdown," and that the "bigger problem" was that FBI investigators "had missed numerous opportunities to track" down Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, who went on to participate in the hijackings. That article also cited Rand Corp. terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman's assessment that, in the Post's words, Cheney's comments "ignore[d] the breadth of the government failures before the attacks."
From the January 5 Post article:
Cheney said if the administration had the power "before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon."
Even without the warrantless domestic spying program, however, the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies had important clues about the Sept. 11 plot and the hijackers before the attacks, according to media reports and findings by Congress and the commission.
For example, the NSA intercepted two electronic messages on Sept. 10, 2001, that warned of the attacks -- but the agency failed to translate them until Sept. 12. The Arabic-language messages said "The match is about to begin" and "Tomorrow is zero hour," intelligence officials said.
U.S. intelligence sources have said that NSA analysts were unsure who was speaking on the intercepts but that they were considered a high enough priority for translation within two days.
Cheney's apparent reference to Alhazmi and Almihdhar is also incomplete, leaving out the fact that several government agencies had compiled significant information about the duo but had bungled efforts to track them.
According to the Sept. 11 commission's report, released in 2004, the NSA first identified Alhazmi and Almihdhar in December 1999, passing the information to the CIA but conducting no further research.
In 2000, the CIA failed to place Alhazmi and Almihdhar on a watch list despite their ties to a terrorist summit in Malaysia. The CIA also mishandled efforts to follow them after the summit and failed to share information about them with the FBI, including the crucial fact that both men had U.S. visas, the commission found.
By late August 2001, the FBI finally had information that Almihdhar had recently entered the United States. But the search for the suspected al Qaeda operative was treated as routine and assigned to a rookie agent, according to the commission report.
Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert who heads Rand Corp.'s Washington office, said it is unclear what communications could have been intercepted if the FBI and other agencies did not know where Alhazmi and Almihdhar were.
Hoffman also said Cheney's comments ignore the breadth of the government failures before the attacks, which were due to structural problems rather than a single missed lead.
"It's not that legislation was lacking; it was a systemic failure," he said.
Yet many media outlets simply reported without challenge Hayden's suggestion that the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program could have identified the hijackers and their terrorist plot, while conservative media figures quickly adopted it, as the examples below illustrate.
From a January 24 article in The Wall Street Journal titled "Wiretap Program Could Have Foiled 9/11, Hayden Says":
The country's No. 2 spymaster said the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S. could have been prevented if the Bush administration had in place a domestic surveillance system that has been criticized by civil libertarians and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
[...]
In his speech to the National Press Club, Gen. Hayden, deputy director for national intelligence, outlined many themes that the White House is expected to use to defend the surveillance program. Chief among them is the argument that al Qaeda succeeded in striking the World Trade Center and Pentagon particularly because Washington didn't have the authority to quickly track telephone calls coming into the U.S. from suspected al Qaeda operatives in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 operatives in the U.S., and we would have identified them as such," said Gen. Hayden, who last spring concluded six years as NSA director. He seized on recent threats by Osama bin Laden to attack the U.S. as proof that Washington needs extraordinary powers to respond.
From a report by CBS White House correspondent John Roberts on the January 23 broadcast of the Evening News:
ROBERTS: With congressional hearings set to start February 6, the White House has launched an aggressive campaign to rally support. Wednesday, President Bush goes to the NSA. Tomorrow the attorney general makes a public pitch. And today it was the former NSA chief, now deputy intelligence director, saying, "If only they'd had this before 9-11."
HAYDEN [video clip]: Had this program been in effect prior to 9-11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9-11 Al Qaeda operatives in the United States.
ROBERTS: The White House is keenly aware of the political stakes over privacy issues, taking every opportunity to say it's mindful of civil liberties and that the program is not some massive drift net soaking up everyone's communications.
From a January 23 Associated Press report:
Bush and Hayden sought to paint the program as vital to national security. "Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the al-Qaida operatives in the United States," Hayden said.
From a report by ABC News chief White House correspondent Martha Raddatz on the January 23 edition of World News Tonight:
RADDATZ: The White House is approaching this with all the vigor of a campaign. The president led the defense today, insisting that spying on Americans without a warrant is necessary and legal.
BUSH [video clip]: You know, it's amazing that people say to me, well, he's just breaking the law. If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?
RADDATZ: And rather than refer to the spying as "domestic surveillance," the president today called it a "terrorist surveillance program." A program that several senior officials have been sent out to defend.
HAYDEN [video clip]: Had this program been in effect prior to 9-11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9-11 Al Qaeda operatives in the United States.
From a report by CNN national security correspondent David Ensor on the January 23 edition of The Situation Room:
ENSOR: The Bush administration went on the offensive for its warrantless domestic surveillance program by the National Security Agency, the nation's eavesdroppers. Officials from the president on down arguing that the program is aimed only at monitoring Al Qaeda's communications in and out of the U.S.
BUSH [video clip]: And if they're making a phone call in the United States, it seems like to me we want to know why.
ENSOR: As part of three days of national security events to make its case, the administration also put out a respected four-star general.
HAYDEN [video clip]: Had this program been in effect prior to 9-11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9-11 Al Qaeda operatives in the United States and we would have identified them as such.
ENSOR: General Michael Hayden, now the nation's number two intelligence officer, was head of the NSA in late 2001 when President Bush authorized it to listen in on certain international calls by Americans without a court warrant.
HAYDEN [video clip]: This isn't a drift net where we're soaking up everyone's communications. We're going after very specific communications that our professional judgment tells us we have reason to believe are those associated with people who want to kill Americans. That's what we're doing.
From the January 23 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
KRAUTHAMMER: Democrats are going to lose on this issue, because in the end, it's a president who implemented a program that has worked. The most important statement of all was Michael Hayden who said today, if we'd had this on 9-11 -- before 9-11, we would have located and intercepted a couple of the terrorists. And that's a clincher.
Bush already knew that Bin Laden wanted to attack us with our planes. The problem wasn't ignorance. The problem was an ignorant man.
Although Bush is ignorant in many matters, I would say a more fitting characteristic in regards to 9/11 would have to be stupid. Definition one reminds me of his failure in processing the information he had, while four reminds me of how he looked while reading the goat book.
stu·pid ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stpd, sty-) adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est 1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. 2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. 3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake. 4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied. 5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.
Regards whether 'data mining' would have gleaned anything important prior to 9-11:
I saw no mention in the item to the President's Daily Briefing (PDB) of August 6, 2001, the PDB titled 'OBL Determined To Attack U.S. With Commercial Airliners'...
...that PDB (if they'd just release more than it's title) might contain something as important as anything 'data mining' can turn up.
Furthermore, regarding the known whereabouts and activities of the 9-11 hijackers mentioned in the item, Alhazmi and Almihdhar:
All should know by now, that the whereabouts and activities of those two hijackers were not only well-known, but that they had contact with an FBI informant; more than that, those two hijackers actually lived with that FBI informant (Abdussattar Shaikh) in Lemon Grove, California; and that also that same FBI informant had contact with a third hijacker, Hani Hanjour.
Now, if such pre-9-11 intelligence as that doesn't equal or exceed anything that could be turned up by 'data mining', then I don't know what could.
Declassify the contents of the August 6, 2001 PDB, and declassify the Conclusions of The Joint Congressional Inquiry's Report on the Attacks of 9-11.
Such things can, and have, turned up much more than 'data mining' ever could.
Now, if such pre-9-11 intelligence as that doesn't equal or exceed anything that could be turned up by 'data mining', then I don't know what could.
You're missing the point or at least switching the argument. The point is NOT what was done with the PDB, the point is, would this activity have provided additional evidence, or set off additional alarms that could have provided or could provide, not just this President but future President, some maybe even being Democrat, this ADDITIONAL information, or ability to gather information. Whether it could have prevented 9-11 is a moot point, other than for PR purposes ( I see Rove's masterful fingerprints on this spin). Either the activity is constitutional, or it isn't. There is a line there somewhere, we may just disagree about where that line might be, constitutionally speaking. ANY reasonable person would have to admit that this provides MORE information, no question about it. No sane person CAN argue that point. To daydream about whether it could have prevented 9-11 misses the core of the question or the issue, its constitutionality. The President says it is, some in Congress say it isn't. If it's pushed to that point, the SCOTUS will make that determination, no one else can.
A completely reasonable analysis. Yes we may disagree about where that constitutional line is but the SC will have to make the call. There is obviously a tradeoff. No question a police state is more secure. That is why Baghdad was such a safe city when Saddam was in power. The question is do we trade off our freedoms for hypothetical safety. Franklins well known quote says it all for me.
There is obviously a tradeoff. No question a police state is more secure
When one MUST use hyperbole and scare tactics, usually its because the real argument fails, as is the case here. No surprise though, considering the author!
"When one MUST use hyperbole and scare tactics, usually its because the real argument fails, as is the case here."
Right, because we don't want the "smoking gun" to be a "mushroom cloud", right? LOL!
lodi: the point is, would this activity have provided additional evidence
You mean to ask would the additional evidence of 'data mined' words picked up from wiretaps have helped an FBI informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who lived with two of the hijackers, and had contact with a third; that he needed 'data mined' words to identify those men as hijackers?
When he was intimate enough with them to share a house?
And as an FBI informant, he is linked by way of that Agency, and the Justice Department that contains that Agency, and the Attorney General who administers that Department, and the President to whom that Attorney General reports...
...they all needed 'data mined' words, as 'additional evidence', despite an FBI informant living with the hijackers?
I've heard of "too dumb to see the forest, because of all those trees in the way", but now I have...
Too Dumb to see the hijackers living with an FBI Informant, because we don't have 'data mined' words
The concept is reasonably simple, just painfully obvious to you. Does this activity ultimately result in better intelligence? Does it provide the means to possibly prevent another 9-11? Does it give the government additional resources to track and stop terrorists? Does it eliminate an important terrorist communication link? The answer to all these question is clearly a resounding YES (talk about not seeing the forest). The only remaining question is, "is it legal?" That, no one knows at this point, mainly because very few know what actually went on and how. I spoke of backtracking. It seems some Democratic Senators, sensing their lack of public support and fearing a "backlash" are now suggesting that the President needed only ask Congress to amend the FISA law, which some say they are willing to do. This kind of seems hypocritical to on the one hand suggest that we "impeach" the President for this, while at the same time saying in effect, the President should have this power. I think the word is "over reach" YET AGAIN!!
"The answer to all these question is clearly a resounding YES"
Actually, that would be an assumption on your part, because you have to believe the President's account of the program. We know we're listening to terrorists? And yet, they don't claim any arrests or can provide credible evidence that it foiled any plots? Strange, that is, very strange.
"That, no one knows at this point, mainly because very few know what actually went on and how."
I see. So even though we don't know enough to say that it's illegal (even though it clearly violated FISA), you can definitively and resoundingly state that it is greatly useful to the war on terror. Impressive!
"It seems some Democratic Senators, sensing their lack of public support and fearing a "backlash" are now suggesting that the President needed only ask Congress to amend the FISA law, which some say they are willing to do. This kind of seems hypocritical to on the one hand suggest that we "impeach" the President for this, while at the same time saying in effect, the President should have this power."
First off, what lack of public support? Since you deny the validity of all polls, then you have no right to discuss that at all. Secondly, it's not hypocritical to talk about impeachment because they're not saying he "should have this power". If he asked Congress to amend FISA, then he wouldn't have been exercising the "power" he claims to have. Right?
a presidency so devious, corrupt, and yet remedial. What do they want? The information was there. Should terrorist announce themselves at the borders?
I can see the passprt officials now.
"Purpose of visit?" "To blow up a building." "Alrighty then. Do you have a date for that activiveity and a target."
They had the information they just could and are still unable to do the job they were elected to without breaking the law. And I bet they still will be no better prepared as this program is one to consolidate power and produce fear in the White House's opponents. The opponents being the Constitution and the citzens of the USA.
Do the number of stars on one’s shoulder remove the cloud on one’s credibility when one orders his subordinates to engage in surveillance not authorized by law, with knowledge of the provisions of the statute following this entry? Being commander in chief didn’t seem to bother a President during the Vietnam conflict. At that time, however, there were still enough Republicans around with a sense of integrity to be outraged. “Where have you gone, Joe Dimaggio? Our nation holds its lonely eyes to you … woo woo woo.” [link to uscode.house.gov]
50 USC Sec. 1809 01/06/03
- TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE CHAPTER 36 - FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE SUBCHAPTER I - ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE -HEAD- Sec. 1809. Criminal sanctions -STATUTE- (a) Prohibited activities A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally - (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or (2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute. (b) Defense It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction. (c) Penalties An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. (d) Federal jurisdiction There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed. -SOURCE- (Pub. L. 95-511, title I, Sec. 109, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1796.) -SECREF-
Of all of this wire-tapping, domestic spying bs, there is one thing I still don't understand. Maybe one of you can help me to understand WHY the president never got a FISA warrant? What would that have harmed? What kind of attorney for the president would say, "Geez, sir, you could go ahead and order the wire-taps. Nobody cares if you listen. You don't need a warrant..." If my attorney ever said anything to me like that, he'd be gone. The fact of the matter is, Bush ordered the wire-taps illegally. It's not that he was ignorant of the law. He knowingly, willingly violated the law. And then there are idiots like Michael Savage who, when speaking with a caller about this very issue, asks the caller, "What do you have to hide?"
Of course, most of us don't have anything to hide. We were just brought up to believe that if the government wants to listen to us, they must have a viable reason, backed by the signature of a judge. Asking people, "What do you have to hide?" isn't the question here.
To be honest, I don't give a rat's behind who listens to my conversations. However, if you think you're going to get something on me, try to arrest me, etc. for what I say on the telephone or in my email, you better have that warrant. Otherwise, all of those charges get thrown out.
How smart was that attorney to advise the prez that he could wire-tap warrantlessly? Oh...but they have 72 hours after the fact to get a warrant. I forgot about that. So, why have they still not followed FISA? And why, after getting caught, do they STILL refuse to follow FISA?
I thought we were governed by the rule of law.
Am I that obtuse?
"Maybe one of you can help me to understand WHY the president never got a FISA warrant?"
The obvious and logical assumption is that the pres feared that the warrant would have been denied. Any legitimate warrant request would be approved, so one must assume that these particular subjects are not legitimate requests.
It really begs the question - who are these subjects? Without at least a fisa court review, it could be anybody. If I were a political opponent of the admin right now, I would have to assume that my conversations were being monitored.
I agree with your statement that if you were an opponent of this administration, that you would have to assume that they are listening in. Futher, (and just my opinion), people who don't fight for their rights are truly taking them for granted. People on the right who really aren't worried about ever being branded an enemy of the administration are open to allowing the government to violate their rights - because, as I said before, "I've got nothing to hide." That is the exact reason why you SHOULD be concerned. The question isn't "What do you have to hide." The question is, "Why do you need to spy on me, Mr. Bush? And, where is your warrant to do so?"
If Bush can bypass FISA , (and wouldn't Alito decide in his favor since he is such a fan of the "unitary executive"?), then warrantless domestic spying could be a legal tool to chill dissent. A secret panel of judges is a thin line of protection for Constitutional balance but the Bush administration seems intent to do away with this law under the guise of an endless "war on terrorism".
The president has constitutional powers that Congress cannot abridge by making FISA laws. The President abided by FISA laws up unto the point where he was advised it was conflicted with his right to gather foreign intelligence in an expedient manner. That is why the administration said they had no problem with the current FISA laws, if you remember they used FISA repeatedly. Also, if you remember, FISA's own review court looked at the body of law and concluded that the president had inherent power. So he followed the appropriate procedures and authorized the surveillence. This once again, is an issue that will make the Democrats look weak on defense.
"The President abided by FISA laws up unto the point where he was advised it was conflicted with his right to gather foreign intelligence in an expedient manner."
What is not "expedient" about a process where you can get a warrant retroactively? Who is stupid enough to advise him of that without knowing the basics of FISA?
"FISA's own review court looked at the body of law and concluded that the president had inherent power."
And where's your link to this FISA finding? Which "inherent power" are you referring to and where is this spelled out as a power for the POTUS?
[link to thinkprogress.org]
It's been a little while since he's posted. He must be searching for more obfuscating apologist screeds.
I challenge you, without resorting to your rectal database, to show us where the president has such authority. Cough up where in article two it says he can ignore laws he doesnt like. IT ISNT THERE. IF a law is unconstitutional it is incumbent on the President to take it to the SC and PROVE it is unconstitutional. Going against the clear letter of a law is NOT one of the Presidents perks. It will not become one of his perks no matter how often you repeat this canard in the mistaken belief that eventually it will magically become true.
Commonsenseliberal asked, "And why, after getting caught, do they STILL refuse to follow FISA?"
Perhaps, my fellow American, because to follow the law now is to admit that he broke the law.
And like Nixon, maybe Bush believes that if a prez does something, whatever that is, it's not against the law.
Commonsenseliberal asked, "And why, after getting caught, do they STILL refuse to follow FISA?"
Perhaps, my fellow American, because to follow the law now is to admit that he broke the law.
Or, it's because its a legitimate tool in protecting your and my right and freedom to spend our time on forums like this, in freedom and in safety. And because he genuinely believes that the Constitutional authority is there, in addition to the congressional directive to use "all force necessary." And that while Democrats, who have little power and NO responsibility to protect the American people, are free to use their time with partisan attacks and talk of impeachment, he is busy protecting the American people, which is his SOLE responsibilty and obligation.
"And because he genuinely believes that the Constitutional authority is there, in addition to the congressional directive to use "all force necessary.""
Reagan genuinely believed that you could recall missles fired from submarines, but that didn't make it true. The "necessary" part is your problem. Because he had a system in place to do everything he claims he needed, there is no way to argue that going around that system is "necessary".
"he is busy protecting the American people, which is his SOLE responsibilty and obligation."
Oi, uhhhh yeah. First, it's NOT his ONLY responsibility. Next, oh forget it, it's such a ridiculous statement I don't even know where to begin.
Why would Bush feel like he has to mount a public relations offensive over this?
It's clear that there are plenty in the press who will carry his dirty water for him.
Bush's handlers know that a significant percentage of the American electorate will just see the snippets of Bush saying "Trust me" and think nothing else of it. They'll just assume that those nasty Liberals are making stuff up about Jesus George again.
The repugnant PR campaign is Bush's attempt to pre-emptively influence public opinion so that, if he is being hung out to dry by a real court or judicial inquiry, his media handlers can blame it all on partisan politics.
For the first time since I have been following this President's miss management of his administration, I have come to the conclusion Mr. Bush has flooded the American people with so much ill and controversial actions that, in affect, the American people have held him accountable to nothing. I guess you can call it "shock diversion" because after the initial outrage to things like torture, kidnapping and now domestic wiretapping the public is carefully left with a numbing sense that has the affect of apathy to the previous action. Thus, Mr. Bush only has to deal with what is in front of him. As I write, the Bush team can ravel in the successful downgrade of the wiretapping illegal status to a "spirited debate." You go Mr. Rove.
Where are the Democratic big guns? Insight is a widespread phenomenon not a rare one. I know we have some smart counter moves to place this troubling time in perspective. We cannot be guided down a road that chips away effective check and balances to something that could render a dictated form of Government. Everything horrible has a beginning, and I am troubled by what this administration could be at the beginning of.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006 "The Administration's new FISA defense is factually false "
from: Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald
Entire entry is worth reading though here is an excerpt:
"That means that, in 2 different respects, DeWine's FISA amendment was much, much less draconian than what the Administration was already secretly doing (i.e., lowering the evidentiary standard but (i) eliminating judicial oversight, and (ii) applying these changes not just to non-U.S. persons but also to U.S. persons). Thus, Congress refused to approve -- and the DoJ even refused to endorse -- a program much less extreme and draconian than the Administration's secret FISA bypass program.
This has extremely significant implications for the Administration's claims made yesterday through Gen. Hayden as to why it was necessary to bypass FISA. The Administration's claim that the "probable cause" component of FISA was preventing it from engaging in the eavesdropping it needed is the opposite of what it told Congress when refusing to support the DeWine Amendment. And its claim that Congress knew of and approved of its FISA-bypassing eavesdrop program is plainly negated by the fact that the same Congress was debating whether such changes should be effectuated and then refused to approve much less extreme changes to FISA than what the Administration secretly implemented on its own (and which it now claims Congress authorized).
The Administration is stuck with the excuse given by Gen. Hayden yesterday as to why it had to eavesdrop outside of FISA, but that excuse is plainly contradicted by these events and by the Administration's own statements at the time."
check it out: [link to glenngreenwald.blogspot.com]
I am surprised to see the administration bring this topic up, given their own failure to heed the urgent warnings of Richard Clarke, and given their own Defense Department's neglect of anti-terrorism measures (a lack of meetings and, if I am not mistaken, a cut in funding). Do they really want us to look again at their own pre-9/11 mindset?
Really, what topic or issue could this administration look at and be proud of? The Iraq elections could be one, except that it came at such an overwhelming cost to the United States both financially, morally, and in dead soldiers. The tax cuts that benefitted the wealthy and further opened the divide between the rich and poor? Or maybe the failed education programs that have sucked in billions with no noticable rise in academic performance? I know, the great health plans that have increased the costs of prescription drugs to those who need them most because of the great influence pharmaceutical comanies have over this administration? No? Well, the college football season was pretty exciting. Vince Young is even from Texas! Good job Mr. Bush, hook 'em horns!
...they would have ignored them, like they did everything else on terrorism threats before [and after] 9-11. had bush held some meetings and been forcing his aides, like clinton did, to come up with information, things like the phoenix memo would have come to the surface. talk about a teflon president, or is it just that the media protects their corporate champion? clinton was obssessed with counterterrorism and bush was just the opposite, because bush was telling people both before and after he was elected that saddam was the problem.