Tag: george w. bush
What We Never Learned From 9/11 Now Jeopardizes Our Security Every Day

What We Never Learned From 9/11 Now Jeopardizes Our Security Every Day

To contemplate the quarter-century that has passed since the 9/11 attacks, with all the momentous change that day wrought on our society, is to confront a disturbing fact: As a nation, we have learned almost nothing that episode should have taught us.

The consequence is that again we are facing extreme and even existential peril, stripped of the alliances, institutions, and experienced national security leadership that have long shielded us.

When we remember 9/11, it is imperative to honor those who died, as victims and heroes, both in the immediate conflagration of the Twin Towers and from the wave of deadly airborne carcinogens that followed their collapse. One of those heroes, a retired New York City fire captain, said on public radio that while the loss of 3,000 Americans is always noted, we rarely mention how many thousands of lives were saved that day by firefighters and other first responders who died by the hundreds. Recalling their courage and sacrifice is a sacred civic ritual.

But the interest of posterity also requires that we recall how poorly government performed at all levels before those tragic events unfolded, as well as in their aftermath.

George W. Bush, then president, did his best to rally the country and benefited mightily from that performance. He also tried to conceal the policy and intelligence blunders that probably insured the success of the attack, by resisting the 9/11 investigation and then by prevaricating in his administration’s responses. The facts were sufficiently complex to fill a bestselling book, but the underlying truth was starkly simple. He and his advisers, notably including Vice President Dick Cheney, had brushed aside loud and repeated warnings that Al Qaeda was preparing a terrorist assault on the homeland. Less than two years later they layered disaster upon disaster and lie upon lie with the invasion of Iraq.

The combination of rigid ideology, preening arrogance, and bonehead incompetence that proved disastrous then is even more evident in the Oval Office now.

The failures that resulted in catastrophe on 9/11 extended to Rudolph Giuliani, then mayor of New York, who has so promiscuously squandered the reputation he won on that date. As the late great reporter Wayne Barrett revealed years later, Giuliani’s bungling leadership actually cost many lives of first responders – first by locating the city’s emergency response headquarters in World Trade Center 7, known to be the prime terror target since at least 1993, and by saddling cops and firefighters with radio equipment proven defective long before 9/11. He wasted money intended to improve 911 services and never updated the city’s disaster protocols, dooming hundreds as the towers collapsed.

Anyone who doubts these accusations can find the evidence in the Final Report of the National Commission on 9/11 and the 9/11 analysis prepared by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

The full indictment of Bush and Giuliani is yet to be written, with new counts continuing to be added. Just this week we learned that both federal and city officials concealed or minimized the mortal threat posed by the air around Ground Zero during the lengthy recovery and cleanup.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani released over 170,000 pages of post-9/11 documents, with internal notes and memos showing that officials knew of hazardous asbestos and cement dust levels, even as they reassured the public about the site’s safety. What those memos also reveal is a keen awareness of the potential legal liability incurred by those reiterated lies.

Aside from blaming the Bush Environmental Protection Agency, Giuliani had little to say in his defense – and has resorted to anti-Muslim bigotry instead, demanding Mamdani’s absence from 9/11 commemorations. He has disqualified himself from attending those solemn ceremonies.

Such recriminations are of limited value, unless they inform future thought and action. The election of buffoonish bankrupt businessman Donald Trump over a highly experienced and thoughtful Hillary Clinton showed how much we had forgotten about the Bush debacle only 15 years later. The reelection in 2024 of that same vacant demagogue, who knew very little and has learned nothing, displayed again the fatal amnesia that infects our national consciousness. His mad war on Iran is only the top line of his ruinous impact on American national security.

Except now the world’s perils have swollen, far beyond a cunning terrorist in the mountains of Afghanistan and his accomplices, with the development of technologies that could wipe out society – and a government that lacks any will to control them and any idea how to do so.

The angry clowns who now oversee the White House and Congress are worse than those who failed to protect us in 2001. Removing them from power is the first step toward renewed safety and survival.

Joe Conason is founder and editor-in-chief of The National Memo. He is also editor-at-large of Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative reporting organization formerly known as The Investigative Fund. His latest book is The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism (St. Martin's Press, 2024). The paperback version, with a new Afterword, is available wherever books are sold.

Republicans Beware! Medicaid Is Not A Soft Target

Republicans Beware! Medicaid Is Not A Soft Target

Does anyone remember the 1995 government shutdown and why it happened? Basically Newt Gingrich, fresh off a big Republican victory in the midterm election, was trying to force Bill Clinton to make big cuts in Medicare. He failed, in large part because Medicare was and is an immensely popular program.

A decade later, George W. Bush tried to privatize Social Security. But he, too, failed, because Social Security is also immensely popular.

But the Republican quest to rip up as much of the social safety net as possible never ends. And for the past 15 years or so that has meant steering clear, for now, of Medicare and Social Security, which are middle-class programs, and going after Medicaid instead. If the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — which is, incredibly, the legislation’s actual name — goes into effect, Medicaid will be cut by around a trillion dollars over the next decade. (As of this morning, the fate of that bill remains uncertain.)

What is Medicaid? Like Medicare, it’s government-provided health insurance. But unlike Medicare, it’s “means-tested”: your income has to fall below a certain level before you’re eligible. This makes Medicaid a program for the poor or near-poor — and that, for many on the right, suggests a political opportunity.

Ostensibly, the right attacks Medicaid because it costs too much. I mean, it’s a government program, which means that it must be riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse, right? And surely there must be millions of lazy people getting health care through Medicaid who should be getting up off their couches and going to work.

The reality is that none of this is true.

No doubt there’s waste and fraud in Medicaid, as there is in any system created and run by human beings. But overall Medicaid provides essential health care relatively cheaply. Once you adjust for the generally poor health of the average Medicaid recipient — chronic illness can make you poor! — Medicaid appears to have significantly lower costs than private insurance:

Actually, in some ways Medicaid resembles the health care systems of other advanced countries, which are much cheaper than U.S. health care (while achieving equally good results) largely because they’re more cost-conscious, willing to bargain hard with drug companies, say no to expensive procedures of dubious medical benefit, and so on.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of Medicaid recipients either are working or can’t work — they’re disabled or need to stay home to care for others:

Oh, and one thing we know from repeated experience is that adding work requirements to Medicaid does not, in fact, lead to more people working.

I don’t know how many of the right-wingers clamoring for drastic Medicaid cuts believe the stories they tell about waste and lazy Americans who won’t get a job. My guess, though, is that they don’t care whether these stories are true. They’re going after Medicaid because they see it as a soft target — a program that helps lower-income Americans, and who cares about them? Medicaid’s beneficiaries, they imagine, are the new welfare queens driving Cadillacs.

But a funny thing has happened to public opinion about Medicaid. The share of Americans covered by the program has increased a lot over the past 15 years:

And the fact that so many Americans now receive Medicaid means that many people have either benefited from the program or know people who have. And as a result the program has become remarkably popular:

83 percent favorability — 74 percent among Republicans! — is incredibly high. In fact, Medicaid appears to have slightly higher favorability than apple pie.

What this suggests is that Republicans who consider Medicaid a soft target, a program that only benefits inner-city rats, are going to be shocked by the blowback if they do manage to eviscerate this key piece of American health care.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and former professor at MIT and Princeton who now teaches at the City University of New York's Graduate Center. From 2000 to 2024, he wrote a column for The New York Times.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Echoes Of Iraq Invasion As Trump Lurches Toward War On Iran

Echoes Of Iraq Invasion As Trump Lurches Toward War On Iran

President Donald Trump is publicly toying with the possibility of joining Israel's war on Iran, ignoring his own administration’s intelligence assessment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon”—giving nightmarish flashbacks to President George W. Bush’s war on Iraq.

“I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do. I can tell you this, that Iran’s got a lot of trouble,” Trump said on the White House lawn Wednesday morning.

According to The New York Times, Trump is inching closer to U.S. involvement in Iran, even though national intelligence disputes Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that Iran was weeks away from achieving nuclear capabilities. It’s the same claim Netanyahu has been falsely asserting for three decades, making him sound like the boy who cried wolf.

Meanwhile, Trump is feuding with Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who testified before Congress in March that Iran isn’t building a nuclear weapon and is now seemingly trying to deter Trump from going to war.

“I don’t care what she said,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Tuesday. “I think they were very close to having a weapon.”

And like Bush, who was goaded into invading Iraq by fellow bloodthirsty Republicans—like Vice President Dick Cheney, who falsely claimed that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction”—Trump is being provoked by GOP hawks advocating for bombing Iran.

"He's very focused, very calm," warmonger Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told CNN. "I feel like when he says no nukes for Iran, he means it. He gave them a chance for diplomacy. I think they made a miscalculation when it comes to President Trump."

And Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, told Margaret Brennan, host of CBS’ “Face the Nation,” that Iran is "very close to having enough pure weapons-grade uranium for several weapons."

He also said that Trump has "appropriately kept all options on the table."

This is terrifying because Trump has a history of believing the last person he speaks to on an issue. And given that the Iran hawks now have his ear, it looks like Trump may be swayed by their bloodlust and enter the United States into another aimless war.

"He’s easily manipulable, but this is on him. That is where we are now. He has engaged the U.S. in a new war in the Middle East, and he seems to be on the brink of going just all in," Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy, told the New Republic.

What’s more, Republicans and right-wing media are also painting people against U.S. involvement in the war as un-American—trying to pressure Trump’s base, which is uneasy about it, to fall in line. It echoes right-wing media tactics used to sell the public on the war in Iraq in 2002.

"This is good versus evil. You’re either a patriotic American who is going to get behind the president of the United States—the commander-in-chief—or you’re not," Fox News personality Mark Levin said Tuesday night.

Sound familiar?

As the saying goes: history doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Scott Jenning

Do You Want Donald Trump To Succeed -- Or America?

Those 38 Republicans who frustrated Donald Trump's demand that he be freed from the inconvenience of a debt ceiling vote early in his term were truly impressive. These are guys with whom yours truly disagrees much of the time.

What Trump's smarter knee-jerk defenders really believe is a matter of speculation. Scott Jennings used to work for normie President George W. Bush. He clearly sees his current job as left tackle, defending Trump from charges of lunacy, whatever their merit.

Thus, he turned on these deficit hawks for not submitting to the demand that they remove a stumbling block for Trump's evident plans to cover his tax cuts and spending with new borrowing. Jennings put it diplomatically, saying that Trump "had to convince them that teamwork matters."

It does, but you first have to decide what team you're on. Is it Team Trump or Team America? They are not necessarily the same team.

Rep. Chip Roy of Texas took issue with colleagues willing to let Trump off the debt ceiling hook. "I'm absolutely sickened by a party that campaigns on fiscal responsibility," he said, "and has the temerity to go forward to the American people and say you think this is fiscally responsible."

Roy is surely not on board with preserving the Affordable Care Act as I am, but that would be good for Team America. Trump will very likely work to eviscerate, if not kill, it. He tried the first term and almost succeeded.

We should all agree that restoring law and order in our immigration program would be good for Team America. Trump talked a big game about doing this. I have my doubts.

His vow to also go after undocumented migrants who have broken laws, apart from entering the country illegally, is low fruit. Who could be against that? For the record, Barack Obama deported many more "criminal aliens" than did Donald Trump in his first term.

Trump now says he would also send home recent arrivals, including those who otherwise haven't broken the law. But then Trump runs afoul of the moneyed interests who say they need the labor and who are his people.

Most important is sending a message that, henceforth, anyone who sneaks over the border doesn't get to stay. What rouses most pessimism about Trump's dedication to stopping future illegal immigration has been his refusal to support E-Verify. E-Verify is an online database that lets employers know whether a new hire may legally work in this country. Thus, they could no longer accept fake documents or assume that no authority would bother them.

E-Verify or something like it is the only way to cut off the job magnet at the root of illegal immigration. As long as the undocumented can get a job in the U.S., they're going to come here. And some already say that if Trump does send them home, they'll just slip back in again.

Asked about E-Verify during his first term, Trump responded, "E-Verify is so tough that in some cases, like farmers, they're not, they're not equipped for E-Verify." The notion that farmers don't know how to use computers is nonsense. Also insulting to farmers.

Back to the present, Jennings poses "a core question." (That sounds so principled.) "What does the constituent want?" he asked. "Do they want you to execute your ideology or do they want Donald Trump to succeed?"

It was quite refreshing for some of the dissenting Republicans to say they represented their constituents, not Trump. Much of America has come a long distance, and not in a good way, to equating one man's interests with America's.

Do they want Trump to succeed or America?

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Trending

World