George W. Bush’s Decision Points

Posted on by ( 81 comments already! )
Spread the love

Loading


Borders signing in Dallas, Texas
11.9.10

Matt Lauer’s exclusive interview with former president George W. Bush aired Monday night:

His memoir, Decision Points, available in book stores today (bought mine this morning).

Live interview with Matt Lauer on The Today Show, Wednesday morning.

*UPDATE*

0 0 votes
Article Rating
81 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Hard Right

Unfortunately unlike yourself I’ve outgrown hide and seek games so I’m not going to trawl through FA archives even a weeks worth to find the usual lame blame democrats bs hidden away in umpteen comments. I’ve called you and Aye on this one and you are both unable to answer it. If there’s a link then post it, if you are tired discussing it then why post in the first place? The only thing you and Aye are doing is playing games as you can’t debate because you know Bush didn’t do enough. 😆

0

@Gaffer:

Lol – looks like you are procrastinating or should I say filibustering – trying to avoid give a lame excuse as to why Bush was unable to even get a bill through or even to get it to a vote. Plenty of bills can get through with such numbers which hardly unusual. Clearly Bush rather talk about an issue that deal with it.

Heh!

That’s some funny stuff right there ladies and gentlemen.

Funny, funny stuff from the Blunder from Down UnderTM.. The same guy who cannot correctly answer three very simple questions about American gov’t.

Let me ask you Gaffer…how confident are you that no reform legislation came to the floor of the House? How confident are you that no reform legislation was considered in the Senate?

Are you confident enough to stake your future FA participation on being right?

Well, are you?

Somehow I doubt it.

I, on the other hand, am confident that would not be a wise wager for you to take.

Of course, as always, I already know the answers to the questions.

Now, little man, get back to work trying to correctly respond to those three basic Civics 101 questions.

As soon as you do, I will gladly reveal to you another small segment of your vast ignorance.

For ease of reference, here are the questions again for you:

1) How many votes are needed to get legislation through the House of Representatives?

2) How many votes are needed to get legislation through the Senate?

3) While you mention that the Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress, you don’t mention the margins of control. What were the margins of control during the years that the Republicans controlled Congress under President Bush?

Run along now.

The grownups are talking.

0

@GaffaUK: and when did I call Fort Hood anything? I haven’t mentioned it at all. And I doubt VA considered The Beltway Snipers international Jihad terrorists. I’m getting bored.

0

@Cary:

Gaffer knows, or should know, that the Beltway snipers carried out their crimes not in the name of Allah but in a sick, demented effort toward extorting millions of dollars.

Of course, Gaffer is not really interested in facts.

He prefers to parse words, impart false motives, and attempt to do side by side comparisons of issues that are diametrically opposed to one another.

0

@Cary:

Yes, they are cute and this one, IMHO, was their best performance in a series of lip syncs they have released on youtube. It’s also representative of how silly(all in fun in their case) people can allow themselves to appear on the “Interwebz”(borrowed from Aye). Gaffa, however, hasn’t been so cute of late and I’ve been wondering just what’s up with him, silly best describes how his latest debate is appearing.

He doesn’t want to scour the archives where he’s already has had much of the workings of our government patiently explained, he has to remember, even I remember those conversations. So again, IMHO, Gaffa should put the big boy pants on and do his stuff, man up Gaffa. 😉

0

@Aye

Firstly I don’t need to answer any of your questions as you aren’t true to your word…

As soon as you answer mine I will answer yours

I’ve answered your question.

However with the first two answers that is if all members vote – so just to clarify….

50% + 1 vote. So if everyone votes yes or no then currently I believe 218 votes are needed in the HoR and 51 in the Senate.

Let me ask you Gaffer…how confident are you that no reform legislation came to the floor of the House? How confident are you that no reform legislation was considered in the Senate?

As soon as you answer mine I will answer yours 🙄

@Cary

So, before we get to the next verse, you should get the lyrics right for this one. Here’s something for you to read up on….

Is that the easy read version they presented to Bush? Or did he get a pet goat to explain and have some colouring crayons as well? 😆

Personally I found the below books informative…

And when did I call Fort Hood anything? I haven’t mentioned it at all.

I never said you did.

And I doubt VA considered The Beltway Snipers international Jihad terrorists.

I never said VA considered The Beltway Snipers international Jihad terrorists.

0

@Gaffer, the one man wrecking crew on truth….

You said:

He and Rice were warned before 9/11 about the threat of Al Qaeda but why did it take almost 3000 people to die before Bush took this threat seriously?

And your proof of this is…?

You also said:

Lone gunman attacks are harder to deter and the Fort Hood attack shares more similarities with the Beltway shootings than 9/11.

The Fort Hood attack was perpetrated in a single, rash act of murder and mayhem, whereas the Beltway Sniper attacks were spread out over a considerable period of time and other than one lone court, not attributed to terrorism. And NO ONE attributed the Beltway Sniper attacks to Al Qaeda, Hamas, or any other terrorist sponsor.

Investigators and the prosecution suggested during pre-trial motions that Muhammad intended to kill his ex-wife Mildred, who had estranged him from his children.

At the 2006 trial of Muhammad, Malvo testified that the aim of the killing spree was to kidnap children for the purpose of extorting money from the government and to “set up a camp to train children how to terrorize cities”, with the ultimate goal being to “shut things down” across the United States. – Source

Congressional reports on the Fort Hood shooting have highlighted the veteran soldier’s contact with Anwar Al-Awlaki, a US-born cleric known to foment violence against the US over the Internet. – Source

0

@Antics

Read the below

A good summary of warnings…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_debate

The Fort Hood attack was perpetrated in a single, rash act of murder and mayhem, whereas the Beltway Sniper attacks were spread out over a considerable period of time and other than one lone court, not attributed to terrorism. And NO ONE attributed the Beltway Sniper attacks to Al Qaeda, Hamas, or any other terrorist sponsor.

NO ONE except one lone court and oh…Muhammad himself. lol

Investigators and the prosecution suggested during pre-trial motions that Muhammad intended to kill his ex-wife Mildred, who had estranged him from his children.

except….

However, Judge LeRoy Millette, Jr. prevented prosecutors from presenting that theory during the trial, saying that a link had not been firmly established.

pretty lousy shot if his far fetched scheme didn’t even manage to get his ex-wife.

At the 2006 trial of Muhammad, Malvo testified that the aim of the killing spree was to kidnap children for the purpose of extorting money from the government and to “set up a camp to train children how to terrorize cities”, with the ultimate goal being to “shut things down” across the United States.

Thanks – hmmm sounds like a terrorist doesn’t it?

Oh btw way since when does a terrorist need a sponsor now to be a terrorist? 😆

0

@Gaffer:

However with the first two answers that is if all members vote – so just to clarify….

50% + 1 vote. So if everyone votes yes or no then currently I believe 218 votes are needed in the HoR and 51 in the Senate.

Here’s what we know of your expertise [snicker] on these matters so far:

a) In your original response you had the answers backwards.
b) In your original response you didn’t base your answers on 50% +1, choosing instead to give specific numbers.
c) You didn’t specify in any of your answers the requirement that a quorum be present for a vote to be held.
d) In none of your Senate related answers did you mention “60 votes” which is what is required to overcome a filibuster challenge prior to a final vote.

Now that we have the error of your ways laid out there for all to see, let’s see what Fannie/Freddie legislation was considered in the House and the Senate shall we?

H.R. 1461: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Passed by the House of Representatives 331 to 90, with 12 not voting. Among the “Nay” votes were the names that one would suspect to see…Pelosi, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, Cynthia McKinney, Barney Frank…that whole “Fannie/Freddie have no problems” crowd.

S. 190: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

This bill was considered on the Senate floor, then referred to Committee.

It passed the Committee vote on an 11-9 party line vote but was never raised on the Senate floor for final consideration because there were not enough votes to overcome the filibuster threshold.

So, there you have it.

Once again your idiocy has been put on display for all to see.

You’re welcome.

0

@GaffaUK:

A “good summary” that debunks the advanced warning conspiracy put together throughout the years since September 11.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Foreknowledge

Bush knew because of the August 6th presidential briefing:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/August_6_PDB

Army Ignored Warning Signs Fort Hood Shooter Classmate Says

The warning signs were all there: the justification of homicide bombings; the spewing of anti-American hatred; the efforts to reach Al Qaeda …

~~~~
“He was a lightning rod. He made his views known and he was very vocal, he had extremely radical jihadist views,” Finnell said. “When you’re a military officer you take an oath to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.

“They should’ve confronted him — our professors, officers — but they were too concerned about being politically correct.”

~~~~

Finnell recalled Hasan telling his classmates and professors, “I’m a Muslim first and I hold the Shariah, the Islamic Law, before the United States Constitution.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/11/09/army-ignored-warning-signs-fort-hood-shooter-classmate-says/

The Fort Hood Report: Why No Mention of Islam?

John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 commission and Navy Secretary during the Reagan Administration, says a reluctance to cause offense by citing Hasan’s view of his Muslim faith and the U.S. military’s activities in Muslim countries as a possible trigger for his alleged rampage reflects a problem that has gotten worse in the 40 years that Lehman has spent in and around the U.S. military. The Pentagon report’s silence on Islamic extremism “shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become,” he told TIME on Tuesday. “It’s definitely getting worse, and is now so ingrained that people no longer smirk when it happens.”

~~~~

The apparent lack of curiosity into what allegedly drove Hasan to kill isn’t in keeping with the military’s ethos; it’s a remarkable omission for the U.S. armed forces, whose young officers are often ordered to read Sun Tzu’s The Art of War with its command to know your enemy. In midcareer, they study the contrast between capabilities and intentions, which is why they aren’t afraid of a British nuclear weapon but do fear the prospect of Iran getting one.

Yet the leaders of the two-month Pentagon review, former Army Secretary Togo West and the Navy’s onetime top admiral, Vernon Clark, told reporters last week that they didn’t drill down into Hasan’s motives. “Our concern is with actions and effects, not necessarily with motivations,” West said. Added Clark: “We certainly do not cite a particular group.” Part of their reticence, they said, was to avoid running afoul of the criminal probe of Hasan that is now under way. Both are declining interview requests before their congressional testimony, a Pentagon spokesman said.

But without a motive, there would have been no murder. Hasan wore his radical Islamic faith and its jihadist tendencies in the same way he wore his Army uniform. He allegedly proselytized within the ranks, spoke out against the wars his Army was waging in Muslim countries and shouted “Allahu akbar” (God is great) as he gunned down his fellow soldiers. Those who served alongside Hasan find the Pentagon review wanting. “The report demonstrates that we are unwilling to identify and confront the real enemy of political Islam,” says a former military colleague of Hasan, speaking privately because he was ordered not to talk about the case. “Political correctness has brainwashed us to the point that we no longer understand our heritage and cannot admit who, or what, the enemy stands for.”

The Department of Defense Independent Review Related to Fort Hood, ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is limited in scope. Despite the title of its report — Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood — there is only a single page dedicated to the chapter called “Oversight of the Alleged Perpetrator.” Much more space is given to military personnel policies (11 pages), force protection (six pages) and the emergency response to the shootings (12 pages).

Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said he was “disappointed” because the inquiry “does not adequately recognize the specific threat posed by violent Islamist extremism to our military,” and added that the homeland-security panel he chairs will investigate. The Congressman whose district includes Fort Hood agrees. “The report ignores the elephant in the room — radical Islamic terrorism is the enemy,” says Republican Representative John Carter. “We should be able to speak honestly about good and bad without feeling like you’ve done something offensive to society.”

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1954960,00.html

Malvo was a serial killer that acted on his own, he didn’t plot with the enemy, he randomly murdered across 4 states. Hasan conspired with a radical cleric to kill his enemy, members of our armed forces.

0

So lefty Gaffa believes in LIHOP about Bush and 9/11. No surprise there.

0

@Aye

So thanks for the scenic detour – your latest post unwittingly strengthens my central premise that Bush failed to deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. before the crisis of 2008.

H.R. 1461: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005
Passed by the House of Representatives 331 to 90, with 12 not voting. Among the “Nay” votes were the names that one would suspect to see…Pelosi, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, Cynthia McKinney, Barney Frank…that whole “Fannie/Freddie have no problems” crowd.

a) You forgot to mention that it has taken 4 years since Bush has inherited Clinton mess that such a bill has been presented.
b) Whilst you point out the minority of Democrats who voted against you forgot to highlight that a majority of democrats voted for his bill.
c) You forgot to mention that this bill failed – it was never voted upon in the senate
d) You forgot to mention this bill died in committee which had a majority of Republicans on it
e) You forgot to mention that Bush was against this bill!

S. 190: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
This bill was considered on the Senate floor, then referred to Committee.
It passed the Committee vote on an 11-9 party line vote but was never raised on the Senate floor for final consideration because there were not enough votes to overcome the filibuster threshold.

a) So why didn’t this go to a vote in the Senate and see if the Democrats would filibuster it? Where’s your evidence this that there was a threat of a filibuster and that this would definitely of happened? Let’s here the lame excuse…

At the same time, the House also introduced similar legislation, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 1461), in the Spring of 2005. The House Financial Services Committee had crafted changes and produced a Committee Report by July 2005 to the legislation. It was passed by the House in October in spite of President Bush’s statement of policy opposed to the House version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

While Senate and House leaders voiced their intention to bring about the needed legislation, no reform bills materialized. A Senate reform bill introduced by Senator John Corzine (D-NJ) (S.1656) never made it out of the 21-member (10D/11R) Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac

In 2005, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act, sponsored by Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and co-sponsored by Senators Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), John McCain (R-AZ) and John Sununu (R-NH)[1], would have increased government oversight of loans given by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Like the 2003 bill, it also died in the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, this time in the 109th Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac

The fact is under Bush – the problem became worst!

That year, President Bush’s HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent. John C. Weicher, then an assistant HUD secretary, said the institutions lagged behind even the private market and “must do more.”

For Wall Street, high profits could be made from securities backed by subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie targeted the least-risky loans. Still, their purchases provided more cash for a larger subprime market.

“That was a huge, huge mistake,” said Patricia McCoy, who teaches securities law at the University of Connecticut. “That just pumped more capital into a very unregulated market that has turned out to be a disaster.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626_2.html

So glad I could ‘edumakate’ you….you’re welcome. Snigger

0

@GaffaUK:

I never said you did.

um…. yes you did….

Lone gunman attacks are harder to deter and the Fort Hood attack shares more similarities with the Beltway shootings than 9/11. But because some guy called Cary considers one to be a terrorist attack and the other not doesn’t necessarily make it so – and in this case I go with the court in Virginia which did find it a terrorist attack.

In order for you to know what I consider either to be, I would have had to say so. Please don’t assume my point of view or put words in my mouth.

Gaffa, there’s probably a lot that you and I agree on, but you’re making false arguments. Yes, the Bush administration did keep us safe. Did he keep us safe in the best/right/only way, and is that the only thing that matters? That would’ve been a much more interesting discussion than this boring, repetitive one.

But now my free time is over, and I have to get back to work and be done here for now. I hope than when I’m able to come back, we can find something to agree on. Just tell me this – I’m curious about your screen name, are you an American or an observer from outside somewhere? Based on some of your responses, I’m gonna guess the latter.

0

@Gaffer – You are really showing your ignorance, idiocy and dogmatic adherence to ideology.

You say:

You forgot to mention that it has taken 4 years since Bush has inherited Clinton mess that such a bill has been presented.

Let’s just for a second PRETEND you have a point- which you don’t. Hmmm, and Obama has made Fannie/Freddie reform his TOP priority. Funny how you are upset with Bush about taking “4 years” to address the problem, yet give Obama a pass on doing the same thing for the last 2.

And BTW, your above statement just admitted that Bush DID present a bill and try to reform Fannie/Freddie, LOL!

You said this:

So thanks for the scenic detour – your latest post unwittingly strengthens my central premise that Bush failed to deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. before the crisis of 2008.

Then, as pointed out above, you admit Bush DID try!

You forgot to mention that it has taken 4 years since Bush has inherited Clinton mess that such a bill has been presented.

As for the Beltway/Fort Hood comparison, Missy in #60 tore you to shreds on that one. Way to go Missy!

0

auntiesrocks —

I don’t get your point — it is BETTER to take four years to address a problem than to take less than two years to address the same problem? Why is that? Bush had to mull it over an extra two years?

Another thing — Bush does not “present legislation” to Congress any more than Obama does. They can ask Congress to take up an issue, or send some guidelines, but it takes Congress to act.

Now keep forgetting, which party was in power from 2004 through 2007 a NEVER offered a single bill concerning Fannie and Freddie? Want to take a wild guess?

Yep . . . the GOPers.

0

@GaffaUK:

a) So why didn’t this go to a vote in the Senate and see if the Democrats would filibuster it? Where’s your evidence this that there was a threat of a filibuster and that this would definitely of happened? Let’s here the lame excuse…

We have whips in both houses for both parties that count yea or nay votes before a scheduled vote, if it’s not close they don’t bother with bringing it to the floor.

Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown

On September 30th of 2008, shortly after Rush Limbaugh had played on his radio program an 8 minute audio of Congressional Democrats obstructing the regulatory efforts of the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans, Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama (featured in the youtube video defending Fannie and Freddie) issued an apology on Fox News saying,

Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.

Since 2001, the Bush Administration issued 34 warnings to Congress about the need to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before it caused substantial economic turmoil in the financial markets. However, they met continual opposition by Congressional Democrats who feared that tighter regulations on lenders would disqualify low-income applicants from affordable housing.

The detailed time-line of events below demonstrates that the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was preventable if Congress were more receptive and responsive to the warnings of expert analysis.

In 1938, Fannie Mae was established by an act of Congress to provide liquidity to the mortgage market during an economic crisis known as the Great Depression.

In 1970, over three decades later, Freddie Mac was established by an act of Congress to counteract Fannie Mae’s growing monopoly of the secondary mortgage market.

In 1977, the Carter Administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act that required banks to offer an even disbursement of credit throughout the financial market in an attempt to curb past lending practices that targeted more desirable markets. At the time, republican critics charged that such an act would impose unnecessary regulatory burdens on lending institutions and distort credit markets by forcing banks to offer loans to under-qualified applicants.

In 1995, the Clinton Administration pushed even harder to increase the supply of affordable housing to low-income families by offering performance-based incentives. According to economist Stan Liebowitz, these developments led to a loosening of lending standards that required no verification of income or assets, little consideration of the applicant’s ability to make payments, and no down payment payments. The net effect was an inevitable collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the cost of its investors.

In April of 2001, the Bush Administration first red flagged Fannie and Freddie stating that “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

Video of Warnings to Congress
A Video of warnings from the Bush Administration to Congress can be seen here .

On September 10th of 2003, Treasury Secretary John Snow recommended to the House Financial Services Committee that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

The new agency was a recommendation from the Bush Administration for a serious regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry. The plan was an acknowledgment of two things. First, more oversight was necessary for both institutions that have managed to accumulate over 1.5 trillion dollars in outstanding debt – averaging a 20% increase in residential debt per year. And second, the supervisory system in place did not have the tools to deal effectively with the size, scope, and complexity of Fannie and Freddie. Subsequently, the recommendation was staunchly opposed by Congressional Democrats and National Association of Home Builders who thought that tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie would reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

On September 10th of 2003, in response to the Bush’s regulatory overhaul proposal, Barney Frank, a ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, defended Fannie and Freddie saying,

These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing . . . I think it is clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently secure so they are in no great danger. . . I don’t think we face a crisis; I don’t think that we have an impending disaster. . . . Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country.

At a Congressional Hearing in 2003, Rep. Maxine Waters, Democrat of California objected to the proposal of stricter regulations and stated,

I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn’t broke. [sic] …These GSEs have more than adequate capital for the business they are in: providing affordable housing. As I mentioned, we should not be making radical or fundamental change… If there is anything to fix or improve, it is the [regulators].

Rep. Gregory Meeks, Democrat of New York, agreed with Rep. Waters and demonstratively stated,

…I have to go to another hearing, I will try to be just real quick… I am just pissed off at [the regulator] because if it wasn’t for you I don’t think that we would be here in the first place. …we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you have given them an excuse to try to have this forum [to change the] mission of what the GSEs had, which they have done a tremendous job… There has been nothing that was indicated is wrong, you know, with Fannie Mae… The question that then presents is the competence that your agency has with reference to deciding and regulating these GSEs.

Rep. Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina said, ”

I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing.

Rep. Artur Davis, Democrat of Alabama, went a little further in his statement. Instead of defending Fannie and Freddie like his colleagues, he tried turning the tables on the regulatory agency saying,

A concern that I have… is you are making very specific… broad and categorical judgment about the management of this institution, about the willfulness of practices that may or may not be in controversy. You have imputed various motives to the people running the organization… That sounds to me as if you have gone from being a dispassionate regulator to someone who is very much involved and has a stake in this controversy… And I will follow up on Ms. Waters’s point because I think it is very well taken: Her observation is that the political context surrounding your investigation was that serious doubts were being raised about OFHEO… In fact, frankly, doubts were raised about your leadership of OFHEO. And all of a sudden, the response to that is to produce an enormously critical report.

Rep. Lacy Clay, Democrat of Missouri, followed suit by shifting the burden saying,

This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines.

And ranking Democrat Barney Frank stuck to his guns and concluded,

But I have seen nothing in here that suggests that the safety and soundness are at issue, and I think it serves us badly to raise safety and soundness as kind of a general shibboleth when it does not seem to me to be an issue.

In October of 2003, less than a month later, Fannie Mae disclosed 1.2 billion dollars in accounting errors.

In November of 2003, the Bush Administration upgraded their warning to a “systemic risk” that could very well extend beyond the confines of the housing market. In a July report, written by external investigators, it concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors. And other critics pointed out that Fannie Mae did not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

In November of 2003, Council of the Economic Advisers, Chairman Greg Mankiw, argued that “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” And in order to do such, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.”

The 2003 Congressional Hearings resulted in democrats defending the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

A video from these hearings can be found here .

In February of 2005, President Bush’s Budget plan emphasized the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their sub-par levels of capital. The Budget plan called for the creation of a new, world-class regulator saying, “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.

On February 17th of 2005, Alan Greenspan suggested that Congress limit the growth of Fannie and Freddie saying, “Enabling these institutions to increase in size – and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes – we are placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk.”

In April of 2005, Treasury Secretary John Snow called for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.”

On April 6th of 2005, Chairman Alan Greenspan told the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate,

The strong belief of investors in the implicit government backing of the GSEs does not by itself create safety and soundness problems for the GSEs, but it does create systemic risks for the U.S. financial system as the GSEs become very large. Systemic risks are difficult to address through the normal course of financial institution regulation alone and, as I will stipulate shortly, can be effectively handled in the case of the GSEs by limiting their investment portfolios funded by implicitly subsidized debt . . . When these institutions were small, the potential for such risk, if any, was small. Regrettably, that is no longer the case. From now on, limiting the potential for systemic risk will require the significant strengthening of GSE regulation and the GSE regulator . . . The GSEs will have increased facility to continue to grow faster than the overall home-mortgage market; indeed since their portfolios are not constrained, by law, to exclusively home mortgages, GSEs can grow virtually without limit. Without restrictions on the size of GSE balance sheets, we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for homeownership.

On April 6th of 2005, Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer said in response to Alan Greenspan,

I think Fannie and Freddie have done an incredibly good job and are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world…. if you look over the last 20 or whatever years, they’ve done a very, very good job.

In May of 2006, Senator McCain co-sponsored the legislation for more regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, however it never became law because it lacked the sufficient amount of votes.

In June of 2005, Deputy Secretary of Treasury, Samuel Bodman, highlights the risk posed by the increasing GSEs and subsequently called for reform. He said,

“We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.”

On May 25th of 2006, Senator John McCain made his statement,

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.


In August of 2007, President Bush calls upon Congress to push through a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying

“First things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.”

In December of 2007, President Bush warns Congress to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying

“These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.”

In March of 2008, President Bush calls on Congress to

“move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.”

In April of 2008, President Bush urges Congress to

“modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.”

On May 3rd of 2008, Bush pleads with Congress to make legislation before Fanny and Freddie start to collapse. In his radio address, Bush says,

“Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.”

On May 19th of 2008, Bush pleads with Congress again with his radio address saying,

“The government ought to be helping credit-worthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.”

On May 31st of 2008, Bush makes yet another radio address saying,

“Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.”

In June of 2008, Bush told Congress,

“We need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

In July of 2008, Congress finally passed a reform bill addressing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac only after it became clear that the institutions were failing.

On September 10th of 2008, after the economic turmoil set in, Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd sat down for an interview with Bloomberg. In an astounding display of manifest hypocrisy, Senator Dodd said,

Why weren’t we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years.”

However, Senator Dodd failed to mention that the Bush Administration had warned Congress 34 times about the economic risk that Fannie and Freddie posed on our financial systems, while in 2008, the Bush Administration pressed Congress harder than ever by issuing 17 warnings in just 6 short months.

On September 30th of 2008, shortly after Rush Limbaugh had played on his radio program an 8 minute audio of Congressional Democrats obstructing the regulatory efforts of the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans, Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama (featured in the youtube video defending Fannie and Freddie) issued an apology on Fox News saying,

Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.

I think something ought to be said about Congressman Artur Davis. It takes intellectual honesty and political courage to admit a mistake concerning the regulation of Fanny and Freddie, especially when it can be linked to the economic downturn that has lead to an unprecedented bailout. We hope that his Congressional colleagues, featured in the 2004 Congressional Hearings video above, are noble enough to come forward and fess up to their mistakes as well.

Although it’s fairly clear that Fannie and Freddie aren’t the only reason our economy is in the proverbial toilet, their excessive mortgage debt, less than stringent credit and down-payment requirements, and their eventual spread of risk throughout the financial system certainly contributed to our current mess. Couple this with legislation like “The Community Reinvestment Act” that forced banks to lend to consumers who lacked credit-worthy qualifications and the “moral hazard” that encouraged lenders to make high-risk loans due to the expectation of federal bailout, Congressional Democrats played a significant role in today’s economic crisis by their refusal to recognize the troublesome signs and symptoms of Fannie and Freddie’s demise.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/10/04/the-story-of-freddie-and-fannie/

Don’t Blame Bush for Subprime Mess
By Investor’s Business Daily

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/12/dont_blame_bush_for_subprime_m.html

0

@Missy

There is a conspiracy that Bush was behind the 9/11 which is rubbish there isn’t a conspiracy, as far as I can see, that there were warning that an attack was coming.

Your http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Foreknowledge doesn’t address the following…

Some mainstream media reports have conflicted with these statements, claiming that the FBI, CIA and Executive Branch [2] knew of the threat of planes being used as missiles as early as 1995, following the foiling of the Bojinka Plot. The Chicago Sun-Times reported that:

The FBI had advance indications of plans to hijack U.S. airliners and use them as weapons, but neither acted on them nor distributed the intelligence to local police agencies. From the moment of the September 11 attacks, high-ranking federal officials insisted that the terrorists’ method of operation surprised them. Many stick to that story. Actually, elements of the hijacking plan were known to the FBI as early as 1995 and, if coupled with current information, might have uncovered the plot.”

The book The Terror Timeline includes numerous articles that are often cited to suggest that the method of flying planes into buildings was known by U.S. officials:[3]

In 1994, there were three examples of failed attempts to deliberately crash planes into buildings, including one where a lone pilot crashed a small plane into the lawn of the White House.[4]
The Bojinka Plot was a foiled large-scale al Qaeda terrorist attack to blow up eleven airliners and their passengers as they flew from Asia to America, due to take place in January 1995.
The 2000 edition of the FAA’s annual report on Criminal Acts Against Aviation said that although Osama bin Laden ‘is not known to have attacked civil aviation, he has both the motivation and the wherewithal to do so,’ adding, ‘Bin Laden’s anti-Western and anti-American attitudes make him and his followers a significant threat to civil aviation, particularly to U.S. civil aviation.’”
In April 2001, NORAD ran a war game in which the Pentagon was to become incapacitated; a NORAD planner proposed the simulated crash of a hijacked foreign commercial airliner into the Pentagon but the Joints Chiefs of Staff rejected that scenario as “too unrealistic”[5]
In July 2001 at the G8 summit in Genoa, anti-aircraft missile batteries were installed following a report that terrorists would try to crash a plane to kill George Bush and other world leaders.[6]
On the morning of September 11, 2001, the National Reconnaissance Office, who are responsible for operating U.S. reconnaissance satellites, had scheduled an exercise simulating the crashing of an aircraft into their building, four miles (6 km) from Washington Dulles International Airport.[citation needed]

A 2004 USA Today article, “NORAD had drills of jets as weapons”, describes pre-9/11 NORAD drills that suggest they were prepared for such an attack as happened on 9/11:

“In the two years before the September 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic.”[7]

That NORAD was aware of the threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States, and using them as guided missiles, was flatly denied by the 9/11 Commission, which asserted several times in their report that “The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States — and using them as guided missiles — was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11.”

The Joint Inquiry of 2002 confirmed that the Intelligence Community had received at least twelve reports over a seven-year period suggesting that terrorists might use planes as weapons. After briefly discussing each of them, it says that “The CIA disseminated several of these reports to the FBI and to agencies responsible for preventive actions. They included the FAA… Despite these reports, the Intelligence Community did not produce any assessments of the likelihood that terrorists would use planes as weapons, and U.S. policymakers apparently remained unaware of this kind of potential threat.”[8] Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger testified to the Joint Inquiry:

“We heard of the idea of planes as weapons, but I don’t recall being presented with any specific threat information about an attack of this nature, or highlighting this threat, or indicating it was more likely than any other”[9]

Intelligence warnings

The US administration, CIA and FBI received multiple prior warnings from foreign governments and intelligence services, including France, Germany, the UK, Israel, Jordan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Morocco and Russia.[3][25] The warnings varied in their level of detail, but all stated that they believed an Al Qaeda attack inside the United States was imminent. British Member of Parliament Michael Meacher cites these warnings, suggesting that some of them must have been deliberately ignored.[26] Some of these warnings include the following:

March 2001 – Italian intelligence warns of an al Qaeda plot in the United States involving a massive strike involving aircraft, based on their wiretap of al Qaeda cell in Milan.
July 2001 – Jordanian intelligence told US officials that al-Qaeda was planning an attack on American soil, and Egyptian intelligence warned the CIA that 20 al Qaeda Jihadists were in the United States, and that four of them were receiving flight training.
August 2001 – The Israeli Mossad gives the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future.
August 2001 – The United Kingdom is warned three times of an imminent al Qaeda attack in the United States, the third specifying multiple airplane hijackings. According to the Sunday Herald, the report is passed on to President Bush a short time later.
September 2001 – Egyptian intelligence warns American officials that al Qaeda is in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US.

As for the PBD – that certainly wasn’t a myth
http://www.911myths.com/images/e/e6/August_6_PDB.pdf

But unfortunately the PBD didn’t give Bush and Rice the exact time, date and method of the attack 🙄

so Rice…

Rice responded, when being asked about the PDB at the Commission hearings, that “it wasn’t something that we felt we needed to do anything about”.

and further more…

Numerous whistleblowers and officials have surfaced, claiming that there was a deliberate effort, from high-ranking officials, to prevent investigations into Al Qaeda.

In 2002, FBI agent Coleen Rowley wrote to FBI director Robert Mueller describing her experience working with Minneapolis FBI agents tracking suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui prior to the attacks.[35] She describes how FBI HQ personnel in Washington, D.C. had mishandled and failed to take action on information provided by the Minneapolis Field Office, and had failed to issue a warrant to search Moussaui’s computer despite having probable cause.[36] Rowley goes on to describe her superior, Agent Marion “Spike” Bowman, as having “consistently, almost deliberately thwarted the Minneapolis FBI agents’ efforts” to obtain the search warrant. Senator Chuck Grassley later wrote that “If the application for the FISA warrant had gone forward, agents would have found information in Moussaoui’s belongings that linked him … to a major financier of the hijacking plot”. Rowley was credited as a whistleblower and jointly awarded the TIME Magazine “Person of the Year” for 2002. Her testimony to the 9/11 Commission was omitted from their final report.

FBI agent and Al-Qaeda expert John P. O’Neill warned of an Al-Qaeda threat to the United States in 2000. He retired from his position in mid 2001, citing repeated blocking of his investigations of Al Qaeda by FBI officials. After his retirement from the FBI, the World Trade Center hired him as its chief of security. He started work on September 11, 2001; 9/11 rescue workers found his body in a staircase inside the south tower rubble.[37]

So although Clinton was also culpable during his time which of the above do you dispute as not being tru?. Where is there a conspiracy that there was warnings when plainly there were warnings – it’s just that the Bush administration failed to join the dots or take any decent preventative action.

As for the Fort Hood Shooter – I don’t deny that he was a terrorist. But you don’t need to plot with others to be a terrorist. Does that mean the Beltway shooter isn’t a terrorist because he wasn’t affilated with a islamic cleric or a known terrorist group?

Check out this list and let me know which terrorists you would consider not being terrorists if that was the case 😆

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_(terrorism)

@Hard Right

So lefty Gaffa believes in LIHOP about Bush and 9/11. No surprise there.

No I don’t believe Bush let it happen on purpose and those who believe Bush was behind 9/11 are as nutty as those who believe Saddam was behind 9/11

@Cary

In order for you to know what I consider either to be, I would have had to say so. Please don’t assume my point of view or put words in my mouth.

You’re right there was an assumption there. I did ask but you seem coy about answering a simple question. So I’ll ask again – do you believe the Fort Hood shooter is a terrorist? And let’s see if my assumption was right and if you are being pedantic and boring. 🙄

0

@Antics

Let’s just for a second PRETEND you have a point- which you don’t. Hmmm, and Obama has made Fannie/Freddie reform his TOP priority. Funny how you are upset with Bush about taking “4 years” to address the problem, yet give Obama a pass on doing the same thing for the last 2.

* As you can see we are debating Bush’s ‘Decision Points’ and I was responding to your preposterous statement “Like him or hate him, the man kept us safe, stuck to his principals and did the right thing, even when the polls said otherwise.”
* By the time Obama was president – the crisis already happened, a bill (too late to stop the damage) was in place signed by Bush in a congress controlled by the Democrats and Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae had already been seized by federal takeover.
* So any President after Bush – whether it would of been McCain or as it is Obama – has to mop up the mess left by his predecessor.

And BTW, your above statement just admitted that Bush DID present a bill and try to reform Fannie/Freddie, LOL!

As B-Rob points out a President doesn’t present bills. Of the two bills that Aye mentions – one bill which did have a vote in the HoR – Bush was against (hmmm wonder why he failed to mention that?) and both bills died in committees where the majority were Republicans.

Then, as pointed out above, you admit Bush DID try

Oh I don’t doubt he tried. But trying is not the same as having dealt with the issue – as what he feared happened. So obviously the issue wasn’t dealt with as it happened. Pontificating about it isn’t dealing with the issue. His administration was unable to get through legistration through a congress they controlled and nowhere have I seen any bill that would have reformed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae successfully vetoed by the Democrats. The one example Aye gives – actually passed in the HoR had a majority of Democrats voting for it! lol. His trying was weak and ineffectual. Indeed as I have mentioned his own administration greatly added to the problem with the HUD ratcheting up the main affordable-housing goal. You don’t deal or even try to deal with a problem by making it worst!

As for the Beltway/Fort Hood comparison, Missy in #60 tore you to shreds on that one. Way to go Missy!

lol right – 90% or more of Missy post was about how the Fort Hood terrorist was indeed a terrorist in contact with an islamic cleric. Except I don’t dispute that. However the finally line – which only deals with the Beltway shooting is telling that it doesn’t make sense. Malvo didn’t act alone – he was actually the minor along with John Allen Muhammad, a member of the Nation of Islam.

A series of trial exhibits indicated that Malvo and Muhammad were motivated by an affinity for Islamic Jihad.[34]

Exhibit 65-006: A self-portrait of Malvo in the cross hairs of a gun scope shouting, “ALLAH AKBAR!” The word “SALAAM” scrawled vertically. A lyric from Bob Marley’s Natural Mystic “Many more will have to suffer. Many more will have to die. Don’t ask me why.”
Exhibit 65-016: A portrait of Saddam Hussein with the words “INSHALLAH” and “The Protector,” surrounded by rockets labeled “chem” and “nuk.”
Exhibit 65-043: Father and son portrait of Malvo and Muhammad. “We will kill them all. Jihad.”
Exhibit 65-056: A self-portrait of Malvo as sniper, lying in wait, with his rifle. “JIHAD” written in bold letters.
Exhibit 65-067: A suicide bomber labeled “Hamas” walking into a McDonald’s restaurant. Another drawing of the Twin Towers burning captioned: “85 percent chance Zionists did this.” More scrawls: “ALLAH AKBAR,” “JIHAD” and “Islam will explode.”
Exhibit 65-103: A lion accompanies chapter and verse from the Koran (Sura 2:190): “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you and slay them wherever ye catch them.”
Exhibit 65-109: Portrait of Osama bin Laden, captioned “Servant of Allah.”
Exhibit 65-117: The White House drawn in crosshairs, surrounded by missiles, with a warning: “Sep. 11 we will ensure will look like a picnic to you” and “you will bleed to death little by little.”
Exhibit 65-101: Malvo’s thought for the day: “Islam the only true guidance, the way of peace.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_shootings

Clearly they were inspired by Jihad and they were enemies of the country they lived in. And as I say you don’t need a connection to a cleric or ‘sponsorship’ from a terrorist group to be a terrorist – it’s not like a work visa 😆 Isn’t Theodore Kaczynski a terrorist? Or doesn’t he qualify either?

0

@GaffaUK:

The FBI had advance indications of plans to hijack U.S. airliners and use them as weapons, but neither acted on them nor distributed the intelligence to local police agencies. From the moment of the September 11 attacks, high-ranking federal officials insisted that the terrorists’ method of operation surprised them. Many stick to that story. Actually, elements of the hijacking plan were known to the FBI as early as 1995 and, if coupled with current information, might have uncovered the plot.”

“advance indications…….might have uncovered the plot.”

Unless the threat was determined to be actionable or imminent our security agencies did not shut the country down. As far as “reports” our agencies get thousands of reports daily, our analysts and operatives do check them out to determine if they are worthy enough to be passed up the chain, actionable or imminent. As a rule they don’t rely on the Chicago Sun Times, History Commons or Wikipedia to determine what constitutes an actionable threat to our country. But, they do suffer the slings and arrows from armchair operatives who base their opinions on incomplete information and who aren’t taking a simple timeline of events or the pre-911 mindset into consideration before they, armed with muddle, point fingers.

Remarks Before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
George Tenet

The intelligence we provided to our senior policymakers about the threat al-Qa‘ida posed, its leadership, its operational span across over 60 countries, and the use of Afghanistan as a sanctuary was clear and direct. Warning was well understood—even if the timing and method of the attacks were not.

* The Intelligence Community had the right strategy and was making the right investments to position itself for the future and against al-Qa‘ida specifically.

* We made good progress across intelligence disciplines in attacking al-Qa‘ida. Disruptions, renditions, and sensitive collection activities no doubt saved lives.

* However, we never penetrated the 9/11 plot. While we positioned ourselves very well with extensive human and technical penetrations to facilitate the takedown of the Afghan sanctuary, we did not discern the specific 9/11 operational plot.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2004/tenet_testimony_04142004.html

Written Statement for the Record of the Director of Central Intelligence
Before the Joint Inquiry Committee

It is important for the American people to understand what CIA and the Intelligence Community were doing to try to prevent the attack that occurred — and to stop attacks, which al-Qa’ida has certainly planned and remains determined to attempt.

What I want to do this morning, as explicitly as I can, is to describe the war we have waged for years against al-Qa’ida — the level of effort, the planning, the focus, and the enormous courage and discipline shown by our officers throughout the world. It is important for the American people to understand how knowledge of the enemy translated into action around the globe—including the terrorist sanctuary of Afghanistan—before September 11.

~~~~
We need to be honest about the fact that our homeland is very difficult to protect. For strategic warning to be effective, there must be a dedicated program to address the vulnerabilities of our free and open society.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2002/dci_testimony_10172002.html

A 2004 USA Today article, “NORAD had drills of jets as weapons”, describes pre-9/11 NORAD drills that suggest they were prepared for such an attack as happened on 9/11:

All our forces drill, that NORAD had drills of that nature is no surprise, might be a surprise to those ignorant of how our forces constantly train for what is known and what may be forseen. To hyperventilate and attempt to make an issue of this and relate it to failure to prevent the attack is silly.

but neither acted on them nor distributed the intelligence to local police agencies

Hmmm, nothing mentioned about the the Gorelick Wall that didn’t crumble until the Patriot Act, after 9/11, here’s a twofer for you:

Jamie Gorelick’s ties to Fannie Mae and What She’s Doing Now–

In reading this article about Crony Capitalism at Fannie Mae (tip to Instapundit), I noticed that Jamie Gorelick was one of the Fannie executives who benefited from inflated bonuses based on Enron-style accounting. She was Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae from 1997 to 2003 (Fannie’s fraudulent accounting scheme was made public in 2004).

This is the same Jamie Gorelick who was Deputy Attorney General in the mid 1990s and was reported to have been the author of the Clinton Administration’s WALL against sharing intelligence data between foreign and domestic agencies. Without the policies instituted by Gorelick still in place in 2001, officials might have learned more about the 9/11 attacks before the planes hit the buildings.

The Wall Street Journal quoted Attorney General Ashcroft on the possible influence of Gorelick’s wall:

“In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall.

“When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists.

“At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, ‘Whatever has happened to this — someday someone will die — and wall or not — the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain ‘problems.’ ”

Testimony of Attorney General John Ashcroft
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

http://www.justice.gov/archive//ag/testimony/2004/041304terrorismtestimony.htm

1. The Gorelick Wall.

The idea that Jamie Gorelick was not responsible in any significant way for the Gorelick Wall has been exposed as nonsense. Gorelick’s March 4, 1995 memo explicitly provided:

“We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation” (emphases added).

U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, who was prosecuting the chief anti-terrorism case in NY, responded to Gorelick’s memo by writing to Gorelick, urging changes in her restrictive policy. The rejection of White’s recommendations was written by Michael Vatis, a conclusion endorsed in “Gorelick’s handwritten note to Attorney General Janet Reno. Ms. Gorelick wrote, ‘I have reviewed and concur in the Vatis/Garland recommendations for the reasons set forth in the Vatis memo.'”

Sen. John Cornyn “said, the newly released memos raised apparent conflicts with statements Ms. Gorelick has made recently defending herself and her role in the Clinton Justice Department.

‘These documents show what we’ve said all along: Commissioner Gorelick has special knowledge of the facts and circumstances leading up to the erection and buttressing of ‘that wall’ that, before the enactment of the Patriot Act, was the primary obstacle to the sharing of communications between law enforcement and intelligence agencies,’ Mr. Cornyn said.”

Gorelick’s Wall was a prominent example of the role of lawyers hampering anti-terrorist activities before 9/11, a problem outlined by Michael Scheuer (former head of the Bin Laden desk and no friend of the Bush Administration):

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_07_13-2008_07_19.shtml#1216060102

Michael Schuer’s intverview with Nora O’Donnell on Hardball:

O‘DONNELL: But many people have made the impression that something in the Bush administration was done wrong. But there‘s evidence that the Clinton administration knew full well that bin Laden had the wherewithal and was planning to attack the United States. Who is to blame and did the president, Clinton, get this information?

SCHEUER: Certainly the president got the information. And most certainly his closest adviser, Sandy Berger and Mr. Clarke—Richard Clarke, had the information from 1996 forward that bin Laden intended to attack the United States. There‘s no question of that. And in terms of which administration had more chances, Mr. Clinton‘s administration had far more chances to kill Osama bin Laden than Mr. Bush has until this day.

O‘DONNELL: . . . From what we know now and what you know, how many missed opportunities were there to prevent the 9/11 attacks?

SCHEUER: Well, we had—the question of whether or not we could have prevented the attacks is one you could debate forever. But we had at least eight to 10 chances to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in 1998 and 1999. And the government on all occasions decided that the information was not good enough to act. . . .

O‘DONNELL: Let me ask you what you know about what we‘ve read recently about a secret military operation known as Able Danger. There are people involved in that that say that the United States knew about Mohammed Atta a year before the 9/11 attacks. Is that true? And was there a massive failure by our government?

SCHEUER: I don‘t know firsthand information about Able Danger, ma‘am, but from what I‘ve read in the media, that the lawyers prevented them from passing the information to the FBI, that certainly rings true. The U.S. intelligence community is palsied by lawyers.

When we were going to capture Osama bin Laden, for example, the lawyers were more concerned with bin Laden‘s safety and his comfort than they were with the officers charged with capturing him. We had to build an ergonomically designed chair to put him in, special comfort in terms of how he was shackled into the chair. They even worried about what kind of tape to gag him with so it wouldn‘t irritate his beard. The lawyers are the bane of the intelligence community

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9005619/

Heh, Obama put CIA’s car in R:

Gary Berntsen led the CIA team in the mountains of Afghanistan before our troops arrived.

JANE SKINNER, HOST: Our next guest spent more than 20 years in the CIA, serving as chief of station on three separate occasions. He led counter-terrorist deployments in several parts of the world.

~~~~~~~

BERNTSEN: Well, I think, clearly, that President-elect Obama, like many other Democratic presidents, is a bit afraid of the agency. You know, if you look at Jimmy Carter, you know, he had Stansfield Turner there who gutted the place. Bill Clinton used John Deutch to gut the place, to reduce clandestine collection.

What is, you know, President-elect Obama’s intentions on this? What are Panetta’s intentions? That’s something, really, we need to understand. Are they going to focus on collection and analysis? Those are areas you have to really have work on.

Collection, the Ops part, though, requires, you know, a little bit of nerve. It requires the ability to sort of, you know, take risks. And, you know, someone who has worked in a bureaucracy may not be accustomed to the sorts of risks that are required. 🙄

SKINNER: But I assume during a confirmation hearing or any sort of hearing, he would be pressed on these questions. We heard from Dianne Feinstein today, the incoming intelligence chair saying, “I’d like to hear your answers, I can’t wait to hear your answers.”

BERNTSEN: During confirmation, he’s going to have to answer questions about what he was doing in the Clinton administration when al Qaeda was conducting exponential growth. You know, understand something that the growth that al Qaeda conducted in the `90s was done, much of it was done while Panetta was the chief of staff of the White House.

So, let’s see what he’s sort — I’d be very interested to hear what he’s going to have to say. I think he is a very interesting man. He’s a very, very bright guy. And I wouldn’t have been surprised if he’d be named vice president, but to run the agency? I’m not sure.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477455,00.html

PDB

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/August_6_PDB

0

So Gaffer admits I was right, Silly Bob chimes in with his usual rubbish and Missy STILL tears them both to shreds.

LOL

Silly Bob: You said:

Now keep forgetting, which party was in power from 2004 through 2007 a NEVER offered a single bill concerning Fannie and Freddie? Want to take a wild guess?

WRONG, this was covered already. Scroll up and read, that is if you aren’t too lazy.

Gaffer, thanks for admitting I was correct:

First you said:

Was failing to deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac doing the right thing and was the subsequent government take over of those companies part of Bush’s principals?

Then you admit I was correct when you said:

Oh I don’t doubt he tried.

0

@GaffaUK:

However the finally line – which only deals with the Beltway shooting is telling that it doesn’t make sense. Malvo didn’t act alone – he was actually the minor along with John Allen Muhammad, a member of the Nation of Islam.

I mixed up the names. Muhammad was evil, destroyed the lives of many families by murdering their family members and destroyed Malvo’s life as well. Yes, having an armed killer roaming your area would be terrifying, but he was a mass murdering coward. But being a member of the Nation of Islam is quite not the same as aligning oneself with al Qaeda. As a matter of fact:

The ‘Nation of Islam’ is Not Islam

There is a great deal of confusion about the group known as the Nation of Islam, currently led by Louis Farrakhan. Although the group’s name implies that it is part of the Islamic religion, its beliefs diverge so greatly from Islam that most Muslims consider it to be a different religion.

http://www.muhajabah.com/noi.htm

More about Muhammad:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general503.html

0

@Missy

We have whips in both houses for both parties that count yea or nay votes before a scheduled vote, if it’s not close they don’t bother with bringing it to the floor.

And this is the achilles heal of the whole Bush and his administration & party tried to avert the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae disaster. We have already seen the the majority of Democrats in the HoR had voted for reform in the vote for the H.R. 1461: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005. So how do we know that enough Democrats would have combined to defeat the S190: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005? Why didn’t the Republicans go ahead anyway – what would have been further lost if the bill have been defeated rather than lamely giving up? They might have won – and if they did lose by Democrats filibustering they could legitamately claim the Democrats blocks reform and so precipitated the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae disaster. Instead you can’t – as there is no evidence to show that Democrats blocked the bill by voting against reform.

Indeed it seems that a number of Republicans were against the bill…

In the midst of DCI’s yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,440681,00.html

So by all means print as many quotes from individual democrats as you like – but it’s irrelevant because the Republicans were the party in power who failed to put any reform package through and none of the reform bills we have discussed were voted down by the Democrats.

How come your timeline doesn’t mention H.R. 1461 – Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 and Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1427 – Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007? Two reform bills Bush opposed?

@Antics

Gaffer, thanks for admitting I was correct:

Except those two statements aren’t contradictory… 🙄

I’ll post this again and maybe you could re-read it slowly and see if any comprehension sets into your brain…

Oh I don’t doubt he tried. But trying is not the same as having dealt with the issue – as what he feared happened. So obviously the issue wasn’t dealt with as it happened. Pontificating about it isn’t dealing with the issue. His administration was unable to get through legistration through a congress they controlled and nowhere have I seen any bill that would have reformed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae successfully vetoed by the Democrats. The one example Aye gives – actually passed in the HoR had a majority of Democrats voting for it! lol. His trying was weak and ineffectual. Indeed as I have mentioned his own administration greatly added to the problem with the HUD ratcheting up the main affordable-housing goal. You don’t deal or even try to deal with a problem by making it worst!

So points out of 10 in trying to deal with the issue (a.k.a effort)? 5/10
Points out of 10 in actually having dealt with the issue (a.k.a attainment)? -5/10

So I reiterate that Bush comprehensively failed to deal with the issue of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Or in your world – if Obama simply points out issues then you are automatically satisfied that he has satisfactory dealt with the issue???? 😆

0

@GaffaUK:

And this is the achilles heal of the whole Bush and his administration & party tried to avert the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae disaster. We have already seen the the majority of Democrats in the HoR had voted for reform in the vote for the H.R. 1461:

We’ve all seen what Pelosi’s House of Representatives passed as well. Even though the democrats enjoyed super majorities in both houses….until last spring. Couple of big ones come to mind…..Cap and Trade? Card Check? other items that were sooooo important to the dem agenda, couldn’t get the super Senate, led by their own party, with a president ready to sign anything, to act.

To date during the 111th Congress, House members have expended enormous amounts of manpower and resources to craft, debate and pass 420 bills that the Senate has essentially ignored, according to a list released by Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office.

~~~~
“Unlike the house, we don’t have a Rules Committee that we can use to ram legislation over the objection of Republicans. Everything we do needs consensus,” said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

http://www.capitolnewsconnection.org/news/420-bills-passed-house-got-no-senate-attention

Up until last spring, they didn’t need consensus, the Republicans did not have the numbers to launch a filibuster.

When Hagel introduced the reform bill, the Republicans didn’t have the magic 60 to avert a filibuster. Frist would have already had noses counted and Senator Reid, Minority leader at the time, had said several times he wasn’t going to allow that bill to become law.

Prior to the monkey business that went on with the Hagel Senate 2005 bill…in 2006 mentioned in the article you provided, the Republicans attempted another bill:

Despite having some “problems” with the portfolio language in the bill, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky) urged the committee members to move the bill to the floor, where it would hopefully be passed and the measure would move to conference where, in the process of reconciling S. 190 with its House counterpart, H.R. 1461, “we can craft a bill that does what needs to be done.”

However, even before the vote, Bunning and other committee members both Republican and Democrat noted that S. 190’s lack of bipartisan support will make the bill’s movement an uphill battle.

“We came to this point last year, and we could not get a bipartisan consensus and no bill was put forward,” said Bunning. “Unfortunately, I believe we will have the same result. I believe we will move a bill out of committee, but without bipartisan consensus the bill will again go nowhere, and we will not have the world-class regulator we need.”–C.W.

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/532756-1.html

And, Hagel reintroduced the bill in January 07 ….that remained in the new chairman’s(Chris Dodd-D) desk.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1100

So, after the monkey business with S190, President Bush was still sounding the alarm for over two more years and the democrats kept telling all that the GSE’s were just fine, healthy as can be, and we all know what happened.

Now we have the Obama administration’s Treasury lifting the $400 billion cap and the billions the taxpayers are throwing down the Fannie/Freddie hole are non-budgetary, this year $126 billion just gets added to the deficit, probably more per year as this mess goes on.

watch from 5:20 on:

0

Ummmm Gaffe, all it took was for key dems to vote against it and the reforms went down. In fact, look at what dems voted against it. Unsuprisingly, the ones taking money from FM/FM. The GOP did not have a supermajority. At best it was a slim majority. Trying to comapre it to what the Dems have had until recently is a joke, but you know that.
In other words the claim stands. The GOP tried to pass the reform, and dems stopped it from happening. Your liberal dementia is tiring.
As for the warning about using airliners as weapons, I’ve seen a bit of it. It was SO VAGUE as to be useless. Your efforts to say he should have known only display your BDS.

I’m betting that next you’ll want to argue that Bush stole the 2000 election. 🙄

0

@Gaffer: Um, sorry you are wrong about being right…. lol

I took the time to scroll above and I still stand by my statement that you first say Bush did nothing, then that he tried to do something.

Dissemble all you want, but wrong is wrong.

0

Antics, Gaffe will never admit his views were built on a house of cards. Remove one and it all comes tumbling down.

0

Anyone else notice that Gaff is continuously changing the crux of his argument in an effort to make a some sort of point, or is it just me?

Gaff, I have answered some of your questions to me, and you’ve ignored them and put words in my mouth. Why should I continue to do so? Sometimes I don’t offer an opinion on certain things, because I don’t know enough about it. I don’t like to play rhetorical comparison games, they are meaningless.

0

@Cary:

He has wheels on his goal posts. 😉

0

@Missy

All our forces drill, that NORAD had drills of that nature is no surprise, might be a surprise to those ignorant of how our forces constantly train for what is known and what may be forseen. To hyperventilate and attempt to make an issue of this and relate it to failure to prevent the attack is silly.

Well certainly a surprise then for the ignorant National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice who
claimed no-one “could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile”. lol

If Gorelick’s wall was such an issue then why didn’t Bush’s administration simple remove it?

Clinton should of taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance but every President has to deal with the issues he inherits. Blame Clinton all you want – and for the most part I would agree – but as we are discussing Bush’s “Decision Points’ what action did Bush and his administration take or fail to take….

You mention Richard Clarke – let’s see how much the Bush Administration cared about national security in those key 9 months before 9/11…

Early warnings about Al-Qaeda threat
Clarke’s role as a counter-terrorism advisor in the months and years prior to 9/11 would lead to the central role he played in deconstructing what went wrong in the years that followed. Clarke and his communications with the Bush administration regarding bin Laden and associated terrorist plots targeting the United States were mentioned frequently in Condoleezza Rice’s public interview by the 9/11 investigatory commission on April 8, 2004. Of particular significance was a memo[7] from January 25, 2001 that Clarke had authored and sent to Rice. Along with making an urgent request for a meeting of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee to discuss the growing al-Qaeda threat in the greater Middle East, the memo also suggests strategies for combating al-Qaeda that might be adopted by the new Bush Administration.[8]

In his memoir, “Against All Enemies”, Clarke wrote that when he first briefed Rice on Al-Qaeda, in a January 2001 meeting, “her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before.” He also stated that Rice made a decision that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism should be downgraded. By demoting the office, the Administration sent a signal through the national security bureaucracy about the salience they assigned to terrorism. No longer would Clarke’s memos go to the President; instead they had to pass though a chain of command of National Security Advisor Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.

Within a week of the inauguration, I wrote to Rice and Hadley asking ‘urgently’ for a Principals, or Cabinet-level, meeting to review the imminent Al-Qaeda threat. Rice told me that the Principals Committee, which had been the first venue for terrorism policy discussions in the Clinton administration, would not address the issue until it had been ‘framed’ by the Deputies.[9]

At the first Deputies Committee meeting on Terrorism held in April 2001, Clarke strongly suggested that the U.S. put pressure on both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda by arming the Northern Alliance and other groups in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, that they target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the MQ-1 Predators. To which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz responded, “Well, I just don’t understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden.” Clarke replied that he was talking about bin Laden and his network because it posed “an immediate and serious threat to the United States.” According to Clarke, Wolfowitz turned to him and said, “You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don’t exist.”[9]

Clarke wrote in Against All Enemies that in the summer of 2001, the intelligence community was convinced of an imminent attack by al Qaeda, but could not get the attention of the highest levels of the Bush administration, most famously writing that Director of the Central Intelligence Agency George Tenet was running around with his “hair on fire”.[9]

At a July 5, 2001 White House gathering of the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI, Secret Service and INS, Clarke stated that “Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it’s going to happen soon.” Donald Kerrick, a three-star general who was a deputy National Security Advisor in the late Clinton administration and stayed on into the Bush administration, wrote Hadley a classified two-page memo stating that the NSA needed to “pay attention to Al-Qaida and counterterrorism” and that the U.S. would be “struck again.” As a result of writing that memo, he was not invited to any more meetings.

9/11 Commission

March 24, 2004, Clarke testified at the public 9/11 Commission hearings.[10] At the outset of his testimony Clarke offered an apology to the families of 9/11 victims and an acknowledgment that the government had failed: “I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11…”, “To the loved ones of the victims of 9/11, to them who are here in this room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn’t matter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness.”[10] Clarke was the only member of the Clinton or Bush Administrations who provided an apology to the family members of victims along with an acknowledgement of the government’s failure.

Many of the events Clarke recounted during the hearings were also published in his memoir. Among his highly critical statements regarding the Bush Administration, Clarke charged that before and during the 9/11 crisis, many in the administration were distracted from efforts against Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda organization by a pre-occupation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Clarke had written that on September 12, 2001, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and “testily” asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the CIA. The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying “Please update and resubmit”.[11] After initially denying that such a meeting between the President and Clarke took place, the White House later reversed its denial when others present backed Clarke’s version of the events.[12][13]

Prior to the 9/11 Commission portions of the Clarke’s August 6 Daily Briefing Memo to President Bush were subsequently redacted by The White House for national security reasons. Despite the title of the memo, in response to aggressive questioning from Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the 9/11 Commission, Rice stated that the document “did not warn of attacks inside the United States.” Clarke then asked on several occasions for early principals meetings on these issues, and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. No principals committee meetings on Al-Qaida were held until September 4, 2001.[14]

In a late November truthout interview, former Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal said, “Clarke urgently tried to draw the attention of the Bush administration to the threat of Al-Qaeda.. the Bush administration is trying to withhold documents from the 9/11 bipartisan commission. I believe one of the things that they do not want to be known is what happened on August 6, 2001. It was on that day that George W. Bush received his last, and one of the few, briefings on terrorism. I believe he told (Clarke) that he didn’t want to be briefed on this again, even though Clarke was panicked about the alarms he was hearing regarding potential attacks. Bush was blithe, indifferent, ultimately irresponsible... The public has a right to know what happened on August 6, what Bush did, what Condi Rice did, what all the rest of them did, and what Richard Clarke’s memos and statements were.”

Clearly the Bush administration wasn’t concerned about Al Qaeda nor were they listening to those in the intelligence community – particularly their own National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Richard Clarke. At least Clinton tried to take out Bin Laden (and lamely missed his chance) – but how many attempts did Bush try to capture Bin Laden before 9/11? It appears Al Qaeda wasn’t even on his radar!

0

@Gaffer: You said:

Clearly the Bush administration wasn’t concerned about Al Qaeda nor were they listening to those in the intelligence community…

And you are privy to the internal workings of any President of the United States’ inner circle of advisers, national security briefings (of which Bush had every morning by 6:30), Joint Chiefs of Staff meetings, etc… how?

0
1 2