Centerfield

It was interested to listen to Dick Cohen testify at the 9/11 commission today. While he was a Republican Senator, he was also a Clinton appointee. He argued that when they did those strikes in 98, the Republicans did not complain that too little was being done, but rather the opposite, that it was a "wag the dog" distraction from the President's sex scandal.

I heard the successor to Clarke in his White House position say on TV that, when it comes to reporting facts, Clarke is absolutely trustworthy. When it comes to interpreting the facts, mileage may vary. That sounds absolutely credible, unlike the ad hominem attacks against Clarke we've been hearing.

Thank you for publishing that follow-up collection of articles on the dubious grounds motivating the cruise missile attack in Sudan. I was embittered by that travesty after it became clear that the Sudan factory was merely manufacturing pharmaceuticals, and even more irate when the press basically ignored this fiasco and so few people seemed to care.

One of the lines in Jason Vest's Village Voice article captures the idiocy with concise magnificence:

"While the Domestic Lie will draw the wrath of Congress and the independent counsel and whip the Fourth Estate into a frenzy that flings all else aside, the National Security Lie- though more blatant and consequential- will be granted and allowed to fly off into the horizon of memory.

Case in point: Last August's obliteration of the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan."

Unless some new evidence surfaces out of nowhere, the bombing of Al Shifa was an outrage. It's difficult to conceive of a more useless and counterproductive response to the embassy bombings on Clinton's part; firing some cruise missiles at empty tents in Afghanistan, *and* taking out an essential manufacturer of medicines in Sudan. It seems that both sides of the aisle had a pronounced penchant to take steps, supposedly directed against Osama bin Laden, that were both deleterious for civilian populations and lackadaisically ineffectual.

Did anyone manage to catch Paul Krugman's recent op-ed, "Lifting the Shroud"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/opinion/23KRUG.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman

It's inspired by Richard Clarke's comments, of course, but Krugman makes a particularly damning assertion in the column:

"Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11? After 9/11 the F.B.I. requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism operations, but the White House slashed this by two-thirds."

Is this accurate? Did Bush really do something as colossally stupid and irresponsible as this (even as he freely pisses away hundreds of billions of $ in Iraq today)? Is there more to the story?

I've been undecided about the Presidential candidates up to this point, but if Krugman's claim is correct (and I'm not saying yet that it is), this makes up my mind; I'm voting for Kerry in an effort to toss our current simpleton-in-chief out of office. As an Independent voter, performance and on-the-ground decisions always trump ideology for me, and if the Administration was idiotic enough to tighten the spigot on counterterrorism funds while spending so profligately elsewhere, then IMHO Bush has to go.

Clarke speaks in Salon to address the spin against him:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/24/clarke/index.html

He specifically addresses the "loyalty" issue. It's well worth reading.

"when it comes to reporting facts, Clarke is absolutely trustworthy. When it comes to interpreting the facts, mileage may vary."

This is my impression exactly.

Wes, I'm awful leery of the fact you cite that Bush cut the FBI's anti-terrorist request of 1.5 billion by 2/3. Not leery of it's accuracy, but leery of what it signifies all by itself. Out of the context of anti-terrorist plans in their entirety, this strikes me as, by itself, evidence of nothing more than that Bush decided not to give the FBI 1.5 billion at that point in time. Far from "colossally stupid."

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it seems likely to me that just about every government agency asked for more money to fight terrorism. And if we had an unlimited amount, then fine, cut everyone a check. But we didn't have unlimited dough. So is it evidence of Bush's colossal stupidity every time he said no to a request for anti-terrorism funds? Of course not.

Especially when you consider that the FBI already had a counter-terrorism program, and were apparently unable to efficiently collect and digest anti-terrorist intelligence in its entirety. Bush established a department of homeland security so that counter-terrorism would not simply be one of the countless priorities of the FBI. This makes sense to me.

You said: "if the Administration was idiotic enough to tighten the spigot on counterterrorism funds while spending so profligately elsewhere, then IMHO Bush has to go..."

Well ok. But is the fact you cite actually evidence of an overall tightening of the spigot on counterterrorism funds? I have to say that no, it's not. Based on what you cite, it's not even clear that it's a decrease to the FBI. How much did they spend on counter-terrorism the year before? Is the 1.5 billion the total budget request for CT, or was this a request for supplementary funds? Do you see where I'm going?

"Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11? After 9/11 the F.B.I. requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism operations, but the White House slashed this by two-thirds."

Point of fact: At the time of the request, the total FBI budget for all operations, including CT funding, was $3 billion. The FBI asked to increase its total budget by 50%, all of the increase earmarked for CT. It received instead an extra $540 million, all of it earmarked for CT, an 18% increase in its overall total budget, and 400+% increase in CT funding for the agency.

So Krugman's "slashed by two-thirds," while technically accurate in the weasel-parsing mode so popular in campaign smears, actually was more than quadrupling the CT funds for the FBI. Hardly "tightening the spigot."

As an aside, the FBI was trying to become the lead agency on Homeland Security, with accompanying funding. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security was created, with a massive amount of new CT funding to spread across numerous agencies. Another "little something" that is relevant if you care about context at all.

For another take on Krugman's extremely selective use of quotation and fact, and his integrity as a "journalist," see yesterday's brief commentary on the editorial in question at Best of the Web Today, about halfway down under the head "The Great Unraveling." (Krugman's major source of "information" for his column is the Center for American Progess, a "non-partisan" think-tank run by ex-Clinton staffers and George Soros operatives. CAP places this "slashing" of funds in August 2001 on their own timeline, in what could reasonably be construed as an attempt to imply an existing budget being cut before 9/11. I'm surprised Krugman managed to not repeat the error.)

As I said, "...why it is dangerous to buy the party lines of noisy activists with overt agendas...And why it is folly to believe everything you read online or in the news."

ADDENDUM: Ari Fleischer's reply to Krugman's selective quotation--A Briefing by the Former Press Secretary

Thanks Tully. Once again leeriness turns out to be a feature, not a bug.

Condoleeze Rice, Head of our National Security, is nothing more than another quota passed all through the univ systems for years then on to sitting on her rear end and yakking in a worthless Univ Provost spot. Then, handed the National Security position to take care of security of this country. Sure she was competent and experienced enough to have such a position.

FYI: Two of the terorrist hijackers were living one freeway exit from the FBI headquarters in San Diego, CA for quite a while. Gore, the FBI Dir. in San Diego was allowed to quickly retire (with full benefits at a young age) before the Congr. investigations fully exposed his gross negligence.
The new San Diego DA (another incompetent quota type female who have absolutely no sense of their inabilities[ of which can easily elaborate when asked) then hired Gore as the County Security head to work with the Feds accompanied with typical PR releases.

Further: The highly paid Immigration agent for visas, who was part of the crew who committed gross negligence in this matter and others regarding immigration, was promoted to stroke her ego by being in all the media outlets as PR spoksperson for INS. By the way, this highly paid career INS bureaucrat was afraid to fly and had her mommy bring her to the airport whenever she had to fly out even though she lived about fifteen minutes from the airport.

I will say until the day I die: All bureaucrats, FBI agents, INS, etc. must pay the personal price of having pensions reduced to very basic survival level and/or required to go with the front line troops with the military for several years to face genuine personal accountability for their gross errors and the results.

Result of thirty years of more and more overeducated to idiocy idiots promoting their own type based on all the wrong paramets and too many attorneys (with sawdust left for thinking). They wouldn't hire anyone who thought out of the box. Have to be smart and savvy to recognize the same.

After WTC hit number one, embassy bombings,
Cole hit, etc. I have no doubts both administrations were outright stupid in dealtih with our security and left us vulnerable.

Janus

Sorry, are a few typos in my post.

Janus

I smell something burning.

"Not leery of it's accuracy, but leery of what it signifies all by itself. Out of the context of anti-terrorist plans in their entirety, this strikes me as, by itself, evidence of nothing more than that Bush decided not to give the FBI 1.5 billion at that point in time. "

Well, Tully's post substantiated some suspicions that I'd had initially, that perhaps Krugman may have been citing that statistic outside of a proper context.

"Well ok. But is the fact you cite actually evidence of an overall tightening of the spigot on counterterrorism funds? I have to say that no, it's not. Based on what you cite, it's not even clear that it's a decrease to the FBI. How much did they spend on counter-terrorism the year before? Is the 1.5 billion the total budget request for CT, or was this a request for supplementary funds? Do you see where I'm going?"

I understand what you're saying, and believe me I'm no stranger to the issue of scarce resources having to be allocated among many recipients. No program and no bureau will receive all the funding that it requests, including the FBI for counterterrorism; that's why I confronted Krugman's claim with some initial skepticism.

But what bothers me more than the absolute numbers is the indication of mixed-up priorities that the relative numbers in the budget seem to suggest. Compared to the $87 billion outlay for Iraq recently, and the hundreds of billions more spent on both Iraq and pork-barrel legislation, the FBI request seems to be a drop in the bucket in comparison, esp. for something so high priority in the discretionary budget as counterterrorism.

By analogy, if I had $3,000 in the bank for a given month and had to buy some security devices for my car in a rough neighborhood, I'd shell out a few hundred and take care of the relatively less costly critical expenses (locks on the car doors and a Club on the steering wheel) first before blowing $50,000 and putting myself in massive debt to buy that sleek new Jag with a deluxe GPS and burglar-alarm system of questionable efficacy (for which the security features are a peripheral attraction in the purchase anyway). We've bought the Jag but lack the Club. (Or maybe the Lojack these days...)

Still, that being said, I question whether the FBI figure is really an indication of what Krugman claims it is. I did smell something fishy about Krugman's numbers and Tully confirmed that for me. My sense is that Krugman may have selectively cited the FBI figures without considering the overall counterterrorism budget, which is more intricate post-9/11 than before and dispersed over more agencies (I know you were hinting at this too). Thus, the apparent "shortfall" vis-a-vis the FBI's request may not be an underfunding at all, but simply a change in the distribution of (overall increased) counterterrorism funds, allotted and apportioned in a way that's complex and easily misinterpreted. If so, then Krugman's claim is quite weaselly indeed.

The sheer enormity of the Iraq outlays still gives me pause about the Administration's priorities, but I don't trust the specious claims made by some in the other camp either, and this exercise with Krugman's column is Exhibit A. (Then again, Cheney apparently tried some similar duplicity with one of Kerry's votes vis-a-vis intelligence funding in the Senate.) It's so difficult to get a straight story from anyone in or around the halls of power without an ax grinding in the background. All the more reason why I'm glad the Founding Fathers introduced so many checks and balances into our system of government.

Total federal outlay for anti-terrorism programs and terror disaster preparedness in 2000, not including military budgets or "black budget" (NSA, CIA) items was well under $1 billion. I'm still figuring out how far under $1B, but definitely under.

Total new federal outlay for anti-terrorism programs and terror disaster preparedness in the budget for 2003 (not present in the 2000 budget), not including military budgets or "black budget" (NSA, CIA) items was nearly $20 billion. That's after subtracting out all the pre-determined outlays for the various departments under DHS, funds that included the earlier CT monies, so they wouldn't be counted twice.

I have not included "black budget" items for the simple and obvious reason that, by definition, we don't really know what they are. But I kinda doubt they declined!

Wes, you expressed the thought that federal CT spending seemed like a drop in the bucket compared to "outlays for Iraq." I would note that the press often refers to the total increases in military spending since 9/11 as "outlays for Iraq," without any breakdowns. Obviously, most of it is for Iraq, but much is for other military programs.

I won't make the argument here that almost all of the Afghanistan expenses and much of the Iraq expenses can rightfully be considered as anti-terrorism spending (it's an argument of political definitions and I'm not going there right now, I'm too busy) but it is something worth noting when considering total anti-terrorism spending, and something that can't possibly be ignored in any rational discussion of anti-terrorism spending.

I don't see how any credible claim can possibly be made that the Bush admin somehow "slashed funds" or "turned off the spigot" for counter-terrorism activities after 9/11 when CT spending has increased by at least an order of magnitude, verging on two. It's simply nonsensical. But the fringers keep ranting it, and otherwise reasonable and intelligent people keep believing them.

But who said campaign-year rhetoric was about reason or truth?

Intense research has led me to the conclusion that total anti-terrorism outlays, not just counter-terrorism but all programs, including miltary, NSA and CIA, were about $12 billion in 2001 on the pass-forward Clinton budget.

Fair enough, Tully. You've definitely done your homework here.