Glenn Greenwald’s New Book

As so often, Glenn manages to evoke and explain a deeper issue behind our current discontent: the accountability deficit. It can translate into one rule of law for the elite and another for the rest. And so Lynndie England goes to jail while Dick Cheney, who authorized most of what she did, gets to peddle a book, go to DC cocktail parties and still be treated as some kind of statesman, as opposed to the war criminal he is. Then too, there's the lack of accountability among almost the entire moneyed crew who wrecked the global economy. And, of course, outside elections and trumped up partisan scandals, government officials also never answer personally for their errors. When they do, like Scooter Libby, the establishment demands for their release or pardon are deafening.

No event requires accountability more than the worst national security failure since Pearl Harbor. And yet 9/11 remains off-limits, when it comes to individual accountability or even serious accounts of how this massive failure occurred – despite evidence that the government had clear signs that an attack was imminent. From a must-read Horton interview with the former government top interrogator for al Qaeda (until he was big-footed by the torture-mongers), Ali Soufan, here's a classic exchange:

Q: The major still-unanswered question from 9/11 may be this: Why did the CIA keep information about Khalid Al-Mihdhar — the 9/11 team member who was identified before the attacks as having a U.S. visa and tracked into the United States — secret from the FBI and other law enforcement agencies? Clearly this information could have been used to stop the 9/11 plot, yet CIA officials lied about it repeatedly, and have never been held to account either for their failure to inform or their lies. Do you have an answer?

A: Sadly no.

To date we’ve never been told why the information wasn’t passed to the team investigating the USS Cole attack, the State Department, or the Immigration and Naturalization Service, nor why he wasn’t put on a no-fly list, all of which were required under U.S. law. The 9/11 Commission Report noted that “Mihdhar had been the weak link in al Qaeda’s operational planning, a mistake KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] realized could endanger the entire plan,” and listed the failure to place Mihdhar on a watchlist and notify the FBI that he had a U.S. visa as one of the mistakes that could have prevented 9/11. The CIA’s inspector general came to the same conclusion, and recommended that an “accountability board review the performance of the CTC chiefs.” But this never happened, and most of the inspector general’s report is classified.

On September 12, 2001, in Sanaa, Yemen, I was handed a file by the CIA that contained information our team investigating the USS Cole bombing had explicitly requested — on three occasions in writing from the director of the FBI to the CIA: in November 2000, April 2001, and June 2001 — concerning Al Qaeda operatives and meetings, which the CIA had said it didn’t have. It turned out the agency had had information on the 9/11 planning summit in Malaysia, and on Al Qaeda operatives we were looking for in Yemen (who had actually been in the U.S. and among the hijackers), among other intelligence that they were legally obligated to share, but hadn’t.

Ten years after 9/11, we don’t have an answer to your question.

Get angrier.

The First Popular Victory For Occupy Wall Street?

Bank of America has reversed its decision to charge debit users a monthly fee. Rita McGrath takes a first pass at a "case study in tone deafness": 

Remember when airlines first introduced baggage fees? There were howls of protest. People swore they were going to take their business and go … where? Almost every company in the industry grabbed the opportunity for some ancillary revenue and introduced baggage fees around the same time. Because all the competitors were doing it, passengers had little choice but to accept the fees. … Unfortunately for Bank of America, the other banks took one look at the angry hordes and decided to back off. The revenue raised was simply not worth the risk of customer anger. So B of A was stranded with a vastly unpopular program in a very competitive, low-interest-rate market where having lots of deposits is a competitive advantage.

Greg Sargent assesses the role of OWS:

Even if there’s no clear evidence Occupy Wall Street was directly responsible for [the] decision, chalk this up as another potential data point in the way the protests — as well as the resurgence in populism and the intense larger debate over inequality and Wall Street accountability they have spawned — are shifting the overall landscape.

Dave Weigel has more

Attack Ad Of The Day

Looks like the Dems are getting in on Huntsman's game:

Greg Sargent thinks the ad is a preview of Obama's broader strategy:

This video helps clarify the nature of the bet that Obama and his allies are placing on the mood of the country. They are wagering that resurgent populism and anger at Wall Street will still figure heavily in shaping the political atmosphere a year from now. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that Romney’s turnaround whiz kid routine will hold appeal amid the bad economy, they are betting that the charged atmosphere will ensure that this is exactly the wrong political moment for someone with Romney’s profile.

The Fundamentalist As Victim

Two of the more awful facets of our time fuse. An email from a Pentecostalist to an office gathering to celebrate another employee's looming same-sex nuptials:

I feel your message announcing the celebration of the "union" of [Employee A] and his "Partner" was offensive and insensitive to my religious faith as a Christian. I think it is general knowledge that the Christian faith only condones "marriages" between men and women, not men and other men. As acting Office Director, I feel you could have been more "sensitive" and "neutral" with regards to this issue.

The case was dismissed. As Eugene Volokh notes:

If you publicly complain about a colleague’s celebration, and a bunch of people respond by conspicuously congratulating the colleague, that’s disagreement — it’s not harassment.

Sometimes the terribly vulnerable Christianists do not quite grasp that distinction. Funny coming from those who celebrate freedom. But I guess their faith just isn't strong anough to withstand another human being's happiness.

Quote For The Day

"The bottom line is that I am a gay Christian and I made a decision to be around other Christians. I'm not alone and it is sad to see organizations shun people like me. I'd assume that if you're a strong Christian, you wouldn't need to turn those away who sin and instead you'd welcome them with open arms because they love Jesus," – an anonymous employee at Shorter University, where a new policy has made being gay (in addition to public drinking and not attending church) a fireable offense.

Did Cain Know That China Has Nukes?

Doesn't sound like it:

[Y]es [the Chinese are] a military threat. They’ve indicated that they’re trying to develop nuclear capability and they want to develop more aircraft carriers like we have. So yes, we have to consider them a military threat.

Bryan Preston pounces:

In the context above, Cain’s answer suggests that China lacks nuclear capability but is developing it. But China currently has more than 400 nuclear weapons (as of 1999, anyway). According to Nature News, it has 13 nuclear reactors online for producing electricity, with another 20 under construction. China became a nuclear power in 1964. For what it’s worth, Cain does get partial credit on the aircraft carriers, since China launched her first one in 2011.

Terrorism And Mental Illness

Mollie Ziegler unpacks the connection:

[W]hile it’s wrong to dismiss all religious extremism as the result of mental illness, there is an overlap between certain mental illnesses and outbursts of a religious nature. If you’ve ever had a family member with schizophrenia, for instance, chances are decent you’ve experienced this.

The Indispensability Of Insiders

Josh Barro sings their praises:

There are numerous policy areas where the hegemony of the Washington Establishment is the only thing saving America from popular but terrible ideas—trade, immigration, foreign aid. But perhaps the best example is TARP. This is a program that looks better every day, having prevented an acute collapse of the financial system at very little cost. But in the popular mythology, TARP was a grievous and expensive error that created the Too Big To Fail concept, rather than simply recognizing its existence. The populist view of TARP as one of the largest errors of 2008 rather than an example of policy success makes believe a weakening of the establishment will throw out the baby and keep the bathwater. It’s much safer to try to improve the Washington Consensus than to unleash the public on the levers of power.