Deleted

Like he would ever go to the UK. I will say this about him, he can market himself well.

Ah, yes, Michael Savage. Well, your post explains a lot. Thanks for clearing things up.

You had better not be implying that I listen to Savage, that would be libel in its most heinous form.:p

You may be right. However, I don't believe this administration would have encouraged the constitutional excesses that are the hallmark of the TSA, nor would it have appointed the conservative judges who make up approximately 80% of the federal bench and appellate courts and have upheld these outrageous "administrative searches." Needless to say, this administration wouldn't have botched the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan and would have never entered into the disastrous Iraq War. And, finally, I suspect 9/11 would have been averted because this administration, unlike the previous one, wouldn't have politicized the intelligence community and ignored intelligence briefing.

Airport security is a good thing. I just wish we had some. Instead, we have TSA.

Yeah, you don't listen to him -- you just quote him.

Please tell me you were kidding. I always wished there was a "sarcasm" emoticon, or even a, "I didn't mean that seriously" one.

Politics wasn't the reason intelligence wasn't shared before 9/11. It was because we had built walls between those in the intelligence community, and those in the law enforcement community, and those walls were the product of forty-plus years of the cold war era.

With regard to security, I don't see this administration doing anything to roll back anything their predecessors did. If anything, it looks like they are going to push the envelope further out. So far, at least.

That's correct. It's the reason intelligence was ignored. The Bush administration refused to even listen to intelligence threat assessments from Clinton's intelligence teams.

I think solving the economic crisis, dealing with the possibility of nukes falling into the hands of the Taliban, devising a national health care program, and several other issues probably are higher on the list of Obama's priorities in the first hundred days.

I agree. Especially since now I'm listed in their lexicon as a terrorist because I disagree with the TSA, and immigration policy, and of most of all because I'm a veteran.

Treat the TSA screeners in the same manner that the TSA treats others. I give no quarter to the dragons teeth.

Bush did not have time to politicize the intelligence community before 9/11 and the attempt after 9/11to get everybody to work together birthed the DHS.

When your intelligence is nothing more than "something big may happen sometime" there is not a whole lot to go on. I hope that you do not honestly feel that Bush or any other President would allow, or be allowed to let, 3000 people die if there was solid intelligence about an attack. It would not have mattered who butt was sitting in the Presidential chair at the time, the result would have been the same. To pretend differently is politicizing 9/11. No need to politicize the attack anymore, a Democrat is in the White House with a majority in both houses.

Remember who voted for all these Constitutional excesses. The President has limited powers but I have not seen this one encourage the reversal of those excesses. How hard is it for him to pick up a phone and call Nappy and tell her to do a Constitutional review for the DHS’s agencies policies?

As for you last line, I am in 100% agreement.

Funny ain’t it?

It's still not shared. The "need to share" as I often heard while working for the government was lip service. Sounded good, but when it came to actually wanting to share information ... good luck. Policy dug in its heals and that information wasn't going anywhere. There were times I was flat out told it'd be easier to share information with other non-US agencies than it would be to share with another USG entity. Go figure.

Stovepiping is alive and well. It's pretty much going to take a cultural nuke to end it.

I'm the last person to defend the Bush administration or the "intelligence" community, but turf-consciousness and stove-piping are, in my experience, pretty much universal human tendencies. Nobody wants to do their job so well it goes away, even if that job is ending terrorism.

I remember a few years ago I wanted to compare something between my employer at the time and our two main competitors, so I had to get some info about all three. With a phone call or two, I got the info on our competitors, just by ringing up their customer care line. Two weeks later, our internal unit was still arguing with me, demanding to know "why I needed this information" and "what was it going to be used for". Same thing everywhere else.

Kidding about the libel? Of course, could you imagine that trial? "sniff sniff he said I listened to Michael Savage..."

"and you call yourself the Trollkiller?"

"well they were little trolls"

Anyhow I can't stand to listen to that show, but on occasion that was the only thing clear on the radio. I think I caught him three times and it was all the same show.

caller: Michael I just love your book Liber----
MS: Liberalism is a mental disorder, it is I prove it in my book, and this administration proves it further. blah blah (5 minutes) blah blah.

caller: What do you think about Hilla---
MS: Hillary Clinton is a far left blah blah (5 minutes) blah blah.

caller: well I just wanted to sa---
MS: I know how bad the Muslims hate me but I have to tell the truth blah blah (5 minutes) blah blah.

By this point I shut the radio off and listen to the wind blowing in the window.

I wasn't blaming Bush for it at all. If anything, it was the "post 9/11 world" that was trying to force agencies into sharing information. The IC was supposed to be set up for competitive analysis so different points of view about the same issue could be brought to the table. The theory was to get the big picture and prevent an agency from keeping the blinders on.

But theory and practice are two different things. Each agency has its own scope and it's quite possible to share information to accomplish everyone's purpose without compromising the turf each sits on. Bureaucrats just don't see it that way. They'd rather sit on the information and not share it when someone else could use it in a different way to help them. It was insanely stupid. I ended up leaving over stupid policy battles: people either wanted to protect their turfs at all costs (and often to the detriment ot the nation) or people were too lazy to do the work necessary to get the job done if they weren't opposed to the idea.

Sounds like you should have called your customer service line. :)

He had nine months -- that was, clearly, more than enough time since that's what happened.

I agree. However, when your intelligence is Al Qaeda intends to crash commercial aircraft into buildings, I'd say you have more than just a "hint."

No, I do not believe that Bush intended for anyone to die in the 9/11 attack. However, I do believe that is the direct consequence of his unwillingness to listen to briefings from Clinton administration officials, directly attributable to his partisanship, as well as his preoccupation with Iraq.

However, this discussion is getting way off topic and veering close to OMNI land. The question was, "Would we have an over-reaching DHS if 9/11 occurred during the present administration?" My answer is, "no, for a variety of reasons."

As much as I'd like to address the rest of your post, I don't think it's appropriate to do it in this thread.