Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

(You can subscribe or donate by mail, as well as by PayPal.  See below.)

SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE - GREAT DAY SATURDAY!

DAY EIGHT

Normally, Saturdays are slow during our subscription drives.  This past Saturday was an exception, and I want to thank subscribers and donators, old and new, who made the day so successful.

But that is one day, and we must fight onward.   We suspended the subscription drive yesterday in deference to the 9-11 commemoration.  It rusumes today. 

URGENT AGENDA SERIOUSLY NEEDS SUBSCRIPTIONS AND DONATIONS TO CONTINUE OUR WORK AT A HIGH LEVEL.

I think we perform a valuable service here.  Many readers tell us that we're the first place they visit online each day.  That is very encouraging, and reflects the loyalty our readers have shown.  They know that Urgent Agenda is written for a special, intelligent audience, not a mass audience. 

But publishing Urgent Agenda is costly, and we count on subscribers and donators to keep us going.  Without you, we're history.  Our first two years showed dramatic growth, but this last year has been tougher.  Clearly, the economy is a factor.   But we must have a stable financial base in order to continue.

Once again we ask our regular stalwarts to consider expanding their subscriptions or making an additional donation.  And we ask our new readers to subscribe or donate.  Please don't put the burden entirely on a core group.

If you like what you see each day, and you want to be sure it's there tomorrow, please subscribe or donate.  You can do so by PayPal under SUBSCRIPTIONS, in the right hand column of this page, opposite these words. 

You can also subscribe by mail.  If you'd like to do that, just send us an e-mail at service@urgentagenda.com, and we'll reply with our mailing address.  (We don't like to publish it to avoid mailboxes stuffed with Viagra ads.)

The most important reason to subscribe or donate is to support our work.  But, in addition, you become a member of The Angel's Corner, and receive our twice-a-week e-mailed page, most of which is devoted to short essays by our readers, who are invited to comment on anything they wish, at whatever length they choose.  It is the liveliest part of Urgent Agenda.

We hope to have you aboard.

I appeared on Silvio Canto Jr's talk show from Dallas last night.  It's here.

SEPTEMBER 12,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:37 P.M. ET:

NOT WHAT THEY EXPECTED – College graduates are the fastest-growing group who have filed for bankruptcy protection in the last five years.  The percentage of bankrupts with a bachelor's degree rose from 11.2% in 2006 to 13.6% in 2012.  Obviously, statistics like this might discourage some kids, not eligible for scholarship money, from enrolling at all. 

FIRST REACTIONS – First reactions to tonight's debate are coming in.  Perhaps most telling, no one I'd regard as thoughtful is providing deep applause for Rick Perry.  We'll cover more of this in the morning, but there seems to be a widespread feeling that Perry didn't bring it home tonight, and that too many of his answers lacked substance.  I also thought it was striking that Sarah Palin, in an interview just after the debate, went after Perry, not Romney.  Palin gives some indication of shrewdly positioning herself as someone above party, which she did successfully in Alaska.

IRANIAN ARTISTIC EXPRESSION – Iran has banned half-naked men and love triangles from Iranian TV, in an act that will surely lead to higher levels of art and philosophy.  I have no doubt that Holywood, which always seeks the best moral guidance, will study this new directive with an eye toward elevating its own product.  Can't wait to see those fully dressed family men on the new Iranian hit series, "Let us Destroy the Great Satan While Fighting the Cross Worshippers and the Jews."  It's a comedy.

September 12, 2011       Permalink

END OF DEBATE COVERAGE

9:50 P.M. ET:  Last segment.  They're asked what they would bring to the White House.  This is silly stuff.  Padding.  Okay, the debate is now over.  It was raucous, but not particularly good.  We'll now watch all the pundit yapping that follows. 

9:48 P.M. ET:  The national-security segment was much too short.  They're on another break.  I think these debates should be reduced to 90 minutes.  Two hours is too long.  The eyes glaze over.

9:39 P.M. ET:  National security is up.  Always a critical issue.  Ron Paul is up with his left-wing foreign policy positions that would make Code Pink happy.  Nutbag.  Real nutbag.  Santorum answers very well.  Paul is up again, channelling Code Pink once more.  Fortunately, a good part of the audience booed Paul, which redeems the audience in my eyes.   Perry is giving a mushy answer – got to end our military effort in Afghanistan, but must do it safely.  Not much of an answer.

9:34 P.M. ET:  Hey, Romney is to the right of Rick Perry on immigration.  That's the headline.  They're still talking about it.  Perry holds his ground in defending his more liberalized immigration position.  One thing I really like about Perry:  He doesn't fold just because someone disagrees with him.  He's no bowl of jelly.

9:27 P.M. ET:  The subject is illegal immigration.  Now this is interesting.  Perry's view of illegal immigration is actually more liberal than that of the others on the panel.  And he got booed by the audience.  (That may actually help him with general voters.)  On this Perry is articulate and passionate.  But his views, on this subject, are not popular with Republicans.  Fascinating little bit. 

9:22 P.M. ET:  They're on a break.  I'm not impressed with the debate so far.  I thought the last one was better.  The raucous audience isn't improving things.  Wolf Blitzer's questions are fair and intelligent, a far cry from the obvious bias we saw in the questions asked at the last debate.  I think Romney actually has better answers than Perry, especially in an election that will be decided by independents, but Perry has that visceral gut appeal that can't be denied.

9:16 P.M. ET:  They're talking health care.  I think that, despite the controversy over Romneycare in Massachusetts, Romney came out well ahead here because he knew the subject better than anyone.  He also had specific proposals.  Again, Perry told us what he's against. 

9:07 P.M. ET:  They're talking about executive orders and presidents and governors seizing too much power.  This is inside baseball.  I don't think it has resonance with the average voter.  I'm impressed with Rick Perry's admission that an order he gave requiring a certain vaccine to be given to young girls in Texas was wrongly handled.  He explained how he'd do it now, but also explained why he gave the order.  He sounded good and sincere.  However, when the camera isn't focused on Perry, and you see him in the background, he seems to be sneering at the other candidates.  You're always on when the camera is on, and he's got to correct that.

8:55 P.M. ET:  Back on economics.  They're talking about the Fed.  Bachmann is asked about Perry's statement of several weeks back that Fed Chairman Ben Bernarke is engaged in treasonous behavior.  The audience applauds.  This is kook stuff.  You don't accuse people of treason loosely.  This is a throwback to an old Republican Party that almost destroyed itself on several occasions.  Perry tries to explain the use of the term, but, in a general election, that kind of stuff doesn't play. 

8:53 P.M. ET:  They're on a break.  Summary thus far:  It's between Romney and Perry, but a highly biased pro-Perry audience is disrupting things.  I get the sense that the audience is way to the right of the nation generally, and I'm interested in winning an election.

8:37 P.M. ET:  Question is how the candidates would restore the economy.  Perry has some ideas, but Michele Bachmann steals the show with a really good presentation of what needs to be done.   And Herman Cain is great. 
Romney is up, but it is so clear that the Tea Party audience is against him, and is making it difficult for him.  Perry has appeal to the party base, and Romney doesn't.  But, as I've said before, I'm not sure Ronald Reagan would make it with this crowd, and that gives gray hair.  No home runs on the economic issues, but traditional GOP ideas, and good ones.

8:30 P.M. ET:  Talking about government spending.  Perry on, very effective about things done in Texas.  Romney on, also effective.  Money is his issue (and he has plenty of it).  Other candidates speak.  I am frightened by the applause Ron Paul gets over his isolationist principles.  Every one of these rounds of applause confirms the worst impressions of the Tea Party.

8:14 P.M. ET:  First question deals with reforming Social Security.  Bachmann says it must be modernized.  No ideas, though.  Perry on.  Stands his ground that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, but, again, no specific ideas on fixing it.  Romney on.  Goes after Perry, who wrote that the program is unconstitutional.  An effective attack.  Perry responds.  Gets applause from the Tea Party audience, but his actual reply is vague.  Great two-man Q and A between Perry and Romney.  I thought Romney got the best of it, but the Tea Party audience disagreed. 

Ron Paul gets on and says we have to stop all this foreign war stuff.  Audience applauds. YUCH!  The audience is not doing the GOP much good when it applauds isolationism.  The Tea Party has declined dramatically in popularity, and maybe we're seeing why.  Ronald Reagan would not make it with this crowd.

Newt is on.  Wants to privatize Social Security.  Santorum has some stuff.  But the real debate is between Romney and Perry.  Perry is effective in criticizing the program, but must get down to details.  He'll be debating Obama, poor president, great candidate.

8:11 P.M. ET:  Candidates make opening statements.  Nothing special.  No scandals, no breakthroughs.

8:09 P.M. ET:  Wolf Blitzer announces the rules.  Wolf is a pretty straight shooter, and I don't think there'll be a bias problem. 

8:05 P.M. ET:  The debate program begins.  The lead-in reminded me of how they introduce figure-skating contests, will little personal descriptions of the candidates.  I expected to see Mitt Romney perform a double axel, but it just didn't happen.

This is a Tea Party audience, and, when introduced, Perry got much greater applause than Romney. 

September 12, 2011     Permalink

We're now starting our live-blogging of the GOP debate.  It's on CNN.

PERRY ROMPS IN PRE-DEBATE POLL – AT 7:51 P.M. ET:   In a few minutes we'll start live-blogging the GOP debate from Tampa.  A pre-debate poll shows Perry with a decisive lead, which means he'll be the main target of opportunity tonight.  From the New York Post:

ATLANTA -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry has emerged as the firm frontrunner in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, according to a poll released Monday, outpacing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney among declared candidates by 32 percent to 21 percent.

Registered Republicans over 50 favor Perry over Romney by 41 percent to 22 percent, according to the latest CNN poll. Among those over 65, Perry leads Romney by a whopping three-to-one margin, showing seniors have not been scared by Perry's provocative language about Social Security being a failure and a Ponzi scheme.

The former Massachusetts governor hopes to scare voters away from Perry by arguing that the Texan would be a weaker foe against President Barack Obama in the general election.

But voters see things differently. In the CNN poll, 42 percent thought Perry had the best chance of beating Obama, compared to 26 percent for Romney.

The numbers are not much better when it comes to another core plank of the Romney campaign: that as a former businessman, Romney is the best equipped to turn the economy around.

Asked who in the GOP field would be most likely to "get the economy moving," 35 percent favored Perry, while 26 percent favored Romney.

The poll also underscored the plunge in support for Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann. Among a field that also included the name of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Bachmann won the support of just four percent of registered Republicans, down from 10 percent last month and 12 percent in July.

COMMENT:  Perry has taken Bachmann's supporters.  If she can't turn it around quickly, I'm afraid she's out of it. 

But I don't think Perry has this won.  Romney has substantial resources and an appeal to the center.  This two-man battle will develop over the next few months.

Question:  If Sarah Palin gets in, will she take votes from Perry?  Possibly.  That will be intriguing.

Romney won the endorsement of former Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota.  Pawlenty is a good man, but his endorsement means little.

Perry is expected to be endorsed by Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, a favorite among Republicans.  That means something.  It also places Jindal on the v.p. list.

Stand by.

September 12, 2011       Permalink

MARKET JITTERS – AT 9:49 A.M. ET:  There are economic worries aplenty this morning.  The debt crisis in Europe gets worse and worse.  You may have noticed that Europe has difficulty solving grown-up problems.  Stocks are dramatically down on European exchanges.  Our own markets opened lower.  There is real foreboding that nothing is going in the right direction.  From Bloomberg:

U.S. stock futures tumbled, indicating the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index will extend last week’s decline, as speculation Germany is preparing for a Greek default spurred turmoil in global financial markets.

Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) slumped at least 1.3 percent, following losses in European banks, and as Citigroup Inc. slashed its third-quarter profit estimates for the U.S. lenders. Caterpillar Inc. and Alcoa Inc. (AA), which are among companies most-dependent on economic growth, decreased more than 2.1 percent...

...“There’s so much anxiety among investors,” Richard Sichel, who oversees $1.6 billion as chief investment officer at Philadelphia Trust Co., said in a telephone interview. “There’s troubling news out of Europe. People are concerned that if Greece defaults, there could be a ripple effect. It’s fear of the unknown. There’s an abundance of bad news overseas. And in the U.S., the economic news has not really been enough to boost confidence.”

COMMENT:  The president presents his jobs bill to Congress today.  (Can you sense the excitement?)  It's unlikely to gain much traction in its original form.  There's a sense that time is wasting, and no real economic progress is being made.

September 12, 2011       Permalink

THE GREAT AWAKENING (CHOKE) – AT 9:09 A.M. ET:   Many foreign nations are like spoiled teenagers.  The more we do for them, the more they abuse us and show their ingratitude.  Now that we may be pulling back, they're starting to worry about their meal tickets...and defense tickets.  From Max Boot at Contentions:

I have to admit I chuckled while reading Philip Stephens’s op-ed in the Friday Financial Times on “The dangers of American retreat.” Now they tell us.

After spending years complaining about the overweening arrogance and unilateralism of the “hyperpower,” Europeans are now fretting that we are a crippled giant that will no longer be willing to defend them–something they are unwilling, indeed unable, to do for themselves because of the enormous costs of their welfare states. As Stephens notes, even “the emerging powers”–the likes of India, Brazil, Turkey and China–”have prospered from the security and opportunity afforded by U.S. oversight of a rules-based system. They are not yet ready to shoulder the burden. A Hobbesian world will be uncomfortable for the rising and the risen alike. Some – think of India, Vietnam or Indonesia– already see the U.S. as a balancing force.”

Should we send them thank-you notes, or what?

Glad the Europeans are now discovering the benefits of American hegemony–just when it appears to be endangered by a combination of fiscal short-sightedness and lack of political will in Washington. Luckily, the fundamentals of American power–whether demographic or economic–remain sound. There is no reason why we have to retreat and decline–and I see little desire among the American public to accept a secondary role in the world.

COMMENT:  I certainly hope Max Boot is right.  But he goes on to warn that the American role can come crashing down if, as some in Washington threaten, the defense budget is irresponsibly slashed.  The left wing of the Democratic Party is eager to slash it, and will be eager to slash it still more.  They believe we're a force for evil.  And, sadly, som green-eyeshade Republicans, nostalgic for simpler times, seem ready to go along with drastic defense cuts to prevent any tax increases. 

This country's future survival, and its influence, will depend heavily on the state of its defenses.  I deeply fear that there are some in Washington who do not accept that premise, and they have powerful support in journalism and the academy.  The next year will shape our budgetary future for as much as a decade.  We can be responsible, or slide into the European mentality, which many in this administration worship.  It may be a close call.

September 12, 2011       Permalink

THE NEW SCOTT BROWN? – AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  All political eyes will be on Tampa tonight, but tomorrow they will shift to the 9th Congressional District in New York.   Polls suggest that we may see the biggest political upset since Scott Brown won the Senate seat in Massachusetts previously occupied by Ted Kennedy. 

The 9th, a heavily Democratic district, will see a special election to replace disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner.  Ordinarily, the GOP would put up only a token candidate in a district like this.  But Bob Turner, this year's Republican nominee, has chosen to fight.  And he's ahead.  And it's because Obama is so unpopular.  From The Daily Caller:

Two days before the special election in New York’s 9th Congressional District, yet another poll confirms that Bob Turner, the Republican, holds an improbable lead in the heavily Democratic district.

A Public Policy Polling poll released Sunday night found Turner leading his Democratic opponent, David Weprin, by a 47–41 margin. A Siena poll released last week found Turner leading by the same split, 50 to 44 percent.

Weprin and Turner are competing to fill the House seat vacated by former Congressman Anthony Weiner.

Turner has a strong lead with independent voters, 58 percent of whom say they will vote for him. Just 26 percent plan to vote for Weprin. Turner also has the majority of the Jewish vote, a demographic that makes up 36 percent of the district according to PPP’s results. Fifty-six percent of Jews say they will vote for Turner, while 39 percent say they have chosen Weprin.

The Turner campaign has claimed that Tuesday’s election will be a referendum on Obama’s presidency, and specifically on his policies relating to Israel.

The PPP poll illustrates a major shift in the district, which Obama won with 55 percent of the vote in 2008. Now, the President’s approval rating there is just 31 percent, with 56 percent of the district’s voters disapproving of his job performance. Twenty-three percent of voters who pulled the lever for Obama in 2008 say they will cross party lines and vote for Turner on Tuesday. By contrast, Weprin has attracted the support of just 8 percent of McCain voters.

COMMENT:  We stress that special elections are won by turnout.  The Democratic Party in New York still has a large turnout operation.  We'll follow the result tomorrow night.  But even the possibility of an upset in such a Dem district has got to concern the White House. 

September 12, 2011       Permalink

TUMULT IN TAMPA – AT 8:18 A.M. ET:  We alerted readers last night in our "Short Takes" that there'll be a Republican debate in Tampa tonight, broadcast by CNN and hosted by CNN and the Tea Party.   This will be Rick Perry's second time at bat against the other GOP contenders. 

Perry knows he's in trouble because he called Social Security a "Ponzi scheme."  Now, it may well be a Ponzi scheme, but voters may well interpret Perry's words as an attack on Social Security itself.  It is by far the most popular government program.

Perry has now tried to preempt the attacks he'll get tonight by publishing a piece in USA Today on Social Security: 

The first step to fixing a problem is honestly admitting there is a problem. America's goal must be to fix Social Security by making it more financially sound and sustainable for the long term. But Americans deserve a frank and honest discussion of the dire financial challenges facing the nearly 80-year-old program.

As I said at the Reagan Library recently, Social Security benefits for current recipients and those nearing retirement must be protected. For younger workers, we must consider reforms to make Social Security financially viable.

It's hard to dispute those first two paragraphs.  Perry goes on to explain how Social Security is headed for red ink.  And he says we have to fix it.

And there's the problem.  He has no solution.  He doesn't propose anything other than "fixing" Social Security.  This is not only Perry's problem, it can become the GOP problem in the election – too few solutions chasing too many criticisms.  The Republican brand is not popular, as every survey shows.  It will only rise in popularity if voters believe the party has real answers, not just slings and arrows. 

Do read the Perry column.  It was obviously rushed out, and it falls short.

This must be Perry's month.  There are several more debates scheduled for September, after tonight's.  Perry is ahead in the polls, and is much loved by the base.  But he is weak among independents, and doesn't poll as well in matchups with Obama as Romney does. 

I'll be intrigued to see how Perry holds up tonight after an acceptable, but not home-run-class, debut in the debates last week.  I'll also be intrigued to see how Romney, who's slipped from frontrunner status, handles Perry, whom he must obliterate.  At least it's getting to be fun, but I'm not sold on any of the candidates yet.

There is still talk that Giuliani and/or Palin might enter the race.  It's getting awfully late, and candidates wear out their welcome by playing coy.  Both must make their decisions this month.

I would still prefer to see Marco Rubio in the race, for I believe he can defeat Obama, and possibly do it handily.  But I don't think he'll jump in.

September 12, 2011     Permalink

SEPTEMBER 11,  2011

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:25 P.M. ET:

STILL VIGILANT – Although some intelligence authorities are downplaying reports of a possible terrorist attack on America, timed to the 9-11 remembrance, law enforcement continues to take the threat seriously and will remain on high alert.  We tend to forget that there have been more than 40 attempts to attack the American homeland since 9-11.  One attack, at Fort Hood, succeeded.  Some argue that we spend too much effort worrying about this, that far more people are killed in car accidents.  That may be a valid argument...except that if we didn't expend great effort on counterterrorism, there'd be more successful attacks, possibly with WMD, and the casualty rate would soar.

WE'RE SORRY THEY'RE BORED – The New York Times reports that, while there were ceremonies marking 9-11 in many foreign countries, these nations, especially in Europe, were becoming "weary" of the commemorations.  We deeply apologize to these countries for recalling the deaths of 3,000 people.  We hate to be rude, but we intend to keep remembering, just as European countries will continue to trash their own histories and cultures.  Let's see who comes out better.

DEBATE TOMORROW – Another televised Republican debate will be held tomorrow, in Tampa.  Michele Bachmann is reported to be planning an attack on Rick Perry, centering on Perry's Social Security statements.  Perry has stolen some of Bachmann's thunder, and she's got to weaken him to get back in the game.  At the same time, Mitt Romney is also going after Perry on Social Security.  We have no reporting yet on how Perry intends to respond to the attacks.  How he does so will indicate whether he really is the shrewd, savvy campaigner he's been made out to be, or just the flavor of the month.  (8-10 p.m. ET, on CNN)

September 11, 2011      Permalink

WARPED HISTORY – AT 9:44 P.M. ET:  As we end this day of remembrance, we might reflect on how easy it is to distort history for political gain.  We see it all the time.  We have lived the lie, for much more than a generation now, that the United States lost the Vietnam War, when in fact we never lost a battle in Vietnam.

There are other myths and lies that get circulated, some by cranks, some by "serious" historians with an ideology to promote, some by journalists covering their own mistakes.  One of the greatest myths of the 9-11 era is that everyone loved America right after the attacks, that the world was gushing sympathy, and that Bush and Cheney ruined that international harmony.  That is wildly inaccurate.

Janet Daley, of London's Telegraph, an American-born journalist, reminds us of the vicious anti-Americanism that erupted right after the attacks, as the bodies were still burning in New York and Washington.  She reminds us of something we see over and over – how the political left swings into action to turn any event to its advantage:

Anyone who claims that the latest fashionable wave of political hatred for the US has been provoked by the Iraq war should look at the press coverage that sprang up in the first 48 to 72 hours after the attacks. When the invasion of Afghanistan – let alone Iraq – was only a possibility on the horizon, when the death toll was climbing into the thousands, and when people here were still desperately trying to contact American friends and family, sections of the British media were already engaged in a frenzy of vitriolic retribution.

The Guardian led the way, of course, with a now infamous series of comment pieces which reiterated the same vengeful theme: America had got what it deserved.

Its pages were filled with callous triumphalism ("They can't see why they are hated", "A bully with a bloody nose is still a bully") alternating with frank threats: until the US changes its policy on the Middle East, it will continue to suffer terrorist attacks – which turned out, thankfully, to be wrong. (Oddly, there were no claims that the Spanish had got what they deserved after the later Madrid bombings, even though that incident was related to the Islamist goal of re-establishing the caliphate.)

The then comment editor of The Guardian, Seamus Milne, wrote a column last week in which he defended his choice of articles at that time with a bizarre post hoc justification: since America had indeed become enmeshed in military invasions after the attacks, this proved that his contributors had been right all along.

He and his comrades (I use the word advisedly) still seem incapable of grasping what was so profoundly offensive about this coverage: it was not a matter of politics, but of basic human decency. Would they accost a widow at her husband's funeral to shout that the idiot got what was coming to him, because he had smoked two packs of cigarettes a day and never taken any exercise? What sort of people behave like this? What sort of country had I chosen to live in?

Then the BBC followed with an outrageous edition of Question Time, in which the audience shrieked abuse at anyone on the panel who uttered a word of sympathy for the US, and openly cheered the idea that the attacks were justified. Some of my New York friends were rung from London within days by people they had known for years to be told: "You know what everybody is saying here – that America got what it deserved."

And...

Now the refrain is: America lost an opportunity to examine its role and question its assumptions. Why, in other words, couldn't it have revelled in the kind of self-doubt and identity crisis that has become Europe's chronic condition?

COMMENT:  People forget that the now-famous headline after 9-11 in the French newspaper, Le Monde – "We are all Americans now" – actually topped a largely anti-American editorial. 

And four days after the attacks, a small group of loonies at Pace University, five blocks from Ground Zero, held an anti-American rally...as the ashes of their fellow citizens continued to rain down on their school.

Just some corrections of common myths.

September 11, 2011       Permalink

THE CONNECTION – AT 11:34 A.M. ET:  Former Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who is a national defense Democrat (a rare breed) is charging that new information points to Saudi collaboration in the 9-11 attacks.  This is fascinating stuff, and Graham is a cautious guy.  From the St. Petersburg Times: 

SARASOTA — Weeks after terrorists brought down the World Trade Center, FBI agents swarmed into a Sarasota gated community to investigate the mysterious disappearance of a wealthy young Saudi couple who apparently had ties to some of the hijackers.

The couple and their two children abandoned their home abruptly, just a week or so before Sept. 11, leaving behind cars, furniture and food on countertops.

According to one published report, the FBI discovered phone calls between the house and at least two of the hijackers and several other terrorism suspects stretching back a year.

Yet until a Fort Lauderdale website reported the news this week, no mention of the couple has ever appeared publicly — not in the Sept. 11 commission report, nor in FBI briefings to congressional investigators, former Florida Sen. Bob Graham said Friday.

Graham called on President Barack Obama to reopen the case.

"This is the most important thing about 9/11 to surface in the last seven or eight years,'' Graham told the St. Petersburg Times. "It's very important for the White House to take control of this situation. The key umbrella question is: What was the full extent of Saudi involvement prior to 9/11 and why did the U.S. administration cover this up?''

The Sarasota revelations parallel earlier information about a Saudi government employee who had lived in California for years, Graham said. That man, Omar al-Bayoumi, had paid for a San Diego apartment for two of the hijackers, funneled them money and then left the United States in July 2011.

COMMENT:  Our relationship with Saudi Arabia has always been marked by scandal.  The Saudi lobby, operating through oil companies, defense contractors, influential Washington figures, and, yes, universities, is rarely reported on.  Money talks, and the Saudis have vast amounts of money.  They have bought silence.

It is often said that most American ambassadors to Saudi Arabia wind up on the Saudi payroll.  It is no secret that the Saudis finance Mideast studies departments and professorships.  The unspeakable Jimmy Carter has written of vacationing with former Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar.  I doubt if Jimmy paid his own way. 

Graham is right.  This subject should be reopened.  However, it will not be, as it violates the "Muslim outreach" of the Obama administration. 

I hope that some enterprising journalist goes to work on the story.

September 11, 2011      Permalink 

THE CONFLICT CONTINUES – AT 10:52 A.M. ET:  As we reflect, others fight.  From AP:

KABUL, Afghanistan — Nearly 80 American soldiers were wounded and two Afghan civilians were killed in a Taliban truck bombing targeting an American base in eastern Afghanistan, NATO said Sunday, a stark reminder that the war in Afghanistan still rages 10 years after the Sept. 11 terror attacks against the United States.

The blast, which occurred late Saturday, shaved the facades from shops outside the Combat Outpost Sayed Abad in Wardak province and broke windows in government offices nearby, said Roshana Wardak, a former parliamentarian who runs a clinic in the nearby town of the same name. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack.

Eight wounded civilians were brought to Wardak's clinic, two of them with wounds serious enough that they were sent to Kabul. She said one 3-year-old girl died of her wounds on the way to the clinic.

The attack was carried out by a Taliban suicide bomber who detonated a large bomb inside a truck carrying firewood, NATO said. It was unclear how many foreign and Afghan soldiers were serving on the base.

COMMENT:  We don't know, of course, whether this attack was timed to coincide with our memorial events here, but the Taliban clearly sent a message that it's still alive and effective. 

There is, by the way, no new information on the alleged terror plot reportedly directed against the United States, and timed for the 9-11 remembrance.  Some intelligence officials are downplaying the reports of the last few days, stressing that they're uncorroborated.  But security forces, especially in New York and Washington, remain on high alert.

September 11, 2011       Permalink

THIS DAY – AT 10:25 A.M. ET:  Americans will appropriately mark the 10th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks today. 

Most who note the day publicly will do so with dignity.  A few, including some of our journalistic brothers and sister, will not.  Prepare yourself for some moving ceremonies, and also from some tasteless columns.  Paul Krugman's post at The New York Times is perhaps the most vulgar I've read thus far, accusing former President Bush and former New York Mayor Giuliani of cashing in on the tragedy.  Real class.

It's proper, during this commemoration, to review the events of the past ten years.  It is also proper for the media to reflect on itself and its role.  There is a dramatic difference between the press of World War II and the press of today.  In World War II, as a University of New Zealand study indicated some years ago, the Western media understood the importance of the war, what was at stake, and the nature of the enemy.  The media of today was shaped by the cynical era of the 1960s, and the warped reporting from Vietnam, which seemed to emphasize every American setback, and underplay every American success. 

Wars, it is said, are won by the side that makes the fewest mistakes.   Coverage of a war, including the war on terror, must be informed by that reality.  The media can enlighten and inspire.  But it can also mislead, distort and discourage. On this day, members of the journalistic profession (or trade) might take some moments to hold their own commemoration and ask, with integrity, "How did we do?"  The record will be very mixed.  To cite just one example, we are endlessly reminded that we didn't find WMD stockpiles in Iraq, and the reminders often some with sinister suggestions that we invaded Iraq under false premises.  But while stockpiles were not found, the WMD programs themselves were indeed found, and were ready to be restarted.  Leaving out that fact, as press reports often do, distorts the reality of Iraq.  It is a disservice to truth and to the nation.  But the disservice continues. 

This country may live or die based on the quality of its press.  We have seen the devastating effects of mythology that passes for journalism in the Muslim world, and, yes, in parts of Europe.  Some questions are required on this day.

September 11, 2011     Permalink