One percent Solution

[hcap]

According to Ron Suskinds' new book "One percent Solution", cheney postulates that even with a 1 percent chance of threats manifesting, they must be stopped in the early stage. You guessed it pre-emption on steroids.

OK This probably qualifies as less than 1 percent. But it sure makes 99% news of the scare you into gratitude for the continueing vigilence of da leedurs. Really was no need other than propaganda value to inflate it for more than what it was.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/06/cair-miami-cult-not-muslims-i-just-saw.html

"The group never got past the stage of talking big, and violently. They talked dangerously, and some sort of intervention was warranted. Since they begged the FBI informant for "shoes," they weren't exactly a well-heeled group that seems very dangerous in actual practice. And, to what extent did the FBI informant press an al-Qaeda connection on these otherwise clueless but imaginative zealots?

But contrast the grandstanding of Alberto Gonzales on this group of poor unarmed ghetto folk with the way in which the Robert J. Goldstein case was treated. He actually had the bombs in his house and was going to blow up Floridians. No press called him a "Jewish" terrorist and no questions were ever raised about his possible international links.

[ljb]

Rumors have it the Cheney Bush gang considered an invasion of Port au Prince but alas they have no oil. they are now checking stats on the Dominican Republic but things don't look much better there. :D Venezuela is still the country of choice for invasion. Lottsa oil there! We just have to make up some ties to Haiti and perhaps some fake wmd's would help fire up the populace. Yehaww ! Bring it on !

[Tom]

Weren't you the guys that whinned and cried about not connecting the dots and preventing 9-11?
Now we are doing it and you are the guys who wihine and cry.
Let me tell you, porofessinaly, what Chenney is doing is called failure mode and effects analysis - it the basis of quality control in all indutries. You come up with a risk probablitiy by accessing the potential failure mode (terror attack) the likelihood it will occurr, the severity or consequences if it does, and how likely re you to detect it if it does.
In the real world, 1% is considered high.
In Chenney's case, the probablity of the attack is 1$, the severity, involving death, is always 10, and our likelihood of knowing about it ahead of time is not good, another 10 to start. Risk priority = 1X10X10 = 100. Risk priority numbers of 30 are considered excessive. Some customers do not like to see anything over 10. And this is for things like your glove box door has a gap in it.
To reduce the number, you have three option - reduce the likelihood of occurrence, the severity ( not possible) or the chances of us knowing about it ahead of time. Whcih is exactly what we area doing,

I say, good work! Using industry standards to reduce real life problems.

[standaman]

Has Hcap ever written a positive post? What must life be like for this kind of person? She would probably make a perfect suicide bomber.

[sq764]

According to Ron Suskinds' new book "One percent Solution", cheney postulates that even with a 1 percent chance of threats manifesting, they must be stopped in the early stage. You guessed it pre-emption on steroids.

OK This probably qualifies as less than 1 percent. But it sure makes 99% news of the scare you into gratitude for the continueing vigilence of da leedurs. Really was no need other than propaganda value to inflate it for more than what it was.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/06/cair-miami-cult-not-muslims-i-just-saw.html

"The group never got past the stage of talking big, and violently. They talked dangerously, and some sort of intervention was warranted. Since they begged the FBI informant for "shoes," they weren't exactly a well-heeled group that seems very dangerous in actual practice. And, to what extent did the FBI informant press an al-Qaeda connection on these otherwise clueless but imaginative zealots?

But contrast the grandstanding of Alberto Gonzales on this group of poor unarmed ghetto folk with the way in which the Robert J. Goldstein case was treated. He actually had the bombs in his house and was going to blow up Floridians. No press called him a "Jewish" terrorist and no questions were ever raised about his possible international links.
I've posted on here periodically for 3 years now.. I took a hiatus and only selectively post anything anymore. WIth that being said, every single post I see from you is whining about bush or cheney or some republican.

Not trying to stir anything up, just curious what you are trying to accomplish by doing this and what are you doing in the way of trying to change it?

[hcap]

The .001% threat that these guys actually presented pales in comparison to the abject failure of our war preznit and his vice nitwit
Point 1-

In its first "Terrorism Index," released yesterday, the influential journal Foreign Affairs found surprising consensus among bipartisan experts. Some 86 percent of them said the world has grown more, not less, dangerous, despite President George W. Bush's claims that the U.S. is winning the war on terror…
The survey's participants included an ex-secretary of state and former heads of the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency, along with prominent members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment.

--"War on Terror Called a Failure: Washington's Diplomatic Efforts Rated a 1.8 out of a 10," Lynda Hurst, Toronto Star, June 15, 2006.


Point 2-

The book's ("The One Percent Doctrine," by Ronald Suskind) opening anecdote tells of an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001 memo titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied, "All right. You've covered your ass, now."
--"The Shadow of War, In a Surprising New Light," Barton Gellman, Washington Post, June 20, 2006.

Hey sq and stand do the math.
.001 % threat from the play ninjas wanting boots and terrorist uniforms, versus a world at least 25% more dangerous because of bush. And bush ignoring "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." According to darth cheney 1% is all that is needed to trigger pre-emptive action. "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US."I believe meets that criteria.

Shouldn't that memo triggered bush and cheney to do some checking? Wouldn't you say that represented a larger threat than the play ninjas Gonzales caught in a set up sting.


Oh yeah...Suskind again

"Keeping information away from the president, Mr. Suskind argues, was a calculated White House strategy that gave Mr. Bush "plausible deniability" from Mr. Cheney's point of view, and that perfectly meshed with the commander in chief's own impatience with policy details.

Suggesting that Mr. Bush deliberately did not read the full National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was delivered to the White House in the fall of 2002, Mr. Suskind writes, "Keeping certain knowledge from Bush--much of it shrouded, as well, by classification--meant that the president, whose each word circles the globe, could advance various strategies by saying whatever was needed….Whether Cheney's innovations were tailored to match Bush's inclinations, or vice versa, is almost immaterial…It was a firm fit. Under this strategic model, reading the entire N.I.E. would be problematic for Bush: it could hem in the president's rhetoric, a key weapon in the march to war. He would know too much."

--"Personality, Ideology, and Bush's Terror Wars," Michiko Kakutani, New York Times Book Review of Ron Suskind's "One Percent Doctrine," June 20, 2006.

reading the entire N.I.E. would be problematic for Bush: it could hem in the president's rhetoric, a key weapon in the march to war. He would know too much."


The Bush policy in Iraq has not made America safer, but has built a better terrorist.

[hcap]

A few other points about the.001% threat

No terrorist connections:

* Group "never met Bin Laden or had any contact with the terror kingpin's henchmen… In fact, they had no connection to any known terrorist organization." (NY Daily News)

No actual terrorist actions:

* No bomb making materials were found in the raids." (CNN.com)
* "Only overt acts described in the indictments were swearing oaths of allegiance to Al Qaeda and taking video footage of the F.B.I office." (NY Times)
* Six of the seven men indicted "are described only as driving (the leader) or the informer places or as attending meetings between the two." (NY Times)
* "Only devised a plot on paper." (Chicago Sun-Times)

Officials dismiss serious risk:

* Chicago Police: There was "No credible threat… They had no capability to (destroy the Sears tower). They never got to that point – or could have." (NY Daily News)
* Sears Tower executive: "Law enforcement continues to tell us that they have never found evidence of a credible terrorism threat against Sears Tower that has gone beyond criminal discussions." (Chicago Sun-Times)
* Senior federal law-enforcement source: "No means" to attack Sears Tower or other buildings. "There was no threat at all." (Chicago Tribune)
* Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communication Executive Director: "The plan developed in Florida was never an actual plan, and therefore, nobody was in danger" (CBS News)

The Sears Tower is the tallest building in North America and is known for its structural integrity. It is actually comprised of nine separate steel columns of different heights. While 9-11 showed what determined, well-supplied terrorists can do, a single wannabe amateur and a few bodyguards without any connections pose little threat, as the Chicago Police noted above.

The timing of the raid, given that there was no immediate operational threat, appears politically motivated. The Bush Administration wanted to scare Americans and tie the Iraq War to terror after a Senate debate on redeployment that very morning.

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/06/06/ana06048.html



Also

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/nation/14889641.htm

"The Justice Department unveiled the arrests with an orchestrated series of press conferences in two cities, but the severity of the charges compared with the seemingly amateurish-nature of the group raised concerns among civil libertarians.

"We're as puzzled as everyone else," said Howard Simon, the director of the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. "There's no weapons, no explosives, but this major announcement."

Ps they hadn't yet set aside time to become Muslims.

[Tom]

So is it a one percent or one one thousandth of a percent? 1% or .001%
Bit of a difference there.

But your advice is ignore this kind of stuff?
At what point in the evolution of an attack do you suggest action be taken?
After equipment is obtained, after the attack is committed, or early on - before it becomes a threat?

And if you are ever in an attack who will you call, the ACLU or the cops/FBI/CIA/Miliitary>

[MONEY]

American Civil Liberties Union


Is that the same organization that defends NAMBLA & the KKK? But fights even against the mere mentioning of God in public.

Aren't they referred to my many as the American Criminal Liberties Union?

[Suff]

Is that the same organization that defends NAMBLA & the KKK? But fights even against the mere mentioning of God in public.

Aren't they referred to my many as the American Criminal Liberties Union?

Are you familiar with the term pampleteer? The reason I bring it up is to make an agrument why the NAMBLA is a client of the ACLU.

Thomas Paine was a Radical Pampleteer. You may know, we get our name (United States of America) from Paine. He's also the father of our Declaration of Independence. The founders drew heavily from a phamplet he wrote entitled "Common Sense".

England, in an effort to stymie the revolution outlawed pampleteering. Essentially what that meant was if the Govt disagreed with an idea, then an individual could'nt disperse information to the contrary.

Now the Nambla case that has drawn the ire of many, centers on thier right to phamplet (via the web site) for the abolishment of the age of consent. Now, most reasonable people agree that an age of consent is an acceptable law. However the ability to lobby for the purpose of abolishing any law, is an American right. No matter how vile.

The case in question is a Massachusetts case, and I have some local knowledge of it. The ACLU is only defending thier right to pampleteer.
Also, the family of the Victim asserts that the two men convicted of the murder, were inspired by Nambla, and therefore Nambla is accountable in some way shape or form.

Forgetting for a minute the nature of the NAMBLA case. A similiar case might be Republican Senator Peter Coors. ( I'm comparing, not equating). His beer company lobbies and pampleteer's for lowering the age of consent to drink alcohol. If an 18 year old drives drunk and commits vehicular homicide, is Coors Brewery & Pete Coors accountable? Does Coors Brewery have the right to campaign for a lower drinking age? Of course they do.. Are they libel for the actions of people who drink alcohol? I think we'd agree that they are not.

So the Nambla case is a fringe case that centers on some basic first amendment rights. If a precedent is set,..... Either through legislative action, or a civil procedure then the wall is broken. Ultimatley free speech is weakned and a basic right to bring grievances to the Govt is weakened.

So perhaps you still take the position that you'd rather take your chances with the consequences, if NAMBLA was'nt provided a defense of its rights.

I could understand that. Maybe you think that the ACLU should just stay out of it and allow NAMBLA to take a hit. Again, I can see where that would be an understandble position.

The issue becomes, can you see?... Can you see how some people, in various capacities, can reconcile with the principle of the case, and not the nature of the client (NAMBLA).


Civil rights battles must be fought on the fringes so they never reach the middle.

[linrom1]

According to Ron Suskinds' new book "One percent Solution", cheney postulates that even with a 1 percent chance of threats manifesting, they must be stopped in the early stage. You guessed it pre-emption on steroids.

OK This probably qualifies as less than 1 percent. But it sure makes 99% news of the scare you into gratitude for the continueing vigilence of da leedurs. Really was no need other than propaganda value to inflate it for more than what it was.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/06/cair-miami-cult-not-muslims-i-just-saw.html

"The group never got past the stage of talking big, and violently. They talked dangerously, and some sort of intervention was warranted. Since they begged the FBI informant for "shoes," they weren't exactly a well-heeled group that seems very dangerous in actual practice. And, to what extent did the FBI informant press an al-Qaeda connection on these otherwise clueless but imaginative zealots?

But contrast the grandstanding of Alberto Gonzales on this group of poor unarmed ghetto folk with the way in which the Robert J. Goldstein case was treated. He actually had the bombs in his house and was going to blow up Floridians. No press called him a "Jewish" terrorist and no questions were ever raised about his possible international links.


Being an anti-Bush traditional Liberal like McGovern, and Humphrey nowadays will expose you on internet to various 911 conspiracy theories like that Pentagon was not hit by a plane, imploding buildings, radio controlled planes all with so called expert opinions by engineers and scientific experts etc, anti-Semites masquerading as Patriots, anti-American foreigners pretending to be Americans, and neo-Nazis with links to Islamists all bashing and blaming some group of make- believe neocons......The left is now up made up of fascists.

While I do not support the Iraq war, and think that Bush and Cheney should be impeached, I can’t figure out how for example lamenting that inner city terrorists wannabes are treated differently then Robert J. Goldstein was back in August of 2002 because he was “Jewish” diminishes the fact that these guys set out to harm Americans?

[Tom]

Suff,
No matter how you cut it, one CANNOT defend NAMBLA under any scenario.

[Tom]

While I do not support the Iraq war, and think that Bush and Cheney should be impeached, I can’t figure out how for example lamenting that inner city terrorists wannabes are treated differently then Robert J. Goldstein was back in August of 2002 because he was “Jewish” diminishes the fact that these guys set out to harm Americans?


Excellent post, linrom1 - you see the big picture here. We must seperate security from politics. You and I do not agree on a lot of issues, but we have something very important in common - we are us! Comes the time we have to act in unison.

[lsbets]

Being an anti-Bush traditional Liberal like McGovern, and Humphrey nowadays will expose you on internet to various 911 conspiracy theories like that Pentagon was not hit by a plane, imploding buildings, radio controlled planes all with so called expert opinions by engineers and scientific experts etc, anti-Semites masquerading as Patriots, anti-American foreigners pretending to be Americans, and neo-Nazis with links to Islamists all bashing and blaming some group of make- believe neocons......The left is now up made up of fascists.

While I do not support the Iraq war, and think that Bush and Cheney should be impeached, I can’t figure out how for example lamenting that inner city terrorists wannabes are treated differently then Robert J. Goldstein was back in August of 2002 because he was “Jewish” diminishes the fact that these guys set out to harm Americans?

Linrom, I don't know that I have agreed with anything that I have seen you post before, but this post leaves me with hope that there are liberals who still have common sense and can see who the radical left has chosen to ally themselves with as they are overcome by bushhate.

For those who want to jump all over linrom for this post, I suggest if you are not familiar with what she (am I correct on that?) you go back and read prior posts and you will see that they come from a decidedly anti-Bush point of view. If this post angers you, perhaps some good old fashioned soul searching would be best.

[Lefty]

suff, you're the one that likes to say everything is about money. Everytime the ACLU gets involved in cases they get -paid a lot of money by the local govts. They trash God, but defend Nambla. Hmmm, you can have em, I think they are dangerous and is it not true they were founded by a communist or communist sympathizer?

[hcap]

Tom I did mean 1/1000 th of ONE PERCENT. The threat that these wanabees presented was LAUGHABLE. I am not saying it should not be investigated, but in the scheme of things law enforcement and anti-terrorism have much bigger targets.

The problem as I see it is that the gov has pretty much gotten away with propaganda promoting their case with limited fact checking by the media.
Little Ricky and the ninjas stories were obviously more of the exagerations of danger methology of bush and his brain rove. Half-truthing is the general technique

The "one percent solution" doctrine is pretty shaky as a foreign policy. It is much more dubvious as an internal policy. How it applies to the ninjas is an example of how anything can be brought to the 1 percent threshold, and ballyhooed. There is no imaginary threshold of 1 %. A contionous spectrum from 0 % to major % is what exists in reality. Dealing with this requires anything from the individual cop on the beat, to every govermental agency and international cooperation.

Ignoring the possibility of a real threat is not what I am suggesting. But it should honestly appraise and deal with the actual theat level. Investigate, arrest if necessary, but don't play the public as suckers.

Gonzales and bush patting themselves on the back, bringing this to a news conference is just a game, using the general backdrop of the "war on terra" as a dramatic stage-setting in on-going catapulting of the propaganda.

[Suff]

For those who want to jump all over linrom for this post, I suggest if you are not familiar with what she (am I correct on that?) you go back and read prior posts and you will see that they come from a decidedly anti-Bush point of view. If this post angers you, perhaps some good old fashioned soul searching would be best.

Your kidding right? Your being tongue in cheek. At least I hope so.


Gives you hope? Hope for what? That Bush/Cheney are impeached as the poster suggests?

You have no interest in any soul searching. So your reccomendation for others to perform a spiritual excercise has a hollow feel to it.

Linrom feels impeachment is in order. Great....join the club.

I've been saying that for years, when it wasn't so mainstream to say. I've been called "crazy" for saying it. Now it is a legitament question on the Sunday Morning talk shows.


Just because people post less often in Off topic does'nt make thier view any less or more vaild. Its nonconsequential.

Anyone who thinks "neo-cons" are make believe isn't keeping up with the Jones. William Crystal refers to himself as a neo-con. It is not make beleive.

Faith in people, to navigate through information and make reasonable assumptions or decisions is a principle of a free society. To suggest people that are "exposed" to a certain ideology , ..that they'll then incooperate it conciously , or subconciuosly defies the entire American dream of a "free man".

To protect man, from man himself, we must preclude him from hearing certain ideas?? That is the premise of Linrom's thesis. It's false.

All ideas, if they be socialism, communism, democracy, facism, totalitarism are in mens minds. They are present in all political parties.

Linrom's seems to suggest that men need protection, Bywhom? A govt? A religion? A corporation? to immunize them from ideas.

Idea's are present on the table, and if you validate an idea by talking about it, or by embracing it, in Linroms theory, you are a victim.... a pawn.

Free men are enslaved in such ways.

[Tom]

ls....Ann was right! They DO eat thier young! :lol:

[linrom1]

Your kidding right? Your being tongue in cheek. At least I hope so.


Gives you hope? Hope for what? That Bush/Cheney are impeached as the poster suggests?

You have no interest in any soul searching. So your reccomendation for others to perform a spiritual excercise has a hollow feel to it.

Linrom feels impeachment is in order. Great....join the club.

I've been saying that for years, when it wasn't so mainstream to say. I've been called "crazy" for saying it. Now it is a legitament question on the Sunday Morning talk shows.


Just because people post less often in Off topic does'nt make thier view any less or more vaild. Its nonconsequential.

Anyone who thinks "neo-cons" are make believe isn't keeping up with the Jones. William Crystal refers to himself as a neo-con. It is not make beleive.

Faith in people, to navigate through information and make reasonable assumptions or decisions is a principle of a free society. To suggest people that are "exposed" to a certain ideology , ..that they'll then incooperate it conciously , or subconciuosly defies the entire American dream of a "free man".

To protect man, from man himself, we must preclude him from hearing certain ideas?? That is the premise of Linrom's thesis. It's false.

All ideas, if they be socialism, communism, democracy, facism, totalitarism are in mens minds. They are present in all political parties.

Linrom's seems to suggest that men need protection, Bywhom? A govt? A religion? A corporation? to immunize them from ideas.

Idea's are present on the table, and if you validate an idea by talking about it, or by embracing it, in Linroms theory, you are a victim.... a pawn.

Free men are enslaved in such ways.

That is not my point at all. My point is that the Left is likely to morph into hate groups, and thus I can't just look the other way.

I can't get over, for example, how Juan Cole attempts to white wash the Miami group links to Islam by pointing out its Judaic symbolism. I think that he is saying, "look folks, they're non-Muslims after all and they use Jewish/Hebrew symbols; anyway look at that potential Jewish terrorist Goldstein."

Juan Cole is a professor of history at U of Michigan, and a liberal blogger who like Ann Coulter uses politics of division. He is just as much as demagogue in my opinion.

[Suff]

[QUOTE]That is not my point at all. My point is that the Left is likely to morph into hate groups, and thus I can't just look the other way.

I know its not your main point, but I see more danger in your methodolgy than the one I subscribe to. My wording was strong.


I can't get over, for example, how Juan Cole attempts to white wash the Miami group links to Islam by pointing out its Judaic symbolism. I think that he is saying, "look folks, they're non-Muslims after all and they use Jewish/Hebrew symbols; anyway look at that potential Jewish terrorist Goldstein."

I believe that the neo-
Juan Cole is a professor of history at U of Michigan, and a liberal blogger who like Ann Coulter uses politics of division. He is just as much as demagogue in my opinion.
I know who Juan Cole is. I've been following his dilema and drama for sometime now....

I do know that to be critical of Isreal, or show any empathy for Isreal's adversaries is instant death at the pinnacle of America. Wether it be industry, acadamia or media.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/19/33613/4175



Cole, while refusing to comment on the tenure committee's vote, told The Jewish Week he believes that "the concerted press campaign by neoconservatives against me, which was a form of lobbying the higher administration, was inappropriate and a threat to academic integrity.
"The articles published in the Yale Standard, the New York Sun, the Wall Street Journal, Slate, and the Washington Times, as part of what was clearly an orchestrated campaign, contained made-up quotes, inaccuracies, and false charges," he said. "The idea that I am any sort of anti-Jewish racist because I think Israel would be better off without the occupied territories is bizarre, but I fear that a falsehood repeated often enough and in high enough places may begin to lose its air of absurdity."

[Suff]

Totally unrelated, I'd just like to tie in within the overall theme of idealism.

Cover story on www.CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/) today (6/25/06) nowhere on foxnews.

Brace yourself," billionaire Warren Buffett warned with a grin during an interview with Fortune magazine. He then described a momentous change in his thinking. Within months, he said, he would begin to give away his Berkshire Hathaway fortune, worth well over $40 billion. Most of it is going to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, he said.

The foundation supports predominately liberal causes. Heavily favored towards pro-choice I might add....



This last foundation was for 40 years known simply as the Buffett Foundation and was recently renamed in honor of Buffett's late wife, Susie, who died in 2004, at 72, after a stroke. Her will bestows about $2.5 billion on the foundation, to which her husband's gifts will be added. The foundation has mainly focused on reproductive health, family planning, and pro-choice causes, and on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Counting the gifts to all five foundations, Buffett will gradually but sharply reduce his holdings of Berkshire (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=BRK.B) (Charts (http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?symb=BRK.B)) stock. He now owns close to 31% of the company-worth nearly $44 billion in late June - and that proportion will ultimately be cut to around 5%. Sticking to his long-term intentions, Buffett says the residual 5%, worth about $6.8 billion today, will in time go for philanthropy also, perhaps in his lifetime and, if not, at his death



archived here


http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity1.fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes



I don't need a crowd to take a stand. Nor do I require a front man to defend my political views.

However here is the richest man #1, and the richest man #2 who are happen to agree with many of my views. And depsite the money, they aren't dopes either. So I'm in good company.

I'm loving this



In any case, Susie didn't get very excited when I told her we were going to get rich. She either didn't care or didn't believe me - probably both, in fact. But to the extent we did amass wealth, we were totally in sync about what to do with it - and that was to give it back to society.



In that, we agreed with Andrew Carnegie, who said that huge fortunes that flow in large part from society should in large part be returned to society. In my case, the ability to allocate capital would have had little utility unless I lived in a rich, populous country in which enormous quantities of marketable securities were traded and were sometimes ridiculously mispriced. And fortunately for me, that describes the U.S. in the second half of the last century.

[Tom]

So what happened to YOU? ;)