Is This REALLY How Government is Supposed to Work???

Sounds good to me, too many cooks spoil the broth.

Besides, it has to be ratified by Congress, those blowhards will have their say. Why get them in until the groundwork is laid out?

You don't ask all your employees how to run a company Jeff.

DaDakota

 

Isn't calling the creation of a new Executive Branch Department "re-shaping the government" a little much? Can you imagine the dog & pony show on the Hill if they had asked for input? Open government is a cornerstone of our democracy, but I just don't see how this is a big deal.

 

Sorry Jeff, and I'm sure I'll regret this later, but I have to agree with the first two posters. As long as this has to be ratified by Congress anyway, I don't see the problem.

 

No, it's not. It's the most dramatic change to the executive arm of the government since the 1940s.

 

Ya'll aren't gonna believe this. How this dumb b*tch didn't know of Osama Bin Laden is beyond me. I was baffled after reading this article.

First Atta, then Marwan Al-Shehhi, Ahmed Alghamdi and Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan al Qadi Banihammad, all of whom died in the September attacks, tried to get loans from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Johnelle Bryant told ABCNEWS, speaking out to the public for the first time.
It was Atta who was the most persistent, and the most frightening, Bryant said in an exclusive, extensive interview in which she recounted how Atta railed against her when the loan was denied, asking her how she would like to see the destruction of Washington, D.C., and monuments there, which he observed in a picture on the wall of her Florida office.

Bryant recalled how Atta sat across from her with his "very scary" black eyes for more than an hour.

"His eyes, he had very scary-looking eyes. His eyes were black," she remembered. "How could somebody be that evil, be that close to me, and I didn't recognize it?"

Only after seeing Atta's picture in the newspaper did she realize who the man sitting inches away from her was, and alert the FBI of the interaction.

"I think it's very vital that the Americans realize that when these people come to the United States, they don't have a big 'T' on their forehead," she said, telling her story to ABCNEWS in defiance of direct orders from the USDA's Washington headquarters.

"They don't look like what you think a terrorist would look like," said Bryant.

"I had terrorists in my office, and I helped them," she said. "I gave them information unknowingly … And I'm afraid that there probably will be a next time, unless it's stopped from the ground-floor level by an American."

Financing for an Immigrant's Dream

According to Bryant, who has worked at the government agency for 16 years, Atta arrived in her office sometime between the end of April and the middle of May 2000, inquiring about a loan to finance an aircraft.

"At first, he refused to speak with me," said Bryant, remembering that Atta called her "but a female." Bryant explained that she was the manager, but he still refused to conduct business with her. Ultimately, she said, "I told him that if he was interested in getting a farm-service agency loan in my servicing area, then he would need to deal with me."

Throughout the interview, he continued to refer to Bryant as "but a female," and Bryant said, "He would say it with disgust."

During the initial applicant interview, Bryant was taking notes. "I wrote his name down, and I spelled it A-T-T-A-H, and he told me, 'No, A-T-T-A, as in Atta boy!' "

He said he had just arrived in the United States from Afghanistan "to start his dream, which was to go flight school and get his pilot's license, and work both as a charter pilot and a crop duster too," she said. He was seeking $650,000 for a crop-dusting business.

"He wanted to finance a twin-engine six-passenger aircraft … and remove the seats," said Bryant. "He said he was an engineer, and he wanted to build a chemical tank that would fit inside the aircraft and take up every available square inch of the aircraft except for where the pilot would be sitting."

When Bryant explained that there was an application process, Atta became "very agitated." He thought the loan would be in cash, and that he would have no trouble obtaining it to purchase an aircraft.

He also remarked about the lack of security in the building, pointing specifically to a safe behind Bryant's desk. "He asked me what would prevent him from going behind my desk and cutting my throat and making off with the millions of dollars in that safe," said Bryant, who explained that there was no money in the safe because loans are never given in cash, and also that she was trained in karate.

"He wanted to know how, once he became settled down in the United States, how he could take that kind of training," she says.

Bryant turned him down for the loan because as a non-U.S. citizen he did not meet the basic eligibility requirements and because the program is intended for actual farming purposes. But she referred him to other government agencies and to a bank downstairs.

He asked questions about whether his plans to be out of the country for a few weeks would interfere with his eligibility for a loan. "I think he said he needed to go to Madrid, and somewhere in Germany, and then there was a third country," said Bryant.

Being turned down for the loan altered the hijackers' plans. According to law enforcement officials, packing twin-engine planes with explosive chemicals, making it a flying bomb, had been the terrorists' plan since the mid-1990s. When Atta reported to his group that he could not get a loan to buy smaller planes, the plan was switched to hijacking passenger jets, according to what Abu Zabaydah, a top lieutenant of Osama bin Laden, has told American interrogators since his capture.

So in the fall of 2000, the hijackers who had been learning to fly small planes began to seek simulator training in the large jets they would fly into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Familiar Places, Unfamiliar Names

Before leaving Bryant's office, Atta became fixated with an aerial photo of Washington that was hanging on her office wall.

"He just said that it was one of the prettiest, the best he'd ever seen of Washington," she said, remembering that he was impressed with the panoramic view that captured all the monuments and buildings in one photograph, pointing specifically to the Pentagon and the White House.

"He pulled out a wad of cash," she said, "and started throwing money on my desk. He wanted that picture really bad."

Bryant indicated that the picture was not for sale, and he threw more money down.

"His look on his face became very bitter at that point," Bryant remembers. "I believe he said, 'How would America like it if another country destroyed that city and some of the monuments in it,' like the cities in his country had been destroyed?"

Atta also expressed an interest in visiting New York, specifically the World Trade Center, and asked Bryant about security there. He inquired about other American cities, including Phoenix, Los Angeles, Seattle and Chicago. Prompted by a souvenir she had on her desk, he also expressed interest in the Dallas Cowboys' football stadium, mentioning that the team was "America's team" and the stadium had a "hole in the roof."

Atta also talked about life in his country. "He mentioned al Qaeda, he mentioned Osama bin Laden," said Bryant. "I didn't know who Osama bin Laden was … He could have been a character on Star Wars for all I knew."

He boasted about the role that they would one day play. "He said this man would someday be known as the world's greatest leader," she said.

Bryant and Atta shook hands on his way out. "I told him I wished him luck with his endeavor," remembered Bryant.

‘How Could I Have Known?’

Bryant never thought to report her strange encounter because she thought she was just helping a new immigrant learn about the country.

"I felt that he was trying to make the cultural leap from the country that he came from, with all the violence, as compared to the United States," she says. "I was attempting, in every manner I could, to help him make his relocation into our country as easy for him as I could make it."

His questions about American cities, she assumed, were because he had moved to a new country and he wanted to find out about the major cities.

"How could I have known? I couldn't have known, prior to Sept. 11. I don't think anyone else would have either, if they'd been in my shoes that day," she says. "Should I have picked up the telephone and called someone? You can't ask me that more often than I have asked myself that … I don't know how I could possibly expect myself to have recognized what that man was. And yet sometimes I haven't forgiven myself."

But that wasn't the only time she saw Atta. He returned again, slightly disguised with glasses. He claimed to be an accountant for Marwan Al-Shehhi, who was with him, and said he wanted $500,000 to buy land for a sugar-cane farm.

Ahmed Alghamdi and Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan al Qadi Banihammad also came separately seeking loans, but were less successful in speaking with people.

Bryant hopes her story will serve as a warning to all Americans.

"The American people, the public, need to be aware that if these men can walk into my office, they can walk into your office, they can walk into anyone's office," she says.

"If they watch this interview and they see the type of questions that Atta asked me on my first encounter with that man, and then someone walks into another American's office and behaves in the same manner, then perhaps they will recognize a terrorist, and perhaps they will pick up the phone and make the call that I didn't make."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/ross_bryant020606.html

 

The problem is that when you don't get input from the people involved & affected, a bad plan is created. In terms of how important it is, who knows. I do know that apparently this affects the budget & responsibilities of a number of other departments. When 4 miscellaneous people are deciding what's important, something's wrong. No matter how smart they are, they don't have the detailed knowledge of what these departments do and why its all done that way. They simply can't be as familiar with those sections of government as the people who work in them day-to-day.

While Congress will have its say, its on a short leash right now. Republicans were virtually unanimously against creating a Dept of Homeland Security when Joe Lieberman proposed it (Democrats were very much for it). Now, when Bush proposed a nearly identical set up, everything is flipped. Democrats are skeptical, Republicans think its the greatest idea ever. So Congress making the best decision *after* the fact isn't a great thing. They need to help shape the thing.

Imagine if Clinton's health care plan had been drawn up by 4 or 5 people in secret, then released and pushed through Congress. If Clinton could have convinced enough Democrats quickly, he might have gotten a bad bill through. The chance for various interest groups, the public, Congress, and in this case, the departments affected, to really analyze and shape these policies is what makes the whole system work. They are the ones that find all the holes in the thing. While they'll still have that opportunity, it's not the same. Instead of designing the thing from scratch, they'll be trying to patch problems. What you get more often than not is a really convoluted mess in the end.

 

Jeff, you wouldn't like the government if it worked the way it's supposed to. You don't exactly strike me as a strict constructionist.

 

Jeff, this is just a proposed plan. The Congress is the only body that can authorize the creation of a cabinet level dept. This is just Bush's proposal, much like FDR's New Deal and Kennedy's Great Society. Congress can and will modify Bush's plan.

He can't change the govt without Congress. This is how govt is supposed to work, checks and balances.

 

We'll see how many think it's a bad idea when the vote goes down.

 

You are right, the Congress works for us. Not the president. The Congress is not a pushover and "tough on terror" is losing it's charm unfortunately. Congress is almost back to it's old self where the facts don't matter, just the party line does. These congressman do not want to lose their powerful commitees(sp?).

These agencies are not sharing information with each other like they are supposed to. They should be together under one branch to streamline the intelligence. This will not be an easy process though.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.homeland.security/index.html

 

I think that what really bothers me is not any specific instance like this, but rather the Bush Administration's attitude (especially noteable in Ashcroft). That they shouldn't be accountable to public scrutiny. It's sort of like they don't quite understand what Democracy is.

They best way I could describe their attitude would be that they feel it is more important to be effecient than to reach concensus. This is sort of intelectual hubris that lead to both the monolithic Soviet Union, as well as the Fascist Italian and German nightmares.

Democracy is slow, inefficent, and getting anything done is like pulling teeth. An omniscient, omnipotent dictator type would be a wonderful thing, people are less than perfect, and concensus is the only thing that maintains the balance.

 

what's so baffling? A LOT of Americans didn't know who OBL or Al Qaida was until AFTER 9/11...

 

Seeing as how Bush originally opposed making the Homeland Security post a cabinet position, this move seems like one based on 2004 considerations as anything else. Notice how the administration plays up the nuclear terrorist threats anytime there is news of intelligence failures from their end? It is amazing to me that this administration tried to keep congress from investigating what went wrong on 9-11 as long as it did. It's hardly like you could isolate blame to one party, president, or congress, but the Bush administration has been acting really dodgy about this question. If congress investigated Pearl Harbor during war, how would it be unpatriotic to see how our intelligence services blew it?
Also, was anybody else really alarmed the implications of Bush's West Point speech recently? In calling for pre-emptive strikes against terrorism, doesn't that possibly put the US on a permanent war footing? Can the US really go around and impose its will on other countries so overtly without creating more problems? Isn't this another complete reversal in Bush policy, like global warming recently? I thought Clinton shamelessly merged foregin policy and political machinations, but the Karl Rove team in this administration takes the cake.

 

Gee whiz, I always thought conservative Republicans were in favor of a smaller federal government. Silly me!

 

Homeland Security?
ok . . .this is difference from Defense .. how?
CIA? FBI?

Do we need the post?
Sounds like Bush wants to give Jeb or someone a new
important sounding job.

Jeff I agree. . the is almost as scary as Ashcroft
playing his J Edgar role snooping through your e-mails

Rocket River

 

Yeah, these Republicans are quickly turning into Nazis!

Which one is playing Himler?

I sure wish we had AlGore leading us in this fight.

I used to work in a very small Quaker school that ran by concensus. It took 10 minutes to decide from where to order pizza. I can't imagine running a government by concensus.

Lead, follow or protest and get out of the way!

<b>Otto</b>: how can characterize someone who holds a public office as thinking of themselves as being beyond public scrutiny? They make public policy. Don't they have a right to do their work in private? At worst, when Hillary did this with healthcare, she wasn't even an elected public official--- with NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

<b>RocketRiver</b>: Haven't the FBI and the CIA historically been rivals? Everyone wants credit for the collar! Isn't the purpose of the Homeland Security cabinet position to enforce high levels of cooperation and coordination which have obviously been long-missing?

GWB's announcement is a response to public acknowledgement as to how ineffective our intelligence operation is in toto with regards to coordination and cooperation. And for this he gets criticism? I can well imagine that he came out against it initially so as not to appear to be reacting too much-too quickly to the threat the Al Qaeda posed.

This is not a partisan thing. This is a bureacratic fatality.

 

Yes, your brutes who only read the sports page and comics and throw the rest of the paper away. OBL has been #1 on FBI's top 10 most wanted list for years. Granted Al-Qaida wasn't well known, but you'd think someone discussing stuff like "destroying cities" and throwing wads of cash on the desk would raise a red flag. Pursuing the dream of owning a crop duster- come on now. Common sense would tell you that something isn't right.

 

Don't they have a right to do their work in private? At worst, when Hillary did this with healthcare, she wasn't even an elected public official--- with NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

These people had no accountability either. They were just advisors who designed this plan. At least Hillary's program was done fairly publically and with input from the people affected (if I remember correctly). Her mistake was only talking to half the people involved (the ones who support Democrats). I'm not sure if that's better or worse than talking to none of the people involved.

Haven't the FBI and the CIA historically been rivals? Everyone wants credit for the collar!

That's how its portrayed, but these two agencies actually have far different roles. The FBI is law-enforcement. They primarily focus on investigations and hunt down criminals. CIA is more of an advance-warning type agency -- they are supposed to try to find criminals before they can do anything illegal.

GWB's announcement is a response to public acknowledgement as to how ineffective our intelligence operation is in toto with regards to coordination and cooperation.

They share important information. It's the little stuff that doesn't get shared because it gets filtered out before becoming important. There are thousands of suspicious things going on every day. Its easy to say after-the-fact that all these clues were there, but mix them in with 50,000 other warnings / concerns, and its not quite so obvious.

While there are some issues with inter-agency communication, I think its being blown up even more by the media and politicians who just want to blame someone.

I don't think anyone is questioning the need for better communication. It's the fact that Bush's team created this particular plan without actually consulting the organizations that need to be reformed. More information and input is ALWAYS better.