Happy Thanksgiving, suckers!!

Did you really expect the Bush Administration to go quietly?

Federal authorities are warning police of a possible terror plot against the New York City subway and train systems during the holiday season, prompting local officials to beef up security at stations. An internal memo obtained by The Associated Press says the FBI has received a "plausible but unsubstantiated" report that al-Qaida terrorists in late September may have discussed attacking the subway system.

A person briefed on the matter, speaking to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the intelligence-gathering work, said the threat may also be directed at the passenger rail lines running through New York, such as Amtrak and the Long Island Rail Road, which are particularly busy with Thanksgiving holiday travelers.

A U.S. counterterror official, also speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to do so publicly, said senior government officials have been briefed because the FBI very recently received credible information about possible attacks over the holiday season, and authorities are particularly concerned about this long holiday weekend.

Yes, folks, here we go again.

Time, June 27, 2004:

As the July 4 holiday approaches, Bush Administration officials are bombarding the nation's police, fire, emergency and corporate-security offices with another round of terrorism warnings. Although there are no plans to raise the threat level from yellow to orange, a senior Justice Department official says, "there's very serious intelligence that's corroborated, that's multiple sourced, that indicates that al-Qaeda is intent on hitting us and hitting us hard this year." The official concedes, however, that "we don't have specific information."

Along with this now familiar general warning, the FBI has introduced the specter of a new terrorism threat: booby-trapped beer coolers. A lightly classified bulletin sent to 18,000 state and local agencies last week advised local authorities to look out for plastic-foam containers, inner tubes and other waterborne flotsam commonly seen around marinas that could be rigged to blow up on contact. Also, the bulletin warned, terrorists might attach bombs to buoys. FBI and Department of Homeland Security officials say no such devices have actually been discovered, nor is there any current intelligence that terrorists are hatching plots involving floating bombs. But some officials believe al-Qaeda may be focusing on harbors and shipping channels in an effort to replicate the success of the October 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in the port of Aden, in which suicide bombers used a small launch laden with explosives to rip a 40-ft. hole in the warship's hull, killing 17 sailors.

CNN, 21/21/2003 (via the East Carolinian):

The Department of Homeland Security raised the U.S. terror threat level from elevated to high Sunday, warning of possible terrorist strikes more devastating than the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said the move was the result of a "substantial increase" in the volume of intelligence pointing to "near-term attacks that could either rival or exceed what we experienced on September 11."

Ridge urged the public to be patient with stricter security measures "in the coming days and weeks" and to proceed with holiday plans despite the threat.

"America is a country that will not be bent by terror," he said.

A senior administration official familiar with the decision said the volume of threats was "significantly higher" and was coming from known sources but that there was "nothing site-specific."

Top officials discussed the matter among themselves and with President Bush for several days. The intelligence "reached the level at which we felt this is [the] right decision, to ramp up in time for [the] holidays," the senior administration official said.

I guess Keith Olbermann will have to update his "nexus of politics and terror":

I just have one question: If George W. Bush has kept us safe, why do they need to try to scare people right before the holidays? Whether Bush likes it or not, he's still in charge until January 20.

The timing of yet another "nonspecific" warning to which we shouldn't react with alarm, right before a holiday, coinciding with today's horrific attacks in Mumbai, and fast on the heels of media scrutiny given to the bailout of Citigroup, done on the weekend when no one was paying attention and right after one of Bush's Saudi buddies took a bigger stake in the company, is all too reminiscent of threats the Bushistas have done in the past when their doings were drawing attention.

So why DID we just throw a truckload of money at Citigroup then?

Did the Bush Administration just shovel a ton of taxpayer money at Citigroup in order to shore up an investment for his Saudi pals? It sure looks that way.

I don't recall seeing or reading anywhere in the American mainstream media last week that Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal had invested $349 million in the ailing banking giant, did you?

The Guardian, Thursday, November 20:

Saudi Arabian prince Alwaleed bin Talal has come to the rescue of Citigroup with a much-needed cash injection today.

The surprise turnaround ended a two-year selloff that has wiped more than $200bn (£135bn) from the bank's market value.

The Saudi prince will increase his stake from about 4 to 5% in the coming days.

The move initially filled investors with confidence and sparked a buying spree before the bell. The shares surged 25 cents to $6.65, but then fell back to tumble by another 17.5%. Yesterday, they fell more than 22% in a single session while the stock is down more than 90% since 2006.

Based on Wednesday evening's closing price, the prince plans to invest about $349m of his fortune in Citigroup shares.

In a statement released at 9am in New York, Talal said he believed Citi's shares were "dramatically undervalued" and expressed "full and complete support to Citi management" including the embattled chief executive, Vikram Pandit.

He said the New York-based bank was "taking all the necessary steps to position the company to withstand the challenges facing the banking industry and the global economy".

Talal said he was "fully confident that Citigroup's universal banking model and global franchise will make it a long-term winner in the financial services industry".

Then suddenly, over the weekend when everyone is watching football and crowding the supermarkets buying turkey and cranberries, suddenly out of nowhere the Fed pumps $20 billion into the company, and lo and behold, on Monday the company's stock rises over 57 percent. Not a bad one-day haul for Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

But then, George W. Bush has always taken good care of his Saudi friends, even at the expense of, oh, say, almost 3000 people's lives on a sunny day in September seven years ago.

Bin Talal owns five percent of Citigroup. The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority took a 4.9% stake almost exactly a year ago.

But aside from helping one of Bush's Saudi buddies get a nice one-day return on his money, will the Citigroup bailout help stabilize the financial markets? We can has recovery now?

Hardly:

In the short term, the latest effort to steady Citigroup has removed the risk that a sudden failure of the giant bank would send losses cascading through the financial industry.

But longer term, the new bailout could haunt regulators and taxpayers. The move ultimately may encourage banks to take more risks in the belief that the government will step in if they run into trouble.

With a recession looming, if not here already, banks big and small are bracing for more loans to sour, particularly those related to commercial real estate, autos and credit cards. Many are making fewer loans, even though the industry has received nearly $300 billion from the government.

Before long, anxious investors may start wondering which banks will be vulnerable next. If confidence fades, other big lenders will probably seek deals like Citigroup’s, in which the government has pledged to pick up potentially $290 billion in additional losses. Regulators drafted the plan with an eye to using it as a template for future bailouts.

There are other worries for Citigroup’s big rivals. Almost overnight, Citigroup went from being the sick man of the industry to an institution with an edge over its competitors. The government is guaranteeing $250 billion of risky assets and pumping an additional $20 billion into the bank.

With the government behind it, Citigroup may now be able to borrow money in the capital markets at lower interest rates than its peers.

“Citi has a decided advantage over them because of the loss-sharing agreement,” said John Kanas, the former chief executive of North Fork Bank of Long Island. While banks may hold out for now, it may be only a matter of time before they too line up, several analysts said.

And at least until January 20, the question of whether the Bush Administration puts some coin in their tin cup will depend on whether they have Bush cronies like the Saudi royal family as major shareholders. But then, it was always thus with this administration.

Bitchslapped by his best friends

Even the Saudis have now had quite enough of C-Plus Caligula's Iraq adventure:

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told Arab leaders on Wednesday that the American occupation of Iraq is “illegal,” and he warned that unless Arab governments settle their differences, foreign powers like the United States would continue to dictate the region’s politics.

The king’s speech, at the opening of the Arab League summit meeting here, underscored growing differences between Saudi Arabia and the Bush administration as the Saudis take on a greater regional leadership role, partly at American urging. The Saudis seem to be emphasizing that they will not be beholden to the policies of their longtime ally.

[snip]

Last week, the Saudi king abruptly canceled his appearance at an April White House dinner planned in his honor, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday. The official reason given for the cancellation was a scheduling conflict.

Mustapha Hamarneh, director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan, said the Saudis are sending Washington a message. “They are telling the U.S. they need to listen to their allies rather than imposing decisions on them and always taking Israel’s side.”

In his speech on Wednesday, the king said: “In the beloved Iraq, the bloodshed is continuing under an illegal foreign occupation and detestable sectarianism. The blame should fall on us, the leaders of the Arab nation, with our ongoing differences, our refusal to walk the path of unity. All that has made the nation lose its confidence in us.”

King Abdullah has not publicly spoken so harshly about the American-led Iraq war before and his remarks suggested that his alliance with Washington may be less strong that Bush officials have been hoping.

Gee, ya think? Count the Bush family's relationship with the House of Saud as yet one more thing that the Family Fuckup has wrecked. George Herbert Walker Bush spent years building his relationship with the House of Saud, only to watch his son destroy it, because the Saudi royal family doesn't seem to get it that loyalty to the Bush family trumps everything.

Quote of the Day

Paul Slansky at HuffPo:

We had no trouble calling the suicide bombers crazy for believing that seventy-two virgins would be waiting for them in Heaven. Is born-again Bush any less nuts to believe he'll be rising up to Heaven during the Rapture? For all we know, Armageddon has been his intentional goal from the start. It's almost the only explanation that makes sense. America is Flight 93. It's been hijacked and it's about to crash, and every single one of us has to charge the cockpit.

[snip]

Again, to recap, one of the nation's foremost experts on the subject of Osama bin Laden says that al Qaeda is "going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States." If that doesn't scare you, you are no longer scareable.

Well, if that doesn't scare you, maybe the fact that the Bush Administration is now funding the very Sunni extremists that are not only connected with al-Qaeda, but are also killing American troops in Iraq, will:

Sy Hersh in The New Yorker:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Let's pause and ponder that for a moment, shall we? Because the Bush Administration wants to attack Iran, which is Shiite, it is sucking up to the very Sunni extremists that they claim attacked the U.S. on 9/11.

Let's repeat that one more time: The President and Vice President of the United States are using our tax dollars to fund the very people who want to attack us again.

Do you still think that those of us who think the Bush Administration had some kind of complicity in the 9/11 attacks are crazy?

More:

One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. But, from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran.

[snip]

The key players behind the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser.

That's old "Bandar Bush", the Bush family's best buddy in the House of Saud.

The article is dense and detailed, because if you're going to expose this administration for what it is -- an infiltration of our government by enemies of America -- you'd damn well better do your homework, and Hersh has done exactly that. This makes Iran Contra look like a tea party, and the stakes are much higher.

So when that al-Qaeda nuclear weapon that is being funded by the Bush Administration using your tax dollars goes off in New York and kills Mr. Brilliant and leaves me a widow, or kills your loved one; or it goes off in Los Angeles, or San Francisco, or Chicago, or wherever it goes off, then see if you still believe that no government in the U.S. could do such a thing.