What went on in those discussions and who was arguing against action? We may never know for certain but a “White House insider” says that Obama was so indecisive that the order to act was eventually given by CIA director Panetta without Obama’s prior knowledge. Obama was brought in only after the operation was underway. I reproduce below the opening paragraphs of the story concerned. They are in the form of an interview with the “source” — JR

Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?

A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.

I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position.

This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.

More HERE

It rings true to me. Note that in the famous picture from the operations room, Obama looks very much an outsider — JR

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

After greeting her with a hug, the back of Obama’s head was all that Debra Burlingame saw after she asked the president a question vital to the CIA and national security. On the heels of the death of Osama Bin Laden, President Barack Obama set-up a May 5th meeting between 9/11 families and first responders. It was there that Debra Burlingame stepped forward as a citizen soldier. On behalf of CIA interrogators who face trial for waterboarding 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Burlingame asked the logical question. Since the efforts of CIA interrogators helped lead Obama to Bin Laden’s whereabouts, Burlingame asked Obama if he will intervene with Attorney-General Eric Holder to drop the Justice Department’s charges against the CIA interrogators whose work helped lead to the Al-Qaeda leader’s death.

On Fox News with Host Martha MacCallum, Burlingame described her encounter with Obama. Burlingame said that she told Obama that she was aware that Attorney-General Eric Holder was still pursuing possible criminal charges against CIA interrogators even though they were cleared in two investigations. According to Burlingame, sources within the government tell her that it is Obama that instructed Holder to indict the CIA operatives and that “Eric Holder was along for the ride.” Burlingame described her brief interaction with the President. With his AG still holding a hammer over the heads of the CIA families, she asked if Obama will now intervene:

Burlingame: “I know you can’t tell your Attorney-General what to do…”

Obama: “No, I can’t.”

Burlingame: “But, that shouldn’t stop you from offering your opinion.”

Obama: “You’re a former attorney. You know I can’t tell him what to do.”

Burlingame: “Sir, that doesn’t mean you can’t at least give him your opinion.”

Obama: “No, I won’t.”

With no further comment, according to Burlingame, the President turned and walked away.

As a result of the interrogating techniques of the CIA, Bin Laden is dead. Obama calls it a “good day for America.” Further collateral results of waterboarding are Obama’s current hero status and poll bump. Requiring more common sense than courage, Obama should have the guts to declare the CIA interrogators national heroes along with the Navy Seals.

Amid two wars and a third in the making, Obama indicates that he wants the tragedy of 9/11 behind him coupled with his unwillingness to protect CIA interrogators. His words create a chilling effect – signaling intelligence operatives that they remain targets of his administration.

Burlingame: But, this affects our national security going forward.”

Obama: But, we’re not looking back.”

Burlingame: “But, Eric Holder is looking back.”

Burlingame exposed Obama’s mixed intentions regarding the war on terror and his support of the CIA when it comes to protecting America’s national security. Burlingame says she is just keeping a promise she made in memory of her brother, Charles Burlingame, pilot of Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon. Such is the courage and heart upon which America was built.

President Barack Obama on Thursday will mark the killing of Osama bin Laden with a triumphant return to ground zero, a hallowed site that has often been a place of discord, controversy and — for the president — mixed emotions.

When was he there? He skipped it in 2009 and 2010, instead, sending Joe Biden and giving his speeches at the Pentagon (in fairness, he visited in 2008 on the 7th anniversary with McCain). I don’t think visiting Manhattan on a date night with wife Michelle counts. Or, are Glenn Thrush and Haberman referring to Obama’s notion of having civilian trials for KSM and other terrorists right down the street from the WTC site? Or his support of “it’s not really a mosque” within the the range of the 9/11 debris field?

Bush and Giuliani have both praised Obama’s daring in authorizing the mission that ended the long search for bin Laden, and Obama invited both to Thursday’s event. Bush declined, citing his desire to avoid the post-presidential spotlight; Giuliani will be there, along with Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state’s two Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Bush probably doesn’t want to be used as a political prop for Obama’s victory tour, which is reminiscent of his jaunt over to the Lincoln Memorial to talk about how he kept the doors open on a building with no doors.

White House officials have praised Bush’s commitment to fight terrorism, but they’ve repeatedly made it clear that Obama’s breaks with his predecessor — his refusal to describe the fight as a “war on terror” and his opposition to waterboarding — contributed to the successful hunt for bin Laden.

Really? Calling it Operation Overseas Contingency led to the killing of Osama? Put that excerpt among the years best ridiculous quotes.

In New York, emotions remain raw nearly a decade after the attacks, with some family members ambivalent about Obama’s trip — and others questioning why the event wasn’t opened to all who wanted to attend.

“I hope it’s not something where the president’s coming here to get points,” said retired city firefighter Lee Ielpi, whose 29-year-old son, Jonathan, died in the collapse of the south tower.

So, the whole thing is being stage managed for the best photo op?

Many family members expressed frustration over how the invitations have been handled, with some saying organizers should have been better prepared for the outpouring of requests to meet Obama.

“As we speak, I do not know where I am going and don’t know at what time,” Debra Burlingame, who’s been among the most outspoken of the victims’ relatives, said Wednesday.

Families are “viewing this as an opportunity to thank the president of the United States … I believe this is nothing but a choreographed photo op from the president … it’s really ugly.”

We’ll have to wait and see what happens today, whether this is All About Obama, and part of his 2012 campaign, or truly about healing and coming together. For myself, if he says “I” more than 6 times, it’s about Obama. He needs to be really careful with his visit. If he was wise, he’d lay a wreath, give a very brief comment, then meet with as many 9/11 families as he can.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

“The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights,” the ACLU argues in its complaint. “Outside the context of armed conflict, the intentional use of lethal force without prior judicial process is an abridgement of this right except in the narrowest and most extraordinary circumstances.”

Not for innocent unborn babies, of course…but for known terrorists.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the U.S. government over an alleged policy of killing American citizens who are suspected of terrorism.

The lawsuit, filed today in federal court in Washington, argued that such targeted assassinations by the government are unconstitutional.

“A program that authorizes killing U.S. citizens, without judicial oversight, due process or disclosed standards is unconstitutional, unlawful and un-American,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said in a statement announcing the filing of the case against U.S. President Barack Obama, the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency.

The New York-based group, together with the Center for Constitutional Rights, brought the case on behalf of Nasser al- Awlaki, father of a U.S.-born Islamic cleric in Yemen, Anwar al- Awlaki, who is accused of having ties to al-Qaeda.

So, there you have it. America doesn’t have the right to defend itself if it involves killing evil people that pose a threat to American lives. I imagine they would prefer we sit down with a cup of tea and discuss how we can surrender. William Teach covered this one well already.

I sure hope the government’s response was “a citizen that travels overseas, joins an acknowledged international terrorist groups, threatens to kill American civilians (among others), and destroy American property has informally renounced their American citizenship and is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and should expect to be wacked if found.”

Knowing Obama, this was probably not their response. Meanwhile, in a little more recent news the ACLU have taken up the cause of defending an American traitor because he has to pray too close to his toilet. Sad, I know…I’m sure you are all tearing up for John Walker Lindh.

American-born Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh and another Muslim inmate have asked a judge to order a federal prison to allow them and other Muslims in their highly restricted cell block to pray as a group, in accordance with their beliefs.

The American Civil Liberties Union last Thursday filed a motion in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis for summary judgment on behalf of Lindh, 29, and Enaam Arnaout, 47, who claim that the prison’s policy restricting group prayer in the Communications Management Unit violates their religious rights. The ACLU contends there are no disputes over the facts of the case and that the law is on the inmates’ side, and asks the judge to rule in their favor.

Lindh, who is serving a 20-year sentence at the Terre Haute prison for aiding Afghanistan’s now-defunct Taliban government, wrote in a legal declaration that his religion requires him to pray five times a day, preferably in a group. “This is one of the primary obligations of Islam,” he wrote.

Praying in his cell is not appropriate, he said, because the Koran requires a ritually clean place for prayer and he is forced to kneel “in close proximity to my toilet.”

Lindh wrote that Muslims in the unit are currently being allowed to pray together once a day during Ramadan. At other times, the group prayers had been limited to once a week, court documents said.

This piece of crap is lucky to have a toilet if you ask me. Why should he be able to network with other Muslim criminals?

Ala sums up my feelings pretty well:

I loathe this little rich kid…regardless of the 10,000 excuses his father makes for him (Speaking of Frank Lindh, I wonder how the ‘devout Muslim’ feels about the fact that his father has remarried…a man…?) The judge should rule that if he truly gave a crap about retaining his RIGHTS under the Constitution of the United States of America he shouldn’t have been FIGHTING AGAINST them! If he would have been RIGHTFULLY charged with TREASON, this would be a non-issue…as it should be. I say we dispense with the formalities and toss him into Earl’s eye and see if that will appease the storm…

So, anyway…that’s your update. Just in case anyone was beginning to doubt the ACLU’s motives…they’re still up to no good.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the U.S. government over an alleged policy of killing American citizens who are suspected of terrorism.

The lawsuit, filed today in federal court in Washington, argued that such targeted assassinations by the government are unconstitutional.

“A program that authorizes killing U.S. citizens, without judicial oversight, due process or disclosed standards is unconstitutional, unlawful and un-American,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said in a statement announcing the filing of the case against U.S. President Barack Obama, the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency.

The New York-based group, together with the Center for Constitutional Rights, brought the case on behalf of Nasser al- Awlaki, father of a U.S.-born Islamic cleric in Yemen, Anwar al- Awlaki, who is accused of having ties to al-Qaeda.

I sure hope the government’s response was “a citizen that travels overseas, joins an acknowledged international terrorist groups, threatens to kill American civilians (among others), and destroy American property has informally renounced their American citizenship and is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and should expect to be wacked if found.”

“There is very little information available to the public about the U.S. targeting of people far from any battlefield,” the ACLU said on its website. Names are added to the list on the basis of a secret, internal process, the group said, citing unidentified news reports.

Well, duh! The ACLU thinks they have a right to know everything, that way they can leak it to the enemy, which, in my book, is un-American.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach

At first, the news from Yemen on May 25 sounded like a modest victory in the campaign against terrorists: an airstrike had hit a group suspected of being operatives for Al Qaeda in the remote desert of Marib Province, birthplace of the legendary queen of Sheba.

But the strike, it turned out, had also killed the province’s deputy governor, a respected local leader who Yemeni officials said had been trying to talk Qaeda members into giving up their fight. Yemen’s president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, accepted responsibility for the death and paid blood money to the offended tribes.

The strike, though, was not the work of Mr. Saleh’s decrepit Soviet-era air force. It was a secret mission by the United States military, according to American officials, at least the fourth such assault on Al Qaeda in the arid mountains and deserts of Yemen since December.

The first three paragraphs were meant simply as a setup to the rest of the article about Obama’s shadow war against Islamic terrorists. Yet, this secret could do irreparable harm to our dealings with Yemen, and put Saleh in deep trouble in a country that is ripe with hard core Islamists. Jane at Armies of Liberation has spent years exposing what goes on with and in Yemen, and paints a very disturbing canvas of the country. The Times exposing secrets like the one above is dangerous. Fortunately, and I will give Obama props for this, Obama has been shown to be extremely unamused by these types of leaks, and goes after them vigorously.

The attack offered a glimpse of the Obama administration’s shadow war against Al Qaeda and its allies. In roughly a dozen countries — from the deserts of North Africa, to the mountains of Pakistan, to former Soviet republics crippled by ethnic and religious strife — the United States has significantly increased military and intelligence operations, pursuing the enemy using robotic drones and commando teams, paying contractors to spy and training local operatives to chase terrorists.

The White House has intensified the Central Intelligence Agency’s drone missile campaign in Pakistan, approved raids against Qaeda operatives in Somalia and launched clandestine operations from Kenya. The administration has worked with European allies to dismantle terrorist groups in North Africa, efforts that include a recent French strike in Algeria. And the Pentagon tapped a network of private contractors to gather intelligence about things like militant hide-outs in Pakistan and the location of an American soldier currently in Taliban hands.

Thus begins the apparent Obama props from the Times. Alas, no. But, hey, thanks for giving the enemy more intel, Fish Wrap! Sure, they might have known some, but, not the extent of the operations which have been mostly kept secret, which also puts the leaders of these countries, who may be cooperating, in danger, especially in Pakistan.

Yet such wars come with many risks: the potential for botched operations that fuel anti-American rage; a blurring of the lines between soldiers and spies that could put troops at risk of being denied Geneva Convention protections; a weakening of the Congressional oversight system put in place to prevent abuses by America’s secret operatives; and a reliance on authoritarian foreign leaders and surrogates with sometimes murky loyalties.

And here is where the Times starts it’s tsk tsk tsk finger shaking at Obama. Their natural tendency to support the “bad American!” syndrome overrides their messianic worship of Obama. Oh, and Fish Wrap? The Islamists have yet to treat those they have captured according to the Geneva Conventions.

“For the first time in our history, an entity has declared a covert war against us,” Adam Smith (D-Wa.) said, referring to Al Qaeda. “And we are using similar elements of American power to respond to that covert war.”

Huh? Covert? 9/11 wasn’t particularly covert. Nor was Bin Laden’s fatwah against the United States. They want everyone to know that they are in a war against not just the USA, but, western civilization.

In pursuing this strategy, the White House is benefiting from a unique political landscape. Republican lawmakers have been unwilling to take Mr. Obama to task for aggressively hunting terrorists, and many Democrats seem eager to embrace any move away from the long, costly wars begun by the Bush administration.

Republicans are not “unwilling”, they are acting as cheerleaders, the same as Conservatives do when it comes to Obama’s increased operations against Islamists. One of the only things we agree with him on.

Then, after a few paragraphs saying how dangerous and bad it can be to work around Congress as well as escalating these types of covert wars, the story moves on into massive details regarding the US strikes against Islamists in Yemen, which includes

The accounts of the American strikes in Yemen, which include many details that have not previously been reported, are based on interviews with American and Yemeni officials who requested anonymity because the military campaign in Yemen is classified, as well as documents from Yemeni investigators.

And now the enemy has more specific knowledge, which can be used to kill Americans. Thanks, Fish Wrap, for once again increasing the danger to real Americans.

The final part, on page 4 of the web article, is the Times’ opinion on the success of the operations, and they are worried about creating more terrorists through these operations, a standard liberal thought. As the saying goes, read the whole traitorous thing.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach

A cornerstone of our Republic has been our justice system of due process, the right to a trial of our peers along with the right of appeal. What happens when a president puts an American citizen’s name on a government-sanctioned assassination list – no trial, no jury, no appeal? See a Judge Napolitano video below.

For some months now the CIA has had the authority to kill dual Yemeni-American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki. It appears that al-Awlaki has not been indicted for treason. Apparently, he can be killed abroad, whether on a battlefield or not. I would be comforted to know that al-Awlaki could not inspire another Nidal Hasan because he was one-dead-dude, and dead by the hand of an American, but is it constitutional?

Why is al-Awlaki not charged with treason? Maybe because there is no way we can find two witnesses to anything he has done. So where does that leave us? With a kill list?

American Adam Gadahn, a California native and convert to Islam, is charged with treason, but is not on the government kill list. Gadahn has family and other non-Muslim acquaintances in the U.S. Maybe witnesses against Gadahn can be found.

Obama has targeted American Anwar al-Awlaki for assassination in an obviously unconstitutional act. What gives Obama this authority, and what are we going to do about it? Consider this: what if the truth becomes treason…one day?

The video below is Judge Andrew Napolitano and Glenn Beck discussing the government-sanctioned kill list. The second video is the Judge, on another occasion, also talking about hit lists.

Judge Andrew Napolitano and Glenn Beck on Sanctioned Assassination (video)

Judge Andrew Napolitano – Obama’s Assassination Program (video)

Second video – thanks to therightscoop

The intelligence and security systems of the U.S. post 9/11 have mushroomed both in the public and private sector, at inordinate cost and with major inefficiencies and redundancies. But you’d think that at least on the individual level, the hard-working folks operating in the intel community are generally more alert now to possible threats, even if they don’t (or can’t) communicate said threats to other departments or organizations.

Think again. Consider, for example, the alarming story of young Robin Sage.

Robin Sage, according to her profiles on Facebook and other social-networking websites, was an attractive, flirtatious 25-year-old woman working as a “cyber threat analyst” at the U.S. Navy’s Network Warfare Command. Within less than a month, she amassed nearly 300 social-network connections among security specialists, military personnel and staff at intelligence agencies and defense contractors.

[...]

“Sorry to say, I’m not a Green Beret! Just a cute girl stopping by to say hey!” she rhymingly proclaimed on her Twitter page, concluding, “My life is about info sec [information security] all the way!”

And so it apparently was. She was an avid user of LinkedIn – a social-networking site for professionals sometimes described as “Facebook for grown-ups.” Her connections on it included men working for the nation’s most senior military officer, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and for one of the most secret government agencies of all, the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), which builds, launches and runs U.S. spy satellites. Others included a senior intelligence official in the U.S. Marine Corps, the chief of staff for a U.S. congressman, and several senior executives at defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp. Almost all were seasoned security professionals.

But Robin Sage did not exist.

This young and seductive “Mata Hari of Cyberspace” was the construct of security consultant Thomas Ryan, who was charged with exposing weaknesses in America’s defense and intelligence communities. And oh what a wicked web did “Robin” weave.

It is not the first time “white-hat” hackers have carried out such a social-engineering experiment, but military and intelligence security specialists told The Washington Times that the exercise reveals important vulnerabilities in the use of social networking by people in the national security field.

Ms. Sage’s connections invited her to speak at a private-sector security conference in Miami, and to review an important technical paper by a NASA researcher. Several invited her to dinner. And there were many invitations to apply for jobs.

“If I can ever be of assistance with job opportunities here at Lockheed Martin, don’t hesitate to contact me, as I’m at your service,” one executive at the company told her.

[...]

One soldier uploaded a picture of himself taken on patrol in Afghanistan containing embedded data revealing his exact location. A contractor with the NRO who connected with her had misconfigured his profile so that it revealed the answers to the security questions on his personal e-mail account.

And it’s not like “Robin Sage” was a high-tech cover, either.

“Everything in her profile screamed fake,” [the security consultant] told The Times. She claimed to have 10 years’ experience in the cybersecurity field – which would mean that she entered it at age 15 – and there is no such job as “cyber threat analyst” at the Naval Network Warfare Command. Even her name is taken from the code name of an annual U.S. special-forces military exercise, as a two-second Google search establishes.

[...]

Several people with whom she attempted to connect spotted the fakery, Mr. Ryan said, “I was pretty much busted on Day Two.”

But about 300 seasoned professionals… didn’t.

I’m sure that there are numerous dedicated intel community operatives in both the public and private sector who would have not fallen prey to this rookie trap. I know several in the military, government, and corporate world whom I would trust unconditionally. I also hear stories of military officers in sensitive areas of work who let hormones get the better of them  –  perhaps at no security risk to the nation. But just when you think that our intelligence assets should be most concerned with defending America from threats both foreign and domestic — especially when we have a president who continually erodes international confidence in America’s strength — yet another reminder pops up that we are either (a) incredibly blessed that another full-blown 9/11 hasn’t occurred; or (b) just waiting for that last little breach — an indiscrete romp with a Russian or Iranian mole, for example — to allow all the correct pieces to fall into place.

Robin, what's a nice girl like you doing in info sec? (image: Washington Times)

A federal judge on Thursday refused to force the public release of CIA methods relating to Sept. 11 detainees who were interrogated harshly, saying the judiciary’s authority is limited when national security is at stake.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein rejected arguments by the American Civil Liberties Union that it should be able to force the CIA to release names and documents related to the detainees if the methods used by the agency were illegal.

He said to do so would “confer an unwarranted competence to the district court to evaluate national intelligence decisions.”

The judge said releasing the documents requested by the ACLU would provide operational details about the application of various interrogation techniques in various circumstances for a particular detainee.

“The difference between the information officially released and the CIA operational records here is different in quality, degree, and kind,” Hellerstein said. He cited an earlier court case that he said was consistent with his findings. In that case, the Supreme Court let the government withhold identifying information of scientists who worked on a covert CIA program researching the use of chemical, biological and radiological materials to control human behavior. The program led to the death of some human test subjects.

“Courts are not invested with the competence to second-guess the CIA director regarding the appropriateness of any particular intelligence source or method,” Hellerstein wrote.

He said the law was clear that the courts do not have the authority to force the release of such documents.

He noted that CIA Director Leon E. Panetta had declared that disclosure would result in “exceptionally grave damage to clandestine human intelligence collection and foreign liaison relationships.”

Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU’s deputy legal director, said the group was “very dismayed by today’s ruling.” He said the civil rights group was seriously considering an appeal. “The CIA can’t rely on its authority to withhold intelligence sources and methods in order to withhold evidence of its own [alleged] criminal conduct,” he said.

More HERE

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

In the first of a three-part series this week, the authors present an overview of the massive intel and security system that was created in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The numbers are staggering:

* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.

* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings – about 17 million square feet of space.

* Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

* Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year – a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.

The investigative report has an online resource including an interactive map of “Top Secret America,” schematics revealing the interconnectedness (or not) of government and private intel efforts, and other ways to search through related data.

As a detailed example of the profound redundancy, waste, and lack of coherent oversight, the authors detail the government and military counter-threat financing effort. (A graphic appears in the print version of the WaPo but seems to have been omitted from the online version.) This would be a rather critical element of the effort to root out domestic terrorist activities, or so you might think.

Fifty-one federal organizations and military commands are involved in following the flow of money to and from terrorist networks. But most of them work in isolation, unaware of other agencies involved in similar work. With no agency in the lead, there is no way for their 25 parent organizations to coordinate their efforts.

Deja vu all over again, at even greater taxpayer expense? We learned the hard way that the inability of our FBI and CIA to cooperate on pre-9/11 intel led to the most devastating terrorist attack on American soil to date. With the WaPo’s revelations, that next 9/11 seems more imminent than ever. Recent domestic terrorist attacks such as the radical Islamic attack at Fort Hood and the Christmas pantie bomber appear to be more than just Napolitano and the rest of the incompetent Obama regime failing to connect the dots for want of a more politically correct approach to preventing “man-caused disasters.” What brought us to 9/11 hasn’t really been corrected, it seems — it’s just gotten a whole lot bigger and costlier.

The notion of a huge investigative report revealing the soft white underbelly of our national anti-terrorism intel operations is indeed disturbing. The waste and redundancy it has revealed is at once outrageous and unsurprising. Government always runs amok. Once again, it seems to be at our peril.