It could happen here

Dying For Coverage

Calitics: Dying For Coverage

Among other revelations in this Calitics review of a Families USA report:

In 2006, more than 3,000 people (one 9/11 unit of death) died in California as a direct result of not having health insurance. That's eight people a day. Imagine if a serial killer went on a spree and killed eight people a day for a whole year. What would our response be?

The trend holds true for the preceding years since 2000: more than six 9/11 units of death (19,900) because of no health insurance. And that's just in California.

Across the United States, twice as many people died from lack of health insurance as from homicide, a total of 22,000 people.

Shouldn't there be a "three strikes" law for our healthcare system?

If some event or series of events had caused 22,000 deaths, what kind of outcry would there have been? How many Congressional hearings and emergency funds? How many countries invaded?

Terrorists killed 3,000 Americans during the same six years. To prevent more if this, we have spent $1,000,000,000,000 on war, squandered the lives of 4,000 Americans and 400,000 Iraqis, and cheerfully given up rights guaranteed for over 200 years by our constitution.

What would we be willing to give up to win the War on Health Insurance Terrorism?

All this has a personal reverberation for me. Nationwide, "uninsurance" is the third leading cause of death in my age group, following heart disease and cancer.

As you get older, you pay, on top of across-the-board annual increases, a near-catastrophic penalty for increasing age. My health insurance cost has now reached the point where I'm not sure I can continue to pay it.

What do you know about Bhutan?

Watch this fascinating video from Current TV.


It raises many questions about modernization, protecting cultures, and what happiness is composed of. Bhutan's benevolent king has decided to give up monarchy because you cannot guarantee a future king will be so benevolent. Bhutan held its first democratic election in March.

Many Bhutanese believe the introduction of TV ten years ago is tearing the culture apart, and that democratization will hasten its demise. But trying to keep a culture in ignorance of the outside also has its perils. What is the path forward for a protected traditional culture as it inevitably meets the modern world?

Mukasey's shameful lie about 9/11 prevention

A shocking story--not just because Mukasey lied, not just because he shed crocodile tears while lying, not just because he's using a lie to drum up support for illegal wiretapping when wiretapping in the case he describes was already legal, not just because it reveals that the Bush administration pointedly and deliberately ignored 9/11 warning signs--but above all because the story's not a screaming headline in the mainstream news. So here it is for my known readership of three.

Published on Thursday, April 3, 2008 by Salon.com

Why Doesn’t the 9/11 Commission Know About Mukasey’s 9/11 Story?--CommonDreams.org

by Glenn Greenwald

Last week, during a question-and-answer session following a speech he delivered San Francisco, Attorney General Michael Mukasey revealed a startling and extremely newsworthy fact. As I wrote last Saturday, Mukasey claimed that, prior to 9/11, the Bush administration was aware of a telephone call being made by an Al Qaeda Terrorist from what he called a “safe house in Afghanistan” into the U.S., but failed to eavesdrop on that call. Some help is needed from readers here to generate the attention for this story that it requires.

In that speech, Mukasey blamed FISA’s warrant requirement for the failure to eavesdrop on that call — an assertion which is, for multiple reasons that I detailed in that post, completely false. He then tearfully claimed that FISA therefore caused the deaths of “three thousand people who went to work that day.” For obvious reasons, the Attorney Geenral’s FISA falsehoods themselves are extremely newsworthy, but it is the story he told about the pre-9/11-planning call from Afghanistan itself that is truly new, and truly extraordinary.

Critically, the 9/11 Commission Report — intended to be a comprehensive account of all relevant pre-9/11 activities — makes no mention whatsoever of the episode Mukasey described. What has been long publicly reported in great detail are multiple calls that were made between a global communications hub in Yemen and the U.S. — calls which the NSA did intercept without warrants (because, contrary to Mukasey’s lie, FISA does not and never did require a warrant for eavesdropping on foreign targets) but which, for some unknown reason, the NSA failed to share with the FBI and other agencies. But the critical pre-9/11 episode Mukasey described last week is nowhere to be found in the 9/11 Report or anywhere else. It just does not exist.

Yesterday, I contacted Lee Hamilton, the 9/11 Commission Vice Chairman, to ask him whether the Commission was ever told about Mukasey’s alleged Afghan Terrorist 9/11-planning telephone calls and/or the Bush administration’s failure/inability to eavesdrop on such calls. Hamilton refused to comment, first claiming that he was in meetings all day yesterday and had no time to talk to me. When asked if he would comment today or whenever he had time, he said he was not going to comment on this ever, since he had not read Mukasey’s speech. Calls to 9/11 Executive Director Philip Zelikow seeking comment were not returned and 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean could not yet be reached.

It’s unacceptable for Hamilton to refuse to comment on Mukasey’s claims. The whole purpose of the 9/11 Commission was to ensure that there was full-scale investigation and disclosure of all facts relevant to the 9/11 attacks, including the Government’s actions and inactions in preventing that attack from occurring.

If the Attorney General of the United States, out of the blue, makes an extraordinary and new assertion in a public speech about an easy opportunity the Bush administration had to detect those attacks — an opportunity he claims was lost because of eavesdropping laws — Hamilton ought to say whether the Commission was ever told about this incident and/or whether Mukasey is telling the truth. Preventing high government officials from lying about the 9/11 attacks or exposing concealment of key 9/11 facts is his obligation as Vice Chairman of the Commission. Some type of comment from 9/11 Commission officials on Mukasey’s claims is vital for generating further attention to this story and for compelling Mukasey to account for what he said.

Hamilton is currently the President and Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and director of The Center on Congress at Indiana University. Please email him at the address below, politely set forth the extraordinary claims the Attorney General just made about the 9/11 attacks (with citations to media sources about the speech — including here, here, and here), and urge him to fulfill his obligation as 9/11 Commission Vice Chair by confirming whether Mukasey’s revelations are true and/or were disclosed to the Commission during its investigation: Lee.hamilton@wilsoncenter.org.

This isn’t just a matter of academic and historical interest about the 9/11 attacks, although it is that. One of two things almost certainly happened here, each of which is of great importance. Either Mukasey is lying about the 9/11 attacks in order to manipulate Americans into believing that FISA’s warrant requirements are what prevented discovery of the 9/11 attacks and caused 3,000 American deaths — a completely disgusting act by the Attorney General which obviously cannot be ignored. Or, Mukasey has just revealed the most damning fact yet about the Bush’s administration’s ability and failure to have prevented the attacks — facts that, until now, were apparently concealed from the 9/11 Commission and the public.

Since I wrote about this on Saturday, there has been some slowly evolving media attention paid to it. On Monday, I discussed the story on the radio with Rachel Maddow who, as always, grasped completely its importance. The following night, she was on Countdown with Keith Olbermman, which had a lengthy and detailed segment, highlighting all of the right questions (video below). Raw Story compiled a very thorough article with the key facts, and the top Daily Kos post this morning does the same.

The great significance of this story — that Mukasey either completely fabricated a key 9/11 event or just revealed a heretofore unknown 9/11 bombshell — is self-evident and made clear by these growing accounts. Having Hamilton, Kean and/or Zelikow comment on the veracity of Mukasey’s claims about the 9/11 attacks — as they ought to do — is vital for advancing the story.

Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book “How Would a Patriot Act?,” a critique of the Bush administration’s use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, “A Tragic Legacy“, examines the Bush legacy. © Salon.com