8/6/01 PDB Memo. Released

[strandinthewind]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116766,00.html

[strandinthewind]

CR was correct, it was historical in context and not specific in any way.

This assumes the text provided contains all of the text except as indicated in the site.

What was the big deal about relesing that?

[dissention]

Why the heck do you peruse Faux News, man? :laugh:

This is the most telling an it most certainly is new information:

Al-Qa'ida members — including some who are US citizens — have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar' Abd aI-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What tree did they shake? The faux ficus tree in the corner of the Oval Office? :confused:

[strandinthewind]

But my point is, it shows the history of Al-Q in and out of America and it points to only a vague and in general threat that had existed in one way or another for a few years. Again, thge buck stops at CR, but this memo. shows the Fed. Govt., including the WH was actively investigating Al-Q and what they were up to, nit sitting on their rear ends and doing nothing :shrug:

[Nixxxed]

This whole issue is driving me completely crazy. Yes, the document did not contain any "specific" information about upcoming attacks, and was mostly "historical" information. But the whole point of including these non-"specific", "historical" items in the memo was to tell the President that:

BIN LADIN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S.

And from everything I've seen, heard, and read, the politicians (yes, they were being politicians, not leaders) ignored the whole point and CONTEXT of the memo. The memo wasn't titled, "Gee, Bin Ladin Is A Really Bad Terrorist," or "The Late Show's Top 10 Bin Ladin Terror Actions."

BIN LADIN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S.

Yet, a month later, neither Al-Qaeda nor Bin Ladin were even mentioned in the speech that Rice was supposed to give on the morning of 9/11/01. Sure, there were no specific threats, but if you were President, wouldn't a memo whose title told you that terrorists were going to attack INSIDE THE COUNTRY prompt you to take a closer, more detailed look at the whole situation and at least come up with an overall plan of action? At least START to take the threat seriously?

Or would you push forward full-steam with a 20-year old "Star Wars" missile defense program that BOTH your father and his predecessor had failed miserably in even getting off the ground because it had been determined to be practically and technically unfeasible and cost-prohibitive?

Let's put this in a Mac context. Let's say you received a letter that was titled, "Fleetwood Mac Will Play Private Concert In Your Backyard". But then, the letter gave the entire history of the band with no specifics as to when they would be there. What would you do? My bet is that you would immediately call the party planner and get quotes on how much chairs and food would cost, and then you'd call a landscape company and start making plans to fix up the yard, and you'd start saving up your money for the big day.

[greatdarkwing]

IMO, This is just a witch hunt.....there were no specifics in that letter, I mean honestly, there was nothing EITHER administration could've done about it! There will never be a clear cut answer as to why 9/11 happened...it happened...and I truly feel that it probably could not have been prevented, period.

~Alex

[strandinthewind]

True enough Alex - I think that as well. But, Condi, W and the rest of them have not had the nads to say we screwed and we are sorry for that. That pisses me off a little even though I know no politician would say it.

[gldstwmn]

CR was correct, it was historical in context and not specific in any way.

This assumes the text provided contains all of the text except as indicated in the site.

What was the big deal about relesing that?

Oh dear. The World Trade Center was mentioned in the very first paragraph. the last two paragraphs are anything but "historical." The actual document was rumored to be 11.5 pages long. Obstuction of justice? They are in deep, deep ****.

[gldstwmn]

But my point is, it shows the history of Al-Q in and out of America and it points to only a vague and in general threat that had existed in one way or another for a few years. Again, thge buck stops at CR, but this memo. shows the Fed. Govt., including the WH was actively investigating Al-Q and what they were up to, nit sitting on their rear ends and doing nothing :shrug:

What, if anything, did they do? Junior was on vacation when this was given to him-had been for about a month. Forty percent of the "war president's" term has been spent on vacation.

[greatdarkwing]

The documents mentioned buildings in New York.....HOWEVER, no where is a specific threat mentioned. No one knew they were going to hijack planes and crash them into the WTC. In fact, the memo says that Al Qaeda was planing on using explosives (we all know how wrong that turned out to be). The point Im trying to make is, that the threats were not specific enough. Neither Clinton or Bush can be held responsible for this. Intellligence agencies is a whole other matter.

~Alex

[greatdarkwing]

What, if anything, did they do? Junior was on vacation when this was given to him-had been for about a month. Forty percent of the "war president's" term has been spent on vacation.
Unfair. Dont balme the guy just cause he was in Crawford.

~Alex

[gldstwmn]

The documents mentioned buildings in New York.....HOWEVER, no where is a specific threat mentioned. No one knew they were going to hijack planes

~Alex

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

(snip)

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/index.html

[gldstwmn]

Unfair. Dont balme the guy just cause he was in Crawford.

~Alex

So you have no problem with him being on vacation for 40% of his term?

[greatdarkwing]

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

(snip)

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/index.html

Where are the specifics? That is really a blanket, it could cover anything. Really, theres nothing you could do in such a situation. If theres one thing I can gather from these documents is...

1. Bin Ladin is a threat
2. He wants to attack us

Honestly, those are such general threats.

~Alex

[greatdarkwing]

So you have no problem with him being on vacation for 40% of his term?

40%? C'mon....that is a tad bloated.

~Alex

[gldstwmn]

40%? C'mon....that is a tad bloated.

~Alex

Thought you might say that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62524-2004Apr8.html

"This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency."

[greatdarkwing]

Thought you might say that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62524-2004Apr8.html

"This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency."

Funny, I wouldn't call most of those trips vacations...This is just being a little ridiculous, the man cant catch a break. You act like he just sits around and plays with his gameboy all day (Try to avoid comments about the gameboy:laugh: ).


~Alex

[gldstwmn]

Funny, I wouldn't call most of those trips vacations...This is just being a little ridiculous, the man cant catch a break. You act like he just sits around and plays with his gameboy all day (Try to avoid comments about the gameboy:laugh: ).


~Alex

Dude, it's the Washingotn Post, not the Enquirer. :lol:

[gldstwmn]

[QUOTE=greatdarkwingThis is just being a little ridiculous, the man cant catch a break.
~Alex[/QUOTE]

Can't catch a break? This is a guy who had it all smoothed over for him his entire life. From the AWOl gig in Texas, to his multiple DUI's, to skating through the best schools money could buy (Harvard and Yale), set up in his first business by ridiculously wealthy Saudi's (whose last name happened to be BIN LADEN), to that land deal he pulled off on the Ballpark At Arlington, I'm not even going to get into Harken here, to losing the 2000 election and being appointed president by the Supreme Court, this guy couldn't catch a break alright. What comes around goes around. His number's up.

[strandinthewind]

In this day and age of the information highway, I can see a valid argument that W or any Pres. does not realy need to be physically in Wash. all of the time. But, by anyone's standards the above cited percentage has the appearance of being too high. Again, if my employee took that much time away from the physical office, negelected to stop a huge terrorist attack despite the info. being out there, started an unnecessary war based on a bold faced and calculated lie in Iraq (nuclear stuff), and then gave away the corporate treasury and cut all hope of revenue by about half, I would fire them on the spot no matter how ggod they were in any other field.

So, Alex, although ITA agree with you that to stop 9/11 would have required pretty much blind luck even though the packets of info. were known ut not connected by the gov., the buck stops at W. So, the issue for me is what has he done since then to ensure it will not happen again and is what he has done better than what anyone else sould have done. In the end, I say no, pretty much solely based on Iraq, because the unnecessary invasion of Iraq has apparently created a whole new faction of teorrists chomping at the bit to attack the U.S. This in my opinion is where W fails.

Note, there are other issues regarding why I cannot stand W, but this is def. a top one.

:cool:

[strandinthewind]

AND - Goldie - I feel compelled to remind everyone again, that all sources indicated W won Florida despite the intervention of the USSC - so W did in fact win the election :cool:

[gldstwmn]

AND - Goldie - I feel compelled to remind everyone again, that all sources indicated W won Florida despite the intervention of the USSC - so W did in fact win the election :cool:

He wouldn't have won if the recounts had been concluded, as they should have been. There is also the issue with the counting of absentee ballots with the wrong postmarked date on them, etc. I don't want to start digging out all of the evidence that supports my opinion but he didn't win, straight up. :)

[greatdarkwing]

He wouldn't have won if the recounts had been concluded, as they should have been. There is also the issue with the counting of absentee ballots with the wrong postmarked date on them, etc. I don't want to start digging out all of the evidence that supports my opinion but he didn't win, straight up. :)
The Miami Herald conducted the recounts even after they had been ordered stopped, and Bush would have won by a handful of votes.

~Alex

[strandinthewind]

He wouldn't have won if the recounts had been concluded, as they should have been. There is also the issue with the counting of absentee ballots with the wrong postmarked date on them, etc. I don't want to start digging out all of the evidence that supports my opinion but he didn't win, straight up. :)


Almost every credible news source in the country counted those ballots on their own and they all admitted a recount of Florida indicated W won :shrug:

Note: I am not happy about it. I think the USSC should have let Fla. do what it wanted. Etc.

But, if there was any validity to this the press would have found it and made a big deal of it by now. They did not. Rather, they all have said that an independant recount under the Sunshine Laws of Fla. indicate W won the vote there, not that I am happy about it :cool:

Havind said that, W is a liar and he needs to go! :cool:

Also, there were issues with the military mail in vote, but the Fla. Legis. has the authority to deem the late ones "legal." Apparently, in this case, there was an issue with the mail getting to Fla. on time through no fault of the military.

Finally, if we go to the states where the vote was very close and delved into hanging chads, etc., those states could influence the election as well.

Thus, this is a dead issue IMO. It is important, however to remember it in the context of it should not happen again.

[DeeGeMe]

Let's get back to the briefing, shall we? So knowing that it was likely that Bin Laden was determined to hijack planes in the US, why didn't the FBI or CIA issue warnings to the FAA and the Airlines? That didn't happen.

I remember being so surprised within an hour or so of the events of 9/11, government officials were naming Bin Laden as the likely culprit. I couldn't understand how they could know so quickly who was responsible. Now I do.

But here's where it gets even stranger in my mind--what did Shrub say was his initial reaction after learning about the first plane that crashed into the WTC--"Boy, that's some bad pilot." Did he ever actually see this briefing or did he just not understand it? Or was he lying as usual? Supposedly, he'd read this PDB five weeks before 9/11. Is his short-term memory that bad?

Let's connect the dots shall we--he reads (does he?) this brief that says that a) Bin Laden is determined to strike in the US b) the WTC might be a target c) Airplanes might be used. So how huge a lleap in ogic should it have been for him, of all people, having been briefed on this a mere 5 weeks before, to know that the first plane hitting the WTC was no accident?

I read something interesting over the weekend--about how Clinton used to demand PDB's that were many, many pages long, detailing info from every side of an issue. When Bush took office, the respective government agencies were told that their briefings should be as. . .well. . . as brief as possible, preferably 2 pages or less. One person inside the CIA was quoted as saying that the substance of these briefs went from being like a NY Times article to being akin to USA Today or People. I guess that's what happens when you've got an unelected leader (and you believe your sources about who won the recount in Florida, I'll believe mine) with limited intellectual abilities and a limited intellectual curiosity.

OH, and the annotated briefings? Apparently Shrubbie doesn't even like to read those--he prefers instead just to receive oral briefings from his staff (then again, so did Clinton--but only from select interns). Bush doesn't seek diversity of opinions either--which is why the critics and opponents of the Iraqi war within his own administration were silenced --and as a result, we're in Operation No End in Sight over there.

[strandinthewind]

The 8/6/01 PDB mentioned the WTC by name? I do not remember that.

In any event, since OBL and his henchmen bombed it the first time, I do not think it was a huge leap for everyone to assume they were resp. the second time :shrug:

Again, I think W and comp. are solely responsible because it happened on their watch - period. I just think this whole "they knew about it and did nothing but ignore it because they are just plain stupid" vibe is wrong and here is why :cool: The evidence clearly states the FAA was put on some sort of notification and the FBI and the CIA were monitoring some sort of operations. That to me that proves the govt. was working on the treat. They just did not connect the dots in time, which in hindsight are always easier to connect IMO. That they did not connect the dots in time along with all of their other "I am going to make you a fundamentalist Christian crap" is reason enough to boot them out of office.

Moreover, regarding "and you believe your sources about who won the recount in Florida, I'll believe mine" - it is not what I believe, it is what the facts state :cool:

[gldstwmn]

The 8/6/01 PDB mentioned the WTC by name? I do not remember that.



It's in the first paragraph. It's in a post of mine in bold print on this thread. :)

[strandinthewind]

It's in the first paragraph. It's in a post of mine in bold print on this thread. :)

Yes, it mentions the 1993 WTC attacks in an historical context. It says

"Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997' has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and 'bring the fighting to America.'"

That is wildly different than saying on 9/11/01, they are going to hijack four planes and ram them into the WTC and then the Pentagon and, perhaps, the White House.

Again, I am not praising the Bush team. I think they failed us and should pay for it. All I am saying is that CR did not lie when she said the WH had no specific, advanced warning of these exact attacks. Moreover, they were not sitting around twidling their thumbs whistling "Dixie." Completely to the contrary, the evidence indicates the govt. had many ongoing investigations including this statement from the 8/6/01 PDB "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related."

:shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Lest you all think I am a W supported :laugh: , here is some fodder:

President spends 40% of time out of the office

Gary Younge in New York
Monday April 12, 2004
The Guardian

President George Bush has spent more than 40% of his presidency at one of his three retreats, sparking criticism from Democrats that he is not taking his job seriously at a crucial time in US history.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1190302,00.html



Bush Catches Bass With Crew From TV Show

Saturday April 10, 2004 7:46 PM

By SCOTT LINDLAW

Associated Press Writer

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) - President Bush skipped a second round of fishing in his ranch pond Saturday with a crew from an outdoors show, though his performance the day before was something to brag about.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3962870,00.html


_______________________-

Have Fun!!!!!! :woohoo:

[dissention]

Moreover, they were not sitting around twidling their thumbs whistling "Dixie." Completely to the contrary, the evidence indicates the govt. had many ongoing investigations including this statement from the 8/6/01 PDB "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related."

:shrug:

They had an employee on MSNBC this morning who resigned from the WH last week and he said that the admin. did not follow up on those "70" field investigations and that the memo was kept hush-hush until he saw it on September 10. Smells fishy. :distress:

[DeeGeMe]

They had an employee on MSNBC this morning who resigned from the WH last week and he said that the admin. did not follow up on those "70" field investigations and that the memo was kept hush-hush until he saw it on September 10. Smells fishy. :distress:

It gets better--a Republican member of the 9/11 Commission was on the Today show this morning and it would seem that the commision can find no evidence of the 70 field investigations mentioned in the memo. He said that FBI officials would be questioned about this in the hearings this week.

[strandinthewind]

It gets better--a Republican member of the 9/11 Commission was on the Today show this morning and it would seem that the commision can find no evidence of the 70 field investigations mentioned in the memo. He said that FBI officials would be questioned about this in the hearings this week.

Nor will they ever. I am sure some are classified :shrug:

Again, no one has contradicted my point. The WH and staff are responsible - period.

But, all this implication that W, CR, and others were respeatedly warned and did absolutely nothing is just tommyrot in my book. None of the evidence from anyone, including Clarke, supports that.

BTW - W is a schmo and needs to get the boot.

[strandinthewind]

It seems the WH in July 2001 ordered the FBO to do something as evidenced in this NY Times Art. today.
_______________________________________________________________
from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/12/politics/12FBI.html?ex=1082792324&ei=1&en=f968738453237481

Disclosures Put F.B.I.'s Actions Under Scrutiny

April 12, 2004
By ERIC LICHTBLAU


WASHINGTON, April 11 - New disclosures about the warnings President Bush received before Sept. 11, 2001, are fueling a central question for the commission investigating the attacks on that date: What exactly was the F.B.I. doing that summer to deter an attack by Al Qaeda on American soil?

The answer, Mr. Bush said on Sunday, was that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was investigating known links to Osama bin Laden in the United States, with 70 active cases reported that summer. "That's great, that's what we expect the F.B.I. to do," he told reporters.

Critics of the F.B.I., however, say the bureau missed
numerous opportunities to head off the attacks.

Agents that summer were tracking tantalizing leads that included a suspicious flight student in Minneapolis, an ominous warning in Phoenix and a phone call to a United States embassy in the Middle East.

But investigations were stymied by miscommunication, dead
ends, bureaucratic and legal obstacles and unclear
priorities, officials say. And it is still unclear what the bureau's response was to a classified White House memo in July 2001, which officials said directed all 56 field offices to increase surveillance of suspected terrorists.

The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks will hear testimony this week from current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials, including Attorney General John Ashcroft; his predecessor, Janet Reno; Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the F.B.I.; and Louis J. Freeh and Thomas J. Pickard, former directors.

Among the main questions will be whether the bureau
responded aggressively enough to warnings in the summer of
2001 and whether the internal changes made since go far
enough to solve structural problems.

A joint Congressional committee concluded last year that
the F.B.I. and the Central Intelligence Agency had failed
to heed warnings about Al Qaeda's desire to strike the
United States and that intelligence officials had "missed opportunities to disrupt the Sept. 11 plot."

Slade Gorton, a Republican member of the Sept. 11
commission, said on "Fox News Sunday," "It seems to me the F.B.I. has more questions to answer than Condoleezza Rice or Dick Clarke or anyone we've had testify before us so far."

Mr. Gorton said he was interested "in these so-called 70
field investigations."

"I don't know where they were," he said. "I don't know what they did. I don't think they got to a point where anyone could take action on them."

A senior F.B.I. official who spoke on condition of
anonymity said the 70 investigations cited in the White
House briefing "show that we were actively looking at what
was going on with anyone who might be connected to bin
Laden, but we did not have specifics on the plot."

Lee H. Hamilton and Richard Ben-Veniste, Democratic members
of the 9/11 panel, said in interviews on Sunday that this week's hearings would be critical in reaching recommendations about the F.B.I.'s future role in fighting terrorism.

Mr. Ben-Veniste said, "There's general agreement that
despite the extraordinary individual efforts of F.B.I.
agents, there is a dysfunctional element in the operation
that interfered with its efficient counterterrorism
functions" before Sept. 11.

Mr. Hamilton, the co-chairman of the commission, said Mr. Mueller "wants genuinely to change the culture of the F.B.I."

"The question is how effective is that effort and how long-lasting will it be when you have different leadership." Mr. Hamilton said.

At the time of the attacks, the bureau was undergoing a
change in leadership, with Mr. Freeh having left in June
2001, and it was consumed with internal problems like the arrest of an agent, Robert P. Hanssen, on espionage charges and the disappearance of documents in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

But critics said such issues did not fully explain the
bureau's inability to piece together strands of information before Sept. 11.

"The F.B.I.'s budget for counterterrorism was vastly
increased prior to 9/11, and its failure to take serious
note of the threat is really just unfathomable," said
Daniel Benjamin, a former National Security Council aide.

Mr. Freeh, in an op-ed article for Monday's issue of The
Wall Street Journal, defended the Bush administration for
its "prompt response and focus on terrorism."

He added, "The fact that terrorism and the war being waged
by Al Qaeda was not even an issue in the 2000 presidential campaign strongly suggests that the political will to declare and fight this war didn't exist before Sept. 11."

In the weeks and months before the attacks, as an alarming
rise in possible terrorist warnings was detected, F.B.I.
agents pursued leads that signaled the possibility of an
attack within the United States:

¶In the United Arab Emirates, the United States Embassy received a call in May saying that "a group of bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives," according to a briefing that was given to Mr. Bush on Aug. 6, 2001, and was declassified on Saturday.

¶In Phoenix, an F.B.I. agent warned superiors in July that
he suspected extremists might be training at American
flight schools and urged a nationwide inquiry.

¶In Minneapolis, a French citizen named Zacarias Moussaoui
was arrested on immigration charges in August after
arousing suspicions at a flight training school.

¶In Seattle, interrogations of Ahmed Ressam, arrested in
1999 in a failed attempt to blow up Los Angeles
International Airport, revealed details about Qaeda's
tactics.

¶In New York City, the bureau had detected "recent
surveillance of federal buildings," pointing to possible preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, according to the Aug. 6, 2001, briefing memorandum.

¶In Yemen, an investigation into the 2000 bombing of the
Navy destroyer Cole brought the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. close
to 2 of the 19 eventual hijackers.

But the leads ultimately went nowhere. Supervisors deemed
the Phoenix memorandum too speculative. A Minneapolis agent said headquarters had blocked her office from conducting a more aggressive investigation into Mr. Moussaoui, now charged with conspiracy in the Sept. 11 plot. Miscommunication between the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. prevented investigators from discovering that the two hijackers linked to the Cole bombing were living in San Diego. Men suspected of casing New York buildings were found to be Yemeni tourists, and the United Arab Emirates report also appears to have been unconnected to the Sept. 11 plot, White House officials said.

"You add all the different leads together and you see
colossal, glaring failures," said Kristen Breitweiser,
whose husband died in the attacks. "The overriding question
is, what did we do in the summer of '01, knowing that there
was going to be an impending domestic attack by Al Qaeda?"
________________________________________________________________

[gldstwmn]

Yes, it mentions the 1993 WTC attacks in an historical context. It says

"Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997' has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and 'bring the fighting to America.'"



What part of the gravity of that statement escaped them? All of it, apparently.

[strandinthewind]

What part of the gravity of that statement escaped them? All of it, apparently.

Then explain to me whyt the FBI had at least 70 open investigations. What more did you want W and/or CR to do personally. I just do not get that people think they did absolutely positively nothing but sit in their rear ends. They reacted to the threats earlier that Summer. They were reacting when they got this memo. They continued to react. Even Clarke admits that :shrug:

Again, I think they are resp. because it happened on their shift, but you cannot truthfully say they did 100% nada IMO - the facts just do not support it. :shrug:

BTW - not a personal attack (as you know) :xoxo:

[gldstwmn]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL

Willie Brown got low-key early warning about air travel

Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross
Wednesday, September 12, 2001



For Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came late Monday when he got a call from what he described as his airport security - - a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attacks -- advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel.

The mayor, who was booked to fly to New York yesterday morning from San Francisco International Airport, said the call "didn't come in any alarming fashion, which is why I'm hesitant to make an alarming statement."

In fact, at the time, he didn't pay it much mind.

"It was not an abnormal call. I'm always concerned if my flight is going to be on time, and they always alert me when I ought to be careful."

Exactly where the call came from is a bit of a mystery. The mayor would say only that it came from "my security people at the airport."

Mike McCarron, assistant deputy director at SFO, said the Federal Aviation Administration "routinely" issues security notices about possible threats. He said two or three such notices have been received in the past couple of months,

but none in recent days.

Whatever the case, Brown didn't think about it again until he was up, dressed and waiting for his ride to the airport for an 8 a.m. flight to New York, where he was to attend a state retirement board meeting. That was when he turned on the TV, and like millions of other Americans, saw the twin towers of the World Trade Center crumble and the Pentagon go up in smoke.

[gldstwmn]

Again, I think they are resp. because it happened on their shift, but you cannot truthfully say they did 100% nada IMO - the facts just do not support it. :shrug

I never said they didn't do anything. You're putting words in my mouth so to speak. No, I've always thought they were complicit. My question is, how complicit?

[strandinthewind]

I never said they didn't do anything. You're putting words in my mouth so to speak. No, I've always thought they were complicit. My question is, how complicit?

BINGO!!!!!!!!

[dissention]

Then explain to me whyt the FBI had at least 70 open investigations.

Do you live on the moon, Jason? :laugh: Have you been paying attention? If so, you tell me all about the "70 open investigations" that are spoken of in that FRACTION of the REAL briefing?

HINT: The "70 open investigations" have been called into question by a great deal of government officials.

[dissention]

I never said they didn't do anything. You're putting words in my mouth so to speak. No, I've always thought they were complicit. My question is, how complicit?

I'll say it. They didn't do jack to protect us or the 3,000 Americans who died that day. To say the facts do not support that conclusion is utter ****. If you want to say that, you have to draw the exact conclusions when you say they did do something. Where is the proof? I'll tell you: in the White House, under lock and key. That briefing is a phoney and I have no problem saying it. 17 sentences on such a serious topic that the president himself inquired about?! I was born at night, but not last night. Sean Insanity can explain bin Laden and Al-Qaeda better than that briefing. No, that briefing is a distraction and it's a fake. The real meat and potatoes lies in the other 4,000 briefings that talked of Al-Qaeda, mainl ones from May, June, and July of 2001. The WH itself has said that the average length of these types of documents are at least 15 pages long. So, what did they do? What did they do? Nothing. Our national security advisor is a nincompoop with no skills at all that qualify her for her current position. The same can be said for our (un)president. There is no proof that those 70 investigations ever occurred. The FBI denies it. So, what did they do?

[dissention]

Put this in your mouth and chew:

Officials: Pre-9/11 Memo Excluded Data
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Just one day after President Bush (news - web sites) received a pre-Sept. 11 briefing on al-Qaida's effort to strike on U.S. soil, senior government executives received a similarly titled memo that excluded information about current threats and investigations, say federal officials who have read both documents.

The Aug. 7, 2001 memo, known as the senior executive intelligence brief or SEIB, didn't mention the 70 FBI (news - web sites) investigations into possible al-Qaida activity that Bush had been told of a day earlier in a memo entitled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S.," the officials said Monday.
The senior executives' memo also did not mention a threat received in May 2001 of a U.S.-based explosives attacks or say that the FBI had concerns about recent casing of buildings in New York, the officials told The Associated Press.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because the senior executives' memo remains classified.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040413/ap_on_go_pr_wh/sept__11_al_qaida_memo

[strandinthewind]

Do you live on the moon, Jason? :laugh: Have you been paying attention? If so, you tell me all about the "70 open investigations" that are spoken of in that FRACTION of the REAL briefing?

HINT: The "70 open investigations" have been called into question by a great deal of government officials.


Prove it - you can't and you know it :shrug: ;)

Clearly ALL sources who have testified before the 9/11 Commission have DIRECTLY STATED the current adminsitration was doing things, they just were not doing enough to connect the dots. I mean that the FBI had files on these people is dispositive of my point and directly contradicts your point :cool:

[strandinthewind]

BTW - The Shrub is giving a PRIME TIME press concert tommorow night. W is in hot water on this and I think his Presidency depends on how he does tommorow night. Personally, I hope he fails because I want him out of office.

[dissention]

Prove it - you can't and you know it :shrug: ;)


Exactly; I can't prove it. Just like the administration can't prove that they were doing something. Where's the proof? :shrug:

But, while I can't prove anything until someone leaks my suspicions, I know what my heart says.

[dissention]

BTW - The Shrub is giving a PRIME TIME press concert tommorow night. W is in hot water on this and I think his Presidency depends on how he does tommorow night. Personally, I hope he fails because I want him out of office.

After the way he bombed earlier when talking to the press, who the hell knows.

I thought he was coked out of his gourd, though.

[dissention]

I mean that the FBI had files on these people is dispositive of my point and directly contradicts your point :cool:

But they didn't have 70 investigations going on; all reports say that is a VERY exaggerated number. And if an admin. can't connect the dots, they shouldn't be in office.

What I find interesting is what happened in Crawford over the weekend. A man and his son were flying their plane together and and air traffic control picked up that they got too close to the Bushes ( :] ), so they took the plane down within a minute. Kinda funny that air traffic control didn't pick up on the fact that on 9/11, commercial aircrafts made a u-turn and were about to crash into the WTC. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

But they didn't have 70 investigations going on; all reports say that is a VERY exaggerated number. And if an admin. can't connect the dots, they shouldn't be in office.

What I find interesting is what happened in Crawford over the weekend. A man and his son were flying their plane together and and air traffic control picked up that they got too close to the Bushes ( :] ), so they took the plane down within a minute. Kinda funny that air traffic control didn't pick up on the fact that on 9/11, commercial aircrafts made a u-turn and were about to crash into the WTC. :rolleyes:

Apples and Oranges, the Crawford ranch is a no fly zone that is heavily patrolled. NYC and BOSTON are full of planes, etc.

[dissention]

Apples and Oranges, the Crawford ranch is a no fly zone that is heavily patrolled. NYC and BOSTON are full of planes, etc.

Not at all. Yeah, they have LOTS of planes, but they don't make u-turns in mid-air and fly low enough to hit the WTC towers.

Also, did you see Scarborough tonight? Buchanan hosted because asshole was sick. There was a 9/11 widow on along with a Republican congressman and whens he said the admin. was covering something up, the congressman and Buchanan ganged up on her and called her a "kook." What class. :mad:

[strandinthewind]

Not at all. Yeah, they have LOTS of planes, but they don't make u-turns in mid-air and fly low enough to hit the WTC towers.

Also, did you see Scarborough tonight? Buchanan hosted because asshole was sick. There was a 9/11 widow on along with a Republican congressman and whens he said the admin. was covering something up, the congressman and Buchanan ganged up on her and called her a "kook." What class. :mad:

They are jerks

[dissention]

They are jerks

I bet that wouldn't be the language you'd use in a PM. :eek: ;) :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

I bet that wouldn't be the language you'd use in a PM. :eek: ;) :wavey:


NOPE MF AH FH :] :] :] :] :]

[DeeGeMe]

Okay, my question is this--the Bush defense, such as it is on this PDB is that the info contained in it was "historical". No weapons of mass destruction have yet been found in Iraq so what was his excuse there? More historical info in PDB's? Doesn't this really bring into play just how good, or bad, as the case might be, that our "intelligence" actually is? Just asking.

[dissention]

Okay, my question is this--the Bush defense, such as it is on this PDB is that the info contained in it was "historical". No weapons of mass destruction have yet been found in Iraq so what was his excuse there? More historical info in PDB's? Doesn't this really bring into play just how good, or bad, as the case might be, that our "intelligence" actually is? Just asking.

No, they relied on Chalabi (a known bank robber who now wants to run Iraq) to provide intel to them, which they knew was false. BUT - they took the intel anyways because they knew it would bolster an already weak, weak case. This business isn't an intelligence failure, it's an intelligence excising.

Now we know that the PDB was edited before being given to other WH officials in 2001. Why? Probably to bolster Bush's agenda of focusing on missile programs instead of military operations.

PS: Go to Google and type in "back off bin laden". Read the articles that come up! :eek:

[dissention]

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/04/con04156.html

April 12, 2004
Did the White House Pull a Bait and Censor with the August 6th PDB?

Wasn't the actual August 6, 2001, PDB a LOT longer?

First Indication That the Released PDB is Probably Not the Entire PDB:

CNN posted the August PDB in .pdf format.

It seems to be a photocopy of the redacted memo.

One problem is that the page 2 format is different in layout/font!

Problem Number 2 is the Bigger Burden of Proof for the White House to Prove That They Did Not Censor the PDB:

Translation from October, 2002 German Magazine

Deadly Mistakes

U.S. Investigators Knew About Planned Terror Attacks, Let the Suspects Get Away. More Clues That CIA and FBI Could Have Prevented the Attack on America
by Oliver Schröm
Die Zeit [German newsweekly]
October 1, 2002

Crawford, Aug. 6, 2001. U.S. president George W. Bush is on vacation. He wants to spend the whole month at his ranch in Texas. Every morning, however, he still receives his Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, wherein the CIA informs the president about the country's security situation. On this morning, the report is straight from the CIA director. His PDB runs 11 and one-half printed pages, instead of the usual two to three, and carries the title, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Therein the CIA chief explains that al Qaeda has decided to carry out attacks within the United States, and that presumably members of the terrorist organization have been in the country for some time. It is unclear whether the CIA director informed the president about the statements of arrested al Qaeda members. According to their confessions, the terrorist organization for some time has been thinking about hijacking planes and using them as missiles....

Problem Number Three: Will We Ever Know the Truth?

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION

[estranged4life]

testimony on the 9-11 inquiry today...

The OKC bombing was brought up. A question about a possible connection between 9-11 hijacker Atta & Terry Nichols has been rumored since Nichols went to the Phillipines years back for really no known reason (Some believe it was to meet with Atta and orchestrate the OKC attack...) those testifying seem to want to avoid the question or do not have an answer (About a possible connection the person who answered the question said "Considering the current ongoing state trial against Nichols I cannot answer if there were other conspirators".)

[dissention]

testimony on the 9-11 inquiry today...

The OKC bombing was brought up. A question about a possible connection between 9-11 hijacker Atta & Terry Nichols has been rumored since Nichols went to the Phillipines years back for really no known reason (Some believe it was to meet with Atta and orchestrate the OKC attack...) those testifying seem to want to avoid the question or do not have an answer (About a possible connection the person who answered the question said "Considering the current ongoing state trial against Nichols I cannot answer if there were other conspirators".)

Hmmmmm. I think it'll be interesting to see how this pans out and whether the commission will push it any further (I don't think they will, but they aren't exactly the brightest crayons in the Crayola box, eh?).

Interestingly, I think Reno is the best witness yet. She comes off as a very honorable person.

[Merf]

Interestingly, I think Reno is the best witness yet. She comes off as a very honorable person.

Are you surprised? I'm not. I always thought she was an honest, honorable, effective attorney general. And she has a soul. (unlike the one we have now.)

:o

[dissention]

Are you surprised? I'm not. I always thought she was an honest, honorable, effective attorney general. And she has a soul. (unlike the one we have now.)

:o

No, not surprised, just taken aback. It's very jarring to see all these cold people testify and then see a person like Reno. She's human, whereas the others are androids. ;)

[estranged4life]

Are you surprised? I'm not. I always thought she was an honest, honorable, effective attorney general. And she has a soul. (unlike the one we have now.)

:o

is that she always reminded me of Dana Carvey's SNL character "The Church Lady" :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/04/11/unasked_questions/

The 9/11 commission should ask who authorized the evacuation of Saudi nationals in the days following the attacks
By Craig Unger, 4/11/2004

IN ITS TOUGH QUESTIONING of Richard Clarke and Condoleezza Rice, the 9/11 commission has already shown itself to be more resolute than some skeptics predicted. Many Americans now realize that multiple warnings of an Al Qaeda attack on American soil crossed the desks of Bush administration officials in the months leading up to 9/11. The administration's previously unchallenged narrative has begun to unravel.

But when hearings resume on Tuesday, we may learn exactly how tough the commission is prepared to be. This time the stars will be Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert S. Mueller III, among others. When they testify -- especially Mueller -- we will see whether or not the commission has the stomach to address what may be the single most egregious security lapse related to the attacks: the evacuation of approximately 140 Saudis just two days after 9/11.

This episode raises particularly sensitive questions for the administration. Never before in history has a president of the United States had such a close relationship with another foreign power as President Bush and his father have had with the Saudi royal family, the House of Saud. I have traced more than $1.4 billion in investments and contracts that went from the House of Saud over the past 20 years to companies in which the Bushes and their allies have had prominent positions -- Harken Energy, Halliburton, and the Carlyle Group among them. Is it possible that President Bush himself played a role in authorizing the evacuation of the Saudis after 9/11? What did he know and when did he know it?

Let's go back to Sept. 13, 2001, and look at several scenes that were taking place simultaneously. Three thousand people had just been killed. The toxic rubble of the World Trade Center was still ablaze. American airspace was locked down. Not even Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who were out of the country, were allowed to fly home. And a plane bearing a replacement heart for a desperately ill Seattle man was forced down short of its destination by military aircraft. Not since the days of the Wright Brothers had American skies been so empty.

But some people desperately wanted to fly out of the country. That same day, Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States and a long-time friend of the Bush family, dropped by the White House. He and President George W. Bush went out to the Truman Balcony for a private conversation. We do not know everything they discussed, but the Saudis themselves say that Prince Bandar was trying to orchestrate the evacuation of scores of Saudis from the United States despite the lockdown on air travel.

Meanwhile, a small plane in Tampa, Fla. took off for Lexington, Ky. According to former Tampa cop Dan Grossi and former FBI agent Manny Perez, who were on the flight to provide security, the passengers included three young Saudis. Given the national security crisis, both Grossi and Perez were astonished that they were allowed to take off. The flight could not have taken place without White House approval.

The plane taking off from Tampa was the first of at least eight aircraft that began flying across the country, stopping in at least 12 American cities and carrying at least 140 passengers out of the country over the next week or so. The planes included a lavishly customized Boeing 727 airliner that was equipped with a master bedroom suite, huge flat-screen TVs, and a bathroom with gold-plated fixtures. Many of the passengers were high-ranking members of the royal House of Saud. About 24 of them were members of the bin Laden family, which owned the Saudi Binladin Group, a multibillion-dollar construction conglomerate.

All this occurred at a time when intelligence analysts knew that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, that Saudi money was one of the major forces behind Al Qaeda, and that the prime suspect -- Osama bin Laden -- was Saudi as well.

For its part, the Bush administration has erected the proverbial stone wall on the topic of the Saudi evacuation. The White House told me that it is "absolutely confident" the Sept. 13 flight from Tampa did not take place. The FBI said "unequivocally" it played no role in facilitating any flights. The Federal Aviation Administration said that the Tampa-to-Lexington flight was not in the logs and did not take place.

But they are all wrong.

. . .

How can I be sure? I have interviewed not only Dan Grossi and Manny Perez, but also sources who helped orchestrate the flights. I tracked down photos of the interior of one of the planes. Former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke told me, and later the 9/11 commission, about discussions in the White House that allowed the flights to begin.

Clarke says his advice was that the Saudis should be able to leave only after they had been vetted by the FBI. A basic procedure in any crime investigation is to interview friends and relatives of the primary suspect. When I talked to FBI special agents who participated in the Saudi evacuation, however, they said that they identified the passengers boarding the flights but did not have lengthy interviews with them.

"Here you have an attack with substantial links to Saudi Arabia," says John L. Martin, a former Justice Department official who supervised investigation and prosecution of national security offenses for 18 years. "You would want to talk to people in the Saudi royal family and the Saudi government, particularly since they have pledged cooperation."

Robert Mueller had taken over at the FBI just one week before 9/11 and cannot be held responsible for the bureau's shortcomings before the attacks. But he should be asked about the departure of the Saudis. How is it possible that this could have happened? Did the White House order the evacuation -- and thereby interfere in an investigation into the murder of nearly 3,000 people?

If such interviews had taken place, investigators might have uncovered a trove of intelligence. During the summer of 2001, just a few months before 9/11, several of the bin Ladens attended the wedding of Osama's son in Afghanistan, where Osama himself was present. Carmen bin Laden, an estranged sister-in-law of the Al Qaeda leader, has said she suspects many family members have continued to aid and abet him. Could the bin Ladens have shed light on these assertions? Two relatives, Abdullah and Omar bin Laden, had been investigated by the FBI as recently as September 2001 for their ties to the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, which has allegedly funded terrorism. The 9/11 commission should ask Mueller if they were on board. I have also obtained documents showing that Abdullah and Omar were being investigated by the FBI in September 2001. Mueller should be asked about the status of that investigation.

The Clinton administration had attempted to crack down on the Saudi funding of Islamic charities that funneled money to terrorists. More recently we have since had one revelation after another about Saudi royals who "inadvertently" funded terrorists. The Commission should ask Mueller if the Saudis who were allowed to leave were involved in financing terrorism. How could the FBI be sure without seriously interrogating them?

In addition, I have obtained passenger lists for four of the Saudi evacuation flights. (The documents can be seen at my website, www.houseofbush.com.) Out of several dozen names on those lists, the most astonishing is that of the late Prince Ahmed bin Salman.

A prominent figure in the Saudi royal family, Prince Ahmed is best known in this country as the owner of War Emblem, winner of the 2002 Kentucky Derby. But his name is of interest for another reason. As reported last year by Gerald Posner in "Why America Slept," Prince Ahmed not only had alleged ties to Al Qaeda, but may also have known in advance that there would be attacks on 9/11. According to Posner, Abu Zubaydah, an Al Qaeda operative who was part of Osama bin Laden's inner circle and was captured in 2002, made these assertions when he was interrogated by the CIA. The commission should ask Mueller about Zubaydah's interrogation. They should also ask whether the FBI interrogated Prince Ahmed before his departure.

But Prince Ahmed will never be able to answer any questions because not long after the CIA interrogation, he died of a heart attack at the age of 43. Yet we do know that he was on one of the flights.

. . .

That leaves the question of the White House's participation in expediting the departure of so many Saudis who may have been able to shed light on the greatest crime in American history.

Is it possible that the long relationship between President Bush's family and the House of Saud led Bush to turn a blind eye to the Saudi role in Islamic fundamentalist terrorism? Rather than aggressively seeking justice for the victims of 9/11, did the president instead authorize the departure of rich Saudi royals without even subjecting them to interrogation?

That may be the most difficult question of all for the commission to tackle. If the commission dares to confront this issue, it will undoubtedly be accused of politicizing the most important national security investigations in American history -- in an election year, no less. If it does not, it risks something far worse -- the betrayal of the thousands who lost their lives that day, and of the living who want answers.

[strandinthewind]

Cool article - but Clinton flew back that day or the next. W sent a plane for him I believe.

[dissention]

Did anyone else but me hear Reno slip and practically come out and say that Clinton had attempted to assassinate bin Laden? :eek:

Oliver North was on Faux News last night, too. They actually let him into Iraq.

[gldstwmn]

Cool article - but Clinton flew back that day or the next. W sent a plane for him I believe.

Irrelevant.

[strandinthewind]

Irrelevant.

not to the general credibility of the writer who asserts many things expected to be taken at face value :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

not to the general credibility of the writer who asserts many things expected to be taken at face value :shrug:

He never said W didn't send a plane for Clinton. He said Clinton and Gore couldn't fly that day but the Bin Ladens did. True, no?

[strandinthewind]

He never said W didn't send a plane for Clinton. He said Clinton and Gore couldn't fly that day but the Bin Ladens did. True, no?

He said "Not even Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who were out of the country, were allowed to fly home." I took that to mean that the Pres. did not allow these two men to fly home. I believe that is untrue. If it is, it begs the question of what other info in the article is untrue.

[gldstwmn]

He said "Not even Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who were out of the country, were allowed to fly home." I took that to mean that the Pres. did not allow these two men to fly home. I believe that is untrue. If it is, it begs the question of what other info in the article is untrue.

It doesn't say the president didn't allow them to fly. Those are your words. They could not fly on September 11. No one could, except the Bin Ladens and members of the Saudi royal family. Here are Clinton's own words:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/04/clinton.transcript/index.html

September 11
KING: Where were you on September 11, Mr. President?

CLINTON: Australia. But I had an unusual experience because my former staff members Cheryl Mills and Bruce Lindsey were in Cheryl's office down in Tribeca with a full view of the World Trade Center. So they called me between the time the first tower was hit and the time the second tower was hit and talked me through it.

KING: Were you watching it too?

CLINTON: Later I turned it on. But I was downtown in a little town in Port Douglas where I had taken my family for vacation after the '96 election.

KING: Did you come right back?

CLINTON: I did. The White House was kind enough to give me military transport, and I left the next day and got home as quick as I could.

KING: To New York?

CLINTON: Yes.

KING: Was it difficult coming into New York?

CLINTON: Yes, it was very sad. I went down as quickly as I could, took my daughter down to the crisis center. Hillary was in Washington already at work trying to figure out what needed to be done for the state and the city.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9642-2004Apr13.html

Panel Says Bush Saw Repeated Warnings
Reports Preceded August 2001 Memo
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 14, 2004; Page A01


By the time a CIA briefer gave President Bush the Aug. 6, 2001, President's Daily Brief headlined "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," the president had seen a stream of alarming reports on al Qaeda's intentions. So had Vice President Cheney and Bush's top national security team, according to newly declassified information released yesterday by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.



In April and May 2001, for example, the intelligence community headlined some of those reports "Bin Laden planning multiple operations," "Bin Laden network's plans advancing" and "Bin Laden threats are real."

The intelligence included reports of a hostage plot against Americans. It noted that operatives might choose to hijack an aircraft or storm a U.S. embassy. Without knowing when, where or how the terrorists would strike, the CIA "consistently described the upcoming attacks as occurring on a catastrophic level, indicating that they would cause the world to be in turmoil," according to one of two staff reports released by the panel yesterday.

"Reports similar to these were made available to President Bush in the morning meetings with [Director of Central Intelligence George J.] Tenet," the commission staff said.

Click the link for the full article.

[strandinthewind]

It doesn't say the president didn't allow them to fly. Those are your words. They could not fly on September 11. No one could, except the Bin Ladens and members of the Saudi royal family. Here are Clinton's own words:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/04/clinton.transcript/index.html

September 11
KING: Where were you on September 11, Mr. President?

CLINTON: Australia. But I had an unusual experience because my former staff members Cheryl Mills and Bruce Lindsey were in Cheryl's office down in Tribeca with a full view of the World Trade Center. So they called me between the time the first tower was hit and the time the second tower was hit and talked me through it.

KING: Were you watching it too?

CLINTON: Later I turned it on. But I was downtown in a little town in Port Douglas where I had taken my family for vacation after the '96 election.

KING: Did you come right back?

CLINTON: I did. The White House was kind enough to give me military transport, and I left the next day and got home as quick as I could.

KING: To New York?

CLINTON: Yes.

KING: Was it difficult coming into New York?

CLINTON: Yes, it was very sad. I went down as quickly as I could, took my daughter down to the crisis center. Hillary was in Washington already at work trying to figure out what needed to be done for the state and the city.

Didn't the incident actually happen on 9/12 in Australia and wouldn't it take a day to get a plane there to pick up Bill Clinton :shrug:

In any event, my point was this author made it sound like Clinton waited for days, etc. He, at best, spun that thruth. :cool:

[strandinthewind]

You were saying Dissention and Goldie:
___________________________________________________________
Head Spook Sputters

April 15, 2004
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

If only Osama had faxed an X-marks-the-spot map to the
Crawford ranch showing the Pentagon, the Capitol, the twin towers and the word "BOOM!" scrawled in Arabic.

That might have sparked sluggish imaginations. Or maybe not.

Only a couple of weeks after the endlessly vacationing President Bush got his Aug. 6, 2001, briefing with the shivery headline "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," the C.I.A. chief, George Tenet, and other top agency officials received a briefing about the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui after his suspicious behavior in a Minnesota flight school. And that had another shivery headline: "Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly."

"The news had no evident effect" on prompting the C.I.A. to warn anyone, according to the drily rendered report of the 9/11 commission's staff, which faults the agency for management miasma and Al Qaeda myopia, citing a failure to make a "comprehensive estimate of the enemy."

Asked by the commission member Timothy Roemer about whether he had shared this amazing news at a Sept. 4 meeting with Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Clarke - the meeting on Al Qaeda that Mr. Clarke had been urgently begging for since January - Mr. Tenet said no. Asked if he had ever mentioned it to Mr. Bush in August, during a month of "high chatter and huge warnings," Mr. Tenet said no.

The Man Whose Hair Was Allegedly on Fire told the commissioners that he had not talked to the president at all in August. Mr. Bush was in Texas, and he was in Washington. Or he was on vacation, and the president was in Texas. Quel high alert.

After the hearing, Mr. Tenet had an aide call reporters to say he had misspoken, that he had briefed the presidenttwice in August, in Crawford on Aug. 17 for a morning briefing he deemed unexceptional and again in Washington on Aug. 31.

I'm not sure whether Mr. Tenet - a mystifyingly beloved figure even though he was in charge during the two biggest intelligence failures since Pearl Harbor and the Bay of Pigs - has a faulty memory, which is scary. Or if he's fuzzing things up because he told the president more specifics than he wants to admit. But in a town where careers are made on face time with the president, it's fishy that the head spook can't remember a six-hour trip to Crawford for some.

In a commission staff report, there is a stark juxtaposition of Sandy Berger's approach before the millennium and Condi Rice's before 9/11.

"Berger, in particular, met or spoke constantly with Tenet and Attorney General Reno," the report said. "He visited the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. on Christmas Day 1999 to raise the morale of exhausted officials."

Condi and her deputy, Steve Hadley, did not stoop to mere domestic work. "Rice and Hadley told us that before 9/11, they did not feel they had the job of handling domestic security." They left that up to Dick Clarke to broker, the same guy Dick Cheney said "wasn't in the loop."

Maybe Condi's confusion about her job - that it entailed national security as well as being the president's foreign policy governess and workout partner - explains why so many critical clues went into the black holes of the F.B.I. and the C.I.A.

After the Bay of Pigs, President Kennedy spoke to newspaper publishers and said: "This administration intends to be candid about its errors. For as a wise man once said, `An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.' . . . Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed - and no republic can survive."

Compare Kennedy with Mr. Bush, who conceded no errors and warned that any Vietnam analogy with Iraq - in this acid flashback moment when 64 U.S. troops were reported to have died last week and when McNarummy is forcing up to 20,000 troops to stay in Iraq - "sends the wrong message to our troops and sends the wrong message to the enemy."

He reiterated that his mission is dictated from above:
"Freedom is the almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world."

Given the Saudi religious authority's fatwa against our troops, and given that our marines are surrounding a cleric in the holy city of Najaf, we really don't want to make Muslims think we're fighting a holy war. That would only further inflame the Arab world and endanger our overstretched military, so let's hope that Mr. Bush's reference to the almighty was to Dick Cheney.**

E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/15/opinion/15DOWD.html?ex=1083031848&ei=1&en=facaa52e14438498

[dissention]

You were saying Dissention and Goldie:
___________________________________________________________
Head Spook Sputters

April 15, 2004
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

...Asked by the commission member Timothy Roemer about whether he had shared this amazing news at a Sept. 4 meeting with Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Clarke - the meeting on Al Qaeda that Mr. Clarke had been urgently begging for since January - Mr. Tenet said no. Asked if he had ever mentioned it to Mr. Bush in August, during a month of "high chatter and huge warnings," Mr. Tenet said no.


That's what I was saying: they all lie and contradict each other. ;)

I thought that the month of August was pretty much silent and without any chatter? Now it's a month filled with warnings?

I thought national security was Minute Rice's job? Now it's Richard Clarke's? But, I thought he was "out of the loop"?

I thought the White House "shook every tree" to get this information? Now they apparently didn't?

Gimme a break. The article should be titled "Lies and the lying liars who tell them."

[strandinthewind]

"Lies and the lying liars who tell them."

Wouldn't a lying liar be telling the truth :shrug:

So much for Philosophy 101 - please return to your regularly scheduled programming!!! :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock....drip, drip, drip...

[dissention]

WHAT A MORNING!!!! :lol:

Bush Erred on Mustard Gas
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040415/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mistake_3

"Once again, President Bush (news - web sites) misspoke on a weapons issue, telling the nation that 50 tons of mustard gas were found in Libya — twice the amount actually uncovered."

Jobless Claims Rise More Than Expected
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040415/bs_nm/economy_jobless_dc_1

"The number of Americans filing initial claims for jobless aid rose a sharper than expected 30,000 last week, the biggest jump in over a year, according to a government report on Thursday that could temper budding enthusiasm over a U.S. labor market revival. "

Poll: Kerry Favored Over Bush in N.Y.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=4&u=/ap/20040415/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_poll

"Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) has a hefty double-digit lead over President Bush (news - web sites) among New York state voters, according to a statewide poll released Wednesday."

Iraq War Prompts Voter Questions in Key U.S. State
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&ncid=696&e=10&u=/nm/20040414/us_nm/campaign_bush_iraq_dc

"Mounting violence and casualties in Iraq (news - web sites) may be straining support for President Bush (news - web sites) in Ohio, a Midwestern state that could well determine his re-election this November."

[strandinthewind]

Here is a link to a GREAT NYTimes article called:


Pre-9/11 Files Show Warnings
Were More Dire and Persistent



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/politics/18SEPT.html?ex=1083251450&ei=1&en=92ae34c7959e856d