8/6/01 PDB Memo. Released

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by greatdarkwing

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

~Alex

Thought you might say that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-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]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Thought you might say that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-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 ).


~Alex

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by greatdarkwing

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 ).


~Alex

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

[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.

[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

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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

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

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

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

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 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

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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."

[strandinthewind]

Lest you all think I am a W supported , 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/...190302,00.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/worldlates...962870,00.html


_______________________-

Have Fun!!!!!!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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."

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.