If you think this was a huge shock out of nowhere you should probably read the 9/11 report. There was ample evidence that they knew about that STRONGLY suggested terrorists were intent on using planes for a terrorist attack.
IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.
“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.
And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.
Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.
That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.
On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.
In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.
Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.
So...if Bush & Co. was that paralyzed with all the warrnings of the attack, just what reaction could be expected when news of the actual attack arrived? same thing...not much of a reaction at all.
now take your shoes off in the airport. and no drinks either, please, thank you. That's great.
So...if Bush & Co. was that paralyzed with all the warrnings of the attack, just what reaction could be expected when news of the actual attack arrived? same thing...not much of a reaction at all.
now take your shoes off in the airport. and no drinks either, please, thank you. That's great.
And don't stop shopping. We need you to keep shopping. What a group of clowns.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
I don't know. Maybe be commander in chief and excuse yourself and find out wtf is going on?
thumb in your ass isn't the raction I would expect of anybody in charge.
His staff was trying to figure out what was going on. He also gave a press conference from that school room very shortly after. Two buildings were just hit by two planes minutes before he was told. There were still unaccounted planes in the air. One plane was still yet to hit the Pentagon and yet another to go down in Penssylvania. What seriously did you expect him to do from an elementary school in FLorida? And he was in charge. He let his staff do what they do, let his security do what they do, and remain a powerful and calm leader in a very tragic and confusing time. On a side note, you do realize that Obama had over six hours to prepare for his huge press conference when the US government took out Osama. A press conference conveniently given to interupt DOnald Trump's Celebrity Apprentice (conveniently when Trump was toying with the idea of joining the Prez race and attacking obama and where he was born).
Exactly. He let his staff do what they did his entire term- run the show. Hardly a leader. A puppet for big business. We know where your party loyalties lie... but you sure lose credibility when you try to defend that pathetic bit of history.
I'm pretty sure every President has a staff...including the Big O. :?
Documents show the U.S. was given more warnings about potential terrorist attacks in the weeks leading up to 9/11, writes Vanity Fair contributing editor Kurt Eichenwald in a New York Times op-ed.
The documents predate the presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, which said, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”
“The administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed,” he wrote. “In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.”
The direct warnings to Bush, he writes, date back to the spring of 2001. On May 1, the CIA told the White House that there was “a group presently in the United States” that was planning an attack. On June 22, a daily briefing described the attack as "imminent." Administration officials, however, dismissed the warnings, saying that Osama bin Laden was merely feigning an attack to distract the U.S. from efforts against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
“Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day,” Eichenwald wrote. “In response, the CIA prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.”
Briefings on June 29, July 1, and July 24 carried similar warnings. On July 9, Eichenwald writes, one official suggested staff members of the CIA Counterterrorism Center “put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place.”
“[The Bush administration] got this information and they weren't looking at it in the context of here's this huge threat that's developed,” Eichenwald said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “Look at what the Pentagon said, ‘What's the nation state that's backing them? Oh, we think it's Iraq.’ And so, it was a frame of mind that was not unreasonable for them to have because they hadn't been getting the intelligence until very recently about the evolution and change of al-Qaida.”
Eichenwald, however, was criticized by former New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, for writing the piece.
“I think this is incredibly unfortunate,” he said on Morning Joe, adding that, "I think is incredibly unfair and a disservice to history.”
Eichenwald wrote a book, “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars,” describing the intelligence briefings and actions taken by the Bush administration before and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
He was told “A second plane hit the second Tower. America is under attack" and he sat there for 9 minutes.
If you actually WATCH that clip ...
there is
NO
WAY
that is what he was told.
Unless it was the Micro Machines guy speed saying it.
I just saw Andy Card on tv say that's exactly what he told him. He knew going in the first tower was hit so he tells him the second tower is hit and he sits there. No matter what was said it was clear he knew the impact and he sat there.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
He was told “A second plane hit the second Tower. America is under attack" and he sat there for 9 minutes.
If you actually WATCH that clip ...
there is
NO
WAY
that is what he was told.
Unless it was the Micro Machines guy speed saying it.
I just saw Andy Card on tv say that's exactly what he told him. He knew going in the first tower was hit so he tells him the second tower is hit and he sits there. No matter what was said it was clear he knew the impact and he sat there.
Oh i know its what they SAY he was told ...'
you be the judge: play this clip
leave time before speaking for the lean in, and also for the lean out.
Cram all those words in to that spot. It comes out just a "wee bit" fast.
Also.
I know we all like to cut Bush slack for "being an idiot", but I find this a bit beyond the pale: "I Saw The First Plane Hit The Tower On A TV Outside The Classroom" ... i mean, if you chalk this up to typical Bush dumbness, fine ... but it is a pretty elaborately constructed, completely false, statement. He doesn't just, kind've imply something here, he explicitly states he "saw the plane hit" "ON A TV" "outside the classroom".
Jeez. With a memory like that Mr. President.
:fp: :fp: :fp:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Sheesh.
I have some EXTREMELY strong feelings about all this too but does it really accomplish anything to rehash it again and again?
It's the anniversary of a very sad day. It was also a day when we saw some people at their finest and a day when we all felt united. It may sound naive but I wish it would be observed with respect.
Documents show the U.S. was given more warnings about potential terrorist attacks in the weeks leading up to 9/11, writes Vanity Fair contributing editor Kurt Eichenwald in a New York Times op-ed.
The documents predate the presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, which said, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”
“The administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed,” he wrote. “In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.”
The direct warnings to Bush, he writes, date back to the spring of 2001. On May 1, the CIA told the White House that there was “a group presently in the United States” that was planning an attack. On June 22, a daily briefing described the attack as "imminent." Administration officials, however, dismissed the warnings, saying that Osama bin Laden was merely feigning an attack to distract the U.S. from efforts against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
“Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day,” Eichenwald wrote. “In response, the CIA prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.”
Briefings on June 29, July 1, and July 24 carried similar warnings. On July 9, Eichenwald writes, one official suggested staff members of the CIA Counterterrorism Center “put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place.”
“[The Bush administration] got this information and they weren't looking at it in the context of here's this huge threat that's developed,” Eichenwald said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “Look at what the Pentagon said, ‘What's the nation state that's backing them? Oh, we think it's Iraq.’ And so, it was a frame of mind that was not unreasonable for them to have because they hadn't been getting the intelligence until very recently about the evolution and change of al-Qaida.”
Eichenwald, however, was criticized by former New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, for writing the piece.
“I think this is incredibly unfortunate,” he said on Morning Joe, adding that, "I think is incredibly unfair and a disservice to history.”
Eichenwald wrote a book, “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars,” describing the intelligence briefings and actions taken by the Bush administration before and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
And there are plenty of things the Big O "ignored" as president. Just google "things obama ignored".
Documents show the U.S. was given more warnings about potential terrorist attacks in the weeks leading up to 9/11, writes Vanity Fair contributing editor Kurt Eichenwald in a New York Times op-ed.
The documents predate the presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, which said, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”
“The administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed,” he wrote. “In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.”
The direct warnings to Bush, he writes, date back to the spring of 2001. On May 1, the CIA told the White House that there was “a group presently in the United States” that was planning an attack. On June 22, a daily briefing described the attack as "imminent." Administration officials, however, dismissed the warnings, saying that Osama bin Laden was merely feigning an attack to distract the U.S. from efforts against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
“Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day,” Eichenwald wrote. “In response, the CIA prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.”
Briefings on June 29, July 1, and July 24 carried similar warnings. On July 9, Eichenwald writes, one official suggested staff members of the CIA Counterterrorism Center “put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place.”
“[The Bush administration] got this information and they weren't looking at it in the context of here's this huge threat that's developed,” Eichenwald said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “Look at what the Pentagon said, ‘What's the nation state that's backing them? Oh, we think it's Iraq.’ And so, it was a frame of mind that was not unreasonable for them to have because they hadn't been getting the intelligence until very recently about the evolution and change of al-Qaida.”
Eichenwald, however, was criticized by former New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, for writing the piece.
“I think this is incredibly unfortunate,” he said on Morning Joe, adding that, "I think is incredibly unfair and a disservice to history.”
Eichenwald wrote a book, “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars,” describing the intelligence briefings and actions taken by the Bush administration before and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
And there are plenty of things the Big O "ignored" as president. Just google "things obama ignored".
BWHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.
When you do that, this is actually the first result
It's the anniversary of a very sad day. It was also a day when we saw some people at their finest and a day when we all felt united. It may sound naive but I wish it would be observed with respect.
Beautifully said.
(and if what you said is naive, then I suppose I am too)
I do agree. I have seen a lot of the news today about how there are new relevations of that GW ignored leading up to it. I think it is pretty clear to everyone the threat was ignored and we were attacked. I don't know why it has to be discussed today. There was some serious negligence and we paid dearly, let's just remember the dead and the first responders today and tomorrow we can talk about how it happened.
Documents show the U.S. was given more warnings about potential terrorist attacks in the weeks leading up to 9/11, writes Vanity Fair contributing editor Kurt Eichenwald in a New York Times op-ed.
The documents predate the presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, which said, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”
“The administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed,” he wrote. “In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.”
The direct warnings to Bush, he writes, date back to the spring of 2001. On May 1, the CIA told the White House that there was “a group presently in the United States” that was planning an attack. On June 22, a daily briefing described the attack as "imminent." Administration officials, however, dismissed the warnings, saying that Osama bin Laden was merely feigning an attack to distract the U.S. from efforts against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
“Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day,” Eichenwald wrote. “In response, the CIA prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.”
Briefings on June 29, July 1, and July 24 carried similar warnings. On July 9, Eichenwald writes, one official suggested staff members of the CIA Counterterrorism Center “put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place.”
“[The Bush administration] got this information and they weren't looking at it in the context of here's this huge threat that's developed,” Eichenwald said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “Look at what the Pentagon said, ‘What's the nation state that's backing them? Oh, we think it's Iraq.’ And so, it was a frame of mind that was not unreasonable for them to have because they hadn't been getting the intelligence until very recently about the evolution and change of al-Qaida.”
Eichenwald, however, was criticized by former New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, for writing the piece.
“I think this is incredibly unfortunate,” he said on Morning Joe, adding that, "I think is incredibly unfair and a disservice to history.”
Eichenwald wrote a book, “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars,” describing the intelligence briefings and actions taken by the Bush administration before and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
And there are plenty of things the Big O "ignored" as president. Just google "things obama ignored".
BWHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.
When you do that, this is actually the first result
Keep scrolling. You need to only get to number two and then it continues for pages.
It's over...I'm good. I got my kicks.[/quote]
Thanks for the bump and attempt though. If you actually read through those *50 Top Accomplishments" however, just becasue something was done during his presidency doesn't make it an accomplishment. Again, thatnks for the bump. :corn:
What should he have done? There are threats on a daily basis that come out of AQ. The Taliban just threatened Prince Harry, should he go an hide? I do not understand what people wanted the president to do? Everyone is quick to blame Bush for 9/11, should we forget to mention that Clinton had the chance to kill him during his 8 year? Should he be part of the blame as well since the training of the terrorists took part during his watch too? It wasn't like oh look Bush became the president in Jan let's attack in Sep. I do not think Gore would have done anything different had he won, I do not think Obama would have done anything different. I think shit hit the fan the security was organizing a new plan of action to get the fuck out of Dodge (Florida), once they got the all clear they popped smoke and took off.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
This picture makes me wonder.....who was FDR with when he first heard of the attack on Pearl Harbor....his mistress or his sea-hag of a wife?
Eleanor was having her fun on the side as well.
I have a hard time picturing Eleanor "having fun on the side"
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
It's the anniversary of a very sad day. It was also a day when we saw some people at their finest and a day when we all felt united. It may sound naive but I wish it would be observed with respect.
Beautifully said.
(and if what you said is naive, then I suppose I am too)
I was actually looking for an image of "bush"---as in woods in Pennsylvania...when i realized that using "bush" as a search parameter would not yield the nice trees and paths I was instead looking for.
I never saw a still image of this scene before--only video. I never saw the look of panic in Bush's eyes before this. I actually intended this thread then to be where others could also post poignant pictures that they came across. It took a life of its own, which I admit, I added to.
but what you're saying is true.
I watched some footage yesterday where at the end it was noted that some 200 people jumped to their deaths that day.
Sometimes I feel that the events of 9/11 are still sinking in, because its something that just can't sink into one's psyche all at once
Sometimes I feel that the events of 9/11 are still sinking in, because its something that just can't sink into one's psyche all at once
To this day, I can't seem to watch footage without wanting to cry. In a strange way I think that's a good thing. People have found ways to sentimentalize 9/11 with souvenirs, posters, and such--and those things may work for some people. But I think I sometimes need those reminders of the enormity of it, even though they're hard to watch.
I wish I had more reminders of the days and weeks right after 9/11, when we all seemed to come together and people showed so much caring. People of all ages and backgrounds made simple gestures. While it didn't last, at the time it made me much more hopeful for the future.
Those jumping, those images, and how deeply it...tore in, sunk in (for lack of a better term)...they're like tattoos - though gradual ones, as rollings mentioned.
Maybe also instantaneous ones, for those there. Right there.
I think in the end, for me, it's humbling.
Beyond.
Puts the stupid little nerfballs of life in perspective.
I know I shouldn't need those reminders, and usually don't, but sometimes they're a welcome slap in the (my) face of complacency.
I do not understand what people wanted the president to do? Everyone is quick to blame Bush for 9/11, should we forget to mention that Clinton had the chance to kill him during his 8 year?
Stop with the logic here! Yep, Clinton had the chance to take Osama out...the released reports confirm it...and Clinton chose not to do it. Probably would have prevented the USS Cole tragedy as well, but lets keep blaming George Bush. Lets keep making fun of a picture of a President in the middle of one of the biggest, if not the biggest, tragedies of US history. Makes perfect sense. :fp:
I do not understand what people wanted the president to do? Everyone is quick to blame Bush for 9/11, should we forget to mention that Clinton had the chance to kill him during his 8 year?
Stop with the logic here! Yep, Clinton had the chance to take Osama out...the released reports confirm it...and Clinton chose not to do it. Probably would have prevented the USS Cole tragedy as well, but lets keep blaming George Bush. Lets keep making fun of a picture of a President in the middle of one of the biggest, if not the biggest, tragedies of US history. Makes perfect sense. :fp:
clinton was weak on terrorism too. so was bush sr. the picture was of W though. find a picture of clinton sitting in a classroom while our country is under attack and we'll discuss it.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
I do not understand what people wanted the president to do? Everyone is quick to blame Bush for 9/11, should we forget to mention that Clinton had the chance to kill him during his 8 year?
Stop with the logic here! Yep, Clinton had the chance to take Osama out...the released reports confirm it...and Clinton chose not to do it. Probably would have prevented the USS Cole tragedy as well, but lets keep blaming George Bush. Lets keep making fun of a picture of a President in the middle of one of the biggest, if not the biggest, tragedies of US history. Makes perfect sense. :fp:
clinton was weak on terrorism too. so was bush sr. the picture was of W though. find a picture of clinton sitting in a classroom while our country is under attack and we'll discuss it.
No pictures of Clinton in a classroom during tragedy. He was too busy in his office with Monica. No cameras were allowed.
My opinion.......the presidents schedule and location was widely publicized and the first reaction to the nation being under attack wasn't to move the president to a secure location??? Were they aware that the president wasn't a target? If not that is a pretty huge assumption and a massive gamble with the presidents life. I'm not posing any theories, just pointing out the either terrible logic of the Bush camp that day or the peculiar nature of their actions. If Bush was a target he wouldn't have been hard to find that day.
"All I Ever Knew" available now in print and digital formats at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and iBooks.
Comments
Eleanor was having her fun on the side as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opini ... nings.html
IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.
“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.
And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.
Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.
That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.
On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.
In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.
Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.
now take your shoes off in the airport. and no drinks either, please, thank you. That's great.
And don't stop shopping. We need you to keep shopping. What a group of clowns.
I'm pretty sure every President has a staff...including the Big O. :?
The documents predate the presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, which said, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”
“The administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed,” he wrote. “In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.”
The direct warnings to Bush, he writes, date back to the spring of 2001. On May 1, the CIA told the White House that there was “a group presently in the United States” that was planning an attack. On June 22, a daily briefing described the attack as "imminent." Administration officials, however, dismissed the warnings, saying that Osama bin Laden was merely feigning an attack to distract the U.S. from efforts against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
“Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day,” Eichenwald wrote. “In response, the CIA prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.”
Briefings on June 29, July 1, and July 24 carried similar warnings. On July 9, Eichenwald writes, one official suggested staff members of the CIA Counterterrorism Center “put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place.”
“[The Bush administration] got this information and they weren't looking at it in the context of here's this huge threat that's developed,” Eichenwald said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “Look at what the Pentagon said, ‘What's the nation state that's backing them? Oh, we think it's Iraq.’ And so, it was a frame of mind that was not unreasonable for them to have because they hadn't been getting the intelligence until very recently about the evolution and change of al-Qaida.”
Eichenwald, however, was criticized by former New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, for writing the piece.
“I think this is incredibly unfortunate,” he said on Morning Joe, adding that, "I think is incredibly unfair and a disservice to history.”
Eichenwald wrote a book, “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars,” describing the intelligence briefings and actions taken by the Bush administration before and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
If you actually WATCH that clip ...
there is
NO
WAY
that is what he was told.
Unless it was the Micro Machines guy speed saying it.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I just saw Andy Card on tv say that's exactly what he told him. He knew going in the first tower was hit so he tells him the second tower is hit and he sits there. No matter what was said it was clear he knew the impact and he sat there.
Oh i know its what they SAY he was told ...'
you be the judge:
play this clip
leave time before speaking for the lean in, and also for the lean out.
Cram all those words in to that spot. It comes out just a "wee bit" fast.
Also.
I know we all like to cut Bush slack for "being an idiot", but I find this a bit beyond the pale:
"I Saw The First Plane Hit The Tower On A TV Outside The Classroom" ... i mean, if you chalk this up to typical Bush dumbness, fine ... but it is a pretty elaborately constructed, completely false, statement. He doesn't just, kind've imply something here, he explicitly states he "saw the plane hit" "ON A TV" "outside the classroom".
Jeez. With a memory like that Mr. President.
:fp: :fp: :fp:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
He sure didn't!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Bull Shit!
I have some EXTREMELY strong feelings about all this too but does it really accomplish anything to rehash it again and again?
It's the anniversary of a very sad day. It was also a day when we saw some people at their finest and a day when we all felt united. It may sound naive but I wish it would be observed with respect.
And there are plenty of things the Big O "ignored" as president. Just google "things obama ignored".
BWHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.
When you do that, this is actually the first result
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazi ... php?page=1
Thanks though.
(and if what you said is naive, then I suppose I am too)
Keep scrolling. You need to only get to number two and then it continues for pages.
Keep scrolling. You need to only get to number two and then it continues for pages.
It's over...I'm good. I got my kicks.
It's over...I'm good. I got my kicks.[/quote]
Thanks for the bump and attempt though.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
I was actually looking for an image of "bush"---as in woods in Pennsylvania...when i realized that using "bush" as a search parameter would not yield the nice trees and paths I was instead looking for.
I never saw a still image of this scene before--only video. I never saw the look of panic in Bush's eyes before this. I actually intended this thread then to be where others could also post poignant pictures that they came across. It took a life of its own, which I admit, I added to.
but what you're saying is true.
I watched some footage yesterday where at the end it was noted that some 200 people jumped to their deaths that day.
Sometimes I feel that the events of 9/11 are still sinking in, because its something that just can't sink into one's psyche all at once
I wish I had more reminders of the days and weeks right after 9/11, when we all seemed to come together and people showed so much caring. People of all ages and backgrounds made simple gestures. While it didn't last, at the time it made me much more hopeful for the future.
Maybe also instantaneous ones, for those there. Right there.
I think in the end, for me, it's humbling.
Beyond.
Puts the stupid little nerfballs of life in perspective.
I know I shouldn't need those reminders, and usually don't, but sometimes they're a welcome slap in the (my) face of complacency.
Stop with the logic here!
clinton was weak on terrorism too. so was bush sr. the picture was of W though. find a picture of clinton sitting in a classroom while our country is under attack and we'll discuss it.
No pictures of Clinton in a classroom during tragedy. He was too busy in his office with Monica. No cameras were allowed.