Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: NYT: Bush 9/11 warning negligence far graver than disclosed « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 ... 5

Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
« : September 11, 2012, 07:20:47 AM »

A few weeks before 9/11 attacks, former President Gorge W. Bush received a top secret document saying that an attack from al-Qaeda on U.S. soil was imminent, however the president chose to neglect the warning, according to The New York Times.

On Aug. 6, 2001, President Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his network, The Times said.

“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,” it added.

According to the writer of the article, Kurt Eichenwald who is also the author of 500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars, on April 10, 2004, the White House declassified that daily brief in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack.

Eichenwald wrote that the Bush administration dismissed the document’s significance as only an assessment of al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack.

The following are some highlights of the New York Time report:

The administration’s reaction to what 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 President 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 conspiring with Saddam Hussein was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ su**CENSORED**ions were nevertheless carrying the day.

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 su**CENSORED**ious 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 su**CENSORED**ions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.

http://www.presstv.com/usdetail/260968.html

JavaRay

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17206
Offline
« #1 : September 11, 2012, 07:46:13 AM »

Just curious, what do you recommend that he should have done?   


Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
« #2 : September 11, 2012, 08:06:14 AM »

I agree w/ the recommendations are here in the 9/11 Commission's report in the executive summary.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Exec.htm


ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28835
Online
« #3 : September 11, 2012, 08:32:12 AM »


The neocons knew that a major attack on US soil would open the door to an invasion of Iraq. Maybe they wanted this to happen?

The entire article...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0

And one more excerpt:

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’ su**CENSORED**ions 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.


Chief Joseph

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
« #4 : September 11, 2012, 08:52:16 AM »


They failed to take significant action over vague reports that didn't specify any particular threat? Very damning.

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.

JavaRay

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17206
Offline
« #5 : September 11, 2012, 10:07:39 AM »

I agree w/ the recommendations are here in the 9/11 Commission's report in the executive summary.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Exec.htm

That complicated thing would have taken 5 years to implement.   Too late to stop 911


Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
« #6 : September 11, 2012, 11:31:53 AM »

Putting the nation on alert of an upcoming attack might have made American citizens more diligent, might have made cities more attentive.

We were as prepared for 9/11 as we were for Pearl Harbor.

Bush was equally as bad in his Federal response for Katrina. He chronically was unprepared when he needed to take charge.

Chief Joseph

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
« #7 : September 11, 2012, 11:41:37 AM »


" Putting the nation on alert of an upcoming attack might have made American citizens more diligent, might have made cities more attentive."

...and might have caused the liberal media to cry out in unison: "Fear Mongering!"

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.

Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
« #8 : September 11, 2012, 11:45:20 AM »

If that's the case (that Bush didn't alert us of a pending attack because he was afraid of the political media's response), he was a worse president than I thought.

olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21323
Offline
« #9 : September 11, 2012, 11:46:57 AM »

I believe he was pointing out the hypocrisy, but you know that right.

Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
« #10 : September 11, 2012, 11:52:12 AM »

and I'm pointing out that if Bush were fearful of the media's response to a legitimate alert that might have protected the citizens of the US, he was a bad president

Chief Joseph

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
« #11 : September 11, 2012, 11:58:50 AM »


Difficult to say beforehand that an alert is legitimate. It is only through the brilliant clarity of your hindsight that we know these things.

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46174
Offline
« #12 : September 11, 2012, 12:01:33 PM »

and I will point out the difficulties with Katrina were mostly at the state, municipal and city government levels.  can't make folks listen, nor make decisions they don't want to make or are incapable of making.   

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
« #13 : September 11, 2012, 12:02:14 PM »


Difficult to say beforehand that an alert is legitimate. It is only through the brilliant clarity of your hindsight that we know these things.
this is true

deadzone

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3560
Offline
« #14 : September 11, 2012, 12:05:53 PM »

Bush was a terrilbe president, but in so many other ways.........Iraqi for conversation.
  Page: 1 2 3 ... 5
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: NYT: Bush 9/11 warning negligence far graver than disclosed « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools