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 4 5

Bayfisher

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4630
Offline
« #15 : September 11, 2012, 12:52:09 PM »

Amazing how Clinton is like teflon when it comes to this topic. 

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46231
Offline
« #16 : September 11, 2012, 05:52:10 PM »

I am wondering how long Bush will be the cause of all ills.  I didn't like him as President, but for so many ills to be blamed upon him is almost humorous at times, but mostly it leaves me wondering when Barry will be accountable.  I would have thought at the declared end of recession some accountability would have been pushed towards Barry... but not yet.

\"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

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7109
Offline
« #17 : September 11, 2012, 06:18:04 PM »

Neocon this, Neocon that etc. Any article that mentions Neocon is suspect to me let alone 3 times in one paragraph.

Oh yea, and he just released about last week about guess what? You got it, Bush and 911. Pretty sure that's totally coincidental.

If the CIA were that convinced that a massed casualty event was imminent is the guy honestly trying to tell me they sat on their asses and did nothing? I know they are not allowed to operate inside the US, but their are a lot of other avenues open to them. Fast and Furious anyone? The media, Congress are all options. Not saying the Bush Administration didn't miss anything else that what has been release, but I find it pretty absurd they did nothing and let it happen just because they wanted to go to war with Iraq. Joe will come out with his Cuba story etc and Operation whathisface about bombing America in the 60's etc, but it ain't 60's and in the absence of further evidence it is my opinion this guy is talking out of his ass.

Bayfisher

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4630
Offline
« #18 : September 11, 2012, 06:33:24 PM »

What year did they declare Jihad against America?  We were supposed to be surprised because they did what they said they were going to do?

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28967
Online
« #19 : September 11, 2012, 11:58:07 PM »

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.

That's not what the writer claims. He's claiming that the neocons convinced Bush that the CIA had it wrong, were fooled and the threat wasn't imminent. The necon driven PNAC knew that a "new pearl harbor event" would really push their agenda along. They got it.

When Bush is shown reacting to the info. that the US was under attack, I think he realized then that the necons had ****ed him.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28967
Online
« #20 : September 12, 2012, 12:10:10 AM »

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/11/13809524-evidence-piles-up-that-bush-administration-got-many-pre-911-warnings?lite

Excerpt:

...And former US intelligence officials say there were even more warnings, pointing to a little noticed section of George Tenet’s memoir, “At the Center of the Storm.”

In it, Tenet describes a July 10, 2001, meeting at the White House in the office of Condoleezza Rice, then President George W. Bush’s national security adviser. The meeting was not discussed in the 9-11 Commission’s final report on the attacks, although Tenet wrote that he provided information on it to the commission.

What’s critical to understanding the difference between this meeting and others, says one former senior U.S. intelligence official who spoke with NBC News on condition of anonymity, is that the intelligence provided that day was fresh, some of it having been collected the previous day. And other intelligence and national security officials, also speaking on condition of anonymity, say the briefings make clear that, while Bush administration officials understood the nature of the threat, they didn’t understand its magnitude and urgency.

“This intelligence delivered on July 10 was specific and was generated within 24 hours of the meeting,” said the first official, who pointed out the text in the Tenet memoir.

Tenet wrote about how after being briefed by his counterterrorism team on July 10 -- two months prior to the attacks -- “I picked up the big white secure phone on the left side of my desk -- the one with a direct line to Condi Rice -- and told her that I needed to see her immediately to provide an update on the al-Qaida threat.”

Tenet said he could not recall another time in his seven years as director of the CIA that he sought such an urgent meeting at the White House. Rice agreed to the meeting immediately, and 15 minutes later, he was in Rice’s office.

An analyst handed out the briefing packages Tenet had just seen and began to speak.  “His opening line got everyone’s attention,” Tenet wrote, “in part because it left no room for misunderstanding: ‘There will be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months!'”

The team laid out in a series of slides its concerns, based on intelligence that included information “from the past 24 hours.”

Citing his notes on the briefing, Tenet wrote, “A chart displayed seven specific  pieces of intelligence gathered over the past twenty-four hours, all of them predicting an imminent attack. Among the items: Islamic extremists were traveling to Afghanistan in greater numbers, and there had been significant departures of extremist families from Yemen. Other signs pointed to new threats against U.S. interests in Lebanon, Morocco, and Mauritania.”

A second chart followed, listing a summation of the most chilling comments by al-Qaida. According to Tenet, they were:

• A mid-June statement from Osama bin Laden to trainees that there will be an attack in the near future.

• Information that talked about moving toward decisive acts.

• Late June information that cited a “big event” that was forthcoming.

• “Two separate bits of information collected only a few days before our meeting in which people were predicting a stunning turn of events in the weeks ahead.”

Another slide detailed how Chechen Islamic terrorist leader Ibn Kattab had  promised some “very big news” to his troops.

There were more details, as laid out by one of Tenet’s top analysts, known in the book as “Rich B.”  Tenet recounts his aide telling Rice and others, “The attack will be ‘spectacular.’ and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities and interests. ‘Attack preparations have been made,’ he said. ‘Multiple and simultaneous attacks are possible, and they will occur with little or no warning. Al-Qaida is waiting us out and looking for vulnerability.”

Rice, Tenet wrote, reacted positively to the briefing and asked her counter terrorism adviser, Richard Clarke, if he agreed with the assessment. Clarke said he did, and Tenet said he and his aides left the meeting feeling that Rice understood the threat.  However, he wrote, the White House never followed up on the presidential finding that Tenet had been asking for since March, authorizing broader covert action against al-Qaida.  That finding was signed by President Bush on Sept. 17, six days after the attacks.

Roger Cressey, who was Clarke’s deputy and is now an NBC News counter terrorism analyst, says one thing that is missing from Tenet’s description of the events is that the intelligence pointed to overseas attacks. although CIA did tell officials that they couldn’t discount an attack on the US homeland.

 “Everything we had (from US intelligence) pointed overseas, specifically to the Gulf,” he said. “There was no actionable intelligence that pointed to the homeland. What we did know, and what we told domestic agencies, was there was "a disturbance in the force” and we were very worried about an attack.

Still, Cressey remains critical of the lack of a response going back to the first week of the administration, saying the counterterrorism team at the National Security Council and experts elsewhere in the government were “butting our  heads against the wall” in an effort to get a meaningful response from the White House.


Would action by the White House have helped? Like Eichenwald, Cressey says he isn’t sure, but notes that when similar intelligence pointed to attacks on Jan. 1, 2000, “Sandy Berger (Rice’s predecessor) and (President Bill) Clinton went to battle stations.”  Did warnings prior to the millennium help thwart a number of attacks back then? Cressey believes they did.

One intelligence official also noted that after the interception of the July intelligence, there was little conversation on the al-Qaida communications network prior to Sept. 11. It wasn’t until much later U.S. intelligence understood why: With the plans and operational personnel in place, the plotters were simply waiting for an opportune time to strike.

“They laid low because they were waiting for Congress to come back in session,” the official said.

The reason, he said: United Flight 93 was headed for the U.S. Capitol, where Congress was in session, when passengers overpowered the hijackers, causing the plane to crash in a field near Shanksville, Pa. 

Robert Windrem is a senior investigative producer for NBC News.

JavaRay

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

Posts : 17206
Offline
« #21 : September 12, 2012, 12:25:53 AM »

What year did they declare Jihad against America?  We were supposed to be surprised because they did what they said they were going to do?

You can't believe everything you hear.   



GoldsonAges

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 6804
Offline
« #22 : September 12, 2012, 12:50:31 AM »

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/

Anwar Al-Awlaki may be the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, but he was also a lunch guest of military brass at the Pentagon within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Fox News has learned.

Documents exclusively obtained by Fox News, including an FBI interview conducted after the Fort Hood shooting in November 2009, state that Awlaki was taken to the Pentagon as part of the military’s outreach to the Muslim community in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.

The incident was flagged by a current Defense Department employee who came forward and told investigators she helped arrange the meeting after she saw Awlaki speak in Alexandria, Va.

The employee "attended this talk and while she arrived late she recalls being impressed by this imam. He condemned Al Qaeda and the terrorist attacks. During his talk he was 'harassed' by members of the audience and suffered it well," reads one document.

According to the documents, obtained as part of an ongoing investigation by the specials unit "Fox News Reporting," there was a push within the Defense Department to reach out to the Muslim community.

"At that period in time, the secretary of the Army (redacted) was eager to have a presentation from a moderate Muslim."

In addition, Awlaki "was considered to be an 'up and coming' member of the Islamic community. After her vetting, Aulaqi (Awlaki) was invited to and attended a luncheon at the Pentagon in the secretary of the Army's Office of Government Counsel."

Awlaki, a Yemeni-American who was born in Las Cruces, N.M., was interviewed at least four times by the FBI in the first week after the attacks because of his ties to the three hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Hani Hanjour. The three hijackers were all onboard Flight 77 that slammed into the Pentagon.


Awlaki is now believed to be hiding in Yemen after he was linked to the alleged Ft. Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who e-mailed Awlaki prior to the attack.

Sources told Fox News that Awlaki, who is a former Muslim chaplain at George Washington University, met with the Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in Yemen and was the middle-man between the young Nigerian and the bombmaker. Awlaki was also said to inspire would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad.

Apparently, none of the FBI's information about Awlaki was shared with the Pentagon. Former Army Secretary Tommy White, who led the Army in 2001, said he doesn't have any recollection of the luncheon or any contact with Awlaki.

"If this was a luncheon at the Office of Government Counsel, I would not necessarily be there," he said.

The Pentagon has offered no explanation of how a man, now on the CIA kills or capture list, ended up at a special lunch for Muslim outreach.

After repeated requests for comment on the vetting process beginning on October 13th, an Army spokesman insisted Wednesday that the lunch was not an Army event. "The Army has found no evidence that the Army either sponsored or participated in the event described in this report," spokesman Thomas Collins said.

Collins also noted that the FBI document referred to the “Office of Government Counsel” but should read “Office of General Counsel.”

Collins said he believed the event was sponsored by the office of the Secretary of Defense. A spokeswoman there said she would look into it and get back to Fox News.

A former high-ranking FBI agent told Fox News that at the time Awlaki went to lunch at the Pentagon, there was tremendous "arrogance" about the vetting process at the Pentagon.

"They vetted people politically and showed indifference toward security and intelligence advice of others," the former agent said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/#ixzz26EBG5gVR




Mike Glennon
6\' 7\" 220 pounds.
6\' 6\" 210
6\' 5\" 200
6\' 4\" 190 6\' 3\" 180 6\' 2\" 170 6\' 1\" 160  6\' 0\" 150 How does he compare to your favorite QB?

McBarron

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1115
Offline
« #23 : September 12, 2012, 09:57:10 AM »

I still can't understand why so many defend Bush. It is not even debatable that he was a horribly incompetent POTUS. It should come to us as no surprise that he was duped by 'neocons' or whatever that this threat (pre-9/11) was not imminent. He needs to answer and be held accountable for these 'oversights' which led to so many innocent people's deaths.

He at least needs to answer for all these allegations that actually appear to hold some truth. And, if these allegations hold even a fraction of truth, then some sort of punishment needs to be handed out for those who we elected to protect our country and inform the public (at the very least) of imminent danger. How this guy or any political leader could ever get away with 'mistakes' of this magnitude is scary.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46231
Offline
« #24 : September 12, 2012, 01:34:54 PM »

Because some much undeserved crap lands on him.  As I mentioned earlier - he wasn't my choice for President - but even as the 9/11 trajedy is revisited in the article posted by UFOjoe - you note that the report was that something big was going to happen somewhere - limited to the planet evidently.  In retrospect - knowing they what we know now - would folks have reacted differently - for certain.  I am also confident Clinton and Bush rue not reining in Fannie and Freddie, and Dodd & Frank wish they had been a bit more clairvoyant.  But they weren't - and sometimes bad stuff happens.  The measure is the reaction and action to those dangers than can't be avoided.  jmvho

\"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

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #25 : September 12, 2012, 04:17:20 PM »


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

Perhaps a follow up on the vague reports that actually did specify a particular threat (Bin Laden) might have been wise. Perhaps more information could have been gathered. It's not as though the US had never been the target of an Islamic terrorist attack before. Not saying that it would have prevented it, but it could have.


Chief Joseph

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

Posts : 4309
Offline
« #26 : September 12, 2012, 04:22:07 PM »


Would that be the same Bin Laden they tried to hand over to Clinton but he wouldn't take? I'll bet Dubya must have tricked him into it somehow. What's your theory on the subject?

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

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46231
Offline
« #27 : September 12, 2012, 04:39:31 PM »


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

Perhaps a follow up on the vague reports that actually did specify a particular threat (Bin Laden) might have been wise. Perhaps more information could have been gathered. It's not as though the US had never been the target of an Islamic terrorist attack before. Not saying that it would have prevented it, but it could have.
Perhaps if it was narrowed to a particular continent a follow up would have been handy - but there was knowledge something was going to happen - exclude the Artic and Antartica... everything else was in play. 

\"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

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27803
Offline
« #28 : September 12, 2012, 04:49:54 PM »

I can forgive Bush for not necessarily taking the threat of Bin Laden 100% seriously. But I continue to think it was completely idiotic to think Iraq was any kind of threat to our national security.

FRG is the most logical poster on this board.  You guys just don\'t like where the logical conclusions take you.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #29 : September 12, 2012, 04:57:57 PM »


Would that be the same Bin Laden they tried to hand over to Clinton but he wouldn't take? I'll bet Dubya must have tricked him into it somehow. What's your theory on the subject?

What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/clinton-passed-on-killing-bin-laden/


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

Perhaps a follow up on the vague reports that actually did specify a particular threat (Bin Laden) might have been wise. Perhaps more information could have been gathered. It's not as though the US had never been the target of an Islamic terrorist attack before. Not saying that it would have prevented it, but it could have.
Perhaps if it was narrowed to a particular continent a follow up would have been handy - but there was knowledge something was going to happen - exclude the Artic and Antartica... everything else was in play.

Whatever the facts were, the mere fact that books are being written by former staffers and the CIA claims to have been “butting their heads against the wall” would leave one to believe that the administration's response to the intel was out of the norm in terms of negligence.

  Page: 1 2 3 4 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