Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Pilotguy

(438 posts)
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:14 PM Sep 2012

The August 6 PDB wasn't the first warning Bush received...

From the New York Times:

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.

Read the rest here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=2&src=twr

23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The August 6 PDB wasn't the first warning Bush received... (Original Post) Pilotguy Sep 2012 OP
Three questions pkdu Sep 2012 #1
The article implies they were not pscot Sep 2012 #7
Ahaaaaa! RobertEarl Sep 2012 #2
LIHOP! ananda Sep 2012 #12
The inevitable attacks were seen as an opportunity for the obvious Iwasthere Sep 2012 #3
I held this view for awhile jimlup Sep 2012 #5
I agree with you StatGirl Sep 2012 #10
It seems the people who ignored the warnings were the ones who wanted a New Pearl Harbor. Gregorian Sep 2012 #4
But Bush kept us safe! wakemewhenitsover Sep 2012 #6
I recall reading that the Clinton administration had been quite emphatic about the risks... CBHagman Sep 2012 #8
Very much so. You got to read this. avaistheone1 Sep 2012 #22
The Aug 6 PDB only makes sense as part of a series Bolo Boffin Sep 2012 #9
"The Bush focus on Saddam Hussein led to this blindness to the threat posed by Osama bin Laden..." gateley Sep 2012 #19
Aghh ... uhh ... tk2kewl Sep 2012 #11
why don't they trust Americans to know the truth? grasswire Sep 2012 #13
This highlights the fundamental problem with Republican thinking. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #14
excellent -- this is why they can't be trusted with reins of power grasswire Sep 2012 #16
I don't understand? I thought Bush kept us safe? nt aaaaaa5a Sep 2012 #15
Jeb: Stop Picking On My Brother!!! n/t grasswire Sep 2012 #17
kick nt Hissyspit Sep 2012 #18
In a court of law he'd be guilty of negligence laundry_queen Sep 2012 #20
By May 1. Major Hogwash Sep 2012 #21
Coleen Rowley and the FBI were fully aware of the planning prior to 9/11 just1voice Sep 2012 #23

pkdu

(3,977 posts)
1. Three questions
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:25 PM
Sep 2012

1. Was the 9-11 commission given this info!
2. If so , what ask ?
3. What were the answers ?

pscot

(21,024 posts)
7. The article implies they were not
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:35 PM
Sep 2012

This is political dynamite. People get taken out and shot for this kind of dereliction.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
2. Ahaaaaa!
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:26 PM
Sep 2012

So that is why the head of the CIA, Tenet, was later given a medal.

He was rewarded for keeping his mouth shut and not telling America that what happened was, up until it happened, being actively denied by the Bush Administration.

So they all just sat back and let whatever happened, happen?

Iwasthere

(3,168 posts)
3. The inevitable attacks were seen as an opportunity for the obvious
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:28 PM
Sep 2012

Simple as that. This is why the warnings were all ignored. I've known that all along but get little support

jimlup

(7,968 posts)
5. I held this view for awhile
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:34 PM
Sep 2012

and still feel it may have been true for certain members of the Administration. Probably only spoken about in memos and stuff that will remain classified for the next 50 years at least.

But perhaps they were just so ignorant as to be stuck in the fantasy that they were still fighting the cold war and getting ready to attack Iraq. It is possible that the "asleep at the wheel" explanation is correct though both yours and this fit the available evidence.

Intentional ignorance (LIHOP "Let It Happen On Purpose&quot is of course HIGHEST TREASON so it would be extraordinarily hard to prove.

StatGirl

(518 posts)
10. I agree with you
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:47 PM
Sep 2012

Shortly after he was installed, Bush started saying that his tax cut plan would not create a deficit except in the case of war or recession.

I remember being furious at that, because he had specifically denied that his tax cuts would cause any deficits during the 2000 campaign.

Some months later, and I don't remember exactly when, he started saying that his tax cuts would not create a deficit except in the case of war, recession, or national emergency.

I remember asking myself, what kind of national emergency would flip us into a deficit? We're a pretty big country, able to absorb floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. without bringing the whole nation down.

On the afternoon of September 11, I said to myself (and e-mailed others; I have a record of it) "Oh, this was the national emergency he was referring to."

MIHOP? No proof, and I don't go that far. LIHOP? Absolutely, although they may not have realized the damage would be that great.

Gregorian

(23,867 posts)
4. It seems the people who ignored the warnings were the ones who wanted a New Pearl Harbor.
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:31 PM
Sep 2012

It makes it very hard to not look for a conspiracy when you read the PNAC.

CBHagman

(16,986 posts)
8. I recall reading that the Clinton administration had been quite emphatic about the risks...
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:39 PM
Sep 2012

...and that the Bush team was so intent on doing things their way that they lost ground. And I remember there was a headline in the September 11th, 2001, New York Times or Washington Post -- I think it was the Times -- about the administration's planned cuts to counterterrorism programs.

 

avaistheone1

(14,626 posts)
22. Very much so. You got to read this.
Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:56 AM
Sep 2012

It was written by our William Rivers Pitt and it is one of THE best articles about the Clinton's administration actions and warnings.

The Sins of September 11
http://archive.truthout.org/article/william-rivers-pitt-the-sins-september-11

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
9. The Aug 6 PDB only makes sense as part of a series
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:45 PM
Sep 2012

Why is a "history lesson" popping up in the PDB at all? To support an ongoing discussion.

The Bush focus on Saddam Hussein led to this blindness to the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Great article from the Times.

gateley

(62,683 posts)
19. "The Bush focus on Saddam Hussein led to this blindness to the threat posed by Osama bin Laden..."
Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:22 AM
Sep 2012

You nailed it.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
13. why don't they trust Americans to know the truth?
Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:17 AM
Sep 2012

"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."

Absolutely sickening that it has taken this long to reveal that.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
14. This highlights the fundamental problem with Republican thinking.
Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:59 AM
Sep 2012

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=3&src=twr

They did not just posit a conspiracy theory as a possibility. They embraced it as a truth.

They cannot tell truth from fiction. They cannot tell truth from a lie. They cannot tell a certain truth from a theory.

And that is why they cannot understand so many things -- like what the scientific method is really about -- like how to weigh risks against gains.

The flaws in their thinking processes render them incapable of leading the country in a direction that is safe and prosperous. Bush is just one example of this.

Republicans -- return to the thinking of the Neanderthals.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
16. excellent -- this is why they can't be trusted with reins of power
Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:43 AM
Sep 2012

they live in an alternate universe.

laundry_queen

(8,646 posts)
20. In a court of law he'd be guilty of negligence
Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:28 AM
Sep 2012

A 'reasonable' person would've taken the briefing seriously and taken more steps to beef up security. Al Gore said in his years as VP that if there was a briefing as strongly worded as that one was, everything else that day/week/month would've taken a back seat. Because Bush didn't act as a 'reasonable' person would (remember, a 'reasonable' person is not 'any' person, but in the 75th percentile with regards to common sense/intelligence) he is guilty of negligence.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
21. By May 1.
Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:44 AM
Sep 2012

I guess the corporations of the mainstream media didn't think we'd ever hear about that CIA report.

 

just1voice

(1,362 posts)
23. Coleen Rowley and the FBI were fully aware of the planning prior to 9/11
Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:36 PM
Sep 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley

"After the September 11, 2001, attacks, Rowley wrote a paper for FBI Director Robert Mueller documenting how FBI HQ personnel in Washington, D.C., had mishandled and failed to take action on information provided by the Minneapolis, Minnesota Field Office regarding its investigation of suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui. Moussaoui had been suspected of being involved in preparations for a suicide-hijacking similar to the December 1994 "Eiffel Tower" hijacking of Air France 8969. Failures identified by Rowley may have left the U.S. vulnerable to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Rowley was one of many agents frustrated by the events that led up to the attacks, writing:

During the early aftermath of September 11th, when I happened to be recounting the pre–September 11th events concerning the Moussaoui investigation to other FBI personnel in other divisions or in FBIHQ, almost everyone's first question was "Why?--Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case?"
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The August 6 PDB wasn't t...