Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

White House Admits Pre-9/11 Warnings; Bush Still Denies It

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
CShine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:14 AM
Original message
White House Admits Pre-9/11 Warnings; Bush Still Denies It
At his press conference yesterday, President Bush was asked about charges that he had received warnings prior to the September 11th attacks that a terrorist incident was imminent. He answered that even asking such a question was "an absurd insinuation." It was the same sentiment expressed by Bush's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who said in May of 2002 that " that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane."

The problem for the president and the administration is that the White House has previously admitted that the president had personally received such specific warnings. As ABC News reported in May of 2002, "White House officials acknowledge that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the September 11th attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." As Condoleezza Rice said at a hastily called press conference to spin these revelations, the President specifically received an "analytic report" on August 6th, 2001 at his Crawford mansion that "talked about Osama bin Laden's methods of operation" and "mentioned hijacking." According to Reuters, that report was congruent with "intelligence since 1998 that said followers of bin Laden were planning to strike U.S. targets, hijack U.S. planes."

While the administration claims that the president's pre-9/11 warning was actually "not a warning," the threat was specific enough for Attorney General John Ashcroft to stop flying commercial airlines. While no warning was issued for the general public after Bush's personal intelligence warning, Ashcroft was flying exclusively by leased jet instead of commercial airlines because of an official "threat assessment by the FBI."

http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df12162003.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Sugarbleus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. OMG...
If this is true.....................then why isn't BUSH and company in PRISON??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!

What a vile fraud this pResident is...
I think it is way too long to wait til he is kicked out of office. He should have to do the "perp walk" outta there, in handcuffs, instead! geeezus It's one outrage after another!! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Something terribly amiss here
First they admit, now go into denial/anger??

OMG, what webs we weave for ourselves?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hong Kong Cavalier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Because nobody's taking him to task for this.
No reporter is daring to ask the question.
No network will do an expose on this.
No Congressional panel will inquire about this.
No independent counsel will investigate this.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. fear
They fear what Fox, Karl Rove & Co. will do to them - Rove already outed a CIA agent - it doesn't get much lower than that; he also accused one reporter of being gay (and worst of all) Canadian - those Canadians are bankrupt according to Bill O'Reilly; Fox listed a conservative CNN reporter's home phone # on their website;etc, etc...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
15. Exactly...that reporter yesterday should have pressed Bush...
further and brought up this same information instead of just letting go after one question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. Here's a treasure trove of 9-11 prior knowledge ...
... most of the info is culled from mainstream McMedia.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archiveprior_knowledge.html

Read and weep. Then tell everybody you know. The only thing these monsters fear is the Truth.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBHam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:39 AM
Response to Original message
3. Because the Corporate Media are complicit...
They'll bury this story with shameless alacrity. They are determined that the truth never be known. The integrity of the office of the Presidency is at stake...

They say that Kathleen Graham of the Wash Post always regretted allowing Bernstien and Woodward to investigate Watergate...

When you KNOW you can get away with murder, why not?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpibel Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 03:23 AM
Response to Original message
5. To be precise
After stammering about, "There's time fer politics," he said, "It's an assurd assinuation."

It was an hilarious moment, because Big Stretch was trying to lob him a fat one so he could bash Howard Dean for "hate speech" (the current term for "the truth"). The Fierce Warrior Chieftain, however, suffered a bad "sooooo busted" moment, and couldn't focus on the right part of the q.

A guy with nothing to hide wouldn't get hung up on the wrong thing. If it's really an assurd assinuation, you don't stop listening, you hear the whole question, and go yard like Big Stretch intended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snippy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
6. White House spin on the August 6, 2001 briefing has always been Bushshit.
That briefing warned of an impending terrorist attack against a high profile target possibly involving hijacked airplanes. The briefing was delivered in Crawford, Texas where Bush, after 6 grueling months as president, was on the first 30 day vacation of his presidency.

Tha administration always has said that the briefing was to provide information about the historical methods and practices of al Qaeda, which is patently false. Bush would have no interest in that type of information. He would expect Condi and Rummy and Tenet to have that information and tell him anything he needed to know. Even if one assumes that Bush wanted to know this stuff, the briefing would most likely have been given to Rice who would then explain it to Bush. Finally, even if one assumes that Bush wanted to be personally briefed, there would be no reason to interfere with Bush's highest priority as president, which is vacationing. Bush would have insisted that the briefing wait until he returned to Washington.

The willingness of the media to believe the administration's Bushshit about the August 6, 2001 briefing is depressing. Regardless of whether the media is stupid or obedient, or both, it is depressing.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/warningmemo020516.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092001probe.story

https://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/16/195306.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. At the time
I thought that vacation was highly suspicious and thought about posting it, I'm pleased that others picked up on it as well. The coward punk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftHander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Bush in FLorida where National Guard on alert
At a school full of children....what a "safe place" if anything went wrong during the "terrorist attack".

Does anyone think they would actually put in writing a document that stated planes will strike the WTC on 9/11 and hand it to the president??
No...they will make it vauge but verbally state what is going to occur.

He spent so much time in Crawford because that is probably the safest place for him to discuss such an operation. The White House is full of recording devices Bush's ranch is "clean". And a perimieter can be set up to prevent any covert long range listening while Bush is "trimming brush" with his buddies.


Bush was told in Crawford and HE KNEW!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
8. Not news
It is just that no one ever acts on any of it, and pounds away at it, or holds anyone from this gang of thugs accountable for any of it. This administartion is constantly spinning at evey turn to obscure every revelation and it has snowballed into such a curtain of lies, one wouldn't know where to begin to unravel it all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Loonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
9. What are the Democrats going to do about this?
Besides nothing, as usual.

Maybe Daschle will be "deeply saddened" before he goes out to pick daisies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
11. They why did the entire military go on high alert
at least twice in the months prior to the attack? There were rumors then that the military was expecting an al Qaeda attack. Expecially after the Cole which was in Oct 2000, everyone was waiting for the other shoe to drop.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cthrumatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
13. big kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seventhson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
16. Smoking gun evidence kick: James Hatfield July 2001 Article
Edited on Wed Dec-17-03 09:34 AM by seventhson
2 weeks before he was "suicided"

If you haven't read this yet, you do not know how bad things really are:

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Hatfield-R-091901/hatfield-r-091901.html

Excerpt:

James Hatfield - July 3, 2001 - Online Journal


"July 3, 2001—
A plot by Saudi master terrorist, Osama bin Laden, to assassinate Dubya ..., was uncovered after dozens of suspected Islamic militants linked to bin Laden's international terror network were arrested in Frankfurt, Germany, and Milan, Italy, in April.

German intelligence services have stated that bin Laden is covertly financing neo-Nazi skinhead groups throughout Europe to launch another terrorist attack at a high-profile American target—his first since the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen last October.

According to counter-terrorism experts quoted in Germany's largest newspaper, the attack on Dubya might be a James Bond-like aerial strike in the form of remote-controlled airplanes packed with plastic explosives.

Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill, Dubya, his former business partner?"



Hell Yeah Bush Knew!!!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC