Aug 6 PDB: Bin Laden Determined....

[elfwitch]

I just got this from my favorite Political Science Professor. The link is to an actual copy of the PDB given to Chimpy on Aug 6.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/pdb_080601.pdf

Now this makes me wonder, after reading this memo, what other information did they need to treat this as a serious threat? Were they waiting for an engraved invitation? Did they need the hijackers to RSVP?

Sheesh!

[papau]

1. The 1.5 pages of 12 still seems to say "Pres-shake the trees-do something"

But the media is spinning for Bush - as always.

Maybe we will get all 12 pages into public view someday.

[Brotherjohn]

3. You, too, seem convinced as I am that they in fact "redacted" most of...

... the PDB (as we discussed here, too: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1398156)

What I am trying to remember is where it was I read yesterday that this was a "section" of the PDB. Any clues?

I'm not referring to the original German article that said it was 11.5 pages long. I'm referring to a major news outlet that had the text of the PDB and said that it was a "section" of the PDB. This was the only place I saw it. Everywhere else said it "was" the PDB.

Did you see anything similar? Are you basing your confidence that the memo was 12pp long on something else?

I'm really trying to run this down, because if there's something to this, then the WH lied when they said in their "Fact Sheet" that "The copy of the PDB that has been released is a copy of the PDB prepared for the President, except that three redactions have been made to protect the names of foreign governments that provided information to CIA."
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040410-5.html)

And if so, they can be nailed easily on this if one of the Commission members asks George Tenet:
"Is the August 6th, 2001 PDB as released by the White House Saturday, April 10, 2004, the entire document, or are there one or more additional pages that have been removed before its release?"

[gandalf]

5. Do you mean this?

Saturday, Nov. 15, 2003

WASHINGTON – The federal commission studying the Sept. 11 terror attacks erred in requesting only pieces of secret presidential intelligence briefings rather than entire documents, a member said Friday.

The commission and the White House reached a compromise this week that headed off a possible subpoena by the commission. It gives the panel restricted access to daily written intelligence assessments – presidential daily briefs, or PDBs – related to terrorism and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"We should be requesting the entire PDB, not an article from the PDB," said former Rep. Tim Roemer, D-Ind. "How can you get the context of how al-Qaida or Afghanistan is being prioritized in 10 or 12 pages when you only are seeing two paragraphs?"

More...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/14/220925.shtml

[Brotherjohn]

7. No, but that's ANOTHER clue pointing to multiple pages!

I also note in your Newsmax quote the reference to "articles" within the PDBs. I read in several places yesterday stories that made reference to the "PDB" as an "article".

Oooohh, I would LOVE for one brave reporter to break script tonight and ask Bush himself if the PDB as released was the entire document (minus the three redactions), or were there one or several more pages which were not released.

[elfwitch]

4. geez...

Even this little bit shows that there is no way they could look at this and not see that something was looming.

I appreciate that there is more that is not being shown, but damn! If you forwarded this to every person you know, think about what kind of an impact (albeit a small one) it might make.

One person at a time.

[truebrit71]

2. You're joking right?? How could they have known from this??

There were NO specific flight numbers, no specific names, and no specific dates....Jeez you people expect too much.....//sarcasm off

Why hasn't this clown been impeached yet??

Oh yeah, that's right...the rethuglicans own the House....


Never mind.....

[Brotherjohn]

6. Right. And there are two possible specific targets mentioned. GUESS!!

That's right! New York and Washington, D.C.!

Not only should this document alone prompted W to do more than just say he was "satisfied"... well, prompted him to do SOMETHING! But we are supposed to believe that this is the ONLY information he or the White House had, or had access to, or could have asked about!

This was just a summary. Clarke (Bush's own Counter-Terrorism "Czar") was screaming at the top of his lungs! As was Tenet. They were panicked that something was going to happen.

They keep trying to claim that it's not their fault, it's the system. But again and again, it comes back to this: they either have to be lying through their collective teeth or they are the most incompetent administration EVER.

I personally think it was the latter, but then the former (lying) has come up simply top cover their incompetent asses.

[gandalf]

8. And why weren't more fighters ready?

Some people say, the fact that the hijacked aircrafts were not intercepted was due to the fact that only 4 fighters were ready on the whole east coast. If we belief this for one second, we might ask: Why only four fighters, if the danger of hijackings by terrorists is so high? (And the PDB wasn't the only warning, cf Project Bojinka).