6 August 2001

[cwsox]

The text of the August 6 briefing when Bush took no action on a month before September 11th was released on a holiday weekend by the White House so it would be unnoticed. The is the same PDR that Rice testified was "historical" so there was no reason to act on it. That it contains information on recent (at that time) warnings, that its title was "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" and mentions NY, Washingon, hijackers, airplanes, and terrorist cells in the US did not result in any action. The accopanying White House statement said that the PDR didn't tell Bush to do anything so he didn't. What a cop out explanation. First the White House denied they had any advance tips on al qaeda. Lie. Then they denied that they had any recent information. Lie. Now thay say Bush didn't act because he wasn't told to. And I suspect that is true. And that is why he a danger to our nation.

 

A person with reasonable curiousity and intellect might have sent out an alert or at least asked for more information on "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" but no - not Bush. He did nothing. Did not even ask for more information did not ask for a follow up. Bush is told "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" and gets told NY, Washington, hijackers, aircraft, and does not a damn thing, not even ask for a follow up on this. Of course that was the day Bush was in meetings about Ken Lay his biggest contributor and Enron. Priorities.

 

Bush was warned "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" and did nothing, not even ask for more information. As the White House statement said, he wasn't told to. I'd like to think the president does not have to be told to ask for more information when he gets briefed that "Bin Laden determined to strike in US."

 

I am editing this to add Bush's new comment that he did nothing because he was not told the place and date and time. Imagine not following up in intelligence that an attack is coming because you aren't told the date and time. He never even ordered a follow up to try and find the date and time. This man's incompetence in his position is a danger to this country and he has got to go for Amerca's sake.

link

 

 

 

from CNN:

The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.

 

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

 

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.

 

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

 

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.

 

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ---, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.

 

Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

 

Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

 

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

 

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

 

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

 

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

 

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Yeah, the holiday/weekend release of unsavory legislation or news damaging to the Administration is a baby Bush forte. The guy is some piece of work.

 

Oh, if only someone would have given them that ol' magic bullet AND flight information AND a complete list of targets AND told Bush that a briefing titled 'Bin Laden determined to strike in US' may have SOMETHING to do with bin Laden attacking the US AND.... AND... AND...

 

Bush Backers are right about one thing - 9-11 is the defining moment of this Non-President's Non-Presidency. And not in a good way.

[cwsox]

Yeah, the holiday/weekend release of unsavory legislation or news damaging to the Administration is a baby Bush forte.  The guy is some piece of work.

 

Oh, if only someone would have given them that ol' magic bullet AND flight information AND a complete list of targets AND told Bush that a briefing titled 'Bin Laden determined to strike in US' may have SOMETHING to do with bin Laden attacking the US AND.... AND... AND...

 

Bush Backers are right about one thing - 9-11 is the defining moment of this Non-President's Non-Presidency.  And not in a good way.

thanks for your post

 

it would seem no one else cares

 

 

I liked the way you worded it

[kapkomet]

I'm not defending Bush, although it will probably come across that way.

 

"Hijackings" are not crashing airplanes into buildings. I worked for an airline. They get threats like this more often then most of the public would care to know. "Hijackings" were just that, until 9/11.

 

Bin Laden had already attacked MANY American interests, and this document says that he wanted to strike in the United States, which had not happened before. Attempts, yes, but nothing happened. Any moron (including Bush if you want to look at it that way) knew before 9/11 that bin Laden was trying to hit our shores.

 

So, why is it that a directive was put in place to take out the Taliban/bin Laden/Al Queda before 9/11 happened? Yes, the Clinton administration started it, sort of, but it was finalized a week before 9/11. Why, then, is there not a "Clinton is a dangerous man" tirade going on across America? What documents did he see, that we will NEVER know?

 

I think it took balls for Bush's people to even release this document, they didn't even have to. But for people to say that Bush is a "dangerous man" for failure to act on 9/11 is hypocritical because NO ONE ever acted on it, and now, Bush has acted. I won't even get into if it's right or wrong, because I think the jury is still out.

 

This begs the question - who would have done anything different? Al Gore? LMAO. No way. Folks are living a pipe dream if they think that anyone would have acted different. It wasn't until 3,000 people died that anyone wanted to bother. Not Bush, not Clinton, not anyone else.

[Texsox]

Be vigilant and do not trust the government to do the right thing. Be active, protest, make your voice heard. ALso, when the government is doing the right thing, make certain they know you agree.

 

You can trace the problems with 9/11 back to the Revolutionary War if we wanted to. At the very least, the blame flows back to Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Clinton. But there are always little tips and oments in time that tradegies could be avoided. Look at Pearl Harbor, we had messages of the Japanese planes heading our way and didn't believe them.

[southsider2k5]

What is a year and a day after my first anniversary? Oh wait this isn't Jeopardy.

[Heads22]

Anyone else see the bit on the Daily Show where Rice describes the breifing as having nothing to do with attacks in the the US, then she is asked what the title is, and she goes "i believe, Bin Laden determined to strike within US".....cut to Jon Stewart..."You're f***ing kidding me. Please say, you're f***ing kidding."

[southsider2k5]

I am curious to hear what other people would have done. Everyone has trashed the Iraq war, but no one seems to mention that we invaded Iraq based on info from the same sources that gave us the August 6th memo. What should we have done then? Should we have shut down airports? Grounded flights? Stopped all people we had "suspisions" of? These things would not have been feasible in the pre9-11 world. NO one would have tolerated it.

[kapkomet]

I am curious to hear what other people would have done.  Everyone has trashed the Iraq war, but no one seems to mention that we invaded Iraq based on info from the same sources that gave us the August 6th memo.  What should we have done then?  Should we have shut down airports?  Grounded flights?  Stopped all people we had "suspisions" of?  These things would not have been feasible in the pre9-11 world.  NO one would have tolerated it.

That's the same question I have. And they NEVER have a comeback to this question, so they must not care.

[cwsox]

I am curious to hear what other people would have done.  Everyone has trashed the Iraq war, but no one seems to mention that we invaded Iraq based on info from the same sources that gave us the August 6th memo.  What should we have done then?  Should we have shut down airports?  Grounded flights?  Stopped all people we had "suspisions" of?  These things would not have been feasible in the pre9-11 world.  NO one would have tolerated it.

If all your questions are so easy.

 

You ask for more information.

 

You ask for a follow up.

 

You give an alert to the airlines. Then maybe groups of 5 buying one way tickets with cash at the last second might have not been so damned easy.

 

Come on, the president has to be told how to follow up because nothing was "actionable"????? Give me a f***ing break. The president hears a report "bin laden plans to attack US" and doesn't even ask to be updated? It is unbelivable.

 

And it was not from the same sources that we had the intelligence as with Iraq.

 

But damn it ss2k4 you ask for an update at the very least, you stay on top of it - you don't stay on f***ing vacation worrying about Ken Lay and do f***ing nothing.

 

If you did your job with as little curiousity and follow up you'd be deservedly fired. As Bush will be.

[cwsox]

That's the same question I have.  And they NEVER have a comeback to this question, so they must not care.

you are so cute

[kapkomet]

you  are so cute

Relax. I was kidding. I know you care because that's why you posted this to begin with.

 

I seriously do want to know... for all the back and forth, what would have been done different by any other sitting president? Do you *KNOW* that Bush didn't ask anything else? Did Clinton? Did Bush I? Did Reagan? He said that he didn't have information to stop the airplanes flying into the trade centre, but he knew of the "general" threats, hence why there were plans finally finalized right before 9/11 to take care of Al Queda, but more in a covert way. By your logic, NONE of these people are fit for office because NO ONE asked questions like these before 9/11. Everything was taken for face value. Bush f'ed up. But Al Gore would have too. It didn't matter who was in there. You can't be pretentious enough to sit there and say that anyone would have done anything different. Where was f'in Congress? They had the same general intelligence. Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle, they all had the same general information. So why didn't THEY ask? As far as I am concerned, every damn one of them should get thrown over the bus, but we know that won't happen. So why do some people get a free pass, but damn it, Bush HAS to go?

 

BTW, one more comment. The agencies reporting intelligence for the Middle East were the same basic arms of the CIA. It wasn't the exact same people for the WMD arguments for Iraq. But there was some collaborative efforts assessing the terrorism threats, and Saddam was in that group by nature of the WMD against the US arguement. Let's not fool ourselves and compartmentalize that issue for political gain because in the end, the information flow ends up being the same and it's quite ironic how we were supposed to jump up and down like hell on the 8-6-01 memo, but sit on our ass on anything having to do with WMD's. Nice and convenient to say they were different, but it's the same thing in the end.

[cwsox]

I answered that - there is no new answer - you follow up - you don't set it aside and never deal with it again (or until September 11) and you don't fail to get another PDB, soon, dealing with what type of alerts need to be put into place, if any, but you follow up. You focus on the subject at hand. Then maybe when a guy is arrested in Minnesota, the so-called 5th hijacker, in late August, you have put yourself in a better place to have two and two put together for you. Especially when the reports are that "chatter" is way up on something big happening.

 

He did nothing.

 

He did nothing.

 

He did nothing.

 

He did nothing.

 

It is possible that it all would have happened. But it is possible it might not. He did nothing. Never gave a chance to stop it.

[kapkomet]

I answered that - there is no new answer - you follow up - you don't set it aside and never deal with it again (or until September 11) and you don't fail to get another PDB, soon, dealing with what type of alerts need to be put into place, if any, but you follow up.  You focus on the subject at hand.  Then maybe when a guy is arrested in Minnesota, the so-called 5th hijacker, in late August, you have put yourself in a better place to have two and two put together for you.  Especially when the reports are that "chatter" is way up on something big happening. 

 

He did nothing.

 

He did nothing.

 

He did nothing.

 

He did nothing. 

 

It is possible that it all would have happened.  But it is possible it might not.  He did nothing.  Never gave a chance to stop it.

So we all agree he did nothing. But I guess what I'm trying to ask is, would anyone else have done anything?

 

CONGRESS had the same intelligence. NO ONE in Congress did anything.

 

There was intelligence suggesting the bombing of the Cole. Clinton did nothing.

 

There was evidence suggesting the Marines would get bombed in Beruit. Regean did nothing.

 

So, we're using scale here. 9/11 matters more, because of the scale of the attack? What?!?!

 

So now, Bush has intelligence suggesting WMD's in Iraq. WAIT!! HE DID SOMETHING!!! But Holy s***, that's WRONG!!!!!

 

Hypocritical. Very hypocritical.

 

Bush is hypocritical too. I know that. I agree fully with that. But I just can't see how you can speak out of both ends of your mouth here. He ignored intelligence for 9/11, he didn't on Iraq, and he's wrong for both? I just don't understand that logic.

[cwsox]

Bush said in the Woodward book he had "no sense of urgency" on terrorism.

 

Congress did not have this same intelligence but that is not the issue - the Executive Branch did.

 

I believe very firmly that an involved president would have followed up. Gore, if he were in, would have been all curious and wanted a follow up. Clinton certainly. I suspect Bush 1 would have followed up. Reagan may or may not have but I suspect someone on his staff would have. carter certainly. Ford for sure. Nixon for damn sure. LBJ for damn sure. Kennedy for damn sure. I'd have to go back to Hoover to find a president that I think might no have done something.

 

The ideology that blinds in this white house was that any information from Clinton's transition briefings was to de disconunted and that terrorism was not an issue, the threat to the US would be missiles and thus Star Wars needed to be built. By nature of ideology that refused to take seriously the warnings on terrorism.

 

It is not right as I see it to say that no one elee would have done anything either for I think a lot of people who have held or should ahve held that office on 6 August would have done something.

 

 

Take this point however you wanted: when Clinton wanted to deal with al qaeda he was accused of wagging the dog. One can argue that if the Congress had nopt obssessed on ral sex but on national security, we may have been better prepared. If you want to blame Clinton then it was his personal failure that led republicans in congress to obssess about oral sex rather than deal with security threats. The national dialogue could have been far better off and at the least the republicans in Congress did not support Clinton in dealing with bin laden.

 

Sandy Berger has said for a long time he begged the incoming Bushies to pay attention to what he labeled the #1 threat - terrorism and al qaeda and the Bish people dismissed it because it was from Clinton and thus not important. The dismissal of any warnings that came from the outgoing Clinton administration has been reported much.

 

The doing nothing in response to terrorism was/is a very particular and peculiar GW trademark. Thus bin laden remains free, terrorism is on the increase, and we are engaged in massive violenmce in acountry we invaded that had nothing to do wiith terrorism.

 

If Ozzie thought like Bush, he's hear scounting reports that KC plans to steal bases on us - and then fail to tell the pitchers and catchers. And when the basestealing happened, if Ozzie were like Bush, he'd attack the beer vendors because KC is getting away with basestealing that Ozzie failed to warn the pitchers and catchers about.

 

Ozzie would in that scenario be fired.

 

As Bush will be, for the sake of the nation.

[kapkomet]

Bush said in the Woodward book he had "no sense of urgency" on terrorism.

 

Congress did not have this same intelligence but that is not the issue - the Executive Branch did.

 

I believe very firmly that an involved president would have followed up.  Gore, if he were in, would have been all curious and wanted a follow up.  Clinton certainly.  I suspect Bush 1 would have followed up.  Reagan may or may not have but I suspect someone on his staff would have.  carter certainly.  Ford for sure.  Nixon for damn sure.  LBJ for damn sure.  Kennedy for damn sure.  I'd have to go back to Hoover to find a president that I think might no have done something.

 

The ideology that blinds in this white house was that any information from Clinton's transition briefings was to de disconunted and that terrorism was not an issue, the threat to the US would be missiles and thus Star Wars needed to be built.  By nature of ideology that refused to take seriously the warnings on terrorism.

 

It is not right as I see it to say that no one elee would have done anything either for I think a lot of people who have held or should ahve held that office on 6 August would have done something.

 

 

Take this point however you wanted: when Clinton wanted to deal with al qaeda he was accused of wagging the dog.  One can argue that if the Congress had nopt obssessed on ral sex but on national security, we may have been better prepared.  If you want to blame Clinton then it was his personal failure that led republicans in congress to obssess about oral sex rather than deal with security threats.  The national dialogue could have been far better off and at the least the republicans in Congress did not support Clinton in dealing with bin laden. 

 

Sandy Berger has said for a long time he begged the incoming Bushies to pay attention to what he labeled the #1 threat - terrorism and al qaeda and the Bish people dismissed it because it was from Clinton and thus not important.  The dismissal of any warnings that came from the outgoing Clinton administration has been reported much.

 

The doing nothing in response to terrorism was/is a very particular and peculiar GW trademark.  Thus bin laden remains free, terrorism is on the increase, and we are engaged in massive violenmce in acountry we invaded that had nothing to do wiith terrorism.

 

If Ozzie thought like Bush, he's hear scounting reports that KC plans to steal bases on us - and then fail to tell the pitchers and catchers.  And when the basestealing happened, if Ozzie were like Bush, he'd attack the beer vendors because KC is getting away with basestealing that Ozzie failed to warn the pitchers and catchers about.

 

Ozzie would in that scenario be fired.

 

As Bush will be, for the sake of the nation.

Your baseball analogy is pretty good.

 

Look, I certainly won't dismiss the fact that part of the problem is GWB's arrogance. He's one of the most arrogant presidents we have ever had (or at least doesn't hide it like some of the others). That is GWB's downfall that will lead him to Crawford in November, not that he "didn't do anything" about 9/11. That is, if Kerry ever decides to take a stand about something, but that's a different subject.

 

You are still not directly answering one question though. Why is it ok to NOT act in Iraq, but we HAD to act on intelligence for 9/11? Remember: again: the US had intelligence for the Cole, had intelligence for the Kenya bombings. They went "ignored" by Clinton, so it's the same logic. These kind of briefs have come across since just after the WTC bombings in 1993. NOTHING changed. THEY ALL did NOTHING. Not just Bush. And again: he ACTED on intelligence for WMD, and got his ass toasted for it. So, what if there WERE WMD's in Iraq? Would it still be "wrong" to have gone in? It's the exact same principle... still have not gotten a "respectable, to the point" answer from anyone on this question.

 

And, Plllluuuuueeeze. I hate (nothing personal against you...) it when "dems" support the notion that "repubs" were fixated on oral sex regarding Billy C. To me that whole deal was lying under oath and perjuring himself. I could give a rat's ass about Monica. But Billy C. lied his ass off to cover it UNDER OATH. Bush lies. Hell yea, he's a politician, and so does John Kerry. That's fine - we all know it. But it is NOT under oath. Just had to clarify that. And I agree 100% with you that the entire government was asleep at the wheel during that time frame and thus why partisian politics really sucks.

[cwsox]

interesting that Rice's sworn testimony that the August 6th PDB was only "historical" and had no curerent intelligence would be an act of perjury

 

and that Bush has agreed to talk with the commision not under oath, only with Cheney at his side (to make sure they keep the stories straight?) and with no transcript being made.

 

I think what happens in a deposition in a civil matter about whether oral sex constitutes a sexual relationship is far, far less important than the lies that are made in a State of the Union address or in statments made to bring a nation to war. But that is just me.

 

I thank you for the tone and attitude you have brought to this discussion. The mature and informed exchange of ideas is refreshing and I thank you for your very large role in that here.

[kapkomet]

interesting that Rice's sworn testimony that the August 6th PDB was only "historical" and had no curerent intelligence would be an act of perjury

 

and that Bush has agreed to talk with the commision not under oath, only with Cheney at his side (to make sure they keep the stories straight?) and with no transcript being made.

 

I think what happens in a deposition in a civil matter about whether oral sex constitutes a sexual relationship is far, far less important than the lies that are made in a State of the Union address or in statments made to bring a nation to war.  But that is just me.

 

I thank you for the tone and attitude you have brought to this discussion.  The mature and informed exchange of ideas is refreshing and I thank you for your very large role in that here.

How does Rice's testimony equate perjury? The document WAS historical. (Hysterical??). Anyway, It didn't say "this was going to happen". And Rice said that the document had historical information leading persons to beleive that an attack COULD take place on American shores. DUH! Everyone already knew that, before 9/11. It drives me crazy when people think that the entire thing rests on Bush's hands. Again, yes, he blew it. But our ENTIRE government blew it. True?!?

 

And you still have not answered the question about Bush acting on intelligence for Iraq and being blasted for NOT acting for 9/11. (I know what my answer would be to this, but I want to see yours).

[kapkomet]

Oh, and one more point. I agree about Cheney and Bush testifying but it having no teeth is hypocritical as well. If he truely beleives that they have done nothing wrong, then show it by testifying about what they really knew under oath.

[southsider2k5]

interesting that Rice's sworn testimony that the August 6th PDB was only "historical" and had no curerent intelligence would be an act of perjury

 

and that Bush has agreed to talk with the commision not under oath, only with Cheney at his side (to make sure they keep the stories straight?) and with no transcript being made.

 

I think what happens in a deposition in a civil matter about whether oral sex constitutes a sexual relationship is far, far less important than the lies that are made in a State of the Union address or in statments made to bring a nation to war.  But that is just me.

 

I thank you for the tone and attitude you have brought to this discussion.  The mature and informed exchange of ideas is refreshing and I thank you for your very large role in that here.

You do realize that anything that could have been construed as current was blacked out. The doc wasn't virgin. Also it was historical because that was the first time in the history of the US, that a Presidential Briefing (those are classified as above Top Secret remember) was made public.

[kapkomet]

You do realize that anything that could have been construed as current was blacked out.  The doc wasn't virgin.  Also it was historical because that was the first time in the history of the US, that a Presidential Briefing (those are classified as above Top Secret remember) was made public.

I think by "historical", he means that Rice meant information CONTAINED was historical, not the document itself.

[Texsox]

[kapkomet]

The pics don't show on my machine. What're you up to?!?!

[Texsox]

The pics don't show on my machine.  What're you up to?!?!

Link to pics

[Rex Kickass]

I seriously do want to know... for all the back and forth, what would have been done different by any other sitting president?  Do you *KNOW* that Bush didn't ask anything else?  Did Clinton?  Did Bush I?  Did Reagan?  He said that he didn't have information to stop the airplanes flying into the trade centre, but he knew of the "general" threats, hence why there were plans finally finalized right before 9/11 to take care of Al Queda, but more in a covert way.  By your logic, NONE of these people are fit for office because NO ONE asked questions like these before 9/11.  Everything was taken for face value.  Bush f'ed up.  But Al Gore would have too.  It didn't matter who was in there.  You can't be pretentious enough to sit there and say that anyone would have done anything different.  Where was f'in Congress?  They had the same general intelligence.  Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle, they all had the same general information.  So why didn't THEY ask?  As far as I am concerned, every damn one of them should get thrown over the bus, but we know that won't happen.  So why do some people get a free pass, but damn it, Bush HAS to go?

Hmmm... testimony today from Louis Freeh said that he got one third of the funding and support he wanted for counter terrorism actions. Today he said he got less than 10% of the new linguists he needed to continue terrorist actions. Do the Reagan/Bush/Clinton administrations also deserve a good part of the blame? Of course. However, steps were taken in the last years of the Clinton administration to fight terror. Including a blue ribbon panel formed by former Senators Hart and Rudmann. They couldn't get an audience with the Bush administration. I know this to be the case before September 11th, because I heard it out of the mouth of Gary Hart himself in the summer of 2001.