PDA

View Full Version : MORE PROOF BUSH DEAF TO WARINGS OF 9/11



Gayle in MD
09-11-2012, 07:00 AM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Bush White House Was Deaf To The Warnings Of 9/11</span>

By KURT EICHENWALD
Published: September 10, 2012


IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.

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.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>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. </span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>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. </span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>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. </span>

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else. </span>

That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.

On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react. </span>Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.







http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=1



<span style="color: #660000">When all of this finally comes out, as hard as Bush et al have worked to bury the worst of it, it will be very clear that without the gross incompetence, and pre-determined Iraq Agenda of Bush/Cheney and the NEOCONS from The American Enterprise Institute, 9/11 would never have happened.

Now we see again a push for going in the wrong direction on foreign policy, coming from Mitt Romney.

We can only hope that all of the organzations who are fighting for further releases of all of the damning information which the Bush Administration hastily deep sixed, to covrer up their legligence, will be released in time to prove to all Americans the corruption and incompetence of Republicans, and the true and REAL costs to our nation because of Bush.

G. </span>

Gayle in MD
09-11-2012, 07:17 AM
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1...20terror%20wars (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_8?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=500%20days%20secrets%20and%20lies%20in%20 the%20terror%20wars)

Book Description
Publication Date: September 11, 2012

Kurt Eichenwald—New York Times bestselling author of Conspiracy of Fools and The Informant— recounts the first 500 days after 9/11 in a comprehensive, compelling page-turner as gripping as any thriller.
In 500 Days, master chronicler Kurt Eichenwald lays bare the harrowing decisions, deceptions, and delusions of the eighteen months that changed the world forever, as leaders raced to protect their citizens in the wake of 9/11.

Eichenwald’s gripping, immediate style and trueto- life dialogue puts readers at the heart of these historic events, from the Oval Office to Number 10 Downing Street, from Guantanamo Bay to the depths of CIA headquarters, from the al-Qaeda training camps to the torture chambers of Egypt and Syria. He reveals previously undisclosed information from the terror wars, including never before reported details about warrantless wiretapping, the anthrax attacks and investigations, and conflicts between Washington and London.

With his signature fast-paced narrative style, Eichenwald— whose book, The Informant, was called “one of the best nonfiction books of the decade” by The New York Times Book Review—exposes a world of secrets and lies that has remained hidden for far too long.

Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com Review
Amazon Best Books of the Month, September 2012: Initially, Eichenwald (The Informant) planned to write a post-9/11 analysis of the second Bush presidency, until he realized that most of the events that set the stage for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the War on Terror--the "decisions, deceptions, and delusions"--happened in the first 18 months after the attacks. This fast-paced narrative of those 553 days takes readers inside CIA headquarters, 10 Downing Street, al-Qaeda training camps, Egyptian torture chambers, and secret prisons. Deeply researched but written like an international spy thriller, Eichenwald's book shows how decisions prompted by fear, hatred, and paranoia created a post-9/11 history "shaped by the experiences of the powerless." --Neal Thompson

cushioncrawler
09-11-2012, 08:53 PM
LET ME TELL U WHAT I THINK ON 9/11, I MEAN APART FROM THE OBVIOUS TREASON LEADING UP TO IT.
MAC.

Tower floors designed to collapse and pull in and bring towers down.
Tower floors with less than the min thickness of fire protection ie asbestos.
Locked fire doors. Locked roof doors. Locked stairwell doors.
Firefighters without radios, kleverly withheld by juliani, the hero.
Firefighters not trained re danger of collapsing towers.
Lift brakes that didnt brake. Lift emergency exits that didnt exit.
The official warnings that were given in the south tower, warning that u shoodnt evacuate, and if u had evacuated warning that it woz safe to go back up.

The usofa kood hav statues of the fallen.
How about this idea. Bronzes of usuary slaving away at desks and terminals, usuary that stayed behind koz with the northern tower on fire there woz shit happening on the usuary markets and there woz a killing to be made if u didnt delay.
Ahhh, the ultimate usuary sacrifice. How noble, giving your life for the mighty dollar.
mac.

How about a bronze of juliani with a box of radios under hiz desk.

How about a bronze of southtower security, giving out feelgood holy dollar damn the torpedos and man the desks warnings untill the second plane hit.

cushioncrawler
09-11-2012, 10:43 PM
Roozey of course knew that the japs were gonna hit pearl harbour, but Roozey wanted theusofa to join the war.

Bushy wanted to start a war. Not the same thing.

Apparantly the COTUS prevents joining an old war but iz ok for starting a new war.
mac.

SHITSUTONKA FRIED WHALE -- FINGERLICKIN GOOD.

cushioncrawler
09-11-2012, 10:56 PM
This kood go to broadway.
The showstopper writes itself. Bushy dancing along the kerb, singing singing in the rain, with bodys and body parts and dust and debris raining down.
But it haz a happy ending. Theusofa invades iraq.
Finale. Evangelikal Generals doing the victory rap.
mac.

Qtec
09-12-2012, 04:00 AM
Flashback.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Bush Opposes 9/11 Query Panel</span>

President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday <span style='font-size: 17pt'>to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11.</span>

Mr. Bush said the matter should be dealt with by congressional intelligence committees.

CBS News Correspondent Bill Plante reports that Mr. Bush said the investigation should be confined to Congress because it deals with sensitive information that could reveal sources and methods of intelligence. Therefore, he said, the congressional investigation is "the best place" to probe the events leading up to the terrorist attacks.

"I have great confidence in our FBI and CIA," the President said in Berlin, adding that he feels the agencies are already improving their information sharing practices.

Mr. Bush's comments come after a two-day hearing on Capitol Hill with FBI director Robert Mueller and the agent who wrote the so-called "Phoenix memo" last summer warning about that Arab students training at U.S. aviation schools were linked to a militant Muslim group.
</div></div>

We know now full well why Bush didn't want an investigation.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As the 9/11 Commission itself notes, as part of its ass-covering efforts, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the Bush administration engaged in criminal obstruction of justice.</span>

There are numerous examples of obstruction of justice into the 9/11 investigation, including:

The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 said that Soviet-style government “minders” obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses

The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed </span>by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times

As reported by ACLU, FireDogLake, RawStory and many others, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>declassified documents shows that Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001</span>

Moreover, the CIA videotaped the interrogation of 9/11 suspects, falsely told the 9/11 Commission that there were no videotapes or other records of the interrogations, and then illegally destroyed all of the tapes and transcripts of the interrogations.

9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.</span>

This is particularly disturbing because the torture methods used were specially-targeted at producing false confessions. And according to NBC News:

Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured
</div></div>

good link with links (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/03/the-reason-for-this-cover-up-goes-right-to-the-white-house.html)

They wanted to question the detainees but were not allowed to. They had to take Bush's word for it.

Q

Sid_Vicious
09-12-2012, 08:19 AM
I am not sure I am reading this right. Roosevelt treasoniously allowed the attact on Pearl, and Bush treasoniously started a war(2) by allowing the attack on NY. If this is correct, then why didn't the democratic process here in this country convict both president for murder?

One president gets a BJ in the WH and is impeached, and this government ALLOWS other presidents to kill thousands and thousands and thousands of people by devious and illegal plots to begin and join wars through their decisions to ALLOW events to happen against our own American people?

I continue to be all F-d up over that. George Walker Bush should still be hung. The rest of the world has to see the USA as super hypocritical. I wouldn't respect this country if I didn't live here, and it gets harder to respect it as time goes on. sid





<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Roozey of course knew that the japs were gonna hit pearl harbour, but Roozey wanted theusofa to join the war.

Bushy wanted to start a war. Not the same thing.

Apparantly the COTUS prevents joining an old war but iz ok for starting a new war.
mac.

SHITSUTONKA FRIED WHALE -- FINGERLICKIN GOOD. </div></div>

cushioncrawler
09-12-2012, 08:55 AM
Sofla will i suppoze point out that u kan only treason during a war. Yeah, and it appears that Churchill knew about pearl harbour. Certainly, churchill sayd that that night he had the best nights sleep since the war started. And i thort that Israel knew about 911, and that zero israelis were killed on 911, but then i see that in fakt 5 were killed. Anyhow, a bad bizness allround.
mac.

Gayle in MD
09-12-2012, 11:03 AM
Thanks Q.

Gayle in MD
09-12-2012, 11:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Roozey of course knew that the japs were gonna hit pearl harbour, but Roozey wanted theusofa to join the war.

Bushy wanted to start a war. Not the same thing.

Apparantly the COTUS prevents joining an old war but iz ok for starting a new war.
mac.

SHITSUTONKA FRIED WHALE -- FINGERLICKIN GOOD. </div></div>

Plenty of proof that Bush was a liar, incompetent, willfully ignored warnings, even specific warnings, and tried to cover up his failures and his treason. THERE IS NO PROOF that I know of that Rossevelt allowed the attack on Pearl harbor, NOR THAT CHURCHILL KNEW AND DID NOTHING.

A surprise attack in Pearl Harbor, would not have been a necessary requirement for war with Japan.

Neither man would have wanted our entire fleet destroyed, and
Roosevelt could just as easily warned our solidiers, and blown the hell out of the Japs before they ever got us by surprise. It wasn't necessary t allow the attack to take place, in order to go to war. Not necessary for us to loose our fleet, and lives of our soldiers.

It simply doesn't make any sense, and I know of no reliable historian, nor element of documented proof, that either man knew.

Bush, OTOH, was in business with the bin Laden family, AND the same Saudi families which were financing al Qaeda, and bin Laden, and they had already been declared our biggest threat by Bill Clinton, we already had agencies dedicated solely to killin bin Laden, and smashing al Qaeda, hence, Bush committed TREASON, as he failed to honor the oath he took as President.

Not to mention thousands of other illegal activities.

This book is just one in a long list of documented books, which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Bush knew, and Bush chose to allow the attack to happen.

Loads and loads of PROOF, documented by career CIA agents, and counter terrorist experts, in their own books, after they retired!

Cheney and Bush will NEVER succeed in polishing up their failed administration of lies, and deceit!

In fact, as time goes by, and more proof will be revealed, more documentation will emerge which proves them to be treasonists PIGS!

There is no way they can continue to muddy up the waters. There will come a time when their shameful administraton will finally receive the public damnation it deserves.

Sid_Vicious
09-12-2012, 11:14 AM
Treason was intact ever since Bush called us to war and then dragged us into Iraq. Churchill, same thing. Every death and injury which occurred after both presidents effectively started or dishonestly sucked us into those wars, were a crime upon them and the United States Of America. I get mad as hell when I really think about it.

Even the most liberal amongst us sometimes seem to find the ability of an excuse for this country's decisions. This is sad, and I don;t blame the rest of the world for it's criticisms over time. sid

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sofla will i suppoze point out that u kan only treason during a war. Yeah, and it appears that Churchill knew about pearl harbour. Certainly, churchill sayd that that night he had the best nights sleep since the war started. And i thort that Israel knew about 911, and that zero israelis were killed on 911, but then i see that in fakt 5 were killed. Anyhow, a bad bizness allround.
mac. </div></div>

LWW
09-12-2012, 11:51 AM
OOC ... why aren't our resident leftists questioning why the current POTUS wasn't even attending security meeting leading up to this 9/11?