PDA

View Full Version : Documents disclose 9/11 warning



Spesh
09-11-2012, 12:36 PM
The direct warnings to Bush, he writes, date back to the spring of 2001. On May 1, the CIA told the White House that there was “a group presently in the United States” that was planning an attack. On June 22, a daily briefing described the attack as eminent. Administration officials, however, dismissed the warnings, saying that Osama bin Laden was merely feigning an attack to distract the U.S. from efforts against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

“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,” Eichenwald wrote. “In response, the CIA prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.”

Briefings on June 29, July 1, and July 24 carried similar warnings. On July 9, Eichenwald writes, one official suggested staff members of the CIA Counterterrorism Center “put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place.”

“[The Bush administration] got this information and they weren't looking at it in the context of here's this huge threat that's developed,” Eichenwald said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “Look at what the Pentagon said, ‘What's the nation state that's backing them? Oh, we think it's Iraq.’ And so, it was a frame of mind that was not unreasonable for them to have because they hadn't been getting the intelligence until very recently about the evolution and change of al-Qaida.”


http://news.yahoo.com/report-documents-disclose-9-11-warnings-081156564--politics.html


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.


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

Not a fan of people coming out over a decade later to "spill the truth" or "break the story", but interesting none the less. The most telling thing to me is how we were so focused on Iraq. Original story is the second quote.

Spesh
09-11-2012, 12:59 PM
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.

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.................

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.

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.


:bobdole: at the bolded.

And decided to post context to the "shift the blame" highlight. Partisan politics should not have anything to do with national defense.

nick1
09-11-2012, 02:10 PM
certainly goes along with the idea of republicans supporting al qeada

DisturbedShifty
09-11-2012, 02:17 PM
I always believed they knew it was coming. Just so Bush would have an excuse to finish what his Daddy started. Only problem is they probably were counting on something along the lines of the 98 parking garage bombing, not airplanes.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

Ilovemyfins4eva
09-11-2012, 02:20 PM
I always believed they knew it was coming. Just so Bush would have an excuse to finish what his Daddy started. Only problem is they probably were counting on something along the lines of the 98 parking garage bombing, not airplanes.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.
the 1st wtc bombing was 93, not 98.

also, its funny how all the blame is put on bush when the ''great'' Bill Clinton had 3 opportunities to nab bin laden but did absolutely nothing. just saying

Locke
09-11-2012, 02:24 PM
the 1st wtc bombing was 93, not 98.

also, its funny how all the blame is put on bush when the ''great'' Bill Clinton had 3 opportunities to nab bin laden but did absolutely nothing. just saying

What does Clinton have to do with this...?

nick1
09-11-2012, 02:27 PM
Reagan financed them so we can thank him for what they have become

Ilovemyfins4eva
09-11-2012, 02:27 PM
What does Clinton have to do with this...?
BLAMING BUSH FOR 9/11, just pointing out how if maybe clinton had taken bin laden out 1 of the 3 times he had the chance to rather than doing absolutley nothing, maybe 9.11 never happens.

just saying. i dont blame either president for such a horrible act of terror, after every big attack there are always things found out after in which could have been done to potentially prevent the act.

Locke
09-11-2012, 02:35 PM
BLAMING BUSH FOR 9/11, just pointing out how if maybe clinton had taken bin laden out 1 of the 3 times he had the chance to rather than doing absolutley nothing, maybe 9.11 never happens.

just saying. i dont blame either president for such a horrible act of terror, after every big attack there are always things found out after in which could have been done to potentially prevent the act.

Sounds like I need to brush up on my history, because I have no idea how/when Clinton could have taken out Bin Laden. But this doesn't absolve the Bush administration of this negligence. That's like saying, "yeah, well I wouldn't have stolen that TV if someone else had bought it before I got there." The Bush administration knew it was coming, and dropped the ball. Period. There is no way around it. Now to say it's just Bush would be unfair, because he is a figurehead to the administration. But the people he hired for all these roles failed, which means he failed...

Ilovemyfins4eva
09-11-2012, 02:41 PM
]Sounds like I need to brush up on my history, because I have no idea how/when Clinton could have taken out Bin Laden.[/B] But this doesn't absolve the Bush administration of this negligence. That's like saying, "yeah, well I wouldn't have stolen that TV if someone else had bought it before I got there." The Bush administration knew it was coming, and dropped the ball. Period. There is no way around it. Now to say it's just Bush would be unfair, because he is a figurehead to the administration. But the people he hired for all these roles failed, which means he failed...
considering how well you seem to know your history, im surprised you never read anything about how Clinton failed to do anything when given the chance to get bin laden. you deff should read up on it if you are being serious about being unaware.

your right, it does not excuse bush though despite what clinton had a chance to do with bin laden.

Locke
09-11-2012, 03:05 PM
considering how well you seem to know your history, im surprised you never read anything about how Clinton failed to do anything when given the chance to get bin laden. you deff should read up on it if you are being serious about being unaware.

your right, it does not excuse bush though despite what clinton had a chance to do with bin laden.

Admittedly, I'm not the most well-versed in political science, which is why you'll see me staying out of conversations that start getting technical. I'm particularly not well-versed in political history, which is why I find myself asking James and Wayward about matters in those areas. I'll look into it though, I had no idea Clinton had any opportunities to take him out...

Spesh
09-11-2012, 04:52 PM
considering how well you seem to know your history, im surprised you never read anything about how Clinton failed to do anything when given the chance to get bin laden. you deff should read up on it if you are being serious about being unaware.

your right, it does not excuse bush though despite what clinton had a chance to do with bin laden.

So because Bush ignored clear warnings of an obvious attack on America its Clinton's fault?

You can spin these games countless ways. If Reagan hadnt expanded funding to "freedome fighters" to fight the Soviets Osama wouldnt have had the support necessary to lead an attack against us. Perhaps if the Supreme Court hadnt stopped Florida from recounting, Gore would have been President and not ignored the warnings. Perhaps if Republicans hadnt fought so hard against abortion rights the concept would have spread to other countries and bin Laden would never have been born. Perhaps if Christian fundamentalists hadnt fought against condom use for so long other religions would have adapted as well and bin Ladens parents would never have conceived him.

Throwing around Clinton as the blame is absurd. The warnings were there, they were ignored. Anything that happened or didnt happen under Clinton is irrelevant when it comes to Bush's negligence.

phinfan3411
09-11-2012, 06:47 PM
Guys, i'm not saying any of this is bull, to the contrary, i believe it to be 100% true.

I'm not a truther, i think they're idiots, i realize there is a difference between Bush knowing attacks were coming, and actually knowing when where and how they were going to strike.

I think he had a clue, but did not know everything, so what is a President to do with a "i'm sure they're planning something sir" statement from the CIA? Without specifics, what can be done?

The point of this SHOULD be, our country has become nothing more than a bunch of cage rattlers, hell, they HOPE to get responses from the stuff they do, that's what keeps our military contractors busy.

I don't like this fact, actually i hate it, i was in the Navy, these things bother me. The McCollum memo bothers me, Eisenhowers farewell speech bothers me (because its true), the fact that we have lobbyists CONVINCING our legislators to take aggressive stances against (heres the cage rattling) our "perceived enemies" bothers me.

I'm not saying there will, or should have ever been another 9/11, i'm just saying that in my opinion, right after you lay the blame on the actual people that planned and carried out, and financed the attack, my blame goes right back to our crappy legislators that carry out our even crappier foreign policy day in, day out.

Nothing has changed, what party happens to be in the White House has absolutely no bearing on this.

DisturbedShifty
09-11-2012, 06:56 PM
Admittedly, I'm not the most well-versed in political science, which is why you'll see me staying out of conversations that start getting technical. I'm particularly not well-versed in political history, which is why I find myself asking James and Wayward about matters in those areas. I'll look into it though, I had no idea Clinton had any opportunities to take him out...

Yeah, sometime after 9/11 Clinton admitted to trying to have him assassinated three times. IF memory serves correctly.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

Dolphins9954
09-11-2012, 08:56 PM
certainly goes along with the idea of republicans supporting al qeada

And democrats supporting them in Libya and Syria. Both parties have blood on their hands when it comes to supporting and funding "terrorism". As long as it's a means to their end.

phins_4_ever
09-11-2012, 09:50 PM
Clinton had the chance to get Bin Laden but for one reason or another it did not happen. Assassinating someone is no easy task considering location and surrounding areas (civilians etc). Even when the seals took out Bin Laden last year it was a 50/50 chance that they would do the attack.

What I blame the Bush administration for is that when the change from Clinton to Bush was done in December 2000/January 2001 the advice from Richard Clarke was disregarded. He transmitted the immediate threats for us correctly to the Bush administration: AQ and Bin Laden. But it was all about Iraq even before 9/11.
And they disregarded all future warnings about Bin Laden and AQ.

Richard Clarke is a Republican and served under Reagan, Bush I and Clinton. He was an absolute professional who did not let his party affiliation get in the way.

I am not one of the truthers or conspiracy whackos and my opinion is that Bush at that time was literally clueless (which is nothing unusual). He listened to everybody from Rice to Rumsfeld and of course Cheney. And Cheney in my opinion is the one who probably knew more about 9/11 before it happened than anybody else. Could we have prevented 9/11? We will never know. But I believe that there is enough evidence that 9/11 could have been less devastating (and I am not talking about the miraculous WTC 7 collapse).

And I will never forget our then-President being told that we are under attack and he continuous to sit with elementary students and reading goat stories. I believe Cheney was rushed to a bunker and so were top politicians but the President as a high priority target stays where he is and essentially endangers an entire school (it was a publicly know event)?

The only time I would leave my President where he is would be if I had known that he is in no eminent danger and to keep him out of the decision making process.

And I wouldn't dismiss some of the theories either. We are known to do stupid stuff to advance our political agenda even if that means risking American lives. One example: Gulf of Tonkin

It is truly pathetic though that we can not have a fair and independent investigation. The 9/11 report is a joke. There is more black lines (reductions) than actually letters.