Aug 6 memo to the White House

[thew]

WTF did you want an invatation with the time, date and location hand delivered???

That's exactly what Bush wanted before he would take action. He wanted to know where and when he could send the police and how many he had to send he said as much.

They didn't think terrorism was an urgent national security issue. Clinton lost 34 Americans in 8 years. Bush didn't think that was a big deal. Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rice all told Clark as much...

"Why are we talking about this guy Bin Laudin why aren't we talking bout the terrorism that Iraq is sponsoring..." Wolfowitz on Sept 9th 2001

Clark..... Ummmmm sir Iraq hasn't sponsored any terrorims in eight years.. isn't that right FBI director, CIA director..

FBI ....Yes that's right.

CIA....Yes that's right.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by thew

That's exactly what Bush wanted before he would take action. He wanted to know where and when he could send the police and how many he had to send he said as much.

They didn't think terrorism was an urgent national security issue. Clinton lost 34 Americans in 8 years. Bush didn't think that was a big deal. Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rice all told Clark as much...

I've read a quote from Clark where he says Iraq did sponsor terrorism. So which is it?

[thew]

That is nice and all but what it comes down to is what would President Bill Clinton or any President have done with the exact same memo. I can tell you it would have been nothing. Why? Because it is unactionable intelligence. It is way too vague to respond in any fashion except save it and try to piece it together with other Intel and try to find any links which the FBI, CIA, and others failed to do properly.

One more time... True it's not actionable. But It's a prominent article in his morning reading. I would think he would have done as Bill Clinton had done. He called in the directors of his intelegence agencies and asked them to bring everthing they had on Al Quada and coordinate between them what could be done.

I would think he would have been a little pro active being the President of the United States.... Bush wasn't interested in shaking the tree, he was looking for the low hanging fruit....

The FBI knew more, they actually knew of two Al Quada terrorists who took part in 911 who were in country. But nobody asked them about it, nobody let them know that the CIA told the President that an attack was imminent.

I mean why do you think the President needs to be informed of what's going on in the world? Isn't he there to lead the government?..... I guess you would agree with Bush and the answer is No?

This isn't good for a President who is running for re election on his handling of national security..

[@DCGoldPants]

They sponsored Terrorism in Israel. I think they had proof of that. At least giving the families of Homicide bombers something like 25K after an attack.

I could be wrong, but I think remember that being the story.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by thew

One more time... True it's not actionable. But It's a prominent article in his morning reading. I would think he would have done as Bill Clinton had done. He called in the directors of his intelligence agencies and asked them to bring ever thing they had on Al Quada and coordinate between them what could be done.

I would think he would have been a little pro active being the President of the United States.... Bush wasn't interested in shaking the tree, he was looking for the low hanging fruit....

The FBI knew more, they actually knew of two Al Quada terrorists who took part in 911 who were in country. But nobody asked them about it, nobody let them know that the CIA told the President that an attack was imminent.

I mean why do you think the President needs to be informed of what's going on in the world? Isn't he there to lead the government?..... I guess you would agree with Bush and the answer is No?

This isn't good for a President who is running for re election on his handling of national security..

Question: How do you know Clinton did this and Bush didn't?

Also, if the FBI knew there were two Al-Queda terrorists in the why didn't they tell Bush? Do you expect Bush to read their minds and already know this? That's what your basically saying. A President isn't an expert in everything. That's why they have advisers. To advise them in matters they don't have expert knowledge in.

This just backs up what has been already said. The FBI and CIA didn't talk to each other about stuff like this. It would make sense considering they are dealing with intelligence issues...

[thew]

I've read a quote from Clark where he says Iraq did sponsor terrorism..

produce it... Clark doesn't mention it in his book.

Rice does say that the last terrorism which we know Iraq took part in was the attempted Assasignation of George Bush Sr... Back in like 94 after the first gulf war when Bush was visiting Kuwait....

Most of the Neo-Cons also list money that Iraq pays to the families of suicide bombers in the occupied territories as Iraq sponsoring terrorism. Then again Israel has a policy of bulldozing the homes of the families of suicide bombers and many charitable institutions provide suport for homeless and impoverished Palistinians in these regions including the UN.....

Still it is listed as Iraq support for terrorism.. just not by Clark.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by thew

produce it... Clark doesn't mention it in his book.

Rice does say that the last terrorism which we know Iraq took part in was the attempted Assasignation of George Bush Sr... Back in like 94 after the first gulf war when Bush was visiting Kuwait....

Most of the Neo-Cons also list money that Iraq pays to the families of suicide bombers in the occupied territories as Iraq sponsoring terrorism. Then again Israel has a policy of bulldozing the homes of the families of suicide bombers and many charitable institutions provide suport for homeless and impoverished Palistinians in these regions including the UN.....

Still it is listed as Iraq support for terrorism.. just not by Clark.

I believe another poster posted it here a couple of weeks ago when Clark did a TV interview. Let me try to find it...

[thew]

Johnny 'Luscious' Punani

Question: How do you know Clinton did this and Bush didn't?

Because I heard it from the CIA director, The FBI director, The Terrorism Czar, and Ms Rice when they testified before the committee.

Rice said Bush changed the agenda and the members of the morning national security meeting and dropped terrorism from the weekly cabinent meeting..... He didn't see a value in it..

which was Clarks chief critism of Bush's administration.... Focused on Iraq when all the evidence put before him was about Al Quada...

Also, if the FBI knew there were two Al-Queda terrorists in the why didn't they tell Bush? Do you expect Bush to read their minds and already know this?

The FBI tracks all kinds of folks who enter this country. We currently have about 24 million names on a watch list. The FBI didn't know the CIA was telling Bush that an attack by Al Quada was imminent.

Yeah I would expect that when the president of the united states hears from the CIA ( foreign Intelegence ) that an attack is imminent that he would call up the FBI and say.. Hey what's the deal this is what I'm hearing from the CIA... I would also expect him to ask his formost expert on terrorism about his thoughts on the matter... but that's just me..

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Bufford 3.0

They sponsored Terrorism in Israel. I think they had proof of that. At least giving the families of Homicide bombers something like 25K after an attack.

I could be wrong, but I think remember that being the story.

They used to, but not anymore.

$2500 or $25,000 a pop if memory serves. I think it was the former

[Johnny Punani2]

Found it....

Read Madmike's post

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55346

[thew]

I'm checking it out too...

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash60.htm

From Drudge

Clarke goes on to explain what he believes was the reason for the focus on Iraq. "I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection [between Iraq and Al Qaeda] but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection,'" says Clarke

Doesn't discuss terrorism generally but talks of Al Quada involvment...

Here is another one...

When they finally did meet, according to Clarke's account, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz disparaged the focus on al-Qaida alone and urged Clarke to go after Iraq leads instead, including claims by author Laurie Mylroie of Iraqi links to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

"I could hardly believe it but Wolfowitz was actually spouting the totally discredited Laurie Mylroie theory that Iraq was behind the 1993 truck bomb at the World Trade Center," Clarke writes, "a theory that had been investigated for years and found to be totally untrue."

The cabinet-level meeting on devising a new strategy to counter al-Qaida did not take place until Sept. 4, 2001, one week prior to the terrorist attacks.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/politics/8293310.htm

Clark Interview

April was an initial discussion of terrorism policy writ large and at that meeting I said we had to talk about al-Qaida. And because it was terrorism policy writ large [Paul] Wolfowitz said we have to talk about Iraqi terrorism and I said that's interesting because there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States. There hasn't been any for 8 years. And he said something derisive about how I shouldn't believe the CIA and FBI, that they've been wrong. And I said if you know more than I know tell me what it is, because I've been doing this for 8 years and I don't know about any Iraqi-sponsored terrorism against the US since 1993. When I said let's start talking about Bin Laden, he said Bin Laden couldn't possibly have attacked the World Trade Centre in '93. One little terrorist group like that couldn't possibly have staged that operation. It must have been Iraq.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/032504B.shtml

This is the closest one I found to the interview I heard... He doesn't say Iraq didn't have anything to do with terrorism. Rather he specifies Terrorism against the US...

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by thew

Because I heard it from the CIA director, The FBI director, The Terrorism Czar, and Ms Rice when they testified before the committee.

Rice said Bush changed the agenda and the members of the morning national security meeting and dropped terrorism from the weekly cabinent meeting..... He didn't see a value in it..

which was Clarks chief critism of Bush's administration.... Focused on Iraq when all the evidence put before him was about Al Quada

Well according to Clarke what you said is BS...

Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

ANGLE: OK.

QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.

QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...

CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.

ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?

CLARKE: In October of '98.

QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?

CLARKE: Right, which was in September.

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?

CLARKE: That's right.

QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD — the actual work on it began in early April.

CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel.

ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.

QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?

CLARKE: Yes it did.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?

CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?

CLARKE: No, it was March.

QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops — now we haven't completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda?

CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don't know what we would have done.

QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground?

CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we'd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance

[Sarge]

Yeah I would expect that when the president of the united states hears from the CIA ( foreign Intelegence ) that an attack is imminent that he would call up the FBI and say.. Hey what's the deal this is what I'm hearing from the CIA... I would also expect him to ask his formost expert on terrorism about his thoughts on the matter... but that's just me..

LEt me jump in here. First, these are two very distinct entities. FBI for domestic and CIA for foreign issues. There was and as far as I know, no seamless type communication between the two. In fact, the two as I said, are intended to be separate. The CIA, when tracking a$$holes, tracks them to our border, where theoretically the FBI is alerted and takes over. Theoretically. AS we know from the number of cells that were and still are in place here in the US, that doesn't always happen. The problem with the Bill Cinton approach to this is that under him those groups/individuals can get into the country and set up shop and there isn't much we can do until they commit a crime. THen it takes forever and a day because you have to go through the legal system to get a warrent etc, etc. With the Patroit Act, all of that can be bypassed.

Stuff gets briefed to every president everyday. It is extremely condensed because were it not, it would take all day to wade through it. That's how many people communicate threats against the US EVERY day of the week. That's on top of everything else that goes on.

Problem is now we are wasting our time arguing the symantics of a memo, insted of figuring even better ways to get rid of these a$$wipes.

AS for this list

Does this or does this not say. . .

1.) Bin Laden has cells in the US

2.) There is suspicious activity

3.) Preperations for hijacking!!!

4.) Including recient surveillance of federal buildings in NEW YORK!!!

5.) Planning attacks with explosives

1) is almost certianly still true

2) WE have people scoping out nuke plants. Did anyone ever hear what made that train jump the tracks in MS? That was in the al queda handbook

3) I imagine a plan or two is still in place

4,5) Still ongoing I'm sure

What is Bush doing now? Preparing for and going to 9/11 hearings

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Johnny 'Luscious' Punani

Ok Hammer,

Let's say your the President and you got that info. What would you have done?

chom,

What you fail to realize is that every single President gets briefed stuff like that EVERY single day. Don't you understand that?

I would have done SOMETHING!!! Bush DID NOTHING!!! He took a FRIGGING VACATION!!!!

I would have tried to find out who the people were. I would have tried to warn the FAA. I would have tried to find out where they were!!!! I WOULD HAVE TRIED SOMETHING!!!!!

BUSH DID NOTHING!!!!

And do you know for a FACT these types of memos make it ALL THE WAY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES EVERY DAY????

Instead, I get it's Clinton's fault:doh:

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Sarge

LEt me jump in here. First, these are two very distinct entities. FBI for domestic and CIA for foreign issues. There was and as far as I know, no seamless type communication between the two. In fact, the two as I said, are intended to be separate. The CIA, when tracking a$$holes, tracks them to our border, where theoretically the FBI is alerted and takes over. Theoretically. AS we know from the number of cells that were and still are in place here in the US, that doesn't always happen. The problem with the Bill Cinton approach to this is that under him those groups/individuals can get into the country and set up shop and there isn't much we can do until they commit a crime. THen it takes forever and a day because you have to go through the legal system to get a warrent etc, etc. With the Patroit Act, all of that can be bypassed.

Stuff gets briefed to every president everyday. It is extremely condensed because were it not, it would take all day to wade through it. That's how many people communicate threats against the US EVERY day of the week. That's on top of everything else that goes on.

Problem is now we are wasting our time arguing the symantics of a memo, insted of figuring even better ways to get rid of these a$$wipes.

AS for this list

Does this or does this not say. . .

1.) Bin Laden has cells in the US

2.) There is suspicious activity

3.) Preperations for hijacking!!!

4.) Including recient surveillance of federal buildings in NEW YORK!!!

5.) Planning attacks with explosives

1) is almost certianly still true

2) WE have people scoping out nuke plants. Did anyone ever hear what made that train jump the tracks in MS? That was in the al queda handbook

3) I imagine a plan or two is still in place

4,5) Still ongoing I'm sure

What is Bush doing now? Preparing for and going to 9/11 hearings

Sarge, I respect you tremendously for being in our military, but even you have to admit this is trouble. All we heard from Bush was we had no evidence saying what was going to happen, now we recieve a memo which states not only the method used, but where they're going to hit and he goes on vacation?!!?!?!?

It justifies Clarke's book!!! How can this not be of the utmost importance?

Now, could he have prevented it? I have no idea, BUT HE DIDN'T EVEN TRY!!!

[thew]

Found it....

Read Madmike's post

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/...&threadid=55346

I read that when it came out.. I reread that.. I didn't see in there that Clark said Iraq was involved in terrorism or terrorism against the US?

Clark repsonded that he had submitted his book to the white house months earlier and they sat on it and didn't clear it for publication in a timely manor. He said that had more to do with his book not being released earlier than the 911 hearings...

Everybody who works in the whitehouse and who writes a book has to get it cleared by the white house prior to publication so no sensitive material is unintentionally leaked.....

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by chomerics

I would have done SOMETHING!!! Bush DID NOTHING!!! He took a FRIGGING VACATION!!!!

I would have tried to find out who the people were. I would have tried to warn the FAA. I would have tried to find out where they were!!!! I WOULD HAVE TRIED SOMETHING!!!!!

BUSH DID NOTHING!!!!

And do you know for a FACT these types of memos make it ALL THE WAY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES EVERY DAY????

Instead, I get it's Clinton's fault:doh:

I never said it was Clinton's fault ok. However, you are saying it's Bush's fault and that's wrong.

What would have Bush told the FAA huh?

"Well, there might be a hijacking. We don't know when it will happen or how they will do it or who the people are but we just wanted to tell you it might happen." That's insane and if that was leaked to the public what do you think would happen to the airlines? They would see a dramatic drop in travel because people would be too scared to fly. That would ruin the economy.

Now, you wana do that for a memo that doesn't talk about specifics? I wouldn't...

Yes, I do know for a fact memos like that make it to the desk of the President everyday. 99% of the time you'll never hear about them but the President does get they briefings and memos of national security threats. Some of them would turn your hair white with talk of Nuclear weapons smuggled into the US to Chemical or Biological attacks on a public venues like NFL games. Stuff like this gets briefed all the time..

[thew]

Johnny 'Luscious' Punani

Well according to Clarke what you said is BS...

First off how does that change what clark said under oath to the commitee? Where did he controdict himself?

Clark was asked to give that briefing by Condolica Rice while he still worked in the whitehouse. He was asked to stress the things that were done and deemphisize what he believed they botched. As such he was speaking directly for the president as his proxi and did his job. Clark said he had done that for several Presidents..

Did you know Pat Buchannan wrote Nixon's toast to Chairman Moa when Nixon went to China back in 72. When you work for the President sometimes you have to do things you don't agree with. That is how John McLaughlin, Pat Buchannon and Richard Clark explained that briefing.

[thew]

Johnny 'Luscious' Punani

However, you are saying it's Bush's fault and that's wrong.

That's not what we're saying. what we're saying is that it was unreasonable for Bush to have done nothing after having read that. What we are saying as a minimum he should have looked into what was being done and coordinate between the FBI and CIA which both worked for him and were known to have information fall through the cracks between the two.....

Bush should have been interested is all we're saying, and if not Bush then certainly Rice....

That's all we're saying.. he should have at least investigated what was being done across agencies...

If he had just investigated, or set policy across agency as to what he wanted done that would have been something. Bush read those lines in his morning briefing and then picked up another donut.

[thew]

Johnny 'Luscious' Punani

What would have Bush told the FAA huh?

I don't know about the FAA but how about the FBI.....

Bush - Hello FBI, the CIA is telling me an attack by airplane and explosives is imminent in New York City at federal buildings by this group of Evil doers Al Quada what do you know?....

FBI- Well we know two guys on our terrorism list of Al Quada arrived here in the United States in August... You want we should stake out their appartments and see who they're talking too?

Bush - Hell yes I do.. Report back to me tomorrow and every day after that about what we know and what we're doing. Evil Doers hate America because America loves Feedom and we have lots of freedom so they hate us.. and we can't let that stand...

Yes, I do know for a fact memos like that make it to the desk of the President everyday

That would be accurate... The CIA, FBI and Clark were telling Bush and Rice every chance they got that an attack was imminent. So they testified and so this memo is the first hard proof of.

[visionary]

First of all with Clinton, Clarke briefed him all the time, with Bush Tennet took over that duty and briefed him every day.

Clarke has a lot of respect for Tennet and Tennet does not blame Bush, even though it would have gotten the blame off of him earlier when he was being blasted by everyone about Iraq, a lot of it unfairly.

Secondly you all do realize that Bush himself asked for that report, specifically to get information on possible Bin Laden attacks in the US, because of all the rumors going around that summer.

There really wasn't anything much he could do in the short time he had before 9-11 without throwing around a lot of money and resources blindly or causing a stir of panic, that would last a week or two and then probably go away after everyone went back to thinking nothing was wrong.

Remember the attaks could have happened as far as they knew, in the next few weeks, months, years or even never and they had no idea what to prepare for. I think some of us are too caught up in post fact thinking.

I don't blame Bush or Clinton, but those assuming Clinton would do a better job in Bush's position, remember that Clinton was in office for more thana few years, before Al Queda decided to blow up the embassies. At 9-11 Bush had less than a year's worth of experiance as president himself.

[thew]

visionary

First of all with Clinton, Clarke briefed him all the time, with Bush Tennet took over that duty and briefed him every day.

Clarke has a lot of respect for Tennet and Tennet does not blame Bush, even though it would have gotten the blame off of him earlier when he was being blasted by everyone about Iraq, a lot of it unfairly.

You are correct. The Head of the CIA continued to attend the daily national security briefings with the president. The critisism is that Clark was the Terrorism Czar and to exclude him from the meetings when terrorism was being discussed would be like Gibbs setting the defensive roster without Greg Williams present.

You are also corrent that Tennet stood up for Bush. And that Bush stood up for Tennet. Infact they both covered each other. Bush was under pressure to fire Tennet or ask him to resign and he has resisted that. Critics would say that Bush doesn't want to see a book in the private sector written by Tennet. The best way to keep this from happenning is to not fire him for the obvious intelegence failure with regards to WMD.

Secondly you all do realize that Bush himself asked for that report, specifically to get information on possible Bin Laden attacks in the US, because of all the rumors going around that summer.

The report that was released was Bush's daily intelegence briefing and not something Bush had requested. Clark said the CIA and FBI and he were loading all of Bush's briefings up with Al Quada threats and Bush remained fixated on Iraq.

There really wasn't anything much he could do in the short time he had before 9-11 without throwing around a lot of money and resources blindly or causing a stir of panic

So you're saying his lack of action and lack of interest was actually a positive thing. Your suggesting by not even asking what was being done about the "Evil Doers" he was implementing a fiscally sound policy designed as to not "stir up Panic".... I think you will then agree that his policy was a failure. That he the author of that policy is a failure and that he shouldn't be reelected... I mean don't you think in hind sight he should have at least asked what was being done?? His Terrorism Czar certainly did but Bush wasn't speaking to him...

Remember the attaks could have happened as far as they knew, in the next few weeks, months, years or even never and they had no idea what to prepare for.

This is very true and it's a good point. But the facts remain that we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on defense. And we have some very very large intelegence organizations at Bush's disposal. And while Clinton was focused on Terrorism. Bush was focussed on Iraq and didn't think terrorism was urgent. I mean Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz are all cold war children who left office eight years prior thinking about Iraq and hadn't changed their minds since.

Bush was eyeballing the wrong threat. The CIA was telling him the most imminent threat was Al Quada and Bush and his team who were meeting every day thought they knew better.

but those assuming Clinton would do a better job in Bush's position, remember that Clinton was in office for more thana few years, before Al Queda decided to blow up the embassies. At 9-11 Bush had less than a year's worth of experiance as president himself.

I don't know if Clinton would have done better. I do know that Clinton was involved daily and focused on terrorism. I know Bush wasn't. That's my critism of Bush.. Not that he didn't stop it but that he wasn't even focused on what the CIA was telling him was the imminent threat. He took no action and asked no questions.... It's like he didn't even read his briefing.

[Burgold]

Here's the problem with hindsight... with hindsight not only is this a smoking gun... it's practically a silver bullet. Because now we read that they knew there were terrorists in the US who were studying the buildings in New York and were planning a hijacking with explosives. If that's not enough to disconcert you I don't know what is? Further, we have heard elsewhere that the US was supposed to primed at the highest terror alert in the late Summer and that just a month after this warning the status was lowered. Certainly you would imagine that they would warn the FAA of a possible hijacking on planes heading to New York. Certainly, you would imagine that this is about as clear a blueprint for the attack with the possible timeline even laid out. With hindsight, it's really incriminating. Without hindsight, I think it is bad. If there were no actions taken upon this warning (Rice said this memo didn't even constitute a warning!) then it is negligence at best. I have no idea how many warnings come across the Presidents desk after all the paring down of intel that must go on before something is deemed important enough to reach him, but this is terrible. Remember, what we also don't know is what else they were directly aware of that they didn't act on. When I read this, I was deeply saddened. Perhaps, it could not have been prevented... probably, it could not have been prevented... but surely, more should have been done than what we are aware was done.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Burgold

Here's the problem with hindsight... with hindsight not only is this a smoking gun... it's practically a silver bullet. Because now we read that they knew there were terrorists in the US who were studying the buildings in New York and were planning a hijacking with explosives. If that's not enough to disconcert you I don't know what is? Further, we have heard elsewhere that the US was supposed to primed at the highest terror alert in the late Summer and that just a month after this warning the status was lowered. Certainly you would imagine that they would warn the FAA of a possible hijacking on planes heading to New York. Certainly, you would imagine that this is about as clear a blueprint for the attack with the possible timeline even laid out. With hindsight, it's really incriminating. Without hindsight, I think it is bad. If there were no actions taken upon this warning (Rice said this memo didn't even constitute a warning!) then it is negligence at best. I have no idea how many warnings come across the Presidents desk after all the paring down of intel that must go on before something is deemed important enough to reach him, but this is terrible. Remember, what we also don't know is what else they were directly aware of that they didn't act on. When I read this, I was deeply saddened. Perhaps, it could not have been prevented... probably, it could not have been prevented... but surely, more should have been done than what we are aware was done.

I agree with you 100%.

1.) I'm not debating the fact that 9-11 could have been prevented, or the fact that Bush is solely responsible.

2.) This administration claimed the memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack within the US" is a historical document.

3.) This administration has testified and told the press NUMEROUS times they were not aware of Bin Laden plans to attack within the US.

4.) This memo lists hijacking, explosives,federal buildings in NY, attack inside the US 1 month BEFORE 9-11 and this was historical??? It's only historical if you choose to look at the information that way.

5.) This administration did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING after recieving the memo.

I don't know about you, but I for one would like the president of my country to take every threat seriously, espically when it's listed in the way that this memo was. Could 9-11 have been prevented? I don't know, but we ignored the warning signs and DID NOTHING, so we'll never know!!! Has there been a more inept leader of this country both at home and abroad than BUSH? I can't think of one.

[Ax]

Originally posted by Burgold

Here's the problem with hindsight... with hindsight not only is this a smoking gun... it's practically a silver bullet. Because now we read that they knew there were terrorists in the US who were studying the buildings in New York and were planning a hijacking with explosives.

Not to single you out, but you worded this better than most of those who seem to have come to this same conclusion. But the fact is, this NOT what you read. I copied this portion pertaining to your conclusion exactly how it was written in the memo.

It says,

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a (blacked out) service in 1998 saying Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-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 US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

So you, and others, took "hijack a US aircraft" from the first paragraph,

"buildings in New York" from the second paragraph,

and "attacks with explosives" from the last paragraph, and came up with "they knew there were terrorists in the US who were studying the buildings in New York and were planning a hijacking with explosives".

Brilliant.

You guys should be our new anti-terrorist czars since no one else came to this conclusion from that memo. Not the CIA, not the FBI, not even Richard Clark. Nobody said "Mr. President, we believe that...?, or we recommend that...?, or if you add 1 & 2 together, 3 will occur.

Great work guys.

Certainly you would imagine that they would warn the FAA of a possible hijacking on planes heading to New York. Certainly, you would imagine that this is about as clear a blueprint for the attack with the possible timeline even laid out.

Where does it say that "planes heading to New York" are targets? And since the uncorroborated report of hijacking a plane to free the US-held Blind Shayhk first came out in 1998, why weren't airlines ordered to install security doors on all planes then? Wouldn't that have stopped the 9/11 attacks? Why didn't the Governor of Texas order that?

If there were no actions taken upon this warning (Rice said this memo didn't even constitute a warning!) then it is negligence at best.

It wasn't a warning. It's a report. Again, where are the recommendations by the CIA, FBI, or anybody else. That's part of their job you know, "Mr. President, we believe that X is about to happen, we therefore recommend the following. THAT would be a warning.