Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

8/6/01 PDB -- Was It Really *11* Pages??

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
RedSock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:19 PM
Original message
8/6/01 PDB -- Was It Really *11* Pages??
Deadly Mistakes
U.S. Investigators Knew About Planned Terror Attacks, Let the Suspects Get Away.
More Clues That CIA and FBI Could Have Prevented the Attack on America
by Oliver Schrm
Die Zeit
October 1, 2002

"Crawford, Aug. 6, 2001. U.S. president George W. Bush is on vacation. He wants to spend the whole month at his ranch in Texas. Every morning, however, he still receives his Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, wherein the CIA informs the president about the country's security situation. On this morning, the report is straight from the CIA director. His PDB runs 11 and one-half printed pages, instead of the usual two to three, and carries the title, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Therein the CIA chief explains that al Qaeda has decided to carry out attacks within the United States, and that presumably members of the terrorist organization have been in the country for some time. It is unclear whether the CIA director informed the president about the statements of arrested al Qaeda members. According to their confessions, the terrorist organization for some time has been thinking about hijacking planes and using them as missiles."

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/diezei...

****

We need an answer to this question -- NOW!!!!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good Catch...I suspected something like this!!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. Great find
the 1.5 page document that the WH released today seemed to have a few pages missing.

The first page is going into great detail and then all of a sudden on page two it's the end of the summary.

If the WH thinks they can release the first and last page and get themselves off the hook, they've got another thing coming.

If there are indeed 10 more pages, this is a blatant act of obstruction of justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
3. We need to examine the document. I saw a PDF of it - it's text-based
So I don't know how the black-out was applied but it might be removable - the text should still be there underneath. The doc properties should tell us something. It's very suspiciously short but it looks like a complete document.

Who has the link to that PDF?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Here, I found a copy of it over in LBN
Right click to copy it, and save image as, because it's an image file not a text file.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Here's page 2
or is this page 11?






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvis Donating Member (665 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. The footer of each page
The footer of each page has a blacked out portion, maybe where the page number should be? I dunno.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TripleD Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #15
50. The footer.
The retraction is right where "page 1 of 12" would be. I was wonderng what top secret information they would need to retract in the footer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #15
64. File source
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #8
63. What could that be blacked out at the bottom?
Does it say something like "Page 2 out of 11" or something like that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. No, we need the PDF
You can manipulate the PDF a little bit. This doesn't tell us anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. Go here
http://www.earthside.com /

The link to the PDF file is at the top of the page
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #9
90. p 1. margins don't match p 2. margins
Page one - full paragraphs with indented info to indicate inserted clips of information.

Page two - margins are indented (as if bullet points as someone above mentions).

There is nothing redacted out at the bottom of page one or top of page two to indicate text that serves as a transition (e.g., beginning of a bullet point list, or text that matches the indented info as backup information.

There is definitely text missing between these two pages. This does not appear to be the full memo with some redacted (blacked out) text.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scottxyz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
20. Go to TheSmokingGun.com
They have it up on their site.

It's a two-pager.

Theirs isn't PDF format - it's GIF. But still a facsimile.

It would be hard to see what's underneath the stuff crossed out with black magic marker, unless one had an original.

It COULD be longer than the 2 pages on TSG. Conceivably, there could be pages that come before it. The "headline" "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US" could be a running HEADER in that case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kazak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. Pfft...10 missing pages!!! %$#&!!!
The world needs to know this!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. "the report is straight from the CIA director." huh?
But Ben-Veniste said while questioning Rice, "We had been advised in writing by CIA on March 19, 2004, that the August 6 PDB was prepared and self-generated by a CIA employee."

:wtf:

Is the Director of the CIA just a "CIA employee" ???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
7. i heard they were going to re write it
that isnt exactly the wording of it. but transfer it leaving things out. only heard it once today and dont know where i heard it. i havent said anything cause i was waiting to see whether it is stated for sure a whole document

more interesting

pigs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedSock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. are they throwing us a bone?
we have to send this out to bloggers and media. get them to hammer mcclellan on it monday.

what if this little bit is something just to shut us up -- and there is TEN MORE PAGES????

how damning could those be?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeeYiYi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
11. Before we fly off the handle . . .
. . . we ought to find out from Oliver Schrm if 11 was a typo. If it had been spelled out 'eleven' then there would be no question. Since 'eleven' wasn't spelled out, I think the question remains open.

"His PDB runs 11 and one-half printed pages, instead of the usual two to three . . ."

TYY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Read the link
it says that usually the pResidents PDB is about 2 - 3 pages long, and that this one was unusual because it was 11 pages long.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeeYiYi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. It doesn't say 'long' . . .
"His PDB runs 11 and one-half printed pages, instead of the usual two to three, and carries the title, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." "

. . . and it doesn't say "that it was unusual because it was 11 pages".

I think the implication could go either way. That it was unusually long OR that it was unusually short. It still think it would be prudent to confirm the intent of the article with its author.

TYY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. Now, what does common sense tell you about the NeoCons?...
If they tell you that the PDB is 1-2 pages long, are you really going to believe them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeeYiYi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #25
35. Common sense tells me . . .
. . . that the WH is up to its usual dirty tricks and removed 10 pages before releasing the PDB PDF to the public. However, common sense also tells me to confirm my sources before using them as fact.

I've requested confirmation of this story from www.cooperativeresearch.org . I'll post anything I receive from them in this thread.

TYY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeeYiYi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #35
58. Re: confirmation . . .
I emailed a request for confirmation of the Oliver Schrm story to www.cooperativeresearch.org and this is their reply:

"Some news stories today report that it was 11 pages long, but only 1 and
1/2 dealt with al-Qaeda. So they're only releasing that part."

It will be interesting to see if anyone challenges the WH over the missing pages.

TYY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeanmarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #35
77. Common sense also dictates that...
Ben-Veniste and Roemer would not allow them to get away with this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeeYiYi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-04 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #77
106. You wouldn't think so . . .
. . . but after today's love fest with JA you never know.

TYY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. It's common publishing practice
to spell out numbers under 10 and use numerical signs for 10 and higher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scottxyz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #17
49. FBI agents probably don't follow "common publishing practice"
Edited on Sun Apr-11-04 12:47 AM by scottxyz
Notice that some diction here is that stiff, trying-to-sound-formal police-style: missing articles, elisions, etc.

I doubt the FBI pays much attention to that rule about spelling out numbers ten and under.

= = =

On the other hand, the Arabic names seem to be transliterated very consistently, and slightly differently than what we see in the press. I would guess this to be a more "academic" transliteration of Arabic names (bin Ladin instead of Laden).

Apostrophes in Arabic names seem to be carefully placed also.

It's also obviously in Microsoft Word, with that ugly Arial knockoff of Helvetica. For what that's worth. So the FBI uses Windows.

It would be hard to get a computer to automatically spell out numbers 1 - 10 as "one" to "ten" to conform to "publishers' style". 99% of people who know how to put page numbers into footers click on that little "#" icon and let it display the correct number at the bottom of each page.

More likely, if they wanted to convey maximum information (perhaps for filing or legal purposes) about page numbering they could have numbered:

1 of 11
2 of 11

in the footer. The "11" part might have to be manually updated if the document grew or shrank - I don't remember if MS-Word lets you put in a symbol that means "total number of pages in this document".

= = =

The layout seems to be a full-width paragraph starting with itals giving a summary - and then usually an indented paragraph giving details.

In terms of layout (and semantics) the second page we got could be the "real" "page 2" - it's slightly indented, and it seems to offer details about the full-width paragraph at the bottom of "page 1".

There are three elements of the sentence at the top of "page 2" which could semantically refer back to the last sentence at the bottom of "page 1":

- "Nevertheless" (ie, despite having said that we couldn't corroborate the recently reported threat reporting)

- "FBI information" (ie, as opposed to info from the redacted, presumably foreign, "service")

- "since that time" (ie, since 1988)

= = =

My hunch - these are the only two pages. And they're damning enough.

Note in particular the use of the present tense and words like "recent" when talking about threats (in contradistinction to Condi's claim that the document was "historical"), the specificity of the threats "hijacking", "New York", "Washington", "buildings" all mentioned (in contradistinction to Condi's claim that "we didn't know where, when, or how" - actually the only thing they didn't know was when), and then notice the title itself, which any reasonable person would expect their President to construe as a strong warning (again, this contradicts Condi, who said it was "not a warning").

= = =

I don't know how intelligence summaries like this are usually written (and it would great to have a bunch of them to compare it to!) but I bet this is just how the intel services would write when they think an attack is likely.

How much stronger could they have said it?

"Probability of Terrorism 90% over the next 30 days"?

That kind of quantitative stuff would be fine for Tom Ridge to tease the citizens with, but intel people wouldn't talk that way.

I doubt anyone in the FBI would put their career on the line and say "An Attack is Certain" or "An Attack is Coming" and then look like Chicken Little in case nothing ends up happening.

This is worded about as strongly as one would expect. "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In the U.S." is dry and specific and to the point and pretty throat-grabbing and thoroughly damning enough.

Bush could be impeached over this. It doesn't have to be LIHOP - it could just be dyslexia. Whatever.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qanda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
23. In journalism you do not spell out 11, but you do spell out one
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThoughtCriminal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
12. They left out the parts
Bush was supposed to color.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. bah ha ha ha
that was funny
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vetwife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #24
47. Fill me in
Are here 10 pages missing ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gemlake Donating Member (535 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
14. For a "historical" analysis of Al Qaeda
as Condi likes to call it, 1 1/2 pages seems woefully short. bush* allegedly asked for a review of Al Qaeda in the U.S. and he got this?

The portion that was released, however, should have triggered an immediate action from the White House, akin to Clinton's "shakedown" efforts prior to 2000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
16. Note that the place on the bottom for page numbers is redacted...
Hmmmmm....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #16
42. Wide area redacted. Maybe "Page N of N"?
Like Page 1 of 11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. Could also be the security level
When I had access to secure documents, they were stamped at the top and bottom with the level (Secret, Top Secret, etc.).

I don't know if the "For The President Only" takes the place of that or not (i.e., that might be a classification level).

The security level was in a bigger font than the rest of the print on the page, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #44
80. But the question remains ...
Why would they black out the words "Secret" or "Top Secret" or "For The President Only" or "Classified: Level 5" or whatever? We already know it's classified and since it is the daily briefing written specifically for the President, it's safe to assume it's a high classification level.

:crazy: Call me crazy ... but as far as I'm concerned, the only info that could possibly be in a footer that would be "classified" is the page number, because revealing it would prove they held back most of the memo. JMHO




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #16
78. Exactly
Why would "classified" information be in a footer of a document? Blacked out for "National Security Purposes" - I doubt it. Blacked out for "Covering Bush*'s Ass" purposes - no doubt about it! :eyes: :mad:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ParanoidPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
21. No, it was 1 and 1/2 pages long, it's a 'typo'.....
For a lot more information on other declassified PDB's read this from
..... http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116 /

The President's Daily Brief Coverup




By Thomas S. Blanton

April 8, 2004



Washington, D.C., April 8 - The most contentious moments of today's nationally televised hearing of the commission investigating the September 11th terrorist attacks focused on the controversial secret intelligence briefing received by President Bush on August 6, 2001 - a top-level document called the President's Daily Brief. Commission members Bob Kerrey, Richard Ben-Veniste and Timothy Roemer each asked national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to declassify the document, and each time she ducked the direct question, telling Mr. Roemer that "I think you know the sensitivity of presidential decision memoranda."

The White House resisted the commission for months on the question of their access to the Briefs, (Note 1) but after public pressure from the commission and victims' families, relented somewhat. Prior to today's hearing, three commission members and its staff director got to see the originals of President's Daily Briefs from the Bush and Clinton years relating to terrorism. They then wrote up a summary for their peers. (Note 2) But the direct quotes from the August 6, 2001 President's Daily Brief read into the record today, both by commission members and by Dr. Rice, point to an underlying reality - that the Brief could be declassified and released publicly simply by blacking out the sources-and-methods information. (See my article in Slate magazine, posted 22 March 2004, "Who's Afraid of the PDB?")

Perhaps the White House will take this simple step, just as it reversed its previous absolute refusal to allow Dr. Rice to testify in public. Standing in the way of this common sense approach, however, are myths and misinformation about the President's Daily Brief - put forward by the White House, CIA, and even the 9-11 commission's own chairman - that, in Mark Twain's phrase, have gone twice around the world while the truth was putting on its shoes.

For example, each of the following italicized statements is a myth, and below the myth in plain type is the reason why.

<More>

Other declassified PDB's can be accessed here for comparison. :evilgrin:

Section II: The President's Daily Brief -- Declassified

Presidents Daily Brief, 7 August 1965 (4 pp.), declassified 15 July 1993.
Source: Lyndon Baines Johnson Library (Austin, Texas), National Security File, Intelligence Briefings File, obtained by Dr. William Burr.

Presidents Daily Brief, 13 May 1967, (1 p. excerpt), declassified 14 May 1993.

Presidents Daily Brief, 16 May 1967 (2 pp. excerpt), declassified 14 May 1993.

Presidents Daily Brief, 27 May 1967 (1 p. excerpt), declassified 14 May 1993.

Presidents Daily Brief, 5 June 1967 (3 pp. with "Late Items"), declassified 14 May 1993.
Compare to FRUS version which omits Nigeria at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xix/28058.h...

Presidents Daily Brief, 6 June 1967 (1 p. excerpt), declassified 14 May 1993.

Presidents Daily Brief, 7 June 1967 (1 p. excerpt), declassified 14 May 1993.

Presidents Daily Brief, 8 June 1967 (2 pp. excerpt), first page declassified 14 May 1993, "Late Item" page declassified 6 November 1985.

Presidents Daily Brief, 9 June 1967 (3 pp.), first two pages declassified 14 May 1993, "Late Item" page declassified 6 November 1985.

Source for the above 1967 PDB excerpts: Lyndon Baines Johnson Library (Austin, Texas), National Security Council History, Middle East Crisis, Appendix A, obtained by Dr. William Burr.

Presidents Daily Brief, 1 April 1968 (5 pp.), declassified 21 December 1989.
Source: Lyndon Baines Johnson Library (Austin, Texas), National Security File, Intelligence Briefings File, obtained by Dr. William

Note the number of pages on these. Hope this helps you. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. How does any of this prove or disprove
the length of the August 6th, 2001 PDB?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ParanoidPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Well first off its been reported to death that the length of the ORIGINAL
seen by the 9/11 commission was indeed 1 1/2 pages long. If you need me to I can go find the transcript of CONdo'hLIESa's testimony and get you the relevant quotes from the commissioners. It's also been widely reported that the length of the PDB's was cut down for Bush* because he had trouble following them. George Tenet also has been quoted as saying that Bill Clinton's PDB's were some of the longer ones at 8 - 12 pages IIRC, and he would often take notes and scribble follow up questions on them to be answered later.

I think a few people here are being 'had'! :evilgrin:

Anyone who's watched Bush* for the last 3+ years knows he couldn't handle an 11 1/2 page briefing! LOL! Fool me once ring a bell? The doofus can't even get through a well known quote with a teleprompter and an ear bud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Remember the history of this PDB....
in 2002 the memo was announced. Later, after much arguing, the 9/11 commission gets to see it at the White House. They certainly had a lot of time to edit it.

Read this article from last year...

Whatever the definition, the document is the innocuously named President's Daily Brief, a 10- to 12-page report produced overnight by the CIA. In recent weeks, it has become the hottest property in Washington. Two powerful bodies are demanding to see it: the nonpartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is trying to determine how the Bush administration reached its conclusions about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Negotiations and threats of subpoenas continued last week, but so far the White House has claimed that the PDB, as it is called, is off limits under executive privilege. No one remembers any White House ever giving it up.

http://www.iht.com/articles/117157.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ParanoidPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. So are you telling me that George Tenet FORGOT how long it was.....
....or is part of a cover up for the Bush* Administration? UMM, Don't you think if they decided to delete 10 pages of a document that the CIA authored and the CIA Director fought to get released to clear his own name from the Whitehouse / Karl Rove smear machine he might mention something about that? :shrug:

I think old 'out of the loop' would be stirring up a shitstorm over it but that's just me. :)

BWAHAHAHAHA :evilgrin: NO $ALE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #33
61. I'd love to see the quote you are referring to
Edited on Sun Apr-11-04 06:05 AM by DoYouEverWonder
I don't recall any mention during the hearing as to how long the PDB was or was not.

Also, isn't it possible that the WH only gave the 9-11 commission the Cliff Notes version of the PDB rather than the 11.5 originial? How would the 9-11 Commission even know that the PDB whe WH was actually a shortened version of the original?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. If it's a typo, what sense would be made of this:
"His PDB runs one and a half printed pages, instead of the usual two to three"?

There is no sense in drawing attention to the length of PDB if it's almost as long as they typically are.

Contextually, the length of this PDB is taken as extraordinary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ParanoidPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #28
36. Extraordinarily SHORT to match his attention span!
A point that George Tenet has repeatedly made. :)
LOL! You guys are SOOOO EASY to rile up. I can see why the friendly folks at CU and FR get such a kick out of coming here to play their pathetic games!
Look, if you aren't sure about something go to Google, type in a few words and research it yourselves. It's fast and it's easy. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mattforclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #28
48. True...
That wouldn't really make much sense, but who ever said that sentences written by journalists had to make sense? That's an indication, but it could be wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-04 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #28
98. That was my thought too.
It makes no sense to comment on the fact that the PDB was half a page shorter than usual. But 8-9 pages longer, yes that would prompt a comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mattforclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #21
45. elfeinhalb vs. einseinhalb
is more than a incorrectly spelled typo, it would have to be a whole word mistake, like typing eleven instead of one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #45
62. I think this shoots "typo" out of the water...n/t
Edited on Sun Apr-11-04 08:12 AM by Junkdrawer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gandalf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-04 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #45
94. "Einseinhalb" doesn't exist. It's "Anderthalb" or "eineinhalb"
Edited on Mon Apr-12-04 04:24 AM by gandalf
Who says languages are logical...

"Anderthalb" is definitely different from "elfeinhalb". And the whole sentence can only mean 11.5, because it has to be more than the usual two to three pages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
22. If you look on page 2, it looks like the shadow of a blank...
piece of paper that was used for redacting, right above the footer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. yeah, it does look like that...
...so this is a chop job it seems? Think it should prompt more questions...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #22
38. Exactly right. The column seems to begin with "factoids" for Smirko...
... then abruptly stops. It would seem logical that they would continue on down the page -- the part seemingly obscured by a white sheet of paper. Regardless, it seems odd to end a memo at such a point. Usually there are conclusions, recommendations, and a call for the next action.

In the case of the Chimperor, all of those steps would be needed. The unelected moron is so ignorant he couldn't connect two dots unless there was a solid line between them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
29. Anybody speak German???
Edited on Sat Apr-10-04 11:06 PM by Junkdrawer
Here's the link to Die Zeit...

http://www.zeit.de /

Also, from what I see, Mr. Schrm is a freelance writer who has written several 9/11 books.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Yes, DUer Gandalf
you should send him a PM.

My guess is that he would be very happy to translate this for us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Done. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gandalf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-04 04:28 AM
Response to Reply #31
95. PM?
I have no PM in my Inbox. But I read the original source.

"Sein PDB-Papier hat statt der sonst blichen zwei bis drei diesmal elfeinhalb bedruckte Seiten und trgt die berschrift Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U. S."

It means definitely 11.5 pages (eleven pages and a half, instead of the usual two to three).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-04 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #95
103. Thanks gandalf. There's been confirmation that it's 11 pages...
Saturday, Nov. 15, 2003

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

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

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

More...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/14/220...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #29
37. I looked for the Oct. 2002 article
but can't locate it.

But, they do have a poll on who will win the American election, and with 263,096 responses it has Kerry winning by 63.92%.

I'll keep looking for the source document.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #29
40. OK, I found the original page on Der Zeit Archiv
Edited on Sat Apr-10-04 11:55 PM by Vickers
Here is where I found it. It's a little over halfway down the page (do a search on the keyword "crawford"). Here is the sentence in question:

"Sein PDB-Papier hat statt der sonst blichen zwei bis drei diesmal elfeinhalb bedruckte Seiten und trgt die berschrift Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U. S."

The elfeinhalb highlighted translates as eleven and a half. Impossible to get a "one" out of that.

It even mentions that normally a PDB is 2 or 3 pages.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scottxyz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #40
53. Literal translation
"His PDB-Paper has instead of the otherwise usual two to three this time eleven-and-a-half printed pages and bears the title Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mattforclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #29
43. I speak German
not fluently, but enough to get by ;) . It definitely says 11.5 printed pages, normally 2 or 3...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #43
89. Even the Google translater says 11 1/2 ...
and if Google says it, it must be so. :evilgrin:

I kneel before the god called Google!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gandalf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-04 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #29
102. Contacted Die Zeit today
Let's see if they respond.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
32. Another source that says 10 to 12 pages (credit papau)
Whatever the definition, the document is the innocuously named President's Daily Brief, a 10- to 12-page report produced overnight by the CIA. In recent weeks, it has become the hottest property in Washington. Two powerful bodies are demanding to see it: the nonpartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is trying to determine how the Bush administration reached its conclusions about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Negotiations and threats of subpoenas continued last week, but so far the White House has claimed that the PDB, as it is called, is off limits under executive privilege. No one remembers any White House ever giving it up.

More...

http://www.iht.com/articles/117157.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ParanoidPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #32
46. Well there goes IHT's credibility......
.....I find their research skills lacking. :evilgrin:

From your quoted article, "No one remembers any White House ever giving it up". I wouldn't say "no one" remembered as I've posted the links to ten other examples above and they took less than a minute to find! :)

The 10 - 12 page overnight reports by the CIA were true during the Clinton Administration and it was reported by several Whitehouse 'insiders' that Bush* had them shortened to match his attention span.

This whole thread is a crock anyway in as much as the 1 1/2 pages released said all that was needed anyway. The title proved Condi a liar with the reference to Bin Laden striking in the US, (She left the word 'in' out in earlier references to the report and tried to claim that the Administration thought the attacks would be against US installations overseas.) the fact that he wanted to hi-jack airplanes and also mentions the WTC, New York and Washington DC!

Who cares how long the rest was if indeed there was anything else. The only thing missing from what has been released is the time and date of the attack. The who, what, where, how and why are ALL IN THERE!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
41. hey hey hey remember during commission
Edited on Sun Apr-11-04 12:04 AM by seabeyond
hearing with condi, is it roemer/groemer? he was talking and she said you got to see and he said ya this much of it, showing just a portion they got. we didnt get the whole thing. they didnt give the commission the whole thing. and i think another one said, maybe ben, maybe you should make it public, the whole thing

pulling from memory........so
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnOneillsMemory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #41
81. RIGHT. He held pinched fingers up and said "only this much" seen of PDB.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
51. It's interesting.....
This PDB issue is reminding me of something else about Watergate.

I remember how people kept dismissing the burglary at the Watergate as a stupid but fairly minor issue, compared to the bombing of Cambodia, the stuff the CIA was up to, etc.

Yet, it was the cover-up of the burglary that ultimately brought down Nixon and his staff.

I'm reminded of that time again by this whole 9/11 issue. First the WH holds off on letting CR testify. Then they reluctantly declassify the PDB. Now there are more questions. Each step of the way, there appears to be some kind of coverup, some reluctance to come clean.

I think a lot of Americans were prepared to give Chimpy a pass on failing to stop 9/11. All this fussing and weirdness on the part of the WH is making people stop and take another look.

I think there is a fable about how it only takes the smallest thing to bring down a huge empire, and sometimes the smallest thing is more effective than the big attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #51
56. bush has only himself to blame this time
clinton had nothing to do with it

I think a lot of Americans were prepared to give Chimpy a pass on failing to stop 9/11. All this fussing and weirdness on the part of the WH is making people stop and take another look.


when his ads came out breaking promise not to politize it, and saying that he had the right to run on 9/11, is the day he opened the can of worms for the democrats
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-04 05:05 AM
Response to Reply #51
96. For want of a nail, the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe, the horse was lost.
For want of a horse, the rider was lost.
For want of a rider, the message was lost.
For want of the message, the battle was lost.
For want of the battle, the war was lost.
For want of the war, the kingdom was lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConcernedCanuk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
52. Does anyone find it odd that the name "Osama" is not mentioned ?
.
.
.

Did not Bush, or people he knew have business dealings with some of the bin Ladens?

If so, wouldn't they make SURE that the distinction was made that they were speaking of OSAMA?

That jumped right out , or rather DIDN'T jump right out at me as I read it the PDB, and I was unconsciously looking for the name Osama.

Considering just the TITLE of the document I would think there would be much, much more detail.

And aren't these documents on computers?

These have obviously been scanned manually as they are crooked on the page (the .pdf file)

These documents beg forensic verification of some sort methinks.

And don't documents have a file number, and don't they use letterheads?

Bottom line, I don't believe this document represents in any way the original PDB.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gmaki Donating Member (301 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
54. The biggest reason it seems to only be only two is
The second page begins with the word "nevertheless", which fits nicely with the last paragraph on page one stating that the reports are unconfirmed.

as in, "these reports are unconfirmed..." "...nevertheless we have this evidence.. bla blah blah"

There is also a reference to 1998 in the last paragraph on the first page and then the line "since that time" on the second page which seems to match up nicely.

The only thing which seems to call it into question for me is the fact that the opening paragraph on the final page is indented, and the last paragraph on page one is un-indented. Does it seem natural to continue a thought between indented and un-indented paragraphs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 12:57 AM
Response to Original message
55. go here and play
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #55
57. i watched the whole thing one night.
this is excellent and well worth the time
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeeYiYi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #55
59. Wow. Thanks for the link. .....n/t
TYY :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #55
66. Holy cow, this is awesome!
I'd never seen this...thanks!

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #66
69. You're welcomed guys.
John O'Neil was a hero and patriot in an administration of cowards and traitors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VolcanoJen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 02:43 AM
Response to Original message
60. CNN says "*Parts* of the original document were *not* made public...
...by the White House for security reasons."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/...

That seems to indicate to me that there are some pages missing. I doubt CNN is referring to the handful of redacted words.

And to my amateur eye, page 2 definitely looks like it starts in the middle of some previous, missing paragraph. The indentation seems too deep to be attached to the "We have not been able to corrorborate" paragraph which precedes it on page 1.

Furthermore, look at the page 2 paragraph "Nevertheless, the FBI information since that time indicates patterns..." Since which time period? Surely that line doesn't refer to the 1998 "Bin Laden wants to hijack an airliner" information that this paragraph is supposedly indented under. Read the end of page 1 and the beginning of page 2... it doesn't really seem to fit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #60
65. From the LA Times...
....

PDBs are top-secret, the highest of three general categories of classification. The power to declassify information rests with the president and the heads of agencies responsible for the intelligence, mainly the CIA and the FBI.

A U.S. intelligence official said PDBs generally span 10 to 20 pages, covering seven or eight topics in newspaper-like digests. They tend to focus on crucial overseas developments, including terrorist threats, and often are very specific about how the information was collected. The official said the level of specificity about sources has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

More..

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-te...

What strike me here is how often we're told that the briefing was 1 1/2 pages long, while it's the "relevant except" that is 1 1/2 pages long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #65
67. Could it be that some of the missing pages
also cover Iraq and Saddam? It seems from the remarks the President made to the press pool on 8-7-2001 he was much more concerned about Saddam. Bu$h says he was briefed on the sitution in Iraq but he makes absolutely no mention of being briefed or of being concerned about bin Laden or al Qaeda?




http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/2001080...

Q Also today, apparently the Iraqis fired upon some allied planes in the no-fly zone and we bombed, apparently, some of the sites there. What do you have on that?

THE PRESIDENT: I've been briefed on it. As you know, our military can make decisions as they see fit to protect our pilots -- unless, of course, it's close to Baghdad, in which case it requires my approval. The missions that took place were fully in accordance with established allied war plans.

As I said, Saddam Hussein is a menace, he's still a menace and we need to keep him in check, and will.

Q Are they ratcheting it up, though? We've had a lot of incidents lately.

THE PRESIDENT: No -- are they, the Iraqis? He's been a menace forever, and we will do -- he needs to open his country up for inspection, so we can see whether or not he's developing weapons of mass destruction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. I was thinking that they didn't pertain to alQeda
but what you posted was probably in there too.

I would suspect/ecpect that THE daily PDB would be longer than 1 1/2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #68
70. If the actual Aug. 6 PDB was 11 and 1/2 pages long,
and that 11 and 1/2 pages was a long memo for the Shrub, then the placement of these 1 and 1/2 pages within the longer memo would be crucial. If it were at the beginning, then there is a chance that Shrub was still paying attention, that is if he were actually reading it. If the AQ section was at the end, forget it. Shrub didn't read it or if his eyes actually moved over the page, nothing sunk in. How many "People's" magazines actually have 11 and 1/2 pages, even interspersed with juicy photos?

It has been reported that Shrub gets much of his information through a multidisciplinary approach, or by simply having things read to him. As governor of TX, he frequently asked for 10-15 minute oral summaries of much longer memos. If this were being read to him, especially if the reading were interspersed with a little questioning (dream on), then material going over the 10-15 minute limit would have a less likely chance of imprinting itself into the Shrub brain.
There is a discussion of the Shrub's information gathering situation in a thread here in GD yesterday.

If a pResident cannot intake and process a satisfactory amount of information per day, etc., to understand what is going on in a very complex world and national situation, then he or she simply cannot carry out his or her duties in a satisfactory way.

I don't think that a president necessarily needs to be the astonishing knowledge sponge that Clinton was, but there is a minimum for effective functioning below which Shrub seems to fall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #68
75. Perhaps the other pages were Iraq?
Maybe Israel/Palestine, N. Korea, China?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #65
86. That is what I think, too. They left out irrelevant sections... like
Saddam Hussein definitely has no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Al-Qaida and Iraq still at odds... Unlikely reconciliation.

Diebold Georgia plans progressing nicely.

CIA tests of asphyxiation pretzels nearing completion. Sample enclosed.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #86
91. I just have to say
you made me laugh out loud.

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
71. Kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enki23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
72. that's not a typo. if you mean "1" you write "one"
unless this was vetted by a rather clumsy editor, the person definitely meant "11," and not "one."

of course, they could simply have been wrong. also, is die zeit written in english, or auf deutsch? it would be easy enough to go to the original to see if the translator somehow confused ein for elf.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. See post #40...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThoughtCriminal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
74. So why would the page number be blacked out?
And if it is not a page number, what could possibly be there that is classified?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
76. this is the stupid *ss thing with this dude
Edited on Sun Apr-11-04 01:15 PM by seabeyond
why didnt they just put out and say it was 11 pages and we held out 9 pages because it has to do with other stuff.

instead, they put something out in lie. we know this. then we have to hunt and look for the true story, and may be something may not, we dont know, we just know there is a lie.

he lies about everything.

i have owned my place for years, is a 60 year old home i am 6 feet tall.............wtf, all this is stupid shit and we dont care, but indicitive of the man that he lies about all...........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #76
79. The thing is that every news org. seems to refer to what is released
as the full PDB. If this is an "excerpt" (which for national security purposes, I can understand) - shouldn't it be reported as being only 2 pages of 11 1/2? It is that ommission that leaves the impression to readers/viewers/listeneres that this was the whole report released (leaving no question as to... well, what was left out?).

I had thought it was twelve pages (and 11 1/2 could be refered to as 12) before I read this thread - and was asking the same question. Have to say, due to poor domestic reporting, it is confusing and even newshounds like us are having trouble sorting it out (and we were paying enough attention to know there was a question, most folks don't even realize that there is a question to be asked.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
82. I think I caught something else
in this release.

Look at the two paragraphs on the second page. The first has a bullet, a line to its left. It's totally misplaced.

My best guess: the second page was a continuation of a bulleted list from it's previous page- and that previous page is not the first page in the release. Why? The first page has no bulleted list; you only use bullets if you are going to use two or more related points. The second page is the only page with a pullet point, and there only a single bullet.

This is a chop job. The two pages weren't even consecutive in their order.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. Good catch!
As I said in my post below ... sometimes the simplest details are the most telling. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #82
93. We got the first and the last page
and they chopped out the middle.

The middle would have been the meat of the thing.

However, this particular PDB had a title, which is unusual. The title was BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN THE US.

So unless Iraq, Israel/Palestine or any other country was being tied to bin Laden, they wouldn't be mentioned in such a brief.

It is probable that Tenet also briefed the pResident about Iraq because they had supposedly violated the no fly zone that day and the US bombed some targets in retaliation. However, this incident may have happened after the August 6th PDB after Tenet delievered the brief. Bu$h discussed Iraq in a press brief at the pig farm on Aug. 7th. He made no mention of bin Laden that day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
83. Why I don't believe it's a typo ...
"His PDB runs 11 and one-half printed pages, instead of the usual two to three, and carries the title, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."

:tinfoilhat: This is going to sound silly and I'm sure I'll get nailed on it ...

Why would you combine the number "11" with the word "one-half" - wouldn't you keep the format the same?

11 1/2 or eleven and one-half

Think about it. You wouldn't type $12 and sixty-eight cents, you'd either type $12.68 or twelve dollars and sixty-eight cents

Maybe it's lame, but sometimes the simplest details are the most telling. ;)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. Again, read post #40...
It's a translation from German, and in the original, the 11 is spelled out and unambiguous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #85
88. Thanks for the tip
I did read it ... but you know the Bushies. They'll say the German report was a mistake or a lie or a misunderstanding or it can be interpreted in many ways or the word means something different in a specific dialect found only in a remote area of northern Germany ... etc, etc. :evilgrin:

Anyway, I just figured I'd post my observation about the number formats because that article was in English. :-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpbrown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
87. So they faked the PDB they just released as well
No surprise there from the lying secretive PNAC nutball weasel administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
92. not a big deal, IMHO
Edited on Sun Apr-11-04 06:38 PM by ant
I posted this elsewhere, but seeing as how this is the main thread on the matter I wanted to throw it in.

1. Under Bush, the PDB has become shorter, a seven-to-10-page document containing "more targeted hard intelligence" items, with few longer than a page, according to a former senior intelligence official who was involved in the process.
-source

This contradicts the German article's claim that the PDB is usually only a page or two.

So according to the WP, Bush's PDBs are usually 7-10 pages (give or take, this one being 11 is not outlandish) and they contain individual intelligence items that are normally 1-2 pages.

Given that, it's certainly possible and, I think, likely, that the Bin Laden warning was simply one of the shorter "items" within the PDB. The other pages probably dealt with other issues not relevant to 9/11 or terrorism/Bin Laden in general. Given that the PDB is often characterized as a "world headlines" sort of thing, this would make sense.

2. There is a logic to the transition from the first released page to the second one. "We haven't been able to corroborate claims of Bin Laden's plan to hijack planes BUT (turn page) the FBI is reporting activity consistent with hijacking planes."

I don't think there are missing pages between the two that were released. They probably come before and/or after and, by point 1, are probably not relevant.



Edited because I assume people prefer working links...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonemachine Donating Member (407 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-04 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #92
101. But Why The Blacked Out Page Numbers?
Or do you think that was something other than a page number?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtf Donating Member (273 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-04 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
97. This deserves a kick..
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-04 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
99. CONFIRMATION HERE...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonemachine Donating Member (407 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-04 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
100. AP Wire Mentions Length!


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


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/14/220...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonemachine Donating Member (407 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-04 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #100
104. Kick
bump
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-04 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. Worth a kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonemachine Donating Member (407 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #105
107. Yes it is
bump!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gandalf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 04:25 AM
Response to Original message
108. Just received confirmation from German newspaper Die Zeit
They wrote that there exist an official source for the length of the DPB: Washington Post, May 18, 2002: Woodward/Eggen: Memo Focused On Attacks in U.S.

In this article, according to Die Zeit, it was explicitly statet that the memo had solid 11.5 pages, instead of the usual 2.

(Interesting that Die Zeit, a very respected German weekly, calls WP an "official source"...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep 20th 2014, 05:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC