NYT BOMBSHELL: Significantly MORE 9/11 NEGLIGENCE Than Has Been Disclosed
The Deafness Before the Storm
IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day. In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.
cont'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Think that Rmoney had something to do with the death of Bin Laden ... so that should tell us just how informed your average Repuke is.
All the insane CT's have muddied the water enough that this kind of information will be quickly dismissed.
Is it 
to wonder if a lot of CTs are a result of a conspiracy to make up conspiracies to hide the truth?
They're being defensive by mentioning everything up but the kitchen sink just to protect Bush. The #1 excuse is "Osama was handed to Clinton on a silver platter" nonsense. 
Failure to keep America and her people safe because he couldn't take his eye of the guy that threatened his daddy for one fucking second.
The more you study this subject, the more you realize how ridiculous and unbelievable the story that we have been told is. I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg.
The public has a right to know this stuff!!! And NOT thirty years later!!
So mad right now that I have been lied to!!!!!! That Bush guy...wow! Worst pResident ever!! He wrecked this country for a decade, ruined our reputation overseas, wasted trillions on two useless wars, allowed Wall Street deregulation to crash the market down to half its value, and on and on and on.
I could list off the top fifty worst policies of the Bush years, and right at the top will always be that he did not keep us safe from the worst attack in the United States ever in our history. FAIL!!!
We will not forget. We will not forgive. We are legion. Expect us.
And we WON'T forget. And we'll always know. Wherever he goes, for the rest of his days, duhbya will be in the proximity of people who look at him with the deepest revulsion in their eyes. People who KNOW. People who remember. People who had far more understanding of what happened than he or his minions might expect.
War criminal.
You beat me to posting the very same thing.
Freaking war criminals!
But when are Bush and his co-traitors held accountable?
Oh, yeah..."Impeachment is off the table."
Exactly.
I am fuming!!
Last edited Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)
Besides being completely contradictory, there's about three orders of magnitude difference in plausibility between LIHOP and MIHOP, not to mention the evidence gap that's nearly as wide. If you must have a conspiracy theory, LIHOP has the advantage of at least being somewhat plausible, since it only requires that a fairly small group of people do nothing, whereas the standard MIHOP/Rube Goldberg scheme of fake hijackings and controlled demolitions has hundreds of people actively doing outrageously complicated and risky things (when something far less complicated and risky would have produced the same presumed result), which doesn't even tickle the needle on any rational plausibility meter. Furthermore, LIHOP is at least supported by some circumstantial evidence such as the failure to act on the PDBs, whereas standard MIHOP theory is directly contradicted by credible evidence that "truthers" blithely declare to be faked for no reason whatsoever except that it directly contradicts their beliefs.
The only equivalence between LIHOP and MIHOP is that most "truthers" are willing to believe just about anything except the "official story." This is the direct result of starting with the assumption that the government was involved somehow or other, and then trying to rationalize that belief as if it were a valid conclusion.
The telling feature of the "truth movement" is that after 11 years, they haven't found enough "truth" to even convince each other what happened.
(Edit: I didn't mean to imply that you are a "truther."
And
(watch on Youtube & check out all 8 segments)
"We'll get to that el kayduh thing later. That was a Clinton thing."
at long last. It took 11 years for a majority of Americans to regain enough common sense to smell the stench of outrageous deception. Now they're considering LIHOP... Okay, that's a start. But how about letting Mencken's famous saying become a thing of the past and joining the rest of the world citizens? Hey, it's inevitable in the long run.
"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."
- Henry Louis Mencken
Thanks for your courageous post, WFE. The other day I was trying to remember the name of the engineer who had collected the most baffling pieces of evidence that need to be included in any sincere investigation. You gave it to me: Dr. Judy Wood. Thanks. 
George Bush kept you safe
Last edited Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:16 AM - Edit history (1)
Not making accusations, just putting a popped-up thought into words:
By this account, by July the people in these agencies who were being hamstrung by the indifference of the Bush White House were looking for ways to get clear before the shit inevitably hit the fan.
The reason John Yoo and the other composed the Torture Memos was to establish a legal framework for "enhanced interrogation" because the people in the CIA and other agencies initially resisted because they felt that they would be hung out to dry if/when it became public ("a few bad apples" .
I recall a lot of CIA agents fired under Carter were bitter that they were made the scapegoats for carrying out the policies that had come down to them. I suspect there was some memory of that in those communities, and they wanted to avoid a repeat.
But having read Jane Mayer's "The Dark Side" Yoo was just a willing soldier. He cited his own law school writings as precedent and background. He also was their prescription doctor - he wrote any prescription they wanted. The oddest part was the John Ashcroft came out of the administration as the sane one - WOW - but they didn't even go to the AG to tell him that they needed Yoo they went straight to Yoo. He teaches at Berkley now....which is nice. 
PNAC traitors are going to hell. After prison.
Ask questions. They lead to other questions!
Cui bono?
