Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Bush Was Told Al Qaeda Attack... "IMMINENT".

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Visiting Planet Earth

    Bush Was Told Al Qaeda Attack... "IMMINENT".

    The thread has been restored by agreement with the restrictions in post #2 below by Mod 11. No personal criticism of other members is permitted!


    Op-Ed Contributor
    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.

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

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

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

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

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

    In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.

    Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.

    Kurt Eichenwald, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and a former reporter for The New York Times, is the author of “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars.”

    Maybe Bush knows the danger was real now. DOH!

    If these details are all true, and these revelations are really not new, then the Bush government perpetrated a cover-up of it's gross ineptitude despite repeated EXTREME warnings about the most disastrous foreign attack on the U.S. in nearly 200 years. As all can see none of the threat warned about are related to Iraq or Saddam Hussein, yet American anger over this disaster was used to perpetrate a war against a leader and country that had little or nothing to do with 911.

    The Bush administration had over 4 months to react to the virulent warnings from the CIA as early as May 1 when that agency was able to identify the seriousness and the imminence of the threat to the country and it's citizens. Despite the arrest of two Arab foreign nationals, one involved in flight training on U.S. soil, the Bush administration failed. When speaking of criminal irresponsibility the Bush administration exceeds any other in neglect, lives lost, and exploitation in the aftermath of the pain and anguish of the American people to use the disaster to forward it's own myopic personal agenda.

    Last edited by Mod 11; 09-12-2012 at 11:05 AM.

  2. #2

    IMPORTANT! Read carefully and if you don't like, don't post in this thread.

    Notes by Mod 11:

    Theses points are not directed at Merlot in particular and have no relation to Merlot being the poster. They are there for whoever the hat might fit. They are because of the tendency of any political thread to degenerate and MERB don't benefit from such threads going nowhere.

    1. Merlot had deleted this thread following my comment the thread was already off-topic on the second post and was likely to turn into another useless merry-go-round.
    2. Since the topic Merlot brought here had potential for a healthy discussion, I came into an agreement with Merlot to un-delete the thread. Maybe I have too much faith into members being adults? Up to you guys to show me you can do it.
    3. This thread MUST stay on topic. Please read CAREFULLY Merlot's post and understand what the topic is. One post, even if it was very interesting, was already off-topic and was deleted.
    4. No discussions of the type "my dad is better than yours" will be allowed.
    5. Utmost respect is expected. Personal attacks, innuendos and making fun of other members or member's opinions won't be tolerated.
    6. Use the "reply with quote" intelligently or don't use it at all. Posts quoting other posts entirely will get deleted without further warning. It is useless to quote a 1-liner immediately above your reply. Just say the name of the member you refer to in your reply.
    7. For whoever quotes an external source, MERB rules states it's useless to quote the entire article. An excerpt and a link to the article is enough. Members can follow the link if they want to read more.
    8. Merb rules also ask whoever quote an external source must let members know about his opinion on the quoted source. Just a cut-paste isn't acceptable. We suggest you mark a separation between your opinion and the article, to avoid confusion.

    Last edited by Mod 11; 09-12-2012 at 11:55 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts