If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US"? Yeah, turns out that was about the least alarming of the series of PDB's Bush ignored before 9/11   (dailykos.com) divider line 87
    More: Followup, George Bush, Osama bin Laden, United States, George Tenet, imminent threat, Health Care, International, Chechnya, Bush administration  
•       •       •

3971 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Sep 2012 at 6:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-09-10 11:59:14 PM  
7 votes:
they wanted to get hit. those PNAC people weren't in his administration by accident or coincidence
2012-09-11 06:36:07 AM  
3 votes:
GWB was so concerned about OBL that he spared no expense in getting him.

Wait, no: he ignored him almost entirely and used his attacks as an excuse to invade a completely
different country uninvolved in the 9/11 attacks!
2012-09-11 12:26:32 AM  
3 votes:
Jesus Christ. I'm beginning to rethink my hypothesis that the Bush administration was merely incompetent at best and negligent at worst.
2012-09-10 11:46:38 PM  
3 votes:
Wait, the *Daily Kos* blames the Bush administration for 9/11? Holy cow! That's like Rush Limbaugh opposing Obama's re-election! Somebody stop the presses!!!!!
2012-09-11 01:30:27 PM  
2 votes:

vygramul: Look, I'm not the type to sit around defending Bush - Lord knows there's plenty of reasons not to. But the administration did not want to get hit, would love to have done things differently, and there are an unbelievable number of warnings almost every day.


Pretty much this. The guy was a farking idiot. That theory sums up everything he did--he honestly didn't comprehend what he was doing.

This is also why I pay very, very close attention to politics. A second moron would not be a good thing to elect.
2012-09-11 01:07:27 PM  
2 votes:

inner ted: the only evidence i've ever been offered is a .5 sec video



Well, that and the pieces of airplane scattered all over the crash site, including the plane's nose cone which landed several rings inside the Pentagon, and the charred bodies of the dead passengers. I'm sorry, but it's farking retarded to think it was anything but a plane. Really, really retarded.
2012-09-11 10:12:39 AM  
2 votes:

Giltric: I;m not reading through all that drivel....give the cliff notes.


I believe that was the Bush Administration's response to all of those reports too.
2012-09-11 10:08:51 AM  
2 votes:

Giltric: We know statistically, that every couple of seconds, a child is abused, a woman is raped, and a person is murdered in this country.

But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.


As oppposed to the very specific, credible, and later-confirmed reports about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And Saddam's ties to 9/11. And his nearly-successful effort to build an atomic bomb.

All totally proven later on. We avoided total destruction by that much.

As opposed to the vague, inconsequential warnings Bush received about al Qaeda, which never panned out as an actual threat anyway.

And as opposed to the daily kabuki theater in the nation's airports to try to prevent another attack by making people take off their shoes, because we have totally credible, pinpointed reports that someone is about to use a shoe bomb on a particular flight at a particular time.

/up is down, black is white, truth is lies
2012-09-11 09:31:13 AM  
2 votes:
FTFA[T]he 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.

The Iraq War was set in stone from the moment Bush took office. 9/11 was first a distraction, then an excuse to go into Iraq and start handing out no-bid contracts to cronies with zero accountability, while simultaneously siphoning oil and raising gas prices to astronomical levels. The Iraqi invasion and occupation was corporate fraud concealed by a war.

Neocons are the absolute scum of the Earth, and if Romney wins, they'll be in power again.
2012-09-11 09:22:17 AM  
2 votes:

sprawl15: oldnewsissoexciting.jpg

Anyone who thinks the 'bin Laden determined to strike US' report is significant (or worse, the smoking gun) either hasn't read it or doesn't understand it. And it's missing the point: the intelligence failure was vast, on many levels and across many fronts.

hinten: Yes, on top of that, my favorite excuse: "Nobody could have thought of something as crazy as flying planes into buildings."
No, thousands and thousands of professionals who have no other job than to protect this country, gather intelligence, come up with all kinds of crazy scenarios, and warn the right people, could have never thought of this. Everyone is a professional with deep knowledge on every subject and the so called "experts" no nothing that you couldn't do better.

Thinking up plans and having contingencies is very different than actively defending against such a scenario. Assuming some guy in the basement of the Pentagon thought up this exact scenario and wrote out how to react, when the fark would it ever come into play? Nobody expected it, and without solid intel that such an attack vector was imminent, the scenario wouldn't have been useful at all.


If you are concerned about hijacked airplanes, and more to the point hijacked airplanes being used as weapons, there was a simple , low cost. obvious fix. Put farking locks on the cockpit doors. One simple regulation was all that was required to act on that scenario.
2012-09-11 08:35:57 AM  
2 votes:

Darth_Lukecash: We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.


Uh, you know what? I'll be the bold one to say had the 2000 election been honestly decided and not stolen, things would have been better. Do you seriously believe that the president being the son of the man who sent initially US forces for an indefinite period in Saudi Arabia had no part in the decision to attack? Do you really think that Gore would have been too busy vacationing to pay attention to a briefing from security officials? It's bad enough we have these "only history can judge" apologists acting like the administration didn't go on a multi-year decline from incompetents to crooks to downright war criminals, but let's not build further on this artifice of bullshiat into an all-bullshiat recreation of the Twin Towers just to make sure your guy doesn't look bad. Bush farked the fark up, and there are countless dead because of it. I can understand not wanting to feel respnosible if you voted for a guy you wanted to have a beer with in 2000, but it's important to remember that very fact in the face of the "BOTH SIDES ARE THE SAME" crowd too lazy to do their goddam reading.
2012-09-11 07:33:43 AM  
2 votes:
This should come as no surprise...considering the Wolfowitz Doctrine and the following statement from the The Project for the New American Century's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" white paper:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions."
2012-09-11 07:19:48 AM  
2 votes:

Krymson Tyde: Jesus Christ. I'm beginning to rethink my hypothesis that the Bush administration was merely incompetent at best and negligent at worst.


Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
2012-09-11 07:10:09 AM  
2 votes:
FTA: "The Neo-Conservatives tried to dismiss the CIA's warning, attempting to describe them as the result of a disinformation campaign by Osama bin Laden intended to distract the US from focusing on Saddam Hussein."

The neocons knew an attack on US soil would be a perfect justification to go batshiat insane into global war. They ignored it because they wanted it to happen.
2012-09-11 04:27:35 AM  
2 votes:

fickle floridian: Wait, the *Daily Kos* blames the Bush administration for 9/11? Holy cow! That's like Rush Limbaugh opposing Obama's re-election! Somebody stop the presses!!!!!


Looks like you and Bush Jr. have about the same level of reading comprehension.

cman: Unsurprising at all.

If there is one thing in Government that is always a constant it is the complete incompetence of federal employees and elected officials.


No, these federal employees. I know plenty of competent ones personally, probably because I recognize them as individuals and not a giant, dehumanized mass. Way to dip people just going about their jobs in 9/11 blood.
2012-09-11 03:23:29 AM  
2 votes:

Krymson Tyde: Jesus Christ. I'm beginning to rethink my hypothesis that the Bush administration was merely incompetent at best and negligent at worst.


I think he was just the figurehead. The dude who signed whatever the real people in charge put in front of him.

/kind of like what a Romney administration would be.
2012-09-11 11:40:22 PM  
1 votes:

Headso: All these warnings are old news, it's just a guy selling a book, heard him on NPR today... here's an old list of warnings, most with cites...


Why is this list in small print? It should be IN BIG BOLD farkING LETTERS!

January 25, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice Al-Qaeda Cells Are Inside US and Are 'Major Threat'

May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City

Summer 2001: Bin Laden Speech Mentions 20 Martyrs in Upcoming Attack; Other Hints of Attack Spread Widely [9/11 Commission, 6/16/2004]

June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 9/11/2001; Washington Post, 9/14/2001; Fox News, 5/17/2002]

June 4, 2001: Illegal Afghans Overheard Discussing New York City Hijacking Attack [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

June 13, 2001: Bin Laden Wants to Assassinate Bush with an Explosives-Filled Airplane [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US

July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

July 8, 2001: Prominent Prisoner Publicly Warns of Al-Qaeda Intent to Export Violence to US Soil

July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West [London Times, 6/14/2002]

Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US [Forward, 5/31/2002]

Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US [Independent, 9/7/2002; Reuters, 9/7/2002]

Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly [CBS News, 10/9/2002]

August 2001: Moroccan Informant Warns US of Large Scale, Imminent Attack in New York [Agence France-Presse, 11/22/2001; International Herald Tribune, 5/21/2002; London Times, 6/12/2002]

August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

August 2001: Persian Gulf Informant Gives Ex-CIA Agent Information About 'Spectacular Terrorist Operation' [Baer, 2002, pp. 55-58; Financial Times, 1/12/2002]

Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 5/19/2002]

August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US [Daily Telegraph, 9/16/2001; Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named [Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 10/1/2002]

August 24, 2001: Foreign Intelligence Reminds US of Al-Qaeda Plot to Attack within US

August 29, 2001: Cayman Islands Letter Warns of 'Major Terrorist Act Against US via an Airline or Airlines' [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001; MSNBC, 9/23/2001]

August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns Al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late August 2001: French Warning to US Echoes Earlier Israeli Warning [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack [Sunday Mail, 9/16/2001]

September 7, 2001: French Give 'Very Specific Information' about Possible Attack on US Soil [Le Figaro (Paris), 10/31/2001]
2012-09-11 02:04:07 PM  
1 votes:

inner ted: if somehow you really believe that revealing the position of a single camera - from over 10 years ago compromises our security... well i'll respectfully disagree.


If somehow you believe that the most secure building on Earth, run by a notoriously paranoid agency representing one of the most secretive (when it comes to defense/security) governments the world has ever known (measured by the volume of data they keep secure) will voluntarily divulge any part of their security apparatus - and one which is a painful reminder of how all those trillions of dollars in National Defense money have been spent - I'll respectfully disagree.

Besides the assumptions you make about such a camera and its footage (that any decent footage exists, that it shows anything different from footage we already have, that ), it'd probably take a court order to find out what's on the cafeteria menu today. Actual relevant security information from the Pentagon is difficult to come across.

Remember, there are still classified files from the Kennedy assassination, and that was 50 years ago. 11 years and only one or two security upgrades, and it's easy to see why the Pentagon might want to play their security hand close to the vest.

Meanwhile, all I've read from you are questions. Questions with plausible answers provided by myself and several others (and some snark, and nonplausible things. I ignore those). I have seen nothing from you, other than speculation, to make your point. So now it's time.

What the fark, exactly, are you on about? Is your question really "Why won't the Pentagon release footage I'm sure exists?" Isn't this like wanting a long-form birth certificate, complete with raised seal, SecState's handwritten signature, a notarized certificate of Intent to Interracially Fornicate, and every scrap of INS/ICE paperwork relating to one Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama II?

// and I'm not threatening you with ignore, I'm politely suggesting that you argue honestly
// otherwise, as is my prerogative in an argument, I shall leave it and return to work
// not to hurt you, but to stop wasting my time
2012-09-11 01:36:33 PM  
1 votes:

inner ted: good thing that the [Pentagon] WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7


1. Not by hi-def cameras (thanks shower_in_my_socks for saving me the time of looking that up).
2. The cameras that are in use, for reasons already explained, would not have provided anything beyond what we already have. Ergo (absent a compelling public need), the Pentagon feels no need to release ~1 second of tape that doesn't add anything to the discussion but DOES tip off the location of at least one security camera (and by extension, part of the building's security protocol).

You're dangerously close to being ignored. I like honest discussion and argumentation, and I'm willing to believe your lack of situational knowledge of the Pentagon's neighborhood is a limiting factor (NTTAWWT), but when you're relying on points that have already been discussed and legitimately dismissed, it becomes hard to take you seriously.

I could be unit testing now, man. Don't consign me to that fate.
2012-09-11 01:21:52 PM  
1 votes:

inner ted: why are you still commenting?



Good question. Welcome to my ignore list, farking moron.
2012-09-11 01:13:50 PM  
1 votes:

sprawl15: This implies there was an institutional recognition of a problem.


that's where the charges of negligence and conspiracy come from, a dozen foreign intelligence agencies and the CIA all warning about an upcoming attack and yet despite that it was not recognized as a problem.
2012-09-11 01:07:54 PM  
1 votes:

dericwater: pontechango: Giltric: We did have teams on the ground with eyes, and crosshiairs, on bin laden (which is how we knew he was there) who were ready to pull the trigger or raid the compound and capture him alive or dead but the Clinton administration said no.

We had "teams on the ground" in Afghanistan with Bin Laden in their crosshairs? Uh no.

Uh yes. We had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora and a direct order from Bush requested the military stand down. Bin Laden then escaped.


Well, I think it was more to the effect that Bush had prioritized resources for the invasion of Iraq instead of catching Bin Laden, but I suppose Giltric would blame that on Clinton, too.
2012-09-11 12:56:27 PM  
1 votes:

pontechango: Giltric: We did have teams on the ground with eyes, and crosshiairs, on bin laden (which is how we knew he was there) who were ready to pull the trigger or raid the compound and capture him alive or dead but the Clinton administration said no.

We had "teams on the ground" in Afghanistan with Bin Laden in their crosshairs? Uh no.


Uh yes. We had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora and a direct order from Bush requested the military stand down. Bin Laden then escaped.
2012-09-11 12:52:41 PM  
1 votes:

Brubold: If you want to blame an ex-president for Osama's attack then blame Clinton. He's the one that wussed out when presented with the chance to take him out.



LOLWUT? So in 2001 bin Laden was such a threat that the Bush Admin COMPLETELY IGNORED HIM, but prior to that he should have been priority #1 on the kill list? How farking convenient. I agree that I wish Clinton had taken him out, but that's hindsight 20/20. When you have evidence that the CIA was pleading with the Clinton Admin for months that an attack from bin Laden's organization was imminent, that they knew terrorist cells were on the ground in the US, and they not just ignored it, but told the CIA they were being duped, because they wanted a war with Iraq instead, please come back and show us. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were flagged in the months leading up to 9/11. One was even kicked out. Kind of would have been nice if the dipshiats in the White House had been paying a little closer attention to that shiat like the CIA wanted them to.
2012-09-11 12:47:41 PM  
1 votes:

Skleenar: But the main problem I see is how would the phones connect to the cell towers? They're 20,000 feet in the air, zooming over farm land in mid-eastern Pennsylvania, with little cell coverage.

This has always given me pause, too.



There are a lot of possible explanations. I saw a great little short doc by the great Errol Morris about the JFK assassination where they discussed the mysterious man with the black umbrella who was standing along the roadway in Dallas when JFK was shot. Really brilliant short video on conspiracy theories -- check it out.

For years conspiracy theorists have claimed the umbrella man was CIA and that the umbrella was a weapon. What other explanation could there have been for a guy on a hot day with a black umbrella - the only person with an umbrella in probably all of Dallas that day - standing right where Kennedy was shot? So they actually found the "umbrella man" and questioned him. Turns out he was protesting Joe Kennedy, JFK's dad, over something he had supported. The umbrella was a symbolic reference to that, so this guy was doing a silent protest with the umbrella when JFK's motorcade passed. The point being, there are infinite explanations for strange things that have nothing sinister to them, but our minds always go to the more salacious possibilities.

From Flight 93, 37 phone calls were made by passengers and crew. 35 of them used Airphones. So only 2 cell phone calls were placed. Flight 93 was below 20k feet for 10-15 minutes; below 10k feet for 5-7 mins. There were 44 passengers and crew on board. Minus 4 hijackers and at least 2 people who were dead or dying at that time, that leaves 38 people with at least 5 minutes to get through via cell phones. When you do that math, it's not hard at all to believe that 2 cell calls made it through. Add in the "fog of war," the unreliability of eye-witnesses, human error, etc. It's a hell of a lot easier to accept than the alternate theory that the calls were all faked, that wives, husbands, siblings, parents and best friends were all duped into believing they were talking to their loved ones on the phone, that the evil conspirators would take a risk by faking 37 calls (!) when one or two would have been enough to do the job.
2012-09-11 12:44:00 PM  
1 votes:

dericwater: Philip Francis Queeg: TheBigJerk: keylock71: I think it would have happened regardless of who was in the White House... But this does reinforce that the Bush Administration had a hard-on for Iraq pretty much from the beginning and the attacks on 9/11/01 gave them the excuse they needed to plunge us headlong into that expensive debacle.

...And sadly, the GOP is still chocker blocked with these ideological neoconservative assholes.

Bush aside, why did the other neocons have such a hard-on for Iraq?

Black gold, Texas tea. Oil that is.

The Cheney wing of the neo-cons wanted the oil. The Wolfowitz/Bolton wing wanted a won war to show the might of the US as an empire. (For what, I don't know.)


Revenge.

Aside from wanting Iraqi oil reserves, the right-wing of the GOP never forgave Poppy Bush for
not telling General Schwartzkopf to call home from the payphone at the Turkey/Iraq border
checkpoint after driving through downtown Baghdad. They thought that he should have ignored
the UN Resolution and go after Saddam Hussein, who had shown himself as being an unreliable
bulwark against what they thought was the 'real' enemy in the reason: Iran.

Even though Iraq was a Soviet client in the 1980s, his war with Iran suited our purposes to keep the
Iranians in check; that's why they kept cozying up to him, up to and including (IIRC) Madeline Albright
strongly implying that if they rolled over the border into Kuwait it wasn't really any of our business.
They probably never thought the Shoeshine Boy would be crazy enough to do that anyway, forgetting
his history.

I remember rather wishing that Bush Sr. had gone in, since Saddam was a monster, but given that
unlike most of his advisors he had a grasp of what a quagmire that could become, he erred on the
side of keeping Desert Storm a 'just' war, inasmuchas it was prosecuted in accordance with the
UN mandate. Unfortunately, the red meat wing of the party saw this as weakness, and despite our
solid victory they thought he'd sold out the US, and they set about to make sure that there would
never be a 'weak' GOP president ever again and proceeded to purge the moderates from the party
in earnest just in time for them to start hounding Bill Clinton and, eventually, engineer the winning of
the 2000 election by a puppet they could easily control.

The Iraq Was was going to happen whether there was an Al-Queida attack or not, and it would have
followed the same script of "SADDAM HAS WMDS!!!".
2012-09-11 12:30:41 PM  
1 votes:

Brubold: If you want to blame an ex-president for Osama's attack then blame Clinton. He's the one that wussed out when presented with the chance to take him out.


Funny. I seem to remember that Clinton ordered a cruise missile that missed Bin Laden by a few minutes (thanks Pakistani ISI!), whereupon Clinton was roundly criticized by Congressional Republicans as a wag-the-dog warmonger.
2012-09-11 12:28:16 PM  
1 votes:

inner ted: i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel: if those cameras were of 'sensitive areas' i could agree with your idea, but we are talking about part of the building that is publicly visible - how on earth there is just that one brief moment of a clip is just hard to understand.


The same reason the WH keeps everything it can under the umbrella of National Security or Executive Privilege - because it can. Or because the Pentagon is notoriously paranoid. (CSB: While I've never been inside, I assume it's like the NSA, which I have been in - posters everywhere warning you that Loose Lips Sink Carrier Battle Groups.)

What the cameras are looking at can be important if you want to know where they aren't looking. We assume that the Pentagon has eyes on every part of the exterior, but why even give out a single reference point? If the cameras weren't hi-def, the frame rate may preclude anything useful on the tape anyway - a regular-def video camera shoots 24 frames per second, meaning that a plane traveling 500mph would move 733.3333... feet in every frame. Even for a camera looking at 900 feet of space, you'd get a little over a second of grainy, kind-of-looks-like-a-plane video noise.

And, as many others have said, why should the Pentagon release video of an event thousands of people saw just to appease conspiracist morons who'd likely find a pixel or two out of place and declare the whole thing a forgery of a fraud anyway?
2012-09-11 12:18:39 PM  
1 votes:

Skleenar: dericwater: My question with the 9/11 thing is how did those on Flight 93 talk to their loved ones? They used cell phones which is not a permitted act, although I guess in such a crisis, some people would be willing to break the rules. But the main problem I see is how would the phones connect to the cell towers? They're 20,000 feet in the air, zooming over farm land in mid-eastern Pennsylvania, with little cell coverage.

This has always given me pause, too.


They used air phones to make the calls. The kind you swiped the credit cards in: Link
2012-09-11 12:13:50 PM  
1 votes:
WTF? Greenlight a farking Kos link over the NYT? Great, so every right wing troll shiatstain can come in and say "Kos Lie-bral Liar LOL!!!1!"

This is a big farking deal. The Bush Admin ignored repeated warnings from the CIA for at least four farking months because they wanted their big war with Iraq instead. And let's not forget that these blind neocon morons are first in line to join a Romney administration and lead us galloping into WWIII with Iran and China.

From the NYT: 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.
2012-09-11 11:53:56 AM  
1 votes:

Skleenar: dericwater: My question with the 9/11 thing is how did those on Flight 93 talk to their loved ones? They used cell phones which is not a permitted act, although I guess in such a crisis, some people would be willing to break the rules. But the main problem I see is how would the phones connect to the cell towers? They're 20,000 feet in the air, zooming over farm land in mid-eastern Pennsylvania, with little cell coverage.

This has always given me pause, too.


Most of the calls were made with the seatback phones - IIRC, there were 35 calls from those, and only 2 successful cell calls.

The interference with cell phones is actually eased by being in a non-populated area. Basically, a cell phone picks a 'channel' to use, and because the tower you're using is decided by geographical proximity there should only be one person using any one channel at a time. When you're in an airplane, you can hit multiple towers at once, so you can bump your channel into other people's and it farks with the system. The main hurdle would have been having enough power on the phone to interact with the cell tower, which would make service spotty but not impossible.
2012-09-11 11:46:59 AM  
1 votes:

Giltric: Do you have citations for that?



what's the difference? You didn't bother to read the last ones posted that should have shut you up. But you just keep rambling on being proud of your ignorance
2012-09-11 11:34:03 AM  
1 votes:

inner ted: you seem to be a person in the know, so can you please tell me and everyone else how the only picture or video of that incident is from a guard shack and only has about 1 second (maybe less) of an object that may or may not be an airplane. on a building that probably has quite a few cameras around. maybe even more than a few, perhaps dozens and dozens of cameras.


Because the DoD's HQ is one of the most secured places on the planet, and they're not likely to even acknowledge the existence of cameras, let alone tell you where they are, where they look at or let you see footage from them.

If not for the smoking hole, they might not even have acknowledged they got hit.

// works 2 miles from the Pentagon
// accidentally entered their parking lot one night
// no response from security, though the lot is about a mile wide - if I'd gotten closer, I imagine I'd have had several intense conversations that night
2012-09-11 11:22:57 AM  
1 votes:

Rashnu: Catch-22. He could only have stopped the attacks if liberals had already been cowed enough by the post-9/11 climate to have previously passed or allowed the PATRIOT Act, indefinite detentions and warrantless wire-taps.


Bullshiat. All the information gathered -- more than enough to have acted to preclude 9/11 -- was gathered perfectly legally under the purview of FISA -- a Carter act, that was later expanded under the Clinton administration.

The Patriot Act is, in essence, an expansion and extension of FISA. The Patriot Act added no "tools" to the intelligence community's arsenal they hadn't earlier, that would have worked to "stop" 9/11 -- because we already had the farking capability, and did not use it.
2012-09-11 11:22:25 AM  
1 votes:

Giltric: Pochas: Giltric: We know statistically, that every couple of seconds, a child is abused, a woman is raped, and a person is murdered in this country.

But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.

Well Bush was givne specific information that they would try to hijack planes and crash them into skyscrapers. Now if only there were central locations whereby airplanes arrived and departed...

Damn oh well

Only 50k airports in the world....what do you suggest....profiling?


And how many flight schools are there? How many with new students from terrorist sponsoring countries? Who are being paid for by suspect sources? Who have recently purchased tickets on planes they were training to fly?
2012-09-11 11:22:00 AM  
1 votes:

Carth: We had the intelligence we didn't have effective ways of combining what we knew and drawing an effective conclusion.



Riiiight

"Bin Laden determined to strike"

"using airplanes as weapons"

"suspected terrorists having flight training"

"tracking new militants entering the country"

Gee how could anyone jump to any conclusion? None of that above makes sense! DERP
2012-09-11 11:19:46 AM  
1 votes:

serial_crusher: Well, if they knew where the terrorists were, they should have gone and stopped them. I mean, the United States is pretty small right? Probably would have taken an afternoon or two to find them.



The CIA had tracked them all when entering the country, they had to apply for visas. You're not too bright. But this isn't a surprise, you're used to hearing that.
2012-09-11 11:18:18 AM  
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: TheBigJerk: keylock71: I think it would have happened regardless of who was in the White House... But this does reinforce that the Bush Administration had a hard-on for Iraq pretty much from the beginning and the attacks on 9/11/01 gave them the excuse they needed to plunge us headlong into that expensive debacle.

...And sadly, the GOP is still chocker blocked with these ideological neoconservative assholes.

Bush aside, why did the other neocons have such a hard-on for Iraq?

Black gold, Texas tea. Oil that is.


The Cheney wing of the neo-cons wanted the oil. The Wolfowitz/Bolton wing wanted a won war to show the might of the US as an empire. (For what, I don't know.)
2012-09-11 11:09:26 AM  
1 votes:

vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.

While Giltric is blinkered, this suggestion would have accomplished nothing, because the terrorists a) said they had a bomb and had wires to prove it, and b) could have started executing passengers until they opened the door. Given the history of hijacking, the pilots would have opened the door.


not if people were warned about the possibility of suicide pilots, they would have been beaten to death by a scared group of passengers
2012-09-11 11:08:57 AM  
1 votes:

Giltric: Headso: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

They could have even warned people about the possibility of an attack... people wouldn't have just let those guys take over the cockpit.

The passengers of one plane didn't let them takeover the cockpit....and they didn't recieve warnings.

3 out of 4 planes full of people are pussies.

I bet the next occurance there will be tons of cell phone videos.....noone will bother to use the phone to call the police though. People have become risk averse.


Wow - I'm upgrading you to asshole. Probably not actually old enough to remember 9/11. Or so old, you don't remember 9/11.
2012-09-11 10:55:21 AM  
1 votes:
No. 3 out of 4 planes full of people thought that when their plane was highjacked that they would end up on a tamac somewhere waiting for the goverment or Chuck Norris to save them because the warnings of highjackers deliberately crashing said plane into a building were swept under the rug.
When people say "Well we had no idea they would do such a thing" they are refering to the general population. The government? not so much.
The response from most anyone I knew at the time when this was going down was "WTF Who would do such a thing?!?!?" Now we know.
2012-09-11 10:51:46 AM  
1 votes:

serial_crusher: Giltric: The passengers of one plane didn't let them takeover the cockpit....and they didn't recieve warnings.

Um, yeah they did. They called their families with their cell phones, and their families told them what was going on with the other planes, so they decided to take action. Oddly enough, it was probably the cell phones themselves that caused the planes to crash, not passenger intervention.


he's trolling the thread dude... no point in responding after that
2012-09-11 10:37:29 AM  
1 votes:
2012-09-11 10:33:19 AM  
1 votes:

Giltric: Vlad_the_Inaner: Giltric: Google "Wikileaks confirms WMDs in Iraq."

ZOMG anime-forums.com!

BTW, the issue was with supposedly secret WMD program, not that stuff that was locked down by the UN programs and being destroyed. You know, the UN programs that had to bail out when someone decided they were going to start bombing again.

the UN program with the personnel recieving bribes from Iraq?...well aside from Ritter....they were giving him young children to do with as he pleased.


Tell us, why did Bush lie after the war and say there were no WMDs? Why does he continue to lie about it?
2012-09-11 10:30:13 AM  
1 votes:

Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?


Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.
2012-09-11 10:28:36 AM  
1 votes:

More_Like_A_Stain: Headso: All these warnings are old news, it's just a guy selling a book, heard him on NPR today... here's an old list of warnings, most with cites...

And yet here we are, eleven years to the day after the disaster, and people still don't want to accept that there was any way possible to foresee the event.


Besides all the other intelligence warning, there is one thing which I feel the significance of has been underrated. It is certainly no smoking gun, but without trying to get all troofer and derp-y, one clear and definite warning of what was to come should have been the assassination of the Afghan Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud by the Taliban on 9-9-2001.

Here is a short interview clip with Vladimir Putin where he discusses a phone call he had with Bush on 10-10-2001 regarding this assassination and what it may have presaged. Putin claims he told Bush that he was worried, and that "something "big" was about to happen. They (The Taliban) are planning something".

interview w/. Putin at the end

Of course, we would have to take Pooty's word that this call actually happened, but seeing as this documentary aired on both the BBC and National Geographic, and no one in the Bush camp has ever issued a denial, I will choose to believe it. Bush certainly would have known about the fate of Massoud, in any event.


Note: If anyone is interested in the full documentary. it's called "Iran and the West" and it's not all about 9/11, but it's quite interesting on it's own. You can watch it online: Link
2012-09-11 10:16:20 AM  
1 votes:

sprawl15: Pochas: Well Bush was givne specific information that they would try to hijack planes and crash them into skyscrapers.

Which specific information are you talking about?


Not sure about that, but there were reports that a plane would fly a suicide mission into the Geneva G7 (8?) conference. So they installed anti-aircraft missiles. It put the lie to Condoleeza Rice's idiocy that nobody could have predicted a terrorist flying a plane into a building.
2012-09-11 10:15:23 AM  
1 votes:

TheBigJerk: keylock71: I think it would have happened regardless of who was in the White House... But this does reinforce that the Bush Administration had a hard-on for Iraq pretty much from the beginning and the attacks on 9/11/01 gave them the excuse they needed to plunge us headlong into that expensive debacle.

...And sadly, the GOP is still chocker blocked with these ideological neoconservative assholes.

Bush aside, why did the other neocons have such a hard-on for Iraq?


Black gold, Texas tea. Oil that is.
2012-09-11 10:13:15 AM  
1 votes:

Giltric: Point out the specifics and post them in your next word salad. I;m not reading through all that drivel....give the cliff notes.


You sound so...so...what's the word I'm looking for...so...Presidential.
2012-09-11 10:12:00 AM  
1 votes:

Giltric: But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.


Not as useless as the Bush Administration, which could have actually, you know, mobilized resources to pinpoint the operation instead of demoting the counterterrorism security advisor.

2.bp.blogspot.com
2012-09-11 10:06:50 AM  
1 votes:

Giltric: But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.

January 25, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice Al-Qaeda Cells Are Inside US and Are 'Major Threat'

May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City

Summer 2001: Bin Laden Speech Mentions 20 Martyrs in Upcoming Attack; Other Hints of Attack Spread Widely [9/11 Commission, 6/16/2004]

June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 9/11/2001; Washington Post, 9/14/2001; Fox News, 5/17/2002]

June 4, 2001: Illegal Afghans Overheard Discussing New York City Hijacking Attack [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

June 13, 2001: Bin Laden Wants to Assassinate Bush with an Explosives-Filled Airplane [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US

July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

July 8, 2001: Prominent Prisoner Publicly Warns of Al-Qaeda Intent to Export Violence to US Soil

July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West [London Times, 6/14/2002]

Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US [Forward, 5/31/2002]

Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US [Independent, 9/7/2002; Reuters, 9/7/2002]

Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly [CBS News, 10/9/2002]

August 2001: Moroccan Informant Warns US of Large Scale, Imminent Attack in New York [Agence France-Presse, 11/22/2001; International Herald Tribune, 5/21/2002; London Times, 6/12/2002]

August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

August 2001: Persian Gulf Informant Gives Ex-CIA Agent Information About 'Spectacular Terrorist Operation' [Baer, 2002, pp. 55-58; Financial Times, 1/12/2002]

Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 5/19/2002]

August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US [Daily Telegraph, 9/16/2001; Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named [Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 10/1/2002]

August 24, 2001: Foreign Intelligence Reminds US of Al-Qaeda Plot to Attack within US

August 29, 2001: Cayman Islands Letter Warns of 'Major Terrorist Act Against US via an Airline or Airlines' [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001; MSNBC, 9/23/2001]

August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns Al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late August 2001: French Warning to US Echoes Earlier Israeli Warning [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack [Sunday Mail, 9/16/2001]

September 7, 2001: French Give 'Very Specific Information' about Possible Attack on US Soil [Le Figaro (Paris), 10/31/2001]


And there were so MANY of them. How could he ever have known with so many vague and very specific warnings?
2012-09-11 09:36:23 AM  
1 votes:

KiplingKat872: Hell, Hollywood writers came up with that scenario in The Lone Gunman TV show.


Worse than that for the Bush Administration (and Condi Rice in particular) is that she had been in security talks with her European counterparts just a couple of months before 9/11 where they laid out such a scenario and told her that they had been warned that terrorist were planning such an attack on the G10 meeting in Rome. Then after events she acted like such a tactic had never even crossed anyone's mind and there was no reason to plan for such a potentiality. This AFTER she had been told and sat in on meetings where security experts did plan for the exact same event.

BTW, on to this notion that "CLINTON forced security agencies not to share information with each other" - this was not true either. (Just more "noise" to try and cover their own incompetency.) Their never was such a law or rule in place when it came to foreign terrorism. These various laws, most of which were signed by Pres Ford, required on a limited basis that information gathered from things like wiretaps, etc., which were obtained for purposes of "national security" could not be shared with the FBI or other LE agencies, if it uncovered wrong doing by US Nationals and was completely unrelated to the underlying reasons why the surveillance was being conducted in the first place.

It has virtually ZERO application to the 9/11 situation and the part that Clinton supposedly played was likewise ZERO. There was a legal memo prepared by the Justice Dept, under Clinton, giving advice to the various Federal Law Enforcement agencies so they would not violate the law concerning restrictions on over reaching surveillance upon US Citizens. However, that memo was merely a restatement and updating of a near identical memo which came from the Bush (1) administration. It accurately reflected what the law was, it didn't change the law in way.

BTW, those restrictions wouldn't likely have been in place if it wasn't for the Nixon administration using all kinds of illegal surveillance tactics against US Citizens in order to silence their political criticism of him. The blowback from Watergate resulted in the "Church Commission" (Led by Sen Frank Church Idaho) which authored many laws to prevent such future abuses. And as mentioned above, these various acts and laws restricting the powers of the CIA and other agencies to engage in domestic spying were supported and signed into law by Pres. Ford.
2012-09-11 09:29:24 AM  
1 votes:

js34603: Sure this one warning he ignored resulted in an attack.


you miscounted.
2012-09-11 09:28:42 AM  
1 votes:

xria: I think as has been mentioned, it is always easy to lay blame for missing things that seem obvious in hindsight


But here's the thing: It's not like this information existed in a vacuum. I mean, if GWB just happened to pop into office and then all sorts of information started coming at him, sure, it would be really tough to prioritize.

But in order to claim that he shouldn't have known better, you have to believe that he wasn't specifically warned by his predecessor to pay attention to bin Laden, and that their own Counter-terrorism Czar wasn't screaming at them to pay attention.

And the only believable reason I can find that they ignored these warnings (or, pre-prioritization, if you prefer) is that they didn't fit with their desired policy goals.and/or were "tainted" by domestic partisan politics.
2012-09-11 09:22:21 AM  
1 votes:

Free Radical: EnviroDude: Too bad Clinton forced federal agencies not to share information with each other and even worse, that he passed on the opportunity to takeOBL into custody.

/ Bushs fault? Sure, but throw Party boy Clinton in there too as he has blood on his hands.

Good thing Obama took care of their fark ups right?


Too bad after neither of those things are true.

Clinton initiated the integration of a homeland security-like information-sharing program, albeit late enough in his presidency to not get off the ground. Seems unlikely he would oppose and then personally initiate that concept. Do you have sources?

The Sudanese government never had bin laden. End of story. The "intermediary" who made the offer was a known liar and self-aggrandizing fake power broker by the name of Mansoor Ijaz. Look him up.

Clinton had an unprecedented focus on terrorism and bin laden, the incoming bush administration thought he was obsessed. We've been over this a hundred times, wake up.
2012-09-11 09:22:16 AM  
1 votes:
I would be surprised if no one didn't know about this already. It's old news to me. Consider also how he called off the attacks on bin Laden that Clinton had been doing and how Saddam "tried to kill my daddy". Bush wanted the attacks to happen. Much like how Pearl Harbor is now known to have been allowed to happen in order to bring the United States into war. The United States wanted to stay at peace both during World War II and prior to 9/11. Hard to justify an attack on Iraq if you have no real excuse.
2012-09-11 09:21:34 AM  
1 votes:

sprawl15: Anyone who thinks the 'bin Laden determined to strike US' report is significant (or worse, the smoking gun) either hasn't read it or doesn't understand it. And it's missing the point: the intelligence failure was vast, on many levels and across many fronts.

January 25, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice Al-Qaeda Cells Are Inside US and Are 'Major Threat'

May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City

Summer 2001: Bin Laden Speech Mentions 20 Martyrs in Upcoming Attack; Other Hints of Attack Spread Widely [9/11 Commission, 6/16/2004]

June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 9/11/2001; Washington Post, 9/14/2001; Fox News, 5/17/2002]

June 4, 2001: Illegal Afghans Overheard Discussing New York City Hijacking Attack [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

June 13, 2001: Bin Laden Wants to Assassinate Bush with an Explosives-Filled Airplane [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US

July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

July 8, 2001: Prominent Prisoner Publicly Warns of Al-Qaeda Intent to Export Violence to US Soil

July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West [London Times, 6/14/2002]

Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US [Forward, 5/31/2002]

Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US [Independent, 9/7/2002; Reuters, 9/7/2002]

Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly [CBS News, 10/9/2002]

August 2001: Moroccan Informant Warns US of Large Scale, Imminent Attack in New York [Agence France-Presse, 11/22/2001; International Herald Tribune, 5/21/2002; London Times, 6/12/2002]

August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

August 2001: Persian Gulf Informant Gives Ex-CIA Agent Information About 'Spectacular Terrorist Operation' [Baer, 2002, pp. 55-58; Financial Times, 1/12/2002]

Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 5/19/2002]

August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US [Daily Telegraph, 9/16/2001; Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named [Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 10/1/2002]

August 24, 2001: Foreign Intelligence Reminds US of Al-Qaeda Plot to Attack within US

August 29, 2001: Cayman Islands Letter Warns of 'Major Terrorist Act Against US via an Airline or Airlines' [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001; MSNBC, 9/23/2001]

August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns Al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late August 2001: French Warning to US Echoes Earlier Israeli Warning [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack [Sunday Mail, 9/16/2001]

September 7, 2001: French Give 'Very Specific Information' about Possible Attack on US Soil [Le Figaro (Paris), 10/31/2001]


I'll say. That a pretty vast list of ignored intelligence, across many fronts.
2012-09-11 09:20:17 AM  
1 votes:

stpickrell: Was there something that could be acted on in these briefs, or was it all "OMG! Bin Laden is going to strike us ANYDAY!"

If there was some chatter about "hey, he's going to do something with the airplanes," then yeah, that's something you can act on -- meet with your FAA administrator, your national security team, etc., etc., and within a day or two, there's a bulletin to all airports saying "Hey guys, be on the lookout for hijackings, etc."

But in the absence of further info -- you can't just increase security EVERYWHERE.


I think as has been mentioned, it is always easy to lay blame for missing things that seem obvious in hindsight - especially as you note when there is no obvious action to pursue from the information being found. It isn't like a root and branch replacement of the CIA had been undertaken, so the information coming in and who was being watched, and the methods in place, were all unchanged. It is certainly possible a different administration could have seen things differently about the warning signs and assigned it higher priority, but that is speculation - after all how many other threats through the years have been raised to a PDB but then been resolved or come to nothing, and even if more resources were assigned, would they have achieved anything? In hindsight it will always look like the threat that turned out to be a real issue was ignored or not prioritized enough, but that discounts the various other threats that looked equally or more credible at the time competing for attention and resources. Things like the PNAC statement can be discarded out of hand with minimal consideration: so you are so sneaky and evil you will help/allow a major terrorist attack on US soil, but so stupid you will publish your intent to do so publicly on the internet - reading it as a hypothetical aside of the author makes far more sense than reading it as a declaration of intent.

One thing that is a bit disturbing is the lack of communication between NORAD and the FAA - it seems surprising that interception (discreetly) by fighter aircraft wouldn't be standard for any hijacking in US airspace even before 9/11 - it is not as if the idea of using a plane as a weapon is an obscure thing that nobody before these terrorists had thought of (plenty of movies and books have had plots based on it before, like Tom Clancy's excuse to make his Mary Sue President in his books), so you would think in the various military "war games" it would be something that the "bad guys" should have tried and lessons learned from it before it happened for real, but there is a tendency with those sorts of things to only prepare them for the sort of event that the system is already designed to protect against, allowing refinement of current processes, and not be so good at working out flaws in the system

Obviously the thing the Bush Administration can really be crucified on is using 9/11 to "justify" the Iraq war, and by stretching their resources (and not planning for the occupation virtually at all, or even actively discouraging such planning), screwing up both Afghanistan and Iraq. And the horrendous experiments in counter insurgency/counter terrorism - not just torture, but also things like the bounty systems for locals killing "Al Qaeda" operatives while having no way of knowing if they really were or just more civilian victims of local feuds and rivalries, or just the full bore anti-Sunni genocide they effectively funded in Iraq. Given how cynical they abused the power the 9/11 attacks gave them, I can see why people assume the worst about their other actions, and they barely deserve any defense - the problem being the same with Hitler/Nazism - if you turn an actual event/group/people into some caricature of evil (or incompetence) you make similar events more likely in future as it makes it more difficult to spot similar traits or events happening again.
2012-09-11 09:19:21 AM  
1 votes:

jakomo002: While I don't believe Bush actually knew in advance and let it happen, I sure as hell wouldn't say the same about other snakes like Wolfowitz or Cheney or Rumsfeld. Moreso a Wolfowitz or Cheney (throw in Rove), since the political/reptilian side of their brain would probably say, "We can turn this to our advantage and enact war-time measures".

I could definitely see Cheney weighing the political consequences of doing nothing and losing 3000+ U.S. citizens, half of whom are probably Democrats anyway, vs the opportunity to crank up the US military to full capacity against another semi-defenseless 3rd world country.


Well, at least we got rid of one of the bastards responsible for this anniversary.
2012-09-11 09:17:02 AM  
1 votes:

More_Like_A_Stain: And yet here we are, eleven years to the day after the disaster, and people still don't want to accept that there was any way possible to foresee the event.


While I don't believe Bush actually knew in advance and let it happen, I sure as hell wouldn't say the same about other snakes like Wolfowitz or Cheney or Rumsfeld. Moreso a Wolfowitz or Cheney (throw in Rove), since the political/reptilian side of their brain would probably say, "We can turn this to our advantage and enact war-time measures".

I could definitely see Cheney weighing the political consequences of doing nothing and losing 3000+ U.S. citizens, half of whom are probably Democrats anyway, vs the opportunity to crank up the US military to full capacity against another semi-defenseless 3rd world country.

They just totally farked up on the aftermath, the disastrous occupation. Probably because they're chickenhawks with massive egos who aren't going to listen to some goddamn leftist 3 star general.
2012-09-11 09:16:13 AM  
1 votes:
Ari Fleischer is upset; anyone who questions the Bush administration national security failings is a truther. Link
2012-09-11 09:10:35 AM  
1 votes:

Skleenar: stpickrell: If there was some chatter about "hey, he's going to do something with the airplanes," then yeah, that's something you can act on -- meet with your FAA administrator, your national security team, etc., etc., and within a day or two, there's a bulletin to all airports saying "Hey guys, be on the lookout for hijackings, etc."

But in the absence of further info -- you can't just increase security EVERYWHERE.

You know what you could do? You could actually pay attention instead of focusing instead on Iraq.

From the article:

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.

A reminder on who Zacarious Moussauoui was:

On August 16, 2001, Moussaoui was arrested by Harry Samit of the FBI and INS agents in Minnesota and charged with an immigration violation.[21] Materials itemized when he was arrested included a laptop computer, two knives, flight manuals pertaining to Boeing's 747 aircraft, a flight simulator computer program, fighting gloves and shin guards, and a computer disk with information about crop dusting.[21]

Some agents worried that his flight training had violent intentions, so the Minnesota bureau tried to get permission (sending over 70 emails in a week) to search his laptop, but they were turned down.[22] FBI agent Coleen Rowley made an explicit request for permission to search Moussaoui's personal rooms. This request was first denied by her superior, Deputy General Counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman, and later rejected based upon FISA regulations (amended after 9/11 by the USA Patriot Act). Several further search attempts similarly failed.

Ahmed Ressam, the captured al-Qaeda Millennium Bomber, was at the time sharing information with the U.S. authorities, in an effort to gain leniency in his sentencing. One person whom he was not asked about until after 9/11, but whom he was able to identify when asked as having trained with him at al-Qaeda's Khalden Camp in Afghanistan, was Moussaoui.[23] The 9/11 Commission Report opined that had Ressam been asked about Moussaoui, he would have broken the FBI's logjam.[23] Had that happened, the Report opined, the U.S. might conceivably have disrupted or derailed the September 11 attacks altogether.[23]

Sure, it's a little 20/20 hindsighting to say that this should have been the smoking gun, but the fact of the matter is that 1. Intelligence agencies were screaming that something BIG was going down, and 2. We had, in custody, the guy who could spill the beans, but we weren't even asking the right questions. Sure there were some regulatory hurdles that had to be overcome to access his evidence, and I suppose there are many who will point to those and say "See!! Clinton! Gorelick!!!", but I find it hard to believe that if the Executive was heeding the warnings, instead of focusing on their policy goals, that probably cause couldn't have been determined to allow access.


Ding-ding! It was the arresting agent for Zacharias Moussaoui that wrote in his report, "[he's] the type of person who could fly something into the World Trade Center."
2012-09-11 09:00:20 AM  
1 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org
2012-09-11 08:59:22 AM  
1 votes:

KiplingKat872: hinten: Yes, on top of that, my favorite excuse: "Nobody could have thought of something as crazy as flying planes into buildings."

Hell, Hollywood writers came up with that scenario in The Lone Gunman TV show.


It was the central plot of a bestselling Tom Clancy novel as well.

I just about tossed my teevee out the window when I heard "nobody could have imagined".

Nobody could imagine what precisely?

Terrorists hijacking planes?

Terrorists attacking the World Trade Centers?

Suicide bombing?

Yeah, Al Qaeda invented all three concepts on the morning of 9/10 and went with it.
2012-09-11 08:56:39 AM  
1 votes:

stpickrell: If there was some chatter about "hey, he's going to do something with the airplanes," then yeah, that's something you can act on -- meet with your FAA administrator, your national security team, etc., etc., and within a day or two, there's a bulletin to all airports saying "Hey guys, be on the lookout for hijackings, etc."

But in the absence of further info -- you can't just increase security EVERYWHERE.


You know what you could do? You could actually pay attention instead of focusing instead on Iraq.

From the article:

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.


A reminder on who Zacarious Moussauoui was:

On August 16, 2001, Moussaoui was arrested by Harry Samit of the FBI and INS agents in Minnesota and charged with an immigration violation.[21] Materials itemized when he was arrested included a laptop computer, two knives, flight manuals pertaining to Boeing's 747 aircraft, a flight simulator computer program, fighting gloves and shin guards, and a computer disk with information about crop dusting.[21]

Some agents worried that his flight training had violent intentions, so the Minnesota bureau tried to get permission (sending over 70 emails in a week) to search his laptop, but they were turned down.[22] FBI agent Coleen Rowley made an explicit request for permission to search Moussaoui's personal rooms. This request was first denied by her superior, Deputy General Counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman, and later rejected based upon FISA regulations (amended after 9/11 by the USA Patriot Act). Several further search attempts similarly failed.

Ahmed Ressam, the captured al-Qaeda Millennium Bomber, was at the time sharing information with the U.S. authorities, in an effort to gain leniency in his sentencing. One person whom he was not asked about until after 9/11, but whom he was able to identify when asked as having trained with him at al-Qaeda's Khalden Camp in Afghanistan, was Moussaoui.[23] The 9/11 Commission Report opined that had Ressam been asked about Moussaoui, he would have broken the FBI's logjam.[23] Had that happened, the Report opined, the U.S. might conceivably have disrupted or derailed the September 11 attacks altogether.[23]


Sure, it's a little 20/20 hindsighting to say that this should have been the smoking gun, but the fact of the matter is that 1. Intelligence agencies were screaming that something BIG was going down, and 2. We had, in custody, the guy who could spill the beans, but we weren't even asking the right questions. Sure there were some regulatory hurdles that had to be overcome to access his evidence, and I suppose there are many who will point to those and say "See!! Clinton! Gorelick!!!", but I find it hard to believe that if the Executive was heeding the warnings, instead of focusing on their policy goals, that probably cause couldn't have been determined to allow access.
2012-09-11 08:53:56 AM  
1 votes:

Carth: That is the thing about 9/11. We had the intelligence we didn't have effective ways of combining what we knew and drawing an effective conclusion. In 2000/2001 there was still debates going on whether terrorism of mass destruction was possible or whether it would be counterproductive to the terrorist organizations goals.

Bush screwed up a lot of things during his presidency we don't need to blame him for not connecting the dots our billion dollar intelligence organizations couldn't point out.


That was the farking problem...they did point it out! It's not like there are shades about this, people were begging his staff to see reason. How much more pointing out could have been done? He didn't need to do anything that any mediocre leader wouldnt have done. To this day we thwart attacks because the people that need to react to these reports do so. People before the bush did, bush's people did after 9/11. It's important that history gets this right or the same kind of mistake is more likely in the future! Don't sugar coat responsibility because it was such a traumatizing event.
2012-09-11 08:44:20 AM  
1 votes:

Darth_Lukecash: We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.


Clinton was given an similar warning of a possible terrorist threat to airlines, and immediately called the FAA and spoke with the FBI. The FAA started cracking down on Airport security in 1996.

So yeah, we know what other presidents would do.
2012-09-11 08:43:13 AM  
1 votes:

cman: If there is one thing in Government that is always a constant it is the complete incompetence of federal employees and elected officials.


No, sorry CMAN.

You may want to remember that the Clinton administration got warnings of a potential bombing plan (Millinium Bomb Plot) and broke it up, capturing numerous terrorists around the world, while working with our allies in stopping about a dozen or so planned acts of terrorism

Stop projecting! Just because Republicans claim that government "doesn't work" and when obtaining office do everything they can to make that claim true, doesn't mean that others can't competently run the thing.

Sorry, this one is on the Bush Administration and it's neocon policy makers, who wanted to take out Saddam to the exclusion of actually protecting the US from "real" threats.
2012-09-11 08:42:17 AM  
1 votes:

Carth: That's true. Had there been a smoking gun about the attack I think the 9/11 commissions recommendations on intelligence reform wouldn't have been as dramatic. If the IC got it right the commission could have called it an administrative failure and not completely reorganized a working system.


There's every reason to believe that if such information existed, it would have been twisted around to justify attacking Iraq. And, of course, part of the reason there wasn't a smoking gun was that Bush ignored all of the gun smoke that was filling up his intelligence so he could focus on Iraq.

The fact they screwed up Iraq WMD so sooner after also makes me think the intelligence about bin ladin's attack wasn't as much a slam dunk as some people want to think. It is easy to piece things together with hind sight. It is really hard to predict a paradigm shift before it happens.


The screwed up the Iraq WMD intel so badly because they were trying to get the intel to match with their pre-concieved policy goals, and not let the best intel shape their policy goals. That was why Cheney was spending so much time at the CIA--to ensure that the "right" intel got funneled to the right people.

Remember, this is the administration that denigrated the "reality-based community" as hopelessly quaint.

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.


/This goes to my pet theory that the problem with the GOP today is that they took the lessons learned in PR/Advertising and have seen them as the solutions in all realms of human activity.
2012-09-11 08:29:30 AM  
1 votes:

MartinD-35: Carth: That is the thing about 9/11. We had the intelligence we didn't have effective ways of combining what we knew and drawing an effective conclusion. In 2000/2001 there was still debates going on whether terrorism of mass destruction was possible or whether it would be counterproductive to the terrorist organizations goals.

Bush screwed up a lot of things during his presidency we don't need to blame him for not connecting the dots our billion dollar intelligence organizations couldn't point out.

Or they (the intelligence organizations) did, and it's classified: we'll never know.


Well, seeing as the premise of this article is that, yes, they did connect a lot of the dots, told the president and the president ignored them, I'm not so sure that this is unknowable territory.

Not saying that action by Bush would have changed anything, but it's not hard to imagine a situation where a little heightened attention from the Executive, spurring better coordination, or mobilizing more assets could have thwarted bin Laden.

The fact all this alarm was brushed away as chaff thrown up by bin Laden in the improbable scenario of coordination with Saddam means that the opportunity was lost. And lost because the Administration had a creationist-like fixation on Iraq (which coincidentally had under-exploited oil resources...) and fixed the data to the theory instead of the other way around.
2012-09-11 08:19:58 AM  
1 votes:

shotglasss: Gorelick


get="_blank">EnviroDude: Too bad Clinton forced federal agencies not to share information with each other and even worse, that he passed on the opportunity to takeOBL into custody.

/ Bushs fault? Sure, but throw Party boy Clinton in there too as he has blood on his hands.


You guys realize this is an article talking about how information from federal agencies were being shared with the White House, right?
2012-09-11 08:12:24 AM  
1 votes:

MartinD-35: Carth: That is the thing about 9/11. We had the intelligence we didn't have effective ways of combining what we knew and drawing an effective conclusion. In 2000/2001 there was still debates going on whether terrorism of mass destruction was possible or whether it would be counterproductive to the terrorist organizations goals.

Bush screwed up a lot of things during his presidency we don't need to blame him for not connecting the dots our billion dollar intelligence organizations couldn't point out.

Or they (the intelligence organizations) did, and it's classified: we'll never know.


That's true. Had there been a smoking gun about the attack I think the 9/11 commissions recommendations on intelligence reform wouldn't have been as dramatic. If the IC got it right the commission could have called it an administrative failure and not completely reorganized a working system.

The fact they screwed up Iraq WMD so sooner after also makes me think the intelligence about bin ladin's attack wasn't as much a slam dunk as some people want to think. It is easy to piece things together with hind sight. It is really hard to predict a paradigm shift before it happens.
2012-09-11 08:07:08 AM  
1 votes:

Carth: That is the thing about 9/11. We had the intelligence we didn't have effective ways of combining what we knew and drawing an effective conclusion. In 2000/2001 there was still debates going on whether terrorism of mass destruction was possible or whether it would be counterproductive to the terrorist organizations goals.

Bush screwed up a lot of things during his presidency we don't need to blame him for not connecting the dots our billion dollar intelligence organizations couldn't point out.


Or they (the intelligence organizations) did, and it's classified: we'll never know.
2012-09-11 08:00:42 AM  
1 votes:
cman, did you mean this . . .

Unsurprising at all.

If there is one thing in Government that is always a constant it is the complete incompetence of federal employees and elected officials.


Or this . . .

It is pointless speculation based upon individual feelings of the speculators of former President Bush. Their minds are already made up regardless of any truth. Kind of like 9/11 truthers or birthers, these people have only one opinion, and they are gonna make every piece of evidence fit into whatever their damn crazy mind tells them because they want to believe that he was that bad of a President.

Because if you substitute "President Bush" in your paragraph with "federal employees and elected officials," your two posts kind of cancel each other out. In other words, from your perspective, it's OK to have pointless speculation about government employees but not about Dubya's administration.

Ah, never mind. Just STFU and go teabag somewhere else.
2012-09-11 07:38:15 AM  
1 votes:

cman: Darth_Lukecash: We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.

This.

It is pointless speculation based upon individual feelings of the speculators of former President Bush. Their minds are already made up regardless of any truth. Kind of like 9/11 truthers or birthers, these people have only one opinion, and they are gonna make every piece of evidence fit into whatever their damn crazy mind tells them because they want to believe that he was that bad of a President.


Considering that Romney has surrounded himself with many of the same neo-con characters involved, I'd say that this speculation is quite relevant and worthy of review. Today, there will be millions of "Never Forget" banners on Facebook. Maybe those words should actually mean something instead of just being empty slogans.
2012-09-11 07:34:07 AM  
1 votes:

Lorelle: The Man Who Knew

"For six years, John O'Neill was the FBI's leading expert on Al Qaeda. He warned of its reach. He warned of its threat to the U.S. But to the people at FBI headquarters, O'Neill was too much of a maverick, and they stopped listening to him. He left the FBI in the summer of 2001 and took a new job as head of security at the World Trade Center."

This Frontline program is a decade old, but still worth watching.


That was a really good episode. This two-parter that shows what happened after is also worth watching: Bush's War.

Got to love PBS Frontline. It's consistently one of the best programs on television.
2012-09-11 07:29:36 AM  
1 votes:

Darth_Lukecash: In light of this new information, I will never vote for George W. Bush for President, again. .

Historians can look over past events, but in the end they cannot change it. The best they can hope for is their biased light illuminates what they want to see, leaving uncomfortable truths in the dark shadows.

We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.


So why bother looking at facts at all. Your opniion is equally valid with any other, untainted by investigation or knowledge of previous events.
2012-09-11 06:51:48 AM  
1 votes:

Darth_Lukecash: We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.


Actually, with anyone else as President, events would have been different. How much, and better or worse, we can't be sure, but it would have been different somehow.
2012-09-11 06:51:16 AM  
1 votes:
I think it would have happened regardless of who was in the White House... But this does reinforce that the Bush Administration had a hard-on for Iraq pretty much from the beginning and the attacks on 9/11/01 gave them the excuse they needed to plunge us headlong into that expensive debacle.

...And sadly, the GOP is still chocker blocked with these ideological neoconservative assholes.
2012-09-11 06:46:53 AM  
1 votes:
The best way to view this is to look at how Bush and his ilk worked the war in Iraq. They had Bin stupid trapped in Tora Bora, backed off, took the fight to Iraq with false evidence of weapons of mass destruction because the Sadam tried to kill his daddy. Republicons can't wrap their head around the notion that we'd have a balanced budget today if we hadn't wasted the trillion or so dollars on the wars and if we hadn't given away the rest of the money to the richest 1% or so (ok, a bunch also went to the middle class, but it pales in comparison to the largess given to the richest; I got 2,000 or so, the rich got 250,000 or so (dollars, not cents). Seriously . . .
2012-09-11 12:31:35 AM  
1 votes:
Could this not have been linked to the NYT article?
2012-09-11 12:28:52 AM  
1 votes:

serial_crusher: 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.

Well, if they knew where the terrorists were, they should have gone and stopped them. I mean, the United States is pretty small right? Probably would have taken an afternoon or two to find them.


I know. It was just... too much, too much. Better to just do nothing.
2012-09-11 12:18:29 AM  
1 votes:

serial_crusher: 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.

Well, if they knew where the terrorists were, they should have gone and stopped them. I mean, the United States is pretty small right? Probably would have taken an afternoon or two to find them.


Generally the response to a vague threat like that is not to ignore it.
2012-09-11 12:12:53 AM  
1 votes:
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.

Well, if they knew where the terrorists were, they should have gone and stopped them. I mean, the United States is pretty small right? Probably would have taken an afternoon or two to find them.
2012-09-11 12:10:14 AM  
1 votes:
The Man Who Knew

"For six years, John O'Neill was the FBI's leading expert on Al Qaeda. He warned of its reach. He warned of its threat to the U.S. But to the people at FBI headquarters, O'Neill was too much of a maverick, and they stopped listening to him. He left the FBI in the summer of 2001 and took a new job as head of security at the World Trade Center."

This Frontline program is a decade old, but still worth watching.
2012-09-11 12:04:20 AM  
1 votes:
We will tolerate nothing other than a history agreed upon by the majority.
2012-09-10 11:57:36 PM  
1 votes:

fickle floridian: Wait, the *Daily Kos* blames the Bush administration for 9/11? Holy cow! That's like Rush Limbaugh opposing Obama's re-election! Somebody stop the presses!!!!!


Well, so does Eichenwald over at the NY Times. But that's like the Washington Times supporting Romney, I guess. 

Read the accounts and come to your own conclusions.
 
Displayed 87 of 87 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report