Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(The New York Times)   Turns out, George Bush missed even more warning signs about Al Qaeda's plans for 9/11 than originally thought   (nytimes.com) divider line 245
    More: Followup, George Bush, al-Qaeda, Zacarias Moussaoui, President George W. Bush, Chechnya  
•       •       •

14916 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Sep 2012 at 10:44 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



245 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-11 09:52:16 AM  
Turns out, hindsight is always 20/20.

/DNRTFA
 
2012-09-11 10:11:53 AM  

kev_dog: Turns out, hindsight is always 20/20.

/DNRTFA


Obviously not.
 
NFA
2012-09-11 10:14:41 AM  

kev_dog: Turns out, hindsight is always 20/20.


Well, it's a little worse than 20/20 hindsight. The Anti-Terrorism Committee openly discussed having people temporarily fill in for them so that the terrorist strike would happen on someone else's watch, that's beyond gross negligence, that's criminal.
 
2012-09-11 10:30:18 AM  
Did RTFA, one of the several times it was redlit.

It's one of those moments where something that didn't make sense before comes into focus. Bush was under the control of people so fixed on Iraq that they repeatedly ignored warnings about the Al Qaeda cells that were active in the US. The subsequent decisions about to respond and how to handle "homeland security" were made by those same people. The ensuing 8 years of leading us down the fear and terror path were the result of the thinking of those people.

It's worth mentioning again that some of them are now on Rmoney's foreign affairs team.

This barely qualifies for FARK, because it IS news.
 
2012-09-11 10:30:27 AM  
The worst thing about this article is that it points to a lot of inflamed rhetoric between the Pentagon and the CIA, so how in the hell is somebody supposed to get to the root information and ignore the chest-thumping language in the memo's flying up and down the Parkway?
 
2012-09-11 10:47:45 AM  
Old news is old news.
 
2012-09-11 10:48:23 AM  
We get a Daily Kos article that links to the NY Times article greenlit, and the original Ny Times article gets greenlit as a "follow up"?

Du fuq?
 
2012-09-11 10:49:16 AM  

MrBallou: Did RTFA, one of the several times it was redlit.

It's one of those moments where something that didn't make sense before comes into focus. Bush was under the control of people so fixed on Iraq that they repeatedly ignored warnings about the Al Qaeda cells that were active in the US. The subsequent decisions about to respond and how to handle "homeland security" were made by those same people. The ensuing 8 years of leading us down the fear and terror path were the result of the thinking of those people.

It's worth mentioning again that some of them are now on Rmoney's foreign affairs team.

This barely qualifies for FARK, because it IS news.


Pretty much everything this guy said. Bears repeating.
 
2012-09-11 10:50:27 AM  
Of course, all of those same warning signs had been going on for most of the Clinton Presidency - who tossed a few cruise missiles at bin Laden (which missed, encouraging him to think the US was weak) instead of sending in the SEAL teams to get him for real...
 
2012-09-11 10:50:54 AM  
President Bush systematically ignored the al-Qaida threat. I saw Bill Clinton interviewed on this topic several months after the attack. He said that three time he attempted to have a conversation with Bush about al-Qaida and that Bush was completely dismissive. On the third attempt Bush became angry with Clinton and told him "Osama bin Laden may have been your problem, but he sure as hell isn't going to me mine!" Bush then refused any further discussion on the matter. But to be fair to Bush, he probably didn't have explicit instructions from Dick Cheney in this matter.
 
2012-09-11 10:51:17 AM  
There goes the NYT again.
 
2012-09-11 10:52:41 AM  
Wait a minute.

Are you telling me that G.W.Bush was directly responsible for reading CIA intelligence reports and making decisions based on them...?

THE G.W.Bush, Mr. chimpface?

Exactly what kind of country are you running over there?
 
2012-09-11 10:52:54 AM  
Republicans have been farking clownshoes for far longer than just the Romney campaign. I'm assuming in 50 years historians will be having a collective facepalm at the obvious incompetencies that were just swept under the rug because saying anything about them would be hating America and loving terrorists.
 
2012-09-11 10:54:13 AM  
and here...we...GO!
 
2012-09-11 10:55:13 AM  
not today.... really, not today...
 
2012-09-11 10:56:20 AM  
Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted

No cause they were in on it.

/amidoinitright?
 
2012-09-11 10:56:32 AM  
Even if the administration had taken the memos seriously, what exactly were they supposed to do about it? The CIA was the one watching, wasn't it ultimately their job to stop it? What are a bunch of politicians going to do?

"Sir, an attack is imminent."

"Hang on, let me adjust my desk chair."
 
2012-09-11 10:56:38 AM  
9/11 will forever be the prime example of GOP failures in defense. How they turned the man who let all this happen into a hero is a travesty the media never should have fallen for.
 
2012-09-11 10:58:08 AM  

Full Blown Jimbo: Even if the administration had taken the memos seriously, what exactly were they supposed to do about it? The CIA was the one watching, wasn't it ultimately their job to stop it? What are a bunch of politicians going to do?

"Sir, an attack is imminent."

"Hang on, let me adjust my desk chair."


"Let me call Dick Cheney, he is really in charge"

FTFY
 
2012-09-11 10:59:46 AM  

Full Blown Jimbo: Even if the administration had taken the memos seriously, what exactly were they supposed to do about it? The CIA was the one watching, wasn't it ultimately their job to stop it? What are a bunch of politicians going to do?

"Sir, an attack is imminent."

"Hang on, let me adjust my desk chair."


You gotta be chittin' me. President Bush? The Deciderer? Mr. Mission Accomplished? I thought we were supposed to consider him a man of action, who got 'er dun. All snark aside, he's the gorram CIC and the head of the executive branch.
 
2012-09-11 11:01:45 AM  
If only Clinton had known Osama was dangerous, he would have taken him out.
 
2012-09-11 11:01:51 AM  
So rather than being told once that an attack was coming, he was told multiple times. Well, that surely narrows it down enough to act. I mean, a report on June 29 that "expected the planned near-term attacks to have "dramatic consequences," including major casualties," is more than enough information to stop a would be jihadist.
And then this one "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." HOLY shiat! How did Bush NOT KNOW a plane was going to be flown into a building?
And then heartstopper to top it off "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." So let's get this straight, Bush was told that an attack whos date was unknown was delayed for multiple months and he wasn't able to figure out that on Sept. 11 four planes would be hijacked and used as missiles? Wow, Bush was dumber than I thought
 
2012-09-11 11:02:23 AM  
It is mountingly clear -- actually, it has been fairly clear for a while -- that the Bush Administration actively wanted something to happen. They looked the other way, because the results would be politically expendient. And they were far more than expedient - they saved the presidency and got Bush & Co. many things they wanted.

I don't expect they thought the WTC would be destroyed, etc., by any means. After all, as Rice said, "nobody could have imagined they would have flown planes into buildings." They expected something in the order of an old-fashioned hostage crisis on a tarmac that they could blame on Iraq.

The early months of the Bush presidency were a wreck. He struggled to overcome the 'Usurper in Chief' label from the Florida fiasco. Heck, he even got the Clinton surplus chopped up and sent out to taxpayers who really didn't need them, for a quick fix to his ratings.

But more to the point, the PNAC needed their 'Pearl Harbor' event in order to enact their foreign policy. They had said so in their papers many times.

Looking the other way lead to an event of far greater magnitude than they imagined - look at Bush staring into space when he finds out in the kindergarten. But, that said, it sure as hell helped them mightily. The entire nation and Democrats circled their wagons around the administration and it was barely a hard thing to do to push their way into Iraq (actually, they had to lie even further).

But yes, it has been clear, and now increasingly clear, that they were wilfully negligent. They wanted something to happen.
 
2012-09-11 11:02:59 AM  
Well, it's a little worse than 20/20 hindsight. The Anti-Terrorism Committee openly discussed having people temporarily fill in for them so that the terrorist strike would happen on someone else's watch, that's beyond gross negligence, that's criminal.

But that was only after begging the Whitehouse to pay attention to them. What were they supposed to do? Call 911?
 
2012-09-11 11:04:11 AM  

Gdalescrboz: So rather than being told once that an attack was coming, he was told multiple times. Well, that surely narrows it down enough to act. I mean, a report on June 29 that "expected the planned near-term attacks to have "dramatic consequences," including major casualties," is more than enough information to stop a would be jihadist.
And then this one "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." HOLY shiat! How did Bush NOT KNOW a plane was going to be flown into a building?
And then heartstopper to top it off "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." So let's get this straight, Bush was told that an attack whos date was unknown was delayed for multiple months and he wasn't able to figure out that on Sept. 11 four planes would be hijacked and used as missiles? Wow, Bush was dumber than I thought


Additional resources should have been assigned and prioritized to run down more information, and discover the exact plot. Bush and company didn't do this, because they didn't consider terrorists to be a threat. They wanted their glory war in Iraq, and were solely focused on that.
 
2012-09-11 11:04:16 AM  
...yawn
 
2012-09-11 11:05:44 AM  
Missed? more like ignored.


Just waiting on a reason to attack the guy who dissed his daddy
 
kab
2012-09-11 11:06:54 AM  
Already there's a dose of 'b..bu.. but Clint0n!!' in this thread?

Just kidding, I'm not surprised at all.
 
2012-09-11 11:07:12 AM  

Gdalescrboz: So rather than being told once that an attack was coming, he was told multiple times. Well, that surely narrows it down enough to act. I mean, a report on June 29 that "expected the planned near-term attacks to have "dramatic consequences," including major casualties," is more than enough information to stop a would be jihadist.
And then this one "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." HOLY shiat! How did Bush NOT KNOW a plane was going to be flown into a building?
And then heartstopper to top it off "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." So let's get this straight, Bush was told that an attack whos date was unknown was delayed for multiple months and he wasn't able to figure out that on Sept. 11 four planes would be hijacked and used as missiles? Wow, Bush was dumber than I thought


The problem isn't that he couldn't figure it out from that bit of evidence. The problem is that he chose to stick his head in the sand and pretend there was no threat there.

Management 101: When someone brings you a problem that something bad is about to happen, but they don't have all the details, you send them back to get you all the details, and fast.
 
2012-09-11 11:07:47 AM  
Worth the read.
 
2012-09-11 11:08:26 AM  
Wow, that was a misfire.

Ahem.

Worth a read.

myarchive.us
 
2012-09-11 11:08:54 AM  
FTFA: 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.


My take away from the article:
1. Do we know the name of the customs agent in Orlando and the people in Minnesota who did their jobs? Are their not statues for these people? I want to know who they are.

2. (if true) Identify the neoconservatives referred to in this article. Freeze their assets. Connect their assets to anyone and everyone passing them lobby money. Freeze those assets. Arrest each person connected and try them for treason and/or conspiracy. Even after everything, Tenet still lied to Bush and Powell and had Powell make a fool of himself on national television over WMD's and mobile labs and Saddam Hussein..what the hell was that?...I don't know what I was going to say here. Too much to put into words.
 
2012-09-11 11:09:03 AM  
"These things aren't public, but I've totes read them (really guys I promise), so let's treat this like news."
 
2012-09-11 11:09:26 AM  
I dislike dubya just as much as the next farker, probably more.
But when a story like this comes out and cites "sources told me" and "I was told the other documents contained"... are we supposed to just swallow that pill too?
 
2012-09-11 11:09:43 AM  
So is this why the "Obama doesn't attend security briefings!" talking point has surfaced?
 
2012-09-11 11:10:19 AM  
I better pay closer attention to those fortune cookies. "Sometime soon, you will receive very big news."


/in bed
 
2012-09-11 11:10:26 AM  

kab: Already there's a dose of 'b..bu.. but Clint0n!!' in this thread?

Just kidding, I'm not surprised at all.


Surprised it wasn't Clintoned in the boobies.
 
2012-09-11 11:12:46 AM  
Well it wouldnt be the first time our own govt wanted attacks to happen on US soil to further a military-directed foreign agenda.

Operation Northwoods
 
2012-09-11 11:13:25 AM  

enry: kab: Already there's a dose of 'b..bu.. but Clint0n!!' in this thread?

Just kidding, I'm not surprised at all.

Surprised it wasn't Clintoned in the boobies.


The filter makes that even funnier.
 
2012-09-11 11:15:18 AM  
What xiola said
 
2012-09-11 11:15:56 AM  
Are we still blaming Bush after all this time?

Just let it go, man.
 
2012-09-11 11:16:46 AM  

Nana's Vibrator: 2. (if true) Identify the neoconservatives referred to in this article.


This might be a good place to start making a list:

Link
 
2012-09-11 11:16:49 AM  
Thanks NYT for further politicizing this 11 years after the fact. It's nice to focus on the briefings 4-5 months before 9/11, but let's be real here. The 1st attack on the WTC towers was in 1993. Were there no intelligence briefings on Al Qaeda's activities between that time and these May-August 2001 briefings that Bush got and didn't act on? Let's face it - leaders on both sides of the aisle (Clinton/Bush) dropped the ball here, and I'll say Clinton's administration gets a fair share of the blame too. From 1993 to 2000 Al Qaeda seemed to flourish and operate unfettered.
 
2012-09-11 11:18:51 AM  
Funny, the people who make up the reports then hand them to other people who look through the reports then hand a summary to whatever president is in office at the time, don't look Bushy
 
2012-09-11 11:18:52 AM  

The Decider: Well, it's a little worse than 20/20 hindsight. The Anti-Terrorism Committee openly discussed having people temporarily fill in for them so that the terrorist strike would happen on someone else's watch, that's beyond gross negligence, that's criminal.

But that was only after begging the Whitehouse to pay attention to them. What were they supposed to do? Call 911?


F*CK YEAH...

trailers.apple.com
 
2012-09-11 11:19:52 AM  
So, I kindof think Bush is more or less satan incarnate (well, Cheney is), but the article really just says there are documents that say we really suspected that something bad was going to happen sometime soon. Trotting that out as "we definitely should have been able to stop this" flies right in the face of "i should be able to get on a plane without some barely employable moron grabbing my dick," and well... the world is never going to be perfectly safe.

I feel comfortable filing this deep in the I'm a Big Obnoxious Liberal but Michael Moore is Still a Lying Douchebag Memorial File Cabinet of Our Side's Whargarbbl.
 
2012-09-11 11:20:38 AM  

Antimatter: 9/11 will forever be the prime example of GOP failures in defense. How they turned the man who let all this happen into a hero is a travesty the media never should have fallen for.


Let me get this straight.
Bush was in office for barely 9 months when the attacks happen.
Clinton had at least 3 attacks against US interests or on US soil and he did almost nothing about it.

If Bush is to be blamed for 9/11 after being in office for 9 months then Obama completely owns every last scrap of the current economy since he's had almost 4 years to try and do something about it. 

How the MSM continues to be able to sell the premise that Obama has no culpability for the economy just shows how stupid the general public really is.
 
2012-09-11 11:21:06 AM  

TheotherMIguy: enry: kab: Already there's a dose of 'b..bu.. but Clint0n!!' in this thread?

Just kidding, I'm not surprised at all.

Surprised it wasn't Clintoned in the boobies.

The filter makes that even funnier.


I wasn't filtered this time - that's what I really wrote, but I do remember the thread where the filter kicked in and the meme was born.
 
2012-09-11 11:21:58 AM  
theorellior
Republicans have been farking clownshoes for far longer than just the Romney campaign. I'm assuming in 50 years historians will be having a collective facepalm at the obvious incompetencies that were just swept under the rug because saying anything about them would be hating America and loving terrorists.


Depends on who gets to write the history. If you let them run the show and tell you what they want you to know, in ten years, George Bush will be photographed on the WTC trying to personally shoot down two planes full of terrists. If you keep pressing like some of these people, you might get a few more answers but you won't give them the opportunity for revisionism.

Just after entering the White House, GWB supposedly moved a lot of Iran Contra data in to his "Presidential Papers". Supposedly, they will go in to his archives but more likely they will e lost forever. But that's okay. We've already been told that Ron and Poppy were patriots of the highest order trying to keep Communism and Islamofascism from spreading. They weren't Constitutional Circumvetters at all.
 
2012-09-11 11:22:23 AM  
What I see missing from this article is the response from the White House. When the CIA yelled that an attack was imminent, what does the author say the White House said/did? He blames the "neoconservatives" in the Pentagon for claiming that it was a ruse by Saddam, but conveniently leaves out the thinking of the White House. Did they tell the CIA to STFU? Did they ask for more information/detail? Did the CIA provide specific information or simply say "something big, somewhere is going to happen sometime". The latter is not actionable intelligence. Did the White House or CIA pass this on to the FBI (since they knew they knew the operatives were in county)? Did the White House order the FBI to step up it's vigilance? Based on the tone of the article the author is clearly trying to say that Bush essentially yawned and went back to sleep.

So then what is the point of this article? If it was to show the world that Bush knew the attack was coming and refused to stop it, it's failed. If it was an attempt to show what went wrong and why, it's failed that too. If it was simply designed to be a hit piece on Bush with very little facts, no attempt at telling both sides and no evidence other than "I've read classified briefing that haven't been released to the public, no you can't see them yourself" then it's been 100% successful.
 
Displayed 50 of 245 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report