I'm not seeing how this memo can be spun pro-Bush. It is pretty unequivocal, and it's not a "historical" document in the slightest.

At the very least, it demonstrates that Rice lied.

Yeah if only someone would have been warned about the lax security at Logan airport.
Then we could have done something about it.

Hmm... Interesting memo there...

-Terrorists want to follow example and destroy world trade center [YES]
-Bin Ladin told followers to attack in Washington [YES]
-FBI info indicates preparations for hijackings [YES]

- A president that had the mental marbles to do something about it [NO]

Please get Bush out of the office. Thankyou.

N.

I personally would rather see large government intrusion into my everyday life (larger than at present) than have terrorist cells operating without hinderance, snickering at the protection they recieve from our legal system. I say there should just be a crackdown on suspected terrorist groups... those found with plans or weapons can be kicked out of the country. Why is there such a large sect of Americans who don't want this sort of thing done, reasoning that the government has too much abrasive authority already? Really, what is everyone so concerned about? Isn't the whole idea that there's nothing to worry about unless you're actually guilty of something to begin with? Yeah, if the feds want to come in my house and look through my stuff they can. I don't care. The people who do care are the people with weapons and plots and mass quantities of illegal drugs (and all the Farkers who are going to flip out and rant about the downfall of freedom in America).
Seriously, I am a big supporter of Live Free or Die, but I'll concede a bit of that freedom to Live Free Longer.

The point is it's a slippery slope: how much freedom are you really willing to sacrifice? Really, it's a genuine question. At what point are you willing to say that the government's going too far? Because the more freedom you sacrifice, the more difficult it becomes for you to stop the government from taking away even more freedom: and this process accelerates rapidly. As I see it the Patriot Acts I&II already go way too far.

lol i love seeing bush and his administration trying the
"well we didnt know they were gonna attack at 11:15 so there was nothing we can do about it"

A religous nutjob tells you you're going to hell. You see this nutjob every day on the way to work, you ignore it.

Later you find out someone in the same denomination as this nutjob kills an abortion doctor in another state. You figure, well, that's a crazy nutjob for you, however you still walk past the same guy on the way to work every day.

One day the same nutjob tells you "your going to hell and I'm sending you" BANG your dead.

Moral of the story: Most people ignore ranting loonies, the government is no exception. Even if AlQaeda was able to hit some big targets in Africa, the US probably has threats and reports of foreigners plotting against us on our own soil on a daily basis. When do we take the initiative and make broad drastic changes that affect all of us based on vague threats?

If you ever take the chance to research the definition of liberal and conservative you'll notice that one just sounds better than the other.

On the second page, it mentions investigations the FBI was currently working on, which nobody has mentioned so far. If there was enough in all of these to justify their inclusion in a breif as strongly worded as this one, we could ask if anything was done to help expidite or correlate these investigations with each other or anything that the CIA may or may not have had going.

Yep, this memo definetely supports 100% accurata information that Al-Queda was going to attack the USA soon.

WRONG

This memo is SOOOO VAGUE, and spans back to 1997 with Al Queda wanting to strike in the US since that time. Why should anyone take this as something that had to be taken care of RIGHT AWAY.

To me, this isn't even close to being something useful and for the people that said the Bush administration sat on it's asss, at the end, it EVEN SAYS the FBI has over 70 units checking things out.

All this does is further support the Republicans and further prove that Clark is trying to win the election for the democrats by trying to take down the Bush administration.

You think the way Clark spun it, we were sitting on our asses.

You know how many things come and go like this every day in the FBI, CIA, etc.

Good lord. All that wasted money on this commission because some Democrat wanted to get his book sales up.

bush sucks, but i blame airport security for not figuring out all these people with exceedingly sharp objects on their persons aren't a problem.

wasn't it al gore who promised to tighten up airport security in the late 1990's? i do believe he was going to do that up until the point he accepted a boat load of money from Mrs. Tom Daschle (a lobbyist for the airlines) not to.

Dawg47

bush sucks, but i blame airport security for not figuring out all these people with exceedingly sharp objects on their persons aren't a problem. yeah yeah, they were plastic, so they didn't notice. if that's true, then what's the farking point of taking my swiss army knife every time i forget to take it off my keys

I have been on several planes with my Leatherman (which includes multiple knives) before 9/11. No airport security ever took it from me. In fact, I probably would have been pissed off had they tried. So I'm a bit reluctant to blame the shlubs at the X-Ray machine.

11:30:07 PM elypse: Thanks for taking that extended vacation W. Hope the ranch treated you well.

11:31:08 PM MarkAnthony: maybe it would have helped if he wasnt on vacation all the time.

11:41:38 PM Erston: But it should have AT LEAST PROMPTED MORE ATTENTION/ACTION THAN TAKING OFF FOR A GODDAMN MONTH LONG VACATION THE DAY AFTER THIS BRIEFING WAS TO BE GIVEN!!!!

What's this obsession with Bush being "on vacation"? Do you think the government stops functioning when his butt leaves the oval office chair? With modern communications, it no longer matters where the President is. Plus, anyone who he really needs to see comes to him at Crawford or Camp David. A President is plugged in to the command and decision-making loop even when he's out of town. So he wants to do his thing from Crawford, Texas, big deal. That micromanaging jackass Jimmy Carter damned near worked himself to death in office and look what a successful administration he had.

Didn't Condi Rice say that this said nothing about possible attacks in the US during her testimony to the 9/11 comission? After reading this (and the title alone!) it puts a major hole in her story. I'm not sure if they could have acted on this PDB alone, but they could have put more power behind the FBI's then-current investigations.

After seeing reports like this and hearing her testimony (which I'm starting to believe less and less of), and learning that the information regarding Iraq's possesion of WMDs was false, I can't see myself voting for Bush in November. Granted, I don't think I could vote for Kerry or Nader either, so I'll write "Drew Curtis" in.

DREW CURTIS IN 2004! He's fair AND balanced!

Umm, maybe if the airlines had hired experts not $10/hr. jackasses to screen people we would never have this discussion. I blame the airlines and their price wars for employing substandard workers to screen passengers. I'd gladly pay more to fly and stand in line longer knowing I'd get to my destination in one piece. The American way is gotta' get there faster, more productive, and at a cheaper cost. Look what it gets you, quality suffers.

So basically people seem to be saying:'What's the point of the Commission? There was no way to stop the attacks.'
Hmmm, so there's no way to protect the country from terrorism, no matter what kind of intel there is? So I guess Bush (or whoever) gets on pass on terror attacks from now on since there's no way to anticipate them? The mighty US is really helpless and totally vulnerable 'cause there's just 'too much information'? Bullshiat! If Bush had let go of his hardon for Iraq and didn't spend so much time on vacation he might have noticed the increasing threats from Al Quaeda, the warnings from the Hart Panel, the urgings from Clarke, the alerts from foreign governments (like France & Russia, who told the US something was up) maybe it could have been prevented. Ol Condi was scheduled to give a speech on SEPT. 10th 2001, in which she poo-pooed the threat of terrorism and said the real need was in missle defense. These people were asleep at the switch.

JC22, what you clearly don't know is that Clarke was appointed by Reagan, served under Bush I, then Clinton, then W. By my count, that's a Republican, a Republican, a Democrat, and a Republican.

Amigajoe

Care to give a link about that Condi missle defense speech?

"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time [1998 threat reporting] indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

Jesus 2.0:

Yes, there's a difference between gathering intel and sending thousands of troops to war.

However - the point is that both sources of intelligence were equally vague. When people try to pin this 'could've prevented 9/11' bullshiat on the Bush Administration, you're /opening the door/ to more dumbass moves like Iraq.

I think Iraq was a bad idea. But when you try to crufiy someone for /not/ dramatically jumping up the level of operations on something just because vague intelligence suggests /something/ might happen - you give /credence/ to his bullshiat pre-emptive strike.

There's a huge difference between going to war and occupying another country over vague intelligence and simply putting the nation on alert over vague intelligence.

I suppose you really like the color-coded threat level that is currently in place. Last I heard, a significant number of people were saying how stupid and pointless it is, even though raising the alert level is usually based on vague to not so vague intellegence....

The worst of everyone here are not the ones who use ad-hom attacks, or those who don't substantiate claims.

The worst people here are those who don't vote.

If half the moral, concious people in the world actually voted the immoral minority would never get elected.

2004-04-10 11:59:55 PM slykens1
"skinink:
And don't even get me started on Dubya's deficit spending, when he has the nerve to attack Kerry's bugdet plans as reckless.
While Bush's deficit spending is a *major* problem, Kerry's proposals are potentially far more dangerous than Bush's deficit spending.
Both candidate's budget plans are terrible but neither major party is going to put forth a candidate who really wants to cut spending and balance the budget.
When you pick Dem or Repub, you pick large social programs or defense spending, that's about all anymore."

False. Look at the deficet spending from Carter to present. There is a ridiculously evident pattern. 95% of the deficet is Republican. Clinton, whom I have no respect for, finally reigned it in.... Under Bush it exploded again.

Seriously, this one is black and white, look it up. This isn't opinion.

The 'democrats are the big spenders/big government' lie is the biggest politcal myth of them all.

C'mon... look it up. I tell you guys when you are right (Clinton was lying asshat/ Kerry has weak backbone) Return me the courtesy.

So to sum up the conservative retort on this "Well it wasn't specific so it was best to just do nothing." Wow, thanks for the effort there guys.

Do I think that he could have prevented 9/11? Probably not, but this should have a been a red flag to take Bin Laden seriously, and to immediately take action. Ignoring it all together isn't what he's paid for.

All a bunch'o nada. If Clinton had the same info, (he did) he would have done the same or less if possible/(it wasn't possible to do less))

What I love about Liberals is that all of their doomsday predictions consistently prove false. Time and time they stand corrected, but the keep going and going...
THINKING is always better than FEELING or EMOTING

aj_roller

but let's say he did order patrols of NY skyways, since the document in question was released to him....

does he then give an order to shoot down any public/private airplane that 'looks like' it might be going the wrong direction?

After the first one crashed into the World Trade Center, and after telling the second one that it would be shot down if it didn't change course immediately?

Hell yes.

In fact, I distinctly remember sitting there watching the news, when the third and fourth planes were still in the sky for what seemed to be an eternity, thinking "Why the eff are we not shooting them down?!"

And, because seem to be unclear on this...

We all know that that is an EXCERPT from the memo... not the whole memo, right?

Seems important.

The504-


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=4768235

Rice going to be hung by the end of this and I don't think she even realizes that it's the Bush Administration that's tying her noose.

I am getting sick and tired of all the "experts" on national security being critical of President Bush for not stopping the 9/11 attacks. If he had announced the minute after he was sworn in as President that we were going after bin Laden and would be invading Afghanistan, you idiots would be screaming bloody murder. I can hear it now, "The Supreme Court appointed a mad man to the Presidency, where is Al Gore to save us now?"

Invading Afghanistan would have been pre-emptive, now wouldn't it? It would have been unilateral, now wouldn't it? Do any of you think that the U.N would have authorized that? France? Russia? Germany? The peace nitwits would have had a field day with that.

Once again President Bush is having to not only clean up after Bill Clinton's semen-stained adventure in the White House, but now he's taking the blame for it as well.

Maybe the 9/11 attack could have been prevented, but they weren't. I still think Bush shouldn't have run ads boasting his stance on terrorism. People are just going to point out Bush and Kerry's slightest faults until election. Nothing you or I can do to stop it.

Al Qaeda and Bin Laden's guilt is a given, but as an American, I'm also concerned about whether my government did everything in its power to protect me and my family. Now there's certainly enough blame to go around. I think Clinton and Bush both could have done more to prevent the attacks.

The reason I and many others are harder on President Bush is because he's tried to take credit for his leadership before, during, and after the attacks on 9-11. Now if the President wants to take credit for his accomplishments, if he wants to be known as a strong wartime president, then I think he also needs to be willing to step up and take responsibility for his mistakes.

Hindsight and all, talk and more talk, but I actually had a hard time getting through customs at the Montreal airport one month before 9-11. I didn't have the correct papers for the telco job I was going to (just had to swap out a T1 card on a switch, if you understand that)and had to go through a customs interview.

The customs guy was really cool, let me come into Canada and do my job. We chatted for a good bit about the whole entry hassles and he told me there was actually talk of doing away with the border crossings between the US and Canada. He said the big alert at the time was for what both the US and Canada consider "ports of entry" into North America, which is the airports.

He told me there were warnings and reports from the intelligence agencies and the US and Canada were BOTH on higher alerts at the airports.

Of course, thinking back, they probably didn't have enough information as to what they were supposed to be on higher alert about.

But, yes, they were getting alerts about possible threatening activities.

I am not a US Citizen, dont know much abt US history. What you you guys think, Which US president if working today would have really fixed terrorism in the USA?

Jesus 2.0
Secondly, Condoleeza Rice is on record, under oath, as saying that this document contained mostly historical information and was not a warning. While it is clear that it does contain mostly historical information, it is likewise clear that it most definitely is a warning. For example:

"FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

Read that item again, this time without benefit of post-9/11 hindsight. "Highjackings or other types of attacks." The memo states that the FBI was aware of possible threats against airplanes, and possible threats against federal buildings. There's nothing related to any specific airplane(s) or building(s). No times, no places, no methods of attack mentioned, except in the vaguest of terms. The memo would be useless as a warning--at best it's a general precaution.

thanks

Wait, Bush vacations in Texas? I thought that was where he went to "cook up" new invasion plans and negotiate crappy treaties with Fox.

Once again President Bush is having to not only clean up after Bill Clinton's semen-stained adventure in the White House, but now he's taking the blame for it as well.

Hah! Read this.

The only blaming going on is the Bush administration blaming Clinton for their own failures.

rice was tellin the truth all along.

come on people, if you really believe this was the window to 9.11, then you are admitting nostradamus had it right as well...

Gotterung

The commission is not about laying blame for 9/11, it's about finding out if the government did it's job. I thought that was obvious.

As for blaming 9/11 on Al Qaeda, what evidence do you have that they did it?

Also...


Sorry Democrats, Socialists, internationalists, leftists, and anti-semites - THERE IS NO SMOKING GUN HERE

wtf? "Internationalists"? "Anti-semites"?

Umm, maybe if the airlines had hired experts not $10/hr. jackasses to screen people we would never have this discussion. I blame the airlines and their price wars for employing substandard workers to screen passengers.

uhhmm, what carry-on flying regulations did the hijackers break, laid back w/bud light? here's your answer:

none

box cutters were completely legal to carry on flights prior to 9/11. I used to do it all the time in my line of work.

like i said earlier... al gore promised to tighten up airport security in the late 1990's. i do believe he was going to do that up until the point he accepted a boat load of money from Mrs. Tom Daschle (a lobbyist for the airlines) not to.

The504-
A little context: Biden and Rice both appeared on Meet the Press on Sept. 9, 2001, where they disagreed -- sharply -- over America's national security priorities.

Rice argued that missile defense ought to be the No. 1 priority. Biden countered that this expensive and ineffective program would undermine and distract from what he said were more urgent priorities -- including modernizing and upgrading conventional weapons systems, defending the U.S. from domestic terrorist attacks and preventing terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

The Delaware Democrat, who was then chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, continued this debate with Rice the following day in a speech at the National Press Club titled "Defining Our Interests in a Changing World."

Because that speech made reference to "terrorist attacks at home or abroad" as a likelier and more urgent threat, it has been hailed since then as prescient. Less noted, and more important for the work of the Sept. 11 commission, is that this entire speech was a response -- a rebuttal -- of the positions staked out by Rice and the Bush administration.

Rice's speech the following day was intended to argue that Biden got it wrong. She never delivered the speech, of course, because events intervened, confirming that Biden got it right.

Source:http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2004/04/a_topsecret_pub.html

Its amazing how dumbed-down this reads.

POINT OF ORDER: Never trust anything from the 'news service' commonly refered to as 'Reuters'.

ergerhold: Seriously, WTF are you talking about? During Clinton's second term, anti-terrorism was the lead national security issue. His advisors told the incoming Bush administration that they'd spend more time on bin Laden, al Queda, and terrorism in general than on anything else. What did the Bush Administration do? Obsessed over a missile defense shield that is absolutely unworkable.

As for "doomsday predictions", read the news. What's happening in Iraq as you read this? Liberals said attacking Iraq would be a disaster, the Bushies said everything would be peachy, that the American forces would be hailed as liberators. While Iraq may not yet be an unmitigated disaster, it is certainly not the jovial place that Bush & Co. insisted it would be. Please, think before you type.

nodog:

The 'democrats are the big spenders/big government' lie is the biggest politcal myth of them all.

FDR's New Deal saddled us with Social Security, largest line item on the budget.

JFK's second year in office was the last year the government did not run a deficit until the mid 1990's.

LBJ's Great Society program expanded welfare and other social programs dramatically.

I'm not saying Republicans aren't big spenders either, what I said was the Dems like the social programs and Republicans like defense.

Until we get someone willing to cut *all* programs and make sound decisions about taxes and paying off the debt we will continue to be in poor financial shape.

And giving Clinton credit for balancing the budget is tenuous as the Republicans running Congress at the time would be happy to claim they reigned in Clinton's ideas. (Remember Hillary and "universal healthcare"?)

The August 6 PDB, an excerpt from which you'll find below, was presented to Bush while he vacationed at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.


How convenient. Unless he was there saving a drowning victim with a boogie board, he should have been in Washington.