Skip to main content

(From the diaries -- kos)

Although then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice wrote a March 22, 2004 column in The Washington Post that "No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration," a newly declassified document [image below the fold] tells the story.

U.S. media haven't got this yet, but Australian papers have:

US al-Qaeda warning revealed
11feb05

EIGHT months before the September 11 attacks the White House's then counterterrorism adviser urged then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to hold a high-level meeting on the al-Qaeda network, according to a memo made public today.

"We urgently need such a principals-level review on the al-Qaeda network," ... Richard Clarke wrote in the January 25, 2001 memo.

Mr Clarke, who left the White House in 2003, made headlines in the heat of the US presidential campaign ... when he accused the Bush White House of having ignored al-Qaeda's threats before September 11.

Mr Clarke testified before inquiry panels and in a book that Rice ... had been warned of the threat.

CONDI LIED :: CONDI LIED :: CONDI LIED

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
Ninth Public Hearing
Thursday, April 8, 2004

Testimony of national security advisor Condoleezza Rice:

MR. BOB KERREY, Committee Member: Well, I think it's an unfortunate figure of speech because I think -- especially after the attack on the Cole on the 12th of August -- October 2000. It would have been a swatting a fly. It would not have been -- we did not need to wait to get a strategic plan. Dick Clarke had in his memo on the 20th of January overt military operations as a -- he turned that memo around in 24 hours, Dr. Clarke. There were a lot of plans in place in the Clinton administration, military plans in the Clinton administration. In fact, just since we're in the mood to declassify stuff, he included in his January 25th memo two appendixes: ...

So I just -- why didn't we respond to the Cole? Why didn't we swat that fly?

MS. RICE: I believe that there is a question of whether or not you respond in a tactical sense or whether you respond in a strategic sense, whether or not you decide that you are going to respond to every attack with minimal use of military force and go after every -- on a kind of tit-for-tat basis. By the way, in that memo, Dick Clarke talks about not doing this tit for tat, doing this on a time of our choosing.

...

Yes, the Cole had happened. We received, I think, on January 25th the same assessment or roughly the same assessment of who was responsible for the Cole that Sandy Berger talked to you about. It was preliminary. It was not clear. But that was not the reason that we felt that we did not want to, quote, "respond to the Cole."

We knew that the options that had been employed by the Clinton administration had been standoff options. The President had -- meaning missile strikes, or perhaps bombers would have been possible, long-range bombers, although getting in place the apparatus to use long-range bombers is even a matter of whether you have basing in the region.

[WHAT IN THE HELL DOES THIS MEAN?] We knew that Osama bin Laden had been, in something that was provided to me, bragging that he was going to withstand any response, and then he was going to emerge and come out stronger. We --
...We simply believed that the best approach was to put in place a plan that was going to eliminate this threat, not respond to it, tit-for-tat.

...

MS. RICE: The fact is that what we were presented on January the 25th was a set of ideas -- and a paper, most of which was about what the Clinton administration had done, and something called the Delenda plan, which had been considered in 1998 and never adopted.

...

We decided to take a different track. We decided to put together a strategic approach to this that would get the regional powers -- the problem wasn't that you didn't have ...

In the memorandum that Dick Clarke sent me on January 25th, he mentions sleeper cells. There is no mention or recommendation of anything that needs to be done about them. ...

The National Security Archive  

From The National Security Archive, a number of salient quotes:

Document Central to Clarke-Rice Dispute on Bush Terrorism Policy Pre-9/11

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 147

Edited by Barbara Elias

February 10, 2005

Washington, D.C., February 10, 2005 - The National Security Archive today posted the widely-debated, but previously unavailable, January 25, 2001, memo from counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to national security advisor Condoleezza Rice - the first terrorism strategy paper of the Bush administration. The document was central to debates in the 9/11 hearings over the Bush administration's policies and actions on terrorism before September 11, 2001. Clarke's memo requests an immediate meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss broad strategies for combating al-Qaeda by giving counterterrorism aid to the Northern Alliance and Uzbekistan, expanding the counterterrorism budget and responding to the U.S.S. Cole attack. Despite Clarke's request, there was no Principals Committee meeting on al-Qaeda until September 4, 2001.

The January 25, 2001, memo, recently released to the National Security Archive by the National Security Council, bears a declassification stamp of April 7, 2004, one day prior to Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission on April 8, 2004. Responding to claims that she ignored the al-Qaeda threat before September 11, Rice stated in a March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."

Two days after Rice's March 22 op-ed, Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, "there's a lot of debate about whether it's a plan or a strategy or a series of options -- but all of the things we recommended back in January were those things on the table in September. They were done. They were done after September 11th. They were all done. I didn't really understand why they couldn't have been done in February."

Also attached to the original Clarke memo are two Clinton-era documents relating to al-Qaeda. The first, "Tab A December 2000 Paper: Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects," was released to the National Security Archive along with the Clarke memo. "Tab B, September 1998 Paper: Pol-Mil Plan for al-Qida," also known as the Delenda Plan, was attached to the original memo, but was not released to the Archive and remains under request with the National Security Council.

Below are additional references to the January 25, 2001, memo from congressional debates and the 9/11 Commission testimonies of Richard Clarke and Condoleezza Rice. The National Security Archive  

Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 Commission:

Testimony of Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism coordinator:

TIMOTHY ROEMER, Commission Member: On January 25th, we've seen a memo that you've written to Dr. Rice urgently asking for a principals' review of Al Qaida. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight Al Qaida and a response to the USS Cole. You attach to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000.

Do you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these? And how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

CLARKE: I did get a response, and the response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-Cabinet level committee, and not to the principals and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals' meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

ROEMER: So does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group as you had previously done?

CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn't meet urgently in January or February. Then when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of Al Qaida as part of a cluster of policy issues. ...

ROEMER: You then wrote a memo on September 4th to Dr. Rice expressing some of these frustrations several months later, if you say the time frame is May or June when you decided to resign. A memo comes out that we have seen on September the 4th. You are blunt in blasting DOD for not willingly using the force and the power. You blast the CIA for blocking Predator. You urge policy-makers to imagine a day after hundreds of Americans lay dead at home or abroad after a terrorist attack and ask themselves what else they could have done. You write this on September the 4th, seven days before September 11th.

CLARKE: That's right.

ROEMER: What else could have been done, Mr. Clarke?

CLARKE: Well, all of the things that we recommended in the plan or strategy -- there's a lot of debate about whether it's a plan or a strategy or a series of options -- but all of the things we recommended back in January were those things on the table in September. They were done. They were done after September 11th. They were all done. I didn't really understand why they couldn't have been done in February.

.....

TIMOTHY J. ROEMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Having served on the joint inquiry, the only person of this 9/11 panel to have served on the inquiry, I can say in open session to some of Mr. Fielding's inquiries that as the joint inquiry asked for information on the National Security Council and we requested that the National Security Adviser Dr. Rice come before the joint inquiry and answer those questions. She refused. And she didn't come. She didn't come before the 9/11 commission. And when we asked for some questions to be answered, Mr. Hadley answered those questions in a written form. So I think part of the answer might be that we didn't have access to the January 25th memo. We didn't have access to the September 4th memo. We didn't have access to many of the documents and the e-mails. We're not only talking about Mr. Clarke being before the 9/11 commission for more than 15 hours, but I think in talking to the staff, we have hundreds of documents and e-mails that we didn't previously have, which hopefully informs us to ask Mr. Clarke and ask Dr. Rice the tough questions. The National Security Archive

The slings and arrows of the GOP towards Richard Clarke:

Congressional Record: March 25, 2004 (Senate) [Page S3122-S3123]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [DOCID:cr25mr04-92]

Excerpt from the Senate floor on March 26, 2004, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY):

Also in this August 2002 interview, Clarke noted the Bush administration, in mid-January of 2001--before the 9/11 attack--decided to do two things to respond to the threat of terrorism: "One, to vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all the lethal covert action finds which we have now made public, to some extent; the second thing the administration decided to do was to initiate a process . ...''

In other words, what Clarke was saying in 2002 to members of the press was that the Bush administration's response to the war on terror was much more aggressive than it was under the Clinton years.

Now he is singing an entirely different tune. This is a man who lacks credibility. ... he has a grudge of some sort against the Bush administration. If he was unable to develop a more robust response during the Clinton years, he would only be able to blame himself. ... How could the Bush administration be to blame in 8 months for the previous administration's failure over 8 years to truly declare war on al-Qaida?
The National Security Archive

See also: Kos's diary today: Politics ahead of national security: The 9-11 Commission writes a report detailing security lapses in the runup to 9-11.

Emphases mine.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:40 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  wow... (4.00)

    If Richard Clarke wrote me that Al Qaeda "is not just some narrow, little terrorist issue," I'd think I'd better pay attention.  I'd also detect Clarke's irritation with moi for my not having paid sufficient attention to date.  

    Susan in Port Angeles (my cat)

    by SusanHu on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 04:45:27 PM PST

      •  Al Qida is probably the earlier spelling (none)
        Within government circles Osama Bin Laden is routinely referred to as UBL, for Usama Bin Laden, which was the transliteration they used early on.  Look at this FBI wanted poster.

        In bureuacratic circles there may be some value in keeping the spelling specific.

        •  Translliteration is always dodgy ... (none)
          ...I've seen al qaeda, al quida, al qida, al quidah. Reminds me of an experiment we once undertook when we were creating a new copy style book for a publication. We found 28 possible transliterations of Moammar Qadafi's name.
          •  I bet W and Condi set it to music (4.00)
            During briefings, "You say al qaeda, I say al quida... let's call the whole thing off." [followed by uproarious laughter.]
          •  Oh, that Qadafi (none)
            I thought perhaps you meant Mohammar Qaddafi. Or possibly Muammar al-Qaddafi or even Moammar al-Qadhafi. We had the same problem on the east coast.

            Transliteration of Chinese names is fun, too.

            There's a nice-ninny priest/at tea in everyone,/all cozy and chatty as auntie,/but a saint comes/and throws rocks through the window. -- John Ciardi

            by Mnemosyne on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:18:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Press practice (none)
            The practice, at least among the press, varies from bureau to bureau. There are several systems for transliterating Arabic into the Roman alphabet, just as there are for Mandarin Chinese. (The Japanese, by contrast, have an official system of their own, so we always get Koizumi instead of the dozen or so other ways that can be spelled in English.)

            The transliteration the man himself prefers is Muammar Gadafi. In Arabic, the vowel that is sometimes rendered as 'o' (Moammar) in English, and sometimes as 'u' (Muammar), has a sound that is midway between the two in Standard Arabic. Likewise, the consonant you see rendered as 'q', 'k', or 'g' at the beginning of his family name doesn't precisely match the English sound represented by any of those letters.

            Truth to tell, I've never heard him pronounce his own name, and I don't know any Libyans, so I have no idea how it actually sounds. My guess is it's a bit different than textbook Standard Arabic would suggest, but I don't know. Dialects of Arabic vary at least as widely as the difference between Brooklyn English and Australian English.

            Personally, I suspect Gadafi enjoys tormenting western journalists with his name.

      •  You can't blame Condi... (none)
        for missing the threat.  She thought it was Al Qida.  If she had known they were talking about Al Qaida, she would have done something about it.  Honest mistake.
      •  FONT KERNING! (none)
        Karl Rove das Homeland security coordinator warns of  font kerning attacks to subert faith in Boosh!
    •  I think this needed to be highlighted (4.00)
      Clarke's memo requests an immediate meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss broad strategies for combating al-Qaeda by giving counterterrorism aid to the Northern Alliance and Uzbekistan, expanding the counterterrorism budget and responding to the U.S.S. Cole attack.

      That is the damning line that refutes Rice's testimony.

      Anything by Loudon Wainwright III

      by Earl on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 05:18:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good suggestion. Done n/t (none)

        Susan in Port Angeles (my cat)

        by SusanHu on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 05:27:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We don't _have_ that line... (none)
          We seem to only have page one of the memo, and it doesn't say Uzbekistan.

          I'm not trying to be a cold bucket of water, but I want things done "right."

          •  For the entire memo... (none)
            Head here to the National Security Archive

            This is conveniently located at the George Washington University. Lots of other great stuff on there, including a report entitled Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein. That is linked here

            Democracy for America supporter!

            by Danno11 on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:16:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry about that ... (none)

            The document is in PDF format.  I'm using a very old computer with Win95, and no image app, so I can't open or capture such large documents.  The image of the first page is there because I got a JPG in my e-mail.  If someone else could copy/paste the rest of the memo, that'd be great.  I could add it to the diary, or you could just post it in a comment.

            Susan in Port Angeles (my cat)

            by SusanHu on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:25:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  page 2 (4.00)

              Let me state emphatically that we in the Bush administration do NOT condone torture. We sidle up to it, wink at it, and climb into bed with it.

              by turbonium on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:43:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  page 3 (4.00)

              Let me state emphatically that we in the Bush administration do NOT condone torture. We sidle up to it, wink at it, and climb into bed with it.

              by turbonium on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:44:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Dig the crucial line on this page: (none)
                "Attached is the year-end 2000 strategy on al Qida developed by the last Administration to give you.  Also attached is the 1998 strategy."

                So, Rice says no plan was turned over?  BULLSHIT!!!

                "I describe myself as a museum-quality tax-and-spend bleeding-heart knee-jerk liberal." -- Garrison Keillor

                by greenknight on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:16:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  What strikes me (4.00)
                  As a crucial line is the particular phrasing at the beginning of the memo.  

                  "Al Qida is not some narrow, little terrorist issue that needs to be included in broader, regional policy."

                  Why would you write it like that?

                  Either Clarke is being obnoxious for no reason and wagging his finger by writing to Condi Rice as if she were a schoolchild ("Now, listen, Al Qaeda is not this, it's that.."), or Clarke is deliberately referencing a discussion that was already held by using those specific words.  

                  •  He might be doing both. (none)
                    I suspect, though, that he is indeed referring to a previous discussion, as you say.  My handy copy of Against All Enemies suggests that he might have been reacting to Rice's decision to put off a Principals meeting until April 2001 (pages 230-231); he might have been saying, "No, look, this is not something that we can delay treating until the big picture is all formed.  This is big stuff all by itself."

                    "I describe myself as a museum-quality tax-and-spend bleeding-heart knee-jerk liberal." -- Garrison Keillor... http://thegreenknight.blogspot.com

                    by greenknight on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:54:09 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  La-La-La-La-La (none)
                    See Brad de Long's post today reply entitled
                    La Forza del Destino, by Tante Aime, ending:

                    (Shush, Ms. Rice is beginning her second aria!)

                    "Non oscilli prego la barca," she's pleading with
                    Mr. Kim. "Prego, prego, non oscilli la barca."
                    [Morbidamente. Morbidamente.]

                    Bravo!!!!!!!!!!! (Applause.)

                    ================

                    In bureaucracy, quibbling is high art, it's all wordsmithing, polishing with a fine sable brush that last ghost of a whisper of impatience or impotence into utterly mundane tenditiousness.
                    Everything is done in pantomime and handshake and baaksheesh. Lots and lots of baaksheesh.

                    In other words, our Fed is by it's very nature bungling and incompetent within the real world, rather like Bonny Charlie steering the Titanic.

                    "Oh, I'm a jolly brave tampon, I am, I am!@"

                    Hooo-ooh!

                    "I began the revolution with 82 men. It does not matter how small you are, if you have faith and a plan of action." Fidel Castro

                    by Lash Marks on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:07:29 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  That line is from (none)
            National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 147

            That kinda counts, don't it?

            Anything by Loudon Wainwright III

            by Earl on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:36:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Recommended! (none)
      Great work Susan!
       Can this info be sent to Sen Boxer? I am not a Cal. resident so my emails probably would not get attention.

       Voltaire:
      No problem can stand the assault of sustained thinking.

      •  Send it to Mark Dayton. (none)
        We could use some front-line reinforcements, and some relief for Barbara Boxer.

        Dayton was the only one to call Rice a liar outright. I wouldn't mind hearing his opinion on this.

        •  If Condi Rice lied under oath, isn't that perjury? (4.00)
          And can't that be useful?
          •  Perjury (4.00)
            Only if she lied about having sex with a White House intern.  I mean, that is a big deal, and horribly damaging to our country.  If she perjured herself about national security, well, who does that affect?
          •  Yes, it would indeed be perjury. n/t (none)
            •  What if she wasn't under oath? (none)
              n/t

              A moment of resistance; a lifetime of capitulation.

              by lapin on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:49:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  AFAIK (4.00)
                Condi didn't testify under oath, so it's not perjury. But it's still a felony under 18 USC Sec. 1001.

                (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -

                (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

                (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

                (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

                (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

                (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -

                (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

                (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.


                •  In front of the Senate Committee? (none)
                  I think she did

                  WASHINGTON (CNN) -- National security adviser Condoleezza Rice testified Thursday under oath and in public before the independent National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001. The White House initially refused to allow Rice's public testimony but reversed its position after pressure from relatives of 9/11 victims, commission members and politicians.

                  CNN

                  •  Ok, (none)
                    So now you can add perjury to 18 USC Sec. 1001. Of course the chances of "Abu" Gonzales actually doing anything about it... Let's see, how many synonyms of zero do I want to ladle this comment with?

                    Ok, I'm lazy tonight. The chances that good old "Abu" will do his duty and prosecute this silly bitch are exactly and precisely zero.

                •  Condi Can Take Martha Stewart's Old Cell (none)
                  Lying to a federal whatchamcallit is now a crime. You can keep your big mouth shut but it's a crime to lie to the feds.
          •  Did Condi testify under oath? (none)
            I'm not sure she did... correct me if I'm wrong though.
    •  Who was/were the GOP (none)
      Congressmen or operatives who tried to slander Clarke by saying he had a conflict of interest in that he was trying to make money with his book, all but calling him a liar?

      Who were they again?

      They need to hear from us, and hear from us LOUDLY and RUDELY.

  •  The Memo (4.00)
    Note how Clarke underlined the word "urgently" in his memo to try to get Condi's attention.  The nascent Bush administration was too filled with Clinton-hatred to believe that any ideas from a Clinton holdover had any merit.  The other part of this story is the so-called task force on terrorism that they created instead - Cheney was picked to lead it and it never did any work.
    •  Good (4.00)

      Yes.... he's so clearly TRYING to get her attention!  Can you imagine how the 9/11 families will view this?  :(

      Susan in Port Angeles (my cat)

      by SusanHu on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 04:50:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  9/11 Families (4.00)
        It can only dispirit them further.  It also deprived them of more ammunition when, for example, the Jersey Girls campaigned for Kerry.  I saw Kristin Breitweiser interviewed tonight and she stated clearly that this makes her think even more that her husband's life could have been saved.  Then saw Kean and Hamilton attribute the delay in release to simple bureaucratic slog.  I don't buy it.
        •  I think it's time (none)
          for those Jersey Girls to band back together.  I wouldn't be a bit surprised if their numbers increased quite a bit either.

          Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act. - Orwell

          by TracieLynn on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:22:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  He mentioned that in his interviews (4.00)
        Here's what he said to Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes.
        But on January 24th of 2001, I wrote a memo to Condileezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a cabinet level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack and that urgent memo wasn't acted on.
        •  He goes way beyond urgently (none)
          In a concise three page memo he manages to use all of the following:

          "We urgently need..."
          "Pending time sensitive decisions"
          "this Spring" (note - spring of 2001)
          "a decision is needed now"
          "other issues awaiting addressal now"
          "proposing early strong messages"
          "proposing in the FY02 budget"  (note - this would mean early in 01?)
          "we can take some decisions now"
          "I recommend that you ... soon"
          "Immediate... Decisions"

          At what point does this become criminal negligence?

      •  While (3.66)
        I am not a 9/11 "family," a woman I used to work for lost a daughter on the plane that went down in PA.  There are no words that I can type or say that will express fully my outrage.

        These newest memo's only prove what I have felt all along, and to know that so many died because this adminstration was incapable of doing their job.

        All I can do is think of how the familes must feel right now, knowing that there were steps this administration could have taken to maybe prevent some of the carnage on that day.

        To those who are in this admnistration your souls will burn in hell for eternity.

        "September 11, 2001, already a day of immeasurable tragedy, cannot be the day liberty perished in this country." Judge Gerald Tjoflat

        by SanJoseLady on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:03:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The CIA also tried to get her attention (3.83)
        with a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US".  Every time I think back to her dancing around it at the 9/11 commission hearings I want to throw something.

        Apparently, when they said they would have moved heaven and earth to stop 9/11 if they had any warning, they meant they needed memo's to be put in pop up book form since nobody in this admin seems to be able to read.

        "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

        by sgilman on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:10:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That PDB is still a big problem (none)
          Oliver Schrom, the German intelligence expert, wrote a whole book on the Sept. 11 hijackers, based on the research he did during their time in Germany. The book, "Tödliche Fehler",
           was a #1 best seller in Germany, but has not been translated here. (I have a copy in German, which I cannot read, and have been looking for a willing translator for a year and a half. Any volunteers?)

          Schrom asserted in this article, "Deadly Mistakes", in the Oct.2, 2002. issue of Der Zeit, that the Aug. 6 2001 PDB was not 1 1/2, but 11 and 1/2 pages long.

          Crawford, Aug. 6, 2001. U.S. president George W. Bush is on vacation. He wants to spend the whole month at his ranch in Texas. Every morning, however, he still receives his Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, wherein the CIA informs the president about the country's security situation. On this morning, the report is straight from the CIA director. His PDB runs 11 and one-half printed pages, instead of the usual two to three, and carries the title, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Therein the CIA chief explains that al Qaeda has decided to carry out attacks within the United States, and that presumably members of the terrorist organization have been in the country for some time. It is unclear whether the CIA director informed the president about the statements of arrested al Qaeda members. According to their confessions, the terrorist organization for some time has been thinking about hijacking planes and using them as missiles.

          Go back and look at the pdf of the Aug. 6 briefing again.
          The page numbers at the bottom of the pages have been redacted. The famous "release" of the PDB following Rice's testimony was only a partial release, and Rice knew it. They all knew it. They have all been lying from the beginning.

          LIHOP, LIHOP, LIHOP.

        •  when they say warning (none)
          they mean explicit warnings. You know -- so and so is going to do such and such on this day, from here, going to there, and you need to do this to stop them.

          They can't connect the dots. Not even when they're numbered and somebody else hands them the sharpened pencil.

        •  What about the REST of the memos she got... (4.00)
          in addition to the now infamous August 6th PDB entitled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in the U.S."!

          I was poring over the 9/11 Commission Report one evening and got tired of flipping back and forth from the text to the endnotes.  To make it easier to reference the documents and timelines, I wrote out a list of the titles and dates for myself (yes, I have no life).  

          CONDI received all of these documents along with the famous August 6th one, and she ignored them all! The titles are scary enough, and get really intense in June/July, but what do you imagine the content of these documents revealed to her!?  Still think this is mere incompetence?

          They warned about Osama and/or Al Qaeda attacks and are found in Notes to Chapter 8, pp. 533-534, "The System Was Blinking Red".  They include memos, emails, reports and briefings from National Security Council, CIA, SEIB and FBI beginning January 2001:

          NSC Memo-1/25/01: Clarke to Rice "Al Qaeda Review" attaching Dec 2000 NSC Memo "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadists Networks of al Qida:Status and Prospects"
          CIA SEIB-2/6/01: "Sunni Terrorist Threat Growing"
          NSC Email-3/23/01: Clarke to Rice "Briefing on Pennsylvania Avenue"
          NSC Email-3/30/01: Clark to Rice/Hadley, "Terrorism Update"
          CIA Cable-3/30/01: "Intelligence Community Terrorist Threat Advisory"
          NSC Email-4/10/01: Clarke to Rice "Terrorist Threat Warning"
          FBI Electronic Communication-4/13/01: "Heightened Threat Advisory"
          NSC Email-4/19/01: Cressey to Rice/Hadley "Threat Update"
          CIA SEIB-4/20/01: "Bin Ladin Planning Multiple Operations"
          NSC Memo-Apr 2001: Clarke to Hadley "Briefing Notes for Al Qaeda Meeting"
          CIA SEIB-5/3/01: "Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack"
          FBI Report-5/7/01: "Daily UBL/Radical Fundamentalist Threat Update", ITOS Threat Update Webpage
          CIA SEIB-5/23/01: "Terrorist Groups Said Cooperating on US Hostage Plot"
          NSC Email-5/24/01: Clark to Rice/Hadley "A Day in the Life of Terrorism Intelligence"
          CIA SEIB-5/26/01: "Bin Ladin Network's Plans Advancing"
          NSC Email-5/29/01: Clark to Rice/Hadley "Stopping Abu Zubaydah's Attacks"

          Summer Threat Reporting and Actions:
          NSC Memo-6/20/01: "Clarke/Cressey agenda for June 22 CSG Meeting"
          NSC Memo-6/22/01: Clark to SCG re 6/22 meeting
          CIA Cable-6/22/01: "Threat UBL Attack Against US Interests, Next 24-48 Hours" (U.S. Ambassadors were briefed)
          FBI Report-6/22/01: "Daily UBL/Radical Fundamentalist Threat Update, ITOS Threat Update Webpage
          FAA Circular-6/22/01: "Possible Terrorist Threat Against American Citizens"
          CIA Cable-6/23/01: "Possible Threat of Imminent Attack from Sunni Extremists"
          CIA SEIB-6/23/01: "Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent"
          NSC Email-6/25/01: "Terrorism Threat Update"
          NSC Email-6/25/01: Clarke to Rice/Hadley, "Possiblity of an Al Qaeda Attack"
          CIA SEIB-6/25/01: "Bin Ladin & Associates Making Near-Term Threats", "a severe blow against US & Israeli interests during next 2 weeks"
          CIA Cable-6/26/01: "Request additonal info on KSM" (Khalid Sheik Mohammed)
          NSC Email-6/28/01: Clark to Rice/Hadley, "Possibility of an Al Qaeda Attack"
          CIA Cable-6/29/01: "Continued Threat/Potential Attack by UBL"
          CIA SEIB-6/30/01: "Bin Ladin Threats Are Real"
          CIA SEIB-6/30/01: "Bin Ladin Planning High Profile Attacks"
          NSC Email-6/30/01: Clark to Rice/others  "Terrorist Alert"
          CIA SEIB-7/02/01: "Planning for BL Attacks Continues, Despite Delays"
          FBI Report-7/02/01: "National Threat Warning System-Potential Anti-US Terrorist Attacks
          NSC Memo-7/03/01: "Current US Terrorism Alert"
          CIA Materials 7/3/01: "DCI Update Terrorist Threat Review"
          CIA Memo-7/05/01: "CTC Briefing for the Attorney General on the Usama Bin Ladin Terrorist Threat"
          NSC Email-7/06/01: Clarke to Rice/Hadley "Threat Updates"
          CIA Cable-7/11/01: "Followup Source on KSM"
          CIA SEIB-7/13/01: "Bin Ladin Plans Delayed But Not Abandoned"
          FBI Report-7/20/01: "Daily UBL/Radical Fundamentalist Threat Update, ITOS Threat Update Webpage
          NSC Memo-7/23/01: Cressey to CSG, Threat SVTS
          CIA SEIB-7/25/01: "One Bin Ladin Operation Delayed, Others Ongoing"
          NSC Email-7/26/01: Clarke to Rice Hadley
          FAA Info Circ 7/31/01   "Continued Middle Eastern Threats to Civil Aviation"
          CIA Cable-8/3/01: "Threat of Impending Al Qaeda Attack to Continue Indefinitely"
          CIA SEIB-8/7/01: "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US"
          FAA Info Circ 8/16/01: "Disguised Weapons"
          ------------------------
          Now, imagine you are Condi and you have just attended the G8 Summit with the President in July, where Italian officials took threats seriously enough to close the airspace over Genoa and positioned anti-aircraft guns at the city's airport. They had received warnings of an attack  against the U.S. President using an airliner, possibly by Osama bin Ladin.

          So you return to Washington to find all these warnings/documents crossing your desk daily, INCLUDING the August 6th PDB.  What would you do?  

          Advise the President to take a month off to go on vacation beginning August 3rd!  Oh yeah, that's just what I'd do too.  After all, as Dubya later said, there were no memos stating time, place or date of an assault!  If we had only known.....

    •  clarke (none)
      was not a clinton holdover. it wasn't clinton-hatred that distracted(?) them.

      "Will we be Coca-colonized?" - L'Humanite

      by jokeysmurf on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:29:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Still nothing in the U.S. media (4.00)

    Google News search

    Only the Aussie newspapers have this so far.  

    Susan in Port Angeles (my cat)

    by SusanHu on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 04:49:49 PM PST

    •  Caching and Georgia (none)
      I always tend to cache google searches like this, because its hard to prove.  I cached a ton of searches that showed that between LGF, Instie, NRO's Corner, NewsMax, WorldNetDaily and Townhall... NONE of them really covered the Mark Thatcher/E. Guinea coup story.

      NewsMax had one story.

      Townhall had two from when it broke, suggesting that Mugabe was a loon for asserting the coup in the first place.

      Not one mention in any of the rest.

      FreeRepublic had a couple stories, mostly comisserating with Mark over the bad African justice system.  

      Anyway, I found this, from an unknown Georgia based news source, Designerz.com

    •  Reuters has it now (4.00)
      WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A newly released memo warned the White House at the start of the Bush administration that al Qaeda represented a threat throughout the Islamic world, a warning that critics said went unheeded by President Bush until the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.  ... January 2001 Memo Warned Bush of Al Qaeda Threat

      Susan in Port Angeles (my cat)

      by SusanHu on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:22:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks, SusanHu <n/t> (none)
  •  Again confirms my suspicions (4.00)
    That there is a deliberate "ignorance" which characterizes the Bush administration's knowlege of a potential 9-11.  I am uneasy about what we don't know, the role of Dick Cheney, heck, even the seismic evidence on the day it happened.

    Please see http://reopen911.org/index.htm

    Thanks for this post.  Connecting the dots!

    •  See also the Case Against Cheney (4.00)
      in previous diary about Bush ignoring the signs of 9/11.

      http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/2/9/232627/8117/3#3

    •  No! (4.00)
      Maybe making an expensive and ineffective missile shield your number one defense priority pre-9/11 could be described as some kind "deliberate ignorance."

      But ignoring trans-national entities like al-Qaeda is a symptom of the neo-cons' ideology, not a sign of some nefarious plan to allow thousands of innocent deaths.

      There is blame to be assigned when it comes to Bush and 9/11-- but suggesting a complicity, even a pissive one, in the attacks is complete lunacy!  It distracts attention away from the actual failings of the administration and makes us all look crazy.

      I made a similar post down-thread, but this 9/11 tinfoil hattery is a real pet peeve of mine.  Sorry for the repitition.

      "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

      by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:34:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "i" instead of "e" (none)
        except after a long day and too many cups of coffee.

        -"passive" not "pissive"

        -"repetition" not "repitition"

        "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

        by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:37:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  "new Pearl Harbor" (none)
        Does that phrase ring a bell?
        •  how about the original Pearl Harbor. (4.00)
          It's widely known that FDR wanted to take a more active role in the European theatre from '39-'41, but felt that public opinion would not support American involvement unless there was a more immediate threat.

          Does that mean that FDR planned or was in any way complicit in the original Pearl Harbor?  

          I hate Bush's foreign policy-- but if you're going to convince me that an American president took an active part in killing 3,000 innocent American civilians, you better have more than 3 words in a right-wing think tank piece.

          "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

          by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:05:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I suggest you read the Commanders (none)
            by Bob Woodward. I no longer have a copy but in the intro or first chapter I remember someone in the first Bush adminstration saying that if you want to get into a war, the best way is to be attacked first...wish I had the book, I would post the exact quote.
            •  Again, (none)
              FDR felt the same way about American involvement in WWII.  It doesn't prove anything and distracts from their actual culpability.

              "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

              by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:37:02 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Pearl Harbor (none)
                In fact, FDR and his advisors were certain that the Japanese would attack US forces at some point.  They knew the Japanese fleet had left harbor and was on a mission.  There were four probable targets, Pearl Harbor being one of them.  I forget the other three, sorry (It's been ages since I read the relevant history books and wrote a college paper on the alleged conspiracy), but I think they were all US bases in the Pacific.  

                Short version of the story is that yes, there is some reason to believe that FDR & Co. knew there was an attack coming at Pearl Harbor and did nothing to warn the local commanders about it.  The local forces were only told to be on alert for sabotage.  The result was that all the ships were in the docks, all the planes were parked close together on the airstrips, etc., and the damage was far greater than it would have been if they had been on alert.

                I haven't read the recently-published book by Stinnett, Day of Deceit, but I understand he found some new info through FOIA that bolsters the conspiracy theory.

                Regardless of whether or not this theory is true, it's crucially important to realize that many of these neocons believe in it, and much as they loathe FDR, they would surely emulate him if it meant they would be as successful as he was.

                So yeah, tinfoil-hatty though it may be, I'm coming around to thinking that there was some kind of administration complicity in 9/11.

          •  Show me (none)
            FDR's November 1941 PDB that says "Hirohito determined to attack United States" and I'll let you know.
            •  ARGGH! (4.00)
              The Aug 6th PDB proves the admin's incompetence!  It proves that they had a very state centered foreign policy view, and dismissed non-governmental threats like Islamic terrorism.  It does not prove any kind of governmental complicity in 9/11!

              Every time people here spout off these crazy and foundless conspiracy theories, it takes away from Bush's actual culpability and it makes all of us look like a bad X-files episode.  It's embarrassing.

              "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

              by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:35:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That was a frame (none)
                What part of the evidence on the newly declassified FAA warnings doesn't add up for you?

                WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 - In the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission.

                Among other things, the report says that leaders of the F.A.A. received 52 intelligence reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda from April to Sept. 10, 2001. That represented half of all the intelligence summaries in that time.

                Five of the intelligence reports specifically mentioned Al Qaeda's training or capability to conduct hijackings, the report said.

                So, you would chalk the entire context of warnings, from Clarke's memo through the summer of hair on fire and right up to 9/10 to incompetence?  They must be the most incompetent mofos in history.

                •  "the most incompetent mofo's in history" (none)
                  exactly.

                  But it also has to do with ideology.  Their neo-Realism was the reason that, initially, their main defense focus was on missile defense shields, ten years after the end of the cold war.  It also explains why they dismiss trans-national terrorism and even post-9/11 can't get past their focus on naion-states.  

                   

                  "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

                  by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:07:48 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  This comparison is gratuitous and silly (4.00)
            That "right-wing think tank" now controls the federal government, if you haven't noticed. It is a cult, in the word of Sy Hersch, that has hijacked the United States.

            Did FDR belong to a group with a radical agenda before he was elected? Was his administration run essentially as a crime family with open contempt for the rule of law? Did he launch wars on lies? Did he have fifty warnings of Pearl Harbor before the attacks? Did he refuse to meet people who wanted to urgently warn him about the Japanese?

            You also have a specious straw man in the "3000" American citizens--one out of Bush's own mouth, when he said the fact that he didn't know the exact time, place and location of the attacks excused him from all responsibility.

            The claim that the White House was complicit need only go so far as to encompass an agreement to let a little terrorist attack take place. A few people, maybe another military target like the Cole or a plane hijacked in the traditional sense would certainly be "worth it" to Wolfowitz and Feith and Cheney. Too much happened on 9-11 that has yet to be explained. The idea is not proven but it is hardly ridiculous.

        •  Not In My Belfry (4.00)
          It does in the number of casualties--hence the personal tragedy--and in the sense of our being caught with our pants inexcusably down. But that's where the comparison stops.

          Pearl Harbor was attacked by the massed forces of an expanding empire. On 9/11, 4 buildings were hit with planes hijacked by a couple dozen individuals wielding knives.

          On 9/11, unarmed civilians brought down one of the planes, averting 25% of the attack. I don't think anything done on our side at Pearl Harbor saved a comparable fraction of damage.

          Pearl Harbor destroyed much of the U.S. Navy's functionality in the Pacific for several years and helped allow the Japanese Empire to expand. I've never heard that 9/11 caused any detectable damage to our ability to project force anywhere.

          1941 put us into a global war against allied empires that were well along into conquering serious fractions of two hemispheres. 9/11 threw us up against a few radicals who couldn't hold its 3rd world territory a month after we first hit back. There was so little war to fight against terror that we had time to start one against a disinterested nation.

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:36:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  look at the facts (none)
        and read the additional posts today on 9/11, fascism, etc.  Don't dismiss everyone who thinks something is going on here as tin foil.  Read the data in the links.
      •  Pretty Much Agree, WAmod (4.00)
        I'm willing to accept the possibility that folks in the administration looked the other way on and before 9/11, but I certainly see no proof of it so far. And Occam's Razor suggests that incompetence is a more likely explanation.  This administration is very good at political manipulation, but when it comes to actually implementing policy, they're terrible. Iraq is only the most obvious example of this.  What this tells me is that: a) incompetence is certainly a sufficient explanation for what happened on 9/11; b) if there had been an internal conspiracy to let 9/11 happen, more direct proof would have come out (though it would stil be dismissed as tinfoil hattery by the MSM).

        I guess the one place I part company with WAmod is in my attitude toward the 9/11 tinfoil hat brigades.  I don't agree with their view of 9/11, but I'm glad they're looking into it, and I'm open to being convinced they're right (though I'm not at all convinced yet).  They can also be politically useful, as they can help undermine the legitimacy of this presidency.  Every little bit counts!

        Start doing the things you think should be done, and start being what you think society should become. -Adam Michnik.

        by GreenSooner on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:49:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Tinfoil hat brigaes can also be harmful (4.00)
          By making it seem like anyone who thinks Bush is culpable for 9/11 in some sense (myself included) also subscribes to the nonsense that Bush ordered the attacks himself.

          That's my main peeve with the whole thing, I think it's a distraction and hinderance to the real argument against the administration.

          "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

          by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:35:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  occams razor (4.00)
          suggests complicity not incompetence to me, since to accept incompetence means that these warnings were misread and misunderstood in fundamental and nonsensical ways. These were not a few minor or vague warnings: these were multiple, explicit, highlevel, red alert warnings from numerous ualified sources over an extended period of time: and nothing really significant, save Ashcroft using a private plane, was done in response.
        •  Parting company . . . (none)
          You do more than part company from WAmod at "one place" -- Yours is an open-minded viewpoint; WAmod's is closed.

          I don't consider myself outside of anything. I just consider myself not around . . . Bob Dylan

          by ponderer on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:23:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  People are going to get sick (4.00)
          of seeing this, but to me the stumbling point is with NORAD.  Why weren't the planes put up after the hijacked planes?  They were in the air within about 10 minutes when Payne Stewart's plane quit responding.  I don't let my thoughts stray there too often but, when they do, it seems more likely this admin just let it happen.

          Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act. - Orwell

          by TracieLynn on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:37:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  you are confalting issues (4.00)
        here with regards to prior knowledge, intent, complicity, and downright top-down conspiracy, and would suggest you see at the bottom of this diary's

        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/10/171254/302

        thread an attempt by me to show why most people still cannot seem to walk and chew gum at the same time (i.e. think critically) when it comes to so-called "conspiracy theories"

        It is not all tinfoil vs. n-tinfoil: there are many shades of grey between

    •  Upton Sinclair said... (none)
      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
  •  i think bucky's usual answer (none)
    goes something like "nobody told us when we were going to be attacked & they didn't tell us where & we didn't even know how we would be attacked. willickers! what do you expect?"

    i'm an agnostic, i'd be an atheist if it weren't for mozart

    by rasbobbo on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 04:53:18 PM PST

    •  no, it's more like (4.00)
      "we never received any warnings which contained actionable intelligence. my office received quite a lot of "washable" intelligence, even some "spreadable" intelligence. I think, if I'm not mistaken Senator, you will find that we acted according to whatever "impenetrable" intelligence we could find and are now offering it to you.

      But the fact is, what we received was fully "hypothetical" intelligence. Except for the "historical" intelligence--that we understood. And it was very clear--Osama bin Laden had talked earlier about planning something which we felt would be achieved at some time, some place, in some manner and to some purpose, with some people even, possibly in some aeroplanes--though this was sheer historical speculation--yet we did not get the exact date either in the future or in the past. There was a clear sense that in the unclarity of this uneradicable intelligence, we might have been looking at events, possibly of a terrorist nature, which could have taken place earlier at a time and place none of us had yet been made aware. And indeed, despite Mr. Clarke's assertions on this, there was quite a bit of discussion as to whether an attack was a realistic appraisal of all of this "undependable" intelligence which merely suggested strongly, I wouldn't say "warn"--that Al Qaeda was planning to use hijacked planes as weapons.

      So you see, we had no reliable intelligence whatsoever on this. Without knowing exactly who, what, when, where and how it is unrealistic to expect the government to be doing anything more to protect us. We had information, though, that Al Qaeda was planning an attack in New York, most likely at WTC, using planes, most likely civilian, in early September, most likely the second week. But no one can be expected to do more with this information than we did. I mean, we didn't know if it was American, United or some smaller carrier, say even a JetBlue. We didn't know if meals were planned on the flight, or what in-flight movies might be shown. We didn't know how big any knives or guns used in the attack would be. We also didn't know if they were using the latest maps, or ones which were a few years old.

      We just didn't know."

      "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

      by thingamabob on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:46:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/ (none)
      •  That's very funny (none)
        but the real issue raised by this memo is the reaction that Condi had to the President when he called her from Emma E. Booker Elementary School.

        Just a quick timeline for those that have forgotten.

        8:35 Presidential motorcase leaves Colony Resort on Longboat Key

        8:46 Flight 11 hits the north tower

        8:48 CNN begins carrying live footage of North Tower

        8:50 ABC begins carrying footage of North Tower

        8:50-55 A radio message is carried through the motorcade radio "Accident at the WTC, Ari will need to prepared the press upon arrival at the school.  Condi Rice waiting to talk to the President (on a secure phone set up at the school).

        8:55 Motorcade arrives at school.

        Card, Fleischer, and several others race upto the President and discuss the accident.

        Bush apologizes to greeting party, says he has to make a call, tell reporters he has heard the news and will have a comment later.

        8:59 (approximately) talks with Condi.

        Bush: it sure sounds like one terrible pilot.

        Rice: (conjectured) yes, sir, it sure sounds like one terrible pilot.

        Bush: (conjectured) well, I'm running late for the reading thing, don't want to keep the kids waiting.

        Rice: okay, I'll keep Andy informed.

        9:01 end phone call.

        9:02 Bush enters class room.

        9:02:57 Flight 175 hits south tower on live TV.

        9:07 Andy Card informs the President.

        9:13 President finishes reading to the kids.  Begins doing photo ops, shooting the shit with the Principal.

        Press races out of classroom to find TV.  President does not leave until approximately 9:17.

        9:17 Crosses hallway where TV's are not set up, sees replay of Flight 175, says "We're at war."

        9:17-9:28  Talks by phone (allegedly) with Cheney, Guliani, Pataki, and others.

        9:17-9:28 Writes brief statement to make on TV.

        9:28 Walks to school's media room.

        9:30 delivers short speech, refers to terrorists as "these folks".

        9:35 leaves for airport.

        9:37 Pentagon is hit.

        10:10 Cheney orders downing of jets. (order is illegal, violates chain of command, is not obeyed).

        10:20 Cheney call Bush gets authority to down jets.

        The Oval Office: Because there are no corners, there is nowhere to make the President sit when he has shamed the nation.

        by BooMan23 on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:42:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You forgot (none)
          8:14 Rove calls Condi to discuss breaking the impending news to the President.

          8:15 Condi: "Wasn't George at the meeting with Dick and Wolfie about the events later?"

          8:16 Rove: "Yes, but he prefers to keep things simple and not try to think too much. Why don't we go with just repeating back to him and affirming, then mention that Andy will take care of things."

          8:17 Condi: "Okay. Is that it? Should I do anything else?"

          8:18 Rove: "No that's about it. Oh wait. See that the bunker's stocked with good food and movies. Dick expects to be there until the campaign in 2003."

          "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

          by thingamabob on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:52:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You also forgot (none)
            9:07 Andy Card informs the President.

            *9:07.002 President wets himself.

            9:13 President finishes reading to the kids.  Begins doing photo ops, shooting the shit with the Principal.

            •  I just diaried this up (none)
              a bit

              The Oval Office: Because there are no corners, there is nowhere to make the President sit when he has shamed the nation.

              by BooMan23 on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:28:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  A suggestion? (none)
              9:07 Card informs the President, and tells him to sit still and don't do anything.

              Bush spends 6 1//2 minutes reading the book and then another 10 minutes chit-chatting with the assembled staff before going out to his limousine.

              Those 15 minutes are the reason given why there was no shoot-down.

              Those 15 minutes are Bush's alibi.

      •  ALERT! Condi Rice Posting on Kos! (none)

         Uses the Nom de Kos "thingamabob"

          BenGoshi
        _________________

        "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." T.J.

        by BenGoshi on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 05:00:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Con dulcezza? (none)
          or con mozarella?

          SSssshhhh. It's me. But please, don't believe anything I say here--if you want to know about the real me, I publish on the web under the name "Jeff Gannon".

          "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

          by thingamabob on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:34:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I *still* want to hear you speak Russian. (none)

              I can't help wondering why NPR (whores!) said, the other day, "Although she speaks fluent Russian, the meeting was conducted in English."

              Well, isn't that interesting.  Her "fluent" Russian isn't as "fluent" as all that, it seems.

              As anyone who's ever tackled a foreign language knows (esp. a "non-romance" language),  1.  true fluency is close to impossible unless you've spent extensive (as in years) in that country, and  2.  even if you do come out of college, or back from student exchange with a close-to-fluency level, you've GOT to keep up with it (again, by visiting the country OFTEN) or it fades.  "Use it or lose it" is what we -- who know -- all say.  Spanish may be the exception for Americans, given the large Hispanic population in the U.S. and myriad opportunities to practice, if one wants to.  But Russian?!  Pshaw!  That woman is NOT "fluent" in Russian, though I'm sure she can do basic greetings, chit-chat, order a meal and ask where the train station is.  That is NOT "fluency."

              Another Bush Family Evil Empire lie .  .  .

             BenGoshi
            _________________
             

            "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." T.J.

            by BenGoshi on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:52:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  jeezus, (4.00)
    and this incompetent boob is now our Secretary of State. Nothing she can do to screw up our national security in that position, right? :o

    "To fight is to defend. If it's not now, then tell me when would be the time that you would stand up and be a man?"--Flaming Lips

    by pacific city on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 04:54:34 PM PST

    •  Incompetent is right (4.00)

      Did you read her responses?  I tried to read them.  They made no sense to me.  Really.

      Oh -- this is sort of an aside but it comes up in my search of Richard Clarke -- and I'm GLAD he has a column:

      Richard Clarke, the former White House terrorism advisor to Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, has just inaugurated a column for The New York Times Magazine. In his first contribution, Clarke argues that the Bush policy of "more democracy won't mean less terrorism." And he's right - if promoting democracy is all there is to the policy. But coupled with a serious effort to undermine terrorist-sponsoring regimes, humble terrorist masters and kill or capture individual terrorists there is at least a chance for success.

      Regarding the necessity for such warfare, Clarke has nothing to say in this column - except, oh yes, he does note that, "for many in the Islamic world, the United States is still associated with such acts as having made the 250,000 person city of Fallujah uninhabitable."

      You read that right. Clarke has not an unkind word to say for the terrorists who seized Fallujah, set up torture chambers and summarily executed those who might oppose them. No, to Clarke, the mistake was that American troops fought the terrorists in Fallujah, thus causing what Clarke calls "enormous resentment." ...  

      Choosing between a strategy for victory -- or for defeat, Clifford D. May

      F--- you, Cliff May.

      Susan in Port Angeles (my cat)

      by SusanHu on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 04:57:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A '4' for... (none)
        wading through the cesspool that is "Townhall.com" so we don't have to.

        "I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war."

        by RonV on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 05:11:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Makes you wonder... (none)
        ...if "the terrorists who seized Fallujah, set up torture chambers" they used our designs from Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, or if they had their own.

        "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." - Bertrand Russell

        by Mad Dog Rackham on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 05:35:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  See also: (4.00)
        Clarke's "Ten Years Later" in the Jan/Feb issue of The Atlantic. It's written, a bit strangely, from the point of view of a professor giving a lecture in 2011 looking back on the many ways in which the govt. failed to prevent terrorist acts, from 9/11 forward. I'd recommend sending the link or a copy to anyone you know who believes the billions we're putting into DHS are even remotely well-spent.
      •  When she finally did testify (none)
        listening to her was like listening to fingernails on a blackboard. She was anything but forthcoming, and her speech patterns reminded me of the Dyslexic in Chief (with apologies to dyslexics everywhere).

        Her sentences make no sense, which is one of the reasons she needed to be opposed as SOS. Madelein Albright never made me feel like she was pulling words out of a jar and stringing them together. But that's what Condi's stuff sounds like !

        Let's get some Democracy for America

        by murphy on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:50:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Three choices (4.00)
      Incompetent, misinformed or a liar.

      Since we know she was well informed, she's either incompetent or a liar.  Since the rethugs and enough dems praised her competence, that leaves us with... LIAR!

      •  Is it possible (none)

        Is it possible she didn't read Clarke's memo?  That she used Clarke's memoranda to make paper airplanes to amuse her husband?  She certainly didn't refer to it when she wrote her WaPo column ... you know, you and I and every other shlub would kind of want to fact check what we wrote in a column for the WaPo, wouldn't we? (And, for that matter, did the WaPo fact-check her?  Or is that not done with White House officials?  'course, Clarke's testimony came two days after her column was published.)

        Susan in Port Angeles (my cat)

        by SusanHu on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 05:42:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  She was informed. (none)
        I am sure of that.  Incompetent and a liar certainly apply.
      •  This description (3.50)
        was posted a couple of days ago. Sorry, I didn't note who wrote it:

        She's not smart.

        She's a university assistant dean with a mediocre PhD from a mediocre university that's been repeatedly promoted way beyond her competence because she fills the "black woman conservative" niche. In the real world she'd be arranging class schedules at a state university, something she might actually be good at.

        So, that eliminates the second possibility.

        There's a nice-ninny priest/at tea in everyone,/all cozy and chatty as auntie,/but a saint comes/and throws rocks through the window. -- John Ciardi

        by Mnemosyne on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:23:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  whoever wrote that seems more (none)
          like a bitter racist or an embittered elitist.  she does have an admirable resume.  it's not like her russian studies and doctorate were given to her because she was a black woman or loyal to bush.

          "Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary... does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal." - Benito Mussolini

          by lostinbrasil on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:53:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bu she is incompetent (4.00)
            Her field of expertise, so called, is Russia, yet she famously completely missed the collapse of the Soviet Union. Her degree is from a middling school, and her colleagues at Stanford were not kind regarding her competence in her chosen field. I don't think the comment quoted was meant as racist at all, simply that she is where she is because she fits neatly into a category that's it's politically expedient to fill. And she is a Bush loyalist.

            She has continued her incompetence as National Security Advisor and undoubtedly will as Secretary of State. She is way over her head in that job.

            There's a nice-ninny priest/at tea in everyone,/all cozy and chatty as auntie,/but a saint comes/and throws rocks through the window. -- John Ciardi

            by Mnemosyne on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:04:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Rice academic work wasn't that impressive. (none)
                  The judgmental tone of Rice's derogatory reference to "revisionist historians" brings to mind a review of her book The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army, 1948-1983, in the December 1985 issue of the American Historical Review (p. 1236) when she was an assistant professor at Stanford. The reviewer claimed that Rice "frequently does not sift facts from propaganda and valid information from disinformation or misinformation." In addition, according to the reviewer, she "passes judgments and expresses opinions without adequate knowledge of the facts" and her "writing abounds with meaningless phrases." I cannot testify for or against the accuracy and fairness of this review. But I am tempted to wonder, in the immortal words of Yogi Berra, whether we are experiencing deja vu all over again.

              http://gnosticalturpitude.org/archives/000241.html

    •  Hey, hey! (none)
      Let's not get sexist here.  Boobery, indeed.  Herr Bush has benefitted all his life from the ability to fall UP, and now is simply spreading the largesse (I can't believe it's not butter!) around.  And around.

      "No. I'm pretty fuckin' far from OK."

      by moltar on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:12:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well (none)
    The problem is that Bush didn't seem interested in the terrorism issue. There is no way that we can say that he or Gore (if he had won the election) would have been able to foil 9/11, but what is clear is that Rice et al didn't seem interested in the issue at the time.
    •  Putie-Poot (none)
      George's good buddy says he warned the U.S.

      In an MSNBC interview on Sept. 15, Russian President Putin stated he had ordered Russian intelligence to warn the U.S. government "in the strongest possible terms" of imminent assaults on airports and government buildings before the attacks on Sept. 11. No credible information has emerged from any source indicating that Putin omitted the above information when issuing the warning.

      German police, monitoring the phone calls of a jailed Iranian man, learned the man was telephoning U.S. intelligence agencies last summer to warn of an imminent attack on the World Trade Center in the week of Sept. 9. German officials confirmed the calls to the U.S. government for the story but refused to discuss additional details.

      •  That Putin interview on MSNBC (none)
        never happened as far as I can tell.  It has been repeated over and over.

        But Putin was somewhere in the former Soviet Union that day (I forget where) and I've been unable to find any interview with Putin by any US news agency that day.

        The Oval Office: Because there are no corners, there is nowhere to make the President sit when he has shamed the nation.

        by BooMan23 on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:25:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry about that (4.00)
          Nor can I. Given Putin's statements on Iraq, we'll disregard him entirely.  We do have a summary:

          Newspapers in Germany, France, Russia and London reported in the months before September 11th of a blizzard of warnings delivered to the Bush administration from all points on the compass. The German intelligence service BND warned American and Israeli agencies that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack important American targets. Egypt warned of a similar plane-based plot against Bush during the G-8 summit in Genoa last June, a warning taken so seriously that anti-aircraft batteries were placed around Columbus Airport in Italy.

          Russian intelligence services notified the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots had been trained for suicide missions, and Putin himself confirmed that this warning was delivered "in the strongest possible terms" specifically regarding threats to airports and government buildings. In that same month, the Israeli security agency Mossad issued a warning to both the FBI and CIA that up to 200 bin Laden followers were planning a major assault on America, aimed at vulnerable targets. The Los Angeles Times later confirmed via unnamed US officials that the Mossad warnings had been received.

    •  not interested? I don't think so... (none)
      they wanted it to happen so (duh) they could invade a middle eastern country that most Americans couldn't pass a geography location test on.  Catastrophic success!
    •  The difference though... (none)
      is striking.

      When Clinton got word, the White House shifted gears.

      It's unclear that the Bush administration accepts that gears exist.

      •  they exist (none)
        but only if Clinton never had anything to do with them.

        It's just like the kid who refuses to listen to his parents because they're telling him what he doesn't want to hear. The fact that they're right isn't the issue. Actually, the fact that they're right makes it MORE likely that he will do the exact opposite, just to prove them WRONG.

        Which doesn't happen, because they're RIGHT. He'd never admit it though.

        •  "they exist" is an interesting theory, (none)
          In otherwords,, 9/11 happened because of the Bush administration's "informed petulance."

          I.e, "I hear what you are saying, but I don't have to follow up because of the Clinton staff source, and  because it's from the  evil Clinton side, my indifferece is superior."

          It's perfectly obvious. If N. Korea uses nukes on Japan the US should invade Venezuela.

  •  Will Iraq remain secular? (4.00)
    Look at the last line of the memo.  to replace moderate modern western regime with theocracies along the lines of Taliban.  

    Is Shistani advocating a secular or theocratic government?  Hopefully GWB did not do the job for them.

    find your local dem group link: http://www.democracyforamerica.com/local/

    by timber on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 05:04:04 PM PST

  •  These are obvious forgeries (4.00)
    Look at that typeface! It was written on a typewriter! No one uses those anymore! This is the sort of document you would see produced in the early 1970s, not 21st Century!!!!

    I mean really.

  •  Condi testifies on Feb. 16 (4.00)
    Before Senate Foreign Relations re: the 2006 budget. People could start emailing Democratic senators now if they want them to nail her on this. Boxer, Kerry, even Biden...
    •  Yes. That would be good, but (none)
      What would have been much better is if Dems had nailed Rice last month during the SoS confirmation hearings, specifically on the details of the Bushco-suppressed report listing 52 pre-911 Domestic suicide-hijacker warnings that directly contradicted her earlier 911 testimony.  

      Dem leaders have apparently been fully aware of the contents of the suppressed report detailing 52 pre-911 attack warnings for several months. but chose not to confront Rice on them during The SoS hearings in Jan 2005.

      •  I imagine... (none)
        they are always prevented from bringing up material the administration has conveniently neglected to declassify.
        •  So what can Bush Do? Arrest Dems? (none)
          I would love to see that.

          Arrest Dems for revealing "State Secrets", ie Facts and reports that the "Independent 911 commission" wants the American public to see?

          Mental Fantasy about Dems:
          Dems should stand defiantly and relish an open confrontation with Bushco on a clear-cut matter of basic principles and the publics right to know the full truth about 911.

          They should be saying: "We will rip Bushco a new asshole if dares to arrest us for telling the truth and exposing their lies"

          Our Dem "leaders" have finally grown backbones, and stand up together and say "go ahead make my day" "You just try to arrest us for telling the truth to the American people about what really happened leading up  to 911  "

          Reality:
          Dems scurrying like frightened cockroaches back under the sink when Bushco comes into the kitchen. Well, maybe, if  the cockroaches can avoid getting stepped on,  Bushco might leave behind for them a few crumbs, after he turns off the light on them again.

          And don't forget, all those cockroaches, if they play nice, get invited to a party for Condi after the hearings.

          Welcome to the Police-State.

  •  Once again kids (3.83)
    Don't lose sight of the bigger picture here. THEY KNEW! They just let it happen so it can serve as a pretext for everything under the sun they couldn't have done without a 9/11 tragedy.
    Also keep in mind this is the stuff we are being told. I'm sure there's more that we haven't seen that implicates the Bush people in their complicity allowing it to happen.
    •  Recall if you will (4.00)
      That the Pentagon referred to the Cole bombing as "stale".  Since when was the bombing of one of our ships and the death of our servicemen considered "stale".

      Stale as in too old to launch the full PNAC press.

      •  Please... it was Clinton's fault! (3.00)
        After all the investigations concluded in early January of 2001, at least a few days before Bush  office.  Clinton should have stopped packing his things together and gotten the Republican Congress to rally around his lame-duck ass and authorize a military strike days before Bush took over.

        By the time January 20th rolled around it was old news!

        "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

        by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:52:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sarcasm, kerry swag. n/t (none)

          "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

          by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:39:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yup... (none)
          They would've come back, put partisanship aside, and supported the president, right?

          IIRC they were so supportive of our troops in Bosnia that a huge chunk of the opposition railed against involving our troops in a humanitarian mission.

          From Representative Ron Paul of Texas:

          "Included in the bills considered by the House last week was the conference report on the Defense Department appropriation for the coming year. In addition to spending more than $5 billion more than the last fiscal year, this budget continues funding for the UN mission in Bosnia. Sure, the appropriation bill contained a sentence or two asking, in a very soft way, that our troops be pulled out by mid-1998 - but even this weak request provides loopholes so that the president may continue US involvement in the UN Bosnia operation. We've been hearing promises of extracting our troops "in six months" for two years now, and yet American soldiers are still in the middle of a dangerous conflict in which we do not have a legitimate basis for intervening.

          It's almost criminal that we're spreading thin our troops around the globe, putting them dangerously in harms' way, for no national security reasons. Our nation is made weaker by letting the UN commandeer our troops. We need to get our troops back under our command, withdraw them from these regional conflicts, and concentrate on protecting our borders and not policing the world."

          You're right. Something should have been done about the Cole.

          But how do you chase a ghost?

          •  sorry, should have made it more clear (none)
            I was trying to be sarcastic.  Mission not accomplished!

            "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

            by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:10:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No worries <g> (none)
              I saw that right after the post went up.

              Was digging up the Ron Paul speech.

              Gosh I wish he was as worried about the welfare of our troops being in the position of "the world's police" now as he was back then...

          •  Ron Paul is a libertarian and consistently against (none)
            military intervention. He is a strong opponent of the Iraq war and the Patriot Act. He is a bad example to use for your point. He is no Republican hack. In fact he was the 1988 Libertarian Party candidiate for President. See the attached interview from 1/31/2003, his stance on the war and civil liberties is similar to many Daily Kos posters.

            Texas Observer: Is it inevitable we will go to war with Iraq?
            Ron Paul: I would say the odds are 98 percent. Only a miracle will save us from committing this overt act of aggression. I think this will be a gift for Osama bin Laden. He will be the beneficiary of it. He hates Saddam Hussein. He has a better chance of getting one of his men [in power] after we cause a lot of disruption over there. And besides, his recruiting operation is going to get a real boost. We are going to prove to many Muslims around the world exactly what he has been telling them all along, that we are over there to dominate, to control, and to get the oil. I think we have fallen into that trap.

            http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1246

            •  Thanks for the info... (none)
              I confess that Paul was the first quote that I came upon after I couldn't get into the National Journal archives. I was in there a while ago and saw that there was a vote on funding the Bosnia mission wherein a chunk of the opposition (not just republicans) voted against funding the forces.

              And I seem to recall a plethora of opposition websites arguing against getting involved in Bosnia based on the humanitarian arguments set forth.

              What I thought was interesting is how quickly Bosnia has been used as a foundation moment for our involving ourselves in humanitarian initiatives...like Iraq: "After all, we went after Slobodan, did we not? Saddam is equally bad."

        •  Clinton (none)
          What gets me is that if 9/11 had happened under Clinton's watch, the Thugs would have waged an all out war on him.  And Bush gets away with the most sickening display of exploitation of the tragedy that it gets him so-called "elected."  All that phony patriotism and taking advantage of the grief and suffering for political gain and to detract from the fact that his negligence was a contributing factor.... makes me sick.  He's still doing it too!
    •  Reichstag fire, anyone? (3.85)
      Just wondering.
    •  they knew (4.00)
      I'm very surprised that all these new reports about the 52 warnings given to airports and these new documents being revealed after 3 YEARS OF SECRECY isn't causing widespread screaming rage and crazy paranoia.  The conspiracy theories feel more like facts than regular "mainstream" news.

      I assume there are some underlings in the media or in the federal government who didn't know about all the warnings and and haven't helped to cover this up, but I think the knowledge about this in high levels of the media and fed. government can be assumed.  There's no way widespread warnings given to airports could have been covered up this successfully without media cooperation.  

      I think the media moguls and high level officials have a sickening contempt for the American public. They made a conscious decision to let Bush off the hook because they felt Americans would never again have faith in their government at all if they let the truth out.  

    •  Disagree (3.00)
      I think you're getting a little too carried away here.  It scares me when people hypothesize that Bush had a hand in 9/11, or even intentionally allowed it through inaction.  That's a very serious charge, on par with wingnuts of old claiming FDR knew about the threat at Pearl Harbor in WWII.

      Say what you will about Bush.  You won't hear an argument from me defending any of the disaster he refers to as a foreign policy (execept, maybe, Afghanistan-- although there were definetly tactical and strategical errors there).  But when you posit that he wanted 3,000 people dead to further his own agenda you sound ridiculous.

      9/11 did help Bush's foreign policy goals in that it gave him brief bi-partisan support for military action in the Middle East, which he used to take down the Taliban and rode haphazardly into Iraq.  But he didn't allow or condone the WTC attacks using this kind of political calculus.  In fact, the same small-minded, narrow focus on Iraq and state-centered realism that led to Bush vs. Saddam II was the same small-minded narrow focus that ignored and dismissed al-Qaeda in the first place.

      Bush's culpability in 9/11 stems from overall incompetence and (more closely) an uber-realist view of foreign affairs -- not some kind of diabolical scheme where he condoned the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians to advance his political aims.

      No offense, but too much tinfoil hat ranting on this subject makes us all look like insane people by proxy.

      "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

      by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:18:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Glad we now... (4.00)
        ...have the definitive word on it.

        Yes, it is tinfoil hat territory, but given what we know has happened lately, your refusal to consider it at all is what seems out of step with reality.

        And it's unlikely that whoever did all the planning ever expected 3000 deaths. In most scenarios, a few hundred on the planes and a hundred on the ground would be a realistic expectation. Given the number of dead in Iraq, that doesn't seem so far out of line with what are apparently "acceptable losses" for the Bush cause.

        And remember, Hitler had nothing to do with the burning of the Reichstag. Just ask any Nazi.

        I try to take the non-tinfoil approach to things. But it's getting harder every day.

        "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." - Bertrand Russell

        by Mad Dog Rackham on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:09:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  yeah, yeah, yeah (3.00)
          Bush is Hitler, blah blah blah.

          Look, I'm not defending the guy's policies.  They're atrocious.  But saying Bush intentionally had a hand in killing innocent American civilians without proof is lunacy!  Why should I consider this as a possiblity at all?  

          Give me you evidence, and tell me why we should think that it's more likely that Bush killed thousands of American civilians than that his administration is incompetent and rigidly realistic to the point of folly.  I'll listen.

          And by the way, whoever planned 9/11 (hint: It was Osama bin Laden!) was actually expecting close to 10,000 deaths, when you include flight 73 bound for D.C.

          "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

          by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:23:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not lunacy at all (4.00)
            Do you really think it matters in Bushworld whether the innocents killed are Americans or Iraqis or Iranians or Afghanis?  No. It doesn't because in Bushworld, the ends justify the means.

            We have no proof and need no proof to have our personal theories.  And my personal theory is that Bush knew that a "spectacular" terrorist attack would take place during 2001.  He didn't want to know the details, didn't need to, didn't matter.  

            I never set out to prove any more than I have to.  Incompetence is hard to prove.  Connect the dots, blah,blah, blah.  Lies on the other hand, much easier.

            BTW - Bin Laden says he expected fewer deaths, not more, because he did not plan on the mighty, mighty U.S. military doing absolutely nothing.

            •  "we have no proof and need no proof" (2.50)
              good-bye, reality based community.  I'll miss you very much.

              "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

              by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:11:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've had to fight myself (4.00)
                much more to not believe this administration allowed this to happen.  I keep getting stuck on the no NORAD response, particularly when they were in the air in 10 minutes for Payne Stewart's plane.  They had almost an hour and a half to deploy between the first and last crashes.  That's my main stumbling block on their total innocence.

                Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act. - Orwell

                by TracieLynn on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:52:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  explanation (none)
                  I think the very poor communication and lack of preparedness might have something to do with your question.

                  And I wouldn't say that Bush deserves "total innocence."  Regardless of whether or not he was "behind" the attacks, he is still is responsible for his administration's incompetence and wrong-headed priorities leading up to the attack.

                  "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

                  by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:02:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I've never really got (4.00)
                    that impression of the military but, since I have no hard evidence, I can't really claim any high ground on this.  My gut thinks they allowed it to happen, though.

                    Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act. - Orwell

                    by TracieLynn on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:27:12 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Supposedly (4.00)
                  For the entire month or week previous to 9/11 they'd been having drills scrambling planes for various attack scenarios and there was either widespread confusion about whether or not this was a drill or the planes had been used in these drills and weren't ready to be re-deployed in time.

                  Part of me can see this 'drilling' being this administration's half-assed 'fine, you want us to do something we'll do something, we'll have a drill, happy?' response to Clarke and co's screaming about doing something about AQ.

                  A bigger part of me keeps internally screaming 'hundreds of billions of dollars to the Pentagon's budget for the past 20 years and THIS IS THE BEST WE GET WHEN THE SHIT ACTUALLY HITS THE FAN?

                  The gross, GROSS incompetence of it is mind-boggling. Its actually MORE comforting to think 'they let this happen' because it means at least they know what they're doing. I'm becoming firmly convinced that NOONE at the Pentagon or in this administration could find their collective ass with both hands and a map, and its scarier than 'omg they planned it all PNAC!'

                •  NORAD responses were common (none)
                  According to a speech given by Mark Dayton, D-MN, in August of last year (I think), NORAD sent up fighter planes 67 times (I think) in 2001 prior to 9/11, and 129 times (I think) in the entire year of 2003.  And it's weird that NORAD had to ask the FAA repeatedly whether the agency was calling for a scramble.  And weirder yet that the guy in charge of "Hijack Coordination" (!?) for the FAA was having his first day on the job on 9/11/2001.  And even weirder that, as a 37-year employee of the FAA, he would profess to be unsure whether he had the authority to scramble fighter planes in his new position.  

                  Randi Rhodes was hammering this on Thursday and playing audio cuts from the 9/11 commission hearings and quoting Mark Dayton's speech.

              •  Courtesy of Merriam Webster (none)
                theory
                Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
                Function: noun
                Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
                Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein

                a : hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

                b : an unproved assumption

                •  That's definition number six... (none)
                  Main Entry: the·o·ry
                  Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
                  Function: noun
                  Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
                  Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
                  1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
                  2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
                  3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
                  4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
                  5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
                  6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
                  synonym see HYPOTHESIS

                  Don't mean to be too argumentative, but one of my pet peeves is abuse of the term theory a la Creationism.  It also means something much more well-established than a hypothesis.

                  Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. -Albert Einstein

                  by Primordial Ooze on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 11:32:44 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  You won't even consider? (4.00)
            the possibility that Bush and the neo-cons could have deliberately chosen a path of inaction to allow an (unknown) terrorist incident to occur, something perhaps on the scale of 150-200 people (similar in scale to OK City)?

            I don't necessarily believe it to be the case, but it's certainly worth including within the range of possible scenarios. "People die all the time." You can't believe that BushCo allowing a small number of random people to die for "a good cause" is within the realm of possibility? These are people who prefer a tax cut to armoring the soldiers (aka poor kids) they send into war, or taking care of them when they return. These are people who torture for their agenda.

            Based on available evidence, Bush and his crew seem to hold human life (and truth) in a low secondary relationship to their agenda. I'm past the point of naivete with these folks.

            "Those who betray the trust...are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." - George HW Bush

            by DavidW in SF on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:59:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Of course it is possible (none)
              but I can't believe it, even of them.  Need more proof.  Need more paper trail.  Need someone on the inside to spill (do ANY of them have consciences?)

              I have to say, I pray it is not true.  It would be a crime beyond any crime every to happen in America.

              "Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone."--Thomas Jefferson

              by hopesprings on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:43:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Whether they "knew" or not (none)
                The gross incompetence alone suggests to be that Bush et al. are accessories to murder in these attacks.

                Oh, in Iraq, too - but that's old news.

                "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

                by fishhead on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 12:16:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  lunacy (none)
            You're right, we don't have proof, but you can't say we're short on grounds for suspicion.

            You, on the other hand, have only your shrill assertions that it could not be, in the face of so much that suggests that it certainly could.

            Is nothing secular?

            by aitchdee on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 12:01:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Sigh... (none)
            Looking the other way is not the same as actively planning. Maybe it was sheer incompetance, but much of it seems quite willful. But we make the distinction between negligent homicide, second-degree murder, and first-degree murder all the time. Why are you stuck on insisting that since Bush didn't personally fly one of the planes, he didn't have anything to do with it. Shades of gray: coming soon to a world near you.

            Also, on your claim that the expectation was 10,000 dead: source please? I seem to recall that during the 9/11 hearings there was talk of testimony from an Al Qaeda captive that the reason they used four planes was because they expected only one to get through. Hard to get to 10K with one plane.

            The collapse of the towers was wholly unexpected. I know Osama comes from a construction background, but I doubt his structural engineers were able to predict the true results of a plane strike. And without a collapse, it's hard to get 10K. (Unfortunately, with what we now know, if the planes had aimed lower, and arrived an hour later, it might have been possible to reach 30-50K.)

            I don't think Bush planned 9/11. I don't give him credit with enough intelligence for that. But he sure seemed to be intentionally looking the other way while the people pulling his strings were busy letting things move along their merry way. We'll call it negligent homicide, but maybe let him plead it down to willful indifference. Times 3000.

            "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." - Bertrand Russell

            by Mad Dog Rackham on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:59:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Agree with WAmod on this. (4.00)
        Unquestionably, they are a bunch of very severe incompetents. They failed to timely focus on obvious risks and ignored red flags and warnings. But unsubstantiated speculation that this was intentional and in furtherance of the neo-con agenda seems rather excessive.

        The cover-up, the repeated lies, and the strategic trashing of Clarke are more fertile areas of critique.  

        •  more fertile (none)
          in terms of yielding tangible results (i.e. someone actually being held accountable) I would agree, but it does not at all seem "excessive" to speculae about motive: criminal lawyers do this all the time.
      •  I used to think so also (4.00)
        Elsewhere on dkos today I replied to a post that proposed that the seven minute pause in the classroom that morning was caused by his realization that the attack he allowed to happen was far worse than he had bargained for.  

        Until that moment, I had not confronted, publicly at least, the possibility that maybe I do need to consider that my government is sometimes in the control of forces vile enough to exceed my capacity for suspicion.  I'm not a tinfoil-hatter by nature.  You know, we're all members of the reality-based community here.  I was willing to accept gross incompetence, but not complicity.

        But, I think it's at least worth considering the possibility that this administration, and the hate-machine behind them, would have been willing to live with ~125 dead passengers from what they likely believed would be a crashed jetliner if it would give them the coronation they wanted.

        It may not be true, and it doesn't need to govern our thoughts or preclude us from examining other explanations, but it's not an unreasonable assumption to make at this point.  It doesn't require too many leaps to arrive here.

        Besides, this administration and the vast machinery behind them deserves no benefit of the doubt from us.  They are every bit as much our enemy as is any foreign power or movement.  In fact, I'd bet they do more long-term damage to our nation than any traditional enemy could hope to do.  

        Your mileage may vary.

        "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for us." - former Texas Governor Miriam Ferguson, on barring foreign language teaching

        by JT88 on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:14:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I tend to agree, too (4.00)

          I actually think they were willing to play with a 'terrorist event', in order to bolster their Middle Eastern plans, and then were amazed and horrified at what they ended up with.

          I'm no tin-foil hat type, but the neo-cons had been planning their invasion of Iraq since George I, and even said that their project was impossible without some kind of a major terrorist disaster/attack that would compel Americans to go along with it.  This is all well documented.

          I sincerely hope our government didn't do that.  But after Iraq, torture, death squads, repression at home and abroad, the denigration of international bodies and international law (that actually serve US interests), the subversion of the US constitution, the payoffs and bribes to the media, retributions, and on and on and on, I cannot recognize my government any more.  This pack is a gang of thieves and murderers - vile, conniving ex-frat boys, CEOs, and religious nuts - and they have shown themselves, over and over again, capable of anything and everything.

          "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." -- Walter Benjamin

          by quaderni on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:29:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  "worse than he bargained for (4.00)
          the seven minute pause in the classroom that morning was caused by his realization that the attack he allowed to happen was far worse than he had bargained for.

          I've thought that myself.

          It's possible that the PNAC/Vulcans viewed a terrorist attack as something that would be regrettable, but would allow them to launch their campaign for "regime change," so it would be worth it.

          But they are incompetent and could not anticipate how big the attack would be.  They were thinking, maybe a suicide car bombing with maybe 36 dead at the most.  

          Is this lunacy?  Maybe, but would you be surprised if it were true?

          And how else do you explain the pre-9/11 inattention to counterterrorism at the highest levels of the administration?  None of the PNAC/Vulcans wanted to hear anything or do anything about terrorism, while Clarke and Tennet were running around with their hair on fire.  

          Why did they not care?  This theory explains it.

          --- Reality-based since 1965

          by grytpype on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:38:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I would be very suprised if it were true. (none)
            They did ignore terrorism before 9/11.  I completely agree with that.  My point is that ignoring terrorism an obvious result of their ideology (with incompetence mixed in), not the result of their wish for America to be attacked.

            "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

            by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:42:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What if they thought the attack would be minimal? (4.00)
              In my scenerio they didn't anticipate how big the attack would be, just a few dozen "eggs broken" and they get their excuse to do anything they want.

              I call this the "weak LIHOP hypothesis."  That is they let an attack happen but misjudged how big it would be.

              And it's worked for them!  It got them re-elected despite Bush's miserable performance in his first term.

              --- Reality-based since 1965

              by grytpype on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:03:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Maybe (none)
                I guess it's the most likely hypothesis out of a field of very unlikely ones.

                But why all this conspiracy talk at all, when there are much more compelling explanations for the admin's inaction (ideology and incompetence) that don't involve American politicians knowingly allowing the murder of their own citizens?

                "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

                by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:16:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  it's called willful ignorance (4.00)
              Give it a rest, WAmod.

              They knew or should have known that something was up.  They consciously ignored the information or refused to act on it - not in order to bring the events about, but because actually preventing any attacks would have done nothing to further their agenda.  They actively didn't give a shit about terrorism or whoever might get killed by it.  Happily for them, their inaction worked out to give them carte blanche for their agenda.  Like winning a trifecta.    

              But the whole country has been complicit in his evil.  America and the media and all the Democrats knew or should have known that the WMD was a thin pretext for attacking Iraq.  At least I knew, and that was before I ever read a blog.  We all heard from before his first inauguration that they intended to invade Iraq.  But we elected them anyway (sort of).  The right has embraced his lies and criminal aggressions.  And the Dems have passively accepted that he will inevitably get his way, and somehow it will be better not to resist.  

              I feel like we're Jews packed in a cattle car, and the Dem party is urging us to keep calm, no reason to panic yet.  Sometime in the next four years this train is going to pull into one scary station.  

        •  Not So Fast (none)
          "it's not an unreasonable assumption to make"

          Assumptions are always unreasonable to make. You should have some facts before you make any kind of judgement, it seems to me, especially one involving the deaths of thousands of people. Judgements are especially dangerous when based on assumptions, even when hedged with wanting to examine all angles. Saying chimp's complicity in 9/11 is more than recklessness and gross incompetence is not reality-base.

          But I understand your skepticism, when we're forced to fear our government.

          Iraq is deja vu all over again.

          by chuco35 on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:57:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not issuing a judgment (none)
            of any kind.

            I'm simply saying that it bears consideration in light of what else we know about this administration.

            Separate the idea that he assisted the attacks (which is full complicity, and no one is suggesting) from the idea that he willingly allowed something to happen and you arrive at a very reasonable conclusion.

            Assumptions are useful tools when solving problems; they help to guide the interpretation of data in the absence of concrete facts.

            "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for us." - former Texas Governor Miriam Ferguson, on barring foreign language teaching

            by JT88 on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:00:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Just Incompetance (none)
              Chimp willingly allowing 9/11 to happen would mean that he and his cohorts, in a stroke of mad collective genius, successfuly conspired to ignore warnings from the CIA, Clarke, Clinton people, and others, so that chimp would benefit from the fallout of a terrorist attack. All while being so wizened that these geniuses had figured out correctly that they would not be discovered, that they would be able to hide documents showing that they knew or should have known without a doubt, and that they would be able to neutralize any "incompetence" backlash aimed at them. This is all pretty far-fetched, IMHO.

              I've found that if you can explain a policy failure by means of either a conspiracy of those executing it, or just plain incompetence, that it's almost always incompetance at play.  

              Iraq is deja vu all over again.

              by chuco35 on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:48:07 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Not too many leaps? (4.00)
          I think my basic disagreement with even weak 9/11 conspiracies (passive complicity) is that it would mean that Bush would have had a knowing hand in killing innocent Americans civilians.

          Maybe it's naive to assume that even the worst American president in the last 100 years wouldn't knowingly take part in the murder of innocent Americans.  

          But if you want to convince any sane person that Bush murdered innocent civilians, you have to have proof.

          Especially when there are much more compelling reasons for his dismissal of a terrorist threat. (ie. incompetence, and blind ideology)

          "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

          by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:58:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I understand (none)
            the need for proof to convict, but I also think that there is enough circumstantial evidence to warrant more of an inquiry.
            Would the government be complicit in the deaths of thousands of Americans?  Sure, look at Operation Northwoods.  Rumsfeld is wanting (or has) resurrected the idea with his P2OG  (Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group).  Rumsfeld was also one of the original sign-ons for the PNAC.
            I have no doubt that the neo-cons knowingly allowed 9-11 to happen, but the burden of hard evidence is indeed lacking.
          •  Sure (none)
            you have to have proof

            but proof generally follows suspicion and the inquiry has only just begun.

            If you're dissatisfied with a story you've been told and suspect something else completely contrary might actually be true, whether you're acting as a police detective or a parent or an investigative reporter or simply a concerned citizen, if there's proof to be had it seems to me the first order of business is to acknowledge that you have suspicions, however unorthodox, unlikely or dreadful to think about they may be. If something is important to you and the formal explanations aren't sitting well, isn't it a normal, creative impulse to seek answers, ask questions, scrutinize facts, look for inconsistencies, theorize and talk to others who have their own theories, eventually connecting your dots and presenting your proof if, of course, you were able to find any? Sure, for all your efforts you might come up empty handed, and then you know it's time to quit. On the other hand you might uncover something vital to you or your family, to your community or your country. I don't understand why you're objecting so vigorously here; frankly it's a bit oppressive. How would you go about satisfying a dreaded suspicion for yourself? What would you say to me if I demanded proof before I'd entertain the first creeping green of your concerns?

            Anyway, you might get away with calling it mad conspiracy theory if you find folks still devoting a lot of time and thought to the events preceding 9/11 decades from now, but four years later? That's yesterday. There's new information coming to light all the time. Vital documents remain classified. Books are being written (Powell). This chapter in American history is far from closed.

            Is nothing secular?

            by aitchdee on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:13:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  You've posted many times in this thread (4.00)
            friend, but I don't have time this morning to address each of them.

            So I suggest that you read my post again and see that I'm not trying to convince anyone, sane or insane, that "Bush murdered innocent civilians."  I am, however, saying that I've come to the personal conclusion that considering the possibility that there was something more than simple negligence at work is now a viable alternative for me.

            I once was in your position, vehemently opposed to any talk of conspiracy.  For me, it just made a bad situation worse.  On top of the horror of living through the event personally, it would add the terrible betrayal of my government to the equation.  

            After some years now of seeing what my government is capable of doing, it just seems like it would be naive to assume that it's off-limits to consider.

            "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for us." - former Texas Governor Miriam Ferguson, on barring foreign language teaching

            by JT88 on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:13:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'll back you up here (none)
            Let's first get straight what we all can agree on - namely, Bush is an incompetent, self-absorbed idiot.  The evidence of Bushco's lack of complicity that is for me the most compelling is his behavior in the first 24 hours after the attacks.  I'm sorry, but if Bushco were complicit in allowing this tragedy to occur, they would have planned a better response to it, a response designed to highlight the Shrub's mastery over the situation.  The fact is they didn't.  I remember that my reaction that day was that this idiot President behaved like a frightened jackrabbit.  I'm still flabbergasted that people seem to remember Bush as being in charge.

            "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." - my dad

            by blueinnc on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 04:41:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  This was pretty much my conclusion as well (none)
          I think they were just surprised by the magnitude. Bush definitely doesn't have any problem killing people for his agenda, I just don't think they expected it to be as bad as it was.

          "Those who betray the trust...are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." - George HW Bush

          by DavidW in SF on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:07:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Bush is a regular killing machine (4.00)
        But when you posit that he wanted 3,000 people dead to further his own agenda you sound ridiculous.

        Although I don't think Bush had a hand in 9/11 (complicit, maybe), take a look at the numbers:

        1. Bush killed 156 people while he was governor of Texas to "further his agenda". That's more than executed in all 49 other states combined during the same period.

        2. Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of over 1400 American servicemen to "further his agenda".

        3. Bush killed tens of thousands of Iraqis to "further his agenda".

        4. Bush is talking about killing lots of people in Iran and Syria to "further his agenda".

        5. More indirectly, Bush was a vociferous supporter of the Vietnam War, as long as he didn't have to go. So he would happily cause the deaths of plenty of other Americans (and lots of Vietnamese) there too in order to "further his agenda".

        Regardless of whether Bush was involved in 9/11, there's lots of evidence that George W. Bush is more than happy to kill lots of people to "further his agenda".  

        Bush has absolutely no problem killing people.

        "Those who betray the trust...are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." - George HW Bush

        by DavidW in SF on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:15:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  there's a pretty clear difference (none)
          between your examples and the intentional murder of innocent American.

          Many presidents in recent history, Dem and Rep, have sent soldiers to die, and supported bombing raids on foreign cities to advance their political agenda.

          None have killed thousands of innocent Americans civilians at work as far as I know.  I hope you can see how big of a leap that would really be.

          "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

          by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:29:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  One would be shocked, (4.00)
            (hopefully) to imagine ships, blessed by Church leaders, yet filled with human life, many of whom perished on the voyage, in crawl spaces no higher than 18 inches, give or take,  to be sold on distant shores - yet, it happened.

            Many would be shocked, by a young, former soldier, bombing a building full of human beings in Oklahoma - yet it happened.

            I wouldn't be shocked, that an asshole, who from all appearances, never worked an honest day in his life, yet continually punishes those who have, and is, at least in part, responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 human beings - allowed 3,000 fellow human beings to die.

            What an excellent day for an Exorcism.... Social Security THERE IS NO CRISIS!

            by DianeL on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:57:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  n/t (4.00)
            there's a pretty clear difference between your examples and the intentional murder of innocent American.

            Goddamn it, no there isn't !

            As Governor of Texas, he had a responsibility to review clemency pleas prior to executions. By all accounts he and Gonzales willfully shirked that responsibility. The direct consequence of that was the death of those people. Even Bush's coke and booze damaged brain should understand that. If he wasn't prepared to take the responsibilities of the Governor seriously, he had no business seeking that office.

            Equally, the pretext for invasion of Iraq was trumped up and fabricated.

            Gonzales drew up memos permitting torture. Tortured prisoners died in Abu Ghraib. The best I can say for Bush is that he was ignorant of this memorandum. If other leaks are to be believed he signed an executive order permitting torture.

            In all these cases Bush's lack of due diligence (to put it mildly) had an entirely predictable conqsequence.

            Yes, this is not the same as pulling the trigger himself, but he still bears the responsibility: the responsibility to take such very grave decisions with the utmost seriousness and diligence. He singularly failed to do that. Just as he failed to heed clear warnings about Al Qaeda.

            Other presidents have certainly taken military decisions that led to the loss of life. I'm hard pressed to think of a case where the ONLY justification was furthering their political agenda. I believe Clinton did it formostly because it was the right thing to do. I absolutley fail to see what political advantage Clinton gained from say Somalia or Bosnia.

            -B

          •  Uh, beg to differ here (none)
            None have killed thousands of innocent Americans civilians at work as far as I know

            The Tuskegee Airmen were just doing their jobs and got killed all because the US Gummint wanted to study late-stage spyhillus.

            The US government also fed radioactive food to retarded children and released nuclear radiation over populations centers to see what would happen.

            There are a few ways to say the current administration didn't deliberately plan or allow this attack to happen, but the idea that 'the government would never do THAT' ain't one of'm.

            •  Just because it's possible, (none)
              doesn't mean it's even remotely likely.

              And it's still no small jump from the executions of convicted criminals in Texas to taking an active part in the massacre of innocent American civilians.

              "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

              by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:47:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Radiation (none)
              At Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, NY, unkowing patients were given plutonium. I think this occurred in 1948 but I can't recall.  This came out after a similar story broke.
            •  Tuskeegee (none)
              The Tuskeegee Airmen and the Tuskeegee syphilus "study" did not involve the same people. They are both connected with the same geographic place, but that is it.
          •  But Lincoln . . . (none)

             . . . and his brethren (excepting Bush) actually seemed to be genuinely bothered by it.  Even Grant (when he was Generaling) and Ike and, hell, I think Reagan was, deep down, actually bothered by those 241 Marines killed in a second in Lebanon.  

              But W. Bush is, in my opinion, a classic sociopath narcissist -- no conscience whatsoever.  His only sense of "duty" is to jack-up his own, bent, warped self-esteem demons.  A two-year-old, n desparate need of a nap, with a machine gun.  And he's in the Oval Office. . .

              BenGoshi
            _________________

            "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." T.J.

            by BenGoshi on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 05:11:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Dialogue from the Godfather (none)
          Remember when Michael showed up suddenly and surprised Kay after being absent for several years.  The dialogue went something like this:

          Michael: My father is no different from other men in power.  A governor, a senator, a President.

          Kay: But Michael, your father kills people.

          Michael: Look at who is being naiive now, Kay.

          During the 50's, the CIA hired armies to overthrow "leftist" states in the Americas and sent the Marines in to Lebanon.  Fifty years later, we rent existing armies in Afghanistan (the Northern Alliance) and overthrow a secular, leftist state in Iraq that gets replaced by (perhaps) a bunch of Muslim theocrats.

          What's changed: We replaced the Monroe Doctrine for the Bush Doctrine.  Now we don't limit ourselves by geography.

          (In a largely meaningless aside, did you see the picture of Condi shaking hands with French president Jacques Chirac.  She was avoiding him and looking at the camera.  He was looking at her and shaking her hand.  It looked scuzzy and kinda disgusting.)

        •  Let's not forget Cheney (4.00)
          Maybe you have a hard time believing Bush would kill 3000 Americans, but do you have a hard time believing Cheney would?

          Bush and crew knew there would be a hijacking. They figured that they would let it happen because it did further their agenda. In all likelihood, they never ever expected that it would result in the WTC collapsing and falling down. WHO THE HELL DID? We didn't even believe it after it happened! That morning, watching them burn, we thought about the people jumping, the fires. I could imagine the burnt-out shells of the Towers smoking over Manhattan.

          But noone outside of the barking mad believed that they would fall down. So my money is that only Cheney expected the outcome.

          You don't think it's possible that BushCo knew that there was a threat and let it proceed? They expected a hijacking with hostages. They expected a hijacking that attempted to fly into something that would be symbolic but not result in the deaths of thousands. That much is already covered by the 9-11 Commission Report, since those are the scenarios directly warned against in the appendices.

          So perhaps Bush didn't know that he was willingly sacrificing 3000 people when they agreed to let the situation play itself out. Perhaps Bush wouldn't even have been willing to make that sacrifice.

          But Dick Cheney sure as hell would be willing to kill Americans. He ordered the shoot-down of Flight 93. And he is cold-blooded enough to immediately see the opportunities that this attack presented. He argued for bombing Iraq that very day. Cheney knew that this was their chance - just as the PNAC manifestos that he's signed had stated such an attack would be.

          Bush is misguided, ignorant, anti-intellectual, vulgar, sexist, and suffering from a religious mania. But Cheney is evil. He will lie while looking you in the eye. He will sacrifice tens of thousands of lives for profit. He wants power at all costs. He's Sauron - he'd willingly trade 3000 Americans for his plans. He does it every day.

          Watching Clarke - meticulous, certain, a powerful survivor in a tough government bureaucracy - testify before the Commission made one thing crystal clear: he had documentary proof for every statement he made. He's got copy of all the files he referenced.

          And we're going to get to see them all before this is over.

      •  ask yourselt (none)
        Watch a commercially set up implosion of a skyscraper and then compare it to what happened with the world trade center.  If it takes months of meticulous work and charges being set up precisely to cause a skyscraper to come down with the least damage to the surrounding buildings, why is it that an imprecise hit by a jet and the resulting explosion in one small area cause the EXACT SAME outcome?
        •  It didn't (4.00)
          The collapse of the WTC towers was a big mess that took out many of the surrounding buildings.  It was anything but a controlled demolition.  The only vague similarity between a controlled demolition and the WTC collapse is that in both cases physical structures move in the same direction, namely down.  This is due to a force known as "gravity".
          •  perhaps (4.00)
            we should explore this "gravity" lead. i'll get going on a diary right away.

            "Will we be Coca-colonized?" - L'Humanite

            by jokeysmurf on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:09:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Also the WTC building design was different (none)
            They were basically big hollow tubes; support columns, lots of them, and placed more closely together than is typical, basically made the buildings hollow tubes.  Also, the buildings fell not because of the holes punched in the "tubes", but because the full, burning tanks of jet fuel melted the steel that held up the buildings.  The planes didn't knock them over; the buildings melted and collapsed straight down.

            Normal buildings are internally supported; you can see this structure with the Statue of Liberty.  The WTC buildings "hung" from the external frames that were the outer walls.

            And actually, those buildings overperformed.  They were designed to withstand the impact from a smaller plane, and the fact that they remained standing (and probably would have kept standing if they hadn't melted) is a testament to the engineers who designed them.

            Viva la revolucion!

            by spacekitty on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:15:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I'm for impeaching (4.00)
        Bush on parking tickets if we have to to save the planet, so whether it's gannongate or cndi memogate or WMD lies or torturegate or something else entirely, I think there is just too much building right now for his to get away with it all. That may be wishful thinkin, but one never knows. But I am responsing here to wamod here about 9/11: I don't know for a fact wether or not Bush or Cheney or one or some of these neocon nutjobs were or were not complicit and/or allowed, but for the record and for history and for sanity 3 things are undeniable:

        a) there was PLENTY of SPECIFIC AND URGENT forewarning on a 9/11-STYLE attack from numerous qualified sources

        b) there is PLENTY of PRETEXT, CONTEXT, AND MOTIVE for wanting something like a 9/11-STYLE ATTACK to happen: without 9/11, no homeland security, no Iraq war, no Patriot Acts 1 and 2, no neocon agenda made reality, and likely no re-election

        c) there are PLENTY of NON-TINFOIL PEOPLE (academics, foreign officials, 9/11-victim family members, activists, writers, military people, journalists, bloggers) WRITING NON-TINFOIL blogs, books, jourals, and articles ABOUT NUMEROUS UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED OR ADDRESSED AT ALL BY THE OFFICIAL 9/11 COMMISSION. Yes surely among this disperate "9/11 Truth" movement are the requisite nuts and cranks, and perhaps even paid disinformers, but please spend some time reading up on what's out there and do not automatically dismiss all of it

        •  Which is more likely? (3.00)

          (a) Bush dismissed pre-9/11 threats because terrorism doesn't fit into the neo-cons realist ideology.  This, combined with incompetence and lack of communication between intelligence depts led to 9/11.

          (b) Bush planned or knew about 9/11 and killed innocent Americans as part of some nefarious plan to consolidate power.

          I guess there are some who pick (b), but I think even otherwise intelligent people can have their judgement clouded by their (perhaps justified) hatred of Bush.

          "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

          by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:26:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  those are far from the (4.00)
            only two choices.

            One explanation may be that Cheney (not Bush) knew something was in the air and allowed it to happen so that they could get the PNAC and neocon agenda rolling: invasion of Iraq, homeland security, patriot acts, oil grap, amrican hegemony, etc. 9/11 really was the "trifecta" as Bush described it: take away 9/11 and you're not left with much except likely an administration with falling ratings and a sinking domestic economy.  

            There is more than one way to skin a cat.

            •  True, (none)
              but I guess my point is more that there's no reason to assume intentional malevolence when there's other explanations that are much more plausible.

              And that the more "far-out" 9/11 conspiracies distract and damage the very good argument one could make that Bush is unintentionally culpable for what happened.

              "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

              by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:43:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  occam's razor (4.00)
                actually may point to complicity rather than the official line on this if you think about it: given all the facts we have now about warnings unheeded, and all the facts we have about manufactured WMD evidence, and the motives and pretext of the PNAC and their stated desire in the late 1990s to invade Iraq, does it make more sense to assume as w are told that they were oblivious, or more sense to suspct they knew/know more than they are telling?
                •  Iraq (none)
                  The neo-cons' desire to invade Iraq actually lends credence to the claim that they were oblivious, IMO.

                  The major failing of neo-realism is the rigidity in thinking that leads you to believe your only threats come from other nation-states:  Al-Qaeda doesn't have an established state or army, so why should we worry about them?  Instead let's focus all of our money and attention into an unproven post-cold war missile defense shield.

                  Combine this with poor communication between intelligence agencies and the general incompetence of many of them, I think 9/11 starts to look pretty inevitable.

                  Even after 9/11, their focus on nation-states persists.  We have not captured bin-Laden, but have invaded two countries-- the second with virtually zero ties to terrorism.  It's proof enough to me that Bush still can't see that we're fighting a trans-national group, not just the states that "harbor" them.

                  "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

                  by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:22:25 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  not buying your argument (3.66)
                    here at all: will agree that they are inflexible, but their inflexibility is mostly that they are trigger happy, oil hungry and proactive rather than reactive. The psychic dynamics of the cold warrior were/are hardly as static and bipolar as they would have us believe: it was also a transnational and occasionlly asymmetric war, since at bottom it was "a war on communism" and not just about he USSR: it was a blanket excuse for proxy wars, clandestine narcoparamilitaries, domestic surveillance, etc. The war on terrorism is purposely extended to include "rogue states" like North Korea: not b/c the neocons think N.Korea has anything to do with Islamism, naturally, but because "the war on terror" works better now than the red menace and ups the ante considerably. So where you see a mistaken interpretion I see instead a willful attempt  extend the boundaries of an endless war. More fundamentally, however, things like the "pearl harbor" phrase used by the neocons pre-9/11 should be taken more literally and LESS figuratively according to your neo-realist idea: why the use for a metaphor here? Operation Northwoods shows that the domestic strike approach has been on he table before.    
                    •  communism is a bad analogy (none)
                      Beyond the obvious fact that no government has ever declared terrorism as their form of government, I have some problems with your analogy.

                      Of course you can look at the "war on communism" from a liberal perspective, as you obviously do. I agree with that perspective.

                      You can also look at it (as I think the neo-cons would) from a realist perspective-- that communism is only our enemy as it is adopted by nation states.  The Soviet Union, China, and North Korea are all players in the world stage.  These nations are our enemy, not some kind of transnational communist movement.

                      The war on terrorism is not purposely extended to DPRK.  The extension the result of a rigid ideology, that focuses on getting alot of mileage from your hammer by making things looks like nails. The neo-cons' main motivation is that they believe America is in danger, and our only course of action against our enemies is through zero-sum relationships with other nation states.  They feel threatened, and are looking for "evil" governments around the world to pin it on, when the actual threat is an amorphic group of  fundamentalists.  I think your DPRK example re-inforces my previous post, not detracts from it.

                      And the whole "new Pearl Harbor" thing is also somewhat of a red herring.  No one said "we need a new Pearl Harbor".  They said that the transition to a larger military was likely to be slow in the absence of a catsrophic event.  I think just about every military expert in America would have agreed with that in the late 90's, it doesn't mean they thought a "new Pearl Harbor" was a good idea.  Realims in political science doesn't preclude the use of metaphors as far as I know.

                      "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

                      by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:03:22 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  addition (none)
                        There's an easy proof to back me up here.  It's 2005, the Repugs have control of Congress and the White House, and they still don't give a shit about terrorism.

                        They haven't changed their philosophy at all since 9/11-- just their rhetoric.  They're still focused on states-- Iran, Korea, Syria.  Meanwhile, OBL is still at large, and homeland security is grossly underfunded.  If only we could build a missile defense shield big enough, we'd all be safe again.

                        You wouldn't say that they're still ignoring terrorism because they want more justification for further attacks?  

                        It's much more likely to me that they're incompetent and bound by their warped perspective.

                        "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

                        by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:12:25 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  not sure (none)
                        I follow your reasoning at all now.

                        Maybe I should back up a bit on this:

                        on 1/26/98 a letter addressed to Clinton from the PNAC stated that "removing Saddam Hussein...needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

                        It was signed by 18 prominent neocons, including Wolfowitz, Abrams, Rumsfeld, Perle, Armitage, Woolsey, etc.

                        To understand the neocon agenda and how it came to be so pivitol in our current administration one must understand a few things:

                        a) the neocons or "vulcans" of Bush's war cabinet are not a historical anomoly, and most of them have worked directly in high levels with the cold war Republican administrations since Nixon: they are, in short, the kernal of the military industrial complex Ike warned about

                        b)according to the PNAC doctrine, in order to obtain the objective or removing Saddam Hussein, "the only acceptable strategy is...military action" (from the letter cited above)

                        c)in 1997 General Binford Peay 3rd testified before Congress that "America's vital interests in the Central Region [Centcom, roughly the Middle East] are long-standing...with over 65% of the world's oil reserves located in the Gulf states...the international community must have free and unfettered access to the region's resources" echoing the petropoitical background of miltary-enforced access first articulated by Carter in 1980: who designated the secure flow of oil from this region as a "vital interest"

                        d)on 10/23/99, GWB spoke at the Citadel in Charleston, SC (my home town), and said: "As President...I will give the Secretary [of Defense] a broad mandate--to challenge the status quo and envision a new architecture of American defense for decades to come"

                        e)on 11/13/95 a car bomb in Riyadh exploded ouside the offices of the Military Cooperation Program, a company linked to GHWB And James Baker, killing seven (includng five Americans). The Islamists picked this target and many others (throughout the middle east in the following years) as a symbol of how the ruling powers (in this case, the House of Saud) were puppet regimes for American oil-military interests.

                        What do these five seemingly random historical factors hve in common? The answer is that they offer a revealing glimpse, given the context of what we all know, of how a confluence of factors--PNAC influence, the vital interests of oil (and of keeping OPEC pegged to petrodollars and not petroeuros, for instance), the ethos of GWB's military expansionism, the rise of Islamic terrorism directed at the US presence in the region--formed the backdrop in which both the 1993 WTC bombing and 9/11 and much else happened.

                        The curious thing is that to me the simplest explanation for 9/11--that something was allowed to happen to fit a long-term agenda--does not necessarily mean that there was not an active and aggressive grup of Islamists who wanted to strike the US in retaliation for what it perceived/perceives as US imperialism in the middle east. That is to say, for a brief moment (9/11) the objectives of both the PNAC and the jihadis coincided. This could be coincidence, it could just be two converging entities on a collision course, or--BASED ON WHAT WE NOW KNOW REGARDING PRIOR WARNINGS--it could be something else.

                        Chances are we will never know for sure, but to close out the possibility for good seems to me to be unwise.      

                        •  I see what you're saying (none)
                          I understand and agree with what you're saying here.  Bush did want to go into Iraq before 9/11.  Many in his cabinet have been salivating over the Middle East for years.  

                          I acknowedge that 9/11 gave them pretty much free reign to enact their foreign policy in Iraq and elsewhere.  My point is that allowing 9/11 to happen or actively taking part in it is not the simplest explanation for their actions.  A simpler explanation is that their political ideology leads them to dismiss terrorism on the whole and focus on conventional states.  This ideology, combined with incompetence at the upper levels of the CIA and NSA, explains the administration's actions before the attacks.

                          There's evidence that they have not changed their worldview, even after 9/11.  They are still focusing on Iran, DPRK, and Syria.  They have not made significant gains toward finding OBL or preventing further attack on our soil.  They still don't give a shit about terrorism, except as a rhetorical tool to advance their agenda against foreign "evil" nations.

                          Their lack of concern with terrorism doesn't indicate to me that they are waiting for another attack so they can go to Iran.  It seems more likely that it's just a flaw in the  way they look at the world.

                          "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

                          by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:10:46 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Simple question (none)
                            What, save a Pearl-Harbor-style attack like 9/11, would have enabled the Bush administration (with its PNAC ties, and explicit pre-9/11 desire to invade Iraq) to invade Iraq, to pass the Patriot Act, to establish Homeland Security? Is it possible to imagine how ANY of this could have transpired had 9/11 or something like it never happened? And if 9/11 had never happened, would these trigger-happy PNAC cold warrior hawks simply have abandoned their aims for a war entirely? The question is really how badly they wanted it (my answer is pretty badly), and what lengths (my answer is pretty far) they were willing to go? But there can be no denying that there is motive, that there is context, that there is pretext. Smoking gun proof? Perhaps not, but motive? Plenty.    
                          •  hindsight and motivation (none)
                            See my post [here ] on this same topic.

                              There was an excerpt from a book by a former admin official (I forget who) that described Bush's behavior right after 9/11.  Apparently, he was flustered and asking his analysts, who by then realized what had happened, whether they were absolutely sure it wasn't Saddam Hussein behind this whole thing.

                            Of course, it could have been just a clever ploy on Bush's part.  But I tend to think it was a genuine feeling of his at the time.  He was, and still is, so focused on Iraq that he either lacks the capacity to recognize other potential threats, or simply doesn't care.

                            Take little pieces of information from the real world and use them to bolster your neo-con fantasy constructions, while at the same time ignoring everything that doesn't fit.  It's the Bush admin's MO, and not just in foreign policy but domestic issues as well.

                            52 FAA warnings?  Osama bin Who?  Whatever, we have to get these missile shields up before Saddam gets the bomb.  There's still work to be done is Afghanistan?  No way, Saddam is the real threat-- he tried to kill my pappy.

                            And so on.  I wouldn't believe someone could be so stubbornly wrong if I hadn't seen the last 4 year with mine own two eyes.

                            Maybe you disagree with my educated guessing about how Bush assesses and reacts to information.  But I think Bush's incompetence is an easy conclusion to draw and goes a long way towards explaining how 9/11 could have possibly happened.

                            "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

                            by WAmod on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 05:18:19 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

          •  I guess I have a tiny tinfoil hat (none)
            Or tinfoil hairbow or barette or something, because I can't buy the incompetence argument 100%.  This was incompetence on a massive and consistent scale.  Only wall-to-wall incompetence on every level involved can explain the massive failure that occurred.  It's just too many coincidences, too many cracks that these warnings had to fall through.  It just doesn't add up.  As the saying goes, "even a broken clock is right twice a day."  This "clock" was never right even once.  

            "Nobody gets to heaven without a letter of reference from the poor." James Forbes- Pastor of Riverside Church in New York

            by librarianbarbie on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:55:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Personally, I would never, ever, automatically (none)
          or otherwise precipitiously dismiss any even remotely possible misconduct by BushCo. But to say there was "undeniably" ample motive for the deliberate facilitation of 9/11 is, to me, a pretty excessive overstatement. In fact, I am virtually positive they would deny it, emphatically and catagorically.

          Note that I am not saying you or any of the other upthread comments posters are necessarily wrong.

          But everyone should imo keep in mind that wild accusations are clearly not helpful to our cause.  

      •  It takes only two (none)
        people to make a conspircy. none of us know what happened behind the scenes prior and leading up to 911, however we have seen what these people are capable since.

        Why was Bin Laudin let go in Tora Bora ?

        I don't like any of it, and I have never trusted the goverment, any goverment.

        take a look this: this man worked for former Sen Dole

        http://911review.org/Wiki/StanleyHiltonLawsuit.shtml

    •  That doesn't matter (4.00)
      What matters is they lied about what they and didn't know. In fact, they continue to lie.
      It was the lying that brought down Nixon. It was the lying which the Repubs used to beat up on Clinton.
      Lying to Congress is always a crime, tried by impeachment.

      "The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them." Albert Einstein

      by Nicholas Phillips on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:29:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  As always, Susan Hu chimes in with (none)
    important information.  Good job!
  •  An old one but a good one (4.00)
    What is the sign that Condileeza Rice is lying?  Her lips are moving.

    Can anybody think of any occasion when we know, for certain, that Rice did NOT lie about some salient issue regarding this administration?  I've been puzzling over that for a few minutes, and so far I'm stumped.

  •  Please, people, focus! (4.00)

    on the BIG issues -- this affects 140 people in the United States who don't practice religion like Christians do!

    White House Seeks Ban on Religious Tea

    2 hours, 47 minutes ago   White House - AP

    WASHINGTON - The Bush administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to block a New Mexico church from using hallucinogenic tea that the government contends is illegal and potentially dangerous.

    The appeal from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales argues that a lower court was wrong to allow the Brazil-based O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal to import and use the hoasca tea as part of its religious services.

    "The court's decision has mandated that the federal government open the nation's borders to the importation, circulation and usage of a mind-altering hallucinogen and threatens to inflict irreparable harm on international cooperation in combating transnational narcotics trafficking," the filing states.

    The church, which has about 140 members in the United States and 8,000 worldwide, said the herbal brew is a central sacrament in its religious practice ... a blend of Christian beliefs and traditions rooted in the Amazon basin. ...

    Susan in Port Angeles (my cat)

    by SusanHu on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 05:53:24 PM PST

  •  Can Condi be impeached as Secretary of State? (none)
    Shoot, lets just impeach every single person in the Bush administration.  If something hasn't come out about one of them it's just a matter of time.  We can even go after Mineta, just for fun.

    How about that! I looked something up! These books behind me don't just make the office look good, they're filled with useful legal tidbits just like that!

    by LionelEHutz on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:04:55 PM PST

    •  I agree.... (none)
      I think it's time for a concerted effort to show to the public the dishonesty of this administration.

      The problem with the impeachment process is that there is no way for it to be initiated by the people. A Republican Congress can and will ignore us.

      (Come to think of it, my DINO Senator (Landrieu) ignores us, too!)

      •  Hold a mock impeachment trial. We only need the (4.00)
        television cameras, blogs, and Air America to provide the audience.  

        Shoot, we don't even need the Democratic Party to be behind it.  Just get a few of the pissed off 9-11 widows to act as prosecutors.  I bet one or two of them would be thrilled to get involved in a production like that.  

        How about that! I looked something up! These books behind me don't just make the office look good, they're filled with useful legal tidbits just like that!

        by LionelEHutz on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:04:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The key is to get (none)
        people informed.  Then we have the numbers to make change.

        Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act. - Orwell

        by TracieLynn on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:15:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's what I was thinking (4.00)
      I seem to recall Republicans getting all fussy about people who lie under oath. For that matter, so did a bunch of Americans.

      It's time to call this administration on the carpet for all of their lies. (as if there weren't other times, too, but you know what I mean.)

      And why isn't this memo front page at CNN? Oh, wait, never mind.

      Oh well, I wasn't using that civil liberty anyway.

      by think2004 on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:50:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  But it doesn't say what flight they will be on.... (4.00)
    so there is no actionable information.

    Keep moving.  Nothing to see here....

    Look--over there!  Two gay boys were just dancin' on Will and Grace!  That is the real threat to this country....

    </sigh>

    •  Woman (4.00)
      I canvassed a woman who actually said that. I told her how Bush was doing a terrible job going after the terrorists. She told me Bush was protecting us from the gays. I asked her what she meant. She said the gays were a bigger threat than the terrorists. I told her any marriage that could be threatened by two other people expressing their love for each other was already in trouble.

      Wake up, Watson. The game is afoot! -- Sherlock Holmes. (The sig is changed in honor of the great work done by Kossacks in the Gannon-Plame investigation.)

      by Carnacki on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:58:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ultimate homeland security (none)
        "...the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance... Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"

        -- Rick Santorum, July 2004

        Oh well, I wasn't using that civil liberty anyway.

        by think2004 on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:33:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Santorum (3.75)
          Is it just me or did the 20th century seem more advanced and enlightened than the 21st century?

          Wake up, Watson. The game is afoot! -- Sherlock Holmes. (The sig is changed in honor of the great work done by Kossacks in the Gannon-Plame investigation.)

          by Carnacki on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:38:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The real Y2K problem! (none)
            Yep, it turns out that Progress was written in FORTRAN, and has been reset.  It is currently the year 1005.  According to my calendar, we are in the middle of the Dark Ages.  Please update your expectations accordingly.  The Crusades will begin "for real" in 90 years.

            We apologize for any inconvenience that this error may have caused.  The persons responsible have been, um, disciplined in accordance with the new heresy standards.

            Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. -Albert Einstein

            by Primordial Ooze on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 11:46:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  oh sure (none)
          let's defend the marriage of an abuser and a battered wife, rather than two committed and loving people who happen to be the same sex.

          What on earth do they think is going to happen? Somebody is going to wave a wand over them and poof! They're gay?

          I really, really, REALLY hope that some married person who has a sex change operation decides to STAY married. To the person they originally married, who is now the same sex as they are.

          The fundies heads would just explode. I'd love to see it.

  •  the bush voters are sure to see the light now! (4.00)
    unless the facts don't fit their frame of understanding.
  •  Attack Rice : Perjury charges (4.00)
    Dems in the Senate must do it because she testified under oath. Play hardball now. Please write to your senators.

    I am sure Rethugs will try to suppress it but now that we have real evidences she lied under oath, they can't keep it under the rugs anymore.

  •  People... come on (3.80)
    Don't you all realize that being President is really really hard?  They're working really really hard on this stuff, staying at work sometimes past 5:30 to go through all these memos and reports that just seem to keep piling up to no end.  So some busy-body do-gooder threw some document or another on some pile, can you really expect someone to read everything?  'Presidential Policy Initiative/Review -- The Al Qaeda Network' what a snoozer!!
  •  So Condi Lied. What is News about that? (3.75)
    That has been PRETTY clear for a looong time.

    Besides, if you tried to pin her the wall on her statements, she is the kind of very facile and practiced liar who would smoothly and patiently explain to you the very clear difference between a "Threat" (what she said)  and  a "Warning" (what Clarke said).

    They are really ARE quite different, as you can clearly see.

    Far more damaging to Bushco/Condi than the Clarke letter release (its contents had already been pretty well described from 911 hearings) and story from the Australian (Murdoch-owned)newspaper, is the NYT story and Thinking Republican diary on the fact that there were at least 52 separate pre-911 suicide hijacker warnings that Rice/Bushco had received,  and they have been keeping them classified for the past 5 months even though the 911 commision is protesting to have them declassified and released to public  

    •  I agree! (4.00)
      "Threat" and "Warning" are indeed two distinct words. Very different. Very very different.

      For example, Condi's word, "threat," starts with the letter T.

      On the other hand, Clarke's word, "Warning", starts with "LA LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LA LA LA LA!!!"

      Or something like that anyway. :-)

      I love my country. Can I have it back, please?

      by swilldog on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:00:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "I'll talk to the 9/11 commission... (4.00)
    ...but not under oath."

    Lest I perjure myself.

    Sad.

    ~Liberal in the best sense of the word~

    by Lucky Ducky on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:39:53 PM PST

  •  Timing (none)
    This is great and all, but it would have been nice if this had come out before her nomination to SoS was voted on.  Or before the election.

    <sigh> Better late than never.  <double sigh>

    Oranges and lemons, say the bells of St. Clemens...

    by Billy Shears on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:44:12 PM PST

  •  Condi has already been proven to have lied. (4.00)
    Perjury, no less - it seems to be questionable, but she was under oath during her 9/11 testimony IIRC. She lied about the PDB, that it was a "historical document" with "no new information."

    Why wasn't this brought up during her confirmation (unless I missed it)? Why isn't she in JAIL?

    Why should I expect this to be any different?

    Resuscitate investigative journalism! Reality-Based does NOT mean investigations are wrong - it means investigations are essential.

    by nephalim on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:54:19 PM PST

  •  SAD re: Clarke (3.87)
    If anyone should still have their job it is CLARKE...This guy knew everything about terrorist networks and OBL, and what happens to him?? CLARKE should have been our NSA and then the towers would still be standing and all those lives woulda been saved, and our soldiers would not have died in Iraq. And we would be beloved heros all over the world. Instead...we're fucked.

    educate 'em when they're young

    by Chamonix on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:57:32 PM PST

  •  All kinds of news tonight (4.00)
    This is par for the course.  According to both sides, the public was never in danger.  

    Feb 10, 2005

    Missing Halliburton Shipment of Radioactive Material Found in Boston

    By Lolita C. Baldor
    Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON (AP) - A Halliburton Co. shipment of radioactive material that landed in New York in October was lost en route to Texas, and was not found until Wednesday, when it turned up in Boston.    

    The material - two sources of the element americium, used in oil well exploration - was found intact at a freight facility after an intense search by federal authorities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it was not alerted to the missing shipment until Tuesday.

    NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the agency was not told about the missing material until Tuesday. Depending on the material, government rules require notification either immediately or within 30 days.

    "The focus through today was on trying to find the material," Sheehan said. "We're going to be pressing them on why the notification was not more timely."

    Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the shipping company improperly labeled the material and sent it to the wrong location. She said Halliburton contacted the shipper "multiple times" about the package and was told repeatedly it was en route to Houston.

    Was Halliburton unaware of the rules?  Even I'm not that naive.  Anyone want to take bets on how hard Halliburton's wrists will get smacked?  I have become cynical enough to believe nothing of any consequence will be done to them for their flagrant violation of even the farthest reach of the time given for notification.  I guess I am naive enough to think that the loss of radioactive material during this time of war against terrorism would need to be reported sooner than 30 days.

    Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a frequent critic of the NRC, said the incident highlights inadequate security measures covering radioactive materials. The americium has the potential to permanently injure a person who fails to handle it properly, he said.

    Markey said the lag time in reporting the disappearance of dangerous materials leaves open the possibility they could fall into the hands of terrorists without the government's knowledge.

    "This is a shocking demonstration of the inadequacies of our current tracking system," said Markey, adding that the NRC must immediately improve its system of tracking radioactive material.

    The NRC report indicates the material was trucked to Massachusetts after a Boston label was inadvertently placed on the package at the freight company's Newark, N.J., facility.

    Markey said he will introduce legislation next week requiring the NRC to put a full tracking system in place. The NRC has said it will take several years for a system to be completed.

    Maybe they could learn from USPS, UPS, FEDEX, or any other number of delievery companies how to install fairly reliable tracking systems.  Then it wouldn't take so many years for it to be put in place.  Jeebus, it's been 3 1/2 years since 9/11 and we still can't track packages, especially radioactive ones any better than this?  

  •  Condi's ranking on the Buffalo Beast... (4.00)
    ... the '50 most loathsome people in the US'.  She scores #39.

    Here's their analysis:


    15. Condoleezza Rice

    Crimes: The phrase "politics is show business for ugly people" has never had so fine a foil. Smirks condescendingly at senior Senators when they ask her silly questions about gross negligence in the area of national security. Winner of the Beast award for most likely to make Grover Norquist's dick hard. Promoted for feverishly licking Cheney's boot for four years.

    Smoking Gun: Gets to sleep in the big house now.

    Punishment: thrown into the arctic from the Exxon oil tanker that used to bear her name.

    To my mind, that pretty much says it all.

    These memos just confirm it.  Disgusting.

    For a good laugh - and much righteous anger - you can peruse the site at:

    Buffalo Beast

    Cheers!

    "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." -- Walter Benjamin

    by quaderni on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:02:51 PM PST

  •  Whew (4.00)
    WHEW! Just be glad this didn't come out during the election, or the American people might have known the TRUTH!

    Oh wait...this isn't Talon News..

    The New Democrat

    Envision the future. Visit The New Democrat -http://www.newdemocrat.blogdrive.com

    by demburns on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:06:04 PM PST

    •  No doubt! (4.00)

      Whew, I sure agree with you there!

      Boy, the US media would have done a superb job at analyzing and disseminating this information and I think it would have opened a real honest, critical evaluation of the President's policies at home and abroad.  I also think the American people would have responded to this information and also begun questioning the president's responsibility in 9/11 and even our present involvement in Iraq - and wonder whether 9/11 was just a foil for poorly thought-out plans for a Middle Eastern mandate.

      <ahem>

      "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." -- Walter Benjamin

      by quaderni on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:18:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  think I read an aritcle once (none)
    that in Fugllajah (sp), that since the marines would not let anyone out of their homes and the wounded needed tending to; the drs would go to a spot called mini ers and take care of the pt.  I think it had something to do with the marines not letting people come to the hospital or something like that.
  •  "Just some Terrorist Group?" (4.00)
    Think about that for a minute.  It seems the memo was generated after briefings on al Qida (to use Clarke's spelling).  I imagine the response was that the administration did not really care about "some terrorist group" to devote significant time and resources to combatting it.  Then Clarke writes the above memo to outline the threat, and was still ignored.

    Why else would the threat of OBL and al Qida be outlined under the heading "Just some Terrorist Group?"

  •  Thanks Susan, (4.00)
    Think you should boldface this:  U.S. media haven't got this yet, but Australian papers have:

    What an excellent day for an Exorcism.... Social Security THERE IS NO CRISIS!

    by DianeL on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:15:13 PM PST

    •  That is a Murdoch owned Aussie Newspaper (none)
      Just so you are clear on your impications and emphasis. Mudoch is same guy who owns FOX News.

      Makes us tin-foilers wonder if the Forces of Murdoch are putting out this relatively old-hat story to distract attention from,  or muddy the real bombshell story of the day about the Bushco-suppressed report on that there were at least 52 pre 911 suicide-hijacker warnings inside US(not 1, as Rice had told the 911 commission), that also deals with Rice.

      •  Murdock is an opportunist (none)
        That's all that counts. Look at Sky News in the UK, they are fairly critical of Pro-Bush Tony Blair. The British public however is overwhelmngly anti-Bush.

        Of course Australia and the UK still benefit from a functioning Fourth Estate.

        -B

      •  Good point. (none)
        Or maybe it's the story about N Korea pulling out of talks, saying that they had nukes for self-defense, not quite saying that they were needed because of that no-brain cowboy and his lynch mob in D.C.

        How many more countries are thinking about pursuing the same means. Non-proliferation will soon be an historical artifact and the defense contractors will be even more filthy with lucre.

        The greatest blessing bestowed on a people is the absence of ignorance in public office. - Confucius

        by cavanaghjam on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:08:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Like any propoganda, it's written for an audience. (none)
        Murdoch papers in Australia can write things that Fox news will never cover.  Murdoch doesn't need to prop up the Bush admin in Australia; he just needs to do it stateside.  I'm sure there's lots of spinning and omission that's in the paper, written just for the Aussie audience.
  •  Why was this lady promoted? (3.50)
    "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon."
    •  Rice was promoted (4.00)
      because she lies so well and/or because she follows orders and/or b/c at the end of the day she is not really an inquisitive person and possibly/probably believes everything that her superiors tell her

      and powell was dissed b/c he asked (a few) questions (although not NEARLY enough in my opinion) and b/c he maybe actually knew he was lying (for instance when he gave his bogus UN presentation)

      •  Yup (4.00)
        The distiction you draw between the two is on the money.  With Condi, lying and towing the line has become second nature. Powell, no doubt, has regrets about his U.N. performance and did at the same time pay a price for maintaining an independent point of view.

        Reason may not explain everything but it explains a whole lot.

        by 1world1life on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:04:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  for the record (3.80)
    I purchased the WaPo article by Rice and found that she actually said:

    "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."

    as opposed to:

    "No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration."  

    Full Quote from Rice in WaPo:

    "During the transition, President-elect Bush's national security team was briefed on the Clinton administration's efforts to deal with al Qaeda. The seriousness of the threat was well understood by the president and his national security principals. In response to my request for a presidential initiative, the counterterrorism team, which we had held over from the Clinton administration, suggested several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted. No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."

    This is an easy to mistake to make.  A quick google search shows that when this article is requoted it is often requoted in the manner used for this diary.  I don't doubt that Rice is a liar, or that Clarkes memo's were ignored, but the relationship between the Clarke Memo and the WaPo article does not prove Rice is a liar.  

    Hopefully I don't sound like an asshole, its just that I don't like misinformation because I believe if you tolerate too many factual errors you risk losing your overall legitimacy. But this isn't really a big issue, and the rest of the diary I agree with.

    •  To follow on this (none)
      didn't Clarke say as mcuh druing his testimony (hair on fire)? That was certainly the impression that I got: during the transition, Clarke did his best to warn and prepare the new admin, but they couldn't be bothered (because they had to get Saddam, after all).

      While this memo corroborates Clarke's testimony, if no one cared back then, why is anyone going to care now?

      •  Entertaining friends on the ranch (none)

        Crawford Texas August 25, 2001

        THE PRESIDENT:
           I guess they don't know what it's like to be the President. (Laughter.) I get plenty of quality time with a lot of really good people. Sometimes, it's important to just get away as well.

           Plus, you know, one of the things we miss in Washington is our friends. And they're here. We've got the Weisses here, the Gannons! [Emphasis Ed.] are here, Pam Nelson is here. And we find it really relaxing to sit down on the porch with our buddies and just shoot the breeze. And, you know, it's amazing. You don't have to defend any policy you make. I mean, your friends are your friends. These people were friends of mine before I became President, they'll be friends of mine after I'm the President. And people just take you for what you are.

        Walk with your President

        Bush's Agenda in August 2001 -- the record according to official White House Press Releases.

        In 2005 - Be liberal: Support our Allies of Democracy on Human Rights, the Environment, Gay and Minority Rights & EU and UN Third World Development Programs & Our Friends

        •  Different Gannons (4.00)
          I think.  The first thing I thought of when the whole Gannon affair hit the fan was this article from Harper's a while back.  It's about "The Family," a Christian group that is frightnening to say the least.  Anyway, one of the residents of the home is simply referred to as Gannon, and is said to be the son of a Texas oilman and former aide to Senator Nickles.  It seems that the Texas oilman Gannon is the one Bush referred to, not the Guckert Gannon.
          •  Never meant the reporter! (none)
            Just wanted to underline the coincidence of the name Gannon. The Gannons referred to as friends in Crawford are still unknown to me.

            Recently in diaries plenty of focus on the Gannons as corporation in St. Louis, the relationship with the SBVT smear campaign of Kerry.

            Gannon International and Gannon Technology
            See also article in dKosopedia!

            In 2005 - Be liberal: Support our Allies of Democracy on Human Rights, the Environment, Gay and Minority Rights & EU and UN Third World Development Programs & Our Friends

        •  Please NEVER refer to it as a ranch. (none)
          It was a pig farm until it was bought for Bush in Nov 2000. That's right, his beloved ranch, on which he harvests brush, has only been his for just more than four years. Another example of the SCLM's fine work.
        •  More boffo news from "the pig farm" (none)
          Thanks creve for the link. Turned up some really interesting Bush repartee (yes, I actually read the whole thing):

          I'll work out here until around noon.  We've got three couples as house guests.  Beth, the barber from Austin, is coming out.  She'll want to see this place.  So I'll give her a tour.  I want to look good for the Little League World Series tomorrow.  The Hall of Fame induction ceremony.

               Q    Oh, that's right.

               Q    What were your stats?

               THE PRESIDENT:  You know, I'd better not give them to you, because somebody will dig them out and find that it wasn't accurate.  I was a pretty good player.  I was a catcher, on the Cubs, the Midland Cubs.  As I said, I peaked in Little League.

               Q    Were you Hall of Fame quality?

               THE PRESIDENT:  Little League?  Well, I qualified by the fact that I was the first President ever to play Little League baseball.  I think that's -- you know, first guy to hit 60 home runs, first guy to actually put the uniform on.  What the heck?  What's the difference?

               * * * *

               Q    So how many hours a day are you out here?

               THE PRESIDENT:  About three.  But I've had the full day already.  I got up at 5:45 a.m., read all the stuff I needed to read, and then took off at about 7 a.m. with a little run, got back to the house about 7:45 a.m. and we had a CIA briefing for an hour, and a national security briefing. Both of them took an hour.  Then we came down here and started working. And this will be it.  Probably finish about 12:15 p.m. or so.

               Q    So you're so in your element here.  Are you dreading going back to Washington?

               THE PRESIDENT:  No.  Life is a series of contrasts.  And I like it here a lot, I really do.  And I am in my element here.  We really like it. But I also like -- I wouldn't have run for President if I didn't like the challenge and the give and take and the sense of accomplishment.  Plus, we like living in the White House.  It's a nice place to live, as they say in Crawford.

               Q    I know, but I think when people see you out here, who haven't been to the ranch before -- a lot of us haven't -- now we sort of get it.

               THE PRESIDENT:  Get a feel for it, yes.

               Q    I mean, get why you guys come down here so much.

               THE PRESIDENT:  Well, it's our home, and we love it here.  You know, I'll come back.  Vladimir Putin's coming out here, so I'll be back relatively quickly.  I've got a lot of work to do in Washington.  I'm looking forward to going back.  I've just got a lot to do.  As a matter of fact, I'll be at my desk on Friday, presuming they've got the White House -- the Oval Office refurbish completed.

               * * * *

               Q    Now, do you go hunting on the ranch?

               THE PRESIDENT:  I don't.  I don't hunt deer.  But I do hunt dove, and I have hunted dove.  We don't have any quail.  And I don't want to shoot the turkeys.  I like turkeys.  But we let people come and thin out the deer.  A ranch can overpopulate with deer.  All right, we're moving.

          Here are the things I love about this:

          • "You know, I'd better not give [my little leagues stats] to you, because somebody will dig them out and find that it wasn't accurate." YES! Bush is on record saying he speaks falsehoods given the chance!

          • "Little League?  Well, I qualified by the fact that I was the first President ever to play Little League baseball.  I think that's -- you know, first guy to hit 60 home runs, first guy to actually put the uniform on.  What the heck?  What's the difference?" When in doubt, make something up. First President to play little league? Was he? Does he know?

          • "But I've had the full day already.  I got up at 5:45 a.m., read all the stuff I needed to read, and then took off at about 7 a.m. with a little run, got back to the house about 7:45 a.m. and we had a CIA briefing for an hour, and a national security briefing. Both of them took an hour.  Then we came down here and started working. And this will be it.  Probably finish about 12:15 p.m. or so." A "full day" over at 12:15 p.m.? Perhaps his pay should be adjusted to cover the shortfall. I particularly like that all the reading he needed got done between waking at 5:45 (assume he showers, takes a leak, brushes teeth, dresses, eats and so on) and leaving at 7:00 a.m.

          • "Plus, we like living in the White House.  It's a nice place to live, as they say in Crawford." And noone's going to evict us anytime soon, as long as Karl's on it.

          • " I've got a lot of work to do in Washington.  I'm looking forward to going back.  I've just got a lot to do." Did I mention I had a lot of work to do? And did I also mention that it was hard, it was hard work, it is hard work what we're doing in Washington, we have challenges and they are, well, they are hard work, but it's work that we will do, the hard work.

          -- "I don't hunt deer.  But I do hunt dove, and I have hunted dove.  We don't have any quail.  And I don't want to shoot the turkeys.  I like turkeys." I started hunting dove when I was young--I had heard that doves might have WMDs, and that got me to thinking that perhaps we could bring them freedom and democracy to 'em. Also, doves don't move that fast so I's can shoot 'em real well.

          "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

          by thingamabob on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:11:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Appreciated and fine detail work (none)
            That's my handicap and sometimes gets you a lucky break. Look for the detail with a fine haircomb, that's where a clue is to be found.

            As I recall his main & perhaps only topic for an extended stay in Crawford was his intent to issue his verdict on the stem cell research legislation. It's hard work. No the President is not on holiday, he is actually "working" in Crawford, Tx.

            Condi before the Congressional hearings:
            "No, I was not given an advice what to undertake".
            No one handed her a plan because she didn't have the insight to ask for one. She must be a Dodger fan, dodging the truthful answers the people should have gotten from the NSA, National Security Advisor.

            IMHO Bush shut himself off from real issues and  persons with their hair on fire on the security alerts during his stay in Crawford. So the Vice must have excerted power and was at the reigns in DC, do you think? I still like to know who the Gannons were at the ranch!

            In 2005 - Be liberal: Support our Allies of Democracy on Human Rights, the Environment, Gay and Minority Rights & EU and UN Third World Development Programs & Our Friends

            •  I think it's worse than that (4.00)
              First of all, Condi was the National Security Advisor. I would think that one aspect of their resume which would qualify them for this position was not needing to be told what sorts of things might be of interest to the President in terms of security. Really.

              But as far as Bush shutting himself off from people, I don't think there was anything different about August 2001 from any other time. Bush is a) pretty ignorant, b) incurious, and c) thinks that God'll pass him the necessary information when the time comes. Add to this an NSA who was waiting for a document from the president giving her advice on how to give advice to the president. Add the neo-cons who were pursuing their goals with or without direct support from W. (they had Dick, the real president, anyway). Add to this Karl's strategy of keeping W. as ignorant as possible. We wouldn't want him to look disingenuous when he explained that "if I had known something, I would have acted upon it." And I truly believe he thinks his ignorance on this point is virtuous.

              "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

              by thingamabob on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:29:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  That's what I want to know. (none)
        Why is this some huge big deal? Didn't we already know this?

        -

        I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

        by Volvo Liberal on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:25:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Admittedly (none)
      I could be missing something here, but aren't these plans?

      Also attached to the original Clarke memo are two Clinton-era documents relating to al-Qaeda. The first, "Tab A December 2000 Paper: Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects," was released to the National Security Archive along with the Clarke memo. "Tab B, September 1998 Paper: Pol-Mil Plan for al-Qida," also known as the Delenda Plan, was attached to the original memo, but was not released to the Archive and remains under request with the National Security Council.

      Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act. - Orwell

      by TracieLynn on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:41:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  sorry... (none)
        I didn't catch the attachments at the bottom of the memo the firt time I read it.  Thanks for pointing them out though.    
      •  aeou (none)
        There are a variety of reasons why those attachments might remain classified.  Knowing this administration, it could simply be that they prove embarrasing to Bushco.  The other possibility is that they reveal practices currently in use in a post 9/11 world. To reveal that information could legitimately pose a national security risk -- of course it still begs the question, what might have happened differently if those strategies were enacted back when Richard Clarke wrote the memo.
    •  Contradictio in termino (none)
      "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."

      No Clinton plan would be accepted in the Bush-Cheney administration. This was a stated policy from day zero: November 7, 2000.

      There was a Clinton Peace Plan for the Middle East on the table  -- dumped in nearest basket [wasted].

      George distanced himself from ALL Clinton plans, like water running off the back of a duck stepping out of the pond.

      That was the essence on Condi's defense before the Congressional hearings: the Bush-Cheney gang needed time to formulate their own and new plan. The plans were unfolded soon after the 9-11 attack, what the NeoCons handed them in 1998!

      In 2005 - Be liberal: Support our Allies of Democracy on Human Rights, the Environment, Gay and Minority Rights & EU and UN Third World Development Programs & Our Friends

    •  Memo does include a plan (none)
      Actually, the memo had attached to it the following plan entitled Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects   This plan states the threat scope and history, results to date, and "bringing the strategy to completion - the Next three to five years"  This includes plans to support the northern alliance, attack training camps while in use, launch armed predator drones starting in March, increase funding in counter-terrorism, cutting off their funding, and putting pressure on Pakistan for more support.  This sounds a little like a plan.  Actually it sounds exactly like the plan they followed AFTER we got attacked.
  •  The Reuters Headline on Yahoo... (4.00)
    ...is "New Sept. 11 Report Cites Warnings About Hijackings".

    The problem is that it's not a "new" report. Deeper in the story this refer to it as a "previously undisclosed" report, but the headline makes it sounds like this is something that was just written, rather than old news that has been (successfully) covered up during the election.

    "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." - Bertrand Russell

    by Mad Dog Rackham on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:19:12 PM PST

    •  Yes (4.00)
      We seem to be hearing: ahem, now that DiFi and the rest have confirmed Ms. Rice, and it's too late to prevent her confirmation, we're going to further abuse the populace by informing them of what we've known for quite some time now and pretend (fairly transparently) it's new news.

      What an excellent day for an Exorcism.... Social Security THERE IS NO CRISIS!

      by DianeL on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:33:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The real challenge (none)
    Would be to find a quote where Condiliar Rice told the truth.  Condiliar Rice is an idiot with a record of failure.  Of course, that gets you promoted in this maladministration.
    •  Don't think "idiot" is the right word (none)
      She isn't exactly an "idiot."  She does have a record of failure, probably stemming from a distorted world view.  I'd call her more schizophrenic.
    •  You could ask the same question about (none)
       "Dupya"
      I often ask my right-wing "friends" to tell me one time George W told the truth in the last 4 years-leaves them speechless.  Serial pathological lying and astounding incompentency are the hallmarks of this administration and earns them reelection and promotions. And the CWM and 51% of "Muricans don't give a rats ass-Heh, how 'bout them New England Patriots?
    •  Or is that Neo-Condiliar Rice? (none)
      And how does one capitalize/punctuate that?  

      I guess I could ask Gannon--he's a journalist, right? And he should have lots of free time after he stops his whine-a-palooza tour.

      Seriously, this is outstanding. And it's wonderful that it further vindicates Clarke.

      "It's so nice to be insane, noone asks you to explain."

      by homogenius on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:54:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just One Question - (4.00)

    Will the Washington Post be printing a retraction or a correction
  •  Al-Qaeda's Doctrine of pre-emption (4.00)
    .
    WH Knew A Conflict Was About To Unfold

    I believe that without an attack on NY, the Neocons were preparing for battle with Taliban--Al Qaeda and an invasion of Iraq to get grips on the important Oil resources in explosive Middle-East region.

    First you need chaos to happen, Bush didn't engage in the Israeli conflict to finish the deal on the table set up by Bill Clinton well into Januari 2001.

    Bush&Co were aware of a possible attack, but wrongly estimated it would be able to manage the damage. What the Cabal didn't calculate in was utter gravity of the attack and the devastation with great loss of life.

    The frozen moment of Bush in Florida has always intrigued me, trying to interpret his inaction. Could it have been an unfolding scenario of the expected attack. Upon hearing the extent of a multiple plane attack, he scared off to a secret location at an AF base in Nebraska, leaving the nation at a moment of siege.

    My past diary was a search for the rationale, I knew the truth would never come forward by an incomplete report of the 9-11 commission.

    The title of my diary:
    9/11 was pre-emptive strike on US  

    Prelude to 9/11 attack on United States - a plan by Russia, Iran and India to strike Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The Massoud connection in Panjsher valley is important to India and Kashmir.

    My hypothesis: the attack on NY and Washington was a pre-emptive strike by the Taliban and al-Qaida!

    In the post-war scenario unfolding, see who got the appointments as ambassador in Bagdad and Kabul, a torture expert and an oil man respectively.

    I was still working on an addition, but the truth may be unfolding quicker. The management of the Lie House are showing cracks at last.

    In 2005 - Be liberal: Support our Allies of Democracy on Human Rights, the Environment, Gay and Minority Rights & EU and UN Third World Development Programs & Our Friends

    •  Pearl Harbor (4.00)
      The neo-cons said in 1998 they needed a Pearl Harbor style attack on the U.S. to attain their goals.

      Wake up, Watson. The game is afoot! -- Sherlock Holmes. (The sig is changed in honor of the great work done by Kossacks in the Gannon-Plame investigation.)

      by Carnacki on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:50:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Excuse me but, (4.00)
        those fuckers.  Of course they just let it happen.  Where was NORAD?  They could be up in the air in 10 minutes for Payne Stewart's plane but not for an attack on the country?  It's always smelled bad.

        Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act. - Orwell

        by TracieLynn on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:29:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Who said this and where? (4.00)
        Sorry, but again, I can't wrap  my brain around the fact that they really would have allowed this to happen.

        If they are that power-hungry to sacrifice 3000 plus innocents, then my God, what monsters has America created?

        "Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone."--Thomas Jefferson

        by hopesprings on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:39:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  oops I misposted above (none)
          Look in above  post for the link to the document. Do a search within the document to find the reference.

          "Not all who wander are lost"

          by mysticl on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:41:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm turning into a real pariah on this subject... (none)
          but the PNAC report "Rebuilding America's Defenses." that references Pearl Harbor is not the smoking gun that alot of people claim it to be.

          If you look at the actual quote, which I am too lazy to google, the authors actually said that any transformation of the military was likely to be slow, in the absence of a catastrophic "new Pearl Harbor".

          They didn't say they "needed" a new Pearl Harbor, or that an attack on the US would be desirable in any way.  It doesn't mean they didn't think this way, but it's a far cry from cunclusive evidence.

          "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

          by WAmod on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 10:37:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  June 27, 2001 -- News Item in Israeli Pers (none)
          READ MY DIARY -- published in december.
          .
          Chareidi Shema Yisrael
          NEWS
          Is Bin Laden Planning New Attacks Soon?

          June 27, 2001 by Yated Ne'eman Staff -- The London-based Arabic satellite channel Middle East Broadcasting Corp. reported that followers of bin Laden, based in Afghanistan, were planning an attack on American and Israeli "interests" within the next few weeks.

          In 2005 - Be liberal: Support our Allies of Democracy on Human Rights, the Environment, Gay and Minority Rights & EU and UN Third World Development Programs & Our Friends

    •  New pearl harbor (4.00)
      This PDF document refers to the need for a new pearl harbor it's mentioned twice. The first time on page 63. I believe this is where the quote comes from but I cannot verify that at this time.

      Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century  A Report of the Project for the New American Century September 2000

      "Not all who wander are lost"

      by mysticl on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:38:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  for thought (none)
    I would also like to know if the 52 warnings were not precise or substantial enough to act on, then why are we now wasting all this time and money on ridiculous safety measures that aren't really protecting anyone?  a cost/benefit analysis would simply not support the labor it costs to check every little old lady that flies to see their grandchildren.  If an attack happens despite all of the "security" measures, what have we accomplished? Nothing.  People shouldn't dwell on it.  I think I saw a statistic somewhere that if a terrorist attacked one mall a day for a year the likelyhood of a person actually being affected by it was as small as getting in a car accident.
  •  Bush administration (4.00)
    You know, this administration is really pissing me off with their incompetence and lies. I don't know if I've ever mentioned that before or gotten the gist of it across.

    Wake up, Watson. The game is afoot! -- Sherlock Holmes. (The sig is changed in honor of the great work done by Kossacks in the Gannon-Plame investigation.)

    by Carnacki on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:49:39 PM PST

    •  Omnicom & PR contracts (none)
      A nice and comprehensive article on how to compensate deceit and lies with $$$.
      Spinning Media for Government
      by Chris Raphael, Special to CorpWatch
      February 10th, 2005

      A television pundit gets secret payments to promote a new United States government education policy. Columnists are paid to provide support for a White House marriage stance. Actresses play news reporters to promote drug laws. A system of ranking reporters who criticise official policy.

      These, and possibly many other public relations stunts, are some examples of publicity contracts paid for by the U.S. government, which has spent more than a quarter billion dollars on public relations in the past four years.

      [...]

       In 2005 - Be liberal: Support our Allies of Democracy on Human Rights, the Environment, Gay and Minority Rights & EU and UN Third World Development Programs & Our Friends

  •  the real memogate (4.00)
    and not the Rather one where Rove used his dirty tricks. If this is legit, and it certainly seems so in every way, it must stick. Stick, stick, stick. Snowball and stick. Repeat after me: this could be the one, the HTGS (honest to god scandal) that finally brings the house of cards down. The timing is right, and Gannongate was just the beginning. Chimpeachment is not just a dream. From this keyboard and from all our kossack keyboards to history, please.

    stick and snowball: either metaphor will do

    •  Jeff Gannon gets WH pre-release (none)
      Who in the White House gave Jeff Gannon a pre-release before the official Press Release??

      My case presented

      (Talon News webpage has now gone missing - a cache version should be available)

      Pre-release with 3 typo errors made visible:

      [1st] ü Strengthening Medicare. President Bush signed legislation in 2003

      .
      Official White House Press Release

      [1st]  em>Strengthening Medicare. President Bush signed legislation in 2003

      Read carefully full comment via link.

      In 2005 - Be liberal: Support our Allies of Democracy on Human Rights, the Environment, Gay and Minority Rights & EU and UN Third World Development Programs & Our Friends

  •  9/11 is her fault (none)
    Get her out NOW!

    John Kerry 2008, the leader of the youth of America.

    by desiunion on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:54:59 PM PST

    •  she's just a pawn (none)
      get her bosses before her: she does what she's told.

      don't let them sacrifice her or roe or rummy:

      cheney and bush are the ones

      and my gut has always told me cheney holds the keys to the castle

      •  thats true (none)
        But her name is on the paper, and I want her gone, no matter who else goes with her! Bush, Cheney, all those assholes!

        John Kerry 2008, the leader of the youth of America.

        by desiunion on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:16:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  think about the second plane (none)
          Think about all those people who died when the second plane hit. It could have been stopped, but due to incompetence, or something more sinister, it wasnt! Get those fucks out now!

          John Kerry 2008, the leader of the youth of America.

          by desiunion on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:18:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Condi (none)
        Condi is not just a pawn,  She is intelligent and demonic.  She is yet another new American centrist with a degree in Cold War politics--just itching for her own brand of enduring freedom.  Besides, she is able to spin reporters like no one else.  

        People have been impeached or forced out for lesser lies.  

        •  Condi Lied (4.00)
          You mean, Condi lied again. And that's the awful thing...will anyone care? I doubt it. The White House unspoken rejoinder is, So what! Colin Powell lied...so what? George W. Bush lied...so what? Condi lies again...so what? Rove, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Frist, Hastert, Lott, lie and lie and lie...so what?

          With all the baloney being tossed around about values and children this, children that...what about teaching children to lie? Is that a so what?

          Yeah, I know...I'm preaching to the choir...but we here in the Dem choir don't say, So what!!!!

          (http://ratfuckdiary.blogspot.com)

  •  will anyone care? (none)
    especially when we'll be worrying about iraq/iran/north korea/boston or whatever.

    "Will we be Coca-colonized?" - L'Humanite

    by jokeysmurf on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:23:15 PM PST

  •  So (none)
    Is this just the concrete proof that she lied and it is now offically out of the realm of he said-she said stuff?

    Is that why it's a big deal?

    I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

    by Volvo Liberal on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:29:16 PM PST

  •  Slight Correction Warranted (none)
    Not to be picky here, but CondiLiar actually wrote the following in the WP:

    "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."

    She does not appear to have said:  

    "No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration"

    Unfortunately, her statement in the WP at least, is not disputed by this memo (which calls for a meeting because of a threat).

    •  I might be missing (none)
      something here, but aren't these plans?

      Also attached to the original Clarke memo are two Clinton-era documents relating to al-Qaeda. The first, "Tab A December 2000 Paper: Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects," was released to the National Security Archive along with the Clarke memo. "Tab B, September 1998 Paper: Pol-Mil Plan for al-Qida," also known as the Delenda Plan, was attached to the original memo, but was not released to the Archive and remains under request with the National Security Council.

      Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act. - Orwell

      by TracieLynn on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:44:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's the third time this wrong assertion (4.00)
      has been mentioned.  The plan was attached.  But Rice still won't release the 'plan.'
  •  Well (none)
    I've heard... rumorsontheinternets.com

    "In such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners." -Albert Camus.

    by BrianL on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:34:14 PM PST

  •  Godamnit! (4.00)
    I am so fucking tired of these people and the petty games they play with human lives and the future of our country.

    Every damn day at work it's like banging my head against a brick wall with them.

    • In late 1990, Bush 41 pooh-poohed our concerns that Islamist fundamentalism would become the dominant global security threat over the next decade, writing it off as some sort of pro-Israel slant (it wasn't).
    • In late 1994, our identification of Osama bin Laden as potentially the single most dangerous man in the world was met with the dismissal that he was a wealthy Saudi playboy who lacked convictions and expertise and that no one who was truly fervent in their belief of radical islam would follow him.
    • In February 2001, the current Bush Administration told us that we had our priorities wrong and that the greatest threats were 1) state-sponsors of terror (Iraq, Syria and Iran) and 2) ICBMs from North Korea (pronounced: "China").
    • Even in the aftermath of September 11th, when they whole-heartedly admit that we were right on the money (unfortunately), they blow-off our insistence that in order to win the ideological conflict between modernity and radical Islam (of which terrorism and totalitarianism are largely symptoms), we must encourage moderate (pronounced: "non-Saudi funded")  education reform and economic revitalization.

    To them, it's all a big political game of checkers (chess requires too much long-term strategy). They never look past the Congressional election cycle or the bottom line financials.

    (Yes, I am faulting both sides, but the Republicans and the Bush Administration, in particular, shoulder the lion's share of the blame.)

    A voice of objective reason in the partisan sea of the U.S. National Security community.

    by mustang dvs on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:34:35 PM PST

  •  I'm wondering... (none)
    how this memo ever even got released?  

    They're pretty dang good at supressing info over there in the Regime.  How did this get out?

  •  9/11 FAA Failings on the WEB (4.00)

    National Security Archive Update, February 10, 2005

    9/11 COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ON FAA FAILINGS
    PUBLISHED ON WEB
    Document Updates Previous Archive Posting on Censorship of Aviation
    Warnings Leading up to 9/11

    In 2005 - Be liberal: Support our Allies of Democracy on Human Rights, the Environment, Gay and Minority Rights & EU and UN Third World Development Programs & Our Friends

  •  MemoGate 2.0 (4.00)
    I'm not falling for this shit again.  So I took a good hard look at the original image.

    http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/memo5.jpg

    I then got out my Dick Tracy Young Detective kit and gave it a good hard look.  It's obviously a fake.

    • The document is typed in Courier font.  Yet the date says 2001.  As we all know, Courier is a relic of the olden days, all modern stuff is typed in New Times Roman.
    • It keeps misspelling Al Qaeda as Al Qida.  I did a quick search of google, and Qida is a domain name for sale with proports to be the top terrorism site on the internet.
    • The second hit for Qida is the Wuxi Qida Tape Co.  What do they make?  Tape, like what you'd use to cover your windows during a chemical attack!
    • Obviously someone is trying to make money from this document by selling domain names and protective tape!

    No, clearly this is a forgery, for this and so many other reasons.

    Oh yeah, and I'm in Minneapolis just like those Powerline guys!  So I know what I'm talking about.  Or at least I will be in Minneapolis tomorrow, today I'm in San Francisco, but you can't prove I'm not!

    "If any question why we died, Tell them, because our fathers lied." - Rudyard Kipling, 1918

    by Steve4Clark on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:29:46 PM PST

  •  So, Susan (4.00)
    Did you yell, "YES!" when you saw this?  I about cried when I read it.  For the past few years, I've felt like I was in some bizarre movie where I and a relative handful of people knew the truth.  There have been several times where I've thought, "This is it.  The shades will fall from the public's eyes with this revelation."  I feel like I've been being gaslighted.

    Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act. - Orwell

    by TracieLynn on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:54:19 PM PST

  •  Susan Hu you rock (none)
    ...but I apologize, so many things have been breaking today and I've been trying to catch snippets of everything from work.

    Can someone summarize for me what this all means?

    It seems Randi Rhodes was intimating that the admin. knew that the attacks were iminent and let them happen?

    Excuse me, but that's a tinfoil hat theory that I need clarification on before I can wrap my mind about it.

    "Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone."--Thomas Jefferson

    by hopesprings on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:36:50 PM PST

  •  Fried Rice (none)
    More background on Rice's dissembling and prevarications here.
  •  Mrs. Rice Bush (none)
    Mrs. Rice Bush lied, lied about not lying and is still lying, while she smiles and lies through the teeth, flashing lying smiles. The U.S. has no secretary of state because she cannot command enough respect as the president's chief political consort.
  •  Can't be.... (none)
    Whenever someone mentions Chenney's possible
    connection to 9/11 I start to think about all the
    ...honorable...things...he ...has.....done....in
    government....service....

    "Together we will stand, every boy, girl, woman
    and a man."

  •  Diary whore (none)

    The Oval Office: Because there are no corners, there is nowhere to make the President sit when he has shamed the nation.

    by BooMan23 on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 12:09:27 AM PST

  •  Ignoring this (none)
    in all it's specificity points to intentionaly allowing the hit to have the Pearl harbor event necessary to advance the neocon agenda.
  •  Aug. 11, 2001 (4.00)
    Hi, Kossacks. This is my second post. Let me tell you a true story. On Aug. 11, 2001, I was at the World Trade Center. It was Sunday and it was a drizzly day. My girlfriend and I were there to try and get Broadway tickets. The lines were very long. She kept going out onto the plaza to smoke. Outside, while looking at the now-destroyed 1993 memorial, I said to her: "I don't understand why people don't think they will try to do it again. They won't use truck bombs again because it didn't work the first time." I was very frustrated with American complacency and escapism and had often lectured about it to my students. I looked up at the buildings and imagined missiles and airplanes hitting it, and how the buildings would damage everything below. We did not go up to eat at Windows on the World because she felt uneasy about the elevators. I still have the umbrella I bought at the mall beneath the WTC (as well as a copy of "Sexy New York City 2001," but that's another issue).

    This was the weekend after the Friday of the infamous PDB: "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S."

    I was ON VACATION. I teach ART HISTORY. I saw it coming; how the hell did our elected leaders NOT?? Or why did they refuse to?

    Involved or Complicit or Incompetent or Negligent is almost beside the point. Why are these people still in power?
    (Should this be a diary?)

  •  The State of the Union -- June 2001 (none)
    Just like you, I didn't read through my old diary until just now!
    I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the links and info I used.
    I would like to share with you my very last comment (6x all total to diary) that I added:

    Osama and pre-emptive strike on US (none / 0)
    .
    The Afghani threat: bin Laden vows to attack Israel
    By Ellis Shuman June 25, 2001  

    Saudi dissident terrorist Osama bin Laden tried recently to carry out a terrorist attack against Israel and will allegedly make another attempt in the near future. OC Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Amos Malka revealed in an interview on Israel's Channel 2 television on Saturday night that "Bin Laden has tried, will try to reach us, and may even reach us here in Israel."

    Malka said that bin Laden "will try to make use of various countries around us from which to penetrate [into Israel], and he will try various creative means." Malka refused to give details of the terrorist's attempt to infiltrate Israel a few months ago, other than to say, "He tried to carry out an attack that was thwarted."

    Malka's words came after a broadcast this weekend of
    Arabic satellite channel Middle East Broadcasting (MBC) reported that followers of bin Laden, based in Afghanistan, were planning an attack on American and Israeli "interests" within the next few weeks.


           [Emphasis added Ed.]

    We must now assume Bush [extended vacation on ranch August 2001] and NSA Condi Rice took words of Taleban FM on face value. Or else ...?

    MY DIARY - 9/11 was pre-emptive strike on US
    - [Poll added]

    Be Liberal, Be Free Especially Amongst Family And Friends

    by creve coeur on Sat Dec 25th, 2004 at 17:42:37 EST

  •  Burying the lead (none)
    They are trying to burry all this new 9/11 stuff in the flurry building around Gannon.
  •  Well, in my opinion (none)
    She lied because had she (they....the whole chimpy administration) admitted they all knew, then that would mean they would have had to do something about it, which  means that maybe 9/11 wouldn't have ever happened. Which of course means that their whole reason for going to war would be up in smoke.

    "Suppression of a political opinion leads to it's violent expression".

    by JenD on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 04:56:32 AM PST

  •  The Gannon issue... (none)
    seems to be playing right into their hands by drowing out more substantive issues.
  •  Someone already e mailed Olberman about this? (none)
    Seems like he's the best bet to get it into the SCLM at the moment.
  •  Jumping to the end of the thread... (none)
    Is there not a practice or application in law in which culpability and/or liability can be assigned through demonstrated inaction, as in "You are walking down the street and a man approaches you and asks you to take the pills in his hand and give him one.  You refuse and he dies."  

    That little tort is probably full of holes, but I think you get my point.

    Inaction, I believe, can result in legal liability.

    Please visit my webby, www.stumpysfindings.com. A friend said, "I feel like I've entered a slick modern museum of cool stuff."

    by stumpy on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 05:24:33 AM PST

    •  the word you're looking for is negligence (none)
      Criminal Negligence.

      The reason Clinton took these threats seriously, aside from perhaps actually having a shred of decency and responsibility, is they knew they would be crucified if they let some Islamic fundies attack us on our own soil.

      The Bush crowd knew the rules are different for them.  Of course they went into cover-up mode toute suite, but they knew they could frame the debate anyway they liked.  So they ignored the whole thing and went about their work on cutting "death" taxes for the next generation of our pampered, ne'er-do-well overlords.  

      Let's stop giving them a pass because they were merely incompetent.  Of course the memoirs of former Bush insiders paint a picture of an administration inept at anything other than Mayberry Machiavellian politics.  So even if they were interested in stoping 9/11, I don't think they would have known where to start.  That doesn't let them off the hook for not even trying.

  •  This is why (4.00)
    I can RELY on Daily Kos to get the REAL information.

    Thank you all for having INTEREST in OUR government and country.

  •  I read the memo (none)
    very closely.  Can someone point out to me where in the memo a threat is implied?  All I see is a suggestion to get together to determine if maybe there is a threat.

    From the context of this letter, a definable threat would be a 3rd derivative function.

    Or am I not reading enough into what is written?

    •  That Came Later (none)
      Condi lied about the fact that Clarke had warned her.
    •  Condi also denied that there was a plan (none)
      handed over by the Clinton administration.

      But let's also add some context from early 2001:

      The FAA began receiving its string of 52 intel reports about the threat to domestic airliners and this names al Quaida.

      By Feb./March 2001, al Quaida had been linked to the bombing of the USS Cole.

      The Hart/Rudman report on terrorism is presented which warns of a terrorist attack, not "if" but when, and names al Quaida.

      The FBI and CIA get streams of intel and warnings that an attack is imminent.  Since those reports are still classified by Bush, we don't know exactly how many, but I'd wager there's more than 52 reports.  Something that would cause senior officials to run around "with their hair on fire."

      The NSA begins to see a dramatic rise in "chatter" in February.  

      From her briefings with Sandy Berger and the outgoing national security team, Condi is warned about al Quaida.  Couple those first briefings with all of the above and I think, one would have to conclude that the matter of a threat should be taken seriously.

      She should be fired for incompetence and prosecuting for lying about it.

  •  Big News Story and... (none)
    The Sun Rose from the East Today as well.

    Lieing does not seem to matter to 51% of this country anymore as long as you are not a Democrat.

  •  I'm guessing (none)
    the White House response will begin with the words,"How dare he..." They love to sound self-rightious. It works so well in the heartland. Bush and Condi's approval ratings will certainly go up in Fox polls. Man, how I wish I was kidding!

    Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

  •  Damn that's a good post (none)
    That's all.
  •  The memo finally appears on cnn.com (none)
    here

    Or, rather, a brief mention of it, not the memo itself. Naturally, CNN's "coverage" of the issue has all the depth of a kiddie wading pool.

    He has oil. He tried to kill my daddy.

    by kensa on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:35:12 AM PST

  •  Let me get this straight (none)
    Aussies know more about our government than we do these days.

    Oh, boy.

    That's just effing great.

  •  I still don't see it (none)
    What was the warning Clarke provided?  Is it in the memo?  Is the memo shown in its entirety?

    All I read is a suggestion that a study be undertaken to ascertain whether or not there is a threat.

    Is this not what the memo says?  Where does a warning fall out of these words?  

    I want to understand what is going on, but in this case, the proof doesn't seem to support the assertion.  At least I don't see it.  Without reading in-between the lines and interpreting the memo in a way to support the desired assertion, it doesn't hold water.

    I hope DailyKOS will adhere to higher standards then Washington DC and the MSM and not spin.

  •  Sorry, but she obviously didn't lie (none)
    The memo is about a group call al Qida, not al Qaeda. So see, per Bush language code paragraph 13, she testified truthfully.
  •  Who (none)
    has demonstrably gained from 9/11 happening? Answer that simple question and you will find who was involved in it. Don't be surprised if several cliques seemed to have benefited. Alliances (even of enemies) are quite common.
  •  But (none)
    there is no warning in the memo.  It is a suggestion that a group be formed to conduct a study.  Presumably, the result of that study would determine whether or not a threat might exist.

    There may be a memo somewhere in Washington today suggesting that a group be formed to look into the activities of the "Vermont Cuddly Teddy Bear Brigade".  By the logic being employed here, this memo would be tantamount to a warning that the "Vermont Cuddly Teddy Bear Brigade" is going to attack and we should be prepared.  

    The interim step of determining if a threat actually exists becomes superfluous.  The mere assertion becomes sufficient to support a desired conclusion.

    I come to this site to get information.  But if what I read doesn't seem to make sense, I would like to be enlightened.  This sounds too much like spin to me.  If not, help me make sense of it all with some words that are definitive rather than subjective.  

  •  As declassification of Bush documents occurs (none)
    I'm sure we'll get more and more outright evidence that senior members of the administration have irrefutebly lied, not parsed words, but lied about grave matters of national security.  

    They lied under oath
    They lied to Congress
    They lied to the media
    They lied to foreign and world bodies

    These are not lies about whether or not someone has committed adultery, these are lies that have now put the health and safety of the country in jeopardy.

    Someone needs to demand an indictment.

  •  They are quoting this diary on AAR (none)
    Liz and Racheal are reading the Clark memo on the air and crediting DKos!

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." ~ Gandhi

    by mad ramblings of a sane woman on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:25:30 AM PST

  •  no penalty? (none)
    is there no penalty in today's Alice In Wonderland world for lying to Congress. Can Condi Barbie Doll not be re-called?
  •  Well (none)
    I'll await some definitive, rather that interpretative, proof.  Until then, Michael Jackson is innocent and Condi did not lie.

    This type of multiple derivative condemnation reminds me of the inane deficit battle years ago.  They were attacking a 4th derivative factor.  They were not attempting to reduce the deficit, nor were they trying to reduce the growth of the deficit, they were trying to reduce the rate of acceleration at which the deficit was increasingly increasing.

    If successful, the deficit would have continued to increase, it would have continued increasing faster, but the rate at which it was increasing faster would be less.

    But the postings here assume that a suggestion for a study constitutes a warning predicated upon an assumed outcome of the study.  If this makes sense to you, your are wiser folks than I.

    I think I'll wait for the book.

    •  Derivative Proof? (none)
      WTF?  Are you saying you think she just forgot?

      What is this the Steve Martin IRS defense?

      •  No, No, No (none)
        The memo presented contains a recommendation to form a group to look into a potential threat.  This does not constitute a warning.

        It there is a warning in this memo, what is it and where is it?

        To me, if the group formed, met and reached a threatening conclusion, a potential threat could only then be identified.  Not at the time at which the meeging was suggested.

        •  warning (none)
          She said she was not given this information from the previous administration, which obviously did.  You may not see a specific "Warning" in here. But the 9/11 report said the FAA issued 52!! of them.
  •  The nature of intelligence... (none)
    is to be extremely guarded in how and what intelligence is presented, but to attempt to provide enough verifiable information to allow the reader to draw the correct conclusion.  wbramble seems to not be aware of that last step as it is the essential role of not only the National Security Advisor, but also anyone in authority who reads such intelligence.

    Please visit my webby, www.stumpysfindings.com. A friend said, "I feel like I've entered a slick modern museum of cool stuff."

    by stumpy on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 10:29:34 AM PST

  •  Saw McClellen on CSPAN (none)
    Someone asked him whether Dr. Rice lied to the 9/11 comission. He contradicted the report and restated the Bush Administration talking points on the subject. The reporter asked him a second time and he again repeated the party line. The reported asked him a third time and he said that he hadn't had a chance to look the report over so he would have to do that before he could respond. He asserted that the talking points were accurate.

    I got a pretty clear impression that he hadn't read the memo, hadn't been briefed on the memo, took the official word as truth, and was totally blindsided. Seems a bit curious to me, but hey! I'm not complaining.

    Anyway, just keeping tabs on this as it flows through the media. This is all from memory so it might be slightly inaccurate.

    The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

    by Shapeshifter on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:08:45 PM PST

  •  Pop (none)
    What jumps out at me from Clarke's memo is his resisting the new administration's plan to review the threats to the US on a region by region basis.  Clarke points out that this very template will be the cause of Al Quaida slipping through the cracks.

    The reason this pops out at me is that it is indicative of the Bush administration's approach to its entire rule: they have a template for analysis, and we will make everything conform to that template, experts and evidence be damned.  In their minds, it is how strong leadership is implemented, and to them (and me), the American people want just one thing from GWB: strong leadership.  Policy and results be damned.

    If you look carefully, you'll see this same approach over and over again.  It is a way of being out in front of issues, rather than responding to them, which in Bush land is the weakest form of leadership -- and sadly for us, the Democrats specialty.

    Bush & Co. figured out a while back that the public wants a government that seems to know what it's doing.  When all we can do is react to unfolding events, they are setting a positive agenda.  Until we start to do the same (but obviously in the name of good, not evil), we will remain in the opposition.

Meteor Blades, Felix Deutsch, Leslie in CA, jaydfwtx, thirdparty, N in Seattle, reef the dog, Manhattan Dan, Paolo, slappy, Tripleg, Alumbrados, shari, paradox, RobertInWisconsin, Doug in SF, Madman in the marketplace, KeithH, Athena, pb, CTDem2, Irfo, James Benjamin, musing graze, taylormattd, Lush, lapin, sheba, scarshapedstar, kate mckinnon, leftcoast, justaphase29, Trendar, cracklins, Adam B, moon in the house of moe, SenatorX, Haus, RHunter, santoriello, runchadrun, Kimberly Stone, Joan McCarter, Southern Bird, Gooserock, joeltpatterson, AntiHero, mem from somerville, Reino, palooza, deadguy, jjc4jre, greenbird, maineiac, Citizen Clark, sjct, ortcutt, doug r, bornadem, Lipstick Liberal, WAmod, eoglesby, JaneKnowles, celdd, benchcoat, Romberry, candace in sonoma, shetquaker, HootieMcBoob, akreit, Page van der Linden, DFWmom, Lawyer to Capitalists, lawnorder, caliberal, Muboshgu, Carnacki, Newsie8200, Liberalpalooza, up2date, bumblebums, ray z, Poika, mraker, StevetheWeave, brianxucla, silence, sclminc, Plan9, Lisafr, RubDMC, humbucker, undersiege, rasbobbo, darcyh, mlafleur, Cho, EvieCZ, concernedamerican, 1040SU, kwinz, bronte17, dianem, segmentis, TracieLynn, DrKate, ProfessorX, daisy democrat, bonddad, guyute16, elveta, Susan1138, sfgb, Baldwiny, demokath, wanderindiana, SLJ, cosmic debris, exhausted by the spin, political, buckhorn okie, moiv, kurejara, luaptifer, fieldsey, khloemi, Frederick Clarkson, allysonsta, MisterOwl, michelina, Ignacio Magaloni, murphsurf, sgilman, CodeTalker, jbeach, Pulp300, MJB, plain dealing, Shaniriver, frightwig, Nate Roberts, ctsteve, Gonzophile, navajo, arkdem, Cedwyn, antirove, slb, Georgia Logothetis, Yil, hopesprings, Sirocco, Nag, hopewell, rcvanoz, NYC Sophia, Dallasdoc, astrodud, Miss Jones, missliberties, creve coeur, coldwynn, MKS, Nancy in LA, DianeL, Febble, mad ramblings of a sane woman, jennifergr, susie dow, TXsharon, desiunion, Andrea inOregon, deselby, cdelia, Red State Refugee, wdrath, OuijaBoy, GN1927, chantedor, aureas, antoinette from NYC, dnn, horsewithnoname, sommervr, Earl, Democratic Hawk, Brother Artemis, firetop, DMiller, RN in NYC, greenknight, reform dem, seaside, Noisy Democrat, VerbalMedia, Burton Halli, jj32, Sembtex, sublimn, mattes, retired, fran1, acheck10, Steven D, Terps Fan, HK, notcho, guy smiley

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site