Skip to main content

With the release of the 1/25/01 memo from Richard Clarke, and the revelation that the FAA released 52 seperate warnings to airlines about the threat of hijacking (including suicide hijacking) we have more evidence that the Bush administration was more aware of the threat than they have ever admitted. So, once more I ask, how did the President assume that a crash into the WTC by Flight 11 was an accident? When Bush called Dr. Rice just before entering a classroom of children to read a book about a Pet Goat, he claims to have said, "that sure sounds like one terrible pilot." Why didn't Dr. Rice disabuse him of this innocent assumption? Below the fold, is an excerpt of an article I wrote on this subject. It was never published because as I was negotiating terms, Richard Clarke released his book and testified before the 9/11 Commission. That spiked my story. I apologize for the condensed format. In a cut and paste format I cannot get this bugger to behave properly. Footnotes are at the end.

The Official Line On the morning of 9/11, the President was in Sarasota, Florida. Just before 9:00 AM he arrived at the Emma E. Booker Elementary School to hold an event extolling the good work the school was doing teaching second-graders to read. He later recounted his arrival for Bill Sammon, the Senior White House correspondent for the Washington Times. Before heading in, he was getting a last second reminder on how the event was choreographed. As he and his personal assistant, Blake Gottesman, went through the details they were interrupted by Bush's chief of staff, Andy Card, who said, "By the way, an aircraft flew into the World Trade Center."1 The North Tower of the World Trade Center had been struck about thirteen minutes earlier (8:46:26 AM) while Bush was riding in his limousine. The aircraft was American Airlines' Flight 11, presumably with Mohammed Atta at the helm. CNN had been broadcasting footage of the wounded tower belching smoke since 8:48, but this, Bush told Sammon, was the first he had heard of it. How did the President react? "And my first reaction was - as an old pilot - how could the guy have gotten so off course to hit the towers? What a terrible accident that is. The first report I heard was a light airplane, twin-engine airplane."2 That is but one of the official stories, from the President's own mouth, about how he first learned and reacted to the news that an aircraft had struck one of the Twin Towers. There have been others, which agree in some respects and not in others. However, the essentials have remained the same. According to Bush, he was unaware that a plane had hit the World Trade Center for roughly eleven minutes after CNN began reporting it. He was unaware that any commercial planes had been hijacked. His information was that it was "a light airplane, twin-engine airplane." That Bush was not overly concerned about this is confirmed by the offhand way that he recalls being informed. "By the way" Andy Card told him. He then proceeded into a holding room inside the school to take a call from his National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice. After listening to her analysis, Rice remembers Bush replying, "what a terrible, it sounds like a terrible accident. Keep me informed."3 Skeptics have latched onto these claims and questioned their plausibility. But the President has put his own logs on the fire of controversy by giving contradictory accounts.
Bush's Tells a Different Story in Town Hall Meetings On December 4th, 2001 at a town hall meeting in Orlando, Florida, Bush was asked about how he first learned about a crash at the WTC and how he reacted. He explained: "I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it." A month later, at a town hall meeting in Ontario, California Bush recalled: "Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff--well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or--anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack." These two town hall explanations are basically the same, but they disagree with the story he told Bill Sammon. He told Sammon that he was informed by Andy Card before he entered the school as he was talking to Blake Gottesman. In the town hall versions he was informed by watching the first crash happen on a television monitor inside the school. There were four planes that crashed on 9/11, but only one of them was captured on live television. That plane, Flight 175, crashed into the South Tower at 9:02:54 after the President had walked into the classroom. It was while the President was sitting in the classroom listening to children read that Andy Card interrupted (at approximately 9:07) and informed Bush about the second plane. His reaction was captured on tape and replayed repeatedly in subsequent days. The only footage of Flight 11 crashing into the North Tower twenty-one minutes earlier, was captured by French filmmaker Jules Naudet, while he was making a documentary about a probationary firefighter in lower Manhattan. That footage did not air on television until September 12th. So, it is a physical impossibility that President Bush "had seen (a) plane fly into the first building", either while he was sitting outside the classroom or when he was walking into it. If the President actually saw Flight 11 crash into the North Tower, he did so on a monitor in his limousine, and why he would have been watching a live feed of the WTC at 8:46 AM is a question with no innocent answer. Perhaps Bush was merely embellishing his story to make it more interesting. It is also possible, in the rush of events, he formed an imperfect memory. Columnist Stephanie Schorow commented on this for the Boston Herald: "Will you ever forget the moment you first heard about the Sept. 11 attacks? That moment will be a marker for a generation, the moment the world changed. For an earlier generation, the marker was hearing that John F. Kennedy had been assassinated. For this generation, it will be how and when they heard about the first plane striking the World Trade Center. Memories of that moment remain posted on the Web, fodder for future historians. Which is why, ever since the oneyear anniversary, various Web citizens have been puzzling and arguing over President George W. Bush's recollection of the first moments of Sept. 11."4 More than just Web citizens are puzzling, because the pieces don't fit together. The two versions are mutually exclusive. While this may not be evidence of a grand conspiracy, it does suggest that the President dissembled about one of the most important moments of his life and the history of the nation. As with a sworn witness at trial, the President's inconsistent testimony in one area can shed doubt about his credibility in other areas. All of Bush's recollections, as well as those of other administration official's, have agreed at least in this: no one told him about an "accident" at the WTC until after he arrived at the school (between 8:55-8:59). Many people are skeptical about that assertion. In an open letter to the President, 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani wrote: "On the morning of the attack, you and members of your staff were fully aware of the unfolding events yet you chose to continue on to the Emma E. Booker Elementary School to proceed with a scheduled event and "photo op". While our nation was under attack you did not appear to blink an eye or shed a tear. You continued on as if everything was "business as usual"."
What Did the President Know and When Did He Know It? The President had arrived in Florida on September 10th, 2001 and made an appearance at the Justina Elementary School in Jacksonville. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" education bill was held up in conference and the administration was trying to drum up support for its passage. In the late afternoon he made a brief flight south to Sarasota, where he lodged at the luxurious, Colony Beach and Tennis Resort. The next morning Bush awoke before 6 AM and went to the nearby Resort at Longboat Key Club with Bloomberg News reporter Richard Keil, to have a jog around one of their golf courses. Bush then returned to his hotel room, showered, put on a suit, and sat down for his daily intelligence briefing at 8 AM. Right at this moment (7:59 AM by most accounts, 8:02 by NORAD) American Airlines Flight 11 took off out of Logan Airport in Boston, Massachusetts. The Boeing 767 was approximately fourteen minutes behind schedule for its trip to Los Angeles. Bush's briefing lasted less than twenty minutes and included a warning of an elevated risk of terrorism. (As we shall see, intelligence suggesting a major terror attack was immanent had been coming in all summer long). It was during this briefing that Flight 11 stopped responding to Air Traffic Control (8:13 AM) and turned off its transponder. When the controllers gave permission to climb to 35,000 feet there was no response and the "blip" on the radar screen disappeared. Around 8:20 AM Flight 11 began to deviate from its flight plan and, after seven minutes without radio contact, the Air Traffic Controllers became very concerned about a hijack. At 8:24 AM that possibility was confirmed when two brief cockpit transmissions were picked up: "We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you'll be O.K. We are returning to the airport... Nobody move, everything will be O.K. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet." Another transmission reiterated these instructions at 8:33:59: "Nobody move please; we are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves." Just about the time of this last transmission Bush entered his 2001 Cadillac DeVille stretch limousine and headed for his appearance at Booker Elementary to continue his "war on illiteracy". When Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower at 8:46:26 AM President Bush was in transit. The seven-seat limo was designed by the General Motors Specialty Vehicle Group, hand-customed and equipped to be the most technologically advanced car in the world.5 Michael O'Malley, Cadillac General Manager, has been quoted saying that just as Air Force One is a flying Oval Office, the Presidential limo "provides the same amenities for our nation's leader while traveling on the ground."6 Los Angeles Times reporter, Terril Yue Jones characterized its capabilities, "...assume that President Bush has enough satellite communications technology at his fingertips to wage war from the back seat." In spite of the all this communications technology, all official accounts, claim that no one made the President aware of a major "accident" during his journey from Longboat Key to downtown Sarasota. But other travelers in the motorcade were made aware. Kia Baskerville, a CBS News White House producer recalled, "as the presidential motorcade headed to President Bush's first event, I received a call on my cell phone from a producer who said that a plane had just hit the World Trade Center in New York." The White House Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, was informed by pager as well as by radio. As the Christian Science Monitor reported on September 17th, 2001, "about six blocks from the school, a news photographer overheard a radio transmission. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer would be needed on arrival to discuss reports of some sort of crash. The radio also said that Mr. Bush had a call waiting for him at his holding room in the school from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice."7 And U.S. Navy Captain Deborah Loewer, the director of the White House Situation Room, was contacted by her deputy in the Situation Room, who informed her about the crash. 8 Skeptics think it is unlikely that the President was not alerted to the accident until after he arrived at the school when many other people in the motorcade were. The report of a radio transmission increases their doubt. To say the least, it seems strange that millions of people around the world were aware for ten minutes, or more, before anyone thought it necessary to inform the President. The growing suspicion that Bush may have known about the hijackings and deliberately failed to take actions to prevent them is fed by such oddities in the official line. But the real crux of the matter has to do with the President and his handler's decision, once he was informed about the first crash, to continue on with his reading demonstration as scheduled. Mindy Kleinberg, another 9/11 widow, wonders "that a national emergency was in progress. Yet President Bush was allowed to enter a classroom full of young children and listen to the students read." The White House's explanation for this is that the President did not realize an emergency was in progress. According to them, Bush had been told that the first plane was small, had initially thought that it was an accident, and had been stunned and unprepared when Andrew Card leaned down and whispered in his ear that a second plane had hit the WTC and the country was under attack. For many, the difficulty in believing this explanation lies in an analysis of the extensive warnings the government had received over the summer that we might be attacked by civilian aircraft.
The President's Trip to Italy The President had just traveled to Europe in late July, 2001. The main event was a G-8 economic conference in Genoa, Italy. In recent years, major economic summits had been drawing large numbers of protestors, and had resulted in riots in Seattle just the year before. So, security for the leaders of the eight major powers was a major concern. But this concern was greatly enhanced more than a month before the conference, when foreign intelligence services began to pick up warnings that Osama bin- Laden's, al-Qaeda organization was planning to make an assassination attempt on Bush, or, perhaps all eight leaders. A full month before the summit, on June 22nd, 2001, the New York Post reported: "President Bush's meetings with world leaders at next month's G-8 summit in Italy might be moved to an aircraft carrier or cruise ship because of terrorist threats, Bush administration sources said. Security officials from several countries are discussing threats by Osama bin Laden to assassinate Bush and commit other acts of violence during the Genoa summit... Security officials were said to be alarmed about the vulnerability of the Genoa summit site to remote-controlled airplanes and other exotic weapons.9 The threat was taken so seriously that CNN reported, "...the U.S. President may be staying at U.S. Camp Darby military base in Livorno or offshore on the American aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise to avoid any terrorist risk."10 In the end, the Italians cleared all the air space around Genoa, put fighters in the air and anti-aircraft batteries on the ground, while keeping the sleeping arrangements of the various leaders a closely guarded secret. After the disaster in September, Italian Deputy Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini reflected back on the precautions they had taken in July, "Many people were ironic about the Italian secret services. But in fact they got the information that there was the possibility of an attack against the U.S. president using an airliner. That's why we closed the airspace and installed the missiles. Those who made cracks should now think a little."11 For those who haven't experienced it, it is difficult to gauge the normal reaction to being told that terrorists intend use an airliner to kill you, but it seems the idea that al-Qaeda might use aircraft as weapons should have been quite fresh in Bush's mind. Even if the initial report Bush received was of a "light airplane, twin-engine airplane", the recent concern about "remote-controlled airplanes" in Genoa should have set off alarm bells.
Terror Warnings If the fright and disruption of his sleeping arrangements in Genoa didn't make much of an impression on Bush, there were plenty of other reminders that al-Qaeda was gunning for us. Chief among these were warnings coming in from foreign leaders and intelligence agencies that suggested an immanent threat of terrorist attack. In the summer of 2001, the Jordanian General Intelligence Division (GID), made a communications intercept that contained not only the basic outlines of the 9/11 operation, but even its code name: "the big wedding"12. Jordan then relayed its contents to Washington and to Germany. Although the intercept did not mention hijacking or any specific date, it did clearly state that the attack was to be within the continental United States and that aircraft would be used. This was a warning of an attack with aircraft, not a mere hijacking. John K. Cooley, of the International Herald Tribune, after confirming this story, commented, "When it became clear that the information about the intercept was embarrassing to Bush administration officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings before Sept. 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their earlier confirmations." 13 Two days after 9/11 Germany's daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), citing anonymous German intelligence officers, reported that U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies had at least three months warning that Middle Eastern terrorists were plotting attacks on "symbols of American and Israeli culture" using hijacked commercial aircraft as weapons. As in Jordan, German revelations of this type quickly dried up, but the FAZ report is partially corroborated by a report in the Times of London from June 14th, 2002. According to the Times: "Britain's spy chiefs warned the Prime Minister less than two months before September 11 that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda group was in "the final stages" of preparing a terrorist attack in the West...The heads of MI6, MI5 and GCHQ, the signals eavesdropping centre, suggested that while the most likely targets were American or Israeli, there could be British casualties. Their warning was included in a report sent to Tony Blair and other senior Cabinet Ministers on July 16. But the agency chiefs admitted the "timings, targets and methods of attack" were not known...The JIC [Cabinet Office Joint Intelligence Committee] prediction of an al-Qaeda attack was based on intelligence gleaned not just from MI6 and GCHQ but also from US agencies, including the CIA and the National Security Agency[NSA], which has staff working jointly with GCHQ. The CIA sometimes has a representative on the JIC. The contents of the July 16 warning would have been passed to the Americans, Whitehall sources confirmed."14 Even Bush friendly Fox News has reported that, "in July and August [2001], British intelligence shared "general" information that it had learned through surveillance of Khalid al-Fawwaz, a Saudi Arabian dissident who has publicly acknowledged being a bin Laden operative..." Fox News further acknowledged summertime warnings from India, Israel, France and reported of Russia: "President Vladimir Putin has said publicly that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the United States last summer that suicide pilots were training for attacks on U.S.targets." 15 Some of this intelligence of an immanent attack may have never reached the highest echelons of the American intelligence community. But it is clear that much of it did. That the CIA and FBI were very concerned during the summer of 2001 that a highly destructive, even spectacular, attack was looming can be seen from the testimony of Eleanor Hill. Ms. Hill was the Staff Director for the Joint Inquiry Staff, the congressional committee that investigated 9/11. When she testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, on September 18, 2002, she characterized the atmosphere at the time: "...in the eyes of the Intelligence Community, the world did appear increasingly dangerous for Americans in the spring and summer of 2001. During that time period the Intelligence Community experienced a significant rise in information indicating that Bin Ladin and al-Qa'ida intended to strike against United States interests in the very near future. Some individuals within the Intelligence Community have suggested that the increase in threat reporting was unprecedented, at least in terms of their own experience." This was not news to the committee because on February 6th, 2002, DCI George Tenet had told them that in July and August 2001, "it was very clear in our own minds that this country was a target. There was no texture to that feeling. We wrote about it, we talked about it, we warned about it. The nature of the warning was almost spectacular." Given this level of anxiety it is easy to understand the July 26th, 2001 report of CBS News Correspondent, Jim Stewart. According to Stewart, the FBI, citing security concerns, had advised Attorney General John Ashcroft to fly noncommercial aircraft for the remainder of his term. Breaking precedent, the Justice Department leased a G-3 Gulfstream that cost "more than $1,600 an hour to fly."16
The Memo It was within this context of alarm that Tenet briefed the President on August 6th, 2001. The briefing had been instigated on July 5th, the same day the Federal Aviation Authority [FAA] issued a circular to the airlines warning that terrorists had ''an intention of using explosives in an airport terminal.'' Disturbed by all the "noise in the system" Bush had requested that Condoleezza Rice put together an analysis of what al-Qaeda's intentions might be. Now as Bush began a month long "working vacation" at his Crawford, Texas ranch, he got an opportunity to see the results. It was a document referred to as a Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB). Beyond that the details are disputed. The administration claims the briefing was titled `Bin Laden Determined to Strike the United States'. It is a tightly guarded document with very limited circulation within the government. But leaks have suggested that the title was actually `Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States' (emphasis added). The subtle difference in emphasis has become important because the administration spent so much time emphasizing that intelligence that summer was focused abroad. A memo reviewed by the President just a month before the attacks, that focused on domestic hijacking attacks, would severely undermine the official line. By the time word of this memo leaked, in May 2002, eight months had passed since the attacks, and the administration had insisted emphatically that we had no warning. No one could have predicted 9/11, they said, and nothing could have prevented it. It came as a shock to hear that the President had been specifically briefed on the subject of al-Qaeda hijacking. Tom Brokaw led the NBC Nightly News by announcing: "at the White House tonight it is all hands on deck as the White House tries to deal with a storm of criticism".17 The pro-Bush New York Post's headline blared, "BUSH KNEW". The father of WTC casualty, Bill Doyle, said at the time, "I believe our whole government let people down". Ron Willet, whose son's phone cut out when the North Tower was struck, agreed. Asked whether he thought the government shared some responsibility for the loss of his son, Willet replied, "I have to. We had the suspicions all along. We'd talked about the possibility of the government knowing."18 On May 16th, a shaken Dr. Rice held a press conference to do damage control. She tried to downplay the significance of the leak and the memo, claiming it was merely a page and half long and was an, "analytic report, which did not have warning information in it of the kind that said, they are talking about an attack against so forth or so on...(it) mentioned hijacking, but hijacking in the traditional sense... the overwhelming bulk of the evidence was that this was an attack that was likely to take place overseas." When asked why the administration had not volunteered this information she responded, "this all came out as a result of our preparations to help the committees on the Hill that are getting ready to review the events. It wasn't--frankly, it didn't pop to the front of people's minds, because it's one report among very, very many that you get." Interestingly, the Bush administration refused to provide access to this memo to those "committees on the Hill" whose very existence they did their utmost to discourage. Over White House objections, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence had decided in February 2002, to conduct a "Joint Inquiry into the activities of the U.S. Intelligence Community in connection with the terrorist attacks perpetrated against our nation on September 11, 2001." Eventually this Joint Inquiry produced a report (officially S. Rept. 107-351 and H. Rept. 107-792) that ran 832 pages. The result was so unsatisfying that the families of 9/11 victims raised a public outcry leading to the formation of a new independent commission called the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (informally known as "The 9/11 Commission"). Former Democratic Senator Max Cleland, a member of the new commission who recently resigned, characterized this process: The joint inquiry made up of Democrats and Republican members of Congress...issued a report this summer , but they couldn't get at the PDB's [Presidential Daily Briefings]. They kicked the can down the street so that the 9/11 Commission could get at the full story. That's the reason for this independent commission, with the time and energy and staff to get at all of this. Had the Joint Intelligence Committee been able to do its job, there wouldn't have even been a 9/11 commission.19 But the administration has set barriers to even this new commission seeing the August 6th memo, which may not have been as short as a page and a half. According to Oliver Schröm, a reporter with the German newsweekly, Die Zeit, the memo ran "11 and one- half printed pages, instead of the usual two to three." The truth about this memo may never be known, because the White House has the Commission by the short hairs. Technically, they have subpoena power to force the administration to turn over the document. But, the Commission is only funded until May of 2004, and if Bush exerts executive privilege he can tie the matter up in the courts and run out the clock. So, Thomas Kean, the Chairman of the Commission has negotiated some very unfavorable terms just to get any access at all. Only four members of the commission will be allowed to look at the most sensitive materials and the White House can deny them the right to take notes or even to share information with other members. Moreover, the White House reserves the right to decide what materials are relevant even within documents. Cleland says this arrangement is an attempt to, "kick this can down past the elections", and adds, "It should be a national scandal." Responding to the deal, Matthew Sellitto, whose son died in the attacks, said, "I have a lack of faith in the administration. How else can I feel?" If the British Sunday Herald can be believed, the content of the memo has the potential to damage Bush's reelection prospects if it is publicly exposed. An article published 5/19/02 claimed: "Britain gave President Bush a categorical warning to expect multiple airline hijackings by the al-Qaeda network a month before the September 11 attacks which killed nearly 3000 people and triggered the international war against terrorism...According to US government officials, the British warning of al- Qaeda plans to hijack US airliners was contained in a crucial briefing sent to Bush on August 6, a month before the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.".20 President Bush insists that he didn't know "that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning." Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle responds, "I think the question is, why didn't he know? If the information was made available, why was he kept in the dark? If the president of the United States doesn't have access to this kind of information, there's something wrong with the system."
1 Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism, From Inside the Bush White House; p.41-42. By Bill Sammon. 2 Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism, From Inside the Bush White Hous e p.42 By Bill Sammon. 3 http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/abcnews091102.html 4 The Boston Herald, October 22, 2002 NET LIFE; What did Bush see and when did he see it? By Stephanie Schorow 5 Los Angeles Times January 24, 2001, NEW 'FIRST CADDY' ON DUTY AT WHITE HOUSE, TERRIL YUE JONES. 6 Los Angeles Times January 24, 2001, NEW 'FIRST CADDY' ON DUTY AT WHITE HOUSE, TERRIL YUE JONES. 7 A Changed World, by Peter Grier The Christian Science Monitor September 17, 2001 8 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/29/earlyshow/leisure/books/main527361.shtml 9 The New York Post June 22, 2001 THREATS MAY MOVE SUMMIT, NILES LATHEM and ANDY SOLTIS 10 http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/17/genoa.security/ 11 http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092701genoa.story 12 In Arabic, "Al Ourush al Kabir" 14 Spy Chiefs Warned Ministers of al-Qaeda Attacks, by Michael Evans, The London Times, June 14, 2002 15 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53065,00.html 16 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml 17 The Hotline, May 17, 2002, FIRST PUBLIC COMMENTS COME AFTER A DAY OF DAMAGE CONTROL 18 Springfield News -Leader (Springfield, MO) May 26, 2002 Families differ on what they want to know, Eric Eckert. 19 Salon Magazine "The president ought to be ashamed", 11/21/03, Eric Boehlert 20 http://www.sundayherald.com/24822

Originally posted to www.boomantribune.com on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:24 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

  •  Permit me to be a little snarky: (4.00)
    What was the President thinking?

    as usual - - nothing!!

    SpongeBush SquarePants: SpongeBush lives in a bubble in D.C./absorbent and shallow and porous is he! - - Maureen Dowd

    by sara seattle on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:33:52 PM PST

  •  Hmm... (none)
    1. "How can I blame Bill Clinton for this?"

    2. "I wonder if I can use this tragedy to browbeat Democrats into accepting every half-baked, ideologically-driven conservative dream ever?"

    It's not over till you're underground.

    by ChicagoDem on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 11:43:05 PM PST

  •  Oh yeah (4.00)
    please recommend. Lot a work, you know?

    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 11:58:21 PM PST

  •  Bush knew. . . (none)
    Daschle queries, "I think the question is, why didn't he know? If the information was made available, why was he kept in the dark? If the president of the United States doesn't have access to this kind of information, there's something wrong with the system."

    Bush had to know.

    Thanks for bringing this back to the forefront, BooMan.  There are still so many unanswered questions Two questions loom large in my mind.  One: what really took the two towers down?  And two: did Bush know???  

    IMHO, hell yeah, he knew!  

    •  I guess what I'm asking is this (none)
      Let's assume he didn't know the attack was going to happen.

      But how could he assume a plane flying into the WTC was an accident, once he was told of it?

      And even if he was told that it was a small plane, he had been warned about remote-control planes being used in attempt to KILL HIM in Italy only a two months before.

      Why didn't he assume that this had happened?

      And why did Condi, who we now know was well aware of the threat to aviation, including potential suicide hijacking, not tell the President, "Georgie, sweetheart, this doesn't sound like a terrible pilot or a terrible accident, turn on the TV."?

      It is the behavior at the school I am focused on.

      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 12:17:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  His behavior was amoral (4.00)
        His behavior at the school is not that of a leader.  His behavior is representative of a 10 year-old boy who is wondering how much trouble he is going to get in, and how he can lie his way out of it.  He was clearly looking for a plausible excuse.  Pull out your F-911 CD again and watch that part of the movie.  

        He is not a leader, he has never been a leader, and will never be a leader.

        The WTC tragedy had the effect of stopping everyone in this country.  I remember exactly what I was doing when I heard the news.  And I was horrified!  And scared!  And I made sure I knew where all of my family members were and that they were safe.  Immediately!

        Don't you find it very odd that it did not stop Bush for even a moment, that he displayed no emotion even close to horror or concern after being informed of the event?  I did not see any horror on his face.  In fact, he was so non-plussed, he stayed for a photo-op after the reading of "My Pet Goat"

        On the chance that he actually didn't know it was going to happen, his expression and demeanor could then be described as that of a person with a psychopathic personality.  

        Webster's New World Dictionary defines a psychopathic personality as a person whose behavior is largely amoral and asocial and who is characterized by irresponsibility, lack of remorse or shame, perverse or impulsive (often criminal) behavior and other serious personality defects, generally without psychotic attacks or symptoms.

        Okay, now is this the part where they take me away in the dark of night?  Or perhaps they will just have me fired for blogging. . .

        •  He looked (none)
          concerned and distracted on the tape, but Gannon says he was carrying on "like he didn't have a care in the world" after the tape cut off.

          How is it possible that Rice let him believe that it was an accident?

          And how is it okay that he didn't care about an accident enough to delay his schedule?

          And why was he back slapping and hamming for photos after he was told America is under attack?

          You see, that is the damning part.

          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 01:07:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Shit (none)
            Sammon, not Gannon. I've got Gannon on the brain.

            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 01:08:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And when his plane finally returned to DC. . . (none)
              . . .and Bush went on national tv - he was HAMMERED!

              I have not found one person that remembers that, but I clearly do.  He was either heavily medicated or drunk (takes one to know one).

              These are not the leadership skills that I want children emulating - or adults for that matter.

      •  Take a look at this ad we made from Booker 9/11 (4.00)
        The TV ad ran just for a few days in 2 swing states. Most have never seen it. I think it frames the situation far better than Michael Moore did in F 9/11 -- because Moore diluted the entire impact by making some clever wisecrack remark -- vs allowing the power of the moment to play.

        Take a look: "Judgment Matters"

        http://www.truthandhope.org

        or, specifically this movie file: (right-click and save-as, so you can play it bigger size in a Quicktime window.

        http://www.deanport.com/911/judgement1.mov

        Note the look Bush throws off to the front left side of the room. You only catch this "query" to his aides which says "what do I do?" if you FREEZE that moment,,, because he then looks away. He knows better than to sit there.

        ANd he sure as hell knows that he could easily stand and say "Kids, being President, people are always calling me on the phone, I have to go take this call, but y'all keep reading and I'll be back in a minute...""   that absurd excuse about not wanting to worry the children has never washed. WHo in their right mind would provide any indication at all to those kids that there was something wrong? Why so many people just accepted the sheer nonsense of the idea that it was BLACK or WHITE is beyond me... as though by excusing himself there need be ANY indication at all that something is wrong... therefore must put security of New Yorkers on hold because I can't excuse myself without terrifying them. Bullshit.

        Also look at "Vanessa 9/11" --- there was so much more to that interview that I may make it into a documentary short.

        •  Great piece! (none)
          Wow - the Judgement Matters ad was excellent! Thanks for posting the link.

          I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just. -- Thomas Jefferson

          by lesliet on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:43:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  My only wish is we had it on air wider, longer (none)
            ... both "Judgment Matters" and "Vanessa 9/11"

            Unfortunately while all the money was being spent on nice Democratic tame ads, we couldn't get proper funding.

            Those who knew, knew it very early on. We weren't going to win with Pro-Kerry ads... phoney with the Land's End hunting jacket. Supposedly everyone KNEW this was an ABB campaign... yet poor pathetic Dems were soo scared to run a hard hitting ad. Well fuck them.

            You might also look at the Swift Boat ad we made --- as a specific mind-fuck neutralizer --- which really got to the CORE issue --- while Kerry's dumbass team played it "above the fray".

            Lastly, compare "What's so Funny?" to MoveOn's MUCH-tamer version....

            See, this is a problem. People keep talking about media... yet we/they/whoever keep throwing Soros money on tame stuff. It sickens me that we could not get these hard hitting ads funded properly.

            We WILL next time... but only because we're building a cable network called GTV ...

            Oh, you've never heard of it?  That's because in the world of the left, unless you read that MoveOn was doing it, it must not be real. :)

        •  Nice (none)
          I wish we could have gotten together during the campaign, but I went into the field after giving up on getting this story out there.

          F911 did a piss poor job of it by not including the Bill Sammon materiel.

          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 03:47:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "An Interesting Day" was best explana (4.00)
            Anyone who followed for a long time knew of the various multi-color threaded 9/11 Timelines from Cooperative Research etc.

            But this one article -- "An Interesting Day" -- titled for how Bush characterized that day a year later at a Town Hall Meeting when asked what he thought --- was the best and clearest presentation of "who knew what when" on that day. Yet a report of that quality never saw the light of day in mainstream America.

            http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

            With it's narrative-based timeline and photos -- and MAP showing positioning of his car along the route from the Resort to the Booker School -- it just couldn't be clearer that the whole Booker School event should never ever have taken placer at all. Because they all knew BEFORE entering Booker what had happened with Plane 1.

            Verifiable sources quoted in that article say that easily 4 Presidential aides knew the first attack was serious -- even starting from BEFORE he the car left the hotel for the classroom.  He was asked by a major news agency if he knew what was happening in New York...

            Look at the head of the Situation Room -- and her running to tell the President.

            It is simply ludicrous that we even have to WAIT for the notification from CARD that a SECOND plane struck a 2nd tower, because they all knew about the first strike. And were all in contact.

            The ad depicts via SOUND the description reported by multiple sources --- that cell phones all went off at the back of the room right after Tower 2 was hit. And yet Card and Fleisher sat there like bumps on a log while "the President gathered his thoughts"?  That's total bullshit.

            Card tells Bush and then immediately steps back without so much as a pause for "IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT ME TO DO?"  (Imagine Leo McGary (sp) in West Wing whispering to Sheen, then backing off without so much as even a facal expression that communicates "YOU GOTTA COME NOW"  )

            Based on the narrative, and based on the decision to go ahead with the Booker event -- with a blythe "We'll have a statement about it later" -- when immediately upon arrival at Booker they actually went into that secure room (that had been prepped for that Presidential visit) obviously deciding how to approach this -- and deciding "we should go ahead with the reading, and then we'll do the 9:30 am TV event as initially planned", it is clear that Card's behavior is the one that needs examining.

            In any kind of psychological assessment I make of that moment where Andy Card immediately backs away, and focusing on what wasn't done, I cannot draw any plausible conclusion other than this:

            Either the President decided to go ahead with the Booker reading -- or Cheney told him to (more likely)  -- or Ari Fleisher and Card suggested he do that while they gathered details or something or other -- but before going into that classroom, there had to have been a prior conversation about what to do or not to do if there were any further updates.  Can you imagine any grown man -- Fleisher and Card in particular -- allowing the President to just SIT there when THEY had their cell phones going off and surely people on the other end telling them not only was a 2nd tower struck, but that the scope of damage of Tower One included a huge gash which was the size of a large jetliner... thus telling either of them -- not one, but two JETS hit one WTC tower each?

            Think it through. It would be MORE plausible that Card and Fleisher etc just stood there waiting for the Master to make a move if they had never been prior told about a plane #1 or tower #1. Then this would have been fresh information and it could be believable that they weren't sure what to do.  (But even THAT is a stretch.) What would YOU have done if you got that cell phone call and then just stood by waiting for the President to signal that he needs x, y, z procedure to take place? Or would you have intruded on that relatively inconsequential event of school kids reading?

            Think about it. What would be a reason why you would NOT intervene and gently get the President to excuse himself to take a phone call?  Any single one of them could have done that and how would that be unusual? As if Ari or Andy had never interrupted a photo op before for even minor stuff like "your kids were caught drubk again, Laura's pissed, you gotta take the call Boss.." ...

            The only plausible reason I can put together in my head that they did NOT intervene is that they were prior told NOT to indicate there was anything wrong... even though each of them already knew about Tower #1.  They had to have AGREED that it was best to wait and make FIRST MENTION of the entire situation at the 9:30 pre-planned press conference.  There can be no other explanation in my book.

            The only explanation that washes is that they DECIDED that they would go ahead with the kids reading the Pet Goat photo op event -- and that even if additional reports were to come in over the next 30 minutes that indicated the NYC events had escalated into something further, they were all in agreement that the course of action would be to wait til the 9:30am already-scheduled Press conference, where the tons of TV and camera crews were already set up for.

            Look at the footage again.  I should find a higher rez version (like 100MB size) and post it and let people download it and evaluate the sequencing of what WASN'T done.  I find it damning.

            But they managed to keep the version of the story they wanted to have in the mainstream news.

            Just like they managed to keep a lid on the Gannon story until after the election.

            .
            .
            The best speculation I have heard mentioned that explains the oddity of "jeff gannon" suddenly getting a high-access job for which he never had training is that he had sex-dirt on someone at the White House.  And Rove's army's job was to squelch this airtight -- and the safest way to do that would be give this guy a high-level gig and tell him  "In exchange, you are going to write exactly what we tell you to write, and you will ask these questions in the White House briefings VERBATIM, you got than "gannon"? ...  And if if he fucks up or says one word, he's a dead man. Then it was Rove's army's job to clamp this whole thing down until after the election. And as we have seen, after the election was secured, even if they lost control of this story, one thing was for sure -- the President is still the President... and if there is some scandal involving some other White House player -- and it were to come out after the election was secured, then they of course would be shocked and outraged and take decisive disciplinary action. They'd cross that bridge when it came.

            •  I understand your theory (none)
              there is one problem.

              There was a report from an ABC reporter not long after 9:00am that Bush had been told before he left the Hotel.

              That report was wrong.

              Bush left the Hotel at approximately 8:35 for a 20 minute drive to the school.

              The first plane crashed at 8:46.

              We need to stop repeating that one.

              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 05:09:36 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  One thing I'd appreciate (none)
    is on this thread if people could point out what particular fact in this article they find the most striking, dubious, alarming, nonsensical, suspicious, or stupid.

    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 12:13:15 AM PST

    •  The President as Goat (none)
      BooMan23

      Remarkably well-written summary, with both the ring of absolute truth and a healthy dose of skepticism.

      There are two items - somewhat interconnected - that have always disturbed me.  I have yet to see these observations either explained or disputed.

      When I lived in DC - this was before 9/11 - I made the acquaintance of a few Secret Service men.  In discussions, it was often mentioned that in times of immediate "crisis", the POTUS and his minions are no longer in control of the POTUS - the Secret Service is.  I have never understood why, under those circumstances, the Secret Service did not in some way remove the POTUS from the classroom.  From my understanding that is what would have taken place; frightening the children would not have entered into the equation.

      The second part of this observation is that if, supposedly, no one had any prior knowledge of the specificity of the attacks, why the Secret Service and the POTUS' staff allowed those children to be put at such great risk by remaining, not only in the classroom, but later in the school for photo ops.

      Maybe you have some information about this, or would like to include in your diary my idle observations.

      One last point - a possible weak explanation of the "lousy pilot" crack - when I first turned on the news that morning (I believe it was NBC's Today show) it was stated that a small plane had flown into the World Trade Center.  This is where it gets murky for me because based on historically available video it would have had to have been the second jet - so I admit I'm on shaky ground here - but I distinctly remember them repeating a video of the impact and describing it as a small plane - and saying to myself that wasn't some small plane you idiots, that was a fucking jet.

      Just some idle thoughts.

      •  On your points (none)
        I can only speculate on the activities of the Secret Service.

        By the time the Pentagon was hit the President was on his way to the airport.

        None of the suspiciously off course jets were anywhere near Sarasota, and so far it looked like an attack on the WTC, which did not lead anyone to conclude that other cities would be targeted.

        That would be my guess.

        Obviously no one share a conspiracy with Secret Service agents on the ground.  It makes less sense than that they were not truly concerned for the President's safety at that time.

        As for your other point: the first plane was not captured on a live feed, and CNN was reporting a small-plane.  The President probably did hear that report being relayed through cell phone contacts with his staff and reporters.

        The second plane was caught on live TV but even then there was not immediate agreement on TV that it had been a jumbo jet.  You remember correctly.

        Part of my point, however, is that the President had been menaced in Italy, quite recently, with the threat of remote controlled planes packed with explosives.

        The entire premise of his explanation for his actions depends, not on the size of the plane, but on whether it was an accident or not.

        He says he assumed it was an accident, and that is not plausible.  And even if it were, Rice should have told him different during that phone call.

        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 08:02:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm With You All the Way (none)
          None of the suspiciously off course jets were anywhere near Sarasota, and so far it looked like an attack on the WTC, which did not lead anyone to conclude that other cities would be targeted.

          In particular, though, this comment is one of the stronger pieces of evidence - or observation - that they knew much more than they were letting on then - or have since.  They can't have it both ways (well, I know IOKIYAR); if, as they claim,  they were unaware of exactly what was happening, how could they have been so sure that the school wouldn't be attacked?

          And then there are the reports of the school being scoped out the day before - though I don't know if that was known at the time of the attacks.

          •  Well that's a good point (none)
            however, the bottom line is that Bush had two opportunities to react rationally.

            The first was to assume, upon talking to Rice, that the plane crash was the long anticipated attack.

            The second was, upon having this confirmed by Andy Card, to do something to protect the country.

            His actions suggest a level of ignorance that has been utterly dispelled.

            Therefore, his actions are inexplicable.

            Unless...

            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 10:04:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Here's what I want to know: (none)
    Where in the hell is the CIA report on 9/11 that was being delayed until after the election?  

    I think that report will give some answers to some of these questions.  

  •  What Was the President Thinking on 9/11? (none)
    "YOU'RE LATE!!!"
  •  This comment was intentional and well- rehearsed (4.00)
    I put this comment on the wrong page unintentionally--don't know how that happened, but I meant to reply to it here. lecsmith

    "And my first reaction was - as an old pilot - how could the guy have gotten so off course to hit the towers? What a terrible accident that is. The first report I heard was a light airplane, twin-engine airplane."
    I believe that this comment can indicate only two major lines of interpretation, and I am not being facetious: 1) That Bush is truly extremely  ignorant, stupid, and unimaginative, and his staff was so derelict and so determined to be the opposite of Clinton, that they literally did not pay any attention to the warnings they were being given and did not tell him anything. Now, we know the staff GOT the warnings. So a question is, were they imparted to Bush? And in what manner, with what attitude? This is the most charitable interpretation I have of this statement: that he is a total idiot and his "staff" is criminally derelict.
    2) My second interpretation is more sinister: This statement by Bush was rehearsed so that he could sound charming, off-hand, like there was no possible way he could have guessed the TYPE of attack that this was. The image that supposedly came into his mind is the same image that came into my mind the first I hear about the attack--and I can assure you, I DON'T get briefings on terrorist threats. So I HAD THE ORDINARY PERSON'S REACTION upon hearing that a plane had flown into the World Trade Center and so did Bush, who is supposed to be protecting the nation and has access to ALL the information that is out there if he wants it. Now, this second point could still argue for criminal ignorance and negligence without knowledge. But everyone has gone silent on this nugget of knowledge: There were two Newsweek articles, one on September 13th and one in the issue two weeks later, by very well-known (but different) Newsweek writers. Both articles said the following, in essence: Senior House Officials had canceled flights for the morning of September 11th because of an aviation threat. THEY KNEW MORE THAN THEY ARE LETTING ON. I don't know what they knew and I don't know how bad it is--I have my really paranoid moments but mostly I am just mildly paranoid!

    CNN: Only slightly more trustworthy than Talon News CNN: The "Go To" Network for the Bush Administration

    by lecsmith on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:15:22 AM PST

    •  That is roughly my take (none)
      But everytime we hear more info about what they knew, the neglect (option one) theory gets weaker.

      No?

      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 03:24:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I believed the official story initially (4.00)
        I have always disliked Bush intensely but I did believe the original story. As time went on, and I learned more, I really, seriously began to wonder what they knew and when they knew it. On the subject of knowing what was coming and letting it happen, THIS is my most "charitable" interpretation of their actions: They thought it would be small, like the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and they thought they could use it to set up their plans for invading Iraq. They thought it was ok if a few people were killed and hundreds were injured. After all, it's only New York City. THAT IS MY KINDEST INTERPRETATION in the scenario where they have foreknowledge.
        But, I have my moments when I have thought they knew a LOT more. I have only come to this feeling gradually and it is mostly because of all the information that has trickled out over time due to the 9/11 Commission report and hearings, and the people who did the 9/11 timeline, and so forth. Another reason I began to think something really, really nasty has been perpretrated on us was the Bush administration's obvious addiction to the BIG LIE. They are so beyond the normal range in this capacity that it became clear that they have some kind of DEEP sense of entitlement and DEEP contempt for the American people and the United States Constitution. The evidence of the contempt is everywhere. The question is, what would stop them? (Also, I think each of the players comes to the situation with different intentions and a different idea of what they are doing. I also think it's possible the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.)

        CNN: Only slightly more trustworthy than Talon News CNN: The "Go To" Network for the Bush Administration

        by lecsmith on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:33:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And yes, the neglect theory is very weak. (none)
          It is not possible that a sentient being who was inhabiting the President's role would not have thought of terrorism immediately, even if that was really the first time he heard anything about it.

          CNN: Only slightly more trustworthy than Talon News CNN: The "Go To" Network for the Bush Administration

          by lecsmith on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:35:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Look at Bush's face again (and again) (none)
          On the subject of knowing what was coming and letting it happen, THIS is my most "charitable" interpretation of their actions: They thought it would be small, like the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and they thought they could use it to set up their plans for invading Iraq. They thought it was ok if a few people were killed and hundreds were injured.

          The video of Card walking up to Bush in the classroom is on the Internet somewhere, look it up and watch several times. Much more than you see in  Moore's F-911, footage of limos pulling up, and of the press briefing after classroom.

          (On metered dialup on vacation or would research and post link.)

          The first time I saw it, my gut reaction was that his expression was identical to the one I and siblings used to have when we thought, "Oh, crap! This "break-our-parents'-rules" project turned out worse than we expected, and we are going to be in incredible trouble when they catch us." As, just when you realize one kid will need stitches at the hospital, you can't hide it.

          Watch Bush's face again: the look is, "Oh, crap, we've been caught, because this is far, far worse than we expected." It is not a look of surprise, per se, it's a re-appraisal of a situation that one already knew about.

          My take is that Card said that one or both towers (sorry don't know timeline that well) was fully engaged in flame above the strike, or that one tower had started to collapse. That is: "We are going to take far, far more casualties here than we expected."

          (rhfactor -- does that math out, that by Card's comment a tower was collapsing?)

          BTW, regards my gut reactions. The instant I heard about Enron and CA electricity, I said, "They caused the shortages on purpose to jack the price up." Knew it. People laughed at me then....

          At any rate, lemmie know what you think of my theory, especially after watching that video.

          Reframing the news and people's views of our world: http://www.HeroicStories.com

          by AllisonInSeattle on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:11:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  My reaction too. . . (none)
            Allison, I know this diary is incredibly old, but I felt I had to comment.  You are spot on.  You can look at Bush and see his expression is not one of urgency, but rather, worry.  Worry that they had been caught.

            I haven't seen additional footage of the classroom reading and really don't have to in order to understand what was going on.  Bush's face said it all.

            Thanks for the analogy that ties it all together.

  •  I think Bush welcomed the attacks (none)
    He wanted to invade Iraq from day 1, and 9-11 was Bush's "Reichstag fire" moment giving him a reason/an excuse to do that, and a whole lot more.
  •  I for one believe this was monstrous incompetence (none)
    To believe otherwise is too frightening to contemplate.

    At the least, Bush pet goat moment argues that he was unaware and oblivious.  The agendas of others in the administration who had or may have had the same info (Cheney?  Rumsfeld?) is less certain.

    •  It has been their strategy (none)
      to keep Bush uniformed so that he can appear above it all, across several issues that would make him look very bad if it seemed like he knew what was  going on.
      I also think that they basically prepare themselves as if for a deposition before they make statements or act out the plots of their marketing so that they can evade LEGAL responsiblity. I have said this elsewhere, but notice that, for example, Rumsfeld is always very cagey about he way he answers questions: "I haven't HEARD anything like that," "I'm NOT AWARE of anything like that.." and so on. Condoleezza does exactly the same thing. If you add up all the times that they have basically claimed, as executives of their departments, that they don't know something important, they ARE monstrously incompentent or they are feigning it. I think the latter, but of course, it's just my opinion.
      And if it is incompentence, they are still extremely guilty.

      CNN: Only slightly more trustworthy than Talon News CNN: The "Go To" Network for the Bush Administration

      by lecsmith on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 05:29:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  monstrous incompetence (none)
      We want to believe that because the alternative is so horrifying.
  •  Not meaning to don my hat made of foil (none)
    but I have never been able to get past the "collapse" of WTC7.  

    Did WTC7 truly "collapse?"

  •  Another tinfoil moment... (none)
    ... I particularly remember Rummy's press conference after the pentagon attack, and how mad he seemed to be.  One line struck me from that moment, his warning to those who have certain infromation to be quiet, and saying that 9/11 is an example of what happens when those people don't exercise their discretion.

    At the time, I figured that someone with classified information about Al Qaeda somehow let it be known that we were watching them or blew his cover or something, and that allowed us to lose their trail.  But given all the evidence that's now coming out that we must have known something before 9/11, I don't think that's any longer the case.

    I hate to say it, but I wonder if Rummy's statement was a veiled threat to potential whistleblowers, a la if you don't go along with us, it'll be your personal 9/11.

    The more a read about it, the more I think something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site