Skip to main content

Another big story is moving forward:

FAA got warnings about al-Qaeda
By Alan Levin and Mimi Hall, USA TODAY

Nearly half of the Federal Aviation Administration's daily intelligence reports in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks mentioned Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, according to newly released documents.

A report by the 9/11 Commission adds new details to long-standing concerns by the commission that the FAA did not respond aggressively enough in 2001 to intelligence suggesting al-Qaeda was planning an attack. The report was withheld from the public for five months before it was declassified. [...]

The report, completed Aug. 26, was intended as an addendum to the commission's full report. But the Bush administration spent months blacking out material it considered secret. The report was sent to the Archives on Jan. 28 with large chunks deleted.

Three things to keep in mind, as this story continues to unfold.

First: National Security Advisor and now Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice indeed lied, repeatedly, when she claimed to the media and to Congress that the Administration didn't have advance warning of al-Qaeda threats -- that's roundly been proven by multiple reports and sources, at this point. Either Rice knew full well about the al-Qaeda threats or she didn't -- as National Security Advisor it's unclear which of those two options makes her look more stunningly incompetent -- but Al-Qaeda was such a well-known threat that the FAA referred to the terrorist group in fifty-two separate daily intel reports from April, 2001 to the time the attacks finally took place.

Second: While this 9/11 Commission report was completed in late August, two months before the presidential elections, the release of this report was blocked "for national security concerns" until this January by the Bush administration. The report was finally released (and only with substantial redactions) only two weeks ago, on Jan 28th.

But Third: Those large delays and redactions, ostensibly done for national security reasons, didn't have anything to do with national security, according to the chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean. According to the USA TODAY story, Kean says "There's nothing affecting national security that I can see in the redactions." So that leaves the obvious question: what was redacted?

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:13 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

  •  Rate Up this related Yahoo Story (none)
    January 2001 Memo Warned Bush of Al Qaeda Threat

    Well, now we basically know what Bush knew and when he knew it.  It probably explains why he went on vacation so often.

    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 Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:11:36 PM PST

  •  And This Was BUMPED From WaPo Front Page (none)
    by the news that camilla will now become Princess Consort

    Fuzzy only works for pets.

    by NotFuzzy on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:12:06 PM PST

  •  And obviously withheld ... (none)
    to avoid embarrassment during the final run-up to the election.
    •  Yep (none)
      Mark Danner made that point this morning on Your Call radio.

       This should have come out before the election and before Rice was confirmed.

      •  I shouldn't have said "obviously" ... (none)
        above. Although the motive to withhold, to avoid looking like a complete liar in the election campaign, is "obvious", what means were used to squelch this report? Details.

        Who, what, when, where, how on the redaction and delay ...

      •  This could explain... (none)
        ...why the Republicans were so eager to shove Dr. Rice through the confirmation process. If she got held back long enough for the report to get published then all Hell would have broken loose. Or that, perhaps, might have been what they were worried about. No proof, just speculation. It seems to make sense to me, though.

        The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

        by Shapeshifter on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:10:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Think I read that the Sec State . . . . (none)
          is historically the first cabinet secretary to be confirmed, and that the person is sworn in on Inauguration Day.

          Anybody remember that?

          Of course, that scheduling works to your advantage if your nominee guaranteed to be proven a lying piece of shit when some bombshell documents are later released . . .

        •  How dare you (none)
          impugn Dr Rice's integrety like that. Shame, how could you suggest that she lost respect for the truth in the service of servicing her hus... I mean our Great Leader.

          "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." Groucho Marx

          by justme on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 04:46:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  do you reall think (none)
          they would have let the report get published before Rice got confirmed?
          •  No, but... (none)
            I'm certain that they're not so powerful it wouldn't be a problem.

            Let's look at it this way. Let's say that Rice got, for some reason (maybe a Democrat gets a leaked version of this memo or something) fillibustered. The Republican leadership and the Bush administration may well have been able to hold off the report until Rice went through (after all--they managed to delay it for five months until the post-election) but that it would probably become harder and harder as the hearings dragged on.

            So in order to relieve the pressure getting Rice through was priority one.

            The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

            by Shapeshifter on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:26:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Any guess ... (none)
      what Kean's next move will be?
    •  What liberals don't seem to understand... (4.00)
      it that getting bush reelected was a matter of national security, at least in the minds of this administration. If that weak willed flip-flopper Kerry had been elected preseident, then the nation would have to face a variety of problems, ranging from huge budget deficits to losing the war in Iraq.  It would have been a disaster.  Redacting any portion of this document that would have embarassed bush was the only patriotic thing to do.
      •  This is a good comment (4.00)
        Don't laugh.  It's precisely the rationale they use for all their incredible constant lying.

        They really do think they're the only ones fit to rule and they truly think of citzens as children.  I'm sure there was a quote from Bush last year or some administration official who referred to citizens as children.

        According them it's perfectly good and necessary to be a rank fucking scumbag liar, for only they know the country's welfare well enough to let the real truth out.

        I have never, ever seen anything like it.  They lie so brazenly the fucking press corps just assumes why, gosh, no one could ever tell a lie that big.

        It's got to stop.  For the love of God, the press won't even call Bush a plain liar.  This country has gone to the dogs.

      •  if this is a valid argument then someone help us (none)
        Are conservatives so out of whack that they can't see what 4 years of Bush have done to the economy.  Does any majority, including conservatives, think that Bush has done well in Iraq.

        This is a sinking ship, and the rats are now claiming to be possums.

        •  On Randi Rhodes (none)
          the other day, a young man from the south was trying to pin the record deficits on Clinton saying that it takes 8-10 years for an economic plan to even start showing it's fruits... thank God he had a southern accent and could think of nothing more to say than that "every entry level economics student should know that" - I could laugh instead of wanting to rip his hair out one strand at a time!

          You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out God hates all the same people you do... Anne Lamott

          by crkrjx on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:27:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Southern Accent? (4.00)

            Yes, I'm ashamed that most of my fellow Southerners vote for Republicans.

            However, had I said, "Thank God that [the person talking shit on the radio] had a [Black] [Jewish] [New York] [Spanish] [South Indian] accent," let me say I think I'd be pilloried by all you Politically Correct types.

            A Southern accent is nor proof positive of a mental defect.  I don't have one -- my Dad married a Yankee girl, so I learned to talk in New Jersey -- but my Daddy does, and he dislikes Bush as much as any Kossack!

            "I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat . . . and I don't like them now in my own country." (Joe Wilson)

            by proudtinfoilhat on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:45:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  thank you, proud tinfoilhat (none)
              One of the way liberals lost the now red states is with the Southern bashing.  There are plenty of educated Southern liberals and there are plenty of wise but not formally educated Southerners who would be open to liberal points of view if they were exposed to them.
              •  Hear, hear (none)
                I've often wondered how much it hurt Kerry to publicly declare that his strategy for election did not require winning a single Southern state. I wonder how many Southern liberals simply stayed away from the polls, knowing their choice was between a Republican who didn't care about liberals, and a Democrat who didn't care about Southerners.

                I wonder this because I would ordinarily sooner lose a limb than miss even a minor local election, and I really had to work hard to motivate myself to go to the polls this time. The fuck-the-South rhetoric around here isn't exactly encouraging, either.

            •  Sorry if I offended.... (none)
              I grew up in the south and still have family there... the accent comment had nothing to do with mental capacity...

              You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out God hates all the same people you do... Anne Lamott

              by crkrjx on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 04:56:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  It's valid to them (none)
          In the eyes of many conservatives, democrats (or demonrats, as they prefer to call us) are the ultimate threat to America.  I'm not sure exactly how the logic works, but they are convinced that we will take down everything that is good in America, religion, marriage, the constitution, and democracy itself, if we are given half a chance.  And we are willing to lie, cheat, seal, and even commit murder in order to achieve our goals.  

          What would you do if you knew that someone was about to destroy something you love dearly?  How far would you go to stop them?  That is the question facing many conservatives.  They see their mission as "protecting America", not from terrorists, but from "liberals" who would destroy it.  

          Those who have "drunk the cool aid" do think that bush has done well in Iraq... or at least they think that he has done better than any democrat would have done.  Their views of the world are formed from the words of bush and cheney themselves, and reinforced by fox and sinclair news and good 'ol rush (wonder how he got that nickname?) himself.  Anything that those other media tell them are immediately discounted as "biased" and "anti-American".  

      •  not exactly (none)
        that's the propaganda.

        The Bushies don't believe this themselves. They know they can never again allow Democrats to assume control of federal law enforcement or prosecution because a number of them will get the death penalty.

  •  Wasn't Rice under Oath at the 9/11 hearings? (none)
    Or does lying under oath only count if you are a Republican???
    •  IIRC (none)
      She refused to testify if she couldn't testify without being under oath.... Pretty clear admission that she intended to lie isn't it?

      I will try to verify this...

      "But we have to stay angry and keep objecting. It's like staying awake in the freezing cold. If we sleep, we're dead." - Mary Julia (dKos poster)

      by I Want My American Pride Back on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:31:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, Bride of Chucky Perjured Herself (4.00)

        She resisted appearing at all, and then resisted testifying under oath.

        In the end, they worked out a compromise that she did have to testify under oath (many Commission witnesses did not) but they permitted her to actually place her hand on the Bible and be sworn in a room off the hearing room, because they feared the Bible would ignite when she placed her hand on it.

        She lied, lied, lied.  But no fellatio was involved!  Just kidnapping, arson and mass murder!

        No news here, folks!  Michael Jackson is a perv -- lookie here!  And Prince Charles is making an Honest Woman of Camilla at last!

        "I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat . . . and I don't like them now in my own country." (Joe Wilson)

        by proudtinfoilhat on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:45:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is the absence of fellatio .. (none)
          that I find truly disturbing.  Just what sort of National Security Advisor was she, anyway?

          Apparently I have made the unbelievably naive error of overestimating the intelligence of the American people.

          by Citizen Clark on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:16:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  In the Real World (none)
          this would result in a perp walk. However, this is BushWorld. Nothing will happen. Sometimes I just wish I would wake up and find this was all a really bad dream. Stealing Billions of dollars. Killing Tens of Thousands of innocent people. Raping our natural habitates. Denying the Right to Vote to Thousands of Americans. Lying as a regular part of the government. Hatred and oppression of those who are different form them. We've got to get rid of them. If there's any justice in this country, they will be brought down. I need a fucking drink!

          I am not a crook!

        •  "Bride of Chucky"!!! (none)
          Thanks for the laugh before I head home!  Have a good weekend.
        •  Bravo, alcoa-sombrero (none)
          I heard they used a special Teflon impregnated Nomex Bible, and were still worried.

          It's a good thing I didn't have a mouth full of coffee when I read that or I'd need a special Teflon impregnated Nomex keyboard.

          "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." Groucho Marx

          by justme on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 05:01:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Redaction (none)
    Didn't somebody use software to recover some of the redacted part?

    if it's not too long, a redacted part can be guessed using software...

    so...I am willing to bet somebody is busy looking at those documents already.

    •  IIRC (none)
      There was a (British?) grad student who had developed the guessing software as part of her master's thesis, and used it to decode a number of classified tidbits.

      From what I've seen of the redactions in this case, though, they seem to be far too large to be effective.  The guessing software is useful for deciphering redacted names, places, times, etc.-- but fails when entire setences are blacked out.

      And how can Bush be expected to cover up his own ineptitude by redacting only a few words here and there?  This kind of fuck-up requires major content redaction to the tune of paragraphs, not letters.

      "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 02:59:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I love rice (none)
    Basmati, jasmine, arborio, stick, short-grain, long-grain.

    But this lyin' Rice is new to me. Sounds like it tastes foul.

  •  bottom line: (none)
    Bush should not be President today.

    "I will never accept an analysis that says a leader who stands for equality and fairness and who has the courage of his convictions is doing the wrong thing."

    by CrazyDem on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:16:37 PM PST

  •  beyond the substance of the lies- (4.00)
    is the mere fact that there are NEVER any repercussions for the lies (at least so far; we can only hope) is the horrible example that this sets for just plain folks -- including kids.  The cultural tone of "you can get away with whatever you want as long as you get away with it" is much more damaging to our national mores, ethos, whatever than any "values" garbage the reactionaries spew out.
    •  I dont know about being worse (none)
      like you said, but it sure is the most frustrating aspect to it all, that's for sure.

      Lies, lies, lies. And it seems even when the truth does get it's shoes on, everyones too busy looking at the next lie race around the world.

      There is simply too much, it's like trying to take a drink from a fire hose, constantly.

      I am a Reform Democrat

      by Pounder on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:44:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  As this point is not sexy... (4.00)
      ...it will surely be overlooked but I think you are exactly right.  In fact, I think this is really the scariest thing about all this - the example that is being given to all of our kids who will be running this country in the years to come...

      The ends justify the means, even if the means are lying, stealing, lying, killing, lying, torturing, etc.  and even if the ends are really not going to help anyone but the richest in the world.  

      "Don't bother voting because the elections are worthless"  Another Rethug mess that they love...they win either way...either they rig the election for themselves and win or we complain about the election BEING rigged and that turns our side and undecideds off voting at all cuz "it doesn't matter".

      There have always been people in our society that believe staunchly in the concept of "Everything and always and only for self at any and all costs"  These selfish pricks usually got countered by enough people who cared about others (and realized that if you screwed everyone else then there wouldn't be a society anymore) but those days are fading fast.  Our culture is being attacked by the selfish who use hate as a tool and banner, and they are instilling a deep seated fear in everyone that "you are not safe, no matter how much you think you are, so you better figure out whose SIDE you are on"

      How can we possibly expect our kids to grow up to be responsible citizens of the world, or even their own community, with these sorts of moral and societal moorings to underpin their values?  

      It truly makes me sad to see that the demise of this country is inevitable if people don't seriously make a DRAMATIC shift to the concept that we are all in this world together.  I'd have thought something as full-frontal as 9/11 would have been enough of a catalyst for this...but "Georgie" told us to fill his friends pockets with money to fight that battle and everyone said "sure!"... So very sad...

      "But we have to stay angry and keep objecting. It's like staying awake in the freezing cold. If we sleep, we're dead." - Mary Julia (dKos poster)

      by I Want My American Pride Back on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:47:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  My 12 year old can see this. (none)
      He asks me all the time "How do they get away with that, dad?  Do they think we're stupid?"

      What the hell am I supposed to tell him?

      I can't wait until the Rapture! -- FREE STUFF! --EVERYWHERE!

      by God loves goats on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:04:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Mine, too (none)
        And so I tell him I'm very proud of him -- and his willingness to use his brain, unlike too many grups who, even if they aren't "stupid" are just too wrapped up in their own day-to-day lives -- for any variety of reasons --  to pay attention to what government is doing.  

        I don't want him to be as cynical and jaded as I am, yet -- I figure I'll let him wait til he's in high school.

      •  yes (none)
        tell him yes, they think we're stupid and that is why it is so important to encourage dissent or alternative views.  even when the dems get back in power, we need a republican balance so we don't try this shit ourselves.

        "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." ~ George Washington

        by guyermo on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 07:22:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Forget the kids (none)
      As far as I can see the damage doesn't just occur years down the line as it effects our children. It is effecting the judgment of Adults everywhere. Either that or I am coincidentally surrounded by lazy, anti-intellectual buck passers who don't mind doing damage to get their way if they bother to show up at all.

      I digress

      The perversion of the moral code of America does not occur in a vacuum. To support this administration, his followers have had to give up their ability to determine right from wrong but always claim the former when it comes to self governance. They in turn bring out the worst in those around them, be they children or not.

      Leadership by Example

      by haywood on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:12:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis (none)
      Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

      "Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" --Allen Ginsberg

      by JRowan on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 07:41:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  HOW THE F*&% COULD THEY WITHOLD THIS? (none)
    "for national security concerns" MY ASS.

    How about this for a better answer?

    "for national [Republican election] security [of victory] concerns"

    Because if this came out before the election, no fucking way Bush would be in office, let alone Abu Gonzo, Condi, etc.

    Outrage, I tell ya. Outrage.

    •  NPR (none)
      It's inexcusable that, yesterday, news organizations like NPR simply repeated the "for national security reasons" line without question or follow-up.  

      And that this story was 4th or 5th in the line-up...not nearly as important as Prince Charles and Camilla, of course.  

      •  This illustrates why the SCLM (none)
        is so dangerous these days.

        They are more committed to "even-handness" than they are to truth.

        We need a "LNN", a 24 hour Liberal News Network cablestation so badly.

        If our wealthy contributors can't get this going maybe we have to consider the possibilities of starting some kind of video news service ourselves?

      •  The NewsHour (none)
        The lead piece on the NewsHour tonight was an absolutely disgusting piece on Rice's visit to Europe, narrated by a fawning Margaret Warner.  Made no mention of this memo.  She interviewed Robin Wright afterwards and it seemed like the two of them were more concerned about getting invited to Condi's next intimate home fashion show than doing any real reporting.  It was all about "style" -- sickening.

        Send them a letter

        Let's see if Mark Shields can pin the tail on the donkey.  The weasel Rich Lowry is sitting in for Bo Bo.

        "The government is us, you and me." - TR

        by Chance the gardener on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:32:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes they withheld this to win the election (none)
      If this had come out before the election, it would have seriously undermined Bush's credbility and his war on terra message he used in order to scare people to vote for him. His chances of winning would have been slim so of course, in the name of national security, Rove saw to it that this was kept from the public. It is horrendous and it should be the front page and top story of every paper and news network. We were deceived and lied to and information kept secret from the public of this serious nature is absolutely cause to go after this administration and never let up. Let us not let the media ride on this but let us ride them hard that this is very critical and serious !
  •  Ed Schultz was all over this (none)
    ...yesterday (Feb. 10). He even had Cong. Henry Waxman on the show, who pointed out that this stuff was finally released, get this, 48 hours after Rice was confirmed by the Senate!
  •  I can't understand (none)
    why KE'04 did not run hard against BushCo's handling of 9/11.

    BushCo was so utterly negligent and our side failed to take advantage.

    Bush failed to protect us! Why didn't we make this case clearly enough?

    •  Do people not want to believe Bush failed us? (none)
      That's all it can be.  KE'04 must have thought (probably Shurm) that Americans didn't want to hear that Bush is incompetent.  I remember the moment after 9-11, even though I didn't trust Dubya, that he would do the right thing.  And that he had competent people--life long fed employees--who would still be doing their jobs.

      We were wrong.  Bush lied.  He was lazy.  And the sooner we Dems keep repeating this, the better.

      America needs to wake-up and smell the coffee.  We were duped.  

      •  The first time I (4.00)
        started to believe we could win was last spring during the Richard Clarke hearings; there was blood in the water. Then in June the story hit Abu Ghraib and all hell broke lose.

        But, in July the "consultants" torched the idea of running hard against Bush during our convention. Soon we were on to Swift Boats and everyone seemed to forget BushCo's negligence.

      •  That's absolutely correct (none)
        Conventional wisdom (amongst our VERY unwise masses) would not allow the merest thought that such incompetence (or outright irresponsibility) could exist.
        I stated elsewhere here today that when the Osama video came out, Kerry, in his very first reaction, alluded to the fact that Osama's still being at large was an indication of Bush's failure in the WOT.  He later backtracked, due no doubt to dilpomatic consideration that we were walking on eggshells on the matter, saying: "we are all Americans".
        Kerry simply would not risk going off the deep end and stating in the harshest terms possible, that Bush was fucking up the WOT.  It would never fly with the majority of voters, who would never countenance such a thought.
        •  The best part of the 04 campaign (none)
          was the Democratic Primaries--before a single vote had been cast.  10 Dems on a stage telling Americans just how bad Bush's policies were.  There were, what, 17 debates--most of them got coverage live on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX.  I'm sure all the nightlies always had a segment on them too.

          That's why I am totally against the front-loaded primary process.  If only all those 10 Dems were still having debates, and in front of the cameras when Abu Ghraib broke... imagine the damage we could have done to Dubya, and to waking up Americans to the fact that, yes, Bush used are fear for his own personal and political gain after 9-11.

    •  I can answer that only (none)
      as what i suspect the response might have been:

      making that too much of an issue, and the right wing media would have jumped on it for using the victims for political gain.

      i know.  

      all i'm saying is it could have backfired.

    •  I agree. (4.00)
      That's my question, too. Kerry refused to make Bush pay politically for 9/11, and he lost.

      The Bush adminstration was negligent. The first thing I thought on 9/11 was, "How could they have let this happen?" You don't have four planes hijacked on the same day and not have serious screwups. And yet nobody is held responsible.

      They had warnings. Lots of them, which were ignored. Bush is on an unprecedented month-long vacation right before 9/11. It was the duty of the Democrats, especially Kerry, to hold them accountable, but they and he did not.

      And this is to say nothing about "The Pet Goat."

      I am a reform Democrat.

      by thinkdouble on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:27:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Risk (none)
      It's a much riskier proposition to "politicize 9/11" than it is to carefully nudge your way along the electoral map.  IMHO, the Democratic strategists thought they could win without doing anything too daring -- so they didn't.

      So Bush's weakness going into the election actually contributed to a tiptoeing, careful kind of Democratic campaign.  Had Bush been stronger, Kerry and his crew would have had to try to swing for the fences, and then it all would have been out there:  9/11, torture, class warfare (on us, by the rich), you name it.

      They tried to run out the clock and kick a mid-range field goal at the end, instead of going for a decisive spirit-breaking touchdown -- because they worried about getting intercepted.

      •  That's exactly why Dean would have won (none)
        and why the GOP propaganda machine made Dean seem unelectable. Dean would have done a full assault on the neo-con war machine.

        "Blogging doesn't make it so" - Sen. Hayworth (R) AZ 1/6/2005. Oh yeah?

        by bejammin075 on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:58:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  When will Americans forgive themselves (none)
          for trusting Bush.  We all did.  Right after 9-11--I mean that very day, I remember tuning into his address at night.  I said a prayer for him, and pleaded with God for him to do the right thing--and this is from an athiest, so you know ow much I wanted Bush to rise to the occasion, and do good for Americans.

          Bush didn't.

          •  I'm sorry to jump in here (none)
            & contradict you, pacified .. but there are many of us who have never, ever trusted Bush & the events of September 11, 2001 didn't change that.
            That evening a group of us sat together quietly in a Brooklyn kitchen directly across the river from the WTC center site, the horrendous smell drifting into the open windows, and said, 'Well, here we go.'  The basic, overwhelming sense was that  the tragedy still unfolding would be the ultimate license for anything & everything Bush & his ilk hoped to accomplish during his tenure. It was a mix of deep dread, bleak certainty & the faintest of hopes that, not Bush, but our fellow citizens & elected representatives, would rise to the occasion.  
            And here we are ..
            •  A-friggin-MEN (none)
              Not to know pacified either, but I get so tired of hearing that trope in its various forms: "Well, we all thought Saddam had WMD stockpiles..." "We all supported Bush on 9/12..." "Nobody knew Bush would govern this far to the right" etc.  

              Like hell.

              I was sitting at my computer when the WTC got hit.  I actually felt guilty about how quickly it occurred to me to worry about what a post-9/11 Bush Administration might do, thus empowered.

              None of this applies to pacified, either--but frequently the subtext of this reassuring "nobody could've known he'd be this bad" assertion is "You lone Cassandras were right back when I was still drinking the Kool-aid and calling you a traitor, and I'd prefer to forget that."  Especially common among Johnny-come-lately center-left pundits.  

              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 Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 05:46:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  @#%$# fingers! (none)
                That first line should be "not to KNOCK pacified, either."

                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 Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 05:47:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  I dunno (none)
        I'm of the mind that nothing Kerry could have done could have beated these thugs this time...and the worse the world gets, I sometimes am relieved that the godforsaken monkeyman feral thug is all responsible for it....It could be a blessing in disguise...we'll have to see how it goes.

        All I know is, he squeaks out an election by 2.8%, claims he has a MAN-date, then in a quest for the history books, rolls out his "bold" Social Security "product." And guess what?: it has hit a fucking brick wall and is going nowhere. And his numbers are generally tanking. Sometimes, unfortunately, it takes time for enough Americans to catch on. Maybe that is the case here...

        I have a little hope.

        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 Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:36:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It was simple (none)
      every time KE said "9/11", they said,
      "I voted for the $87 million for the war before I voted against it."

      If only Rice would have said.
      "I knew a lot about airplanes crashing into buildings before I knew nothing about it"

      I can't wait until the Rapture! -- FREE STUFF! --EVERYWHERE!

      by God loves goats on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:12:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fairfield County, CT speaks (4.00)
    911 families outraged by FAA report

    By PETER URBAN purban@ctpost.com

    WASHINGTON -- Word that the Federal Aviation Administration received dozens of warnings before Sept. 11, 2001, that al-Qaida wanted to hit airlines infuriated family members of those killed in the attacks.

    The previously undisclosed report by the 9-11 commission detailed 52 such warnings given to FAA leaders between April and Sept. 10, 2001, about the radical Islamic terrorist group and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

    "It just slams me right into my heart all over again," said Eunice Hanson of Easton, Conn., Thursday. "Deep down, I believe that whole thing could have been avoided if people were minding the store. I would have my kids today if people were doing their job."

    Her son, Peter Hanson, 32; his wife, Sue Kim Hanson; and their 2-year-old daughter, Christine, died on United Airlines Flight 175 when it crashed into the World Trade Center. Hanson, who lived in Groton, Mass., called his parents from his cell phone just before the plane hit the second tower.
    Eunice Hanson, who is the Republican registrar of voters in Easton, said that she is "just disheartened" by the latest news that was first reported in the New York Times.
    "My country let me down," she said.
    Other Connecticut family survivors echoed that sentiment on Thursday.
    "This is nothing short of criminal negligence as far as I'm concerned," said Monica Gabrielle of West Haven, whose husband was killed in the World Trade Center.

  •  Wonder how Ted Olsen (4.00)
    is feeling right now? He has his own wifes blood all over his hands. This is Shocking. We, as an entire country are in BIG TROUBLE.

    educate 'em when they're young

    by Chamonix on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:23:51 PM PST

  •  Bring perjury charges!!! (4.00)
    We need, our Senate and congress needs, to bring perjury charges against Rice. Right now.

    She LIED. That's that.

    How can we make this happen? I don't know the mechanism for perjury. I want to know, so I can know who in the Senate and/or Congress to call. To make this happen.

    "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

    by jbeach on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:24:14 PM PST

    •  I'm sick and outraged... (none)
      I want to see all of those who knew answer for this.
    •  Interesting (none)
      Just who can bring perjury charges up against an administration official?

      I gues it would have to be a special prosecutor.  Fuck.

      •  if the senate (none)
        confirmed the the nominee, surely they could revoke/impeach said nominee.  the problem is you need a senate able and willing.  we've been dealt a stacked deck in that regard.

        "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." ~ George Washington

        by guyermo on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:11:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The investigator would pursue it... (none)
        But it sure seems like the Congress or the Senate would commence the investigation...

        ...but that's to find out if anything wrong has been done. We know something wrong has been done. So it doesn't even seem like there's some to investigate.

        I guess what I'm saying is, investigations exist to find enough evidence to bring something to court. But here the evidence already exists in the public record! So it seems like it could just go straight to the courts, no?

        "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

        by jbeach on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:28:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  How about... (none)
        ...a private action? Can you sue the National Security Advisor? Maybe a class action suit....
    •  Americans are so tired (none)
      from it all, and now this ?  

      This is heartbreaking, I didn't want to beleive the worse. How can I ignore it now ?    

    •  D'ya think Abu G will prosecute Condi? (none)

      That would be "Torture Guy," who wrote that Condi's hus--boss was above the law, l'etat, c'est lui?

      Or that the House will vote to impeach her, after every single Repugglinazi Senator voted to confirm her?

      Me neither.

      "I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat . . . and I don't like them now in my own country." (Joe Wilson)

      by proudtinfoilhat on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:50:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That would be the job of an independent AG... (none)
      OOPS!
  •  Makes me want to weep! (none)
    No wonder Richard Clark commented that they were running around like their hair was on fire.  We can only imagine his frustration at the Bush admin's complete inattention and ignorance.
    •  I think it was Ed Schultz that (none)
      made the point today that every bit of testimony that Richard Clarke made before the committee has been proven true by all the documents that are being dribbled out.

      Unfortunately, the damage is done. I'm hoping it can be used as a case to march the whole lot of them to prison.

      Where are we going and what are we doing in this hand basket?

      by awnm on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:17:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It makes me want to kick someone's ass (none)
      Namely all the morons who voted for the Chimpreror

      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 Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:58:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  PNAC's Pearl Hrbor (none)
    Occam's razor: they wanted it to happen

    Fight the bastards, rock the kids.

    by flatulus on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:24:41 PM PST

    •  Wasn't there a lawsuit... (none)
      ...filed in San Francisco if I recall, alleging that the government not only knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, but actually orchestrated them?  Whatever became of this?
      •  I hate to keep harping on this (none)
        I'm sounding like a broken record even to myself.

        But the PNAC report didn't say anything like "we need a new Pearl Harbor" or in any way allude to the fact that an attack on the US would be a good thing.  It simply said that any change in the military would be a slow one in the absence of a Pearl Harbor-like event.

        The authors may have felt this way, but as of yet there is  no conclusive evidence to back up claims of government involvement in the attacks.

        And I still fail to see how Bush's knowing involvement in 9/11, passive or not, becomes the most likely explanation when there are so many other equally valid scenarios (incompetence for one) that don't involve politicians condoning murder of 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 Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:31:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's Right! (4.00)

          The PNACers DIDN'T say, "hey, we're going to get inside the government and then engineer a mass-casualty terror event, blame it on foreigners, and then launch wars so we can get rich and achieve our imperial ends."

          No.  They said certain things (like overthrowing Saddam Hussein, becoming more aggressive militarily etc. and securing energy resources) were desirable.  War, aggression, fascism.

          They said those goals would be costly.

          They said Americans wouldn't make the necessary sacrifices, unless there were to occur a "catastrophic and catalyzing event."

          Then, a couple of years later, a boatload of the co-signers of "Rebuilding America's Defenses" DID enter the government.

          Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Doug Feith, and Jeb Bush's brother, George.

          Eight months later, there occurred a "New Pearl Harbor."  Followed, in short order, by war, aggression, and something that increasingly resembles fascism.

          The Official Story regarding the events is rife with anomalies.

          It is increasingly evident that high Administration officials knew more, much more, than has been admitted up until now.

          As in any homicide investigation, one should look at who benefited from the crime.

          Halliburton (Cheney's company).  Bechtel (Rummy's company).  Carlyle Group (Poppy Bush's company).  Richard Perle.  Financially or politically, pretty much all of these pricks.

          Sure has a nasty odour to it, dontcha think?

          "I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat . . . and I don't like them now in my own country." (Joe Wilson)

          by proudtinfoilhat on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:59:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You crazy liberal (none)
            "conspiracy theorist."

            You should be ashamed of suggesting that the people who rule over us would do such a thing to our country.

            Feel shame.  Feel shame.  Feel shame.

            Go walk around with your tail between your legs for what you've just written.

            Now, who would say such things about you?

            --the GOP politicians in and out of the Bush Admininstration

            --the supporters of Bush

            --the corporate media

            --all three of the above

          •  Sure (none)
            but a nasty odor does not the single most depraved conspiracy in US history make.

            You could use the same line of reasoning to suggest the OBL was behind the Iraq war.  After all, we know we wasn't a big fan of Saddam. He benefited with thousands of new al-Qaeda requits, and the heat was taken off of Afghanistan at a critical point in time.  Add in his connections to the Bush family, and voila!  Proof that OBL plotted the war in Iraq.

            This analogy is ridiculous of course.  Only slightly moreso than the Bush-9/11 conspiracy hypotheses.

            In fact, both conspiracies can be explained away in the same way:

            Bush's administration is idiotic-- his foreign policy and threat analyses focus single-mindedly on Iraq, to the detriment of other real and valid concerns.

            We believe it's the case now, we is it so hard to believe it was the case pre-9/11?

            "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 04:38:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  d'oh (none)
              "why is it" not "we is it"

              "recruits" not "requits"

              "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 04:40:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I think about it this way (none)
              To name the Right Wing Conspiracy as such is to give it too much credit.
              To not name the Right Wing Conspiracy as such is to not give it enough credit.

              I don't think there was an actual conspiracy where a number of actors got together and planned out all the details.  It was more like a group of like minded individuals who were working for the same goals hit jackpot.  It is not a "conspiracy" in the strong sense, more like a loosely coordinated effort.  That's my opinion at this point.

              We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the Bad Things. - Terry Pratchett

              by Rambuncle on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 05:48:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  All signs point to "yes" (4.00)
      We seem to be getting more and more understanding as to why Bush fought the 9/11 panel in the first place, and then tried to control it with Kissinger, and finally stonewalled.

      I don't see how one can not conclude the Bush Administration intentionally let 9/11 happen. To believe the government is rife with so much incompetence and "I didn't know it was my job" stretches credibility much more than thinking they intentionally wanted people to die so they could push their political agenda.

      I won't go so far as to suggest they helped the terrorists, or that they knew 9/11 was the day. But the evidence mounts daily that they did everything they could to thwart all anti-terrorism activity in our government.

      GOP: Party before Country
      Puppethead

      by puppethead on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:36:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Consider (4.00)
        It's not so hard to imagine that they sort of "left the guard down" intentionally, especially if nobody thought it was going to be as devastating an attack as it turned out to be.

        Seriously, consider that scenario, and then look at W's expression as he sat in that Florida schoolroom.  The look to me says "I f#cked up".

        •  I think you're giving him too much credit (none)
          I think it just meant "oh fuck, now what?"

          I don't think he has "I fucked up" in his vocabulary.  Here is an incompetent man who has been bailed out all his life, and as far as I can tell, fully believes it has been all him all the way.

          Apparently I have made the unbelievably naive error of overestimating the intelligence of the American people.

          by Citizen Clark on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:21:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That LOOK still haunts me . . . (4.00)
            I'm with Kilgore. That look on Bush's face speaks volumes, and has creeped me out since that very day.

            You could SEE that he wasn't shocked by something he didn't understand, or wasn't even angry at being attacked; he was sickened by something he knew about and regretted.

            I'm not advancing some kind of major conspiracy. I'm just convinced Chimpy knew what had happened when it happened. He saw the intelligence, and had laughed it off. And---right then---he was scared shitless for having done nothing to stop it.

            You can imagine the meeting on the "ranch" where they all yucked it up about that "crazy raghead OBL" that Richard Clarke was all wound up about, those endless FAA alerts, and that ridiculous PDB that suggested terrorism from the skies . . . "Clinton was scared of Aye-rabs. The HELL if I'll be scared of 'em!" says George.  Cheney, Rice, and the other assorted demons snort and chortle, "Yes, yes! The hell if we'll be scared of Aye-rabs!"  Hahahahaha!

            That look on his face tells the real story . . .

            •  George's Schoolroom Thoughts (none)

              Actually, I think W's thoughts that morning in the Florida classrom were probably along the lines of the following:

              1.  Sheesh, these kids read better than I do!

              2.  Sheesh, I thought Rummy said NEXT Tuesday the Towers were comin' down!

              3.  Sheesh, d'ya think I can get a drink somewhere around here???

              "I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat . . . and I don't like them now in my own country." (Joe Wilson)

              by proudtinfoilhat on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:02:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Another Element to this story (none)
              There is another element to this story that is pretty well known, but is normally not added in at the juncture of asking what was Bush's mindset at the moment -- or early moments of 911.

              Last week Frontline did a 2 hour program that at the end includes this story element -- it is about the state of relations between the Saudi Government and the US in the summer of 2001.  The Crown Prince Abdullah had written a stinging letter to Bush about his policy vis a vis Israel and Palestine, for all intents saying that if Bush did not approach the conflict in a more even handed way, Saudi Arabia would consider its options.  (You can see some of the documentation at the Frontline Website.)  The Crown Prince's point was exceptionally clear -- The Saudi people were watching TV 24/7 and over and over again they were watching Palestinians being beat bloody and killed, and Bush's reaction was to say Sharon had to do what Sharon had to do.  You may remember at the beginning of the summer the Bush's allowed out the story about Bush Senior calling the Crown Prince and "vouching" for his son's heart being in the right place -- and after the letter, Bush started making some vague statements about some sort of "two state solution" but Bush also had made it clear to Bandar that he did not intent to invest any personal political capital in Israel-Palestine. Through Bandar Bush had extended an invitation in the spring of 2001 for the Crown Prince to visit DC, but Abdullah refused the invitation.  

              There are many things about Saudi pressure that summer we probably don't know, but we know enough to add it into any analysis of Bush's state of mind in this period.  And -- given that the national identity of at least some of the Hijackers was established within an hour of the first attack, one should assume I think that Bush's actions on 911 were very much predicated on this recent exchange of extremely harsh letters with the Saudi Crown Prince.  In fact he really had no way of "knowing" whether the attacks were semi-officially sanctioned by Saudi authority or were totally the work of renigades, and that would not be clear for months.  In fact some quite close to the Saudi Royal Family were involved to the extent of supporting and financing bin Laden.  (We still have not seen the Joint Intelligence Committee 911 report chapter on Saudi involvement -- remember the censored 29 pages???  Remember what Bob Graham has been saying???)

              On 911 Bush was brought up short on two accounts on decisions he had made.  First, he had bet he could be "unClinton" and ignore the Israel-Palestine matter, -- Let Sharon do his thing, blame it all on Arafat -- invest no domestic political capital in working on a peace process.  And Second, that decision resulted in a grave deterioration in Saudi-US relations.  He had been threatened by the Crown Prince with consequences.  What makes this much more irresponsible is that he also had ignored so much of the intelligence -- the stuff Clarke was pumping up the chain -- the many warnings from Tenet.  We know he got some of these warnings, but I have my doubts if it was much more detailed than the August 6 briefing we have seen, which while it is a warning, it also has all sorts of false comfort notes such as the count of active FBI investigations which we now know had little quality to them.  

              We have to add this intense background into any analysis.  

        •  I think he was thinking (none)
          "So of a bitch, Chenney was right!"
      •  Like the new (at the time) head of the FAA (none)
        who didn't quite seem to think it was his job to put NORAD on alert. He was the only one with that authority!  Tidbit courtesy of Randi Rhodes

        Where are we going and what are we doing in this hand basket?

        by awnm on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:21:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually that tidbit (none)
          was from YEARS LATER, when he STILL didn't know he had authority.

          But his behavior on 9-11--when he had been assigned to the job for his first day--was basically the same.

          Don't forget the "missing" FAA tapes....

      •  incompetence (none)
        governmental incompetence should never be the least likely scenario in any situation where conspiracies are suspected.  Especially when it concerns incomptence with this administration.

        Also consider that Bush's ideology, as well as the general mood pre-9/11, may have led Bush to brush off reports of terrorism and place them as a far lower priority than concerns with his perennial bogeymen like Iraq and DPRK.

        Bush should have connected the dots in 2001, but his failure to do so shouldn't railroad us into the position that he knowingly allowed the attacks or took part in it.  He is still criminally responsible for his negligence without the conspiracy theories.

        "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 03:46:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well (4.00)
      Given a choice between simple incompetence and a large conspiracy, nine times out of ten  incomptence is the correct choice of Occam's razor.

      However, there are a lot of really supicious things about 9/11.  There's the timing of the date.  First off, it's "catchy", and reminds people of the 911 emergency phone number.  Second, it's late enough in the administration that they would have time to coordinate it, but early enough they could still "blame Clinton" for a lot of fall out.  Also, there were lots of things that were weird on the government's response to the announcement of the attacks-I'm sure you've all seen the conspiracy websites listing such oddities.

  •  No! You AREN'T suggesting... (none)
    POLITICAL REASONS???

    The Bush Administration?

    Come on, get real!

    (sarcasm)

    Fascism: it's the new black.

    by marjo on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:24:47 PM PST

  •  not national security ... (none)
    ... just job security.

    Proud member of the reality-based minority

    by Bearpaw on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:25:40 PM PST

  •  Saw Commissioner Benvenista (3.66)
    On the telly last night saying that there was no national security reason to have the redactions in the reports and that the secrecy of this administration has been astounding and perplexing.

    We want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and we want it NOW.

  •  La la la la la Liiiies....... (none)
    Apparently lying to cover your ass is okay these days.
    President Clinton was impeached for lying about not telling a lie in the Paula Jones thingy.

    You'd think Bush could be impeached for lying every single day of his life.  (Of course Bush and Cheney weren't under oath when they met with the 9/11 commission, were they?)

    My question is: Head of FAA is not a cabinet level position, but Department of Transporation is.  
    How much did Norman Y. Mineta SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION know about the warnings?  What did he do, and how did Bush respond?

  •  Why isn't (none)
    the mainstream media up in arms over this??? I'm appalled. Angry. Frustrated. Livid. Most Americans still get their news from ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN. Are these guys giving the attention to this it deserves? What the fuck is going on????? (I personally don't bother with the 'big guys' anymore. I prefer to read the truth from reliable online sources, like Kos, Media Matters, etc.)

    They knew they'd lose the election if this came out.

    Can't wait to hear Condi lie her way out of this one.

    Can't wait to hear how chimpy tries to explain this blatant cover-up.

    "Suppression of a political opinion leads to it's violent expression".

    by JenD on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:28:21 PM PST

    •  Please (none)
      don't tell me you just asked whether FOX is giving this the attention it deserves. I only have so much capacity for laughing and crying at the same time.

      Silent consent or active dissent, the choice is OURS.

      by Alphakafka on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:34:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, I had no doubt. (none)
        Just mentioning the news outlets that most people watch. Be it news or faux news.

        If FOX mentioned it......then that would have been proof that hell had indeed frozen over.

        "Suppression of a political opinion leads to it's violent expression".

        by JenD on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:37:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Get out your mittens!! (none)
          Fox news did indeed report it, and discussed it yesterday morning on Fox & Friends.  Their conclusion?  It wouldn't have mattered anyway, because no one would have known to look for boxcutters.  I wish that I could say I was kidding, but I'm not.  That was said by Perky Blonde Anchor (I can never watch long enough to actually learn their names).

          I can't believe that the hypno-Roves actually bought this tripe!  Even Perky Blonde (I'll call her Eva for now) looked like she was swallowing her own bile as she said this.  Then, somehow, from this, they segued into some gay joke about "If you fix one pipe, does that make you a plumber?".  This is the desired network of the God-fearing, America loving right?  Ignoring gross negligence on a massive scale on one hand, and then suddenly they're yucking it up like shock jocks.  

          The biggest difference between Fox and the so-called liberal press, is that the liberal press are professional, whereas Fox is staffed with a bunch of immature toadies fully lacking  any integrity to themselves, or to their country.

          •  Except the hijackers had a GUN (none)
            One of them did, at least, on flight 11.

            Another FAA tidbit the right wing corporate media refuses to report.

            •  He was just (none)
              exercising his Second Amendment rights.  What are you, some commie gun-control wacko?

              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 Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:01:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  That's rich (none)
            Someone should do a study on selective memory with regard to the boxcutters the hijackers used.  

            Forget the hell out of 'em when you want to build a missile defense shield or invade a country that might have exotic weapons, remember 'em again when proof shows up that you ignored multiple specific threats in your own country.  

            "Hey, the warnings didn't mention box cutters! They just said Bin Laden was determined to attack.  Soon.  In the US.  With airplanes.  I mean, how were we to do anything with such incomplete intelli--What's that?  Ahmed Chalabi's cousin gave us a photo of some 'suspicious' trucks near an Iraqi bunker?  PREPARE TO INVADE!!!"

            Fuck.

            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 Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 05:59:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  just checked. (none)
      CBS was the only one who had any info on this on their main page.

      Bastards.

      "Suppression of a political opinion leads to it's violent expression".

      by JenD on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:35:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yesterday (none)
        It was there yesterday afternoon (below the Charles-Camilla stories, of course).  And the media really focused on N Korea for most of the day, as their seemingly lone "serious story of the day."  We've just got to keep up the pressure to restore the story to the headlines.
    •  they won't even try (none)
      to explain the cover-up. They don't give a (exponent deleted) about explaining anything to the American people. They know they won't be held accountable and that half the country cares more about abortions and gays not being allowed to get married then they do about this kinda (exponent deleted). Remember guy, Bush and Co. lied and got us into a war, that is big deals, and yet still the (exponent deleted) republicans didn't give a (exponent deleted). We could find out that Bush and Co. finianced the entire 9/11 tragedy and still the republicans would only give a (exponent deleted) that Jim and George next door wanted to get married.
      •  don't hold back! (none)
        (exponent deleted)

        We prurient math types wanna know!  was it squared?  cubed?  negative?  some kinky irrational (or transcendental)?  some racy imaginary number belonging entirely to the realm of fantasy?  

        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 Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:05:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  the Nixon tapes (none)
        had [expletive deleted] three times in every sentence

        "With Liberty and Justice for All"

        by ohshenandoah on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:20:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Fuck them (none)
    They are disgusting people.
  •  AAAhhh... (none)
    the good guys keep on getting gooder.

    Silent consent or active dissent, the choice is OURS.

    by Alphakafka on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:32:33 PM PST

  •  "this story continues to unfold" (none)
    I hope you're right but i think this story will disappear with all of the other reality-based stories about the administration's incompetence.  Sadly the media seem to think that they should act like the 3 monkies "hear no evil" speak no evil and 'say no evil."
  •  Disgusting (none)
    Those in the Bush Administration have really shown their true colors.

    They lied, directly to the 9/11 Commision, to Congress, to the UN.

    They failed to bring justice to those that planned and executed the worst attacks on U.S. soil. 3000 dead, and NO ONE has paid for that.

    And then, they've covered up their incompetence with double-talk and redactions and ORANGE! YELLOW! ORANGE! YELLOW! ORANGE! warnings.

    Why?

    TO GET RE-ELECTED.

    They are just disgusting human beings. That's it, bottom line.

    Disgusting.

    The only thing I can do to keep my fucking head from exploding is believe in Karma.

    •  F**k that... (none)
      they lied to us, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians... they lied to f**king America...

      And somehow, some twisted way, 50.5% of America is absolutely okay with that.

      I don't understand.  I want to leave.  This is not freedom, nor Democracy.

    •  Karma? (none)
      Does believing in Karma really help to keep your head from exploding? Maybe I need to give that a try.

      Because the cognitive dissonance in my brain right now is almost impossible to take. MILLIONS of idiots voted for Bush thinking he'd "keep them safe," while in fact it was his administration that negligently ignored dozens of warnings that could have prevented catastrophe.

      And then the security advisor who fucked up and LIED about fucking up, and got all bent out of shape because someone pointed out that she's a serial liar, GETS PROMOTED.

      Can Karma really help process all this?....

      •  Karma (none)
        Yeah...it may not be before 2006, or 2008, but I have to believe at some point people that care so little about human life, that care so little about the truth, that treat their fellow countrymen and women with such disregard -- at some point, it has to catch up with them.

        When it does, I hope it's in public, in plain sight of everyone.

        You have to believe you cannot act like they do and get away with it. We know the truth, and it HAS to catch up with them at some point.

        That's all I got. It may be weak...but what else can ya do?

        •  It's better than what I've got (none)
          ...which seems to alternate between rage and despair.

          Although contributing to the Dean-led DNC yesterday did cheer me up some. I'm hoping Dr. Dean, Sen. Reid et al will finally help people see some light.

  •  Open Fire On The Dems (none)
    I know it's a longshot.  As RFK Jr. says, 70% of the Democrats are corrupt.  So I'm sure Bush and the Pentagon are paying to shut their mouths.

    But fire on the good ones.  Durbin, Kennedy, Boxer, and the rest.  

    This is impeachable, or whatever term they have for it.  

    I don't give a chit if we lose every seat.  Time to fight.

  •  Where is... (none)
    the modern day Daniel Ellsberg when you need him?  I'd think someone who has access to the original FAA reports would be able to leak them if they wanted.  Especially if there really isn't a national security need to redact parts of the reports.
  •  Impeach the fuckers. (none)
    nt
    •  would if we could but we can't so we won't (none)
      without a non-spineless dem. congress anyway

      "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." ~ George Washington

      by guyermo on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:14:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  WHY WON'T THE DEMS SPEAK OUT? (none)
        The ones on the panel should just lay the smackdown with the full report.

        "Yes, fascists are taking over America...but I might have to go to JAIL (whimper). I have such a nice condo in Georgetown...and I just bought our third Lexus...I could never go to jail just to save democracy. Poor, poor me."

        Fuck. We can leak a CIA operative's identity but not the 9-11 report??

        •  overview of bushworld (none)
          overview of bushworld (none / 0)

          Welcome to the bush news channel!!! In a separate but equally disturbing vein, the news tonight was a total bush puff piece. Lets look at the sharansky twaddle that's such news...the self-annointed president claims to have read a book. well, that would be news if his claims had any more credibility than ANYthing else he pronounces. The germ of indiscretion was in sharanskys explanation that he posited that democracies were better to deal with than dictators. But he hasn't yet acknowledged that we are no longer a democracy; we are in fact in the transition to tyrannical facism and so sharanskys theory no longer applies to what was once the us of a. Everything that bush says can in fact be argued to apply to himself, that is the magnificence of this cults big lie. So when he says we cannot allow tyranny to thrive he is in fact establishing the basis for it here. Now a major piece of anticonsumer protection rewriting which was in fact correctly called a test case to see if they could buy enough democrats to pass an immoral law. Now they know that social security is a goner. The elites will continue to sweep up the crumbs of empire while propping up the stock market with the spare change of social security. I predict it will prop up the market for 8-10 months before the big boys will pull a joseph kennedy and exit the market, leading to a financial panic at which point the president will declare martial law 'to protect the government' from us. Conveniently most of our troops will be in IRAN so they couldn't side with the people even if they were to come to their senses and recognize the problem. Sadly much of the core problem lies in the "loyal opposition...that is those democrats, which is almost all of them, who pick at the margins of criticism but refuse to address the crisis...that they have become irrelevant and there are no longer any checks and balances and the courts are on-board to give their stamp of approval to anything because they are scared shet less.
          by christopher - Friday February 11, 2005 07:09

  •  The next couple months could (4.00)
    determine the survival of this country as we know it. The elements are there for turning the country against Bush - but this will only happen in the media start getting a backbone and become convinced that we are not in for perpetual ever expanding GOP power.

    This is why the combination of the blogs, Harry Reid and the Senate Dems, Howard Dean's election all are so important - we are fighting back, and hopefully, at some point the thick skulls in the press will start to get the message.

    •  Backbone, Shit (none)

      Major media don't think about backbone, or lack thereof.  They think about money.

      Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, his replacement Brian "Douchebag" Williams, Paula Zahn, Weasel Blitzer -- d'ya think they could make those huge incomes, and get those great clothes, actually working?  I don't think so.

      Major media will have to be dragged kicking and screaming.  Fox is an owned and operated subsidiary of Bushco, and the rest of the major media are licensees.

      Friends, please, years ago there was competition, some degree of independence, some brave souls.

      Today, little, almost, none, a very, very lonely few.

      We cannot rely on major media.  They are all favorable to, or in fear of, Amerikills(TM) and Bushco.

      "I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat . . . and I don't like them now in my own country." (Joe Wilson)

      by proudtinfoilhat on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:06:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  bring back the old-timers! (none)
        so what's preventing bob woodward from stepping into the ring again?  and what would it take to piss off walter cronkite enough to at least write an op/ed

        "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." ~ George Washington

        by guyermo on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:22:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Blood Boiling (none)
    Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling Blood Boiling

    "Blogging doesn't make it so" - Sen. Hayworth (R) AZ 1/6/2005. Oh yeah?

    by bejammin075 on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:49:34 PM PST

  •  Lies and more lies. (none)
      Now that Dean is the DNC I hope that he will mobilize the grassroots and with the help of Kos, DU and the other blogs start demanding impeachment hearings. These people lied and broke the law. If we are to remain a nation of laws, if our constitution means anything, it is our duty to call our leaders to account.  I don't know if all the e-mails in the world will give the Democrats the courage to get this going. I don't know if we all have to stand in the streets like they did in Kiev. Maybe it will take a general strike but what ever it takes we had better do it soon or we had better make up our mind that we are no longer Americans. Americans don't let their leaders lie to them and get away with it. There is too much evidence to ignore any more.
      This may sound radical to some, but it is our only legal course of action.  We must stop this now before they allow something even more terrible to happen.  
    •  Demand hearings? (none)
      Look i'd love for there to be hearings, but you do understand that will never happen, right? Not until 06 at the earliest....

      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 Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:42:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fuckity Fuck - we got Cancer (4.00)
    Who cares ? If this had come out before the election, it wouldnt have made a difference, because Kerry faked his medals and no one liked Theresa. Plus Kerry did mention Lynn cheneys gay daughter during a debate.

    NO, not one iota of difference would this have made, and nothing will make a difference so long as the press are all bought and paid for shills, as we discover each and every day.

    there is a cancer in this country, Bush is just a symptom, not the root cause. Their is a rising tide of facism, the waves crashing against the sea wall of truths, and the wall is crumbling.

    We are beyond 1984, through the loooking glass and down the rabbit hole.

    It's a cancer that has spread, beyond DC, it's in texas
    www.dailykos.com :

    Texas Bill Would Stop Delay Prosecution

    It's in Virginia
    www.dailykos.com :
    VA Legislative Sentry: Have a Miscarriage, Go to JAIL?

    And Ohio
    www.dailykos.com :
    Armando's Challenge, Or The Informed Citizen's Guide To The 2004 Election

    And California, where kids at one school have to wear tracking bracelets

    In Alabama where they vote against removing racistslanguage in their constitution

    The disease has spread so deep and so wide (even to Canada, where Dr Dobson is sending money), I worry that there may not be a cure before the country dies. I hope I am wrong, but right now I sense that over half the country doesnt even realize it's sick.

    I am a Reform Democrat

    by Pounder on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:55:02 PM PST

  •  One problem (none)
    Either Rice knew full well about the al-Qaeda threats or she didn't -- as National Security Advisor it's unclear which of those two options makes her look more stunningly incompetent -- but Al-Qaeda was such a well-known threat that the FAA referred to the terrorist group in fifty-two separate daily intel reports from April, 2001 to the time the attacks finally took place.

    The problem is, the NSA does not collect her own briefings.  You are assuming here that her underlings include FAA intel reports in their daily briefings for her—and I agree that they should have—which isn't necessarily the case.  Rice did not set up the NSC sub-structure, and the failure may rest with it, not with her.

    This does not absolve her, of course, but it is important to avoid logical inconsistencies when you are accusing someone of lying to the nation.

    What am I doing on DailyKos? I'm Running for the Right...

    by RFTR on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:57:51 PM PST

    •  Begging you pardon (none)
      but if you're NSA and do not know about over 52 briefings (52 just between April and the event)is just laughable. No offense to your post because I see you are trying to play devils advocate, but it is the job of the NSA to know about the security stance of the nation. How could she not know. If this is not the case then why hold the memos back, if she had valid excuses.
      •  52 warnings in six mos (4.00)
        and they did not prevent this, but yet they had 19 pictures of all hijackers within two days.

        Our White House is covered in green and black Slime oozing out of it, this is sick.

        •  Plus, they (none)
          used their own failures to justify the granting to them of even more surveillance powers and the erosion of civil liberties, all in the name of needing new resources to fight terror.

          As if what they had wasn't enough.

          I'd cry, if this wasn't all so absurd as to almost be surreal.

          And, to top it all off, they've gotten away with all this shit so far and been rewarded by the majority of the American public for it.

          Do  we live in a great country, or what?

      •  All I'm saying (none)
        is that it may be the fault of her OFFICE, but not specifically her.  Until we know what process was in place to get that information in front of her face, we can't assign blame.

        What am I doing on DailyKos? I'm Running for the Right...

        by RFTR on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 04:03:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If it was people in her office (none)
          ...she's still responsible.
          •  Maybe, maybe not (none)
            It depends.  Portions of the NSA's office and their functions are mandated by law.  What would be more productive than simply blaming her is figuring out WHY she didn't have that information.  It may turn out she didn't instruct her people properly, in which case the fault lies with her, AND a lesson has been learned.

            If, however, it turns out that the way the office was mandated, there was no way for her to have that information (for example, if that information was supposed to get to the President through other members of the NSC, say, the CIA chief), then we need to track that down.  Either way, simply blaming Rice accomplishes nothing for the future except for partisan self-congratulatory back-slapping.

            Let's GET something out of this, instead of just getting angrier!

            What am I doing on DailyKos? I'm Running for the Right...

            by RFTR on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:13:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  My guess is that (4.00)
          if it had to do with terrorism, she was putting it on the back-burner. So it can be argued that no matter the system in place, she made the decision on the priorities of national security and terrorism was at or near the bottom.

          If she had just met with Richard Clarke and had taken his warnings seriously, there's a good chance at least some of these warnings would have made it to here desk.

          Therefore I say; Guilty of the death of 2000+ people on 9/11.

          And I'll add that if the right person had been President this could have all been avoided.

        •  I expect she thought hair on fire was (none)
          just a look too.
  •  Part of a wider pattern (4.00)
    That pattern is the Bush administration's declamation that George W. Bush, and he alone, was the first person ever to realise and confront the terrorists' (sorry, "tourists'") threat.  Not merely the first in the nation - certainly, in the mythology that has been built up since 11 September, Bill Clinton must have completely oblivious because, you know, he was so evil and everything - but first in the world.  The real world, in fact, has known about and been trying to deal with terrorism for decades.  In Bush's legend however, and perhaps his own mind too, everyone was asleep and only Bush himself woke up and learned of the enormity of the threat.

    It's all complete and utter bollocks, of course, but the legend must be maintained.  And if that means lying, ignoring expert advice and evidence, and an imperialistic sort of reverence that recalls the Emperor Diocletian - well, that's the price that must be paid.

    Invisible airwaves crackle with life, ripe antennae bristle with the energy

    by Ernest Tomlinson on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:58:13 PM PST

  •  Tin Foil Pride, Motherfuckers! (4.00)

    For three years, I have been scorned on street corners and in bars, telling anyone who would listen, and many who would not (OK, I'm dramatizing a bit here) that either Bushco SPONSORED the 9-11 attacks, or HAD FOREWARNING, AND KNOWINGLY ALLOWED THEM TO HAPPEN, to produce the "New Pearl Harbor" so many of his friends and close associates OPENLY LONGED FOR in PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (a "catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor) that would win Bushco a blank check for war, imperial aggrandizement, and fascism.

    What a frickin' coincidence, that just 8 months into the Bush Reign of Terror, we get -- voi-fuckin'-la -- a New Pearl Harbor, followed swiftly by war, imperial aggrandizement, and fascism.  Some folks just lucky, I guess!

    Well, today my Tinfoil Hat is shiny, and a lot of onetime patronizing, dumb-ass scoffers are saying, "Fuck, er, Dude, it's beginning to look like prob'ly you were RIGHT . . . "

    That the MSM isn't going at the story of the latest revelations with the avidity with which, let's say, Jenna attacks a bottle of Gray Goose on Friday night, well it tells you a lot about who THEIR Daddy is, n'est-ce pas?

    And, despite what my wife might tell you, I never actually said that President Bush personally flew a plane into the World Trade Center.  Duh.  He was in the schoolhouse, so he would have an alibi, and besides, rich people have "people who do that" (y'know the messy stuff, like slaughtering people) FOR them.

    But if you've not been willing until now to go anywhere beyond, "Uh, they really were incompetent," well it's time to open up your mind, and open up your eyes.

    And if you've unjustly abused any of us 9-11 "Official Story" skeptics, well it's time for you to either apologize, or Bite My Tinfoil!

    "I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat . . . and I don't like them now in my own country." (Joe Wilson)

    by proudtinfoilhat on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:59:56 PM PST

    •  They just didn't care. They do not love America. (none)
    •  LOL. Just you wait (none)
      You'll be proven right about a bunch of other stuff pretty soon...  

      And then there's Eason Jordan getting slammed for some intemperate words spoken months ago at a conference about the mere possibility that the US was deliberately targeting unfriendly jouralists. Why should anybody give a rat's ass about that? That's not the kind of juicy scandal that spontaneously catches on in the blogosphere, yet it's all over the place all of a sudden.  Why?  If it's supposed to be a distraction from Guckert then why Jordan when there are dozens of easier targets?  

      Sheer tinfoil speculation of course, and it makes more sense as an attempt to intimidate CNN than a vindication of what he was saying.  But that's the thing about these guys -- if you go straight for the most venal and disgusting interpretation imaginable there's a pretty good chance that it will turn out later to have been true...  

      The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --MLK Jr.

      by radish on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:43:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What was redacted? (3.50)
    Isn't it obvious?  
    They redacted nothing important.  
    The purpose of the redactions was just cover for taking 5 months to release the docs.  
    Wouldn't it have been embarrasing to have withheld them for "national security" reason and then release them whole?

    I can't wait until the Rapture! -- FREE STUFF! --EVERYWHERE!

    by God loves goats on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:00:55 PM PST

  •  What is the FAA's intelligence? (none)
    I think this is important....does anyone know? I cant seem to find it any of the stories Ive read.

    Does the FAA have its OWN intelligence sources with their own investigators and methods, or is their intelligence a branch of the FBI/CIA in some capacity?

    In the midst of life we are in debt, etc.

    by ablington on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:02:26 PM PST

    •  Exactly (none)
      I wish I knew that too -- that's the important information to know, before assigning blame.

      It's entirely possible, for example, that this type of information went to George Tenet, and Rice never saw it because of him, not because of her own negligence.

      It's too quick to fault her, when we don't know where the information should have flowed.

      What am I doing on DailyKos? I'm Running for the Right...

      by RFTR on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:09:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am convinced there IS (none)
        negligence here, otherwise why hide this stuff, but I want to anticipate what their EXCUSE will be. If the FAA does their own thing (which I cant imagine could be possible), than Condi has an EXCUSE.

        "The Clinton administration made it difficult for the FAA to communicate with the CIA" Etc. OR some BS like that.

        In the midst of life we are in debt, etc.

        by ablington on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:13:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Excuses have already started (none)
          Just know on ABC WorldNews Tonight, it was mentioned the administration says "the Clinton administration had not terrorism plan in place".

          Gee, why am I not surprised the hear once again that it was all Clintons' fault.

    •  That's the BIG question (none)
      I have been wondering the same thing.  I haven't seen any references to where this intelligence came from.  Would it have been forwarded to the FAA by, oh, I don't know, the FBI?  the CIA?  Beyond the shear magnitude of the failure to respond to the warnings is the larger question of how the warnings were generated and who else in the government knew about them.  It is inconceiable that the FBI and CIA were not aware of these warnings...
    •  That's the question (none)
      WHO supplied the FAA with these warnings? Their own agency or another source of intelligence? What source of intelligence issued these?

      None of the articles seem to say. We need to go after that.

    •  I love this! (none)
      These are all questions that should have been asked and answered in the so-called "news" stories yesterday and today. Kossacks may yet educate the media, PropaGannon notwithstanding.

      A retired newspaper editor

    •  No, the FAA does not (none)
      have any "intelligence" investigators.  They do air traffic control, write and enforce rules, etc.  It's a big bureaucracy, but they have no "intelligence gathering" branch.

      Any security info they had received would have been provided to them primarily by the FBI, Dept of Defense and direct contacts with the military.  Prior to 9/11, they probably had little direct contact with the CIA, NSA and other spook agencies.

      That's somewhat changed now, but they are still essentially consumers of intelligence info (now all obtained from "Dept of Homeland Security").  Bottom line, they had and still have no intel gathering capability of thier own.

  •  Who's in charge of bringing perjury charges? (none)
    Condi committed perjury - there's that whole "Rule of Law" thing you know. Is it the Senate Judiciary committee? Start calling your Senators now - we need to give our leaders a fresh dose of digital backbone. We need to take that incompetant bitch down. I am now GLAD that Condi was confirmed for Sec. of State - she's still in the national spotlight.

    "Blogging doesn't make it so" - Sen. Hayworth (R) AZ 1/6/2005. Oh yeah?

    by bejammin075 on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:11:34 PM PST

  •  I'm disgusted. Just now being treated to (none)
    a special on Sec Rice on NPR. I can't remember seeing this much of Colin Powell. Why do you think she is being given this star treatment? Everywhere she goes, every statement she makes gets lead story status. How exquisite the timing of her trip was, how much stature she has, How she's an intellectual, up every morning at 5:00 to exercise, so energrtic. .....bla bla bla. Sick of her lies. If we could get her on the lies, I would be happy. I wish Armitage, Colin's deputy would have gotten the job. I'm getting sick here people.
    •  Sorry meant PBS' Lehrer show. whatever it's called (none)
    •  I really hear that gandalf... (none)
      we are document the end of the americaq as we know it, throw out all your old paradigms about your future. At 51 after 12 years of intensive study of our foreign policy, intelligence history, and political machinations, and with all the incredible documentation of whats happening now; we are seeing an all out propaganda war to
      convince americans that everything is politics as usual. Big story, not as usual...dems are totally
      neutered and too scared to tell us that our government is out of control. To understand I recommend just to start "confessions of an economic hitman" john perkins
      "the debt threat" noreena hertz
      and for a very interesting big picture
      "collapse" by jared diamond
    •  Armitage: Bad Guy (none)

      Armitage was heavily involved in Iran-Contra, and indeed he seems to be the head of drug-smuggling operations for Amerikills(TM).

      NOT a nice fellow.

      "I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat . . . and I don't like them now in my own country." (Joe Wilson)

      by proudtinfoilhat on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:06:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  hunter (none)
    glad to see your brain isn't broke now and is back to it's usual standards.

    I assume you won't mind that I gleaned your take to restate the same at another blog with a bipartisan community.

    cheers.

  •  Redacted comments probably refer... (none)
    ...to how the Clinton administration tried to beef up airport security back in the late 90's but were blocked (obstructed?) by the Republicans. We wouldn't want the people to know who really didn't do anything about terrorism before 9/11/2001. Everytime Bush talks about a "pre 9/11 mindset," I wish Democrats would respond by telling him to stop being self referential.

    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. -Tom Paine

    by Alumbrados on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:17:28 PM PST

  •  Impeach them,.then Criminal Charges against all!!! (none)
    This is damn disgraceful! And to think they did their best to impeach Clinton for getting a friggin blow job, and yet narry a word about this incompetence or down right involvement in 911.
  •  Let this be a test case for pessimism vs optimism (none)
    If this gets a lot of press, and puts the administration on the defense, then the industrial entertainment complex hasnt completely corrupted our political system.

    (notice we hear about this on a friday)

    However if this is off the front pages in a week, things are much much worse than we prepared to deal with. and its time to sit down and rethink everything

  •  911 Report (none)
    If Condi was not under oath can she be charged with anything? I want to hear more outrage from the 911 whitewashed commission, why aren't they speaking out. Our only hope this stays in the news is if the brave families of 911 and Jersey Girls start getting out there again.
  •  One thing (none)
    I haven't heard mentioned - either here or on TV -WHO gave the information to the FAA? In what form? There must be a record - paper trail.....
    •  agreed -- who? (none)
      This is the FAA, an airline regulatory body.  How do they get "intelligence" reports that deal with, and btw, are so totally on the nose about, al Quaida and their plans?  

      I imagine there may be some linkage with the still classified internal CIA reports about who knew what, when, etc...

      But history now exposes the fact that, someone got it right.  Why don't we know who it was?

  •  blogs are the only way (none)
    the country will be saved.

    Seriously.

    If you had read, in a Clancy novel, that a reporter had infiltrated the White House press corps, with credentials garnered after a 2 day jouralism course, with ties to a gay porn past, you would have lept to the logical dramatical conclusion -- oh my god, he's an assassin.  And btw, if Gannon should somehow die, very soon, I think he will be portrayed as such.

    BUT NO.  Thanks to a blog, this blog, Gannon was exposed as the plant that he was, and the propaganda tool that he was and if it takes a blog to inform America how sick and wrong this is, then thank god, or whoever, that this blog exists!

  •  Is it Impeachable? (none)
    Can it get anyone fired?
    Clearly the redactions then were just an excuse - done soley to justify the delay -

    BUT DOES ANY OF HIS impune Bush?

    When all else fails...panic

    by David in Burbank on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:31:12 PM PST

  •  ABC News (none)
    story on right now.
  •  This should help Kerry in '08... (none)
    ...since he voted against NeoCondi's appointment.  May hurt Hillary, who sold out.  (She's Joseph Lieberman in a skirt, in my opinion.)
  •  Just curious (none)
    Can anyone point to anything the Bush administration did to combat terrorism prior to 9/11?

    Because the freeper refrain is that "Clinton didn't do enough", which I guess is technically true but ignores the fact that Bush did nothing.

    --- If I were employed, my opinions would be my own and not my employer's.

    by Aexia on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:52:09 PM PST

  •  What I love about all this... (none)
    I love the fact that on one hand the Bushies are all, "uh, yeah, we had no idea that Al Qaeda was planning anything," and then when you watch interviews with them about 9/11, EVERY GODDAM ONE OF THEM says, "As soon as I heard about the attacks, I knew it was Al Qaeda." Every goddam one.

    Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it.

    by David J on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:56:13 PM PST

  •  overview of bushworld (none)
    Welcome to the bush news channel!!! In a separate but equally disturbing vein, the news tonight was a total bush puff piece. Lets look at the sharansky twaddle that's such news...the self-annointed president claims to have read a book. well, that would be news if his claims had any more credibility than ANYthing else he pronounces. The germ of indiscretion was in sharanskys explanation that he posited that democracies were better to deal with than dictators. But he hasn't yet acknowledged that we are no longer a democracy; we are in fact in the transition to tyrannical facism and so sharanskys theory no longer applies to what was once the us of a. Everything that bush says can in fact be argued to apply to himself, that is the magnificence of this cults big lie. So when he says we cannot allow tyranny to thrive he is in fact establishing the basis for it here. Now a major piece of anticonsumer protection rewriting which was in fact correctly called a test case to see if they could buy enough democrats to pass an immoral law. Now they know that social security is a goner. The elites will continue to sweep up the crumbs of empire while propping up the stock market with the spare change of social security. I predict it will prop up the market for 8-10 months before the big boys will pull a joseph kennedy and exit the market, leading to a financial panic at which point the president will declare martial law 'to protect the government' from us. Conveniently most of our troops will be in IRAN so they couldn't side with the people even if they were to come to their senses and recognize the problem. Sadly much of the core problem lies in the "loyal opposition...that is those democrats, which is almost all of them, who pick at the margins of criticism but refuse to address the crisis...that they have become irrelevant and there are no longer any checks and balances and the courts are on-board to give their stamp of approval to anything because they are scared shet less.

    by christopher - Friday February 11, 2005 07:09

  •  FAA Intelligence (none)
    One key to this story is going totally unmentioned in news reports - I wrote about it here at Left I on the News. These are described as "FAA Intelligence reports." The FAA does not have any independent sources of intelligence. The reports which are given to the FAA without any doubt originate with the FBI and CIA, the same people who would be giving reports to the White House. It's not as if there were some separate, compartmentalized reports over at the FAA which the White House never heard about.
  •  FAA Reports Fake (none)
    Careful examination of the FAA briefings by experts show that they were typed on an IBM Selectric Executive model #3200 with non-scalable type.  If these memoes were real they would have been composed on Microsoft Word 2000, Arial 10 pt., which was standard FAA word processing software in 2001.  This can only mean that Dan Rather is deliberately trying to smear the Bush Administration. </smart-ass rant>

    "It's been headed this way since the World began, when a vicious creature made the jump from Monkey to Man."--Elvis Costello

    by BigOkie on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 04:38:25 PM PST

  •  HOWARD DEAN (none)
    Poll on CNN

    http://www.cnn.com/

    GO VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    "If you sacrifice liberty for security you get neither"

    by lawstudent922 on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 05:00:43 PM PST

  •  New here (none)
    I love this site! I've been reading for awhile, but after cracking up at the SOTU remarks, I had to join.

    Anyway, here's a story about Henry Waxman's calls for an investigation. http://la.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/122449.php

    Rep. Tom Davis is head of the Government Oversight Committee, and thus has the power to call hearings on this. I don't know whether it would help, but we could all be pains in the ass by contacting his office:

    Phone: (202) 225-5074
    Fax: (202) 225-3974

    I tried e-mailing him, but my message was refused. Maybe he has blue state-blocking software.

  •  The fourth point (none)
    So we now know that NORAD had pre-9/11 drills for the deployment of hijacked jets used as weapons, that NORAD was directed to stand down from their standard interception procedure, and finally that nearly half of the FAA's daily intelligence reports immediately before 9/11 involved al-Qaeda!

    Do I think that Bush planned for the destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center? Absolutely not! After all, it seems that even Osama Bin Laden didn't expect the attacks to be as successful as they were. As a contractor working for the State Department to enhance the security of their visa application process when the World Trade Center was attacked the first time, I figured a major attack on the US soil was only a matter of time. I had my own contingency plan for such an event; I left DC. Do I think neocons have contingency plans? Hell, yes! I bet Karl Rove could share some fascinating contingency plans with us. I bet there are any number of tragedies that Rove could immediately politically capitalize on. Tell me, what could generate greater political capital for neocons than a terrorist attack on the US?

    I further suggest that the back door to the house of American security was left unlocked and even left opened a bit. Tell me about the mind of someone thinks that the liberals and Democrats are destroying America and that a minor attack could give them the political capital to consolidate their hold on power. If this would allow them to protect America from even more frightening scenarios in the future, would they see themselves as a traitor or as an unsung hero grimly carrying a burden one on else could understand?

    I do believe that now is the time to begin the impeachment process against Present Bush, that US needs to once again rejoin the nations of the world and to resume our historic position of leadership in the world community - of leadership by example. We need to step up to the plate, sign the War Crimes Treaty among others, and let the cards of justice fall where they may. It's time that we make the war on terror a fact and not just convenient neocon political rhetoric.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site