In her testimony to the 9/11 Comission, Condoleeza Rice stated:
BEN-VENISTE. Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the Aug. 6 P.D.B. warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that P.D.B.
RICE. I believe the title was Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States. Now, the P.D.B. -
BEN-VENISTE. Thank you.
RICE. No, Mr. Ben-Veniste -
BEN-VENISTE. I will get into the -
RICE. I would like to finish my point here.
BEN-VENISTE. I didn't know there was a point.
RICE. Given that - you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.
BEN-VENISTE. I asked you what the title was.
RICE. You said did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.
However:
On June 22nd, the military's second and European commands enforced force protection condition delta, the highest anti-terrorist alert. On June 28th, 2001, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice said, quote, "It is highly likely that a significant Al Qaida attack is in the near future within several weeks," unquote. As of July 31st, the FAA -- excuse me, the FAA urged U.S. airlines to maintain a quote, "high degree of alertness." One FAA circular from late July, 2001, noted, according to Condoleeza Rice, that there was, quote, "No specific target, no credible info of attack to U.S. civil aviation interests, but that terror groups are known to be planning and training for hijackings, and we ask you therefore to use caution."
- Testimony of Kristin Breitweiser to the Joint House And Senate Select Intelligence Committee Hearing on 9/11 Failures, September 18, 2002
So by August 6th, a period of a week or two, this information had become 'historical' or 'old reporting'?