Skip to main content

A NYT op-ed slated for publication tomorrow indicates issues GW will again arise, just in time for the election.

It appears GW was warned not just by the August 9, 2011  “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S" memo.  (You may recall, he dismissed its messenger, saying it was "okay, he had covered his ass" or words to that effect).  While the administration later dismissed that briefing, it now turns out this was not only not his only warning, he was repeatedly warned, cajoled and begged by the CIA to take action.  Such were reportedly ismissed by neo-cons in Bush's admin.  who said such was a distraction from Iraq and Saddam Hussein and their plans to start a war there:

The neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
The CIA was reduced to near begging:
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real. “The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

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

  •  A letter in the paper today about how Bush (19+ / 0-)

    shouldn't be blamed for 9/11 because he'd only been president for eight months.

    Face palm. This is the kind of thing that gives me migranes.

    Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

    by Sirenus on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 08:15:16 PM PDT

  •  Well, i hope i am not labeled a conspiracy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    theorist to shut me up. But, without 9-11, how much more difficult would it have been, for these neocons to get what they wanted. They admitted, the warnings were ignored because it was a ploy to take their attention off of Saddam? I DON'T RECALL that much attention towards Saddam in the spring, especially MAY 1st and June of 2001. At least nothing PUBLIC. Bush had only been in office 3 full months on May 1st 2001. Are they saying their focus was on him sometime before May 1st 2001? Let's see, they got to go to Irag, and Afghan, the patriot act and even blamed Saddam at one point. Sure no one said wait, this may work out well for us? Orrr.... All conspiracy theories are not equal.

    •  I don't think they planned it (6+ / 0-)

      (though I do question how high up in the Saudi regime the conspiracy went, and the Saudis are the king of the neo-con movement imho)

      but the neo-cons are well known for two characteristics: a refusal to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions and the ability to take advantage of any consequence of their action.  The shock doctrine is a noted neo-con/liberal schema.

      "To recognize error, to cut losses, to alter course, is the most repugnant option in government." Historian Barbara Tuchman

      by Publius2008 on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 08:25:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm a LIHOPer (Light Version) (6+ / 0-)

      That means I believe they Let It Happen On Purpose.

      The Neocons ignored the warnings of an attack because they saw an upside to it (their excuse to start WW3).

      However, they did not know it was going to be flying planes into the WTC.

      The Heavy Version LIHOPers believe they knew it would be the WRC attack.

      Then there's the MIHOPers, aka the Truthers.

      •  Yeah, kind of like FDR let Pearl Harbor happen, eh (0+ / 0-)

        I could see wanting to start WW II, but WW 3 would have been a whole other thing. And no, we're not fighting WW 3. It hasn't even risen to the level of some Vietnam War Light, for that matter.

        Moderation in most things.

        by billmosby on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 10:22:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Reminder that the CIA created Al Queda (8+ / 0-)

      Or actually the predecessor.

      Born in Saudi Arabia to a Yemeni family, Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
       The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

      He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian.

      While in Afghanistan, he founded the Maktab al-Khidimat (MAK), which recruited fighters from around the world and imported equipment to aid the Afghan resistance against the Soviet army.

      And let's not forget:

      Proclamation 5034—Afghanistan Day, 1983

      By the President of the United States of America, 21 March 1983

      The tragedy of Afghanistan continues as the valiant and courageous Afghan freedom fighters [The Taliban] persevere in standing up against the brutal power of the Soviet invasion and occupation. The Afghan people are struggling to reclaim their freedom, which was taken from them when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December of 1979.

        -Ronald Reagan declaring March 21, 1983 to be Afghanistan freedom day.

      So the group that attacked us is a group that we created and trained.   I have always thought of this as "blowback" but darker explanations are not impossible.   George H. W. Bush was Ford's CIA director.

    •  Bush's preoccupation with Saddam. . . (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gffish, ichibon, kurt, carver

      . . . dated back a decade before, with his father's perceived failure to take Desert Storm to Baghdad and the reported assassination plot against him in the aftermath.  I've been led to believe Iraq was Dubya Bush's intended attack target long before he was elected, and before 9-11.    

    •  organized opportunism: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, Wino

      What do PNAC and the rest of the right wing think tanks do in between press conferences to present "major reports" of one kind or another?

      They war-game every possible scenario that could arise, in which they could move forward their agenda and get some of what they want.  Just as the Pentagon war-games every possible scenario in which US forces could come into play: in order to have bookcases (or terabytes as the case may be) of notebooks (or documents in data files) detailing the path from any possible event to any possible outcome.  

      Then when anything happens, there's already a scenario on file for what to do.  In the Pentagon, this enables defense planners to concentrate on strategy, knowing that the tactics and logistics and detail-work are already worked out and ready for use.  In the neocon universe, this enables opportunistic players such as all of the neocons, to advance their agenda, knowing that all the details are worked out and ready for use.

      Thus it's no surprise that there was a PNAC document referring to "a new Pearl Harbor" being used as the premise for invading Iraq.  Had 9/11 never happened, that particular document and the volumes of detail-work associated with it, would have just sat on the shelf and gathered dust.  It would have been one more way-out scenario that never came to pass.  Meanwhile whatever might have happened other than 9/11, would have been used to advance the neocon agenda.

      This is what megabuck funding gets you: the ability to plan for any eventuality and any contingency.

      And to us, accustomed as we are to not having the $$ with which to employ dozens or hundreds or thousands of analysts, strategists, planners, and scenario-writers, it all looks like it must be conspiracy: the level of detail, the apparently accurate predictions, and all the rest of it.

      The lesson is: progressives need think-tanks.  A few dozen to a couple hundred people here on DK could be put to work immediately, doing the progressive equivalent of what the rightie-winger think tanks do.  Hundreds more, thousands more, could be employed at this if there were the means to do so.

      Meanwhile, the neocons got their opportunity to put one of their scenarios into play: the "post Pearl Harbor" scenario of expanded executive power and foreign empire-building.  But thanks to the ineptitudes of the Bush Regime, they screwed up time after time, from failure to plan the post-maneuver phase of the Iraq war (everything that happens after you defeat the opposing force), to failure to anticipate the need for National Guard at home in sufficient numbers to deal with natural disasters, to the failure to anticipate that the economic crash would come before the 2008 election, etc. etc. and on and on.  

      Despite clinging to their ideological theories, they learn from their mistakes.  Thus Romney & Ryan, who lack some of the obvious flaws of Bush & Cheney.

      Make no mistake about this:  Romney & Ryan are more dangerous than Bush & Cheney.  GOTV as if your life depends on it, or your childrens' lives if they will be of age to be drafted.  

      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 02:54:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  hasn't Richard Clarke talked about the Bush (21+ / 0-)

    administration ignoring his warnings, then demoting him which lead to him finally resigning?
    I think he's a fairly conservative guy, but he portrayed the Clinton Administration as paying attention to his concerns and to them leaving specific info for the Bush administration about the terrorists that was then just shunted off into the not-important pile.
    I think this op-ed supports Clarke's version of events. The Bushies were far more focused on getting rid of any liberals in the Justice Department, cracking down on scientific freedom, and talking about god at every opportunity than they were on the safety of our nation.

    We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

    by Tamar on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 08:22:06 PM PDT

  •  Actually all of this information and more (7+ / 0-)

    was revealed long ago.

    It's nice to have it confirmed in official form however, and it goes a long ways in explaining why I and more than a few at the time thought that the immediate responses to the attacks were almost the opposite of what one would expect.

    The first concern should have been how our defenses failed
    if the chief objective is the protection of the people, not having it pushed aside completely with the drumbeat of our losing freedom to save our freedom.

    Chief neoconservative/fundamentalist allied belief: All things are possible if only you lie.

    by blueoasis on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 08:23:06 PM PDT

    •  Did they even have a serious investigation about (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, deep, kurt, luckylizard

      our defense failures? One would think they would want to find out what went wrong, in case someone tried it again. The biggest and most deadly attack on our country and no heads rolled, not even one, and at most, a sorry hearing where no one knew jack.

      •  Not anything that wasn't supposedly top secret. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gooserock, gffish

        Everyone was too consumed with shopping for imported flags and goods to contribute to the war effort.  And then checking the daily mail for anthrax powder and spying on neighbors to pay much attention anyway.

        Chief neoconservative/fundamentalist allied belief: All things are possible if only you lie.

        by blueoasis on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 08:46:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Similar news reported by the Guardian in 2004 (9+ / 0-)

    For instance, the Guardian reported something similar in 2004:

    President Bush was given an intelligence briefing, entitled Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States just weeks before the September 11 attacks, it emerged yesterday.
    Details of the August 6 briefing in 2001, which warned of terrorist preparations being made for hijackings on American soil, surfaced in testimony given by the US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to a commission of inquiry studying the September 11 attacks.

    The existence of the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) had been publicly known for some time, but Ms Rice's confirmation of its title and some of its contents pushed it centre stage in the explosive political row over whether the al-Qaida attacks could have been prevented.

    The emotive significance of the briefing - in the form of a memorandum sent to the president summarising potential threats to the US - is all the greater because at the time he received it, Mr Bush was on a month-long "working holiday" at his Texas ranch and spent much of the following days fishing and clearing undergrowth on his land. He did not cut short his vacation or apparently take dramatic steps in response to the briefing.

    It's actually been known for a long time that Bush was informed of an imminent terrorist attack on U.S. soil. But due to his own incompetency and laziness he did not act to prevent it.
    •  George W Bush is the prime example (8+ / 0-)

      of why it's not OK to elect an imbecile president and surround him with 'strong' advissors. Those same advisors wanted a war with Iraq, and on 9/11, they got an excuse for one. All they need was some evidence - real or imagined - and they were all set for a war, regardless of whether or not it was the right war.

      Mr C Student was either too dumb to understand the CIA warnings before 9/11, or too stupid to care where the attack came from after the fact. Or maybe both.

      After all, he neded to get revenge on Saddam for making his daddy look bad. Kind of reminds you of a guy who holds someone down to cut their hair off for being the wrong height.

      NC-4 (soon to be NC-6) Obama/Biden 2012

      by bear83 on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 09:17:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  it's all on Bush's face when he found out. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gffish, cosette, kurt, Forward is D not R

    It was the "oh FUCK" look of a guy who thought he could actually be president, then learns he blew the very first challenge laid before him.


    "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and me?" - Don Van Vliet

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 09:10:18 PM PDT

    •  I interpret his face differently but i'll not say. (0+ / 0-)

      From the PDB's that he saw prior to August 6, '01 (revealed in this new book) he knew exactly what was going on; it was no surprise to him.
      Interesting that Cheney had his military exercise going on
      that morning.

  •  How many of Mitts current foreign policy advisors (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gffish, cosette, kurt

    were involved in the Bush Administration handing foreign policy before 9/11? I believe the answer to the question is the final nail in his campaign.

    Also, can we have a response from Ms. Rice, who testified before congress that "Obama Determined to strike the US" was only a general assessment?

  •  Wish I had the Washington Post archives (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I remembering reading the warnings about al Queda in the Washington Post prior to the Sept 11th attack.  The reports were complaining they couldn't get Bush or Cheney's attention about the information.

  •  Why the hell isn't GW a bigger part ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosette, Forward is D not R

    of this election?

    At some point somebody needs to ask Romney

    more tax cuts, more deregulation of banks, more trickle down, more 'letting the markets decide,' more privatization, more sabre rattling against a country beginning with 'Ira.'  

    Exactly how are your plans and policies any different from GW?

  •  I'd just continue to call him W. (0+ / 0-)

    GW is too honorable an abbreviation, standing as it does for Government Worker. Also for George Washington, for that matter. lol.

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 10:19:28 PM PDT

  •  Deaf, Dumb and Blind and Why (0+ / 0-)

    They were looking for an excuse pointed at Iraq, but any War would do, 'strong on national defense' thing:

    Drip, drip, drip, ""He recalled noting that: "the dog didn't bark - it grizzled." Don't forget - this 'grizzling' for regime change was 6 months BEFORE 9/11."". drip, drip, drip, ""But there was a 'sea change' in attitude after the atrocities, with former national security adviser Condoleezza Rice targeting Iraq on the very day of the outrage."", drip, drip, drip, ""George Bush tried to make a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida in a conversation with Tony Blair three days after the 9/11 attacks, according to Blair's foreign policy adviser of the time."", drip, drip, drip, ""There was "a touching belief [in Washington] that we shouldn't worry so much about the aftermath because it was all going to be sweetness and light"."", drip, drip, drip, ""Boyce mentions the "dysfunctionalism" of Washington. He says that he would find himself briefing his American counterparts on what was happening in different parts of the US adminstration. Rumsfeld was not sharing information"", drip, drip, drip...........!

    Written Transcripts by Date of each session.

    Above are just some of what came out in the early days of the Brit Iraq War Inquiry, final submission delayed till next year.

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 03:13:10 AM PDT

  •  I think we're bringing a gun to a knife fight... (0+ / 0-)

    ...again, and I couldn't be happier.  You'd have to be a naif to think this is coming out now. And believe me, I approve this message, just as I approve of Obama having more beer on the campaign trail than any President since Andrew Jackson, who come to think of it probably went for bourbon.  This take-no-prisoners approach was used against someone I supported back in the 208 primaries, and when it buried her my only wish was that it be used with redoubled tenacity against actual Republicans. My wish was answered in a qualified way in 2008--they used it as much as they had to use it--and it's being answered resoundingly this time.

    Romney '12: Berlusconi without the sex and alcohol!

    by Rich in PA on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 03:54:16 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site