Skip to main content

George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice and Dick Cheney
August 6, 2001. That's when President George W. Bush, on one of his numerous vacations, was given a Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." Among the PDB's findings was:
FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
What did Bush do after receiving such a warning? Crickets. Even worse, Bush reportedly told his CIA briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass now."

Then, when asked about the PDB at the 9/11 Commission hearings in 2004, Bush National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice said, in what for me was the single lowest point of the Bush presidency:

It was historical information, based on, uh, old reporting, there was no new threat information, and it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.
Moreover, it has been reported that Bush received other warnings before the August 6, 2001 PDB about desired or planned Al Qaeda attacks against the U.S. These include warnings on June 20 and July 24, 2001. Richard Clarke, a top U.S. counterterrorism official at the time, likewise said that he, CIA Director George Tenet and others were running around with their "hair on fire" trying to warn Condoleeza Rice and others in the Bush administration about the Al Qaeda threat during 2001, with little reaction or effect.

Who could have ignored such warnings of a planned terrorist attack against the U.S.? Only the worst President in U.S. history.

Image by DonkeyHotey, used under Creative Commons license.

[Originally posted at Messaging Matters. Copyright 2014 -- All rights reserved]

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

  •  This is one of the questionable points (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atana, Island, dewley notid

    which is why I spell it 9?11.
    Why would BushCheney & Co. dismiss the intel report?
    Things that make you go: Hmmmmm.
    I doubt we'll ever get the whole story straight, the amount of misinformation that's been spewed will forever cloud those waters.
    That this happened is established fact, WHY it happened is a pregnant mystery.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 09:56:30 AM PDT

    •  Obviously, there are theories (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rashaverak, CwV, kurt, dewley notid

      by some 9/11 "truthers" about this. But even viewed in its best light, the evidence suggests, at minimum, that Bush and his team were warned of at least general threats, and didn't do anything more to try to discover or prevent threatened Al Qaeda attacks.

    •  Those waters are full of synthetic CT (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It's worse than the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

      American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

      by atana on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 10:43:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Chaff. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Let loose a bunch of distracting bullsh!t so all talk of what happened and who fu(ked up is silenced.
        I mean, obviously 9?11 was a conspiracy between some people. It was also a graphic example of how poorly we can deal with a trrrrrrrst event.
        Getting to the bottom of 9?11 would mean forming a theory and fleshing it out.
        So, by definition, any narrative, no matter how well research, backed up by facts, plausible it is, it is going to be a Conspiracy Theory to some degree.
        That said, I want nothing to do with the Alex Jones/Truther wackpacks.
        And so, I don't pursue the issue at all.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:12:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Seems obvious they were waiting for something to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurt, dewley notid

      happen so that they could blame Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq.
      They didn't think it would be this big a blow. Maybe they thought we'd catch it before it actually happened.

      I think the CT about 911 being an inside job is preposterous, however, I do think  they were looking for a pretext to take the Taliban out, take Saddam out, and put Iran in a vise and then turn the screws until ...regime change...

      Bush's attitude seems to suggest "Dick's got this one." I think Bush was looking forward to 8 years of putting his feet up on the desk in the Oval office, playing golf, get pictures taken of him "clearing brush", drinking iced tea, etc.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 12:36:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Simple answer (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurt, dewley notid, august88
      Why would BushCheney & Co. dismiss the intel report?
      They were amateurs - completely unqualified to be leading this country. It's typical of today's GOP - they only pay attention to what they agree with, and ignore the facts behind everything else.

      Bush was so focused on the non-threat of Saddam that he just ignored the real threat posed by al Qeada.

      It's kind of like today's GOP that blathers on about Bengazi and the invasion of pre-teens in Texas while ignoring climate change.

      Election Day is Nov 4th, 2014 It's time for the Undo button on the 2010 Election.

      by bear83 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 01:16:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I bow to no one in my loathing for Chimpco, but (0+ / 0-)

    OK: Bin Laden was determined to strike. How much DETAIL on that was there? Besides "How we fly plane level, infidels? No land, just fly," I mean.

  •  'There, now you covered your ass.' (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Use REDUNDANT safety when hauling precious cargo-- Use open source E-Z Baby Saver -- Andrew Pelham, 11yo inventor E-Z Baby Saver

    by 88kathy on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:15:55 AM PDT

  •  In Memoriam: (4+ / 0-)

    Excerpts from April 8, 2004 Testimony of Dr. Condoleezza Rice Before the 9/11 Commission Pertaining to The President's Daily Brief of August 6, 2001

    BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

    RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States. Now, the ...

    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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site