The normally dead-on Josh Marshall completely misses the significance of the August 6 PDB.
Josh writes ". . . There's certainly far, far less here than you'd need to do anything specific to counter what was coming. But you can't say there aren't some hints: preparations for hijackings, casing of federal buildings in New York (presumably New York City), a three month old tip saying bin Laden operatives were in the US planning some sort of bombing attacks . . ."
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_04_04.php#002835
That simply is not true. Richard Clarke, the Administration Counterterrorism Chief at the time recommended doing many many things. None were done. Frankly, it's as if Josh forgot everything except the one PDB. But even taken in isolation, the document describes a significant threat to New York and Washington by Al Qaida through hijackings and explosives. In addition, recent intelligence had information regading suspicious activities consistent with hijacking plans and surveillance of buildings in New York. I'm sorry Josh, but what the hell are you talking about?
Pandagon does much much better.
". . . First, Condi's right that this is a historical document. It uses Bin Laden's history to explain why George Bush should be directly planning to preempt him. She's lying to say it's a solely historical document. The PDB speaks about current investigations and clearly states that Al-Qaeda operatives are laying the groundwork for an attack, going so far as to note their surveillance of targets in New York. The document is a clear call to action with arguments based on both historical context and current intelligence (for more on the ridiculous charge that historical evidence is different than actionable evidence, check out Jesse's great post from earlier).
This is a damaging piece of evidence as it predicts the 9/11 attacks quite perfectly. It mentions Bin Laden's ability to patiently plan attacks over a course of years, Al-Qaeda's efforts to set up an infrastructure capable of carrying out an attack on US soil, the surveillance of targets in New York and preparations consistent with a hijacking. It really couldn't be much clearer than it is. That's bad for the Bush Administration.
. . ."
http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/001899.html
Even Kevin Drum, who has not thought much of pre-9/11 flap finds the document extremely damning.
Finally, no one touched upon the fact that Rice lied under oath - this link is critical.