If 9/11 happened today...

Dinner · Sep 12, 2012

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new...administration-got-many-pre-911-warnings?lite

There were a lot more warnings, several of them extremely specific, than the single report the Bush administration was willing to publicly fess up to. This isn't a "hind sight is 20/20" post and more of a "you had numerous clear, specific, and actionable intelligence reports which you ignored" post. They literally didn't care about threats of terrorism, the CIA was begging them to allow them to take action, but the Bushies refused saying it was a distraction from their obsession to attack Iraq. This is just months after Bush took office. It's the most incompetent administration in US history and, yes, we can clearly blame them for letting 9/11 happen.

Black Dove · Sep 12, 2012

ConfederateSon said: ↑

Dayton3 said: ↑

ConfederateSon said: ↑

It wouldn't happen today because our current President isn't a complete piece of dog shit which would ignore absolutely clear, detailed, specific, and persistent warnings from CIA. Haven't you folks seen the latest 9/11 information from the NYT? It shows Bush's incompetence was worse than anyone, even his worst critics, believed and they really were to blame for not stopping 9/11 when they had all the information they needed. A bunch of neo-con shit stains thought taking reasonable actions against the 9/11 plot would distract from invading Iraq therefor they ordered the CIA to ignore it. No wonder Bush wanted to keep all of this classified. Bush was the worst President in our nation's history.

NYT BOMBSHELL: 'SIGNIFICANTLY MORE 9/11 NEGLIGENCE THAN HAS BEEN DISCLOSED'

IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

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.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that 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. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

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.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.

That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.

On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.

Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=1
Click to expand...

All a bunch of BS that has been repeated before.

There was no intelligence about the 9-11 plot before it happened that was remotely actionable.
Click to expand...

Christ, you are dense sometimes. This is all new stuff which Bush & cronies kept hidden and classified refusing to release. Why? Simple it showed that there was indeed a mountain of evidence including some of which which was actionable even talking about Saudi students going to flight schools in South Florida and specifically naming the WTC and government buildings in Washington as targets for hijacked airplanes to be flown into. They even gave a time frame of which month it would occur in.

There was a HUGE amount there that was actionable and the Bush shitheads specifically and deliberately decided not to take action on it because they thought it would distract from trumping up a case against Saddam which was their one and only priority the second they took office. Read the NYTs article because it has a lot of new information about 9/11 in it which the Bushies deliberately hide.
Click to expand...

Of course they ignored it. It fit in perfectly with their plans to establish their police state and expand US military presence throughout the ME. Bush may have been a fucking idiot, but his cronies were smarter and took advantage of the situation to take over the country by manipulating our fear.

Dinner · Sep 12, 2012

I don't think he intentionally ignored it and instead they were just completely incompetent and didn't care enough to actually do their jobs. It would have cost money to send lots of agents down to Florida to arrest the sons of bitches so they sent just one single agent for one single day because they were all about cutting budgets instead of deciding what really needed to be done for the good of the country.

This is what happens when you put government in the hands of people who hate the government. They're incompetent and can't/won't actually do their fucking jobs.

T.R · Sep 12, 2012

Yep, Bush was a piece of shit. Anyways, back to the year 2012....

actormike · Sep 12, 2012

I think we've caught a glimpse of what would happen if 9/11 occurred today.

The rush to blame President Obama would be deafening, probably culminating in impeachment proceedings or some kind of attempt at a bloodless coup. Partisan fighting would drown out all expressions of grief or sorrow, and terrorists would be emboldened to strike again.

Dinner · Sep 12, 2012

T.R said: ↑

Yep, Bush was a piece of shit. Anyways, back to the year 2012....
Click to expand...

You don't think it matters that EVERYONE on Romney's staff are former Bushies? The hard truth is any Republican who becomes President in the next 30 years will end up having mostly the same incompetent pieces of dog shit running things. You can't just pretend this isn't true.

garamet · Sep 12, 2012

ConfederateSon said: ↑

T.R said: ↑

Yep, Bush was a piece of shit. Anyways, back to the year 2012....
Click to expand...

You don't think it matters that EVERYONE on Romney's staff are former Bushies? The hard truth is any Republican who becomes President in the next 30 years will end up having mostly the same incompetent pieces of dog shit running things. You can't just pretend this isn't true.
Click to expand...

You've heard of the Butterfly Effect? Some in the Red Room suffer from the Goldfish Effect.

T.R · Sep 12, 2012

ConfederateSon said: ↑

T.R said: ↑

Yep, Bush was a piece of shit. Anyways, back to the year 2012....
Click to expand...

You don't think it matters that EVERYONE on Romney's staff are former Bushies?
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm not a Bush fan, but I'm not going to say that anyone who ever set foot in his administration doesn't deserve to work in Washington again.

The hard truth is any Republican who becomes President in the next 30 years will end up having mostly the same incompetent pieces of dog shit running things. You can't just pretend this isn't true.
Click to expand...

You need to stop pretending that every little thing that went wrong in the last ten years was solely the responsibility of George Bush. You also need to stop with the belief that just because Bush sucked that Obama deserves a free pass and a second term.

Dinner · Sep 12, 2012

I believe I pointed out one very specific thing not "every little thing". Gee, do you have trouble staying on topic much? It just happens to be a very big issue which resulted in 3000 people getting killed and tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in loses.

Yes, that fuck up was so huge it disqualifies them from holding national office for at least a generation IMO. You can't pretend the same fuckers aren't still there nor can you pretend they won't form the backbone of any Republican administration.

garamet · Sep 12, 2012

ConfederateSon said: ↑

I believe I pointed out one very specific thing not "every little thing". Gee, do you have trouble staying on topic much? It just happens to be a very big issue which resulted in 3000 people getting killed and tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in loses.

Yes, that fuck up was so huge it disqualifies them from holding national office for at least a generation IMO. You can't pretend the same fuckers aren't still there nor can you pretend they won't form the backbone of any Republican administration.
Click to expand...

But according to T.R, "bad people are just bad people."

Log in or Sign up

If 9/11 happened today...

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

Black Dove Mildly Offensive

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

T.R Don't Care

actormike Okay, Connery...

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

garamet "The whole world is watching."

T.R Don't Care

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Log in or Sign up

If 9/11 happened today...

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

Black Dove Mildly Offensive

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

T.R Don't Care

actormike Okay, Connery...

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

garamet "The whole world is watching."

T.R Don't Care

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Useful Searches