Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
Wed Jun 20, 2012, 04:35 PM Jun 2012

New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims (Bush ignored detailed warnings)

Darrell Issa prepares to lower the boom on Eric Holder because of right wing bullshit, and we get to enjoy a flood of posters spewing that bullshit here at DU in anticipation.

So I thought this new evidence about how Bush and his administration ignored many detailed warning about impending attacks by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda might give us all a little perspective. This is how you miss something and thereby screw the pooch, Mr. Issa.

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/new_nsa_docs_reveal_911_truths/singleton/

Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.

The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida’s relationship with America’s ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn’t get the institutional support they needed,” says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.

...Many of the documents publicize for the first time what was first made clear in the 9/11 Commission: The White House received a truly remarkable amount of warnings that al-Qaida was trying to attack the United States. From June to September 2001, a full seven CIA Senior Intelligence Briefs detailed that attacks were imminent, an incredible amount of information from one intelligence agency. One from June called "Bin-Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” writes that “[redacted] expects Usama Bin Laden to launch multiple attacks over the coming days.” The famous August brief called “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike the US” is included. “Al-Qai’da members, including some US citizens, have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure here,” it says. During the entire month of August, President Bush was on vacation at his ranch in Texas — which tied with one of Richard Nixon’s as the longest vacation ever taken by a president. CIA Director George Tenet has said he didn’t speak to Bush once that month, describing the president as being “on leave.” Bush did not hold a Principals’ meeting on terrorism until September 4, 2001, having downgraded the meetings to a deputies’ meeting, which then-counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has repeatedly said slowed down anti-Bin Laden efforts “enormously, by months.”


But as Issa is making clear today, IOKIYAR.

(via)
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims (Bush ignored detailed warnings) (Original Post) Bolo Boffin Jun 2012 OP
A duplicate thread! Bolo Boffin Jun 2012 #1
Lends credence to the "They knew and did nothing". RC Jun 2012 #2
They were being told to devote more resources and times to a growing thread and did nothing. Bolo Boffin Jun 2012 #3

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
3. They were being told to devote more resources and times to a growing thread and did nothing.
Reply to RC (Reply #2)
Wed Jun 20, 2012, 05:28 PM
Jun 2012

That much is clear.

Most MIHOP/LIHOP theories can't be salvaged on credibility terms, though. And those I'll be happy to discuss with you in CS.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»New NSA docs contradict 9...