Bush: Nothing Warned of 9/11 Attacks

[baldguy]

snip

Yet the release, under public pressure, of the president's briefing memo from Aug. 6, 2001, showed that Bush had received intelligence reporting as recent as May 2001 and that most of the current information focused on possible plots in the United States.

But he said the document, which the White House released Saturday night, contained "nothing about an attack on America. It talked about intentions, about somebody who hated America — well, we knew that."

....

To Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., however, the memo should have created a sense of urgency at the top levels of government.

"If you are having a brief that is entitled `Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.,' and then it lays out specific things ... you would think that that would raise enough caution flags that you would haul in the FBI, that you'd put out an all-points bulletin," he said.

more

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040411/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_sept11&cid=544&ncid=716

We have evil morons running this country. God help us.

[Robbien]

1. There Bush goes again, parsing the heck out of his statements

Just to get the discussion turned away from what he did and on to arguing about words.

Same old tactic, but it has worked so well for him.

[Prodemsouth]

2. Way to go Sen. Nelson, He and Graham, I consider my Senators,

since I am in Ga and I got two lousy ones now. I have adopted them.

[w4rma]

5. No kidding! Sen. Nelson and Sen. Graham are on top of this. (nt)

[indepat]

3. May I suggest that we, as a people, should help ourselves before invoking

God's help?

[Darwin2002]

4. I think it is a figure of speech to evoke god, I do it and I don't believe

god. don't get too riled about it

[floda]

10. if Bush was warned about possible hijjackings......

why didn't he prevent THAT.

ON 9/11
1.terrorists hijacked planes
2.and slammed them into buildings

had he prevented 1, he had prevented 2,

Simple formula

[krkaufman]

11. And only concerned about NYC and Washington?

> if Bush was warned about possible hijackings...
> why didn't he prevent THAT.

Exactly! And why is he allowed to isolate his concern to just New York and Washington? Shouldn't he have responded and kicked ass within the FBI and CIA regardless of what the specific targets could be?

This is the media allowing him to remain semantically truthful while being ethically dishonest.

---

Did *anyone* in his administration followup with the FBI regarding the 70 investigations to get a feel for their credibility, or to help determine whether information in one investigation might relate to another? Did Our Leader increase funding or resources to accelerate the investigations, in order to more rapidly determine credibility and risk?

From what I can tell, Ashcroft didn't consider counter-terrorism a priority. (link) But then why would he, since Bush didn't bother to bring him into the loop on the Aug 6th PDB (link), and likely never requested any rigorous followup review of the supposed 70 ongoing investigations.

[baldguy]

7. God helps those who help themselves.

There's a prayer that goes "God, grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

I think the American people have grown a little wiser over the past week.

[aquart]

8. There are some who believe you cannot help yourself

without invoking the help of a higher power.

Would you trample on their beliefs?

[leQ]

6. what would be telling is to see the briefs in the weeks before

and after

there can't just be 'one' brief about this.

i would hope the commission would disclose what those had (at least with regards to this issue).

[teach1st]

9. Especially when combined with other warnings, Bush punted...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067907/

AT THE CENTER of the dispute is a more-than-800-page secret report prepared by a joint congressional inquiry detailing the intelligence and law-enforcement failures that preceded the attacks—including provocative, if unheeded warnings, given President Bush and his top advisers during the summer of 2001.

<snip>

Some sources who have read the still-secret congressional report say some sections would not play quite so neatly into White House plans. One portion deals extensively with the stream of U.S. intelligence-agency reports in the summer of 2001 suggesting that Al Qaeda was planning an upcoming attack against the United States—and implicitly raises questions about how Bush and his top aides responded. One such CIA briefing, in July 2001, was particularly chilling and prophetic. It predicted that Osama bin Laden was about to launch a terrorist strike “in the coming weeks,” the congressional investigators found. The intelligence briefing went on to say: “The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.”