BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 10:55 AM

The PDR is no more than the screw-up da' jour in a long list of Bush administration screw ups. They screw up so much that its really hard to find one that seems to have a greater shine about it than the others.

(Well, Bobert, how about "Snitch-Gate"?)

Okay, maybe rattin' out one of their own CIA operatives might have a little shine to it but they are keepoing that one under the carpet purdy good.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Strick
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 10:39 AM

The PDB has been made an issue, I'm not responsible for that. Everyone's been demanding it be released. It doesn't support what's been said about it, that's all. Take the issues one by one and the pattern emerges.

The problem is that the 9/11 Commission was supposed to be focused on finding ways to prevent future attacks to protect the people of the United States. It's become so politicized, so focused on finding fault rather than correcting problems, I doubt it's going to be useful.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 10:39 AM

And let us be perfectly clear about this: Condi Rice testified under oath before the commission to protect her ass and her boss' ass, NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 10:36 AM

Strick, you are guilty of focusing almost exclusively on the PDB, and using it to justify your conclusion that nothing could have been done to prevent 9/11. We've already heard from the 9/11 commission that plenty could have and should have been done to prevent it, including by the Bush administration prior to the receipt of the Aug 6 PDB.

So what is your interest in this, Strick? Protecting Bush or the people of the United States?

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: jaze
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 10:35 AM

I've read several mentions that Ashcroft and others in the Gov't were warned not to fly around 9/11. Who warned them and why hasn't that aspect been followed up more?

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Strick
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 10:31 AM

"Bush DID RECEIVE ADVANCE WARNINGS"

Yes, but advanced warnings of what? When? What do you protect? Clarke said the US had been on full alert six weeks before the attack. Why wasn't that enough? Do you hold that alert continually? Without more specific, corrobarated evidence? Without everyone involved going stir crazy at the restrictions? How? Against what? What investigations do you emphasis? Who do you arrest? There's nothing actionable in this briefing. "Beware the ides of March" was a more tangible warning.

In reality this briefing changes nothing. People's reactions to the news coming out of the Commission will remain split along party lines.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Charley Noble
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 10:31 AM

Just a thought about 9/11 and 3/11. Anyone besides me feel queasy about traveling on an airplane, visiting a major historical site, or traveling over a major bridge on 6/11? I'll be at the Mystic Sea Music Festival in CN that day. Where will you be?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 10:27 AM

Strick, don't be ridiculous. First, no one is reading "this and this alone". In my post, I just finished saying that one has to look at the PDB in the context of the testimony of many people, not just Rice and Clarke. When I said I was trying to put myself in the pre-9/11 context, when we were hearing story after story about FBI incompetence and worse, and the corroboration of that from the two FBI agents who had cracked the 9/11 case but who weren't being listened to, and finally, of the rather damning lack of evidence that the Bush White House successfully communicated the warnings to anyone who needed to receive them, but most notably, the FAA.

No, I do not expect that the government should act on rumors alone. I do however, expect them to be able to respond to the intelligence, to FBI investigations, and to the past history of AlQ, and piece it all together competently, as was done when the bombing plot in California was sussed out.

The piece of this you seem to be willfully ignoring Strick, is that the White House is claiming that the "heightened alert" you keep mentioning was communicated effectively to all the agencies and departments that needed to be notified. The investigative record shows that they weren't. And it was that question that was the most important one asked when Rice testified, that she failed to answer. She blamed it on the bureaucracy. That will be used against Bush in the upcoming election, because it should be.

And honestly Strick, based upon the intelligence, both Clinton and Bush should have done MUCH more about airport and airplane security. It still hasn't been done. We are no safer now than before 9/11 in that regard. Airport security remains a complete joke.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Strick
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 10:17 AM

"The paper also warned that the FBI had noted domestic activity 'consistent with preparations' for airplane hijackings or other attacks - 'including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.'"

From the AP report accompaning the briefing"

"One item in the memo referred to 'recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." A White House official speaking on condition of anonymity that that was a reference to two Yemeni men the FBI interviewed and concluded were simply tourists taking photographs.'"

Maybe the FBI was wrong and we should just disband them as incompetent.

Are you reading too much into the word hijacking? Remember why the pilots cooperated with the hijackers on 9/11? They had been trained to assume that the hijackers wanted to take hostages and negotiate with someone, so they'd be safer cooperating. How can anyone read this and this alone and assume anything more? Particularly given that the information was uncorroborated as the briefing itself says? How much do you expect the government to do on rumors alone? We had been on alert for nearly six weeks prior to 9/11 with what was then what we considered hightened aiport security. What more would you have done if you were in charge? Honestly?

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 10:11 AM

Strick, the 9/11 commission cannot possibly keep politics out of this, because so much of what they are investigating is the politics surrounding the 9/11 attacks and the response to it. It has to be political.

Second, I'm basing my argument about the 70 FBI investigations on what the public perception of the FBI was pre-9/11, which was that the agency was largely incompetent. When Agent Rowley blew the whistle, that perception was greatly reinforced. She was fired for it due to pressures from within the agency and from Ashcroft's Justice Dept.

I agree with what someone said in another thread. The PDB is damning in that it will prove that the administration, all the way up to Bush, DID RECEIVE ADVANCE WARNINGS. That they did nothing even when the dots were connected for them is what could possibly lead to more investigations, which is why Bush won't be testifying under oath, and why he didn't want Rice to testify under oath. He learned that much from Clinton, at least.

When you put Clarke's assessment (from a White House counter-terrorism insider at the National Security Council) together with the investigative record, and then add what the FBI agents will testify about next week all together, what I think we will be seeing at the very least is that the Bush administration was asleep at the wheel. But if it is proven that the Bush administration wasn't asleep at the wheel, but rather ignoring the threat altogether to focus on their Iraq agenda, well. It will be back to Crawford, that's for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 09:57 AM

GUEST:

You are entirely correct in your assessment. What comes to mind this morning are the many threads we had going prior to the invasion of Iraq and most of the warnings of the "No Attack in Iraq" folks are now playing themselves out just as we predicted:

* No WMD's *

* No capabilities of mushroom clouds *

* No drones capable of spraying chemicals on us *

* No evidence of nuclear cpabiliities *

* No links to Al Quida *

* Increased recruitment for bin Laden's folks *

* Quagmire *

* Destablization of the region *

But did the networks hire any theologians, psychologists, teachers, peace activists to act as *experts* to help the country *decide* on a course of action? Heck no, they didn't. They paraded one retired military person after another. I read the some 151 ex-military folks were hired by media to help grapple with such a grave *decision*. What was this about? Lots of folks just want those realities to be swept under the carpet. They would rather revise history rather than admit they were wrong and they are still wrong and very much in denial about their wrongness...

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 09:54 AM

I found this part quite telling, from the CIA's warning to shrub:

The plotters were among a number of al-Qaida members who have "resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years" and maintain a support structure "that could aid attacks," Bush was told in a briefing paper given to him on Aug. 6, 2001, at his ranch in Texas.

The paper also warned that the FBI had noted domestic activity "consistent with preparations" for airplane hijackings or other attacks - "including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Strick
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 09:51 AM

"Strick, I doubt that is a complete document."

I would have posted the photocopy of the actual document that's on some news sites but it does only show the first page, bullets and all. News organizations were apparently given copies to examine for themselves. Apparently they think all the meat's on the first page. I can only say that the document was said to have ended with the report that there were 70 FBI investigations as this does.

Here's a link to the copy if you're interested.

Aug 6th PDB -- Reuters via NPR

GUEST, I noted Ben Laden's reaction to the Afghan crusie missles for a reason. It shows he wasn't like Kadafi who could be discouraged by a retaliatory strike here or there. Exactly four weeks and one day after this briefing the policy toward Al Qaeda became one of complete destruction rather that containment that the Clinton administration had been following. Four weeks might sound like a long time under the circumstances, but it's record time for a policy change in Washington when there's no more than this to go on. I don't accept that there was a plan at that time, but what's described could safely be called a strategy for accomplishing the policy. No one did enough, but that's only "idle" when you look at it after the fact, not with the info the Administration actually received.

Given the trumped up reputation of the FBI, would you have automatically thought those 70 investigations were worthless? I guess I have been naive. I might be suspicous now, but then I would have thought they were doing their best.

I can't figure where Bob Kerry is coming from. No one, not even Clarke, has said that any information available would have been enough to guarantee preventing 9/11. Maybe with perfect hindsight or if certain wishes were granted, but not based on the facts. The 9/11 Commissioners are going to do us a major dis-service if they politicize their report as it increasingly appears they will.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 09:16 AM

Strick, I think if the PDB is taken alone, there doesn't seem to be much there. But when taken in the context of what we know based upon the investigative record and testimony of others, it adds up to the Bush administration being asleep at the wheel for their part. The Clinton administration and the Congress under both Clinton and Bush also bear a lot of responsibility. The problem for Bush is, he is the sitting president, is up for re-election, and planned to use his 9/11 political cache to get re-elected. Don't forget, the Republican convention is taking place in NYC on the 9/11 anniversary this year.

There has been some politically damaging testimony for the White House, and not just from Clarke. I can't figure out why Bush hasn't fired George Tenet's ass, for instance. Those 70 FBI investigations were a joke, because the 2 FBI agents who had actually cracked the investigation of 9/11 open before it happened, will be testifying next week. They and their investigations were ignored. So there will likely be some fireworks there.

Then, in today's NY Times, 9/11 commission member Sen Bob Kerrey had this to say:

"Two things about that failure are clear to me at this point in our investigation. The first is that 9/11 could have been prevented, and the second is that our current strategy against terrorism is deeply flawed. In particular, our military and political tactics in Iraq are creating the conditions for civil war there and giving Al Qaeda a powerful rationale to recruit young people to declare jihad on the United States."

That is really the big danger for the Shrub Co. The linking of failures leading up to 9/11 to the failure in Iraq to get at the real enemy, and making us less safe than we were prior to 9/11. Because that is likely what the essence of the debate will be about come the fall election period.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: kendall
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 07:32 AM

Have you seen the latest polls? Most people believe that Bush didn't act on terrorism as he should have.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 02:05 AM

Strick, I doubt that is a complete document. References to the original PDB mentioned that it was two pages long, and had bulleted items, etc. I believe that parts of this so-called "declassified" document from the White House have, to paraphrase the White House, "been redacted in the interests of national security and the re-election of Bush campaign."

Piffle.

Subject: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Strick
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 01:54 AM

Here it is in it's entirety. I'm not sure what all the fuss was about. No mention of using airplanes as missles (hijacking a plane to hold hostage for the release of imprisoned Al Qaeda seems completely different), no corroboration for that very possibility and if I had been told that there were 70 ongoing FBI investigations, I'd have been inclined to think it was getting the atttention it deserved barring someone telling me it wasn't. It would have been different if the briefing focused on specific issues or raised specific recommendations that should be taken, but this is hardly a call for action.

It is some what informative that Ben Laden's primary motive for wanting to attack the US was in retaliation for Clinton's missle attacks on Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan.

Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US