BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Strick
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 11:37 AM

Common, Amos, the Ranch has more communications than the rest of the county it's in combined. Haven't you seen the conference room with the three sets of teleconferencing equipment? Don't you know about the politicians and foreign dignitaries who are brought to the ranch for imformal arm twisting? There's someone there all the time.

Have you forgotten that everyone in DC takes August off? Except the President who only changes where he works. Ever hear of Camp David? Eisenhower spent a huge proportion of his presidency running the country from there. There's no difference.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 08:28 AM

Right -- he's as in touch with his administration on vacation as he is when he's in the Oval Office, because he really runs the nation telepathically, T?

Never mind. This is far too late in the sequence to arrive at a resolution between your view and mine.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 05:46 AM

... sorry about that... thought I'd put my name in the box...

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 05:45 AM

No, fair enough, Teribus. Off duty would be hard to prove, all right.

Still, Bush isn't the brightest of individuals, and there's already some talk about him not being on the ball.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 05:27 AM

Hi Jim,

No the "on holiday" bit was entirely mine, nothing to do with Amos.

But in the piece that Amos posted, there are the following which I equated to being the same as someone being "on holiday"

"..up until Sept. 11, 2001, Bush had spent 54 days at the ranch, 38 days at Camp David, and four days at the Bush compound in Kennebunkport—a total of 96 days, or about 40 percent of his presidency, outside of Washington."

By inference:

"Bush has remained a remarkably out-of-touch—leader"

I have deliberately omitted the "or at least out-of-town—leader", because what the author was trying to project to his readers was that Bush was remarkably out of touch. His research has shown clearly that he was at least an out-of-town-leader. There has been no evidence to date to substantiate what Joe Conason is trying to infer.

The inference, leading to me coining the "on holiday" term comes from: "But the most critical problem may have been that the president was off duty."

Who has said he was OFF DUTY? What proof has been offered that he was OFF DUTY? Answer in both cases is none - but it has been inferred, no basis in fact, but that is not going to stop people all to ready to believe it coming out and repeating as fact:

- Look at the time he (GWB) was absent from Washington
- Look where he was spending 40% of his time
- He only spends 60% of his time at work.
- He's the most out of touch President in recent time

None of the above are based on fact, Joe Conason's research, and the way it has been presented, is deliberately meant to mislead, and misrepresent - And I believe that Mr. Conason knows that full well.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 04:22 AM

Amos never mentioned 'being on holiday', or at least I didn't equate that post with any inference to Bush 'being on holiday'.

I think most people expect The President's job to be a 24/7 one.

But the fact that these statistics keep appearing, seems to imply to me that this is not, or should not be, normal behaviour for a man who has such a 'hands on' job as he has.

It also appears that GWB never actually read PDBs. Any of them. He apparently only had them summarised verbally to him.
Clinton, also apparently, used to kick everybody out and read them himself, in private.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 04:07 AM

All of which is irrelevant Amos. Doesn't matter where he is, he is the President of the United States of America - don't try to equate someone in that sort of position being "on holiday" to Joe Bloggs down the street being "on holiday".

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 09:46 AM

From Slate mag:

"Joe Conason has calculated that up until Sept. 11, 2001, Bush had spent 54 days at the ranch, 38 days at Camp David, and four days at the Bush compound in Kennebunkport—a total of 96 days, or about 40 percent of his presidency, outside of Washington.

Yet by that inference, Bush has remained a remarkably out-of-touch—or at least out-of-town—leader, even in the two and a half years since 9/11. Dana Milbank counts that through his entire term to date, Bush has spent 500 days—again, about 40 percent of his time in office—at the ranch, the retreat, or the compound.

The 9/11 commission has unveiled many critical problems in the FBI and the CIA. But the most critical problem may have been that the president was off duty."

---

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 09:45 AM

It really can't be "fixed". It's not possible. Sure, it can be patched up and reshuffled and the flow charts can be redrawn, but it can't be fixed. There will always be folks who will use violence for purposes other than defense. But with that said, we can try to change the atmosphere that promotes violence. And, if this little experiment (Earth) is to suceed, we will have to, sooner better than later.

As fir the Clinton PDB, yes, I heard that there is 1 that the Commission has requested and the steps are being taken by the Clinton Library to get it to them.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: jaze
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 09:07 PM

Bush could have stated the obvious and the truth last night. OUR government let us down. All of it. No one in particular to blame. Many people and agencies if working together as a government maybe could have caught on to it. The problem now is to fix it so it never can happen again

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Strick
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 04:32 PM

"...did they get that second batch of Clinton stuff that had been withheld? they asking for it again last week"

They said last night they got them.

"You don't seem to have bothered reading and listening closely to what they have said and written so far, Strick."

Well, I haven't gotten through all of it, but I react most strongly to where their logic seems to fail and then I read it and what background information I can find most thoroughly.

I freely admit I'm working from a perspective more to the right than most on this forum (you should see what the guys further on the right are saying!), but will point out that I'm defending Clinton in another thread because I don't think it's reasonable to claim he could have prevented 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 02:28 PM

GUEST 14 Apr 04 - 01:57 PM,

From the style and tenor of your postings, I take it that you are the one who, now how did you put it? "I have no intention of debating with closed minded, right wing ideologues".

Having read through the respective contributions (yours and Strick's) to the discussion on this thread. You, dearheart, appear to be the one who doesn't seem to have bothered reading and listening closely to what has been said and written so far.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Peg
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 01:58 PM

Immediately following the August 6 meeting where this memorandum was introduced, Bush took the afternoon off to go fishing.

Thus was during the ENTIRE MONTH that he spent at his ranch in August 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 01:57 PM

"...did they get that second batch of Clinton stuff that had been withheld? they asking for it again last week"

Strick, the Clinton people weren't the ones preventing the release of those materials, the Bush White House had refused to turn them over to the commission.

"Jim, I'll be interested in reading what the Commission says."

I doubt that. You don't seem to have bothered reading and listening closely to what they have said and written so far, Strick. That much is obvious by your posts, which are ill informed, and often downright wrong. But they do reflect your "only Republicans/Bush are right, the Democrats/Clinton are wrong" worldview that you've demonstrated over and over in these threads.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: ard mhacha
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 12:01 PM

Cringe was putting it mildly, when John aSked him about the mistakes he made, there was a long silence, Bush was dumb-struck and then produced this gem, "Well John there has been a lot going through my mind, if it comes into my head I will let you know", it may not be his exact words but I am likely being kind to this fool.
Surely the people who voted for this man are by far more foolish tnan this specimen of humanity.
Press conference, it was more like a depress conference.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 01:28 AM

OMG, did anyone watch Bush's press conference? Ouch. Flinch. Cringe. It was embarrassing; I had to keep looking away.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 09:51 AM

"THE FACT, Strick, is that the Democrats are not the ones who requested this PDB. The 9/11 commission requested this PDB, and many other documents, and were refused for months by the White House."

Gee GUEST, do you work out how to twist things in advance or is it a talent? All I said was that Republicans didn't put the PDB out there, it's not a Republican plot. I have no comment at all on how long it took the Commission to get the documents they think they needed from either administration (did they get that second batch of Clinton stuff that had been withheld? they asking for it again last week). The PDB is by no means the end of the evidence, just a piece of the puzzle. It was highlighted by a couple of Democrats on the Commission, who, IMHO, mis-represented what it contained. Politically those Democrats benefit from this non-event more than Republicans. Their misrepresentation and what the PDB actually contains is essentially all I've commented on here.

Jim, I'll be interested in reading what the Commission says. Maybe it could have been prevented if Ben Laden had been killed or Al Qaeda had been hit harder earlier or if the intelligence services were more like they are in James Bond movies (sorry, trying to lighten the mood). Again, all I said is that Clarke admitted that all the things he recommended combined wouldn't have prevented 9/11.

That doesn't mean it couldn't have been prevented at all, though I suspect we'll discover that it could have been prevented in the same way that Pearl Harbor could have been prevented. If you knew the attack was possible and put up torpedo nets, if the handful of patrol planes had been sent in the right direction instead of ordered south by staff in Washington, if the people manning the new radar sets had properly interpreted their data, and so on. Before Pearl Harbor only a few people in the world believed you could sail aircraft carriers that far and use planes to attack with torpedoes in the shallow harbor. Unfortunately they were Japanese or Americans to low it the military pecking order to have much say. Top brass didn't believe it possible, and it wasn't by the old rules. The attack changed the world and made the new rules obvious in retrospect. In that case, the Top Brass were made scapegoats despite the fact that they were getting contradictory orders and information from all side, all the way up the chain of command. Being obvious in retrospect is very different from being obvious before the fact, of course, so eventually the Top Brass at Pearl were vindicated and the final responsibility shared.

Before 9/11 only a few people had considered using planes as missles...

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 09:23 AM

Thomas Kean, the Committee's Chairman has come out and said that in the Commission's opinion, the attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 08:23 AM

This is all so ridiculous. Teribus and Strick are ill informed, and using their own set of facts to justify their opinions. See it all the time from closed minds.

THE FACT, Strick, is that the Democrats are not the ones who requested this PDB. The 9/11 commission requested this PDB, and many other documents, and were refused for months by the White House.

THE FACT, Teribus, isn't that there was just this one PDB with nothing else. There was this PDB, both historical and current (that pesky May 1st date), AND the fact that the CIA has already testified that there was a tremendous increase in the amount of "chatter" the summer before 9/11.

As I said, you can't look solely at this PDB, it must be viewed in the context of the other evidence and testimony.

Of course George Tenet says nothing could have been done. He'd get his ass fired if it could be proved otherwise, now wouldn't he? It is Tenet who prepares the PDB for Christ sake.

But I don't want you fellas to hurt your heads using critical thinking skills that obviously were put in cold storage when you closed your minds and locked.

You are entitled to your opinions. You are not entitled to your own set of evidence, testimony, and facts.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Strick
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 10:58 PM

"Maybe if Bush had been more intersted in Al Qaeda and the Middle East in general an atmosphere wouldn't have been created where bin Laden would have so mush sympathy and support from the Arab world in general..."

Maybe. But Clinton's experience was enlightening. Ben Laden sponsors attacks outside the US. The US responds with measured retaliation as it did to Libya and other terrorist countries and organizations. Ben Laden is moved to further attacks inside and outside the US. Clinton doesn't respond to the Cole attack. Ben Laden is moved to further attacks. Bush tries to wipe out Al Qaeda and capture Ben Laden. Al Qaeda is moved to further attacks (who knows where Ben Laden is).

See the pattern? I don't think it would have made a damn bit of difference what anyone did. Ben Laden and Al Qaeda would have come back for more no matter what. They're not playing by the same rules.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 10:50 PM

Who knows, Strick. He also said that Bush wasn't too interested in in Al Qaeda which is not good news. Especially in 20/20 hindsight.

Same stuff came from O'Niel...

Maybe if Bush had been more intersted in Al Qaeda and the Middle East in general an atmosphere wouldn't have been created where bin Laden would have so mush sympathy and support from the Arab world in general...

Food for thought...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Strick
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 10:26 PM

So what do you make of Clarke's admission that nothing he recommended (he didn't wait to be asked) would have prevented 9/11?

I apologize for repeating myself. The brief made it clear part of the then current risk of attacks within the US came from the US making half hearted attacks on Al Qaeda.   What you make of the fact that roughly 4 weeks after getting this PDB, there was a new policy and a strategy for eliminating Al Qaeda presented to the President? Given that there was nothing time specific in the PDB and the FBI was represented as being on the job, that's pretty good time for a major policy changein Washington.

Think it through. The FBI was conducting 70 different investigations into what was reported in the brief. At Clarke's insistence the US was put on full alert (staying there for over 6 weeks during whihc people began to doubt anything was going to happen -- 6 weeks is one hell of a long time on full alert). A new policy toward Al Qaeda was developed and fleshed out. What else would you have wanted you could realistically have expected?

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 10:18 PM

Well, glad you asked, Strick...

I would have asked to meet with Richard Clark and try to connect the dots. Hey, if there's someone crusin' up and down the road in front of my house and a neighbor tells me the this guy is out to ger me, you can bet this ol' hillbilly gonna get to the bottom of it... like right now!!!

Bush didn't. Why? I reckon the neocons were so blinded by their agenda that they couldn't see whatnow seems like clear and present warnings of a major criminal attack upon the US...

I'm not sayin' that Bush was asleep at the wheel but that maybe he was drivin' the wrong car...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 10:00 PM

Won't the 9/11 commission ask those questions?

The PDB clearly stated:

"Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

From that and other failed attempts the PDB was tiled - Bin Laden Detrmined to Strike in the USA - No "might" about it pdc - but none of this was anything new - in short it was historical.

The PDB mentions of possible attacks being planned in 1998

"Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists."

"FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

"The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives."

So the sum total of what those assessing and evaluation intelligence comes up with, amounts a possible threat of hijacking, and a possible threat of attacks on federal buildings in New York, the latter substantiated somewhat by the report from the US Embassy in the UAE.

Now where out of that lot do you get the clear and clarion warning, let alone the vaguest impression, that nineteen men are going to hijack four aircraft and fly them into buildings.

Some of this had been around for rather a long time - Richard Clarke didn't manage to join the dots togther in 1998, he didn't manage to join the dots together in May 2001 and to be perfectly fair to the man he did come right out and say that nobody could have joined the dots together prior to the attacks themselves. So why do most in this forum think that a non-professional should have, hells teeth, the professionals charged with this task, couldn't see it and they'd been dealing with it solely, day in day out, for the best part of four years, or more.

All the chatter about millions of pieces of information - some on this forum have picked that up on there being millions of pieces of information relating to the attacks of 9/11 - there wasn't. What Samuel Berger actually said was that there was a mass of information being reported world-wide on Al-Qaeda running to a million pieces of paper. Of that mass of paper only a handful related vaguely to the attacks of 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Strick
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 09:59 PM

"Ah, so Strick's agenda is finally exposed. He is going to blame the Democrats."

GUEST, GUEST,guest from NW - PM claimed that the PDB was "planted" by the Republicans because there's nothing really relevant in it and I merely point out that it was Democrats that demanded it be released. We're talking about politically based actions within Commission itself. Where the heck are you coming from? Who blamed the Democrats for anything other than playing politics with this document?

"One of the interesting aspects of the PDB is that it did state that OBL might make attacks against the US."

pdc, not surprising since OBL had already made attacks within the US. BTW, I take it you don't remember that the air traffic controllers didn't exactly call the military, certainly not at first. Remember that everyone expected any hijackers to make demands, not blow up buildings. They were waiting to hear the hijacker's demands. That changed when the first plane hit a building, but, now don't be surprised, the air force wasn't exactly geared for rapid response aircraft interceptions over New York. It was peace time and they're plan for intercepting aircraft never assumed the aircraft was going to have taken off from Boston heading to New York. They're looking for planes coming into US airspace not traveling within it.

"So the story is that because the PDB didn't have the deatils of the upcoming attack that it was just some 'historical' meaningless document."

Bobert, there you go again. It's not historically meaningless, but the PDB also doesn't exactly provide much guidance on what was going to happen or when it was going to occur. Combine that with the implication that the FBI was working on the problem, what exactly would you have done with this information if you had been president? Which buildings does it tell you to protect? How do you make the logical leap from terrotist hijacking planes to force the release of other jailed terrorists (what the PDB warns generally about) to using them to blow up buildings?

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 08:46 PM

One of the interesting aspects of the PDB is that it did state that OBL might make attacks against the US. Now consider that there was also a lot of other intelligence suggesting that OBL might use airliners.

Yet still no one has explained why, after hijackings actually DID take place on 9/11, that no fighter planes were scrambled, when that is the normal practice.

You would think, after intelligence regarding POSSIBLE hijackings, that when they had an ACTUAL hijacking, there would/should have been an immediate military response, even if they didn't know precisely what type of hijacking it was. Hell, they had scrambled military fighters when small private aircraft went off course -- why not against major airliners on 9/11?

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 08:22 PM

Well gol danged. The fix is in. Yup, the Bush spinsters and PR folks have done a magnificent job of sidestepping. Any one other than me see a pettern developing here after Bush screws up of the PR and spin folks jumping in with bigger and better stories to tell. You'd think that just once in a while they'd just let him say, "Okay, folks, I screwed up." But no, every screw up has to be covered with a story.

So the story is that because the PDB didn't have the deatils of the upcoming attack that it was just some "historical" meaningless document. Hmmmmmmmm? Ask the families of those who died...

And, BTW, O'Niel and Clark? Couple of ungracious loosers, right?

It's this pattern of shooting first, or not shooting when shooting is required, and covering up the screw ups later that are beginning to take a toll on Bush and his folks. Now, Teribus, I know you are a company man and I respect that loyalty, but you don't live in the US and I don't think you see the way folks are beginning to see yer guy. I've got Bush friends who are now questioning weather or not he and his neocon gang were asleep at the wheel.

Now, of course this doesn't mean that he was and I'm willing to give him some benefit of the doubt but given his arrogence and his absolute inability to level with the people about his mis-steps, his credibility, or lack thereof, is starting to take him down. Now you know I hate polls so I won't burden you with what they are telling us about Americans feelings about Bush and 9/11 but it ain't too good fir yer guy.

But, hey, this ougtta make you feeel warm and fuzzy. 94% of elections in the US are won by the candidate with the most money to spend on the campaign and yer guy has unlimited access to Boss Hog's dough.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: DougR
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 07:50 PM

GUEST: That's funny! Read back over your posts. If you have an open mind (which I sincerely doubt)you will read that your postion is as embedded in concrete as is Teribus' and Strick's.

The Co-Chairs should have insisted that NO member of the commission be allowed to conduct interviews with ANYONE until the commission had issued it's report. Of course that would have had to include the Co-Chairs too.

Every time a member is interviewed it adds fuel to the "fire" that the commission is not, in fact, non-partisan.


DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 06:52 PM

No sense in arguing -- Teribus is a True Believer. There have always been such, who believe what they are told, and cannot think for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 05:35 PM

From what I've read through this thread Guest, you appear to be the one with a closed mind and firmly set ideology. For future reference if you are going to continue to spout such rubbish, at least base it on some fact, and not on chery-picked opinions that just happen to reinforce your own.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 02:23 PM

Strick and Teribus,

I said I have no intention of debating with closed minded, right wing ideologues. You have the stage to yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 01:13 PM

GUEST 12 Apr 04 - 10:56 AM,

You should get out and see a bit more of the world at first hand, you then might at least some vague idea about they way things work. Although I doubt it, you seem to have trouble in simple comprehension (the timescale I was referring to had nothing whatsoever to do with the timescale the Commision had to complete it's work).

"If we ever find out what the problems were" - It is pretty obvious what the problems were, and they stretch back a long way before the current administration took office.

As to, "what reasonable solutions can be offered, it won't be because of the Bush administration, but in spite of it". On the contrary, post 9/11 a great deal was done by the Bush administration

As for, "The fact that we allow Afghanistan and Pakistan to dictate whether or not they will "allow" US troops in their countries is a joke, considering we just out and out invaded Iraq." What really is the joke here is that you demonstrate that you have completely failed to grasp the sensitivities involved in operating in the countries you mention. Did you know where any of these countries were before 9/11? Did you have any idea of the demographics or politics of those countries? From what you post, I somehow doubt it.

By the way what resources were stripped from the effort in Afghanistan to reinforce action taken in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 12:19 PM

In Bush' case I would say that was understandable.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Strick
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 11:15 AM

"So this year, after months of refusal to give an inch, and the commission saying they couldn't do the job without a time extension, the Bush administration granted a inadequate extension of three months."

The Commission timeline is it's own political quagmire. Would you rather they have been tasked to deliever their report next March? Any date not prior to the election would be viewed as stonewalling. Sometimes you can't win for losing, particularly where the people criticizing are politically motivated and will cast things in the worst light no matter what.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 11:10 AM

Ah, so Strick's agenda is finally exposed. He is going to blame the Democrats. Of course Strick, it is all the Democrats fault. Forget that Republican Thomas Kean, the chair of the 9/11 commission, along with his Democratic co-chair, Lee Hamilton, were initially the only members allowed to view the PDB, and the Bush administration wouldn't even allow them to keep the notes they made while examining that and other White House documents, who initially went to battle with the White House to get both their notes and the damn PDB (which you yourself insist has nothing in it).

But it is all the Democrats fault, right?

Well that's it. I've no interest in trying to discuss this issue with Republican ideologues in lock step with the White House.

This commission has been designed to get around people just like you Strick--partisans who believe only their side is right, and the other side is wholly to blame.

Jesus, why can't you people open your minds, and get a fucking grip?

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 10:56 AM

Your response is predictable based upon your ideological obsessions and stubornness Teribus. Like I said, I have no intention of debating what YOU think the remit SHOULD entail and what it shouldn't.

The timescale has been one of the main controversies surrounding the commission and it's work. The Bush administration fought any investigation of 9/11 tooth and nail, dragged their feet in the formation of it, appointed people who immediately resigned (like Henry Kissinger) when full disclosure about conflicts of interest of commission members was insisted upon by the public and Congress (Kissinger refused to give it), and then the commission was further hobbled straight out the gate by the ridiculously short timeline given by the Bush administration. So this year, after months of refusal to give an inch, and the commission saying they couldn't do the job without a time extension, the Bush administration granted a inadequate extension of three months.

If we ever find out what the problems were and are, and what reasonable solutions can be offered, it won't be because of the Bush administration, but in spite of it.

The fact that we allow Afghanistan and Pakistan to dictate whether or not they will "allow" US troops in their countries is a joke, considering we just out and out invaded Iraq.

But that is just the sort of logic that always fails you Teribus, which is why your opinions are worth so little.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Strick
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 10:51 AM

"this is just another sleight-of-hand from the bushits. there is enough ambiguity in the PDB to keep people arguing about out-of-context bullsh*t while the wicked agenda moves along. they hold things up, as they did with rice's testimony, finally come across with a bag of hot air and a few of these little distraction bombs to keep the rabble arguing among themselves and they keep up their furious fiddling as rome burns. get these criminals out of office."

GUEST,guest from NW - PM, if Bush had insisted on publishing the PDB, I might agree with you. This is different. Two different Democrats on the Commission who had read the briefing all but insisted there was revealing information in it and started a frenzy in the media demanding that it be declassified.

Which is more likely, that the "bushits" were so smart they tricked the Demos into making this demand despite the evidence of their own eyes, or that the Demos were running a bluff and didn't expect Bush ever declassify it. Think about it, out of context the points are damning. When you read them in context, particularly against the backdrop of the times and what else was known, it's a non-event. In a way, it's the perfect thing to do to solidify the anti-Bush base. How many people are going to remember all the hype from a few days ago versus the number who are actually going to read the brief for themselves? NB: I had one heck of a time finding a copy of it to link to here.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 10:08 AM

"The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks."

I would certainly say being, "chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks", puts Iraq well outside their remit considering the timescale.

As to the reasons offered for including "Iraq" factors, one is valid, the other is not. Valid - extension of the war against terror - falls into measures taken to prevent potential future attack. Invalid - that resources were taken away from the Afghan theatre of operations - they weren't, the US currently has around 15,500 troops stationed in Afghanistan engaged in operations against Taleban and Al-Qaeda.

The new Afghan interim government were very specific when it came to what troops could remain and what their functions would be. The Pakistani Government even more so. There was no way on earth that they would allow foreign troops to operate in "hot pursuit" operations over the Afghan border into the tribal areas of Pakistan, since the time of partition in 1947 sucessive Pakistani Governments have adopted a policy of non-interference in those areas. The reality of the situation is that if troops have to be deployed in those areas, they have to be Pakistani troops acting on the orders of the Pakistani Government.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 08:44 AM

Now, if the 9/11 commission doesn't do something to focus on Pakistan in it's report, then we can start getting critical, because the Afghanistan operation has done nothing more than chase AlQ & the Taliban into Pakistan, where we haven't bothered to follow them.

Apparently, having crazy generals running a country that possesses nukes, is the only deterrence to a US invasion these days.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 08:13 AM

Teribus, it doesn't look like you completely understand the remit. From the 9/11 Commission's website:

"The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks."

You need to understand that all of the commission members are being interviewed by the media, it isn't simply Kerrey. Parts of the investigation is being done behind closed doors for obvious security reasons. Other parts of the testimony is being done behind closed doors, because the White House has refused to cooperate any other way (the White House was opposed to any investigations of 9/11).

All of the members of the commission are regularly being interviewed by the media, and writing op ed pieces about the investigation. While you might consider that unethical, in the political mainstream in the US it is not viewed that way at all. The commission is doing, I think, a fine job of maintaining openness and transparency in this investigation, which is very important to the American people, particularly in light of the secrecy of the White House.

This is not a criminal investigation, so there is only a need to shield parts of the investigation from public scrutiny on the basis on national security. None of the members of the commission have been in the least bit unethical, and they are holding one another to a very high standard of bi-partisanship, considering how divided our houses are here at the moment.

As to your suggestion that Iraq is outwith the remit, you are just wrong about that. There will not be time for the commission to adequately address the war in Iraq as part of the response to 9/11, but it has been sold as part and parcel of the war on terrorism, is the reason why resources have been taken from Afghanistan, which was the immediate response to the attacks. The war on Iraq is the main reason why the US has become more and more isolated from and is getting less and less cooperation from the international community in the war on terrorism.

So, Kerrey's comments are within bounds ethically, and the content of his remarks are viewed here in the US as well within the remit of the commission. I have no interest in debating whether YOU think they are, or should be.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 04:58 AM

Getting slightly mystified about what the 9/11 Commission is supposed to be doing. Their remit, if memory serves me correctly is, to investigate and establish what was being done in response to threats from international terrorist organisations relating to possible attacks in the US, culminating in the attacks of 9/11. The commission was then charged to detail in its final report what went wrong and make recommendations to improve matters in order that similar attacks could be prevented in the future.

If that is indeed the case then Senator Robert Kerrey (NY Times 11th April) is definitely out of order in stating the following:

"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."

I say that for the following reasons:

1. The Commission, of which he is a member, has not finished hearing evidence. He is in effect pre-empting the findings of the Commission on which he sits - That from an ethical standpoint, should simply not be allowed to happen.

2. His references to Iraq are irrelevant and are outwith the remit of the Commission. Unless it can be clearly shown that the present administration diverted attention from the threat from Al-Qaeda to Iraq - and all the evidence to date shows that it did not.

Members of this Commission would be better advised to hold their counsel and do the job that is required of them until all the evidence has been heard and they reach an agreed conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 01:03 AM

this is just another sleight-of-hand from the bushits. there is enough ambiguity in the PDB to keep people arguing about out-of-context bullsh*t while the wicked agenda moves along. they hold things up, as they did with rice's testimony, finally come across with a bag of hot air and a few of these little distraction bombs to keep the rabble arguing among themselves and they keep up their furious fiddling as rome burns. get these criminals out of office.

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

"Strick, I think maybe the problem we are having here is that we are commenting and surmising about an ongoing investigation, which is in the gathering evidence phase. I don't think anyone on the 9/11 commission said this PDB was a smoking gun, that is pure media hype."

I agree with the first part whole heartedly. As to the second part, I've seen members of the Commission, including Kerrey (sorry, I've been mispelling his name) say as much on different talk shows.   I don't think the media is the source of the perception that there was more in this briefing than there turned out to be.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 08:15 PM

You cannot look at the PDB as an independent document - it must be considered in context, as only a part of all the intelligence reporting on bin Laden that was being made in the months prior to 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 06:39 PM

Strick, I think maybe the problem we are having here is that we are commenting and surmising about an ongoing investigation, which is in the gathering evidence phase. I don't think anyone on the 9/11 commission said this PDB was a smoking gun, that is pure media hype.

As to Bob Kerry's comments, I think he is saying that based upon the evidence so far, it is looking clear to him that going into Iraq got the US seriously off track from the war on terrorism. I don't think that is a particularly partisan comment, but then I heard the Republican head of the commission (whose name escapes me right now) say essentially the same thing on the Lehrer report one night last week.

So maybe the problem is with us trying to interpret events as if the investigation was over, and the commission's final findings and recommendations had already been made. We shouldn't be reading too much into this one piece of evidence, as I said earlier. There are millions of documents being examined as part of this investigation. It gets difficult for us maintain our perspective at this point in the investigation because the big names have been testifying in recent weeks, so the media hype and distortion is in overdrive. That effects all of our thinking, whether we are aware of it or not. I know I'm not always aware of how the media is distorting the picture at the time it is happening. Often, we can't figure that out until after the fact, when we've had time to reflect, and review the evidence and testimony without all the emotional reactions, more dispassionately.

So I think we are both right, but I also think we, like everyone else, is also still pretty confused and conflicted, and that isn't being helped by the media circus. So maybe we just need to chill, and let more things unfold, and allow the commission time to make it's findings and recommendations.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Strick
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 05:08 PM

GUEST, am I talking to more than one of you? I'm not following all your posts.

If all that's happening is political finger pointing, no, the Commission isn't doing it's job. Finding fault this way doesn't address what needs changing. Changes are needed at the FBI and the CIA? Fine, wasn't that evident early in the Clinton administration? The changes they instituted weren't enough, let's do more. Neither administration did enough? Agreed. What do we need to do now?

I'm shocked at how differently we read this briefing. Bob Kerry implied this briefing is how the President was supposed to know that someone was going to use airplanes as missles? Where do you read that, I can't find it? Ben Laden wants to attack the US? Duh, what were the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Millennium bomb plot? Where's the new information? Terrorist want to hijack airplanes to get some of their people out of jail? This news? Why have we been going through metal dectectors for the last 25 years? Tourists were taking pictures of Federal buildings? How does that relate the Twin Towers? Should that have been a signal to protect the 5-6 hundred buildings that could have been terrorist targets?

I'm not basing everything I think on this document. Someone wanted me to think it's a smoking gun. All I've heard with this and everything else is a bunch of fragmentary points that, if they had been brought together by someone though as we do after 9/11, could have been used to predict 9/11. The world really did change that day. We don't see it the way we used to, remember? That's what's really wrong with most of these arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 12:38 PM

I'm just now getting around to reading the articles about the PDB. The Washington Post article says:

"Declassified Memo Said Al Qaeda Was in U.S.

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, April 10, 2004; Page A01


CRAWFORD, Tex., April 10 -- President Bush was warned a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the FBI had information that terrorists might be preparing for a hijacking in the United States and might be targeting a building in Lower Manhattan...

The short article...also included information...that a caller to the U.S. Embassy in the United Arab Emirates in May 2001 said a group of bin Laden supporters was in the United States planning attacks with explosives.

In a conference call Saturday with reporters, administration officials who insisted on anonymity said there was no evidence that either the call to the U.S. Embassy in the UAE or the surveillance of federal buildings in New York by Yemenis was related to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The officials said the photographing of the federal buildings was later judged to be "tourist activity," but they did not say whether that judgment was made before or after the attacks...

In her testimony to the 9/11 commission on Thursday, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said, "this was a historical memo. . . . It was not based on new threat information."

While the two-page document included information dating to 1997, it also contained information that the government suspected al Qaeda was actively preparing for an attack in the United States. While it gave no information about specific targets or dates, the briefing warned that U.S. intelligence believed bin Laden had serious plans to hit the United States...As one former administration official who has read the PDB said last week: "The agency doesn't write a headline like that if it doesn't want to get attention." In this case, the former official said, "the CIA did not believe Bush policymakers were taking the threat to the U.S. seriously.

There was other relevant information in the FBI bin Laden unit, including the now well-publicized Phoenix document from an agent in that city, written on July 10, 2001, which raised questions about a bin Laden supporter taking flying lessons and suggested a nationwide survey to see what else was going on.

On the call to the embassy in the UAE in May 2001, the White House officials said they responded within two days to get investigations started. But it was still unresolved on Aug. 6 when the item was provided to the president. On Saturday, officials said that the matter was still not resolved but that they were able to determine it did not relate to the Sept. 11 attacks."

Now, if the FBI and CIA had been doing their jobs, or at the very least, the National Security Advisor had been on their backs to get them to do their jobs, a national survey by the FBI would have matched the arrest of Moussaoui in a Minnesota flight school (and he had even been arrested and was being held by the FBI prior to 9/11!) to the Phoenix report, and the airplane hijackings might have been averted, just as the millenium plot was.


"

That's fine. That is their spin. Now I'd like to see some proof of their claims.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 11:47 AM

The PDR is meaningful and important to the investigation of 9/11, because it shows beyond doubt that Bush himself was aware of the threat. It is, IMO, even more damning that Rice attempted to dismiss the PDB as "historical, nothing new" because that means the Bush administration had the information prior to Aug 6th, but hadn't done much about it.

As I said, this is but one piece of the millions of pieces of evidence. But it is a damn significant piece for the Bush administration in an election year.

The fact that the investigation is occurring during an election year is not the 9/11 commission's fault. The fact that the information and evidence emerging will be used politically by both Democrats and Republicans is a given. But I don't think that means that everyone shouldn't be able to put aside partisan politics, and therein lies the difference.

We live by a two/four year political calendar with out elections. There is no way an investigation of 9/11 could have taken place without it falling somewhere in the calendar that made it difficult for sitting politicians. That's just tough. It is part and parcel of the elected politicians' job, to be held accountable for what happens on their watch. Which is, of course, why the Bush administration fought so hard against there being any investigation into 9/11 at all. They knew it would end up being a factor in the 2004 presidential campaign. That's just the way the chips fell. If it had been Gore instead of Bush, no one would be going any easier on a Gore administration than they have the Bush administration.

Sometimes the chips fall your way, sometimes they don't. Bush has gotten way more political mileage out of 9/11 than anyone ever thought was possible. That things are finally coming home to roost that exposes the facts of the 9/11 attacks, rather than the spin, spit, and polish the Bush administration has tried to put on the attacks, was inevitable. Of course there is going to be partisan bickering over it. But I do think the 9/11 commission and the American people are determined to see through that bickering, and get beyond it.

What other choice do we have but to sweep it all under the rug? That won't make the screw-ups go away. Republicans are just pissed because now they have to pay the piper for 9/11 happening on their watch. But it balances out the fact that they have gotten so much partisan political mileage out of the attacks since 9/11, IMO. And I'm speaking as an political independent, who is not happy with either Republicans or Democrats, both of whom share the blame.

Subject: RE: BS: The Aug 6th Presidential Daily Briefing
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 11:46 AM

It's the absence of shame that incriminates most
Like the blame game in disdain comes off like a boast
Their sorrows could fit on the head of a pin
Saying "remorse takes it's course is the source of our win"

Regime change is needed, yes please, anytime soon
For this renegade's promenades ill equip the platoon
Ept morphing of reasoning, and causes, and threats
Display for all time what no conscience forgets...
ttr

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

Strick, if the mission of the 9/11 commission is "to be focused on finding ways to prevent future attacks to protect the people of the United States" as you say, just how do you propose they do that without finding fault so that we know what problems to fix and how to fix them?

You can't have this both ways. You can't have an investigation, then bitch and moan when the investigation finds problems.

There were HUGE problems that lead to 3,000 being killed in terrorist attacks on US soil in a single day, by hitting two powerfully symbolic buildings, Strick. That ain't a case of "shit happens".

That is a case of "man, that shit should NEVER have happened".

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