They knew, but did nothing to stop 9/11

[forestal]

How Bush allowed Al Qaeda to attack on 9/11

Disgusting that they did this..

The warnings were going straight to President Bush each morning in his briefings by the CIA director, George Tenet, and in the presidential daily briefings. It would later be revealed by the 9/11 commission into the September 11 attacks that more than 40 presidential briefings presented to Bush from January 2001 through to September 10, 2001, included references to bin Laden.
And nearly identical intelligence landed each morning on the desks of about 300 other senior national security officials and members of Congress in the form of the senior executive intelligence brief, a newsletter on intelligence issues also prepared by the CIA.
The senior executive briefings contained much of the same information that was in the presidential briefings but were edited to remove material considered too sensitive for all but the President and his top aides to see. Often the differences between the two documents were minor, with only a sentence or two changed between them. Apart from the commission's chief director, Philip Zelikow, the commission's staff was never granted access to Bush's briefings, except for the notorious August 2001 briefing that warned of the possibility of domestic al-Qaeda strikes involving hijackings. But they could read through the next best thing: the senior executive briefings.



"Bin Ladin Planning Multiple Operations" (April 20)and "Bin Ladin Threats Are Real" (June 30)It was especially troubling for Hurley's team to realise how many of the warnings were directed to the desk of one person: Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser. Emails from the National Security Council's counter-terrorism director, Richard Clarke, showed that he had bombarded Rice with messages about terrorist threats. He was trying to get her to focus on the intelligence she should have been reading each morning in the presidential and senior briefings
"Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack" (May 3)
"Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot" (May 23)
"Bin Ladin's Networks' Plans Advancing" (May 26)
"Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent"
(June 23)
"Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats" (June 25)
"Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile
Attacks" (June 30),
"Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays" (July 2)

Before the attacks, he said: "I was not on point, but I knew he was a menace, and I knew he was a problem. I knew he was responsible, or we felt he was responsible, for the previous bombings that killed Americans. I was prepared to look at a plan that would be a thoughtful plan that would bring him to justice, and would have given the order to do that. I have no hesitancy about going after him. But I didn't feel that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling."

I've been reading this tripe for years, and here's the question that I ask that I rarely get an answer to: given that all of the above information was 100% valid, what would you have done to prevent the 9/11 attacks? You know that Bin Ladin wants to attack us, you know he might hijack aircraft, you know he might try to take hostages. Okay, so given all that, how do you go about stopping the attacks?

- You could ground all of the nations airlines, but you don't know what dates the attacks will occur on, which flights will be involved, who will be involved, etc. So, do you just ground airliners indefinately? I don't think so.
- Let's assume that the concerns about arab men learning how to fly made it to someone in the government who could do something. What could they do? Go out and arrest every male of arab decent who has ever attended flight training? On what charges? Attending flight school? Last I heard that was legal. Then how do you deal with all the lawsuits brought about by the students, the ACLU, the NAACP, and God knows who else for your use of racial profiling?
- You ground all the aircraft, and arrest all the arab males, starting 8/15, so you prevented the 9/11 attacks. But eventually you have to let planes fly again, and you have to let the men go because most of them have committed no crime and you're under so much heat for arresting them in the first place there's no way you can hold them for petty stuff like over-running a visa. So, the attacks occur on 10/11 instead of 9/11.
- You can also assume you know that Bin Ladin is going to do something on 9/11. It may involve aircraft and it may involve taking hostages. What do you do? You order stepped-up screening of all passengers, and the screeners look extra hard for bombs and guns. But who thinks to say a box cutter is a weapon?

So Forrestal, we all know hindsight is 20/20, and it's a sinch to put all the dots together once the dots are clearly displayed. Asshats like Richard Clarke can run around all day bragging about all these great warnings he gave, but he never provided anything that was actionable. Saying that there might be an attack coming is great, but what can you do about it if you don't know the who, when, where, or how of the attack? But, how do you go about preventing the 9/11 attacks given the information you reference in your post?

[Bustem' Down]

Originally Posted by forestal

How Bush allowed Al Qaeda to attack on 9/11

Disgusting that they did this..

The warnings were going straight to President Bush each morning in his briefings by the CIA director, George Tenet, and in the presidential daily briefings. It would later be revealed by the 9/11 commission into the September 11 attacks that more than 40 presidential briefings presented to Bush from January 2001 through to September 10, 2001, included references to bin Laden.
And nearly identical intelligence landed each morning on the desks of about 300 other senior national security officials and members of Congress in the form of the senior executive intelligence brief, a newsletter on intelligence issues also prepared by the CIA.
The senior executive briefings contained much of the same information that was in the presidential briefings but were edited to remove material considered too sensitive for all but the President and his top aides to see. Often the differences between the two documents were minor, with only a sentence or two changed between them. Apart from the commission's chief director, Philip Zelikow, the commission's staff was never granted access to Bush's briefings, except for the notorious August 2001 briefing that warned of the possibility of domestic al-Qaeda strikes involving hijackings. But they could read through the next best thing: the senior executive briefings.



"Bin Ladin Planning Multiple Operations" (April 20)and "Bin Ladin Threats Are Real" (June 30)It was especially troubling for Hurley's team to realise how many of the warnings were directed to the desk of one person: Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser. Emails from the National Security Council's counter-terrorism director, Richard Clarke, showed that he had bombarded Rice with messages about terrorist threats. He was trying to get her to focus on the intelligence she should have been reading each morning in the presidential and senior briefings
"Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack" (May 3)
"Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot" (May 23)
"Bin Ladin's Networks' Plans Advancing" (May 26)
"Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent"
(June 23)
"Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats" (June 25)
"Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile
Attacks" (June 30),
"Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays" (July 2)

Before the attacks, he said: "I was not on point, but I knew he was a menace, and I knew he was a problem. I knew he was responsible, or we felt he was responsible, for the previous bombings that killed Americans. I was prepared to look at a plan that would be a thoughtful plan that would bring him to justice, and would have given the order to do that. I have no hesitancy about going after him. But I didn't feel that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling."

So what would you have done?

Roosevelt had all kinds of Warning about Pearl Harbor, I think we should vilify him too.

[PsyOps]

Two words for you Fauxrest... "Able Danger". Look it up; if you're interested in the truth about the al Qaeda threat.

[aps45819 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by forestal

How Bush allowed Al Qaeda to attack on 9/11

The warnings were going straight to President Bush each morning in his briefings by the CIA director, George Tenet, and in the presidential daily briefings.

Thank God GW listened to his warnings about WMDs in Iraq and our preident was proactive in protecting us from that threat.

[Ken King (Premo)]

Believe what you want but Monday Morning Quarterbacking is a lot easier than playing the game on Sunday.

I wonder if you ever read the http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/c...onclusions.pdf as it is what the 911 commission found, namely that even though there was a lot of intel none of it identified the time, place, and specific nature of the attacks that were planned for September 11, 2001.

[PsyOps]

1993 - WTC bombing. Response by Clinton: Nothing.

1993 - Bin Laden sets up a cell in Somalia. Clinton approves failed raid on cell which resulted in 18 Americans dead and 2 black hawks lost. Further response by Clinton: Nothing.

1996 - Bombing on Khobar Towers (19 Americans dead). Response by Clinton: Nothing.

1998 - U.S. Embassy bombings Kenya/Tanzania (hundreds killed). Response by Clinton: Nothing.

2000 - USS Cole bombing (17 Americans killed). Response by Clinton: Nothing.

2000 - One year before the 911 attack:

Rep. Curt Weldon, (R-Pa.) (chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees) said that Able Danger had offered in the year before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to share its intelligence with the FBI and to work with them to take down the New York City terrorist cell involving Mohammed Atta and two other 9/11 terrorists. Weldon said Clinton administration lawyers prevented the information from being shared with the FBI.

Response by Clinton: Pass a memo to the Bush administration.

Sep 11 2007 - 8 months after Bush takes the WH, before he even has a fully established cabinet (he still had Clinton cabinet members advising him) al Qaeda attacks America. Response by Bush: War.

Clinton's everlasting failure to respond to the growing threat of al Qaeda resulted in 911. Funny you are oblivious to these facts. But then again, the sand is neck deep.

[Go G-Men]

Originally Posted by forestal

How Bush allowed Al Qaeda to attack on 9/11

Disgusting that they did this..

The warnings were going straight to President Bush each morning in his briefings by the CIA director, George Tenet, and in the presidential daily briefings. It would later be revealed by the 9/11 commission into the September 11 attacks that more than 40 presidential briefings presented to Bush from January 2001 through to September 10, 2001, included references to bin Laden.
And nearly identical intelligence landed each morning on the desks of about 300 other senior national security officials and members of Congress in the form of the senior executive intelligence brief, a newsletter on intelligence issues also prepared by the CIA.
The senior executive briefings contained much of the same information that was in the presidential briefings but were edited to remove material considered too sensitive for all but the President and his top aides to see. Often the differences between the two documents were minor, with only a sentence or two changed between them. Apart from the commission's chief director, Philip Zelikow, the commission's staff was never granted access to Bush's briefings, except for the notorious August 2001 briefing that warned of the possibility of domestic al-Qaeda strikes involving hijackings. But they could read through the next best thing: the senior executive briefings.



"Bin Ladin Planning Multiple Operations" (April 20)and "Bin Ladin Threats Are Real" (June 30)It was especially troubling for Hurley's team to realise how many of the warnings were directed to the desk of one person: Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser. Emails from the National Security Council's counter-terrorism director, Richard Clarke, showed that he had bombarded Rice with messages about terrorist threats. He was trying to get her to focus on the intelligence she should have been reading each morning in the presidential and senior briefings
"Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack" (May 3)
"Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot" (May 23)
"Bin Ladin's Networks' Plans Advancing" (May 26)
"Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent"
(June 23)
"Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats" (June 25)
"Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile
Attacks" (June 30),
"Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays" (July 2)

Before the attacks, he said: "I was not on point, but I knew he was a menace, and I knew he was a problem. I knew he was responsible, or we felt he was responsible, for the previous bombings that killed Americans. I was prepared to look at a plan that would be a thoughtful plan that would bring him to justice, and would have given the order to do that. I have no hesitancy about going after him. But I didn't feel that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling."

This is a bunch of bull. Bill Clinton had 8 years to deal with Bin Laden and Al Qadea. In 1993 the world trade centers were attacked. Clinton did nothing. In 1998 they attacked our embassies in Africa and all Clinton did was launch a cruise missle attack into Afgahnistan and Somalia. Missed everything and that was that. For the next 2 years he did nothing to stop Bin Laden

Leave to a clinton-ite to mis-represent the facts...

Bush at least went after the folks who attacked us... That's a far cry from the Clinton administration who cowered here at home and made idle threats...

If Clinton would have handled this in 1998. 3000 people would still be with us today

[Go G-Men]

Originally Posted by Go G-Men

This is a bunch of bull. Bill Clinton had 8 years to deal with Bin Laden and Al Qadea. In 1993 the world trade centers were attacked. Clinton did nothing. In 1998 they attacked our embassies in Africa and all Clinton did was launch a cruise missle attack into Afgahnistan and Somalia. Missed everything and that was that. For the next 2 years he did nothing to stop Bin Laden

Leave to a clinton-ite to mis-represent the facts...

Bush at least went after the folks who attacked us... That's a far cry from the Clinton administration who cowered here at home and made idle threats...

If Clinton would have handled this in 1998. 3000 people would still be with us today

P.S. The author of this book works for the NY Times... Nuff said

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by forestal

How Bush allowed Al Qaeda to attack on 9/11

Disgusting that they did this..

The warnings were going straight to President Bush each morning in his briefings by the CIA director, George Tenet, and in the presidential daily briefings. It would later be revealed by the 9/11 commission into the September 11 attacks that more than 40 presidential briefings presented to Bush from January 2001 through to September 10, 2001, included references to bin Laden.
And nearly identical intelligence landed each morning on the desks of about 300 other senior national security officials and members of Congress in the form of the senior executive intelligence brief, a newsletter on intelligence issues also prepared by the CIA.
The senior executive briefings contained much of the same information that was in the presidential briefings but were edited to remove material considered too sensitive for all but the President and his top aides to see. Often the differences between the two documents were minor, with only a sentence or two changed between them. Apart from the commission's chief director, Philip Zelikow, the commission's staff was never granted access to Bush's briefings, except for the notorious August 2001 briefing that warned of the possibility of domestic al-Qaeda strikes involving hijackings. But they could read through the next best thing: the senior executive briefings.



"Bin Ladin Planning Multiple Operations" (April 20)and "Bin Ladin Threats Are Real" (June 30)It was especially troubling for Hurley's team to realise how many of the warnings were directed to the desk of one person: Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser. Emails from the National Security Council's counter-terrorism director, Richard Clarke, showed that he had bombarded Rice with messages about terrorist threats. He was trying to get her to focus on the intelligence she should have been reading each morning in the presidential and senior briefings
"Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack" (May 3)
"Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot" (May 23)
"Bin Ladin's Networks' Plans Advancing" (May 26)
"Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent"
(June 23)
"Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats" (June 25)
"Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile
Attacks" (June 30),
"Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays" (July 2)

Before the attacks, he said: "I was not on point, but I knew he was a menace, and I knew he was a problem. I knew he was responsible, or we felt he was responsible, for the previous bombings that killed Americans. I was prepared to look at a plan that would be a thoughtful plan that would bring him to justice, and would have given the order to do that. I have no hesitancy about going after him. But I didn't feel that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling."

oh gosh! Another truther!