WHAT LAWS DID BUSH
TABACCO: This Post will be short and to-the-point. But it requires its own URL here rather than merely a “Comment” by this author.
Yes, I believe FDR looked the other way to allow the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor in 1941. However, FDR’s motives were much less suspect than Bush’s. The most respected individual in America at that time was Charles W. Lindberg, who was the first to cross the Atlantic flying solo in 1927, whose baby was later kidnapped and murdered leading to the ‘Trial of the Century’, and who was present at the famous raising of the American flag on Iwo Jima in WWII.
In 1941, Lindberg was making speeches across America supporting Adolf Hitler and the German Nazi Party, not the Brits, the French and the rest of the Allies under Hitler’s attacks. America was split down the middle in support of the Allies and the Axis Powers. In order to switch that support fully behind the Allies, FDR allowed ‘Pearl Harbor’ by the Japanese (Hitler’s Allies) to facilitate America’s entering the War on the side of the Allies. It was a dastardly trick, but in hindsight FDR can be forgiven.
Not so with Bush, Cheney and the Neocons in 2001, who “looked the other way” also to permit Osama bin Laden to save Bush’s Presidency and put BIG DOLLAR$ in the pockets of WAR PROFITEERS and the Republican Politicians in the Bush administration, who initiated and perpetuated the OPEC WARS for PROFIT, NOT NATIONAL DEFENSE!
Only Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense in the Bush Administration, objected to attacking Iraq in 2001 and instead forced the Bushites to attack al Qaeda in Afghanistan where they were hiding. The Bushites were after Saddam Hussein’s IRAQI OIL, NOT NATIONAL DEFENSE!
The NEOCON Think Tank then known as the Project For The New American Century (PNAC) wrote letters to President Bill Clinton during the 1990s trying to persuade him to INVADE IRAQ. I have previously published on their efforts at Blog-City but have not yet republished that Post here. Those letters were republished by the PNAC on their own website.
VP Cheney once responded to a reporter’s question about why he preferred invading Iraq over Afghanistan, to which Cheney snidely responded, “Because Iraq has better targets!”
So much for Republican Politicians’ concern for
Report: CIA Urged Bush Admin to Address Bin Laden Threat
Newly disclosed documents from before the 9/11 attacks have provided further evidence the Bush administration ignored repeated warnings about Osama bin Laden’s plans to attack the United States. Writing in the New York Times, journalist and author Kurt Eichenwald reports the Bush administration dismissed a number of warnings of an al-Qaeda attack in the United States beginning in the spring of 2001, instead focusing on Saddam Hussein. In one assessment, Eichenwald writes, “The CIA all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.” Some counterterrorism officials were so dismayed with the administration’s response that they discussed seeking a transfer so that others would be blamed when the attack on the United States eventually took place. The suggestion was dismissed because there would not be enough time to train replacements.
The Full Text Below:
The Deafness Before the Storm
Published: September 10, 2012 504 Comments
IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.
· Times Topic: Sept. 11, 2001
Related in Opinion
· News Analysis: How Resilient Is Post-9/11 America? (September 9, 2012)
Connect With Us on Twitter
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of al Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.
“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.
Tabacco: Before I began blogging, I contacted CNN about the spelling of bin Laden’s first name. I didn’t know which was correct I informed them, but everyone else was saying “Osama”, while CNN alone was saying “Usama” – CNN switched to “Osama”.
And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.
Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.
That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.
On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.
In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.
Could the 9/11 attacks have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.
Kurt Eichenwald, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and a former reporter for The New York Times, is the author of “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars.”
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on September 11, 2012, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: The Deafness Before the Storm.
Tabacco: The fact that facts like these were denied to most Americans by the Mainstream Media (MSM) is the main reason why I decided to begin blogging in 2005. Had you read this or a similar Post in 2004 instead of today in 2012, would you have voted for George W. Bush for President again!
ADVISORY: As with all Comments received on this blog, you must explain your point-of-view whether you agree with me or not! I publish neither unsolicited flattery (which is usually accompanied by the Commenter’s own website) nor unsubstantiated, unreferenced and un-thought-out criticisms and denials!
This is my blog, and I don’t offer unqualified opinions myself without explanation of my thought processes. Why would I allow you to get away with it!
Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.
Tabacco is not a blogger, who thinks; I am a Thinker, who blogs. Speaking Truth to Power!
In 1981′s ‘Body Heat’, Kathleen Turner said, “Knowledge is power”.