Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Not a Contemporary Piece of Information [8/6 PDB]
The Wall Street Journal ^ | 4/9/04 | James Taranto

Posted on 04/10/2004 5:22:56 AM PDT by Gothmog

Ben-Veniste's rudeness was clear for all to see, but to understand just how dishonest was his line of questioning, look at this article from the May 27, 2002, issue of Human Events, a conservative Washington weekly:

Sen. Bob Graham (D.-Fla.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told HUMAN EVENTS May 21 that his committee had received all the same terrorism intelligence prior to September 11 as the Bush administration.

"Yes, we had seen all the information," said Graham. "But we didn't see it on a single piece of paper, the way the President did."

Graham added that threats of hijacking in an August 6 memo to President Bush were based on very old intelligence that the committee had seen earlier. "The particular report that was in the President's Daily Briefing that day was about three years old," Graham said. "It was not a contemporary piece of information."

Graham is far from a supporter of the Bush administration, as he made clear last year in his brief but loopy presidential campaign. The 9/11 commission is supposed to be an impartial search for the truth. Is there any doubt that Ben-Veniste is guilty of trying to turn it into a partisan witch hunt?

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 200108; 20010806; 200205; 20020527; 911commission; benveniste; bobgraham; bushknew; intelcommittee; ricetestimony
I wonder why no other media source has picked this up? Maybe they're too busy writing complaints to FR about excerpting.
1 posted on 04/10/2004 5:22:56 AM PDT by Gothmog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Gothmog
I found Bob Kerrey to be far more offensive on Thursday, than I did Viniste..
2 posted on 04/10/2004 5:30:07 AM PDT by cardinal4 (Terrence Maculiffe-Ariolimax columbianus (hint- its a gastropod.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
"I found Bob Kerrey to be far more offensive on Thursday, than I did Viniste.."

That's because the POS Kerrey was trying to save his manhood which is continuously being emasculated by his own ignorance.

3 posted on 04/10/2004 5:37:02 AM PDT by harpu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
They were both very rude, but IMHO the difference is Kerrey is just an egomanic whose agenda is to promote himself, while rat boy Veniste is a communist whose goal is to advance the libs agenda. To me, that makes rat boy more objectionable.
4 posted on 04/10/2004 5:43:29 AM PDT by Gothmog (The 2004 election won't be about what one did in the military, but on how one would use it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: harpu
His "filibuster" tirade is being replayed, and its makes Condi Rice look like the bad guy. The Dems are doing EVERYTHING they can to discredit Bush. Some of which borders on treason. Its depressing to watch public opinion being formed so unfairly..
5 posted on 04/10/2004 5:45:38 AM PDT by cardinal4 (Terrence Maculiffe-Ariolimax columbianus (hint- its a gastropod.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gothmog
Sen. Bob Graham (D.-Fla.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told HUMAN EVENTS May 21 that his committee had received all the same terrorism intelligence prior to September 11 as the Bush administration.

If we really want the truth, put this POS under oath and let him tell us what he did with this information.

6 posted on 04/10/2004 5:52:41 AM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
I found Bob Kerrey to be far more offensive on Thursday, than I did Viniste.

I agree. Viniste was predictable; Kerrey was awful.

7 posted on 04/10/2004 6:12:47 AM PDT by The Other Harry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gothmog
I hear that in the movie version, Veniste will be played by Eugene Levy.
8 posted on 04/10/2004 6:37:32 AM PDT by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4

In my 'if only' file, Condi says something like "maybe you ought to read over the information again, since you can't seem to remember WHO YOU'RE INTERVIEWING TODAY, I'm not sure I trust your short term memory. Hopefully, you have an aide writing all this down for you?"

Dr. Clarke. Good grief!
9 posted on 04/10/2004 7:09:32 AM PDT by Mr. Thorne ("But iron, cold iron, shall be master of them all..." Kipling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Thorne
Check out this thread:

All info about 8/6 PDB was discussed in Washington Post article in May 2002

That includes the title of the memo that Ari Fleischer discussed in a White House Press Briefing, totally contradicting Ben Veniste's comment that even the title was top secret until this week.

The key info from the article is that it was a backward looking PDB and Bush was frustrated that it didn't have any forward looking or actionable info in it.

10 posted on 04/10/2004 7:17:44 AM PDT by rocklobster11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rocklobster11
Oh, yeah. No problem with the PDB, it was just Kerrey's sanctimony, while he (apparently) was so intent on making his point that he couldn't remember Condi's NAME, for crying out loud.

And we could play the race card too, if only we were dems. I mean, not only did he get her name wrong, he confused her with a white man. Freudian slip, perhaps?
11 posted on 04/10/2004 7:23:56 AM PDT by Mr. Thorne ("But iron, cold iron, shall be master of them all..." Kipling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gothmog; joanie-f; snopercod; JeanS; JohnHuang2; Squantos; Ragtime Cowgirl
The information regarding terrorists' plans with airplanes is from the same time frame as the information regarding terrorists' (and Saddam's) plans with WMD's.

The liberals are stuck by their own logic:

IF the leftists' "logic" about the value of such historical information in the PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) about terrorists' plans, had such weight that "The President was warned; and he should have done something more about it!",

THEN that same leftists' "logic" also applies to the historical warnings about Iraq having WMD's, and "The President was warned; and he should have done something more about it!."

He did.

12 posted on 04/10/2004 8:15:23 AM PDT by First_Salute (May God save our democratic-republican government, from a government by judiciary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: First_Salute
Clinton Assigns Blame
And, no, it’s not his fault.

(November 8, 2001)

...One ex-CIA official told Franklin Foer of The New Republic that under Clinton appointee John Deutsch, the agency had "become very politically correct."

And just last year (2000), the National Commission on Terrorism — chaired by former Reagan counterterrorism head Paul Bremer — issued a report with the eerily foreboding image of the Twin Towers on its cover. A bipartisan effort — led by Jon Kyl and Dianne Feinstein — was made to attach the recommendations of the panel to an intelligence authorization bill. But Sen. Patrick Leahy feared a threat to "civil liberties" and torpedoed the effort. After the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, Kyl and Feinstein tried yet again. This time, Leahy was content with emaciating the proposals instead of defeating them outright. The weakened proposals died as the House realized "it wasn't worth taking up." President Clinton certainly could have encouraged Sen. Leahy to drop his opposition, but he didn't.

In 1996, President Clinton charged Al Gore with improving airline security. But the commission he led "focused on civil liberties" and "not effectiveness," according to the Boston Globe. The commission concluded that "no profile [of passengers] should contain or be based on... race, religion, or national origin." The FAA also decided, in 1999, to seal its passenger screening system from law-enforcement databases — thus preventing the FBI from notifying airlines that suspected terrorists were on board.

When bin Laden fled from the Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996, "some officials," according to the Washington Post, "raised the possibility of shooting down his aircraft." But the plan was never pursued, in part because "it was inconceivable" that President Clinton would approve of it.

What President Clinton did do, of course, is launch a series of cruise-missile attacks on Afghanistan and the Sudan around the time of his grand-jury testimony in August of 1998. Put aside any talk of "wagging the dog." This low-risk, low-damage effort helped bin Laden in the Muslim world. He looked strong, and we looked weak. We looked (and, of course, were) averse to casualties. It fit a pattern of tepid American responses to serious attacks on our interests — the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (which the Clinton administration treated as a criminal matter and not an act of war), Khobar Towers, embassy bombings. The Muslim world senses weakness and feeds on it; they tremble only before resolution and strength. As one senior Defense Department official put it, "I wish we'd recognized [that we were at war] then and started the campaign then that we've started now."

(July 1999:)
The Boston Globe, on the 25th, said, “The 6-year-old boy watched intently as his father dusted off his favorite possession, a leather-bound scrapbook of Osama bin Laden, pausing at a photo of the Saudi dissident with a semiautomatic rifle tucked in the folds of his trademark white robe. ''Osama!'' his son squealed excitedly. ''That's me!'' The boy, whose name was changed to Osama last year, is one of hundreds of Pakistani children named for bin Laden since Aug. 20, 1998 - the day the United States launched missile strikes against alleged terrorist camps run by the Saudi millionaire in eastern Afghanistan. The attack sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. But the response was particularly heated in Pakistan, which sends thousands of Islamic guerrillas to similar training camps in Afghanistan. ''I love his bravery and gallantry,'' the boy's father, Niaz Ali Salar, said of bin Laden. ''He boosted the morale of Muslims throughout the world.'' The local leader of the radical Barelvi sect of Muslims, Salar said he hoped his son would ''live up to his name'' and lead the war against ''the enemies of Islam.'' In Mardan, a crumbling tobacco center 75 miles east of the Afghan border, Islamic priests deliver diatribes against ''evil America'' during Friday afternoon prayers.

In Pakistan, few buy Washington's vilification of bin Laden, whom it accuses of masterminding the Aug. 7, 1998, bombings of two US embassies in east Africa and several other terrorist attacks. ''He's a man on the run, whose only friends are the Taliban. How can he be a threat to the world's most powerful nation?'' said Sahib Zada Khalid Jan Binuri, head of Pakistan's most influential Islamic seminary. ''It's all spin control. If America tells me, `You are a terrorist,' what can I say?''  Arab in the Media, link for inactive. 
(Character counts in America's President.)

Dec. 18, 2000: the Electoral College elected George W. Bush America's 43rd President-elect.

Dec. 19, 2000: Clinton went to Kofi Annan and asked that the UN place tougher sanctions on Afghanistan if the Taliban didn't hand over Bin Laden in 30 days.

"Today, the United Nations removed all its remaining relief workers from the country, fearing a backlash from the Taliban, who will be almost completely isolated diplomatically when the resolution takes effect in 30 days, a grace period during which the Taliban could avoid sanctions by meeting the Council's demands." - Tough Sanctions Imposed on Taliban Government Split UN, by Barbara Crossette, New York Times, Dec. 20, 2000.

Dec. 20,  2000: UN announced* tougher sanctions on the Taliban - to go into effect in 30 days  (*after a speedy UN vote)...

...just in time for Inaugeration Day, Jan. 21, 2001.

One morning at the nub end of Bill Clinton's presidency, Clinton chief of staff John Podesta walked into a senior staff meeting in the Roosevelt Room waving a copy of USA Today. Holding the paper aloft, Podesta read the headline out loud, "Clinton actions annoy Bush." The article detailed the new rules and Executive Orders the outgoing President was issuing in his final days, actions aimed in equal measure at locking in Clinton's legacy...and bedeviling his successor. "What's Bush so annoyed about?" Podesta asked with a devilish smile. "He's got four years to try to undo all the stuff we've done." link.

"We laid a few traps," chirps a happy Clinton aide.....

13 posted on 04/10/2004 9:22:33 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl ("Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand - and they will be defeated."- Conde Rice, ally.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
He was even more offensive today on Weedend Live. I have been sending message after message about the age of the information in the PDB and about Bob Graham's statement.

But .. I have noticed that on the weekends, Fox becomes much more liberal and left leaning. Suddenly, on Monday, the whole tone of the reporting seems to change.

I have been yelling at James Rosen and Tony Snow for discussing this PDB twice and never mentioning this WSJ information.
14 posted on 04/10/2004 11:09:07 AM PDT by CyberAnt (The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: First_Salute
Great point. When will we hear that question asked on CNN?
15 posted on 04/11/2004 4:01:23 AM PDT by snopercod (When the people are ready, a master will appear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Wow! Great post. Thanks.
16 posted on 04/11/2004 4:07:38 AM PDT by snopercod (When the people are ready, a master will appear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl; snopercod; joanie-f; ladyinred; JeanS; Squantos; brityank; tangofox
Thank you for all that information; yet it reminds me of how much George W. Bush should have straight-forward-ly dealt with the miseries left by Clinton, regarding Vince Foster, for example, who did not die in Ft. Marcy Park, and regarding the condition of military preparedness.

The noise we are hearing, and we are being led to believe, about the use of civilian aircraft as weapons platforms, so to speak, is some kind of "surprise" and "new paradigm," is willfully disingenious. There is a good reason why civilian aircraft are restricted from "Restricted Area[s]" around military bases and various public institutions --- yes, because they might be in the use of our enemies.

"Gee, if we'd only known the exact building and date and time..." is just more of that same disingenious behavior.

That said, our mighty "Republican" Senatorial "leadership" and such "Republican" members of the House, should be using, item by item, the facts that you have gathered together, and so many other FRPR's have gathered together, that argue for, in my view, the completed Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton in Absentia.

Bill Clinton should be removed from all honors and protection of the Office of the President, and his name stricken from all public artifacts.

The "land mines" left by his crew, John Podesta, et al, should be investigated and such Clinton crew members arrested and imprisoned.


Because you know, and I know, that this thing can get much worse, and it could get much worse because people are really not yet taking it all that serious.

With every assault within the U.S. --- such as the oil refineries that are being attacked by use of mortars in the back end of pickup trucks --- when these things get closer to home, there will more noise about "what Bush knew and when he knew it."

President Bush had better get honest with himself, such that he can not afford to appease the Senate Democrats by continuing the facade that somehow, basically, they must be on the side of fighting against terrorism.

They are not.

They are on the side of fighting against democratic-republicanism, in favor of socialism. What they say, should never be confused with being genuine opinion. They never tell anybody in public, what they really think. It is ENTIRELY meant for the public's consumption such that the public response will be to be a little more fearful and seek more government power to "do something about it."

That is, as re-interpreted by the Democrats, make government even larger.

George Bush has got to get off of that train wreck.

Condoleezza Rice had better go over everything that is her responsibility, and everything that is the Joint Chiefs' responsibility, and everything that is the D.C.I.'s responsibility, and everything that is the Ch. of the Federal Reserve's responsibility, etc., and find the booby-traps left by "Mr. Podesta."

Because somewhere in that pile of stuff, is the warning signs of how the terrorists will next drive fuel tanker trucks into some building somewhere, and the Bush Administration had better have been prepared to PREVENT IT, not just discussed to the most precise degree, how the "structure" PREVENTED THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FROM DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

After all, the purpose of the federal government, is NOT the importance of its members, in our's, a free republic.

Truth and honor are paramount, if the people are to send their children to fight for all our freedom.

That includes, accepting responsibility for preparedness in all its areas, not just "intel."

Are we preparing? Are we seeing stories in the news about how armored car production has quadrupled, because we are in a war?


Same problem for our aircraft industry, where if anything, it has been left to wither, when to the contrary, to produce the kind of machine tools and production equipment with which to produce greater numbers of aircraft, requires lead time that we should NOW be involved in that.

We are not.

The many glowing assumptions are not reality; "it ain't happenin'."

We should be planning for an emergency that requires 4 times the number of people we now have in uniform.

We need material for them, but it is not being produced.

We need material that we can expect to be lost.

Assessments for loss are not what they once were. We must not only account for enemy destruction of our transports by enemy fire, but also that squadrons and bases will be removed from service by "dirty nuclear" weapons and biological assaults.

We may, in order to proceed, have to very unhappily invade some country that we would otherwise not wish to at all, but we may need their facilities, such that we can set up a base from which to operate and then continue on to the rescue of some battalions that are suddenly stuck somewhere, but we have not been able to get to them, because 20 C-17 aircraft are out of the pattern, having been doused at Dover AFB.

Our vulnerability on the oceans is quite large, because our Navy is still somewhat asleep at the wheel, because nobody has actually yet given it its marching orders: Sink and Attack.

Instead, we are stopping and inspecting.

Makes an inviting target for a "trawler" hauling enough explosives to send a U.S. destroyer to the bottom.

Our Navy is expecting a missile attack, but the old methods still work (U.S.S. Cole).

The irony, there, is that in a certain area of defense, the Navy's expectation of a missile attack, is quite appropriate, but because it is so secretive, the numbers of tests of the system, have been reduced.

You know what they are worried about?

That a "coastal steamer" will launch cruise missiles up the river and hit Washington, D.C. There's a lot of work involved in preventing that.

The reasons for it being such a secret, are because of long-standing political disputes over the "construction of the anti-ballistic missile system."

On the surface, the Democrats have wanted the public to believe that such a system will "only provoke our enemies." While privately they pat on the back, the developers (thanks for protecting us, and BTW, it's good 'pork').

There's a tactical weakness in the system: the kind of RADAR that it requires, itself becomes a target.

So, we don't tell anybody about it.

I have walked all around that, here on this forum, hoping that some minds would figure it out but keep quiet.

That pretty much covers some areas, other than of course, the weaknesses around our airports, where you'd think that somebody would have put down in a PDB, the very fat opportunity for terrorists: just leap the fence around the airport perimeter.

Still, almost nobody is minding that store.

I dread hearing Condoleezza Rice explain that that anvil was also never dropped on the President's toes ... until the day, the time, and the place that it happens.

Gives new meaning to the words, "new paradigm."

17 posted on 04/11/2004 10:40:21 AM PDT by First_Salute (May God save our democratic-republican government, from a government by judiciary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: First_Salute
Clearly, the American people are not taking this "war" seriously.

The administration knows this, and is trying to get away with the same economic sleight-of-hand that devoured the savings of an entire generation back in the 70s with years of inflation. The Viet Nam war was paid for out of the savings accounts of little old widow ladies on fixed incomes.

This time it will be worse, since we won't be able to produce our way out of the fix we're in, having sold all our tools and having no Americans left who actually know how to design and build anything.

18 posted on 04/11/2004 12:11:04 PM PDT by snopercod (When the people are ready, a master will appear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: optik_b
19 posted on 04/11/2004 1:24:56 PM PDT by snopercod (When the people are ready, a master will appear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson