Skip to comments.The Deafness Before the Storm (suggests Bush White House ignored pre-9/11 warnings)
Posted on 09/11/2012 7:20:38 PM PDT by EveningStar
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 mornings presidential daily brief the top-secret document prepared by Americas 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...
[T]he administrations 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Ignorance should be ignored. This is a double dose.
Ignorance should be ignored. This is a double dose.
It’s sounds paranoid to me.
I have no fondness for GWB presidency at all but reviving this nonsense on 9/11 is idiotic and disrespectful. What’s next? The Jersey girls (Britweiser) ?
They don’t want to let it go.
I doubt anyone would conclude that a warning that “a big operation is being planned for sometime within the next month” means that terrorists are planning to take over planes and fly them into buildings on the morning of September 11.
Only 20/20 hindsight can reveal those connections.
The State Department in effect was assisting the Taliban's inhumane blockade intended to starve out communities, which opposed their dictates. Perhaps the most glaring evidence of this administration's tacit support was the effort made during the Spring of 1998, when a visit to Afghanistan made by Mr. Inderfurth who will be with us today and the United Nations Ambassador Bill Richardson. These administration representatives convinced the anti-Taliban northern alliance not to go on the offensive against a then weakened and vulnerable Taliban. Instead they convinced the anti-Taliban leaders to accept a cease-fire that was proposed by Pakistan. This cease-fire lasted only as long as it took the Pakistanis to re-supply and reorganize the Taliban. In fact within a few months of the announcement of the U.S. backed Ulima (ph) process, the Taliban freshly supplied by the ISI from Pakistan and flush with drug money went on a major offensive and destroyed the northern alliance.
So, our administration, at a pivotal moment, interceded in a way that brought the Taliban to almost complete power in Afghanistan. This was either incompetence on the part of the State Department and US intelligence agencies, or it is indicative of a real policy, the real policy of our government to insure a Taliban victory.
------------ Rep. ROHRABACHER (1999) -- How the Clinton Administration brought the Taliban to power, Senate testimony | April 14, 1999 | Rep. Dana Rohrabacher Posted on Friday, September 28, 2001 10:01:18 PM by Nita Nupress
The Lion’s share of the blame resides with Clinton and the f’ing democrats... Clinton was getting a BJ with the blessing of the MSM and other Democrats when he and they had a duty to be paying attention to real and present dangers... and where are we now, same damn place, like the last ten years of war has changed nothing.
NT Times ever heard of this women?:
“A 1995 Department of Justice memorandum states that the procedures her memorandum put in place for the investigation of the first WTC bombing “go beyond what is legally required...[to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.” The wall intentionally exceeded the requirements of FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) for the purposes of criminal investigations, as well as the then-existing federal case law. These rules were, shortly after their creation, expanded to regulate such communications in future counter-terrorism investigations.”
1998 : (AFGHANISTAN : ———— see CLINTON ADMIN) In the year 1377 (1998) Olivier Roy and Christoph De Ponfilly wrote in an essay: Massoud never understood why CIA and Pentagon decided to support his enemy Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in the fight against him. Massoud always dreamed of a united and equal people in Afghanistan and also of free elections in this country. .....
-——— Biography: Ahmad Shah Massoud, Afgha.com ^ | September 12, 2006 | Farzana Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:39:32 AM by HAL9000
Whoa....Wait a minute.......I thought it was Bush’s 911 conspiracy all along.......so Bush both conspired and ignored...ALL AT THE SAME TIME! Damn, he’s good.
Oh and lets forgot she made 26 million for mismanaging Fannie Mae”
“Even though she had no previous training nor experience in finance, Gorelick was appointed Vice Chairman of Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) from 1997 to 2003. She served alongside former Clinton Administration official Franklin Raines. During that period, Fannie Mae developed a $10 billion accounting scandal.
On March 25, 2002, Business Week interviewed Gorelick about the health of Fannie Mae. Gorelick is quoted as saying, “We believe we are managed safely. We are very pleased that Moody’s gave us an A-minus in the area of bank financial strength without a reference to the government in any way. Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions.” One year later, Government Regulators “accused Fannie Mae of improper accounting to the tune of $9 billion in unrecorded losses”.
In an additional scandal concerning falsified financial transactions that helped the company meet earnings targets for 1998, a “manipulation” that triggered multimillion-dollar bonuses for top executives, Gorelick received $779,625.
Investigation by the OFHEO detailed in their official report on the accounting scandal in 2006 on page 66 that from 1998 to 2002 Gorelick received a total of $26,466,834.00 in income.”
Not true. Left wing propaganda is posted here quite frequently - for the purpose of discrediting it.
they have nothing else
They don't have to let him go, but this is just stupid. They were on this nonsense today on MSNBC (Maddow and others).
Who would give a crap about this anyway?
maybe this clown Eichenwald should try to find out what sandy berger was stealing from the national archives.....
I thought it was Clinton’s administration that refused on multiple occasions to have bin Laden served up?
I must have my history wrong.
and why do we continue to post the same crqappy article over asnd over??? it is written by a POS and it is a POS. Why give him space???
There is no BUSH on the ticket this time. This is just an attempt to distract attention from the Messiah’s ineffectiveness.
The Left certainly does, and they need to be challenged and discredited for bringing this up ad nauseum.
I have nothing against you posting it to show what they are up to, but the average person wont care about this either way.
Fallacious reasoning on your part.
You can always ask a mod to delete the thread. :)
I think you may be on to something. :)
I agree with I see my hands.
They are the scum of the earth over at the times. They should all be on the unemployment line. They can spew these lies about President Bush but can’t dig into Obama’s commie background.
LOS ANGELES, Sep. 11 -- Ironically, in an attempt to appeal to the growing number of Arab-American and Muslim voters, exactly eleven months ago George W. Bush called for weakening airport security procedures aimed at deterring hijackers.
On Oct. 11, 2000, during the second presidential debate, the Republican candidate attacked two anti-terrorist policies that had long irritated Arab citizens of the U.S.
At present [i.e., the evening of 9/11], of course, there is no definite evidence that Arabs or Muslims were involved in today's terrorist assaults. Many incorrectly assumed after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that Middle Easterners were involved. Nor is there direct evidence that Bush's attack on airline safety procedures made the four simultaneous hijackings easier to pull off.
Bush said during the nationally televised debate, "Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what's called secret evidence. People are stopped, and we got to do something about that." Then-Governor Bush went on, "My friend, Sen. Spence Abraham [the Arab-American Republic Senator from Michigan], is pushing a law to make sure that, you know, Arab-Americans are treated with respect. So racial profiling isn't just an issue at the local police forces. It's an issue throughout our society. And as we become a diverse society, we're going to have to deal with it more and more."
Four years later, a USAir ticket agent spoke out:
To what extent was this ticket agent (and other ticket agents) influenced by Bush's lemming-like parroting of Clinton's and Gore's crusade against racial profiling? If there is one aspect of Bush's policies that led to 9/11, this is it. Of course, the Dems had the same position on profiling, which is to say that whichever party won in 2000, 9/11 was a foregone position, given the politically-correct ethos fostered by both party establishments. Now, if Clinton hadn't held office from 1993 to 2000, bin Laden might have been killed by a GOP president. But that's all water under the bridge.
Michael Tuohey was going to work like he had for 37 years, but little did he know that this day would change his life forever. On September 11, 2001, Tuohey, a ticket agent for U.S. Airways, checked in terrorist Mohammed Atta for a flight that started a chain of events that would change history.
Tuohey was working the U.S. Airways first-class check-in desk when two men, Atta and his companion Abdul Azziz-Alomari, approached his counter. From all outward appearances, the men seemed to be normal businessmen, but Tuohey felt something was wrong.
"I got an instant chill when I looked at [Atta]. I got this grip in my stomach and then, of course, I gave myself a political correct slap...I thought, 'My God, Michael, these are just a couple of Arab businessmen.'"
Yes the 09-11 Commission totally debunked this nonsense but like all good Progressive Fascists, the NYT never lets an inconvenient truth get in the way of their propaganda
What about NIXON?
What about Halliburton?
What about ........ (fill in the blank)
They are beginning to sound like Muslims finding one thing after another to be pissed about.
They are getting very predictable these days, now that their President EMPTY CHAIR has nothing to run on.
Focus on Bush....no no...dont look at all the fail surrounding DNC-Obama Inc......focus on Bush....agi voo Bush.
"Neoconservative," like "crypto-fascist" is usually a good indicator of a non-serious journalist. While the term, in certain contexts, can have specific meaning, when used like this "neoconservative" just means "very conservative, even worse than normal conservatives" to this writer and the typical NYT reader.
Once again, there is no specificity in any of the claims. News that Al Qaeda had plans to kill Americans was not exactly news.
If Bush and his merry band of cryptoneoconservativebullies had proceeded with the only action available to them based on the non-specific information - capturing, detaining and interogating recent islamic arrivals, particularly young islamic men between 20 and 40 years of age from countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Afghanistan - Kurt Eichenwald and his ilk would have started calling them Nazis. And every leftwing legal organization in the country would have been filing appeals on the poor victims of his islamaphobia.
Even if that were true, the Bush Administration had been in office for 8 months when 9/11 occurred, while Clinton had had 8 years to do something (including making a stronger response to the 1993 bombing) and had been offered bin Laden 3 times, passing on him each time. Bush’s share of the responsibility for 9/11 is small at most. Clinton’s is humongous.
I mean it just seemd like it has been posted multiple times today.....but maybe I have just seen headlined on the other sights I go to....
Just another ad for The Disaster.
No one takes the NY Times seriously anymore. I wouldn’t take it for free.
It turns out that you're right. When I did a search, I searched on the title and got nothing, so I posted the article.
However, I just now searched on "Bush" and got some hits:
A lot of people prefer to read an article about an article rather than the article itself.
I guess I was just being cranky.... 9/11 and our embassies being attacked and our government doing NOTHING....
Typical NYT BS. This is the best they can do?
So sayeth NY Slimes writers. Same paper that interviewed an unrepentant Pentagon bomber and splashed the article in the Slimes on 9-11-2001.
Bush prevented multiple FOLLOWUP attacks on Los Angeles, the Brooklyn Bridge, Hethrow Airport, etc. without any acknowledgement from the Pravda Press.
If the goal was to “justify war”, why not permit the other attacks? To show “why we fight”?
And then she stepped in to “represent” BP in negotiations after the Gulf Oil spill.
For such a lousy track record, she sure gets high profile work.
30 pieces of silver to sell out America.
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.