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?