LOL, hilarious alternate history

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-16 01:43pm

Either that, or Time screwed up.

Both are possibilities, but again to believe Bush is flat out lying about the length of the PDB, you'd have to believe that all 10 of the 9/11 Commissioners are silent accomplices to the lie.

Now which is more likely to happen, Time screwing up or all 5 Democrats on the 9/11 panel staying silent about the fraud?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-16 01:58pm

Time article on the memo

At the hearings last week, the PDB had been an elephant in the room. Although the commissioners had read the 1 1/4-page text or a summary, and its title—"Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US"—had been in the public domain since then White House press secretary Ari Fleischer mentioned it in May 2002 to indicate that Bush was aware of the al-Qaeda threat, the White House had refused to declassify the contents. After the commission demanded last week that the report be made public—with the families of 9/11 victims insisting as well—the White House released it last Saturday with only the names of intelligence sources blacked out.

Some commissioners (3 of them, IIRC) had access to the entire document while the others had access only to a summary.

Going by the transcript of Rice's testimony, I'd guess that Commissioner Ben-Veniste was one of the 3 who saw the original document.

RICE: I believe, Mr. Ben-Veniste, that you've had access to this PDB. But let me just...

BEN-VENISTE: But we have not had it declassified so that it can be shown publicly, as you know.

RICE: I believe you've had access to this PDB -- exceptional access. But let me address your question.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-16 10:09pm

The contents even in just the two pages given to the media are enough to start taking a more active hand in coordinating the investigation —especially after it had been necessary for Bush to have increased security against a possible Al-Qaeda attack at the G8 summit only the previous month. As it is, however, any president with half a brain in his head should have known enough that any report titled "Bin Laden determiend to strike in U.S." warranted serious attention.

Really?

These four sentences justify calling together an EXCOMM-style committee? Keep in mind that the memo resulted from Bush asking questions about possible terror attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (edited)... service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Laden-related.

The CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the United Arab Emirates in May saying that a group of Bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

EXCOMM type committees are for crisis management. What in those four sentences indicate a crisis is at hand?

Sure it mentions the 'preparations', but it also mentions 70 full field investigations by the FBI and that both the CIA and FBI are investigating another threat. It also states that some of the more sensational threats could not be corroborated.

What information in the PDB was the committee supposed to coordinate and analyze? Until 9/11, I (and most of the American people) would have assumed the FBI was competent enough to analyze, coordinate, and present to the President any information that developed during the course of the 70 investigations.

Now of course, I wouldn't trust the FBI to coordinate information on a rash of hubcap thefts, much less terrorism.

Hindsight is 20/20.

BTW, you keep focussing on the PDB's title and all but ignore the contents. The title doesn't mean shit other than as an attention grabber for the contents.

Is 'emphasize the title' part of a DNC talking points memo or did it come from the raving loonies over at the Democratic Underground forums?

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-17 02:22am

Glocksman wrote:
And exactly what "conspiracy theory" would that be, Glocksie? Where did I state any sort of theory as to why the page numbers were blacked out, or why the intel wasn't acted upon, or why Bush simply carried on his vacation? Go ahead and quote the conspiracy theory you see me as having advanced on this thread, shitwit.
Lets see.

Then surely you should be able to answer the following question: if the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why are the page numbers blacked out?

You're not only accusing the White House of lying about the length of the document, you're also implying that anyone else (such as the Democratic 9/11 Commissioners) who has seen the original document is in on the lie by not exposing the fraud.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

And that sounds like a Strawman to me. Sorry, but an observation regarding something quite visible on a .pdf is not a conspiracy theory, no matter how much you think it is.

Only a genuine goddamn moron or total partisan jackass would continue to believe 2 year old news reports about the length of a classifed document that the reporters have never seen in preference to all of the news reports, Rice's questioning and Ben-Veniste's and Kerrey's acquiesence to her statement about the length of the document in question.

No, that's commenting on a conflict in information. I'm sorry that doesn't suit you.

Riiiight... a paper titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." is naturally going to be cluttered with all sorts of material having absolutely nothing to do with the subject of Bin Laden attacking targets inside the U.S.
And since when did you become an expert on CIA's Presidential briefing practices?

And you became an expert in the content written into a CIA briefing when, exactly...?

And again, you're focussing on the goddamned title and ignoring the goddamed contents of that memo.

Perhaps because the "goddamned title" is a RED FLAG, stupid.

Then why was it seen fit to black out something as innocous as page numbers?

How the fuck should I know?

Precisely.

What I do know is that people who are in a position to know haven't said a fucking word about the document not being complete. If you think the Democrat 9/11 commissioners would let Bush get by with passing off an incomplete PDB after calling for its' declassificaton, you've been inhaling too much paint thinner.

Nice little Appeal to Ignorance fallacy.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-17 02:58am

Glocksman wrote:
The contents even in just the two pages given to the media are enough to start taking a more active hand in coordinating the investigation —especially after it had been necessary for Bush to have increased security against a possible Al-Qaeda attack at the G8 summit only the previous month. As it is, however, any president with half a brain in his head should have known enough that any report titled "Bin Laden determiend to strike in U.S." warranted serious attention.
Really?

These four sentences justify calling together an EXCOMM-style committee? Keep in mind that the memo resulted from Bush asking questions about possible terror attacks.

And yet he saw fit to ask no more questions. Funny, that...

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (edited)... service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Laden-related.

The CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the United Arab Emirates in May saying that a group of Bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

EXCOMM type committees are for crisis management. What in those four sentences indicate a crisis is at hand?

I see you just continue to ignore context. There had already been one Al-Qaeda attack in the United States, one attempted Al-Qaeda attack, two Al-Qaeda attacks on U.S. military and diplomatic assets abroad, one Al-Qaeda attack upon a U.S. warship, and an increased security alert in response to an Al-Qaeda threat against the G8 summit. That is the context in which any item "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." demands more than a quick briefing before starting a month long fishing holiday.

Sure it mentions the 'preparations', but it also mentions 70 full field investigations by the FBI and that both the CIA and FBI are investigating another threat. It also states that some of the more sensational threats could not be corroborated.

I have said this before and I will say it again: You. Are. Dense. You keep acting as if the PDB should ever have been the end of the matter instead of a trigger for more serious action on the part of this White House.

What information in the PDB was the committee supposed to coordinate and analyze? Until 9/11, I (and most of the American people) would have assumed the FBI was competent enough to analyze, coordinate, and present to the President any information that developed during the course of the 70 investigations.

Are you seriously suggesting that it would have been an utterly useless exercise on Bush's part to start asking more questions?

BTW, you keep focussing on the PDB's title and all but ignore the contents. The title doesn't mean shit other than as an attention grabber for the contents.

Even those sparse contents should have been the prompt for more serious questions which might have brought to the table, oh perhaps, those intel warnings from Britain, France, Russia, and Israel about Al-Qaeda's plottings for a major operation involving hijacked airliners.

Is 'emphasize the title' part of a DNC talking points memo or did it come from the raving loonies over at the Democratic Underground forums?

Man of Straw.

So far, the crux of your entire defence of Bush in this thread has been, essentially: "He couldn't do anything because he didn't know anything". Except the problem actually is: "He didn't know anything because he couldn't be bothered to know". He didn't ask subsequent questions, he didn't follow up, he didn't press his FBI or CIA chiefs for details on what they had received and what may or may not have been on the threat-listings for that period. He in fact found no reason to interrupt his month-long vacation before resuming a brisk schedule of political speeches and visits to grade-school classrooms for storytime with the kiddies. That is laziness. All you've been doing in engaging in an extended excuse for laziness on the part of Bush for not doing his goddamn job and presenting a defence which has no more validity than "my dog ate the homework".

So you can put up all your "conspiracy theory" and "DU talking-points" strawmen as much as you like. But no conspiracy theory is required to explain a default assumption which can be summed up with one succinct word: negligence.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-17 04:45am

And that sounds like a Strawman to me. Sorry, but an observation regarding something quite visible on a .pdf is not a conspiracy theory, no matter how much you think it is.

Observation, shit

You used the blacked out page numbers as an excuse to buttress your belief the document is more than the stated 1 and a half pages long. That's more than an observation.

There were certainly more than two pages to that PDB, despite your lame-ass denials to the contrary,

In other words, you're not only accusing the White House of lying, but by implication the 9/11 Commission of being in on the lie by their silence. In this instance, silence does speak volumes.
Again, your contention of the document's true length would require a conspiracy of silence between the White House, the 9/11 Commission, and the people at the CIA who prepared the document.

So is it the Illuminati, the VRWC, or the Jews?

And yet he saw fit to ask no more questions. Funny, that...

Yeah. Too bad he trusted the FBI and CIA to do their fucking jobs.

Now we know better.

There had already been one Al-Qaeda attack in the United States, one attempted Al-Qaeda attack, two Al-Qaeda attacks on U.S. military and diplomatic assets abroad, one Al-Qaeda attack upon a U.S. warship, and an increased security alert in response to an Al-Qaeda threat against the G8 summit. That is the context in which any item "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." demands more than a quick briefing before starting a month long fishing holiday.

"Well, it says here that the FBI and CIA are on the case, but because the fucking title says something that everyone who follows CNN already knows, I'll call a crisis committee".

Yeah.

I have said this before and I will say it again: You. Are. Dense. You keep acting as if the PDB should ever have been the end of the matter instead of a trigger for more serious action on the part of this White House.

And I keep saying this: What in the memo should have triggered it?
Asking what's going on and then being told that the FBI and CIA are investigating certainly isn't a trigger to enter crisis mode.
Talk about dense? Shit, you're lead on this issue.

Are you seriously suggesting that it would have been an utterly useless exercise on Bush's part to start asking more questions?

No, I'm saying that there was nothing in the 8/6 PDB that justified forming an EXCOMM style committee.

And yet for some strange reason, other administrations weren't so content to simply leave things "in hand" when a possible threat was visible over the horizon.

Again, the Millenium Bomb Plot team was formed because the government had a captured terrorist who was cooperating and he gave up the information that led to setting up the committee.

There was no comparable intel source for 9/11.
The pre 9/11 intel doesn't even come close to what led to the Bomb Plot team formation.

Even those sparse contents should have been the prompt for more serious questions which might have brought to the table, oh perhaps, those intel warnings from Britain, France, Russia, and Israel about Al-Qaeda's plottings for a major operation involving hijacked airliners.

You mean the 'more sensational' warnings that the report summarized as 'uncorroborated'?

Like I have already said a hundred times, if Bush is guilty of anything it's trusting the agencies under his command to do their damned jobs. That's not negligence.
George Tenet says it'll take another 5 years to totally reorganize and reorient intel efforts towards terrorism to the point where they're effective, but Bush was supposed to have personally accomplished in less than six months then what still isn't done today almost 3 years after the attacks?

Man of Straw.

No, it's sarcasm and ridicule. Which is what your claim on the length of the memo at this point deserves.

Unless one of the 9/11 Commissioners who have seen the unredacted original comes forward and states that the document he or she saw was longer, your 'observation' and claim about the document length isn't worth the paper its not written down on.

So far, the crux of your entire defence of Bush in this thread has been, essentially: "He couldn't do anything because he didn't know anything". Except the problem actually is: "He didn't know anything because he couldn't be bothered to know". He didn't ask subsequent questions, he didn't follow up, he didn't press his FBI or CIA chiefs for details on what they had received and what may or may not have been on the threat-listings for that period.

That's why there's a huge national security apparatus that is supposed to present this kind of information to him. It didn't and after the fuckups in Iraq, GWB has proven he's not clarivoyant and that Miss Cleo isn't his National Security Advisor.

Asking what's going on and then trusting the FBI to handle the job when you're told they're conducting 70 investigations along with the CIA isn't negligence.

With hindsight it may be naive, but it's not negligence.

So far, your case consists of listing all of the intelligence that reportedly was available to the FBI and CIA, and then blaming Bush personally because those two agencies failed to pass it up the ladder, coordinate, analyze and act on it.

Using that standard, one could blame Clinton for the Cole and the Khobar Towers bombings.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-17 05:23am

Riiiight... a paper titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." is naturally going to be cluttered with all sorts of material having absolutely nothing to do with the subject of Bin Laden attacking targets inside the U.S.

And since when did you become an expert on CIA's Presidential briefing practices?

And you became an expert in the content written into a CIA briefing when, exactly...?

I'm not, but then again I'm not the one making the claims you are.

It was a guess based on the not so unreasonable assumption that there might have been other intelligence items for him to read that day and the CIA might have bound several individual reports on differing items into a single comprehensive document.

Until its released whether or not the memo was part of an overall intelligence package that day or a single standalone document, we're both guessing.

Only difference is that I openly stated it was a wild ass guess at the beginning.

So where did you acquire your expertise on CIA briefing practices?

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-17 05:52am

Glocksman wrote:
And that sounds like a Strawman to me. Sorry, but an observation regarding something quite visible on a .pdf is not a conspiracy theory, no matter how much you think it is.
Observation, shit

Observation yes.

You used the blacked out page numbers as an excuse to buttress your belief the document is more than the stated 1 and a half pages long. That's more than an observation.

Then what's the answer to the question posed?

There were certainly more than two pages to that PDB, despite your lame-ass denials to the contrary,
In other words, you're not only accusing the White House of lying, but by implication the 9/11 Commission of being in on the lie by their silence. In this instance, silence does speak volumes.

Then what's the answer to the fucking question?

Again, your contention of the document's true length would require a conspiracy of silence between the White House, the 9/11 Commission, and the people at the CIA who prepared the document.

No, asshole, it requires the answer to the question: if the August 6 PDB really is only two pages long, then why were the page numbers blacked out?

So is it the Illuminati, the VRWC, or the Jews?

Strawman.

And yet he saw fit to ask no more questions. Funny, that...
Yeah. Too bad he trusted the FBI and CIA to do their fucking jobs.

Now we know better.

No, too bad he didn't do his job. Or is it your contention that a president is the captive of his advisors?

There had already been one Al-Qaeda attack in the United States, one attempted Al-Qaeda attack, two Al-Qaeda attacks on U.S. military and diplomatic assets abroad, one Al-Qaeda attack upon a U.S. warship, and an increased security alert in response to an Al-Qaeda threat against the G8 summit. That is the context in which any item "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." demands more than a quick briefing before starting a month long fishing holiday.
"Well, it says here that the FBI and CIA are on the case, but because the fucking title says something that everyone who follows CNN already knows, I'll call a crisis committee".

Yeah.

That's right, Glocksie, just keep dancing around the point.

I have said this before and I will say it again: You. Are. Dense. You keep acting as if the PDB should ever have been the end of the matter instead of a trigger for more serious action on the part of this White House.
And I keep saying this: What in the memo should have triggered it?
Asking what's going on and then being told that the FBI and CIA are investigating certainly isn't a trigger to enter crisis mode.
Talk about dense? Shit, you're lead on this issue.

False Dilemma Fallacy. To do something other than nothing is not automatically to enter into full crisis mode but the fact that there had been previous threats and actions by Al Qaeda and the real possibility of a new operation "planned years in advance and not deterred by failure" warrants far more attention than reading a memo before hitting the bass pond for a month. Once more: You. Are. Dense.

Are you seriously suggesting that it would have been an utterly useless exercise on Bush's part to start asking more questions?
No, I'm saying that there was nothing in the 8/6 PDB that justified forming an EXCOMM style committee.

You keep acting as if the August 6 PDB is the be-all and end-all of the story. It is not. Get that through that fucking thick skull of yours.

And yet for some strange reason, other administrations weren't so content to simply leave things "in hand" when a possible threat was visible over the horizon.
Again, the Millenium Bomb Plot team was formed because the government had a captured terrorist who was cooperating and he gave up the information that led to setting up the committee.

AND THEY FOLLOWED UP ON IT INSTEAD OF SIMPLY LETTING THE MATTER END WITH THE ARREST OF ONE TERRORIST and blowing off the rest.

Furthermore, Ressam was giving the government more information on Al-Qaeda objectives following his April 2001 conviction. Only this time, NOBODY WAS FOLLOWING UP ON IT.

There was no comparable intel source for 9/11.
The pre 9/11 intel doesn't even come close to what led to the Bomb Plot team formation.

THERE WAS MORE THAN ENOUGH INFORMATION THAT AL-QAEDA WERE PLANNING A BIG OPERATION USING HIJACKED AIRCRAFT AND POSSIBLY AS MISSILES even if the exact date, time, airline(s) and flight-numbers weren't available. Warnings of this, in increasing detail, were flowing in and Bush's security people had already been forced to defend him from this possible attack at the G8 summit. Fuck but you'll never cease excusing laziness.

Even those sparse contents should have been the prompt for more serious questions which might have brought to the table, oh perhaps, those intel warnings from Britain, France, Russia, and Israel about Al-Qaeda's plottings for a major operation involving hijacked airliners.
You mean the 'more sensational' warnings that the report summarized as 'uncorroborated'?

NO ASSHOLE, THE STATEMENT ABOUT "PATTERNS INDICATING PREPARATIONS FOR HIJACKING AND CASING FEDERAL BUILDINGS" and in the context of one such threat already having required extra security for Bush just the previous month.

Like I have already said a hundred times, if Bush is guilty of anything it's trusting the agencies under his command to do their damned jobs. That's not negligence.

That is negligence, because a president is not supposed to be the captive of his advisors.

George Tenet says it'll take another 5 years to totally reorganize and reorient intel efforts towards terrorism to the point where they're effective, but Bush was supposed to have personally accomplished in less than six months then what still isn't done today almost 3 years after the attacks?

After Pearl Harbour it took Franklin Roosevelt, Ernest King, and Chester Nimitz less than six months to reorganise the navy and get it back on the attack. Months, not years. That is a sample of what is possible with determined action and decision at the seat of responsibility. No, Bush wasn't "personally" supposed to accomplish the total reorganisation of the intelligence structure (yet another False Dilemma), but he can not only request but demand information as needed from his people and form working groups answerable to him directly to deal with a possible threat which may not wait for this total reorganisation to come about.

Man of Straw.
No, it's sarcasm and ridicule. Which is what your claim on the length of the memo at this point deserves.

No, it's just more of your bullshit, but we're used to that at this point.

Unless one of the 9/11 Commissioners who have seen the unredacted original comes forward and states that the document he or she saw was longer, your 'observation' and claim about the document length isn't worth the paper its not written down on.

Neither is your alledgedly absolute knowledge that the document in question is entirely accurate. Which we can't really know since for some reason it was seen fit to black out the page numbers.

So far, the crux of your entire defence of Bush in this thread has been, essentially: "He couldn't do anything because he didn't know anything". Except the problem actually is: "He didn't know anything because he couldn't be bothered to know". He didn't ask subsequent questions, he didn't follow up, he didn't press his FBI or CIA chiefs for details on what they had received and what may or may not have been on the threat-listings for that period.
That's why there's a huge national security apparatus that is supposed to present this kind of information to him. It didn't and after the fuckups in Iraq, GWB has proven he's not clarivoyant and that Miss Cleo isn't his National Security Advisor.

Asking what's going on and then trusting the FBI to handle the job when you're told they're conducting 70 investigations along with the CIA isn't negligence.

It is indeed negligence when you don't ask questions and simply rely on everybody else to do your goddamned job for you.

So far, your case consists of listing all of the intelligence that reportedly was available to the FBI and CIA, and then blaming Bush personally because those two agencies failed to pass it up the ladder, coordinate, analyze and act on it.

Translation: "Bush's dog ate the homework."

Using that standard, one could blame Clinton for the Cole and the Khobar Towers bombings.

Nice little Red Herring.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-17 06:06am

Neither is your alledgedly absolute knowledge that the document in question is entirely accurate. Which we can't really know since for some reason it was seen fit to black out the page numbers.

It's not 'absolute knowledge', but it *is* a reasonable deduction from what is known about the document and the makeup of the 9/11 Commission.

Get it through your head that other people who have everything to gain from exposing a White House lie (the Democrat 9/11 Commisioners) have seen the unredacted paper and aren't contesting the White House's statement that it declassifed the entire document.

Or do you think that after calling for its declassifcation, Ben-Veniste would let the White House slide on the lie?

Whereas you have nothing other than redacted page numbers and a couple of 2 year old news articles about a closely held classifed document claiming it was eleven and a half pages long.

Yep, you've certainly proved me wrong there.

If you can't understand that you have no case regarding the PDB's length, then I'm wasting my time as your head is thicker than the Chernobyl containment structure.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-17 06:58am

Here's a 9/11 Commission staff statement on what happened prior to 9/11

In late August, working-level CIA and FBI officials realized that one or more al Qaeda operatives might be in the United States. We have found no evidence that this discovery was ever briefed to the CSG, to principals, or to senior counterterrorism officials at the FBI or the CIA. Nor was the White House told about the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui.
We investigated awareness of the terrorist threat within the Department of Justice and the FBI during the spring and summer of 2001. Rice told us that she believed the FBI had tasked its 56 U.S. field offices to increase surveillance of suspected terrorists and to reach out to informants who might have information about terrorist plots. An NSC document at the time describes such a tasking having occurred in late June, although it does not indicate whether the tasking was generated by the NSC or the FBI.

At this point we have found the following: On April 13 FBI Headquarters alerted field offices to a heightened threat from al Qaeda against U.S. interests. The communication detailed the threats against U.S. interests abroad, but made no mention of any possible threat inside the United States. The field offices were asked to “task all resources to include electronic databases and human sources for any information pertaining to the current operational activities relating to Sunni extremism.”

On July 2 the FBI Counterterrorism Division sent a message to federal agencies and state and local law enforcement agencies that summarized information regarding threats against U.S. interests from Bin Ladin. The message reported that there was an increased volume of threat reporting indicating a potential for attacks against U.S. targets abroad from groups “aligned with or sympathetic to Usama bin Ladin.” It further stated, “[t]he FBI has no information indicating a credible threat of terrorist attack in the United States.” However, it went on to emphasize that the possibility of attack in the United States could not be discounted. It also noted that the July 4 holiday might heighten the threats. The report asked the recipients to “exercise vigilance” and “report suspicious activities” to the FBI.

Let's see what another staff statement has to say
Staff Statement #11

Conclusion
Our investigation so far has found the Intelligence Community struggling to collect on and analyze the phenomena of transnational terrorism through the mid- to late 1990s. While many dedicated officers worked day and night for years to piece together the growing body of evidence on al Qaeda and to understand the threats, in the end it was not enough to gain the advantage before the 9/11 attacks.

-- While there were many reports on Bin Ladin and his growing al Qaeda organization, there was no comprehensive estimate of the enemy, either to build consensus or clarify differences.
-- With the important exception of attacks with chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons, the methods developed for decades to warn of surprise attacks were not applied to the problem of warning against terrorist attacks.
-- In intelligence collection, despite many excellent efforts, there was not a comprehensive review of what the Community knew, what it did not know, followed by the development of a community-wide plan to close those gaps.
-- The DCI labored within—and was accountable for—a Community of loosely associated agencies and departmental offices that lacked the incentives to cooperate, collaborate, and share information. Like his predecessors, he focused his energies on where he could add the greatest value—the CIA, which is a fraction of the nation’s overall intelligence capability. As a result, a question remains: Who is in charge of intelligence?

Here's more on the subject from yet another commission staff statement

In early August, the CIA prepared an article for the president’s daily intelligence brief on whether or how terrorists might attack the United States. Neither the White House nor the CSG received specific, credible information about any threatened attacks in the United States.

Neither Clarke nor the CSG were informed about the August 2001 investigations that produced the discovery of suspected al Qaeda operatives in the United States. Nor did the group learn about the arrest or FBI investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui in Minnesota.

Yet again, we see that information wasn't passed up the ladder.

Strange how none of the statements mention that a crisis committee was needed and instead focus on the failures of the FBI and CIA to collate, analyze, and pass on information up the ladder, eh?

Or are the staff investigators merely covering up for Bush?

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-18 12:11am

Glocksman wrote:
Neither is your alledgedly absolute knowledge that the document in question is entirely accurate. Which we can't really know since for some reason it was seen fit to black out the page numbers.
It's not 'absolute knowledge', but it *is* a reasonable deduction from what is known about the document and the makeup of the 9/11 Commission.

Get it through your head that other people who have everything to gain from exposing a White House lie (the Democrat 9/11 Commisioners) have seen the unredacted paper and aren't contesting the White House's statement that it declassifed the entire document.

Or do you think that after calling for its declassifcation, Ben-Veniste would let the White House slide on the lie?

Whereas you have nothing other than redacted page numbers and a couple of 2 year old news articles about a closely held classifed document claiming it was eleven and a half pages long.

If you can't understand that you have no case regarding the PDB's length, then I'm wasting my time as your head is thicker than the Chernobyl containment structure.

Very well, Glocksie. To humour you and get this discussion moving along, I'll concede the point for the present. We'll just go ahead and concentrate on the incompetence and negligence of the administration you've seen fit to put up one lame excuse after another to handwave away its clear failure to do its collective job. Starting with the man alledgedly at the top.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-18 12:21am

Very well, Glocksie. To humour you and get this discussion moving along, I'll concede the point for the present.

In other words, I found someone who can match me in legalistic nitpickery
and I'm tired, so I'll concede.

We'll just go ahead and concentrate on the incompetence and negligence of the administration you've seen fit to put up one lame excuse after another to handwave away its clear failure to do its collective job. Starting with the man alledgedly at the top.

Team Clinton Terrorist Attacks on their Watch: 4+ Major (Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, USS Cole, two separate african embassy bombings within
minutes of each other)

Team Bush Terrorist Attacks: 1 Major.

I'd say Team Bush is far more competent, probably because after just
ONE attack they said "screw this, lets put the shoe down HARD and
kill them instead of gathering evidence to put them on trial."

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-18 12:23am

Glocksman wrote:Here's a 9/11 Commission staff statement on what happened prior to 9/11

***snip***

Yet again, we see that information wasn't passed up the ladder.

Strange how none of the statements mention that a crisis committee was needed and instead focus on the failures of the FBI and CIA to collate, analyze, and pass on information up the ladder, eh?

And yet again, we see you more or less saying that a president is captive of his advisers and has to wait for them to tell him what to think before he can take any sort of initiative on his own. Nevermind that anybody with even half a brain would have seen something titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." and figured out that possibly maybe suppose perhaps there was something there worth more detailed attention before getting down to the pond while the bass were biting.

Strange how you keep trying to handwave that away.

Or are the staff investigators merely covering up for Bush?

Strawman. Yet again, and again and again and again...

OK then, here's another question. Let's see how you dance around this one:

If the case is that Bush was ill-served by his advisers, and they're the ones who didn't do their jobs, and they failed to pass along information or even held it back for whatever reason, and it's their failure which left the country wide open to attack on September 11, then why didn't Bush fire them?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-18 12:25am

To expact any administration to have even a 50/50 success rate
dealing with terorrists is a little extreme. Terrorists by their nature
are very hard to find, and even harder to foil their attacks, their
attacks usually being prevented due to the random friction of life
leading to them being detected before the attack.

That's if you're operating in passive mode, like Team Clinton did
for their entire administration.

If you go to active mode and start just killing terrorists even before
they hatch nefarious plots and generally disrupt their networks with
constant waves of arrests deaths, etc, they can't plan effectively.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-18 12:29am

Patrick Degan wrote: If the case is that Bush was ill-served by his advisers, and they're the ones who didn't do their jobs, and they failed to pass along information or even held it back for whatever reason, and it's their failure which left the country wide open to attack on September 11, then why didn't Bush fire them?

Same reason Douglas MacArthur was kept on even after his
abmysal performance in the Phillipines in 1941. If you want to
replace a cabinet member, you have to get the replacement vetted
by security agencies, and that brings up all kinds of embarrassing
questions, and then the replacement has to be brought up to speed
which takes time...

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-18 12:32am

MKSheppard wrote:
Very well, Glocksie. To humour you and get this discussion moving along, I'll concede the point for the present.
In other words, I found someone who can match me in legalistic nitpickery
and I'm tired, so I'll concede.

No, it's a matter of moving the discussion along instead of remaining stuck on one intractible point.

Team Clinton Terrorist Attacks on their Watch: 4+ Major (Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, USS Cole, two separate african embassy bombings within minutes of each other)

Team Bush Terrorist Attacks: 1 Major.

I'd say Team Bush is far more competent, probably because after just
ONE attack they said "screw this, lets put the shoe down HARD and
kill them instead of gathering evidence to put them on trial."

Riiight... Team Bush are more competent simply because they allowed only one attack which erased two buildings from the New York skyline and lost 2800+ people in a single day —after ignoring eight months of warnings from six foreign intelligence sources that something BIG was brewing.

You never tire of your ridiculous Clinton Red Herrings, do you Shep?

Oh, and BTW, which jail is Osama in presently...?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-04-18 12:33am

MKSheppard wrote:Team Clinton Terrorist Attacks on their Watch: 4+ Major (Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, USS Cole, two separate african embassy bombings within
minutes of each other)

Team Bush Terrorist Attacks: 1 Major.

I'd say Team Bush is far more competent, probably because after just
ONE attack they said "screw this, lets put the shoe down HARD and
kill them instead of gathering evidence to put them on trial."

*deep breath*

LOL

Shep, the attacks you state are hardly on the scale of the destruction of the WTC. There were hardly memos crossing the POTUS's desk about them *beforehand*. The point isn't that they happned, but that the WTC attack was detected early and nothing was done. Were they tracking suspicious zodiac purchases before the USS Cole attack?

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-18 12:37am

MKSheppard wrote:To expact any administration to have even a 50/50 success rate
dealing with terorrists is a little extreme. Terrorists by their nature
are very hard to find, and even harder to foil their attacks, their
attacks usually being prevented due to the random friction of life
leading to them being detected before the attack.

That's if you're operating in passive mode, like Team Clinton did
for their entire administration.

If you go to active mode and start just killing terrorists even before
they hatch nefarious plots and generally disrupt their networks with
constant waves of arrests deaths, etc, they can't plan effectively.

Um, ahem:

Linky

Snopes.com wrote:Claim: The Clinton administration failed to track down the perpetrators of several terrorist attacks against Americans.

Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001]

After the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military personnel, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 al-Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 US military personnel, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 257 and injured 5,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured three US sailors, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Mr Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 7,000 more people would be alive today.

Origins: In
chronological order:

* On 26 February 1993, a car loaded with 1,200 pounds of explosives blew up in a parking garage under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring about a thousand others. The blast did not, as its planners intended, bring down the towers — that was finally accomplished by flying two hijacked airliners into the twin towers on the morning of 11 September 2001.

Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in Baghdad.

* On 13 November 1995, a bomb was set off in a van parked in front of an American-run military training center in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, killing five Americans and two Indians. Saudi Arabian authorities arrested four Saudi nationals whom they claim confessed to the bombings, but U.S. officials were denied permission to see or question the suspects before they were convicted and beheaded in May 1996.

* On 25 June 1996, a booby-trapped truck loaded with 5,000 pounds of explosives was exploded outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex which housed United States military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing nineteen Americans and wounding about three hundred others. Once again, the U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow the FBI to question suspects.

On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.)

* On 7 August 1998, powerful car bombs exploded minutes apart outside the United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people and wounding about 5,000 others. Four participants with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001. Fourteen other suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three more are fighting extradition in London.

* On 12 October 2000, two suicide bombers detonated an explosives-laden skiff next to the USS Cole while it was refueling in Aden, Yemen, blasting a hole in the ship that killed 17 sailors and injured 37 others. No suspects have yet been arrested or indicted. The investigation has been hampered by the refusal of Yemini officials to allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals and other suspects in custody in Yemen.

(The USS Cole bombing occurred one month before the 2000 presidential election, so even under the best of circumstances it was unlikely that the investigation could have been completed before the end of President Clinton's term of office three months later.)

In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours, and Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As John F. Harris wrote in The Washington Post:

In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.

. . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising that regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But Clinton aides said such a policy — potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia — was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism.

Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger . . . said there [was] little prospect . . . that Pakistan would have helped the United States wage war against bin Laden or the Taliban in 1998, even after such outrages as the bombing of U.S. embassies overseas.

Update: In January 2004 a version of the 2001 e-mail with "BUSH COVERED IT!" inserted after each entry began to be circulated on the Internet. Must be an election year.

Last updated: 27 January 2004

The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
Click here to e-mail this page to a friend

Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2004
by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson
This material may not be reproduced without permission

Sources Sources:

Harris, John F. "Conservatives Sound Refrain: It's Clinton's Fault."
The Washington Post . 7 October 2001 (p. A15).

Lauria, Joe. "U.S. Embassy Bombers Get Life Sentences."
The Ottawa Citizen. 19 October 2001 (p. A5).

Randolph, Eleanor. "4 Guilty in Bombing of World Trade Center."
The Washington Post. 5 March 1994 (p. A1).

Randolph, Eleanor. "Trade Center Bombers Given 240 Years Each."
The Washington Post. 25 May 1994 (p. A1).

Schmitt, Eric. "F.B.I. Agents Join Search in Saudi Blast."
The New York Times. 15 November 1995 (p. A7).

Suro, Roberto and Pierre Thomas. "Freeh Criticizes Saudis on Bomb Probe."
The Washington Post. 23 January 1997 (p. A8).

Weiser, Benjamin. "The Trade Center Verdict; The Overview."
The New York Times. 13 November 1997 (p. A1).

Associated Press. "Renewed Inquiry for Cole Sought."
The Arizona Republic. 13 October 2001 (p. A20).

The Houston Chronicle. "Trade Center Bomber Given 240 Years."
9 January 1998 (p. A1).

The New York Times. "The 22 Most Wanted Suspects in a 5-Act Drama of Global Terror."
14 October 2001 (p. B1).

Kindly come back when you've got something better than the same tired urban legend from the ClintonHate industry.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-04-18 12:40am

Shep, the attacks you state are hardly on the scale of the destruction of the WTC.

Except for the fact that the first attack in question - the 1993 WTC attack - would have destroyed the WTC, and would have caused heavier loss of life than 9/11 had it gone according to plan. We were very lucky that it didn't.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-18 12:46am

Patrick Degan wrote: No, it's a matter of moving the discussion along instead of remaining stuck on one intractible point.

Sort of like NMD? I like how Team Clinton turned Boris Yeltsin from
pro-NMD to anti-NMD.

Great diplomacy there, causing Boris to go
from saying in a statement with Pres. H.W. Bush that a Global
Defensive Shield should go ahead, to saying that NMD is a threat
to global well being?

You never tire of your ridiculous Clinton Red Herrings, do you Shep?

Well, when you consider Team Bush had only been in office for
nine months when it hit, and Team Clinton had eight years to deal
with Osama, but kept putting it off for the future.....well, I'm going
to keep bringing it up.

Oh, and BTW, which jail is Osama in presently...?

I didn't know that being on the run constantly in foreign shitholes with
a kidney disorder, or being buried under thousands of tons of rock
after a bomb strike in 2001 was conducive to long life

We've effectively dismantled large sections of Al Quaeda since 9/11,
killing scores of their leaders and imprisioning scores more in unnamed
foreign jails where our pesky laws do not apply.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-18 12:51am

MKSheppard wrote:You never tire of your ridiculous Clinton Red Herrings, do you Shep?

Well, when you consider Team Bush had only been in office for nine months when it hit, and Team Clinton had eight years to deal with Osama, but kept putting it off for the future.....well, I'm going to keep bringing it up.[/quote]

Yes, it seems you're another person who never tires of his own bullshit. But we're used to that as well...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-18 12:55am

Patrick Degan wrote: Yes, it seems you're another person who never tires of his own bullshit. But we're used to that as well...

Hey, coming from the guy who thinks that decoys that can fool sensors
can be shoved onto a ballistic missile without impacting warhead throw
weight......

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-18 12:57am

MKSheppard wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote: Yes, it seems you're another person who never tires of his own bullshit. But we're used to that as well...
Hey, coming from the guy who thinks that decoys that can fool sensors
can be shoved onto a ballistic missile without impacting warhead throw
weight......

Never mind the engineering behind it, which has more substance than your pathetic mythology of the Evil Bill Clinton Monster™.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-18 01:02am

Patrick Degan wrote: Never mind the engineering behind it, which has more substance than your pathetic mythology of the Evil Bill Clinton Monster™.

Never mind we were able to achieve skin to skin hits in the 1960s. with cheap,
unsophisticated interceptors that were inaccurate even by the standards of
the time.

it's so lovely when the incoming warhead is coming in on a precisely calculable
ballistic trajectory and when the missile you're firing at it is a beam-rider,
meaning you can calculate the positions of both of the variables with accuracy
good enough to hit it skin to skin....

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-18 01:05am

MKSheppard wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote: Never mind the engineering behind it, which has more substance than your pathetic mythology of the Evil Bill Clinton Monster™.
Never mind we were able to achieve skin to skin hits in the 1960s. with cheap, unsophisticated interceptors that were inaccurate even by the standards of the time.

it's so lovely when the incoming warhead is coming in on a precisely calculable ballistic trajectory and when the missile you're firing at it is a beam-rider, meaning you can calculate the positions of both of the variables with accuracy good enough to hit it skin to skin....

I see a thread hijack in progress. Shall I just link to our last discussion on this issue?