Re: One Third Of Germans Believe Bush Was Behind 9/11 Attacks
From: dgk (sonicechoes_at_hot-nospamp-mail.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:17:46 -0400
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:42:04 GMT, "Hü©klëßë®®ÿ Hö§hïmötö"
>Let me make SURE I understand this sniveling drivel........
>We've had two world wars; Germany started BOTH of them; and you say THEY
>think Bush was behind the attack on the U.S.
>Gooooood Gawwwwwwwwwwd, where do we FIND you fruitcakes??????
This is from an article by John Dean. I have very little doubt that
Bush knew in advance about the attacks and let them happen because it
gave him the chance to push his ultra right wing agenda:
Bluntly stated, either the Bush White House knew about the potential
of terrorists flying airplanes into skyscrapers (notwithstanding their
claims to the contrary), or the CIA failed to give the White House
this essential information, which it possessed and provided to others.
Bush is withholding the document that answers this question.
Accordingly, it seems more likely that the former possibility is the
truth. That is, it seems very probable that those in the White House
knew much more than they have admitted, and they are covering up their
failure to take action.
The facts, however, speak for themselves.
Bush's Claim Of Executive Privilege For His Daily Intelligence
One of the most important sets of documents that the Congressional
Inquiry sought was a set of copies of the President's Daily Brief
(PDB), which is prepared each night by the CIA. In the Appendix of the
9/11 Report we learn that on August 12, 2002, after getting nowhere
with informal discussions, Congress formally requested that the Bush
White House provide this information.
More specifically, the Joint Inquiry asked about the process by which
the Daily Brief is prepared, and sought several specific Daily Brief
items. In particular, it asked for information about the August 6,
2001 Daily Brief relating to Osama Bin Laden's terrorist threats
against the United States, and other Daily Brief items regarding Bin
Laden, Al Qaeda, and pre-September 11 terrorism threats.
The Joint Inquiry explained the basis for its request: "the public has
a compelling interest ... in understanding how well the Intelligence
Community was performing its principal function of advising the
President and NSC of threats to U.S. national security."
In short, the Joint Inquiry wanted to see the records. Bush's public
assertion that his intelligence was "darn good" was not sufficient.
The Inquiry had substantial background material, for the Clinton
Administration's national security team had been very forthcoming. As
a result, it warned President Bush of the inevitable consequences of
refusal to provide access to the requested Daily Briefs.
The Inquiry told Bush: "In the absence of such access, we will have no
choice but to extrapolate the number and content of [Daily Brief]
items on these subjects from the items that appeared on these subjects
in the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief and other lower level
intelligence products during the same period."
Bush nevertheless denied access, claiming Executive Privilege. While
the Inquiry did not chose to draw obvious conclusions, they are right
there in the report for everyone else to draw. So I have drawn them,
to see what they look like.
Revealing Information In the 9/11 Report
After pulling together the information in the 9/11 Report, it is
understandable why Bush is stonewalling. It is not very difficult to
deduce what the president knew, and when he knew it. And the portrait
that results is devastating.
The president's briefing of August 6, 2001 was the subject of public
discussion even before the Inquiry started its work. As the 9/11
Report notes in a footnote (at page 206), "National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice stated in a May 16, 2002 press briefing that, on
August 6, 2001, the President Daily Brief (PDB) included information
about Bin Laden's methods of operation from a historical perspective
dating back to 1997." (Emphasis added.)
At that May 16, 2002 briefing, Rice went on to say that the Brief made
clear that one method Bin Laden might choose was to hijack an airline,
taking hostages to gain release of one of their operatives. She said
it was "a generalized warring" with nothing about time, place or
method. And she added, "I don't think anybody could have predicted
that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World
Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon."
Unfortunately, Rice's statements don't fit comfortably with the
Inquiry's information. It appears from the 9/11 Report that either
Rice was dissembling, or the CIA was withholding information from the
President (and hence also from Rice).
But as we have been learning with the missing Weapon of Mass
Destruction, the CIA has consistently been forthcoming. So it seems
that it is Rice who should explain herself.
A Closer Look At Rice's Statement
Note again that Rice stated, in explaining the August 6, 2001 Daily
Brief, that it addressed Bin Laden's "methods of operation from a
historical perspective dating back to 1997."
What exactly did it say? We cannot know. But the Inquiry's 9/11 Report
lays out all such threats, over that time period, in thirty-six bullet
point summaries. It is only necessary to cite a few of these to see
In September 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information
that Bin Laden's next operation might involve flying an
explosive-laden aircraft into a U.S. airport and detonating it.
In the fall of 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information
concerning a Bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and
Washington, D.C. areas.
In March 2000, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information
regarding the types of targets that operatives of Bin Laden's network
might strike. The Statute of Liberty was specifically mentioned , as
were skyscrapers, ports, airports, and nuclear power plans. (Emphasis
In sum, the 9/11 Report of the Congressional Inquiry indicates that
the intelligence community was very aware that Bin Laden might fly an
airplane into an American skyscraper.
Given the fact that there had already been an attempt to bring down
the twin towers of the World Trade Center with a bomb, how could Rice
say what she did?
Certainly, someone could have predicted, contrary to Rice's claim
that, among other possibilities, "these people would take an airplane
and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it
into the Pentagon."
The Unanswered Questions
Is Rice claiming this information in the 9/11 Report was not given to
the White House? Or could it be that the White House was given this
information, and failed to recognize the problem and take action? Is
the White House covering up what the President knew, and when he knew
The Joint Inquiry could not answer these questions because they were
denied access to Bush's Daily Brief for August 6, 2001, and all other
dates. Yet these are not questions that should be stonewalled.
Troublingly, it seems that President Bush trusts foreign heads of
state with the information in this daily CIA briefing, but not the
United States Congress. It has become part of his routine, when
hosting foreign dignitaries at his Crawford, Texas ranch, to invite
them to attend his CIA briefing.
Yet he refuses to give Congress any information whatsoever about these
briefings, and he has apparently invoked Executive Privilege to
suppress the August 6, 2001 Daily Brief. It can only be hoped that the
9/11 Commission, which has picked up where the Congressional Inquiry
ended, will get the answers to these questions.
Rest assured that they will be aware of the questions, for I will pass