... and read all over. What in there specifically could the Admin have acted on that would have prevented 9/11?
I'm interested in two parts in particular in the PDB. The part that mentions Bin Laden following the example of the WTC bombers, and the part saying that he wanted to retaliate in Washington. I know it doesn't list specific plans or time of the attacks, but those are the two places Bin Laden struck. When that kind of threat exists shouldn't the National security advisor do more than just let the FBI continue to handle it? Shouldn't the administration be doing something to find out what's going on. Even if people feel that the administration shouldn't feel compelled to do anything prior to 9/11 is making a speech which criticizes the Clinton administration for dealing to much with counter-terrorism, instead of focussing on missle defense the exact wrong direction to go?
Increased screening and monitoring of passengers on commercial airliners to prevent a hijacking. Added air marshals to random flights. Added the same sort of secure doors El Al uses for the cockpit. Warned the airlines. It mentions airliner hijacking quite specifically. It's odd that you missed that.
odd that you missed the suspected reason for the hijackings: to obtain the release of prisoners, not fly them into buildings. and i doubt this is the first time a president has received a warning about a hijacking.
Basso, If they had thought the hijackings were going to be to get prisoners released so decided to focus on stopping hijackings and were successful at it, would that have prevented 9-11? Whether the reason given is 100% accurate or not doesn't change the fact that trying to stop hijackings for whatever reasons would have been a start and might have possibly prevented the attacks. Again it is also possible that by seeing the warning and ordering more to be done about it, they might have learned the actual reason for the hijackings. But by doing nothing except letting the intel community continue on as normal, nothing gets done about hijackings either way. By writing a speech critical of counter-terrorism and placing a focus on missle defense less than nothing gets done, and we are moving in the wrong direction. The Bush admin chose a combination of moving in the wrong direction and doing nothing.
So you think even preventing one of those hijackings would not have been worthwhile? As mentioned elsewhere, why don't we just settle this by renaming the National Security Advisor, the "Nobody told me what to do" Security Advisor. Then Condi Rice can claim she was just doing her job.
The reports does not lose credibility. BTW, I have maintained all along that the President is made aware of all sorts of potential attacks against the US. This might lead the President into being de-sensitized about such attacks, making it hard for him to know which attacks require what actions. This is an excuse I could live with except ... GWB should have known better. GWB was all about his political agenda and not particularly national interests.
Condoleezza Rice said, "I don't think anyone could have predicted that these people... would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." (5/16/02) I know no President is perfect and makes perfect decisons, but you don't go re-hire a guy that made this many fundamentally wrong choices and continues to be so arrogant. So tell me repukes, why is Bush the better choice on Defense? Looks like to me that Bush fumbled the ball and gave it to the other team on our own 1 yard line. ---------- They ignored the final report of the Hart-Rudman commission, the Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change, that was issued on January 31, 2001 They blocked Senate hearings on the Hart-Rudman commission's report, scheduled for the week of May 7, 2001, by announcing a brand new commission led by Vice President Dick Cheney - which never met before 911 They ignored repeated requests from the Hart-Rudman commission from January 2001 to September 6, 2001, when National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice said she would "pass on" their concerns They ignored repeated requests from Senator Dianne Feinstein to restructure US counter-terrorism and homeland defense programs, starting in July 2001 and continuing through September 10, 2001, when Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff told Feinstein to wait 6 months They ignored the report of the Gore Commission on Aviation Safety and Security The Bush administration changed Bill Clinton's policy towards Afghanistant to appease Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their Saudi backers to promote the interests of oil companies, putting profits for campaign contributors ahead of fighting terrorism: They prevented FBI terrorism experts from investigating Saudi Arabian ties to Al Qaeda before 911, leading to the resignation of FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill only two weeks before 911 They ordered the Naval Strike Force - which President Clinton deployed near Afghanistan on 24-hour alert in order to strike Osama Bin Laden - to "stand down" before 911 They gave $43 million to the Taliban in April 2001 The Bush administration ignored numerous warnings from US and foreign agencies: They ignored warnings as early as June from the National Security Agency's Echelon electronic spy network that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture They ignored warnings from an FBI agent in Phoenix on July 10, 2001 about suspicious Arab pilots with ties to Al Qaeda who were training in a local flight school, urging a nationwide investigation of Arab students in flight schools Bush personally ignored warnings from the CIA on August 6, 2001 that Al Qaeda planned to hijack US planes They ignored warnings from Jordanian intelligence in the summer that a major attack was planned inside the US using airplanes They ignored warnings from Israeli intelligence in August that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent, organized by a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation They ignored warnings from Russian intelligence in August that at least 25 terrorist were trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan to attack US targets, with future plans to attack financial, nuclear, and space facilities They ignored warnings from Moroccan intelligence in August that Bin Laden was "very disappointed" by the failure of the 1993 WTC bombing, and planned "large-scale operations in New York in the summer or autumn of 2001" They rejected a search warrant requests by FBI agents in Minneapolis for Moussaoui's computer disk They ignored warnings from Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak on August 31 of an impending attack on the US They ignored phone calls from Abu Zubaida, bin Laden's chief of operations, to the United States that were intercepted by the National Security Agency shortly before 911 They ignored an extroardinary number of "puts" on the stocks which were hardest hit by the 911 attacks, including American and United airlines, in the days leading up to 911 The Bush administration failed to take meaningful precautions against a terrorist attack when so many warnings were being issued: Bush went on vacation for the month of August, after only six months on the job They allowed counterterrorism agencies to "stand down" from the highest level of alert before August 6, 2001, despite repeated warnings from CIA director George Tenet The FAA knew about concerns that Moussaiou would hijack a 747 in August 2001, but failed to warn the airlines They failed to assign more sky marshalls or to make cockpit doors more secure They changed FAA policy to prohibit pilots from carrying guns They failed to increase the readiness levels of our Air Defense http://democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=911
giddy, are you pulling our collective leg? What the heck did he mean by that? Yes, by definition, an event constitutes space and time coordinates. Yes, each event happens "at a time and a place." Man oh man, the pres is dropping philosophy on our ass! Look out!
C'mon guys, its over...Condi did great and at the end of the day, no one had a crystal ball on exactly what, when, where and how things would take place...Could things have gone better, of course, but again, its politics at its finest, no matter what party was in control... Carry on...
Incredibly weak argument on your part. Bush "should have known better"? That's rich. You guys know this was a vague warning which was contained in the PDB.
the left keeps harping on, and hyping up, the bit about potential hijacks, while ignoring that this info was three years old, as stated by bob graham in a post earlier, and referred to hijackings to secure the release of prisoners, not ram buildings. so, on Aug 7th, bush orders all cockpit doors fortified based on 3 year-old-info? come on- despite the sensationalist title, there's nothing in that PDB that gives an inkling of what was to come, except perhaps with the benefit of the most imaginative hindsight.
To say you can't act unless you know with crystal certainty who, what, when, where, why, and how is ridiculous. On August 6, there were very good clues about who, what, and where. The administration responded with passivity, a vacation, and an address to the nation on stem cells. Bush and his advisors/deputies should have gotten involved and demanded a coordinated response to try and nail down what and where and find out as much as possible about when, why, and how. That's not to say 9-11 could have been prevented, but it is clear that not everything was done that could have been done. The great tragedy is we will never know and the folks in this administration will have to sleep at night knowing that everything was not done, in spite of what they say. Stones were left unturned. The distinction between hijackings and use of hijacked aircraft as bombs is also ridiculous. The steps taken to prevent one would also help prevent the other. The cause does not matter. Moreover, it looks as if a normal everyday hijacking is no big deal.
are we now ignoring all the other warnings Bush recieved and did nothing about as well? no one expects some huge national policy change from one memo, but coupled with all the other warnings I plainly listed, Bush should of done something, ANYTHING, but no, Rice was all set to give a speech about how Clinton was too obbessed on terrorism and we needed missle defense
I wish these, or other hearings, could concentrate on how to improve security and information -- working from the premise that all parties had the best interests of the nation at hand, and that unless we're willing to sacrifice all personal liberties there will always be an element of risk of such an attack. Instead, the Bush team is entrenched in the position there was nothing else that could have been done. They did everything correctly and there's no room for improvement. And the other side is adamant on showing that the attack was clearly self-evident, and would never have occurred without the callousness with which Bush et al treated known intelligence. I'm tired of the dance, and have lost interest in the hearings. I blame the Bush team for their arrogance that prevents any meaningful debriefing of what was known and not known prior to September 2001. And I blame the other side for their deliberate distortion of the information that does slip out, and of their hallucinations about what could have been accomplished given the nature of the attack (if they'd prevented WTC, could have hit any number of other targets) and the appetite of the public for the types of restrictions being proposed (air marshals, no-fly zones, restrictions of people of mid-east descent taking flying lessons, etc) I suppose the hearings provide us new material from which to forage quotes and opinions that agree with our preconceived positions...but, given the combative nature of both 'sides,' little else.
Yes, Bush is the next Hawking or Eiseley. All I meant to emphasize is that there was no specific information. It was generalized warning that, in my mind, I can trace back to 1993 right after the WTC bombings. Again, didn't Clarke say that nothing he had recommended ( to the Clinton or Bush Admins) would have prevented 9/11?
