« Le Speakeasy | Main | Open Thread 6 Jul 09 »

Afternoon of a Fraud


If Senator John Kerry is sincere about winning the next Presidential Election, then why doesn't he use the findings in Chapter 8 of the 9/11 Commission Report to expose George Bush as a fraud in how he really dealt with the "war on terror"?


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Excerpts from Chapter 8 "The System was Blinking Red" in the 9/11 Commission Report

During 2001, Director of Central Intelligence GeorgeTenet was briefed regularly regarding threats and other operational information relating to Usama Bin Ladin.[1] He in turn met daily with President Bush, who was briefed by the CIA through what is known as the President’s Daily Brief (PDB).(p. 254)

We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period.[40] (262)

During the spring and summer of 2001, President Bush had on several occasions asked his briefers whether any of the threats pointed to the United States. Reflecting on these questions,the CIA decided to write a briefing article summarizing its understanding of this danger. Two CIA analysts involved in preparing this briefing article believed it represented an opportunity to communicate their view that the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious.[35] The result was an article in the August 6 Presidential Daily Brief titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.” It was the 36th PDB item briefed so far that year that related to Bin Ladin or al Qaeda, and the first devoted to the possibility of an attack in the United States.(260)

The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President George W.Bush on August 6, 2001.[37] Redacted material is indicated by brackets.

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example ofWorld Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and “bring the fighting to America.”

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington,according to a [—] service. An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [—] service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin’s first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.

Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al-Qa’ida members—including some who are US citizens—have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qua’ da members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in NewYork was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [—] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ‘Umar ‘Abd al-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 NewYork.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.(261-262)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. The President said Bin Ladin had long been talking about his desire to attack America. He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way.(260)

To enlist more international help,Vice President Cheney contacted Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah on July 5. Hadley apparently called European counterparts, while Clarke worked with senior officials in the Gulf. In late July, because of threats, Italy closed the airspace over Genoa and mounted antiaircraft batteries at the Genoa airport during the G-8 summit, which President Bush attended.[21] (258)

Reports similar to many of these were made available to President Bush in morning intelligence briefings with DCI Tenet, usually attended byVice President Dick Cheney and National Security Advisor Rice.(256)

The Drumbeat Begins

In the spring of 2001, the level of reporting on terrorist threats and planned attacks increased dramatically to its highest level since the millennium alert. At the end of March, the intelligence community disseminated a terrorist threat advisory, indicating a heightened threat of Sunni extremist terrorist attacks against U.S. facilities, personnel, and other interests.[4] On March 23, in connection with discussions about possibly reopening Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House, Clarke warned National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice that domestic or foreign terrorists might use a truck bomb—their “weapon of choice”—on Pennsylvania Avenue.That would result, he said, in the destruction of the West Wing and parts of the res-idence.[5] He also told her that he thought there were terrorist cells within the United States, including al Qaeda. (255)


In May 2001, the drumbeat of reporting grew louder with reports to top officials that “Bin Ladin public profile may presage attack”and “Bin Ladin net-work’s plans advancing.” In early May, a walk-in to the FBI claimed there was a plan to launch attacks on London, Boston, and NewYork. Attorney General John Ashcroft was briefed by the CIA on May 15 regarding al Qaeda generally and the current threat reporting specifically. The next day brought a report that a phone call to a U.S.embassy had warned that Bin Ladin supporters were planning an attack in the United States using “high explosives.” On May 17, based on the previous day’s report, the first item on the CSG’s agenda was “UBL: Operation Planned in U.S.”[9] The anonymous caller’s tip could not be corroborated.(256-257)

The interagency Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) that Clarke chaired discussed the Abu Zubaydah reports on April 19. The next day, a briefing to top officials reported “Bin Ladin planning multiple operations.”(255)

Chapter 8 "The System was Blinking Red"


9/11 Commission Report (Searchable Version)

URL =http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

Posted by phi x174 on October 27, 2004 at 01:52 PM | Permalink

Comments

Ok, x174.

I'll take this up ... why Kerry doesn't refer to the Commission's report, including Chapter 8 which you excerpt above?

My guess,

1. he and his campaign are smart enough to know that they don't need it, or it won't help.

If the first, it's possible that the issue is too difficult to bring before the electorate.

They (Kerry and his Democratic allies and advisors) might be vulnerable to counterattacks or perhaps they don't need it badly enough to stir up the mud. And, thanks to you, Uncle $cam and other intrepid respondents we know there is plenty of mud to go around.

2. They know that the commission was such a whitewash that there is no credibility at all to the report -- this clearly seems refutable -- the quotes above show that the Bush administration had ample warning and did not act.

3. Kerry may not be using this because he agrees with the end result, the current aggravated situation, blood for oil, taking over the middle east one country at a time.

This one is a scary proposition. We are all aware of left criticism of Kerry's strongarm rhetoric and hope (I do) that this is just talk necessary to not lose face vs. the aggressive Bush commander in chief talk, and that he will act as the reasonable man he seems to be -- and he does seem to be an intelligent and reasonable man.

Why do you think Kerry won't use this, x174?

Posted by: jonku | Oct 29, 2004 1:33:50 AM

Because they (Bush/Kerry)are different sides of the same coin? He whom owns the gold;etc etc...

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 29, 2004 2:19:31 AM

@jonku -- frankly, i don't know. but on its face it seems very odd.

case 2 that you mention is easily refutable (as you note) when you consider how Kerry has used the 9/11 Commission's "imposition" to create a new intelligence "czar" to crank up the pressure on the Administration's handling of the aftermath (i.e., using the 9/11 Report for political purposes is not beneath them). [Note imposition is en-quoted because -- unless an honest, thorough, across-the-board assessment of all factors relating to the incident is conducted -- their conclusions are (by the very nature of their self-described charge) necessarily incomplete. (Imagine a doctor proscribing a certain course of action before he looked at all the relevant data available.)]

case 1 appears "obvious" now that the munitions depot scandal has exploded on the front pages of the newspapers. and, yes, there certainly is a lot of other ammunition available for Kerry is fling at the Fabricators-in-chief. but what i was getting at was the perceprion of the bush felons' central "strength" as determined by the polls -- his perceived strength in combatting "terrorism." because of our overt disgust for the bush felons, many have been largely uncritical of Kerry's policies (some of which "seem" identical to bush's, e.g., on Sharon, on Iraq, on military expenditures, etc.). it just struck me as odd that Kerry wouldn't use this perfectly usable ammunition against the (unearned) perception of bush's strength (i.e., exactly where you want to hit your opponent hard in order to really win). what can bush say if Kerry throws some of the FACTS reported in the 9/11 Commission's Report at him? It was under his own order that the Commission was formed (albeit reluctantly), and he accepted the report's conclusions as important for helping us "move forward" in winning the "war on terror."

it just seems ODD that this particular depot of ammunition would be so obviously overlooked.

(personally, i am inclined to think that the cover-up surrounding 9/11 involves many players in many countries that, to a certain extent, almost all our Congressional representatives are implicated in some way or other -- except, of course, for Rep. Cynthia McKinny(sp?))

case 3 is the question. if Kerry wins, what will we have agreed to? <'Johnny, tell them what they've won'>(getting rid of the bush felons is the first step, no doubt about it. but i just wonder how much will really change under Kerry b/c many of the present problems evolved from historical decisions and events which are an inherent part of US Foreign Policy. check out "Drugs, Oil & War" by Peter Dale Scott for a primer).

Posted by: x174 | Oct 29, 2004 3:25:30 PM

STOP THE SHOW!

Blackboxvoting.org files "largest FOIA action in history"
Snip from announcement on website:
Black Box Voting (.ORG) is conducting the largest Freedom of Information action in history. At 8:30 p.m. Election Night, Black Box Voting blanketed the U.S. with the first in a series of public records requests, to obtain internal computer logs and other documents from 3,000 individual counties and townships. Networks called the election before anyone bothered to perform even the most rudimentary audit.
America: We have permission to say No to unaudited voting. It is our right. Among the first requests sent to counties (with all kinds of voting systems -- optical scan, touch-screen, and punch card) is a formal records request for internal audit logs, polling place results slips, modem transmission logs, and computer trouble slips.

An earlier FOIA is more sensitive, and has not been disclosed here. We will notify you as soon as we can go public with it. Such a request filed in King County, Washington on Sept. 15, following the primary election six weeks ago, uncovered an internal audit log containing a three-hour deletion on election night; “trouble slips” revealing suspicious modem activity; and profound problems with security, including accidental disclosure of critically sensitive remote access information to poll workers, office personnel, and even, in a shocking blunder, to Black Box Voting activists.

http://blackboxvoting.org/#foia


No wonder asscraft was wanting to stop
people from suing.... arggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 3, 2004 5:57:53 PM

x174, I scanned that piece and see no reference to the liklihood that OBL was NOT involved, or was/is mainly a patsy. I understand that there is evidence that Dub signed orders for the attack.

So anyway all that stuff about ignoring the warnings is some sort of red herring. I don't claim to know details other than what I can pick up here and there, but the most obvious point is that Cheney and Bush are intimately involved in the planning and execution of their pet pearl harbor. This is actually documented if you care to go to the Peoples Grand Jury which met in California not long ago. Sorry no link and I may not have the name right even.

People are working on this. Plenty of em too. Ashcroft is scared shitless.

Posted by: rapt | Nov 4, 2004 2:17:18 PM

Tom Paine on how Kerry (may have) won the 2004 Election

Posted by: x174 | Nov 4, 2004 2:41:15 PM

@rapt -- it's becoming more and more obvious that the WH was (deeply) involved in 9/11: the Pentagon attack being the most obvious example.

Thanks for the Peoples Grand Jury (?) reference. I'd like to see what types of evidence they've got.

BTW, the closest thing that I have heard in regards to "evidence" of direct WH (not Pentagon) involvement was from one of those lawyers representing some of the 9/11 victims' famlilies (posted in the "Prelude" thread above).

Posted by: x174 | Nov 4, 2004 2:50:27 PM

@rapt --
Here's a link on Bush's involvement in 9/11 according to Hinton

(Posted by DeAnander (Sept 17) on "Discovering the Truth," an earlier thread)

Posted by: x174 | Nov 4, 2004 2:56:48 PM

Here's a link to the People's 9/11 Truth Commission via 911truth.org.
(rapt, is this what you're talking about?)

Posted by: x174 | Nov 4, 2004 3:02:17 PM

Sorry I don't have time to go find it again x174. They've had meetings, compiled all the evidence, and published a statement detailing it all. Very thorough and convincing.

Now the big barrier is Ashcroft's Justice. And the press who refuse to mention any of this. Those are formidable barriers but I still fully expect that truth will out.

Posted by: rapt | Nov 5, 2004 7:44:06 AM

Ruppert has warned previously that Hilton is a honeypot. Follow this link and scroll down to Mike Ruppert on the Stanley Hilton lawsuit.

Any pointers to solid investigative probes into why Bush was in FLA that morning and when this visit was originally scheduled?

Posted by: b real | Nov 5, 2004 10:33:49 AM

i don't know about solid, but informed and suggestive. . .you may find something in D. Hopsicker's Welcome to Terrorland

Posted by: x174 | Nov 5, 2004 5:23:43 PM

Post a comment





HTML Tags:
<b>text</b> = text
<i>text</i> = text
<u>text</u> = text
<a href="http://www.yoursitehere.com">text</a> = linked text
Other tags: <blockquote> <li> <ul>