Bush had a chance at OBL prior to 9/11

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0


The CIA'S top counterterrorism officials felt they could have killed Osama Bin Laden in the months before 9/11, but got the "brushoff" when they went to the Bush White House seeking the money and authorization.

CIA Director George Tenet and his counterterrorism head Cofer Black sought an urgent meeting with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001, writes Bob Woodward in his new book "State of Denial."

They went over top-secret intelligence pointing to an impending attack and "sounded the loudest warning" to the White House of a likely attack on the U.S. by Bin Laden.

Woodward writes that Rice was polite, but, "They felt the brushoff."

Tenet and Black were both frustrated.

Black later calculated that all he needed was $500 million of covert action funds and reasonable authorization from President Bush to go kill Bin Laden and "he might be able to bring Bin Laden's head back in a box," Woodward writes.

Black claims the CIA had about "100 sources and subsources" in Afghanistan who could have helped carry out the hit.

The details of the incident are emerging just days after Sen. Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton sparred with Rice over whether the Bush administration had tried to get Bin Laden before the terror attacks.

Woodward claims the intelligence Tenet and Black shared with Rice included communication intercepts indicating the likelihood of an Al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil.

Tenet said he had hoped the meeting would shock Rice into encouraging the President to take immediate action against Al Qaeda.

Black, looking back at the July 10, 2001, meeting with Rice, concludes, "The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her [Rice's] head."

Woodward says that Tenet described the meeting as a "tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the 9/11 attacks."

Tenet also claims that his alarm over Bin Laden was downplayed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who asked, "Could all this be a grand deception?"

The book claims that two weeks before the July meeting with Rice, Tenet told Richard Clarke, the National Security Council's counterterrorism director, of his gut feeling about a likely attack.

"It's my sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one," the book quotes Tenet as telling Clarke.

Linkage


Why didn't this come out before? Is this in the 9/11 Commission Report? This is the first I've heard of most of this stuff. This does a lot to back what Clarke has been saying all along, that he was ignored completely and that the administration DID NOT CARE ABOUT OBL.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
I guess Bush's pass for 9/11 is officially over as of the Clinton interview. Here comes the fireworks...
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
I respect Woodward as a reporter; however, with Tenet as head of CIA; this information should have been in the commission report. Tenet was infront of the commission as well as some of the others.

I woiuld question why this information is now coming out third hand via a book.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Originally posted by: Todd33
I guess Bush's pass for 9/11 is officially over as of the Clinton interview. Here comes the fireworks...

Yep. For all the hoorah about his "anger" Clinton got exactly what he wanted out of Fox.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Tenet needs to come clean and speak up to either confirm or deny that the events in this book are accurate or not. I think this is very important, and if true, shows that the 9/11 report is a sad joke, which totally ignores many many key elements.

If this is true, coupled with the Aug. 5th PDB, shows complete incompetance on behalf of the White House, Rice most especially.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Woodward is a librul!


Thanks for that.

I doubt Woodward would be willing to risk his entire career printing out and out falsehoods, besides his first two books on this subject are very kind to Bush.
 

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,760
3
81
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Woodward is a librul!


Thanks for that.

I doubt Woodward would be willing to risk his entire career printing out and out falsehoods, besides his first two books on this subject are very kind to Bush.

With the spelling, I think you need to check the sarcasm meter.

But hopefully this does raise more questions that deserve answers.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,426
7,485
136
In regards to this topic ? it?s just a blame game. Each side of our political civil war blames the other for everything and anything. The much more important thing to do is to stop fighting amongst ourselves and fight our enemy. If we consider ourselves the only enemy then we?ve already lost.
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
Originally posted by: ayabe
Woodward says that Tenet described the meeting as a "tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the 9/11 attacks."

Linkage

I don't think getting OBL a couple of months before 9/11 would of changed anything. Probably would of just gave them more reason to do what they did
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
I respect Woodward as a reporter; however, with Tenet as head of CIA; this information should have been in the commission report. Tenet was infront of the commission as well as some of the others.

I woiuld question why this information is now coming out third hand via a book.

The commission was a white wash. Why?

- soft ball questions
- publicly submitted questions (heavily researched) were largely not asked (70%)
- toughest questions not asked
- Bush was not interviewed alone
- Bush interview was behind closed doors
- pannel was made up of not experts but party members
- some pannel members admited that they could not ask certain questions
- Bush Administration refused to create the commission at first (public pressure compelled them otherwise)
etc...
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
Originally posted by: ayabe
Woodward says that Tenet described the meeting as a "tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the 9/11 attacks."

Linkage

I don't think getting OBL a couple of months before 9/11 would of changed anything. Probably would of just gave them more reason to do what they did


Well the thrust of the news snippet is about inaction on Al-Qaeda.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
I respect Woodward as a reporter; however, with Tenet as head of CIA; this information should have been in the commission report. Tenet was infront of the commission as well as some of the others.

I woiuld question why this information is now coming out third hand via a book.

I'd also question those trying to push this off on Bush when our friend Slick has admitted he had a chance (several, actually) at UBL and failed.

Woodward has a new book, and he's drumming up publicity to sell copies.
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Black later calculated that all he needed was $500 million of covert action funds and reasonable authorization from President Bush to go kill Bin Laden and "he might be able to bring Bin Laden's head back in a box," Woodward writes.

Black claims the CIA had about "100 sources and subsources" in Afghanistan who could have helped carry out the hit.

I don't buy it. If all this was in place and Clinton had already authorized a hit on OBL, it would have already taken place.

No love for the current admin here, but this story just doesn't smell right.
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Black later calculated that all he needed was $500 million of covert action funds and reasonable authorization from President Bush to go kill Bin Laden and "he might be able to bring Bin Laden's head back in a box," Woodward writes.

Black claims the CIA had about "100 sources and subsources" in Afghanistan who could have helped carry out the hit.

I don't buy it. If all this was in place and Clinton had already authorized a hit on OBL, it would have already taken place.

No love for the current admin here, but this story just doesn't smell right.

What you just said makes no sense on any level. Slick was out of office. How was he going to approve something when he isn't President. That's where Bush comes in.

You think the system is this single minded machine that moves like clockwork?

No.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
People voted for Bush in 2000 because of greed. They wanted tax cuts, didn't give a damn about anything else.

He delivered on those tax cuts in early 2001 and then went on vacation. Except for some plotting about how to get rid of Saddam, nobody in the Bush administration was doing anything, about anything. In my fifty years, I had never seen such a do nothing administration, except for the last part of Bush Sr's administartion, which was close.

And lots of Americans liked it that way, as long as the got more money in their pocket, in theory.

 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
I respect Woodward as a reporter; however, with Tenet as head of CIA; this information should have been in the commission report. Tenet was infront of the commission as well as some of the others.

I woiuld question why this information is now coming out third hand via a book.

I'd also question those trying to push this off on Bush when our friend Slick has admitted he had a chance (several, actually) at UBL and failed.

Woodward has a new book, and he's drumming up publicity to sell copies.

So if the stuff in his book is true, you don't have a problem with that?

It basically validates many of the charges leveled against the Admin from the start, that they ignored many warnings about the dangers of OBL and Al-Qaeda; asleep at the wheel if you will.

There's also a lot of other stuff in the book about Iraq, the half truths being told to the public. The fact that Bush has always stated that he gives the generals whatever they ask for. Well according to this book, that's a lie.

In his interview Clinton admitted to trying and failing, and that "others" did not try. That appears be to the case.
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
Black later calculated that all he needed was $500 million of covert action funds and reasonable authorization from President Bush to go kill Bin Laden and "he might be able to bring Bin Laden's head back in a box," Woodward writes.

Repeat after me...Political Assassination is illegal.

Executive Order 11905 - President Ford
Section 2-305, Executive Order 12036 - President Carter
Executive Order 12333 - President Reagan

All prohibit this very action.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
I respect Woodward as a reporter; however, with Tenet as head of CIA; this information should have been in the commission report. Tenet was infront of the commission as well as some of the others.

I woiuld question why this information is now coming out third hand via a book.

I'd also question those trying to push this off on Bush when our friend Slick has admitted he had a chance (several, actually) at UBL and failed.

Woodward has a new book, and he's drumming up publicity to sell copies.

Why don't you address the accusation instead of flailing around like a retard pointing at Clinton? In case you didn't notice, the thread title is "Bush had a chance at OBL..." try sticking to it for once. There's plenty of blame to go around and much of it is directed at a pre-9/11 Bush administration which didn't seem the least bit concerned about the threat of terrorism.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
I will say this about Woodward, that what he puts in his books has almost NEVER turned out to be false.
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Black later calculated that all he needed was $500 million of covert action funds and reasonable authorization from President Bush to go kill Bin Laden and "he might be able to bring Bin Laden's head back in a box," Woodward writes.

Black claims the CIA had about "100 sources and subsources" in Afghanistan who could have helped carry out the hit.

I don't buy it. If all this was in place and Clinton had already authorized a hit on OBL, it would have already taken place.

No love for the current admin here, but this story just doesn't smell right.

What you just said makes no sense on any level. Slick was out of office. How was he going to approve something when he isn't President. That's where Bush comes in.

You think the system is this single minded machine that moves like clockwork?

No.

That the system is not a "single minded machine that moves like clockwork" is exactly why I don't buy it.
If Bush did not take terrorism seriously, when do you think those "100 sources and subsources" were developed? The OP does not describe material saying that OBL suddenly became a possible target. It does describe material saying that the reason to take him out had become more urgent.

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
I respect Woodward as a reporter; however, with Tenet as head of CIA; this information should have been in the commission report. Tenet was infront of the commission as well as some of the others.

I woiuld question why this information is now coming out third hand via a book.

I'd also question those trying to push this off on Bush when our friend Slick has admitted he had a chance (several, actually) at UBL and failed.

Woodward has a new book, and he's drumming up publicity to sell copies.

Why don't you address the accusation instead of flailing around like a retard pointing at Clinton? In case you didn't notice, the thread title is "Bush had a chance at OBL..." try sticking to it for once. There's plenty of blame to go around and much of it is directed at a pre-9/11 Bush administration which didn't seem the least bit concerned about the threat of terrorism.

I would say they equally "did nothing" about it, the only difference being Clinton did less about it for longer. Both presidents were completely reactionary, as most politicians are. It would have been intersting to have had a "small" attack to compare Bush's reaction the the pre-9/11 type attacks...but we don't have a time machine or a really advanced civ...

I wish the stupid "who did what/when" could be laid too rest, it reminds me too much of the office, nothing but posturing :D
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,221
654
126
Originally posted by: maluckey
Black later calculated that all he needed was $500 million of covert action funds and reasonable authorization from President Bush to go kill Bin Laden and "he might be able to bring Bin Laden's head back in a box," Woodward writes.

Repeat after me...Political Assassination is illegal.

Executive Order 11905 - President Ford
Section 2-305, Executive Order 12036 - President Carter
Executive Order 12333 - President Reagan

All prohibit this very action.

Fighting Al-Qaeda could very well have resulted in the death of Bin Laden without such "assassination." Also, you are a naive fool if you think anyone would actually give a crap about these orders with reagards to taking out a terrorist like bin Laden.
 

slash196

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2004
1,549
0
76
Originally posted by: maluckey
Black later calculated that all he needed was $500 million of covert action funds and reasonable authorization from President Bush to go kill Bin Laden and "he might be able to bring Bin Laden's head back in a box," Woodward writes.

Repeat after me...Political Assassination is illegal.

Executive Order 11905 - President Ford
Section 2-305, Executive Order 12036 - President Carter
Executive Order 12333 - President Reagan

All prohibit this very action.

No, they prohibit assassinating POLITICAL LEADERS. Osama bin Laden was not elected by anyone.

Furthermore, presidents are not bound by their predecessor's executive orders.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
If Bush were to kill Bin Laden, the war on terror would be over. Think about it.