• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Bush Knew More About Bin Laden's Plans Than We Realized

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
26,152
11,302
136
New Adam Clark Estes 18,314 Views 12:01 AM ET
Now, 11 years later, new details of the attack on the World Trade Center continue to emerge from the government's vault of classified documents and the journalists who've gained access. This year, the reporter with the jaw-dropping scoop is Kurt Eichenwald, a former Timesman and present contributing editor at Vanity Fair. After reading more than one tweet with the simple instructions "Read this," we clicked on the link to Eichenwald's powerful op-ed, due to be published in The New York Times on September 11. In it, Eichenwald goes into teeth-grinding detail about how the Bush administration had even more advance notice about Osama Bin Laden's attack than we previously realized. You should read it, too.
With the infamous August 6 White House briefing as a focal point, Eichenwald walks through the months and years of warnings leading up to the September 11 attacks. Some of these are events and reports that remain classified, but Eichenwald says he's "read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration's reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed."
Again, we already knew that Bush had some advance warning. We just didn't realize how much. This passage from Eichenwalds piece reads like a nightmare:

An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.
That was in June of 2001. Three months later, the White House didn't have the luxury of avoiding reports about Bin Laden any more.


Read Eichenwald's piece in full.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=1
 

BudAshes

Lifer
Jul 20, 2003
12,863
1,778
126
What a joke of a president. He was only good for one thing, making fun of him. I don't want that to be a quality in the potus.
 

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,168
3
61
The article specifically says that Bush was told that AQ was making plans, but given no specifics about what those plans were.

Putting the entire government "on alert" without specific and credible information would have been the height of irresponsibility. And worse, just like tornado warnings, people tend to start ignoring them when they're issued too often.

Hindsight is 20/20. Speculation is not, even with the benefit of hindsight.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
The claim is plausible but here's the problem.

While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed.
We have his word and his interpretation and that's it. Could it be true? Sure, but I want something more than accusation based on what we don't see.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
26,152
11,302
136
The article specifically says that Bush was told that AQ was making plans, but given no specifics about what those plans were.

Putting the entire government "on alert" without specific and credible information would have been the height of irresponsibility. And worse, just like tornado warnings, people tend to start ignoring them when they're issued too often.

Hindsight is 20/20. Speculation is not, even with the benefit of hindsight.
That didn't seem to stop them from going after Saddam Hussein even after 9/11.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,313
2
0
The claim is plausible but here's the problem.



We have his word and his interpretation and that's it. Could it be true? Sure, but I want something more than accusation based on what we don't see.
Yeah without facts it's just bullsh*t. Except in this case it probably is true, because Bush was the worst president in decades.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Yeah without facts it's just bullsh*t. Except in this case it probably is true, because Bush was the worst president in decades.
Like I said it's reasonable, but I remember a war that we waged on what seemed very plausable to many. That didn't turn out so well. Having a verifiable source is what's needed and yes I know how hard that is.
 

finglobes

Senior member
Dec 13, 2010
741
0
0
This is dumb - nobody dropped the ball more than Clinton. Osama declared war on US in 1998. The camps were well known. Osama was offerd to Clinton and the offer was declined. Its well known Clinton's FBI was directed toward the "vast right wing conspiracy" because it had more political advanatge for the stain-maker. Incinerating women and kids like at Waco was more important than keeping track of Islamic lunatics yelling out loud "Here we come!!". Bush was a dope for keeping Clinton's CIA director ( the one who said Iraq WMD was a "slam dunk"). The Bush admin was a few months old. If they knew somehting then Clinton's feckless crew knew even more.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
After reading more than one tweet with the simple instructions "Read this," we clicked on the link to Eichenwald's powerful op-ed, due to be published in The New York Times on September 11. In it,
Do we need to look up the definition of an op-ed? The only link in that whole article is to a piece "AUGUST '01 BRIEF IS SAID TO WARN OF ATTACK PLANS"

Let me know when he finds evidence.
 
Last edited:
Oct 16, 1999
10,497
3
0
The article specifically says that Bush was told that AQ was making plans, but given no specifics about what those plans were.

Putting the entire government "on alert" without specific and credible information would have been the height of irresponsibility. And worse, just like tornado warnings, people tend to start ignoring them when they're issued too often.

Hindsight is 20/20. Speculation is not, even with the benefit of hindsight.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,313
2
0
You are referencing a system created after 9/11.

Also, who pays attention to that? It's always on amber or high alert.
Some people do, as this mass-fear tool is even in airports. It's incredible fvcking stupid for the reason you mentioned. It will never ever be on green or blue. Just another way to make sure we're all sufficiently scared.
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,940
10
81
Bush was a self-serving idiot; many people today still consider the possibility that Bush knew exactly that a 9/11 was coming, if not assisted it even indirectly.

Bush & his warhawk Repub Project-For-A-New-American-Century junta should be in jail if not executed for what they've done.
 

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
7,557
671
126
Gov. Pataki went after the author yesterday on Morning Joe. Was kind of awkward watching him defend the actions with a "we shouldn't look at the past" kind of argument. What's the old saying???
 

kia75

Senior member
Oct 30, 2005
468
0
71
That Bush knew more about Bin Laden isn't a surprise, but its also not proof of evil or incompetence. Hindsight is 20\20


Now that we know that 9-11 was a plan, we can go back through all the data and find references but its always been hard to find the real data within all the noise. Every day tons of people say they're going to blow up\destroy\ kill famous landmark\person. 95% they say it in jest. 4.9999999% of the time they're talking out of their ass. maybe .00000001% they actually mean it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY