Slog
News & ArtsMonday, September 10, 2012
2012 George W. Bush Was Warned Multiple Times About an Attack from Al Qaeda Before 9/11
Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:05 PM
The New York Times is dropping a bombshell, just in time for the eleventh anniversary of 9/11:
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. 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.
Go read the whole thing, please. Every time we think we understand how fucking dumb those dumb fuckers really were, we get more information and it turns out that, no, they were even dumber than that. Un-fucking-believable.
3
Connie Rice has always maintained that there was no 'actionable' intelligence.
To her, the memos - however many come to light - always read as: 'Bin Laden is bad and we should stop him, if we only knew what he was up to, or where he is.'
Does this change the story?
My in-laws love GWB. Unless you show that he flew the 9/11 planes himself, they always will.
To her, the memos - however many come to light - always read as: 'Bin Laden is bad and we should stop him, if we only knew what he was up to, or where he is.'
Does this change the story?
My in-laws love GWB. Unless you show that he flew the 9/11 planes himself, they always will.
4
Were they dumb, or willfully ignorant? Prior to 9/11, Cheney said that "without another Pearl Harbor" they couldn't fulfill their neo-conservative agenda.
I don't think 9/11 was an inside job, but I think it's likely insiders knew it was coming...and did nothing to stop it.
I don't think 9/11 was an inside job, but I think it's likely insiders knew it was coming...and did nothing to stop it.
5
The fact that Clinton got impeached over a blowjob and Bush gets politely ignored still boggles my mind. I still can't believe that dumb motherfucker was our president, but then again, we sure do have some dumb motherfuckers in this country who voted for him.
Here's the part that blew my mind in that article:
Wow.
Here's the part that blew my mind in that article:
Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.
Wow.
6
Blah blah. The Bush administration was an eight-year legendary epic of incompetent screw ups. We know that already. I guess it's nice to have in writing yet again, but the worst part about it now is that nobody learned from it. At this point, if you think Dubya has been 'demonized' (to borrow Ann Romney's word) and it's all the liberals' fault, there is nothing that could possibly cause you to reflect. Hopefully future historians will put the criminal culpability of the Bush administration in proper context.
7
So, what is new about this? Did we not already know this or is it now just more official? I recall being already aware of this.
8
@4 I'm with you. I really think they knew about it, maybe even down to the details, and let it happen, because that would give them all the justification they needed to remake America in their vision: Civil liberties obliterated, government sold to corporations, and further wealth concentration on the most powerful few - the end of the vaunted American Dream. And it worked so well, so well. If the public let go of their blind partisanship and realized how thoroughly the Bush administration destroyed us, those officials wouldn't even be living in this country for fear of their lives.
9
I flew in from Frankfurt the night before 9/11 on a United jet. The security in Frankfurt to board that flight was unreal - each passenger was subjected to multiple interviews, and we all had to completely go through all our baggage with a security agent present before it was accepted. I remember thinking to myself at the time "Something is going on". I'd flown over a half million miles before that and was familiar with airport security, and it was unlike anything I had ever seen. They knew...
11
This isn't new information. The problem is, there were no protocols in place that allowed them to do anything without essentially nabbing the perps with a bomb in hand. Now we have things like the Patriot Act, which means if you just take a picture of the Brooklyn Bridge, the cops can pull you aside for questioning.
And why does Clinton STILL get a pass on all this? It's not like this plan was hatched in the few months leading up to 9/11. The threat of terrorism had been growing for years, and it was ignored because Bubba was basking in the glory of his booming economy.
And why does Clinton STILL get a pass on all this? It's not like this plan was hatched in the few months leading up to 9/11. The threat of terrorism had been growing for years, and it was ignored because Bubba was basking in the glory of his booming economy.
12
I will choose to use my limited NY Times page views to read "The Weatherman is Not a Moron", because my outrage about 9/11 and the wars and our government's continued position is all used up.
13
@11 I thought Clinton wasn't getting a pass anymore. Didn't that book come out that said one of the reasons that the CIA weaponized drones was because they had found OBL in '98 or '99 with a drone, but Clinton wouldn't give the order because it would take hours to get a Tomahawk targeted and fired and he didn't want to use ground troops.
14
@ 11, Clinton's FBI and CIA were very interested in al Quada. You might recall Clinton's strikes on their camps in north Africa following their attacks on our embassies in Africa and our military in Saudi Arabia.
Clinton had no political capital to do more than that - wiping out al Quada meant an invasion of thousands, like what we did after 9/11. Even after the USS Cole, no hawk called for such a thing.
Now, so long as hard intelligence about the 9/11 attacks were not available to Clinton, he gets nothing but credit for taking them on. The attack might have been taking shape well before W took office but that does not mean it was detected that early.
Clinton had no political capital to do more than that - wiping out al Quada meant an invasion of thousands, like what we did after 9/11. Even after the USS Cole, no hawk called for such a thing.
Now, so long as hard intelligence about the 9/11 attacks were not available to Clinton, he gets nothing but credit for taking them on. The attack might have been taking shape well before W took office but that does not mean it was detected that early.
15
@11: Clinton couldn't act against Al Qaeda without congressional Republicans claiming he was trying to distract us from the Lewinsky hearings (which was a much more pressing issue, apparently).
16
I'd have to agree with @4.
But I'm not sure that quote is attributed to Cheney personally, rather it was a statement in a report by the Project for the New American Century, a group Cheney belonged to, along with many other players who would later form the Bush administration.
From the Wikipedia entry on PNAC:
Bernard Weiner (journalist and professor) elaborates on PNAC in his 2006 essay, Bush's Grand Game: A "PNAC Primer":
More...
But I'm not sure that quote is attributed to Cheney personally, rather it was a statement in a report by the Project for the New American Century, a group Cheney belonged to, along with many other players who would later form the Bush administration.
From the Wikipedia entry on PNAC:
Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[14]
Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner,[39][40][41] investigative journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman,[42] and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch,[43] all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.
Bernard Weiner (journalist and professor) elaborates on PNAC in his 2006 essay, Bush's Grand Game: A "PNAC Primer":
But, in order to unleash their foreign/military campaigns without taking all sorts of flak from the traditional wing of the conservative GOP, they needed a context that would permit them free rein. The events of 9/11 rode to their rescue. In one of their major reports, written in 2000, PNAC noted that "the process of [military] transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
The Bush Administration, which came to see 9/11 as an "opportunity," used 9/11 and the fear that it generated in the general populace as their cover for enacting all sorts of draconian measures domestically and as their rationalization for launching military campaigns abroad. The Patriot Act, drafted earlier, was rushed through a frightened Congress in the days following 9/11 and the mysterious anthrax attack; few members even had read the huge document. The Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) to go after al Qaida in Afghanistan now is hauled out by the White House to justify torture, domestic eavesdropping, and anything else the "commander-in-chief" wants to authorize during "wartime."
17
@7- I'm with you. They're dropping a bombshell that's just a collection of things that have been dropped before. And everyone who ought to give a fuck won't. The Democratic Party has already shown that they won't hold anyone responsible and that they, in fact, like their own presidents to be able to behave with just as much impunity in foreign policy. The Republicans just don't care. And the majority of Americans will never get these facts into their heads. If they hear them, they don't bother recalling them.
18
Fucking bastards.
@3
Condi Rice. If you say Connie Rice, you're liable to be understood as referring to a prominent civil rights attorney who does in fact happen to be a distant relation of Condi. Connie, if I'm not mistaken, was appointed to conduct some oversight of the SPD in that recent federal agreement.
Anyway, Connie is one of the good guys. Condi is not.
@3
Condi Rice. If you say Connie Rice, you're liable to be understood as referring to a prominent civil rights attorney who does in fact happen to be a distant relation of Condi. Connie, if I'm not mistaken, was appointed to conduct some oversight of the SPD in that recent federal agreement.
Anyway, Connie is one of the good guys. Condi is not.
19
@9 I like your story, a lot, but just to shift gears for a sec, are 90% of us Sloggers 30-50 year old white guys?
20
I may well be misremembering but I seem to recall the Bush camp making fun of Clinton/Gore concerns over Al Queda during the election leading up to Mr Bush being seated.
Hard to take seriously something you mocked in public.
I definitely remember how petty things got with the fake stories of prying the "W" off keyboards and all. I remember thinking that bode ill.
...and no we aren't all 30-50 year old white guys. Some of us are older.
Hard to take seriously something you mocked in public.
I definitely remember how petty things got with the fake stories of prying the "W" off keyboards and all. I remember thinking that bode ill.
...and no we aren't all 30-50 year old white guys. Some of us are older.
21
@4
Soo....
Let's say, just hypothetically, that the US Federal Government had information suggesting that Anarchists were planning to blow up a bridge somewhere in Ohio on May 1, 2012.
Wouldn't The Government want to just ignore that information, and let the attack happen, so as to be able to pursue Total War on The Anarchists without any objections from the public?
Soo....
Let's say, just hypothetically, that the US Federal Government had information suggesting that Anarchists were planning to blow up a bridge somewhere in Ohio on May 1, 2012.
Wouldn't The Government want to just ignore that information, and let the attack happen, so as to be able to pursue Total War on The Anarchists without any objections from the public?
22
It's a hell of an article. Well worth the read. Just like Kennedy, there are things about 9/11 that will eternally seem suspect. Who knows what happened? Don't hold your breath for those inside the White House who screwed up. They must have the same lawyers as the dickheads on Wall Street.
Tip of the cap to those who died that day. They don't get to ponder weather it was an inside job or weather the Bush administration knew their earholes from their assholes.
Tip of the cap to those who died that day. They don't get to ponder weather it was an inside job or weather the Bush administration knew their earholes from their assholes.
23
@21:
Perhaps, considering it was the FBI who engineered the Ohio May Day plot in the first place, it was deemed too risky to let the attack actually play out? Maybe they didn't want to push their luck if they calculated that they could achieve their objectives without actually destroying the bridge? Maybe an in-house FBI operation like this isn't going to be quite as lofty as a who-knows-how-deep conspiracy to leave the back door open on 9/11?
Is any of that possible?
Do you really find it more plausible that the PNAC cabal was merely incompetent, rather than nefarious? This NY Times article tells us that the CIA "all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real", yet Bush's advisers told him to ignore the urgent warnings.
Why did they do that?
Perhaps, considering it was the FBI who engineered the Ohio May Day plot in the first place, it was deemed too risky to let the attack actually play out? Maybe they didn't want to push their luck if they calculated that they could achieve their objectives without actually destroying the bridge? Maybe an in-house FBI operation like this isn't going to be quite as lofty as a who-knows-how-deep conspiracy to leave the back door open on 9/11?
Is any of that possible?
Do you really find it more plausible that the PNAC cabal was merely incompetent, rather than nefarious? This NY Times article tells us that the CIA "all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real", yet Bush's advisers told him to ignore the urgent warnings.
Why did they do that?
24
These things matter for history, for the legacy of W. but not much else, IMO. And the war for W's legacy is clearly on.
28
Sure glad that Obama said that there would be no prosecutions of the previous administration for any criminal behavior. Yeah...really happy about that decision. *sigh*
29
@ 9, I flew from Denver to Seattle the night before 9/11, and security was exactly as it had been for years. I'll always remember that because I came within 12 hours of being stranded in Denver, likely to be screwed over by my employer who decided that any stranded employee could only be paid vacation time for the duration.
Anyway, it's highly specious to conclude that German security was due to knowledge that the 9/11 attacks were imminent, especially since the available intelligence (that we know of) specifically said operatives were within the USA already.
Anyway, it's highly specious to conclude that German security was due to knowledge that the 9/11 attacks were imminent, especially since the available intelligence (that we know of) specifically said operatives were within the USA already.
30
@ 23, "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
Everything I've read about the neocons says they had a major hardon for Saddam Hussein. Everything I've read also described them all as hubristic, cocky, and so impressed with their own intelligence that it's very easy to believe that they convinced themselves that the terrorists couldn't possibly hurt us like that.
In order to ascribe malice, we need hard evidence that they wanted to let the attacks happen in order to capitalize on it. The fact that they DID eventually capitalize on it isn't evidence that it was planned and not simply opportunistic.
Everything I've read about the neocons says they had a major hardon for Saddam Hussein. Everything I've read also described them all as hubristic, cocky, and so impressed with their own intelligence that it's very easy to believe that they convinced themselves that the terrorists couldn't possibly hurt us like that.
In order to ascribe malice, we need hard evidence that they wanted to let the attacks happen in order to capitalize on it. The fact that they DID eventually capitalize on it isn't evidence that it was planned and not simply opportunistic.
34
@ 31, You probably mean an Al Gore administration, but you're comprenension is off again today-- along with your critical thinking skills.
35
It's an apropo day to wander over to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth to refresh their memories on some of the Marianas Trench-sized gaps in the forensic evidence.
36
@34: Yes, as my punishment, I will fall through the hole in an abandoned snake-infested outhouse in the Mississippi delta. I pray that gives you comfort.
37
@ 31/33, given the fact that Gore would have had a completely different set of advisers in the White House - ones very likely to not agree with the Neocons about our course in the Middle East, therefore not likely to obsess about Iraq to the point of ignoring inconvenient developments elsewhere on that front - is reason ALONE to believe Gore would have processed it differently.
38
I worked in One World Trade,, and the secruity there changed over the summer. There was a threat, but the scale certainly wasn't imagined.
Agree with @10. This isn't an old story. Romney has many of those neocons advising him, and it's now Iran that is the distraction; whereas, is was Saddam Hussein before. Their hate blinds them to what is really going on in the world. Romney is unelectable.
Agree with @10. This isn't an old story. Romney has many of those neocons advising him, and it's now Iran that is the distraction; whereas, is was Saddam Hussein before. Their hate blinds them to what is really going on in the world. Romney is unelectable.
39
@3 Condi's latest statement about the memos is that "no one told her to do anything." She actually says this with a straight face. I guess the notion of leadership is completely lost on her. She was qualified to be ambassador to Russia, and nothing more.
She's the most incompetent public official ever: directly responsible for 3k lives lost, trillions in losses/damages, shredding of Constitution.
She's the most incompetent public official ever: directly responsible for 3k lives lost, trillions in losses/damages, shredding of Constitution.
41
I realized this is "FOAF-class" information, but my sister lived above an FBI agent in Chicago during that era and they hung out frequently. The FBI person told her that the al Qaeda unit were specifically forbidden from doing anything in the months preceeding 9/11. I'll bet if you dig around we can find some corroboration for that.
And I agree with the "they weren't dumb, they were willfully ignorant and/or willing to let it happen" camp.
And I agree with the "they weren't dumb, they were willfully ignorant and/or willing to let it happen" camp.
42
@31 Uh. That's because Kerry ran for president AFTER 9/11, you idiot.
Gore would have "processed" the event of 9/11 differently. By NOT invading Iraq. Which he was against when the Neo-cons first pushed for it the 1990's.
How did Bush "process" 9/11? He invaded Iraq. A country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
In February 2002 Bush moved several thousand US troops, all our predator drones, and three Special Forces groups (including the only group, 5th Special Forces, that spoke Pashtun) from Afghanistan and used them to invade Iraq in 2003. A war based on provable lies.
In case you forgot Bin Laden was not in Iraq.
I distinctly recall Republicans on the floor of the senate in 1998 chastising Clinton for, and I only somewhat paraphrase, lobbing "million dollar missiles at cave hermits."
The Republicans wanted a war with Iraq. They did not give a shit about terrorism. It's a simple fact.
The PNAC mission statement was basically a love letter to blowing up Baghdad, installing a puppet regime and thus theoretically preventing the erosion of the petrodollar. And getting lucrative defense contracts.
That's what guided the Neo-cons from day one.
Gore would have "processed" the event of 9/11 differently. By NOT invading Iraq. Which he was against when the Neo-cons first pushed for it the 1990's.
How did Bush "process" 9/11? He invaded Iraq. A country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
In February 2002 Bush moved several thousand US troops, all our predator drones, and three Special Forces groups (including the only group, 5th Special Forces, that spoke Pashtun) from Afghanistan and used them to invade Iraq in 2003. A war based on provable lies.
In case you forgot Bin Laden was not in Iraq.
I distinctly recall Republicans on the floor of the senate in 1998 chastising Clinton for, and I only somewhat paraphrase, lobbing "million dollar missiles at cave hermits."
The Republicans wanted a war with Iraq. They did not give a shit about terrorism. It's a simple fact.
The PNAC mission statement was basically a love letter to blowing up Baghdad, installing a puppet regime and thus theoretically preventing the erosion of the petrodollar. And getting lucrative defense contracts.
That's what guided the Neo-cons from day one.
43
@33 We're glad you finally realized that. Time to stop the charade.
Clinton/Gore's number one foreign policy priority leaving officewas stopping al-Qaeda. Bush/Cheney's number one foreign policy priority entering office was invading Iraq. Bush/Cheny's foreign policy led to the deaths of at least 11,000 Americans, between 9/11 and the two wars it allowed.
Clinton/Gore's number one foreign policy priority leaving officewas stopping al-Qaeda. Bush/Cheney's number one foreign policy priority entering office was invading Iraq. Bush/Cheny's foreign policy led to the deaths of at least 11,000 Americans, between 9/11 and the two wars it allowed.
44
@37/38 et al. I totally disagree that "their hate blinds them to what is really going on in the world" and that Gore would not have obsessed about Iraq. It comes down to the actual realpolitik reasons we were in Iraq in the first, second and third places, and what the US's geopolitical goals were/are. Of course, none of the reasons publicly given are true, so we have to figure it out from available evidence.
Similarly I would be willing to bet that "nuclear weapons" is hardly the only reason we're interested in Iran.
Similarly I would be willing to bet that "nuclear weapons" is hardly the only reason we're interested in Iran.
46
Meanwhile, Comrade Mitt completed his Black Flag operation in Cairo today, convincing the locals to replace US flags at our embassy there..
47
Among the threats discussed was the possibility of terrorists high-jacking planes and flying them into landmarks.
Don't forget, 9-11 could have been prevented completely if the planes had sturdier doors on the cockpits, and warnings to the pilots not to open them in such a situation.
Don't forget, 9-11 could have been prevented completely if the planes had sturdier doors on the cockpits, and warnings to the pilots not to open them in such a situation.
48
For the record, I thought we had basically known for years that the top levels of the Bush administration had ignored clear and urgent warnings. Like, I thought the 9/11 Commission's report said as much, if not in so many words. I had been assuming this was already known.
@47, 9/11 could also have been prevented if racist guards had kept the hijackers from boarding their flights in the first place, but that doesn't mean that would have been a good policy. There are an infinitude of small changes that could have prevented any event. The problem wasn't any particular small exploitable security hole; it was the culture of secrecy and face-saving operating in the US government. It's the same reason our responses to 9/11 over subsequent years have been loud, flashy, violent, and ineffective at achieving anything measurable.
@47, 9/11 could also have been prevented if racist guards had kept the hijackers from boarding their flights in the first place, but that doesn't mean that would have been a good policy. There are an infinitude of small changes that could have prevented any event. The problem wasn't any particular small exploitable security hole; it was the culture of secrecy and face-saving operating in the US government. It's the same reason our responses to 9/11 over subsequent years have been loud, flashy, violent, and ineffective at achieving anything measurable.
49
Why was this report printed in the opinion section of the NY Times rather than the news section?
Sam Seder has some thoughts on the subject (video via The Real News).
And Chris Hedges assesses the deterioration of civil liberties since 9/11: worse under Obama than Bush (video via Democracy Now!).
Sam Seder has some thoughts on the subject (video via The Real News).
And Chris Hedges assesses the deterioration of civil liberties since 9/11: worse under Obama than Bush (video via Democracy Now!).
50
Right, and the multiple war game exercises the Air Force was running on the morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States: Global Guardian, Vigilant Guardian, Tripod II, and at least one live-fly exercise under the name Vigilant Warrior, as well as simulations that placed "false blips" on FAA radar screens.......may have been a tell.
51
@48 The supposed revelations are that the memos were coming way before the August memo--Bush Jr. just wouldn't declassify anything but the August memo.
Some people talk as though Clinton wasn't aware of Al Qaeda as a threat. I have a friend who was working for a federal judge at the time who was designated by executive order as a replacement for the judge because Bin Laden had issued a threat to kill all judges. He said that for a few weeks, federal marshalls had to follow him around everywhere--to the bathroom, etc. Clinton basically had to setup a backup government in case the current one got decapitated. Not a big fan of Clinton, but he seemed to handle the terrorism thing more competently than subsequent administrations and with less opportunistic bragging/bluster. Also, as a criminal thing, not as a military thing.
Some people talk as though Clinton wasn't aware of Al Qaeda as a threat. I have a friend who was working for a federal judge at the time who was designated by executive order as a replacement for the judge because Bin Laden had issued a threat to kill all judges. He said that for a few weeks, federal marshalls had to follow him around everywhere--to the bathroom, etc. Clinton basically had to setup a backup government in case the current one got decapitated. Not a big fan of Clinton, but he seemed to handle the terrorism thing more competently than subsequent administrations and with less opportunistic bragging/bluster. Also, as a criminal thing, not as a military thing.
52
What has me the most horrified is that this information has not brought the American people into the streets. We get and got the government we deserve.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
-
Should I Buy One of These? by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (52) RSS