Hot News Flash

All that declassification song-and-dance for this:

The following is a redacted text of the presidential daily briefing from August 6, 2001:

Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.

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 of World 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 [deleted text] service. An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [deleted text] 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-Qa'ida 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 New York 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 [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar' Abd aI-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 New York.

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.

Sheesh! Ya think?

And I suppose that the US was supposed to make a preemptive strike based on the above information.

So I guess the Bush Administration will get whacked for not making a preemptive strike (Afghanistan) while he's getting whacked for making one (Iraq). Except the latter really isn't a preemptive strike since the president said that the "threat was imminent." Except for the fact that the president actually said that "we cannot wait until the threat is imminent." Except for ....(keep peeling that onion).

Am I hammering my point home too hard?

(Thanks to California Yankee)

Comments

[walter]

"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 New York."

That seems pretty serious to me. Seems like a National Security Advisor would have wanted to do more than wait for someone to ask them to do something. Seems like an engaged President would want to be on their ass about doing something. Right?

By the way, becuase one in against a preemptive attack in one case does not mean that person is always against a preemptive attack. I would love to have seem Bush go after OBL and his cells here that summer. Thousands might still be alive. I would have been in favor of going after Saddma but this administration never made the case for war in my mind. Their case was weak and Sec. Powells UN speech and the stupid claims coming from Rumsfeld informed me that this administration had no real basis for war in Iraq. The evidence, or lack thereof, has proven that point and so has the past two weeks. They are utterly and completely incompetent.

But you go ahead and keep hammering your point, not sure exactly what your point is, but keep hammering.

[section9]

Sorry, Walter, go spread the happy horseshit to people who are gullible enough to buy into it.

If you don't have time, place, and means of attack in your bailiwick, in addition to someone on the inside feeding you information, you're wasting your time. We didn't. The jihadi had the element of strategic surprise. Even in your "money" quote, the memo indicates what might happen based on surveillance, not what would happen.

The libs have been screaming that "Bush knew!" He didn't know. None of us did. This memo doesn't begin to add to any actionable intelligence. A thousand liberals screaming that it did will not make it so.

As to Iraq? Well, friend, if you had gotten your way, Saddam would still be in power and still adding to that Iraqi body count.

Not that you give a rat's ass about thousands of dead Iraqis, eh?

[Calliope]

The memo has to be understood in the context of the times - and the context of all the other similar memos that were no doubt landing in people's inboxes and no doubt are still doing so.

I have little doubt but that the PDB's said similar things for years prior, and are saying similar things today.

'Intercepted communications indicate soandso group may be planning blah blah blah.'

'Wow let's bomb away then. I support preemption in this case!'

What a load of revisionist drivel. Nobody would have supported unilateral action against any country prior to 9/11. Even -I- wouldn't have. There was no compelling reason for us to go around rounding people up and blowing up huts prior to 9/11.

People saying they would have supported unilateral action by Bush prior to 9/11 - rounding up immigrant suspects in the US - action against the Taliban - reorganizing the Government - a war footing - etc etc, are lying. And when Dems and lefties say such a thing its absolutely comical.

I won't even give that post a 'nice try'. Its eye rolling material.

[og]

Walter, let me clarify: The point is, if you don't get it, you probably never will. Go drink the Kool-Ade.

[walter]

Excuses, exscuses. That's all I hear from Bush apologists. If that's what you are happy getting from this administration, go right ahead and keep getting screwed.

OG, What a brilliant statement. You must be some sort of genius with that one my friend. Although, it worries me that your genius didn't help you correctly spell KOOL-AID.

[P6]

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vppin093747412apr09,0,1427025,print.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

If you knew that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had received a memo a month before Pearl Harbor entitled, "Japanese Determined to Attack the United States in the Pacific," and that he had done nothing about that information, would that knowledge change your perception of FDR as a wise war leader?

Roosevelt received no such memo, of course, but President George W. Bush got a blunt warning five weeks before 9/11 and he did little or nothing. He even presided over a stand- down in preparations, concentrating on other concerns.

[Calliope]

You and that Newsday writer should read Day of deceit : the truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett, published in 2000.

The book is based on previously classified documents released under the author's freedom of information act requests. It contains actual copies of previously unknown classified documents, military intercepts, internal White House minutes etc that make a pretty compelling case that FDR indeed DID have such information. Its also a pretty good book if you are a history buff, I read it a couple years ago.

Here's a few sentences from the forward:

"Previous accounts have claimed that the United States had not cracked Japanese military codes prior to the attack. We now know this is wrong. Previous accounts have insisted that the Japanese fleet maintained radio silence. This, too, is wrong. The truth is clear: FDR knew."

In answer to the 'what if we knew' question, as you can see we DO know. So what does it change? Nothing really, at least IMO. 20/20 hindsight is cheap. As this author demonstrates there were lots of intercepts, documents, meeting minutes etc that indicate someone can, with the benefit of hindsight, make the case FDR at least should have known. Of course, FDR didn't have the benefit of hindsight anymore than Bush did - and that's where I part company with the author of that book as well as people like you.

This sort of smug mental masturbation is just as intellectually dishonest when applied to Bush as it is when applied to FDR. These people aren't God. They're just people doing the best job they can do.

Armchair quarterbacks are everywhere. Thoughtful, fair, reflection is what is rare.

[Fausta]

What the democrats are doing is trying to beat down the opposition since the dems are low on substance and issues. But most importantly,
The greatest flaw in the commission's mandate, regrettably, mirrors one of the greatest flaws in modern society: it does not understand risk. The focus of the investigation should not be on how to avoid any specific black swan, for we don't know where the next one is coming from. The focus should be on what general lessons can be learned from them.

[Noble Eagle]

Even if Bush had NUKED Afghanistan, and every other Muslim country for that matter, 9/11 would probably still have happened. Five weeks notice is not much when the threat is so non-specific. Atta and company were probably far from Afghanistan when that memo was produced.

The Roosevelt analogy doesn't wash either. The Japanese attacked a MILITARY target using a large naval armada. There weren't that many worthwhile U.S. military targets within striking distance of the Japanese fleet. Preparing the Pacific fleet for an attack would be much easier than hardening every potential terrorist target in the country.

[P6]

Calliope:

You assume I haven't read it.

And you didn't answer the question. This is an entirely different issue than FDR and Pearl Harbor because we can only speculate on what FDR might have known and how he might have reacted.

About Bush and Bin Ladin, we KNOW what he was told. And we KNOW how he reacted.

If you knew for a FACT that FDR received a warning on the level of the PDB and did little or nothing about it, would that affect your opinionb of FDR?

I'd ask your opinion of "people like [me]" but I'm not the ad hominem type, particularly when I'm the likely recipient of the invective.

[baldilocks]

Not usually.

[Calliope]

I'm not sure why you are saying I didn't answer your question. Maybe you didn't read my post. As I said, we DO know. If you have read the book then you know that. And as I also said, in my opinion it doesn't matter. IE, it doesn't change my view of either man.

Vague warnings, staffers theorizing, message fragments etc don't impress me. Anyone can interpret them as they wish.

The author of that book does the same thing you are doing. Thus my "the author of that book and people like you" comment. It wasn't an ad hominem attack, it was a statement of fact. He takes a look at documents available at the time and concludes that FDR didn't act correctly. You look at a PBR and conclude that Bush didn't act correctly. Neither you nor the author of that book (well, to a lesser extent in his case) consider the context of the times or the history of the issues.

We, of course, have hindsight on both situations. We KNOW now that an attack was coming on 9/11/01 as well as 12/7/41. All of which makes it easy to sift through the thousands of documents from the time and say AHA they should have known! Its too easy by half and I'm not buying it in either case.

I don't buy it for FDR and I don't buy it for Bush either. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

[Furious Ming]

9/11 was not so much an intelligence failure as a failure of the imagination. For all the talk of agency friction and lack of humint, 9/11 wouldn't have happened if someone in airline security had thought to lock the cockpits. Similarly, you had only to read a newspaper in 1941 to know Japan might attack without warning. It was the American cultural prejudice against "dastardly sneak attacks" that precluded preparedness.

[P6]

I'm not sure why you are saying I didn't answer your question. Maybe you didn't read my post. As I said, we DO know.

You know for a fact that FDR did not receive a warning one month before Pearl Harbor.

Fine.

And if he DID receive a warning that said the Japanese were planning an attack on American soil and did nothing, that wouldn't bother you.

Fine.

You see, I was asking you to speculate. I wasn't asking if FDR SHOULD have known (which is the question you answered), nor suggesting that he did. I asked IF you knew for a fact he was warned and took no action, would it bother you.

And I acknowledge (and appreciate) your lack of intent to get all personal. I believe in thoughtful consideration myself.

And Furious Ming, if Bush and crew had said what you just wrote there wouldn't be very many complaints (about that response...no way I deny I have many many more issues to complain about).

[Calliope]

P6-

This is why I said you should read the book in the original post.

I won't reiterate what we now know. Just go check the book out at the library (or even just spend a half hour in a carrel there) and review the documents copied therein. You don't even have to read it. They're photo-copied in the middle of the book and they're way more damning than that PDB. There's more of them. They're more current. They're more specific.

In any case, and on a more fundamental level, what I am saying is I don't think someone serving as President can reasonably be expected to have some sort of fortune telling ability. The documents are too vague.

Look closely at that PDB in Baldi's original blog and check out all the dates in it. There's not an iota of current data in the entire brief.

Do I think its reasonable to hold the position that Bush should have been rounding people up in this country in August 2001 based on that report? A report that's a summary of AQ activity over a period of years with absolutely no specific threat information? Please.

Of course now we KNOW he should have. That's the beneift of hindsight.

Clearly they didn't have enough information to take any action prior to the attack. The only fair argument centers on what he's done since the attack. On that there's a fair basis for debate.

[P6]

BUt if you knew for certain that FDFR...never mind. You obviously will not answer 6the question I asked.

[Calliope]

"I asked IF you knew for a fact he was warned and took no action, would it bother you."

I'll break it down:

"I asked IF you knew for a fact he was warned"

I know this. Its in the book. He was warned.

"and took no action,

A threat warning was given to the Pacific command 27 Novemebr 1941. No specific alerts or action were ordered by FDR. In other words, about the same as what the Bush team did by notifying the FBI.

"would it bother you."

That's not what you asked. You asked "would that affect your opinionb of FDR". The answer is no. Does it BOTHER me though? Its troubling in a way I suppose.

This is the last time I'm going to answer it. Its the same answer I have given THREE times now.

Here I'll re-post the first 2:

1) "So what does it change? Nothing really, at least IMO."

2) "And as I also said, in my opinion it doesn't matter. IE, it doesn't change my view of either man."

[DrSteve]

Just a reminder: Presidential Daily Briefing. As in "Bush got close to 200 of them between Inauguration and 6 August," and "Bush got another 30 or so between 6 August and 11 September."

Clever of the Democrats to cherry-pick the one daily memo that might indicate something requiring attention, but it's shorn of the context -- a continuous flow of unrelated threat reporting, with virtually all of the threats failing to pan out. Plus, it seems, Bush had to ask for a PDB on this subject to be prepared.

Typically dishonest behavior from the anything-to-beat-Bush crowd.

[Tongue Boy]

Re: P6's quote from Newday:

I think Bastardsword summed it up nicely:

We've all read the memo now, and I wouldn't exactly call it "blunt". I might call it "dull", "vague", "outdated", or "useless", but I certainly wouldn't call it "blunt". Heck, Bush could've got an even blunter warning just by watching an old CBS interview with Bin Laden, where Bin Laden says "We will strike Americans everywhere!"

Quit digging, P6.

[Arnold]

P6, Walter:

Bush took a lot of shit for attacking Afghanistan after 9/11. Almost as much shit as he's taken for Iraq. Do you really, honestly, truly think it was politically possible to do such a thing before 9/11?

No cooperation from Pakistan (in fact, they were allies of the Taliban). No cooperation from any of the other -stans in the neighborhood. Limited cooperation for the Northern Alliance, and no cooperation from the southern warlords, the UN, our NATO allies, etc., etc.

As much respect as I have for the 82nd and 101st Airborne (and that's about the extent of ground troops we'd get in there) I'm not sure they'd've been up to the task of taking down the whole country by themselves.

Even after 9/11 it was like pulling teeth to get what little cooperation we got. But on the basis of a memo that says "bin Laden wants to attack us" we could get in all done no problem.

Hey, ya know who else wanted to attack us?
Saddam.

[walter]

Arnold,

Except for a few fringe groups on fringe sides of the political spectrum, Bush didn't "get shit" for going into Afghanistan. Where did you hear or read this? There was overwhelming support for taking out bin Laden and the Taliban both domestically and internationally. Remember NATO invoked Article 6 (may be wrong on the number) of its charter about aiding a member that had been attacked? First time that had happened in its history. So I'm not sure where you got the idea that it was sooooo difficult for Bush to retaliate for our 3000 dead.

Besides, I thought the reason that Bush lovers loved him so was his resoluteness. They claim he doesn't make decisions or policy based on polls (which is complete BS by the way) but what he thinks is right, correct? So how is it that he would never have been able to get support for taken out our enemies before 9/11 an excuse for his inaction ?

Now,as for your claim that we would not have gotten the support we needed before we were attacked, you are more than likely correct. But when there are different circumstances, you choose different tactics. Who said we had to invade Afghanistan before 9/11? In fact, since we had not yet been attacked, it would not have made sense to invade Afghanistan, but there are a whole lot of options that lay somewhere between missle strikes and full scale invasion.

Not sure where you get your statement that Saddam wanted to attack us. There is no proof that he wanted to attack us. Now if you by "want" you mean "would like to", well, that's a slight difference in semantics but a huge differnce in meaning. I would like to buy a house in Hancock Park (one of the fancier LA neighborhoods), but on my current income, I know I can't. Now if I wanted to buy a house there maybe I would be looking at getting pre-qualified for a loan, or going to a realty office, or looking out for "For Sale" signs. There is no proof that Saddam was doing any of the things that pointed to him wanting to attack the US. None. Zip. Zero.

[Arnold]

Ah, the old win-the-argument-by-changing-the-definitions-of-words trick! That's the third time I've fallen for that this week!

there are a whole lot of options that lay somewhere between missle strikes and full scale invasion.

True. And maybe Tom Daschle had the right plan all along.

[walter]

What? Arnold, what the hell are you talking about? I am attempting to figure out what you meant? Do you not get this? If you have some evidence that Saddam wanted to attack us, maybe you should share it with the government or White House.

[Arnold]

Walter:

"took a lot of shit for" NOT_EQUAL_TO "is sooo hard to do"

Since you like examples from domestic life: It would not be sooooo hard for me to stop by a strip bar after work and spend my entire paycheck. I would, however, "get shit" from my wife for doing so.

Article 5 (you only missed it by one) was invoked on Sept. 12, 2001. Before we had a target. Conditional to us finding a sovereign state responsible for the attacks. After Afghanistan was targetted, several of our NATO allies were a lot less enthusiastic. There were even some who said Article 5 only meant defending us against future attacks, not retaliating against an attack that had already happened. Primary contribution: Flying NATO AWACS in the US to free up US AWACS for Afghanistan, and "allowing" us to move troops and equipment form our European bases.

The war had popular support in the US (just like the Iraq war), it had the support of some of our NATO allies (just like Iraq), it did not have the popular support of European countries (just like Iraq), and we did not have a UN resolution (but we did for Iraq... in fact quite a few of them).

We began bombing on October 7. By early November the following words were already creeping into most of the articles and op-eds about the war: "humanitarian crisis", "lack of UN mandate", "quagmire", "Vietnam". Sound familiar? The same complaints that we hear about Iraq. The one new complaint that we hear about Iraq is that it diverted attention away from Afghanistan (and paradoxically, this argument is often used by people who opposed the Afghanistan invasion). Then again, I'm willing to conceed that CNN, LA Times, and NY Times are "fringe groups on the fringe sides of the political spectrum."

Hence my statement that Bush got almost as much shit for Afghanistan as he is getting for Iraq.

"wanted to" APPROX_EQUAL_TO "would like to"
"wanted to" NOT_APPROX_EQUAL_TO "planned to"

By redefining what the phrase "wanted to" means, you simultaneously inflate the importance of the PDB and deflate my statement that Saddam also "wanted to" attack the US. Bravo.

The only coherent argument you made was
there are a whole lot of options that lay somewhere between missle strikes and full scale invasion. Which is true. But instead of enlightening us about what some of those options might have been, you chose to play word games.