Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNew NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims (Bush ignored detailed warnings)
Darrell Issa prepares to lower the boom on Eric Holder because of right wing bullshit, and we get to enjoy a flood of posters spewing that bullshit here at DU in anticipation.
So I thought this new evidence about how Bush and his administration ignored many detailed warning about impending attacks by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda might give us all a little perspective. This is how you miss something and thereby screw the pooch, Mr. Issa.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/new_nsa_docs_reveal_911_truths/singleton/
Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.
The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaidas relationship with Americas ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 but didnt get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. I dont think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didnt get the institutional support they needed, says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.
...Many of the documents publicize for the first time what was first made clear in the 9/11 Commission: The White House received a truly remarkable amount of warnings that al-Qaida was trying to attack the United States. From June to September 2001, a full seven CIA Senior Intelligence Briefs detailed that attacks were imminent, an incredible amount of information from one intelligence agency. One from June called "Bin-Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats writes that [redacted] expects Usama Bin Laden to launch multiple attacks over the coming days. The famous August brief called Bin Ladin Determined to Strike the US is included. Al-Qaida members, including some US citizens, have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure here, it says. During the entire month of August, President Bush was on vacation at his ranch in Texas which tied with one of Richard Nixons as the longest vacation ever taken by a president. CIA Director George Tenet has said he didnt speak to Bush once that month, describing the president as being on leave. Bush did not hold a Principals meeting on terrorism until September 4, 2001, having downgraded the meetings to a deputies meeting, which then-counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has repeatedly said slowed down anti-Bin Laden efforts enormously, by months.
The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaidas relationship with Americas ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 but didnt get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. I dont think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didnt get the institutional support they needed, says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.
...Many of the documents publicize for the first time what was first made clear in the 9/11 Commission: The White House received a truly remarkable amount of warnings that al-Qaida was trying to attack the United States. From June to September 2001, a full seven CIA Senior Intelligence Briefs detailed that attacks were imminent, an incredible amount of information from one intelligence agency. One from June called "Bin-Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats writes that [redacted] expects Usama Bin Laden to launch multiple attacks over the coming days. The famous August brief called Bin Ladin Determined to Strike the US is included. Al-Qaida members, including some US citizens, have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure here, it says. During the entire month of August, President Bush was on vacation at his ranch in Texas which tied with one of Richard Nixons as the longest vacation ever taken by a president. CIA Director George Tenet has said he didnt speak to Bush once that month, describing the president as being on leave. Bush did not hold a Principals meeting on terrorism until September 4, 2001, having downgraded the meetings to a deputies meeting, which then-counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has repeatedly said slowed down anti-Bin Laden efforts enormously, by months.
But as Issa is making clear today, IOKIYAR.
(via)
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1214 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims (Bush ignored detailed warnings) (Original Post)
Bolo Boffin
Jun 2012
OP
They were being told to devote more resources and times to a growing thread and did nothing.
Bolo Boffin
Jun 2012
#3
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)1. A duplicate thread!
RC
(25,592 posts)2. Lends credence to the "They knew and did nothing".
And even to the MIHOP/LIHOP theories.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)3. They were being told to devote more resources and times to a growing thread and did nothing.
That much is clear.
Most MIHOP/LIHOP theories can't be salvaged on credibility terms, though. And those I'll be happy to discuss with you in CS.