Weird
"The President's Daily Brief, prepared six days a week by the C.I.A., is one of the most highly classified documents produced by the government, and was likened by Vice President Dick Cheney in May 2002 to the "family jewels."
If this doc was no big deal why the strong objection to releasing it until pressed hard to do so?
Now the WH is holding out not o release 57 docs of B. Clinton re: Al Q.
I don't understand the strong reluctance of the WH in releasing docs or having Ms Rice testify or Pres. & VP testifying seperately in public under oath.
Most likely to avoid setting a precedent of revealing those memo's. Should it be required that all of the briefings be available, then they will have to worry about editing it ahead of time and that can hurt the flow of information that is necessary for government to work properly. There are just some documents that are not meant to be seen.
It was no secret to anybody that Bin Laden and al Qaida wanted to hurt us. We have known that for more than a decade. It was no secret to anybody that al Qaida wanted to destroy us. They've been threatening the USA with annihilation for more than a decade. When dozens, sometime hundreds of emails, cell phone intercepts, etc. etc. etc. are picked up every day by security operatives, should they follow up on every one? How much are you willing to invest of your fortune to have enough man power to follow every lead, follow up on every threat? And even if we did that, how is it determined which are the most credible and how do we know when and where a strike will come?
Due to the Patriot Act and other initiatives taken by the current administration, the law enforcement arms of the national government are now talking to each other for the first time in a long, long time and we have had no significant terrorist strikes within our borders since 9/11.
Even so, the 'anybody but Bush' crowd is hollering that the Patriot Act is infringing on the civil liberties of Americans. Can you just imagine the hue and cry if the Patriot Act had been enacted BEFORE 9/11? Can you imagine the scorn and ridicule if we had sent the National Guard into airports as guards and/or grounded all airplaines so that credentials of airport personnel could be checked BEFORE 9/11?
What don't the 'anybody but Bush' people just admit it: they can't stand him and they will believe any half cocked rumor or accusation about him and will not accept that he has done anything right.
Like, just for instance; a field agent notices an unusually high percentage of citizens of a particular nationality doing something unusual. Should he worry about "bigot" accusations... or deliver the instinctual finding that it could mean trouble, without fear of being judged for it's politically incorrect foundation? McG's right: Some things unknown are best left alone.
I'd like to know what Bush was doing at the Crawford pig farm on August 6th, 2001?
Was he riding around in his pickum up truck? Chopping cedar? Laying on the couch drinking beer? Or otherwise just hangin' out?
Whatever he was doing, it was obviously far more important than raising the threat levels of the American intelligence communities and alerting our former allies than an attack on US soil was imminent.
Sure enough he's laying off pretzels -- he has enough to choke on as it is.
I wouldn't want to call Dr. Rice a liar, but reliable sources report that, as she left the 9-11 Commission hearing, it was clear to observers that her PANTS WERE ON FIRE!
McGentrix
McGentrix wrote: "It never ceases to amaze me that you can't talk about a topic without insulting someone at one time or another. Can't you ever grow up?"
McGentrix, give me a break! Shame on your constant whining! I get annoyed with some poster's constant insulting of others from the left as well as the right.
You rarely miss an opportunity to deride someone as a LIBERAL or a DEMOCRAT when they express an opinion with which you disagree. Its always LIBERAL this or DEMOCRAT that as your method of insulting other posters. Don't you realize that this is an insult to people of that political persuasion?
Growing up means that YOU learn not to use insult as a weapon. A review of your A2K posts will confirm that you are still an infant in that regard.
BBB
If someone has insulted you, McGentrix, there's a report button to let one of the moderators referee. That's what they are here for (and they are a mix of liberal/conservative so you'll get a fair shake). The political threads are more heavily audited but bear in mind that an attack on what someone writes which is not an attack on the person's character (most often by specific name-calling) is not considered against the TOS.
We all know the "documents that aren't meant to be seen" gambit. It's the cornerstone of poltical cabals.
BBB
You shouldn't spank the child.
au1929
au1929, oops.
Is it OK if I send McGentrix to his room?
BBB :wink:
BBB
Before you do remove all sharp objects.
You are all talking of Bin Laden.
Actually, the paper says: "Bin Ladin [sic!] determined to strike in US".
I'm not sure, if someone posted the scanned papers already. So
HERE they are (
pdf-file!).
And After Bush Saw The Memo?
The release of the classified Aug. 6, 2001, presidential briefing on terrorism was an unusual, but necessary step. Given the spike in terrorist "chatter" that summer, and the scale of attack that followed, the public has a right to know what was being communicated to its commander in chief.
But in judging George Bush's handling of terrorism, the public needs to know how he responded to the memo, known as the presidential daily briefing. By pointedly refusing to tell reporters this half of the story, the White House does the nation a disservice.
The memo is short, a mere page and a half. Its information buttresses both critics and defenders of the Bush team, and is unlikely to advance the ball much further in determining the appropriateness of the administration's antiterrorism actions.
As National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice testified last week, the memo contained no specifics as to the terrorists' timing or place of attack or method. And the citation of 70 ongoing FBI antiterrorism investigations probably reassured Mr. Bush.
But was there something different about this memo that should have prompted presidential follow-up? Previous briefings probably focused mainly on terrorists in other countries. This one seemed aimed to shift attention to a threat in the US.
Its title, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US," should have prompted further questions from the president. So should have this bit: Al Qaeda members "have resided in or traveled to the US for years," and "the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks."
When a new president takes office, he is naturally focused on his agenda. To his credit, Bush was curious enough about terrorism to ask the questions that prompted this very memo. But what did he ask once he saw it? Let's hope the 9/11 Commission will probe this when they interview the president and vice president.
Read the memo myself, but still think MSNBC did a better one-paragraph summary than I could make:
Quote:According to the memo, Bush was told more than a month before the Sept. 11 attacks that al-Qaida had reached America's shores, had a support system in place for its operatives and that the FBI had detected suspicious activity that might involve a hijacking plot.
OK, two paragraphs:
Quote:Bush said if there had been any specific intelligence pointing to threats of attacks on New York and Washington, "I would have moved mountains" to prevent it.
We had al Qaida 'cells' operating in the United States long before Bush took office. They blew up the World Trade Center twice actually, once during the Clinton administration and the second devastating attack of 9/11. We knew about them being here or they wouldn't have been in the memos in the first place. The FBI, CIA, etc. were working on it.
Again, what did you expect Bush to do about it other than what was already being done? Even now, he is criticized if there is any kind of racial profiling toward "Middle East' looking guys. Without specific information on who they were, what they intended, when they intended to do it, and where they intended to do it, just what was he supposed to do other than what was being done?
And again, the Clinton administration by their own admission had this same information. They had eight years. Bush had eight months--one month actually from the time of the memo in question--a mere blink of time inside the huge bureaucracy that is our government.
I don't ask anybody to love GWB. But it seems to me intelligent people could at least be fair here.
Has anyone seen "The Seige"? (I think that was the movie...) It was about terror activity in NYC and some of the things that we could have done...
