Bush wanted more specifics

Newsday ^ | April 12, 2004 | THOMAS FRANK

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush and Democrats clashed Sunday over whether a newly released intelligence memo from 2001 about terrorist threats in the United States should have triggered stronger pre-emptive efforts before Sept. 11, 2001.

Bush told reporters with him in Texas that the Aug. 6, 2001, memo about Osama bin Laden's desire to attack the United States "was no indication of a terrorist threat. There was not a time and place of an attack."

Democrats said that even without such detail, a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." should have prompted an exhaustive probe that might have pulled together other intelligence reports about possible terrorist activity in the country.

"I certainly think that the president could have done more," said Rand Beers, Bush's former counterterrorism adviser who now advises Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, on CNN's "Inside Politics Sunday."

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Text of memo to President Bush

From the end of the memo:

________________________________________________________________

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 xxxxxxxxxx service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-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 UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Further Story:

U.S. was warned
A declassified document written five weeks before 9/11 says al-Qaida members were planning major attacks, including hijackings

Excerpt of first part of document follows:

BY KEN FIREMAN
WASHINGTON BUREAU; Thomas Frank of the Washington Bureau contributed to this story.

April 11, 2004

WASHINGTON - Just five weeks before the 9/11 terror attacks, the CIA told President George W. Bush that a group of Osama bin Laden supporters was said to be in the United States planning assaults with explosives.

The plotters were among a number of al-Qaida members who have "resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years" and maintain a support structure "that could aid attacks," Bush was told in a briefing paper given to him on Aug. 6, 2001, at his ranch in Texas.

The paper also warned that the FBI had noted domestic activity "consistent with preparations" for airplane hijackings or other attacks - "including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

The document, known as the president's daily brief, was declassified and released by the White House yesterday after it became the focus of controversy during White House National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's testimony to the commission last week investigating the 9/11 attacks. The memo included redactions made to protect the names of foreign governments that provided information to the CIA.

As it released the document, the White House contended that it supported Rice's testimony that the briefing was primarily "historical" in nature and did not warn specifically of the 9/11 attacks.

But the newly released briefing is certain to provide fresh ammunition to administration critics who want to challenge the veracity of Rice's testimony and question whether Bush did everything possible to prevent the attacks.

They are likely to focus on the warning of planned domestic attacks by bin Laden supporters, which according to the Aug. 6 document was given to the U.S. Embassy in the United Arab Emirates in May 2001, just three months before the briefing was delivered to Bush.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

An Additional story:

_____________________________________________________________

Commission focusing on FBI communication

Excerpt :

________________________________________________________________

BY THOMAS FRANK
WASHINGTON BUREAU

April 12, 2004

WASHINGTON -- To bolster her case that the Bush administration focused on terrorism before Sept. 11, 2001, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice frequently cited in testimony on Thursday the close contact between top administration officials and CIA Director George Tenet.

President George W. Bush met with Tenet almost daily, Rice told the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. Tenet briefed Bush on al-Qaida 40 times between inauguration and Sept. 11. Rice spoke with Tenet almost daily at 7:15 a.m. and they regularly discussed terrorism.

But the CIA only works in international affairs.

And when commission members questioned Rice about contact with the FBI, which runs domestic counterterrorism, she had no information.

"I'm not certain," Rice said when asked whether Bush had met with Thomas Pickard, the acting FBI director, between Aug. 6 when he received the intelligence memo about al-Qaida wanting to attack the United States homeland and Sept. 11.

Those questions will be raised again tomorrow and Wednesday when the commission holds hearings on law enforcement, counterterrorism and intelligence. The hearings are expected to raise criticism of the FBI and heighten calls for reform.

Commission chairman Thomas Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton both have expressed interest in restructuring the nation's intelligence agencies, including the FBI.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who oversees the FBI on the Judiciary Committee, said the hearings make it increasingly apparent that "something has to be shaken up and shaken up seriously."

The FBI was criticized after Sept. 11 for failing to make terrorism a top priority and not acting aggressively on its own information about domestic terrorists. Criticism is now turning toward the FBI's distance from the White House.

Slade Gorton, a Republican on the commission, told "Fox News Sunday" yesterday he was surprised when former President Bill Clinton told the commission in a private session "how limited the White House is in dealing with the FBI."

"It seems to me the FBI has more questions to answer than . . . anyone we've had testify before us," Gorton said.

If the FBI wanted to communicate with the White House, it had to go through the attorney general or the CIA, said FBI spokesman Ed Coggswell.

[endthematrix]

What is your comments on all this? Do you feel anyone in the current administration should be accountable? Or should we look forward? Just curious.

[MCFujiTanker]

I read Intel reports everyday. Everyday there are call ins. You check them the best you can. Call ins are the most unreliable intel you can get and plenty is "planted" for that purpose. There is so much crap out there, the analysts have a daunting task. The same "know it alls" said we should have figured out the '83 Bierut bombing too. It's hard to pick things out day to day...but it's really easy to put a puzzle together after the fact when you now have ALL of the pieces. My 71 year old Mom is like Napoleon's Corporal. She saw through all of the bologna that "Benny VINESTE" has been spouting this past week. If you read "At Dawn We Slept", a great book, you can see why it's so easy to "Quarterback On Monday Mornings". It's hard to break "real secrets". There is so much phoney hand wringing going on from the rats, Jergens Lotion must be making a fortune. Semper Fidelis.

[cartoonistx]

The Islamists are to be held accountable....and they are! To "blame" any president, even Bill Clinton, for their dispicable acts is self-destructive at best.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I think the Media and the Demonic Rats are working extremely hard to find the right headline and make a story out of all of this. Look how many different times AP was shipping out an update....

And I am still trying to figure out what the heck the Las Vegas did with the story that is on the Front Page Saturday with the headline:
9-11 plot not in Bush briefing, an AP article by John Solomon... the search for that specific article turn up all of those entries (23 I think .. that I posted )

Subheadline is "August 2001 document included 3-month-old information on al-Qaida". It is a good article and seems counter to the other articles that turned up in the search.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who oversees the FBI on the Judiciary Committee, said the hearings make it increasingly apparent that "something has to be shaken up and shaken up seriously."

Is Schumer talking about specific individuals, or is he talking about structure?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Being self destructive doesn't seem to concern the DemonicRats "We Hate Bush " campaign!

[endthematrix]

Great points. Hindsight is 20/20 but I'm outraged that thousands need to die before reaction to threats. I was truly hoping that the 9/11 hearings would be bipartisan. Actually I only ask they be truthful and let the chips fall wherever. To me the focus is who dropped the ball and what can we do to repair the problem that led us here. The cover of ones behind will become evident and that is why I support the hearing for FULL DISCLOSURE of ALL information.

As for bipartisanship, I even supported Sen. Durbin (guy makes me sick) in his fight against a slow FBI inquiry. The FBI and senoir intel has become very sloppy. You having a background now when info either doesn't go to the top out of fear or info is doctored to make nice with the CO.

[MCFujiTanker]

I'm in the front lines of security, just for one base. I was in Atsugi, JA, right before 9-11. We had our security ratcheted up, but there were never no specifics. Even the Stars and Stripes reported our threat level increase. After 9-11 a week later we were inundated with "Elvis Sightings", but we had to check them all out. After a year they were down to a trickle. I have to depend on the "big guys" to push intel down to us. We push plenty up and never ever hear what happened to the intel we reported. When I worked on a staff (FMFLANTHQ), you could drown yoursellf in data. Now everyone over reports....thay don't want to be the one who "misses" something. Since 9-11 this shotgun approach has probably stopped a few attacks...we just don't know where. We'll have to catch one first. Semper Fidelis.

[endthematrix]

Lately this PC headline changing is getting worrisome. The wire service were once respected as a clean source. It has been downhill slam-fest of spin and propaganda. Free press my A$$! Great work! Washington Post just switched a story just switched a story.None dare say SUCICIDE!

[CatoRenasci]

The other KEY</> thing I take from this Memo's comment that the FBI has 70 some investigations going is that Bush was being told that the intelligence/law enforcement agencies were on the job and had things under control. Before seeing their abject failure on 9/11, why would he have any reason to question that?

[badmrbunny]

I think all this second guessing is an exercise in futility.It served it's purpose- it has everyone questioning the president,doesn't it? The dems don't give a rat's ass about anything other than trying to neutralize Bush's record on defense. And that's what this is all about.

[EQAndyBuzz]

The commissions job is to ascertain what happened and to present findings as to how this can be made not to happen again.

The blame game never entered into the equation until the RATS chose to by bringing in the 9/11 families.

The problem was obvious. The FBI and CIA don't share information. This has been going on since the 60's. The Patriot Act changed that. Now the agencies need to work more closely together to desseminate the information in a timely manner.

Our intelligence services are among the best in the world, as is our technology. It is time to put it all into a neat little package and interface it.

[fishtank]

Pre-emption BEFORE an attack
by a Republican
is always evidence
of racial profiling.

</sarcasm>

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The dems don't give a rat's ass about anything other than trying to neutralize Bush's record on defense. And that's what this is all about.

That is the way I see it too!

Venasty was so damn obvious!
And Kerry also.

[MCFujiTanker]

Most of the problems in Intel that existed before 9-11 concerning "stovepiping" are pretty much gone. There are JTTF's everywhere now. Sure, there are still FBI Agents that don't want to give up Bank Robbery investigations. Eventually they will break the code. One thing that hasn't been solved is the mountain of intel that has to be sifted through. We are on the right track now..."preemption" is the key. I'd rather spend millions on Seals, Rangers and Green Berets in the mideast hunting these bastards down, than to waste that same money nationwide on this "first responder" stuff. It sounds good, but with limited dollars lets keep them off shore and don't let them get here in the first place. We can not possibly cover every possibility here at home. That's why we have to constantly disrupt what they are doing overseas. AQ was able to train thousands of operatives for years unmolested during the 90's. Over the past couple of years there hasn't been many "matriculation" exercises for AQ. Semper Fidelis.