Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The August Memo
Washington Post ^ | 4-13-04

Posted on 04/12/2004 9:40:50 PM PDT by Indy Pendance

THE RELEASE THIS weekend of the much-discussed Aug. 6, 2001, President's Daily Brief on al Qaeda was both welcome and anticlimactic. Both the title and the contents of the 17-sentence memorandum were essentially known even before national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's testimony last week. The congressional inquiry into the events of Sept. 11, 2001, for example, reported that "a closely held intelligence report" included references to "FBI judgments about patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks," as well as a warning in May 2001 that a group of Osama bin Laden supporters "was planning attacks in the United States with explosives" -- the guts of the three sentences that detail an ongoing threat from al Qaeda. Nonetheless, given the document's focus on the prospect of a domestic attack and the attention it received, the administration made the right decision in moving to declassify the PDB and give the public a chance to judge for itself.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911memo; bushknew

1 posted on 04/12/2004 9:40:51 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance
Wow.

An amazingly fair editioral from the Washington Post
2 posted on 04/12/2004 9:45:17 PM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
Maybe they are realizing they can't be liberal all the time (I can wish)
3 posted on 04/12/2004 10:02:02 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
Brit said they lied about an attack on a manhatten building being in the memo.
I don't know if that was in this one or not.
4 posted on 04/12/2004 10:02:02 PM PDT by Brimack34
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brimack34
Brit said they lied about an attack on a manhatten building being in the memo. I don't know if that was in this one or not.

I thought Brit was talking about the NY Times

5 posted on 04/12/2004 10:04:46 PM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
You only think it's fair, because you only read the posted excerpt. You would not think so, if you read the rest of the article.
6 posted on 04/12/2004 10:08:13 PM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
You only think it's fair, because you only read the posted excerpt. You would not think so, if you read the rest of the article.

"Reading the memo in its entirety, it's hard to see it, as some of President Bush's opponents contend, as a smoking gun that proves the administration was asleep at the switch before Sept. 11. To suggest that Mr. Bush, having received the memo, should have rushed back to the White House from Crawford, Tex., is unfair and unrealistic. Only with the benefit of hindsight does the document acquire that level of foreboding and urgency -- and in any event the plans were so far underway at that stage that even a presidential red alert might have made no difference"

In other words, this memo is a tempest in a teapot.

7 posted on 04/12/2004 10:54:41 PM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson