PDB: August 6, 2001,

Bin Laden determined to strike in US

http://www.agonist.org/annex/pdb.htm

-- Kitt

OK. What about it? As is documented here, it was but 1 of at least 36 warnings over several years.... and gave no actionable direction.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_081203A.shtml

-- shooter242

Shrugging it off, Shooter, and including that idiotic talking point about "no actionable direction" makes no sense at all, considering the content and context of what is in the link that you have posted.

From your link:

Maybe the Bush team dismissed warning signals as the discoveries of an overly hyped up Clinton team. But John Dean, a White House counsel under Nixon who has become a guide to deciphering reports on 9/11, says this is unlikely. Condi Rice, Bush�s national security adviser, "stated in a May 16, 2002, press briefing that, on August 6, 2001, the President Daily Brief (PDB) included information about Bin Laden's methods of operation from a historical perspective dating back to 1997."

Rice also said at this briefing that the PDB pointed out that Bin Laden might hijack an airline and take hostages to gain release of one of their operatives. She said the warning was "generalized"�no date, place, or method.

As Dean notes, how could Rice, having known all this, say that the administration had no idea "these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon"?

"In sum, the 9-11 Report of the Congressional Inquiry indicates that the intelligence community was very aware that Bin Laden might fly an airplane into an American skyscraper," says Dean. "Given the fact that there had already been an attempt to bring down the twin towers of the World Trade Center with a bomb, how could Rice say what she did?"

We don't know because Bush has invoked executive privilege to withhold from Congress this key briefing on August 6, 2001.

We do know that despite years of warnings from the intelligence community, the government apparently had taken no steps to protect the eastern seaboard or any other American border from attack. There were no fighter aircraft ready to respond immediately to a threat. The government undertook no measures to increase airport security.

This entire affair has been forced into a discussion of what the CIA knew or didn�t know, and what it told or didn't tell the White House. But the questioning needs to focus on what Bush knew or didn't know. And what he did or didn't do in response to what his intelligence advisers told him.

© Copyright 2003 by TruthOut.org

Bush did nothing in response to what the intelligence advisers told him. That is the crux of the problem. I wouldn't try shrugging that off if I were you, Shooter. 'That dog won't hunt'.

So I say again....what about it?

-- shooter242

I don't know how many times you used the word 'hindsight' in the post I am replying to, Shooter, but that is one poor-ass excuse or, as I said, canard that you (and your beloved Bush Administration) are pushing for as to why the 9/11 attack wasn't at least checked into pre-attack.

As I said earlier...Bush did nothing with the warnings and intelligence he had. When you do nothing with something, well, hindsight doesn't play into your fall back options because you had no sight at all.

I've noticed that Bush frequently uses the phrase, 'in other words...' in his press conferences. Probably because he thinks that if he says something stupid in more ways than one then maybe no one will notice that he has said something stupid, not once, but twice.

So, back to what I was saying: In other words, Bush and his administration's excuse of being pilloried by those who are using hindsight won't fly. He and his administration just simply fucked up by doing absolutely nothing at all.

LOL. I asked you specifically what it was you think Bush should have done and you STILL haven't answered. That puts you on par with a yapping dog chasing a car down the street... a lot of noise, with no clue what to do, should the car be caught.

Come back when you have something to contribute besides noise.

-- shooter242

actually, Shooter, you didn't ask me anything. This conversation started with you making some kind of challenge to, I think it was, Jonathan Hoag about compiling links about some thing or another. I don't recall the exact content of your challenge to Hoag, but I stepped in with the PDB link because it was in line with the subject of the challenge.

No matter what that was all about, it's a sure thing that this wasn't about you asking me to say what Bush should have done. You pulled that one out of your ass.

So far you have, pathetically, claimed that the warnings were only useful in hindsight - which is to say, not useful at all. I reminded you that the Bush administration had no sight whatsoever about the warnings. So I guess you're now making a feeble attempt to change what the subject was to begin with, and is now.