Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Administration Ignored Bin Laden Intel 800

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the warm-and-fuzzy dept.
gettin-bored noted a nice article running in very high priority on the Washington Post, right up there on page 17 of the print edition, where it's revealed that the CIA Director warned Rice about Bin Laden two months before 9/11. And strangely, the meeting was never mentioned during all the 9/11 commission reports making you really question what exactly they were actually hearing that was more important than the CIA director telling the National Security Advisor that Bin Laden was going to attack Americans.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Administration Ignored Bin Laden Intel

Comments Filter:
  • by BWJones (18351) * on Sunday October 01, 2006 @11:22AM (#16265717) Homepage Journal
    The fundamental problem is that the current White house administration is not remotely curious or interested in looking beyond their narrowly defined agendas. So, any deviation from what they expect is by definition, unexpected or inconvenient. This is a recurring theme again and again with hurricane Katrina, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bin Laden, the economy, energy prices, the whole torture thing and recently with senator Foley, where higher ups *knew* what was going on but they either failed to act or simply did not care as long as they can maintain power. Power for powers sake seems to be the theme here as this administration is always behind the ball. They are constantly reacting to events rather than through analysis and action being proactive and it is costing the country financially and in lives lost as well as our international reputation.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Condi Rice is both black and female. The Republican party wanted to ensure that she succeeds in order to increase the black vote. So, when she screwed up so badly that 3000 Americans died, the Republicans said nothing.

      If she were a male American of Japanese ancestry, she would have been fired on the spot.

      Look carefully at the background of Rice. She is smart and has earned a Ph.D. in international relations, but she has no experience. How many people become the national security advisor without expe

      • by Black Parrot (19622) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @11:54AM (#16266041)
        > Does anyone feel as though your life is being controlled by government officials who do not give a damn about you?

        Don't worry; you'll matter when you become a billionaire.
      • by icepick72 (834363) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @12:02PM (#16266125)
        If she were a male American of Japanese ancestry, she would have been fired on the spot.

        That would make her a transvestite. I'm sure they want to secure the transvestite vote too.
      • On Thursday (September 28), Charlie Rose interiewed seven people: Chris Wallace (Fox News), Richard Clarke (Former NSC Counter-Terrorism Advisor), Representative Peter King (NY-R), Lawrence Wright (Author, "The Looming Tower"), David Remnick (Editor, The New Yorker), John Harris (Co-Author, "The Way to Win"), and Al Hunt (Bloomberg News). Richard Clarke made some eye-opening comments [google.com] about 9/11.

        On Friday (September 29), Charlie Rose interviewed three people: Bob Wright (Chairman & CEO, NBC Universa

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Does anyone feel as though your life is being controlled by government officials who do not give a damn about you?

        Well of course. They don't give a damn about us or anyone but their super-rich friends.

        Why would they insist on starting a war based on lies? Why would they give no-bid contracts to the same companies that they used to run? Why would they let thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians die unnecessarily?

        Because they simply don't care. Hundreds of billions of
        • by notque (636838) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @12:41PM (#16266513) Homepage Journal
          President Bush asserted that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken as part of "a global war against terror" that the United States is waging. In reality, as anticipated, the invasion increased the threat of terror, perhaps significantly.

          Half-truths, misinformation and hidden agendas have characterised official pronouncements about US war motives in Iraq from the very beginning. The recent revelations about the rush to war in Iraq stand out all the more starkly amid the chaos that ravages the country and threatens the region and indeed the world.

          In 2002 the US and United Kingdom proclaimed the right to invade Iraq because it was developing weapons of mass destruction. That was the "single question," as stressed constantly by Bush, Prime Minister Blair and associates. It was also the sole basis on which Bush received congressional authorisation to resort to force.

          The answer to the "single question" was given shortly after the invasion, and reluctantly conceded: The WMD didn't exist. Scarcely missing a beat, the government and media doctrinal system concocted new pretexts and justifications for going to war.

          "Americans do not like to think of themselves as aggressors, but raw aggression is what took place in Iraq," national security and intelligence analyst John Prados concluded after his careful, extensive review of the documentary record in his 2004 book "Hoodwinked."

          Prados describes the Bush "scheme to convince America and the world that war with Iraq was necessary and urgent" as "a case study in government dishonesty ... that required patently untrue public statements and egregious manipulation of intelligence." The Downing Street memo, published on May 1 in The Sunday Times of London, along with other newly available confidential documents, have deepened the record of deceit.

          The memo came from a meeting of Blair's war cabinet on July 23, 2002, in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British foreign intelligence, made the now-notorious assertion that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of going to war in Iraq.

          The memo also quotes British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon as saying that "the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime."

          British journalist Michael Smith, who broke the story of the memo, has elaborated on its context and contents in subsequent articles. The "spikes of activity" apparently included a coalition air campaign meant to provoke Iraq into some act that could be portrayed as what the memo calls a "casus belli."

          Warplanes began bombing in southern Iraq in May 2002 -- 10 tons that month, according to British government figures. A special "spike" started in late August (for a September total of 54.6 tons).

          "In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq," Smith wrote.

          The bombing was presented as defensive action to protect coalition planes in the no-fly zone. Iraq protested to the United Nations but didn't fall into the trap of retaliating. For US-UK planners, invading Iraq was a far higher priority than the "war on terror." That much is revealed by the reports of their own intelligence agencies. On the eve of the allied invasion, a classified report by the National Intelligence Council, the intelligence community's center for strategic thinking, "predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict," Douglas Jehl and David E. Sanger reported in The New York Times last September. In December 2004, Jehl reported a few weeks later, the NIC warned that "Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are 'professionalised' and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself." T
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Why would they insist on starting a war based on lies? Why would they give no-bid contracts to the same companies that they used to run? Why would they let thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians die unnecessarily?

          And here's another poser for you... why would they pardon themselves from war crimes prosecution? [youtube.com]

        • Why would they insist on starting a war based on lies?

          Remember that the elder Bush's war with Iraq, 1991's "Operation Desert Storm," was also founded on a lie.

          Fifteen-year-old "Nayirah" (Nijirah al-Sabah) testified before the United States Congress in October 1990 that she was a refugee volunteering in the maternity ward of Al Adan hospital in Kuwait City, and that during the occupation by Iraq she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers dumping Kuwaiti infants out of their incubators "on[to] the cold floor to die,"

      • by xappax (876447) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @12:29PM (#16266373)
        If she were a male American of Japanese ancestry, she would have been fired on the spot.

        I find it simultaneously ironically funny and disturbing that the primary complaint against Condi Rice is that she's the beneficiary of affirmative action. This is one of the key promoters and advocates of the USAPATROIT Act, the Iraq war, and the insane and deadly war on terror, this is someone whose actions have led to thousands upon thousands of innocent deaths...but the part we really find objectionable is that she only got to do all that because she's a black woman?

        There's no way to deny that she got the job because she's a black woman, and maybe she did, but as far as I can see, her incompetence is not being treated any different from anybody else in Washington who Bush favors.

        She would not be fired if she was a white male, because we've seen white men like Cheney or Rumsfeld get grilled far worse in the press, and stay in power. The US doesn't give a crap about incompetence, or we'd have had another revolution years ago.
      • by BearRanger (945122) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @12:32PM (#16266401)
        As reluctant as I am to defend this loathesome administration, you need to get your facts straight.

        Condi Rice served as National Security Council staff director for Soviet and East European affairs in Bush 41's administration. By all accounts she did a very good job--as judged by her superiors Brent Scowcroft, the National Security Advisor, and the first President Bush. I think it's safe to say that a number of significant events in Soviet and East European affairs took place at this point in history, which I'll leave as an exercise for you to research. Do you think that maybe Rice had a hand in crafting the US response to those events, given her position?

        Yes, Rice is black and female. So. What. Neither fact speaks to her qualifications to be National Security Advisor. Or is that a position that can only be held by a white male?

        I think your racism and sexism is showing. (And no, your "male American of Japanese ancestry" comment does not insulate you.)
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Scrameustache (459504)
          Yes, Rice is black and female. So. What. Neither fact speaks to her qualifications to be National Security Advisor.

          They don't, but tokenism makes people suspicious of multi-minority high-profile characters: If they got rid of her, their politically-correct minimum requirement of women and racial minorites could drop below acceptable levels.

          For instance, Condi's name came up a lot during the whole "George Bush doesn't care about black people" hilarity.
          That makes people think this is a big part of her job: Be
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jkauzlar (596349)
          The gp's point is that they were afraid to chastise her based on these sensitive factors as a matter of politics. I think he would have a valid point without being racist or sexist, although he's wrong in this conclusion, because:
          1. it's not clear (at least to me) that the Bin Laden intelligence was enough at the time to be taken seriously and that she was actually incompetent for ignoring it
          2. the Bush Administration does not let its people 'spend more time with their families' for general incompetence, becau
        • by Von Rex (114907) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @07:22PM (#16270137)
          Do you think that maybe Rice had a hand in crafting the US response to those events, given her position?

          You're talking about Bush the Smarter's administration, yes? The one that completely missed all warning signs of the impending fall of the Soviet Union? The one that labelled Mikhail Gorbechev as "the man with no new ideas"? The one that insisted that the Soviet Union was an overwhelming conventional threat that justified huge increases in military spending right up until the very day it imploded?

          Must have been impressive advice she was giving.

      • by cold fjord (826450) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @01:38PM (#16266997)
        Dr. Rice had no experience? Her appointment was all and only about black voters? Hardly [whitehouse.gov]

        In June 1999, she completed a six year tenure as Stanford University 's Provost, during which she was the institution's chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students.

        As professor of political science, Dr. Rice has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching.

        At Stanford, she was a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control from 1981-1986 (currently the Center for International Security And Cooperation), a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions.

        From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military.

        Then, the conversation fell silent. Kay thought that someone would ask questions about his work, but no one asked any questions.

        Questions? Kind of like what you just stated that Clark said that Kay said had just happened... shown below? (Is that hear say?)

        According to Kay, Bush asked, 'What do you need from me?' Kay answered, 'I need patience to allow me to finish my work.' Bush answered, 'I have all the patience in the world.'

        Subordinate asks for time to do work..... and gets it. Wow.

        Clark saying that Kay reported there were no WMDs in Iraq also leaves out a few facts, as you can see in Dr. Kay's testimoney before Congress in 2003. It is well worth reading [cnn.com]. Just a sample:

        What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?

        We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

        A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

        . .. New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

        . .. A line of UAVs not f

      • by hey! (33014)
        I don't buy your theory. Political correctness could possibly explain the hiring, but it could not explain the tolerance for mismanagement.

        If the reason Rice wasn't fired was political correctness, then why was she nominated for Secretary? Surely there were other blacks and women, possibly even black women, who could have been tapped? Normally in politics is you have the weak link resign. If that would look bad, you wait, shunting him or her aside. Eventually the boredom and internal disgrace of being ou
    • by OzPeter (195038) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @11:55AM (#16266061)
      I was going to use my mod points to mod you up but I decided to add a comment instead.

      Although I have my own feelings about Bush's administration, I have to say that your description about their "policies" is nothing new. Recently I read "Overthrow - America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" which lists 14 countries where the USA was instrumental in ousting the legitimately elected government over the last 120 years. What I got from reading this book was not so much that the "OMG the USA is EVIL!!!!" but that sucessive goverments over that span of time all made pretty well the same arguments for doing something, but had no regards for the consequences. The book ended with Iraq, and you could just feel the approaching train wreck eerily predicted by every other previous forced regime change.

      Bush & Co's screw ups may be bad, but the USA's continual making of the same mistakes is in my opinion far worse. And I think this goes all the way back to the 19th Century and the Monroe doctrine [wikipedia.org] and the idea of manifest destiny [wikipedia.org].

  • Appropriate venue? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by saintlupus (227599) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @11:23AM (#16265723) Homepage
    Uh, WTF does this have to do with "News for Nerds"?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm a Green Party-voting liberal, but I don't see how this is even remotely in line with the supposed purpose of this site. I mean, do we really need another ten thousand Bush-bashing posts?

    --saint
    • by peterprior (319967) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @11:26AM (#16265751)
      "Uh, WTF does this have to do with "News for Nerds"?"

      It has "Intel" in the story title :)
    • by xx_chris (524347) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @11:33AM (#16265823)
      Because even nerds need news.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mikelieman (35628)
      Unless you SUPPORT Torture, Secret Prisons, and Domestic Surveillance so tight the Nazis and Commies would have given their right tits for,

      EVERY VENUE is needed to denounce the Violations of:

      Bush's oath to G-d, Articles 1, 4, and 14 of the Constitution. amd 50USC1802 and 1805, just to name a few...

      I'm surprised you had the guts to suggest otherwise, Comrade.

      • by paranode (671698) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @04:55PM (#16268831)
        Does that mean everyone else supports letting terrorists go free after capture, open prisons with conjugal visits, and no interest whatsoever in a suspected terrorist cell making a call to a city in Pakistan?

        While I join you in denouncing some of the shady goings-on, there are non-brutal and effective means of interrogation (depends on your def. of "torture"), there is a legitimacy to not telling everyone in the world where we are holding some of the top-ranking al Qaida operatives, and if done properly there is due process in surveillance (FISA) and this information could lead to the apprehension of cells waiting inside the US or abroad for another operation.

        So I guess what I'm saying is that you are begging the question there. :)
    • by SirBruce (679714)
      According to the FAQ:

      Politics This section is for news relevant to United States government politics. It was created primarily to cover the 2004 US Presidential Election, but today exists for occasional stories that fit the bill.

      Okay, so if Slashdot is going to have a straight political blog-type section, fine. But where are the posts about the far-bigger political stories this week, such as Clinton going ballistic, Congress ending its session, a Republican resigning due to an Internet sex scandal, and

      • Clinton always goes ballistic, because he's a smart man with eyes and ears.

        Congress always ends sessions.

        Republicans resigning over sex scandals is like me getting coffee in the mornings, you just EXPECT it.

        But Bush doing something Unconstitutional? That's NEWS!

    • by Wandering Wombat (531833) <mightyjalapeno@@@gmail...com> on Sunday October 01, 2006 @11:40AM (#16265907) Homepage Journal
      You're right. Nerds shouldn't be informed of what goes on at a national level... it might involve them leaving their basements.


      Come on, guys... this is important. This is important on the global scale. This is a little more important than Paris Hilton's CD being hijacked, or Yahoo doing stuff with it's e-mail.

      This is important.

    • by b0r1s (170449)
      Political flamewars drive pageviews which increases revenue. It's just like the " Bush Knew " headlines that ran in traditional press - it doesn't have to be true, it just has to make money.

  • by SengirV (203400) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @11:29AM (#16265785)
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A586 15-2004Jul17.html [washingtonpost.com]

    Kinda makes Hillary a hypocrite based on what she said here, now doesn't it? - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A586 15-2004Jul17.html [washingtonpost.com]

    Those looking to pin this ONLY on this current administration are showing they are simply interested in partisan politics. There is plenty of blame to go around.
    • by tinrobot (314936)
      There is plenty of blame to go around.

      Perhaps... but Clinton is at least honest and owns up to his failures. He did try to get Bin Laden back in 1998 when he bombed the camps -- despite that the Republicans said he was "wagging the dog"

      This administration never owns up - they cover up their failures and point fingers. Perhaps if they admitted fault, I might be more inclined to spread the blame, but the fact that they obfuscate and cover up just adds more taint to an already abysmal record. This administr
  • He did not know when, where or how, but Tenet felt there was too much noise in the intelligence systems.

    So much information, so little to actualy go on. And these days, when the government steps up security measures when they don't know "when, where or how" people cry bloody murder. The problem with security is you never know if it's working until it fails to work.
  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @11:38AM (#16265877) Homepage Journal
    Most of the principals were in the country by the time Bush came to office, killing Bin Laden wouldn't have done much. Even now, Al Qaeda is not some monolith organization, and it is academically lazy to think of it as one. Bin Laden's capture would certainly have a demoralizing effect, but it would not cripple the organization, nor would killing him in early 2001 have done so. Hell, we really need to get Al-Zawahri, but have been failing at that.

    9/11 CANNOT be blamed on one individual. True, Clinton did not do as much as he should have during his term, but Bush obviously didn't see the flaws being all that major as he didn't do anything about them in the first 9 months. Also recall that anything Clinton did in the Middle East(most hypocritically was bomb Iraq) was labeled as "Wag the Dog" by Republicans. Meanwhile, when they do similar things they are being "tough on terrorism".

    The intelligence failures showed systemic flaws in the US intelligence gathering organization, flaws that go back decades(hell, Bush Sr. was head of the CIA for a few months). As George Tenet said, 9/11 was a "failure of imagination" on the part of the intelligence community. And so far in my opinion Bush has done almost nothing to fix those flaws. Well, he has allowed Army translators who are in short supply to be fired because they are gay, I guess there is always that. Also see the court cases of dismissed FBI agents who claimed they were ignored when they warned about attacks. The system is broken, and Clinton blaming Bush and Bush blaming Clinton surprisingly won't fix it. Killing Bin Laden won't fix it. Iraq certainly won't fix it. Nor will using homeland security money to pay off political backers and punish adversaries(Because we all know Indiana has the most potential terrorist targets). What needs to be done cannot be boiled down to a soundbite, but I do know that past administrations, this administration and in all likelihood future administrations don't have the will or desire to really fix it, but instead like to apply popular band-aids and use ad-hominem attacks on their critics.
  • Big Dang Deal (Score:3, Insightful)

    by otterpop81 (784896) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @11:41AM (#16265917)

    This just in: Bin Laden is going to attack Americans. Big Deal. He already _had_ attacked Americans.

    For months, Tenet had been pressing Rice to set a clear counterterrorism policy, including specific presidential orders called "findings" that would give the CIA stronger authority to conduct covert action against bin Laden.

    Interesting, Bill Clinton said last Sunday night or whenever it was that He "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy." I guess that turned out to be a lie if Rice was being pressured to set one herself.

    There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer's instinct strongly suggested that something was coming.

    Sound to me something like, "we don't _really_ have any proof, but I have a hunch."

    This is non-news. Why are the only political stories on Slashdot left-wing propaganda?

    • Re: Big Dang Deal (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Black Parrot (19622) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @11:49AM (#16265989)
      > This just in: Bin Laden is going to attack Americans. Big Deal. He already _had_ attacked Americans. [...] This is non-news.

      The news is that everyone "forgot" to mention it to the Commission.

      > Why are the only political stories on Slashdot left-wing propaganda?

      What is left-wing or propagandistic about this? Is it "left-wing propaganda" to point out the flaws and dishonesty in the way this country is run? If another party was calling the shots, would it be right-wing propaganda to point out the flaws in their behavior?

    • Re:Big Dang Deal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Saanvik (155780) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @02:25PM (#16267427) Homepage Journal

      Every administration, before they lose control of the executive branch, meets with the incoming administration. They also give the newcomers detailed information on their current policies and plans. The incoming administration usually tosses these in the trash and create their own policies. They can't create them all overnight, so they create them in priority. The Bush administration was not interested at all in "foreign entanglements" and, thus, everything to do with foreign policy took a back seat to domestic policies.

      So, you see, both of those statements can, and are likely to be, correct.

      This is real news, but not surprising news. The Bush administration had not interest in anything besides tax cuts and other domestic policies when they took office. They ignored foreign affairs, to the entire world's detriment.

    • Re:Big Dang Deal (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Mr. Slippery (47854) <tms@infamo[ ]net ['us.' in gap]> on Sunday October 01, 2006 @02:49PM (#16267707) Homepage
      Bill Clinton said last Sunday night or whenever it was that He "left a anti-terror strategy." I guess that turned out to be a lie if Rice was being pressured to set one herself.

      Non sequitor. It's entirely possible (indeed seems likely) that Clinton's people left a strategy (which may or may not have been comprehensive or effective), which Bush's people never adopted. If I leave you a cookbook and you never open it, it can be true both that I left you my fablous peanut butter/chocolate pie recipe, and that someone is pressuring you to come up with a dessert recipe.

      Why are the only political stories on Slashdot left-wing propaganda?

      What, are you saying that reality has a liberal bias [dailykos.com]?

      Over the past few decades, the right wing has consistently aligned itself with ignorance: creationism, junk science, bad international intelligence. Take the religious right, stir in neocon ambitions for an American empire, sprinkle in corporate greed, and watch as any respect for truth rapidly evaporates from the mix.

      The /. readership is more educated than the average American, and so places a higher value on acurate information and critical thinking. In contempory America, this puts them at odds with the leaders of the Republican party.

  • It seems like all the members of the left want to blame buch for 9/11 and all the members of the right insist that Clinton could have stopped it. It seems to me that there is no way that some high ranking government official (republican or democrat) could have prevented 9/11 by reading some broad document titled "Bin Laden determined to attack Americans". I'm sure they see a million documents about terrorist organizations that dont like the US. I mean what were they supposed to do? Use their spider sense
  • by MarkWatson (189759) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @11:46AM (#16265965) Homepage
    Condi Rice's best friend was in charge of the 9/11 commission. From what I have read he forbade certain lines of inquiry. This is why so many family members of 9/11 victims are so critical of the commission's report.
  • Olbermann (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mabu (178417) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @12:02PM (#16266123)
    Keith Olbermann has an incredibly poignant video response [bsalert.com] on this issue. This is probably what motivated some conservative nutjob to send him a letter full of soap powder. Sometimes I wonder about people.
    • Re:Olbermann (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nutshell42 (557890) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @04:29PM (#16268583) Journal
      Am I the only one who thinks Olbermann is a left-wing O'Reilly?

      I don't know whether he's quite such a pathological liar as O'Reilly but his whole rhetoric...

      About all the /.-is-so-liberal whining:

      I think you're wrong. I think based on the discussions on different kinds of stories that /. is actually very strongly libertarian.

      Most people here prefer a government that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. The reason it seems /. is overwhelmingly liberal in discussions such as this one is that people seem to assume that supporting the Dems atm is the same as being liberal. It is not. Clinton was both less obsessed with spying on you and didn't blow the budget so he could cut taxes for millionaires. He also didn't piss off just about all of your allies (notice how a few years ago, every time there was a story about the EU at least one Brit wrote a post that the UK should leave the EU and enter a closer relationship with the US? I haven't seen any of those lately =) and I think about a third of /. readers was non-US according to one of the old polls.

      If I had to make a list with 10 people I'd like to see as POTUS there'd be more Reps than Dems on that list but somehow the demagogues, corrupt and stupid seem to have hijacked the GOP.

  • by SQLz (564901) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @12:03PM (#16266139) Homepage Journal
    Simply posting this information on Slashdot offers comfort to terrorists.
  • by copponex (13876) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @12:06PM (#16266171) Homepage
    Whenever I turn on the news, I always hear questions. I hear pointless speculation from anchors with no more credibility than anyone who is "able" to speak with enunciation and wear makeup, and worse, they are speaking about things that no one on earth can possibly know. Whether it's a school shooting, or a political scandal, or a celebrity arrest, the talking heads guess and guess about what the truth could be.

    What happens? People make a decision based on their own biases, and then when the truth is actually known, it is written off or embraced on assumptions based on speculation based on nothing much at all.

    Now, did the Bush Administration lie? Of course they did - just like all the administrations before it. Now, what did they lie about, and how important were the lies to the security and well-being of the American people? That is something we need to come to terms with as a country, but let's not speculate about it. We simply don't know. Conservatives should lay down their bias towards innocence, and liberals should lay down their bias towards guilt.

    The only thing that concerns me is that the Bush Administration seems unwilling to submit to a full and thorough investigation, and no one, especially elected officials, are above criticism or criminal investigation. If the White House is unwilling to open all of their records, including all classiffied documents, to a special commission, many will simply assume guilt because they will not submit themselves to the same rules everyone else must follow.

    Similarly, if America continues to display it's arrogance by flatly ignoring international law, I'm afraid we may reap what we sow when we are no longer the dominant superpower. We had moral credibility after WWII. We lost some in Vietnam, and in Grenada, then in the Iran Contra Affair, and more when we supported Hussein while he was gassing Kurds. So when the chips are down, and we are truly afraid, do we torture? Do we kill 20 civilians to kill one suspected terrorist? Do we withhold legal rights that were once so central to our belief that every man - suspected terrorist or not - is created equal, and has the right to be innocent until proven guilty?

    I don't know. I can only speculate.
  • by Ogemaniac (841129) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @12:32PM (#16266399)
    This is a website about technology, not politics (except when directly relevant to technology, of course).

    Second, can we quit with the childish "hindsight is 20-20" crap. Yes, Bush missed signs. Yes, Clinton missed signs. So did damned near everyone else. Picking out the needle in the haystack AFTER the fact is meaningless, however. Their is even a technical term for this psychological error many people make - hindsight bias. It is human nature to think "I woulda seen it coming if I were in your shoes" - when in fact, when tested, you would fail as often as anyone else.
  • by gorehog (534288) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @12:32PM (#16266417)
    First, watch the testimony where Candi-ass Rice says "I believe the title was Bin Laden determined to attack within the US." Watch her demeanor. It's the demeanor of a petulant child. It's as if she's saying, "duh, of course we knew this was coming, how dare you ask me such a thing." It's like a student late to class in junior high and when asked for a reason just answers "Cause I was sucking dick for money. Schmuck."

    The 9/11 Commission possibilites are pretty much these
    1)They were covering up
    2)They were denied information
    3)They lost heart when they realized they would be ignored.

    As the consumers of the data it's difficult to know what happened during that investigation and the only reason it matters is that there might be MORE evidence to bring against Bush in an impeachment or war crimes trial.

    Fact is, when Bush stole into office he took over from Clinton who, in the last days of his administration, did LOTS of work trying to establish peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. He ran out of time and Bush, instead of picking up the thread, instituted a "hands off the middle east" policy (insert ironic laughter here).

    And the final fact of the matter is that once we were embroiled in war in Iraq the people of this country STILL relected Bush by a narrow margin. That election SHOULD have been so clearly against Bush that no amount of vote stealing should have put him in office, and the corrupt results should have triggered a revolution against the corrupt decision. Instead we end up with elections so close that they are easy to steal with small amounts of fraud.

    Why was the election so close? This is what we must ask. WTF is wrong with half the electorate that they think it's ok to kill for oil? Or get distracted by gay marriage? Why are the priorities of the American public so fucked up?
  • by i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @12:34PM (#16266443) Homepage Journal
    There will be more 9/11s, no doubt. Mainly because the U.S. has made no effort to understand our enemy very much disappointing the ghost of Sun Tzu.

    For years we did everything we could to understand communism so we could undermine it and defeat it. It wasn't just the US that destroyed communism, but it was also an unworkable system (apologies to adherents of Saint Reagan).

    We were not attacked because of "who we are". That is bat-shit stupid. We were attacked because of things like unquestionable support for Israel in EVERYTHING they do including the bad stuff, cozying up with dictators when it's convenient for our interests, and so on.

    When you say things like "they hate us because of who we are" then obviously the only solution is to start bombing people, and it's even MORE non sensical when the place we are bombing has nothing to do with terrorism, such as pre war Iraq. This has already been proven by a bipartisan commission. If you plan on following up on this post I trust you'll keep that proven and non controversial fact in mind. Of course it's also non controversial that we just spent over 300 billion so far to now CREATE a terrorist petri dish out of Iraq.

    Nope,...we understand nothing about the enemy and we understand even less about radical and fundamental Islam. This is why there will be more 9/11s to come. If you want to understand how little we really know, just look at the futility of bringing "democracy" to Iraq. You just can't invade and impose democracy. Assuming that we managed to kill three thousand Iraqis (an absurdly low figure by any estimate), and assuming that each of these three thousand have 3 other family members then you now have 9,000 who are thinking "Hmmm maybe bin Laden is right". 9,000 more recruits for jihad.

    Fundamental Islam = Fundamental Christianity in terms of disgusting behavior. If you want to play the immature game of name calling then I suggest that you start referring to this administration as ChristianFascist.

    While you're at it, start using "Stay and Die" when you say "Cut and Run".

    I expect the neocon mod down in 3..2..1...
  • Page 17 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by corby (56462) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @12:35PM (#16266467)
    running in very high priority on the Washington Post, right up there on page 17 of the print edition

    I think their decision is defensible. While the article is newsworthy, it is very unsurprising in the light of all of the related news stories that have already been given front-page treatment.

    We already know that Rice and Bush reviewed a Presidential Daily Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack inside US" in early August, but were reluctant to mention this at the 9/11 Commission hearings. We already know that Richard Clarke says that the administration was unengaged despite repeated warnings on the threat. We already know that when a CIA operative tried to impress upon senior administration officials the severity of the threat, Bush responded with, "There, you've covered your ass," and dismissed him. At this point, reporting that Tenet was trying to warn the Bush Administration about the threat in July is interesting, but is hardly a revelation.

    What I find much more curious is that the article was printed without a byline, and that there was an apologetic Editor's Note explaining why they felt they were justified in printing the story.
  • Buy AMD (Score:4, Funny)

    by srh2o (442608) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @12:37PM (#16266487)
    I for one will not support Bin Laden Intel even if the administration chooses to ignore them and their processors for evil. The incidious plot must be stopped. Buy AMD and help fight terrorism.
  • by TrumpetPower! (190615) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Sunday October 01, 2006 @02:06PM (#16267269) Homepage

    Just for a moment, let's play a game of ``What if?''

    What if the conspiracy nutjobs are right, and 9/11 was, in some way, a deliberate action by the Bush administration in exactly the same way that Hitler was behind the burning of the Reichstag [wikipedia.org]? (Godwin, I know--so sue me.) After all, the conspiracy theorists have some compelling points--the collapse of WTC #7, that none of the released footage of the Pentagon attack shows what actually hit the building, the striking dissimilarity of the appearance between the two impacts on the WTC and the impact on the Pentagon, the complete and utter lack of response by NORAD or the Pentagon's own on-site defense systems....

    What scares the shit out me is that this article is perfectly consistent with the theory that the Bush administration knew just what bin Laden was up to, and chose to ignore it: the CIA (whom Bush, Jr., has always publicly kept at arm's length or further) told the administration, repeatedly and emphatically...and the administration most pointedly ignored everything the CIA had to say.

    Of course, this could also be after-the-fact CYA by the CIA...but, then again, WTC 7 could have been the first skyscraper in history to collapse for no good reason whatsoever, and there could have been a massive and completely hushed-up malfunction in the anti-aircraft defensive systems in the most heavily protected building on the planet, and there could have been....

    Honestly, I'm about as anti-conspiracy as one can get. There's just so damn much about 9/11 that's so glaring, so obvious, so uncomplicated, that I'm left with two conclusions: massive unprecedented incompetence by a team headed by some of the most competent political operatives in America (Cheney, Rove, etc.)...or a conspiracy. A conspiracy that would perfectly fit with the actions of an administration with decided totalitarian fascist tendencies, such as one that would strip civil liberties in the name of protecting the homeland, which would endorse and actually use torture and commit other atrocities, which supports big business at every opportunity over all else domestically, which would invade sovereign nations on trumped-up pretenses, which is accompanied by unprecedented corporate corruption, which wears its Christianity on its sleeve....

    Whether for good reason or not, frankly, I'm scared shitless.

    Cheers,

    b&

  • Iraq, Iraq, Iraq (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Stalyn (662) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @02:44PM (#16267635) Homepage Journal
    We can argue all day about who's to fault for 911 but honestly there is so much blame to go around, CIA, FBI, Clinton, Bush, etc. There is no one person or event that directly caused 911. The best thing is move forward and put in place security measures that will prevent another 911 (which is not being done btw).

    Second Iraq has the potential to be so much worse than 911. The causalities already outnumber 911, but the damage done to America's world image has been catastrophic. After 911 we had the majority of the world with us, as well as the American public. We really had an opportunity to put in place a new foreign policy coupled with domestic initiatives that could have transformed American politics for the better. Yet all this energy was misplaced towards Iraq. Who's responsible for that?

We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"

Working...