PDB from AUG 6 is out..full text in OP

[Zagadka]

@Sam Stone

And from this, you guys want to hold him responsible because he didn’t launch every force the government had and break the back of the plot within a month, based on a single paragraph which suggests that there is are signs of current activity?

Well, quite franky, I don’t blame Bush personally for the disaster. I feel it could have happened to any administration, and he had the bad (well, from his point of view, good) luck to have it happen during his. What I blame is the dumbshit security branches themselves, for not even considering the possibility. For fuck’s sake, it was written about in a best selling fiction book. Know why I wasn’t floored on 9/11? It isn’t like Al Qaeda came up with the brilliant and unheard of idea to crash a plane into something, as if no one in history has every applied a tactic of using planes as weapons, now is it? In fact, the FBI knew of plans to use smaller, private aircraft “packed with explosives” as missiles. They simply never took the leap of logic and thought that any plane could be used as a missile.

The question of whether door locks would have worked is up in the air. With hindsight, yes, they would have. With the policy of cooperating with hijackers, no, they wouldn’t. The question is - why did no one ever come up with a better plan for dealing with hijackers? That is the real failure - not Bush or Rice directly, but, I think, the FBI and NSA. Why those agencies haven’t been taken to task, I don’t know - I think it is because people are concentrating on Bush, and the people defending Bush refuse to acknowledge that it could have been prevented.

I agree fully with elucidator. We got hit by an absurdly inept group. If their intent had been to use “conventional” terrorism, they could have blown up all the planes anyway, and/or taken (or at least damaged) out the WTC with a large enough car bomb(s). Was the FBI sleeping at the switch? Obviously, yes. Is Bush in charge of every FBI investigation personally? Nope. Is Bush responsible for the FBI’s actions? In the end, yes.

The fact that they crashed the planes into the WTC and Pentagon is secondary. The fact that they hijacked FOUR GOD DAMNED PLANES is the absurd part. Making excuses about not knowing about the “crashing into buildings” aspect is, it seems, enough to explain away letting four planes get hijacked, though. The government did dick to even slow down any of them. That is the scary part.

The CIA may be psychotic, genocidal mother fuckers who are evil to their rotten, heartless core, but at the very least, they are pretty good at what they do.

[Sam_Stone]

The point is, that paragraph looks a lot more ominous in hindight, knowing that there was an attack coming.

But intel like that comes along all the time. Sometimes it triggers new action, sometimes it doesn’t. There had been threats since the early 1990’s. Sometimes they were even carried out.

But it’s not ‘actionable’ intelligence. Actionable intelligence is things like, “An informant tells us that one Ramsi Youssef is in the country, and is planning an attack. We know where he is. What should we do?”

And other reports available to Bush at the time said that the ‘surveillance’ in New York was on Federal Buildings (not the WTC), and in any event the suspects were apprehended and turned out to be Yemeni tourists (or so the FBI thought). The PDB also says that the most serious terrorist warnings could not be corroborated.

Again, let’s remember - the attack happened about a month after this PDB. You’re seriously holding it against Bush that based on this one memo he did not mobilize the might of the U.S. law enforcement and thwart an attack that no one knew about in a few weeks? The suggestion is ridiculous.

And I notice that other revelations have fallen on deaf ears around here - specifically, the one that says that Bush’s very first National Security Directive after taking office called for the complete destruction of al-Qaida, and that the administration was clearly in the process of kicking the entire war on terror up a notch over what Clinton had been doing.

[Zoe]

Sam Stone: Rice was exactly right - there’s nothing ‘actionable’ in that memo. It IS a historical document - it’s a summary of what the government knew about al-Qaida in the U.S. over the last five years.

Part of the PDB is a review of recent history, but the general thrust of the briefing is that the danger is ongoing and not in the past. The following quotations all illustrate that the concern continued as of August 6, 2001 (underlining added):

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted (ongoing concern) to conduct terrorist attacks in the US.

Al Qaeda members – including some who are U.S. citizens – have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

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 U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

The underlined words and phrases are not the usages found in strictly historical documents.

To the best of my knowledge, PDB are for the purpose of providing the President with information – not asking for instructions on what to do.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Sam Stone

The point is, that paragraph looks a lot more ominous in hindight, knowing that there was an attack coming.

No, the point is that Rice, and you, have tried to dismiss it as simply “historical”. Please stay on point.

But it’s not ‘actionable’ intelligence.

Been there, too. There’s no such thing. Action to get more information can always be taken by those inclined to do so. The incurious or fearful wait for confirmation of everything before they even go look - but these people didn’t even ask for that.

You’re seriously holding it against Bush that based on this one memo he did not mobilize the might of the U.S. law enforcement and thwart an attack that no one knew about in a few weeks? The suggestion is ridiculous.

You’re excluding the middle once again. Nobody said about Bush what you claim they said, and you do need to retract that now.

He told nobody who might have been able to take a different look or ask a few questions, not even as a heads-up. Boston officials learned that AQ people had been thought to have entered the port on LNG tankers only during Clarke’s testimony, for instance. They *did * nothing. They didn’t even talk to anyone but each other - and still don’t.

And I notice that other revelations have fallen on deaf ears around here - specifically, the one that says that Bush’s very first National Security Directive after taking office called for the complete destruction of al-Qaida, and that the administration was clearly in the process of kicking the entire war on terror up a notch over what Clinton had been doing.

No, the *fact * that he *did * nothing but continue Clinton’s policies until coming up with his own, which were to repeate Clinton’s policies but not his actions, has fallen on deaf ears. Yours. It’s all very well to call for something to be done, as you insist he did, but his job was to do it.

[Knorf]

Can someone tell me where Mr. G. W. Bush was between Aug. 6 and Sept. 11, 2001, and what he was doing?

[Spavined_Gelding]

I’m starting to get the idea that the Administration and its supporters are going to sit there and insist that if the Presidential Briefing said anything other than “It is anticipated that a bunch of Saudi Arabians are going to hi-jack cross-country flights departing from Boston, New York and Washington on a Tuesday morning and fly the highjacked planes into the Word Trade Center and federal buildings in Washington in from 30 to 45 days,” or words to that effect, there is going to be a claim that the information was not sufficiently specific to allow any action to prevent September 11.

It is starting to become apparent to me that had the Administration thought that the briefing represented anything more that worse case scenario butt covering from people whose job depended on seeing danger around every corner it would have done something. You will remember that at the time the Administration was fully engaged in cranking up the Bush Tax Cuts and the Star Wars Missile Defense. The Administration had a full plate in the late summer and early fall of 2001. It was not in a mood to crank up a full court defense against what it seems to have thought was a remote threat, not when there were tax cuts and big dollar missile programs to run through Congress…

If the Administration had been persuaded that there was a significant danger presented it would have acted. The problem was that it was not about to be persuaded. The information in the briefing, and the information on which the briefing was based, was certainly sufficiently specific to call for a “tree shaking.” Or for, as many have suggested, locking the cockpit doors.

What the President and Dr. Rice and all the others are saying is, “Gee, I didn’t know it was loaded.”

[Frostillicus]

@Knorf

Can someone tell me where Mr. G. W. Bush was between Aug. 6 and Sept. 11, 2001, and what he was doing?

Why, he was on vacation at his “ranch” in Crawford, TX. And guess what he did on August 6, after receiving the now infamous PDF. He took off of work early to go fishing!

[Squink]

@Frostillicus

Why, he was on vacation at his “ranch” in Crawford, TX. And guess what he did on August 6, after receiving the now infamous PDF. He took off of work early to go fishing!

Progress, not perfection:

Bush canceled a fishing outing on his ranch Saturday with Roland Martin, host of the Outdoor Life Network program “Fishing With Roland Martin.” Martin, who fished with Bush on Friday, told the Associated Press that Bush explained: “I’ve been busy, all these crises.”

Apr 10, 2004

[pantom]

Ah, he’s almost always on vacation. He’s always out to lunch.

CNN’s Bill Schneider summed it up the best:

SCHNEIDER: I think it could be seriously damaging. What this says is, the White House knew what bin Laden was capable of planning, where he intended to do it, which was New York or Washington, D.C., how he was going to do it. There was only one thing missing, which was exactly when he was going to do it, which turns out to be September 11.
Critics and members of the commission will say, the White House should have been far more aggressive to prevent, what sounds from this memo, like an imminent strike, obviously years in the planning, but a real danger to the United States, particularly in New York and Washington. And they will, I think, make it a cause for very severe criticism…
Osama bin Laden…clearly was associated here, associated his organization with the attempts on Los Angeles International Airport at the millennium. So I think there are pretty clear indications that this wasn’t hypothetical. This man had acted and had tried to act on the United States homeland.

Schneider: Memo ‘could be seriously damaging’

[Apos]

@Spavined Gelding

It is starting to become apparent to me that had the Administration thought that the briefing represented anything more that worse case scenario butt covering from people whose job depended on seeing danger around every corner it would have done something. You will remember that at the time the Administration was fully engaged in cranking up the Bush Tax Cuts and the Star Wars Missile Defense. The Administration had a full plate in the late summer and early fall of 2001. It was not in a mood to crank up a full court defense against what it seems to have thought was a remote threat, not when there were tax cuts and big dollar missile programs to run through Congress.

Think this is demonstrative of a general failure of leadership in this administration. They are not set up to react to ongoing or unplanned for/unplotted events of policy. As many insiders have told us, their energies seem to be focused on figuring out how to sell their agenda politically rather than doing much policy research and writing white papers: to a degree that marks a big departure from the more balanced operations of previous administrations. Indeed, the PDB is almost an example of that: its extremely simplified, fitting with the apparent directive that the President must not be made to read too much, nothing over a page.

So their agenda was decided upon before they came into office, and anything else that came up was treated as a distraction from fools or enemies who didn’t understand that what they were doing was the true best priority. If new things come up, then those things always just go to show you why the agenda was the right thing to do. And if they were taken by surprise by something: well, look, doing something about that was already on our agenda, see? Sure it was.

As Kevin Drum has pointed out: weren’t there enough dots to connect at the point that the briefing came out?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_04/003669.php

First, there was all that history, which, guess what, is usually pretty relevant to the future. Things like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bojinka , even. The Bush people knew that Bin Laden was wont to planning air attacks: they were warned about it happening to them in Genoa. Hart-Rudman completes their report saying that an attack on U.S. soil is very likely in the near future, and we need to majorly shake up the way we do things. Clarke and Tenet are up their asses about it constantly. The FBI is making noise about all the suspicious people in the country. The CIA has plenty on Al Qaeda. Both of them are talking to the administration, but there is no one in the administration that seems interested in considering what they are saying together. The Cole and the foiled millenium bombings are both recent, the embassy bombings less recent. Osama is making noise about air attacks. There is increased chatter everywhere. Then this memo comes in saying that there could be hjiackings, Al Qaeda is making noise about wanting to try and attack US soil again, and that there is suspicious survelliance on New York, etc.

So what happens? Bush extends his vacation time, meetings on national security are postponed. The dots are never put together, and no one seemed to be trying very hard to get things on the agenda except for the ignored Cassandras. Counter terrorism funding is cut. The only substantive action that is planned, the big new turnaround from those stupid Clinton folks… is basically to start funding and advising the Northern Alliance.

[Apos]

Boston officials learned that AQ people had been thought to have entered the port on LNG tankers only during Clarke’s testimony, for instance.

Yeah, now that’s disturbing. They apparently cared so little about learning from 9/11 that they not only didn’t even want to look at intelligence failures, but they didn’t even tell relevant people about them: people who are STILL in charge of security and anti-terrorism.

[Apos]

And I notice that other revelations have fallen on deaf ears around here - specifically, the one that says that Bush’s very first National Security Directive after taking office called for the complete destruction of al-Qaida, and that the administration was clearly in the process of kicking the entire war on terror up a notch over what Clinton had been doing.

Unfortunately, this would only be conclusive if the Clinton and Bush administrations had been simultaneous. Unfortunately, the latter came after the former: i.e. it occured at a later point in history, a different context of threat levels and frustration with the ineffectiveness of previous policies.

And what was their “kicking it up a notch?” It was a largely ineffectual agreement that they should increase support for the Northern Alliance against the Taliban: hardly a major step. And that’s after postponing and sidelining the issue for months. As far as their actual, on the ground jumpiness and attention to terrorist threats, the Bush administration clearly kicked it DOWN a few notches: quite litterally in that they passed the locus of interest and attention away from the core leadership staff and Cabinet.

Now, Clinton’s people certainly seemed to have been mostly won over by Clarke’s view already by the time they had to leave. With a fresh Pres at the helm, but all the old people with real experience and appreciation for terrorism, it’s just as likely that Gore would have followed Clarke’s advice right out of the gate and we would have had more, bigger action much sooner.

[Apos]

Here’s the take of an ex-Bush staffer and Republican (ANOTHER one!?): on Rice’s testimony and the PDB
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vppin093747412apr09,0,1427025,print.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

[rjung]

Even if no one in the government knew exactly what the terrorists wanted to do if they hijacked an airplane, would it have been that hard to put out an alert to the airlines and/or the FAA saying, “Hey, we think terrorists are gonna try to hijack some airplanes, better be alert for any suspicious folks, and maybe take some extra precautions for self-defense”?

Saying “there was nothing that could be done because nobody knew they wanted to use the planes as missiles” is a non-defense. It’s like the Chicago Bulls not bothering to use any defense against the Lakers just because they don’t know the Laker’s lineup that evening.

[Desmostylus]

I’d like to repeat here two posts I made two weeks ago in the thread It Begins: Clarke goes public with allegations of terror mishandling:

@Desmostylus

I just can’t imagine WTF the idiots in the administration were thinking. On July 23, 2001 Bush attended a G8 meeting in Genoa:

Issue Objectives for the Genoa Summit Meeting 2001:
Transnational Organized Crime, Drugs, and Terrorism

INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

Another projected theme will be the fight against terrorism - which is becoming all the more relevant with the alleged reports of a terrorist attack on the Genoa Summit this July. It has occupied a large part of the G7 Summit agenda in the past, aircraft hijacking being the first non-economic issue discussed at a G7 meeting in Bonn 1978. Mr. Bianco indicated that there is a widespread concern regarding regionalist and nationalist types of terrorism, in particular if linked to Islamic fundamentalism.

A way of intensifying the fight against terrorism would be carried out through juridical channels - notably the EU and the Commissar Antonio Vitorino-that will promote a unitary and homogenous definition of terrorism for the member-states. Mr. Bianco also announced certain concrete measures to intensify the circulation of information, which is essential for the efficiency of action and collaboration. Italy promoted a Convention on cyber-terrorism and technological crime, which constitute the new frontier of criminality, to be held in Rome on March 18/19. It is likely that the commitment to seek ratification of the UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism will appear in the final communiqué, as well as to support the work of Anti-terrorism Experts and the Lyon Group. **Recent threats by Osama bin Laden, the most prominent anti-American terrorist, to assassinate President George W. Bush, combined with his admitted bombing of the US warship Cole in Yemen last year, make terrorism a prominent issue and an assured agenda topic, especially with the US. **

The G8 summit in Genoa

What is security like for G8?

Horrendous. There are upwards of 16,000 troops and police on duty - some reports say more than 20,000. The centre of the ancient city has been declared a “red zone” and sealed off with steel barriers. The airport, rail stations and the seaport have been closed to civilian traffic. There are missile batteries at the airport to counter any terrorist threat. Around 700 would-be protesters have been turfed out of Genoa, including several Britons.

G8 summit death shocks leadership

U.S. President George W. Bush will not stay with other world leaders because of fear of terrorist attack.

About 15,000 police are on duty as part of the $110 million security operation. Surface-to-air missiles, fighter jets and naval ships form part of the security operation, which is also responsible for defending the summit from attacks by terrorists.

Genoa’s Bizarre Fortress Summit

The CIA station chief in Italy warned the Italian secret services that al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden’s terrorist group, might be planning a suicide attack on the summit. Italy took security precautions seriously and placed Spada surface-to-air missiles at strategic locations around Genoa in the event of a terrorist air attack.

So then a couple of weeks later, on August 6, Bush gets a warning that Al Qaeda are going to attack the US using aircraft. What does Bush do? Nothing. Absolutely fucking nothing.

@Desmostylus

Jeez. Turns out it was in Time magazine in June 2001 as well.

Bin Laden Rides Again: Myth vs. Reality

A ‘plot’ to assassinate President Bush and a second to attack the U.S. military in the Gulf —all in the same week. TIME.com’s Tony Karon sifts the Bin Laden hype
Wednesday, Jun. 20, 2001

That It Boy of international terror, Osama Bin Laden, is back in the news. Headlines from just the past week: “Russians Reveal Bin Laden Plot to Kill Bush at G8 Meeting.” “Bin Laden Video Claims Responsibility for Cole Bombing.” “Yemen Foils Bin Laden Plot to Kill U.S. Investigators.” “Bin Laden Group Planned to Blow Up U.S. Embassy in India…” And finally, at week’s end, U.S. forces all over the Gulf confined to barracks and ships put to sea because of a “non-specific but credible threat” from Bin Laden’s group. Vile acts and wretched conspiracies reported from all over the world, all carrying the imprimatur of the Saudi terror tycoon skulking in the hills of Afghanistan, his name now the globally recognizable shorthand for Islamist terror in the same way that “Xerox” has become for “photocopy.”

And after the event, Bush wants to know whether Saddam did it, and Blair has to convince Bush to go after Bin Laden rather than Saddam.

Real bunch of geniuses in charge.

Yet the administration, and its lackeys like Sam, still try to claim that there was nothing alarming in the PDB. Yeah, right.

[Apos]

I hardly think Sam is a lackey for the administration. He’s his own dude who happens to support the administration.

[iamme99]

@rjung

Even if no one in the government knew exactly what the terrorists wanted to do if they hijacked an airplane, would it have been that hard to put out an alert to the airlines and/or the FAA saying, “Hey, we think terrorists are gonna try to hijack some airplanes, better be alert for any suspicious folks, and maybe take some extra precautions for self-defense”?

Saying “there was nothing that could be done because nobody knew they wanted to use the planes as missiles” is a non-defense. It’s like the Chicago Bulls not bothering to use any defense against the Lakers just because they don’t know the Laker’s lineup that evening.

Exactly! For instance, they could have had the air force be a little more ready to send up fighter jets on short notice if necessary. They could have insured that the various government agencies had direct lines of communication open and working - just in case. They could have chartered a task force with querying all the agencies for further information and put this info together into something that might have given them a more complete view of how close these people might have been to doing something.

No, this memo is definitely damaging to Bush. Lates poll seems to indicate a continuing slippage in his numbers. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/09/bush.poll/index.html

Trump can’t fire Bush, but we can!
http://www.humorgazette.com/bush_trump3.htm

[Desmostylus]

@Apos

I hardly think Sam is a lackey for the administration. He’s his own dude who happens to support the administration.

You’re right, of course. Doesn’t mean that it doesn’t get annoying, though.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Apos

I hardly think Sam is a lackey for the administration. He’s his own dude who happens to support the administration.

True. You’re not a whore if you give it away.

[Desmostylus]

@Apos

Indeed, the PDB is almost an example of that: its extremely simplified, fitting with the apparent directive that the President must not be made to read too much, nothing over a page.

No. You’re missing the fact that that particular PDB is in fact eleven and a half pages long.

Deadly Mistakes
U.S. Investigators Knew About Planned Terror Attacks, Let the Suspects Get Away. More Clues That CIA and FBI Could Have Prevented the Attack on America
by Oliver Schröm
Die Zeit
October 1, 2002

Crawford, Aug. 6, 2001. U.S. president George W. Bush is on vacation. He wants to spend the whole month at his ranch in Texas. Every morning, however, he still receives his Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, wherein the CIA informs the president about the country’s security situation. On this morning, the report is straight from the CIA director. His PDB runs 11 and one-half printed pages, instead of the usual two to three, and carries the title, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” Therein the CIA chief explains that al Qaeda has decided to carry out attacks within the United States, and that presumably members of the terrorist organization have been in the country for some time. It is unclear whether the CIA director informed the president about the statements of arrested al Qaeda members. According to their confessions, the terrorist organization for some time has been thinking about hijacking planes and using them as missiles.

All that was released publicly, and AFAIK to the Commission as well, is that one and a half pages quoted in the OP.

At a guess, I’d say the missing ten pages deal with Saddam, or “Pearl Harbor” or some such.

@Spavined Gelding

If the Administration had been persuaded that there was a significant danger presented it would have acted. The problem was that it was not about to be persuaded.

I think they actually were persuaded that there was a threat, but not motivated to take actions designed to protect the public at large.

Bush had planes patrolling over Crawford, where he was having his vacation.

transcript of Rep. McKinney’s remarks on September 14 [2002] at the reception for the Congressional Black Caucus

And after I’ve asked the tough questions, here’s what we now know:

• That in the weeks prior to September 11, 24-hour fighter cover was placed over the President’s ranch in Crawford, Texas;

When he went to Florida on 9/10, surface-to-air missiles were set up to protect the place he was staying.

The Day Before Everything Changed, President Bush Touched Locals’ Lives
by Tom Bayles
The Sarasota Herald-Tribune
September 10, 2002

At the Colony, the Secret Service was getting everything secured for when the president arrived on Sept. 10. That included snipers and surface-to-air missiles on the roof and the Coast Guard patrolling just offshore.

Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial airliners.

Ashcroft Flying High
WASHINGTON, July 26, 2001

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a “threat assessment” by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.

“There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines,” an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.

They even took the extraordinary step of banning Salman Rushdie from taking domestic flights in the US.

Bin Laden’s Trail
Rushdie’s air ban
by James Doran
The London Times
September 27, 2001

The author Salman Rushdie believes that US authorities knew of an imminent terrorist strike when they banned him from taking internal flights in Canada and the US only a week before the attacks.

On September 3 the Federal Aviation Authority made an emergency ruling to prevent Mr Rushdie from flying unless airlines complied with strict and costly security measures. Mr Rushdie told The Times that the airlines would not upgrade their security.

The FAA told the author’s publisher that US intelligence had given warning of “something out there” but failed to give any further details.

The FAA confirmed that it stepped up security measures concerning Mr Rushdie but refused to give a reason.

All in all, there were some strange things going on. It’s difficult to put together a sensible picture of exactly what the thinking behind it all was, because the principal players (probably quite reasonably from their own perspectives) insist on witholding information and telling lies.