Join 3,494 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Yes, But John Kerry Looks French
April 10, 2004 12:25 AM   Subscribe

Bush Was Warned of Possible Attack in U.S., Official Says "President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday. The warning came in a secret briefing that Mr. Bush received at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 6, 2001. A report by a joint Congressional committee last year alluded to a "closely held intelligence report" that month about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda, and the official confirmed an account by The Associated Press on Friday saying that the report was in fact part of the president's briefing in Crawford." Then again, he had more important things to deal with that Summer.
posted by owillis (62 comments total)

 
he had more important things to deal with that Summer.

Like stem cells.
posted by homunculus at 12:31 AM on April 10, 2004


If the Times' unnamed source is right, this means Condi Rice was LYING in her testimony when she said that this information hadn't been passed all the way up the ladder.

This administration has teased us with non-fall guys before, but Condi lied under oath. That's gotta count for something, right? And to think, she was once a mediocre Sovietologist.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 12:36 AM on April 10, 2004


Like stem cells.

I was vacationing most of August in Australia (ah, the summer of love) and I remember the newspapers were wall-to-wall stem cell talk the entire time. Australia knew then it could be a boom for them, and I hear a lot of prominent researchers have ended up there to do their work.
posted by mathowie at 12:39 AM on April 10, 2004


Australia knew then it could be a boom for them, and I hear a lot of prominent researchers have ended up there to do their work.

It's cool that the predictability of our American fundamentalist backwardness is solid enough to use as an investment criterion.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 12:43 AM on April 10, 2004


Well, we all know the strong feelings the GOP has about lying under oath...
posted by owillis at 12:44 AM on April 10, 2004


Speaking of investment criteria, are we ever going to get to the short sellers, or should we all just forget that ever happened?
posted by trondant at 1:06 AM on April 10, 2004


I think the big question hanging over all this is why is the administration acting just like a guilty defendant?
posted by Space Coyote at 3:37 AM on April 10, 2004


Is that a trick question?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:44 AM on April 10, 2004


Tsk. Are you people insinuating that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, and let it happen in order to squeeze delicious political gain from the event? Perish the thought.

The fact that X% of Americans and about (X*3)% of the rest of the informed western world consider this not just possible, but very likely, would be food for American thought, if American thought was, like, hungry or something.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:45 AM on April 10, 2004


no i think that he didn't act on the information because he is a petulant, self-involved dumbass who thinks that governing a nation is a full time job comprised of selling influence and acting as the puppet for people who have already bought influence. there just isn't enough time for much else.
posted by n9 at 5:12 AM on April 10, 2004


Regardless, it would certainly appear that Rice has lied under oath, and should be going to jail, assuming that is the penalty for people of her rank doing so. I look forward to similar fates for her superiors.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:15 AM on April 10, 2004


Tsk. Are you people insinuating that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, and let it happen in order to squeeze delicious political gain from the event?

nope, we people are not.

as for me, I think it was all worth it because now a brutal dictator is no longer in power.
posted by mcsweetie at 5:27 AM on April 10, 2004


it would certainly appear that Rice has lied under oath, and should be going to jail, assuming that is the penalty for people of her rank doing so. I look forward to similar fates for her superiors.

YAY! Frog-marching!
posted by crunchland at 5:31 AM on April 10, 2004


*sigh*

Clinton lies about consentual sex between adults? Impeachment.

Bush's team lies about the largest domestic attack since Pearl Harbor? "Good job, Condi."

And now, Opinion Time!™

There were upwards of 100 FBI agents investigating Whitewater / sex for Kenneth Starr in 1998. "Scores of FBI agents" said CNN. If they were doing real work, instead of chasing the GOP's dream of impeaching Clinton, would that have had an impact on 9/11? Even the smallest impact 3 years before the event could have had a large impact when 2001 rolled around. Just my opinion...
posted by andreaazure at 5:40 AM on April 10, 2004


Washington, D.C., Nov. 3, 2000 — The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid. An Arlington Fire Department chief dispatches his equipment to the affected areas.

Don Abbott, of Command Emergency Response Training, walks over to the Pentagon and extinguishes the flames. The Pentagon was a model and the "plane crash" was a simulated one.

The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, as the crash was called, was just one of several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to Oct. 24-26 in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room.

On Oct. 24, there was a mock terrorist incident at the Pentagon Metro stop and a construction accident to name just some of the scenarios that were practiced to better prepare local agencies for real incidents.

posted by y2karl at 6:06 AM on April 10, 2004


I read the Claim/Fact info that stav linked to expecting to find something supporting the "lied under oath" claim. In my opinion it would be very difficult to qualify most of those things as "lies." Personally, I do not favor this administration, but these people do know how to cover their asses by making sure there are superficial liability shields between them and the information that could once and for all expose them. Implausible denial, but not quite enough to substantiate a claim of technically lying. And how dare anyone think this administration would lie to the god fearing citizens of this great country.
posted by anathema at 6:08 AM on April 10, 2004


"I think the big question hanging over all this is why is the administration acting just like a guilty defendant"
This seems to be their hallmark: never admit responsibility, never tell the public more than you absolutely have to.

I listened to the whole testimony at work. Rice took a lesson from Clinton. It's hard to say that she lied; she responded to questions with dubious judgements and obfuscations. I think it will be very difficult to pin anything on her.

I have to say I was impressed by the panel. I sure wish they were involved in decision making and policy. Oh wait...
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:13 AM on April 10, 2004


I think it was all worth it because now a brutal dictator is no longer in power

and they got a flat tax rate too!
posted by larry_darrell at 6:14 AM on April 10, 2004


"If there was any reason to believe that I needed to do something or that (Chief of Staff) Andy Card needed to do something, I would have been expected to be asked to do it. We were not asked to do it," Rice said.

At least some of the 10 commissioners saw the issue a different way: Not did the administration do what it was asked, but did it ask what it should do?

"But don't you ask somebody to do it?" countered Commissioner Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. "You're not asking somebody to do it. Why wouldn't you initiate that?"

Bush has said his management style is to delegate responsibility and to trust his aides to report to him what he needs to know.

That's what Clarke, in his testimony before the commission two weeks ago, said he tried to do. He said he repeatedly asked to raise the issue of a domestic attack at higher levels and was rebuffed.

In effect, Rice found herself in a rhetorical snare.

Arguing that the president fully grasped the threat of terrorist attacks -- her answer to the first fundamental question she had to address -- only made it harder for her to explain why he, or she, had not done more to try to stop the attacks.

"If the message got through, and he didn't act, then it is clearly his responsibility," said George C. Edwards III, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University, of the president's role.

posted by y2karl at 6:20 AM on April 10, 2004


Bush close to releasing secret briefing: US President George W. Bush, who has fought aggressive battles with Congress and the courts to maintain the secrecy of presidential documents, was on Friday poised to release what Vice-President Dick Cheney has called "the family jewels" - one of the ultra-secret daily briefings given to the president by the Central Intelligence Agency...

The commission, after fighting for months with the White House simply to be able to see the PDBs, has now asked that the August 6 document be declassified and released to the public... Sean McCormack, a White House spokesman, said on Thursday: "Our hope and intent is to declassify. It's part of our effort to provide the facts to the American people so they can understand the activities of their government prior to September 11."

A decision to release the PDB would be a dramatic turnround not only for the White House but for the CIA. The PDBs, which date back to 1964, are a daily summary of advice to the president from the CIA director on the most urgent threats facing the US.

posted by kliuless at 6:28 AM on April 10, 2004


Shouldn't we wait to see what the document says before we tag Condi as guilty of perjury? Of course, that might require some of us to set aside our hatred of the administration for a few moments to consider the possibility that Condi's testimony was truthful.....
posted by Durwood at 6:31 AM on April 10, 2004


There are two issues of importance relating to this news item (lead article at NY Times): 1. Will the document be declassified so that the accuracy of the claim can be discovered and discussed? (2) the Commission report will not be released BEFORE the elections (must be "vetted" by White House), so that the impact of the final report will not affect the outcome of the election.
posted by Postroad at 6:34 AM on April 10, 2004


Of course, that might require some of us to set aside our hatred of the administration for a few moments to consider the possibility that Condi's testimony was truthful.....

If someone had told her what to do, she would have done it?
posted by y2karl at 6:36 AM on April 10, 2004


as for me, I think it was all worth it because now a brutal dictator is no longer in power.

How the hell does one respond to that? sigh.
posted by LouReedsSon at 7:03 AM on April 10, 2004


Watch out for your democracy, guys...
posted by dash_slot- at 7:13 AM on April 10, 2004


How the hell does one respond to that? sigh.

Probably with "the ends don't justify the means". That doesn't mean it's never possible for the ends to justify the means, as some people might say, but in this case I think the cost in human lives has been greater than what has been achieved by removing Saddam - not to mention that he's just been replaced by general disorder and unrest. The point is certainly open for debate, though.

If you ask me, it all comes down whether you think governments should act based on the truth, or whether you think they should be allowed to manipulate the facts and hide things from the people to serve some sort of greater good.
posted by reklaw at 7:28 AM on April 10, 2004


as for me, I think it was all worth it because now a brutal dictator is no longer in power.

How the hell does one respond to that? sigh.


Ask her to pay for the invasion out of her own damn pocket.

Have you ever asked the 'rah rah glad we did the war' people exactly how much they are paying towards the war? I mean extra. Above and beyond what is taken via tax law.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:30 AM on April 10, 2004


If going to war in Iraq was worth it because w3e toppled a brutal dicator, then by all means sign me up for duty in Iran, Syria, Cuba, North Korea, and don't forget China.
posted by Postroad at 7:31 AM on April 10, 2004


um, just to clarify: I am a male and my tongue was planted firmly within my cheek when that statement was typed!
posted by mcsweetie at 7:40 AM on April 10, 2004


When the United Federation of Planets wants to topple a brutal dictator, they never strike first. That's how I roll.
posted by inksyndicate at 7:47 AM on April 10, 2004


dash_slot - Are you warning of this to suggest that too much heat on the Bush Administration will guarantee that such a plan is implemented? I can't tell based on your comment. But my inclination is that bullying is only encouraged by acquiescence.

Getting back to Condi Rice : anathema, speaking in his capacity as a law student (or maybe even a newly minted lawyer by now) might be right in asserting that Rice didn't actually commit perjury - I wouldn't doubt that she had a whole team of lawyers advising her as she crafted responses to the commission's possible questions - but she sure as hell nosed right up to the line on this one. I'd say it was a close shave, at least...

It really hinges on what one defines as "an historical document" now, doesn't it. Technically speaking, the term "historical" refers to everything in the field of human knowledge. All we know and are aware of, save for that fleeting millisecond of the "present", is "historical" - right?

So then, the August 8th memo was an "historical" document if one considers the realm of the "historical" to include yesterday and even the last 5 minutes. OK.

So - if Rice wants to pull a Clinton and parse the meaning of words like "historical" - then perhaps she didn't perjure herself. Furthermore, things get tricky for the fact that the August 8th memo warned of possible future occurrences, of possible Al Qaeda hijackings in the near future. Can a document which concerns possible future events be considered "historical" ?

There may be some case law on this issue. I'm not a lawyer. Any thoughts out there - Was Condi Rice merely mendacious or did she commit out and out perjury?


The mainstream media seems determined to ignore or downplay this story.

We'll see if they can keep it up with the release of the August 8 memo next week. But I'm thinking of poor ole' Trent Lott. Mainstream media ignored that scandal for a time also.

Amy Goodman interviews Sibel Edmonds and Colleen Rowley
posted by troutfishing at 8:08 AM on April 10, 2004


Operation Ignore
posted by y2karl at 8:13 AM on April 10, 2004


Heh. I was just trying to look at it from the perspective from these people. What is absolutely clear is that they will always parse and slice down to the nanometer, making accurate, reasoned responses from those who care more about substance than semantics and proceedure all the more vital. What still amazes me is the total disconnection between what comes out of the mouths of those in the administration and observable facts. [troutfishing-bar exam in July]
posted by anathema at 8:22 AM on April 10, 2004


No, she may not have commited textbook perjury but it's pretty obvious that she was less than truthful.

Know the biggest failure here? I'm a Democrat who hates Bush - but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that 9.11 really caught 'em with their pants down and that they really didn't know it would happen. But these guys have a need, an urge to always make it seem as if they're still in charge no matter what the facts on the ground say (like right now in Iraq).

"I know you did it, just admit it"
posted by owillis at 8:27 AM on April 10, 2004


Aw, c'mon, fess up. Tell us how Bush is the anti-Christ. No, wait, you don't believe in that Xtian stuff. Uh, okay, how about Hitler. Just string together a bunch of epithets, and we'll know how you feel. You don't even need to use his name anymore. Just spew and spew and spew.
It's so refreshing, like a stiff breeze from an outhouse.

Did you hear the one about when he starrred in a puppy and kitty stomping video? You can see it at moveon.orgasm. And how he was the serial rapist-murderer that they based Hannibal Lecter on. And how he tried to poison the town's water supply, but Al Gore stopped him? And his plans for world domination with the help of the Klingon Empire?

Don't you people ever stop? Give it a rest. Surf the web for something interesting for a change. Something not so unbelieveably partisan. Or just masturbate three times in rapid succession, accomplishes the same thing.
posted by kablam at 8:29 AM on April 10, 2004


Golly, kablam, that's a whole lotta purty talk without, you know, saying a goddamn thing to defend, you know, anything.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:35 AM on April 10, 2004


In her testimony under oath, Ms Rice said legal barriers had prevented law enforcement and intelligence agencies from pooling information.
How? or was that because the Patriot Act did not exit yet?

Why was this over looked? WOODS: "So I'm saying this because I really have reason to believe it's true. I found out later that not only was -- did he make a report, but the flight attendant also made a report of my suspicions to the FAA.

When I got home that night, it had been a very turbulent flight, I had said to this woman I'm dating, and my girlfriend and my best friend, she said, "How was the flight?" And I said, "Well aside from the terrorists and the turbulence, it was fine," which was now in retrospect not such a very funny joke, but it was August 1 and nobody was thinking along those lines."
posted by thomcatspike at 8:41 AM on April 10, 2004


My my. Spring is here and the migratory birds on their way north sure are honking loudly today. Maybe they're farting a bit too.

anathema - Best of luck (study hard, that is). You know, it strikes me that perjury must be fairly hard to prove. Still, I think Condi should be called on it so that we can witness the delicious spectacle of her trying to define exactly what "historical" is.
posted by troutfishing at 8:47 AM on April 10, 2004


/OT

I had said to this woman I'm dating, and my girlfriend

Classic James Woods!
posted by anathema at 8:48 AM on April 10, 2004


Just spew and spew and spew.

It's always the funniest when they flip out and exhibit the same sort of behaviours that they spuriously accuse their self-perceived adversaries of showing. Tasty meltdown irony.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:54 AM on April 10, 2004


It's not just our government that was warned about attacks on us here: what foreign govts were warning us about pre-9/11
posted by amberglow at 9:01 AM on April 10, 2004


Have you ever asked the 'rah rah glad we did the war' people exactly how much they are paying towards the war? I mean extra. Above and beyond what is taken via tax law.

I'm pretty sure that any reasonable financial analysis that includes the Bush tax breaks and accounts for the fact that most of the cost of the war will be pushed onto our children will demonstrate that most of the hawks are still making money from this administration.

They'd probably be making more money if we weren't spending bunches of it in Iraq, but for a long time, the war looked like Bush's ticket to a second term, and four more years of his economic policies will certainly mean even larger payoffs for his supporters.
posted by anapestic at 9:27 AM on April 10, 2004


Something not so unbelieveably partisan.

There's nothing partisan about hating the Bush administration. I have plenty of conservative friends who think Ashcroft is a bigger threat to American than communism. I know a ton of people (literally, we're talking at least 2000 pounds of person here) who supported the war but feel Bush is dropping the ball.
posted by Eamon at 9:39 AM on April 10, 2004


PROLOGUE: i just woke up.

i ain't read this shit yet, but i was thinking yesterday (when matt "The DELE" howie was busy excavating Postroad's post on the same topic from the database) that, given this document some 30-odd days prior to 9/11 what the fuck would anyone one at all have done with it? were the villains not already in country, learning how not to land large aircraft? would dub have rounded up and detained every swarthy bastard not kissing a crucifix by the minute? (hmmm. that one IS a possibility) shut down the airlines? shut down all commerce? would slick willie have dressed them in blue smocks, lined them up and shot them down with 50 caliber wads of trouser-deployed ranch dressing? would gwhb-etc-ect have hit them with a skull or bone while screaming "i am not a wimp", or perhaps had all do-rag-wearing dark folk submit to irradiation at a laser checkout lane? would jimmy carter have send billy on a mission to poison them all with billy beer? would ford have hit himself in the head with a golf ball? hadn't the islamofascists already deployed vicious submarine rabbits many years earlier? would nixon have motored on up to view the action from the sequoia, emphatically proclaiming "i am not an architect"?

well, i guess some intern could have sorted a few zillion temp visas, spotted atta, and headed the whole deal off. since it's apparent the INS is still using modified atari's due to a desire to avoid the perpetual serfdom of support agreements, i think we should blame the whole fucking mess on bill gates. we could hang his ass from that steel cross at ground zero and get mel gibson to film it.


EPILOGUE: that was fun. i'm almost awake now!
posted by quonsar at 10:16 AM on April 10, 2004


"The above summarized empirical findings provide a frame of reference for developing a specific set of indicators for terrorist threat assessment in terms of both terrorist strengths and weaknesses, in other words, indications-and-warning intelligence. What follows is a list of tentative steps, which, if properly adapted to different geopolitical settings, may serve as a substantive element in planning terrorism counteraction. Both components of terrorism counteraction - anti-terrorism or passive/defensive measures and counter-terrorism or active/offensive measures - are predicated upon the collection, evaluation, and analysis of timely and accurate intelligence.
Although this collection-evaluation-analysis process is usually regarded as falling within the jurisdiction of the nation-state, it should also be conducted - through public domain sources and governmental liaison - by the private sector to the degree and extent that passive/defensive measures legitimately contribute to enhancing individual and corporate security. It should not be forgotten that business certainly remains the most frequent target of international terrorism.
First: Identify exploitable societal conditions: historical, political, economic, social, and religious.
Terrorism does not develop in isolation but feeds upon and exploits a wide variety of societal conditions present in a given community, country, or broader geographical area at a given time. External geopolitical factors can also serve as a stimulus for terrorism in a specific area. Terrorist attacks are in fact frequently conducted out of sympathy for causes extraneous to the venue where perpetrated. By way of example, the recent simultaneous attacks against the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam appear at this time to be extraneous to issues concerning either Kenya or Tanzania.
Second: Determine the presence of one or more radical subcultures.
While societal conditions strongly influence the birth and viability of domestic as well as transnational terrorist groups, particular attention should be devoted to a dominant factor: the presence of one or more radical subcultures. These subcultures draw their inspiration from well-defined or even hazy ideologies corresponding to leftist, rightist, ethnic, theocratic, or mixed schools of thought. Subversive agitation - the first stage of unconventional conflict - is the offspring of a milieu directly traceable to a radical subculture. In turn, terrorism, in its "terror from below" variety, grows out of subversive agitation. Hence, a triangular relationship, facilitated by exploitable societal conditions, stands out: radical subculture, subversive agitation, terrorism. In the absence of a radical subculture, negative societal conditions are likely to generate civil strife, disturbances, and other forms of overt and violent protest rather than terrorism in the strict sense of the term.
Third: Monitor subversive agitation: revolutionary publications and propaganda as well as anti-institutional demonstrations and activities.
Because subversive agitation constitutes the operational cradle of terrorism, it is imperative that it be closely monitored. Subversive agitators typically recruit additional subversive cohorts, incite the populace to disobey the laws, create civil disorders, and resort to overt street violence. Moreover, since groups of subversive agitators who have not reached the terrorist stage often coexist with ideologically kindred terrorist groups, the former can provide recruitment and support pools for the latter thus reinforcing the terrorist ranks. In turn, the presence of subversive agitators belonging to different radical subcultures increases the potential emergence of terrorist groups with contrasting ideological or political orientations, thus producing more sources of terrorism. Not least, subversive agitators from time to time resort not solely to ordinary - that is, overt - political violence but also to terrorism itself as a tactic.
Fourth: Analyze terrorist ideological tracts and responsibility claims to identify ultimate goals and intermediate objectives.
Terrorist literary production, though often untruthful or based upon an ideologically-biased perception of society, furnishes nonetheless valuable insights regarding the mindset, self-image, aims, and preferential targets of a given terrorist group. Terrorist manifestoes and declarations can also indirectly provide data to assess a given group's organization and capabilities.
Fifth: Record systematically all terrorist incidents to establish modus operandi.
Modus operandi, whose sophistication varies according to group, includes recruitment, training, and employment of personnel; targeting (selective and/or indiscriminate); tactics (weaponry selection, ambush attacks, raids, abductions, hijackings, hostage situations); patterns (time element, coordinated attacks, target clusters, major and complementary actions); internal security and communications; logistics and finance; responsibility claims; and captivity rules. Modus operandi reflects both current and potential capabilities of specific groups. The fact that two or more groups issue from the same radical subculture is not necessarily indicative of shared operational methods and practices. Modus operandi is also subject to modifications over time.
Sixth: Determine the structure of terrorist groups to assess capabilities.
The structure of a terrorist group is indicative of immediate as well as longer-term potential. Unicellular or multicellular and compartmentalized, terrorist groups are rigidly or loosely structured with centralized or decentralized leadership. In some cases they can also serve as an umbrella for lesser aggregations. Militants are part-timers, full-timers, or mixed. In many cases terrorist groups reflect an ephemeral or ad hoc aggregation. Structure - and size - will affect not only security, discipline, training, command, control, communications, planning, operations, and logistics, but also a group's life span. Groups belonging to the same radical subculture do not necessarily, and in fact often do not, adopt the same structure.
Seventh: Identify overt and semi-covert support organizations, movements, and networks.
These aggregations of external supporters facilitate terrorist propaganda, recruitment, logistics, and intelligence. Some of them are institution-based: in schools, factories, labor unions, unemployed societal strata, extra-parliamentary political circles, refugee camps, immigrant communities, or extremist religious congregations. Others are area-based, particularly where ethnic/separatist terrorism is active. In some cases, terrorist groups are flanked by political parties, usually extra-parliamentary but with certain notable exceptions. Some groups are further supported by unlawful finance-gathering networks totally dedicated to the terrorist cause.
Eighth: Verify the presence of possible international linkages with kindred foreign groups and/or sponsor states.
When present, these linkages are precarious, generally range from ideological solidarity to logistical cooperation, and occasionally entail operations. Nonetheless, they constitute a clear threat since they broaden the terrorist support base and sphere of action. State sponsorship, which is a notable exception but by no means the rule, is more readily available to terrorist groups having a dual structure: an overt one for socio-political action and a covert one for terrorism itself. State sponsorship for subnational terrorist groups is generally self-serving and predicated upon plausible denial.
This explains in part why terrorist groups are known to have sought multiple and alternate sources of support at the level of both state sponsors and private circles. The financial and logistical support allegedly provided by millionaire Osama bin Ladin to Islamic radical groups that practice terrorism is a most current example of private sponsorship. It is reminiscent of an earlier millionaire and private patron, Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, whose ideology and aims differed from bin Ladin's, but not the resort to violent and clandestine means.
Ninth: Probe exploitable terrorist structural and operational weaknesses and failures.
Terrorist groups thrive primarily on the elements of initiative and surprise, both highly dependent upon clandestine structures and dynamics. At the same time, these groups are subject to constraints exploitable by terrorism-counteraction agencies. To begin with, the necessarily clandestine nature of terrorist aggregations is a double-edged dagger. Clandestinity requires on the part of its practitioners discipline, commitment, and the ability to cope with stress. The application of security rules, particularly compartmentalization, must be constant: there is no room for exceptions or relaxation. Terrorist groups must also foreclose internal dissent and schisms. Likewise, the mood and reactions of supporters and sympathizers must always be gauged by the terrorist core. Indiscriminate recruitment can also constitute a fatal flaw. Personnel renewal is contemporaneously a challenge. Finally, failure to achieve its ultimate radical or revolutionary goal within the expected time frame can prove to be devastating to
any terrorist group. Terrorism-counteraction agencies must be prepared to exploit all of these factors.
Tenth: Determine the type and extent of terrorism-counteraction assistance available from the governments of allied and friendly states.
States often entertain different perceptions - accompanied by conflicting national interests and priorities - regarding the threat of terrorism and, more so, the adoption of suitable countermeasures. Unanimity or divergence of views among states contributes to weakening or strengthening the operational options of international and, at times, domestic terrorist groups as well as their respective supporters, particularly sponsor states. Concurrently, in the absence of international or, as a minimum, regional consensus, the options available to the terrorism counteraction agencies of single states are seriously downgraded.

The ninth and tenth steps operationally fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the organs of government. The private or business sector should nonetheless be aware of them, and of their underlying implications, in so far as these two steps indirectly assist in entrepreneurial decision-making and in the adoption of defensive/passive measures in the broad area of physical security.
Although conceptually sequential, the above-outlined steps in practice usually require nearly concurrent application, particularly if multiple and separate actors account for subversive agitation, terrorism, or both. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that even after the emergence of terrorism, when prevention has obviously failed for political or technical reasons, indications-and-warning intelligence can still play a major role in the containment and repression phases of terrorism counteraction."

lot of data in that...get the picture.

good morning Q.
posted by clavdivs at 10:22 AM on April 10, 2004


I was one of those people that doubted Clinton's motives when he went after Bin Laden, and I was wrong.
Had Bush acted decisively and ordered a previously unheard of level of security at our airports and other vulnerable points and prevented an attack, it probably would have provoked an outrage in this country even though it would have been the right thing to do.
It might have hurt him politically, and might have even cost him the next election, especially when you consider in hind site that the war is the only reason he is a contender now.
It may have ended his career, but it could have prevented the worst attack in this country's history.
I want a president that would make a decision like that based on what's right; one who's willing to commit political suicide if needed to protect our interests. Would John Kerry be willing to do that? I think the young Kerry who came back from the war and spoke out against it would be that man, but I doubt Senator Kerry has that much spine these days.
posted by 2sheets at 10:26 AM on April 10, 2004


ton of people (literally, we're talking at least 2000 pounds of person here)
Bet you know more than just 10 to 15 people, they may not be your best friend, but you know them.

At the end of Rice's hearing it was pointed out that besides the Executive Branch, Congress could be looked upon for 9/11 happening. Will this be a topic that the Exectuive Branch may open as an escape goat for them.
posted by thomcatspike at 10:31 AM on April 10, 2004


...Congress could be looked them for 9/11
posted by thomcatspike at 10:33 AM on April 10, 2004


q, if the FBI or CIA or whoever had just warned the airlines and the public, and given the terrorist's names to them pre-9/11, at least some of them if not all wouldn't have been able to get on those planes that morning, no?
And Ashcroft knew enough not to fly commercial from the summer on--why didn't we?
posted by amberglow at 10:35 AM on April 10, 2004


quonsar: by george, I think you've got it.

Back in the 1980s, I heard that bombers are the worst criminals to catch, unless they are stupid. Because they can pick the time, the place, the target, the means, the mode, and be out of Dodge sipping martinis in the next county before it all goes down. Even if their bomb doesn't work, they still win if they aren't caught. They have a 98% chance of success.

Any other form of aggressive, violent action surrenders one or more of these advantages. But almost no target cannot be touched, no matter the security, if you are willing to commit the resources to get to it.

Did Clinton and his people fail? No. Bush and his? No. Was security before 9-11 tight enough to prevent it? No. (Credit to Clinton, who *had* been trying to tighten airport security with ID checks and things, but faced strong opposition everywhere.)

Last but not least, is security tight enough *now* to prevent it? Yes, if we're lucky, 99% of the time. But that 1% is all that has to get through for a disaster.

If you want to read how hard it is to catch a terrorist, try reading up on NYCs "Mad Bomber".
posted by kablam at 10:35 AM on April 10, 2004


"SULU! IT'S A DIRECT HIT. PREPARE THE ESCAPE GOATS!"
posted by quonsar at 10:35 AM on April 10, 2004


Shouldn't we wait to see what the document says before we tag Condi as guilty of perjury?

Disputing Rice testimony

Seattle Security Officials Unaware Of Threats Mentioned By Rice

Clarke disputes Rice's testimony

and lastly:

Rice testimony terrific: Bush
posted by mcsweetie at 11:02 AM on April 10, 2004


he PDBs, which date back to 1964, are a daily summary of advice to the president from the CIA director on the most urgent threats facing the US.

bet the first one said "HOLY FUCK, JACK! THE COMMIE BAStARDS GOT NUKES IN CUBA!"

i don't care if they date to 1774. i want to see this one. at l;east in 50 years or so when the real truth is "declassified" my grandkids can both have a real hoot and learn an important lesson about politics.
posted by quonsar at 11:16 AM on April 10, 2004


in 50 years or so when the real truth is "declassified" my grandkids can both have a real hoot and learn an important lesson about politics.
Lesson learned about politics: you are too late.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:23 AM on April 10, 2004


I'm not surprised it is taking the Whitehouse so long to declassify the PDB. After all, it is an entire page and a half long, which is the extent of Bush's attention span when there are shiny objects in the room.
posted by JackFlash at 11:31 AM on April 10, 2004


Don't think anyone can say it better than quonsar with his early morning daze.
posted by Krrrlson at 1:35 PM on April 10, 2004


At the end of Rice's hearing it was pointed out that besides the Executive Branch, Congress could be looked upon for 9/11 happening.

How, by passing a resolution strongly condemning terrorist attacks? Congress' law enforcement purview is strictly oversight.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 2:08 PM on April 10, 2004


Losing Touch With Reality - from the Guardian
posted by amberglow at 2:24 PM on April 10, 2004


Among Military Families, Questions About Bush

"This has completely changed my view of the administration," said Mrs. Drown, wearing an American flag T-shirt and sunglasses. "My husband is a soldier and his job is to fight for freedom. But after so many months and so many deaths, no one has shown us any weapons of mass destruction or given us an explanation. "So a lot of military wives are now asking: `Why? Why did we go to Iraq?' The administration talked a strong story, but a lot of us are kicking our butts about how we voted last time around. Now we're leaning the other way." She is not certain how she will vote in this year's presidential contest, though right now she says she would not vote for Mr. Bush. "I am watching very closely and waiting to see how things turn out." As the conflict in Iraq deepens beyond some prior predictions, the military voting block could become a serious domestic casualty for the Bush administration.


The following is a redacted text of the presidential daily briefing from August 6, 2001: Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.

A clandestine sourcesaid in 1998 that a Bin Laden cell in New Yorkwas 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 [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar' Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-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 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.


.......

After weeks of increasingly violent news from Iraq, presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts now leads the president in a two-way trial heat by seven points (50 percent to 43 percent), according to the latest Newsweek poll.
posted by y2karl at 4:25 PM on April 10, 2004


I don't know about this.

My money is still on Enron.
posted by john at 5:05 PM on April 10, 2004


"In an unusual pre-emptive strike, Mr. Ashcroft's chief spokesman on Friday accused some Democrats on the commission of having "political axes to grind" in attacking the attorney general, who oversees the F.B.I., and unfairly blaming him for law enforcement failures.
and what was john ashcroft doing about terrorism prior to 9-11 other than flying around in his own private aircraft to protect his voted out of office *ss. if anyone's head should roll - this creep should be at the head of the pack - followed by the man who appointed him.
posted by specialk420 at 6:15 PM on April 10, 2004


...my tongue was planted firmly within my cheek when that statement was typed!

Oh I knew that Mc... I was only asking how because I cross paths with so many who have that very mentality. It astounds me daily and I really don't know how to respond! :)
posted by LouReedsSon at 8:24 PM on April 10, 2004


« Older Can you balance the budget?...  |  The ubiquitous Nick Popaditch.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments