Bin Laden Determined to Attack in U.S.

July 25, 2004 7:26 AM

Correcting the Record.In meticulous detail the 9/11 commission's report found that the hijackers had repeatedly broken the law in entering the United States, that Mr. bin Laden may have micromanaged the attacks but did not pay for them, that intelligence agencies had considered the threat of suicide hijackings, and that Mr. Bush received an August 2001 briefing on evidence of continuing domestic terrorist threats from Al Qaeda.
posted by the fire you left me (57 comments total)

Hey look! A NYT front page story I read four hours ago. What are the odds?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:57 AM on July 25, 2004

Am I an America-hating partisan schmuck because I'm surprised that the Times buried Friday and skips completely today the commission's report that no-one on flight 93 ever said "Let's roll!"? I mean, we heard that rallying cry from every politico who wanted to use 9/11 to celebrate mythical American valor rather than investigate the complexities of human perfidy and fallibility, and now it's exposed as one more useful lie. Isn't that worth an analysis piece, or at least an op-ed?
posted by nicwolff at 8:08 AM on July 25, 2004

This is good, and shows that basically every single official lied under oath when they testified (and it brings up the point of how did they find this stuff out anyway).

And this is weird: But the commission reached a far different conclusion, finding that Mr. bin Laden was cut off from his family's wealth after the early 1990's and that he financed Al Qaeda's operations through a core group of wealthy Muslim donors, mainly in the Persian Gulf.

but later they say this:
''Saudi Arabia has long been considered the principal source of Al Qaeda financing," the commission wrote in its final report. "But we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization."

there's a carefully worded statement if i ever saw one.
posted by amberglow at 8:09 AM on July 25, 2004

I have to say that - if the 9-11 Commission's report is to be believed, and it seems to be even handed enough to have some integrity - my understanding of the whole affair has moved from 'conspiracy!' to 'cock-up'. [followed swiftly by cover-up, o'course...].

The Bush Administration needs to explain stuff like the ignoring of the August 8th PDB [the 'historic' memo, AKA 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack in U.S'] and the failure of the Air Force to defend it's homeland.

I'd say incompetence like that would be uppermost on my mind in November, were I a US elector.
posted by dash_slot- at 8:12 AM on July 25, 2004

'...we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization...'

hmmm....

So a Saudi prince or princess (of which there are allegedly thousands) isn't specifically excluded from that judgement...

Is there evidence to support that, I wonder?
posted by dash_slot- at 8:17 AM on July 25, 2004

I guess Clinton ignored this back in 1998:

PDB 12/4/1998, Subject: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks
The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.

SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks 1. Reporting suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh Umar Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq Awda...
posted by republican at 8:45 AM on July 25, 2004

I guess Clinton ignored this back in 1998

Hard to say why you would guess that. He received the warning in the PDB, but it never did happen on his watch (whether by luck, the attack was thwarted or due to some other reason) did it?
posted by psmealey at 8:49 AM on July 25, 2004

Funny how the Clinton administration repeatedly and strongly warned the Bush administration about those threats, and the Bush people sat on their asses, isn't it? Don't even bother trying to pin 9/11 on Clinton (a popular activity among the right lately).

It happened on Bush's "watch"--to use a term loosely.
posted by amberglow at 9:00 AM on July 25, 2004

I guess Clinton ignored this back in 1998:

PDB 12/4/1998, Subject: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks
The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.

SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks 1. Reporting suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh Umar Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq Awda...

If you recall Clinton tried to take out Bin Laden with missile strikes before even receiving this brief. You can't accusing him of ignoring the terrorist problem. You could however accuse him of failing to solve it.
posted by srboisvert at 9:06 AM on July 25, 2004

So the planning for 911 began in as soon as Clinton was on the plane heading home? I just don't see how 8 years of Clinton and 8 months of Bush equate to equal blame for 911.
posted by republican at 9:10 AM on July 25, 2004

The Pakistan connection
posted by homunculus at 9:18 AM on July 25, 2004

If you recall Clinton tried to take out Bin Laden with missile strikes before even receiving this brief.

and as i recall, the fascist republican blowhards were claiming "wag the dog" at the time, saying that he launched missiles to distract us from the missiles he had launched with monica.
posted by quonsar at 9:19 AM on July 25, 2004

With one face I'm accusing Bush and the boys of sitting on their collective ass, pre 9/11; with the other face I think I'll bitch and bitch and bitch about the measures, from Homeland Security to Afghanistan and Iraq, that he and his fellow crypto-fascists took when not sitting on their asses. Mensa sure ain't recruiting here, is it?
posted by jfuller at 9:22 AM on July 25, 2004

Oh geez, a comment from a user named republican which ends up being a pathetic attack on Clinton. I hope they are paying you dude.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center," Condoleezza Rice,

That's all right Condi, its not like its your job to know such things. Oh wait...
posted by skallas at 9:25 AM on July 25, 2004

I just don't see how 8 years of Clinton and 8 months of Bush equate to equal blame for 911.

Ah, a pointless (brainless?) partisan shit throwing contest. Just the thing for a dreary Sunday afternoon. If you bother to read the 9/11 commission report, you'd know that no one is holding the Clinton Administration completely blameless for the 9/11 attacks, and certainly could have done more to disrupt planning for it. However, as amberglow points out, a comprehensive plan for dealing with the Islamist threat was passed from the Clinton to the Bush administration in January 2001, and by most accounts by folks on both sides, it was completely ignored by the incoming Administration.

Also, if you believe Richard Clarke, when Clinton's people had an inkling that something was in the works for the New Year's eve 1999, he insisted on daily briefings with the heads of the FBI, NSA and CIA to try to identify and neutralize the threat (which apparently they were successful, even if it was a lucky customs agent in Port Angeles, WA that was the key to stopping it). By contrast, huge warning signals were going off in July and August of 2001, and the Bush Adminstration took quite a (ahem) bit more low key approach to addressing the threat. Bush went to Midland, TX for a month and little if anything was done to raise the alarm.

Equal blame for 911?... that's a hanging curveball, but I think I'm not going to swing at it.
posted by psmealey at 9:30 AM on July 25, 2004

Oh geez, a comment from a user named republican which ends up being a pathetic attack on Clinton. I hope they are paying you dude

We're talking about the 911 Commission and Presidential briefings, right? Was my post off-topic or not factual? Are you not open-minded enough to handle some differing opinions?
posted by republican at 9:37 AM on July 25, 2004

I just don't see how 8 years of Clinton and 8 months of Bush equate to equal blame for 911.

Fair enough. Except the report seems to really be pointing blame at Congress, which cried 'wag the dog' during Clinton, and the Pentagon, whose higher ups repeatedly told Clinton that getting UBL was impossible without taking sizeable casualties (and telling agents in the field ready to abduct/assassinate him that Clinton was the one keeping them from performing this mission).

But by this reasoning of 8 years of Clinton vs. 8 months of Bush being inequal should beg the question: When the hell does someone on the right accept responsibility? It'll be 4 years soon of Bush, and give him another 4 years, they ask, and maybe, just maybe they'll do what they should've started doing (making US safer from further attacks) 3 years ago, when everyone was united behind them. Living in NYC, I fear another 4 years will result in a nuke detonating nearby.

I thought 9/11 was horrible, but that we were in a real sense lucky that that was all it was, namely a couple of aircraft taking down a couple of buildings. I don't think the true gravity of the threat is grasped, or else we wouldn't be galvanizing our enemies against us like we are. 3,000 dead got our attention. How many must die before people demand accountability from their government?
posted by Busithoth at 9:38 AM on July 25, 2004

Amen, Busithoth.
posted by psmealey at 9:43 AM on July 25, 2004

Until they find the memo that said Al Quada was going to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11, Bush will refuse to accept any of the blame for doing a terrible job of watching out for the country.

Looks like I've got some reading ahead of me today.
posted by fenriq at 9:46 AM on July 25, 2004

Mensa sure ain't recruiting here, is it?

no, they know you hang out around here, it just discouraged them.

anyway it's good to see how our -- literally -- republican friends rear their Bush-loving heads every once in a while, slam that Clinton liar for letting 911 happen. they sure don't appear a lot when we discuss stuff like, you know, the Abu Ghraib rape/torture/murder rooms
posted by matteo at 9:53 AM on July 25, 2004

> That's all right Condi, its not like its your job to know such things. Oh wait...

Right here is the most egregious instance of not looking out for the country that's going on right now, and nobody but Ljubljana has even mentioned it, and that nine months ago. It certainly isn't on the skallas radar anyway. Skallas, meet Condi; pot, meet kettle.


> no, they know you hang out around here, it just discouraged them.

On preview--matteo, look in the mirror and meet Pulcinella.
posted by jfuller at 10:10 AM on July 25, 2004

oh, just call me a wop and get it over with, willya? you'll feel better already. I guess the Abu Ghraib atrocities kinda ruin that jingo feelgood thing you have going on there, don't they?
posted by matteo at 10:16 AM on July 25, 2004

hey! hey! CPA!
fucked a little kid in the ass today?
posted by quonsar at 10:27 AM on July 25, 2004

bah, anyway, back to (quasi)topic:

it's fun to hear the wingnuts' squealing about Clinton and terrorism when it was the Republicans who spent years (and a fuckload of cash) chasing sex rumors and sniffing cum-stained dresses instead of reading intelligence briefs.

and if you consider actual records, well, under Clinton's watch America was attacked by

1 - a nice red-white-blue blooded Conservative military guy (but I guess it's not polite to mention that) who was promptly caught, tried, convincted

2 - a husky, luckily incompetent fella who was promptly caught, tried, convincted

Bush's record in less than half that time:

1 - 3,000 dead as the just-back-from-a-monthlong-vacation President read goat stories to Florida kids, no arrests or convictions (where's Osama?) unless you count the Abu Ghraib child rapes as retribution for 9-11

2 - the anthrax murders -- no arrests, no convictions

and it's not even 4 years in the White House yet.
posted by matteo at 10:37 AM on July 25, 2004

...and on Sundays, quonsar ventilated his issues with certified public accountants.
posted by jfuller at 10:37 AM on July 25, 2004

that would be Coalition Provisional Authority, but your focus on the financial is unsurprising.
posted by quonsar at 10:39 AM on July 25, 2004

Until they find the memo that said Al Quada was going to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11, Bush will refuse to accept any of the blame for doing a terrible job of watching out for the country.

Maybe there's something similar in the 10 pages of the PDB entitled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S. that weren't released. That link also includes links to some PDBs from 40 years ago. Maybe the 10 that were withheld were completely unrelated, but why the smokescreen then?
posted by euphorb at 10:42 AM on July 25, 2004

neither is his focus on his perceived opponents' ethnicity -- a classic right-wing reflex if there ever was one
posted by matteo at 10:44 AM on July 25, 2004

and as i recall, the fascist republican blowhards were claiming "wag the dog" at the time, saying that he launched missiles to distract us from the missiles he had launched with monica.

Kinda like some fascist democrat blowhards are now claiming Bush started a war in Iraq to distract us from domestic issues?


anyway it's good to see how our -- literally -- republican friends rear their Bush-loving heads every once in a while, slam that Clinton liar for letting 911 happen. they sure don't appear a lot when we discuss stuff like, you know, the Abu Ghraib rape/torture/murder rooms

And the important thing is, it has nothing to do with trollish insults you and others routinely hurl at them for expressing their opinion.

Placing the blame exclusively on one of the two administrations is shortsighted and idiotic. The only difference is what kind of idiot you are.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:55 AM on July 25, 2004

matteo a:

> oh, just call me a wop and get it over with, willya?

matteo b:

> neither is his focus on his perceived opponents' ethnicity -- a classic right-wing
> reflex if there ever was one


Why matteo, I didn't accept your invitation, and you talk as if I had. I'd say it's the cowardly (but comic) buffoon portion of your character winning out over the heir of Garibaldi. Be ashamed.
posted by jfuller at 11:02 AM on July 25, 2004

matteo will bait you endlessly to hit him with a ethnic stereotype, and if you do it and lower yourself to his level, he'll cry to anyone who'll listen about the hate crime that's been committed. Talk about focusing on ethnicity. Get down off the cross, matteo, someone else needs the wood.
posted by dhoyt at 11:09 AM on July 25, 2004

so jfuller, you casually mentioned a Italian clown Pulcinella in order to insult me? a coincidence, really.
funny how you used Pulcinella because I am Italian -- nice try tho.


Be ashamed.
no way. I'm not the fascist one here.
posted by matteo at 11:09 AM on July 25, 2004

hey, i'm just curious. how many of you have actually read the report?
posted by Stynxno at 11:09 AM on July 25, 2004

> that would be Coalition Provisional Authority, but your focus on the financial
> is unsurprising.

He had forty-three issues, all carefully packed,
With his name neatly stenciled on each;
But as he neglected to mention the fact,
They were all left behind on the beach.

-- The Hunting of the Q-snark

posted by jfuller at 11:11 AM on July 25, 2004

reading it, not done yet.
posted by Busithoth at 11:13 AM on July 25, 2004

I read it.
posted by mcsweetie at 11:16 AM on July 25, 2004

read it. I think it's surprisingly good, probably way too soft at times -- like on airport authorities and airlines (I think it's likely that were guns/bombs onboard at least some of the planes, see Amy Sweeney's and other passengers calls etc) but I guess you can't have the commission effectively shut down the US airline industry with a really kick-ass report on that particular security failure.

________

hmm, dhoyt too -- nice party, boys.
dhoyt, I'll spell this out clearly for you: I'm not the one who dragged ethnicity here. your buddy did, with the Pulcinella thing. you guys operate this way. darker-skinned "enemies" make you uncomfy. deal with it. or get therapy.

(unless of course you think, say, mentioning minstrel shows to insult black people is OK as well. do you?)
posted by matteo at 11:20 AM on July 25, 2004

Still waiting for it to arrive from Amazon. It'll be next week's bedtime reading.

And i'm sure Bush brought a copy with him down to Crawford to read--not.
posted by amberglow at 11:23 AM on July 25, 2004

Trying to wrap my head around the reasoning that could lead a person to place at least equal blame on Bill Clinton for 9/11 as on the ever-vigilant, hard-working, endlessly curious Bush.

While John Ashcroft was chasing prostitutes, Bin Laden was planning his atack. Unless you wanted clinton to come back and be president during 2001 there's nothing he could have done about that.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:36 AM on July 25, 2004

As I read the coverage, there is plenty of blame to go around for 9/11. Moving on now!

I fail to see how having a Head Spook and a Department of Spy is going to solve the problem that people higher up failed to listen to people in the field that said there is a problem. Case in point would be the FBI guys who pointed out the foreigners in flight school who didn't care how to take off or land an airplane, they just wanted to know how to maneuver it.

So far, the biggest anti-terrorism sucesses domestically since 9/11 have been almost accidental: a mis-delivered letter leads to the arrest of Krar; vigilant fliers stop Richard Reid. We have to stop counting on being lucky, and come up with methods that actually catch bad guys without mangling the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, we have to start seriously looking at why a bunch of educated middle class guys take up terrorism. McVeigh was not "white-trash"; Mohammed Atta was not an impoverished Palestinian, but a middle class Saudi; John Walker Lindh grew up in a "good Christian household." Better foreign aid would not have deterred any of these men.

It does not mean I "hate America" that I refuse to accept "they hate us and our freedoms" as a full and complete answer.
posted by ilsa at 11:38 AM on July 25, 2004

ilsa, changing the people higher up will help with that, i think.

and this is good: Place Your Bets : >
posted by amberglow at 11:59 AM on July 25, 2004

I refuse to accept "They hate us and our freedoms" as an answer at all, ilsa. That's a simpleminded tag slogan formulated by the simple for the simple - plays just fine on FauxNews, but it doesn't even begin to take into account the more egregious "crimes" of American foreign policy, both overt and covert, carried out on the very soil of those whom now "hate us for our freedoms." I'm sick to death of us behaving as if we had done nothing wrong, nothing worth hating, in the fifty years that have passed since we were last recognizably "the good guys".

I've read the report through once - not a deep, discerning read, a quick "get a sense of the scope of it" read - and I'm impressed. It's far more balanced than we had any reason to expect from a government effort, particularly when the issue is as partisan as this. I feel a little vindicated that it makes clear the point that the "war effort" in Iraq is unrelated to the 9/11 attacks, which has always been obvious to me but apparently not to those who support that effort (last I heard, more than half the people in this country still believed what the administration had told them, that Hussein was connected to 9/11...).

I have to say stays with me most after a first reading are the first couple of dozen or so pages - the description of the actual attacks, in cold, clean detail. Like many Americans, I remember distinctly where I was and what I was doing that morning and all the rest of that day, and reading the almost clinically detached detail of what was going on aboard those aircraft was just chilling.

Still in all, the report itself makes a good alternative to "Farenheit 911"'s subtle-as-being-run-down-by-a-bus spin on some of these same incidents and facts.
posted by JollyWanker at 12:22 PM on July 25, 2004

ilsa, I agree completely that the "they hate us" argument is bullshit, but I think better foriegn aid could have detracted from all of your terrorists' intentions.

God knows how Gulf War 1 fucked with McVeigh's head (though it sounds like he was paranoid before that). Do you think Atta would be as angry with the US if we spread the billions we spend on Israel every year around Central Asia a little bit? Who would Lindh have fought for if we had spent some time building concensus and infrastructure in Afganistan rather than just buying them guns to fight the communists?

The US foriegn aid budget could have been and could continue to be spent in a more responsible manner that might lessen rather than increase the chance of terrorism.
posted by jmgorman at 12:37 PM on July 25, 2004

my 2 cents:

So the planning for 911 began in as soon as Clinton was on the plane heading home? I just don't see how 8 years of Clinton and 8 months of Bush equate to equal blame for 911

Regan, who I am not a fan of, had his greatest moment in office when he said something like: "While if there is no one at fault for the Beruit attacks, if you are looking for someone to blame, blame me."

The most shameful moment(s) of the current administration and current congress: not standing up like a man and taking responsibility for an act that occured while they were responsible for the saftey of the nation.

The past doesn't matter in this situation, having a leader that leads, and takes responsibility for their leadership, does. Bush failed in that respect, completely.
posted by kurtosis at 12:40 PM on July 25, 2004

What kurtosis said, in spades. The whole point of leadership is to take responsibility. Bush has done nothing but blame others and pursue policies that have specious connections to his "war on terror."
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:11 PM on July 25, 2004

"...fool me once, shame on... shame on you... fool me... you can't get fooled again..." - george w. bush
posted by quonsar at 1:17 PM on July 25, 2004

> if we had spent some time building concensus and infrastructure in Afganistan

Heartily agree with the infrastructure proposal, but it's a bit hard to build "concencus" with folks who bury women in the ground up to their necks and stone them to death for random offenses against the patriarchy.


> Regan, who I am not a fan of, had his greatest moment in office when he said
> something like: "While if there is no one at fault for the Beruit attacks, if
> you are looking for someone to blame, blame me."
>
> The most shameful moment(s) of the current administration and current
> congress: not standing up like a man and taking responsibility for
>an act that occured while they were responsible for the saftey of the nation.

fuller salutes that. Too bad I can't have Ron again, instead of George. At least Ron was a Republican. Oh well, maybe they'll fix the Constitution so I can have Arnold the Austrian. Then let the Euroweenies freeble and wheep!
posted by jfuller at 1:24 PM on July 25, 2004

With one face I'm accusing Bush and the boys of sitting on their collective ass, pre 9/11; with the other face I think I'll bitch and bitch and bitch about the measures, from Homeland Security to Afghanistan and Iraq, that he and his fellow crypto-fascists took when not sitting on their asses. Mensa sure ain't recruiting here, is it?

You can want Bush to do something effective to prevent terrorism and criticize the measures he does take because they're ineffective. I learned that in Mensa!
posted by turaho at 1:29 PM on July 25, 2004

You can want Bush to do something effective to prevent terrorism and criticize the measures he does take because they're ineffective.

If you look at fighting terrorism as a law enforcement rather than a military problem, then the answer is yes. The only way you can find and disrupt these guys is if you can infiltrate them and get the assistance of every law enforcement agency on the globe. Using a brute force military approach may help you crush dubious links to state sponsorship or support, but in the end it creates addtional resentments among adversaries (which terrorists can use as effective recruiting devices) and allies and disrupts your ability to hunt, identify and halt terrorist plots.
posted by psmealey at 1:42 PM on July 25, 2004

One of the things that the report appears to say is that the battle is more for hearts and minds than a ground battle.

From David Brooks:

We are facing, the report notes, a loose confederation of people who believe in a perverted stream of Islam that stretches from Ibn Taimaya to Sayyid Qutb. Terrorism is just the means they use to win converts to their cause.

. . .

When you see that our enemies are primarily an intellectual movement, not a terrorist army, you see why they are in no hurry. With their extensive indoctrination infrastructure of madrassas and mosques, they're still building strength, laying the groundwork for decades of struggle. Their time horizon can be totally different from our own.

As an ideological movement rather than a national or military one, they can play by different rules. There is no territory they must protect. They never have to win a battle but can instead profit in the realm of public opinion from the glorious martyrdom entailed in their defeats. We think the struggle is fought on the ground, but they know the struggle is really fought on satellite TV, and they are far more sophisticated than we are in using it.

. . .

Last week I met with a leading military officer stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq, whose observations dovetailed remarkably with the 9/11 commissioners. He said the experience of the last few years is misleading; only 10 percent of our efforts from now on will be military. The rest will be ideological. He observed that we are in the fight against Islamic extremism now where we were in the fight against communism in 1880.


posted by caddis at 2:23 PM on July 25, 2004

Ideological war?
Just cross out Communist and fill in Islamic in all your 1953 talking points, fellow travelers.

BTW, did you cut and paste Brooks directly? Did the NYT actually print "the fight against communism in 1880"? It only seems a hundred-some-odd years ago.
posted by wendell at 6:02 PM on July 25, 2004

yes
posted by caddis at 6:06 PM on July 25, 2004

Remember, Marx and Engles wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1848. By the end of the 19th century the German Social Democratic Party had made great strides and for the anti-socialist movement the battle was on.
posted by caddis at 6:20 PM on July 25, 2004

What are the odds?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:57 AM CST on July 25

That you'd say something snarky?

I'd say approaching 100%.
posted by Ynoxas at 6:48 PM on July 25, 2004

Well my my. Eight years of Clinton and eight months of Bush? Funny how our right wing friends for some reason don't want to discuss the twelve years of Reagan and Bush The Elder, during which Saddam Hussein was armed and supported, and during which terrorists in places like Central America and Central Asia were our bestest buddies.

Clinton's gone. Obviously, given post 9/11 events, Bush should be as well. It was precisely under his watch these terrorists attacks most assuredly did occur, and whose response to finding out how and why it happened, and how it could be prevented in the future was:

President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11.

Over and over again the president has resisted pressure for reform from Congress and the public until it became overwhelming. He resisted a congressional push to establish a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. He resisted calls to come down on corporate malfeasance. He even resisted forming the Sept. 11 commission, and, once its work was underway, White House staff dragged their feet on providing documents and approving testimony by presidential advisors.

ASHINGTON, March 2 — The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is refusing to accept strict conditions from the White House for interviews with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and is renewing its request that Mr. Bush's national security adviser testify in public, commission members said Tuesday.

Condi and the 9/11 Commission
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is apparently not keen on going under oath for the Kean 9/11 commission.

President George W. Bush and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks

Sources tell TIME that the White House brushed off a request quietly made last week by the 9-11 Commission chairman Tom Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey, to boost his budget by $11 million. Kean had sought the funding as part of the $75 billion supplemental spending bill that the president just requested to pay for war with Iraq. Bush's recent move has miffed some members of the 9-11 panel.

Several newspapers reported on October 21, 2003 that the 9/11 Commission had reached a level of frustration with the Bush Administration’s refusal to supply documents requested by the commission.

Dick Cheney played a behind-the-scenes role last week in derailing an agreement to create an independent commission to investigate the 9-11 attacks.

So this was the kind of Presidential behavior and judgment we needed to increase American security...this kind of lame foot-dragging because Bush and his crew were concerned about the political fallout from an honest inquiry?

Skallas, meet Condi; pot, meet kettle.

So you're saying skallas is the new national security advisor? Things are looking up already. And his point stands.

And oh look. jfuller enjoys mocking a MetaFilter poster's ethnicity/nationality, and lap dog dhoyt wags happily. Completely dishonorable, gentlemen, and I do use the latter term loosely. Shame on you both.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:01 AM on July 26, 2004

I just finished devouring the report. It's a great read. If anything, it actually improved my (very, very low) impression of Bush. It seems clear that he didn't help the Saudis out the country while airspace was closed, and he didn't - although others, notably the rabidly stupid Wolfowitz, did - champion hitting Iraq first.

Worst to come out of it Condi Rice, who at all turns reads like a 12-year-old lying to save her own skin after utterly dropping the ball. If Bush fired her he'd be getting somewhere.

Also interesting: basically all of the prompt action on 9/11 appears to have been taken on the ground - the ATC zero call for NY, the ground stop, the closing of airspace - by people who thought fast. I thought all these major decisions would come from the top, but the key people were either a) listening to schoolchildren, b) getting their wife out of danger and unilaterally deciding to shoot down passenger planes or c) in the parking lot "helping out".
posted by bonaldi at 5:13 PM on July 26, 2004

Vivisimo 9/11 report search.
posted by homunculus at 9:44 PM on July 27, 2004