Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
June 19, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     nsa     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

Reporter Who Brought Down the 'Runaway General' Dead at 33

The Terror Con

The U.S. Military and the Unraveling of Africa

Greenland's Great Melt Is Pinned on Climate Change

Nate Silver vs. Politico: It's on Again

Most Comments
Most Emailed

 * NEW! * Greenland’s Great Melt Is Pinned on Climate Change



The Unwinding


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Bush Administration Ignored 9/11 Warnings

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Sep 11, 2012
9/11 photos (CC BY 2.0)

For those who never knew, the Bush White House received numerous warnings from the counterterrorism desk at the CIA of an imminent attack by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida on the United States. Former New York Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald tells of the still-classified briefs issued to the Bush administration in the months leading up to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

—Posted by Alexander Reed Kelly.

Kurt Eichenwald at The New York Times:

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.