It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"CIA analysts had written a report for the president's eyes to alert him to the possibility that bin Laden's words and actions, together with recent investigative clues, pointed to an attack by al-Qaida on the American homeland," Ben-Veniste writes.
In the commission interview, "President Bush volunteered that if there had been 'a serious concern' in August 2001, he would have known about it," Ben-Veniste writes. "Being on my best behavior, I didn't come out and ask him what he thought a briefing from the CIA titled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.' was, if not a serious concern."
"Instead, I asked whether the president had discussed the Aug. 6 PDB with either the attorney general or the secretary of the treasury, the two cabinet officers who oversaw the FBI and other federal agencies charged with domestic law enforcement," Ben-Veniste wrote. "Had he discussed the PDB with Attorney General Ashcroft to ensure the FBI was doing everything necessary? The president said that he could not recall, nor could he say whether Rice had any such discussion with Ashcroft."
Finally declassified by the Bush administration amid public and political pressure in April 2004, the PDB from Aug. 6, 2001 said, "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden related." The PDB also said that the CIA and the FBI at the time were investigating a call to the U.S. embassy in the United Arab Emirates three months earlier saying that "a group of bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives."
In his interview with the commission, Bush said the mention of 70 pending FBI investigations was a good thing, helpful, according to Ben-Veniste's book. Rice testified publicly that the PDB contained "some frightening things." At the time the president received the Aug. 6, 2001 PDB, Rice was not with Bush, who was vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
As did Clinton. And what makes it worse is that we had bin Laden in our sights and Clinton wouldn't give the order to pull the trigger. All of our presidents, all the way back to Reagan new how dangerous this man was. (See Oliver North's testimony in the Iran-Contra affair.)
As did Clinton. And what makes it worse is that we had bin Laden in our sights and Clinton wouldn't give the order to pull the trigger. All of our presidents, all the way back to Reagan new how dangerous this man was. (See Oliver North's testimony in the Iran-Contra affair.)
i guess you consider blowing away bin laden and part of the royal family of saudi arabia a risk clinton should have took?
posted by king9072
DISINFORMATION
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.
"It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people . . . "
www.public-action.com...
Originally posted by corvin77
reply to post by king9072
Thanks for saying exactly what I thought while reading the article too.
Just to add to what you said;
Osama Bin Laden was cleared of any wrong doing, with the so-called confession of;
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed!! The new mastermind behind the 9-11 attacks??
Again a big joke, but we do have to keep on track with the new disinfo we are being fed by the system ppl!!
I feel like I need to say it again, get with the program ppl, forget about Osama. Last I checked, the new scapegoat is still Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
This was reported by all msm!!
Thanks.
Originally posted by king9072
DISINFORMATION
People continually fail to grasp the greater picture, is it frustrating, indeed.
Osama Bin Laden who was trained by the CIA, additionally his family were business associates of the Bush regime. During the no-fly time immediately following 911, it is no coincidence that the Bin Ladens were allowed to fly out of the country, while the rest of the country stood grounded.
What's clear that day, is that Osama Bin Laden, did not have Norad stand down.
He also did not plant the thermite that ultimately caused the collapses.
He did not tell the SAM sites to leave the pentagon "attack plane" alone.
He did not cancel the shoot down order.
He did not make any money from the attacks, where as every person in the Bush Regime did, as well as Silverstein, who in just one of the astronomical coincidences of that time, just happened to purchase the complex and put a large insurance policy on it.
Osama did not reinforce the pentagon in the exact location where years later it would be hit with (something?).
He did not order the demolition of WTC 7.
He was not part of the writing of "Rebuilding Americans Defenses" a neocon agenda describing a "new pearl harbor" to bring about cataclysmic changes..
So upon looking at the consequences of that day, it's quite clear there were few who profited, and they all just happened to be intimately linked with the Bush Regime, gotta love coincidences eh?
So when an article like this comes out "BLASTING BUSH", people look at it as another attack on bush for his FAILURE to do something about the "impending" attacks.
The message that this is actually sending is that it was a simple failure of action that caused that day. But the facts abound that it was not just a failure, but elements of the government HAD to be directly involved in the planning and execution of that day.
This article is just one of many disinformation articles which shift the blame to failures of action, rather than direct involvement by elements of the bush regime.
To fail to differentiate between the two, is a failure at denying ignorance.
As did Clinton. And what makes it worse is that we had bin Laden in our sights and Clinton wouldn't give the order to pull the trigger. All of our presidents, all the way back to Reagan new how dangerous this man was. (See Oliver North's testimony in the Iran-Contra affair.)
How dangerous was he while the CIA was training, funding, and equipping him to fight the Russians?
[edit on 24-5-2009 by king9072]