CIA to Bush 7/10/01 The attacks will be spectacular.

[KevinNYC]

That morning of July 10, the head of the agency’s Al Qaeda unit, Richard Blee, burst into Black’s office. “And he says, ‘Chief, this is it. Roof's fallen in,’” recounts Black. “The information that we had compiled was absolutely compelling. It was multiple-sourced. And it was sort of the last straw.” Black and his deputy rushed to the director’s office to brief Tenet. All agreed an urgent meeting at the White House was needed. Tenet picked up the white phone to Bush’s National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. “I said, ‘Condi, I have to come see you,’” Tenet remembers. “It was one of the rare times in my seven years as director where I said, ‘I have to come see you. We're comin' right now. We have to get there.’”

Tenet vividly recalls the White House meeting with Rice and her team. (George W. Bush was on a trip to Boston.) “Rich [Blee] started by saying, ‘There will be significant terrorist attacks against the United States in the coming weeks or months. The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al Qaeda's intention is the destruction of the United States.’" [Condi said:] ‘What do you think we need to do?’ Black responded by slamming his fist on the table, and saying, ‘We need to go on a wartime footing now!’”

“What happened?” I ask Cofer Black. “Yeah. What did happen?” he replies. “To me it remains incomprehensible still. I mean, how is it that you could warn senior people so many times and nothing actually happened? It’s kind of like The Twilight Zone.” Remarkably, in her memoir, Condi Rice writes of the July 10 warnings: “My recollection of the meeting is not very crisp because we were discussing the threat every day.” Having raised threat levels for U.S. personnel overseas, she adds: “I thought we were doing what needed to be done.” (When I asked whether she had any further response to the comments that Tenet, Black and others made to me, her chief of staff said she stands by the account in her memoir.) Inexplicably, although Tenet brought up this meeting in his closed-door testimony before the 9/11 Commission, it was never mentioned in the committee’s final report.

And there was one more chilling warning to come. At the end of July, Tenet and his deputies gathered in the director’s conference room at CIA headquarters. “We were just thinking about all of this and trying to figure out how this attack might occur,” he recalls. “And I'll never forget this until the day I die. Rich Blee looked at everybody and said, ‘They're coming here.’ And the silence that followed was deafening. You could feel the oxygen come out of the room. ‘They're coming here.’”

George Tenet and the CIA counterterrorism chief, Cofer Black are going on record that Bush was warned earlier in 2001.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/cia-directors-documentary-911-bush-213353#ixzz3rNksI4oZ

[ISHGoat]

Thanks TMZ, whast your point?

[KevinNYC]

This is part of an upcoming documentary
Over the past eight months, in more than a hundred hours of interviews, I talked with Tenet and the 11 other living former CIA directors for The Spymasters, a documentary set to air this month on Showtime.

[fiddy]

No surprises that he knew, he organized this shit via SA

[KevinNYC]

This is part of an upcoming documentary

Trailer is here. Seems to focus more on torture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpb5xP1tOHc

[UK2K]

They warned of an attack....

Somewhere in the US...

Somehow....

At some point.....

And we couldn't stop it?? Amateur hour up in here, am I right?

But if you mention Clinton was warned about the situation in Libya 100 times by 100 different people, the leftist answer will be 'She gets warnings every day, she can't respond to all of them'.

[ISHGoat]

They warned of an attack....

Somewhere in the US...

Somehow....

At some point.....

And we couldn't stop it?? Amateur hour up in here, am I right?

But if you mention Clinton was warned about the situation in Libya 100 times by 100 different people, the leftist answer will be 'She gets warnings every day, she can't respond to all of them'.

lmao this.

what the **** was Dubya supposed to do?

[Lebron23]

Did you know that 43 out of the 44 presidents of the US were related or descended of King John of England? Martin Van Buren was the only non descendant of King John.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183858/All-presidents-bar-directly-descended-medieval-English-king.html

[UK2K]

lmao this.

what the **** was Dubya supposed to do?

Had he responded by taking security measures and putting out an APB for Taliban, the left would call him paranoid and racist.

Because he didn't do those things, the left blames him for not doing enough.

No matter what, the left will blame him for everything. Almost a decade later, our economy in the shitter, and with the most people out of work now since the 70's, and with half the country depending on the government to survive (which has been the Democrats plan for decades, how do you think they control the black vote)...

It's still Bush's fault. It will always be Bush's fault in their minds.

[TripleA]

Had he responded by taking security measures and putting out an APB for Taliban, the left would call him paranoid and racist.

Because he didn't do those things, the left blames him for not doing enough.

No matter what, the left will blame him for everything. Almost a decade later, our economy in the shitter, and with the most people out of work now since the 70's, and with half the country depending on the government to survive (which has been the Democrats plan for decades, how do you think they control the black vote)...

It's still Bush's fault. It will always be Bush's fault in their minds.

I know theirs a underemployment problem now where people are working jobs below their skill level. Although the employment rate is pretty good at 5 to 5.5.

[Patrick Chewing]

Kevin can't help himself. He can't let it go.

[UK2K]

I know theirs a underemployment problem now where people are working jobs below their skill level. Although the employment rate is pretty good at 5 to 5.5.

Because the employment rate doesn't count people who just said **** it and stopped looking for work. If you don't have a job, and aren't looking for a job, for four consecutive weeks, you are no longer counted as being unemployed.

[QUOTE]And yet Americans are actually trickling out of work at an alarming rate. The country's labor force participation rate

[ISHGoat]

Because the employment rate doesn't count people who just said **** it and stopped looking for work. If you don't have a job, and aren't looking for a job, for four consecutive weeks, you are no longer counted as being unemployed.



94 million people in this country 16 and older.... literally do nothing.

To be fair, we should discount students and elders.

[KevinNYC]

They warned of an attack....

Somewhere in the US...

Somehow....

At some point.....

And we couldn't stop it?? Amateur hour up in here, am I right?

But if you mention Clinton was warned about the situation in Libya 100 times by 100 different people, the leftist answer will be 'She gets warnings every day, she can't respond to all of them'.

Read the article. The situations are completely different.

[UK2K]

To be fair, we should discount students and elders.
We can, but I worked full time in college. I work full time now in college.


The labor force participation rate is the percentage of working-age persons in an economy who are employed or unemployed but looking for a job. This page provides the latest reported value for - United States Labor Force Participation Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news. Content for - United States Labor Force Participation Rate - was last refreshed on Friday, November 13, 2015.

http://s17.postimg.org/4bol1gxi7/united_states_labor_force_participation_rate.png

I mean....

Getting side tracked here.... I'll try to stay on topic.

[UK2K]

Read the article. The situations are completely different.

Completely different... I'm sure.

Point out to me in your article where they gave any time frame, location, suggested a method... anything at all.

Here how about this...

KevinNYC, you are the president of the United States. I, I am security adviser.

"Mr. President, an attack is imminent"
"Imminent? Tell me more. How imminent is imminent?"
"Sir, we don't know, but security warning #1578 today says it will be soon."
"Ok, where do you think the attack will take place?"
"Sir, our spies tell us the attack will take place somewhere in the US"
"What kind of attack?"
"We aren't sure"
"I see...."

Ok KevinNYC.... begin preparations for the attack. Go.

[KevinNYC]

Had he responded by taking security measures and putting out an APB for Taliban, the left would call him paranoid and racist.

Because he didn't do those things, the left blames him for not doing enough.

No matter what, the left will blame him for everything. Almost a decade later, our economy in the shitter, and with the most people out of work now since the 70's, and with half the country depending on the government to survive (which has been the Democrats plan for decades, how do you think they control the black vote)...

It's still Bush's fault. It will always be Bush's fault in their minds.
Utter bullshit point one.

The "left" as in the Clinton Administration warned the incoming Bush team that Al Qaeda would be their number one priority. They rejected that information and put Iraq as their number one foreign policy priority. You can see they priorities by what they did.

On Feb 1, 2001. the first NSA Principals Meeting of the new team was focused on "Post Saddam Iraq."
They didn't have an NSA Principals Meeting on Al Qaeda until Sept 4th.

They also showed their priorities by essentially demoting the Counter terrorism chief. They removed him from the Principals group.

Utter bullshit point two.

The rationale for going after Al Qaeda/Taliban would have been the bombing of the USS Cole. The FBI/CIA didn't finalize their investigation on this bombing until early 2001.
From newsweek

An FBI document dated January 26, 2001 six days after Bush took office shows that authorities believed they had clear evidence tying the bombers to Al Qaeda. Yet the new administration mounted no retaliation of its own.

Utter bullshit point three.
You set up a fake strawman. You say Bush is criticized because he didn't launch against the Taliban. You're saying that was a reach at that time and the public wouldn't have supported it.

But what did he do? What steps were taken in response to these increasingly scary intelligence reports?

The Politico article mentions this[QUOTE]

[DonDadda59]

They warned of an attack....

Somewhere in the US...

Somehow....

At some point.....

And we couldn't stop it?? Amateur hour up in here, am I right?



As always, you are right on the money:
[INDENT]
Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11

Ignored Warning Signs

The revelation came as legislators demanded an explanation after an FBI memo alluding to ignored warning signs about Sept. 11 emerged. Two months before the hijackings, FBI agents in Phoenix reported their suspicions about Arab students at a Phoenix flight school, and directly referred to the possibility of a connection to bin Laden.

In a memo from the Phoenix FBI to headquarters, the agents recommended an urgent nationwide review of flight schools "for any information that supports Phoenix's suspicions" of a terrorist connection. The memo reportedly cited Osama bin Laden by name.

The memo's existence has apparently been known for months, but until recently, lawmakers and congressional staff have not gained full access to it, and the direct reference to bin Laden had not been revealed.

The memo has still has not been publicly released. Sens. Charles E. Grassley, Dianne Feinstein and Patrick Leahy are among the lawmakers asking the FBI to release it, and are demanding an investigation into the missed warning signs.

Not Until After 9-11

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, who has read the memo, told ABCNEWS today: "They raised a very serious terrorism concern and threat to the United States, and it involved the use of training at aviation schools and terrorists from the Middle East. That should have been fair warning."

The memo said terrorists might be seeking jobs with U.S. airlines or airports and urged FBI headquarters to "obtain visa information" on all "individuals obtaining visas to attend these types of schools" around the country.

None of that was done until after Sept. 11, after four hijacked airliners plowed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. More than 3,000 people were killed and the World Trade Center was destroyed.

The mastermind was later identified as bin Laden.

Flight school owners in Phoenix, where alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour trained, say they had their own suspicions. "[If the FBI] were concerned, we would have been concerned and something would have happened. Investigations would have happened," said Richard Hastie, president of CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Second Signal

It was not the only signal FBI headquarters missed. Just weeks later, agents in Minnesota told headquarters of the arrest of suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui at a flight school in St. Paul, suggesting he might be planning to hijack a plane and crash it into the World Trade Center.

FBI field agents wanted to search his computer but they were unable to get the authorization.

No one was able to put the two warnings

[Dresta]

It's been obvious this could have been prevented for some time. Whose exact fault it was, and whether their fault was incompetence or a nefarious design, is difficult to know. But the CIA knew about the terrorist-affiliated at flight schools in the US, and really could have prevented the whole thing if they'd been at all sensible.

Shows the disgraceful liberty-wrecking policies like the Patriot Act, and other usurpations of its sort, weren't even needed in the first place if the people in power were remotely competent.

[Patrick Chewing]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkfYBSuUHrk


"I could have killed him (Bin Laden), but..." - Bill Clinton

[Dresta]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkfYBSuUHrk


"I could have killed him (Bin Laden), but..." - Bill Clinton

"...Lewinsky wasn't due in court for another week yet."

[KevinNYC]

I don't believe the Iraq War happened because Republicans held the presidency. I believe it was because specific Republicans were in the administration. It was specifically because George W. Bush was the President and he brought people with him who shared this belief, Cheney, Rumsfeld being the most important, but also Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams, Shulsky, Libby, Luti and others.

When you look at what led to the Iraq war, it becomes quite clear that Bush had not convinced his entire Cabinet this was the right idea, let alone the whole country. The intelligence agencies and the military were not 100% either. To get around this, the Bush team manipulated the national security process. It was clear that meetings were held when the decision was already made and there were no meetings to debate the issue. The Iraq war was not an honest mistake.

Off the top of my head, if these republicans were President in 2001, we don't go to war with Iraq in 2003

Reagan.
Bush 1
Colin Powell
George Schultz
Jim Baker
Condi Rice
Bob Dole
Richard Armitage
Brent Scrowcroft
David Petraeus
Norman Schwarzkopf

I'm not even sure the John McCain of 2000 would go that early.

Cofer Black, the CIA official I quoted above is a Republican.

[KevinNYC]

The Republican House Majority Leader (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/16/nation/na-cheney16) came out afterwards and said he was against the war until he had a personal briefing from Dick Cheney and he said Cheney lied to him during this meeting.
A GOP congressional leader who was wavering on giving President Bush the authority to wage war in late 2002 said Vice President Dick Cheney misled him by saying that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had direct personal ties to Al Qaeda terrorists and was making rapid progress toward a suitcase nuclear weapon, according to a new book by Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman.

Cheney's accusations, described by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas, came in a classified one-on-one briefing in the vice president's office in the Capitol.

The threat Cheney described went far beyond public statements that have been criticized for relying on "cherry-picked" intelligence of unknown reliability. There was no intelligence to support the vice president's private assertions, Gellman reports.

Armey had spoken out against the coming war, and his opposition gave cover to Democrats who feared the political costs of appearing weak. Armey reversed his position after Cheney told him, he said, that the threat from Iraq was "more imminent than we want to portray to the public at large."

Cheney said, according to Armey, that Iraq's "ability to miniaturize weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear," had been "substantially refined since the first Gulf War."

[KevinNYC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkfYBSuUHrk


"I could have killed him (Bin Laden), but..." - Bill Clinton

Just like the last time you mentioned this I pointed you to the 9/11 report. That points out

Cruise missile strikes take like 8 hours to execute.

There was no evidence Bin Laden was even still in the area at the time the decision to launch would have been given.

Cruise strikes are far, far less precise than armed drones (which didn't exist at the time and in fact, this incident led to their development.) so they probably would have needed to kill 2-300 people.

So the question was should we kill 2-300 people with zero guarantee of success for a chance at Bin Laden?

[UK2K]

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]As always, you are right on the money:
[INDENT]
Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11

Ignored Warning Signs

The revelation came as legislators demanded an explanation after an FBI memo alluding to ignored warning signs about Sept. 11 emerged. Two months before the hijackings, FBI agents in Phoenix reported their suspicions about Arab students at a Phoenix flight school, and directly referred to the possibility of a connection to bin Laden.

In a memo from the Phoenix FBI to headquarters, the agents recommended an urgent nationwide review of flight schools "for any information that supports Phoenix's suspicions" of a terrorist connection. The memo reportedly cited Osama bin Laden by name.

The memo's existence has apparently been known for months, but until recently, lawmakers and congressional staff have not gained full access to it, and the direct reference to bin Laden had not been revealed.

The memo has still has not been publicly released. Sens. Charles E. Grassley, Dianne Feinstein and Patrick Leahy are among the lawmakers asking the FBI to release it, and are demanding an investigation into the missed warning signs.

Not Until After 9-11

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, who has read the memo, told ABCNEWS today: "They raised a very serious terrorism concern and threat to the United States, and it involved the use of training at aviation schools and terrorists from the Middle East. That should have been fair warning."

The memo said terrorists might be seeking jobs with U.S. airlines or airports and urged FBI headquarters to "obtain visa information" on all "individuals obtaining visas to attend these types of schools" around the country.

None of that was done until after Sept. 11, after four hijacked airliners plowed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. More than 3,000 people were killed and the World Trade Center was destroyed.

The mastermind was later identified as bin Laden.

Flight school owners in Phoenix, where alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour trained, say they had their own suspicions. "[If the FBI] were concerned, we would have been concerned and something would have happened. Investigations would have happened," said Richard Hastie, president of CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Second Signal

It was not the only signal FBI headquarters missed. Just weeks later, agents in Minnesota told headquarters of the arrest of suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui at a flight school in St. Paul, suggesting he might be planning to hijack a plane and crash it into the World Trade Center.

FBI field agents wanted to search his computer but they were unable to get the authorization.

No one was able to put the two warnings

[Nick Young]

Did you know that 43 out of the 44 presidents of the US were related or descended of King John of England? Martin Van Buren was the only non descendant of King John.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183858/All-presidents-bar-directly-descended-medieval-English-king.html
Van Buren, the only true American.

[Patrick Chewing]

So the question was should we kill 2-300 people with zero guarantee of success for a chance at Bin Laden?

There was a guarantee. He said it in the clip. "I could have killed him" implies he was certain he was going to get him. So the clear answer is that yes, preventing 9/11 by blowing up Kandahar to smithereens would have been the best option at the time.

[KevinNYC]

There was a guarantee. He said it in the clip. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
You're a piece of work. Holy shit that is funny.

Please like I said the last time, read the 9/11 report on this incident. They interviewed many, many people who were involved with this incident.

[KevinNYC]

But if you mention Clinton was warned about the situation in Libya 100 times by 100 different people, the leftist answer will be 'She gets warnings every day, she can't respond to all of them'.
Take it up with Ambassador Crocker.
Amb. Ryan Crocker: (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/11/13/hillary-clinton-state-libya-afghanistan-syria-iraq-column/75666568/) Secretary of State Clinton did the job right

[QUOTE]The appearance of former secretary of State Hillary Clinton before the House Select Committee on Benghazi raised very important questions on diplomatic security, the relationship between the secretary of State and her ambassadors and leadership. My experience during 38 years in the Foreign Service, including six assignments as an ambassador, has given me a perspective on these issues that differs from some of the arguments developed by the Committee.

First, about security. Every secretary of State and every ambassador has security as a top priority. It is a dangerous world, and we are everywhere in it. An ambassador is responsible for the security of her personnel and her embassy. Internal defense plans, risk assessment, movement controls, adequate defensive systems

[Patrick Chewing]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
You're a piece of work. Holy shit that is funny.

Please like I said the last time, read the 9/11 report on this incident. They interviewed many, many people who were involved with this incident.


Your truth and my truth are completely different. When the most powerful man in the world says that he could have killed him, why would you doubt that? Your protection of the Clintons is beyond absurd.

[DonDadda59]

Yeah, a half dozen of the probably 10,000 'tips' they receive on a weekly basis.

Good job, your article found the .0001% of tips that actually were worth investigating further, magnified them, and then pretended like these were somehow more important than every other tip any law enforcement agency gets.

By the way, your article says it right here for you...



The beginnings of a strong case. Not a strong case. The beginnings. You think they dont get warnings every minute of every day in every country any American is currently in?

We could play the same game with Benghazi and you would tell me the same thing I am telling you now... that's why I've never blamed anyone for 'ignoring' warnings. In real situations, you know a tip is just that, a tip.

Had you ever had to make life or death decisions based on inaccurate information, you would see things differently. But you haven't. You just read an article that highlighted 5 warnings out of 100,000.

:facepalm

The Bush administration, including the President personally, was warned repeatedly by the CIA and FBI that attacks were imminent and they had specific names, targets, and general dates for the attacks. They knew that Massoui was planning on hijacking planes and crashing them into the WTC and that suspicious foreign nationals were in flight schools in Phoenix. They knew this operation was being financed/overseen by Bin Laden/Al Qaeda.

For whatever reason, which the public has never been given an answer, the President and his staff chose to ignore those warnings.

End of story.

[LikeMike]

They warned of an attack....

Somewhere in the US...

Somehow....

At some point.....

And we couldn't stop it?? Amateur hour up in here, am I right?

But if you mention Clinton was warned about the situation in Libya 100 times by 100 different people, the leftist answer will be 'She gets warnings every day, she can't respond to all of them'.

:lol

[TheImmortal]

This is very old news.. I don't need the mainstream media to officially tell me about it to believe it.. Think for once people.