Reading this post at Attywood about how the New York Times received a tip in July of 2001 that al Qaeda was planning something big – probably within the United States and then failed to publish anything on it, a great and basic truth came to me; that the unreasoning hatred of anything and everything about Bush will continue long after he is gone and regardless of who succeeds him in the White House.
Attywood is posting about a Raw Story piece which reports that Judy Miller and the New York Times had a specific warning from a “high Administration official” about a terrorist attack within the United States:
Because just now, some 56 months after the fact, we are learning that both Judy Miller and her editors at the New York Times had information that foretold the 9/11 terror attacks and elected not to publish it. Reading the new story carefully, it does seem that a decision to publish the article in the summer of 2001 was not a “slam dunk,’ that there were legitimate questions whether Miller’s tip was enough to hang a story on. But the episode does raise a couple of other serious questions—surely about the pre-attack ineptitude of the Bush White House, but also over the Times’ handling of this explosive info both before and after 9/11.
The money graphs from Raw Story makes the devastating charge (again) that the Bush Administration should have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks with the twist that the New York Times and Judy Miller should have gone with the story:
Now, in an exclusive interview, [Judy] Miller reveals how the attack on the Cole spurred her reporting on Al Qaida and led her, in July 2001, to a still-anonymous top-level White House source, who shared top-secret NSA signals intelligence (SIGINT) concerning an even bigger impending Al Qaida attack, perhaps to be visited on the continental United States.Ultimately, Miller never wrote that story either. But two months later—on Sept. 11—Miller and her editor at the Times, Stephen Engelberg, both remembered and regretted the story they “didn’t do.”
“But I did manage to have a conversation with a source that weekend,” [Miller said]. “The person told me that there was some concern about an intercept that had been picked up. The incident that had gotten everyone’s attention was a conversation between two members of Al Qaida. And they had been talking to one another, supposedly expressing disappointment that the United States had not chosen to retaliate more seriously against what had happened to the Cole. And one Al Qaida operative was overheard saying to the other, ‘Don’t worry; we’re planning something so big now that the U.S. will have to respond.’
“And I was obviously floored by that information. I thought it was a very good story: (1) the source was impeccable; (2) the information was specific, tying Al Qaida operatives to, at least, knowledge of the attack on the Cole; and (3) they were warning that something big was coming, to which the United States would have to respond. This struck me as a major page one-potential story.
Whether the Times should have gone with the story is certainly open to question as Attywood points out. But the clear aspersions cast once again on the Administration for its failure to “act” on intelligence prior to 9/11 is brought up by Attywood himself:
This has been said so many time before, so we won’t belabor the point, but how much more evidence do people need that the Bush White House had plenty of information about the pending 9/11 attacks, and failed to take the threat seriously? The relatively high marks that Bush gets on terrorism issues, even today, just aren’t supported by the facts.
First of all, it is ridiculous and dishonest to ask the question “how much more evidence” do people need to tell them the Administration was culpable for not doing anything about warnings pre-9/11. There is nothing new regarding this evidence as it has already been brought out and used as a club to bludgeon the Administration already. Here’s the 9/11 Commission on this particular warning:
The headline of a June 30 briefing to top officials was stark: “Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks.” The report stated that Bin Ladin operatives expected near-term attacks to have dramatic consequences of catastrophic proportions. That same day, Saudi Arabia declared its highest level of terror alert. Despite evidence of delays possibly caused by heightened U.S. security, the planning for attacks was continuing.
Now a little perspective. Also from the Commission report:
On June 28, Clarke wrote Rice that the pattern of al Qaeda activity indicating attack planning over the past six weeks “had reached a crescendo.” “A series of new reports continue to convince me and analysts at State, CIA, DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency], and NSA that a major terrorist attack or series of attacks is likely in July,” he noted. One al Qaeda intelligence report warned that something “very, very, very, very” big was about to happen, and most of Bin Ladin’s network was reportedly anticipating the attack. In late June, the CIA ordered all its station chiefs to share information on al Qaeda with their host governments and to push for immediate disruptions of cells.
And this, a few weeks later in the summer of 2001:
Tenet told us that in his world “the system was blinking red.” By late July, Tenet said, it could not “get any worse.” Not everyone was convinced. Some asked whether all these threats might just be deception. On June 30, the SEIB (Senior Executive Intelligence Brief) contained an article titled “Bin Ladin Threats Are Real.” Yet Hadley told Tenet in July that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz questioned the reporting. Perhaps Bin Ladin was trying to study U.S. reactions. Tenet replied that he had already addressed the Defense Department’s questions on this point; the reporting was convincing. To give a sense of his anxiety at the time, one senior official in the Counterterrorist Center told us that he and a colleague were considering resigning in order to go public with their concerns.
These and other hints, glimmers, false leads, and outright wrong guesses were being explored, debated, examined, and analyzed in the 6 weeks prior to 9/11. What the Commission showed (and what they concluded) was that in many ways, the Administration was suffering from too much information – that much of it was contradictory, vague, non-specific, and like the warning that an attack would take place in July, ultimately wrong.
But we’ve been over and over this ground before. Everything that could be cherry picked from this report has been cherry picked. But for Attywood and the rest of the Bush deranged mouthfoamers, that’s just not good enough. Now we must be exposed to more “evidence” (even though there is absolutely nothing new about this) that the incompetents in the Administration should have stopped 9/11.
Perhaps the next most studied attack on America in our history is the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. The similarities are eerie. In the fall of 1941, the American government was also receiving intelligence of an impending attack. Where and when it would occur was fiercely debated. Thanks to an advantage not vouchsafed our government vis a vis al Qaeda – the cracking of the Japanese diplomatic code (MAGIC) – we had a good idea of what the Japanese government was thinking prior to the attack. Some signs pointed to an attack on the Philippines. There were even indications of an attack on the Aleutians. But Pearl Harbor? The Navy concluded that given the number of ships and planes protecting the harbor, the Japanese could never mount a successful assault.
Despite numerous warnings and even the specific information about the date and approximate time of the attack being discovered thanks to the MAGIC intercepts, the Japanese delivered a crippling blow to the fleet at anchor.
Roosevelt immediately covered up the extent of the damage to our fleet which probably blunted some criticism that would have echoed many of the charges made against Bush. In the end, as with this Administration, there are those who see conspiracy in the attacks as some historians have taken the position that Roosevelt had to know of the attacks and let them happen so as to give the United States a causus belli for going to war.
Both Bush and Roosevelt, unlike Attywood and his ilk, did not have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight prior to these devastating attacks on America. Yes there were warnings in the lead up to 9/11 as there were at Pearl Harbor (and prior to the embassy bombings in 1996, and the attacks on the USS Cole) But until a pair of glasses are invented that can peer into the future and give policymakers a clear picture of where and when an attack will occur, we will continue to suffer from our inability to see the future.
All that policymakers can do is prepare. In that respect, it is clear that the FAA, the military, and yes even the White House were too sanguine, too laid back on 9/11 and thus were woefully unprepared for what was visited upon us. But was this attitude due to incompetence? Or merely the result of the entire American government sleepwalking as it had done through the 1990’s, chasing al Qaeda like a cop in pursuit of a bank robber while Bin Laden planned his Pearl Harbor.
It is a continuing source of amazement to me that people will point to one “warning” or another prior to the attacks and say “Aha! They had this information and failed to act upon it.” Taking each warning individually, such a case could be made. But given the flood of information, some of it pointing to an overseas attack, some to a domestic strike, it is baffling what these critics expected the Administration to have done. The “actionable” intelligence pointed to an attack. But where? When? How?
Somehow, the critics never get around to answering those questions.
The tiresome attacks on the Administration recycled here by Raw Story and dressed up in new clothes to include the New York Times “failure” to publish a telling SIGINT intercept – one out of thousands, some of which proved true, many more proving to be false – only proves that like Reagan, Bush will remain a focus of hate for the left long after he leaves the White House and goes into retirement.
4:49 pm
RM —Off subject, but as to your blogroll invite below, I’d appreciate a look at my site. You’re on mine. Haven’t been active since not getting any hits, but say “go” and I’ll crank it up. Thanks for the opportunity.
Monsoon
6:52 pm
“...only proves that like Reagan, Bush will remain a focus of hate for the left long after he leaves the White House and goes into retirement.”
And the left’s petty carping about both Reagan and Bush will be inconsequential in history, while both Reagan and Bush’s initiatives will endure for the decades and centuries to come.
7:35 pm
This has been my point all along about the intelligence on Iraq. The system was blinking red there too. And unlike the summer of 2001, Bush chose the aggressive path. That is what he is referring to when he says after 9/11 he wasn’t going to wait for the gathering threat to be real. But peopel with BDS will never see the hypocrisy of their criticisms. Had Bush not acted on Iraq and Saddam passed off the knowledge or WMDs (that he was fully capable of restarting) they would be cherry picking through the same reports they are using today to claim he lied and twisted the intelligence to write the exact article with regards to Iraq. People with BDS are not treatable.
7:39 pm
I can see the headlines…Wilson informed administration that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger…administration ignored his report. It was a win-win situation with Joe. He merely needed to wait until it was clear we weren’t going to find anything to decide which way to go. He could have used his report either way and that could be the way he intended it.
7:56 pm
What’s really silly about all this is trying to blame the problem only on Bush and not on the Clinton administration as well. Who was responsible for Bin Laden’s belief that we could be attacked with impunity?
The government failed us, regardless of who the president was. The presence or absence of WMD in Iraq is only of interest to the people who have some kind of need to denounce Bush. I never thought that WMD stockpiles were the reason for going to war. What WAS the reason was Saddam’s refusal to be transparent about WMD. He threw out U.N. inspectors, in what now seems to be a stunt to sucker the U.S. Too bad for him that the result wasn’t just embarrassment for us at the U.N. and the dropping of sanctions.
There were plenty of reasons for removing Saddam just on general principles, but the strategic value of doing so in the greater war against Islamist terrorism has been perversely ignored.
8:56 pm
Who believes any thing Miller or the times has to say.
10:40 pm
This the most stupid ‘Monday Morning Quarterbacking’ story i’ve ever read. Someone gather anyone and everyone that is passing it around and/or believes it up and put them in a rubber room. Has there ever been a more blatent political lie in the history of the United States? Never that i can remember and i’m 65 years old. I know the democrats have sunk to a new lows, but this is lies below the gutter level. And they’re going to unite the country, give me a break, they’ll start a civil war and get millions killed. Never again will i have any respect for anyone that claims to be a democrat or even votes democratic. Hell i’ll even support whatever country that wants to take the country over if the democrats ever get in charge again. You listening Iran, Russia, China, or Hugo/Castro, you will possibly have millions of supporters in a couple of years.
11:12 pm
AST:
Just look at the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998.
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
11:29 pm
Pretend you are in the WH and the sigint theats are clear. What do you have from the FBI? Bupkis, between bureaucratic sclerosis/the Gorelick wall and the FISA court warrant kerfuffle where the FBI guy heading the FISA warrants has been sent to Siberia. What do you have from the CIA? Bupkis. Why? Because you have genius analysts there like Sheuer who thinks OBL is an admirable chap and Pillar who things we just have to live with terrorism. It’s no big deal. You talk to the NSC. What do you get? Bupkis. Clarke is more concerned about the internet being jammed.
And when after 9/11 you try to reshape these institutions what do you get? Peridy the likes of which I have never seen. The very people who didn’t so their job are working 24/7 to affect a coup.
12:30 am
What I take away from this posting is that what we should learn is that when all our indicators are “blinking red” like they were for Perl Harbor and for 9/11, we should consider ourselves already under attack. The only problem with my reaching that conclusion is that I have no way of knowing how many times everything was showing red and nothing happened.
But if we are getting that volume of indicators that something is up, from now on that should be our signal to get agressive and not wait for the attack to materialize. We had plenty of vague warning and it is only by a miracle that Japan didn’t launch the final planned wave of bombers (because they didn’t know where our carriers were) that would have taken out the oil tank farms at Perl Harbor (and would have stopped our Pacific operations out of Perl for years) and it was a miracle that the passengers on flight 93 prevented another disaster in DC and it was a miracle that United flight 23 in Newark got the message just before takeoff and returned to the gate.
We can’t rely on miracles. I think history has shown us that when we have that level of indication, we are generally correct.
4:39 am
There seems to be a pattern emerging at the Times. They are so infected with BDS, it is infecting their news stories. How long has it been since we bashed Bush? Headline Something! And it has to support be one of the following themes: 1) Bush Lied; 2) Bush should have known; 3) Bush tortured something; 4) Bush’s incompetence. The first one is tied to anything having to do with the events and activities leading to war. The second is for anything 9/11. the third is directly tied to Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. And the last is connected to any misstep in any event anywhere – kind of a catch all category – if we cannot connect him to one of the first 3, we definitely got him here.
Now sit back and wait. When the news cycle deviates for a period away from one of the list, such as recently with the Immigration theme. The Times will suddenly find a story – a sccop – seemingly out of thin air supporting 1 thru 4. And how much of these “scoops” seem to be nothing more than, like this story, nothing more than rehashes of an old story brought out of the cupboard, dusted off, shined up and shown to the world as something bright and shiney new and always bashing Bush.
Wait . . . the cycle is repeating itself again . . . Wanna bet which one? I betcha number 3 is next in the cycle – its been too long since Bush tortured something.
8:21 am
You’re right, crosspatch, but what do you suggest we do when every reaction to a threat brings cries of “impending tyranny” and “irrevocable loss of civil rights” from the head-in-the-sand crowd? “A chill wind’s blowing,” you know.
What would we do in response to a threat similar to 9/11 when we can’t do any profiling at the security gates? Strip search 10% more grannies?
The administration doesn’t dare announce or react to a credible threat because 1) the accusations of fear-mongering from the very same party that promised a renewal of the draft should Bush be re-elected (nope, no fear-mongering there!) would be shrill and immediate, and 2) if they back up their claims with actual intelligence there will be another out-cry over gov’t spying from the very same party that brought us FBI files being used against political opponents and the Carnivore Internet spying program (which, BTW, I am not opposed to).
We are “represented” by a majority party that cowers in fear of a minority party that will stop at nothing to discredit the majority party in order to win back the majority for themselves, even if it means achieving governence of a smoking hole in the end.
9:45 am
How long before Katie Couric at CBS or some other MSM assclown trots out an “authentic” document indicating that Bush ordered the September 11 attacks? Mark my words, one of the MSM outlets in this country will publish/broadcast something to this effect before the elections this fall.
4:13 am
Perhaps a quick read of the Times story on the mismanagement of the Iraqi police would be instructive for you. A brief summary: despite good and widespread advice to deploy substantial numbers of trainers and support the Bush team decided not to. Consequently an institution that could have fairly quickly contributed to order and security has devolved into a rabble that tolerates violence, runs from confrontation, and appears to harbor death squads and torturers. These reasons, not ideology, are the ones that will cause the Bush name to live in infamy in American history. We were once the ‘can do’ nation. Bush and his people have made us a laughingstock of incompetence and arrogance.
11:20 pm
As the Bush Administration is now working toward the close of Gitmo, there is a need for sponsors for some of the current “residents” who either don’t actually belong to any country or don’t want to go home.
The best possible sponsors are those who really empathize with the Gitmo “residents” and therefore would have no problem having them in a group home in their neighborhood. The obvious choice of sponsors would come from the members of, but not limited to, such compassionate organizations as the ACLU, Amnesty International, the Kos kids, AfterDowningStreet.org, moveon.org, and International ANSWER.
Please end their psychological torture and religious literature abuse. Please step up to the challenge of having one or more pathological killers as neighbors. It will change all our lives for the better.