Never forget

by: Zappatero

Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 05:50:41 AM MST

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.

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that "a group presently in the United States" was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be "imminent," although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives' suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

"The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden," the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government's transliteration of Bin Laden's first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have "dramatic consequences," including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but "will occur soon." Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

Yet, the White House failed to take significant action.

The attacks of 9/11 were a tremendous failure of the Bush Administration and his National Security team, including and especially Dick Cheney (lying again here today) and other key figures like Condi Rice and Donald Rumsfeld.

And never forget Karl Rove was there behind the scenes the whole time as well.

They in turn politicized the terror threat and sent us down the rabbit hole of legalized torture, non-stop spying, ridiculous airport security checks and ever-diminishing rights.  

Many will say we shouldn't politicize this, but I, for one, will never forget the truth about what happened on 9/11.  

Did Osama bin Laden win the "war on terror"? YES

by: Zappatero

Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 07:54:41 AM MST

What happened to the United States on 9/11 was no simple thing. It was an enormous tragedy that played out over several states and touched millions of lives. The impact was deep, immediate, and painful. It was an acute infection of horror.

What happened in the wake of 9/11 was something altogether different. In the end, it's what came after that is the biggest cause of prolonged suffering.

As awful as 9/11 was, it was not a threat to our survival as a nation, not a threat to our ability to project American power around the world, not a threat to our economy, not a threat to our freedoms. However, our response to 9/11 endangered all those things. It still does. Like an immune system eating itself from the feet up, we've surrendered thousands of lives, expended trillions of dollars both at home and abroad, abandoned friends, embraced enemies, and tolerated previously intolerable insults to privacy.

But instead of fixing TSA* or addressing the abuses of our liberties put into place by Karl Rove and George Bush and willingly implemented by numbskulls like Michael Chertoff and Tom Ridge we waste time fighting about The President's birth certificate and other mind-numbing trivialities that generate viewers and page hits.

The answer is yes, Osama bin Laden did exactly what he wanted to the United States and its citizens with the attacks on 9/11. Republicans enabled his win almost every step of the way. Democrats sat impotent and mute as all this happened, and every flight we get on our belts and iPhones and shoes and change and underwear must be checked. And some poor, innocent schlub gets frisked by 4 TSA agents to top off the humiliation with a giant violation of the 4^th Amendment, which you'll never hear civil rights activists and government reformers like Jonny Caldara or Mike "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job" Brown complain about (surprise!).

Thanks alot, guys, for making OBL's dream come true before his very eyes.

* - Didn't even know the TSA certified a union. I guess this counts as a tiny win for citizens and a big FU to Senator Jim Demint.

On Reopening For Business, Or, What? No Flying Cars?

by: fake consultant

Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 04:05:41 AM MST

And now that I'm back, debt negotiations are about to commence between that same Barack Obama and the Republican Congressional Leadership, things like Social Security and Medicare cuts are apparently on the table in order to protect tax cuts for the rich, and certain quarters of the Republican Party aren't even trying anymore to hide their racism.

All of which suggests that I shouldn't be looking for a jet pack anytime soon.

But there is some good news: God is apparently working hard, and states like Oklahoma and Arizona and Florida and Georgia and Texas have been alternately aflame or aflood, apparently as a result of their unrepentant behavior...and on the economic front, New York City's Stonewall Inn is going to make a ton of money this summer hosting weddings.

That gives us a lot to talk about...so let's get right to it.

Waterboarding; Cheney Still Advocating For It

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Mon May 09, 2011 at 06:00:05 AM MST

On Fox "News" this Sunday criminal Former VP Dick Cheney said the following about returning to the use of waterboarding in terror interrogations:

I certainly would advocate it; I'd be a strong supporter of it

This is an area of contention that I have had with President Obama nearly from the first days of his administration. Namely the purely political decision not to follow through on our legal responsibility to investigate any credible allegations of torture and to prosecute those who were found responsible.

The fact that the criminal Bush Administration admitted to waterboarding at least three of our detainees, which has been by US and international law an act of torture and a potential war crime yet none of the top level people have ever been investigated for it is a national shame that will not be wiped away for a long time to come.

Worse it has left the issue of torture and waterboarding in particular open. At this late point it is easy to get academic about this form of torture. Given that I thought I would give everyone a taste of what is would be like to be waterboarded. This is a first person fictionalization of it, it is my best attempt to reproduce what a person would feel in that situation.

Warning: if you have been a victim of torture, you might not want to read this. I have been told that it can be triggering for traumatic  memories and while I want everyone to get as vicsoral as possible an understanding of torture I don't want to traumatize anyone:  

We Killed Bin Laden. It Had To Be Done, But It Is Nothing To Be Proud Of

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Mon May 02, 2011 at 05:28:08 AM MST

One of the things that tipped off US intelligence was the size of the compound and the fact that for a building that size and in that location there was no telephone or internet going into it. A very strange state of affairs for an estimated  $1 million dollar home.

The attack took place without the knowledge of anyone inside Pakistan until it was over. Obviously the Obama Administration did not think that we could share any of the intelligence on this with the Pakistani government because of the divided loyalties inside it.

Bin Laden was killed in a firefight along with two other men and one woman. Reports are saying that she was used as a human shield. The compound was then destroyed by demolition charges and Bin Laden's body was taken out with the strike team.

The response here in the United States is about what you would expect, and is pretty sad to me. There is celebrations and people cheering and I can't for the life of me stomach that kind of reaction.

Back in early 2002 when we as a nation were still reeling from the 9/11 attacks my Dad sent me some kind of jingoistic piece of crap. It was a picture of all the ordnance that a B-52 bomber can carry (other than nuclear weapons). It had the caption "A little gift for you Osama" on it.

It pissed me off then and it pisses me off now. I told Dad that I understood the need to track down and capture or kill Bin Laden. After all he led the terror organization that perpetrated 9/11. However it should not be something we are proud of doing once it is done. It is not something we should crow about.

It would be something that we did because we had to do it. Like putting down a rabid dog is should never be a happy thing when we kill someone, even someone who did great damage to our nation. There is no pride to be gained by making sure that someone who harmed us, who killed thousands of innocent people both on the planes and in the buildings on 9/11. There is only the need to make sure that they never are able to do it again.