Memo's no smoking gun

[durutti]

http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=500

If Democrats on the 9/11 commission are still looking for a smoking gun to hold to the head of President Bush, they're going to have to look somewhere other than that Aug. 6, 2001, presidential briefing memo released Saturday night.

Oh, the title is shocking enough: ``Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.'' But it was entirely as national security adviser Condoleezza Rice described it, an historical document, recounting a series of vague threats bin Laden had been making since 1997 - including in television interviews - that he wanted to ``bring the fighting to America.''

The now declassified memo also said, ``After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington.''

Another possible target referred to in the memo was the foiled millennium plot to attack Los Angeles International Airport.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. They just took Rove's letterhead off it

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stellanoir]

5. what was in the other

9-10 pages. . .?

[durutti]

7. Oh, please...

Yes, I'm a FReeper with 1,000+ posts. C'mon.

I'm not terribly familiar with the Boston Herald -- if it's neocon, it's news to me.

In any case, I post these articles occasionally because 1.) these are the kinds of arguments that our opposition will make in the public arena, and we have to be prepared for them, 2.) because they're sometimes so wrong they're funny, and 3.) because in my eyes, there's still no solid case for LIHOP. LIHOP is an important possibility, but it is precisely for that reason that it must be subjected to the most rigorous examination.

Posting an article does not imply endorsement of its editorial stance.

[LoZoccolo]

14. Hey, that was uncalled for.

And it's against the rules.

[elperromagico]

3. Apparently nothing meets the "smoking gun" standard,

except for dubious claims about yellow cake, mobile chemical labs, and alleged nuclear weapons programs.

I say this: Compare the Bush Administration's strong ability to "put two and two together" when it came to Iraq with their utter inability to "put two and two together" when it came to terrorist attacks on our own soil. They took the vaguest, unconfirmed reports about Iraq and claimed them as fact. Why were they so quick to act with Iraq, and so slow to act here?

Let me guess - Bush didn't "feel that sense of urgency."

[imax2268]

16. good point...!

[rogerashton]

4. Admittedly, it would have taken a smart

man to connect the dots in THAT jumble.

And nobody has accused * of being smart.

[masshole]

6. It's from the Herald for crissakes

Did you expect anything else from them?

[durutti]

9. I'm not familiar w/ the Herald.

I assume they're right-wing?

[masshole]

13. forgive me, I have such few posts

I am not nearly as verbose with my keyboard as many are.
So durutti - you post a snippet and a link that is "positive" to the Bush administration, without any comment of your own... then you say later you aren't "familiar" with the source of your post?
Do your other posts follow this pattern? Why would you post things in this manner?

[imax2268]

17. yup...

very right wing...it's a favorite of the repuglicans at another site...they love to quote from it...

[sophie996]

8. decoding the pdb

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10224

good piece by a former CIA analyst.

[Ready4Change]

10. The missing 10 pages are.

What information could be on a document titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" that ISN'T of interest to the 9/11 panel?

[elperromagico]

12. Probably something about the Saudis.

We mustn't upset the Saudis, you know.

[sendero]

11. Not a smoking gun?

Well, maybe not with respect to being a specific warning about 911.

But, contrary to the original Bush* position on the document, it is neither "about strikes out of the US" nor is it "historical".

So, for proving he is a liar, it is indeed a smoking gun.

[saracat]

15. Excuse me?

The memo mentiond NY and Washington as targets and discusses the possibility of hijacking.What more does whatever idiot wrote this want? Sounds like Bush.

[Zorra]

18. When taken in context with the numerous other warnings that

the Bu$h administration received regarding an impending terrorist attack, this PDB strongly reinforces the undeniable fact that Bu$h is at best very incompetent, negligent, and unfit to be the leader of our country. Competent, successful leaders have the ability to extrapolate from information and circumstances, envision scenarios from the information they have available, and then take measures to prevent problems before they arise.

Bu$h had more than enough information available to him in order for him to understand that there was a strong possibility of a domestic terrorist attack through the use of hijacked aircraft as weapons.

Bu$h simply does not possess the intelligence, foresight, skill, and competence to be the leader of the US. His failure to take the steps necessary to prevent the 9/11 attacks prove this beyond question. 3,000 Americans died because Bu$h simply does not have the ability to lead our nation and protect our people.

Here is a list of some of the information that he obviously failed to act upon.

http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html