Did the White House Pull a Bait and Censor with the August 6th PDB?

[daa]

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/04/con04156.html

April 12, 2004 SEND THIS PAGE TO A FRIEND
CONTRIBUTOR ARCHIVES


Did the White House Pull a Bait and Censor with the August 6th PDB?

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION

Wasn't the actual August 6, 2001, PDB a LOT longer?

First Indication That the Released PDB is Probably Not the Entire PDB:

CNN posted the August PDB in .pdf format.

It seems to be a photocopy of the redacted memo.

One problem is that the page 2 format is different in layout/font!

Problem Number 2 is the Bigger Burden of Proof for the White House to Prove That They Did Not Censor the PDB:

Translation from October, 2002 German Magazine

Deadly Mistakes

U.S. Investigators Knew About Planned Terror Attacks, Let the Suspects Get Away. More Clues That CIA and FBI Could Have Prevented the Attack on America
by Oliver Schröm
Die Zeit
October 1, 2002

Crawford, Aug. 6, 2001. U.S. president George W. Bush is on vacation. He wants to spend the whole month at his ranch in Texas. Every morning, however, he still receives his Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, wherein the CIA informs the president about the country's security situation. On this morning, the report is straight from the CIA director. His PDB runs 11 and one-half printed pages, instead of the usual two to three, and carries the title, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Therein the CIA chief explains that al Qaeda has decided to carry out attacks within the United States, and that presumably members of the terrorist organization have been in the country for some time. It is unclear whether the CIA director informed the president about the statements of arrested al Qaeda members. According to their confessions, the terrorist organization for some time has been thinking about hijacking planes and using them as missiles....

Problem Number Three: Will We Ever Know the Truth?

[54anickel]

1. These exact same questions were raised here on DU when this was

first released. Questioning the 1 1/2 page release to the earlier article stating it was over 11 pages, the lack of continuity, "flow" between the 1st and 2nd page, the blacking out of the page numbers.

[Brotherjohn]

2. One of the major news sources also described it as a "section" of the PDB.

I don't remember which source I read this from, but it was something like the NYTimes or WPost. That was the only place I saw this wording used though.

A few redacted words would not render this 1 1/2 pages a "section". The word implies there were more pages.

[Brotherjohn]

4. Wow. The original article states that it was "11 and one-half printed...

"... pages, instead of the usual two to three". I had thought it might have been a typo (you know, "1 1/2" could easily have become "11 1/2" in the type-setting and/or translation process.

But the original article is unambiguous. And the authors definitley had access to the memo, or to a source who did, since they had the title right. If they were right about the title, there's no reason to believe they were wrong about the length (especially since they made such a stong point about the length).

The there is the fact that the footer is blacked out. Now, I write technical publications for a living. I'm not on the White House staff, but I can't for the life of me see how that footer contains anything but page numbers, and certainly nothing that would be classified.

Especially given this White House's history of secrecy and trickling out the minimal amount of information, and then only under intense presure, I cannot help but come to the reasoned conclusion that they left pages out of the PDB.

I think someone has to ask George Tenet the following question (UNDER OATH):
"Is the August 6th, 2001 PDB as released by the White House Saturday, April 10, 2004, the entire document, or are there one or more additional pages that have been removed before its release?"

If this is true, then either he commits blatant perjury, or the WH will be forced to release the entire thing, or risk looking VERY bad indeed.

[derby378]

3. A link to the DIE ZEIT article

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/diezeit100102.html