The new report which Bush had covered up - which could have been released prior to the election - which could have shown that Bush and Rice are incompetent that the FAA had countless warnings about the 9/11 attacks and failed to properly heed them is revealing.

The FAA says that they did everything they could because they had no specific warnings...

Excuse me? You knew it was likely to be terrorists - using domestic flights - to commit these acts - do you think it might have been advisable to increase your screening procedures making them a little more rigorous?

Do you think Condoleezza Rice should have been a little more involved addressing this threat and following up on it...

In my mind, these blatant lies are impeachable - traitorous offenses.

Of course they only come out now because it is after the election and after Condi has been confirmed...the selective truth by W.

All The President's Arguments

April 14, 2004

An old political aphorism holds that if you're explaining, you're losing. So, in keeping with that, Bush's allies have shifted from defense to offense.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/14/...ain611782.shtml

(The New Republic) This column from The New Republic was written by Jonathan Chait.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a moral standpoint, the question of whether the Bush administration should have done more to prevent the September 11 attacks is of the utmost gravity. But if you put aside moral considerations for a moment, the administration's defense against charges of negligence can be appreciated on the level of sheer comic virtuosity. After first launching a flurry of scattershot, mutually exclusive, and largely-unsuccessful charges against their main antagonist, former terrorism czar Richard Clarke, the Bushies have settled onto two main lines of argument -- one that involves playing defense, and another that seems designed to seize the initiative in the debate. Both were on display at the president's press conference last night.

The general thrust of the defensive arguments has been to question the quality of intelligence available to Bush before September 11. When it came out that Bush had received a detailed memorandum on August 6, 2001, the administration dismissed the memo as "historical" -- you know, probably some musty old professor ruminating on the development of Wahhabism. Then, after the 9/11 Commission revealed the memo's decidedly non-backward looking title -- "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE THE UNITED STATES" -- Bush had to retrench yet again. The new defense had several elements. At his Sunday press conference in Waco, Bush defined the memo as merely reporting that "Osama bin Laden had designs on America. Well, I knew that." Later in the same conference, Bush stretched the point slightly further: "Of course we knew that America was hated by Osama bin Laden. That was obvious." In fact, the memo didn't merely say bin Laden "had designs on" or "hated" America, but that he was planning an imminent attack, one that might involve hijacking airplanes or targeting federal buildings in New York.

Second, Bush pointed out that the memo did not predict the "hijacking of an airplane to fly into a building." But what difference would that have made? Even if we had known that al Qaeda planned to crash the hijacked planes, we wouldn't have let the hijackers take control of the planes and then tried to fortify the World Trade Center against a crash; we would have put the government on high alert against hijackers.

Third, Bush insisted that the memo did not specify a "time and place" for the attack. Was our domestic law enforcement so incompetent and understaffed that it could only act against a terrorist attack if we knew the precise time and place? (On September 11, send a squad car over to Logan airport and arrest any Arab men found with box cutters!) Presumably the government had more resources at its disposal than a couple guys in a squad car, and could have, I don't know, put the federal government on alert against all hijackings. Since then, the government has received intelligence about terror attacks that doesn't reveal the precise time and place or come attached with a signed confession from bin Laden. Presumably the response is not simply to throw up our hands and decry its uselessness.

Finally, Bush has sought to change the question from his competence to his intent. "Had I had any inkling whatsoever that the people were going to fly airplanes into buildings," he said at his press conference last night, "we would have moved heaven and earth to save the country." But of course no serious person is saying Bush deliberately ignored the threat. It's as if former Boston Red Sox manager Grady Little responded to questions about his baffling failure to relieve Pedro Martinez in Game 7 against the Yankees by insisting that of course he wanted to win the game.

An old political aphorism holds that if you're explaining, you're losing. So, in keeping with that, Bush's allies have shifted from defense to offense. The developing line is that those who criticize Bush for doing too little to thwart the al Qaeda attacks are hypocrites, because the very same people accuse him of doing too much on Iraq.

Perhaps the most fascinating thing about this peculiar line of reasoning is to observe the way it has developed and mutated into an official talking point. It first burbled up on The Wall Street Journal editorial page last month:

"There is a profound contradiction at the heart of this 20-20 hindsight. On the one hand, the critics want to blame the Bush Administration for failing to prevent 9/11, but on the other they assail it for acting "pre-emptively" on a needless war in Iraq. Well, which do they really believe?"

The Journal editors apparently thought so highly of this point that they used it as the beginning of a subsequent editorial:

"Give President Bush's critics credit for versatility. Having spent months assailing him for doing too much after 9/11 -- Iraq, the Patriot Act, the 'pre-emption' doctrine -- they have now turned on a dime to allege that he did too little before it."

One obvious problem with this line of attack is that it assumes that all of Bush's critics opposed the Iraq war. Well, I supported the Iraq war, and I still think Bush should have reacted to the warnings he received about al Qaeda in 2001. What do you have to say to me?

A more glaring flaw with this critique -- so glaring, in fact, that it's almost demeaning to have to point it out -- is that it completely elides the objection to the Iraq war. Most critics of the Iraq war argued it would deplete our military, intelligence, and diplomatic resources, weakening us in the fight against al Qaeda. Nobody argued that Iraq was a central part of the war on terror but it wasn't worth fighting. What's so funny is that the Journal seems to recognize this -- it accurately accuses critics of calling the war "needless" -- yet fails to grasp the implication: There's nothing hypocritical about opposing actions you think aren't necessary and supporting actions you think are. Suppose that after the World Trade Center fell, Bush decided to ignore Afghanistan and instead invade Canada. By the Journal's logic, anybody who criticized both policies would be a hypocrite. Is Bush invading too many countries, or too few? Make up your minds!

By Tuesday the Journal's line had been taken up by administration spokeswoman Mary Matalin, who told Don Imus, "You cannot on the one hand say [Bush] did too little before 9/11 and say he did too much after." The same day, a slightly more sophisticated version of this spin appeared in David Brooks's New York Times column:

"The critics savage the Clinton and Bush administrations for not moving aggressively enough against terror. Al Qaeda facilities should have been dismantled before 9/11, the critics say.

Then you look at the debate over Iraq and suddenly you see the same second-guessers posing as Weinbergerians [which Brooks defines as cautious about responding to uncertain risks]. The U.S. should have been more cautious. We should have had concrete evidence about W.M.D.'s before invading Iraq.

Step back and you see millions of people who will pick up any stick they can to beat the administration."

Here Brooks ignores all the details that set apart the threat from al Qaeda and the threat from Iraq. For one thing, there's the question of the cost of action. Responding to al Qaeda threats in the summer of 2001 could have entailed as little as convening some high-level meetings, dispatching more FBI agents, alerting airport security, and so on. Responding to the Iraq threat required starting a major theater war. So, even if the two threats were equivalent, there'd be nothing hypocritical about supporting the easy response and opposing the hard response.

But, more importantly, the two threats were not equivalent. The intelligence Bush had on al Qaeda in 2001 warned of an imminent attack within the United States. Intelligence on Iraq suggested no such thing. The only credible intelligence anybody had produced connecting Saddam Hussein to terrorism concerned Ansar al-Islam, which was based in Iraqi Kurdistan, outside of Saddam's control. The best argument that Saddam represented a threat was the prospect that he could obtain a nuclear weapon within the next few years. But even that threat -- as it was understood at the time -- was nowhere near as imminent as the al Qaeda threat.

Perhaps Bush was supposed to repeat this argument in his press conference last night. But he failed to bring it up, and had to be prompted by a friendly reporter, who asked him, "You have been accused of letting the 9/11 threat mature too far, but not letting the Iraq threat mature far enough. First, could you respond to that general criticism?" (Of course, what Bush was being asked to respond to was the opposite of "criticism.") The President replied, "Yes. I guess there have been some that said, Well, we should've taken preemptive action in Afghanistan, and then turned around and said we shouldn't have taken preemptive action in Iraq."

Bush's version was more refined still than previous iterations but remains wholly ignorant. Yes, some critics objected to the "preemptive" quality of the Iraq war, but most Democrats, rightly or wrongly, would have supported a preemptive attack if the U.N. Security Council had given its blessing. Anyway, the key point is that taking action against al Qaeda, even before September 11, would not have been preemptive. Al Qaeda attacked the United States in 2000, 1998, and 1993.

I've always been inclined to believe that the Bush administration could not have done anything different that would have prevented the September 11 terrorist attacks. But it's kind of suspicious that, when they defend themselves on this point, Bush and his allies are spectacularly unpersuasive. Perhaps their habit of dissembling has become so ingrained that they do it even when they're right. On the other hand, maybe they do it because the president has something to hide.

Jonathan Chait is a senior editor at TNR.

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...topic=18813&hl=

Even though it's proven Bush lied about 9/11 and knowing about it and let it happen the republicans who control everything won't impeach him. I don't know what will make them. Maybe if we put enough pressure?

Start the proceedings! I'm behind you 100%!

This one quote in the article bothers me

" But of course no serious person is saying Bush deliberately ignored the threat."

If I just think it and don't say it, am I still a serious person?

Above george W. Bush stated that he had any inkling that someone was going to use airplanes and fly them into buildings he would have prevented it...

Well, this report reveals that the FAA knew - and if they knew - the CIA knew and I can't believe these two groups would know, but Condoleezza Rice the US National Security Advisor would be in the dark about this...

The president is charged as knowing what his advisors know - and if they knew he should have known and if he did not they should have been fired for such gross negligence.

The problem was - the real problem I believe was politics - the Bushies knew the needs of the FAA - and that they required millions - billions of dollars to upgrade security - but that would jeopardize the tax cuts Bush was lobbying for...

What else is in the full report - not the redacted one...were there actual warnings about them flying the planes into buildings - even the World Trade Center - as Sibel Edmunds stated - and was gagged by the Department of Justice?

Democrats need to demand answers and demand them and the full report's release ASAP!

February 10, 2005
9/11 Report Cites Many Warnings About Hijackings
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
New York Times

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 - In the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission.

But aviation officials were "lulled into a false sense of security," and "intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures," the commission report concluded.

The report discloses that the Federal Aviation Administration, despite being focused on risks of hijackings overseas, warned airports in the spring of 2001 that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable."

The report takes the F.A.A. to task for failing to pursue domestic security measures that could conceivably have altered the events of Sept. 11, 2001, like toughening airport screening procedures for weapons or expanding the use of on-flight air marshals. The report, completed last August, said officials appeared more concerned with reducing airline congestion, lessening delays, and easing airlines' financial woes than deterring a terrorist attack.

The Bush administration has blocked the public release of the full, classified version of the report for more than five months, officials said, much to the frustration of former commission members who say it provides a critical understanding of the failures of the civil aviation system. The administration provided both the classified report and a declassified, 120-page version to the National Archives two weeks ago and, even with heavy redactions in some areas, the declassified version provides the firmest evidence to date about the warnings that aviation officials received concerning the threat of an attack on airliners and the failure to take steps to deter it.

Among other things, the report says that leaders of the F.A.A. received 52 intelligence reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda from April to Sept. 10, 2001. That represented half of all the intelligence summaries in that time.

Five of the intelligence reports specifically mentioned Al Qaeda's training or capability to conduct hijackings, the report said. Two mentioned suicide operations, although not connected to aviation, the report said.

A spokeswoman for the F.A.A., the agency that bears the brunt of the commission's criticism, said Wednesday that the agency was well aware of the threat posed by terrorists before Sept. 11 and took substantive steps to counter it, including the expanded use of explosives detection units.

"We had a lot of information about threats," said the spokeswoman, Laura J. Brown. "But we didn't have specific information about means or methods that would have enabled us to tailor any countermeasures."

She added: "After 9/11, the F.A..A. and the entire aviation community took bold steps to improve aviation security, such as fortifying cockpit doors on 6,000 airplanes, and those steps took hundreds of millions of dollars to implement."

The report, like previous commission documents, finds no evidence that the government had specific warning of a domestic attack and says that the aviation industry considered the hijacking threat to be more worrisome overseas.

"The fact that the civil aviation system seems to have been lulled into a false sense of security is striking not only because of what happened on 9/11 but also in light of the intelligence assessments, including those conducted by the F.A.A.'s own security branch, that raised alarms about the growing terrorist threat to civil aviation throughout the 1990's and into the new century," the report said.

In its previous findings, including a final report last July that became a best-selling book, the 9/11 commission detailed the harrowing events aboard the four hijacked flights that crashed on Sept. 11 and the communications problems between civil aviation and military officials that hampered the response. But the new report goes further in revealing the scope and depth of intelligence collected by federal aviation officials about the threat of a terrorist attack.

The F.A.A. "had indeed considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon," and in 2001 it distributed a CD-ROM presentation to airlines and airports that cited the possibility of a suicide hijacking, the report said. Previous commission documents have quoted the CD's reassurance that "fortunately, we have no indication that any group is currently thinking in that direction."

Aviation officials amassed so much information about the growing threat posed by terrorists that they conducted classified briefings in mid-2001 for security officials at 19 of the nation's busiest airports to warn of the threat posed in particular by Mr. bin Laden, the report said.

Still, the 9/11 commission concluded that aviation officials did not direct adequate resources or attention to the problem.

"Throughout 2001, the senior leadership of the F.A.A. was focused on congestion and delays within the system and the ever-present issue of safety, but they were not as focused on security," the report said.

The F.A.A. did not see a need to increase the air marshal ranks because hijackings were seen as an overseas threat, and one aviation official told the commission said that airlines did not want to give up revenues by providing free seats to marshals.

The F.A.A. also made no concerted effort to expand their list of terror suspects, which included a dozen names on Sept. 11, the report said. The former head of the F.A.A.'s civil aviation security branch said he was not aware of the government's main watch list, called Tipoff, which included the names of two hijackers who were living in the San Diego area, the report said.

Nor was there evidence that a senior F.A.A. working group on security had ever met in 2001 to discuss "the high threat period that summer," the report said.

Jane F. Garvey, the F.A.A. administrator at the time, told the commission "that she was aware of the heightened threat during the summer of 2001," the report said. But several other senior agency officials "were basically unaware of the threat," as were senior airline operations officials and veteran pilots, the report said.

The classified version of the commission report quotes extensively from circulars prepared by the F.A.A. about the threat of terrorism, but many of those references have been blacked out in the declassified version, officials said.

Several former commissioners and staff members said they were upset and disappointed by the administration's refusal to release the full report publicly.

"Our intention was to make as much information available to the public as soon as possible," said Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Sept. 11 commission member.

Oh, but America should love her. She knows how to weadle her way flirtatiously and twists the arms of the old European die-hards. Really thought she does have all it takes to make a wonderful spy for a spy-novel.

I think in light of these revelations a new commission has to be formed with federal judges - and other higher ups inclusding former intelligence officials to examine the full report...and determine culpability if any is there.

Between the 9/11 victims and the Democrats in Congress if we can draw enough attention to this it should be a possibility.

The Bush Administration has selectively released information and intelligence and there may be a smoking gun in there that they obstructed justice with by hiding...if anything in the report alludes to them takes planes into buildings we have him clearly lying.

How to proceed?

I don't know - letters to the editor ---a joint press conference of Democratic House and Senate leaders...

Hm. That could be good. Maybe we can get word out to people who are family members of those effected by 9/11 and everything. Maybe if enough people are angry at their Senators they will pressure it. I think we should at least try. It could be a long hard battle but I think anything is possible. Bush isn't as popular as his administration would like you to think.

It is just so unbelievable how self serving the Bushies are in withholding this to distract attention away from 9/11 in the Condi confirmation hearings...

How can the FAA say they thought it was an international problem when there is evidence underlined in blue that the optimal highjacking would be of a domestic flight?

And if the FAA knew this - didn't the CIA and the FBI and the NSC and the President?

No - and this is an issue that people in the red states I think would resonate with - no one likes the thought of the president ignoring the truth - ignoring the risks - ignoring the threats - especially after he has campaigned so much on his chracter and leadership skills...and how he has touted Rice as so perfect...

Good reporting by the New York Times - where would we be without that paper...

Thursday 10.02.2005, CET 19:38

February 10, 2005 9:00 AM

U.S. officials were warned about 9/11 hijackings

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. aviation officials failed to respond to dozens of warnings of a possible threat to airliners months before the
September 11 attacks, according to a previously undisclosed report by the commission probing the assault, The New York Times has
reported.

The commission report said federal aviation officials reviewed 52 intelligence reports between April and September 10 that warned about
Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda, the newspaper said on Thursday.

The panel's report took the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to task for failing to take steps that could have deterred the attacks, the
newspaper said.

The newspaper cited the report as saying that aviation officials had amassed so much information about the terrorist threat that they held
classified briefings in mid-2001 for security officials at 19 of the busiest U.S. airports to warn of the danger posed in particular by bin Laden.

Still, the commission concluded that aviation officials did not direct adequate resources or attention to the problem, the Times said.

It quoted the report as saying that the FAA seemed more concerned about airport congestion, delays and safety issues than about security.

An FAA spokeswoman said the agency had been making "significant improvements" in aviation security prior to the attacks, including new
rules for managing airport screeners that had been in the works long before September 11.

"Without specific information about means and methods, there was no way we could tailor the countermeasures specifically to deal with the
threat that we learned about on September 11," Laura Brown said in a telephone interview.

The airport security system at the time was run by the airlines but overseen by the FAA.

After the attacks, the government ordered cockpit doors hardened, took over the screening of passengers and bags at airports and
coordinated "watch lists" among intelligence agencies.


Reuters

should we contact this guy??

http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/Articles/C.../preemptive.htm

Here is the White House response...

Classification issues my @$$ - there were election and confirmation issues...

Press Gaggle with Scott McClellan
Aboard Air Force One

En Route Raleigh, North Carolina

10:10 A.M. EST

MR. McCLELLAN: The President had his usual briefings back at the White House. We've got the town hall today, and then the conversation. So those are the events on the schedule, and then we're back at the White House. I don't have anything else to update, so I'm here for your questions.

Q Scott, one other question, separate subject. The FAA report on the 52 pieces of information that they had, the administration, apparently, just filed the report a couple of weeks ago to the Archives. Why did it wait so long to come out?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you'd have to talk to the Justice Department. The Justice Department was the liaison for working with the 9/11 Commission on classification issues related to reporting. My understanding was this was a report that was given to the Justice Department at the last minute of when they completed their work. And we provided unprecedented cooperation to the 9/11 Commission --

Q For --

MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on -- unprecedented cooperation to the 9/11 Commission, and we were pleased to do that because their work was very important. And --

Q So it's a matter of declassifying -- that's what --

MR. McCLELLAN: There are classification issues that have been involved in the process before. It's involved in the report itself. And I know that we always encourage people to work quickly to do the classification review that were handled, essentially, by career officials within the various departments. And you'd have to ask the Justice Department about this one. But my understanding was that it was something that was given to them very late in the process. And then they worked to go through those issues with other respective agencies, I assume, and -- so that the report could be released, that portion of -- that addition to -- I should say, that addition -- the addition to the report that they provided. But you have to ask Justice Department specifics.

Newsmax is reporting that this info about hijackings was available in 1998 - I guess in an effort to try and blame Clinton for the problem - but I don't think the 52 warnings of Al Qaeda doing hijackings occurred in 1998 - I think that was 2001

----Duh...

I guess that's how they're going to try to spin it.

But if you put together the Newsmax story with the latest reports of 52 FAA alerts on Al Qaeda - this lets the Bushies off the hook even less - because the problem with the historical info was no imminent threats - well the info in 2001 pointed to imminent threats...

Thursday, Feb. 10, 2005 12:42 p.m. EST
FAA Warned of Bin Laden Hijacking in 1998
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/10/130534.shtml

The press is ballyhooing a report in today's New York Times that suggests that the Federal Aviation Administration received it's first clear set of warnings of a 9/11-style attack during the early months of the Bush administration.

But in fact, intelligence naming Osama bin Laden - and even identifying the airports he might use to hijack airliners - was passed on to the FAA as early as 1998 - where the information languished during the final two years of President Clinton's second term.

Sourcing a newly declassified section of the 9/11 Commission report, the Times said Thursday:
"Leaders of the FAA received 52 intelligence reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. Bin Laden or Al Qaida from April to Sept. 2001. That represented half of all the intelligence summaries in that time."

The paper continued: "Five of the intelligence reports specifically mentioned Al Qaeda's training or capability to conduct hijackings, the report said. Two mentioned suicide operations, although not connected to aviation."

"Aviation officials amassed so much information about the growing threat posed by terrorists that they conducted classified briefings in mid-2001 for security officials at 19 of the nation's busiest airports to warn of the threat posed in particular by Mr. bin Laden."

Repeatedly referencing President Bush's first year in office, the Times even noted that the White House had fought to keep the FAA warnings classified, leaving readers to surmise the Bush administration was trying to cover-up its failure to act.

Nowhere in the Times report, however, was the Clinton-era intelligence even hinted at, though it was first reported three years ago by the Times sister publication, the Boston Globe:

"The Federal Aviation Administration warned the nation's airports and airlines in late 1998 about a possible terrorist hijacking 'at a metropolitan airport in the Eastern United States' and urged a 'high degree of vigilance' against threats to US civil aviation from Osama bin Laden's terrorist network," the Globe revealed in May 2002.

New documents, the paper said, "appear to show that US intelligence agencies communicated to the FAA specific concerns about threats, including hijackings, to domestic airliners dating back to the Clinton administration."

One FAA official cited by the Globe acknowledged privately that a warning involving a "metropolitan airport" in the Eastern United States effectively applied to fewer than 20 airfields.

Two out of three of the 1998 FAA circulars obtained by the Globe specifically warned about hijacking plans by Osama bin Laden's terrorist network.

In an Oct. 8, 1998 advisory, airports and airlines were instructed to maintain a "high degree of alertness" based on statements made by bin Laden and other Islamic leaders. It also cited intelligence gathered in the wake of President Clinton's cruise missile attacks against suspected Al Qaida bases in Afghanistan and Sudan.

Bin Laden, the circular states, had praised Ramzi Yousef, who was arrested in a failed 1995 plot to blow up airliners over the Pacific, which later became the blueprint for the 9/11 attacks.

The Clinton-era circular warned that "militants had been mobilized to strike a significant US or Israeli target, to include bringing down or hijacking aircraft."

The document also noted that "one of the incarcerated suspects in the bombing of the US Embassy in Nairobi that he received aircraft hijack training . . . The arrest and pending extradition of bin Laden cadre raises the possibility of a US airliner being hijacked in an effort to demand the release of incarcerated members."

An advisory issued two months later was equally specific, warning: "The FAA has received information that unidentified individuals, who are associated with a terrorist organization, may be planning a hijacking at a metropolitan airport in the Eastern United States."

The third FAA advisory obtained by the Globe, issued Dec. 29, 1998, warned airline and airport security officials to "remain vigilant," based on statements made by bin Laden following the Aug. 1998 cruise missile attacks.

E-mail the guy to send his discovery to all international press. It's the only way we could fight any evils that do no justice for America. We need international support to fight terrorism within our own homeland!

Seriously, how are they going to talk their way out of this one????

They'll blame the FAA - but frankly how can they blame the FAA - their intelligence can't be better than the CIA's - and its interesting though - the FAA had 52 alerts - Bush I believe only had forty some alerts...maybe their intelligence is better

We can't let them get away with this.
Are we just going to sit here and hope that the media mentions it?
Are we just going to wait to hear how they frame this?
How much more bs do we have to put up with? With Korea proudly sitting there with nukes as a warning to Bush? And add it all to how he has screwed up this country for decades.

I have had enough.

How do we get this moron impeached?
I have been browsing other forums, and everyone is saying it, but no one is doing anything. How do we get a movement started?

I think the first thing to do is to start e-mailing your legislators and telling them how incensed you are.

If you have anyone who is close to our new Chair designate - Dean - let's get him involved in getting the party to develop a position paper and talking points on the issue and work on getting that press conference set for next week or sooner with Dean and the leaders of both Houses for the Ds and let's act.

E-mail the media...

Let them know what's up - how Bush said if he had any inkling - and how self serving it is releasing the report after Rice's confirmation and after the election.

The Senators Ds and Rs should be fuming over the White House doing this because it makes them look like idiots.

This is pathetic.

Does anyone have any other suggestions regarding how we can raise the consciousness of the country on this issue?

Didn't though, Bush and Cheney speak to the committee (together)
BUT-they were NOT sworn in, nor was there a written record

plus-Hastert would be Prez, he could nominate Jeb as VP, quit or Frist, quit and then we are even worse off than now

I think with all the scandals the last thing the Amerian public would want is another Bushie in the basket...

Plus - he'd never be impeached over this - but we can make him look awfully bad - awfully secretive and self serving and all the things we said he was....and make people think - how could a good Christian man like W do this? and a good Christian woman like Condi?

So, we should just ignore this?

No, we should never ignore it.

We should file it away and use it when we have some power.

Between me and you, what would really be great is if Al Gore got into office, we won the house and senate, THEN hit all these guys with trials and cases and they all got jail terms.

One reason 2004 was so important was we needed to stop this so called dynasty forever. Make them appear and beat them so bad that they would never come back again. Like dracula. Stop all of the neo-cons forever.
But it didn't happen.

Our job is so much harder, because they are now even more powerful, and Jeb is not a real possiblity, as are Condie and later on the next Bush, etc.

We really messed up in 04 making the future even harder.

That is why we need to win all 3 branches, THEN put these people in jail (or at least make W give everyone a pardon for all future trails.)

To do so now is just about impossible, and the MSM will just say we are playing politics.

I know but Kerry never should have had No Retreat, No Surrender as his song - all it made you think of was retreating and surrendering ---

And Kerry never hit Bush as hard as he should have.

He didn't want to risk alienating himself in the Senate if he lost...

Too bad.

Gore isn't afraid to hit them where it hurts...

I'm listening to Ed Schultz right now and he is HOT! Frothing at the mouth

When is the anniversary of the beginning of major operations in Iraq? Coming up I assume, or is it already passed? The anniversary can be a nation-wide protest. The signs can read "Did Saddam know about 9/11? No, but Bush and Condi did!"

Just heard on Big Ed
that Henry Waxman nevada is ALL over it!
Waxman said that these classified docs became 'unclassified' 48 hrs after Condi's
hearing :o

How did Bush go from 9/11 to assuming that Iraq/Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction? We were told it came from "Intelligence". So where did that intelligence come from? I never heard, did anyone else? I don't think it was from our military recon. because on Sunday it was announced that Strat-Com has been given the job of searching for WMD's. I thought that was their job all along! Apparently not. Will we ever know the truth about that "intelligence"? I believe it was not true. I think it was made up.

Henry Waxman is the Democratic Congressman from my district in Los Angeles, CA!

I envision the bipartisan leaders of our country who know these neocons were involved coming out, in unison, in a nationally televised live news brief and announcing to the American people that BushCo was in on 9/11. I dream of a day when our political leaders care more about the people than they do political expediency. I dream of a day when our political leaders see it in the country's best interest to finally tell us the truth we've all heard about anyway.

I don't understand why Democrats don't get on national television and start mentioning these things. If one does it they're a target - if they ALL do it simulataneously it's credible and will be resistant to attempts from Republicans to discredit them. We wouldn't need to spend all our time crafting our "moral values" if one of our real moral values was telling the American people the straight-up, no holds barred truth. It makes me distrust my government even more when people who I know know the truth say nothing.

It's being discussed on Hardball now.

Seriously, I'm with ya there! I just can not fathom, after all these repeated warnings, that every level of our government, every level of our defenses FAILED? At the exact same time? NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM FIGURED OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON Its incredulous! And seriously indicative of something else going on....

Been reading this blog. So are we going to try to get it publicized or let it go like everyone else in this country blaaaaaazee'. Keith is doing a interview on this. They said 2001 they were warned about Osama possibly using planes for suicide attacks.

you just have to ask who was behind 9/11 - not who DID it - who was BEHIND it?

Oh good grief. Of course anything to blame Clinton and this administration is NEVER HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANYTHING!!! Not this and not Iraq and not the huge deficit or anything!! I'm tired of it! Clinton DID WARN Bush when he left office and Condi and told them they will be working on Usama BinLadin most of the time but what did Bush do? Go on vacation 40% of the time!!!!

Wouldn't doubt it. Remember the whole UN/Oil for food scandal and using it as a justification to go into Iraq? <_<

I'm Emailing my people now. Even though one of mine is Frist I don't care. I'm pissed off and he's going to hear it.

What are they talking about? Please fill us in so I know to watch or not.

Check out this site. Google for the site Review 911. They're a really good site and have tons of information that will boogle your mind.

http://img94.exs.cx/img94/5221/memo59ma.jpg

complements of the Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/10/194520/107

why isn't this front headlines of the newspapers?

All the stooges wraping themselves in 9/11 hoopla at the RNC convention, aren't ya proud of your party today? All those lives, and the horrors their families have had to bear, WAS PREVENTABLE. But no voter would have needed that information BEFORE the election! Impeachment is too good for Bush/Cheney!

It better be tomorrow.

I went to drudgereport to see what they had to say for themselves...
nada!

The spin that I have heard is that there was nothing in any one of those memos that could have prevented 9/11.

52 memos, no clues? That's a worse lie than wmds in Iraq

There is no doubt about the reasons BushCo blocked the release of this report for 5 months.

Not now.

Bush knew.

Or should have known.

And what BushCo did release is heavily redacted.

Again.

Incredible.

US had 52 pre-9/11 warnings of imminent terror attack
US authorities failed to respond to numerous warnings over the possibility of terrorist action on US airliners in the run up to the September 11 atrocities in 2001, it has been revealed.
US officials ignored many warnings about attacks before 9/11: New Kerala
Bush team tried to suppress pre-9/11 report into al-Qa'ida Independent
The Sun - BBC News - Seattle Post Intelligencer - Telegraph.co.uk - all 529 related »

Why are people so quiet about this, they waited 5 MONTHS for the information to come out, this administration KNEW very well about the warnings, and they chose not to do anything. 52 WARNINGS come on, are we going to sit back on this???? If anyone listen to Mike Malloy on AAR he presented all the facts, this was an act of treason, and grounds for immediate impeachment. Just think this information was known by the 9/11 Commission and held back from the American people for 5 months till after the election. What more evidence do we need???

YES THEY LIE ABOUT EVERYTHING, ARE WE GOING TO SIT BACK ON THIS ONE??

This is a key factor, Bush and Cheney met with the 9/11 Commission not under oath, so they were free to lie about the 9/11 attack, thus they confiscated the notes after the testimony. Do we need anymore evidence, that they just sat back and let the 9/11 attack happen after 52 warnings??? And think if they sent our troops into a country with no WMD's and how many people were killed already, 1,448, they killed 3,000 more in the 9/11 attack after numerous warnings are we going to let them get away with it???? Yes, I am angry.

YES, WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DO WE NEED????? THIS WARRANTS IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, they started impeachment proceedings on Clinton for what a sex scandel, and what we are going to let the 52 Warnings Report be disregarded, after they release it after 5 months??????

I think everyone should do this, geez, we know already the majority of 3 branches are all one party now, there are more of us than them, for real, if we stay on top of this they must do something, look how those 9/11 families were on these thugs butts to have hearings. WE HAVE TO PUSH HARD, Let them know there are some of us who don't want to sleep on this issue.