The document

The document
: So the White House released the now-infamous August 6th briefing.

Condi Rice was right. It is a document giving background and history and no clear call to action, nothing that could have prevented September 11th.

The money graph:

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns ofsuspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations forhijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance offederal buildings in New York.

I’m no Bushie but I’m sick of the attempt to find an enemy within when the enemy is clearly without.

: Josh Marshall says: “I think it’s fair to say there’s nothing thermonuclear, shall we say, in the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief…”

  • HH

    So the “Bush Knew” crap from May of 2002 didn’t work.. and now it’s supposed to work? LMAO… Dems open the door in their face again.

  • a reader

    “I’m sick of the attempt to find an enemy within with the enemy is clearly without.”
    You sure about that? Comparing the actual document with the subsequent stories about it seems to give explicit warning of a clear and present danger in our midst….

  • Don

    It seems clear that al-Quaeda should have been on the White House “front burner” at the time…and it was not.
    Instead of concentrating on Iraq & Missile Defense, should they not have been concentrating on what was clearly an imminent threat?
    The White House has made futile attempts at discrediting Richard Clarke and his testimony/book. Thus far, nothing in this book has been successfully challenged. Much of the book offers subjective opinions…but backed by solid documentation. It’s actually a good read, compelling, and enlightening…and one that every thinking American should read from cover to cover.

  • It seems clear that al-Quaeda should have been on the White House “front burner” at the time…and it was not.
    So what’s the excuse for Clinton? Remember, we were pursuing the “trial on terror” on 08/07/01. The standing US Policy was that terrorists were criminals and were afforded certain rights. On 09/12/01, the trial was adjorned and the “war on terror” began. This is clearly defined in presidential policies and the actions of the Clinton and Bush administrations.
    Or do you still think terrorist attacks should be handled through the court system? Maybe the Hauge would be a nice place to hold them…. :-)

  • Ga-ne-sha

    “subjective opinions…but backed by solid documentation” — Don — Ah, the Liberal method revealed!
    “explicit warning of a clear and present danger in our midst….” — a reader — Hijacking? No shit! What do you think the previous airport security measure changes were designed to prevent? Remember them?
    Were you ready for the new measures now in place then? Have you gotten your smallpox vaccination? If so, then good, but the program has run out of gas. Whose fault is it?

  • Don

    Read the book…then make judgements as to its subjective nature. It was subjective simply because it was written in the first person. Clinton certainly shares the blame…but at least, al-Queada was then on the front burner.
    Read The Book……it has not been successfully challenged as to its factual authenticity. And it offers very enlightening and critical views of BOTH Administrations.
    Read the book before you can challenge it.

  • nonya

    > Clinton certainly shares the blame…but at least, al-Queada was then on the front burner.

  • Reid

    Don – will reading the piece of trash tell me that John Kerry will be tougher on our enemies than George W. Bush? I think not.
    Clarke once gushed praise for this administration’s antiterrorist policies. But, once they told him how much money he’d make from his book, it didn’t take long for the career civil servant to figure out which side his bread was buttered on.
    Some front burner. Face it guy, besides lobbing a few ineffectual cruise missiles, Clinon made no significant moves against the terrorists for 8 long years. What a (very unfunny) joke.

  • Don

    Ummm…9/11 happened on George Bush’s watch.

  • nonya

    It was planned on Clinton’s watch. Al Queda was formed, grew, and declared war on America TWICE on Clinton’s watch. They attacked us three times on Clinton’s watch. Like I said, I’d hate to see it if it was on the back burner.

  • Ummm…9/11 happened on George Bush’s watch.
    The eternal liberal siren. Blame Bush for all things bad. Hey Don, my grandmother is in the hospital with a really bad blood infection. Should I blame that on GWB since it happened on “his watch”? How about any deaths in the United States which occured on “his watch”, even those from disease or accident?
    Dick Clarke’s book is pointless, especially considering all his previous testimony UNDER OATH completely contradicts his book. With all the flip/flopping he’s done, Dick should be the head cook at John Kerry’s Waffle House.
    Don, what would have been your opinion if GWB decided to invade Afghanistan on 9/10. Would that have stopped 9/11? How about if he does it on 01/31? The funny thing is that you are saying that Bush should have done something preemptive against Al Qaeda but NOT against Saddam Hussein.
    Your unfailing belief in Dick (Clarke) just shows what the big problem is. You hate GWB, and you will say/do anything to get him out of office…stop me when I’m wrong.

  • Ga-ne-sha

    “Read the book” –Don–
    I’ll look at it if I can come upon it free. I don’t buy any of these kind of books, Liberal or Conservative.
    Clarke has no credibility. I initially thought he did. Then came his further testimony, contradictory statements, psychic conclusions, double standard m.o.,Meet the Press, etc.. I’ve seen plenty of him. I just saw him on Mad TV a couple of days ago!
    The jury disregards testimony of witnesses selling stories, probably for good reasons: guilding the lilly.
    His claim that there is no such thing as truth, only “politics” in explanation of his contradictory statements is an admission that everything he says is slanted. He himself can’t tell if anything he thinks is not slanted.
    The PDB was innocuous, and poorly written, if the idea was to try to communicate that hijacked planes were being considered by AlQaeda as weapons. “Other types of attacks” were not even specified. The brief must have really been important.

  • h0mi

    The PDB has a lot of vague unhelpful information that presumably was already “known”.
    There is nothing in the PDB to suggest that we should be on alert for hijackings, using planes as missles. This document is no different from the Dept. of Homeland Security raising the terror alert to Red and then telling the whole nation to “watch for suspicious people” with no clues as to what sort of suspicious people/actions to be aware of … or where.
    The only mention of hijackings was this:
    We havenot been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ‘Umar’ Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
    which suggests a normal, traditional expectation where someone hijacks a plane and demands the release of various criminals in return for the return of those hostages.

  • James Stephenson

    What about in Clarke’s book when he ties Tim McVeigh to Al Quada. He says that before Tim met with the Number 2 AQ guy in the Philipines his bombs never worked.
    Why wasn’t AQ went after harder, considering that happened well before 9/11.

  • HH

    “Thus far, nothing in this book has been successfully challenged.”
    Good to see Simon & Schuster’s PR guy here… maybe you ought to bring this up with, Edward Jay Epstein, Richard Miniter, Laurie Mylroie, et al.