What did the 8/6 PDB say about NEW YORK?

[AirAmFan]

The following words represent about 20 percent of the very short PDB released by the White House today. Do you think this Presidential Daily Briefing predicted a second try at bringing down the most prominent symbol of US business and New York pride, the WTC? If you had been National Security Advisor, what actions would you have taken after seeing these words, before September 11th?

From http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/index.html

"...Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef....

... he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks.

...A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

...We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

...FBI information ... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

[aquart]

1. Crap.. I'm crying.

He knew they were targeting us and he did nothing.

Not one thing.

Saved his own ass, though.

Oddly, my mind very icily details a horrendous end for the filthy five. May they drown in the blood they spilled.

[davekriss]

2. The Filthy Five

I like that! Now there's a meme to propogate!

On edit: The Filthy Five: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice.

A reminder to our freeping lurkers...

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.
---Theodore Roosevelt, 1912

On second edit, think of the quality of mind in the public servant who can say these...

I'm the commander... see, I don't need to explain. I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation.
---G. W. Bush, in Bob Woodward's BUSH AT WAR

I appreciate people's opinions, but I'm more interested in news. And the best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world.
---George W. Bush, Fox News Interview with Brit Hume, September 23, 2003, bringing to mind the PNAC crowd surrounding the dunce

I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves.
--—George W. Bush., Sept. 21, 2003

And still some wonder why things have come to what they are...!

[meow mix]

3. Bin Laden implied

its interesting how the PBD points out that OBL stated publically he would "follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef"

[AirAmFan]

7. You've pounced on the most important phrase, from the point of ...

view of any New Yorker. I find it quite shocking that the White House spin sheet on this PDB OMITS the phrase you've quoted.

I found a "Fact Sheet" about the PDB on the White House website (at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040410-5.html , though I could NOT find the actual document there. Here's the title and a key excerpt. I've inserted a bracketed note in caps to highlight the omission of the phrase you found most interesting.

"April 10, 2004 Fact Sheet -- The August 6, 2001 Pdb...

Q: What information does this PDB item contain?

The article advised the President of what was publicly well-known: that Bin Ladin had a desire to attack inside the United States. Bin Ladin had stated publicly in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would try to "{NOTICE WHAT IS OMITTED HERE--SEE TEXT IN ORIGINAL MESSAGE}bring the fighting to America." Most of the information in the article was an analysis of previous terrorist attacks by al-Qaida and a summary and discussion of general threat reporting from the late 1990s. The draft was prepared by CIA after consultation with an FBI analyst."

[hotelmotel]

6. Ok..

While it is tragic and easy to throw blame as someone we already hate, the original post asks us, what would we do given those vague warnings from 97/98?

couple things, that sound great but may not be feasable, givin the number of people that would need to be involved and doing their job perfect (you know some security guard, somewhere, at some airport isn't doin their job correctly, but thats what humans do)

1 -I think we can rule out preventing 100% of hi-jackers whom are going to stay one step ahead of the game. from carrying machine guns onboard like has happened in other countries hijackings? perhaps but not the more crude methods imo..

2 - now we have to decide, is it even going to be a plane or another parking lot bomb like before? The last bomb proved relatively ineffective obviously.. but bombings were an expected and witnessed method even then.

Using a plane as a bomb? The memo doesnt mention that, and i doubt it ever did specifically enough to act decisive, but either way unless it gives a date that's irrelevant to this: I think we would essentially have to restrict any and all passenger or private flights over a vary large radius. A radius large enough that if broken would give time to get jets up to it

(and before someone says, well since jets can go 2500mph they can get there from wherever, consider this - to go that speed our current fighter jets NEED to use their after burners, the amount of time they can use their afterburners is measured in minutes, like 10 i believe for an F18. This kills their fuel, when we do attack missions we have in flight refueling for most flights, fighters CAN NOT go very far distance wise)

So lets assume we had fighters there, whether they are scrambled on alert or we keep them up 24/7 from an ANG. The radius also needs to be large enough to give us time to try and determine intentions of the plane in the yellow zone. Given people generally only react after something bad has happened I don't think we would ever tolerate a passenger jet being shot down just because it veered off course and we didnt have time to verify it, after 9/11, maybe. before? hellll no.

3- law enforcement. As was done shortly after 9/11, I'm not sure what all options we would really have here. One would be to question any and all arabs who have travelled to a country where we know al-queda operates out of, or perhaps any in flight school, though the enormity of that job may cause problems. Wiretapping, interogations and all that... well we see the uproar it causes with civil rights issues even after 9/11 that I just dont see it happening before.

[AirAmFan]

8. Would you have followed up with the CIA author of the 8/6 PDB?

There was another thread on DU today about how the "Presidential Daily Briefing" has been an institution at the White House since at least the days of LBJ. During the Clinton era, apparently daily briefings were lengthy and had rich bibliographies and follow-up items. However, according to this thread, PDBs had been drastically "dumbed down" for Dubya.

Had I been the National Security Advisor, I would at least have met with Richard Clarke, George Tenet, and the CIA author of that key 8/6 PDB, to see whether there were specific actions that might be taken to counteract some of the alarming developments reported on the one pager. Wouldn't you?

The "spin sheet" I linked in Reply #7 above screwed up and added some additional information that has not been highlighted in the media:

"Q: Why is the term "patterns of suspicious activity" used in the PDB and what does it refer to? The CIA author of the PDB item judged, after consulting an FBI colleague, that there were suspicious patterns of activity that were worrisome, even though nothing pointed to a specific operation in a specific location. In that vein, the author was concerned that one of the East African bombing defendants had told FBI officers earlier in 2001 that BIN LADEN WOULD RETALIATE IF THE DEFENDANTS IN THE TRIAL WERE CONVICTED -- FOUR WERE CONVICTED IN NEW YORK ON MAY 29 --"

Would this factoid have prompted you to take some of the "tree-shaking" measures Richard Clarke testified as having carried out successfully to foil Milennium terrorist attacks?

[hotelmotel]

9. Well

I really don't know, it's too vague for me to even guess at plus the fact this was stuff known for several years (and had presumably come up before, given the osama messages were from 97/98).

What exactly were the tree shaking measures he suggested, i didn't hear them. Though I do know he said in regards to taking his advice that 9/11 wouldn't have been stopped anyhow. As my understanding the man headed down to LA with a truck of explosives was caught at the border crossing from BC to WA. Which is far from any extra ordinary measures.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

10. Right. "Too vague". Sure.

[MGKrebs]

4. Cynthia McKinney was RIGHT!

[davekriss]

5. Yes (n/t)