Truth & Consequences: The Bush Administration and September 11

Truth & Consequences: The Bush Administration and September 11

April 2, 2004
Download: DOC, RTF, PDF

Before 9/11: White House Received Warnings

After September 11, both President Bush and his top national security adviser denied having any prior knowledge that Al Qaeda was planning an attack involving airplanes. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said on 5/16/02, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." Similarly, President Bush denied having any idea about the threat, saying on 5/17/02, "Had I know that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." These denials belie the record.

1999 –EXPLICIT WARNING THAT AL QAEDA HAD PLANS TO FLY AIRPLANES INTO BUILDINGS: A 1999 report prepared by the Library of Congress for the National Intelligence Council "warned that Osama bin Laden's terrorists could hijack an airliner and fly it into government buildings like the Pentagon." The report specifically said, "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives…into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House." In response to the ominous warnings, the New York Times reports "under Janet Reno, the Justice Department's counterterrorism budget increased 13.6% in the fiscal year 1999, 7.1% in 2000 and 22.7% in 2001." During the Clinton Administration "the federal government had on several earlier occasions taken elaborate, secret measures to protect special events from just such an attack."

EARLY 2001 – MAJOR SURGE IN AL QAEDA ACTIVITY: "In late spring 2001, a sudden surge in activity began among known Al Qaeda operatives…a reporter from Middle East Broadcasting visited bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan and noted that his supporters were preparing for attacks against American 'interests.'"

EARLY 2001 – WHITE HOUSE DEPARTS FROM EFFORTS TO TRACK TERRORIST MONEY: The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center."

~snip~
More:http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=43926

Hope this isn't a dupe. But great source about what they knew and when they knew it.

or is it a bad resource?

Fully sourced and documented by mainstream media articles, it's now in my links library right next to the time line.

BushCo's involvement with 9/11 -- before, during, and after the event -- remains the single most devastating issue out there . . . that the "free press" has yet to independently follow up on the myriad of leads, contradictions, and outright falsehoods surrounding what BushCo did or didn't know and do remains a disgrace to American journalism . . . and the fact that BushCo has consistently sought to impede investigations and hide the truth speaks volumes about their complicity in the events of 9/11 and their aftermath . . .

I can't believe that it's pushing three years since those events and we STILL don't know what happened on that day or who was guilty of what . . . connecections to Saudi Arabia and the Pakistan ISI (and therefore the CIA) remain unexplored, as do things like how the Twin Towers (and WTC 7) collapsed at free fall speed and how a 757 could fit into an 18 foot hole in the Pentagon . . . nothing in the "official" story makes any sense when put up against known facts, yet the press and the country seem either uninterested or, more likely, afraid to go down those roads lest they take us places we'd rather not go (i.e. considering the involvement of our own government in an attack on our country) . . .

but the alternative -- not knowing -- is even worse . . . by not pursuing the truth about 9/11, we're saying that it's okay to not know what really happened . . . and that has very scary implications for the future of our democracy . . . because if we let them get away with this one, who knows what else they'll try in the future . . .