Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Preview of the classified 8/6/01 PDB, from John Dean...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
skeptic9 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 11:11 AM
Original message
Preview of the classified 8/6/01 PDB, from John Dean...
Edited on Fri Apr-09-04 11:18 AM by skeptic9
Last July, John Dean's column at Findlaw.com pointed to this footnote in the Report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks Of September 11:

"National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice stated in a May 16, 2002 press briefing that, on August 6, 2001, the Presidents Daily Brief (PDB) included information about Bin Ladins methods of operation from a historical perspective dating back to 1997. One of the methods was that Bin Ladin might choose to highjack an airliner in order to hold passengers hostage to gain release of one of their operatives. She stated, however, that the report did not contain specific warning information, but only a generalized warning, and did not contain information that al-Qaida was discussing a particular planned attack against a specific target at any specific time, place, or by any specific method."

--From pdf page 79 of "Part Two -- Narrative -- The Attacks of September 11, 2001" {297 KB PDF} at http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/911rpt/

Dean says in his Findlaw column,

"What exactly did {the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief} say? We cannot know. But the Inquiry's 9/11 Report lays out all such threats, over that time period, in thirty-six bullet point summaries. It is only necessary to cite a few of these to see the problem: In September 1998, the {Intelligence Community} obtained information that Bin Laden's next operation might involve flying an explosive-laden aircraft into a U.S. airport and detonating it.

In the fall of 1998, the {Intelligence Community} obtained information concerning a Bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas. In March 2000, the {Intelligence Community} obtained information regarding the types of targets that operatives of Bin Laden's network might strike. The Statute of Liberty was specifically mentioned , as were SKYSCRAPERS, ports, airports, and nuclear power plans.

In sum, the 9/11 Report of the Congressional Inquiry indicates that the intelligence community was very aware that Bin Laden might fly an airplane into an American skyscraper. ..."

--From http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030729.html

The 36 bullet points Dean refers to are also in the online Joint Inquiry Report at the URL given above, in pages 71-80 of "Part Two -- Narrative -- The Attacks of September 11, 2001"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks for the repost. I remember reading this. the 9/11 Commission also
is aware of this and maybe that's why Gorelick and Ben Veneste were so hard on Condi on last night's pundit shows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skeptic9 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. The media have forgotten about the Joint Congressional Inquiry Report
or else never read it. Have you heard this report quoted recently, anywhere? I did not realize that all 800 pages of it are online at Findlaw.

The JCI report likely already has most of the findings the 9-11 Commission will publish, after the White House gets through "redacting".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. The only mention was Senator Graham last night on one of the pundit
shows, and he only mentioned it briefly. There wasn't any follow through. Just like you don't hear much about the Hart-Rudman report except occasionally here on DU. Even though I know Hart has been trying to get more visibility.

They only tell us what "they" want us to know. :-( Hopefully there so much that the lid can't be kept on much longer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC