The Deafness Before the Storm: Newly Released Documents Show Bush White House More Grossly Negligent Than Previously Thought.
my2cents
2012/09/14 19:14:07
|
|
|||||
|
3 votes
|
|
30% | |||
|
2 votes
|
|
20% | |||
|
5 votes
|
|
50% | |||
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review
of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al
Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret
document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the
now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few
weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with
urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t
ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.
Read story here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-hous...
of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al
Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret
document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the
now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few
weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with
urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t
ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.
Read story here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-hous...
And what's skewed about yes, no or undecided?
A more educated and honest poll would have offered a choice of "I think 9/11 could have been prevented if the Clinton White House had acted" as well.
As for the article, the author of the OPINION piece earns an epic fail as well. Nebulous statements such as "...“a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation.", "...the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible...", "... “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” ...", "...Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news..." do NOT constitute definitive, actionable intelligence. I'd be utterly enthralled to hear either your or the NY Times' hack's plan for defending 9.8 million square miles of territory and all of our overseas operations with ...
A more educated and honest poll would have offered a choice of "I think 9/11 could have been prevented if the Clinton White House had acted" as well.
As for the article, the author of the OPINION piece earns an epic fail as well. Nebulous statements such as "...“a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation.", "...the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible...", "... “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” ...", "...Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news..." do NOT constitute definitive, actionable intelligence. I'd be utterly enthralled to hear either your or the NY Times' hack's plan for defending 9.8 million square miles of territory and all of our overseas operations with those snippets.
This was nothing more than a blatant attempt to divert attention from Obama's failures. As for the credibility of the NY TImes, it's good for wrapping yesterday's garbage and lining bird cages.
http://www.independent.co.uk/...