The New York Times....

[TheAnvil 0]

...ahhh...how the liberal media is making fools of themselves so...still waiting on some CNN/ABC/NBC/ABC coverage of Senator Dodd's comments on everyone's favorite KKKlansman.

Nice article by Joel Mowbray. Michele Malkin's article today (found at http://www.townhall.com) is also quite nice.

New York Times’ Bush Smear Campaign
Joel Mowbray


April 14, 2004 |


On Saturday, the New York Times—adhering to the P.T. Barnum school of journalism—screamed on its front page that President Bush was warned “that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes.”

To drive home the point that “Bush lied,” the Times informed readers, “The disclosure appears to contradict the White House’s repeated assertions that the briefing the president received about the Qaeda threat was ‘historical’ in nature and that the White House had little reason to suspect a Qaeda attack within American borders.”

The source for this most sensational of charges, that the President was given some kind of advance warning of 9/11 and then lied about it? A single “government official.”

It took the release of the document for the public to realize that it contained no sort of advance warning.

What the Times did is akin to a psychic telling a poor sap that he sees “the color blue” and “the letter D”—and the sucker plays along by remarking, “Amazing! My brother David’s favorite color is blue!”

To wit, here’s a rundown of the PDB:

Near the top of the briefing, Bush was told, “Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US.” Sounds “historical.”

Soon after is a morsel that Bush critics, including the Times, have chewed endlessly: “Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington.” But as the briefing notes just before, this threat was made “[a]fter US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998.” In other words, a “threat” that was three years old by that point, or if you will, “historical” in nature.

The briefing then runs through al Qaeda’s role in both the foiled “millennium” plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport in 1999 and the successful bombings of the U.S. Embassies in East Africa in 1998. Again, “historical.”

(So “historical” was most of this information, in fact, that Bush wouldn’t have needed a top-secret briefing; a newspaper would have sufficed.)

Near the end of the PDB, two references have received the extraordinary media attention: that “Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft” and that the FBI had detected al Qaeda activity suggesting “preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks.”

But the kind of hijacking suggested in the briefing was one “to gain the release of ‘Blind Shaykh’ ‘Umar’ Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.”

And the only suspicious activity highlighted in the document was “recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” Yes, it mentions “New York,” but that’s an awfully big place, chock-full of ripe targets—and the World Trade Center was not a “federal building.”

Caught red-handed misstating the facts, the Times gave the following quasi-clarification that same evening in a news story on the declassified document: “But the briefing did not point to any specific time or place of attack and did not warn that planes could be used as missiles.”

The article’s next paragraph, however, promptly returned to the Times’ campaign to paint Bush as a liar: “But the page-and-a-quarter-long document showed that Mr. Bush was given more specific and contemporary information about terrorist threats than the White House had previously acknowledged.”

What “specific” and “contemporary” information exactly?

Referencing possible “hijackings or other types of attacks” is about as “specific” as a “yellow” versus “orange” terror alert.

In short, there was nothing new, specific, or actionable in the much-ballyhooed PDB.

Naysayers will point to the “hijacking” reference, but there was no mechanism in place to respond to a vague threat of a hijacking in fall 2001. The bureaucracies were broken. The FAA barely functioned, and Boston’s Logan International Airport was but one of many with near-nonexistent security.

The ugly truth is that directing the massive U.S. bureaucracy to respond to the previously ignored threat of radical Islam in fall 2001 is like the Titanic captain steering once he spotted the iceberg.

After all, it is clear to anyone who reads the briefing that there was sadly nothing specific in it that Bush could have acted on in order to prevent 9/11.

Anyone, that is, except the New York Times.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,068]

>President Bush was warned “that supporters of Osama bin Laden
> planned an attack within the United States with explosives . . .


From the PDB:

"CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives."

>"and wanted to hijack airplanes.”

From the PDB:

"FBI information since that time 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."

>how the liberal media is making fools of themselves . . .

By reporting the facts. When will they learn that news is simply not valid unless the correct conservative spin is put on it?

Man, you must REALLY hate NPR, then. They simply read the entire PDB and let people decide for themselves. Which is even more dangerous.

[TheAnvil 0]

You call those specific? Surely you jest.

The liberals and their media syncophants are on a PR campaign implying that Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen and didn't do enough. This effort to blame the man for 9/11 is disgraceful - almost as much as Kerrey/Ben-Veniste's questioning of Dr. Rice, but not quite; they really outdid themselves there. The real disgrace is that some folks seem to actually buy into such hogwash.

What is not only disgraceful but disgusting is that the leftists know it's hogwash. They also know that a good portion of the electorate (many comprising their base) are stupid enough to believe it - hence their campaign to publicize such garbage as much as possible. I maintain that said stupidity is due in no small part to the Herculean efforts of the NEA to ensure any effort to hold teachers accountable to any sort of standard is either defeated or watered down into impotency, but that's a topic for another thread.

Specific enough info to have prevented 9/11 without benefit of hindsight? Bill - you know better. As do the buffoons spouting such drivel.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,068]

>You call those specific? Surely you jest.

They are not specific at all, just a warning that a) supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and b) they wanted to hijack airplanes. Thus, the PDB contradicts the White House’s repeated assertions that the briefing the president received about the Qaeda threat was ‘historical’ in nature and that the White House had little reason to suspect a Qaeda attack within American borders.

>The liberals and their media syncophants are on a PR campaign
> implying that Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen and didn't do
> enough.

I am not claiming that Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen, that exactly 4 planes would be hijacked on the morning of September 11, 2001. However, his claims that he had no idea there was any sort of Al Qaeda attack in the planning phases - and that no one could have had any inkling that the US would be attacked - is a bunch of cover-your-ass nonsense. His PDB contradicts his statements.

>What is not only disgraceful but disgusting is that the leftists know it's hogwash.

Your language seems to become more extreme when you're worried about something. I agree, there is cause to worry over this, because now we have actual facts (the text of the PDB) rather than right-wing stonewalling. Whatever the conservative _or_ liberal media says, people can read the PDB for themselves (and soon others, PDB's with titles like "Bin Laden planning multiple operations," "Bin Laden network's plans advancing" and "Bin Laden threats are real") and decide for themselves. And I think that worries you.

[TheAnvil 0]

Terrorists hatching plots against the US and its allies aren't a matter of historical record? Bill I know you lean left and leftists LOVE revisionist history, but that's stretching it thinner than phyllo. Given the historical fact that no foreign terror organization had done something of the 9/11 nature within the US itself, why should the Bush administration had more than 'little reason' to suspect such an attack - without the blissful benefit of hindsight? Answer: there is no reason.

This 'cover-your-ass nonsense' you refer to is just that - nonsense - AND the best the leftists can come up with to attack Mr. Bush on this issue. It's critical to the Kerry campaign that the Bush Administration's actions pre-9/11 be maligned in any manner possible, so Comrades Rather, Brokaw, Jennings, the NY/LA Times, and of course CNN are endeavoring to do just that. Not to mention Messrs. Kerrey and Ben-Veniste, both reknowned for their partisanship on the 9/11 commission.

You are right that I'm worried, though I assure you I'm not worried in the sense you believe (Bush's record in the matter under discussion here stands for itself more than adequately). I have long maintained that misleading the American public for partisan purposes inevitably damages our nation in some manner. This is one (of many) reasons I have a major, major, major, major, major, major (ad infinitum) problem with the American left and their conduct over the last two decades - and to be fair, w/Republicans as well in a few cases.

Convincing the less-than-average intellects in the electorate that a sitting president and his national security infrastructure either through their own incompetence or consent allowed 9/11 to happen is both an outright lie AND the goal of the leftists PR campaign. In the abstract, what makes this more sickening is that the party endeavoring to inspire a lack of confidence in government is the same party that wants to have the government take on more and more responsibility for the average citizen.

Inspiring a lack of confidence in the government's ability & desire to defend its citizens harms any nation-state - America being no exception. Liberals are doing just that. If you want to dissent - fine, that's healthy and welcomed by all. Spreading cancerous lies as the left is doing here (and elsewhere) harms America, and I have no tolerance for that.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Keith 0]

Quote

Given the historical fact that no foreign terror organization had done something of the 9/11 nature within the US itself,

Talk about revisionist history! 9/11 was the second time the WTC was attacked.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[billvon 3,068]

>Terrorists hatching plots against the US and its allies aren't a matter
>of historical record?

?? In the manner that it referred to something that happened in the past, yes. If I told you "someone just threw a rock at your head!" would you refuse to duck because my statement contained only historical information?

I hope we have a president next year who actually acts on warnings, historical or otherwise.

>Spreading cancerous lies as the left is doing here (and elsewhere)
>harms America, and I have no tolerance for that.

Too bad you can't get that PDB censored!

[TheAnvil 0]

The first WTC bombing killed that many people? Nope. Think magnitude. Only OK City comes close.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Keith 0]

OK, now I Knooow you're trolling Vinny.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[TheAnvil 0]

In order to dodge the proverbial rock of which you speak I would need to know when it was being thrown. I'd also like to know when it was coming, how large it was, from what direction it came, etc. Find that in the PDB if you can - it's not there Bill.

Read what you like into the PDB Bill. Just like the leftists did with David Kay's testimony, you're hearing what you want to in order to bash the administration at all costs and NOT what's actually in there. I've read the PDB - the released version anyway - and I know what it says. You've stretched your argument on that matter thinner than phyllo - no baklava for you. 'Tis a shame, because baklava is quite tasty.

Like using the Saddam-Rumsfeld photo to sway the opinions of some ignoramus bereft of any knowledge of the cold war environs or the significance of 444 days w/regards to Iran, the left will use the ignorance of the public for its own means once again. This should bother you Bill - and in a major way. You do America no favors when promoting your argument in such a manner. As I stated previously, this is a common modus operandus for the left, which is why I tend to have so much contempt for them.

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[teach1400 0]

---------------------------------------------------------
In order to dodge the proverbial rock of which you speak I would need to know when it was being thrown. I'd also like to know when it was coming, how large it was, from what direction it came, etc. Find that in the PDB if you can - it's not there Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------

No but open your eyes and look for it. don't just say, well it wasn't actionable so I how could I stop it? The administration not only failed to stop the attacks, and I am not saying that they could have stopped them, but Bush has not accepted ANY responsibility for government failure even after the evidence that he knew that Bin Laden was intending to attack us. In his statement the other night he was asked a direct question relating to Clarke's public apology and if he was willing to offer a similar apology. In his response he NEVER ONCE mentioned the words Clarke or apology. He completly dodged the question.

Another similiar situation was with Condi Rice. She stated in font of the commision that she received a memo from Clarke that stated that there were probably sleeper cells in the US. It didn't contain their names and addresses, so are you aserting that a statement like that would be considered "unactionable" and it just be disregarded? When the sleeper cells become active and do cause death and destruction will CLarkes memo have become a "Historical Document"

added - I just found out abotu Bush's apology today. I think that it was rather weak, too little too late, and didn't touch on several of the major issues that should be apologized for. -"During last night's nationally-televised presidential news conference, Mr. Bush said he was unprepared for questions about his mistakes in office" How can you be unprepared after all this time?

Russ #2

[billvon 3,068]

>In order to dodge the proverbial rock of which you speak I would
>need to know when it was being thrown.

Or you could just duck. Perhaps even use your own eyes to see it coming.

>Read what you like into the PDB Bill.

Fortunately I don't have to read anything into it - it is available for all to read.

>As I stated previously, this is a common modus operandus for the
>left, which is why I tend to have so much contempt for them.

I find it funny that you think the left and the right are so different. They're both full of politicians who will do anything, anything at all, to pull down the other guy. If a democrat were in office, you'd be claiming that the PDB is the smoking gun that proves his incompetence - and the democrats would be defending him. Business as usual.

[TheAnvil 0]

What the hell makes you and the liberal media think an apology is necessary? Apologize for what - a disaster happening while he's in office? Just like FDR apologized for Pearl Harbor, right?

Bush allow the attacks to happen, you state? Tell that lie to someone who will believe it (they'll be voting democrat already, but it never hurts to keep that voting base in line).

Probably sleeper cells in the US? Jeez, that's a real shocker. Stop the press on that one. Those 50 some odd cases the FBI were investigating - what do you think they were? Sleeper cells perhaps? Perhaps, perhaps not. YOU don't know.

You lefties have really broken new grounds in both hypocrisy and disgust on this issue. Not a scant few months ago y'all were SCREAMING about not politicizing 9/11 when Bush merely gave out photos of himself about AF 1 during the crisis. Now politicize 9/11 is EXACTLY what you have done (see Kerrey and Ben-Veniste's questions during Rice's testimony for proof of this if it's not ALREADY apparent to you, as it should be). You were SCREAMING about Valerie Wilson nee Plame's CIA association being revealed when she hadn't worked undercover in years, yet now revel in declassifying PDB's less than 5 years old.

I mean give me a break. How the hell can ANYONE take you guys seriously? I mean even ignoring the idiotic comments and innuendo you're making about the bin Shithead PDB, the left wing rhetoric is still unbelievably inane.

Check out Cal Thomas' column - APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT? at http://www.townhall.com for further reading.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

The PDB is available for all to read. Well, the released version anyway. I've read it. It's interesting reading - and not at all damaging in any way to the credibility of the national security team.

Hindsight is bliss. Deal with it.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!