9/11 is this Thursday

[russ1945]

The memory of 9/11 is embedded in the minds of all Americans. This thursday is another anniversary for that event. I am worried that ISIS will try to prove a point and that we are in jeopardy of something transpiring once again maybe even on our native soil. Benghazi took place on 9/11 and we were not ready and did not respond.

This is a sports forum first and foremost. If something of consequence occurs on Thursday it could put a stop to all sports activities this coming weekend. That is a small price to pay by comparison but it is indicative of how terrorists can distrupt our lives. I hope nothing happens but I have little to no confidence in this administration's ability to deal with intelligence (Boston marathon, Iraq, Israel, Ukraine etc). Terrorists circle 9/11 on their calendars each and every year. We should be vigilant and if nothing else keep those memories of 9/11 at the forefront. Obama loves to divide this nation but nothing solidified this country like the attack on NYC. To those of you in NYC I just want you to know that many of us have not forgotten and never will.

 

[GasMan]

I pray nothing happens, although I have to think we are poised to have another life changing event in the next 2 years..especially on 9/11.

As far as Obama goes I cringe knowing that he will be up on the podium trying to unify the country and virtually try to save his presidency, when most likely his lax immigration policies will ultimately result in an increased chance of terrorism on our soil again.

 

[RDTrains]

LOL, little to no confidence in Obama and/or he might be the cause of another terrorism incident? Under whose watch did an ACTUAL disaster (re: 9/11) happen???

{crickets}

 

[russ1945]

LOL, little to no confidence in Obama and/or he might be the cause of another terrorism incident? Under whose watch did an ACTUAL disaster (re: 9/11) happen???

{crickets}

You are talking about a fellow Texas I see LOL. My post had nothing to do with Obama, did not even mention his name showing you did not even read it all. Obama is a disaster in and of himself but that is an entirely different story.

 

[RDTrains]

Um, huh?

"Obama loves to divide this nation but nothing solidified this country like the attack on NYC."hno:

 

[russ1945]

Um, huh?

"Obama loves to divide this nation but nothing solidified this country like the attack on NYC."hno:

That is funny. Now answer the question, do you not think Obama loves to divide this nation. My point was that as tragic as it was 9/11 united our country.

 

[RDTrains]

Benghazi as trajic as 9/11??? Are you nuts? Benghazi was handled poorly, no doubt about it.

MY point, was that you claimed something about Obama while completely ignoring under who's watch 9/11 happened under. But that doesn't surprise me.

 

[russ1945]

Benghazi as trajic as 9/11??? Are you nuts? Benghazi was handled poorly, no doubt about it.

MY point, was that you claimed something about Obama while completely ignoring under who's watch 9/11 happened under. But that doesn't surprise me.

Who said Benghazi was as tragic as 9/11, however it could and should have been prevented. I said 9/11 was tragic not Benghazi maybe it is you that is nuts. 9/11 caught everyone by surprise. Benghazi could have been stopped with a fly by drone. By the way the purpose of this thread was to show that 9/11 was a tragedy and will always be remembered. Benghazi was a tragedy that this administration wants to forget. Do you get it now.

 

[RDTrains]

They were BOTH tragedys that could have been avoided. Difference is about 2996 more people died in 9/11 and the Democrats never called for investigations as to why the Bush administration ignored repeated warnings. Do YOU get it now?

 

[russ1945]

They were BOTH tragedys that could have been avoided. Difference is about 2996 more people died in 9/11 and the Democrats never called for investigations as to why the Bush administration ignored repeated warnings. Do YOU get it now?

Yes I get it, you are a Bush hater which you see as ok and I am an Obama hater which you don't think is ok. Both events were tragic but Benhgazi was an ongoing event that could have been prevented before four good Americans died. Obama twiddled his thumbs and probably was practicing his putting while it unwound. I guess you have forgotten about Putin wanrning the Obama adminitration about the Boston Bomber. Hello is anybody home.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Yes I get it, you are a Bush hater which you see as ok and I am an Obama hater which you don't think is ok. Both events were tragic but Benhgazi was an ongoing event that could have been prevented before four good Americans died. Obama twiddled his thumbs and probably was practicing his putting while it unwound. I guess you have forgotten about Putin wanrning the Obama adminitration about the Boston Bomber. Hello is anybody home.

 

[Acebb]

They were BOTH tragedys that could have been avoided. Difference is about 2996 more people died in 9/11 and the Democrats never called for investigations as to why the Bush administration ignored repeated warnings. Do YOU get it now?

Um, Bush didn't "ignore repeated warnings" and there was this thing called the 9/11 Commission.

Watching silly and stupid people like you shout "It happened on Bush's watch" is tiresome. It isn't as if that phrase means anything or you could, for example, name 1 thing Bush would have done at the time you would have supported regarding terrorism. Further, Bush was in office not even 8 months and you're busily ignoring the previous 8 years to shout "It happened on Bush's watch"

Funny how you never say "It happened on Obama's watch" when it comes to the 100% increase in gas prices, the unemployment rate spiking above 10% and staying there for a record period of time, the insane number of people on SSDI and food stamps, and all the rest.

Probably just an oversight on your part, or coincidence, I'm sure.

face)(*^%

 

[russ1945]

Oops and Ouch.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Terrorism[/h][h=1]Law enforcement bulletin warned of ISIS urging jihad attacks on US soil[/h]By Jana Winter
Published September 17, 2014 FoxNews.com


Facebook2975 Twitter805 livefyre164 Email Print

A law enforcement bulletin obtained by FoxNews.com warned that Islamic State fighters have increased calls for "lone wolves" to attack U.S. soldiers in America in recent months, citing one tweet that called for jihadists to find service members' addresses online and then "show up and slaughter them."
There will be “a continued call - by Western fighters in Syria and terrorist organizations - for lone offender attacks against U.S. military facilities and personnel,” warned a July law enforcement intelligence bulletin from the Central Florida Intelligence Exchange, a state-run agency that gathers, assesses and shares threat information and works with the Department of Homeland Security. “These threats will most likely increase should the U.S. or its allies attack the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS) in Syria or Iraq.”

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT


In one example cited in the bulletin, a British jihadist encouraged radicals still living in the West to use Facebook and LinkedIn to find and target soldiers.
"You could literally search for soldiers, find their town, photos of them, look for address in Yellowbook or something," the tweet read. "Then show up and slaughter them.”
The bulletin came out long before Tuesday's indictment of an upstate New York man on a raft of terror-related charges, including attempting to kill "officers and employees of the United States. Mufid Elfgeeh, 30, of Rochester, was indicted Tuesday by a federal grand jury on three counts of attempting to provide material support and resources to Islamic State. Elfgeeh was arrested in late May in a Walmart parking lot after a sting in which an FBI informant offered to sell him guns and silencers, which Elfgeeh allegedly wanted to use to kill returning American troops as well as Shiite Muslims living in the region.
Killing U.S. troops on American soil is is an increasing focus of jihadists, according to the bulletin, titled “Continued Threat to Military Personnel from Al-Qaida Inspired Homegrown Violent Extremists.” It was sent out on July 8, 2014 “in response to recent social media messaging from Western fighters in Syria calling for attacks against “soldiers in the West.” Instead of luring radicalized Americans to the Middle East, Islamic State will likely encourage them to stay home and kill U.S. soldiers here, the bulletin warned.
“U.S.-based [Home-Grown Violent Extremists] could be inspired by this rhetoric to turn their attention towards carrying out attacks at home,” the bulletin states.
The radical rhetoric is delivered via social media, where Islamic State operatives have long exhorted westerners to get on a plane and come join the battle. But terrorists now believe they can have a powerful effect from afar just by inspiring attacks inside the U.S.
“In recent Twitter posts, foreign fighters in Syria have encouraged Muslims in the West to target soldiers with spontaneous attacks using small arms (i.e. knives and guns),” the bulletin said.
It listed several examples of tweets posted in late June that specifically mention interest in attacking Western military personnel. In one series of tweets a British fighter formerly with Jabhat al Nusra lamented the terrorist infighting between Islamic State and groups affiliated with Al Qaeda.
"I’m realizing bickering about internal politics is taking up our time too much, the enemies are working what’s stopping you from something like learning how to make explosives or learning shooting, or killing vulnerable soldiers right now? (To the bros in the West).”
The bulletin also cited an uptick in chatter on Internet forums calling for attacks on Western military targets, with many referring to Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hassan, who killed 13 service members at the Texas Army base in 2009 in a case the Obama administration still labels as an example of "workplace violence," and not terrorism. Hasan recently announced from prison, where he is awaiting execution, he wanted to join Islamic State.
A commenter on the Ansar Al-Mujahideen English Forum reposted a 2009 statement from radicalized American Adam Gadahn, now a senior Al Qaeda leader, praising Hasan.
"The Mujahid brother Nidal Hasan, lightly armed but with a big heart, a strong will and a confident step, again brought into focus the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of America...and most significantly, the Mujahid brother Nidal Hasan is a pioneer, a trailblazer and a role model who has opened the door, lit a path and shown the way forward for every Muslim among the unbelievers and yearns to discharge his duty to Allah and play a part in the defense of Islam and Muslims against the savage, heartless and bloody Zionist Crusader assault on our religion, sacred places and homelands,” read the statement.
The intelligence center assessed in July “ “that military personnel will likely be targeted individually in spontaneous ‘ambush’ style attacks similar to the May, 2013, machete attack against British soldier Drummer Lee Rigby in the U.K.

 

[RDTrains]

‘He Kept Us Safe’: Bush Ignored Repeated Warnings Of Terrorist Attack


September 11, 2012 12:52 am Category: Memo Pad, Politics 255 Comments A+ / A-


During the festival of falsehood held by Republicans in Tampa two weeks ago, perhaps the very biggest lie emanated from the mouth of Jeb Bush, the Florida politician, entrepreneur, and potential heir to the GOP presidential dynasty.


“My brother, well” began Jeb, referring to former president George W. Bush, “I love my brother” — and then went on to add, more arguably: ” He is a man of integrity, courage and honor. And during incredibly challenging times, he kept us safe.”


That those words – “he kept us safe” – could be uttered in public about that leader is a testament to our national affliction of historical amnesia. The harsher truth, long known but now reiterated in a startling report on the New York Times op-ed page, is that the Bush administration’s “negligence” left us undefended against the disaster whose anniversary we will mark again today.


New documents uncovered by investigative journalist Kurt Eichenwald show that despite repeated, urgent warnings from intelligence officials about an impending Al Qaeda attack, Bush did nothing because his neoconservative advisers told him that the threats were merely a “ruse” and a distraction.


Recalling the evidence compiled by the 9/11 Commission – which Bush, his vice president Dick Cheney, his national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and numerous other officials sought to stymie and mislead – it has been clear for years that they ignored many warnings about Al Qaeda.


Specifically, as Eichenwald points out in his op-ed report, CIA officials sought to warn Bush with a glaring headline in the famous August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” That memorandum represented the culmination of many months of attempts to awaken a somnolent White House to the impending threat of a terrorist attack.


None of that is news, although Republicans like Jeb Bush continue to behave as if the facts uncovered by the 9/11 Commission had never emerged.


But according to Eichenwald, he has seen still-classified documents that place the August 6 PDB in a new context – namely, the briefing papers preceding that date, which remain locked away:


While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.


On May 1, 2001, the CIA relayed a report to the White House about “a group presently in the United States” that was planning a terrorist attack. On June 22, the agency told Bush that the Al Qaeda strikes might be “imminent.”


A week later, the CIA answered neoconservative officials in the Bush administration who claimed that Osama bin Laden’s threats were a ruse to distract the United States from the real threat posed by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. “The United States is not the target of a disinformation campaign” by bin Laden, wrote agency officials, citing evidence compiled by its analysts that the Al Qaeda threats were real.


The warnings continued and multiplied into July 2001, with counter-terrorism officials becoming increasingly alarmed – or as Eichenwald puts it, “apoplectic.” Still, Bush, Cheney, Rice and their coterie failed to act.


Familiar with Eichenwald’s career, I’m confident that he is reporting what he has seen with complete accuracy and due caution. A two-time winner of the George Polk Award and a Pulitzer finalist, he concludes carefully that we will never know whether a more alert administration could have mobilized to prevent 9/11. What we know for certain –that they didn’t bother – is an eternal indictment.


But Eichenwald’s report has relevance that is more than historical. Advising Mitt Romney, foreign policy neophyte, are the same neoconservatives whose arrogance and incompetence steered Bush away from Al Qaeda and toward the quagmire in Iraq. Returning them to power would be exceptionally dangerous to the security of the United States and the world.

 

[RDTrains]

The Deafness Before the Storm
By KURT EICHENWALD
IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.

Javier Jaén Benavides
Related


Times Topic: Sept. 11, 2001
Related in Opinion


News Analysis: How Resilient Is Post-9/11 America? (September 9, 2012)


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.


On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.


That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.


The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.


But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.


In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.


“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.


And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.


Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.


That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, 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. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.


On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.


In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.


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.


Kurt Eichenwald, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and a former reporter for The New York Times, is the author of “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars.”

 

[RDTrains]

Ellen ConnollySeptember 11, 2012 09:49
Bush ignored 6 warnings of an impending terrorist attack: report
On the anniversary of 9/11, a new report claims the CIA became increasingly frustrated at the White House's failure to take seriously their information of a terrorist attack.


NEW YORK - SEPTEMBER 11: Dennis Swindell kisses the name of his partner Gary Lee Bright on the South Tower memorial pool wall during observances for the eleventh anniversary of the terrorist attacks on lower Manhattan at the World Trade Center site September 11, 2012 in New York City. The nation is commemorating the eleventh anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks which resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 people after two hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia and one crash landed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Timothy A. Clary-Pool/Getty Images) (Pool/AFP/Getty Images)


On the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, it is claimed that former US President George Bush ignored six specific security briefings during 2001 of a terrorist attack involving mass casualties.


The New York Times reported the White House was given a series of briefings between May and August 2001 from the CIA about an Al Qaeda attack, but failed to take any significant action.


The briefings included information from a number of sources about an attack with explosives and involving numerous casualties.


The Daily Mail reported that by May 1, the CIA told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation, and on June 22, the daily brief reported that Al Qaeda strikes could be “imminent.”


But Bush continually dismissed them, and questioned the reliability of the reports and the thoroughness of the briefings.


The repeated warnings came before the famous top secret briefing, which has previously been made public, given to Bush on August 6, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US."


A few weeks later, on September 11, nearly 3000 people were killed when terrorists used planes to crash into the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington DC.


The new report by the Times comes as thousands of family and friends of the victims gathered at Ground Zero today to mark the 11th anniversary.




The Times reporter, Kurt Eichenwald, claims that officials within the CIA's Counterterrorism Center became increasingly angry that the White House was not taking action, and in one meeting an official suggested the staff request a transfer so they could not be blamed when the attack occurred.


Eichenwald told CBS News: "What I've been able to see are the presidential daily briefs before August 6 of 2001. And they're horrific, and they are — our reports are 'an attack is coming,' 'there are going to be mass casualties.' The worst of them, the Pentagon, the neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, as the CIA was coming in saying, 'al-Qaeda's going to attack,' said, 'Oh, this is just a false flag operation. Bin laden is trying to take our attention off of the real threat, Iraq.' And so there are presidential daily briefs that are literally saying, 'No they're wrong, this isn't fake, it's real.'"


Original Source URL:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...h-ignored-6-specific-warnings-terrorist-attac
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...h-ignored-6-specific-warnings-terrorist-attac

 

[RDTrains]

And my Favorite ...


The Grossly Lopsided Republican Responses to 9/11 and Benghazi
Bob Cesca on May 05, 2014



Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote an article here in which I listed a series of 13 different Benghazi-style attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates during the George W. Bush administration. Some of the terrorist attacks, such as in Yemen and Pakistan, occurred twice at the same facility. Nearly all of the attacks inflicted casualties, including at least three Americans.
Every time Benghazi pops into the news, the article is flooded with new traffic and, naturally, all new trolls who try to knock holes in my argument — an argument that doesn’t attempt to diminish the tragedies listed, including the terrible fatalities in Benghazi, but which exposes what I believe to be selective and disproportionate outrage.
The latest batch of trolls has been trying to convince us that the new series of emails released last week prove a cover-up after-the-fact in which the administration cherry-picked the Attacks Grew Out Of The Protests story because it’s what made the administration look more competent. They say the White House was warned about the attacks and yet they didn’t provide military support or increased security, and so when the shit hit the fan, they grappled onto a CIA memo indicating the attacks were part of the protest instead of a premeditated effort. That’s what the apoplectic Benghaziphiles are telling us. This makes the formation of a House select committee to investigate Benghazi absolutely necessary, they say.
It couldn’t be more obvious that the true motive here is to either build a case for impeachment or to further damage Obama’s would-be successor, Hillary Clinton. Probably both. If the GOP’s Benghazi conspiracy theorists were legitimately making an honest effort to ascertain what went wrong, rather than to exploit the deaths of four Americans in order to operate a publicly-funded smear campaign, I might be inclined to support that effort. But that’s not what’s happening. This is a political witch hunt, pure and simple. And as with the conspicuous lack of outrage over the 13 embassy attacks during the Bush years, the GOP’s Benghazi-obsessed screechers never once showed similar investigative zeal in the years following another attack against America that’s been weirdly overlooked in the context of this discussion: September 11, 2001, eleven years earlier to the day.
Indeed, there are legitimate and numerous instances where the Bush administration failed to act in accordance with CIA warnings and subsequently attempted to cover up not only its inaction but also aspects of the aftermath — with zero outrage or obsessive hobby-horsing from Fox News or the congressional Republicans. Instead it was all met with the usual refrain: don’t try to undermine the commander-in-chief while troops are in harm’s way, you unpatriotic, terrorist-loving, America-hater.
Author and Vanity Fair editor Kurt Eichenwald reported back in 2012 that the infamous August 6, 2001 president’s daily brief (PDB) wasn’t the first time the administration had been warned of a large-scale attack being prepared by Osama Bin Laden and his co-conspirators, and yet there’s no indication President Bush took any significant or even cursory action to disrupt the plot. I hasten to note, however, this isn’t to suggest Bush was to blame for the attacks nor is it an endorsement the absurd theory that he deliberately allowed the attacks to occur. This is simply to illustrate a very dichotomous reaction from the GOP.
–From the beginning, Richard Clarke, a holdover Clinton administration counter-terrorism adviser, tried to repeatedly warn then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice about an impending Bin Laden attack. Clarke warned of “an immediate and serious threat to the United States” at the hands of Bin Laden.
–May 1, 2001. Eichenwald reported that the president was briefed by the CIA that there were plans being assembled for an attack by “a group presently in the United States.”
–June 22, 2001. Bush received a PDB that warned of an “imminent” al-Qaeda attack during a “flexible timeline.” The neocons in the White House, meanwhile, believed that Bin Laden was a distraction from an actual plot by Saddam Hussein. The pretext for an invasion and regime change in Iraq had obviously been on the table for many months. In spite of its participation on Iraq, the CIA urged the White House to not ignore Bin Laden.
–June 29, 2001. Another PDB outlined in detail an impending attack by Bin Laden. Eichenwald noted that this brief emphasized “dramatic consequences” “including major casualties.”
–July 1, 2001. The White House is instructed in yet another PDB that the attack had been postponed, but “will occur soon.”
–July 9, 2001. The CIA’s Counter-terrorism Center staffers held a meeting in which one senior official recommended that everyone resign so as to not be blamed for the impending attack.
–July 11, 2001. The White House is informed that al-Qaeda-linked radical Ibn Al-Khattab told his supporters that “there would soon be very big news.” The CIA brief included more information about a possible attack.
–July 24, 2001. The White House is again warned of preparations for an attack in “a few months.” Eichenwald wrote that Bush wasn’t convinced and requested a “broader analysis on al-Qaeda.” This analysis became the infamous August 6 PDB.
–August 4, 2001. 9/11 terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, whose flight school attendance was noticed by intelligence officials, is picked up and charged on immigration violations.
–August 6, 2001. While vacationing in Crawford, Bush receives the notorious PDB titled, “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US.”
No action was ever taken by the administration to intervene. (Funny how these CIA warnings were ignored, but warnings about Iraq were embraced — almost as if there was, hmm, an agenda with regard to Iraq.)
–Following September 11, the Bush administration repeatedly stonewalled the formation of a commission to investigate the attacks and instead set about the process of tying 9/11 to Saddam Hussein while selling an invasion of Iraq to the American people.
–In a series of acts that are purely negligent and presented a clear hazard to 9/11 rescue and recovery workers, the administration’s National Security Council, chaired by Bush himself, demanded that all Environmental Protection Agency warnings about air quality at Ground Zero be vetted through the NSC. Emails show the White House sculpted the EPA’s reports so that the public would believe the air was safe to breathe in spite of massive amounts of particulate matter, including asbestos, being inhaled. EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman issued a statement that included the line: “Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York…that their air is safe to breathe and the water is safe to drink.” And the current House GOP thinks one email that reflects the recommendations of the CIA regarding Benghazi, and another which advised Susan Rice to convey the administration’s strong leadership is somehow a “smoking gun?” That’s rich.
–Speaking of the administration’s failure to tell the truth about the Ground Zero air quality, the same Republicans who are demanding another investigation into the Benghazi attacks literally filibustered a bill that would’ve provided much-needed healthcare for 9/11 rescue workers. On December 10, 2010, Senate Republicans filibustered the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act — basically, healthcare for 9/11 heroes. Every Republican senator voted to filibuster this bill. In the House, where this Benghazi select committee will convene, every Republican member voted against it.
I’ve said it before: if roles had been reversed and there had been a Democratic president on 9/11, he or she wouldn’t have been merely investigated — impeachment would’ve absolutely begun while Ground Zero was still smoldering. How do we know this? Just look at the outrage and righteous indignation over an attack with four American casualties. Now add 2,973 more and a very long paper trail showing negligence preceding the deaths and rampant misinformation following them.

 

[RDTrains]

13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News
Posted: 05/09/2013 2:19 pm EDT Updated: 07/31/2014 2:59 pm EDT




The Republican inquisition over the attacks against Americans in Benghazi has never really gone away, but it appears as though in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing and the House Oversight Committee's Benghazi hearings this week there are renewed psycho-histrionics over Benghazi.


Lindsey Graham and Fox News Channel in particular are each crapping their cages over new allegations from an alleged whistleblower, while they continue to deal in previously debunked falsehoods about the sequence of events during and following the attacks. Fox News is predictably helming the biggest raft of hooey on the situation -- turning its attention to Hillary Clinton in an abundantly obvious early move to stymie her presidential run before it even begins.


So I thought I'd revisit some territory I covered back in October as a bit of a refresher -- especially since it appears as if no one, including and especially the traditional press, intends to ask any of these obnoxious, opportunistic liars about why they're so obsessed by this one attack yet they entirely ignored the dozen-plus consulate/embassy attacks that occurred when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allegedly "keeping us safe."


The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they're being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.


January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed....


The Republican inquisition over the attacks against Americans in Benghazi has never really gone away, but it appears as though in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing and the House Oversight Committee’s Benghazi hearings this week there’s renewed psycho-histrionics over Benghazi.
Lindsey Graham and Fox News Channel in particular are each crapping their cages over new allegations from an alleged whistleblower, while they continue to deal in previously debunked falsehoods about the sequence of events during and following the attacks. Fox News is predictably helming the biggest raft of hooey on the situation — turning its attention to Hillary Clinton in an abundantly obvious early move to stymie her presidential run before it even begins.
So I thought I’d revisit some territory I covered back in October as a bit of a refresher — especially since it appears as if no one, including and especially the traditional press, intends to ask any of these obnoxious, opportunistic liars about why they’re so obsessed by this one attack yet they entirely ignored the dozen-plus consulate/embassy attacks that occurred when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allegedly “keeping us safe.”

The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they’re being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.


January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.


June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.


October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.


February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.


May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.


July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.


December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.


March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)


September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.
January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.


March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.


July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.


September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.


A few observations about this timeline. My initial list was quoted from an article on the Daily Kos which actually contained several errors and only 11 attacks (the above timeline contains all 13 attacks). Also, my list above doesn’t include the numerous and fatal attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad during the Iraq war — a war that was vocally supported by Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Fox News Channel.
Speaking of Graham, I ran a search on each attack along with the name “Lindsey Graham” in the hopes of discovering that Graham had perhaps commented about the attacks or raised some questions about why the administration didn’t prevent the attacks or respond accordingly to prevent additional embassy attacks. No results. Of course. Now, this could mean the search wasn’t exhaustive enough. But one thing’s for sure: neither Graham nor any of his cohorts launched a crusade against the Bush administration and the State Department in any of those cases — no one did, including the congressional Democrats, by the way.
This leads us to the ultimate point here. Not only have numerous sources previously debunked the Benghazi information being peddled by the Republicans and Fox News (for example, contrary to what the Republicans are saying, yes, reinforcements did in fact arrive before the attack on the CIA compound), but none of these people raised a single word of protest when, for example, American embassies in Yemen and Pakistan were attacked numerous times. Why didn’t the Bush administration do something to secure the compounds after the first attacks? Why didn’t he provide additional security?
Where was your inquest after the Karachi attacks, Mr. Graham? Where were you after the Sana’a attacks, Mr. Hannity? What about all of the embassy attacks in Iraq that I didn’t even list here, Mr. McCain? Do you realize how many people died in attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates when Bush was supposedly keeping us safe, Mr. Ailes? Just once I’d like to hear David Gregory or George Stephanopoulos or Wolf Blitzer ask a Republican member of Congress about the above timeline and why they said nothing at the time of each attack. Just once.
Nearly every accusation being issued about Benghazi could’ve been raised about the Bush era attacks, and yet these self-proclaimed truth-seekers refused to, in their words, undermine the commander-in-chief while troops were in harm’s way (a line they repeated over and over again during those years).
So we’re only left to conclude the obvious. The investigations and accusations and conspiracy theories are entirely motivated by politics and a strategy to escalate this to an impeachment trial. In doing so, the Republicans have the opportunity not only to crush the president’s second term, but also to sabotage the potential for a Hillary Clinton presidency.
Even if they never arrive at that goal, they have in their possession a cudgel formed of horseshit — a means of flogging the current administration with the singularly effective Republican marketing/noise machine, including the conservative entertainment complex. Very seldom does this machine fail to revise history and distort the truth. Ultimately, they don’t even need a full-blown impeachment proceeding when they have a population of way too many truthers and automatons who take all of these lies at face value — not to mention dubiously sourced chunks of “truth” proffered by radio and cable news conspiracy theorists who, if nothing else, are masters at telling angry conservatives precisely what they want to hear: that the probably-Muslim president is weak on terrorism. And so they’ll keep repeating “Benghazi-Gate, Benghazi-Gate, Benghazi-Gate!” without any regard for history or reality. Like always.


Read more at http://thedailybanter.com/2013/05/1...out-a-peep-from-fox-news/#5P8qLxjHLZIgPbBF.99

 

[Acebb]

I love idiots like RDtrains.

Bush and his "neocon" advisors ignored terror warnings, yet decided to go to war for oil.

You can't make the level of stupid of people like RDTrains up.