Happy Anniversary! It's "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" Day!

Email Print posted by SeattleJoe 08/07/2007 12:44:04 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Lest We Forget

It was particularly annoying that the FISA bill went through when you consider that Clinton era intelligence agencies were able to keep track of Al Qaeda the good old fashioned way, without warrantless wiretaps.

How do we know this?  Six years ago today, President Bush was informed in a Presidential Daily Briefing that Osama bin Laden and his organization would be striking the United States soon.

My favorite part of the story:

"We've known for years now that George W. Bush received a presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." We've known for almost as long that Bush went fishing afterward."

"What we didn't know is what happened in between the briefing and the fishing, and now Suskind is here to tell us. Bush listened to the briefing, Suskind says, then told the CIA briefer: 'All right. You've covered your ass, now.'"

You've gotta love the way the man thinks. 

< Where's the Leadership? | Jung Jurks Enough! Protest and Episode 4 >
 Display:
Happy Anniversary! It's "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" Day! | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 hidden)
Hmmm (none / 0)

"You've gotta love the way the man thinks."

I see no sign of thinking in this man at all. 

 

by bfaul on 08/07/2007 09:39:07 AM EST

9/11 (none / 0)

Do you remember where you were when you heard\watched\found out about 9/11?

Bush remembers. 

by acroso on 08/07/2007 10:03:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Bish and Clinton remember (none / 0)
They both remember.

Maybe Clinton remembers when some report about Osama or other troublemakers lay on his desk...as he was cavorting with Monica...
or struggling to save his pension after getting in trouble for suborning perjury and otherwise abusing...the legal system for his own personal gain.

by vikingmother on 08/07/2007 10:24:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Clinton did it! (none / 0)
OMG that's right Clinton got a blow job and lied about it! Bush lied and we are in the middle of a Civil war a half trillion dollars spent and thousands dead. Ill take Clinton's lie any day.

by Mr Pibb on 08/07/2007 11:33:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't know, that was a while back... (none / 0)
Do you think Clinton remembers what he was doing when he came?

by bfaul on 08/07/2007 03:47:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Terrorism and Young Turks (none / 0)
We've had a couple decades of reports, info to Presidents of both parties on the growing threat from Osama style decentralized terrorism.

It's fashionable to forget this fact.  There is plenty of blame to spread around...but we use this as a club against whatever president we oppose.

We had a 1990's World Trade Center "warmup" attack...just ONE of the earlier, smaller strikes against us.

Sorta like the first holocaust which history books barely mention--when the Nazis wiped out several hundred thousand of their OWN thru euthanasia...and then, with the gas chamber "perfected" applied their death dealing to the well known holocaust against Jews & others..

And there are the followers of Osama & others...the so called "young turks" of the terrorist world who want to better Osama's world class terrorist strike...Are we paying attention to them?

by vikingmother on 08/07/2007 10:22:28 AM EST

Here's what I want to know (none / 0)
Why haven't we attacked Saudi Arabia, which is the world's festering center of Wahhabist Islam?  The royal family is only just barely in control of the country.  Saudi Arabia is a real threat.  Iraq never, ever was.

by jarett on 08/07/2007 11:29:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here is the point you are trying to ignore (none / 0)
9/11 happened on Bush's watch.

by Mr Pibb on 08/07/2007 11:35:34 AM EST

Liberal Logic (none / 0)
"It was particularly annoying that the FISA bill went through when you consider that Clinton era intelligence agencies were able to keep track of Al Qaeda the good old fashioned way, without warrantless wiretaps."

Therefore, if Osama bin Laden is in Tora Bora, talking on a satellite phone to an al Qaeda operative in Canada, and the connection goes through computer equipment in the U.S., Democrats do not want U.S. intelligence agencies intercepting enemy signals data without a warrant, even if the time lapse involved could compromise the operation. 

by KenTX on 08/07/2007 01:45:21 PM EST

Yes Ken you got it (none / 0)
Because it's much quicker to have the Attorney General review and determine if a wire tap is legal than a stinky ole judge.

Just go ahead and spin the lie. What RATIONAL people want is the checks and balance system that was envisioned by the founding fathers to insure that no matter how noble the cause one branch of the government would not have the power to abuse our civil liberties and become to powerful.

How allowing wire taps to go forward and having a judge then sign off on it within three weeks some how impedes the process is beyond me, and the only logical conclusion that THINKING people can draw it that the Executive branch does not want the Judicial branch knowing what and who it is spying on, and that is for purely POLITICAL and not SECURITY reasons.

Of course like good party members the mantra shall be "If it's good for the PARTY it's good for the COUNTRY"

Remember your party chant is "Hail to Victory, Hail to Bush".

Let's see consolidate all power in the executive that ignores all laws it doesn't agree with, the legislature is a weak body politic with no power, and the judiciary stacked with yes men who will sign off on anything.....attack countries that didn't attack us using bogus intel to perpatrate perpetual war against the inferior races, Why does this sound so familiar......Never mind "Hail to Victory Hail to Bush" because only good party members are real patriots, and real citizens, all others must wait for, but first we rid the world of Muslims, then the gypsies, and then the other inferior groups, and then and then and then and then our nation will by great and strong a true and last ONE THOUSAND YEARS.....

Hail to Victory Hail to Bush!!!!

Yes I know now I'm just being silly!

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 08/07/2007 03:37:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Teachable moment for Hubble (none / 0)
“Yes I know now I'm just being silly!”
You are indeed just being silly, but I’m starting to believe that you don’t even realize it. It’s not malice on your part, it’s simply a lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject.

The following Democrats voted to give the President the authority to intercept transmissions from al Qaeda. Blanche Lincoln (AR), David Pryor (AR), Diane Feinstein (CA), Salazar (CO), Joe Lieberman (CT), Tom Carper (DE), Nelson (FL), Inouye (HI), Evan Bayh (IN), Mary Landrieu (LA), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Claire McCaskill (MO), Ben Nelson (NE), Kent Conrad (ND), Bob Casey (PA), Jim Webb (VA), Jason Altmire (PA-4), John Barrow (GA-12), Melissa Bean (IL-8), Dan Boren (OK-2), Leonard Boswell (IA-3), Allen Boyd (FL-2), Chris Carney (PA-10), Ben Chandler (KY-6), Jim Cooper (TN-5), Jim Costa (CA-20), Bud Cramer (AL-2), Henry Cuellar (TX-28), Arthur Davis (AL-7), Lincoln Davis (TN-4), Joe Donnelly (IN-2), Chet Edwards (TX-17), Brad Ellsworth (IN-8), Bob Etheridge (NC-2), Bart Gordon (TN-6), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Bryan Higgins (NY-29), Baron Hill (IN-9), Nick Lampson (TX-22), Dan Lipinski (IL-4), Jim Marshall (GA-8), Jim Matheson (UT-2), Mike McIntyre (NC-7), Charlie Melancon (LA-3), Harry Mitchell (AZ-5), Collin Peterson (MN-7), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23), Mike Ross (AR-4), John Salazar (CO-3), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Vic Snyder (AR-2), Zack Space (OH-18), John Tanner (TN-8), Gene Taylor (MS-4), Tim Walz (MN-1), Charlie Wilson (OH-6).

Did you ever, for one minute, stop to ponder why so many Democrats supported President Bush on this issue? The reason is because the President was right on the law, and he was right on the Constitution.

If you read this article, you can come up to speed on why so many Democrats supported the president. If you disagree with the source or content, perhaps you can offer your own explanation of why so many Democrats voted like Republicans this week.

”For nearly two years since the New York Times blew the NSA’s warrantless-surveillance program, the Left has transfigured itself into a whirling dervish of indignation over President Bush’s imperious trampling of “the rule of law.” Why? Because he failed to comply with the letter of FISA, which purports in certain instances to require the chief executive — the only elected official in the United States responsible for protecting our nation from foreign threats — to seek permission from a federal judge before monitoring international enemy communications into or out of the United States.

But the president, at least, had an excuse. Actually, not a mere excuse but a trump card. We call it the American Constitution. It empowers the chief executive to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign threats. Even the FISA Court of Review, the highest, most specialized judicial tribunal ever to consider FISA, has acknowledged this. So did the Clinton administration when FISA was amended in 1994. In the United States, the “rule of law” first and foremost is the Constitution.

The president’s constitutional authority is inviolable — it cannot be reduced by mere legislation. When Congress passes a statute, like FISA, that purports to reduce the president’s constitutional authority, it is Congress, not the president, that is trampling the rule of law. A president who ignores such a statute is not a law-breaker; he is a defender of the highest law. He is executing the responsibility vested in his office by the Framers who, as Alexander Hamilton observed in The Federalist No. 73, worried deeply about “the propensity of the legislative department to intrude upon the rights, and to absorb the powers, of the other departments.”

But let’s leave that aside for a moment. Whether you agree or disagree with what I just argued, it is incontestable that, under our Constitution, the president has a role — a plenary role, according to the Supreme Court — in the gathering of intelligence against foreign entities for national-security purposes.

The courts, to the contrary, have no such role. The Framers did not give them one, and the Supreme Court has acknowledged that they are institutionally incompetent to be brought into the intelligence-gathering equation, much less to manage it.

It is thus not the Constitution that has inserted judges into the intelligence-gathering business. If the Constitution were being honored, they’d be out of it. They are in the equation for one reason and one reason alone: Congress unwisely (and, I believe, unconstitutionally) interposed them when it enacted FISA.”

by KenTX on 08/07/2007 10:22:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Hail to victory!" (none / 0)
Isn't this English for "Sieg heil?"

by jarett on 08/07/2007 11:30:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The ultra-neocon fantasy (none / 0)

Osama makes a leisurely call from his Iraqi headquarters (yeah, I know, but this is a neocon fantasy) and gives detailed information about his next strike so that Bush-the-magnificent can give the oh-so-presidential order to strike based on the exact information intercepted from a cell-phone call.  Then they can chortle for 30 years about how we "wouldn't a gotem" if the Democrats had prevented the authorization of government eavesdropping for no particular reason.

All that's left is the photo-op with Bush in his flight suit with a cod-piece so big that his balls look like they're the size of grapefruits. 

by bfaul on 08/07/2007 03:56:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We can "chortle" forever. (none / 0)
"Then they can chortle for 30 years about how we "wouldn't a gotem" if the Democrats.."

We have enough ammunition to criticize Democrats for 100 years with respect to their complete lack of interest in fighting al Qaeda. 

Take a look at page 225 of Richard Clarke’s book.

"Because of the intensity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in ‘Wag the Dog’ tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. For similar reasons, he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI Director who had failed to fix the Bureau or to uncover terrorists in the United States. He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personally and al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing. Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they did not want to conduct. He had tried that in Somalia, and the military had made mistakes and blamed him. In the absence of a bigger provocation from al Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he could do no more."

by KenTX on 08/07/2007 04:32:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Question for our friend Ken (none / 0)
Would you be in favor of an invasion of Saudi Arabia with the goal of taking out terrorist strongholds and training grounds there?

by jarett on 08/07/2007 11:29:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My answer (none / 0)
"Would you be in favor of an invasion of Saudi Arabia with the goal of taking out terrorist strongholds and training grounds there?"

Invading allies like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, while simultaneously running away from enemies like al Qaeda is for Democrats. 
tough guy

You don't think Musharraf is doing enough to assist America in the war on terror? Remember how much support he was giving to the Taliban before Richard Armitage threatened to bomb him back into the Stone Age.

by KenTX on 08/08/2007 12:46:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken TX's on fire and actually making sense??? (none / 0)
If I hear one woman talk about Obama's sex appeal, I'm going to vomit......

by rev24 on 08/08/2007 01:31:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Who's really been running away? (none / 0)

"Invading allies like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, while simultaneously running away from enemies like al Qaeda is for Democrats. "

In what country is Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri and the leaders of the old Taliban caliphate currently holed up in a safe haven?  Is it Iraq or Pakistan?  Someone speaks about actually going after them where they live and suddenly all the blood runs out of the neocon faces.   Yet they sit there and wonder why Iran is suddenly so intent on acquiring nukes.  We've shown them we don't have the balls to cross a border going after people who actually attacked us simply because they have nukes.  We couldn't bring ourselves to do it even in 2002 when the whole world expected us to do it; was sure that we WOULD do it.  So what do we do instead?  We invade a country that we know for a fact DOES NOT have nukes, DOES NOT have much of a conventional army, and no air force or navy at all.   This is supposed to generate respect and awe for our great courage and determination? 

We've never been weaker in our entire history. 


by bfaul on 08/08/2007 11:12:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Spying Democrats. (none / 0)

 Analysis: New Law Gives Government Six Months to Turn Internet and Phone Systems into Permanent Spying Architecture - UPDATED

 

The Democrats have put Bush on a strict timetable of 6 months to turn the country into a Big Brother. I'm not sure what happens though if Bush fails to meet the spying quotas that the Democrats have mandated but...anyways. 

by acroso on 08/07/2007 02:58:03 PM EST

Another Attack (none / 0)
If we have another attack, I really think both parties will be explicitly demanding a police state\Surveillance state.

by acroso on 08/07/2007 03:57:54 PM EST

I feel like we are in a police state sometimes (none / 0)
I am already on camera virtually for the entire time I'm outside my house. There is cameras in the parking garage where I park my car. There are cameras at the traffic signals on the road I drive to the store. There are cameras in the parking lot of the store. There are cameras at the entrance to the store. There are cameras all over the store. There are cameras at the check out.  I think we are already well on our way to a police state.

by Mr Pibb on 08/07/2007 04:06:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Stores (none / 0)

I have no problem with cameras in private lots, but I dislike the idea of cameras paid for by the state all over the roads and sidewalks.


by acroso on 08/07/2007 04:17:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Good point (none / 0)
True it is not the government that owns the cameras. Except the local government like at traffic stops and popular tourist areas. Some use that face check technology. How hard is it for a law to be passed and the government has access to all those privately owned cameras.

by Mr Pibb on 08/07/2007 07:36:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
2001 (none / 0)

Did you know that after 9/11, congress passed a law that ALL cell phones must have gps systems that are trackable installed.

 They went further though and mandated that the cell phone's tracking systems be on at all times even when the user turns the cell phone OFF.

 Now as far as a I know there is a no database storing everyone's movement pattern so this data is not being recorded somewhere although who knows because apparently the Pentagon is starting a two hundred million dollar project to build the fastest computer ever right now. Every tower you ping is recorded though so that can be used.

And now we need to be like London, which has 4 million cameras in their streets? 

by acroso on 08/07/2007 10:16:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll take the good with the bad (none / 0)
Tracking cell phones can be very useful. With the increase of cell phones it can be very difficult for 9-11 centers to know exactly were a call is coming from. With the GPS tracking and enhanced 9-11 capabilities tracking an emergency call becomes much more effective.

As someone who trains 9-11 operators I know how frustrating it can be for a call to come in on a cell phone and the person needing help doesn't know were they are. With advanced technology the operator is capable of pinpointing the call within 100 feet and start emergency assistance immediately without trying to play 50 questions to determine were they are. In emergency situations seconds do indeed count, whether it is medical or criminal activity.

If it's you, your wife or child would you want the Communications Officer to have this technology or would you view it as to invasive?

Yes I can see the argument now; "Well gosh darling I know the mean man kidnapped and raped you and the cell phone dialed 9-11, and if the operator had GPS they could have tracked the car you were in but golly that's just to invasive to allow, but your still my daughter and I still love you."

For me I want the C.O. to know exactly were I am to get wheels rolling ASAP.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 08/07/2007 10:37:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Free (none / 0)

That's why putting a government-run tracking system in your phone should be optional. If you want it in your phone- put it there and pay the extra cost for it. If you don't, then don't do that.

If you're not going to put it in, then you have to be smart enough to tell a cross street or read a map. If you can't manage that well then it's on you. I suppose Americans are too dumb to manage such a complicated task.

 People also drink 42 ounce drinks at McDonalds that when filled with coca-cola account for 400 calories. Some people drink two of those even. Some people smoke cigarrettes. Some people chew tobacco. Some people have unprotected gay sex with people they don't know who look unhealthy.

That's why we're a free country.

by acroso on 08/07/2007 10:48:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
smile for the camera! (none / 0)
Get use to it, or move to Alaska!

US-1984

by rev24 on 08/08/2007 12:27:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Guess What (none / 0)
The city of Dillingham, Alaska -- population 2,400 -- has eighty surveillance cameras installed around town and at its port. The cameras were purchased with grant money from the Department of Homeland Security.

Article

by Mr Pibb on 08/08/2007 01:54:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Good Job Everybody (none / 0)

I don't have as much time for internet message boards as some people seem to have, so I'd just like to thank everybody for handling Ken while I was ... well, working and gardening mostly.

I had to pull up the sweet peas and put them in the yard waste bin the city picks up instead of the compost.  They had a real infestation of aphids this year, and I didn't want to spread them around.

Oh, and Bush is a moron, and his administration was packed with crazed ideologues and their sycophants in 2001, which is why they took their eye off the ball and allowed Al Qaeda to hijack three planes and bring down the two towers.

If Gore had had a few thousand more votes in Florida or they had been counted fairly, 9/11 wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

Sad but true. 

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 08/08/2007 01:53:54 AM EST

Happy Anniversary! It's "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" Day! | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: