The White House this weekend released a section of the classified August
6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing
(http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centr...ws/8409007.htm) (PDB), which
explicitly warned President Bush of an imminent al Qaeda attack inside the
United States. The document contradicts President Bush's own denials, and
raises the question of whether National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice
lied under oath last week in describing the memo's contents before the
bipartisan 9/11 Commission. The President "said yesterday that a memo did
not contain enough specific threat information
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Apr11.html) " with
Bush claiming "the PDB was no indication of a terrorist threat" because it
supposedly " said nothing about an attack on America
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20040411.html) ...was not
a time and place of an attack" specified. But as the NYT notes, the PDB "
spells out the who, hints at the what and points toward the where
(http://www.iht.com/articles/514272.html) of the terrorist attacks on New
York and Washington that followed 36 days later." CNN Political Analyst
(and AEI scholar) Bill Schneider said the PDB revelations " could be
seriously damaging
(http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/0...tsc.schneider/) . What this says
is, the White House knew what bin Laden was capable of planning, where he
intended to do it, which was New York or Washington, D.C., and how he was
going to do it."



LYING UNDER OATH -- PDB REFUTES RICE'S SWORN TESTIMONY: In her testimony
under oath before the 9/11 Commission last week, Rice said the August 6th
PDB "was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new
threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/politics/08RICE-
TEXT.html?pagewanted=print&position=) inside the United States." But the
PDB contained very current and specific information
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Apr10.html) about
ongoing investigations and threats -- a direct contradiction of Rice's
testimony (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/04/10/MNG3G638001.DTL) . The PDB said there
were "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...The FBI is conducting
approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it
considers Bin Ladin-related" including one following leads about "Bin Ladin
supporters in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives." American Progress
reports the truth behind Rice's testimony.
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=44918)



DISHONESTY -- STILL SAYING HE REQUESTED THE BRIEFING: The President
yesterday insisted that he personally requested the August 6 intelligence
briefing (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20040411.html)
because he was so concerned about terrorism, saying "I asked the
intelligence agency to analyze the data to tell me whether or not we faced
a threat internally...That's what the PDB request was." But according to
the CIA, the briefing " was not requested by President Bush
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...04Mar24_2.html) ."
As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel
that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush
and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA."



NEGLIGENCE -- LOAFING WHILE SUPPOSEDLY "AT BATTLE STATIONS": The WP
explored the Bush Administration's claims that " The President of the
United States had us at battle stations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/articles/A2676-2004Apr10.html) " during the summer of 2001. But "if top
officials were at battle stations, there was no sign of it on the surface.
Bush spent most of August 2001 on his ranch" -- taking one of the longest
Presidential vacations in White House history
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...01-08-03-bush-
vacation.htm) . One former Bush aide "who remains close to the White House
said the use of the term 'battle stations' by Rice was an overstatement."
And as an American Progress backgrounder
(http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/...A2B-43C7-A521-
5D6FF2E06E03%7d/timeline.pdf) shows, the President did not appear to
change his schedule at all from the month-long regimen of golf, running,
and cookouts. The Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial board said the
President's pre-9/11 conduct displayed " a criminal lack of interest in
trying to prevent an attack
(http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/4712842.html) on the United States
that the administration had strong reason to expect" adding that "almost
nothing of a defensive nature was done to guard against -- to prevent --
the horrific spectacle that unfolded on Sept. 11."



--
Jim