The Post-911 Bush/Cheney Commission Interview Summary Declassified

[Axxman300]

Direct link to PDF of interview summary here:

https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/iscap/pdf/2012-163-doc-1-release-material.pdf

Nothing new, or shocking. No surprises. Not sure why this was classified in the first place.

Here's The Intercept's take on it:

https://theintercept.com/2022/11/10...ntercept&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Perhaps the most interesting passages from the document relate to the extent to which Cheney was empowered to effectively take command authority that morning. Bush said he was pressured to get on Air Force One, so he “made some quick remarks and blasted out of there.” Cheney, he recalled, urged him, “Don’t come home.” Cheney “told him that Washington was under attack. He strongly recommended that the President delay his return to Washington. There was no telling how much more the threat might be. The President agreed, reluctantly.” Once Cheney was at the helm inside the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, an underground bunker beneath the East Wing of the White House, he and Bush discussed the “rules of engagement” for the evolving situation, including confronting other potential hijacked aircraft. “Yes, engage the enemy. You have the authority to shoot down an airplane,” Bush reportedly told Cheney. “The President understood this from his experience in the Texas Air National Guard,” according to the notes. “He had been trained to shoot down planes. He understood generally how this worked — one plane would lock on, one would ID. He understood the consequences for the pilot, how a pilot might feel to get the order to shoot down a US airliner. It would be tough.”

Again, nothing new.

 

[pgimeno]

Colour me... eh... no, don't colour me.

 

[Axxman300]

What annoys me the most about this is that it was kept secret in the first place. Secrecy fuels stupidity, and certainly fed the 9-11 Trutth CTs. This and the "28 pages" held no revelations. In in the direct case of this new release, BOTH Bush and Cheney have repeated these statements in multiple interviews since 2001.

This underlines how impossible a conspiracy would be to keep secret. The government's clear lack of judgement about what should be secret in this case remains the most stunning aspect of their investigation(s). And then the key principles, Bush, Cheney, et al proceed to repeat their classified testimonies to journalists over the next twenty years, anyway.

Yet these same guys could orchestrate 1,800 people across three states to pull off a fake attack?

 

[Allen773]

It infuriates me that those two are free men.


Anyway, enough politics…jet fuel can still fatally weaken steel beams.

 

[Allen773]

the "28 pages" held no revelations.

Except for all of the stuff about Prince Bandar bin Sultan and his wife, and the money they gave to a network of Saudi intelligence officers and embassy and consular employees who seemed very, very eager to go beyond and above in helping known al-Qaeda operatives Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar settle in the US, and these Saudis agents’ ties to one Anwar al-Awaki—you know, the English-speaking, Yemeni-American Al-Qaeda leader who was later assassinated via drone in Yemen on President Obama’s signoff. Or the two Saudis attending a party at the embassy in DC who tried to get into the cockpit of an America West flight in late 1999, forcing the plane to land. One of these was later arrested with Abu Zubadayh in Pakistan.

Speaking of, Zubadayh also had the unlisted phone number of the security company that managed Prince Bandar bin Sultan’s Aspen, CO residence, along with the phone number of a bodyguard at the Saudi Embassy in Washington. Oh, and Zubadayh reportedly had memorized the phone numbers of three Saudi princes and a Pakistani military officer—all four of whom died within a year of Zubadayh’s capture.

Then there’s the Saudi couple in Sarasota, FL who were the daughter and son-in-law of a wealthy Saudi businessman with close ties to the royal family, including the current king and his immediate family. This couple showed a lot of hospitality toward Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and other hijackers at their house. And the couple, along with the father/father-in-law, abruptly left the US in a rush mere days before 9/11.

This is all part of a pattern. But you’re right—the “revelations” of the 28 pages are merely more strong evidence of what many of us have long suspected about the pernicious duplicity of the Saudi government, and the betrayals of our own government in maintaining the corrupt bargain.

 

[Axxman300]

Except for all of the stuff about Prince Bandar bin Sultan and his wife, and the money they gave to a network of Saudi intelligence officers and embassy and consular employees who seemed very, very eager to go beyond and above in helping known al-Qaeda operatives Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar settle in the US, and these Saudis agents’ ties to one Anwar al-Awaki—you know, the English-speaking, Yemeni-American Al-Qaeda leader who was later assassinated via drone in Yemen on President Obama’s signoff. Or the two Saudis attending a party at the embassy in DC who tried to get into the cockpit of an America West flight in late 1999, forcing the plane to land. One of these was later arrested with Abu Zubadayh in Pakistan.

Speaking of, Zubadayh also had the unlisted phone number of the security company that managed Prince Bandar bin Sultan’s Aspen, CO residence, along with the phone number of a bodyguard at the Saudi Embassy in Washington. Oh, and Zubadayh reportedly had memorized the phone numbers of three Saudi princes and a Pakistani military officer—all four of whom died within a year of Zubadayh’s capture.

Then there’s the Saudi couple in Sarasota, FL who were the daughter and son-in-law of a wealthy Saudi businessman with close ties to the royal family, including the current king and his immediate family. This couple showed a lot of hospitality toward Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and other hijackers at their house. And the couple, along with the father/father-in-law, abruptly left the US in a rush mere days before 9/11.

This is all part of a pattern. But you’re right—the “revelations” of the 28 pages are merely more strong evidence of what many of us have long suspected about the pernicious duplicity of the Saudi government, and the betrayals of our own government in maintaining the corrupt bargain.

Much is this stuff ended up in a handful of good books in the years after 9-11. The Looming Towers is the best of these. In the end, the Saudis took care of most of the bad actors on their side of things. Not like we'd have done much of anything anyway, just look at the recent news re: Biden giving immunity to Prince whatshisface over the Khashoggi hit. They've got us by the balls, Al Qaeda not withstanding.

 

[Oystein]

It infuriates me that those two are free men.


Anyway, enough politics…jet fuel can still fatally weaken steel beams.

You want to rid two men of their freedom based on politics?
Shouldn't this be a legal issue? Like which specific page of the US Penal Code would you want to throw at them?

 

[Allen773]

You want to rid two men of their freedom based on politics?

No, it’d be because of a war of aggression based on falsehoods, authorization of torture, warrantless surveillance….I think these things could plausibly be called crimes. But Obama took a pass on accountability and continued (and expanded) the “Global War on Terror”, and his successors have likewise continued on that trajectory. Each has a different style, but much of the underlying substance is the same.

Ultimately, whomever of these Presidents you believe to be worse tends to depend on your…politics.

 

[Axxman300]

No, it’d be because of a war of aggression based on falsehoods, authorization of torture, warrantless surveillance….I think these things could plausibly be called crimes. But Obama took a pass on accountability and continued (and expanded) the “Global War on Terror”, and his successors have likewise continued on that trajectory. Each has a different style, but much of the underlying substance is the same.

Ultimately, whomever of these Presidents you believe to be worse tends to depend on your…politics.

Congress handed the Bush Administration permission to do all of those things. They did so at the behest of their constituents, the American people.

The war in Iraq? 75% approval rating at the time of the invasion. And I will point out again that the Iraqi Army thought they had WMDS too, and were shocked to discover a week into the invasion that they did not. The USMC discovered a stash of thousands of brand new chemical warfare suits, and masks. So while the Bush Administration pushed a lot of poorly sources claims, some seriously twisted, they were based around what turned out to be Kabuki Theater by Saddam's people.

Torture? Congress signed off on that too. Sure, they claimed to have been misled, but the fact is they didn't care at the time. I'm not condoning it, torture does not work, and I'm not sure why CIA chose to throw everything they knew about torture and interrogation to go down that path. But they did with an official stamp of approval.

"Warrantless Surveillance" is a complex issue. The NSA gets everything, and then discards the domestic captures...unless a target region, or target phone numbers are contacted, in which case the activity is reported into the domestic intel chain. In the years after 9-11, US intelligences was playing catch-up, and they were looking everywhere.

You should be asking why the CIA is STILL doing it now.

 

[bknight]

Congress handed the Bush Administration permission to do all of those things. They did so at the behest of their constituents, the American people.

The war in Iraq? 75% approval rating at the time of the invasion. And I will point out again that the Iraqi Army thought they had WMDS too, and were shocked to discover a week into the invasion that they did not. The USMC discovered a stash of thousands of brand new chemical warfare suits, and masks. So while the Bush Administration pushed a lot of poorly sources claims, some seriously twisted, they were based around what turned out to be Kabuki Theater by Saddam's people.

Torture? Congress signed off on that too. Sure, they claimed to have been misled, but the fact is they didn't care at the time. I'm not condoning it, torture does not work, and I'm not sure why CIA chose to throw everything they knew about torture and interrogation to go down that path. But they did with an official stamp of approval.

"Warrantless Surveillance" is a complex issue. The NSA gets everything, and then discards the domestic captures...unless a target region, or target phone numbers are contacted, in which case the activity is reported into the domestic intel chain. In the years after 9-11, US intelligences was playing catch-up, and they were looking everywhere.

You should be asking why the CIA is STILL doing it now.

I disagree with you, torture works in the way of the tortured saying what the tortures want said. KSM admitted to pretty much all of what the intelligence(?) agencies knew he did. Of course once the torture stopped he recanted, old defense tactic. These admissions probably won't be allowed during his trail.

 

[Axxman300]

I disagree with you, torture works in the way of the tortured saying what the tortures want said. KSM admitted to pretty much all of what the intelligence(?) agencies knew he did. Of course once the torture stopped he recanted, old defense tactic. These admissions probably won't be allowed during his trail.

Nothing he said under "duress" is admissible in court. They have the documents recovered from Abbottabad, and the public statements made by Al Qaeda over the years. But KSM will die of old age in Gitmo, he'll never see a trial at this point.

The larger issue is our torture became a recruiting tool for jihadists around the world. And undermines our credibility when we try to call out other nations for doing it. Granted, nothing we did rises to the level of what Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, North Korea, or China do. But at the end of the day we joined their club, and it's not a good fit.

 

[Allen773]

Nothing he said under "duress" is admissible in court. They have the documents recovered from Abbottabad, and the public statements made by Al Qaeda over the years. But KSM will die of old age in Gitmo, he'll never see a trial at this point.

The larger issue is our torture became a recruiting tool for jihadists around the world. And undermines our credibility when we try to call out other nations for doing it. Granted, nothing we did rises to the level of what Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, North Korea, or China do. But at the end of the day we joined their club, and it's not a good fit.

Coming back to this—the larger issue is that torture “working” or not was immaterial. Or at best, a post hoc justification (ie,, the “ticking time bomb” thing) for the bleak truth that the US government—and bleaker still, plenty of ordinary Americans after 9/11—wanted revenge, eye for an eye, put a boot in your ass it’s the American way, nuke the entire Arab/Muslim world while we’re at it (the more extreme end, but hardly an uncommon sentiment after 9/11).

With all the shock, trauma, fear, and anger after 9/11, Americans as a whole, from the very top of the Bush administration down to the CIA and certain soldiers and contractors at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and all of the various “black sites” all over the world, from the FBI and what became DHS down to many ordinary Americans engaging in hate crimes or harassment or bullying against Muslims or people who “looked Muslim” like Sikhs—all of these people and institutions indulged in “the dark side” as Cheney put it in an interview a few days or so after 9/11 that is in retrospect, chilling.

Recruiting tool for jihadists, indeed.

 

[Axxman300]

Coming back to this—the larger issue is that torture “working” or not was immaterial. Or at best, a post hoc justification (ie,, the “ticking time bomb” thing) for the bleak truth that the US government—and bleaker still, plenty of ordinary Americans after 9/11—wanted revenge, eye for an eye, put a boot in your ass it’s the American way, nuke the entire Arab/Muslim world while we’re at it (the more extreme end, but hardly an uncommon sentiment after 9/11).

With all the shock, trauma, fear, and anger after 9/11, Americans as a whole, from the very top of the Bush administration down to the CIA and certain soldiers and contractors at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and all of the various “black sites” all over the world, from the FBI and what became DHS down to many ordinary Americans engaging in hate crimes or harassment or bullying against Muslims or people who “looked Muslim” like Sikhs—all of these people and institutions indulged in “the dark side” as Cheney put it in an interview a few days or so after 9/11 that is in retrospect, chilling.

Recruiting tool for jihadists, indeed.

The issue with the CIA's torture is the concept went against EVERYTHING they'd learned since the Korean and Vietnam wars. Hell, the whole MK-Ultra thing showed them the limits of artificial psychological influence when compared to basic, heads-up interrogation techniques. Subtle mind-games net more quality intelligence than physical pain. A good interrogator can engage a prisoner in casual conversation, and end up spinning them around until they can't keep track of what they've said. A good conversation about soccer/football can reveal backgrounds, social attitudes, and tactical philosophies. After which the interrogator might point of the prisoner was captured wearing "really expensive" brand-name sneakers, and this can lead back to a supplier, and ultimately a chain of finance.

Interrogation takes time.

The CIA seems to have had two missions: the first was to play catchup, since they'd crapped the bed on Al Qaeda, and international terror in general going all the way back to Munich in 1972. The second, as bknight pointed out, was to coerce detainees into reciting a narrative that could be handed to Congress to justify so many things. And they knew it was wrong from day one, but they did it anyway because Congress let them. Sure, once the invasion of Iraq went south some democrats claimed they never signed off on torture, but they did, but were happy to make political points on the issue once the public sentiment changed enough.

But even with all of the rebukes, and all of the hand-wringing, and all of the moral outrage from the left...Guantanamo Bay's prison camps are still in operation, and the US military and the Department of Justice have yet to initiate trials for KSM and the others.

I'm sure Congress will feel appropriately outraged at some point in the future, maybe in the 2030s.

 

[Allen773]

Here's a Business Insider from last November, relevant to this thread:

Secret 9/11 memo reveals Bush rewriting the history of the 9/11 attacks and the warnings he'd tuned out

Bush's repeated insistence that he was never informed of a specific threat on US soil will be hard to take seriously by anyone who has read the August 6 PDB, which the commission, to its credit, reprinted in full. Bush told the commission that the PDB was "historical in nature." Indeed, it uses earlier Qaeda attacks for context, but it also contains some prescient warnings: "Al-Qa'ida members—including some who are US citizens—have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks." And again, the headline: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike In US." But the 9/11 commission chose not to emphasize the degree to which Bush's own account of what he knew, and what he claimed not to know, was inconsistent with such a stark warning.

The commission was right to document the institutional problems underlying these near misses. The CIA and the FBI needed better coordination. They needed clarification from Congress about the limits of their authorities, particularly on US soil. But less attention was paid to Bush's own attitude toward Al Qaeda, and its downstream effect on how cases like Moussaoui's were handled. If Bush never learned about Moussaoui, is that because Tenet didn't think to bring it up? Or because he knew that Bush's focus from the beginning of his presidency was on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, and that his appetite for Qaeda-related warnings was quite limited?

What's clear is that Tenet, for months, had been doing everything he could think of to sound the alarm and get Bush focused on Al Qaeda. So had Richard A. Clarke, who handled domestic counterterrorism in the Bush White House, and reported up to Condoleezza Rice, the national security advisor. "We agreed that Tenet would ensure that the President's daily briefings would continue to be replete with information on Al Qaeda," Clarke wrote in his memoir. The day after the September 11 attacks, according to Clarke, Bush told him to "see if Saddam is involved" and "look into Iraq." Clarke famously claimed that he tried and failed to get past Rice so his concerns about Al Qaeda would reach Bush. Clarke wanted counterterrorism to be taken seriously as its own issue at the cabinet level; the record shows it was treated with less urgency, as an extension of US policy in the Middle East and South Asia. Clarke's inability to make domestic counterterrorism a policy focus for the White House tends to implicate Rice, but it does not absolve Bush. It's clear that Bush received the same sorts of urgent warnings that Clarke was seeing regularly, from Tenet and the CIA. He just doesn't seem to have responded, as both Clarke and Tenet did, with a sense of alarm.

https://www.businessinsider.com/911...d-bush-cheney-attacks-bin-laden-qaeda-2022-11

 

[paloalto]

NOTHING NEW?

Direct link to PDF of interview summary here:

https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/iscap/pdf/2012-163-doc-1-release-material.pdf

Nothing new, or shocking. No surprises. Not sure why this was classified in the first place.

Here's The Intercept's take on it:

https://theintercept.com/2022/11/10...ntercept&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social



Again, nothing new.

What the ****! NOTHING NEW?

We learn that Bush claimed in this interview that the CIA had told him the al Qaeda terrorist attacks that were about to take place were going to occur overseas. But the CIA claims in over 40 warnings that the president was told the attacks would likely take place inside of the US.

So someone lied, the CIA when they said they gave the information to Bush that the attacks would take place in the US, or is lying now, Bush, claiming the CIA told him the attacks would take place overseas.

Either the CIA lied and committed treason, or President Bush is lying now and is a mass murderer. So what is it?

The CIA knew by the third week of July 2001 that the Bush administration was going to do nothing to prevent the al Qaeda terrorist attack that was just about to take place inside the US. In the last week of July, the CIA knew for sure that the attacks were aimed at targets inside the US, i.e., at the meeting the last week of July, Tenet asked: Where will this al Qaeda attack take place? The meeting went silent when Blee replied, "They are coming here."

While Cofer Black claimed in a radio interview that it was not the fault of the CIA the attacks on 9/11 took place because the Bush administration did nothing to prevent these attacks, it is clear that the CIA could have prevented these attacks on 9/11 without this order from the administration.

All they had to do was rescind their order to their spy inside the FBI, Tom Wilshere, to withhold the Kuala Lumpur information from the FBI criminal investigators. The last time for the CIA to have done this was when they were informed on August 22, 2001, that al Qaeda terrorists Mihdar and Hazmi were inside the US. Wilshere himself could have given this information to Michael Maltbie on August 24, 2001, and Wilshere could have ordered the people under his direction at the FBI ITOS, FBI SA Agent Dina Corsi and FBI SSA Rod Middleton, to give this information to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt who wanted to start an FBI criminal investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, and not shut down his investigation. Almost 3000 people were murdered because the CIA did not rescind this order to Wilshere, who was secretly taking orders from the CIA while working at the FBI, while effectively he was in charge of all FBI investigations of al Qaeda terrorists.

 

[Axxman300]

Cool story, Bro.

Now where's my explanation of how the State Department was able to issue a travel warning for the Mediterranean wherein they state that they had intelligence that Al Qaeda was planning to hijack commercial jetliners sometime in August, 2001? That's travel warning expired in the first week in September.

If DoS knew something was up, why not the FBI? I ask that because the FBI handles internal criminal affairs. And if DoS knew, how much intel was the FBI ignoring in the summer of 2001?

But sure, it's all the CIA's fault...

 

[Allen773]

If anything the CIA, and specifically George Tenet and his deputies, acted worse after the attacks by caving to political pressure from the Bush administration on Iraq (not to mention, rendition and torture). Tenet’s overriding desire to keep his job undercut his own analysts and contributed to the politicization (and discrediting) of intelligence analysis. And that sorry Iraq War saga had damaging consequences for American democracy itself.

Bush’s Iraq War Lies Created a Blueprint for Donald Trump

…one piece of deceit and disinformation stands out. Along with other official lies, it morphed into a lasting conspiracy theory that set a dangerous precedent and helped pave the way for the rise of Donald Trump: the assertion by the Bush White House that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

There was never any evidence that it was true, and the Bush administration knew it had nothing to support the claims. Yet the White House began to push the theory almost immediately after the September 11 attacks; President George W. Bush and his advisers saw the Saddam–9/11 connection as the silver bullet that could guarantee public support for an invasion of Iraq.

The battle between the Bush White House and the CIA over the intelligence on Saddam’s connections to 9/11 and terrorism consumed much of the 18-month interregnum between 9/11 and the Iraq invasion and turned increasingly bitter after Vice President Dick Cheney personally visited CIA headquarters and, along with his aides, began to pressure analysts to agree to the White House position. But the battle was waged almost entirely behind the scenes; it would surface only through occasional anonymous leaks to the press from CIA officials, accusing the administration of politicizing the intelligence, and conversely through statements from Iraq hawks close to the administration complaining about CIA intransigence.

The agency’s stance was badly weakened when CIA Director George Tenet refused to publicly engage in the battle, or even to criticize the Bush White House for pushing the Iraq–Al Qaeda link. At the time, Tenet’s hold on his job was fragile, and he believed he owed Bush for not firing him after the intelligence failures related to 9/11 prompted many critics to call for his ouster. In fact, there were several instances when CIA officials, speaking on background without attribution, would discuss the lack of an Iraq–Al Qaeda connection with reporters, only to see Tenet then publicly deny that there was any disagreement between the White House and the CIA, including when he was questioned by Congress. Tenet’s actions thus left CIA dissenters badly exposed to political pressure.

The CIA’s utter failure on WMD intelligence ultimately cost Tenet his job and poisoned American attitudes toward the war in Iraq. Yet the Bush administration’s persistence in pushing the obviously false narrative of a connection between Saddam and 9/11 may have had more lasting consequences for American politics. Bush set a precedent by officially sanctioning a conspiracy theory. His White House had engaged in a bitter battle with intelligence analysts, who Bush’s lieutenants and most ardent supporters saw as the enemy, to disseminate that conspiracy theory.

Donald Trump followed that model when he sought to convince Americans that he had won the 2020 presidential election, but that dark forces — including a “deep state” inside the U.S. intelligence community — had rigged the outcome to make Joe Biden president.

https://theintercept.com/2023/03/19/george-bush-iraq-lies-trump/

 

[Axxman300]

If anything the CIA, and specifically George Tenet and his deputies, acted worse after the attacks by caving to political pressure from the Bush administration on Iraq (not to mention, rendition and torture). Tenet’s overriding desire to keep his job undercut his own analysts and contributed to the politicization (and discrediting) of intelligence analysis. And that sorry Iraq War saga had damaging consequences for American democracy itself.

Bush’s Iraq War Lies Created a Blueprint for Donald Trump


https://theintercept.com/2023/03/19/george-bush-iraq-lies-trump/

You need to remember, the Iraq War happened because of 9-11 Trutherism. The Bush NSC were the first Truthers. They didn't/couldn't/refused to believe Al Qaeda acted alone, and Iraq was a terrorist hub/clearing house/financier. This is the irony of the 9-11 Truth "movement", Truthers in the Bush NSC ran with half-truths, cherry-picked intelligence, and fabricated claims to justify the invasion. But the 9-11 Truth community could never see it, and continued to be guilty of the same mistakes, the only difference being that they held no positions of power.

 

[paloalto]

If anything the CIA, and specifically George Tenet and his deputies, acted worse after the attacks by caving to political pressure from the Bush administration on Iraq (not to mention, rendition and torture). Tenet’s overriding desire to keep his job undercut his own analysts and contributed to the politicization (and discrediting) of intelligence analysis. And that sorry Iraq War saga had damaging consequences for American democracy itself.

Bush’s Iraq War Lies Created a Blueprint for Donald Trump

Your post:

"At the time, Tenet’s hold on his job was fragile, and he believed he owed Bush for not firing him after the intelligence failures related to 9/11 prompted many critics to call for his ouster."

There was never a CIA intelligence failure related to 9/11. The CIA knew an al Qaeda terrorist attack would occur inside the US and cause mass casualties. Tenet admitted this at the April 14, 2004, public hearing of the 9/11 Commission. The CIA has even publicly admitted that they deliberately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place after they clearly knew this attack would kill large numbers of Americans. In this confession, the CIA, specifically Cofer Black, said it was not the CIA that was at fault but that the Bush administration was at fault since the CIA had given Bush and his administration multiple warnings of this attack, and they did nothing to prevent this attack.

But the CIA and Tenet knew by the third week of July 2001 that the Bush administration was going to do nothing to stop this attack. And according to Black, all the CIA did was give Bush more warnings of this attack, knowing full well the administration would do nothing to stop it. The CIA and Tenet did this to give themselves cover when this al Qaeda attack took place, and investigations wanted to know what warnings the CIA had given to Bush and this administration.

While the CIA had been giving many warnings of the attacks before August 24, 2001, after this date, there is no evidence that the CIA ever tried to warn anyone again, even anyone in the Bush administration.

Why did the CIA no longer warn anyone after this date? We now know that the CIA and George Tenet were told on August 22, 2001, that two al Qaeda terrorists were in the US, and on August 23, 2001, that a person thought to be a terrorist had been arrested when MPLS FBI was told a person with a private pilots license was training on a B747 and his instructors told them that he was likely a terrorist. On August 24, 2001, Tenet flew down to Crawford to have a two-hour meeting with Bush and Condoleezza Rice. We know this because the press conference sighted in the prior posts detailed this meeting: https://www.businessinsider.com/911-...-qaeda-2022-11. Tenet had already been to Crawford on August 17, 2001, so why did he go to Crawford on August 24, 2001?

And what did Bush tell Tenet to make him do nothing after this date to warn his administration?

As posted before, even if the CIA had not been given orders to stop this al Qaeda terrorist attack, they had been illegally withholding the information that came out of the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting and the fact that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, from the FBI Cole bombing investigators, they could have prevented this attack. Tenet and the CIA knew that without this information, these investigators would not have the probable cause to start a criminal investigation for these terrorists, and, as a result, thousands of Americans would be murdered in this al Qaeda terrorist attack.

The CIA knew that to stop this al Qaeda terrorist attack, all they had to do was no longer withhold this information from the Cole bombing investigators. The CIA had even effectively ordered Tom Wilshere, the CIA spy inside of the FBI, never to give the Kuala Lumpur information to the FBI Cole bombing investigators, and they could have rescinded this order when they were told Mihdhar and Hami were inside the US on August 22, 2001. Under the direction of Tom Wilshere, FBI agents Dina Corsi and Rod Middleton shut down the FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi even after these FBI investigators told Corsi that if this investigation were shut down, people would die.

To answer the question, was Tenet and the CIA guilty of treason for not giving the proper warnings to the Bush administration, or was Bush guilty of mass murder for not acting on Tenet's warnings and deliberately allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people? The answers to these questions are left up to the American people.

 

[Fonebone]

You need to remember,
the Iraq War happened because of 9-11 Trutherism.

To not "remember"
exposes one to the dangers of acute epiphanies
followed by severe bouts of chronic mentation.


On March 2nd of 2007 on a nationally broadcast radio show
"Democracy Now" the show host, Amy Goodman, interviewed
a retired U.S.Army four star general Wesley Clark before a live audience
in New York City USA
https://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re...q-Syria-lebanon-Libya-somalia-Sudan-Iran/5166
[excerpts]
General to retired four star General Wesley Clark...

SIR! “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.”
--and--
...I said,
“Are we still going to war with Iraq?”
And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.”
He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper.
And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.”
And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years,
starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.”
I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo!
I didn’t show it to you!”[/excerpt]

The Bush NSC were the first Truthers

.
Absolute unmitigated Flap doodle'

This is the irony of the 9-11 Truth "movement", Truthers chicken hawks,war mongers,neocons and boil suckers in the Bush NSC ran with half-truths, cherry-picked intelligence, and fabricated claims to justify the invasion.

FTfY

But the 9-11 Truth community could never see it, and continued to be guilty of the same mistakes, the only difference being that they held no positions of power.