WTF! Carolina Morning News: 9/11 a LIHOP? Toast, anyone?

[TruthIsAll]

http://www.lowcountrynow.com/stories/080103/LOCrose.shtml

Rose: Arrogance, or something darker?

By John David Rose
Carolina Morning News

If you want to know why 9/11 was allowed to happen you may not have to look any further than the Oval Office.

A little more than a month before the attack, in his Aug. 6 daily intelligence briefing, Bush was "told that morning of the al-Qaida terror network's interest in conducting a strike within the U.S., and that it might involve highjacked airplanes," reports the Wall Street Journal (7/24/03.)

Why didn't he order airlines to be alerted, inform the Federal Aviation Administration of the threat, put the military air commands on a high level of readiness and tell the FBI, CIA and INS to be super vigilant?

He brushed the warning aside.

snip

Then came that fateful August intelligence briefing noted above, the full report of which was excised from the recently issued Congressional report on the 9/11 tragedy for "national security" reasons.

National security my foot. That information was blacked out to protect the arrogant bunch in the White House that ignored warnings that might have prevented the attacks.

But perhaps the Bushies had a reason for ignoring the warnings. Something brushed over in the Congressional 9/11 report suggests the possibility of one of the worst conspiracies of American history.

more...

[Forkboy]

1. WOW

[dwillison]

2. John David Rose is a long-time Hilton Head Islander and

political observer."

Enough said

[wellstone_democrat]

3. Yikes!

btw, for us non-locals, what is the meaning of "hilton head islander" is that super conservative or liberal or nuts or what?

[dwillison]

7. Hilton Head Island, the rich man's Myrtle Beach.

[short bus president]

4. copyright 2002 Carolina Morning News?

What's up with that?

Not that I didn't enjoy the article, but was it written last year?

[Bossy Monkey]

10. I'm reasonably sure Carolina Morning News is the HHI edition

of the Savannah paper. The HHI paper is called the Island Packet. Can't help you with the 2002 copyright, though.

[BeFree]

12. Copyright is for the site

At top of page says posted on Aug. 1, 2003

Glad to see that someone has the balls (ballettes?) to publish this. Ties together several issues which few people know are connected. Mainstream press, too. Drip, drip, drip.

Obviously the guy has been reading up on Bob Graham, eh?

[BeFree]

13. Copyright is for the site

At top of page says web posted on Aug. 1, 2003. Written recently. Re; the just released 9/11 report

Glad to see that someone has the balls (ballettes?) to publish this. Ties together several issues which few people know are connected. Mainstream press, too. Drip, drip, drip.

Obviously the guy has been reading up on Bob Graham, eh?

[ewagner]

5. 'bout time

Some of us have been screaming for PNAC to become the center of this discussion. I've only been on this board a couple of months but there are others here who have been hammering away at this for a very long time. It will be interesting to see who picks up on this and if it goes anywhere at all. At least Rose put the issue succinctly in front of his readers.

Just "googled" Rose...he's been writing for truthout.org and also hammering away at Cheney, Powell, Bush and Rumsfeld for a couple of years. Does this guy have credibility with national press? Is this story likely to be picked up by major news outlets?

regardless of whether this story grows legs....to Rose :toast:

[MisterP]

6. I'd like a link to the WSJ article!

[NJCher]

8. just sent it to you

check your DU mailbox.

I will read it and post the highlights in a few minutes.


Cher

[NJCher]

9. summary of 7/24 WSJ article

Summary of WSJ 7/24 article:

The report is expected to highlight the gaps. "It will be very clear which issues the White House cooperated on and which ones they didn't," promised Eleanor Hill. She is staff director of a joint House and Senate intelligence panel that conducted the study on whether U.S. intelligence agencies overlooked leads or other data that might have helped them head off the worst attacks on the U.S. since Pearl Harbor.

The report states that no information received by the White House or U.S. intelligence agencies "would have provided specific warning of the details of those attacks," according to its first "finding." But its gaps could fuel the already-roaring controversy over how the administration uses intelligence. The White House has been shaken by revelations that presidential aides were warned by the Central Intelligence Agency not to publicize a discredited report on alleged Iraqi efforts to obtain nuclear material. In his January State of the Union address, Mr. Bush nonetheless used it to justify invading Iraq.

"My instinct tells me there probably will not be an instant bonfire on this one," said Mr. , who himself has sought to bring attention to U.S. intelligence failures and the role played by Saudi Arabia in fomenting Islamic extremism. "We're still in an environment where the government is being given the benefit of the doubt."



Cher

[TruthIsAll]

11. Now, if we can only get someone outside of liberal SC to connect the dots

heheheheheheheheheh