NDN Blog

This morning's Post has a story that deepens the mystery of how everyone in Washington forgot that the CIA director warned the National Security Advisor on July 10th, 2001 that an attack by Bin Laden was imminent. 

You see this meeting, a critical and important one, was somehow left out of the 9/11 Commission Report and had never been mentioned prior to the publication of the new Woodward book.  Condi Rice first said the meeting never happened; she then reversed herself and said it did, but that she forgot about it.  We all then wondered how it was possible that the record of this meeting never made it into the 9/11 Commission Report.  This new story makes it clear that Tenet did brief the 9/11 Commission on the meeting, that in fact he provided them slides and other papers from the briefing he gave to Condi on that July day. 

Questions then:

1) How did the fact of this meeting fall out of the 9/11 Commission Report? Did the Commission's Executive Director, Phillip Zelikow, now a Rice staffer, fight to keep it out?

2) Rice has consistently said she was never told that summer that Bin Laden my strike inside the US. Did this briefing have such information? According to this story it did. And why does she keep saying this when the Aug 6th memo to the President clearly indicates that Bin Laden was attempting to strike in the US?

3) Did Rumsfeld and Ashcroft get the same briefing, as Sec. Rice says?

4) What specific actions did the President and National Security Advisor take upon receiving this urgent briefing on July 10th, a full two months before 9/11?

5) Isn't it now clear that Bush and his team were amply warned about the impending attacks throughout the summer and did nothing? And that the Secretary of State is simply lying about a grave and serious security matter to cover her ass?

My own belief is that the Sec. Rice's response to these matters is so insulting, full of lies and ass-covering that she must resign.  Her credibility is now completely shot, as it is clear that she has been leading a cover up of information critical to our understanding of how this nation suffered a major attack, and the role she and the President played in ignoring important warnings that it was coming.  She can no longer be trusted to do what is right, only what is expedient for her and the President.  And in a time as challenging as these times, that is not acceptable. 

From talking points memo tonight:  

"Whammo!

Just out from McClatchy ...

The independent Sept. 11, 2001, commission was given the same “scary” briefing about an imminent al Qaida attack on a U.S. target that was presented to the White House two months before the attacks, but failed to disclose the warning in its 428-page report.

Former CIA Director George Tenet presented the briefing to commission member Richard Ben Veniste and executive director Philip Zelikow in secret testimony at CIA headquarters on Jan. 28, 2004, said three former senior agency officials.

Tenet raised the matter himself, displayed slides from a Power Point presentation that he and other officials had given to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001, and offered to testify on the matter in public if the commission asked him to, they said.

.....Very hard to say what would be behind the decision to leave it out considering that Ben Veniste was one of the Dems on the Commission. "

And of course, Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, now works for Condi.  Was he the one who dropped this little nugget from the report?

A sheepish spokeman for Sec. of State Condi Rice let reporters know today that the Secretary in fact did get a briefing on July 10th, 2001 from the CIA that warned her in very strong terms that a terrorist attack on American interests was imminent.   

You see last night she denied the meeting took place.  Today they admit that it did take place, but that she just forget about it. 

Let's consider this argument.  The CIA director has a private meeting with the National Security Advisory and says a terrorist attack is imminent.  A month later the CIA advises the President and his team a terrorist attack in the US is imminent.  A month later an attack takes place.  And you forgot you warned by the CIA that this was coming, and that you did nothing about it? Are we really supposed to believe this argument from the Secretary of State?  And why didn't the 9/11 Commission know about it?

This is going to get ugly for the Administration.  What is the old line, it is never the act itself but the coverup that gets you?

Anyone think Rice will survive this? And does she go before the election?

Condi "mushroom cloud" Rice responded in the Post to the Woodwork book relevations by - suprise! - denying all.  You can judge for yourself if her story sounds at all credible.  I don't think it does.  But we have to recall that in Bushworld lying is a tactic, to be used as needed.   

In a very provocative post about the new Woodward book, Thinkprogress raises a critical question - did our Secretary of State lie to the 9/11 Commission? And is this a crime?

At the very least it is now clear that the Administration, in covering up a high-level meeting in July of 2001 where the CIA warned about an impending attack by Bin Laden, has once again repeatedly lied to the American people about an issue of great significance, and one critical to maintaining our security. 

You can feel it.  You can feel the tide turning against the Administration.  You can feel it in the nuance of press stories, in the willingness of leaders to challenge him, in the chatter around town. 

A big new idea is settling in with the American people and political elites.  It is simply that when it comes to foreign policy Bush blew it.  He took a big swing and failed. 

It is been a long time coming.  Much of the story has been known, but it has not hit critical mass.  We’ve known that he was warned about Al Qeada striking in the US and did nothing; known that they had Bin Laden at Tora Bora and failed to give the guys on the ground more troops, and that he escaped; known that they all lied in the run up the war; known that they failed to plan for the occupation; known that the occupation itself has been ripe with cronyism, corruption and silliness; known that they blamed and prosecuted a “few rotten apples” for the torturing of Iraqis when it was officially sanctioned government policy; known that their “democratization” strategy gave some of the most radical elements in the Middle East, Hezbollah and Hamas, electoral legitimacy without forcing them to disband their militias; known that the standing up of the Iraqi police and Army has been a farce; known that despite their statements otherwise, the Administration has seldom listened to the generals in the field; known that the “insurgency” was much more than a few rogue elements causing trouble; known that our failure to win the peace was turning Iraq into a version of Soviet Afghanistan, fueling the jihadists around the world. 

All of this been known.  But in recent weeks, these things we’ve known have come together, stuck together, and are forming a new story line.  It is no longer they’ve tried hard, acted tough and are gutting it out for America.  It is that they’ve blown it.  Big time.  Perhaps overseeing the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history. 

It is hard to know the exact moment when it all tipped.  Suskind’s new and remarkable book, The One Percent Doctrine, has been part of it.  The insanity around the ABC movie, The Path to 9/11 has been part of it.  Clinton’s appearance on Fox has been part of it.  The NIE release has been part of it.  The recent spate of stories about the utter incompetence and corruption of our occupation have been part of it.  And now Woodward’s new book, out next week, loaded with new and extraordinary stories will accelerate it all.  

However we got to this point I think the President’s credibility on security matters has been shattered, and he can’t get it back.  They took a big swing, and they blew it big time.  

Now what do we do? Clearly a new team, a new approach is needed.  Isn’t that what elections are about?  

The Washington Post further documents the scale of our failed occupation of Iraq.

Let us all be proud of those Members of Congress who choose to not accept the Administration's argument about progress, and who have forced a vital debate about how to bring our work in Iraq to a better end. 

Tuesday's Times details how the GOP is ending strong this year, giving them the momentum they need to hold on to power:

Procrastination, power struggles and partisanship have left Congress with substantial work to finish before breaking for the elections. The fast-approaching recess and the Republican focus on national security legislation make it inevitable that much of the remainder will fall by the wayside.

At best, it appears that just 2 of the 11 required spending bills will pass, and not one has been approved so far, forcing a stopgap measure to keep the federal government open. No budget was enacted. A popular package of business and education tax credits is teetering. A lobbying overhaul, once a top priority in view of corruption scandals, is dead. The drive for broad immigration changes has derailed.

An offshore oil drilling bill painted as an answer to high gas prices is stalled. Plans to cut the estate tax and raise the minimum wage have floundered, and an important nuclear pact with India sought by the White House is not on track to clear Congress. New problems surfaced over the weekend for the annual military authorization bill. And numerous other initiatives await a planned lame-duck session in mid-November or a future Congress.

“It is disappointing where we are, and I think Republicans need to be upfront about this,” said Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia and a member of the House leadership. “We have not accomplished what we need to accomplish.”

The Washington Post took a courageous stand on the current battle over immigration.  It is worth reading in its entirety.  Here it is:

THE CYNICAL immigration endgame of the 109th Congress isn't particularly surprising. But after a session in which the Senate actually managed to produce a bipartisan, comprehensive measure to overhaul the existing system, the latest, enforcement-only developments are nonetheless disappointing and dangerous.

The House has passed, and the Senate seems ready to go along with, a measure to require construction of a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border. That would cost at least $2 billion, and that's in addition to a $2.5 billion initiative, entrusted to Boeing Co. this week, to erect "virtual fences" along the northern and southern borders.

A fence would damage relations with Mexico, harm the environment and, especially in the absence of broader changes, be ineffective. Even if a foolproof fence could be placed along every mile of the border, it wouldn't eliminate illegal immigration. Perhaps half of those in the country illegally did not slip secretly across a border but arrived through official entry points, using fraudulent documents or coming in legally and overstaying their visas.

But the fence is, sadly, the least offensive of the measures under consideration. On Wednesday, the House approved an unnecessary and arguably unconstitutional bill to require voters to show photo identification to take part in federal elections beginning in 2008; in 2010, the ID would have to demonstrate proof of citizenship. This would effectively disenfranchise many poor and elderly Americans, who are less likely to have, or be able to obtain, such documentation. It responds to a non-problem. The manifold challenges of election administration do not include large numbers of noncitizens trying to vote. The Senate should not go along.

Yesterday, the House passed another batch of immigration-related measures, the worst of which would deputize state and local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws. The measure would permit, but not require, state and local police to arrest and detain illegal immigrants for even civil violations of federal immigration law. This would undermine the ability of law enforcement to deter and prosecute violent crime. As New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg told the Senate Judiciary Committee in July, "Do we really want people who could have information about criminals -- including potential terrorists -- to be afraid to go to the police?"

The most disappointing aspect of the debate is the passive posture of President Bush. Mr. Bush could have used his bully pulpit to make clear the importance of comprehensive reform. He could promise to veto the bills on the understanding that enforcement measures, even justifiable ones, will be needed as leverage to obtain the comprehensive program he says he wants. Instead, he's meekly following the worst instincts of his fellow Republicans. "Yes, I'll sign it into law," Mr. Bush told CNN, adding, "If your question is, 'Will I stop trying to push for a comprehensive reform?' The answer is, 'No, I won't stop trying to push for comprehensive reform.' " With pushing like this, who needs opponents?

The Post headline says it all: " Intelligence Analysts Say War Spread Terrorism "

So, despite hundreds of billions spent over five long years, tens of thousands of casualties, the degradation of our military and the ruining of America's image around the world, Bush's own government has concluded that our failure in Iraq has made the world much more dangerous. 

Congressional Democrats have said that they are nationalizing the elections.  Will this quote, and this story, appear in every Democratic ad right now, this week? The Republicans have made their closing strategy clear - Democrats will make us less safe in the war on terror, cut and run in Iraq and raise taxes.   Their ads are mirroring their national arguments. 

If Democratic leaders are to nationalize the elections around their arguments, then the ads run must mirror the national argument.  Is this happening? According to the Washington Post a few weeks back, most Democratic candidates are rejecting the leadership's position on Iraq.  So what does this mean about the Democratic Party's capacity to nationalize and have our arguments and our ads mirror one another? An election is only national when a Party is speaking with one voice, everywhere.   

Putting this headline and the NIE into every race, right now, would be a good way to test whether Democrats really believe there is a national narrative, and can execute on it.