In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States, many wanted to know if it could have been prevented and how the country would prevent further attacks. There was also a collective sense that Americans needed to come together, rather than cast blame anywhere but squarely on the masterminds of the attack.
That debate continues and did so on Morning Joe Tuesday on the 11th anniversary of the attack.
Kurt Eichenwald, contributing editor of Vanity Fair and author of 500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars, argues that the Bush administration possessed but dismissed intelligence that such a massive attack by Al Qaeda was set to happen on U.S. soil in the months leading up to that September.
The intelligence demonstrated a "constant reiteration of, 'There are people in the United States; they're going to attack; there are going to be large casualties,'" he said on Morning Joe.
Eichenwald explains further in a New York Times Op-Ed, "The Deafness Before the Storm."
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster.
Eichenwald also noted that Al Qaeda developed in the eight years that Republicans were out of office. "[The Bush administration] got this information and they weren't looking at it in the context of these huge threats," he said. "It was a frame of mind that was not unreasonable for them to have."
Republican George Pataki who was governor of New York at the time of the attack disputed Eichenwald's assessment as partisan.
"I just think this is incredibly unfortunate," he said on Morning Joe. "On September 11 and for weeks, months thereafter, President Bush provided inspired, effective leadership. To look 11 years later and say, 'Aha, this was happening in the summer," and to go through and selectively take out quotes and say, 'You should have done that, you should have done that,' I think it’s incredibly unfair and a disservice to history."
"I haven't read your book and I don't intend to," he continued.
Eichenwald, though, argued for continued analysis of the day and the days leading up to it.
"We cannot say we’re not going to pay attention to history because that part of history is my party...[or] we can’t talk about it, we can’t learn from it because it’s upsetting," Eichenwald argued. "It’s 11 years later. Of course we can talk about it."
Leave a Comment:
If our government wants to honor the fallen of 9/11 then they should tell the whole world the truth. how can so many misunderstandings and questions still not be answered more than a decade later. There was more investigation into The first OJ simpson trial, than there was on the events of that day. George Bush and Dick Cheney should be brought up on trial for crimes against humanity....it was an inside job and there is more than enough proof to corroborate these facts. Those people and their families deserve more..I pray that one day someone will make the people responsible pay for the awful things they did that day, and I'm not talking about fictional terrorist, I'm talking about the real terrorists, the ones who sold this country out.
I have long realized that the Bush regime was highly negligent but Eichenwald's detailed report shocked me to the core. What does it mean? That the Bushies were too lazy to be bothered, or that they salivated at the prospect of another 'Pearl Harbor'?
Either way, these skunks should never be allowed to get their mitts on the reins of government again (pun intended).
I agree with Mr. Leit. I had no reason to question the official account of what happened on 9/11 until I started to look for the evidence to support it. What I found was just the opposite. This is a difficult subject to discuss due to the gut wrenching reality of what happened on that day. There is a saying that suggests... "follow the evidence where ever it leads".
Look at the evidence objectively and it's clear that expert controlled demolition was responsible for bringing down towers 1, 2, and 7. Go to ae911truth.org and watch architects and engineers explain how what happened to these buildings would be impossible without the use of nanothermite cutting charges and explosives. Molten steel pouring from the towers... fire fighters reporting molten steel flowing like lava in the basements of these three buildings. These buildings where rigged weeks or months ahead of time. LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE! Show me a 757 that crashed into the Pentagon... I'm still looking for that plane wreckage. Read retired professor and theologian David Ray Griffin's ten books on the geopolitics and the why of that day... It doeans't take much to realize that this was a false flag operation... like it or not... but it is gut wrenching and a difficult truth for many to swallow... it was for me.
The official account of 9/11 has become a sacred myth and you're labeled a kook or conspiracy nut for even questioning it. But whoever was behind this attack is banking on the goodness of the American people and their belief in the basic goodness of this country to keep them in denial and in delusion about what really happened on September 11, 2001.
An as intelligence officer my goal after any attack is to analyze what when wrong and prevent it ever happening again. That's not Republican George Pataki's goal at all. As a partisan political hack, flacking for the Bush administration (if they can't classify it and pretend it never happened), Pataki simply wants to bury it, assert it was unpreventable, unknowable, blame it on Democrats, moon cycles, their periods, anything but his pals obsession with invading Iraq and getting at all that oil, or at least convince us we shouldn't talk about it. If we listen to fools like Pataki we will certainly repeat history. Frankly Governor, you are a fool, and if we bow to your clearly partisan interests, it will endanger American lives. You and your partisan interests can't be allowed to win this debate. The cost will be too high.
After nine years of believing the official account of what happened on 9/11... I decided to start looking at the evidence to support the official theory. I've spent the last two years pouring over all the videos, photographs, eyewitness accounts, first responder accounts, the NIST report, the FEMA report, the 9/11 Commission report, ae911truth.org, David Ray Griffin's 10 books on the geopolitics and the why of what happened on 9/11...
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I am an objective, reasonable person who goes where the evidence leads no matter what. And after all my research I've come to the gut wrenching conclusion that what happened on that day was a false flag operation. Those three WTC buildings that collapsed at free fall speed into their own footprint did not collapse due to fire or planes crashing into them... impossible. These buildings were rigged for demolition weeks or months ahead of time... Molten steel pouring from the buildings. Molten steel "flowing like lava" said one firefighter in the basements of these three buildings. Jet fuel burns at roughly 1,800 and steel melts at 2,800... do the math. Hundreds or thousands of nanothermite cutting charges, reacting at over 4,000 degrees cut through those core columns like butter in less then two seconds... timed and computer controlled to bring those buildings down in relatively neat piles. Then the evidence was loaded into over 400 trucks a day, placed in barges and hauled off to China to be melted down.
Go to www.ae911truth.org and watch architects and structural engineers explain the details... it becomes undeniable. Now, did Arab terrorists have the expertise to do all of this? I doubt it... so who did?