Lawrence O'Donnell Meltdown

Actually, they knew more than you're putting out there. You might try this as a refresher course. Or you could, as I did, read the entire 9/11 report. I know reading is hard so most Americans couldn't bother themselves with an 800-page book, full of footnoting. The Bush administration counted on that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/16/politics/16INQU.html?ei=5006&en=39284647d5a85528&ex=1022126400&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=bottom

WASHINGTON, May 15 — The White House said tonight that President Bush had been warned by American intelligence agencies in early August that Osama bin Laden was seeking to hijack aircraft but that the warnings did not contemplate the possibility that the hijackers would turn the planes into guided missiles for a terrorist attack.

"It is widely known that we had information that bin Laden wanted to attack the United States or United States interests abroad," Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, said this evening. "The president was also provided information about bin Laden wanting to engage in hijacking in the traditional pre-9/11 sense, not for the use of suicide bombing, not for the use of an airplane as a missile."

Nonetheless the revelation by the White House, made in response to a report about the intelligence warning this evening on CBS News, is bound to fuel Congressional demands for a deeper investigation into why American intelligence agencies and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had failed to put together individual pieces of evidence that, in retrospect, now seem to suggest what was coming.

In the past few days, government officials have acknowledged for the first time that an F.B.I. agent in Phoenix had urged the F.B.I. headquarters to investigate Middle Eastern men enrolled in American flight schools. That memorandum also cited Mr. bin Laden by name and suggested that his followers could use the schools to train for terror operations, officials who have seen the memorandum said.

Administration officials reached this evening said the warning given to Mr. Bush did not come from the F.B.I. or from the information developed by the Phoenix agent. Instead, it was provided as part of the C.I.A. briefing he is given each morning, suggesting that it was probably based on evidence gathered abroad.

The C.I.A. had been listening intently over the July 4 holiday last year, after what one investigator called "a lot of static in the system suggesting something was coming." But then the evidence disappeared as quickly as it had arisen, and by August, officials have said, little was heard from Al Qaeda.

The warning of the hijacking was given to the president at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., where he was on vacation.

 

If you believe the 300 number, then I think you need to do a little more research yourself.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTk4YzI2NjcyNjFlMjQyYzAwZjlkZTIwNmMxY2ZmNmQ=

 

Well, since the number started in the Bush Justice Department, I guess we can add another wing to the Bush Fail Monument:

• "Since the Sept. 11 attacks, and as of Aug. 31, 2006, 288 defendants have been convicted or have pleaded guilty in terrorism or terrorism-related cases arising from investigations conducted primarily after Sept. 11, 2001." -- a September 2006 Justice Department "Terror Fact Sheet."

And from the PolitiFact report Perino linked to:

In summary, Obama cited a legitimate figure for terrorism-related convictions in federal court. And we note that Bush administration officials cited even bigger numbers in some of their reports at the time. And so we rate his statement Barely True.

Next time, make sure an article you link to really supports your position. Perino, not surprsingly for someone who wants to sell her revisionist history of the Bush years, is playing word games. As the survivors of 168 victims of home-grown American extremist terrorism in Oklahoma City can tell you, not all terrorists are Islamists.

 

Haha, Fishhack, that's exactly what he did in my situation with the Aug. 6 PDB. Then he creates another smokescreen to which I'm actually forced to go find a New York Times article with ARI FLEISCHER actually disproving what he said. Which is funny, considering one of his original flareups involved Gibbs. Anyway, still waiting for his response to this one. But I didn't spend this much time reading the 9/11 report and other multiple books on the topic for nothing.