TalkLeft: US Says Close to Capturing Bin Laden. It would be nice to catch him. But the timing looks suspciously convenient.
Personally I have no truck with the “Bin Laden already captured” (aka 'bin Laden on ice') school of thought. I am, however, inclined to think that the “Pakistani forces herd him into the hills and respond to hints about proper timing” hypothesis has a plausible ring to it.
I have no reason to share in this flash movie's paranoid imaginings, and one good reason (Occam's Razor) not to. But as a piece of shockwave-flash craft, and as effective propaganda, Pentagon Strike is a model of its kind.
Update (9/6/04): Snopes debunks it.
The papers and pundits are abuzz about the revalation that our CIA Director met with GW Bush at most twice in August of 2001, including only one meeting while Bush was on his extended vacation in Crawford, TX. Leaving aside the issue of whether other forms of communication might have worked — did they ever speak by phone? — here's the real question I wish someone would ask:
How often did DCIA George Tenet meet with Dick Cheney during that period?
After all, it seems increasingly and unavoidably clear that GW Bush is not in charge:
Q. Mr. President, Why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9/11 commission? And Mr. President, who will you be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30?
A. We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over. And secondly, because the the 9/11 commission wants to ask us questions. That's why we're meeting, and I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.
Q. Mr. President, I was asking why you're appearing together rather than separately, which was their request.
A. Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them.
Let's see. Hold on for a minute. Oh — I've got some must calls, I'm sorry.
Wonkette is less cynical than me. She can still joke about this stuff:
ROEMER: OK. I'm just confused. You see him on August 6th with the PDB.
TENET: No, I do not, sir. I'm not there.
ROEMER: OK. You're not — when do you see him in August?
TENET: I don't believe I do.
ROEMER: You don't see the president of the United States once in the month of August?
TENET: He's in Texas.OK, we're starting to get a picture of just how bad the technological lag was at the intelligence agencies… Imagine poor Tenet, desperately wanting to tell the president about this threat to national security: But no! The president is in Texas! Texas! “I just wish I had a way to speak to someone without actually being present in the room… some device that might transmit sound or text over wires… maybe even through the air!
The New York Times has the devastating report..
It begins:
President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday.
So know we know about the smoking gun: GW Bush got a memo entitled BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE UNITED STATES.
And they did nothing.
And that's why the administration made such a fight about releasing the PDB's to the 9/11 Commission.
When the 9/11 commission was created, I think no one who hadn't seen this memo could have imagined it would exist. I don't care how much Dr. Rice and the others spin the memo as “historical” or failing to spell out what should be done to the last detail. Short of capturing a memo stating the date, place and time of an attack, what more do you want? Do Presidents get memos like this every day? I rather doubt it.
In a normal world we might actually be having a serious conversation about impeachment at this point. Sleeping at the switch is serious. But we'll have to content ourselves with an election. Let's hope they count the votes this time. And remember that sometimes — sometimes — even the conspiracy theories are not damning enough.
Update: Billmon and others were struck by this also. Billmon, however, says that the title of the August 6, 2001 presidential briefing was mentioned in a news article by Bob Woodward published May, 2002. I missed it, and so it seems did he.
Which I suppose proves my point that no quanity of evidence of negligence matters here, except to the election. In that context having the telegenic Dr. Rice say this title on camera — and then beat around the bush to denigrate its significance — is much more important than having it on the Common Dreams web page. But it certainly disproves my point above that no one could have imagined such a damning memo. (New question, why didn't any of the articles over the legalistic fights over the PDB's mention this title?)
Meanwhile I've acquired the Clarke book…
Jotwell Blenderlaw