NationStates Jolt Archive


Condoleezza Rice's lies

Big Melon
09-04-2004, 06:46
Who would have expected anything less from the Bush Administration?

Here's a list of Rice's innacuracies/lies from her testimony:

Planes as Weapons

CLAIM: "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons." [responding to Kean]

FACT: Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city's airport." [Sources: Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01 (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092701genoa.story); White House release, 7/22/01 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010722-7.html)]

CLAIM: "I was certainly not aware of [intelligence reports about planes as missiles] at the time that I spoke" in 2002. [responding to Kean]

FACT: While Rice may not have been aware of the 12 separate and explicit warnings about terrorists using planes as weapons when she made her denial in 2002, she did know about them when she wrote her March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed. In that piece, she once again repeated the claim there was no indication "that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13881-2004Mar21.html)]

August 6 PDB

CLAIM: There was "nothing about the threat of attack in the U.S." in the Presidential Daily Briefing the President received on August 6th. [responding to Ben Veniste]

FACT: Rice herself confirmed that "the title [of the PDB] was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'" [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/politics/08RICE-TEXT.html?pagewanted=print&position=)]

Domestic Threat

CLAIM: "One of the problems was there was really nothing that look like was going to happen inside the United States...Almost all of the reports focused on al-Qaida activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and North Africa...We did not have...threat information that was in any way specific enough to suggest something was coming in the United States." [responding to Gorelick]

FACT: Page 204 of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 noted that "In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to "carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives." The report "was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001]." In the same month, the Pentagon "acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States." [Sources: Joint Congressional Report, 12/02 (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24jul20031400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/recommendations.pdf)]

CLAIM: "If we had known an attack was coming against the United States...we would have moved heaven and earth to stop it." [responding to Roemer]

FACT: Rice admits that she was told that "an attack was coming." She said, "Let me read you some of the actual chatter that was picked up in that spring and summer: Unbelievable news coming in weeks, said one. Big event -- there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar. There will be attacks in the near future." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]

Cheney Counterterrorism Task Force

CLAIM: "The Vice President was, a little later in, I think, in May, tasked by the President to put together a group to look at all of the recommendations that had been made about domestic preparedness and all of the questions associated with that." [responding to Fielding]

FACT: The Vice President's task force never once convened a meeting. In the same time period, the Vice President convened at least 10 meetings of his energy task force, and six meetings with Enron executives. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8734-2002Jan19?language=printer); GAO Report, 8/03 (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108/pdf_inves/pdf_energy_cheney_gao_aug_2003_rep.pdf)]

Principals Meetings

CLAIM: "The CSG (Counterterrorism Security Group) was made up of not junior people, but the top level of counterterrorism experts. Now, they were in contact with their principals." [responding to Fielding]

FACT: "Many of the other people at the CSG-level, and the people who were brought to the table from the domestic agencies, were not telling their principals. Secretary Mineta, the secretary of transportation, had no idea of the threat. The administrator of the FAA, responsible for security on our airlines, had no idea." [Source: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/politics/08RICE-TEXT.html?pagewanted=print&position=)]

Previous Administration

CLAIM: "The decision that we made was to, first of all, have no drop-off in what the Clinton administration was doing, because clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority." [responding to Kean]

FACT: Internal government documents show that while the Clinton Administration officially prioritized counterterrorism as a "Tier One" priority, but when the Bush Administration took office, top officials downgraded counterterrorism. As the Washington Post reported, these documents show that before Sept. 11 the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing." Rice admitted that "we decided to take a different track" than the Clinton Administration in protecting America. [Source: Internal government documents, 1998-2001 (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/lookup.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=39039); Washington Post, 3/22/04 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13541-2004Mar21.html); Rice testimony, 4/8/04 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/politics/08RICE-TEXT.html?pagewanted=print&position=)]

FBI

CLAIM: The Bush Administration has been committed to the "transformation of the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting terror." [responding to Kean]

FACT: Before 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft de-emphasized counterterrorism at the FBI, in favor of more traditional law enforcement. And according to the Washington Post, "in the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows." And according to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, "numerous confidential law enforcement and intelligence sources who challenge the FBI's claim that it has successfully retooled itself to gather critical intelligence on terrorists as well as fight crime." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13541-2004Mar21?language=printer); Congressional Quarterly, 4/6/04]

CLAIM: "The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to federal, state and law enforcement agencies and specifically stated that, although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out. The FBI tasked all 56 of its U.S. field offices to increase surveillance of known suspects of terrorists and to reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities." [responding to Gorelick]

FACT: The warnings are "feckless. They don't tell anybody anything. They don't bring anyone to battle stations." [Source: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/politics/08RICE-TEXT.html?pagewanted=print&position=)]

Homeland Security

CLAIM: "I think that having a Homeland Security Department that can bring together the FAA and the INS and Customs and all of the various agencies is a very important step." [responding to Hamilton]

FACT: The White House vehemently opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland security. Its opposition to the concept delayed the creation of the department by months.

CLAIM: "We have created a threat terrorism information center, the TTIC, which does bring together all of the sources of information from all of the intelligence agencies -- the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security and the INS and the CIA and the DIA -- so that there's one place where all of this is coming together." [responding to Fielding]

FACT: "Knowledgeable sources complain that the president's new Terrorist Threat Integration Center, which reports to CIA Director George Tenet rather than to Ridge, has created more of a moat than a bridge. The ability to spot the nation's weakest points was going to make Homeland Security different, recalled one person involved in the decision to set up TTIC. But now, the person said, 'that whole effort has been gutted by the White House creation of TTIC, [which] has served little more than to give the appearance of progress.'" [Source: National Journal, 3/6/04]
IRAQ-9/11

CLAIM: "There was a discussion of Iraq. I think it was raised by Don Rumsfeld. It was pressed a bit by Paul Wolfowitz."

FACT: Rice's statement confirms previous proof that the Administration was focusing on Iraq immediately after 9/11, despite having no proof that Iraq was involved in the attack. Rice's statement also contradicts her previous denials in which she claimed "Iraq was to the side" immediately after 9/11. She made this denial despite the President signing "a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" six days after 9/11 that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04, 3/22/04 (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/22/ltm.04.html); Washington Post, 1/12/03 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43909-2003Jan11?language=printer)]

CLAIM: "Given that this was a global war on terror, should we look not just at Afghanistan but should we look at doing something against Iraq?"

FACT: The Administration has not produced one shred of evidence that Iraq had an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, or that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks on America. In fact, a U.S. Army War College report said that the war in Iraq has been a diversion that has drained key resources from the more imminent War on Terror. Just this week, USA Today reported that "in 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirmed this, noting in February of 2002, a senior military commander told him "We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq." [Sources: CNN, 1/13/04 (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/13/acd.00.html); USA Today, 3/28/04 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-28-troop-shifts_x.htm); Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), 3/26/04 (http://www.cfr.org/pub6905/gerald_seib/senator_bob_graham_remarks_to_the_council_on_foreign_relations.php)]

War on Terror

CLAIM: After 9/11, "the President put states on notice if they were sponsoring terrorists."

FACT: The President continues to say Saudi Arabia is "our friend" despite their potential ties to terrorists. As the LA Times reported, "the 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts." Just this week, Newsweek reported "within weeks of the September 11 terror attacks, security officers at the Fleet National Bank in Boston had identified 'suspicious' wire transfers from the Saudi Embassy in Washington that eventually led to the discovery of an active Al Qaeda 'sleeper cell' that may have been planning follow-up attacks inside the United States." [Source: LA Times, 8/2/03 (http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080303A.shtml); CNN, 11/23/02 (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/23/saudi.fbi.911/); Newsweek, 4/7/04 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4687305/)]
09-04-2004, 06:47
the bush administration could say grass is green and the sky is blue and ya'll would he's lying about that too
Big Melon
09-04-2004, 06:48
the bush administration could say grass is green and the sky is blue and ya'll would he's lying about that too

What?

Try to type a competent sentence please.
Incertonia
09-04-2004, 06:48
the bush administration could say grass is green and the sky is blue and ya'll would he's lying about that tooNah, we'd give him that one, but we would note how unusual it was that he was actually being accurate for once.
09-04-2004, 06:50
Isn't it amazing how the liberals love to take quotes and information out of context...
09-04-2004, 06:50
Too bad that list doesn't name a single lie.

"Bin Laden determined to attack United States" could be the title of every one of his video releases for the last 10 years.

It's like Rice said, (to paraphrase), "We didn't need a PDB to tell us that."
Big Melon
09-04-2004, 06:51
the bush administration could say grass is green and the sky is blue and ya'll would he's lying about that tooNah, we'd give him that one, but we would note how unusual it was that he was actually being accurate for once.

You're right.

On a related point, I used to believe that it was Bush's advisers that were the ones running the country. Now, seeing how much the Administration has messed up, Bush has to be in control.
09-04-2004, 06:51
the bush administration could say grass is green and the sky is blue and ya'll would he's lying about that too

What?

Try to type a competent sentence please.He's saying you wouldn't recognize the truth if God came down from heaven and told you it himself.
09-04-2004, 06:52
I have no problem with Bush, I recived great tax breaks from him and also my Family seperation and hostel fire pay doubled because of him.
Re-elect Bush
Big Melon
09-04-2004, 06:52
Isn't it amazing how the liberals love to take quotes and information out of context...

Refute some of the statements, if you can.

Also, there are lies. Tell me how the quotes aren't lies.
Zeppistan
09-04-2004, 06:52
the bush administration could say grass is green and the sky is blue and ya'll would he's lying about that too

Right. Clearly the carefull crossreferences to old news stories that directly refute statements is a comlete fabrication.

Especially those links to White house press releases... because we all know that they would say anything to make the administration look bad....

:roll:
Big Melon
09-04-2004, 06:53
the bush administration could say grass is green and the sky is blue and ya'll would he's lying about that too

What?

Try to type a competent sentence please.He's saying you wouldn't recognize the truth if God came down from heaven and told you it himself.

Tell me, what in the post is false? Everything is linked, so you can check it out for yourself if you want.
09-04-2004, 06:54
am i the only one who hates reading very long text in quotes?
Stephistan
09-04-2004, 07:00
Isn't it amazing how the liberals love to take quotes and information out of context...

You mean like all the Bush election ads do to Kerry's record? Oh and Ray.. don't go there with me.. I have the proof to back up my claim.. ;)
Unified Aryans
09-04-2004, 07:00
you all should listen to rush and sean hannity. then you would not be fed with all this propaganda from the main stream media.
Incertonia
09-04-2004, 07:11
Too bad that list doesn't name a single lie.

"Bin Laden determined to attack United States" could be the title of every one of his video releases for the last 10 years.

It's like Rice said, (to paraphrase), "We didn't need a PDB to tell us that."I assume this is post you're referring to in Raysia's Rice thread, so I'll take it.

Rice said over and over again that they had no warning or idea that Bin Laden or al-Qaeda was planning an attack in the US. The title of the PDB dated August 6 was titled "Bin Laden determined to attack United States." What exactly is taken out of context there? How is Rice's original statement about not expecting an al-Qaeda attack on US soil at the very least not a sign of gross incompetency if not an outright lie?
09-04-2004, 07:18
Too bad that list doesn't name a single lie.

"Bin Laden determined to attack United States" could be the title of every one of his video releases for the last 10 years.

It's like Rice said, (to paraphrase), "We didn't need a PDB to tell us that."I assume this is post you're referring to in Raysia's Rice thread, so I'll take it.

Rice said over and over again that they had no warning or idea that Bin Laden or al-Qaeda was planning an attack in the US. The title of the PDB dated August 6 was titled "Bin Laden determined to attack United States." What exactly is taken out of context there? How is Rice's original statement about not expecting an al-Qaeda attack on US soil at the very least not a sign of gross incompetency if not an outright lie?

The fact that bin Laden "wanted" an attack doesn't give one reason to *expect* that it will happen. As Rice said during her testimony, she attended a meeting of principals, discussing threats overseas. Bush asked what the domestic threat was. Clarke came back with the Aug. 6 PDB, which had no evidence for 9-11. The title restated what everyone knew already. The commission had no discrepancies within the Aug 6 PDB other than the title, and we'll see when it's declassified if there was any substance, though none of the commission members seemed to have found any.
Zeppistan
09-04-2004, 07:23
you all should listen to rush and sean hannity. then you would not be fed with all this propaganda from the main stream media.

We do!

Then, after we're done laughing, we actually go out and read a newspaper or two rather than just count on two partisan mouthpieces to disseminate our news for us....
Tannelorn
09-04-2004, 07:25
no no alot of arrogant people refused to believe it. in 2000 when they had that interview with Osama there on 20/20 he said i have declared war against the USA and will attack them everywhere right. Well that night i got in to a HUGE argument with an arrogant tech worshipping friend whho said the usual. "what are they going to do they dont have cruise missiles" i snapped and said. A plane fully laden with fuel is the largest FAE bomb we have right now and bringing those down in a city street would kill tens of thousands. Well they brought it in to a building.

These bastards use fear as their standard tactic...always have for 1400 odd years. Anyways it doesnt matter now at least people realise it...better late then after we disarmed eh? The bush Administration gutted clintons programs. He knew about terrorism...he wanted to fight it and he had lots of plans and money sunk in to it....but bush of course tore it apart like he did everything else....after all if the US gets attacked then he gets to invade oil rich iraq now doesnt he.......
Incertonia
09-04-2004, 07:28
The fact that bin Laden "wanted" an attack doesn't give one reason to *expect* that it will happen.

Actually, it does, especially when said person is the head of a terrorist network that had not only attacked US interests overseas but had shown, as it had by 2001, that it wanted to attack the US directly. Remember the Millenium plot? Toss in that by that time they had tied the 1993 WTC bombing to al-Qaeda and you have every reason to expect that Bin Laden and his group would be trying to attack the US. To not expect it is sheer incompetence.
09-04-2004, 07:31
The fact that bin Laden "wanted" an attack doesn't give one reason to *expect* that it will happen.

Actually, it does, especially when said person is the head of a terrorist network that had not only attacked US interests overseas but had shown, as it had by 2001, that it wanted to attack the US directly. Remember the Millenium plot? Toss in that by that time they had tied the 1993 WTC bombing to al-Qaeda and you have every reason to expect that Bin Laden and his group would be trying to attack the US. To not expect it is sheer incompetence.

When you've got constant threats for 10 years, you still don't act on every piece of chatter that comes down the pipe. "Bin Laden wants to attack U.S. directly" is just as true today as it was 10 years ago.. that doesn't mean we jump at every piece of chatter, and a brefing with that as a title doesn't express urgency for the same reason. The commission was trying to get Rice to admit there was an urgent problem based on that PDB, when there was no evidence to suggest the threat was worse than any other given day. That's the crux of it, in particular.
Incertonia
09-04-2004, 07:40
When you've got constant threats for 10 years, you still don't act on every piece of chatter that comes down the pipe. "Bin Laden wants to attack U.S. directly" is just as true today as it was 10 years ago.. that doesn't mean we jump at every piece of chatter, and a brefing with that as a title doesn't express urgency for the same reason. The commission was trying to get Rice to admit there was an urgent problem based on that PDB, when there was no evidence to suggest the threat was worse than any other given day. That's the crux of it, in particular.But you should be concerned when the head of counter terrorism has been telling you since January that something big is going to happen, and that the threat level has very recently exploded. No one from the Bush administration has denied that there was an increased level of chatter in the months prior to the 9-11 attacks. So the real question, then, is if there was increased chatter, and if this PDB noted that Bin Laden wanted to attack the US directly, then why wasn't more done? I mean, if you're going to justify your record on national security, tell us what plans you made to address this threat. The record on that action is noticeably slight.

The really ridiculous thing about all this is that most Democrats were, from day one, willing to cut the administration a break on this whole issue if they had just been clean about it from the beginning. But the Bush administration doesn't take responsibility for anything. It's always someone else's fault that their plans aren't working out the way they want them to.
Bertram Stantrous
09-04-2004, 07:51
you all should listen to rush and sean hannity. then you would not be fed with all this propaganda from the main stream media.

Isn't that a bit of a non sequitur?
Qordalis
09-04-2004, 08:20
But you should be concerned when the head of counter terrorism has been telling you since January that something big is going to happen, and that the threat level has very recently exploded. No one from the Bush administration has denied that there was an increased level of chatter in the months prior to the 9-11 attacks. So the real question, then, is if there was increased chatter, and if this PDB noted that Bin Laden wanted to attack the US directly, then why wasn't more done? I mean, if you're going to justify your record on national security, tell us what plans you made to address this threat. The record on that action is noticeably slight.

A few quick points.

1. Bin Laden has always wanted to attack the US directly, I and many other people without any special intelligence knew as much years before 9/11 happened. The main issue was not one of Bin Laden's desire to attack America, but of his capacity to do so. Saddam Hussein would have liked to crush the US army and invade and occupy the US mainland, but just because he would have liked to do that would not justify fortifying the entire US coastline to prevent an invasion from Iraq. The Bush administration took reasonable measures given the information they had available, and the fact that Bin Laden had in the past confined his attacks to targets not on US soil.

2. On the issue of reports stating Bin Laden's plans involving hijacking airliners, these were only a few reports scattered over a 10 year period, and the CIA spends over half of it's budget producing reports. Though in hindsight it is clear these reports were important, there was no way for anyone to know at the time that these reports were more important than the thousands of other CIA reports produced every year.

3. As Dr. Rice herself indicated, chatter offered little more than the vaguest of information about terrorist intentions. The examples of chatter she read out stated things like "Big attack coming" which while worrying, does not really provide useful information. Also, as more recent history has shown, an increased level of chatter is hardly a certain indicator of an immenent terrorist attack. By the same token Clark's warnings of a possible attack somewhere, somehow, at an unknown time and place do not really provide any useful information.

Then, after we're done laughing, we actually go out and read a newspaper or two rather than just count on two partisan mouthpieces to disseminate our news for us....

So how exactly is a partisan newspaper preferable to a partisan talk show? It would seem to me like they are on roughly the same level.
09-04-2004, 08:22
the bush administration could say grass is green and the sky is blue and ya'll would he's lying about that too

What?

Try to type a competent sentence please.
get over it
Zeppistan
09-04-2004, 08:28
So how exactly is a partisan newspaper preferable to a partisan talk show? It would seem to me like they are on roughly the same level.

If you assume that one only reads partisan papers, and only papers partisan to one side of the argument, then you would have a good point. However there is still a diference between news reporting and editorial - which is what talk shows are.

I listen to both. I read both. I'll watch news from a liberal station, and I'll watch Scarborough Country. And I come to my own opinions based on what I extract from them all.

But when faced with the suggestiion that one can get the complete picture from Conservative Talk programs - it just struck me as a silly concept.

-Z-
Incertonia
09-04-2004, 09:37
A few quick points.

1. Bin Laden has always wanted to attack the US directly, I and many other people without any special intelligence knew as much years before 9/11 happened. The main issue was not one of Bin Laden's desire to attack America, but of his capacity to do so. Saddam Hussein would have liked to crush the US army and invade and occupy the US mainland, but just because he would have liked to do that would not justify fortifying the entire US coastline to prevent an invasion from Iraq. The Bush administration took reasonable measures given the information they had available, and the fact that Bin Laden had in the past confined his attacks to targets not on US soil.

Let me reply. You mention his capacity to attack the US as though it was an impossibility. In fact, al-Qaeda did attack US soil with limited success in 1993 when they bombed the WTC the first time. At the time, we didn't know it was al-Qaeda or how big they would become, and in the end, the attack mostly fizzled, but it was an attack carried out on US soil by al-Qaeda. Secondly, remember the Millenium plot? Al-Qaeda certainly proved that they had the means and the motivation to attack the US on our soil and only some good detective work and a whole lot of luck saved our asses then, and even the Clinton adminstration admits how lucky they were in that instance.

You claim that the Bush administration took reasonable measures given the information they had available. I say that neither of us is in any position to say that definitively, and perhaps even the 9-11 Commission won't be able to determine that fully, but I do have to say that the continual stonewalling by the administration and the way each member who testifies, with the exception of Richard Clarke, makes me think that they are trying to hide something, whether it be poor focus or ineptitude.

2. On the issue of reports stating Bin Laden's plans involving hijacking airliners, these were only a few reports scattered over a 10 year period, and the CIA spends over half of it's budget producing reports. Though in hindsight it is clear these reports were important, there was no way for anyone to know at the time that these reports were more important than the thousands of other CIA reports produced every year.
I agree. But it does seem strange that for the G-8 summit in Genoa in July of 2001, the US installed anti-aorcraft batteries around the meeting site because of the potential for terrorist strikes involving airplanes. Now I'm pretty sure they didn't think terrorist groups had gotten their hands on a stray F-16 or something, so it seems to me that someone had the idea that a hijacked plane might be a useful tool.

Plus, it's not like the idea hadn't been bandied about before. Hell, Tom Clancy used it as a plot device in a novel.

3. As Dr. Rice herself indicated, chatter offered little more than the vaguest of information about terrorist intentions. The examples of chatter she read out stated things like "Big attack coming" which while worrying, does not really provide useful information. Also, as more recent history has shown, an increased level of chatter is hardly a certain indicator of an immenent terrorist attack. By the same token Clark's warnings of a possible attack somewhere, somehow, at an unknown time and place do not really provide any useful information.
The point that most people are making about all this isn't that there was some solid information that the Bush administration somehow failed to follow up on. What bugs me and so many others is the seeming indifference the Bush administration showed toward al-Qaeda as a threat, instead focusing on missile defense and state-based threats which didn't really exist in any appreciable number. The problem is more that they were attacking a post-Cold War situation with a Cold War philosophy. They were stuck in the 80's, and we had crossed the millenium bridge. And most importantly, they were warned. They were briefed. They were told that this was going to be an issue, and why they didn't heed those warnings is anyone's guess and regardless, it doesn't matter.