Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger
Wednesday October 31, 2001
The Guardian

It is hard to imagine an address closer to the heart of American power. The offices of the Carlyle Group are on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC, midway between the White House and the Capitol building, and within a stone's throw of the headquarters of the FBI and numerous government departments. The address reflects Carlyle's position at the very centre of the Washington establishment, but amid the frenetic politicking that has occupied the higher reaches of that world in recent weeks, few have paid it much attention. Elsewhere, few have even heard of it.
This is exactly the way Carlyle likes it. For 14 years now, with almost no publicity, the company has been signing up an impressive list of former politicians - including the first President Bush and his secretary of state, James Baker; John Major; one-time World Bank treasurer Afsaneh Masheyekhi and several south-east Asian powerbrokers - and using their contacts and influence to promote the group. Among the companies Carlyle owns are those which make equipment, vehicles and munitions for the US military, and its celebrity employees have long served an ingenious dual purpose, helping encourage investments from the very wealthy while also smoothing the path for Carlyle's defence firms.

But since the start of the "war on terrorism", the firm - unofficially valued at $3.5bn - has taken on an added significance. Carlyle has become the thread which indirectly links American military policy in Afghanistan to the personal financial fortunes of its celebrity employees, not least the current president's father. And, until earlier this month, Carlyle provided another curious link to the Afghan crisis: among the firm's multi-million-dollar investors were members of the family of Osama bin Laden.

The closest the Carlyle Group has previously come to public attention was last May, when a Seoul-based employee called Peter Chung was forced to resign from his �100,000-a-year job after sending an email to friends - subsequently forwarded to thousands of others - boasting of his plans to "**** every hot chick in Korea over the next two years". The more business-oriented activities of Carlyle's staff have been conducted much more quietly: since it was founded in 1987 by David Rubenstein, a policy assistant in Jimmy Carter's administration, and two lawyer friends, the firm has been dispatching an array of former world leaders on a series of strategic networking trips.

Last year, George Bush Sr and John Major travelled to Riyadh to talk with senior Saudi businessmen. In September 2000, Carlyle hired speakers including Colin Powell and AOL Time Warner chair Steve Case to address an extravagant party at Washington's Monarch Hotel. Months later, Major joined James Baker for a function at the Lanesborough Hotel in London, to explain the Florida election controversy to the wealthy attendees.

We can assume that Carlyle pays well. Neither Major's office nor Carlyle will confirm the details of his salary as European chairman - an appointment announced shortly before he left the House of Commons after the election - but we know, for the purposes of comparison, that he is paid �105,000 for 28 days' work a year for an unrelated non-executive directorship. Bush gives speeches for the company and is paid with stakes in the firm's investments, believed to be worth at least $80,000 per appearance. The benefits have attracted political stars from around the world: former Philippines president Fidel Ramos is an adviser, as is former Thai premier Anand Panyarachun - as well as former Bundesbank president Karl Otto Pohl, and Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the SEC, the US stock market regulator.

Carlyle partners, who include Baker and the firm's chairman, Frank Carlucci - Ronald Reagan's defence secretary and a former deputy director of the CIA - own stakes that would be worth $180m each if each partner owned an equal slice. As in many areas of its work, though, Carlyle is not obliged to reveal the details, and chooses not to.

Among the defence firms which benefit from Carlyle's success is United Defense, a Virginia-based contractor which makes vertical missile launch systems currently on board US Navy ships in the Arabian sea, as well as a range of other weapons delivery systems and combat vehicles. Carlyle's other holdings span an improbable range, taking in the French newspaper Le Figaro and the company which bottles Dr Pepper.

"They are big, and they are quiet," says David Mulholland, business editor of Jane's Defence Weekly. "But they're not easy to get information out of, [but] United Defense are going to do well [in the current conflict]." United also owns Bofors, a Swedish munitions manufacturer.

Carlyle has said that it does not lobby the federal government, thus avoiding a conflict of interest when, for example, Carlucci met Rumsfeld in February when several important defence contracts were under consideration. But critics see that as a matter of definition.

"It should be a deep cause for concern that a closely held company like Carlyle can simultaneously have directors and advisers that are doing business and making money and also advising the president of the United States," says Peter Eisner, managing director of the Center for Public Integrity, a non-profit-making Washington think-tank. "The problem comes when private business and public policy blend together. What hat is former president Bush wearing when he tells Crown Prince Abdullah not to worry about US policy in the Middle East? What hat does he use when he deals with South Korea, and causes policy changes there? Or when James Baker helps argue the presidential election in the younger Bush's favour? It's a kitchen-cabinet situation, and the informality involved is precisely a mark of Carlyle's success."

The world of private equity is an inherently secretive one. Firms such as Carlyle make most of their money buying firms which are not publicly traded, overhauling them and selling them at a profit, so the process by which likely targets are evaluated is much more confidential than on the open market. "These firms certainly don't go out of their way to get into the headlines," says Steven Bell, chief economist at Deutsche Asset Management. "They'd rather make a splash in Institutional Pensions Week. The aim is to realise very high returns for your investors while exerting a high degree of control over the company. You don't want to get into the headlines when you force the management to fire a director."

The process has worked wonders at United, and this month the firm announced plans to go public, giving Carlyle the chance to cash in its investment.

But what sets Carlyle apart is the way it has exploited its political contacts. When Carlucci arrived there in 1989, he brought with him a phalanx of former subordinates from the CIA and the Pentagon, and an awareness of the scale of business a company like Carlyle could do in the corridors and steak-houses of Washington. In a decade and a half, the firm has been able to realise a 34% rate of return on its investments, and now claims to be the largest private equity firm in the world. Success brought more investors, including the international financier George Soros and, in 1995, the wealthy Saudi Binladin family, who insist they long ago severed all links with their notorious relative. The first president Bush is understood to have visited the Binladins in Saudi Arabia twice on the firm's behalf.

The Carlyle Group does not employ anyone at its Washington headquarters to deal with the press. Inquiries about the links with the Binladins (as most of the family choose to spell their name) are instead referred to someone outside the company, on condition he is referred to only as "a source familiar with the relationship". This source says: "I can confirm the fact that any Binladin Group investment in Carlyle has been terminated or is being terminated. It amounted to a $2m investment in the Carlyle II Fund, which was anyway a very small portion of a $1.3bn fund. In the scheme of the investments and in the scheme of the business of either party it was very small. We have to get this into perspective. But I think there was a sense that there were questions being raised and some controversy, and for such a small amount of money it was something that we wanted to put behind us. It was just a business decision."

But if the Binladins' connection to the Carlyle Group lasted no more than six years, the current President Bush's own links to the firm go far deeper. In 1990, he was appointed to the board of one of Carlyle's first purchases, an airline food business called Caterair, which they eventually sold at a loss. He left the board in 1992, later to become Governor of Texas. Shortly thereafter, he was responsible for appointing several members of the board which controlled the investment of Texas teachers' pension funds. A few years later, the board decided to invest $100m of public money in the Carlyle Group. The firm's magic touch was already bringing results. Today, it is proving as fruitful as ever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 24-bit:
Congrats! That in depth analysis and opinion aligns you with 0.013% of Americans (including kids, adults, and adults that sometimes act like kids).

---

oh boy, look at this
u think this a nice way to talk to mammalyme

can u not make point without abuse of a person? only small man have to put down to make a point

softballmom...do u think this is nice
or funny? tell us

The frightening thing is that the Bush has been the biggest recruiter AlQada has ever had.

Bush and Osama thicker than thieves. Give me a break!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Softballmom:
I couldn't even come up with an educated responce to Mammalyme's post, not because I am stupid but because It I didn't think it deserved one. Not being mean just speaking my honest opinion. I simply chose not to post at all but since you invited me to give my opinion there you have it.

Bush and Osama thicker than thieves. Give me a break!

[This message has been edited by Softballmom (edited 20 October 2004).]

---

George Stephonopolis(I have no idea how to spell his name) talked about this on his show after he saw the Fahrenheit 9/11 film.

He said the whole movie was a bunch of slanted half(if that) truths...and I remind you George S. is a Democrat.

I think both candidates have good views as well and bad and don't think it would be the end of the world if either one was elected. So this is an unbiased opinion here.

It cracks me up when people post these ridiculous claims about stuff like this...against Bush or Kerry. It's irresponsible

If I posted that I saw Bush or Kerry at Starbucks playing 42 with bin Laden half of you would believe it and spread it.

They should change the title from "Off Topic" to "Propaganda."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lenny777:

They should change the title from "Off Topic" to propaganda.[/B]

---

Now thats a responce good one

quote:

---

Originally posted by MammaLyme:
no, it was not a Democrat, it was the White House that got them out. Some were here in Maryland. No one else got to leave but the Saudis.

Think about it.!

---

Who else wanted to leave? Did you want to leave or something? If you would have asked, you might have gotten a seat to the Mid East. I hear the winters are great there.

I guess I'll trust you and not George Stephanopolis...oh wait, he use to be an advisor to the President and he's a respected political journalist.

No offense, but I'm gonna have to go with George S. on this one.
One more thing. If Osama really wanted Bush back in there do you really think he would let it be known? Does he have a Bush/Cheney `04 bumper sticker on his camel?

Not to mention Bush blew his "A double" right out of Afghanistan and killed two thirds of his officers. Take your own advise and "Think about it." Absurd is really not a strong enough term here.

Whether you agree with the fact that they were flown out to prevent a lynching or not, to suggest that the terrorist want an extremely offensive minded President is...well, "think about it."

It comes down to the fact people believe what people want to believe. If someone is a Kerry fan they will believe every bad thing they hear about Bush and if you're a Bush fan they the same goes. I prefer to have an open mind about both.

This one sounds like conspiracy theory. Wait are you one of those that thinks we really never went to the moon?

Don't tell anyone but I saw Elvis and JFK the other day in the park. Shhh.

TIA now verifies flight of Saudis
The government has long denied that two days after the 9/11 attacks, the three were allowed to fly.
By JEAN HELLER, Times Staff Writer
Published June 9, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAMPA - Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left.

The men, one of them thought to be a member of the Saudi royal family, were accompanied by a former FBI agent and a former Tampa police officer on the flight to Lexington, Ky.

The Saudis then took another flight out of the country. The two ex-officers returned to TIA a few hours later on the same plane.

For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose.

But now, at the request of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, TIA officials have confirmed that the flight did take place and have supplied details.

The odyssey of the small LearJet 35 is part of a larger controversy over the hasty exodus from the United States in the days immediately after 9/11 of members of the Saudi royal family and relatives of Osama bin Laden.

The terrorism panel, better known as the 9/11 Commission, said in April that it knew of six chartered flights with 142 people aboard, mostly Saudis, that left the United States between Sept. 14 and 24, 2001. But it has said nothing about the Tampa flight.

The commission's general counsel, Daniel Marcus, asked TIA in a letter dated May 25 for any information about "a chartered flight with six people, including a Saudi prince, that flew from Tampa, Florida on or about Sept. 13, 2001." He asked for the information no later than June 8.

TIA officials said they sent their reply on Monday.

The airport used aircraft tracking equipment normally assigned to a noise abatement program to determine the identity of all aircraft entering TIA airspace on Sept. 13, and found four records for the LearJet 35.

The plane first entered the airspace from the south, possibly from the Fort Lauderdale area, sometime after 3 p.m. and landed for the first time at 3:34 p.m. It took off at 4:37 p.m., headed north. It returned to Tampa at 8:23 p.m. and took off again at 8:48 p.m., headed south.

Author Craig Unger, who first disclosed the possibility of a post-9/11 Saudi airlift in his book House of Bush, House of Saud, said in an interview that he believes the jet came to Tampa a second time to drop off two former law enforcement agents from Tampa who accompanied three young Saudis to Lexington for security purposes.

The Saudis asked the Tampa Police Department to escort the flight, but the department handed off the assignment to Dan Grossi, a former member of the force, Unger said. Grossi recruited Manuel Perez, a retired FBI agent, to accompany him. Both described the flight to Unger as somewhat surreal.

"They got the approval somewhere," Perez is quoted as telling Unger. "It must have come from the highest levels of government."

While there is no manifest for those aboard the Lear flight to Kentucky, Unger says the foreign nationals left Lexington for London aboard a Boeing 727. That manifest lists eight Saudis, two Sudan nationals, one Tunisian, one Philippine citizen, one Egyptian and two British subjects.

Of those, three listed residences on Normandy Trace Drive in Tampa, and all of them held Florida drivers' licenses. They are Ahmad Al Hazmi, then 19, Fahad Al Zeid, then 20, and Talal M. Al Mejrad, then 18, all male Saudis.

It is not known which, if any, is a Saudi prince.

Perez, the former FBI agent on the flight, could not be located this week, and Grossi declined to talk about the experience.

"I'm over it," he said in a telephone interview. "The White House, the FAA and the FBI all said the flight didn't happen. Those are three agencies that are way over my head, and that's why I'm done talking about it."

Grossi did say that Unger's account of his participation in the flight is accurate.

The FAA is still not talking about the flights, referring all questions to the FBI, which isn't answering anything, either. Nor is the 9/11 Commission.

Unger's book criticizes the Bush administration for allowing so many Saudis, including the relatives of bin Laden, to leave the country without being questioned thoroughly about the terrorist attacks.

Fifteen of the 19 men who hijacked four airlines on Sept. 11 were Saudi, as is bin Laden.

The 9/11 Commission, which has said the flights out of the United States were handled appropriately by the FBI, appears concerned with the handling of the Tampa flight.

"What information, if any, do you have about the screening by law enforcement personnel - including law enforcement personnel affiliated with the airport facility - of individuals on this flight?" the commission asked TIA.

The TIA Police Department said a check of its records indicated no member of its force screened the Lear's passengers.

Despite evidence that the flight occurred, several new questions have arisen.

Raytheon Aircraft is the only facility at TIA that services general aviation, which includes charter flights. When appropriate, Raytheon collects landing fees from those aircraft for TIA and reports to TIA on the flights.

According to airport records, Raytheon collected landing fees from only two aircraft on Sept. 13, one of them a Lear 35. But according to the record, the registration on the Lear is 505RP, a tail number which, according to the latest federal records, is assigned to a Cessna Citation based in Kalamazoo, Mich., and Oskar Rene Poch.

Poch confirmed Tuesday that he owns a Citation with that tail number and did before the terrorist attacks.

"Somebody must have gotten the registration number wrong in Tampa," he said.

TIA spokeswoman Brenda Geoghagan said it is believed the Lear's Sept. 13 journey began in Fort Lauderdale, possibly at a charter company called Hop-a-Jet Inc. The fact that the four trips in and out of Tampa all carried the flight designation "HPJ32" lends support to that idea.

But an official of Hop-a-Jet who wouldn't identify himself said the company does not own an aircraft with the registration number 505RP. Furthermore, he said, if that tail number is assigned to a Cessna Citation, the company doesn't own any Citations, either.

Most of the aircraft allowed to fly in U.S. airspace on Sept. 13 were empty airliners being ferried from the airports where they made quick landings on Sept. 11. The reopening of the airspace included paid charter flights, but not private, nonrevenue flights.

"Whether such a (LearJet) flight would have been legal hinges on whether somebody paid for it," said FAA spokesman William Shumann. "That's the key."

- Times researcher Kitty Bennett contributed to this report.

� Copyright 2003 St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved

(and the rest of the filghts were confirmed in the 911 Commision reports as well)

quote:

---

Originally posted by 24-bit:
Congrats! That in depth analysis and opinion aligns you with 0.013% of Americans

---

and THAT ...'in-depth'... yep-yep--yeah-right , uh, ... 'analysis'... brings the writer into alignment with, maybe, .0013% of americans, and perhaps .00013% of world citizens! <***>---- I also made up figures here-- but they're probably far more accurate than those given ...'above'....
DS

quote:

---

Originally posted by MammaLyme:
Thanks Mo. You always come through on the side of truth.

---

Truth about what? We know they were flown out. That's all that article says. Explain to me what "truth" was brandished. The question of why they were flown out and by who is not answered in that article.

Every president who ever steps into that office will, and should have ties to the Saudi royal family. Without them we would be doing a lot of walking. So if someone in DC showed them some favoritism in a time where they would have been in extreme danger, I have no problem with that. Whoever (you think) was responsible for it.

Oh, I want to go back to that article and count how many times the author said, "I believe that..." It was more than a few. Let me try it. I believe I'm a millionaire. Okay let me check my wallet...no that didn't make it true.

I prefer to focus on stuff like: I like Kerry and his stance on stem cell research. I like Bush's tax plan for helping small business. etc... Not inflammatory things like Bush being buds with bin Laden and questioning Kerry's military record/patriotism and all of that junk. Low brow.

[This message has been edited by danq (edited 23 October 2004).]

Posts: 2420 | From Davis, California | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | 

"I think both candidates have good views as well and bad and don't think it would be the end of the world if either one was elected."

Well, I agree with that! I found some humor in this thread so I thought I would throw this in.......

I am a senior citizen.
During the Clinton Administration I had an extremely good and well
paying
job.

I took numerous vacations and had several vacation homes.

Since President Bush took office, I have watched my entire life change
for

the worse.

I lost my job.
I lost my two sons in that terrible Iraqi War.
I lost my homes.
I lost my health insurance.

As a matter of fact I lost virtually everything and became homeless.

Adding insult to injury, when the authorities found me living like an
animal, instead of helping me, they arrested me.

I will do anything that Senator Kerry wants to insure that a Democrat
is
back in the White House come next year.

Bush has to go.

Sincerely,

Saddam Hussein

You made a wonderfully amazing point that I would like to alaberate on. al-queda had terrorist cells planted world wide long before Bush was ever in office. Other presidends could have and should have delt with him prior to 9/11 and possibly prevented the loss of all of those lives.

I really don't believe it was ever very centralized! May have appeared to be to some. If it was why Didn't the Clinton adminiastration take them down.

After the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military personnel, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 al-Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 US military personnel, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 257 and injured 5,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured three US sailors, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Mr Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 7,000 more people would be alive today.

On 26 February 1993, a car loaded with 1,200 pounds of explosives blew up in a parking garage under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring about a thousand others. The blast did not, as its planners intended, bring down the towers -- that was finally accomplished by flying two hijacked airliners into the twin towers on the morning of 11 September 2001.
Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in Baghdad.

On 13 November 1995, a bomb was set off in a van parked in front of an American-run military training center in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, killing five Americans and two Indians. Saudi Arabian authorities arrested four Saudi nationals whom they claim confessed to the bombings, but U.S. officials were denied permission to see or question the suspects before they were convicted and beheaded in May 1996.

On 25 June 1996, a booby-trapped truck loaded with 5,000 pounds of explosives was exploded outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex which housed United States military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing nineteen Americans and wounding about three hundred others. Once again, the U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow the FBI to question suspects.
On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.)

On 7 August 1998, powerful car bombs exploded minutes apart outside the United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people and wounding about 5,000 others. Four participants with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001. Fourteen other suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three more are fighting extradition in London.

On 12 October 2000, two suicide bombers detonated an explosives-laden skiff next to the USS Cole while it was refueling in Aden, Yemen, blasting a hole in the ship that killed 17 sailors and injured 37 others. No suspects have yet been arrested or indicted. The investigation has been hampered by the refusal of Yemini officials to allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals and other suspects in custody in Yemen.
(The USS Cole bombing occurred one month before the 2000 presidential election, so even under the best of circumstances it was unlikely that the investigation could have been completed before the end of President Clinton's term of office three months later.)

In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours, and Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As John F. Harris wrote in The Washington Post:

In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation -- from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) -- that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.
. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed -- he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier -- recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.

. . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising that regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But Clinton aides said such a policy -- potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia -- was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism.

Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger . . . said there [was] little prospect . . . that Pakistan would have helped the United States wage war against bin Laden or the Taliban in 1998, even after such outrages as the bombing of U.S. embassies overseas.

Update: In January 2004 a version of the 2001 e-mail with "BUSH COVERED IT!" inserted after each entry began to be circulated on the Internet. Must be an election year.

No one has proven that he is alive.

It's not my call that he's alive, Meg, that one came from the U.S. government.

Softballmom - you provided yourself evidence that Clinton had acted to get Osama, but didn't succeed. However I'm not gonna get tricked into defending that character!

More to the point, if you're concerned about who did or didn't do what: while Clinton was demonstrably concerned about Osama and Al Kaida, the incoming Bush administration was actively disinterested in the issue - until Sept 11. They dismissed advice from terrorism experts and failed to convene any meetings of the relevant people to even discuss the problem - even though people were telling them they'd better deal with it - until Sept 11.

Politics is one thing, insufficiency is forgiveable, mistakes are inevitable; but gross negligence is inexcuseable and cause for dismissal.

Bush hadn't been in office long enough to get his feet wet and you want to pass failure to deal with word of 9/11 on him and not the Clinton admininastration. Come on. Do you know how long that plan had been in the works?

Hold up!

Bush was President of the United States for eight months, and was informed, including (but not limited to) having recieved a briefing on a possible attack being planned by AlQuada using hijacked planes.

It is documented, as well, that Bush spent ALMOST HALF of those eight months on VACATIONS. I guess HE figured he wasn't ready to get his feet wet.

He was definately clued into things along the way:

Commission Report, p 201: ``Within the first few days after Bush's inauguration, Clarke approached Rice in an effort to get her--and the new President--to give terrorism very high priority and to act on the agenda that he had pushed during the last few months of the previous administration. After Rice requested that all senior staff identify desirable major policy reviews or initiatives, Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached to it his 1998 Delenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper. `We urgently need...a Principals level review on the al Quada network,' Clarke wrote. The national security advisor did not respond directly to Clarke's memorandum. No Principals Committee meeting on al Quada was held until September 4, 2001 (although the Principals Committee met frequently on other subjects, such as the Middle East peace process, Russia, and the Persian Gulf).''

*He was given the specific security briefing in August re: plane hijackings being planned, but said he ignored the
terrorist threat because the title of the report was too vague:

Commission Report, pp. 260-262: At the time, Bush says he considered the CIA's August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing entitled ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.'' to be ``historical in nature,'' although the ``two CIA analysts involved in preparing this briefing article believed it represented an opportunity to communicate their view that the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious ''. Bush ``did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so... The following day's SEIB repeated the title of this PDB... Late in the month, a foreign service reported that Abu Zubaydah was considering mounting terrorist attacks in the United States. We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisors of the possibility of a threat of an al Qada attack in the United States. [CIA director] Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat'' between August 17 when Tenet visited Bush in Crawford, and September 10.

Vacation time:

"News coverage has pointedly stressed that W.'s month-long stay at his ranch in Crawford is the longest presidential vacation in 32 years. Washington Post supercomputers calculated that if you add up all his weekends at Camp David, layovers at Kennebunkport and assorted to-ing and fro-ing, W. will have spent 42 percent of his presidency `at vacation spots or en route.''' Charles Krauthammer, ``A Vacation Bush Deserves,'' The Washington Post, August 10, 2001.

As of April 2004, President Bush had made 33 trips to Crawford during his presidency, bringing his total to more than 230 days at the ranch in just over three years. ``Add his 78 trips to Camp David and five to his family's compound at Kennebunkport, Maine, and Bush has spent all or part of 500 days - or about 40 percent of his presidency - at one of these his three retreats.'' ``Bush Retreats to a Favorite Getaway: Crawford ranch,'' Houston Chronicle, April 11, 2004.

*Now..I'm thinking..if our President acted responsibly as President..perhaps things could have been different.

The track record and it's effect only gets bleaker as time goes on..

But just addresing the idea that he "didn't have time".

He was PRESIDENT, and was informed of a serious threat..where was the toughness then?

Now the Pres (and Meg just above) refer to the guy responsible for orchestrating the deaths of 3000 Americans is merely a distraction. Or..as Bush said, he "doesn't care" where he is.

Mo

I just love how you convienently tiptoed around Clinton's full 8 years in office and blame 9/11 on Bush's 8 month's.

Well we didn't have a hidden camera to know what Bush was doing at camp David or his vacation spots, I am sure the president of the US takes working vacations however the whole world knows what was going on in the White house during office hours during the Clinton adminastration don't we.

I never have excused the previous administration(s) responsibilities!

No tip-toeing here..I was simply commenting on the idea that President Bush was barely "getting his feet wet".

I'm sorry, there are allot of excuses being made..as he is PRESIDENT, and vacationing and ignoring threats of Terror attacks with hijacked planes ain't good.

You have my attention now. So help me with these questions.

1. I am interested. What exactly did the brief say?

2. Do we know positively that the matter was tucked under the rug and nobody ever did anything about it?

3. Does the president actively work in inteligence investigating or does he deligate this resposibility to others and just get briefed on matters?

4. When it comes to National Security do Americans ever get the whole story (Vietnam) or do you think we have all the correct information on this matter?

Above are some exerpts from information cantained in the 911 Commision report,
24 kindly bolded them for us Then..

Here's the actual briefing he (Bush) saw himself on in August (though, not the first he'd heard of it):

The confidential President's Daily Brief (PDB) for August 6, 2001 contained a two-page section entitled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US," and refers to possible hijacking attempts by Osama bin Laden disciples and the existence of about 70 FBI investigations into alleged al-Qaeda cells operating within the United States. The August 6 PDB, an excerpt from which you'll find below, was presented to Bush while he vacationed at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. The digest is prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency, an official from which briefs the president on the report's contents. While Bush critics have described the August 6 PDB as a warning of an impending al-Qaeda attack, Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, testified Thursday that the document contained "historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information."

* If you read what he was given..there clearly was imminent danger.

Bush went fishing..

``President Bush swung into vacation mode Monday, fishing for bass in his pond, strolling the canyons on his 1,600-acre ranch, taking an early-morning run. Associated Press, ``President Bush Vacationing in Texas,'' August 6, 2001.

And here, from the 911 Commission, on how the President had held no meetings to address the threat of Terrorism at all, despite advise and urging from key advisors:

Commission Report, p 201: ``Within the first few days after Bush's inauguration, Clarke approached Rice in an effort to get her--and the new President--to give terrorism very high priority and to act on the agenda that he had pushed during the last few months of the previous administration. After Rice requested that all senior staff identify desirable major policy reviews or initiatives, Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached to it his 1998 Delenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper. `We urgently need...a Principals level review on the al Qida network,' Clarke wrote. The national security advisor did not respond directly to Clarke's memorandum. No Principals Committee meeting on al Qaeda was held until September 4, 2001 (although the Principals Committee met frequently on other subjects, such as the Middle East peace process, Russia, and the Persian Gulf).''

``[T]hey didn't allow me to brief him on terrorism. You know, they're saying now that when I was afforded the opportunity to talk to him about cybersecurity, it was my choice. I could have talked about terrorism or cybersecurity. That's not true. I asked in January to brief him, the president, on terrorism, to give him the same briefing I had given Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. And I was told, `You can't do that briefing, Dick, until after the policy development process.''' Richard Clarke interview with Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press, March 28, 2004.
"Clarke asked on several occasions for early Principals Committee meetings on these issues [outlined in his January 25, 2001 memo] and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. He wanted principals to accept that al Qaeda was a `first order threat' and not a routine problem being exaggerated by `chicken little' alarmists. No Principals Committee meetings on al Qaeda were held until September 4, 2001.'' National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 8, ``National Policy Coordination,'' pp 9-10; http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/
hearing8/staff_statement_8.pdf

Testimony of Richard A. Clarke before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, March 24, 2004:

MR. ROEMER: Okay. Let's move into, with my 15 minutes, let's move into the Bush administration. On January the 25th, we've seen a memo that you had written to Dr. Rice, urgently asking for a principals review of al Qaeda. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight al Qaeda --

MR. CLARKE: Uh-huh.

MR. ROEMER: -- and response to the U.S.S. Cole. You attached to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000. Did you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these, and how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

MR. CLARKE: I did geta response. The response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, the counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-cabinet level committee, and not to the principals, and that therefore it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

MR. ROEMER: So, does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group, as you had previously done?

MR. CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn't meet urgently in January or February. Then, when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of al Qaeda as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the problems, the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan, and, launched on a series of deputies meetings extending over several months to address al Qaeda in the context of all of those interrelated issues. That process probably ended, I think, in July of 2001, so we were readying for a principals meeting in July, but the principals' calendar was full, and then they went on vacation, many of them, in August, so we couldn't meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September.

As far as what we know regarding national security, I think it's quite appahrent that the colective "we the people" know very little..

Mo

The above letter is generic and outdated at best. The last two adendum paragraphs say everything that needs to be said. The FBI/CIA were on the case in at least 70 field operations.

At least in as much to have made sure there were meetings of the principals held in direct address to the existing concerns since Bush took office?

Those last two paragraphs are the ones I find most disturbing.

How is the briefing outdated? I mean..it is what he was given in early August, 2001..and moreover..there was no urgency given to a serious situation between January and September 11.

And NO direct involvement by the President in the least. He had a responsibility, as did the rest of his administration.

It just doesn't make sense.

Mo

Was this the same report as the month before? but...most especially, what was NEW in this report that may have alerted anyone to a problem?

None of us have any information on how many meetings the President and his staff discussed terrorism in....or what was discussed.

What is the role of the FBI/CIA, if not to investigate terrorism?--this they were doing.

So, how in the world does this piece of paper indicate that they were planning to fly planes into the towers?

``[T]hey didn't allow me to brief him on terrorism. You know, they're saying now that when I was afforded the opportunity to talk to him about cybersecurity, it was my choice. I could have talked about terrorism or cybersecurity. That's not true. I asked in January to brief him, the president, on terrorism, to give him the same briefing I had given Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. And I was told, `You can't do that briefing, Dick, until after the policy development process.''' Richard Clarke interview with Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press, March 28, 2004.
"Clarke asked on several occasions for early Principals Committee meetings on these issues [outlined in his January 25, 2001 memo] and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. He wanted principals to accept that al Qaeda was a `first order threat' and not a routine problem being exaggerated by `chicken little' alarmists. No Principals Committee meetings on al Qaeda were held until September 4, 2001.'' National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 8, ``National Policy Coordination,'' pp 9-10; http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/
hearing8/staff_statement_8.pdf

I'm not so confident in that.

This report. The people who make it. After they make do they stop investigating?

And where is the Pentegon in all of this. What is Bush actually supposed to do in this case?

People are actively working on the investigation right.

I will read more vut bring me up to speed on these questions too.

I just answered a bunch o' questions..

I'm not answering more till you do me the credit of reading it first.

Exept this one:

"What was Bush actually supposed to do in this case?"

ANSWER: Something.

Mo

[This message has been edited by danq (edited 28 October 2004).]

Posts: 2420 | From Davis, California | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | 

[This message has been edited by danq (edited 28 October 2004).]

Posts: 2420 | From Davis, California | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | 

So Quackard, if I understand your suggestion and recommendations, he should have gone into Afghanistan as soon as he was sworn in? Well, I don't have a problem with that but do you think anything on the left or the no defense in my name bunch would have supported it? Hell, your group didn't support our country even after the attack!

Your posted information on ``dealing with it'', sounds more like how to organize a protest march for the young communist movement. Somehow I think running a country as diverse as America would require a little more gray matter.

I noticed you failed to mention how Kerry would have got the UN involved and would have handled the problem with ease and luminosity.

Kerry screwed this country once and for that shame on him, if he is allowed to screw this country again, shame on us!!!

Yes to your question MO. It should have raised a big red flag. I would like to find out more to see if they had more direct evidence. Could they have actually taken down any of these participants prior to the attacts. What I am finding is alot of investigative reports but I can't get into them to read them.

Going after Ossama needed to be done granted we all agree with that way back to the clinton administration. Clinton did and Bush did as well the month following 9/11. Ossama moves underground. He is not as easy to capture as a high profile terrorist as Suddam. Whitch was done to send the message to terrorist and those who harbor them!

What we are looking at here is going after the cells. Did we ever know where the cells were prior to 9/11? Did we ever have enouph direct evidence to go after then or did we just need to keep investigating to find them?

OR should have AT LEAST taken a couple of MEETINGS on it!!!!

What exactly could have been done? Who can say?

But..odds are pretty much zero when NOTHING is done.

There is no record of anything being done by our Cammander and his top team, there IS record or repeated warnings and alerts to an urgent problem..and officials frustration in not getting adequate response from the GWB.

With all that, how can anyone help but to wonder WHY..and whether the WHY continued to be a part of all the highly questionable actions that ensued AFTER 911.

Mo

[This message has been edited by danq (edited 29 October 2004).]

Posts: 2420 | From Davis, California | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | 

..out comes old and tired Dem bashing and other condescending attemts to degrade and portray whomever
challanged his views is a raving idiot.
(that would be me in this case )

In any event..NONE of the above addreses the valid point raised regarding the GWB admin and theit inactions, vacations for George for almost half the time in office (even if not "pure" vacations(??) whilst blatantly ignoring an urgent alert. For many months.

So...blame it on Clinton, the Democrats.. the Russians
..and Bush-wack the messenger.

That oughta do it.

Mo

You're really reaching now, Bud..

Not to admonish Clinton at all for what he did..BUT..

..tell me.. how does lying about Monica compare to repeatedly lying about an invasion responsible for scores of thousands of deaths and considerably increased threat to National Security?

Repubs were ready to lynch and impeach him..
yet Bush is Golden Boy??

Mo

MONICA has the lost cache..in cahoots with the Russians..they dumped 'em in Syria..
We're GOIN' IN!!

AND..Clinton is harboring Terrorists and has hog-tied Bush!!

..no, wait..

Breaking news from the Drudge Report:

MONICA IS OSAMA!!!

Lessee here...

Clinton lied, Monica got a messy dress.

Bush lied, thousands died... and tens of thousands came back maimed.

We will go on forever and a day saying who made the bigger migger mistake mistake!! Who is responcible for for what!!! We all sound like a bunch of kids squableing over who broke it and who can who can fix.

Well look back over time and here is how I see it. The rebub candidate will never live up to the dems standard and visa versa.

I admit and digress. I have looked and can not find anything to substantiate that Bush called any meeting to address the concerns of possible terroist attacks durring the first 8 months he was in office. If there are any other repubs out there that can, bring them on. But until that time....

I agree with you Mo (believe it or not) that Bush should have called a meeting or something. However I also see that these reports were carried over from the Clinton administration and there should have already been task forces in place working diligently that should have just been carried over to the Bush administration.

So there was a failure on both parts! The lives lost on 9/11 were not as you say the fault of one George Bush or Bill Clinton. They were the fault of the evil mind of one Ossama Bin Laudin. That we must not forget that.

We can continue to blame our government and whom ever we want but we can not undo what has been done we can only move forward.

If Kerry is elected I pray that he can lead lead this nation in the way that he is promicing. If Bush wins I hope that he also can do the things that I expect that he will.

But, in moving ahead, we have Bush and Kerry on the table right now..not Clinton.

I do see what you're saying, Cindy..

However, it is relevant when considering an incumbant whose main platform is that HE will keep us safer from Terrorism.

I think this info also applies as you look beyond to some very controversial moves by the admin thereafter, which have proven dangerously inneffective..everything in question around Iraq..and all of it certainly sheds doubt on his ability to what he says he will..

and also, if this admin was this negligent then, how many other things are being ignored, glossed over..ect.

Bush also resisted a 911 Commission at first, until criticizm grew over that.

So..the early mistakes cascade onward into bigger and greater mistakes, death and disaster resulting..and they still have not dealt with AlQaeda. ..not to mention the fact that we are in a failing War thet the public was lied to about.

So..I do think it's all relavant...as is all info contained in the 911 Commision Report.

He's the incumbant, so his past and current policy is his politics.