General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "Always remember?" (GRAPHIC WARNING FOR THOSE WITH SENSITIVE DISPOSITION) [View all]rfranklin
(13,200 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)
And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have dramatic consequences, including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but will occur soon. Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.
Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html
On edit: I actaully heard the author on WNYC say that they had 80 different warnings. I don't think it was in the article.