home

Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida Attacks

Alternet reports:

In 2001, an anonymous White House source leaked top-secret NSA intelligence to reporter Judith Miller that Al Qaida was planning a major attack on the United States. But the story never made it into the paper.

Attytood asks whether this is not the most stunning failure yet? From Alternet:

Now, in an exclusive interview, [Judy] Miller reveals how the attack on the Cole spurred her reporting on Al Qaida and led her, in July 2001, to a still-anonymous top-level White House source, who shared top-secret NSA signals intelligence (SIGINT) concerning an even bigger impending Al Qaida attack, perhaps to be visited on the continental United States.

Ultimately, Miller never wrote that story either. But two months later -- on Sept. 11 -- Miller and her editor at the Times, Stephen Engelberg, both remembered and regretted the story they "didn't do."

In Miller's own words:

"I had begun to hear rumors about intensified intercepts and tapping of telephones. But that was just vaguest kind of rumors in the street, indicators ... I remember the weekend before July 4, 2001, in particular, because for some reason the people who were worried about Al Qaida believed that was the weekend that there was going to be an attack on the United States or on a major American target somewhere. It was going to be a large, well-coordinated attack. Because of the July 4 holiday, this was an ideal opportunistic target and date for Al Qaida.

There was monitoring on July 4, and although nothing happened, Miller writes:

"But I did manage to have a conversation with a source that weekend. The person told me that there was some concern about an intercept that had been picked up. The incident that had gotten everyone's attention was a conversation between two members of Al Qaida. And they had been talking to one another, supposedly expressing disappointment that the United States had not chosen to retaliate more seriously against what had happened to the Cole. And one Al Qaida operative was overheard saying to the other, 'Don't worry; we're planning something so big now that the U.S. will have to respond.'

"And I was obviously floored by that information. I thought it was a very good story: (1) the source was impeccable; (2) the information was specific, tying Al Qaida operatives to, at least, knowledge of the attack on the Cole; and (3) they were warning that something big was coming, to which the United States would have to respond. This struck me as a major page one-potential story.

So Miller tells her editor, Stephen Engleberg, who has confirmed her account to Alternet. Miller tells Alternet:

"And Stephen said, 'That's great! Who were the guys overheard?'
"I said, 'Well, I don't know. I just know that they were both Al Qaida operatives.'
"'Where were they overheard?' Steve asked.
"Well, I didn't know where the two individuals were. I didn't know what countries they were in; I didn't know whether they were having a local call or a long-distance call.
"'What was the attack they were planning?' he said. 'Was it domestic, was it international, was it another military target, was it a civilian target?'
I didn't know.
'Had they discussed it?'
"I didn't know, and it was at that point that I realized that I didn't have the whole story. As Steve put it to me, 'You have a great first and second paragraph. What's your third?"'

There's lot's more to Alternet's interview with Miller -- with comments from Engleberg -- but Miller sums up at the end:

"You know, sometimes in journalism you regret the stories you do, but most of the time you regret the ones that you didn't do."

< Hayden Confirmation Hearings | Court Rejects Safavian's Requests to Exclude Tyco and Scotland Trip Evidence >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:08:18 AM EST
    I have no idea what to think of this. I suppose if the story had run, maybe something might have possibly changed in relation to the attack. Maybe. We don't believe things until we see them here. All that matters now, really, is that 9/11 worked on her and she became an adminstration mouthpiece in the war of lies leading up to Iraq. Her regrets about this don't really amount to much. I think, in her head, THIS has now become her greatest disappointment. That she couldn't become the star reporter who saved the WTC with her story. Ack, who cares, it's all personality rubbish.

    Dadler, she's only trying to justify the blood on her hands from her phony Iraq stories. Seems like her editor's fears in 2001 were gone the next year. Another case of 9/11 changing everything. A likely story.

    What should have been done with that information. We couldn't even get a warrant to search Moussauoi's laptop. Should we have profiled Arabs or wiretapped phones?

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:39:58 AM EST
    Dadler: MIller's info matches what Rice told O'Reilly, and makes all the sense in the world.
    "At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."
    So no one was asleep at the switch, and all the "he be bad" from the Left is shown to be just bad mouuthing.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:50:37 AM EST
    So no one was asleep at the switch, and all the "he be bad" from the Left is shown to be just bad mouuthing.
    no one except that ignoramus in the WH that would rather read my pet goat than his august pdb.

    Now, in an exclusive interview, [Judy] Miller reveals how...
    Why did it take 5 years for this to come out?

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#8)
    by scribe on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:15:35 PM EST
    OK. While this is enlightening, it also raises more questions than it answers. Someone high up in the WH shared SIGINT intercepts - it looks like the transcripts themselves - with Judy. You have to have a high-level clearance to see that stuff, period. It's supposed to be as closely guarded as any secret we have. Especially once it gets all the way to the top of the pyramid, running through all those analysts and bureaucrats. 1. Did Judy ever have a clearance? If yes, does that not transgress the journalist's duty to be separate and apart from the source, and not make themselves part of the story?* If no, who was the leaker? Why did they leak? Why isn't the FBI tearassing all the way through all of Judy's cell phone records with NSLs and getting the NSA to record all her internet traffic? They went nuts on journalists after the secret prisons and domestic wiretapping got out - why not here? * I know, how naive of me. This is Judy we're talking about here. She's beyond the rules. 2. Who shared this with Judy? 3. Why was this shared with Judy, of all people? 4. What did Judy's source intend for Judy to do with this information once she got it? 5. Wouldn't Judy publishing anything on this in NYT pre attack almost certainly blow the operation whence the intercepts came? 6. I thought Osama and his folks stopped using electronic communications after it came out in the earlier terrist trials in the S.D.N.Y. (it was either the 93 WTC bombing or the African Embassy case - I forget) that we were listening on their calls. (that is, we were getting SIGINT on them) And, further, the government alleged that such change of patterns by them after testimonial "leakage" was one of the justifications for locking so-called enemy combatants away from judicial review and trials and all those quaint niceties. So, maybe those allegations that they stopped using phones and such after things were done in open court were not exactly true? 7. How much of this did the Times know about and spike? 8. What other personal requests - like the one before the Risen story - did the WH make of the Times? I could go on. I think Judy's taking a shot at Libby, just for old times' sake.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:27:25 PM EST
    Miller spills the beans. It should come as no surprise now that 'the Aspens' have a touch of root rot. If she knew about it, her friends in the WH knew about it. It has served them well to let 9/11 happen. Miller is not to be trusted. Her WSJ pieces this week on Libya were a thinly veiled propaganda effort to justify war with Iran. WHIG is now back in operation with Iran replacing Iraq.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:29:37 PM EST
    Jim, How do I love thee, let me count the ways? There were massive failures all around the government. Failures on institutional communication, failures of imagination, and all while Bush was Prez. All your quote does is point out how lacking in effectiveness was whatever the administration did in response to this information. And, of course, point out the lack of creative skill throughout the intelligence and security apparatus of the nation. Hell, a lower down the ladder intelligence agent REPORTED they might use the planes as missles, but the hierarchy sliced and diced that one into irrelevance too.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#11)
    by Aaron on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:39:12 PM EST
    Of course the Bush administration knew what was coming, they were counting on it. No doubt they chose to ignore these NSA warnings in the hopes that some attack would succeed, thereby allowing the overnight consolidation of power garnering them an iron grip on the throat of the Republic. Fear is the greatest weapon of the totalitarian government. Now all we need is the evidence. A number of FBI and intelligence agents who were pursuing Al Qaeda during the Clinton administration, specifically had their agendas either put on the back burner or undercut completely the moment George W. Bush took office. Anyone who was watching the Bush administration's interactions with the intelligence community could see exactly what they were doing. They made no secret of the fact that their first priority was Russia, and the impending resurgence of the old Soviet Union. They were also concerned with the Middle East but specifically nationstates like Iraq, not terrorism. Agents like John O'Neill had the rug pulled out from under them by the Bush administration's policymakers. Among FBI higher-ups it became immediately apparent that pursuing Al Qaeda and terrorism was no longer a valid investigative career path for advancement. Everyone working on Al Qaeda and terrorism within the FBI and elsewhere became the out people, the ones that don't get invited to meetings and no longer had any direct access to the White House. While during the Clinton administration they found at least some measure of protection and support from the White House, under the Bush administration these intelligence people became fair game, the target of agency squeezes designed to push out the dead weight and settle old scores. Of course it's just a coincidence that this was all happening about the same time that Al Qaeda was getting their people in position finalizing plans for 9/11, and anyone who would assert otherwise is just another one of those conspiracy theory nuts we all like to make fun of. The corporate interest who lead George W. Bush, like a dog on a leash, realized long before George ever took office that they were going to need some powerful distractions, or the new pseudo-conservative revolution was going to find itself floundering by 2002. So they sent their men in the Bush administration to work whispering in George W. Bush's ear. The neocons and the military-industrial establishment got exactly what they wanted didn't they. All it took was a president who was, and is, easily malleable in the hands of the right people. George W. Bush may be the first presidential traitor to the Republic, but in the big picture he's little more than a corporate lackey, who did exactly what he was instructed to do.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:14:09 PM EST
    et al - It seems that many of you can't connect the dots. Miller's article regards events early/mid 2001 regarding being told that an attack was coming. SharonW - What was it about:
    "At the special meeting on July 5 (2001) were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future."
    that you cannot understand? (See my 12:29PM comment above.) You quote:
    Now granted, that part was in reference to an attack they thought would happen in July
    Again, what is it about "near future" that you can't understand? Do you think that 31 days after the heads of all these agencies were told of an expected attack everyone just said: "Oh well, it's been a month now..." Dadler - If you want to argue that Bush should be blamed because, AFTER THEY WERE WARNED BY BUSH'S NSA ADVISOR CONI RICE, the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration screwed up, go ahead. But it doesn't make a lot of sense. If you take that approach, you should call up SD's mayor and tell him to hit the road because a 7-11 got robbed last night. And even though the police knew a robbery was coming, they didn't know which one of the 300 stores it would be. Gesh, Dadler. You're smarter than that. Squeaky writes:
    If she knew about it, her friends in the WH knew about it. It has served them well to let 9/11 happen.
    Yes they knew about it and yes they took action. What part about the 7/05/2001 meeting don't you understand?
    At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future."
    Sailor writes:
    no one except that ignoramus in the WH that would rather read my pet goat than his august pdb.
    Oh really? Who do you think authorized Rice to call the 7/5 meeting, just over a month before the 8/6 PDB??? Think maybe Bush knew about what was going on. I mean Miller thinks so, and so does Rice. Aaron writes:
    Of course the Bush administration knew what was coming, they were counting on it. No doubt they chose to ignore these NSA warnings in
    What about the 7/5 meeting don't you understand? Ernesto writes:
    Why did it take 5 years for this to come out?
    It didn't. The story of the 7/5/2001 meeting came out 3/25/2004. And I have linked to it numerous times.

    Trust me, Judy is unstable.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#14)
    by ding7777 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:32:59 PM EST
    Too bad Judy didn't ask Ashcroft those pesky who, what where, and when questions
    Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term
    Ashcroft Flying High

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:41:58 PM EST
    "I think everybody knew that an attack was coming -- everyone who followed this. But you know you can only 'cry wolf' within a newspaper... before people start saying there he goes -- or there she goes -- again!"
    Oh, and thanks for sharing.

    JRT.... What should have been done with that information Good point... With the loonie lefties' running around claiming everything is a ploy....a political game...what could have been done indeed? Hell...even after 9/11 (when we should all know better) the Governments hands are continually tied by the left... we can't check on phone records...we can't interrogate prisoners... we can't look into mosques...etc. So, even if something breaks and we get tons of good info about an upcoming attack...the left will claim it's all an act...and/or be more concerned with how we got the info... It's crazy...and I think we are in big trouble.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#17)
    by Strick on Thu May 18, 2006 at 02:23:54 PM EST
    Er, folks, the basic facts (not what Miller knew) were described by Richard Clarke a couple of years ago. After a sudden rise in terrorist chatter, Clarke personally put the US on the highest alert, civilian and military, internally and overseas, during the summer of 2001. He personally briefed the FAA, Coast Guard, etc. when the alert was called. According to an interview Clarke gave Chris Matthews on Hardball, the alert lasted about 6 weeks during which not much happened. It had to be abandoned in August because the strain of keeping our forces overseas on full alert was too great. If I'm not mistaken, Clarke's waring was the reason Bush asked for and received the August 6th PDB. We learned later that Al Qaeda had intended to attack before 9/11 but were delayed. Regardless, the alert was called off after the briefing and just before 9/11. Clarke was right, just right too soon. Of course, what's more interesting to someone like me is how, if Clarke knew that hijacking an airplane to fly into a building was a major possibility, why didn't he mention that to the head of the FAA when he was briefing him? Just a side question, of course. I just googled for the transcript of the show Hardball show I'm talking about but can't find it. I have a link to it on another computer and will try to see if it's still available when I get back to the hotel this evening.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#18)
    by lilybart on Thu May 18, 2006 at 02:34:33 PM EST
    NO NO NO NO "Hell...even after 9/11 (when we should all know better) the Governments hands are continually tied by the left... we can't check on phone records...we can't interrogate prisoners... we can't look into mosques...etc. " You CAN check phone records with probable cause or with judicial oversight. all congress has to do is make a new law governing this practice. ALL we ask for is oversight and the particitpation of the other two equal branches of government. You CAN interrogate prisoners, you just can't abuse or torture them. And of course you can look into mosques. Many have Imans who advocate violence and so, probable cause. The left only asks for the rule of law to be followed. We are a nation of laws not of men. Men are fallible, laws are clear.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#19)
    by Strick on Thu May 18, 2006 at 02:36:37 PM EST
    Sorry, the above was Clarke's version. Here's what someone on the other side of the table said during a different Hardball intereview: WILLIAMS: But as a factual matter, hadn't the FAA given warnings to commercial airlines of the increased danger of hijacking? GORELICK: Very minimal. I mean, I went through each of these. They did nothing. They were called--somebody four or five levels down at FAA was called to a meeting by Dick Clark, told that there was a lot of chatter in early July. Three weeks later, they issue a bunch of security directives that don't relate to this at all. And over the course of the summer, they put out some circulars that say there may be a problem, but we think it will be elsewhere. Nothing that you would do anything with. And certainly nothing that ordered any changes, which they had the authority to do, any changes in the protocols at airports. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5239558/ So if this warning was mishandled, well, it's pretty clear who mishandled it. Richard Clarke. Don't trust me on the earlier version until I can support what I say, btw. I promise to find the link to the interview Clarke gave Matthews or buy a transcript if that fails.

    What a embarrasement.Judith Miller Moussaui.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 03:07:12 PM EST
    richard clarke had been sidelined by that time, can't blame him, blame the folks who didn't listen to him and kept him out of the loop.
    Oh really? Who do you think authorized Rice to call the 7/5 meeting, just over a month before the 8/6 PDB?
    Uhh, she didn't call a meeting. try this:
    Bush Administration's First Memo on al-Qaeda Declassified
    January 25, 2001 Richard Clarke Memo: "We urgently need . . . a Principals level review on the al Qida network." [...] Despite Clarke's request, there was no Principals Committee meeting on al-Qaeda until September 4, 2001.
    Clarke: "So we were ready 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." [...] ROEMER: You then wrote a memo on September 4th to Dr. Rice expressing some of these frustrations several months later, if you say the time frame is May or June when you decided to resign. A memo comes out that we have seen on September the 4th. You are blunt in blasting DOD for not willingly using the force and the power. You blast the CIA for blocking Predator. You urge policy-makers to imagine a day after hundreds of Americans lay dead at home or abroad after a terrorist attack and ask themselves what else they could have done. You write this on September the 4th, seven days before September 11th.
    You can read Clarke's memo here (pdf)

    Later, on CNN's "Larry King Live," Clarke said the Clinton administration's approach to a similar threat before the turn of the millennium -- on which top officials held daily interagency meetings and actively sought information from within their own agencies -- shows that a similar approach might have worked to prevent the September 11 terrorist attacks. He said that prior to 9/11, people within the FBI knew that two of the 19 hijackers were in the country, but that information never made its way up to the highest levels of power. "If Condi Rice had been doing her job and holding those daily meetings the way Sandy Berger did, if she had a hands-on attitude to being national security adviser when she had information that there was a threat against the United States ... [the information] would have been shaken out in the summer of 2001," Clarke told King. Samuel Berger, who was national security adviser to former President Clinton, also testified Wednesday. Absence of Rice noted Several members of the commission voiced their displeasure that Rice, who's appeared on numerous TV talk shows, didn't appear before the panel.
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/911.commission/index.html Yeah, Rice was just so damn forthcoming that at that point the administration wasn't even going to let her testify. Oh, and let's not forget the PDB that they had to drag outta the Whitehouse either. God, I'm so sick of you authoritarian cultist apologists for this sorry excuse of an administration. Their handling of warnings pre 9/11 was on par with their handling of Katrina. I'm just hoping there will be no strike three.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 03:34:11 PM EST
    with Bushat 29% I'm pretty sure we'll see a strike 3, after all, the carrier groups are already on the way.

    ppj...let me be more specific: why did it take Judy 5 years to make her revelation regarding this?

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:40:56 PM EST
    Ernesto - You'll have to ask Judy. SharonW - As you well know, or perhaps you don't, the issue of Rice testifying was Executive Privilege, something all Presidents have zealously guarded. But that has nothing to do with the link, if you have bothered to read, is to a transcript of an interview with Bill O'Reilly. Sailor - Are you saying that the 7/5 meeting didn't occur and that Rice has lied? That's heady stuff. Prove it. On the other hand, we know that Clarke told one story here:
    QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the -- general animus against the foreign policy? CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me. JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct? CLARKE: All of that's correct.
    Will the real Richard Clarke please stand up? BTW - Since Bush didn't change Clinton, and since we all know Clinton is perfect, then Bush must have been doing the right thing, plus adding to it. Ipso facto, eh? ;-)

    SharonW - As you well know, or perhaps you don't, the issue of Rice testifying was Executive Privilege, something all Presidents have zealously guarded. But that has nothing to do with the link, if you have bothered to read, is to a transcript of an interview with Bill O'Reilly. Dear Jim aka PPJ, I read the link. It wasn't anything new. No smokin' gun, no revelations, no nuttin' of substance there except little old Rice playing to Fox's administration-friendly, stupid white people audience. The same old spin-a-tin-tin. And you, sir, are a dupe if you're still holding dear that line of crap. Most graciously yours, Sharon

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#27)
    by Aaron on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:14:42 PM EST
    Thanks guys, for doing the legwork to backup my assertions. Notice in this piece, the Al Qaeda members discussing their need to provoke the United States It's interesting to note that Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, the president of Iran and his party, and George W. Bush and the ultra-right neocons, all have political agendas which seem to mesh perfectly together. Politically they feed off one another. Historically it's what every leader looks for in an enemy, a foe who helps you consolidate power simply by being in opposition to them. Who could deny that each has achieved much greater stature together, and had a far greater impact vis-à-vis their conflict, than they ever could have hoped to have achieved separately? Any examination of these subjects over the last five years can hardly help but reveal that much of the power these men have consolidated was and is ultimately dependent upon the others. Personally I make no distinction among madmen. When I see a pack of rabid dogs bent on destroying each other and everyone around them in some biblically inspired conflagration, it's time to strip them of their vestments of power and begin euthanizing them... ... with extreme prejudice.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:26:07 PM EST
    SharonW - Stupid white people? What a racist remark. What would you say if I had made the reverse of it? Oh well, it reveals who you are. Anyway, the point, since you seem incapable of getting it, is that: 1. The Bush Administration was doing things, up to and including the meeting on 7/5. 2. Rice's interview adds credence to what Miller said, and vice versa. Aaron writes:
    Notice in this piece, the Al Qaeda members discussing their need to provoke the United States
    Seeing as how they are getting their butts kicked I would say they now know the difference between success and happiness.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:41:32 PM EST
    ppj is al qaidia's dream. bring em on. sometimes I wonder if he is a paid shill.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#30)
    by Aaron on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:46:13 PM EST
    What's a matter Jim, nothing substantive to contribute? But I think you've taken the correct track in this thread, falling back on those well-established pseudo-conservative strengths... like empty rhetoric. Bravissimo!

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#31)
    by Aaron on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:52:56 PM EST
    Jim isn't Osama bin Laden still out there sending us little message about upcoming attacks on US soil? But I guess you refer to Americans killing Iraqis, perhaps you think that killing Muslims, any Muslim including women and little babies is equivalent to kicking Al Qaeda's butt? But I and many rational people don't see it that way.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:59:00 PM EST
    SharonW - Let's say you want to make a link to, for example: http://www.talkleft.com Type the word: TalkLeft (or any other word) Highlight the word you typed by holding down your left mouse button and dragging the cursor across the word. Then click the URL button and either type http://www.talkleft.com into the dialog box that appears. (or paste some other URL into that box, that you've copied from your IE address bar. Then click OK on that dialog box. You'll see the word Talkleft appear in blue like this: Talkleft

    Any examination of these subjects over the last five years can hardly help but reveal that much of the power these men have consolidated was and is ultimately dependent upon the others. Personally I make no distinction among madmen. When I see a pack of rabid dogs bent on destroying each other and everyone around them in some biblically inspired conflagration, it's time to strip them of their vestments of power and begin euthanizing them... ... with extreme prejudice. Oh, bravo, Aaron. Well said!

    BTW - Since Bush didn't change Clinton, and since we all know Clinton is perfect, then Bush must have been doing the right thing, plus adding to it.
    Bush or Clinton have occupied the White House since 1980. How is one better than the other. Al Queda was a George Bush Jr. invention to decieve the public and now its five years later and we still get 9/11 crammed down our throats.

    SharonW - Stupid white people? What a racist remark. What would you say if I had made the reverse of it? Oh well, it reveals who you are. Anyway, the point, since you seem incapable of getting it, is that Racist? Well, maybe I'm irked by stupid people (hmm, but that's not a racial thing). However, me being white and all, you've got a tough sell otherwise. Listen, Jim, here's the deal. Quit dangling your worm. These ain't fertile fishing grounds for your sort of lame baiting.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:27:26 PM EST
    et al - So you have no rebuttal... Let your personal attacks begin. You folks are so predictable.... Squeaky - Alas no. I must support the palatial retirement compound on my pensions, social security, investments, consulting fees and poker winnings. Hmmmm, just thought of something. Since you are obviously being monitored by the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Limbaugh.... Could you put in a good word for me?? Say $25 a comment??? Thanks in advance. I'll buy lunch sometimes.... Wanna biggie size it? Aaron - So? OBL is effectively dehorned. I'd like to see him hung by the neck, but the real issue is how many troops does he command, and is his tribe increasing? You write:
    But I guess you refer to Americans killing Iraqis, perhaps you think that killing Muslims, any Muslim including women and little babies is equivalent to kicking Al Qaeda's butt?
    My, my. What a brillant comment. Let me write that down. Whenever you can't respond, make nasty comment. Fruillo writes:
    Al Queda was a George Bush Jr. invention
    Do you really expect a rational response to such a comment? I mean, please.... SharonW - Here's the real deal. You can't respond. You know and I know it. So quit playing with the worm.

    Edger, thank you kindly, sir or ma'am! I've only recently started posting on blogs and Dkos and they all have different posting techniques than the message boards I've been accustomed to elsewhere. I figured I just dive in and figure it out as I went along. :)

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:36:53 PM EST
    You are welcome, ma'am. I get called sir once in awhile, usually by people who think I'm old. They're right. ;-)

    SharonW - Here's the real deal. You can't respond. You know and I know it. (sigh) Fine darlin', declare victory for boring me to death with the same old same old. You don't happen to work on Wall St., do you? No, nevermind, I really don't want to know. You just remind me of some other ash-encrusted suit of a shill.

    You are welcome, ma'am. I get called sir once in awhile, usually by people who think I'm old. They're right. ;-) Hey, that ain't nothing compared to going from a miss to a ma'am. BTW, am I getting too chatty for this board? Every place is different and I wouldn't want to annoy anyone...well, other than Jim. ;)

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:53:58 PM EST
    aaaack! (sound of foot from mouth extraction!). Sorry, Miss. TL - apologies for being OT - it is very nice to see all the new commenters here. The level of discourse has risen markedly the past week. It's too bad that some older commenters, who used to pretend at reasonableness for awhile with newbies before attacking now just attack immediately.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:09:42 PM EST
    SharonW - Well, welcome aboard. The Lefties always can use some help. Wall St? Pardon the chuckles. I'm a retired dude, social liberal type.

    aaaack! (sound of foot from mouth extraction!). Sorry, Miss. ROTFL! No, no, I didn't mean you per se. I meant in general, in life. At some point, not quite sure when it was, the transformation took place. You have to wonder, no? Was it the little crows feet tap dancing around the eyes? The fact that my shirt bottom actually met the top of my pants and the only things pierced were my ears? What? As for any resident evils here attacking newbies, if that was an attack, I need stop by when Jim's making another equally squalid point and I have time on my hands to be bothered. :)

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:12:11 PM EST
    Pardon the ROTFLMAO!

    Wall St? Pardon the chuckles. I'm a retired dude, social liberal type. Ah, one of them thar Libertarians then, eh? You guys have acted the weirdest of all of the Bushies. Geez, even the neocons have been tip-toeing out the back door.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#46)
    by Sailor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:55:07 PM EST
    Sailor - Are you saying that the 7/5 meeting didn't occur and that Rice has lied?
    That is hilarious. of course condi lied, let me count the ways. Want links!? Didn't think so, since your only source is O'Lielly. Ya wanna make it personal!? Ya know, like Bill O'Lilley called out Al Franken and said he would shoot him down in a duel? Hey, swords or pistols, call it ... I am so sick of the 101 bedwetters refusing to serve, but insisting that they wanna kill, kill, I tell ya I wanna killl ... it just gets so Alice's Restaurant. Ya know, if they wanna get out of the war so bad, and they wanna make sure some one else's child dies in their place, ya really gotta wonder about their motives.

    ppj...I can only surmise that she waited these 5 years to tell this tale (man wouldn't it have made a helluva NYT article in say oh, mid to late September 2001?) because she's trying to justify her not so small part in the bogus Iraq WMD hype campaign.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#48)
    by Strick on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:34:27 PM EST
    Well, the link I was looking for didn't survive a transition to a new computer. No matter, the second quote from Hardball clearly indicates how ineffective whatever Clarke did was. As for this:
    "If Condi Rice had been doing her job and holding those daily meetings the way Sandy Berger did, if she had a hands-on attitude to being national security adviser when she had information that there was a threat against the United States ... [the information] would have been shaken out in the summer of 2001," Clarke told King.
    Oh yeah, the way that "shaking the trees" produces results during the Clinton Administration, preventing the Millennium bomb plot. Oh wait, that wasn't what prevented the Millennium bomb plot, it was an observant customs agent on duty late at night on the Canadian border. "Shaking the trees" produced diddly squat. The only real problem I have with not being able to produce Clarke's version of the "full" alert he called in the summer of 2001 is that is so clearly demonstrates how absurd and self serving that man's claims have been. As for Sandy Berger, remember to search his socks before he leaves the building.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#49)
    by Sailor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:46:57 PM EST
    Well, the link I was looking for didn't survive a transition to a new computer.
    Try google. Next!

    To expand on that thought...she is basically saying "I could have prevented 9/11." Followed inevitably by "So I was trying to prevent another 9/11 by hyping the WMD in Iraq".

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#51)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:54:25 PM EST
    Ernesto, My thought exactly. She was trying to atone for missing the 9/11 scoop. A little therapy might have worked out better- for us all.

    SharonW:
    As for any resident evils here attacking newbies, if that was an attack, I need stop by when Jim's making another equally squalid point and I have time on my hands to be bothered. :)
    I am ROTFLMAO, and that's just in anticipation. So welcome, Miss Sharon -- please make yourself at home here. I already know I'm going to enjoy your company.

    It's been clear for a long time the WH knew something was coming, some time, some place, in some fashion. Or, to put it another way, had information that it might be coming. It wasn't until it actually happened that we knew it had been "was coming" instead of just stuff rolling around in the intel community. The question is, what should have been done about it? The point has been made that the left opposes many efforts to find out what's going on, even to the extent of lying about what's being done in order to fool people into thinking it's illegal. "Domestic spying" is one recent example. If all you wanted was to have this done under law, then there is no need to lie about what it is. If it were really illegal, you wouldn't have to lie about it, and if it's not illegal, you claim you have no problem with it. But instead, you mischaracterize it. You seem to think that the WH lies and thus has no credibility. Why do you think the same process doesn't apply to you? Get caught, less attention is paid to your next accusation. Normal. BTW, I see everybody's favorite murderer, Lionel Tate, is back in jail.

    I had to look a few threads to find it, but thanks ppj for my laugh of the day. In the immortal words of the French to Jerry Lewis"You funny man".

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 19, 2006 at 06:12:08 AM EST
    Sailor - So Rice went on TV and lied about a meeting happening on 7/5 in which the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration were all there. Sure Sailor. Uh huh. Now, you don't really believe that do you? Maybe Jason Leopold, with all this contacts, can dig into it for you. ;-) et al - You know, I couldn't make up some of this stuff. Ernesto - I really don't know. Strick - You must understand. The Left didn't believe Clarke in Augist '02, but immediately believed him after he had left and was dissing the administration. RA - Well said. SharonW - Understand, some regulars call any disagreement an attack. BTW - When did I morph??? Around '68-'69 when I watched the Left turn the Demo party into a group of "America, always wrong." As a Social Liberal, registered Independent, I support national health care, women's rights, gay rights, tax reform, education reform and reasonable environmental laws. And a strong national defense. The regulars are also aware of the above, and are now rolling their eyes, their problem being they can't find anyplace that I have not, which makes them tense and irritable, especially at feeding time, so be prepared to cut them some slack as you near the Kool Aid Stand. Being for a strong national defense, the Demos gave me no choice in 2000 and 2004, and will most likely do so again in 2008. BTW - So you don't think making a statement like "stupid white people" is racist? Try the dictionary:
    a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
    Self hatred is a huge burden.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#56)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri May 19, 2006 at 06:37:40 AM EST
    SharonW - Understand, some regulars call any disagreement an attack Also, some defend Bush, right or wrong. You'll see. Blind patriots we calls 'em. And welcome.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 19, 2006 at 06:49:02 AM EST
    StrStrick - I find it interesting that the person who authored the "Chinese Firewall" memo re intelligence exchange wrote this:
    GORELICK: No. I mean, you can't fault the FAA here at all. I mean, the FAA did not have the right intelligence either. I mean, it was not exercising against this. It had protocols as we just discussed that were not remotely appropriate to the kind of hijacking that we had, to an airplane used as a missile. This is not the FAA's problem. This is the way in which intelligence, which was someplace in the intelligence community, did not find its way to policy makers and certainly to implementers like the FAA and like the Pentagon.
    Sailor, just for you. Here is the link. Nothing is too good for my friends.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#58)
    by Bill Arnett on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:33:26 AM EST
    That the putative stenographer of the Whitehouse now expects ANYONE to believe a word she says, writes, thinks, or imagines defies credulity in and of itself. This abject hopless cause is just a waste of skin.

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:43:30 AM EST
    Bill Arnett -Emptywheel has a different take. She is no friend of Miller either. Well worth a read, as always. Pigs Fly and emptywheel Believes Judy

    Re: Judith Miller's Advance Warning of al Qaida At (none / 0) (#60)
    by Sailor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 04:45:57 PM EST
    Sailor - So Rice went on TV and lied about a meeting happening on 7/5 in which the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration were all there.
    got links?