The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
Okay, on May 1, 2001, the CIA warns that a group presently in the US was planning a terror strike. And yet the CIA, which had known since 2000 that Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Mihdhar were in the US, didn't see fit to tell the FBI about their presence until two weeks before the attacks? Or are we supposed to believe that the CIA had information on another group then-presently in the US? Once again, I find myself wondering how George Tenet gets a pass on this stuff. I guess because it doesn't suit the narrative that Bush was at fault.
Gawker says there's nothing to see here. They also link to a bizarre article about a controversial investigation Eichenwald did of a child pornography business. Reading the latter piece, I can get no clear sense of whether Eichenwald is credible on that prior investigation, and obviously that has some bearing on his current work.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder