You read the memo. The intelligence in it did not correspond in any way to the method of eventual attack. The fact that the word "hijack" appeared in it is irrelevant. The hijackings referred to in the memo were standard hostage-type situations, not what was eventually done. The attacks on buildings were assumed to be using explosives, like the Oklahoma Federal Building, or the first WTC attack.
It's like saying the assassination of John F. Kennedy is exactly the same as a gang drive-by shooting in Los Angeles just because both involve guns.
And again, what could Bush have mobilized in the few weeks between the memo and the attack? Oh, you could give a political John Kerry gasball answer, along the lines of "I would have deployed all possible resources to ensure that the problem was dealt with," which basically means nothing. What specifically? Additional guards at airport gates? Tighter surveillance of Arab non-citizens?
Current Events » in reply to I don't expect anything to show that Bush had prior knowledge.
The 9/11 attack was not predicted.
The whole thread (29 posts)
- "Killer Memo" released
- Everyone would benefit by reading this...
- This is the memo Rice dismissed as "historical"...