Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Administration Ignored Bin Laden Intel

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the warm-and-fuzzy dept.

800

gettin-bored noted a nice article running in very high priority on the Washington Post, right up there on page 17 of the print edition, where it's revealed that the CIA Director warned Rice about Bin Laden two months before 9/11. And strangely, the meeting was never mentioned during all the 9/11 commission reports making you really question what exactly they were actually hearing that was more important than the CIA director telling the National Security Advisor that Bin Laden was going to attack Americans.

cancel ×

800 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

condi's Hotmail account (1, Funny)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265709)

I think she had the spam filter set way too high again at pianobabe56@hotmail.com

Re:condi's Hotmail account (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16265833)

Do spam filters work for printed documents? I think this is a good place to post a link to the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing [thesmokinggun.com] on the state of security for the United States. This particular PDB had some pretty stunning statements that President Bush seemed to have firmly ignored.

The title of the briefing is "Bin Ladin Deteremined to Strike in US." What did Bush do after being read this briefing? He continued his month long vacation.

the spell checker chocked on it? (3, Funny)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265873)

"The title of the briefing is "Bin Ladin Deteremined to Strike in US."

I don't really know now. Maybe the spell check choked on it? What is more likely is that Bush saw the word "strike", mumbled something about the funny name of the new AFL-CIO chief, and passed the report onto the Secretary of Labor.

Proactive versus reactive (5, Insightful)

BWJones (18351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265717)

The fundamental problem is that the current White house administration is not remotely curious or interested in looking beyond their narrowly defined agendas. So, any deviation from what they expect is by definition, unexpected or inconvenient. This is a recurring theme again and again with hurricane Katrina, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bin Laden, the economy, energy prices, the whole torture thing and recently with senator Foley, where higher ups *knew* what was going on but they either failed to act or simply did not care as long as they can maintain power. Power for powers sake seems to be the theme here as this administration is always behind the ball. They are constantly reacting to events rather than through analysis and action being proactive and it is costing the country financially and in lives lost as well as our international reputation.

Nice Democrat campaign ad there! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16265779)

Nice text from a Democrats campaign advert there, buddy! Never mind that Clinton was so "uncurious" about Bin Laden after a couple of Bin Laden's attacks against Americans that he couldn't bother to take custody of him after being told where to easily pick him up. But hey, all's fair in mindless hypocritical Bush-bashing, right?

Re:Nice Democrat campaign ad there! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16266177)

The 9/11 Commission wrote that the authorities in the USA had never received such an offer from Somalia. This is just conservative disinformation.

Re:Nice Democrat campaign ad there! (1)

oddfox (685475) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266179)

Nice try [freepressi...tional.com] , better luck next time.

Re:Nice Democrat campaign ad there! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16266215)

Pulled right from the pages of Moveon.org. The Slick Willie Defense team will be out in full force for this. Post anything remotely conservative, and be modded into troll oblivion.

Condi Rice has no experience. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16265957)

Condi Rice is both black and female. The Republican party wanted to ensure that she succeeds in order to increase the black vote. So, when she screwed up so badly that 3000 Americans died, the Republicans said nothing.

If she were a male American of Japanese ancestry, she would have been fired on the spot.

Look carefully at the background of Rice. She is smart and has earned a Ph.D. in international relations, but she has no experience. How many people become the national security advisor without experience?

Of course, Rice is not the only problem. On the day after the infamous Clinton interview on Fox News, Charlie Rose (of PBS) interviewed Richard Clarke. He noted, "When David Kay told the current administration that, based on his survey on the ground, there were and are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no one in the administration even batted an eye. According to Kay, Bush asked, 'What do you need from me?' Kay answered, 'I need patience to allow me to finish my work.' Bush answered, 'I have all the patience in the world.' Then, the conversation fell silent. Kay thought that someone would ask questions about his work, but no one asked any questions. Kay felt that he had never met any people who were more uninterested in the events in Iraq. According to Kay, no one in the administration lost more than 10 minutes of sleep over the war in Iraq."

Does anyone feel as though your life is being controlled by government officials who do not give a damn about you?

Re: Condi Rice has no experience. (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266041)

> Does anyone feel as though your life is being controlled by government officials who do not give a damn about you?

Don't worry; you'll matter when you become a billionaire.

Re:Condi Rice has no experience. (4, Funny)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266125)

If she were a male American of Japanese ancestry, she would have been fired on the spot.

That would make her a transvestite. I'm sure they want to secure the transvestite vote too.

Richard Clarke talks about 9/11. (2, Informative)

reporter (666905) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266189)

On Thursday (September 28), Charlie Rose interiewed seven people: Chris Wallace (Fox News), Richard Clarke (Former NSC Counter-Terrorism Advisor), Representative Peter King (NY-R), Lawrence Wright (Author, "The Looming Tower"), David Remnick (Editor, The New Yorker), John Harris (Co-Author, "The Way to Win"), and Al Hunt (Bloomberg News). Richard Clarke made some eye-opening comments [google.com] about 9/11.

On Friday (September 29), Charlie Rose interviewed three people: Bob Wright (Chairman & CEO, NBC Universal), Michael Isikoff, and David Corn (dual authors of _Hubris:_The_Inside_Story_of_Spin_,_Scandal,_and_t he_Selling_of_the_Iraq_War_). Isikoff and Corn made some insightful comments [google.com] about the Iraq War.

According to the current administration, Iraq is related to 9/11. Both these interviews would justify anyone's cynicism about the politicians running our nation: the United States of America.

If anyone knows where to find the transcripts for both interviews, please share your information with the SlashDot audience.

Re:Condi Rice has no experience. (3, Insightful)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266201)

Does anyone feel as though your life is being controlled by government officials who do not give a damn about you?

Well of course. They don't give a damn about us or anyone but their super-rich friends.

Why would they insist on starting a war based on lies? Why would they give no-bid contracts to the same companies that they used to run? Why would they let thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians die unnecessarily?

Because they simply don't care. Hundreds of billions of our tax dollas are being spent on a war that has no purpose other than to line the pockets of their friends. They don't even look at us as the same species as them. So if a bunch of non-elite working class people die, why should they care as long as it's helping them get closer to that Forbes list of richest people in America?

Re:Condi Rice has no experience. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16266253)

She has experience now. And what was she supposed to do with her 2 mo nths warning about Bin Laden? She was Security adviser , not law enforcement and not the army. She couldn't take any action or investigate anything on her own. The terrorists were already in place by then attacking us for Bill Clinton's policies during his term.

History is just repeating itself (4, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266061)

I was going to use my mod points to mod you up but I decided to add a comment instead.

Although I have my own feelings about Bush's administration, I have to say that your description about their "policies" is nothing new. Recently I read "Overthrow - America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" which lists 14 countries where the USA was instrumental in ousting the legitimately elected government over the last 120 years. What I got from reading this book was not so much that the "OMG the USA is EVIL!!!!" but that sucessive goverments over that span of time all made pretty well the same arguments for doing something, but had no regards for the consequences. The book ended with Iraq, and you could just feel the approaching train wreck eerily predicted by every other previous forced regime change.

Bush & Co's screw ups may be bad, but the USA's continual making of the same mistakes is in my opinion far worse. And I think this goes all the way back to the 19th Century and the Monroe doctrine [wikipedia.org] and the idea of manifest destiny [wikipedia.org] .

Re:History is just repeating itself (1)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266247)

Ok, I understand what manifest destiny has to do with this, but the Monroe doctrine? What on earth does the Monroe doctrine have to do with Iraq and the events therein?

Also, could you give some more details about the other regime changes going badly wrong, as you seem to suggest they did? I'm not trying to suggest that they didn't, I'm just curious.

Re:Proactive versus reactive (1)

grrrgrrr (945173) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266209)

"this administration is always behind the ball" That is nice an American using a soccer expression. maybe they are not that scary ;-)

Re:Proactive versus reactive (1)

BWJones (18351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266249)

That is nice an American using a soccer expression.

I played soccer for years. :-)

Appropriate venue? (5, Insightful)

saintlupus (227599) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265723)

Uh, WTF does this have to do with "News for Nerds"?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Green Party-voting liberal, but I don't see how this is even remotely in line with the supposed purpose of this site. I mean, do we really need another ten thousand Bush-bashing posts?

--saint

Re:Appropriate venue? (5, Funny)

peterprior (319967) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265751)

"Uh, WTF does this have to do with "News for Nerds"?"

It has "Intel" in the story title :)

Re:Appropriate venue? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16266103)

Not to mention Admin, NOR and Bin

This is Consumer Focused Marketing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16266181)

Don't you know why Slashdot is posting this kind of news?
It's necessary to read something about consumer focused marketing studies.

They are mapping and modelling the geek community in all kind of topics, to know how to sell new things to this interesting community.

See companies like: I-Behaviour [i-behavior.com]

Cheers,
NKT

It's because it has a magic word in the title (1)

RootWind (993172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265775)

I bet it's because they used the word [b]Intel[/b] in the headline.

Re:Appropriate venue? (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265777)

It was posted by Taco. Who are we to argue with what Taco chooses to put on his own site?

Re:Appropriate venue? (4, Insightful)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265797)

Who are we to argue with what Taco chooses to put on his own site?

The people who pay his bills?

Re:Appropriate venue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16265941)

Unless you're a subscriber - you don't pay his bills. The advertisers do.

If you are a subscriber, it is still a private for profit endevor - so walk or shut up.

Re:Appropriate venue? (5, Insightful)

xx_chris (524347) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265823)

Because even nerds need news.

Re:Appropriate venue? (2, Insightful)

mikelieman (35628) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265829)

Unless you SUPPORT Torture, Secret Prisons, and Domestic Surveillance so tight the Nazis and Commies would have given their right tits for,

EVERY VENUE is needed to denounce the Violations of:

Bush's oath to G-d, Articles 1, 4, and 14 of the Constitution. amd 50USC1802 and 1805, just to name a few...

I'm surprised you had the guts to suggest otherwise, Comrade.

Re:Appropriate venue? (0, Offtopic)

Drink Kool-Aid! (1008001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266207)

Unless you SUPPORT Torture, Secret Prisons, and Domestic Surveillance so tight the Nazis and Commies would have given their right tits for...

OH, YEAAAHH!

Keep drinking Kool-Aid!

- Kool-Aid Man

Re:Appropriate venue? (1)

SirBruce (679714) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265897)

According to the FAQ:

Politics This section is for news relevant to United States government politics. It was created primarily to cover the 2004 US Presidential Election, but today exists for occasional stories that fit the bill.
Okay, so if Slashdot is going to have a straight political blog-type section, fine. But where are the posts about the far-bigger political stories this week, such as Clinton going ballistic, Congress ending its session, a Republican resigning due to an Internet sex scandal, and so on?

Bruce

Re:Appropriate venue? (5, Funny)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265931)

Clinton always goes ballistic, because he's a smart man with eyes and ears.

Congress always ends sessions.

Republicans resigning over sex scandals is like me getting coffee in the mornings, you just EXPECT it.

But Bush doing something Unconstitutional? That's NEWS!

Re:Appropriate venue? (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266243)

That is the first time in the last year or so that I laughed out loud at a post on slashdot.

Re:Appropriate venue? (5, Insightful)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265907)

You're right. Nerds shouldn't be informed of what goes on at a national level... it might involve them leaving their basements.


Come on, guys... this is important. This is important on the global scale. This is a little more important than Paris Hilton's CD being hijacked, or Yahoo doing stuff with it's e-mail.

This is important.

Re:Appropriate venue? (1)

b0r1s (170449) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265933)

Political flamewars drive pageviews which increases revenue. It's just like the " Bush Knew " headlines that ran in traditional press - it doesn't have to be true, it just has to make money.

Re:Appropriate venue? (1)

slightlyspacey (799665) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265973)

Ummmm ... it could be worse ... A LOT worse. You could go to one of those OTHER news for nerd sites where the users are in control of the content *cough* digg *cough* and everyone has mod points all the time. There have been recently at least 10 Bush/Republican/Religious-bashing articles a day that make it to the front page. HEAVEN-forbid you should disagree with the tone of the submission or the 3000 responses of "we-hate-Bush-he-is-worse-than-Hitler", you will get modded out of existence.

I say, thank goodness for Cmdr Taco and his set of minions to bring order out of the chaos, even if it means having to put up with occasional irrelevant articles such as politics, global warming, evil Republicans, and Apple Versus Microsoft. Hell, I'm even happy to see articles by Roland again :):)

Re:Appropriate venue? (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266131)

Or worse on Digg: 800 stories about what their founder ate for breakfast this morning, a million links to spam-sites advertising "get a free USB stick" that don't send them, and a billion advertisements for everyone's app or blog's Favorite-App-top-ten-list-OMG!.

Re:Appropriate venue? (1)

Frumious Wombat (845680) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266109)

My theory about posts like this is that someone has an alternative-energy plan which is powered by political invective. Unfortunately, they needed another 10,000 units for this week's test.

So... cue the Freepers at 3... 2... 1...

Re:Appropriate venue? (0)

deanj (519759) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266219)

It's now they have to keep traffic up at the site. Post an article like this, get both sides to point out that the other side is at fault. I'm sure you'll see something about the 8 years and 10 chances Clinton at to do something, and supposedly had a "comprehensive strategy" that he left when he left office, to complement this story where they're still trying to blame Bush.

But again, any story that blames Bush for things gets posted, since it is Slashdot.

Notice there haven't been any stories proving or disproving everything Clinton said last week. Guess that wouldn't have been too favorable, so they ignore it.

Besides, if you want real news, this is not the place to come. This is where the digital street fights happen. You need to read a large variety of sources, BOTH left and right, and then decide for yourself.

Don't buy in to someone else's agenda. Think for yourself.

Re:Appropriate venue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16266235)

It has very much to do with "News for Nerds".

The current state of rampant anti-intellectualism and utter disregard for facts and basic logic threatens the very essence of science and progress (ie the nerd movement)

Suggestions? (0)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265725)

Of course we knew to varying degrees that there was going to be some kind of attack, and one of many scenarios was previous described as using planes as missiles.

So what if we don't know where, when, or how the attack is to take place?

Perhaps we could explore doing things to proactively protect the United States, such as secretly monitoring and mining international calling records to try to eke out worrying patterns, or cooperating covertly with the EU to monitor bank accounts of suspected and/or known terrorist entities, or keeping the detention of high-value targets secret so that their collaborators might be kept in the dark for a period longer...

Oh, wait...

Re:Suggestions? (3, Insightful)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265821)

In other words, instead of putting a massive number of troops on the ground to flush out and kill or (even better, capture) Osama Bin Laden, let's divert all those troops to overthrowing the regime of a bad guy who also happens to be Arab, whose government had maybe one or two meetings with Bin Laden but was widely considered (as a secular Ba'athist regime) to be effectively "infidel" by Bin Laden and his associates, and whose presence, while certainly very bad for his own people and a very minor threat to the US (slightly more serious than the threat of Syria, let's say, but far less serious a threat than al Qaeda, Iran, Korea, and China, just to name the four threats the current administration has allowed to grow over the past 6 years), was more importantly a serious threat to Iran and Syria, and thereby give Bin Laden's associates a rallying cry, something they can use as evidence of a "crusade" against Islam by the US and Israel ('cause let's face it, Bin Laden and his bunch probably blamed Israel for the earthquake in Pakistan), and then use all that as an excuse to revert to practices for which we long criticized, hey, that very same bad guy whose regime we overthrew!

How about ... (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265851)

So what if we don't know where, when, or how the attack is to take place?

Perhaps we could explore doing things to proactively protect the United States, such as secretly monitoring and mining international calling records to try to eke out worrying patterns, or cooperating covertly with the EU to monitor bank accounts of suspected and/or known terrorist entities, or keeping the detention of high-value targets secret so that their collaborators might be kept in the dark for a period longer...

No, that would be treating the symptom, not the problem.

If you are worried about airplanes being hijacked and used as missiles, you work on the access to the airplane angle.

#1. Lock the pilot's door and ensure that it cannot be breached during a hijacking.

#2. Well, there's really nothing more you need to do at that point, is there? The pilots cannot be reached and in the event of a hijacking, the pilots can radio in the situation and LAND the plane somewhere.

There, the problem is solved and our Rights are still protected.

Re:How about ... (0)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265945)

No, that would be treating the symptom, not the problem.

If you are worried about [...]


And what if we don't know "what we're worried about"?

What then?

Have an attack happen and then keeping running flamebait stories on slashdot five years after the fact when there's plenty of blame to go around [washingtonpost.com] ?

Or actually do something to aggressively try to detect plots and prevent attacks before they happen?

WTF? (2, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266017)

And what if we don't know "what we're worried about"?

What then?

Then you're either paranoid or a child.

Or actually do something to aggressively try to detect plots and prevent attacks before they happen?

"Plots" from whom?

Since you "don't know 'what we're worried about'", you don't know if it the "enemy" is a group of fundamentalist Muslims ... or a group of ex-KGB agents ... or a US based Christian sect ... or a US citizen with a grudge against academics ... or a nutcase with lots of fertilizer and a truck.

Grow UP and realize that the people who founded this country PUBLICLY signed the Declaration of Independence knowing that it would be used to execute them if they lost.

You cannot live Free if you sell your Freedoms for "protection" from the "bad men" hurting you.

Re:Suggestions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16266013)

I think you should watch this [google.com] . Bush in July before the attack housed himself in a boat during the G8 summit specifically to avoid such an attack. The administration was on full notice [cnn.com] (PDF warning).

We found mountains of worrying patterns before 9/11 and the executive branch did not do what was necessary and what it could to prevent the imminent attack (nor did it warn the American people). I do not think adding more noise to the equation in the form of sweeping surveillance is making us any safer. We have and had plenty of warning based on legally obtained information. To the extent our analysis failed us, we need better analysts. To the extent the administration ignored the analysis, we need a new administration. We do not need a shredding of the Constitution.

old news... (-1)

netdoode (700055) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265727)

Oliver North testified during the Iran-Contra affair that Osama Bin Laden was the one person he was most scared about...that's why he had a new security system installed at his house. All of this stuff is such old news. Maybe that's why it's on page 17?

Re:old news... (3, Informative)

Rascasse (719300) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265795)

That's an urban legend [snopes.com] .

Re:old news... (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265869)

That's an urban legend

But, on slashdot, it's an insightful urban legend ... (a'la in Soviet ...)

I doubt it's conspiracy... (1)

jetblackstrat (952885) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265745)

I think its much more that anytime this many high level washington polictical slime gather (the 9/11 comission), its much more verbaly kissing ass and jerking each other off than actual work. Like I don't know, hunting down facts and answers. But thats just my 2 cents.

Re:I doubt it's conspiracy... (2, Insightful)

orielbean (936271) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266261)

What happened is this - those federal agencies have always been fighting with each other for influence, budgets, etc, including trying to get a favored ear in whatever current Presidental cabinet there was.
 
So, when they found good evidence of an upcoming attack, they said to themselves "let's sell this sucker so we can gain a little more prestige than the other agency".
 
The agencies have the reputation for doing this and a history of it, so whenever a cabinet memebr would read the reports, they also are applying their own filters to it saying "well, looks like FBI wants another budget allotment this year" instead of saying "well, looks like Bin Laden wants to blow stuff up this year."
 
This problem was not created by Clinton, Bush etc, but by the hidebound bureaucracies in place for so long. Clinton or Bush made the wrong decisions, but because of the culture in place they were unable to take off the blinders and act seriously. Maybe the middle managers and actual caseworkers realized that something very bad was going to happen very soon, but a many-tiered structure of a CIA or FBI prevents such stuff from being a priority.
 
  That is something the 9-11 commission was very clear on that needed improvement and had little to do with Bush and Co. DOn't get me wrong, Bush was the worst possible guy for the job and the situation, and has consistently made the wrong decision that has driven up terrorist recruitment and turned nations against us, but at the same time, the Intel had far less weight b/c it came from the same knuckleheads who've been fighting each other for decades for more influence and cash.
 
And the fact that he created an EXTRA agency to collate the others is the single exact wrong thing to do. Why not reform the existing, broken agencies? Why the hell would you make ANOTHER one to screw things up - and remember why Katrina was so bad and FEMA failed? The dept of Homeland Security wasn't ready for primetime...
 
Who needs a conspiracy when good old fashioned incompetence is the Occam's Razor answer?

So what? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16265769)

"I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'"

Even if they took the report seriously I doubt they would have been able to prevent the attack. There was a lot of information and misinformation out there, and it would have taken a lot of luck for everything to line up properly in order to prevent it. I don't fault the administration for failing to prevent the attack, but obviously their actions following the attack speak for themselves. Do you honestly believe if Al Gore had won his administration would have done any better? Maybe (hopefully) they wouldn't have done so much dumb shit in the wake of the attack, but I am pretty sure they would fail to prevent it, too.

Re:So what? (2, Insightful)

Nutria (679911) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266073)

Even if they took the report seriously I doubt they would have been able to prevent the attack. There was a lot of information and misinformation out there, and it would have taken a lot of luck for everything to line up properly in order to prevent it. I don't fault the administration for failing to prevent the attack, but obviously their actions following the attack speak for themselves. Do you honestly believe if Al Gore had won his administration would have done any better? Maybe (hopefully) they wouldn't have done so much dumb shit in the wake of the attack, but I am pretty sure they would fail to prevent it, too.

Exactly.

Besides (possibly) killing (and definitely) martyring UBL, how would that have stopped the 9/11 attack? It probably would have made the hijackers even more determined to perform the attacks. And then administration critics would have blamed Bush for 9/11.

Note this paragraph from TFA:
There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer's instinct strongly suggested that something was coming.
Given the attitude of most people pre-9/11, I don't think that there was the popular will to do what would have been needed to stop the attacks.

it was the tubes.. (1)

mobilebuddha (713936) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265771)

net neutrality had clogged her filters.

Not the only administration (4, Interesting)

SengirV (203400) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265785)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A586 15-2004Jul17.html [washingtonpost.com]

Kinda makes Hillary a hypocrite based on what she said here, now doesn't it? - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A586 15-2004Jul17.html [washingtonpost.com]

Those looking to pin this ONLY on this current administration are showing they are simply interested in partisan politics. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Re:Not the only administration (1)

tinrobot (314936) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265963)

There is plenty of blame to go around.

Perhaps... but Clinton is at least honest and owns up to his failures. He did try to get Bin Laden back in 1998 when he bombed the camps -- despite that the Republicans said he was "wagging the dog"

This administration never owns up - they cover up their failures and point fingers. Perhaps if they admitted fault, I might be more inclined to spread the blame, but the fact that they obfuscate and cover up just adds more taint to an already abysmal record. This administration are the ones who did absolutely nothing when warned during the summer of 2001. The result of that inaction was the loss of several thousand lives.

Re: Not the only administration (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266111)

> This administration never owns up - they cover up their failures and point fingers. Perhaps if they admitted fault, I might be more inclined to spread the blame, but the fact that they obfuscate and cover up just adds more taint to an already abysmal record. This administration are the ones who did absolutely nothing when warned during the summer of 2001. The result of that inaction was the loss of several thousand lives.

"Stay the course" is just the public face of "Don't admit that we screwed up". Two US soldiers are dying every day for no reason other than helping Dick Don and George save face. If they can keep it up for another 28 months they can blame the failure on the next president. (They probably hope he's a Democrat.) Of course, that's another 800 US soldiers dead in a futile attempt to salvage DD&G's places in history.

Re:Not the only administration (1, Troll)

mikelieman (35628) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265969)

Yeah, But only Bush could have GIVEN INTO Bin Ladin's demands to withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia, AND turn the US into the Moral Equals of Nazis, with respect to the rule of law.

TODAY, tossing someone in a cell FOR LIFE, without Equal Protection of the Law is PERFECTLY LAWFUL. What about Tomorrow?

In Nazi Germany, gassing and shovelling Jews into Ovens was PERFECTLY LAWFUL, too.

You going to let it get that bad?

DO you THINK you still have a voice? Or is it too late?

Re:Not the only administration (1)

DJ Jones (997846) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266071)

First off, I personally believe this whole mid-term election blame game needs to be shifted away from a debate over which administration is responsible for causing 9/11. The terrorists were behind 9/11, not the American government (unless you endulge in the occasional conspiracy theory). But if we must bicker over this issue on which administration was truly "softer" on terrorism. Than I believe all of you must read Richard Clark's book, "Against all enemies" before you blog anymore. The man served as a non-partisan National Security Advisor since the Reagan administration and also served under Clinton and both Bush administrations. If anyone knows which administration was truly "less proactive" regarding the terrorist threat, it would be him. I don't want to spoil the book for you, but I'll give you a hint; Clinton atleast tried to fight terrorism, G.W. ignored it for his first eight months in office.

Re:Not the only administration (1)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266081)

Kinda makes Hillary a hypocrite based on what she said here, now doesn't it?

Don't know if you realize it, but you just posted links to the same article twice. Neither one mentions Hillary.

So, no. I don't think she's a hypocrite. And if she decides to run, she will destroy any Republican she runs against. That's the only reason there is so much animosity towards her. ...well, that, and the fact that she almost single-handedly destroyed our chances of getting a decent health care system in this country.

Re:Not the only administration (1)

akzeac (862521) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266095)

Wow, those b-b-but Clintons seem to be coming even faster.

Guess what. Clinton sucked. That's not news. However, throwing red herrings will NOT make this (as in, happening now) administration stop doing it. The fact that "they did it too" doesn't work anymore. You can't change the past, so start taking responsability for what's happening now.

If Democrats take control of the House and the Senate in November, I'll be the first one yelling to any Democrat for the "b-b-but Bush"s that WILL come. But right now, it's useless.

Welcome news, perhaps... (0, Flamebait)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265789)

Of course there's always the theory that the administration thought that a terrorist attack would be a great way to rally the American populace and take their minds off much larger problems at home...

Really? (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265817)

I thought that Bush had started the recession in order to take our minds off terrorism.

Re:Welcome news, perhaps... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16265947)

If you want a consipracy theory, you don't need to go that far. Just ask the question: Who is the war beneficial for? Sure, it would be beneficial for the average person if we took any care to actually rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq and give people reasons to not hate the West, but apart from that it's a *huge* boost to the military contractors, many of which were selected without a bidding process by various politicians, and all of which are now getting rich off taxpayers' money or off increasing government debt in a never-ending war.

And this is just becoming news to you, CMRTACO? (1)

furasato (715764) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265793)

And this is just becoming news to you, CMRTACO? Jesus Christ, where have you been these last 5 years? The level in chatter prior to 9/11 was documented tons after the incident. Have you been in a cave? And to show how much of an idiot you are for thinking that the Bush admin should have known when and where 9/11 would take place, look at this statement right from you own article: "There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence" You libs really need to get a life and accept no one could have predicted 9/11 down to the exact method, place, and time.

Woo hoo, neat, more fodder (1, Insightful)

bahwi (43111) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265803)

Woo hoo, neat, more fodder. But, um, this is Slashdot? Not some overzealous political blog. Maybe if it was a computer-based coverup or something, then that would be cool. Or if we found out Condolezza was actually a Russian Android, originally programmed for "freaky tribal sex" that Bush acquired long ago, that would be interesting too, IF the specs were there. But none of these is the case, so this isn't Slashdot news. Of course, more recently, nothing is.

I know with the Debian/Firefox thing from yesterday there's a lot of pointless political blah-blah-blah's going on but seriously, let's get over it. Most people have made up their mind on the issue one way or another, and this is slashdot.

Re:Woo hoo, neat, more fodder (1)

furasato (715764) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266069)

I was just thinking the same thing. From 1998, I used to look up to Slashdot as "the place" to get news about the world of technology, from the dark unground politics of it, to the flashy releases of a product. Now, it doesn't seem to be the case, and this post by Taco clearly shows that he has lost his focus. I guess this adds to the idea that Slashdot is on the list of the 10 internet sites that don't matter anymore. If I wanted to get the dirt on our politions, I can go to KOS/DU, and the gazillion right wing sites. I dont want it here. I come here for news that "no one else has", not stuff "I already know".

Stuff that matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16265813)

news for ne^H^H tin-foil hats

News for nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16265837)

Does this have anything to do with news for nerds. This site has gone way way downhill, to a bunch of game wannabes who think drilling plexiglass is "hardware hacking".

Can you make a beowulf of these?
Are gritz or Natalie involved?

No.

Nothing to see here, move on.

Are the web media consolidating too? (1, Flamebait)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265841)

Welcome to Slashkoz. Next up: discussion about Howard Dean's iPod list, and how George Soros is getting out of politics so he can concentrate on politics.

Why security is a pain in the ass... (1)

MoneyT (548795) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265845)

He did not know when, where or how, but Tenet felt there was too much noise in the intelligence systems.

So much information, so little to actualy go on. And these days, when the government steps up security measures when they don't know "when, where or how" people cry bloody murder. The problem with security is you never know if it's working until it fails to work.

Pssssst.... Condi... (0, Troll)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265853)

If you let Bin Laden attack America, you can do ANYTHING YOU WANT after that! It's like a blank check! All you have to do is write "three thousand New Yorkers" on the second line, and "Pay To The Order Of Bin Laden / George Bush" up top. It's BULLETPROOF!

Re:Pssssst.... Condi... (1)

otterpop81 (784896) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265971)

Yeah, I'm sure that's just it. Bush and his Administration just knowingly let it happen so they could get more popularity at the polls. I bet you're one of the 42% of Americans that think Bush fixes gas prices, too. Black Helicopters, anyone?

AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16265859)

Yet another reason to support AMD over Intel.

Would it have mattered? (5, Interesting)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265877)

Most of the principals were in the country by the time Bush came to office, killing Bin Laden wouldn't have done much. Even now, Al Qaeda is not some monolith organization, and it is academically lazy to think of it as one. Bin Laden's capture would certainly have a demoralizing effect, but it would not cripple the organization, nor would killing him in early 2001 have done so. Hell, we really need to get Al-Zawahri, but have been failing at that.

9/11 CANNOT be blamed on one individual. True, Clinton did not do as much as he should have during his term, but Bush obviously didn't see the flaws being all that major as he didn't do anything about them in the first 9 months. Also recall that anything Clinton did in the Middle East(most hypocritically was bomb Iraq) was labeled as "Wag the Dog" by Republicans. Meanwhile, when they do similar things they are being "tough on terrorism".

The intelligence failures showed systemic flaws in the US intelligence gathering organization, flaws that go back decades(hell, Bush Sr. was head of the CIA for a few months). As George Tenet said, 9/11 was a "failure of imagination" on the part of the intelligence community. And so far in my opinion Bush has done almost nothing to fix those flaws. Well, he has allowed Army translators who are in short supply to be fired because they are gay, I guess there is always that. Also see the court cases of dismissed FBI agents who claimed they were ignored when they warned about attacks. The system is broken, and Clinton blaming Bush and Bush blaming Clinton surprisingly won't fix it. Killing Bin Laden won't fix it. Iraq certainly won't fix it. Nor will using homeland security money to pay off political backers and punish adversaries(Because we all know Indiana has the most potential terrorist targets). What needs to be done cannot be boiled down to a soundbite, but I do know that past administrations, this administration and in all likelihood future administrations don't have the will or desire to really fix it, but instead like to apply popular band-aids and use ad-hominem attacks on their critics.

Re:Would it have mattered? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16266153)

Taking out bin Laden wouldn't have directly stopped the attack, but it'd have been easy at that stage (predator missile) before he was spooked into hiding, and *might* have stopped the attack since he was directly involved in planning it(per recent videos showing him together with the perps).

Perhaps more to the point, the White House accepting the threat would presumably have entailed authorizing the CIA to take some action against it, and that could easily have busted the plan seeing as known al Quaida operatives were alreday known to be training in US flight schools at that time.

Make you wonder what Bush thought the purpose of the CIA was if not to warn him of things. Perhaps he needed Tenet to get up and slap him in the face before he figured he wasn't kidding?

Big Dang Deal (3, Insightful)

otterpop81 (784896) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265917)

This just in: Bin Laden is going to attack Americans. Big Deal. He already _had_ attacked Americans.

For months, Tenet had been pressing Rice to set a clear counterterrorism policy, including specific presidential orders called "findings" that would give the CIA stronger authority to conduct covert action against bin Laden.

Interesting, Bill Clinton said last Sunday night or whenever it was that He "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy." I guess that turned out to be a lie if Rice was being pressured to set one herself.

There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer's instinct strongly suggested that something was coming.

Sound to me something like, "we don't _really_ have any proof, but I have a hunch."

This is non-news. Why are the only political stories on Slashdot left-wing propaganda?

Re:Big Dang Deal (0, Offtopic)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265961)

Because every channel on Television except for The Comedy Network is right-wing propaganda. There's nowhere else left for us to talk about this sort of thing, except the Intertubes.

Re:Big Dang Deal (1)

otterpop81 (784896) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266003)

I think it's pretty clear that you don't watch any news on TV.

Re: Big Dang Deal (3, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265989)

> This just in: Bin Laden is going to attack Americans. Big Deal. He already _had_ attacked Americans. [...] This is non-news.

The news is that everyone "forgot" to mention it to the Commission.

> Why are the only political stories on Slashdot left-wing propaganda?

What is left-wing or propagandistic about this? Is it "left-wing propaganda" to point out the flaws and dishonesty in the way this country is run? If another party was calling the shots, would it be right-wing propaganda to point out the flaws in their behavior?

Re: Big Dang Deal (1)

otterpop81 (784896) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266053)

So what should have been mentioned to the commission, that some guy had no concrete evidence but had a gut feeling? The fact that this is non-news but is still getting reported makes it propaganda.

You're an idiot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16266031)

But that's no surprise, given the agenda you bleat.

Clinton left behind a comprehensive strategy, but it is up to the National Security Advisor to implement ("set") it as policy.

As for the second point, we pay these people to interpret the "non-smoking-gun intelligence." This guy was the head of the fucking CIA. If he is begging the administration to deal with a specific threat, they should deal with it, or at least face up to the consequences when their failure to deal with it costs us so dearly.

Re:You're an idiot. (0, Troll)

otterpop81 (784896) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266093)

Great! Post as AC and call me names. What class. But this is what I've come to expect from liberals. When you know you're beat, you just start yelling and name calling. Go ahead, call me a Nazi, you know you want to.

9/11 wasnt the fault of the Pubs or Dems (2, Insightful)

jorghis (1000092) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265919)

It seems like all the members of the left want to blame buch for 9/11 and all the members of the right insist that Clinton could have stopped it. It seems to me that there is no way that some high ranking government official (republican or democrat) could have prevented 9/11 by reading some broad document titled "Bin Laden determined to attack Americans". I'm sure they see a million documents about terrorist organizations that dont like the US. I mean what were they supposed to do? Use their spider sense when they saw the document to say "aha! that must mean they are going to fly planes into the twin towers on september 11th!"

Trying to pin this on Bush or Clinton is just silly. The only people who deserve to be blamed for 9/11 are the members of Al-Qaida.

Re:9/11 wasnt the fault of the Pubs or Dems (1)

tinrobot (314936) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266049)

I'm sure they see a million documents about terrorist organizations that dont like the US. I mean what were they supposed to do?

Well... when Clinton got a similar warning about a possble millenium plot, he "shook the trees" so to speak and put everyone on high alert. They actually caught the bomber coming across the border in Canada.

When Bush got his warning on August 6th, 2001, he told the guy that he "covered his ass" and then went back to clearning brush.

Condi Rice's friend was in charge of commission (3, Interesting)

MarkWatson (189759) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265965)

Condi Rice's best friend was in charge of the 9/11 commission. From what I have read he forbade certain lines of inquiry. This is why so many family members of 9/11 victims are so critical of the commission's report.

So? (1, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 7 years ago | (#16265995)

First, al-Qaeda was going to attack American interests, possibly in the United States itself. Black emphasized that this amounted to a strategic warning, meaning the problem was so serious that it required an overall plan and strategy. Second, this was a major foreign policy problem that needed to be addressed immediately. They needed to take action that moment -- covert, military, whatever -- to thwart bin Laden.

I have three responses to this postFUD.
1) non-specific information is almost worth than valueless. Let's say you are running a giant worldwide computer network, and I tell you that everything points to the strong conclusion that there "...is going to be a failure in your network. I can't tell you what, where, when, or how big it's going to be - but I'm nearly certain it IS going to happen." Then, months later, when there is a failure in your network, your boss calls you on the carpet to fire you, demanding why in hell you didn't prevent it "since you were warned months ahead of time". Think that's reasonable?

2) Part of this is playing into one of the oldest stock-cons in the book. Call 16 people, tell half that Stock X is going to go up, half that it's going to go down. The next week, call the half of them for whom you were right, and do the same thing (half up/half down). Repeat. After three weeks, you have 4 people that you can call and say "hey, I was 100% right 3 weeks in a row, invest with me!". Predicting something is one thing, but without knowing how many OTHER people were giving the same dire warnings about everything else, one has no reasonable idea of the 'static' surrounding the communication.

3) finally, let's assume that this was the only credible warning, and let's presuppose it was specific and certain. How would the bleeding-heart left have reacted if we'd sent an assassination team to kill Osama? Would a 'dire warning from the CIA director' been considered adequate? We invaded Iraq for a number of reasons, including (but not limited to) the consensus by a number of the world's intelligence services that Iraq had WMDs. We're still arguing about that, I believe.

One has to wonder if this Monday-morning quarterbacking will ever end.

Re:So? (1)

tinrobot (314936) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266255)

How would the bleeding-heart left have reacted if we'd sent an assassination team to kill Osama?

Bleeding heart... what a lovely label.

Bill Clinton did bomb Bin Laden's camps in 1998 in an attempt to assasinate him. The Republican response was that Clinton was "wagging the dog"

In March 2002, after Osama had destroyed the WTC and thousands of lives, Bush was asked about Osama and his response was "I am really not that concerned about him."

The Republicans said nothing to that. Now... who's the bleeding heart?

why is this here? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266033)

/. will shortly be asked to remove it as this will be classified, so there is no sense in posting this.

Assassination (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16266077)

Maybe the commission figured that Clinton's assassination contracts would make the problem go away before their report. Oh, assassination is illegal? But someone just admitted to trying to do it...

Re:Assassination (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16266099)

yeah, like Reagan, poppa bush, and W never used assassination. Well, maybe not W. He just hides them in his prisons.

Terrorists Tactics Known As Early As 1996 (1)

shma (863063) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266085)

Information surfaced today showing that American officials were aware of terrorists' plans to hijack an airliner as early as 1996. The lengthy document [imdb.com] suggests possible counterterrorist measures which were not implemented on Sept 11th. Both Democrats and Repbulicans were quick to pounce on this new evidence as proof that the opposing administration did not do enough to try and prevent a Sept 11th style attack. Said one official "All those lives could have been saved with one phone call to Steven Seagal ".

Olbermann (5, Interesting)

mabu (178417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266123)

Keith Olbermann has an incredibly poignant video response [bsalert.com] on this issue. This is probably what motivated some conservative nutjob to send him a letter full of soap powder. Sometimes I wonder about people.

Well, how about this! (3, Funny)

SQLz (564901) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266139)

Simply posting this information on Slashdot offers comfort to terrorists.

Focus attacks on current practices (1)

saforrest (184929) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266161)

Is this a revelation? I mean, we already knew of general warnings about bin Laden's plans: remember when Rice testified to the commission about the August memo Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States [cnn.com] . I believe there were also various more specific warnings, about airplane hijackings.

This latest piece of data provides evidence of warnings a month or so earlier. I don't know that it's the most pressing indictment against the Bush Administration we could be raising now. Maybe instead the whole arbitrary power to interpret the Geneva Conventions (parodied nicely here [theonion.com] ), or the indiscrimate warrantless wiretapping program.

It was deliberated (1)

joxeanpiti (789529) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266165)

Sorry if it is considered as a provocation but, in my opinion, it was deliberated. Good propaganda (the attack) to start writting anti-terrorism laws that will only serve for the government's purposes: special courts, control of personal data, cut of liberties to fight better against terrorism...

They take advantage of the people's fear to the terrorism. The 11-S was their great excuse to do whatever they want in the name of the fight against the terrorism.

For them it does not matter who died, only "for what purpose can be worth to us?".

Speculation is ruining the possibility for truth. (2, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266171)

Whenever I turn on the news, I always hear questions. I hear pointless speculation from anchors with no more credibility than anyone who is "able" to speak with enunciation and wear makeup, and worse, they are speaking about things that no one on earth can possibly know. Whether it's a school shooting, or a political scandal, or a celebrity arrest, the talking heads guess and guess about what the truth could be.

What happens? People make a decision based on their own biases, and then when the truth is actually known, it is written off or embraced on assumptions based on speculation based on nothing much at all.

Now, did the Bush Administration lie? Of course they did - just like all the administrations before it. Now, what did they lie about, and how important were the lies to the security and well-being of the American people? That is something we need to come to terms with as a country, but let's not speculate about it. We simply don't know. Conservatives should lay down their bias towards innocence, and liberals should lay down their bias towards guilt.

The only thing that concerns me is that the Bush Administration seems unwilling to submit to a full and thorough investigation, and no one, especially elected officials, are above criticism or criminal investigation. If the White House is unwilling to open all of their records, including all classiffied documents, to a special commission, many will simply assume guilt because they will not submit themselves to the same rules everyone else must follow.

Similarly, if America continues to display it's arrogance by flatly ignoring international law, I'm afraid we may reap what we sow when we are no longer the dominant superpower. We had moral credibility after WWII. We lost some in Vietnam, and in Grenada, then in the Iran Contra Affair, and more when we supported Hussein while he was gassing Kurds. So when the chips are down, and we are truly afraid, do we torture? Do we kill 20 civilians to kill one suspected terrorist? Do we withhold legal rights that were once so central to our belief that every man - suspected terrorist or not - is created equal, and has the right to be innocent until proven guilty?

I don't know. I can only speculate.

Thank you sherlock (2, Insightful)

brennz (715237) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266183)

This is a dumb post.

First of all, Bin ladin (Al qaeda) had already attacked the USA several times by then. That he was going to continue attacks was obvious. That many attacks had already occurred during the Clinton administration is obvious.

I advise you to consult Wikipedia on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Quaeda#Activities [wikipedia.org]

Attacks listed by year: (might be missing some)
1992
1993*, 1993
1995, 1995
1996 (Khobar)
1998,1998
1999
2000

*dubious, may or may not be al-qaeda

These facts aren't really so relevant as is the fact that Clinton had many chances to get Bin Ladin and he failed to capitalize on them. http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowle dge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm [infowars.com]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ [msn.com]

Both Presidents are at fault. Both presidents failed when they had good chances of snagging him, clinton on numerous occasions, and bush with Tora Bora. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/ [msn.com]

Is this really a surprise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16266185)

The administration didn't pay much heed to the warnings that Katrina could swamp New Orleans, either, and that approaching threat could be seen on radar and in satellite photos-- much more tangible evidence than some career intelligence officer's hunch based on the data he was interpreting.

Election day cannot get here fast enough-- if we're going to save this country we have simply got to sweep these Republican fucktards out of office before they're the death of us all.

CIA Director? (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#16266217)

Come on, everytime a firecracker went off in the late 90's, the media's reaction was to say that Bin Laden was the primary suspect.

He was the big honcho suspect in the truck-bombing of the WTC, his picture was on TV when the Oklahoma city bombing ocurred (before it turned out to be a white american christian veteran what did it).

I think Condi went "yeah, we know, Bin Laden bad, duh".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>