{"id":643,"date":"2004-03-27T17:43:03","date_gmt":"2004-03-28T00:43:03","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2004-03-27T17:43:03","modified_gmt":"2004-03-28T00:43:03","slug":"focus-on-bin-laden-a-mistake","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2004\/03\/27\/focus-on-bin-laden-a-mistake\/","title":{"rendered":"Focus on Bin Laden &#8220;A Mistake&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/hnn.us\/blogs\/entries\/4335.html\" target=\"_blank\">William Marina posts<\/a> the following on the <a href=\"http:\/\/hnn.us\/blogs\/4.html\" target=\"_blank\">Liberty &#038; Power blog:<\/a><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>March 26, 2004 | Daily Mislead Archive<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.misleader.org\/daily_mislead\/read.asp?fn=df03252004.html\" target=\"_blank\">White House, 4\/01: Focus on Bin Laden &#8220;A Mistake&#8221;<\/a><\/p>\n<p>A previously forgotten report from April 2001 (four months before 9\/11) shows that the Bush Administration officially declared it &#8220;a mistake&#8221; to focus &#8220;so much energy on Osama bin Laden.&#8221; The report directly contradicts the White House&#8217;s continued assertion that fighting terrorism was its &#8220;top priority&#8221; before the 9\/11 attacks 1.<\/p>\n<p>Specifically, on April 30, 2001, CNN reported that the Bush Administration&#8217;s release of the government&#8217;s annual terrorism report contained a serious change: &#8220;there was no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden&#8221; as there had been in previous years. When asked why the Administration had reduced the focus, &#8220;a senior Bush State Department official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden.&#8221; 2.<\/p>\n<p>The move to downgrade the fight against Al Qaeda before 9\/11 was not the only instance where the Administration ignored repeated warnings that an Al Qaeda attack was imminent 3. Specifically, the Associated Press reported in 2002 that &#8220;President Bush&#8217;s national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions&#8221; 4. Meanwhile, Newsweek has reported that internal government documents show that the Bush Administration moved to &#8220;de-emphasize&#8221; counterterrorism prior to 9\/11 5. When &#8220;FBI officials sought to add hundreds more counterintelligence agents&#8221; to deal with the problem, &#8220;they got shot down&#8221; by the White House.<\/p>\n<p>Sources:<\/p>\n<p>1. Press Briefing by Scott McClellan , 03\/22\/2004.<\/p>\n<p>2. CNN, 04\/30\/2001.<\/p>\n<p>3. Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9\/11; Lawmakers Want Public Inquiry , ABC News, 05\/16\/2002.<\/p>\n<p>4. &#8220;Top security advisers met just twice on terrorism before Sept. 11 attacks &#8220;, Detroit News, 07\/01\/2002.<\/p>\n<p>5. Freedom of Information Center , 05\/27\/2002. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.misleader.org\/daily_mislead\/read.asp?fn=df03252004.html\" target=\"_blank\">Source links and more here.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>William Marina posts the following on the Liberty &#038; Power blog: March 26, 2004 | Daily Mislead Archive White House, 4\/01: Focus on Bin Laden &#8220;A Mistake&#8221; A previously forgotten report from April 2001 (four months before 9\/11) shows that the Bush Administration officially declared it &#8220;a mistake&#8221; to focus &#8220;so much energy on Osama [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":26,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[676],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-643","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-antiwar-movement"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/643","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/26"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=643"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/643\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=643"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=643"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=643"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=643"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}