A storm is brewing over reports that the White House ignored intelligence that could have prevented 9/11. CBS Evening News reported on Dec. 17, "For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented." Former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean, a Republican who was appointed by President Bush, said plainly, "This was not something that had to happen" and he "is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame." Kean said, "There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed."

CBS notes Kean's report may "shed light on one of the most controversial assertions of the Bush administration-that there was never any thought given to the idea that terrorists might fly an airplane into a building." As National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said on May 16, 2002, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." Similarly, President Bush denied having any idea about the threat, saying on May 17, 2002 "Had I know that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people."

Soon after these denials, ABC News reported, "White House officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." The president received that briefing around the same time the FBI was receiving information that a large number of Arabs were training at U.S. flight schools. When CBS asked other Administration officials about Rice and Bush's denials, they hit a brick wall: "The usually talkative Attorney General John Ashcroft just stared when reporters asked him about the terror warnings. FBI Chief Robert Mueller also refused to comment." Others were outraged. Kristen Breitweiser, a 9/11 widow, said, "How is it possible we have a national security advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they could use planes as weapons when we had FBI records from 1991 stating that this is a possibility."

The pre-9/11 warnings that the White House acknowledges receiving were so specific, in fact, that at least one prominent member of the administration was already taking precautions. Attorney General John Ashcroft was "traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines" because of "what the Justice Department called a 'threat assessment.'"

Since the 9/11 attacks, the White House has sought at every turn to prevent an independent investigation into the failure to prevent the attacks. First, the administration opposed the creation of the commission. Then, when public outcry forced Congress to create the commission, the White House tried to choke off its funding. The administration then classified key portions of a bipartisan 9/11 congressional inquiry. Then the White House dragged its feet in providing documents to the commission. And now it continues to refuse to hand over key documents, forcing the commission to threaten court subpoenas. But it seems like the White House should have learned by now that that kind of obfuscation and denial is only going to backfire.

This piece originally appeared in the Center for American Progress' daily e-mail bulletin, the Progress Report. To sign up, visit americanprogress.org.

Fair Use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, economic, democratic, domestic and international issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.