MSNBC's Hall Lets Boykin Claim Bush to Blame for 9/11


Tamron Hall, MSNBC During the 11:00 a.m. hour of MSNBC’s News Live, host Tamron Hall discussed possible developments late in a presidential campaign such as an October surprise or a terrorist attack. After Republican strategist Cheri Jacobus claimed that Bush would be remembered for his leadership after 9/11, her Democratic counterpart Keith Boykin tried to insist that Bush was to blame:

You know, I disagree with what Cheri said too about 9/11. 9/11 was a failure for George Bush. He was asleep at the switch on 9/11. He had a memo, he had a memo a month before.

Jacobus, expressing shock, chimed in:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Comments blaming 9/11 on George Bush are over the top and nobody should allow that to go unchallenged.

Unfortunately, Tamron Hall let Boykins’s comments pass right by and ended the segment complaining that she couldn’t get a straight answer for the viewers at home.

The Smoking Gun Web site had this to say about the document Boykin referred to:

While Bush critics have described the August 6 PDB as a warning of an impending al-Qaeda attack, Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, testified Thursday that the document contained "historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information."

When you read the memo, that’s essentially true, there’s no specific information about the cities under threat or any indication airliners would be used to strike ground targets as happened on 9/11. What’s more, the memo noted bin Laden’s “attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks.”

You can read the document yourself here, and decide for yourself.

The transcript of the exchange follows:

11:52 AM

TAMRON HALL, host: And MSNBC of course is the place for politics so back to that. Will there be an October surprise? A last minute event or campaign move that could turn the tide of the November election. John McCain’s chief strategist Charlie Black drew fire for saying another attack on U.S. soil would be a big advantage for John McCain. On Sunday, McCain supporter Joe Lieberman argued that McCain would be best prepared in case of a terror attack in 2009.

SENATOR JOE LIEBERMAN: Our enemies will test the new president early. Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration.

HALL: Cheri Jacobus is a Republican strategist. Keith Boykin is a Democratic strategist. Keith, the White House spokesperson Dana Perino said she agreed with Senator Lieberman’s comments. Is this a part of so-called October surprise or what some people call the politics of fear?

KEITH BOYKIN: Yeah, I think it is. It’s part of the fear campaign that the Republicans typically use. Every four years they try the same tactic. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. I don’t think it’s gonna work this time because the American people are fed up with the Iraq war, they’re fed up with the Bush administration and they’re fed up with the inconsistencies, Tamron. You know you can’t say on the one hand “we’ve kept you safe for seven years so you have to vote for us” and then suddenly, if there’s a terrorist attack “you have to vote for us because we didn’t keep you safe.” It doesn’t make any sense. It’s illogical on its face and the American people have seen through this for the past seven years and they’re ready for a change.

HALL: Cheri, what do the Republicans do? I mean, they wanna bring up the issue of national security, it’s certainly something, the most important thing you’re hearing with the economy tied there. We all want to stay safe. How do the Republicans avoid being labeled as fear-mongers and stay on track to hammering home to those security moms or security people who wanna stay safe in this country?

JACOBUS: Well, Republicans aren’t fear-mongering and they’re not the ones that want to bring this up every four years. After the 2004 election John Kerry admitted that he felt one reason he lost the election to George Bush, to President Bush, was because of the Osama Bin Laden tape that came out right before the election. So that’s not Republicans, it’s actually our enemies that want to kill us. I think the Democrats risk looking a little bit naïve and therefore really hurt themselves if they claim that these are just fear tactics. We have been attacked. The Bush administration has kept us safe and that will go down in history over time as one of the great legacies of the Bush campaign. As such, keeping us safe, keeping us safe is just something that has helped, has been stronger with Republicans. John McCain has the experience, has been actively involved, has been, played a big role in making sure we had this surge that is successful so it’s a matter of credibility and by John Kerry’s own admission Republicans have the advantage on this issue. Democrats can look naïve if they do, like what Keith just did, sit there and laugh about because I don’t think it’s a laughing matter.

HALL: Hang on, Cheri. Keith, let me ask you, do Democrats have to come up with a better answer than “hey, they’re fear-mongering”? I mean, we’re talking about an issue that can likely happen, this October surprise, and Americans do want someone who is ready on day one. Do the Democrats need to respond to this rather than saying this is all about fear-mongering?

KEITH BOYKIN: No, I actually don’t think that the Democrats have to say it’s fear-mongering or not because the American people know its fear-mongering. We can see right through it. That’s what happened in 2006 when the Republicans got thrown out of Congress because the Democrats were offering an alternative to the failed policies of the Bush administration. You know, I disagree with what Cheri said too about 9/11. 9/11 was a failure for George Bush. He was asleep at the switch on 9/11. He had a memo, he had a memo a month before-

JACOBUS: Oh my gosh. Oh, Keith, I hope, I hope that the Obama campaign, I hope you guys say that over and over again because that will be, that will certainly cost your candidate.

BOYKIN: Let me finish my comment, are you gonna just talk over me again, Cheri. Let me just finish, let me just finish my comment, Cheri. Cheri, I hope you learn to engage in a little bit of respect when you talk to people. I mean 9/11. President Bush-

JACOBUS: Keith, I’m sorry but your comments are so over the top to blame 9/11 on George W. Bush.

BOYKIN: Let me talk, Cheri-

JACOBUS: No, Keith, because your comments blaming 9/11 on George Bush are over the top and nobody should allow that to go unchallenged.

HALL: Okay, I’m going to have to interrupt both of you because I would love to get a straight answer and something that the folks can hear at home but because of that, I’m out of time.

BOYKIN: Thanks, Cheri.

HALL: So we’ll have to talk about. Thank you, Cheri. Thank you, Keith.

JACOBUS: Thank you.

HALL: And I’m sorry I had to interrupt both of you. We gotta move on.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Cheri Jacobus? Keith Boykin?

Cheri Jacobus? Keith Boykin? Who are these people and from whence did they come? Cable news is littered with these "strategists" now. What do they contribute other than shallow talking points, like trained parrots? Do they actually do anything in the real world, or do they exist only to sit on television panels or in little boxes like in the opening credits of The Brady Bunch? Yeesh...

→ You missed it Chris

Prior to these losers, they interviewed Heywood Jabytemee

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE

I'm tellin' you, I can't

I'm tellin' you, I can't take it anymore, CA. On the legal shows, they have lawyers stuffed in little boxes, all screeching at the top of their lungs, all trying to prove they are smarter than the others. Now, on political shows, they have these "strategists" that no one ever heard of, all parroting their talking points, yelling past each other to the point it sounds like babble. This is talk television done as a wrestling match - if they were more dignified.

→ In addition Chris

It's a good thing, but I wonder how many lily white, journalists and analysts didn't see it coming that black commentators are at a premium.

LYDSEXICS UNTIE

 I can just see them going

 I can just see them going out on the street and grabbing pedestrians and saying, "You! How would you like to play a political strategist on TV?".

 By the way, I didn't mention the business shows, and their brokers, all yelling, trying to prove they're the smartest of the bunch. Grrrrr.

You are 100% right, Chris;

You are 100% right, Chris; that's why I hardly ever watch them any more. They all talk right past each other, sometimes on different subjects, to get their talking points in. And then the rest of the segment is "Are you going to let me talk, or are you going to keep talking over me?"

It's just not worth it.

 

Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson

DANG

I'll have to defend Cheri Jacobus.She's shallow?She's a loser?I've seen her argue plenty of times and she's smart as a whip.I'm disappointed in you people.She should be seperated from the two moonbats and not be dissed.Diss the moonbats.I defend Cheri wholeheartedly.

 

 

Insert Name-Calling Tirade here.

Struggle, she may well be

Struggle, she may well be smart as a whip and funny. Heck, she may bake the best cherry pie in the world, for that matter. However, if I'm going to criticize one, I'm gonna criticize them all. I'm tired of the whole lot of 'em. They should all go back to working in the campaigns and leave the news mostly to the news people. These political hacks can appear on occasion, but they're taking over the discussion on some of these shows. Of course, that's just my opinion.

Chris, what are you

Chris,
what are you criticizing her for?Being shallow?I don't think she's shallow.You, being tired, makes her shallow?

Struggler,I'm looking

Struggler,

I'm looking for the place where I called her shallow, but I can't find it. She may be the deepest person in the world, for all I know. However, she is billed as a political "strategist". As such, by the nature of her job, she is very political and partisan as are her Dem couterparts. On these shows, these people sound like political commercials that are airing between the commercials and their "discussions" turn into political talking point arguments that generate more heat than light. If you like her, by all means, watch her - I'm not here to convince you otherwise.

And furthermore

Chris,first you said she was shallow,then she's a hack.Followed by saying she needs to go back from whence she came.She's a conservative challenging two moonbats on a liberal station.I say give her the ball and let her run.

"...we should leave the news to the news people."So we should leave the news to Matthews,Olbermann,Blitzer and the like?Isn't this sight about fighting this stuff?Is she not in there doing just that?

Struggler, I am not going to

Struggler, I am not going to go any further with this. It's just not important enough. Like I said, If you like her - great. However, I hold to my opinion.

Chris, I also hold to my

Chris, I also hold to my opinion.
Carry on.

All right, you two

Normally I don't jump into a "lively discussion", but I feel the need to point out that Chris did not call Cheri "shallow", but referred generally to the talking head strategists as providing "shallow talking points".

I differentiate between the two. For example, I tell my children that they can't call each other "stupid" but they can point out that their brother did a stupid thing.

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944

I feel your pain ;+}. And

I feel your pain ;+}. And you are absolutely right. It's more a food fight than a dialogue and I just can't watch these shows anymore for more than a couple of minutes at a time. Doctor's orders.

I note that most of these strategists, commentators and chin waggers are of an age to have been indoctrinated at one or more of the political re-education camps in the country. We used to call these places colleges and universities. No more.

They have names that sound

They have names that sound like porn stars...
 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Why, how *ever*

would you know? ;)
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

LOL...Im just say'en...

LOL...Im just say'en...  

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

bass, Wow, you're right!

bass,

Wow, you're right! :)

BTW, who is this Chris Kofinis, who seems to be getting to be a regular on "conservative Foxnews", anyway? He was Edwards' communications director - oh, there's someone to enlighten us on how politics really works in an open way...

Chris Kofinis...is he not a

Chris Kofinis...is he not a Hamas operative? Oh...no, no...he is a member of the young socialists...a real beliver in the Constitution, he is.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

A left-wing loon in conservative clothing

A left-wing loon, like Kofinis, gets a short haircut and a blue oxford cloth shirt and rep tie to pass himself off as conservatively clean cut and respectable, but he's still a left-wing loon.

→ C'mon sarc

If not porn stars, maybe strippers.

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE

the term is final proof

That we men tend to have 'flexible' standards on some subjects. In porn? Honey, you're a star!!
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Do they use polls or

Do they use polls or poles? 

Blame game

Hmm, that White House memo has dates on it reflecting when the threats were made. 1997, 1998, 1999. Who was President then and how much blame would Keith Boykin say he shares with President Bush?

D

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

That "memo"

Here’s what Richard Clarke himself said about that “memo”: “I really can’t recall it. I think its importance has been overblown. What happens in the presidential daily briefing is that the president asks questions of the briefer, which is usually Tenet on Monday through Friday. And the briefer then takes notes of the questions and goes back to CIA to get papers written to respond to the questions.” 

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/03/24/clarke/index2.html

 

Anyone who has really studied the 9/11 issue knows that it was Bill Clinton's policies vis-a-vis Iraq that led to 9/11 and other "messages with no words." See www.sinsofthehusband.com.

 

Boykin blames Bush for

Boykin blames Bush for 9/11? Well, that gives you an idea of what will be taught in our public schools in about 10 years.

We gotta start with the lawyers.......

And Bill Clinton....

...had a declaration of war from Bin Ladin back in 1998.  Maybe if he had been paying attention between BJs.....

What a liar

These scuts should be garbagemen since that is all that comes out of their mouth.It makes you wonder what dung heap Boykin crawl out from.

Just a note found this interesting.SF is supporting illegals that are crack dealers. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374803,00.html

 

What surprises me the most is

that President Bush is running for a third term.

Sounds like a rehash of 2004...

Who'da thunk?

 

The 2ND Amendment exists to secure the rest

da memo, da memo. Oh, get off the memo thing - you #&!@#

There's lots of memos out there. Was one more urgent than the other? Take for instance the 1998 memo to Clinton, vs the 2001 memo to Bush, The Memo's:

Memo to Clinton: Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks

Memo to Bush: Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US

Someone had a memo, for sure. That someone had a memo some three years before.. that someone was getting a ___ at the wheel, while he slept.

I've got a memo with Boykin's name on it. Subject: Why did you miss that plane?

(;~/

The memo to Clinton

Clinton received that PDB in December 1998. All action in response to it was concluded by February 1999. The August 6 PDB that Bush received dealt with the items in that December 1998 PDB. So Democrats such as Girlkin who say Bush took no action on the August 6 PDB are essentially saying that Bush should have taken action on an uncorroborated report that was 32 months old.

Gary, If you're a member of

Gary, If you're a member of "the professional media" you can contact Keithy at: publicity@keithboykin.com

Otherwise, this former Clinton aide has a website at keithboykin.com

Two Words...

Jaime Gorelick.

mattm - three words..

Thanks and thanks.

Hey, you familiar with this: The FBI Allowed the 1993 WTC Bombing to Happen.

And you are right about Gorelick. (breaking down Gore lick is a bit revealing, is it not?)

Mattm. There were loud calls following the 1993 bombing to tear down the wall.

 

(;~> gary 

 

 

And who could forget this

And who could forget this one?  

That is President Clinton's memo from 1998!!!!!

This is BS!

 That memo is a copy of the same memo that Bill Clinton  received Dec. 4, 1998!

 It was a fresh warning in 1998 not in 2001!!!!  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58615-2004Jul17.html

 

 1998 Memo Cited Suspected Hijack Plot by Bin Laden

By Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 18, 2004; Page A17

A secret intelligence document prepared for President Bill Clinton in December 1998 reported on a suspected plot by Osama bin Laden to hijack a U.S. airliner in an effort to force the United States to release imprisoned conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center attacks.

The one-page declassified version of the President's Daily Brief dated Dec. 4, 1998, contains chilling information -- gleaned by the CIA from several sources -- indicating that al Qaeda was working with U.S.-based operatives of its deadly ally, the Egyptian group Gama at al-Islamiyya, in the purported hijacking plot.

The PDB shows that the intelligence community and the White House had been aware of al Qaeda's interest in hijacking U.S. airliners long before the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. On the day the PDB was prepared, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet said in a memo to the intelligence community that "we are at war" and that no resources should be spared to defeat the terrorists.

When it is released this week, a report by the presidential commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks will include the newly declassified document and a previously declassified PDB dated Aug. 6, 2001. It will also contain details of what Philip D. Zelikow, the commission's executive director, described yesterday as an "energetic response" to the hijack threat information by the Clinton administration, including its efforts to determine whether the plot reports were true.

The 1998 document is "the most important PDB about hijacking published before 9/11," Zelikow said. The Aug. 6, 2001, PDB prepared for President Bush mentioned 1998 intelligence concerning a plot by bin Laden "to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of 'Blind Sheik' Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists."

The 2001 PDB said intelligence officials "have not been able to corroborate" the plot reports from 1998.

The 1998 PDB is titled: "Bin Laden preparing to hijack U.S. aircraft and other attacks." It was declassified, with redactions, by the White House last Monday at the Sept. 11 panel's request. The text of the 1998 PDB was read to a reporter by an administration official who had access to the declassified document.

It said intelligence reports "suggest Bin Laden and his allies are preparing for attacks in the U.S., including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh Umar Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef and Muhammad Sadiq Awda. One source quoted a senior member of Gama at al-Islamiyya (I.G.) saying that as of late October the group had completed planning for an operation in the United States on behalf of bin Laden but that the operation was on hold. A senior bin Laden operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit I.G. counterparts in the United States soon thereafter to discuss options -- perhaps including an aircraft hijacking."

A source who may have been different, the PDB said, referred to a September 1998 plan by I.G. leader Mohamed al-Islambuli to hijack an airliner to free Rahman, then imprisoned in Colorado. Islambuli, who was convicted in 1992 in absentia in Egypt of trying to overthrow the Egyptian government, was suspected in 1998 in an attack the previous year that killed 62 tourists in Egypt. The PDB said that source said in late November 1998 that bin Laden might "implement plans to hijack U.S. aircraft before the beginning of Ramadan on 20 December and that members of the operational team had evaded security checks during a recent trial run at an unidentified New York airport."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------