February 16, 2016, - 4:42 pm

Donald Trump, George W. Bush & 9/11: Why Trump is Right But Doesn’t Know What He’s Talking About

By Debbie Schlussel



Despite Donald Trump’s bombast about 9/11 happening under Bush’s watch, he has a legitimate point. In fact, he’s exactly right: George W. Bush did NOT keep us safe and he did things that kept federal agents from discovering and stopping the attacks. But Trump simply doesn’t know the details that back him up–details that would bolster his aggressive stance regarding Muslims and government action regarding aliens on our shores. Conservatives who defend Bush regarding 9/11 have it wrong, and here’s why.

Last Saturday night’s GOP Presidential debate wasn’t the first time Trump has made the point that 9/11 happened on George W. Bush’s watch and that Bush did not, in fact, keep us safe. As you may recall, Trump made that point against Bush months ago, in one of the first GOP debates. But, after a number of conservatives including Rush Limbaugh defended Bush, Trump seemed to drop the argument. It’s an argument he should and would have never dropped . . . if he actually knew what he was talking about, instead of parroting lines he thinks people want to hear.

As I’ve noted repeatedly on this site and elsewhere over the years, President Bush and his then-Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to allow FBI and INS agents who apprehended illegal alien and Islamic terrorist Zaccarias Moussaoui to examine his laptop computer hard drive. As you may recall, Moussaoui was allegedly the 20th hijacker who was supposed to be on those planes. He’s also the guy who took flying lessons at an Oklahoma flight school, but didn’t want to learn how to take off or land. Very strong hints at the 9/11 attacks were on Moussaoui’s hard drive, but agents were not allowed to look at them because President Bush handed down stringent instructions to Ashcroft and his other cabinet members that Muslim and Arab civil rights were to be paramount and strictly adhered to. Bush, at his first address to a joint session of Congress declared the end of the use of secret evidence and profiling of Muslims and Arabs and, in February 2001, issued a directive to Attorney General John Ashcroft to “work in cooperation with state and local law enforcement to assess the extent and nature of any such practices.” Because of this, FBI agents missed the opportunity to discover and prevent the attacks.

As you may also recall, FBI agent Harry Samit (see also here) and INS counterterrorism agents Steven J. Nordmann (who was later killed in a motorcycle accident – RIP; go here for a letter his niece sent me) and John Weess, who arrested Moussaoui and were the agents on his case, desperately wanted to look at Moussaoui’s hard drive. But, as I’ve noted at length on this site in several posts, they were refused by superiors and this went all the way up the chain of command to Ashcroft and Bush. Both said no. The agents were refused a warrant and they rightfully fumed and warned that something bad and violent against America was going to happen. They sent over 70 e-mails in a week but were repeatedly refused and then ignored. Later, they were disciplined.

These guys were heroes who tried frantically to save American lives, but George W. Bush and his top people slammed them. This is all documented in the 9/11 Commission Report and in transcripts of the Moussaoui trial. And at the end of this column, I’ve reposted some excerpts of the press coverage of Samit’s testimony at the Moussaoui trial. You’ll find it incredible, after reading it, that Jeb Bush has the audacity to claim his brother kept us safe. Not even close.

You may also remember the name Coleen Rowley. She was also an FBI agent working on the case. She begged for permission to search Moussaoui’s personal rooms. She was repeatedly refused, and when she spoke out after the 9/11 attacks, she was ostracized, abused, drummed out of her job, and treated like a criminal by the Bush Administration (the same thing happened with Turkish Muslim translator Sibel Edmonds). And you wonder why Rowley ended up becoming an anti-Bush activist. Believe me, it’s these things that make me anti-Bush, too. And that bolster Donald Trump’s point . . . if he would only mention that Bush wouldn’t let FBI and INS agents search Moussaoui’s computer. Bush and Ashcroft sent specific written memos on this directive: to be extra careful in not violating Muslims’ civil liberties in criminal investigations.

Bush was so “strong” on this point that it’s the reason he got the Muslim and Arab endorsements over Al Gore when he ran for President. In the second Presidential debate with Gore, in October 2000, both candidates were asked about racial profiling of Black people. **** UPDATE: Bush responded with an answer about Arabs, saying he didn’t want his Arab and Muslim friends profiled as Islamic terrorists. [I’ve removed Al Gore’s responses from the transcript excerpts below.]

MODERATOR: First, a couple of follow-ups from the vice presidential debate last week. Vice President Gore, would you support or sign, as president, a federal law banning racial profiling by police and other authorities at all levels of government?

BUSH: Yeah, I can’t imagine what it would be like to be singled out because of race and stopped and harassed. That’s just flat wrong, and that’s not what America is all about. And so we ought to do everything we can to end racial profiling. . . . I do think we need to find out where racial profiling occurs and do something about it and say to the local folks, get it done. And if you can’t, there will be a federal consequence.

MODERATOR: And that could be a federal law?

BUSH: Yeah. . . .

MODERATOR: On hate crimes laws?

BUSH: . . . . [T]here is other forms of racial profiling that goes on in America. Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what is called secret evidence. People are stopped, and we have to do something about that. My friend, Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan, is pushing a law to make sure that Arab-Americans are treated with respect. So racial profiling isn’t just an issue at local police forces. It’s an issue throughout our society. And as we become a diverse society, we’re going to have to deal with it more and more.

FYI, Spencer Abraham‘s legislation cited and praised by Bush, also attempted to repeal the Clinton counterterrorism laws outlawing contributions to HAMAS, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, and other Islamic terrorist groups. As I’ve also noted on this site, Abraham also introduced and strongly pimped legislation to send $268 million in U.S. tax money to the Islamic terrorist group, Hezbollah (as a reward for murdering over 300 U.S. Marines and Embassy officials?). He succeeded in getting the group $86 million, no strings attached. As the Chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommitee, he and his immigration staffer Ann Coulter blocked funding for a computer system that would have tracked all visa holders entering the country, including the 9/11 hijackers. All of these Abraham actions were done at the request of open Hezbollah and HAMAS supporter James Zogby, head of the Arab-American Institute (and now a Bernie Sanders adviser). Abraham also put unindicted HAMAS co-conspirator CAIR on the map, inviting the group to his office and taking its representatives around Capitol Hill to meet other Senators and Members of Congress. He was one of only two U.S. Senators who refused to sign a letter to President Clinton, calling on Clinton to condemn Palestinian terrorism and Yasser Arafat at the height of suicide bombings in Israel.

Later, as Bush’s Energy Secretary, he tried to hide from the FBI a crime committed by his top advisor, Shi’ite Muslim Majida Mourad. Ms. Mourad lied on her federal job applications, including the one for her top secret security clearance, but Abraham protected her from being prosecuted. Mourad and Abraham are now partners in a lobbying firm where they represent Muslim oil interests from the Middle East. As Bush’s affirmative action Arab cabinet member, Abraham gave out post-9/11 Presidential awards to Muslims directly tied to Al-Qaeda, including one of Al-Qaeda’s top money-launderers who used a bogus halal chicken plant to clean and secrete money to the terrorist group.

Isn’t this the kind of guy who shouldbe profiled? END OF UPDATE ****

After Bush was declared the winner of the Florida recount and the President, among the first guests he invited to his ranch was Iran-backed Shi’ite Muslim extremist Imam Hassan Qazwini–an open supporter of Hezbollah and HAMAS. Qazwini was flown to the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas to help the President-elect formulate plans to expand Muslim “civil rights” and curtail law enforcement use of profiling and secret evidence against Islamic terrorists–several of whom were congregants of Qazwini.

Bush also consulted Qazwini to design his faith-based funds initiative, which was meant as a way to make an end run around the Establishment Clause and give money to mosques (and some churches and synagogues). Bush featured Qazwini front-and-center at his first press conference as President in January 2001, announcing the initiative. Qazwini later told the press that Bush, after the 9/11 attacks, told him that Christians are just as extremist as Muslims. Jeb Bush won’t be different from this. He’ll be worse. Will Donald Trump differ from this? His new-found rhetoric since running for Prez says yes, but only time will tell.

You should also note my coverage–both on this site and in the New York Post–on FBI agent Robert Wright. He was also shut down by top FBI brass and Ashcroft. And he and retired FBI agent John Vincent had to go on ABC News in order to get the Bush Administration to stop a top HAMAS official and other US-designated HAMAS terrorists tied to Al-Qaeda from continuing to walk the streets of America, free and clear. Rather than actually do something, the Bush Administration deported the HAMAS official, Musa Abu Marzook (HAMAS’ political director) and let him escape justice. I guess showing America and the world HAMAS’ connection with Al-Qaeda was not politically correct.

In any event, Donald Trump is exactly right. George W. Bush did NOT keep us safe. 9/11 happened because he was too busy being a civil rights activist for the Muslims in our midst who hated us and ultimately flew planes into buildings, murdering 3,000 Americans.

And even after 9/11 happened, Bush spent the next 7.25 years pandering to the most extreme Muslims, inviting them to the White House, and expanding their immigration to America so much that the Muslim population nearly doubled in America under his reign as President.

A month or so ago, conservatives whined about Loretta Lynch saying she would unconstitutionally prosecute anti-Muslim speech. But where were they when George W. Bush set up a whole unit of the Justice Department’s Office of Civil Rights–headed by Joseph Zogby, likeminded son of Islamic terrorism supporter (and now-Bernie Sanders adviser) James Zogby–just to go after perceived anti-Muslim slights? In contrast to Loretta Lynch’s threat to prosecute speech, the Bush (in)Justice Department actually did it in several cases, and most of the defendants buckled and pleaded guilty because they were scared and didn’t have the funds to fight back. As I noted on this site years ago, one of those cases was United States of America v. Michael Bratisax, in which a quadriplegic Coast Guard veteran was prosecuted for innocent e-mails attacking Islam in a weeks long online conversation he had with Bush’s terrorist-supporting buddy, Imam Qazwini. Why did no conservatives (except for me) speak out against this? I offered Bratisax a skilled defense lawyer who was eager to take the case pro bono, but Bratisax was scared and wanted this to go away, so he pleaded guilty with a wimpy federal public defender.

This is the truth of what happened under the George W. Bush Presidency. No, he did not keep us safe.

He made America weak and defenseless, pandering to the Islamic threat, going after America’s citizens, and keeping FBI and INS agents from discovering and stopping a major terrorist plot–the largest and most successful one in U.S. history. Not only did it happen on his watch, but he bears some of the responsibility for it not being discovered and possibly stopped.

That’s what Donald Trump should hammer away at Jeb Bush about. If I were Trump, I’d invite Rowley, Samit, and Weess to come on stage at my rallies and tell people who they are, what they courageously tried to do, and how they were shut down by the Bush Administration, and then almost a month later, 3,000 Americans were murdered. But, again, Trump knows only platitudes and bombast, not the details.

And I’m not sure he even believes in the platitudes or cares about the details.

We need a President who does. We haven’t had one for decades.


None of this, of course, has anything to do with killing Bin Laden. Yes, as Marco Rubio–who tried to defend Bush–said, Bill Clinton had the chance to get Bin Laden, but he didn’t. And this is the “I know you are, but what am I?” response dim-witted Republicans and conservatives always make to liberals and always make to me whenever I point out all of the things above (and others) that Bush did. Clinton’s excuse for not capturing Bin Laden was that he didn’t want to bring Bin Laden here and give him a trial with all the Constitutional rights. In the shadow of the O.J. trial, it could have become a similar circus with an acquittal. That’s a legitimate reason for not capturing Bin Laden. But what was his excuse for not simply assassinating Bin Laden? I don’t know, but I do know that we didn’t use drones then (to kill people, anyway), and maybe things might have been different if we did. I suspect not, though.

Then, there is George W. Bush, who also had the chance to assassinate Bin Laden. But, again, he was too worried about the lives and rights of Muslims who hate us–at least, he’s consistent, consistently on their side and not ours. You’ll remember the satellite surveillance of Bin Laden in some remote location after 9/11. We saw him and could have killed him. But there were several Gulf State princes and sheikhs with him (they were on a hunting trip or some such thing), and the Bushies were too worried about killing others and also maybe killing children.

Worries like those–worries for the enemy–do make us less safe. Again, Trump is right. But, also again, I don’t know what the real, actual Trump in the White House would do. And whether or not he’d be just like Bush . . . or even worse.

Frankly, I don’t think anyone running is going to make us safer or keep us safe. I think they’re all wimps and PC artists. Yes, even Trump and Cruz.


Here are some excerpts of the press coverage of FBI Special Agent Harry Samit’s testimony at the Moussaoui trial, all of which has been posted on this site before:

Los Angeles Times coverage of Agent Harry Samit’s testimony – very frustrating to read, and remember that this was George W. Bush’s FBI, working under Bush’s express, written policy on Muslims and to go overboard respecting their “rights”:

The FBI agent who arrested Zacarias Moussaoui weeks before Sept. 11 told a federal jury Monday that his own superiors were guilty of “criminal negligence and obstruction” for blocking his attempts to learn whether the terrorist was part of a larger cell about to hijack planes in the United States.

During intense cross-examination, Special Agent Harry Samit – a witness for the prosecution – accused his bosses of acting only to protect their positions within the FBI. . . . “They obstructed it,” a still-frustrated Samit told the jury, calling his superiors’ actions a calculated management decision “that cost us the opportunity to stop the attacks.” . . . Samit said that officials at the FBI headquarters in Washington rejected a series of attempts to obtain a warrant to search Moussaoui’s personal belongings.

Had the belongings been opened before Sept. 11, agents would have found numerous small knives, jumbo-jet pilot manuals, rosters of flight schools and other clues that might have helped them understand the Sept. 11 plot.

Samit wanted to seek a criminal search warrant, and later one from a special intelligence court. But officials at the FBI headquarters refused to let him, because they did not believe he had enough evidence to prove Moussaoui was anything but a wealthy man who had come to this country to follow his dream of becoming a pilot. . . . He said that as Washington kept telling him there was “no urgency and no threat,” his FBI superiors sent him on “wild goose chases.” For a while, Samit said, they did not even believe Moussaoui was the same person whom French intelligence sources had identified as a Muslim extremist. Samit said that FBI headquarters wanted him and his fellow agents to spend days poring through Paris phone books to make sure they had the right Moussaoui.

Samit said that when he asked permission to place an Arabic-speaking federal officer as a plant inside Moussaoui’s cell to find out what Moussaoui was up to, Washington said no. And he said that when he prepared a lengthy memo about Moussaoui for Federal Aviation Administration officials, Washington deleted key sections, including a part connecting Moussaoui with Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Samit said he was so frustrated and so convinced that attacks were imminent that he bypassed FBI officials in Washington and met with an FAA officer he knew in Minneapolis. But he said FAA agents never got back to him, and never asked to see a pair of small knives, similar to box cutters, that Samit had found in Moussaoui’s pocket and in his car.

Samit further described how he took it upon himself to cable the Secret Service that the president’s safety might be in jeopardy. He recounted in the cable how Moussaoui had told him he hoped to be able to one day fly a Boeing 747 from London’s Heathrow Airport to New York, and how he also hoped to visit the White House one day.

Samit said he warned the Secret Service that those desires could spell disaster. “If he seizes an airplane from Heathrow to New York City,” Samit alerted the Secret Service, “it will have the fuel on board to reach D.C.”
Samit said he never heard back from the Secret Service either.


From my column, “FBI Love Story: Moussaoui & Mueller’s Excellent Adventure“:

Unlike the counter-terrorism agent on the fictional “24,” real-life FBI counter-terrorism agents lost out to the suits at the top, and 3,000 people were murdered. I and many others have written about how FBI brass refused to allow a complete investigation of Moussaoui–in the name of not profiling Arab Muslims. But it is even more disturbing as it is conveyed by Agent Samit.

You can feel the pre-9/11 desperation of counter-terrorism agents in Samit’s testimony.

According to USA Today’s Kevin Johnson, Agent Samit testified that “hours into an interrogation, investigators suspected Moussaoui was involved in ‘a plot involving airliners.'” Investigation of Moussaoui became “an obsession” of FBI terrorism investigators.
But it wasn’t an obsession–or even a slight concern–for Robert Mueller and company. The FBI Director and his sachems fought these agents every step of the way.

According to Samit, the effort to investigate Moussaoui intensified

when top bureau officials at FBI headquarters in Washington refused to support requests for warrants to search Moussaoui’s belongings and residences in Minnesota and Oklahoma.

Investigators were desperate for a break and sensed a terrorist action might be moving forward based on Moussaoui’s unusual behavior, Samit said.

So what did the FBI higher-ups do in response? They reluctantly agreed to send a milquetoast bulletin of “a possible hijacking plot” to other federal agencies, almost a month later, on September 5th–just six days before the attack. . . .

But wait, there’s more. USA Today’s Johnson’s report gets even more disturbing. Because OUR FBI and federal government authorities were so intransigent on investigating this VERY suspicious man’s belongings, smart-AND-desperate FBI terrorism agents had to cook up a plot to let the FRENCH do it. The French? The French!

Still lacking authority for a fuller search of Moussaoui’s belongings, federal authorities cut an unusual deal with French officials Sept. 10, Samit said. Under terms of that agreement, Moussaoui would be deported to his native France, and French authorities would conduct a search of his luggage and computer. Suicide hijackers launched their attacks the next day, and the transfer never occurred.

Ah, now I get it. It’s the FRENCH Bureau of Investigation.

It’s not like FBI terrorism investigators were paranoid or conspiracy theorists. Minnesota flight school instructor Clarence Prevost, a former Northwest Airlines pilot, was concerned. He’s the one who first reported Moussaoui to the FBI. He testified that he repeatedly urged his supervisors to contact the FBI because of Moussaoui’s lack of flight experience and evasiveness about his background.

Prevost said he told his superiors:

We will care when there is a hijacking and they wonder where he learned the (cockpit) switches and lawsuits start rolling in.

Unfortunately, as we all know, there was a hijacking, but the resulting lawsuits were against companies and Saudi princes who gave to United Al-Qaeda Way at the office. One group conspicuously missing from the defendant pool of litigation: Robert Mueller and the countless, nameless FBI managers and top officials in Washington, who forced agents to dream up schemes with the French in their desperation to save Americans.

Not a single one of these FBI superiors–who were so grossly negligent in repeatedly denying searches of Moussaoui’s property–has been dismissed. Not a single one demoted. Robert Mueller remains at the top and clueless about terrorism as ever.

Almost five years later, these same FBI bureaucrats continue to stonewall important terrorism investigations, denying FBI terrorism agents, like Bob Wright and others on the Joint Terrorism Task Force the necessary warrants and leeway to investigate.

After Special Agent Harry Samit’s testimony, Zacarias Moussaoui called out, “God bless Osama bin Laden.”

Hmmmm . . . maybe he should have called out, “George Bush Hu Akbar.”

43 Responses

Debbie, we know Trump is a Twitter Beret, you may attempt to send him “heads up” on how to bolster his argument.

MrBigBrain on February 16, 2016 at 5:04 pm

Yes, indeed, there’s plenty to criticize Bush about regarding his failure to protect America. Trump deserved no boos for what he said. Trump was correct but didn’t go far enough. The fact is that Bush and his team received plenty of warnings of the pending attacks, yet utterly failed to act on those warnings.

General Warnings

1. In late 2000, British investigators teamed up with their counterparts in the Cayman Islands and began a year long probe of three Afghan men who had entered the Cayman Islands illegally. [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01] In June 2001, the Afghan men were overheard discussing hijacking attacks in New York City, and were promptly taken into custody. This information was forwarded to US intelligence [Fox News, 5/17/02]. In late August 2001, shortly before the attacks, an anonymous letter to a Cayman radio station alleged these same men were al-Qaeda agents “organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines.” [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, MSNBC, 9/23/01]

2. In late July 2001, Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil learned that Osama bin Laden was planning a “huge attack” on targets inside America. The attack was imminent, and would kill thousands, he learned from the leader of the rebel Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was closely allied with al-Qaeda at the time. Muttawakil sent an emissary to pass this information on to the US Consul General, and another US official, “possibly from the intelligence services.” Sources confirmed that this message was received, but supposedly not taken very seriously, because of “warning fatigue” arising from too many terror warnings. [Independent, 9/7/02, Reuters, 9/7/02]

3. Also in late July 2001, the US was given a “concrete warning” from Argentina’s Jewish community. “An attack of major proportions” was planned against either the US, Argentina, or France. The information came from an unidentified intelligence agency. [Forward, 5/31/02]

4. An undercover agent from Morocco successfully penetrated al-Qaeda. He learned that bin Laden was “very disappointed” that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the World Trade Center, and was planning “large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001.” He provided this information to the US in August 2001. [Agence France Presse, 11/22/01, International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, London Times, 6/12/02]

5. Hosni Mubarak, then President of Egypt, maintained that in the beginning of September 2001 Egyptian intelligence warned American officials that al-Qaeda was in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US. [AP, 12/7/01, New York Times, 6/4/02] He learned this information from an agent working inside al-Qaeda. [ABC News, 6/4/02]

Many warnings specifically mentioned a threat coming from the air:

1. In 1999, British intelligence gave a secret report to the US embassy. The report stated that al-Qaeda had plans to use “commercial aircraft” in “unconventional ways,”“possibly as flying bombs.” [Sunday Times, 6/9/02] On July 16, 2001, British intelligence passed a message to the US that al-Qaeda was in “the final stages” of preparing a terrorist attack in Western countries. [London Times, 6/14/02] In early August, the British gave another warning, telling the US to expect multiple airline hijackings from al-Qaeda. This warning was included in Bush’s briefing on August 6, 2001. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02]

2. In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols which stand out.” Within the American intelligence community, “the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified” but “there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented.” This warning came from Echelon, a spy satellite network that is partly based in Germany. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01]

3. In late July 2001, Egyptian intelligence received a report from an undercover agent in Afghanistan that “20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas.” To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn’t sound terribly alarming, but they passed on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. “The request never came.” [CBS, 10/9/02] Given that there were 19 hijackers and four pilots (who trained on Cessnas) in the 9/11 plot, one might think this would now be a big news item. But in fact, the information has only appeared as an aside in a CBS “60 Minutes” show about a different topic.

4. In late summer 2001, Jordan intelligence intercepted a message stating that a major attack was being planned inside the US and that aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was Big Wedding, which did in fact turn out to be the codename of the 9/11 plot. The message was passed to US intelligence through several channels. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02]

5. Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly stated that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the US in the summer of 2001 that suicide pilots were training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence also stated, “We had clearly warned them” on several occasions, but they “did not pay the necessary attention.” [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01] The Russian newspaper Izvestia claimed that Russian intelligence agents knew the participants in the attacks, and: “More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation for these actions a couple of weeks before they happened.” [Izvestia, 9/12/02]

6. Five days before 9/11, the priest Jean-Marie Benjamin was told by a Muslim at an Italian wedding of a plot to attack the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons. He wasn’t told time or place specifics. He immediately passed what he knew on to a judge and several politicians in Italy. Presumably this Muslim confided in him because Benjamin has done considerable charity work in Muslim countries and is considered “one of the West’s most knowledgeable experts on the Muslim world.” [Zenit, 9/16/01] Benjamin has not revealed who told him this information, but it could have come from a member of the al-Qaeda cell in Milan, Italy. This cell supplied forged documents for other al-Qaeda operations, and wiretaps show members of the cell were aware of the 9/11 plot. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02, Guardian, 5/30/02, Boston Globe, 8/4/02] For instance, in August 2000, one terrorist in Milan was recorded saying to another: “I’m studying airplanes. I hope, God willing, that I can bring you a window or a piece of an airplane the next time we see each other.” The comment was followed by laughter [Washington Post, 5/31/02]. In another case in January 2001, a terrorist asked if certain forged documents were for “the brothers going to the United States,” and was angrily rebuked by another who told him not to talk about that “very, very secret” plan. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02] In March 2001, the Italian government gave the US a warning based on these wiretaps. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

Israel gave the US several specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks.

1. In the second week of August 2001, two high-ranking agents from the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, came to Washington and warned the CIA and FBI that 50 to 200 al-Qaeda terrorists had slipped into the US and were planning an imminent “major assault on the US” aimed at a “large scale target” [Telegraph, 9/16/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/01 Fox News, 5/17/02]. Near the end of August, France also gave a warning that was an “echo” of Israel’s. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

2. In October 2002, the story broke in Europe and Israel that on August 23, 2001, the Mossad had given the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US. The Mossad had said that the terrorists appeared to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future. It is unknown if these are the same 19 names as the actual hijackers, or if the number is a coincidence. However, the four names on the list that are known are names of the 9/11 hijackers: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi, and Mohamed Atta. [Die Zeit, 10/1/02, Der Spiegel, 10/1/02, BBC, 10/2/02, Ha’aretz, 10/3/02] These are also probably the four most important of the hijackers (and two of the pilots). From them, there were many connections to the others. The CIA had already been monitoring three of them overseas the year before, and two, Alhazmi and Almihdhar, were put on a watch list the same day the Mossad gave this warning. [AFP, 9/22/01, Berliner Zeitung, 9/24/01, Observer, 9/30/01, New York Times, 9/21/02]

Ralph Adamo on February 16, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    Thank you, Ralph Adamo, for putting together this careful outline.

    And as always, thanks to our gracious hostess Debbie for maintaining a high quality forum where real issues can still be raised.

    As Debbie points out, the Muslim population in the U.S. doubled AFTER 9/11 thanks to the ceaseless efforts of Bush, Mueller, Abraham and many other lackeys of Islam. This raises the question of what STRATEGIC aims were behind 9/11 – it is naive that it was merely intended as a one-off spectacle.

    Developments during the 14+ years since 9/11 suggest that it was conceived as a sophisticated operation to corrode confidence and self-defense instincts in the U.S. and throughout the “West”.

    The strategists had the sophisticated and indeed brilliant insight that in a post-modern U.S., it would be possible to channel popular indignation away from the obvious and just course of glazing Saudi Arabia into an unrelated “nation building” exercise in Iraq.

    Guardian Angel on February 20, 2016 at 8:04 pm

      Yup, distraction politics. While Dubya played tough guy, and put his arms around fireman atop heaps of rubble in NYC, he played the distraction politics game as well as any Democrat.

      Demmicans and Republicrats, our employees, flipped the table, and rule over us. And because you have so many celebutards in the country, it works.

      Had a long discussion with the friend I live with in Jersey today, about why a TRUE, or at least the truest conservative, . . .

      actually has no chance of being president. It’s because of the changes in the thought processes of the populace. Even Reagan might not get elected today. The Big Lie, class warfare, distraction politics, etc. It has worked wonders to bring down “this once great republic.” And it was worked on us by . . .

      our fellow citizens.

      I’m scared. I love you, Debbie. Thanks for being so brave.

      Alfredo from Puerto Rico on February 20, 2016 at 10:20 pm

    Tedious as it is to have to do this, I would not ever want my name to be associated with this Ralph Adamo’s beliefs, and so I must say, again, that this post is not by the Ralph Adamo who lives in new Orleans.

    Ralph Adamp on February 26, 2017 at 1:57 am

I am seeing a lot of “Bernie” bumper stickers, lately. I have no idea who will take the presidency but I do know that it won’t be Trump, although not perfect, would be the best we’d have had since Reagan.

DS_ROCKS! on February 16, 2016 at 6:55 pm

Well written. Thank you Debbie.

Patrick in Michigan on February 16, 2016 at 7:04 pm

Don’t you think it’s time someone wrote about the single thread through all these snippets of facts – that Quincy company, Osama’s long time H/Q in Boston, which linked to those 9/11 terror cells in NJ, and to those in Richardson TX, and no less, to exactly why Chicago Islamic Terror Machine exposer, “tearful Bobby” wept on the steps after giving 9/11 testimony? Remember all that? Remember what was supposed to be the lead story on the first anniversary of 9/11? How come no one wants to remember all those terror links which led dierctly to Switzerland, and directly to ISIS today.

ThePriceofForgetfulness on February 16, 2016 at 7:07 pm

Many Republicans seem to think it’s improper to criticize or blame Bush for his policies. Why? Just because he was President? That’s a dumb reason.

As our host, Debbie, has repeatedly pointed out, US Government policies that have had the impact of promoting Islamoterrorism in the USA did not start with Obama. They started with Bush! So just as Obama genuflected before the Saudi King, Bush hugged and held hands with him.

In my opinion, Bush’s Islamopandering policies have directly led to such tragedies as the Fort Hood murders. And please don’t tell me that the US is only having this lovey-dovey relationship with the Saudis because we need their oil. We DON’T need their oil. And we don’t need them at all.

Yet, you have pseudo-conservative pundits like Mark Levin coming out to attack Trump and defend Bush just because Trump said that Bush didn’t do enough to protect Americans. (Note that Trump never said or implied that Bush caused 911 to happen; just that he didn’t protect America and 9/11 happened under his “watch.”) Now, Levin would think nothing of attacking Lindsey Graham, but what made Bush any better than him? Levin doesn’t say.

Ralph Adamo on February 16, 2016 at 11:22 pm

With the exception of this site (and acknowledging the weaknesses in Trump’s position), I am not aware of any Republican politicians or media persons who support what Trump is saying.

Kind of like opening Pandora’s Box. The Republican Establishment’s mythology rests on the economy and national security. If the national security myth is shaken, all credibility for the Establishment goes out the window. And Bush 43 is the major establishment politician of hte 21st Century. If he goes they all go.

Little Al on February 17, 2016 at 1:02 am

    Al, you make a good point. Polls taken over the years show that Americans believe that Republicans are considerably stronger than Democrats on national security and fighting terrorism, often by 20 percentage points or more. But you and I, and I think most others here, recognize that not all Republicans are alike on this issue. But Republicans by and large seem to think that a violation of an unwritten agreement occurs if a Republican breaks ranks to accuse the other of being weaker on this issue. And many of them treat attacking Bush’s weaknesses like it’s unpatriotic or something. The mythology is that strong.

    Ralph Adamo on February 17, 2016 at 8:05 pm

No, G.W. Bush is not beyond criticism. Debbie correctly points out how he and his then attorney general actually inhibited investigations of terror suspects prior to 9/11. G.W. valued Muslim sensibilities over American lives. If Trump were up on his facts, he could really upend Jeb Bush and that awful family.

G.W. Bush paved the way for Barack Obama through his actions, both foreign and domestic. He was no conservative in thought, word, or deed. The Republicans are fools for continuing to support a president who effectively discredited their party as being worthy of governance.

Worry on February 17, 2016 at 1:17 am

Nice job, Debbie.

skzion on February 17, 2016 at 1:39 am

Excellent job, Debbie.

JeffE on February 17, 2016 at 1:57 am

Bush also consulted Qazwini to design his faith-based funds initiative, which was meant as a way to make an end run around the Establishment Clause and give money to mosques (and some churches and synagogues).

Giving money to churches, synagogues or mosques does not violate the Establishment Clause. You want to know what an Established Religion is? Look at Halsbury’s Laws of England some time.

MRS: Uh, actually, it DOES violate the Establishment Clause. It establishes religion by giving funding to religious groups and, in fact, picks some religions at the expense of others, thus establishing preferred religions. That the government gives money to any of these religions to promote themselves to poor people and others while allegedly providing “services,” is in fact a violation of the Establishment Clause. Your preference–per usual–to disregard facts and accurate information in your obsession with making negative, critical, annoying comments here, betrays your complete ignorance of what the Establishment Clause prohibits. So, here is some more information: the clause also prohibits preferring religion over non-religion or non-religion over religion. Bush’s faith-based funding initiative only gave money to religious groups, and was, therefore, illegal under the clause.

Newsflash: books on the laws of England and Wales have–and should have–no bearing on American law. We’re not talking about the Magna Carta or general natural and common law here. At some point long ago, our laws diverged sharply from the UK’s (even though they’re originally based on English common law). Funny, last time I checked we have no “Church of America,” and yet you conflate the laws of the country that has an official Church of England on us, with regard to the Establishment Clause. FYI, we split from the Kings and Queens of England more than a couple centuries ago. Check out the Declaration of Independence some time. But (no) thanks for the “tip.” DS

Miranda Rose Smith on February 17, 2016 at 4:12 am

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Here is the Establishment Clause. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That means Congress can’t butt into the transsubstantiation vs. consubstantiation debate or the baptism of infants vs. baptism of believers debate or the is-it-proper-to-have-an-organ-in-the-church vs. G-d-should-be-praised-with-the-human-voice-alone debate or the Sabbath on Sunday vs. Sabbath on Saturday debate. It doesn’t mean that there can’t be prayer in schools or that yeshivas and Catholic schools can’t receive government financial aid or that churches and mosques can’t receive government financial aid. Basically I agree with you, Debbie, or why else would I read you so faithfully? How many times have I emailed you “Keep up the good work?”

    Miranda Rose Smith on February 18, 2016 at 4:46 am

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …

      Amidst interesting theological trivia, it seems that Miranda Rose Smith may have overlooked the word “establishment” after which the clause is commonly named. Using taxpayers’ sweat and blood to allow some religious group to proselytize turns such a group into part of the government, i.e. an “establishment.”

      Guardian Angel on February 20, 2016 at 8:21 pm

Trump has seen enough buildings demolished to know exactly what happened on 9/11. And those building didn’t go down because they were hit by planes. He’s also smart enough to know that the public is not ready for the truth of 9/11 so his discourse on that subject is designed to bring him votes, not lose votes.

Jerry G on February 17, 2016 at 7:44 am

I have said before a couple times that I believe the last four presidents have contributed heavily to the downfall of America.

That the Bush family loves it Halal did not start with George W, although he certainly did do his part to further the Halalization of America to the hilt. And he had the audacity to pretend that he was on a tough guy mission to divide, conquer or dissuade America’s enemies.

Lincoln was right. America could only be brought down from within. And within in this case, meant coming from the top down. And it’s no wonder, because “if the fish stinks, it stinks from the head down.”

But this is from God, because The Almighty is about to end this ridiculous experiment of human self-governance.

What a preposterous premise!!! That a piece of the creation should say to The Creator, thank you very much for this life, every breath, and all this goodness, opportunity and bounty. Now, would you please step off and leave us alone? We wouldn’t want you interfering with our “fun.”

That is all going to end soon, very soon. And it’s terrifying that Debbie and all the members of this board will see it, die during it, or perhaps live through it. Except for those who will die untimely deaths or who may now be 80 or more and will die soon anyway, we will all live in it, at least until we are killed, or waste away.

It’s akin to a ten year old girl who has an ant farm. One day she hears a squeaking noise and goes over to the terrarium. An ant has climbed up near the top and is proclaiming that the ants will rise up, come out of the farm, and create havoc in the household. The ants will ultimately rule, not the girl and her parents.

She gets her parents, they all have a good laugh, and drive the ant farm to a spot in the woods 13 miles away. They dump the ant farm. They pour bleach all over the ants before they spread out, and also clean the terrarium. They go back to their house, laughing all the way. ‘Imagine the arrogance of those ants.’

Such it is with the human race. Satan said he would be like The Most High. Uhhhhhhh, no ya don’t, buddy, that’s not your job. Adam and Eve knew who God was, but they disobeyed anyway. Uhhhhhhhhh, sorry, youse two dun got dat wrong. But God isn’t going to pour bleach on us, and start all over, in remorseless spite.

Debbie’s incredibly detailed and informative article outlines very clearly the steps taken (or NOT) by our OWN employees and fellow citizens, to very clearly lead to the demise of “this once great republic.” This is Bible prophecy happening, as detailed by Debbie, with Mr. Adamo draining a bunch of three point jumpers of his own.

God takes no pleasure in human suffering. We are all precious in his sight. But this has to happen. It’s going to get vewy, vewy, scawy, weewee, weewee soon. 90% of the earth’s population will die in WWIII. But He will wipe away every tear, and restore all things. First, a little trip through what the military calls . . .

Basic Training. No one said it would be easy.

Thank you Debbie, for the detailed lesson, 911, 101 through Advanced Classes.

The Downfall of America

The final stage began with Daddy Bush declaring a “kinder, gentler America,” and “New World Order.” I never trusted that guy when Reagan picked him. Turned out to be a Globalist Utopian, instead of caring about the sovereignty of the nation he had supposedly been a WWII hero for.

Then The Great StainMaker had his Oval Office Orifice party while Rome burned, all around the world, including a late model, state of the art Navy ship named the USS Cole. That’s when I said, “the next attack will be on our soil, year, year and a half.”

Along came Cowboyah Dubya, looking and sounding tough, . . .

while eating at the Halal food carts throughout his presidency.

Which begat, . . .

The Muslim-In-Chief.

Nuff said.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on February 17, 2016 at 9:38 am

This is a tough one for me, as it represents the collision of two of my core heterodoxies: 1) that the government overreach into our personal data, and micromonitoring of individual citizens, represents a huge threat to liberty in the future (as tomorrow’s abuse of centralized Orwellian power in Washington through today’s exploitation of technological advances — if left unbridled — is an inevitability, because the temptation of absolute power is absolutely compelling), and 2) that the Islamic belief system (as taught by Mohammed, as found in the Koran, as found in the Hadiths, etc.) is fundamentally cancerous, and that while most of our Muslim friends and neighbors are adherents to a watered-down “pre-cancerous” version of Islam, these pre-cancerous cells are subject to becoming cancerous at any time, and hence require extremely close monitoring (in violation of some of the basic definitions of fundamental civil rights).

While one of my biggest beefs against Bush is that he went way too far with the Patriot Act (allowing invasive monitoring of US citizens), you make a compelling argument as to why this was important, as commitments to privacy caused us to err far to the side blinding our security forces to information that, if handled more rationally, would have been used to prevent the attacks.

But this idea of “blinding” our security forces (and our society in general) is important: In what ways are we “blinded” to clear and present dangers even today?

Dr. Wobie on February 17, 2016 at 10:01 am

“immigration staffer Ann Coulter” the same author/pundit always on the FNC Ann Coulter???

TP: Yup, same hypocrite. DS

Todd Preston on February 17, 2016 at 10:14 am

    wow, thanks!

    Todd Preston on February 18, 2016 at 10:23 am

Political Correctness will be the death of this country! I did not coin the phrase, but wish I did. When, if ever, will the sheeple wake up. This country was founded on individual efforts, which were rewarded in one way or another— NOT favoritism. Plus, of course, history has been re-written.
BTW Debbie. You are spot on about Trump!

unholyone on February 17, 2016 at 10:19 am


another fine elucidation

harv on February 17, 2016 at 11:37 am

I’ll admit I was a bit preoccupied pre2004; more concerned with a clean M-4, packing chutes, and patrol orders. I even voted for G.W. Bush; once in 2004; never received my absentee ballot for 2000. Until I heard El Rushbo state something to the effect, “…he {Bush} increased domestic spending 1400% {one thousand four hundred}…”
the border issue(s), the Muslim “outreach,” twenty-something pages of redactions regarding the Saudi’s during the 911 Commission, refusal to give the green light to Poppy field destruction, flying the BinLaden’s home, …get the picture?
Then I awoke circa 2006 with the Republicrat/Democan sham-nasty bill and “comprehensive immigration reform,” Dubai Ports deal, and Karen Hughes.
I ain’t a edukated dude, but wtf?
If “protecting the homeland” is a serious endeavor, why isn’t the border secure (meaning strict immigration control and border enforcement) yet???
Excellent history collage Debbie, and thanks!

Sick_Boy on February 17, 2016 at 2:07 pm

I cannot get the above image of Bush out of my head since 9/11 when he was told what has happened while he was reading to some small children in a classroom.

It never seemed the true face of shock and when I think of Bush I think of this face. I am not a “US allowed this to happen” person, but Bushes face give me pause, it seems to tell a story all its own.

Indira on February 17, 2016 at 2:16 pm

Indira, I understand your premise. I always thought the look on his face was like ‘ah crap, we knew it and we blew it.’

It’s kind of like facing Randy Moss in his prime. You know what he’s going to do, and how. But you don’t know exactly when, then . . .


Nobody’s perfect, but that doesn’t excuse the EXTREMELY Halal nature of the Bush family. Always has been, always will be. Mark Levin has time and again expressed his anger and outrage at what he sees as an attempt to build a Kennedyesque dynasty by the Bush family.

It’s rather obvious now. It’s also rather obvious that they don’t have a sovereign America’s interest in mind. They are globalist utopians. And what else would we expect but a royalist mentality from a family that is always so proud to point to their ancestors on the Mayflower? Elitists.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on February 17, 2016 at 2:28 pm

Reagan did nothing against the threat of Islam expansionism.

M: I agree and have noted on this site many times that when Hezbollah bombed the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, when they hijacked TWA 847 and torture-murdered Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem, when they kidnapped and murdered other U.S. officials and citizens on official business in and around Lebanon, we did nothing and didn’t respond (other than to high-tail it home after the Marine barracks bombing). We also did little to nothing after Qaddafi bombed the German disco frequented by U.S. Marines. Bin Laden cited this (the lack of response to the Embassy and Marine barracks bombing) in noting he could get away with a terrorist attack on America and we wouldn’t respond. Reagan set the precedent for that. DS

madman on February 17, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    According to retired Admiral Lyons, Cap Weinberger sabotaged Reagan’s order to conduct retaliatory strikes in Lebanon after the barracks bombing.

    Todd Preston on February 18, 2016 at 10:36 am

That’s true, madman, to a certain point. I never felt satisfied that we had answered what happened on October 23, 1983 properly. I stop short of saying he did nothing.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on February 17, 2016 at 5:26 pm

The thing Trump COULD have said – which doesn’t require knowing all the details that you mentioned – could have been that the Bushes were always in bed w/ Muslim terrorists, and that would have been uncontestable.

Let’s take Bush 41. He had his famous point man James “F*** the Jews’ Baker advising him, and after Operation Desert Storm, he dug up from nowhere the initiative of ‘solving the Palestinian problem’. He had the Madrid conference, but Shamir refused to play ball, so he did what he could to get Shamir defeated in an election, and then played ball w/ Rabin.

Bush 43. After 9/11, Pakistan, which was as guilty as the Taliban of supporting al Qaeda, just rolled over, unlike the Taliban, and Bush fell for it. He created a personal friendship w/ Musharraf, even though the latter was constantly playing America to make sure there wasn’t a US-India coalition against it. But Pakistan always had Osama’s back, which is why Bush could never nab him. In fact, as far as Pakistan goes, OBAMA had the better policy, which was to pull off that operation BEHIND Pakistan which achieved what was thought impossible. And in the process, exposing the lie that Osama was hiding in inaccessible terrain, when he was in fact just miles from their capital.

And ‘Palestine’? While Hilary was the first public figure to suggest a Pali state – something that the late Bomb Novak applauded, it was BUSH who made its recognition a reality. To this day, I just don’t get Conservatives who claim that he had Israel’s interests at heart. As has been pointed out here, the US does not recognize Jerusalem as a part of Israel on US passports, which is bizarre. And as Debbie pointed out above, Bush decided to counter the Democrat Jewish vote w/ the Republican Muslim vote. Never mind that the latter was completely against the country’s interest, unlike the former.

And now we have Jeb. In last month’s debate, there was an YouTube question from a Muslimah whining of how she ran a salon but was treated w/ hostility online for being a Muslim. Jeb took the occasion to berate Trump, rather than berate her. I mean, another woman like this Muslimah, but married, and w/ a 6 month old baby, helped her husband mow down several people who had helped arrange a baby shower for her. So why should people NOT treat Muslims w/ at least suspicion, if not downright hostility?

And most recently, I read somewhere about Prescott Bush’s friendship w/ Hitler. Not sure about its veracity, but it would be completely consistent w/ what his descendants have been doing.

The Bushes – given how good they’ve been to Islam – should really embrace Islam and move to the country they’ve been so nice to – Saudi Arabia. After all, why else would a section of the 9/11 report still be classified? It’s b’cos if Americans knew what was in it, they’d never tolerate Saudi Arabia being classified by the US government as anything other than an enemy, much less an ALLY

Infidel on February 17, 2016 at 11:38 pm

DS: If Ann Coulter really was in cahoots with Spencer Abraham to harm U.S. anti-terrorism efforts, then why was she your friend for well over a decade following that? Also, how do you reconcile her behavior back then with her current activism on fighting Muslim immigration and endorsing Donald Trump?

CR: That’s a great question. I didn’t realize she was Abraham’s immigration person until relatively recently–a few years ago–when a commenter made the connection in a comment on this site. That was already after I concluded she was both a fraud and an anti-Semite and was no longer “friends” with her (in so much as we were “friends” in the first place). As for what she is doing now, well, she never has “fought Muslim immigration.” In fact, she made sure everyone knew that she was sleeping with a Muslim immigrant and bragged about it repeatedly. She dedicated one of her books to him and wrote at least one column about him. I don’t believe she’s the genuine thing on this issue or ever was. In fact, she also endorsed Romney, when she knew he wasn’t conservative and was supporting amnesty. She does things that will get her attention, not based on principle. DS

Charles Rector on February 18, 2016 at 4:10 am

No, Trump Isn’t “Right” about 9/11

jg on February 18, 2016 at 7:35 am

DS: “I don’t know, but I do know that we didn’t use drones then (to kill people, anyway), and maybe things might have been different if we did. I suspect not, though.”

The Predator was still an experimental aircraft at the time, and it’s attack potential was still untested. Richard Clarke in ‘Against All Enemies’ notes the ongoing bureaucratic battles between Defense and CIA over who had operational authority and whose budget would cover the maintenance costs.

As to Bush and the “kept us safe” argument, let me suggest one of Bush’s dumbest moves was the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. I’d lived through several reorganization so bynthen, none of which had delivered on the promised benefits. So the idea they could take 22 departments, each with their own primary mandates and organizational cultures and meld them together struck me at the time as ludicrous. The partial overlap in security activity might have merited a joint task force to deal with that, but it certainly didn’t justify jamming them together. As I’d predicted and warned, DHS evolved into the largest and most dysfunctional department in Washington.

RiDC: I totally agree that the creation of DHS made us far less safe and have noted that repeatedly on this site over the years. In addition to being a giant boondoggle obsessed with PC and justifying mammoth budgets, it took away the power to investigate terrorism cases from U.S. Customs and the Secret Service, which had done much of the successful work busting up terrorists and their financing and smuggling efforts, as I’ve noted on this site. However, I didn’t mention in it in this piece b/c the piece was too long and DHS didn’t exist when 9/11 happened. So, I was trying to confine this to debating Trump’s comment that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. DS

Raymond in DC on February 18, 2016 at 8:44 pm

are you aware that Hezbollah has a centralized place in cuba? are you aware of the fact that our president has planned to go to cuba next month? the info is out there, but if you can’t find it, I’d be happy to do my best to back track online to locate it. And now I’ll read your complete article–wow, that was some pretty intense research and good writing. thanks.

Dori Dunbar on February 19, 2016 at 5:15 pm

I didn’t get blocked from Facebook for 30 days for nothing. Thanks, Debbie, I have been following your columns for years now, and it is terrifying to see just how deeply our nations are falling with the wine of the “beast’s” fornication. We may still live to see the day when the right will prevail, but it will be under an entirely different reign this time.

RaymondofCanada on March 5, 2016 at 8:43 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field