The Covered-Up Meeting

And here's the money quote from Bartlett: "That's Secretary Rice's view, that that type of urgent request to go after bin Laden, as the book alleges, in her mind, didn't happen."

Get that? In her mind, it didn't happen.

Rice weighed in herself this morning, with a full-throated denial -- that she remembered anything about the meeting.

Anne Gearan writes for the Associated Press: "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she cannot recall then-CIA chief George Tenet warning her of an impending al-Qaeda attack in the United States, as a new book claims he did two months before the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

"'What I am quite certain of is that I would remember if I was told, as this account apparently says, that there was about to be an attack in the United States, and the idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible,' Rice said."

Incomprehensible, indeed.

Peter Rundlet , a counsel to the 9/11 Commission, writes on the liberal Think Progress Web site: "Many, many questions need to be asked and answered about this revelation -- questions that the 9/11 Commission would have asked, had the Commission been told about this significant meeting. . . .

"Was it covered up? It is hard to come to a different conclusion. . . .

"At a minimum, the withholding of information about this meeting is an outrage. Very possibly, someone committed a crime. And worst of all, they failed to stop the plot."

Around the time of that July meeting, Rice and Bush were more focused on their pet issue: missile defense. And Bush wasn't interested in "swatting flies" -- he was already looking for a reason to attack Iraq.

And a month later, as Ron Suskind reported in his book, "The One Percent Doctrine," an unnamed CIA briefer flew to Bush's Texas ranch to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.' According to Suskind, Bush heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

Also see my September 26 column: Not So Tough on Terror?