Yet another insider steps forward: they knew about . . .
Yet another insider, this time someone called 'very credible' by The Republican from Iowa, says that the FBI knew about an impending attack with airplanes was highly likely: article
In my opinion this is just getting sickening . . .
from the article:
and why won't Condi testify? . . . perhaps this has something to do with it?!
more specifically:
She will, of course, be dismissed because she is in litigation with the department because of a report that she wrote which revealed that agents were asked, by their superiors to translate slower in order to get more funds . . . butthose reports have been substantiated by other FBI agents. and besides, we allready know that there are problems in the FBI . . .
In my opinion this is just getting sickening . . .
from the article:
Quote:
FBI wiretap translator with top-secret security clearance, who has been called "very credible" by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has told Salon she recently testified to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States that the FBI had detailed information prior to Sept. 11, 2001, that a terrorist attack involving airplanes was being plotted.
FBI wiretap translator with top-secret security clearance, who has been called "very credible" by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has told Salon she recently testified to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States that the FBI had detailed information prior to Sept. 11, 2001, that a terrorist attack involving airplanes was being plotted.
and why won't Condi testify? . . . perhaps this has something to do with it?!
Quote:
" Edmonds is offended by the Bush White House claim that it lacked foreknowledge of the kind of attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11. "Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That's an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it's a lie."
" Edmonds is offended by the Bush White House claim that it lacked foreknowledge of the kind of attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11. "Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That's an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it's a lie."
more specifically:
Quote:
"President Bush said they had no specific information about Sept. 11, and that's accurate," says Edmonds. "But there was specific information about use of airplanes, that an attack was on the way two or three months beforehand and that several people were already in the country by May of 2001. They should've alerted the people to the threat we're facing."
"President Bush said they had no specific information about Sept. 11, and that's accurate," says Edmonds. "But there was specific information about use of airplanes, that an attack was on the way two or three months beforehand and that several people were already in the country by May of 2001. They should've alerted the people to the threat we're facing."
She will, of course, be dismissed because she is in litigation with the department because of a report that she wrote which revealed that agents were asked, by their superiors to translate slower in order to get more funds . . . butthose reports have been substantiated by other FBI agents. and besides, we allready know that there are problems in the FBI . . .
Comments
quote:
"Today in a speech in New Hampshire, President Bush defended his administration's actions before 9/11, saying: "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people." [ . . . ]
FACT: On August 6, 2001, President Bush personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane."
-- Dateline NBC, 9/10/02 (Transcript in Nexis)
FACT: U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July 2001 that Islamic terrorists had considered "crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations."
-- LA Times, 9/27/01.
FACT:A 1999 report prepared by the Library of Congress for the National Intelligence Council "warned that Osama bin Laden's terrorists could hijack an airliner and fly it into government buildings like the Pentagon." The report specifically said, "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives ? into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House."
-- CBS News, 5/17/02.
CAP also found this nugget, showing that the State Department under Bush downplayed the importance of the threat of Osama bin Laden in its annual terrorism report in early 2001.
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing terrorism.'"
-- CNN, 4/30/2001."
It just keeps piling up . .. .
9/11 was a catostrophic intelligence failure. Threats were not "put together" and dots were not connected. Bush's briefing included warnings about hijackings in the traditional sense. Did he see the 1999 briefing? Did ANYONE from his administration see it?
I am in awe that you'd try to pin 9/11 on Bush. If we're going to play the blame game, we should also blame former President Clinton for his total inffectiveness in fighting terror. I for one am not going to do that, though. Clinton cannot be blamed. Bush cannot be blamed. What matters now is hutning terrorists across the globe, reforming our intelligence capabilities and improving homeland security procedures.
after we got two in a week, we contacted the FBI. about a week later a general notice went out to forward all e-mails of this nature to the FBI.
that was 4 years ago, and nothing ever happened.
Originally posted by SDW2001
It only keeps piling up because you're looking for it to pile up. You cannot possibly be suggesting Bush knew.
9/11 was a catostrophic intelligence failure. Threats were not "put together" and dots were not connected. Bush's briefing included warnings about hijackings in the traditional sense. Did he see the 1999 briefing? Did ANYONE from his administration see it?
I am in awe that you'd try to pin 9/11 on Bush. If we're going to play the blame game, we should also blame former President Clinton for his total inffectiveness in fighting terror. I for one am not going to do that, though. Clinton cannot be blamed. Bush cannot be blamed. What matters now is hutning terrorists across the globe, reforming our intelligence capabilities and improving homeland security procedures.
Really, all I have to do is repost one of the FACTS listed above:
FACT: On August 6, 2001, President Bush personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane."
-- Dateline NBC, 9/10/02 (Transcript in Nexis)
i am not 'pinning' 911 on Bush but I am showing that more than one source is coming out to say the same that Clarke has said: namely, that Bush was, and is doing terrible job on the WOT
Some people, perhaps not myself, have related his very apparent lack of focused effort on AQ with the very apparent "obsession with Iraq", and have linked them such that perhaps there was some deliberate 'watch and see perhaps an excuse will come our way' attitude at play
. . . but everybody knows that that kind of belief is just 'too much" and only for wacko-tin-hat wearing nut cases . . .
George Bush knew exactly 19 hijackers were going to take over these 4 specific planes, knew their names, addresses and primary phone numbers, when and where the attacks were going to start and the specific targets of each plane, yet he chose not to show up with guns in hand to singlehandedly put an end to the plot.
It's a dark, dark day indeed.
Originally posted by rageous
Well this seals the deal.
George Bush knew exactly 19 hijackers were going to take over these 4 specific planes, knew their names, addresses and primary phone numbers, when and where the attacks were going to start and the specific targets of each plane, yet he chose not to show up with guns in hand to singlehandedly put an end to the plot.
It's a dark, dark day indeed.
That is not what is said and that is not what I said:
Bush said had he "known terrorist were going to use airplanes etc etc"
But there is evidence that they had ample warning about the use of airplanes in immanent plans . . . . but he didn't prepare for that eventuality in the manner that he now says that he would have
that is not as incendiary as saying he knew exactly of 911 . . . twinsting it that way elides the issue entirely by trying to paint the claim as a mere extremist attack.
Originally posted by pfflam
Yet another insider, this time someone called 'very credible' by The Republican from Iowa, says that the FBI knew about an impending attack with airplanes was highly likely:
Here's some info on the earlier case:
March 22, 2002: Translator Sibel Edmonds later claims that she is fired by the FBI on this day after repeatedly raising suspicions about a coworker and her alleged connections to an unnamed foreign official and an unnamed foreign organization. Both Edmonds and the coworker, Can Dickerson, were hired as translators in late September 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 attacks (see Late September 2001). Edmonds claims that Dickerson failed to translate sensitive information concerning the foreign official and organization, did not inform the FBI that she once worked for the organization (which is under investigation), and had "unreported contacts" with the foreign official, who has now left the country. When Edmonds failed to agree to work as a spy for this organization, Dickerson told her that her lack of cooperation could put her family in danger. Both Edmonds and Dickerson are ethnically Turkish, but no one has claimed that Turkey was involved. After her boss and others in the FBI failed to respond to her complaints, she wrote to the Justice Department's inspector general's office in March: "Investigations are being compromised. Incorrect or misleading translations are being sent to agents in the field. Translations are being blocked and circumvented." She claims she was fired for her whistleblowing, and is suing. Both the FBI and some US Senators later agree that there is merit to Edmonds's claims, and are investigating the matter. A second FBI whistleblower, John Cole, also claims to know of security lapses in the screening and hiring of FBI translators. [Washington Post, 6/19/02, Cox News, 8/14/02] In October 2002, at the request of FBI Director Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft asks a judge to throw out Edmonds's lawsuit against the Justice Department. He says he is applying the state secrets privilege in order "to protect the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States." [AP, 10/18/02]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...after2001.html
Late September 2001: Sibel Edmonds is hired as a Middle Eastern languages translator for the FBI. As she later tells CBS's 60 Minutes, she immediately encounters a pattern of deliberate failure in her translation department. Her boss says, "Let the documents pile up so we can show it and say that we need more translators and expand the department." She claims that if she wasn't slowing down enough, her supervisor would delete her work. Meanwhile, FBI agents working on the 9/11 investigation would call and ask for urgently needed translations. Senator Charles Grassley (R) says of her charges, "She?s credible and the reason I feel she?s very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story." He points out that the speed of such translation might make the difference between a terrorist bombing succeeding or failing. [CBS, 10/25/02, New York Post, 10/26/02] In January 2002, FBI officials tell government auditors that translator shortages have resulted in "the accumulation of thousands of hours of audio tapes and pages" of untranslated material. [Washington Post, 6/19/02] Edmonds has a whistleblower lawsuit against the FBI for these and other charges (see March 22, 2002).
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...eafter911.html
Originally posted by pfflam
That is not what is said and that is not what I said:
Bush said had he "known terrorist were going to use airplanes etc etc"
But there is evidence that they had ample warning about the use of airplanes in immanent plans . . . . but he didn't prepare for that eventuality in the manner that he now says that he would have
that is not as incendiary as saying he knew exactly of 911 . . . twinsting it that way elides the issue entirely by trying to paint the claim as a mere extremist attack.
Well without specific information about where/when/what type of planes/etc., what exactly is bush to do? Place an armed guard on every private and commercial flight?
The general knowledge of some aspects of an attack aren't automatically enough to be able to formulate effective plans of action to deter those attacks.
If i told you I'm going to go to New York and put a bomb at an intersection that has a Starbucks, could you stop that? What if you and your pals guard every intersection in NYC that has a Starbucks, and I blow up an intersection in Albany that has one? Remember, I said New York, not New York City. i guess you're partially at fault for not planning properly in response to my threat.
Originally posted by rageous
Well without specific information about where/when/what type of planes/etc., what exactly is bush to do? Place an armed guard on every private and commercial flight?
The general knowledge of some aspects of an attack aren't automatically enough to be able to formulate effective plans of action to deter those attacks.
If i told you I'm going to go to New York and put a bomb at an intersection that has a Starbucks, could you stop that? What if you and your pals guard every intersection in NYC that has a Starbucks, and I blow up an intersection in Albany that has one? Remember, I said New York, not New York City. i guess you're partially at fault for not planning properly in response to my threat.
All of this assumes that all reports of imminent attacks have no substance beyond "Possible attack with airplanes."
Even if that was the case, we can already look at some of the steps the administration could have taken: those steps taken after 9.11.
But, yeah, I do expect some sort of security to be put into place even if there is only general warning of an attack.
Am I the only one that heard the story of the lady boarding a plane to FL with a loaded pistol in her purse, and not being caught until SHE informed a flight attendant of what she'd done?
Originally posted by rageous
Well without specific information about where/when/what type of planes/etc., what exactly is bush to do? Place an armed guard on every private and commercial flight?
The general knowledge of some aspects of an attack aren't automatically enough to be able to formulate effective plans of action to deter those attacks.
If i told you I'm going to go to New York and put a bomb at an intersection that has a Starbucks, could you stop that? What if you and your pals guard every intersection in NYC that has a Starbucks, and I blow up an intersection in Albany that has one? Remember, I said New York, not New York City. i guess you're partially at fault for not planning properly in response to my threat.
Your missing the point.
Bush, Condi, et al were at some pains after 9/11 to declare that nobody had any idea that anything like what happened was possible.
Subsequent information reveals that there was actually quite a bit of intelligence that something "quite a bit like what happened" was possible and growing increasingly likely.
Nobody here has ever said Bush knew exactly what was coming, or where, or when.
I don't think any of us can say if it would have been possible to prevent 9/11.
But Bush has made a cult of his stewardship of the country after 9/11, how he and his team of steely warriors have kept America safe from the evildoers.
The information coming out now paints a very different picture. Failure to take pre 9/11 intel seriously, at least in part because of distaste for anything Clintonian and partly because the attention was focused elsewhere (Iraq, cold war issues, missle defense) is just part of a larger picture of an administration that hasn't been particularly smart about terrorism, despite what they keep saying over and over again.
This information seems to be coming from a lot of sources, including some unguarded words from the administration itslef, and it strains credibility to maintain that all these people are dupes, knaves, fools, profiteers, embittered lifers, or whatever characterization is getting batted around currently on Fox.
Originally posted by addabox
Your missing the point.
Bush, Condi, et al were at some pains after 9/11 to declare that nobody had any idea that anything like what happened was possible.
Subsequent information reveals that there was actually quite a bit of intelligence that something "quite a bit like what happened" was possible and growing increasingly likely.
Nobody here has ever said Bush knew exactly what was coming, or where, or when.
I don't think any of us can say if it would have been possible to prevent 9/11.
But Bush has made a cult of his stewardship of the country after 9/11, how he and his team of steely warriors have kept America safe from the evildoers.
The information coming out now paints a very different picture. Failure to take pre 9/11 intel seriously, at least in part because of distaste for anything Clintonian and partly because the attention was focused elsewhere (Iraq, cold war issues, missle defense) is just part of a larger picture of an administration that hasn't been particularly smart about terrorism, despite what they keep saying over and over again.
This information seems to be coming from a lot of sources, including some unguarded words from the administration itslef, and it strains credibility to maintain that all these people are dupes, knaves, fools, profiteers, embittered lifers, or whatever characterization is getting batted around currently on Fox.
Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding.
My goodness, why is this so difficult to understand to some? It's pretty simple unless you're trying hard not to see it.
Originally posted by addabox
Your missing the point.
Bush, Condi, et al were at some pains after 9/11 to declare that nobody had any idea that anything like what happened was possible.
Subsequent information reveals that there was actually quite a bit of intelligence that something "quite a bit like what happened" was possible and growing increasingly likely.
I don't deny that. I guess it's just not as big of a deal to me that Bush didn't say "yeah, we had some idea, but you know, what could we do?" It would've been nice to hear the truth, but I've got larger concerns.
Quote:
Nobody here has ever said Bush knew exactly what was coming, or where, or when.
I don't think any of us can say if it would have been possible to prevent 9/11.
Exactly. So my point is that if 10,000,000 people all say "Bush knew some stuff", we all agree it wouldn't have changed the outcome. So why dwell on what he probably knew when it doesn't matter in any way what he knew? I prefer to focus on not letting this happen again.
Quote:
But Bush has made a cult of his stewardship of the country after 9/11, how he and his team of steely warriors have kept America safe from the evildoers.
Something anyone else running for reelection would try to promote. Not that i buy into it, but it's election year politics, and I accept the reality of what that means.
Quote:
The information coming out now paints a very different picture. Failure to take pre 9/11 intel seriously, at least in part because of distaste for anything Clintonian and partly because the attention was focused elsewhere (Iraq, cold war issues, missle defense) is just part of a larger picture of an administration that hasn't been particularly smart about terrorism, despite what they keep saying over and over again.
Perhaps, but I know I'm not in a position to say how seriously george Bush takes any given situation, because I am not there to evaluate it for myself
Quote:
This information seems to be coming from a lot of sources, including some unguarded words from the administration itself, and it strains credibility to maintain that all these people are dupes, knaves, fools, profiteers, embittered lifers, or whatever characterization is getting batted around currently on Fox.
I agree. But what it boils down to is a lot of people stating opinions. "It is my opinion the war on terror is being conducted poorly." "It is my opinion we could have taken terrorism more seriously pre-9/11" And opinions are wonderful, and can be factually based. but so can opposing opinions.
Originally posted by rageous
Well without specific information about where/when/what type of planes/etc., what exactly is bush to do? Place an armed guard on every private and commercial flight?
Let's see...
-------------On August 6, 2001, President Bush personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane."
-- Dateline NBC, 9/10/02--------------------
how about getting every agency together to try to figure out WHO the potential hijackers could be to begin with? Anyone with al qaeda "ties" that we know of? CIA, FBI? who could pull this off? You know, at least do something about it. Anything!
The general knowledge of some aspects of an attack aren't automatically enough to be able to formulate effective plans of action to deter those attacks.
No offense, but the real world doesn't work like that. Simple logic tells me that when you don't know much about something, you start with what you know and build from there. Nothing happens "instantly" like you seem to be suggesting.
Originally posted by pfflam
Really, all I have to do is repost one of the FACTS listed above:
i am not 'pinning' 911 on Bush but I am showing that more than one source is coming out to say the same that Clarke has said: namely, that Bush was, and is doing terrible job on the WOT
Some people, perhaps not myself, have related his very apparent lack of focused effort on AQ with the very apparent "obsession with Iraq", and have linked them such that perhaps there was some deliberate 'watch and see perhaps an excuse will come our way' attitude at play
. . . but everybody knows that that kind of belief is just 'too much" and only for wacko-tin-hat wearing nut cases . . .
I don't think Dateline is accurate here. We'd have to see this briefing. Every other account says that Bush was warned about hijackings...in the traditional sense. And further, one cannot say Bush was doing a terrible job, because he certainly was doing no less than Clinton. Clinton IS relevant here.