Reply
Thu 25 Mar, 2004 09:45 am
Please note the date of this 2002 CBS News article. Then you will know why Bush doesn't want Condi Rice to have to testify under oath.
---BBB
Report Warned Of Suicide Hijackings
WASHINGTON, May 17, 2002
Two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, an analysis prepared for U.S. intelligence warned that Osama bin Laden's terrorists could hijack an airliner and fly it into government buildings like the Pentagon.
"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.
The Bush administration has asserted that no one in government had envisioned a suicide hijacking before it happened.
"Had I know that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people," Mr. Bush told U.S. Air Force Academy football team members who were visiting the White House on Friday. It was his first public comment on revelations this week that he was told Aug. 6 that bin Laden wanted to hijack planes.
CBS Senior White House Correspondent Bob Schieffer reports that other top officials were less forthcoming. The usually talkative Attorney General John Ashcroft just stared when reporters asked him about the terror warnings. FBI Chief Robert Mueller also refused to comment.
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the administration was aware of the 1999 report prepared by the Library of Congress for the National Intelligence Council, which advises the president and U.S. intelligence on emerging threats. He said the document did not contain direct intelligence pointing toward a specific plot but rather included assessments about how terrorists might strike.
"What it shows is that this information that was out there did not raise enough alarm with anybody," Fleischer acknowledged.
Former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council when the report was written, said officials long have known a suicide hijacking was a threat.
"If you ask anybody could terrorists convert a plane into a missile, nobody would have ruled that out," he said.
Democrats and some Republicans in Congress Friday raised the volume of their calls to investigate what the government knew before Sept. 11.
"I think we're going to learn a lot about what the government knew," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said during an appearance in New York. She said she was unaware of the report created in 1999 during her husband's administration.
Sen. Charles Grassley, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary and Finance committees, demanded the CIA inspector general investigate the report, which he called "one of the most alarming indicators and warning signs of the terrorist plot of Sept. 11."
Meanwhile, court transcripts reviewed by The Associated Press show the government had other warning signs between 1999 and 2001 that bin Laden was sending members of his network to be trained as pilots and was considering airlines as a possible target.
The court records show the FBI has known since at least 1999 that Ihab Mohammed Ali, who was arrested in Florida and later named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa, had been sent for pilot training in Oklhhoma before working as a pilot for bin Laden.
He eventually crashed a plane owned by bin Laden in Sudan that prosecutors alleged was used to transport al Qaeda members and weapons. Ali remains in custody in New York.
In February 2001, federal prosecutors told a court they gained information in September 2000 from an associate of Ali's, Morrocan citizen L'Houssaine Kherchtou, that Kherchtou was trained as an al Qaeda pilot in Kenya and attended a meeting in 1993 where an al Qaeda official was briefing Ali on Western air traffic control procedures.
"He (Kherchtou) observed an Egyptian person who was not a pilot debriefing a friend of his, Ihab Ali, about how air traffic control works and what people say over the air traffic control system," then-Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald told a New York court.
"And it was his belief that there might have been a plan to send a pilot to Saudi Arabia or someone familiar with that to monitor the air traffic communications so they could possibly attack an airplane perhaps belonging to an Egyptian president or something in Saudi Arabia."
That intelligence is in addition to information the FBI received in July 2001 from its Phoenix office that a large number of Arabs were training at U.S. flight schools and a briefing President Bush received in August of that year suggesting hijacking was one possible attack the al Qaeda might use against the United States.
The September 1999 report, entitled "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?" described suicide hijacking as one of several possible retribution attacks the al Qaeda might seek for a 1998 U.S. airstrike against bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.
The report noted an al Qaeda-linked terrorist first arrested in the Philippines in 1995 and later convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing had suggested such a mission.
"Ramzi Yousef had planned to do this against the CIA headquarters," the report said.
Bush administration officials have repeatedly said no one in government had imagined such an attack.
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that ... they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said Thursday.
The report was written by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress that provides research for federal agencies.
"This information was out there, certainly to those who study the in-depth subject of terrorism and al-Qaeda," said Robert L. Worden, the agency's chief.
"We knew it was an insightful report," he said. "Then after Sept. 11 we said, 'My gosh, that was in there.'"
Gannon said the 1999 report was part of a broader effort by his council to identify the full range of attack options of U.S. enemies.
The vice president has repeatedly asked Congress not to investigate the intelligence failures. But with the new commotion, the White House now says it will cooperate with an investigation if it's done the right way.
The problem with all of this is, the Administration gets hundreds if not thousands of indicators a week showing that this group or that group are going to threaten the country in some way.
If the President were to read and react to them all, the country would be frozen in terror over the constant 'warnings of imminent doom' and nothing would get done.
It's only AFTER something comes to pass that people look back on all the raw intelligence data and point to one or two items (among the thousands) and say'
But you had clear indications HERE <grabbing one paper among a 5 foot tall stack> look at this warning clearly states that some group may attack us with some sort of flying machine, some time in the near future. It's CRYSTAL CLEAR that you KNEW what was coming and didn't shut down the airlines and have all the flying planes blown out of the sky. Of course then we would have vilified you for interrupting our travel plans, but you cant win them all.
Hindsight is twenty twenty.
Foresight is only slightly more accurate than the Oracle at Delphi.
God help me, I'm with fedral on this one, and I loathe the shrub and the clan behind him. And even with some awareness, what was to be done about it? I didn't dig Patriot Act after 9/11 -- I certainly wouldn't have gone for it before.
And the oracle at Delphi was huffing carbon monoxide, which leaks up through the rocks there.
Bumble Bee:
This is very troubling.
If true, then Bush's obsession with Iraq and more precisely, Saddam Hussein, because Saddam "tray'd to kee-ol mah daddeh" means 3,000 people died needlessly on September 11th, 2001 so that Bush could settle an old family score.
It also means, IMHO, that Bush has abdicated his Oath of Office, should be shackled and tried for treason.
...and if not true then your hatred and mocking of the president is misplaced an unwarranted, right?
The Bush argument hinges on this fact: There are hundred of thousands of pieces of raw intelligence regarding terrorists, and the possibility of using hijacked planes was only one of them. There was no reason to focus on this possibility any more than a myriad of other possibilities.
It makes sense.
I'm trying to understand how I woke up in some strange parallel Universe where all the things I take for granted have been flipped topsy-turvey.
Patiodog and ILZ agreeing with me !
But seriously, it has always angered me when people have many months and years to look through the truly insane amount of documents that the Government produces, takes a few scattered facts, and builds a conspiracy case because certain people didn't have the time to read 5000 documents per day, compare them to what actually happened and take a few years to decide that there was a connection.
Real life happens at 1:1 time compression. Decisions get made because of the information you have at hand, not by 3 or 4 years of reflection on each nugget of data.
This is the same deal as the people who claim that President Roosevelt KNEW that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor.
Just my 2 cents (pre tax)
However, I'd also like to point out that the efforts of the White House to forestall investigation -- and the efforts by legislators to try and use the investigation as political fodder -- disgusts but does not surprise me.
You learn from mistakes -- you don't use them to string somebody else up or bury them so that you don't get embarassed. Or should, anyhow...
The point is that Rice said that "they had no idea that someone would take a plane and use it as a weapon." She should have known that it was a possiblity however remote. It just shows that they didn't take the terrorist threat seriously or they would have known that it was at least possible. What is the use of the CIA and other officials or whatever passing along information if it is going to be ignored?
I just don't think the administration has any credibility to run on keeping our nation secure and they ought to stop trying to. But then after a while it gets old just running on morals and Iraq. And the way Iraq is going they won't be able to run on that too much either, so they are just left with morals. When I want leadership in morals I will either go to church or read the bible myself. I want somebody to run our country.
It was also possible they would blow up bridges, or bomb rail roads, or schools, or malls, or gas stations, or nuclear plants, or coal mines, or used mules to pack TNT into the hoover dam, or poison water systems, or poison the girl scout cookies or whatever else one can imagine.
It's fool hardy to expect any administration would have been keeping an eye out for this particular action. THAT'S WHY IT WAS SUCCESSFUL! NO ONE EXPECTED IT!!
well Girl Scout Cookies in Crawford Tx are entirely another matter.
"Expected"
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that ... they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said Thursday.
Another time she said, "No one could have "imagined" it.
"Expected" that is another concept. Her statements don't ring true. If she were doing her job then at the very least she could have "imagined" the possible use of airplanes as missles.
She should testify under oath in public if she and this Admin. have nothing to hide.
You can't get an official to testify under oath unless it is something serious like a BJ.
mesquite wrote:You can't get an official to testify under oath unless it is something serious like a BJ.
Of course, but who wants a blow job from Condi Rice?
McGentrix
Like pistoff said, it is not that anyone expected the Bush administration to be on the lookout for airplanes being used as weapons to ram into buildings. It is that she said in words to effect that they could not even conceive of such an idea. She is the security advisor to the President of the United States. She should have at least seen the cia report where the possibility was mentioned. And if she did see it then her statement was false. That is the point of the article that BBB provided.
You mean that one document that was 2 pages long found in Arizona (I think that's the state.)?
It's truly a shame that the information wasn't deemed important at the time, but that's the way things work in real life. Sometimes mistakes are made, data isn't analized properly and info gets lost.
Remember that Bush was not president in 1999. But both the Clinton and Bush administrations would have acted swiftly and decisively if they had known what was about to happen on 9/11. Nobody knew that day except the terrorists and, for a few horrifying minutes, passengers on the airplanes.
Would either Bill Clinton or George Bush have ordered off course passenger planes shot down without knowing for sure their intent? Would either have ordered the grounding of all aircraft that day in the face of still one more, among thousands, of unproven threats and warnings they dealt with every day?
The congressional 9/11 hearings now in progress are clearly illustrating that there have been mistakes in the Bush administration and predating the Bush administration, but there is no 'smoking gun' of blame to be assigned anywhere except in the lap of the terrorists themselves.
Why don't we all stop the blame game and try to support the efforts to correct the situation and, if we think enough is not now being done, let's hold their feet to the fire until they do enough.
Foxfyre
McGentrix
You seem to continually miss the point. I am not blaming the Bush administration in this particular discussion.
My point is that after the horrible event took place one would have thought that they would have combed their records looking for anything and everything they might of had on Bin Laden and surely they would have ran across that previously unimportant 2 paged report about the possibility of airplanes being used as weapons. If they didn't they should have, and if they did it makes her statement at best; odd.
However, I am now tired of this particular point.