1
   

I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities

 
 
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 12:13 am
'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes'
Whistleblower the White House wants to silence speaks to The Independent
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
02 April 2004 - Independent UK

A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened.

She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".

She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."

She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used ­ but not specifically about how they would be used ­ and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities ­ with skyscrapers."

The accusations from Mrs Edmonds, 33, a Turkish-American who speaks Azerbaijani, Farsi, Turkish and English, will reignite the controversy over whether the administration ignored warnings about al-Qa'ida. That controversy was sparked most recently by Richard Clarke, a former counter-terrorism official, who has accused the administration of ignoring his warnings.

The issue ­ what the administration knew and when ­ is central to the investigation by the 9/11 Commission, which has been hearing testimony in public and private from government officials, intelligence officials and secret sources. Earlier this week, the White House made a U-turn when it said that Ms Rice would appear in public before the commission to answer questions. Mr Bush and his deputy, Dick Cheney, will also be questioned in a closed-door session.

Mrs Edmonds, 33, says she gave her evidence to the commission in a specially constructed "secure" room at its offices in Washington on 11 February. She was hired as a translator for the FBI's Washington field office on 13 September 2001, just two days after the al-Qa'ida attacks. Her job was to translate documents and recordings from FBI wire-taps.

She said said it was clear there was sufficient information during the spring and summer of 2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack. "Most of what I told the commission ­ 90 per cent of it ­ related to the investigations that I was involved in or just from working in the department. Two hundred translators side by side, you get to see and hear a lot of other things as well."

"President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September," she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away.

To try to refute Mr Clarke's accusations, Ms Rice said the administration did take steps to counter al-Qa'ida. But in an opinion piece in The Washington Post on 22 March, Ms Rice wrote: "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack planes to try and free US-held terrorists."

Mrs Edmonds said that by using the word "we", Ms Rice told an "outrageous lie". She said: "Rice says 'we' not 'I'. That would include all people from the FBI, the CIA and DIA [Defence Intelligence Agency]. I am saying that is impossible."

It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims. However, some senior US senators testified to her credibility in 2002 when she went public with separate allegations relating to alleged incompetence and corruption within the FBI's translation department.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 764 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 01:46 am
Wow. It will be interesting to see what happens at the end of these investigations. Obviously no one knew 9/11 was going to happen or it would have been stopped. But, as Mrs. Edmonds states, US intelligence departments knew some form of strike was in the works. I wonder why no one with authority took it seriously enough.

With the bits and pieces I've read about this investiation, it would seem Bush et al. are scrambling to keep things hushed up because they know it could mean a defeat this November. Personally I hope he loses the election.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 02:20 am
Here are some posts from a thread on Free Republic discussing this topic.

Dilbert56 wrote:
This has already been proven wrong. The panel's members have already said there's no "smoking gun". Would the Dems have said that if there was anything remotely resembling one?

Pikamax wrote:
this woman been floating around the leftist sites for a while now.

Rokke wrote:
And I'm sure that if she's not lying the 9-11 commission will specifically ask Condi about whether she saw or even heard of the intel this lady is talking about. For some strange reason, however, I doubt this nutcase will be an issue.

CFC__VRWC wrote:
I think the kangaroo court's trying to use this person to lay a perjury trap for Dr. Rice. From what I've seen, though, she's a tinfoil whackoid, and the attempt to use her just demonstrates how badly the kangaroo court has failed in its mission to dig up muck for the Rats to fling at George Bush.

Still, I'm sure the media pinheads like Chris Matthews are practically orgasmic over the thought of having her on their shows. They can pair her up with Dickie Clarke and really put it to the Republicans. It will probably have about as much effect on the President's numbers as Dickie alone did, but I guess it makes them feel good.

commish wrote:
Sibel Edmunds must be clairvoyant since she knows so much about what was discussed before 9-11 when she was HIRED on SEPTEMBER 13, 2001!!!!
IOW this moron has no idea in what context the "papers" she saw were compiled and/or presented. Plus, she appears to have been an FBI Staff Worker, so she NO F-in IDEA WHATSOEVER what may or may not have been briefed to her own Director, much less anyone in State, NSA or the White House.

kcvl wrote:

VadeRetro wrote:
The article mentions that she hired on two days before 9-11. Some large part of her testimony is hearsay based on her talking to lots of other translators in the same cubicle farm.

bayourod wrote:
This is not new news.
She didn't even work for the government prior to 9-11. She found some old untranslated tapes that could be interpreted by a good comspiracy theorist as predicting that airplanes could be used as terrorists weapons. That was common knowlege. So could ships, trucks, vans , cars etc...

BigSkyFreeper wrote:
She gave the commission something they already had. ABC Radio said the report of this woman can't even be verified.

Sprite518 wrote:
Oh so I guess this leak knew exactly what day, time, the flight, and who? The Liberals are politicizing 911. Bush needs to take off the gloves, and go all out on these P.O.S.

dila813 wrote:
This is old news, they talked about it before. They admit they had intel on this but it didn't tell them a date or a location. Analysis of the intel said it was likely planned to take place against US interests overseas. Not in the US itself.

BigSkyFreeper wrote:
This intelligence that this woman claims to have of planes being used as weapons came out of the Phillipines Intelligence Bureau back in 1995 during the Clinton administration. If anyone is at fault over THIS "leak", hell it aint even a leak, it was talked about in the days following 9/11, if anyone is responsible for gleaning over this piece of intelligence it's the Bill Clinton administration, when Richard Clarke was sleeping on the job.

BigSkyFreeper wrote:

STOCKHRSE wrote:
NOBODY imagined that airliners would be flown into buildings. It hadn't ever happened like that before. Real Americans understand this and can see all the actions Bush has taken since 9/11 to protect us. It was unreasonable to imagine an airliner being used as a weapon.

paleocon patriarch wrote:
Well the FOX channel surely imagined an attack using a fully fueled 727 on the WTC. The link below is from a FOX pilot called The Lone Gunman that aired in May 2001 and was shot 19 months before 911.
The links at the bottom of this page have streaming video of the WTC attack scene from The Lone Gunman's "PILOT" episode.
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/lonegunmen.html

ladyinred wrote:
Even if there were threats of this, they could not know when or exactly how this would happen. Now we do know, and that is the important thing. NOW we can know just exactly what they are capable of don't we? This is an outright assault on the President playing off the blood of our lost one's on 911. They have no shame, right Hillary?

Now remember, I didn't write these, I just cut and pasted them. :wink:
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 02:31 am
If it's true, of course she will be discredited and made to look bad.

As for ladyinred's post....if the Bush government had this information, they could have at LEAST beefed up airport security. I was shocked and amazed to discover that the U.S. doesn't (or didn't, maybe they do now) have a system to match passengers with their luggage. In Canada, and other countries, you don't get on the plane, the plane stays on the ground until your luggage gets off too. You simply cannot put luggage on board without its owner.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 02:35 am
Unattended luggage is no longer allowed on American flights either. I think that change happened after the Lockerbie crash.
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 02:58 am
I watch this show called "Airline". They follow Southwest Airlines and their escapades with customers. More than one has had their luggage leave without them. Hmmm...
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 03:19 am
Lost luggage has been a problem since the early days of passenger flight. But I believe (and hope) that if a passenger's luggage makes it on to the plane and the passenger doesn't, his luggage is removed before the plane takes off. Also, all luggage is screened before it's allowed on the plane, so you have x-rays and explosive sniffers in operation to protect the passengers. I might be wrong (I was once before), but I think that's how it works.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 10:28 am
Condoleezza's "rice" appears to be half cooked. Hopefully the commission can finish the job.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 11:32 am
au1929 wrote:
Condoleezza's "rice" appears to be half cooked. Hopefully the commission can finish the job.

You're getting some good mileage out of that quote. :wink:
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 11:37 am
Just moved it to the active post. Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 11:56 am
Tarantulas: On the show it isn't about lost luggage. It's about people who WANT to get on the plane, but the plane is full. Their luggage, however, somehow manages to make the flight.

It's obvious there are flaws in the system that haven't been addressed.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 12:00 pm
I would agree with you there. That should never happen.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 12:08 pm
I had to fly from Chicago to Syracuse on American Eagle. I noticed an earlier flight was scheduled so I asked if it would be possible to get on that flight. I had already checked my baggage for the later flight.

When I got to Syracuse, My luggage had arrived with me. I was very impressed.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 04:34 pm
9/11 kin: W butting in
Say panel pressured Clarke

By JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - Families of 9/11 victims were critical yesterday of what appeared to be White House efforts to coach members of a panel questioning a Bush-bashing whistleblower.White House counsel Alberto Gonzales telephoned at least one and possibly two Republicans on the panel hours before a hearing where they sharply questioned former counterterror guru Richard Clarke.Clarke had infuriated the White House by accusing Bush in a new book of downgrading the anti-terror effort and being eager to use the terror attacks to go after Iraq instead of Al Qaeda.The Family Steering Committee, which represents many of the 9/11 families, called on the White House to explain the calls."These ex-parte communications raise serious concerns regarding the impartiality of these commissioners, and questions about whether the commission has been sidetracked from its mandate to focus on the facts and circumstances of 9/11," the families said in a statement.A Democratic panel member, New School President Bob Kerrey, also criticized the calls."To call commissioners and coach them on what they ought to say is a terrible mistake," Kerrey said. "It does the opposite of what they wanted to do, I think, which is take the politics out of it."The Washington Post reported that Gonzales placed calls to Fred Fielding and Fred Thompson, both Republicans, before the hearing.During the hearing both questioned Clarke's motives for his allegations against the Bush administration.The flap over Gonzales' calls - which White House officials do not deny were placed - comes as the commission prepares to hear from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice in public and under oath for 2-1/2 hours on Thursday.The White House had refused to let her testify until critics, including some Republicans on the panel, convinced President Bush to change his mind."If the White House had trusted that this commission could be bipartisan right from the beginning, they wouldn't be in the trouble they're in," said Kerrey. "They've left the impression with Americans that they're concerned the facts aren't favorable to them."

Originally published on April 2, 2004
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/26/2024 at 06:44:24