PDA

View Full Version : ooops, Aussies break story that Condi lied. Cites memo as proof.


memyselfI
02-10-2005, 09:10 PM
dang, if only Jeff Gannon were working for this paper, this story might not see the light of day. :hmmm:

ROFL
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,12216311%255E401,00.html

US al-Qaeda warning revealed
From correspondents in Washington
11feb05

EIGHT months before the September 11 attacks the White House's then counterterrorism adviser urged then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to hold a high-level meeting on the al-Qaeda network, according to a memo made public today.

"We urgently need such a principals-level review on the al-Qaeda network," then White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke wrote in the January 25, 2001 memo.
Mr Clarke, who left the White House in 2003, made headlines in the heat of the US presidential campaign last year when he accused the Bush White House of having ignored al-Qaeda's threats before September 11.

Mr Clarke testified before inquiry panels and in a book that Rice, his boss at the time, had been warned of the threat. Rice is now US Secretary of State.

However, Ms Rice wrote in a March 22, 2004 column in The Washington Post that "No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration".

Mr Clarke told a commission looking into intelligence shortcomings prior to the attacks, "There's a lot of debate about whether it's a plan or a strategy or a series of options - but all of the things we recommended back in January were those things on the table in September. They were all done, but they were done after September 11."

The document was released by the National Security Archive, an independent US group that solicits government documents for public review.

Another document released by the archive said that from April to September 2001, the US Federal Aviation Administration received 52 intelligence reports on al-Qaeda, including five that mentioned hijackings and two that mentioned suicide operations, according to today's New York Times.

The Times quoted a previously undisclosed report by a commission set up to investigate the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

The report criticises the FAA for failing to strengthen security measures in light of the reports and describes as "striking" the false sense of security that appeared to predominate in the civil aviation system before the attacks, the paper said.

memyselfI
02-10-2005, 09:13 PM
Ooops, there is more.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=609895

Bush team tried to suppress pre-9/11 report into al-Qa'ida
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
11 February 2005


Federal officials were repeatedly warned in the months before the 11 September 2001 terror attacks that Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida were planning aircraft hijackings and suicide attacks, according to a new report that the Bush administration has been suppressing.

Critics say the new information undermines the government's claim that intelligence about al-Qa'ida's ambitions was "historical" in nature.

The independent commission investigating the attacks on New York and Washington concluded that while officials at the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) did receive warnings, they were "lulled into a false sense of security". As a result, "intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures".

The report, withheld from the public for months, says the FAA was primarily focused on the likelihood of an incident overseas. However, in spring 2001, it warned US airports that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable".

Kristin Bretweiser, whose husband was killed in the World Trade Centre, said yesterday the newly released details undermined testimony from Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser, who told the commission that information about al-Qa'ida's threats seen by the administration was "historical in nature".

She told The Independent: "There were 52 threats that were mentioned. These were present threats - they were not historical. There were steps that could have been taken. Marshals could have been put on planes that spring. Condoleezza Rice's testimony is undermined." To the consternation of members of the commission who published the original report last year, the administration has been blocking the release of the latest information. An unclassified copy of this additional appendix was passed to the National Archives two weeks ago with large portions blacked out.

The latest pages note that of the FAA's 105 daily intelligence summaries between 1 April 2001 and 10 September 2001, 52 of them mentioned Osama bin Laden, al-Qa'ida, or both. The report also concludes that officials did not expand the use of in-flight air marshals or tighten airport screening for weapons. It said FAA officials were more concerned with reducing airline congestion, lessening delays and easing air carriers' financial problems than thwarting a terrorist attack.

Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the FAA, said the agency received intelligence from other agencies, which it passed on to airlines and airports. "[But] we had no specific information about means or methods that would have enabled us to tailor any countermeasures," she said. "We were spending $100m a year to deploy explosive detection equipment."

The commission's report, issued last summer, detailed missed opportunities that, had law enforcement agencies acted differently, may have provided a chance to prevent the attacks. It also listed recommendations to prevent further attacks. It said the administrations of George Bush and Bill Clinton could have done more to stand up to al-Qa'ida.

But the details, first obtained by The New York Times, are the strongest evidence yet of the widespread warnings and officials' failure to take action. They also support claims by whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator, who said she saw evidence that showed officials were aware of the al-Qa'ida threat before 9/11.

BushGaveMeApplePie
02-14-2005, 03:46 AM
The fact that this topic isn't receiving much attention pretty much proves that everyone here already knows that GW & Co. are liars.

beavis
02-14-2005, 08:15 AM
The fact that this topic isn't receiving much attention pretty much proves that everyone here already knows that GW & Co. are liars.
I thought it just confirmed the fact that you were Denises butt dart.

ClearVision1234
08-13-2005, 01:04 PM
another good one!

Ugly Duck
08-18-2005, 12:06 AM
The fact that this topic isn't receiving much attention pretty much proves that everyone here already knows that GW & Co. are liars.

Maybe it just shows that righties don't care if the admin is a buncha liars. Whenever someone points out the obvious lies, they attack the truth-teller as the liar. Maybe they just convince themselves to believe the Bushies no matter what.


"We urgently need such a principals-level review on the al-Qaeda network," then White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke wrote in the January 25, 2001 memo.

Ms Rice wrote in a March 22, 2004 column in The Washington Post that "No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration".

Taco John
08-18-2005, 12:13 AM
I honestly think some people will follow a politician to hell, so long as that politician gives them the lip service they're looking for on the abortion issue (and maybe religion in general). That's the only way I can explain what is going on in America today.

Adept Havelock
08-18-2005, 10:22 AM
In America these days, helping one's political "team" hang onto power is far more important than something trivial like honesty and especially accountability.

Just ask the Ohio GOP.

Eye Patch
08-18-2005, 11:26 AM
Pale in comparison to Able Danger especially when you consider 8 months vs 8 years.

Simplex3
08-18-2005, 11:46 AM
Maybe it just shows that righties don't care if the admin is a buncha liars. Whenever someone points out the obvious lies, they attack the truth-teller as the liar. Maybe they just convince themselves to believe the Bushies no matter what.

ROFL I just LOVE hearing this from the party of Bill Clinton... ROFL

Reaper16
08-18-2005, 11:05 PM
ROFL I just LOVE hearing this from the party of Bill Clinton... ROFL

We're not deaf to the irony, just as we aren't deaf to the differences in consequence. It really isn't a case of "our party is better than yours and is perfect and good" it's a case of disgust with a particular administration, regardless of affiliation. I'm sure I speak for probably 100% of liberals when I say that we'd be just as pissed if a Democratic administration acted in the same ways as the current one. It's disgust that is looking past the issue of party.

Mr. Laz
08-19-2005, 09:58 AM
We're not deaf to the irony, just as we aren't deaf to the differences in consequence. It really isn't a case of "our party is better than yours and is perfect and good" it's a case of disgust with a particular administration, regardless of affiliation. I'm sure I speak for probably 100% of liberals when I say that we'd be just as pissed if a Democratic administration acted in the same ways as the current one. It's disgust that is looking past the issue of party.

nicely put

HC_Chief
08-19-2005, 10:29 AM
ooops, you're still a moron.

BIG_DADDY
08-19-2005, 10:32 AM
Die already you ****ing Islamic whore.