US knew al-Qaeda's plane plans prior to 9/11

US officials knew months before September 11, 2001, that the al-Qaeda network planned to use aircraft to commit a terrorist attack, according to a former FBI translator interviewed in a British newspaper.

Sibel Edmonds told the Independent daily that a claim by US President George W Bush's national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that there had been no such warnings was "an outrageous lie".

The former translator with the Federal Bureau of Investigation said that she has provided information about her claims to a US commission investigating the September 11 attacks.

Edmonds told the Independent: "There was general information about the timeframe, 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 33-year-old Turkish-American translator said that based on documents she had seen during her time with the FBI, after September 11, it was "impossible" that US intelligence officials had no forewarning of the attacks.

Bush's administration is currently under investigation for its anti-terrorism policies before and after the strikes on New York and Washington that claimed some 3,000 lives.

The Independent reported that the administration had sought to silence Edmonds and had obtained a gag order from a court.

Edmonds was one of many language experts who answered appeals for translators in the days following the attacks using hijacked airliners.

She was tasked with translating documents and recordings from FBI wire taps.

From the documents, she said, it was clear that there was sufficient information in spring and summer 2001 to indicate that an attack was being planned.

"President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September," Edmonds told the Independent.

There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away.

A White House official said Rice would testify under oath on April 8 before the commission investigating September 11.

Bush's administration was last week accused by former White House anti-terrorism czar Richard Clarke of not giving the al-Qaeda threat enough priority.

Clarke, who left the White House last year, testified in public before the September 11 commission last week, just after the publication of his book which was highly critical of the Bush administration for its counter-terrorist efforts.

I forgot the URL : news.ninemsn.com.au...

[Edited on 1-4-2004 by RAAFY]

Let me guess, this is more of that Bush ball-busting heralded news?
As per your article:

US officials knew months before September 11, 2001, that the al-Qaeda network planned to use aircraft to commit a terrorist attack, according to a former FBI translator interviewed in a British newspaper.

I ain't totally buying that the US or Bush knew that Al-Qaeda was going to hijack aircraft and use them as missiles, but the US, Bush, and the previous Clinton Administration were aware of Project Bojinka.
Operation Bojinka
CIA, FBI Knew Since 1995 About Possible Hijack Scheme
CATASTROPHIC INTELLIGENCE FAILURE


The Bush Administration had plans to act against Al-Qaeda prior to the tragic events of 9/11:
Al-Qaeda "Game Plan" on Bush's Desk Sept. 9

WASHINGTON, May 16th---President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.

As per your article:

Bush's administration was last week accused by former White House anti-terrorism czar Richard Clarke of not giving the al-Qaeda threat enough priority.

As shown above, Mr. Clarke is full of BS! Especially enlight of what Mr. Clarke has mentioned a year+ prior to his "60 Minutes" and 9/11 Commission appearance:
Richard Clarke Flashback: Clinton Dropped Ball on bin Laden

And in a "60 Minutes" interview set to air Sunday night, Clarke blasts Bush for doing "a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

But just a year ago Clarke was singing a different tune, telling reporter Richard Miniter, author of the book "Losing bin Laden," that it was the Clinton administration - not team Bush - that had dropped the ball on bin Laden.

seekerof

[Edited on 2-4-2004 by Seekerof]

Well here's how I see it, and this is a issue that a lot of people have strong feelings about but I just like to take the facts over a period of time and collect them. Most people forget the context of the things they hear and it makes it easy to blow it out of proportion. Here's me take on the issue anyway:

In the last month of the Clinton administration the head of the FBI, CIA, and National security and anti-terrorism had a meeting EVERY DAY because there was evidence to suggest that an attack was coming. The type of things they did at these meetings were shared information collected by all the agencies involved, the heads of the FBI and CIA were "shaking down" so to speak their organizations for any information that could be helpful no matter how small it may of seemed they were putting together a puzzle and because of their meetings they thwarted the millennium attack.

Bush got into office and the same type of chatter/threat was detected again and Clark, and the head of the CIA obviously had the same concerns. President Bush was told EVERY DAY in his daily briefings that there was an impending attack and he blew it off EVERY DAY but 1 (I think it was in june before 9-11) where he asked if there was a plan. If he had taken it or thought of it as a real threat like Clinton did the FBI and CIA would of had their daily meetings on the subject and there is a good chance that the information that the FBI had on terrorists taking flight lessons but not asking about how to take off or land may (and it is not a big may) have come out. So there is a chance there that if Bush had done his job this wouldn't of happened. Again, bush did nothing with the exception of that one comment for 9 month about al-quada even thought he was told about the threat every day. Yes there was a plan in the approval process, but had it been important to Bush it would not have taken 9 months to get past committees. That's what he had on his desk on sep. 9th, it was passed by the committee on sep. 4th. He did nothing, Clinton may not have done enough, that may have been a mistake, but at least he did something.

I humbly and respectfully beg to differ JOHNSmith.

Clinton did what, exactly?
Are you saying that because they held daily briefings that this constitutes that he "did something"?

Let's start with Mr. Bin Laden himself....here is what National Security Advisor for the Clinton Administration said in 1996:

....the administration was trying to get bin Laden with everything we had.

Why America Slept

If the prior Clinton Administration was doing "everything" they "had" to counter terrorism, knowing that such an event as 9/11 could occur (Operation Bojinka), why did they turn the opportunity to remove or capture Bin Laden 4 times? He could have literally pulled the trigger on Bin Laden and didn't, time and time again.

Why did they simply ignore the information that was revealed by Blind Sheikh Omar Rahman (1993 WTC incident)?

The prior adminstration literally cut the nuts off (tied the hands) of the CIA and FBI, then made sure that they could not properly utilize intelligence gained or learned between the two.
Why the FBI Didn't Stop 9/11

Their (Clinton-Gore) 1996 Airline and Safety Commisssion was a full-blown fluke!

National security for the US was steadily, systematically, and repeated undermined, placing the US at a higher risk of such inevitable type attacks (Project Bojinka).

List can go on.....
but my main rebuttal is that in truth, neither took responsible precautions.
For whatever 'warrented' reasons, the US was 'unworried' about an event like this taking place on US soil. Why? Cause it was because the US maintained or had maintained the position that the US was "untouchable" (was not recognized as a possible, viable threat) by such occurances....obviously, this type thinking proved wrong! Even with the prior learned intelligence that had been obtained in the mid-90's, no action was taken seriosuly to prevent such an occurance. Bottom line, the US was caught with its pants down and no jar of vaseline to be had anywhere, at that!

Despite all this, no one really saw or wanted to see such an event like 9/11 coming, though all indications were that an event like this was very doable and plausible.

As such, I do not and have not ever thought that 9/11 was "preventable", but in some parts, it could have been in some degree and severity.

IMHO, "hindsight is 20/20" and the US and both main political parties, along with many American's and those who have made this matter their interest, are caught up in looking for "easy" answers and the typical "scapegoat(s)"....I am at fault of this myself.

What the US needs to be concentrating on is looking into 'what', exactly, was the intellgence failure(s) and how to make sure that if such a thing does occur again that it is prevented, thwarted, or minimalized.

The whole problem of this and Iraq, is not necessairly which party or administration did 'what', but why our intelligence at hand or gathered and the intelligence apparatus, as a whole, failed.


seekerof

I think I've found my forum, good stuff!!!!

"he said/she said, blablabla". I think both the Clinton administration and early Bush could not have predicted the date/time/means that these phsyco's were going to do. Also they didn't even think about a plane being taken over with plastic butter knives, much less them driving them into buildings. Remember before that, hyjackings just meant a guy wanted to go to Cuba or something.

My concern is with the International Socialist/Markist movement, stirring up everthing, causing havoc (ie the supporters of Moveon.org). I would like to chase their money trail, might find something interesting....

anyway, I'm knew here, tell me who the dorks on the board I should ignore, thanks!!!

htd

The US were informed by the British and German intelligence service about a probable air attack on a 'high profile' civilian target. They were even told by Israeli intelligence about the exact names and addresses of some of those involved in the eventual 9/11 attack

Draw your own conclusions.

I call BS on your last statement until you show me facts.

Your first line was a very generalized statement, true, but not exact

[Edited on 2-4-2004 by hightechdave]

Originally posted by hightechdave
I call BS on your last statement until you show me facts.

Your first line was a very generalized statement, true, but not exact

[Edited on 2-4-2004 by hightechdave]

Please, I'm not going to do your research for you. This even got a mention in an article by the bbc , a government run news agency.

-news.bbc.co.uk...

dude, that doesn't automatically make it correct, and you know that. We know the BBC to be staunchly anti war.

Gotta have facts before making that statement. Wouldn't you feel like a sucker, if you found out it wasn't true, and was fabricated by the far left, which believes most americans can't think for themselves??

The problem in the world right now is there is no Accountability for false statements being made. Need a real good visible Slander Lawsuit to get Soros, Clinton, and the secular elitists to back off some,,,,

>>Gotta have facts before making that statement. Wouldn't you feel like a sucker, if you found out it wasn't true, and was fabricated by the far left, which believes most americans can't think for themselves??


Wow you really missed the point didn't you? Once something like this is in mainstream media like the bbc this just the tip of the iceberg.

And what are these 'facts' you seek. What you want photocopies of classified documents or something?

Try looking some of this up on Google or whatever news service you do trust and you will see that this isn't a 'fabrication of the far left' or whatever vaguely paranoid fantasy you want to attribute it to.

Already covered here: www.abovetopsecret.com... [Edited on 2-4-2004 by SkepticOverlord]