It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TERRORISM: White House Declassifies Al Qaeda PDB From 8/6/01

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 07:14 PM
link   
A memo sent to President Bush days before the September 11th attacks cited "recent intelligence" of an al-Qaeda plot to strike at or inside the United States. This memo has been released after pressure from the 9/11 commission and other interested groups.
 

Aug 6 Presidential Daily Briefing (.pdf format)
FoxNews.com Full Text of Document

"Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US," the memo to Bush stated. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

The document, which was declassified and circulated on Saturday 11/04/04 stated that Bin Laden wanted to retaliate against Washington after Fmr President Clinton launched cruise missile strikes, this intelligence came from another country but was blacked out of the released memo.

"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a (-censored-) service in 1998 saying that bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd aI-Rahman and other US-held extremists," said the memo.

A White House official who declined to be named said the memo referred to "possible hijackings but not to the use of planes as weapons".

Related Stories:
WashingtonPost.com
Reuters
Bloomberg.com

Related ATS Discussion:
Aug 6 PDB Released


[Edited on 18-4-2004 by Banshee]




posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Pretty much shows that "regular" hijackings with hostage taking was the expected possibility - not airplanes as missiles like some would have us believe the Bush admin knew of but did'nt.

Quote,
"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a (-censored-) service in 1998 saying that bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd aI-Rahman and other US-held extremists," said the memo.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Seekerof posted a link to a PDF of the PDB in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Umm, no...AceofBase,
You are the one who deserves the credit, not me.
Great job.


seekerof



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Here's the real conspiracy of this whole matter:
How is it that this 'memo'/PDB was so "secret", according to Mr. Ben-Veniste?

Found this article, May 19, 2002, indicating the 2001 PDB:
Terror alerts tied to memo
Aug. Memo Focused On Attacks in U.S.: Lack of Fresh Information Frustrated Bush

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters yesterday said the headline on the document was, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike the United States." But sources who have read the memo said the headline ended with the phrase "in U.S."


and this article, given May 16, 2002:

National Security Advisor Holds Press Briefing: Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice in The James S. Brady Briefing Room

Now, on August 6th, the President received a presidential daily briefing which was not a warning briefing, but an analytic report. This analytic report, which did not have warning information in it of the kind that said, they are talking about an attack against so forth or so on, it was an analytic report that talked about UBL's methods of operation, talked about what he had done historically, in 1997, in 1998. It mentioned hijacking, but hijacking in the traditional sense, and in a sense, said that the most important and most likely thing was that they would take over an airliner, holding passengers and demand the release of one of their operatives. And the blind sheikh was mentioned by name as -- even though he's not an operative of al Qaeda, but as somebody who might be bargained in this way.



Mr. Ben-Veniste: "Nor could we, prior to today, reveal the title of that PDB." Please do explain? Moron!



seekerof



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
Pretty much shows that "regular" hijackings with hostage taking was the expected possibility - not airplanes as missiles like some would have us believe the Bush admin knew of but didn't.

Quote,
"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a (-censored-) service in 1998 saying that bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd aI-Rahman and other US-held extremists," said the memo.


What, are you kidding me??? That has to be the most ridiculously pathetic excuse I've ever heard. Your 'Proud Neo-Conservative' title makes it even better. I'm even more likely to support the Conservative perspective, yet the 'Neo-Conservative' movement of today makes a complete mockery of the meaning of 'Conservative and/or Republican'. What you have to be proud of I have no idea.

You know, it didn't specify in the Document that the 'Hijackings' would take place on the East Coast on the exact date of Sept. 11 2001 either. It also didn't include pictures of who the 'Hijackers' would be. Nor did it include a nice friendly little map showing the planned route they would take that day. (Can you detect the sarcasm yet??)

My point is that there is enough of a clue in that memo to be sufficient. Even giving in completely to your logic, that still doesn't explain why measures weren't taken to stop them from 'Hijacking' the planes in the first place! I mean what comes to mind when you here the word 'Hijack'? This does not aid in excusing or explaining away what happened. But is does show that this administration is either corrupt or incompetent.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 09:07 PM
link   
As such mOjOm, was there even a crystal ball that could have been used to predict and then prevent 9/11 from happening?

Both parties, Democratic and Republican, have openly admitted before the 9/11 Commision that such an act could not have been prevented, correct?

I also think that your argument, "My point is that there is enough of a clue in that memo to be sufficient", can likewise be applied to the previous administration in that there was 'enough of a clue' to indicate that the possibility of a terrorist attack could happen within the US? The previous administration had roughly 8 years to do something versus roughly 8 months? Despite this, neither administration or preceeding administrations prior to Clinton, had access to a crystal ball.
Instead of there being Clairvoyance, Complacency comes to mind.



seekerof

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I agree with Phoenix.

They get thousands of tips about possible terrorist plots including hijackings. There was nothing in this memo that indicated a 9-11-style plot, nor any specific warning related to 9-11.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
As such mOjOm, was there even a crystal ball that could have been used to predict and then prevent 9/11 from happening?

Both parties, Democratic and Republican, have openly admitted before the 9/11 Commision that such an act could not have been prevented, correct?


I don't doubt it. Both parties represent the same Eventual Goal when all is said and done anyway. More and more I'm having trouble figuring out the differences between the two when looking at their actions rather than their words. Now, whether or not such an attack could have been prevented is questionable however. I admit that eventually, if somebody tries hard enough and long enough, they will find a hole in the line.

Personally I feel that this 'hole' was the result of multiple 'asses', exposing themselves purposefully to some degree, knowing that 'penetration' would soon result. The result however was that everyone got screwed, except for those involved!



I also think that your argument, "My point is that there is enough of a clue in that memo to be sufficient", can likewise be applied to the previous administration in that there was 'enough of a clue' to indicate that the possibility of a terrorist attack could happen within the US? The previous administration had roughly 8 years to do something versus roughly 8 months? Despite this, neither administration or preceeding administrations prior to Clinton, had access to a crystal ball.
Instead of there being Clairvoyance, Complacency comes to mind.

seekerof
[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Seekerof]


I certainly wouldn't argue with you there either. There seems to be an ongoing 'History' of consecutive Adminstrations, both Dem. & Rep., that have all been shown to be almost equal in their Corruption and/or Incompetence. It seems that the leaders and government organizations here in America are more efficient at creating their 'Frankenstien Puppet Leaders' in other countries than they are at destroying them, once they get out of line. I doubt they'll ever change their tactics either since when War does finally break out, it's the people (soldiers & civilians) that pay the price, while the groups that are dirctly responsible reap the rewards.

I think if anyone needs a crystal ball it's the 'Common People' in the world who need it most, because it seems that they just will not 'wake up' to the fact that their Leaders are Leading them right to their doom. Hopefully if they could catch a glimpse of what the future had in store, they might actually do something before it's too late.



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I use to be a Hawk and very pro Bush and etc..

Now I believe Al-Qaida is simple a part of the CIA. All this "memo" stuff is just another Red Herring, like 9-11, Anthrax, Martha Stewart/WorldCom/Tyco, Airport Security, "Terrorists", "WDM", Bush/Kerry etc..

Try to objectively and open mindedly look at 9-11. All the crap that followed for no good reason than to distract us. Try not to be naive about the state of the country and the nature of the world.



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 12:14 AM
link   
The memo for the most part does not matter outside of political gain now. It is not going to bring back all the people who died in 911 and in the ensuing wars.

It goes to show us that those lazy bastards failed us. Failed all of us regardless of party allegiance. Clinton and Bush both failed us. I do agree that Clinton squandered his opportunities to eliminate Bin Laden, while Bush&Co are trying to cover their own asses about how seriously they took the threat....which obviously appears to be not seriously enough.

The finger pointing is getting tiring. We got hit bad that horrid day and all they can do is try to blame each other? Enough of them. It just shows where their true interests are......themselves.


[Edited on 11-4-2004 by Facefirst]



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Memo text

As I suspected, the briefing did not point to any specific time or place of attack and did not warn that planes could be used as missiles.

After releasing the "President's Daily Brief" on Saturday evening, White House officials said that none of the information given to the president at his ranch in Texas on Aug. 6, 2001, was later found to be related to the attacks.

But does this get Bush off the hook? I don't think so. In fact, it only adds to the burning fire that Clinton left. Sure, I could keep ranting about how Clinton was soft on terrorism and how he should have taken bin Laden from Sudan in '96, but I think Clarke got it right when he told America, "Your government failed you." This was a collpase in US intelligence of historic proportions. Maybe not as big as Pearl Harbor, but definitely sitting tight in second place.



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 06:55 AM
link   
I posted this under the ATS discussion of the PDB, but thought it should be under the ATSNN thread since it will be accessed by more of the public.

If you still think the government couldn't possibly have stopped the attacks, and even if everything had been done differently, 9/11 still would have happened, read the page on the following link. The excerpts I quote below are just a small taste of what it presents. The paper is a transcript of the minutes in a legislative hearing to consider amendments to the,
"HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002"


Mr. HOLLINGS: Now, they say...we didn't know anything about a plane going into a building.
Well, in December 1994, the al-Qaida hijacked an Air France plane
that was headed into the Eiffel Tower
. Who has not heard of flying a
plane into a structure?
In 1995, the CIA was hot on the Philippines and thwarted the blowup
or the crashing of eight planes at one particular time. They learned of the plan to do what? To crash a plane into the CIA building. That was back 6 years before 9/11.
And then, in January of 2000, in Malaysia, there was an article with respect to al-Qaida.
(The following excerpts are quoted from the article mentioned above, as it was printed in the Record.)

"To bolster their case, FBI officials have now prepared a
detailed chart showing how agents could have uncovered the
terrorist plot if they had learned about Almihdhar and
Alhazmi sooner, given their frequent contact with at least
five of the other hijackers. ``There's no question we could
have tied all 19 hijackers together,'' the official said.


Almihdhar and Alhazmi, parading across
America in plain sight, could not have been easier to find.
Newsweek has learned that when Almihdhar's visa expired, the
State Department, not knowing any better, simply issued him a
new one in June 2001--even though by then the CIA had linked
him to one of the suspected bombers of the USS Cole in
October 2000.
www.uscg.mil...


I recommend reading the rest of the news article. It is extremely relevant to the issue and details the major failures by the US government agencies.

The rest of my original post is at:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 09:36 AM
link   
This parroting of semantics in failed support of the Bush team's responsibility shows the sad state of it's participants. Neo-Fascists, not Neo-Conservatives, is more of a warranted definition because of the refusal to acknowledge the errors made by their "team".

Anyone can have full support for a political candidate in conjunction with their faults.......blind devotion is a whole other matter.

FACT: Bush Team in place on 9/11, not, unfourtunately, Gore.

FACT: NSA is in charge of well, National Security......how is the highest post in the land in this subject area given a pass on failing to link the obvious - historic data + current threat = actionable intelligence.

FACT: Bush took the unheard of action of Leaving Washington for a full month, on a vaction, only 7 MONTHS AFTER STARTING THE JOB. Additionally, the AG stopped flying COMMERCIAL AIRLINERS BECAUSE OF THE VERACITY OF THE THREAT - A FULL 2 MONTHS PRIOR.
"In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.

www.cbsnews.com...

There you have it regarding the 8/6/01 PDB - they knew it was coming several months prior & took measures to be out of harms way. The historical data would have been followed by an unpaid intern, yet it was ignored by individuals holding the highest offices in the land on that very same subject matter.

Again, again, again, as with all things regarding 9/11 & the Bush Junta: They were Complicit or Incompetent. It's proving to be both.



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Seems to me the memo states that they

1. Acknowledged Bin Laden to be a real and serious threat.

2. Acknowledged that him and Al-Qaida operatives had been and contemporaneously were in the U.S.

3. That Big Laden and the U.S. operatives were actively seeking to attack the U.S. on its own soil

4. That hi-jackings were part of the possibility (irrespective of how those hi-jackings turned out)

5. That plans by these operatives included explosives.

6. And that they had massive investigations (upwards of 70 "full-field investigations") underway to track down these Bin-Laden related operatives in the U.S. and to try and stay on top of a real and grave threat.

Now, no "semantics" involved here. My question is simple...

WTF more were they supposed to do?

[Edited on 4-11-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Seems to me the memo states that they

Now, no "semantics" involved here. My question is simple...

WTF more were they supposed to do?

[Edited on 4-11-2004 by Valhall]


Well, stepping up security and warning the public would have been good places to start.

And sharing info between intel agencies could have been encouraged.

But Monday morning quarterbacking is not going to bring back the dead and neither are the finger pointing blame gamers.

I think the politicians putting the finger pointing aside to work together to fix the problems at hand is much more important.

They at least owe us that......and an apology.

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by Facefirst]



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 10:27 AM
link   
But you can't put the general populace on alert for a long-standing, amorphous threat. Since 9/11 they have put us on alert for "ill-defined threats" and you can search the pages of this site alone to find out how quickly people started bitching and whining about the incessant elevated threat levels and "endless ill-defined threats".

For once I would like to see some of you folks admit that it doesn't matter WHAT the government does, you WON'T be happy, and you WILL blame them for everything little and BIG thing that doesn't go your way.



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
But you can't put the general populace on alert for a long-standing, amorphous threat. Since 9/11 they have put us on alert for "ill-defined threats" and you can search the pages of this site alone to find out how quickly people started bitching and whining about the incessant elevated threat levels and "endless ill-defined threats".

For once I would like to see some of you folks admit that it doesn't matter WHAT the government does, you WON'T be happy, and you WILL blame them for everything little and BIG thing that doesn't go your way.



They failed their job. That is in the past. Time to move on.

Now they have to just get the problems AT HAND fixed. Sitting around squabbling and blaming each other does not solve anything. They seemed to be more intent on finding the scapegoat than doing what WE pay them to do.....run the country.

Fixing the holes in our intelligence and defence is what really matters.



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   
BT, as par, your anti-Bush-'Junta' speech and pro-Clinton semantics prove just how unimaginative your conclusions are.....


Your assertions are partisan half-truths, allow me?
The Bush-Junta was supposed to prevent, with clairvoyant accuracy, 9/11, with the information based on this PDB?
Hmm, o....k...since you assert that, then I'll assert a few things myself, since you won't or can't! Let's start with this:
Osama Bin Laden's Fatwah issued Febuary 23, 1998
This Fatwah amounts to and is a Declaration of War BT. What did Clinton and his administration do to prepare for this 'war'?

You claim that the Bush-Junta is "Complicit [and] Incompetent", eh? Interesting. So this assertion can be attributed to the Clinton administration as well?
Lets start with the USS Cole. Bin Laden pretty much said that he would target Americans. The tragic attack takes place against the USS Cole and here is what the Clinton and his Clintonista's said:

Several U.S. officials said there was no warning in the days before the attacks that a major operation was in the works. "In terms of specific warning that something of this nature was to occur, no," one official said.

U.S. Has Strong Evidence of Bin Laden Link to Attack

But wait, this is not good enough for you in regards to the Bush-Junta and 9/11?
Here's more on the USS Cole and the Clinton adminstration knowing:

But journalists with access to bin Laden said he and his followers openly boasted in recent months that they were preparing for attacks against the United States in retaliation for American support of Israel. Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of the the al Quds al Arabi newspaper in London, said he was convinced that Islamic fundamentalists aligned with bin Laden were "almost certainly" behind the attacks.


The article further creates the situation that the Clinton Administration couldn't and didn't put two and two together. You know, "historic data + current threat = actionable intelligence":

Since 1996, he has been living under protection of the fundamentalist Taliban regime in Afghanistan in a remote mountain redoubt. He has previously been linked to terrorists who attempted to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993. He has also been indicted for the deadly 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya and was linked to last October's attack on the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen, which killed 17 American servicemen........
Instead, U.S. officials said, most signs quickly pointed to bin Laden. In addition to being a suspect in the Cole bombing, bin Laden was indicted in New York in December 2000 in connection with the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on Aug. 7, 1998, in which 224 people were killed and more than 4,000 injured.


U.S. Has Strong Evidence of Bin Laden Link to Attack


Here as indepth investigation taken into the USS Cole and those events and comments associated with it, given from the media:
FAILING THE USS COLE

Here BT, further proof that the Clinton adminstration and the Clintonista's had fair warning that something like 9/11 could or would happen and again BT, they did WHAT to help minimalize or prevent this occurance? Again, my friend, there's the matter of that "historic data + current threat = actionable intelligence":

"Murad narrated to us about a plan by the Ramzi cell in the continental U.S. to hijack a commercial plane and ram it into the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and also the Pentagon," said Rodolfo Mendoza, a Philippine intelligence investigator.

Philippine investigators also found evidence targeting commercial towers in San Francisco, Chicago and New York City.

They said they passed that information on to the FBI in 1995, but it's not clear what was done with it.

U.S. warned in 1995 of plot to hijack planes, attack buildings
More incriminating, here (just scroll down till you see the article entitled "Clues Surfaced Before Sept. 11":
Clues Surface Before Sept. 11
And another incrimination of Clintonista's (same thing, scroll down to the article entitled "1999 Study: Hijack - Suicides Possible":
1999 Study: Hijack - Suicides Possible

WASHINGTON -- 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......
Former President Clinton, golfing in Hawaii, played down the intelligence value of the 1999 report.



Here's what your fellow Democrats did do...NOTHING. Despite all that "historic data + current threat = actionable intelligence" your using to hang the Bush-Junta squad, your beloved previous administration and democratic party did WHAT.....NOTHING!? Airline Safety Commission did......NOTHING.
The Aviation Security System and the 9/11 Attacks

You can spout all your FACTS all you want, but if you want to play the partisan politics game of blame, you had better bend your finger and pocket your half-truths and point at your own party and prior administrations FAILURES!

The Bush administration had about as much knowledge to predict and prevent the tragedy of 9/11 as the 8 years of Clinton and his adminstration goons had! WHAT did they do to minimalize or help to prevent 9/11 BT? Answer that question instead of continuing to spout your half-truths in defense of an administration that had 8 freakin' years and 4-6 attempts to nab or take out Bin Laden!

WHAT did your previous administration DO, BT?! Again, they had just as much "historic data + current threat = actionable intelligence" as the Bush-Junta administration had, if not MORE!! And freakin' DAILY briefing don't account for crap when NO action is taken to thwart (as some of the Clintonista's point out)!
You and others are so desparate to paint Bush as the fault and yet take none of it yourselves? You and others are so desparate to put Bush in the cockpit of one of those jetliners that slammed into the WTC Towers that you again take and place none of yourselves along side him? BAH! Your partisan blindness and thats what it is, blindness will be the ultimate undoing of this great nation and its people...bet!


seekerof



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   
What, are you kidding me??? That has to be the most ridiculously pathetic excuse I've ever heard. Your 'Proud Neo-Conservative' title makes it even better. I'm even more likely to support the Conservative perspective, yet the 'Neo-Conservative' movement of today makes a complete mockery of the meaning of 'Conservative and/or Republican'. What you have to be proud of I have no idea.

My point is that there is enough of a clue in that memo to be sufficient. Even giving in completely to your logic, that still doesn't explain why measures weren't taken to stop them from 'Hijacking' the planes in the first place! I mean what comes to mind when you here the word 'Hijack'? This does not aid in excusing or explaining away what happened. But is does show that this administration is either corrupt or incompetent.

First off mOjOm, the saying under my handle was an in your face response to a posting in the mud pit a while back, if you want to take it that seriously thats your problem.

Now as to your assertion that this memo would lead to the conclusion that aircraft would be used as missiles is just 20/20 hindsight crap of people that can't intellectually put it in its proper context of the world as it existed before 9/11. BEFORE 9/11 the expectation was that a hijacking meant the capture of hostages to effect a political or economic aim. If your surmising of planes as missiles was so sharp why did'nt you or someone else give the warning - I'll tell you why - its because you and others also believed a hijacking was a hijacking before 9/11. You have an unrealistic expectation of the government, any government for that matter, of possesing a crystal ball that shows an unexpected future, since yours is so accurate why don't you make some predictions so we can see how well it works?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join