BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


BushCo Knew!

 
 
LVX23
14:59 / 02.04.04
This story came out nationally about a week ago but it got buried by the U.S. press (no surprise). I'm reprinting it below in its entirety because I feel that it's extremely important. The link to the Independent is here. (BTW, the top story on CNN right now: "U.S. Job Growth Soars". They have no mention of this report. "Liberal media" my ass.)
----------------------------------------------------------

'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

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.
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:17 / 02.04.04
I'm hesistant to draw any strong conclusions from this. In order to evaluate the significance of this properly, you have to know how well corroborated it is, how believable it was at the time and how many false positives were flying around. It is all very well to see this as compelling in hindsight, but rather a different matter at the time.

US official's knowledge in this case is harder to establish than this. Ultimately, while I agree that the Bush administration has capitalised on 9/11 and may have had its attention more on Iraq than on terrorism prior to that, I find it extremely difficult to believe that they let it happen.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
16:43 / 02.04.04
Unlike Lurid, I don't actually find it that hard to believe. However, I'd need evidence.

If she says This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily. then bring it on.

I'm open-minded on this. I'm hoping she's lying. Cos if she isn't, then the people we're up against (and I'm not talking "terrorists" here) are more evil and cold-blooded than I'd previously thought. And therefore a lot harder to fight.

Again, evidence. If she has it, I (and I'm sure many others) would love to see it. Otherwise, she can go sit with Icke on the special bus.
 
 
LVX23
16:46 / 02.04.04
But if you look at this in the context of the Clarke & O'Neil testimony, the evidence seems to point to considerable negligence on the part of the administration. That alone is a crime worthy of impeachment, IMHO.

Personally, I think the administration knew something was going to happen - and that it would be an excuse to invade Iraq (which they had been looking for since Bush took office, if not sooner)and pump up the MI Complex while clamping down on dissent at home - but I don't think they knew the attack was going to be as big as it was.
 
 
---
18:14 / 02.04.04
I hope something happens with this. I keep reading about Bush knew about the attacks/FBI/CIA had evidence etc, but nothing seems to come of it. With the amount of times this is happening surely someone will come forward with some type of evidence.
 
 
The Prince of All Lies
01:36 / 03.04.04
I'm sure that there is evidence, but it won't be easy to get it... There have been a lot of articles like this one, from government officials who said they knew.. but none of them have been seriously addressed by the US media.
CNN Latin America has made public this kind of reports a lot of times, so we are very suspicious of the Bush administration's involvement or purposeful negligence. Down here we get a lot of news that aren't shown in the US. I sometimes watch the US CNN (or even the International CNN) and it makes me want to puke because of their right-wing ideology...
 
 
■
07:46 / 03.04.04
I think I may have postd this before, but my favourite supporting evidence is Ari Fleischer's use of the double negative:
“The possibility of a traditional hijacking, in the pre-September 11th sense, has long been a concern of the government, dating back decades. The President did not -- not -- receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers.” (16/5/2002)
also used in this context:
“Here's what we do know to date. The chemical warheads found by the inspectors were not -- not -- on the declared list that Iraq provided to the world indicating what weapons it said it possessed.” (17/1/2003)
Both these were copied directly from the Whitehouse web site. The emphasis on the repeated NOTs are theirs.
 
 
gravitybitch
00:00 / 06.04.04
then the people we're up against (and I'm not talking "terrorists" here) are more evil and cold-blooded...

Speaking of the terrorists in the White House, a friend mentioned in passing that when Bush and Cheney testify (in private, not under oath) that they will be together in the same room - not only will the testimony not be sworn, but it won't even be independent!!

Can anybody come up with verification of this??
 
 
Axel Lambert
00:37 / 06.04.04
With the revelation of the tandem testimony, nobody with a straight face can deny Cheney is a co-president or worse, the puppeteer who pulls Bush’s strings.

from this Newsweek article

 
 
Alex's Grandma
10:36 / 06.04.04
Negligence/incompetance seems more likely here than anything else. What's come out of this so far seems to suggest that Rice etc sidelined the anti-Al Queada programme pretty much on the basis that A) they didn't know much about it, and weren't all that inclined to even tacitly admit that anything the democrats were doing might have been, gulp, right - really mature that, but there you go - and B) they were too busy trying to press ahead with an anti-ballistic missile programme for Fortress USA.
Basically, the evidence seems to have been there, it's just that Bush etc didn't take it seriously. Still, looking forward to that being acknowledged some time quite shortly after, y'know, hell freezes over. Oh well.
 
 
aeon
17:25 / 06.04.04
Here are some questions:

1) Why was Zacarias Massaoui placed in detention for driving without a license and immigration violation before 9/11? Did their knowledge of him taking flying lessons trigger any suspicion to keep him detained instead of just deporting him?

2) There was some intelligence information regarding terrorists plans on using airplanes for an attack and that terrorists were taking flying lessons. This was clearly documented by the FBI. Why was this information not passed to the administration by the FBI? How come nobody in the FBI or the CIA has been fired for the intelligence lapse that allowed the terrorists to execute their plans?
 
  
Add Your Reply