9/11 Commission

goingboeing

Veteran
Jan 30, 2004
584
1
What a political hack job on the truth by the 9/11 commission! They are making such a big deal out of the memo that stated that Al-Queida highjackers were in the country before 9/11.

No one is talking about decades of established protocol that flight crews were trained to give the cockpit to highjackers and also to try to accomodate their demands. A commercial airliner had never been used as a missile in the U.S. before 9/11.

POLITICIANS make me SICK! They are nothing but LIARS that do not care about the truth,they only care about political power.

American Airlines and AA families lost a lot of great people on 9/11 and we should never forget the truth!
 
They're talking logistics and you're complaining that they're not talking about tactics?!?!?! Don't you think it's rather obvious that had the dots been properly connected at the right place that the notifications would have gone out stating that you are not to give in to such demands?
 
That commision is a hack job. They say it was established to find out ways to correct mistakes that led up to 9/11. Listening to the hearing the other day it was obvious they were trying to make Bush and his admin look bad. Election year posturing.

Regarding politicians, wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said "Politics should never be allowed to become a profession"? He couldn't have been more correct!
 
Sen. Graham,(D-Fla.), "The particular report... was about three years old...,"


FLASHBACK: May 27, 2002
Graham: We Had Same Info as Bush

by David Freddoso
Posted Apr 9, 2004

[Editor's note: This article orginally appeared on the cover of the May 27, 2002, issue of HUMAN EVENTS.]

Sen. Bob Graham (D.-Fla.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told HUMAN EVENTS May 21 that his committee had received all the same terrorism intelligence prior to September 11 as the Bush administration.

"Yes, we had seen all the information," said Graham. "But we didn't see it on a single piece of paper, the way the President did."

Graham added that threats of hijacking in an August 6 memo to President Bush were based on very old intelligence that the committee had seen earlier. "The particular report that was in the President's Daily Briefing that day was about three years old," Graham said. "It was not a contemporary piece of information."

Graham's comments contradicted combative statements made recently by the Democratic congressional leadership, and confirmed White House assertions that the only specific threats of al Qaeda hijackings known to the President before September 11 came from a memo dating back to the Clinton Administration.

'Not Surprised'

A leak to CBS News of some pre-September-11 warnings given to the President in August occasioned fierce political attacks on Bush beginning May 15--even though the basic content of the leaks had long been known. As early as September 18, CNN had already reported that administration officials admitted to being aware of vague threats against U.S. targets before September 11. Also, a publicly available 1995 government report had even warned that terrorists could use airplanes in suicide attacks.

Still, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D.-S.D.) and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D.-Mo.) both made public statements attempting to stoke a scandal on the supposition that Bush withheld vital intelligence from Congress both before and after September 11. Both Democrats strongly implied that Bush sat on information that could possibly have been used to prevent the terrorist attacks of September 11.

"I'm gravely concerned that the President received a warning in August about the threat of hijackers by Osama bin Laden and his organization," said Daschle. "Why was it not provided to us, and why was it not shared with the general public for the last eight months?"

Daschle also asserted that Congress did not have the same information as the White House--implying that the White House alone was to blame for not acting on the information. "I think it is important to emphasize we did not have identical information," he said in a May 16 news conference, in clear contradiction with Graham's statements to HUMAN EVENTS.

On May 22, Daschle again accused Bush of hoarding information, even trying to blame him for the FBI's intelligence failure of September 11. "There is an increasing pattern that I find in this administration that reflects an unwillingness to share information not only with us but within their own administration," he told reporters.

Gephardt also implied that the administration was blameworthy for its handling of the intelligence reports. "The reports are disturbing that we are finding this out now," he said. Invoking language of the Watergate era, he continued, "I think what we have to do now is to find out what the President, what the White House knew about the events leading up to 9-11, when they knew it and, most importantly, what was done about it at that time." Gephardt also stated that Congress had not received the same intelligence as the White House.

Asked by HUMAN EVENTS on May 22 whether Sen. Graham's statement changed his view, Gephardt responded with a simple "No" before retreating into the House chamber. Again, the following day, Kori Bernards, a spokeswoman for Gephardt, declined to comment for the record on Graham's statement.

Other Democrats sensed a political opportunity and went on the attack. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) addressed the Senate waving a copy of the New York Post with a characteristically large and sensational headline, "Bush Knew." "The President knew what?" she asked.

Others, including Sen. Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D.-N.Y.) and Rep. Robert Wexler (D.-Fla.) strongly denounced the President's conduct in public spoken or written statements.

But as early as May 16, it had already emerged that most of the information in Bush's August 6 Presidential Daily Briefing--an official intelligence document--had in fact been given to the congressional committees in the form of the Senior Executive Intelligence Digest (SEID), a more widely published classified document.

"Mr. Gephardt said that we didn't have information," said Rep. Porter Goss (R.-Fla.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, on May 16. "In fact we do have it. And it's just apparently that Mr. Gephardt didn't know about it."

At that point, Democrats claimed that Bush's intelligence report had information warning of possible hijackings by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, and that Congress did not receive that particular information.

But the Democrats' criticism appeared to be further undercut by Graham's confirmation to HUMAN EVENTS that the committee did have the same intelligence. Administration officials had earlier said the hijack warnings in Bush's August 6 briefing were merely an analysis based on old intelligence from 1998.

The committees were indeed aware before September 11 that a major attack could come soon, so much so, that Sen. Graham told CNN's Kate Snow…quot; on the afternoon of September 11…quot; that he was not suprised.

"I was not surprised that there was an attack, was surprised at the specificity of this one," Graham said in the interview, hours after the attacks.

Expected Backlash

As Democrats appeared to back away from the attacks on Bush over the weekend, Republicans went on the offensive to capitalize on an expected backlash. The Republican Study Committee, a group of about 75 conservative Republicans, released a memo detailing House Democrats' overwhelming opposition to intelligence funding since 1996. According to the memo, 154 House Democrats voted to cut the U.S. intelligence budget in 1996, while 158 Democrats did the same in 1997. Although fewer Democrats voted to cut the intelligence budget in 1999 (only 61), almost all opposition to intelligence spending came from Democrats.

The memo also quotes several Democrats opposing intelligence spending, including Rep. Maxine Waters (D.-Calif.), who advocated the abolition of the CIA on the House floor in March 1997.

In addition, a HUMAN EVENTS survey of lawmakers found that few--even among Republicans--would have been willing to act decisively on threats of hijacking by Muslim extremists. Not one Democrat surveyed would countenance the idea that President Bush, upon learning of the al Qaeda hijacking threat, should have suspended the visas of young men visiting from nations that are al Qaeda hotbeds--even though this measure would likely have prevented the attacks of September 11.

Few support that action even now, after September 11, when new warnings of attacks by al Qaeda have been issued by FBI director Robert Mueller and Vice President Cheney.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2003 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
 
Senate Intell. Chairmen Confirm Age of Info on Bush Briefing


FLASHBACK: June 10, 2002
Intelligence Chairmen Confirm HUMAN EVENTS Story


Posted Apr 9, 2004

[Editor's note: This article orginally appeared on the cover of the June 10, 2002, issue of HUMAN EVENTS.]

Tim Russert, host of NBC's "Meet the Press," has committed excellent journalism, again.

The May 26 edition of "Meet the Press" featured as a guest Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D.-S.D.). Russert confronted Daschle with the cover story of the May 27 HUMAN EVENTS in which Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham said that the congressional intelligence committees had the same information prior to September 11 that President Bush had--and that this information included three-year-old intelligence that al Qaeda might try to hijack U.S. airliners.

In light of Graham's statement to HUMAN EVENTS, Daschle utterly failed to justify to Russert his tendentious call for an investigation of what the President knew prior to September 11.

Last Sunday, on the June 2 edition of "Meet the Press," Russert interviewed the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees. He confronted them with the information in the May 27 HUMAN EVENTS cover story--and each of them, including Graham himself--confirmed the story.

Here is what they said:

Tim Russert, Host of NBC's "Meet the Press": Sen. Graham, let me clear something up for the country, if I can. There was a big uproar a few weeks ago that President Bush had received a briefing on August 6 about a potential hijacking by al-Qaeda, and a lot of charges and countercharges back and forth. HUMAN EVENTS reported that you said that we had all seen that information. Not in the same form as the President, but members of Congress had seen the same information. Is that accurate?

Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham (D.-Fla.): First, I have not seen the briefing that the President received in early August. But I have read a summary of that briefing, and if that summary is correct, and I think it is, of what he received was essentially a historic presentation of the development of al Qaeda, what they'd done in the past, and then some speculations about what they might do in the future. The specific reference that related to hijackers was based on a foreign intelligence source that was two or three years old. So I don't think it is fair to expect the President of the United States to see that kind of information and immediately spring into operational mode. Had Congress seen most of that information, if not all of it? Yes, over time, not in a consolidated historic report that was presented to the President.

Russert: Does anyone here disagree with that, that they didn't see that information?

House Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss (R.-Fla.): No, I think it's very clear.

Senate Intelligence Vice Chairman Richard Shelby (R.-Ala.): No, we had it.

Russert: Everyone had it.

Shelby: We had it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.), Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee: We had seen it over a period of time. We did not see it in aggregate as the President did that day. That is not to say that it was sufficient information, as the chairman has said, to warrant action on the part of the President, but I think the distinction has to be made that, for some reason, on that early day in August, someone in the intelligence community decided to put all of those events on one piece of paper. Interesting that what we saw in Congress in that same day, in that same 24-hour period, did not have the reporting that referenced hijacking. That was a distinction between what Congress saw and what the White House saw.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2003 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
 
Boomer said:
Sen. Graham,(D-Fla.), "The particular report... was about three years old...,"
Nonesense!!!

Good try. However, that is an almost two years old quote by someone who had no access to the actual Presidential Daily Briefing at the time that he made that statement.

Here is the full text of the PBD. Let everyone decide for themselves what the President knew. Most will agree that the President asleep at the switch.

Declassified and Approved for Release, 10 April 2004

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US 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."

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a ...(redacted portion) ... service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an ... (redacted portion) ... service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.

Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al-Qa'ida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

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

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.
 
It's all pretty vague. There's not much anyone could have done to stop it considering how broad the threats were. Attack in the US? Where? When? How? What was he supposed to so? Tell everyone to stay inside and suck their thumbs? Don't leave your house for the next 10 years because there will be an attack...somewhere!
 
"... surveillance of federal buildings in New York ... planning attacks with explosives..."

It was therefore obvious that they were planning to fly into (i.e. "attack") the World Trade Center (owned by the port authority and therefore uh, somehow, um, "federal") with airplanes (i.e. "explosives").

Very clear.
 
I missed this part:

"A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks."

So Bush should've interned all Muslim-American youth to prevent the attack? Worked for FDR and the Japanese in WWII. I am sure the ACLU would've understood the need.

Get real!
 
Excerpts from today's Los Angeles Times:

A Long Look at Response to Brief

Critics contended Sunday that with its insistence that it could not have done more to thwart the attacks without further details of the terrorists' plans, the administration displayed a disturbing passivity in the weeks leading up to Sept. 11. The critics include Bush's former counterterrorism expert, Richard Clarke; Democratic members of the Sept. 11 commission; and the president's presumptive Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.

Rand Beers, a former Bush administration counterterrorism official who is now Kerry's top advisor on national security matters, said on CNN's "Inside Politics" Sunday: "With all the information of that summer [2001], certainly … someone should have been out shaking the trees to find out what more we knew and what we could do about it."

The critics say the Aug. 6 report is a case in point of the problem with the administration's actions in advance of the attacks. Although the report was strikingly thin in places, some people familiar with such documents said it should have set off alarm bells in the White House.

One former counterterrorism official who spent years working closely with the White House, the National Security Council, the FBI and the CIA said the report — part of the presidential daily brief, or PDB — was designed to alert the president and his national security advisor to a danger so they could use their authority to prod sluggish bureaucracies into action.

"The PDB, by definition, is to raise information to the president's attention and alert him to threats," said the former official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity. The official said the "central question" confronting the administration in the weeks leading up to the attacks was: "Do you want to be proactive or reactive?"

The president and his top aides had been reactive, the former official said.

"I can't judge how they handled their threat assessment," said James B. Steinberg, the former deputy national security advisor to Clinton.

"We obviously were aware that these guys did not consider the United States off-limits. It was not a sanctuary," Steinberg said. "Presumably [the Aug. 6 report] was part of a stream of regular reporting about the threat.

"I don't understand the characterization of it as a historical document; it contained current information," he said.
 
The fact that this is taking place nearly three years later in an election year should be the first clue as to what this whole 9/11 commission circus is all about.

Picture this...

The date is September 10, 2001. The Bush Administration has just proposed sweeping new changes to airport and airline security. All passengers will be thoroughly searched, all bags (carry-on and checked) will be thoroughly screened, all passengers should expect to arrive at the airport at least two hours prior to departure time to allow for all of this additional screening. The reason why we need all of this: some vague warnings about a Middle Eastern terrorist group called "Al Qaeda" and their intent to use U.S. commercial airliners in a large-scale, coordinated terrorist attack. Are you nuts? They would have been laughed out of the room. The only thing politicians and the media were even saying about U.S. commercial airlines prior to 9/11 is how bad the service is, how inconvenienced the public is, and how a "Passenger Bill of Rights" is needed if service doesn't improve.

Does no one honestly remember that now?

I hate Bush as much as the next guy. There are plenty of ways that the Democrats could attack him if they wanted to. The War in Iraq. The Patriot Act. Growing federal deficits. Continuing infringement on our Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. Etc, etc, etc. But no. Instead, they choose to make the proposterous claim that Bush knew all about 9/11 before it happened and refused to lift a finger to do anything.

This is a very transparent political power play, and the vast majority of America sees it as such. If tactics like these are what passes for political leadership and strategy in the Democratic party these days, it's really no wonder that the Democratic party has been losing ground in American politics lately.
 
LD max said:
It's all pretty vague. There's not much anyone could have done to stop it considering how broad the threats were. Attack in the US? Where? When? How? What was he supposed to so? Tell everyone to stay inside and suck their thumbs? Don't leave your house for the next 10 years because there will be an attack...somewhere!
The goverments plan B to your idea was simply Put there fingers in there ears and sing loudly LA la laaaaa,la la la la. What did we get with the stand by and wait for the inevitable. 9/11, great plan GW!
 
LaBradford22 said:
Instead, they choose to make the proposterous claim that Bush knew all about 9/11 before it happened and refused to lift a finger to do anything.
Come on.

Only the radical fringe makes that ludicrous claim.

As far as I am concerned he was asleep at the switch, ignoring credible warnings and not being proactive in lighting fires under the butts of his subordinates, while taking the longest vacation in the history of the American presidency.