Go Back to the B3 Home Page
Complaints, compliments, arguments? Email me.
[<< "Hollywood Libruls..."] [Archive Index] [>>"Question for other bloggers..."]
04/03/2004 Archived Entry: "More and more detailed."
More and more detailed.
As this woman does more interviews, more and more tasty bits leak out.
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."
When I first posted about this story, it was from Tom Flocco's web site, and it was dismissed as tin foil hat material because of the source.
The sources keep getting more credible. Whe does the smear campaign start?
On second thought, maybe the White House is afraid of this story - more afraid than Clarke's testimony, even. That might be why they're hesitant to poke this one with a stick.
Replies: 21 people speak up
I wonder what the fine for her talking would be? Do you think we could take up a collection to cover it? I'd love to see her on 60 minutes.
Posted by Demeur @ 04/03/2004 05:30 AM NY
Waht was anyone supposed to do prior to Sept. 11th?
If we had implemented any effective security procedures (causing long lines at airports), the country would have been pissed.
If we had given extra scrutiny to Arabs, the ACLU would have had a field day. And if we had busted up groups of Arabs living in the US, every liberal in the country would have been incensed.
Democrats are trying to have it both ways on this, and Americans will see through it. On one hand, they don't believe there even is a war on terror. On the onter, they believe we haven't done enough to fight it.
How about some specifics?
Posted by rogersj52003@yahoo.com @ 04/03/2004 05:35 AM NY
Sibel Edmonds had better avoid small planes for the near future.
Not that I'm starting an unsubstantiated rumor about the enforcement methods of the Chimpco Junta or anything...
==========
Waht was anyone supposed to do prior to Sept. 11th?
... yadda, yadda, yadda ...
How about some specifics?
And, man, the trolls come out early these days, don't they? I think I hear some sort of noise about specifics from the party of vague generalities, but it just sounds like the same hypocritical whining that has been exuding from the conservative media lo these last thirty years or so.
If the administration hadn't been on vacation in August 2001, maybe they might have been a bit more on the ball on 9-11. Then again, the more that comes out about these modern day Keystone Kops, the less likely it seems it would have made any difference.
You can try and spin the discussion off into Repugnicant Fantasy Land all you want. These days it seems like more and more people understand and recognize the tactics employed by the wrongwingnuts. I think people should stop allowing these sort of distractions to intrude into the debate at hand. If you want specifics, why don't you just let Faux News tell you what you want to hear? You won't believe it unless they spoon feed it into your melon anyway.
Posted by (: Tom :) @ 04/03/2004 06:39 AM NY
As security terrorist chief in charge wouldn't Sibel Edmonds have reported to Clarke also ??? Why would clarke have left this out of his book or his commision testimony???
Posted by Robin Hacker @ 04/03/2004 07:03 AM NY
Specifics? Is having Richard Clarke tell you from day one that we will be attacked not specific enough? This administration was too proud to follow up on anything the Clinton administration left behind.
And isn't it funny how every piece of evidence against this war in Iraq gets blamed on the CIA, which is headed by a Clinton leftover.
Like these trailers Powell told the UN were traveling labs. Now it turns out they weren't. Here's what he had to say yesterday:
"I'm not the intelligence community, but I probed and I made sure, as I said in my presentation, these are multi-sourced allegations," Powell said.
"Now, if the sources fell apart we need to find out how we've gotten ourselves in that position," he said.
"I have had discussions with the CIA about it," Powell said, without providing further details.
Without providing further details...hmmmm, is that specific enough for you.
Have a wonderful day...
Posted by Scott @ 04/03/2004 09:35 AM NY
Rogersj actually asks a valid question, but then "answers" it with straw men.
If we have information that persons, probably of Arab origin, may be planning attacks on American targets using airplanes as weapons (which we now know from MULTIPLE sources that we did), then we can do several things.
(1) We check flight schools. There aren't that many and we're looking for specific people acting in a strange manner, like wanting to learn how to maneuver but not land. Right after 9-11 SEVERAL flight trainers came forward and described such people. If the FBI had been out contacting them, (maybe during that Jan-Aug period Clarke describes during which the Bushco admin was "waiting for studies of the problem"?) then given them a business card so they knew who to call, might this not have helped? Without "causing long lines at airports), the country would have been pissed."
(2) The ACLU gets pissed when cops start pulling over every dark-skinned person driving down I-95. Targeting people for specific BEHAVIORS, like buying one-way airplane tickets in cash, is a different matter which I have never heard anyone "get pissed" over.
And targeting only the swarthy-hued would not have (did not) keep Richard "Shoe Bomber" Reid off the plane. Watching his behavior (setting his shoelaces on fire, which you must admit is a tad conspicuous) did that.
What it comes down to is basic cop/investigative techniques. Oh yeah, wasn't that the "Clinton" approach to terrorism? That wasn't good enough, it wasn't perfect. It just "rolled back" terrorists, it didn't "wipe them out." Of course the difference is that such tactics WORK (see the Millenium Attacks, which didn't happen), they infringe on others' civil liberties as little as humanly possible, and they don't require conquering the world.
You are never going to "wipe out terrorism" because terrorism is a TACTIC. It is the tactic invariably used by those facing a disproportionally larger, better armed force. See the histories of the IRA vs. Britain, Palestinians v. Israel, the French Resistance v. Nazi Germany, and for that matter the Minutemen vs. the British Redcoats.
Posted by Xan @ 04/03/2004 12:20 PM NY
wouldnt the CIA have been the party to look into those issues, flight schools, one way tickets, etc. Clinton left over or not the left cant have it both ways, Clarke says even if "ALL" of his recmmondations were followed 9/11 would still have happened.
the CIA failed to gather the information and then share info with other agencies .
Hind site is a wonderfull thing, foresight is another.
here's one for you. Why didn't Kerryco see 9/11 comming. as he is seeing all and knowing all. Also I think kerryco sits on a security commission. Is there a Clarke / Kerryco connection? Did Kerryco know of 9/11 before it happend? No and no are the answers , but it shows you how a little inuendo can go a long way.
Posted by Robin Hacker @ 04/03/2004 01:48 PM NY
Why didn't Kerryco see 9/11 comming. as he is seeing all and knowing all.
Damn, hype much?
Anyway, Kerry did contact the DOT about potential terrorist threats. Since Logan is run by a couple of Republicans, they naturally ignored it - and then some guy named Brian Sullivan, who first said Kerry did the right thing, later tried to slam Kerry for doing nothing.
Next.
Also I think kerryco sits on a security commission. Is there a Clarke / Kerryco connection?
I think Clarke debunked the 'connection.' Did you notice that he said under oath (sidebar: Bush and Cheney won't swear in during their little pas de deux before the 9/11 commission) that he doesn't work for Kerry and wouldn't accept a job if offered.
Next.
Did Kerryco know of 9/11 before it happend? No and no are the answers , but it shows you how a little inuendo can go a long way.
Yep, it does. But only the most gullible among us actually believe it.
And at any rate, no matter what Kerry may have known prior to 9/1, it's my belief that Bush knew much, much more.
Posted by editor @ 04/03/2004 02:49 PM NY
jrogers does ask a valid question. If we had implemented extra security and scrutiny, it would have ticked off a lot of people. The answer is...so what? An imminent terrorist threat was present, and they had the information to back up that likely event. The rightwing talkers love to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how "resolute" bush is. They blather about his "moral clarity" and "steely resolve" to do the right, and often difficult thing. So could our admin not endure some complaining by some inconvienced travelers? It sure didn't mind the complaints of MILLIONS of protesters in February 2003.
Clarke was being generous. If this admin had really wanted to prevent the 9-11 massacre, it would have. The millenium terrorist was stopped - because the previous administration considered it a top priority.
Posted by skywlaker77 @ 04/03/2004 03:00 PM NY
Did I hear correctly? Troll for lunch on this site?
Bush Terrorism Defense Posture:
January 2001: [elevator music]
February 2001: [elevator music]
March 2001: [elevator music]
April 2001: [elevator music]
May 2001: [elevator music]
June 2001: [elevator music]
July 2001: [elevator music]
August 2001: [elevator music]
September 1: [elevator music]
September 2: [elevator music]
September 3: [elevator music]
September 4: [elevator music]
September 5: [elevator music]
September 6: [elevator music]
September 7: [elevator music]
September 8: [elevator music]
September 9: [elevator music]
September 10: [elevator music]
September 11: 19 FOREIGN INVADERS KILLED 3,500 PEOPLE ON AMERICAN SOIL ON BUSH'S WATCH WHILE HIS ADMINISTRATION WAS ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL!
BUSH'S WATCH! Too many lies to tell to worry about terrorism...
BUSH'S WATCH! Lawdy knows we needs the missile defense....
BUSH'S WATCH! Clinton got a blowjob....
BUSH'S WATCH! OIL....
Parse this trolls.
Posted by jimmiraybob @ 04/03/2004 03:05 PM NY
but clinton got a blowjob from an intern! that proves he's a bad man! bush can do no wrong!
Posted by robin hacktroll @ 04/03/2004 04:12 PM NY
I must have got close to the truth with all the name calling
bottom line Clarke said under oath even if "ALL" of his recmmondations were followed 9/11 still would have happened
bush, clinton, clinton, bush , why didnt Mr.Clarke go public with his concerns if they were that imminent? after all , he "KNEW" ?
Posted by Robin Hacker @ 04/03/2004 05:49 PM NY
Robin,
He did not say that 100% still would have happened. He said it was likely because of several factors. The communication between CIA, NSA, and FBI was falty. Bush failed to get them all together to discuss the issues that would have caught at least two of the teriost that were in country, and maybe found out about the plans for addition securty messures to be put into place.
Some of your early statements are incorect. CIA does not investigate inside the US (charter prevents that) FBI does investigations (most of the bugget for antiterror(sp?) was redirected into other areas). Kerry is not on a securty commision (closest is a subcommitte on Transportation, and editor explained what Kerry tried to do with Logan).
Posted by JD Linx @ 04/03/2004 10:55 PM NY
I must have got close to the truth with all the name calling
Who called you a name, besides 'troll' (which incidentally, seems to apply)?
I don't know what 'truth' you think you got 'close to' - it sure isn't one that exists in the world I live in.
Posted by editor @ 04/03/2004 11:10 PM NY
--"Democrats are trying to have it both ways on this, and Americans will see through it. On one hand, they don't believe there even is a war on terror. On the onter, they believe we haven't done enough to fight it."--
Robin,
You don’t have to stay ignorant all your life. Think for yourself, and get a clue.
We know that we have to fight terrorism, but calling it a war isn’t going to help.
We Democrats are less inclined to drool over cute phrases like that. We tend to look for more substance. A “war on terrorism” sounds butch, but if it is anything like the “war on drugs”, we are all in big shit!
Fighting terrorism like we have fought wars in the past is like trying to put out an oil fire with water hose. You’re just going to spread it and make it worse. So, you see, we do believe there is a war of sorts on terror, but that we can’t fight it like we fight wars with nations. In fact, just the opposite. We need to cooperate with other nations in order to defeat terrorists.
It is so abundantly clear that Rumsfeld, Cheney, Condi & Wolfie have a Saddam fetish, as well as an unhealthy obsession with StarWars, and that monkey boy does what they want rather than what is best for the country. Not one of us can claim that this obsession allowed 9/11 to happen for sure, but the fact that it might have should disturb everyone.
I realize you are going through a tough time right now. This is called cognitive dissonance. Your brain is struggling with a belief that your president is good and caring patriot, while the facts are mounting that he is a spoiled rotten, stupid, arrogant, short sighted, narrow minded draft dodger who lies and lies and lies and keeps on lying. It’s possible that you’ll never be able to accept that ugliness (my parents still think Nixon was the best prez we ever had). It can be painful to open your mind to reality, but try. It’s worth it.
Posted by Bob Hollander @ 04/04/2004 03:21 AM NY
J D
I cant find the post on this site where Mr. Clarke when he was asked even if all his recmmondations were followed it still would have happened, but that is fact, under oath, that's 100 %.
Bob
Sorry that quote was rogersj52003@yahoo.com not mine
and my brain may hurt but it's form the ignorance of the obvious, Kerryco isnt going to do it for this country and backing him is a folly. There is still time before the convention to nominate Edwards, Edwards will defeat Bush, Polls are out showing Kerry is to far left for the swing vote. He also has the baggage of his wife's fortune and the overseas plants hienzco has, he is weak on terror( i don't care what u call it war on underware for all i give a crap) and his poor voting history in the senate, gas tax etc....
edtior
are u archiving, deleting posts / threads to save space ?
Posted by Robin Hacker @ 04/04/2004 07:29 AM NY
I declare a new war:
THE WAR ON MISSPELLING AND BAD GRAMMAR
You're either with us or you're against us.
Posted by robin hacktroll @ 04/04/2004 09:28 AM NY
Hacktroll
Imitation is the greatest from of flattery ! ! ! !
Posted by Robin Hacker @ 04/04/2004 12:03 PM NY
So, does that mean you're with us? It's ok if you need to use a dictionary at all times.
Posted by robin hacktroll @ 04/04/2004 04:56 PM NY
get real. kerry's the nominee. now, get over it, suck it up, and prepare to fight. none of this voting for the lesser of two evils crap. if basic integrity and maturity doesn't do it for you, then find what it is about the man that can elicit enthusiasm and drive it on home. the difference between republican energy supporting bush and democratic energy supporting gore is what got us into this mess in the first place. (yes, yes, there were dozens of other factors, too--a hateful conservative media, nader, florida vote fraud, the principle of irreparable harm excavated from antonin's rectum, etc.) but this time 'round it's everybody up off their couches and to the polls. and you drag your neighbor with you. we simply HAVE to do this! we have no choice! so cut the whining and the parsing. this current gang is not just corrupt and ruthless. let's put it in the special terms that, with all their ardently professed Faith, they'd surely understand. they're anathema to the republic's survival as a functioning democracy. hell, they don't even recognize the desirability of political opposition. what could be more basic than that? we will not fail! eyes on the prize!
Posted by oldupperwestsideLIBERALjew @ 04/06/2004 07:33 PM NY
sorry for that last rant. it was more in response to posted commentary than the main thread. it's just something i feel real strongly about.
as for the main thread, only nagging thing about sibel edmonds for me is her dates of service as fbi translator. at least, according to eric boehlert she started 20 sept 01. so most of what she read was previously (unread? ignored?) history, worrisome to me only because it seems easily spinnable by the spinmeisters.
but beyond that, when discussing what might or might not have been done to prevent 9/11... it's true, we're all culpable. we did not--and to a huge extent--still don't really KNOW what it is to live with terror. ireland, england, france, spain, israel, india they know. not us. prior to 9/11 the really biggest thing we had was oklahoma city--and that turns out to be the homegrown variety, which is a horse of a different color altogether; read niewart). but, back to summer '01--sure, the public would've hollered bloody murder about the pre-flight security lines. hell, a year AFTER, the airlines were already begging for relief. BUT--and this might well be in the face of clarke himself who felt we couldn't've completely avoided at least some catastrophe, somewhere (which is how i read his remarks)... don't tell me if the point hadn't been nailed about the planes-as-wmd threat to the pilots, that they would still have been thinking in terms of maintaining calm and hostage-taking (i.e. the preponderant historic record priorthereto). had the threat nature really been driven home, different action not only could've been taken, but would've--and in fact, was. witness the fourth flight that the passengers and crew brought down prematurely. by then, they'd gotten word about the other flights and knew what was going on. maybe, it's that kind of knowledge that haunts clarke today and contributes to prompting his apology. holy moly, what a mensch! i'd love to spit in frist's eye.
so, yes! 9/11 as we know it could've been prevented! this isn't even tinfoil territory any more. according to yesterday's nytimes (buried on p.16 or some such), it's one of the likely conclusions of the commission.
but, there's a very thick veneer of complacency protecting the public's sense of being. maybe sibel edmonds will be one more chipping away at the facade. we need it.
Posted by oldupperwestsideLIBERALjew @ 04/06/2004 08:05 PM NY
