US officials knew Al-Qaeda planned plane attacks, claims whistleblower

AFP | 4/02/04

[kattracks]

LONDON (AFP) - 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 (news - web sites) translator interviewed in a British newspaper.

Sibel Edmonds told the Independent daily that a claim by US President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s national security advisor Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) 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 gagging 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 Thursday that 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.

[kattracks]

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 (news - web sites) translator interviewed in a British newspaper.

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

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

IIRC Rice was speaking about attacks in the US.

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.

US Attacks? She does not say this was the case.

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

Which would be the correct thing to do as far as anyone leaking this information, in order to protect national security.

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

And none of these many language experts has backed up Edmonds claims.

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.

Which is why President bush had a plan to counter this by 9/04/01.

Sibel seems like another "Clarke" looking for her 15 minutes.

[Support Free Republic]

---

	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[noutopia]

Pure bullsh!t.

[tbpiper]

Sibel seems like another "Clarke" looking for her 15 minutes.

Curious timing. She's known these 'facts' since 2001 and is just now, in an election year, bringing them to light?

[SpyGuy]

[Edmonds] 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. 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.

There is a difference between having possession of evidence and having knowledge of the contents of the evidence.

I do not doubt that the intelligence agencies had collected enough wire taps and other raw material to uncover some of the details of the pending attacks. However, the intelligence information buried in those materials had not been translated, analyzed, or disseminated prior to September 11, as Edmonds even admits.

And why weren't those wire taps and documents translated and analyzed in time to thwart the attacks? Because Bill Clinton had systematically dismembered the intelligence community over the previous eight years. Plus, the Democrats blocked and stalled many of Bush's new appointments during the seven short months of his Presidency prior to September 11.

September 11 is Bill Clinton's legacy. And all the finger pointing at Bush won't change that fact.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Clark has no credibility. But Edmunds is an unknown. And when your best witness is an unknown jack-in-the-box, confirming discredited clowns, it makes a person suspicious. I think it is logical to on the one hand take what Edmunds says seriously, but whenever I criticize Bush the first day something comes out, I regret it two weeks later. If Edmunds is credible two weeks from now, and that's a big if, let the chips fall where they may. Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, GW, and Cheney seem to be good and smart people. So while I believe them to be innocent of countless, vicious slanders, who says I and others are perfect judges of character? If only the other party were such a bunch of saps. FReegards....

[plumcrazy]

Actually article says,

"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." (From Andrew Buncombe's article, pulled up on Drudge)

This puts her viewpoint in totally different light.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"...translators in the days following the attacks..."

Oh. So Edmunds isn't telling Kerry Tales, but the paper buried that little bit of info. Hehe. A post-April Fools' joke.

[leadpenny]

Anyone could have predicted it. This don't mean nuthin'

But, the dems will run it up the flag pole in an attempt to show a conspiracy.

[backhoe]

katt, back in the early 1980's, a friend of mine co-authored a paper outlining various terror threats, and one of the lines I recall from it was "why would terrorists bother making bombs when we have all these nice, fuel-laden jets sitting around on aprons?" For whatever it's worth, this screed was circulated around DC at the time. It's nothing new.

[DeaconRed]

This has to be an April Fools Joke.
Hired 2 days after 9/11
Then wants to say she found evidence that we knew in advance?
PPPPLLEEAZE

[norton]

Translators and field agents do not know what 'officials' are aware of.

A lot of critical and sincere people, working with specific documents, specific areas, or specific sources, contribute to but do not review or have access to the compiled data available to the NSC and executive office.

The flow of information into the total intelligence base is vast. There are indicators of everything from the sublime to the rediculous. It is not possible - it is certain - that at least one translator handled data that, standing alone, convinced he or she that an attack using aircraft, somewhere, was impending.

And the weight of evidence or current drift of analysis said otherwise.

That is precisely why individual translators or field agents do not brief the President - someone else briefs the president based on what is compiled from the input of thousands of translators, field agents, news papers, and finally. analysts who are paid to analyse and interpret a multitude of inputs.

Analysts can be just as wrong as anyone else but interpretation and and presenting conclusions is the bulk of their job description - accuracy is implied (hoped for) based on the selection process or the enrails of goats.

On the other hand, it is terribly frustrating to contribute to the larger data base and to "know" the y answers [because you have faith in the one puzzle piece that you personally experienced, developed, or tripped over] and see that it is not the center piece of US policy [because there was a ton of evidence that you were wrong or because politics, right or wrong, for better or for worse, disallowed your conclucions.

[SpyGuy]

That's what I quoted and highlighted from the original article: she was hired after the attacks to translate the BACKLOG of intelligence information that was collected prior to the attacks.

The point being that the intelligence agencies had the information in their hands, but they did not have enough translators and analysts available to learn the contents of that information. And, for that, we can thank Clinton and his Democrat accomplices.

[InfraRed]

It is much easier to find a needle in the haystack, once you know that you're searching for a needle.

[laredo44]

Don't these people working in the intelligence field ever sign some type of confidentiality agreements? Especially when dealing with information as sensitive as this? How is this hindsight oracle permitted to give these press interviews about what she translated?

[DeaconRed]

"And, for that, we can thank Clinton and his Democrat accomplices.

It has been said many times.
We will NEVER know the full amount of the damage done to this country by the Clinton administration.

This entire thing (9/11 commission, Clarke saying Clinton did a good job etc etc) is starting to smell really bad.

[kabar]

Before 9/11, when was the last time that commercial airliners were hijacked and crashed into buildings? AQ came up with a tactical surprise that was beyond the imagination of the intelligence community. Only Tom Clancy conceived of such a thing. It is easy to figure it all out after the fact. Besides, I am sure there were thousands of possible attack scenarios that were floating around after the embassy bombings and the USS Cole. How do you defend against all of them with finite resources?

[DeaconRed]

I second the: UN GO TO HELL

V537

[max_rpf]

"Curious timing. She's known these 'facts' since 2001 and is just now, in an election year, bringing them to light?"

No -- SHE WORKED AFTER 2001 -- She learned all of this translating the back-log of intelligence that we had been gathering (every e-mail sent from pak/afg + probably every fax sent out and 1/2 the phone calls...).

If you read the article carefully -- "Should have had" etc... This woman wants Kerry in office..

[TomGuy]

Curious timing. She's known these 'facts' since 2001 and is just now, in an election year, bringing them to light?

I was just thinking the same thing. Where was her story on 9-12-01? I guess it took 3 years for her synapses to click in.

But, I have little doubt more of these 'sudden memory' people will come out of the woodwork.

Speaking of 'wood', Woodward's book is supposed to be out soon and it is rumored to be even more scathing than Clarke's book.

The Dems have a whole program that will be revealed over the coming months. Expect more of the same; piled deeper. It is still a long way to November.