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.

[looscnnn]

Look, I am not blaming Bush on this. The translators and the supervisor supposedly intentionally took their time on the job, it that is true they are to blame as much as Clinton and those before him.

[PsyOp]

Let's assume for a moment that what she (and Clark) says is true. We have vague, non-specific reference to terrorists using airplanes. Well, they (the terrorist, starting with Arafat), been high-jacking them since the 70s, so that's not much of a revelation.

In the case of traditional high-jackings, where the perps simply took people hostage till their demands were met, the American public had already weighed in that it was not going to let itself be inconvenienced at airports by having security greatly increased, even after the Lockerbie and flight 800 bombings.

Prior to 9/11, implementing the kinds of security measures that would have been required to prevent it from happening would have resulted in howls of public outrage from all quarters. Even now, we have groups from all around the political spectrum that feel that the measures taken since then have gone too far.

So what was any administration supposed to do with such "new" but oh so vague and "non-specific" information? Suddenly demand new security measures at airports? Start profiling for potential high-jackers? Run-around the country kicking over stones in the hopes that some new evidence would present itself?

If Bush had tried to do any of these things on the basis of the available evidence he would have been excoriated in the press and by every political opponent and conspiracy theorist.

What he and his administration did do is take a look at the intelligence community and the way it operated and recognize the fact that it had broken down to a large degree (thanks to the many poundings it has taken by Democrats going all the back to the Church Commission). They then set about trying to figure out how best to fix it and bring it back to the point where it could be effective once again. All the while having to maintain a certain continuity so they could deal with the daily turn of events (don't forget that we had a major international incident with China that ate up several months of the adminstrations attention).

To expect them to accomplish this in a mere 8 months and make perfect sense out of the mess they had inherited is silly in the extreme. That's the kind of job that usually takes years.

It is easy, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, to say that we could have, should have, would have, been able to predict a likely event. Hey, when I read Clancy's book (back when Clinon was still pres.), where the whacko pilot fly's his jumbo jet into the White House, I predicted that some terrorist would try it some day. Does that mean that Bush should have known, and that if it happened and he was not able to prevent it, it was his fault?

No. And to state otherwise would be absurd.

And yet, that is what is happening with the 9/11 commission. And many people are beginning to realize it. So now they have to come up with another canard:

"There's plenty of blame to go around!"

8 years vs. 8 months. Let's do the math. 8 years equals 96 months. 96 months divided by 8 months equals 12. So, that means, if we're to absolutely fair, only 1/12th of the blame can possibly rest with the Bush administration while his predecessor, Clinton (and his sidekick Dick Clark), pick up the remainder.

But, using the "New Math" favored by the democrats and their fellow travelling leftist supporters, the blame falls equally on Bush and Clinton. 50/50. Now, I'm no math wiz, but even I can see that this doesn't add up. But it explains a lot. From now on, whenever I hear a democrat talk numbers on the economy, jobs, taxes, or anything else, I'll know to properly inflate the figures in their favor.

As for Clark, it was right for him to apologize. After all, much of what happened occured on his watch. It was his job to "counter" the terrorists, and he failed, for 96 months, prior to Bush's Arrival.

But then, how can you trust the analytical ability of anyone who thought he could tell bald face lies in public, and not know that the people he was attempting to smear could simply use his own previous statements to "counter" his brand of political "terrorism"?

They say you shouldn't lie unless you have a good memory. Clark's has failed him completely, just as he failed us, and continues to so.

As for preventing and countering acts of terror, no system of security, regardless of how draconian or totalitarian, will be able to stop the terrorist who is willing to sell his life to complete the mission.

Terrorism has to stopped long before the terrorist slips into a plane, train, or auomobile filled with explosives. Random piece of signals intell warning of a possible event is all well and good, but of little practical use. What is needed is an intelligence network of people, spread around the globe, who can keep their ears to the ground and their eyes on potential terrorists. People who can pick up the phones and give us real details to work with (names, dates, places). People who help us take the bad guys out before they ever reach a security check-point.

Until we have that (and we did at one time, Senator Kerry), any reccomendations made by the 9/11 commission are moot.

[Cold Heat]

A real Turkey!

[Marine Inspector]

Agreed.

[Publius6961]

It's amazing how many nutcases will come out of the woodwork after something happens that they "knew" about.

Unless this wacko can produce documentation of what she warned anyone about before it happened, I will just file her remarks in the "whackjob" folder.

[TommyDale]

I agree that there is plenty of blame for everyone. I am just sick and tired of all the weasels coming out of the woodwork to make it look like it was all Bush's fault, like this woman and Richard Clarke.

I'll say this: If the Democrats keep shoving, sooner or later there will be some very hard shoving back. Many people are getting so fed up with the dirty crap that there may actually be some need for armed guards during the November elections.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities -- with skyscrapers."

I suppose this narrows it down to under 100. But remember the dems opposed any of the actions required to do anything about it.

While they blocked action they held up Bush's appointments. The IRS and FDA heads were just confirmed last year.

[looscnnn]

From rereading the article, it does not appear that she is implicating Bush, etc. I determined the following:

"US officials knew months before September 11, 2001, that the Al-Qaeda network planned to use aircraft to commit a terrorist attack,"

What officials? Her supervisor? Head of FBI? How could they know if it was in the backlog that she was hired after the attacks to translate?

" that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie"."

A little off the mark, there was information but it was in backlog.

"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."

Again, if she saw them, they were in the backlog of things to be translated. How could they see it if it was not yet translated?

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

Again, how could they know if the information had not yet been translated.

It does not seem that she blames Bush, but seems to forget that if she was involved in translating the information then it was too little too late. Yes we had the information, it just was not available for anyone to do anything about it before 9/11 happened.

[PISANO]

PUH...LEEZE. This is OLD OLD news and nothing more than SPINNING of the facts with half-truths and mistaken assumptions.

[TommyDale]

Agreed! But the liberals (including the press) will do everything they can to make it appear that the Bush Administration "withheld information". If they can, they will keep this going for several months, then after the election they will say, "Oh, we didn't think Bush did anything wrong".

[P-Marlowe]

I've worked with these kind of whack jobs before. They are self centered self indulgent brats that think everyone else is not doing their job, that they are the only ones who work hard and that nobody but them deserves any recognition. They don't get along with anyone because everyone else -- to them-- is an idiot for not seeing how important and brilliant they are.

Guys like.... Dick Clarke.

[P-Marlowe]

Unless this wacko can produce documentation of what she warned anyone about before it happened, I will just file her remarks in the "whackjob" folder.

It would be difficult since she did not even start working for the FBI until AFTER 9/11/01.

And she got herself fired by March of 2002.

[P-Marlowe]

It does not seem that she blames Bush, but seems to forget that if she was involved in translating the information then it was too little too late.

She didn't translate a single word before 9/11/01. She was not hired until after 9/11/01. So what information could she have possibly gotten that would be relevant to what the FBI or the White House knew prior to 9/11/01? Answer... None.

[ladyinred]

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.

Does she even think? The Clinton administration had these warnings too, as did Congress! How the heck could anyone know exactly what they would do?

What is this crap about President Bush being under investigation? Gee, I thought this commission was on 911 and what led to it, and how to prevent it! Silly me, it is obviously meant to get Bush! DUH!

[ladyinred]

Here she is.

Morticia?