Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Briefing on Al Qaeda Included Specifics
Washington Post ^ | April 10, 2004 | By Walter Pincus and Dan Eggen

Posted on 04/10/2004 12:15:53 PM PDT by cyncooper

The classified briefing delivered to President Bush five weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks featured information about ongoing al Qaeda activities within the United States, including signs of a terror support network, indications of hijacking preparations and plans for domestic attacks using explosives, according to sources who have seen the document and a review of official accounts and media reports over the past two years.

The information on current threats in the briefing, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," stands in contrast to repeated assertions by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and other Bush administration officials as recently as this week that the document is primarily historical and includes no warning or threat information.

~snip~

Because the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB in dispute has not been released publicly, it is impossible to be precise about its contents or the context in which it was delivered. Yet much of the information in the document has become public over the last two years through testimony, official accounts and news reports.

Newspaper articles in May 2002 noted the briefing document's alarming title and reported that the PDB mentioned al Qaeda members living in the United States and others traveling in and out of the country. A July 2003 report from a House-Senate inquiry into intelligence failures said the PDB found that al Qaeda "apparently maintained a support structure" inside the United States.

~snip~

But Democratic commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, said in an interview yesterday that Rice ignores the importance of more current information that was also included in the August 2001 document.

"She is right in a sense that it does not contain a warning per se," said Gorelick, one of only three commissioners who have seen the CIA-prepared PDB as part of a special deal with the White House. "She is also wrong in that it is not just an analytical piece. . . . It is a summary of what the agency knew that gave them reason to believe bin Laden wanted to attack the United States."

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 911commission; 911memo; gorelick; pdb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last
First, Dan Eggen was the co-author with Bob Woodward of the May 2002 article that did reveal the title that Ben Veniste claimed the other day was not known before.

(See this thread: Aug. Memo Focused On Attacks in U.S. Lack of Fresh Information Frustrated Bush (2002/PDB))

Second, note the spinning comes directly from Gorelick.

1 posted on 04/10/2004 12:15:53 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator
Please review my excerpts to insure I am in compliance with posting guidelines regarding the Washington Post and adjust if need be.

Thanks.
2 posted on 04/10/2004 12:16:41 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
nwrep has found an article from 2000 (from WaPo, of course!) detailing Richard Clarke's opposition to White House coordination of anti-terrorism...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1115167/posts
3 posted on 04/10/2004 12:19:20 PM PDT by EllaMinnow ("Pessimism never won any battle." - Dwight D. Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
"She is also wrong in that it is not just an analytical piece. . . . It is a summary of what the agency knew that gave them reason to believe bin Laden wanted to attack the United States."

Uh, yeah. That's called an "analytical piece."

4 posted on 04/10/2004 12:20:18 PM PDT by prion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
This is fine. It's a very long article and you only posted a small part of it.
5 posted on 04/10/2004 12:20:31 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: prion
That's what I thought, prion!

LOL
6 posted on 04/10/2004 12:22:25 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick
nwrep has found an article from 2000 (from WaPo, of course!) detailing Richard Clarke's opposition to White House coordination of anti-terrorism...

Gee, I hope that part gets put in the movie!

7 posted on 04/10/2004 12:24:32 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
It is a summary of what the agency knew that gave them reason to believe bin Laden wanted to attack the United States

Duh, ya think? I didn't get a memo, but I knew terrorists wanted to hit the U.S.

"In February 1993, a truck bomb exploded there, killing six people, and displacing business in the complex for six months. Six Islamic militants were convicted in the bombing, and sentenced to life in prison."

8 posted on 04/10/2004 12:26:36 PM PDT by Samwise (The day may come when the courage of men fails...but it is not this day....This day we fight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
We need a humor thread about casting the Clarke movie, but not just yet.

I'm trying to find a phone # for the Washington Post.
9 posted on 04/10/2004 12:28:00 PM PDT by EllaMinnow ("Pessimism never won any battle." - Dwight D. Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: prion
Uh, yeah. That's called an "analytical piece."

You expect people who don't understand "is" and "marriage" to understand "analytical piece"?

10 posted on 04/10/2004 12:28:16 PM PDT by Samwise (The day may come when the courage of men fails...but it is not this day....This day we fight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick
We already have Soros Producing and Oliver Stone directing.LOL!
11 posted on 04/10/2004 12:30:06 PM PDT by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
The days are gone when the RATmedia could just repeat a LIE over and over and it became Truth. Now, of course, the vast majority of Freepers who were on the site in 2001 knew that the Salami wanted to attack the United States. I could have prepared a memo longer than one page that detailed that intent. He had already done so while Gore's Lick was sabotaging National Security. What a news flash (for the BRAIN DEAD.)
12 posted on 04/10/2004 12:31:43 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
So what should have been done that summer? Ground all planes? That would have gone over well.
13 posted on 04/10/2004 12:33:34 PM PDT by joonbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Samwise
Off topic: When I heard your tagline in the movie, it gave me goosebumps. It gave me goosebumps again just reading it.
14 posted on 04/10/2004 12:37:35 PM PDT by EllaMinnow ("Pessimism never won any battle." - Dwight D. Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
The shocking aspect is if there had been NO memo's similar to this.
15 posted on 04/10/2004 12:41:57 PM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Not sure if this is old or new, but NewsMax posted about an hour ago that "specifics" of 9/11 were know in 1997.

'Skyscraper' Suicide-Hijack Warnings Came During Clinton Era

"Well before the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. intelligence officials warned that terrorists linked to Osama bin Laden planned a 'spectacular attack' that involved kamikaze pilots crashing U.S. airliners into targets that included the Pentagon, the Capitol building and significant U.S. 'skyscrapers.'"

That could be the lead sentence from one of today's news reports touting the CIA's August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing as a warning President Bush should have heeded to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks. But in fact, those warnings, which are actually far more specific than anything contained in the Bush PDB, were delivered during the Clinton administration - via intelligence that was so well known it was covered newspaper reports at the time. In a June 1997 report in the Dayton Daily News, for instance, CIA Director George Tenet warned that Islamic terrorists had already succeeded in "expanding their networks, improving their skills and sophistication, and [were] working to stage more spectacular attacks."

Reports published just two months after 9/11 explained that the blueprint for 9/11 attacks was uncovered during 1995 interrogations of Abdul Hakim Murad, partner of convicted 1993 World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef.

The Post continued: "There were secondary targets the terrorist cell wanted hit: Congress, the White House, the Pentagon and possibly some skyscrapers. The only problem, Murad complained, was that they needed more trained pilots to carry out the plot."

The above information is far more specific than anything reportedly revealed in the Aug. 6, 2001 briefing given to President Bush - and was available to President Clinton via published reports [if not through the intelligence briefings he routinely avoided] for most of his second term in office.

As the media point fingers at Bush, however, no one seems particularly interested in asking Mr. Clinton why he ignored for years relatively clear warnings that 9/11 was coming.

16 posted on 04/10/2004 12:52:13 PM PDT by chiller (JUDGES is JOB #1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Exactly.

The fact is this memo has been known for years, and more or less its contents.

It puts the lie to Clarke's assertion that the Bush administration was not concerned about Al Qaeda before 9/11, and THAT's the angle any rational person would realize when reading it, not his idiotic Gorelick garbage.
17 posted on 04/10/2004 12:52:36 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Samwise
You expect people who don't understand "is" and "marriage" to understand "analytical piece"?

Best understatement of the year!

18 posted on 04/10/2004 1:01:09 PM PDT by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN (I don't believe anything a Democrat says. Bill Clinton set the standard!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Because the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB in dispute has not been released publicly, it is impossible to be precise about its contents or the context in which it was delivered. Yet much of the information in the document has become public over the last two years through testimony, official accounts and news reports.

And based on this, they can make the assertions they have made? Pure conjecture billed as FACT! AMAZING

19 posted on 04/10/2004 1:01:45 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick

20 posted on 04/10/2004 1:10:04 PM PDT by Bobber58 (whatever it takes, for as long as it takes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson