Replies

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

This will be a Dem talking point. But NOTICE the bold text.

This PDB does not indicate there will be hijackings that will be targeted at federal buildings in NY, it indicates that there may be hjjackings, OR, OTHER types of attacks, meaning, STILL: The concept of planes as missles had not been entertained.

Dems loose again.

I agree the dems lost this round!

I'm posting this info again - which I posted on another thread - because I have a couple of questions about the PDB somebody here might know the answers to:

"Fox has done a really good job of explaining what they thought the PDB said.

However, they STILL DIDN'T SAY WHEN THE INFO ABOUT CERTAIN ITEMS WAS PUT IN PDB FORM ORIGINALLY, AND THIS STILL BOTHERS ME.

1. In the item about the FBI saying there was suspicious activity at FEDERAL BUILDINGS in NYC - when was that info put in a PDB - certainly not for the first time on 8/6/01 - but BEFORE BUSH WAS IN OFFICE.

2. In the item about the possible hijackings (which is not a new thing at all), when was that information put in a PDB - certainly not for the first time on 8/6/01 - but BEFORE BUSH WAS IN OFFICE.

And .. Bob Graham has admitted the SENATE intel committee had the information some time ago! Before Bush was in office.

I want somebody to answer those 2 questions.

If we get those questions answered - it will point directly at the Clinton admin who HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO TAKE SOME ACTION - WHILE THE BUSH ADMIN HAD 1 MONTH.

Remember this historical info was given to Bush at his request because everything current he had received was in regard to overseas attacks - not attacks at home.

I submit that the chatter in the early summer was about overseas attacks on purpose - to steer us away from the attacks in the USA.

And .. as some on Fox pointed out today, even the hijackers didn't know what their assignment was going to be so how could they have been talking about it in the summer ..??"

Fox News or maybe it was MSNBC was talking about this memo and mentioned that at the G-7 meeting earlier that year, there'd been a threat that an airplane might be used to crash into the building where they were meeting. The RATS are saying since the notion of using airplanes as bombs had come up months earlier, it's not true when Condi Rice and other admin. members say the idea of airplanes used as missiles was unknown. The point seemed to be that someone in the FBI had seen the original G-7 memo, maybe had dropped the ball and not passed the info. on. So investigations are going on.

"...Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations forhijackings or other types of attacks..."

The dems cannot say anything really, but their willing puppets in the lamestream media will give them air and print time anyway.

More importantly, notice the "since that time" clause in this quote from the PDB which references a time period beginning with 1998. As Condi so well stated, the document is an historical document.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar' Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

This is a key passage. It implies that a hijacking would be the usual, hostage taking to trade. It was for this type of hijacking that the standard airline response was crafted, the "don't resist, do what they ask". NO implication of the kamikazi attack that occurred. While I've seen some stuff that conjectured it could occur, NOTHING THAT WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN A CHANGE IN THE BASIC RESPONCE TO A HIJACKING. NOTHING.