US Intelligence in 1995 Said Attack on U.S. Possible

Reuters ^ | April 16, 2004 | Tabassum Zakaria

[tomball]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. intelligence report in 1995 raised the possibility of a foreign terrorist attack inside the United States and a 1997 update named Osama bin Laden, U.S. intelligence officials said on Friday in trying to offset a highly critical report from the Sept. 11 commission.

[sarasmom]

All US Intelligence sources said in 1981 (perhaps even earlier, but I can only testify to what I know) there would be serious terrorist attacks within the continental USA, eventually.

If there is an individual in this country that cant imagine any worse terrorist attack than using commercial aircraft as a bomb, well all I have to say is you have no imagination, and no exposure to what is possible in probable future terrorism tactics.

I will refrain from listing the probable scenarios, but suffice it to say we aint seen nothing yet.
As God as my wittness, I pray we won't endure what I expect to happen next.
But looking around at the large numbers of the certifiably stupid people among my fellow citizens who still refuse to participate in actual physical reality, it seems very clear that,absent the second coming of Jesus Christ, we will.

[MamaLucci]

Louis Freeh turned out to be a real disappointment.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

"By the Mid-1990's I knew the CLINTON White House was never going to do anything about the Terrorist activities of Muslim Extremists" =

...MONSOOR IJAZ on the FoX News Channel-Fall 2001

---

6-4-2002 Thread:

'..MONSOOR IJAZ.. most feared by Demo's about Sept 11th = Judicial Watch Radio Show'

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/news/694455/posts


4-13-2004 Thread:

'Freeper Alert: MONSOOR IJAZ get PRIVATE 9/11 Testimony, demands IN PUBLIC'

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1117043/posts

.

[Mo1]

"Check this out"

Well .. check this out


The Final Clinton Gift ? Give us Osama in 30 days, or.?..Dec.20, 2000 (title-mine)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/528591/posts


Once more for Time Magaizine:

"Today, the United Nations removed all its remaining relief workers from the country, fearing a backlash from the Taliban, who will be almost completely isolated diplomatically when the resolution takes effect in 30 days, a grace period during which the Taliban could avoid sanctions by meeting the Council's demands." UN, Dec. 20th...2000.

Why did Clinton wait until Dec. 19th, 2000 to push the UN for tougher sanctions against the Taliban?
Clinton knew this would anger not only the Taliban, but their terrorist pals across the world. His own State Dept. report on terrorism (see above links) shows clearly that the Clinton administration had knowledge of the size and scope of the international terrorist threat....complete with weapons, locations, history of actions of various cells, etc. The UN understood the danger...they pulled their own people out the same day, Dec. 20th, the new threat was issued.

On Dec. 18th, 2000, the electoral college elected President Bush, ending any debate. On Dec. 19th, Clinton went to the UN to push for tougher sanctions on our most deadly enemy. On Dec. 20th, the UN reluctantly issued the threat with the 30 day grace period....to go into effect Jan. 20th, 2001 - President Bush's inaugeration day.


Why would Clinton also close off ANWR those last days in office to keep us dependent on terrorist supporting nations for our energy needs?
Why would Clinton invite both Barak and Arafat to the White House those last days and encourage them both to make concessions that angered each and turned their people against them at home?

Why did the press report on the pardons and the vandalism, but neglect to investigate the most damaging actions of the departing President?

Why would Clinton leave so many landmines for the new President, knowing that our national security was at stake?

22 posted on 08/05/2002 12:55:03 PM EDT by Ragtime Cowgirl

[Guenevere]

#3..Indeed!!

[Mo1]

OKC Ping

[SandRat]

Klintoon didn't hear it, he was talking to his favorite rug inspector in the oval office bathroom.

[kcvl]

SEPTEMBER 12, 1996


GREGG: Do you ever have meetings where you, the president, the secretary of Defense, secretary of State and the director of CIA meet purely on the issue of structuring and strategy relative to terrorism?


RENO: We have had meetings leading up to the preparation of the presidential directive. The way it's structured, again, sub-groups will meet, then the deputies groups meet, then the principals meet. And we have, I think in almost every instance, had -- been able to resolve issues so that we can present it to the president. We have had meetings on the issues -- of specific issues, but not one meeting that was necessary to address the whole problem because we --


GREGG: Who does the presentation to the president? Is that -- does it flow through you or does it flow through each secretariat or director whose arena that happens to be in?


RENO: It flows through the National Security Council.





http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1996_hr/s960912-r.htm

[MamaLucci]

RENO: .... And we have, I think in almost every instance, had -- been able to resolve issues so that we can present it to the president. We have had meetings on the issues -- of specific issues, but not one meeting that was necessary to address the whole problem because we --

Huh?

[ovrtaxt]

Nita, I have an OKC-911 ping list I just put together yesterday. Although this article doesn't specifically mention OKC, I will ping it here for networking purposes among Freepers. We should all try to keep tabs on any new info with regard to this, since it's beginning to look like an absolutely HUGE scandal emerging, reaching across multiple Federal agencies, administrations and personalities.

[kcvl]

Makes sense, doesn't it?! ROFLOL! This is what ran the Justice Dept. on TERRORISM! We don't have to wonder why we are in such a MESS today.

[Nita Nupress]

http://www.usdoj.gov/oipr/


The Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, under the direction of the Counsel for Intelligence Policy, is responsible for advising the Attorney General on all matters relating to the national security activities of the United States. The Office prepares and files all applications for electronic surveillance and physical search under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, assists Government agencies by providing legal advice on matters of national security law and policy, and represents the Department of Justice on variety of interagency committees such as the National Counterintelligence Policy Board. The Office also comments on and coordinates other agencies' views regarding proposed legislation affecting intelligence matters.

The Office serves as adviser to the Attorney General and various client agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Defense and State Departments, concerning questions of law, regulation, and guidelines as well as the legality of domestic and overseas intelligence operations.

[MamaLucci]

It's truly a wonder we survived it.
Is there any doubt that Jamie Gorelick ran DOJ?

[Choose Ye This Day]

All of this is hogwash. Just ask the hog himself:

“I think these words need to be said somewhere on national TV, and they are: there is no terrorist threat. There is no terrorist threat.” –Michael Moore

[Nita Nupress]

Nita, I have an OKC-911 ping list I just put together yesterday. Although this article doesn't specifically mention OKC, I will ping it here for networking purposes among Freepers. We should all try to keep tabs on any new info with regard to this, since it's beginning to look like an absolutely HUGE scandal emerging, reaching across multiple Federal agencies, administrations and personalities.

Thank you SO much for doing that. The timing of Gorelick's Wall memo was very curious to me when it first came to light, but after seeing Hyde's question to Freeh, I'm downright suspicious. There are several possibilities that would explain why Gorelick was put on the 9-11 commission, and at least for me, the OKC cover-up is at the TOP of the list.

What the heck did Henry Hyde "hear" that made him ask this question right out of nowhere? Of course, it COULD be one big coinkydink, but it does make me wonder.

Here it is again for any newcomers:

REP. HYDE: Good. Director Freeh, has the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review overruled your request to surveill certain terroristic targets?

MR. FREEH: No, sir.

REP. HYDE: That has not happened?

MR. FREEH: Unless you can be more specific I don't know that I could answer that. But no, as far as I know, it's not.

REP. HYDE: All right, I don't think it's appropriate to be more specific, but that was something that I had heard that concerned me. If you say it didn't happen --

MR. FREEH: No, we have recently -- the Attorney General and the Deputy and myself discussed some -- not changes, but clarifying our mutual interpretation of the Attorney General's guidelines with respect to investigating terrorism cases to ensure that we are not missing anything. But other than that, I don't really have any complaints about it.

[ovrtaxt]

By the way, Jayna Davis is going to be on Glenn Beck monday. And have you read this?

[Mo1]

Yes it is a wonder we survived

Found this in my travels ... Clinton had never met his #2 person in the DOJ??


Interview with Deputy Attorney General Philip B. Heymann on PBS

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/counsel/office/heymann2.html
Bill Clinton becomes President , and you find yourself returning to the Department of Justice. How did that happen? How did you get the call?

I had not met President Clinton or Mrs. Clinton. In a real sense I've never met them to this day.

You weren't an old [friend of Bill].

It's not only I wasn't that. I wasn't actually ever interviewed by them, nor did I see them afterwards except on public occasions. They early on picked Chuck Ruff as their preferred Deputy Attorney General. I think that that slot was intended to be someone who had a long experience in the criminal justice world... and somebody who had sort of a reputation, preferably going back to Watergate. I mean [it would be] nice if it went back to Watergate, but a reputation that would look like something other than the friend of the President.

Like Charles Ruff?

Like Charles Ruff. After a few weeks, it became clear that Ruff had a nanny problem of such insignificance - absolutely ridiculous, a person over 72 who he thought was drawing social security. But at any rate, this scared off the administration. At that point, I gather that Janet Reno asked Chuck Ruff who he would recommend as deputy. Ruff strongly recommended me. I knew Attorney General Reno a little from the time that she was Dade County State's Attorney. Chuck called me and asked me if I would be interested. I said sure. I came up and met with Bernie Nussbaum, Vince Foster, Webb Hubbell..., and Janet Reno, about a half an hour a piece. Seemed to be totally pro forma and shortly got a call saying "Would you like to be Deputy Attorney General?" Never interviewed with the President and never really met him....

Deputy Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice. The number two guy at Justice, and you still hadn't met the President ?

Only on formal occasions. I've never met him otherwise.

Did you ever have the urge to introduce yourself?

I did introduce myself to him on a couple of occasions, and he would say, "I know that." Since he is supposed to be very good with names, I assumed that maybe he did know that.... It's a bad mistake. It's an innocent mistake, but it's a bad mistake. The number two person in the department has to have met the President for an hour, or for a half an hour or long enough that there is some set of relationships. The President just has to spend that much time, otherwise it's a bad mistake.

But, [also]... it wasn't just you. It was an Attorney General whom he had never met until two days before she came became the Attorney General of the United States of America. [Is it true that Clinton was relatively indifferent about the staffing of the Justice Department?]

I don't know. There have been a number of missteps in the appointment of Attorney General. I am sure they were anxious to move ahead quickly. I doubt very much if a lawyer President and a lawyer First Lady thought that the Attorney General was the most difficult and important position for them to fill.

Plus they had Webb Hubbell over there.

They had the number three person, whom they knew very well, who was Webb.

[luvbach1]

Aha!! The smoking gun!!

[Nita Nupress]

Excellent article. Thanks!  I'm so glad someone is digging into the Gorelick/OKC connection. Do you know if Jack Cashill has a FReeper name? I'm wondering if he already knows  about Hyde's question.


Excerpt from his article:

Although Davis does not document Gorelick's role in Oklahoma City, media accounts routinely describe her as the director of the Oklahoma City task force, the so-called "field commander." As Davis has told me, someone in Washington called the FBI in Oklahoma City and issued a two-word directive on its investigation into Islamic terrorism: "Kill it."

If that person is not Jamie Gorelick, perhaps she could tell the 9-11 Commission who it is.

 

Gorelick was the "hands-on" person for the OKC investigation, from what I understand.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Very interesting, isn't that an early discussion of the "wall"?

By the way here is a list of threads with keyword "Gorelick" some bring up OKC also:

Documents regarding Gorelick ---as keyword

Backhoe also has a list he started earlier.

That is here:

GORELICK GATE: Developing...