The Declassified August 6, 2001 PDB

Discussion in 'Politics' started by hapaboy, Apr 11, 2004.

  1. The declassified briefing has been released for public consumption:


    Declassified and Approved for Release, 10 April 2004

    Bin ladin Determined To Strike in US

    Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi YouseF and "bring the fighting to America."

    After us missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a (blacked out) service.

    An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told (blacked out) service
    at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

    The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of
    Bin Ladin's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilltate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was plannfng his own US attack. Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

    Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US
    Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and Is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

    Al-Qa'ida members-including same who are US citizens-have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qaida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

    A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York
    was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

    We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a (blacked out) service in1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd aI-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

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

    The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations
    throughout the US that it considers Bin ladin-related. CIA and the
    FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or Bin ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

    Declassified and Approved

    For the President Only
    6 August 2001


    Okay, Bush-haters. Based on this document you've been salivating for and were convinced contained the "smoking gun" that would implicate Bush for not preventing 9/11, please illuminate for us what should have been done.

    Based on an uncorroborated report from 1998 and "suspicious activity consistent with hijackings or other types of attacks....," and having been informed that the FBI is conducting 70 full field investigations that are related to bin-Laden, should Bush have shut down all the airports nationwide? And for how long? Furthermore, do you actually believe that back then the public - and their political representatives - would have supported increased airport security based on very vague intelligence? To look for box cutters? Of course not.

    And when nothing happened as a result of shutting down the airports, costing billions of dollars, you would angrily charge that he was overreacting. The very ones of you screaming for his head now for supposedly not doing enough to prevent 9/11 would have been screaming for his head back then for allowing mere uncorroborated terrorist threats to cripple our economy.

    Wake up. Our country was not at war on the dawn of 9/11, Islamic terrorism was not taken seriously enough by several administrations, and the political will to aggressively fight terrorism did not exist at the time.

    The only ones responsible for 9/11 were the hijackers themselves, Bin Laden, al-Qaida, and its network of financiers and supporters.

    No smoking gun here, but better luck next time.
  2. I think the point being made by politicians belonging to both parties from senate intelligence committee and others, which was that the threat inside the US was largely ignored because of the fact that noone believed anything like 9/11 could be thought up by someone, and they couldn't fathom the possibility to begin with - is something which has drastically changed after 9/11.

    That just makes Bush the last guy on watch to ignore the warnings and signs of 9/11. He self-admittedly doesn't like reading or lengthy briefings, and perhaps the usual political game will stick it (the blame) to him.

    I don't think it is alltogether unjust in his case, and would do the US and other nations a whole lot of good to get some much needed directional change.
  3. And because the Condi Rices's of the world have such a "bureaucratic" background, come from academia with an emphasis on the Cold War and not on assymetrical attack, they lack the vision to be capable of strong leadership.

    Rice stated that there was a "dysfunctional relationship" between the FBI and CIA, yet this was nothing new, and knowing this she failed to to get the principals together. She showed no leadership whatsoever. A typical bureaucrat. Her background failed her, and she failed this Country.
  4. August 6th, 2001 PDB

    "Also in August 2001, U.S. intelligence officials received two uncorroborated reports suggesting that terrorists might use airplanes, including one that suggested al-Qaida operatives were considering flying a plane into a U.S. embassy, current and former government officials said."

    "Those reports — among thousands of varied and uncorroborated threats received by the government each month — weren't deemed credible enough to tell Bush or his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), the officials said."

    And yet back on May 16th of 2002, Condi Rice held a press briefing and stated "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people . . . would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

    This flies smack in the face of the following intelligence:

    In fact, ever since September 11, news reports had mentioned earlier warnings about that very sort of activity. On May 18, 2002, the Post’s Bob Woodward and Dan Eggen challenged Rice’s statement. After quoting Rice’s remark, they outlined some previous warnings:

    WOODWARD AND EGGEN: But a 1999 report prepared for the National Intelligence Council, an affiliate of the CIA, warned that terrorists associated with bin Laden might hijack an airplane and crash it into the Pentagon, White House or CIA headquarters.
    The report recounts well-known case studies of similar plots, including a 1995 plan by al Qaeda operatives to hijack and crash a dozen U.S. airliners in the South Pacific and pilot a light aircraft into Langley.

    “Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida’s Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House,” the September 1999 report said.

    Woodward and Eggen recounted case studies which they said were “well-known.” But if these cases were well-known to some, they apparently weren’t well-known to Rice. On May 19, the Post’s Steve Fainaru examined the matter further:
    FAINARU: A broad array of signals—from foiled plots to FBI field interviews—suggested for years that al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups had considered employing airplanes as missiles and U.S. flight schools as pilot training grounds.
    The clues included a 1995 plot to blow up 11 American jetliners over the Pacific Ocean, then crash a light plane into CIA headquarters—a suicide mission to have been carried out by a Pakistani pilot who had trained at flight schools in North Carolina, Texas and New York.

    FBI investigators visited two of the flight schools in 1996 after the plot was uncovered in the Philippines, school operators said. In 1998 and 1999, analysts warned federal officials that terrorists might crash hijacked aircraft into landmarks such as the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Then, last July, the Italian government closed airspace over Genoa and mounted antiaircraft batteries based on information that Islamic extremists were planning to use an airplane to kill President Bush. “There’s a lot of stuff that was out there,” said Stephen Gale, a terrorism specialist at the University of Pennsylvania who presented an analysis warning of airborne attacks to Federal Aviation Administration security officials in 1998.

    Fainaru provided more detail about that 1995 plot:
    FAINARU: The plot was uncovered when a Pakistani national, Abdul Hakim Murad, was discovered mixing a bomb in his Manila apartment. He later confessed to Philippine authorities that he was part of a conspiracy to deploy five-man teams to plant bombs on 11 planes operated by United, Delta and Northwest airlines…
    As part of “Project Bojinka”—Serbo-Croatian for “loud bang”—Murad was to crash a light aircraft loaded with explosives into CIA headquarters at Langley, he later told investigators…

    Murad’s arrest came 13 days after four members of an Algerian terrorist group linked to al Qaeda hijacked an Air France flight as it prepared to leave Algeria for Paris. French authorities learned that the men planned to crash the plane into a Paris landmark such as the Eiffel Tower; commandos killed the hijackers during a refueling stop before the suicide plot could be carried out.

    According to Fainaru, the Eiffel Tower had also been a target. For the record, earlier reports had described the plan differently, saying the Algerians had planned to explode the hijacked plane over the Paris landmark.
    At any rate, Rice’s comment was hard to square with these earlier, “well-known” episodes. Was Rice really ignorant of these matters? Or had she been bending it—bending it good? You’d think a real press corps would want to know, but we have never seen Rice questioned about her odd May 16 statement. Nor was she asked last Wednesday night about the startling report from the White House, in which we were told that the president’s National Security Adviser hadn’t read last October’s NIE.

    Rice couldn’t imagine planes used as missiles? Rice hadn’t read last October’s NIE?

    Gee, who's lying now?
  5. Gee, Wag, you cut and paste a post of yours from another thread which talks about using airliners as missiles into this thread, which is specifically about the August 6, 2001 PDB you and your ilk have been salivating for. And as usual you have no comment on the thread's subject.

    There is a toddler's toy with various-shaped holes (circle, square, star, etc.) which a baby tries to put the appropriate plastic pieces into those holes (circular piece into circular hole, square piece into square hole).

    Please buy it, try it, and if you succeed at it, extend the lessons you learn from it into your thread posting modus operandi.
  6. I always suspected you could copy and paste, Happyboy. Not much more you can do apart from read your own posts since no one else does.

  7. Waggie both your posts on here indicated that you have 3182 posts.

    How can this be seeings you posted another post right under your 3182nd post.

    It should say 3183. Or your previous post should say 3181.

    What's up with that?

  8. Cutten


    A clearly identified enemy of the US is known to be plotting terrorist attacks on US soil, including high value targets such as airports, aircraft, and Federal buildings. Furthermore, the same person has already killed US citizens and innocent civilians in embassy bombings and an attack on a US warship, and has links to a previous attempt to destroy the WTC. Based on that information, I would have expected any remotely competent military commander to order the immediate killing or capture of Bin Laden and all his operatives, and to significantly increase security on all flights, at all airports, at all federal buildings, and other high value targets like major bridges, oil refineries, power plants, nuclear facilities, military bases etc.

    Instead, the Pentagon itself was left totally unprotected against dive-bombing by a gigantic hijacked commercial subsonic passenger jet, a previously hit terrorist target (WTC) had *no* protection from either conventional bomb attack or attack from the air (even given a 40 minute warning after the first tower was known to have been hit), and the White House itself was presumably undefended as well.

    Now, you may not entirely agree with the former course of action, but surely you do not think the latter was justifiable? It appears like gross negligence and complacency to me.
  9. Apparently you read them, moron. ROFL! As usual, little Billy, your posts make as much sense as a eunuch visiting the Playboy mansion. It would be nice if, for once, you could comment on the thread subject instead of making personal attacks on me.

    So how about it? What does the declassified PDB tell you, TradeOff?

    Like I told Waggie, there is a toddler's toy with various-shaped holes (circle, square, star, etc.) which a baby tries to put the appropriate plastic pieces into those holes (circular piece into circular hole, square piece into square hole).

    Please buy it, try it, and if you succeed at it, extend the lessons you learn from it into your thread posting modus operandi.
  10. In case you haven't already figured this out . . .
    You are on Ignore.
    #10     Apr 11, 2004