Did condi lie to the american people?

[DKSuddeth]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514

'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes'
Whistleblower the White House wants to silence speaks to The Independent
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
02 April 2004


A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened.

She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".

That's just it, she never even said "there was no such information". What she said exactly was "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack planes to try and free US-held terrorists."

Even the accuser states this:

She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, 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".

With that information given, it sounds like what Condi said wasn't far off base.

Mrs Edmonds said that by using the word "we", Ms Rice told an "outrageous lie". She said: "Rice says 'we' not 'I'. That would include all people from the FBI, the CIA and DIA [Defence Intelligence Agency]. I am saying that is impossible."

I'm curious how this woman knows exactly what Condi meant by "We". My first impression is that she would be referring to the Bush administration.

Either way, I think some are trying to stretch this into more than what it was.

 

[DKSuddeth]

like I said in a previous post jim. I think we've lost whatever good we're going to get out of this commission as it turns into an election year witch hunt.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
like I said in a previous post jim. I think we've lost whatever good we're going to get out of this commission as it turns into an election year witch hunt.

That's very sad. I was genuinely looking forward to finding out specific information and answers from this commission. It's getting hard to determine what's fact and what's politics.

I think the testimony should be private. The commission should have made a gag order and then gathered pertinent data and facts. Once they had everything they needed to make recommendations on how better to protect ourselves in the future they could have then released testimony to the public. By allowing the mudslinging to continue they have allowed this to turn into a useless spectacle. What started out as a fact finding mission to better our defense mechanisms has turned into an embarrassment for America.

 

[NewGuy]

No matter who is on trial for what, because they are currently "in power", it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

 

[Aquarian]

I think this particular comment by ms edmonds is says more in regards to condi's comments in may 2002:

EARLY WARNING SIGNS

6. The misconception:No one could have predicted the Sept. 11 attacks. Since 9/11, President Bush and his team have repeatedly insisted that the attacks were inconceivable. David Corn chronicles these claims in his new book The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception. In May 2002, for example, Condoleezza Rice said, “I don’t think anyone could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center.” Ari Fleischer echoed her, “Never did we imagine what would take place on Sept. 11 where people use those airplanes as missiles and weapons.”

Intelligence officials didn’t take the suicide-plane schemes seriously because they believed there were other, more imminent dangers. But no one can say they weren’t warned.

What’s wrong with the story: In fact, there were tons of warnings of exactly this kind of attack. The recent congressional report on the 9/11 intelligence failures lists a dozen pre-9/11 indications that terrorists were plotting a suicide hijacking. For example, in 1994 Algerians hijacked an Air France airliner with the intention of crashing it into the Eiffel Tower. (They were tricked by French officials into landing in Marseilles to refuel, where they were overpowered.) In 1995, police in the Philippines uncovered an al-Qaida plot to fly a plane into CIA headquarters. (One of the plotters: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.) A year later, al-Qaida had the idea of flying a plane from outside the United States and crashing it into the White House. Two years later, al-Qaida planned to fly a plane from outside the United States and crash it into the World Trade Center. And so on.

Intelligence officials, who are endlessly juggling all kinds of different threats, didn’t take the suicide-plane schemes seriously because they believed there were other, more imminent dangers. But no one can say they weren’t warned.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080840/ (last section of the page)

terrorists using planes had been a planned for scenario since 1973 for the IOC.

Or perhaps referring to the intelligence reports we received from the international community:

We've since learned from the Congressional Joint Inquiry and published press accounts that nearly a dozen nations issued specific warnings about targets, method, suspects and, in one case, timing.
http://citypaper.net/articles/2003-11-13/slant.shtml

http://memoryhole.org has congress's 911 report in html format or you can get the whole thing in pdf at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html. I still need to look through it to find the specifics of these warnings.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Aquarian
What’s wrong with the story: In fact, there were tons of warnings of exactly this kind of attack. The recent congressional report on the 9/11 intelligence failures lists a dozen pre-9/11 indications that terrorists were plotting a suicide hijacking.

And were any of these warnings made while Clinton was in office? And if so (and they were), what did the Clinton administration do to prevent the attacks? (other than refusing an offer to apprehend Osama)

With that information in mind, I'm wondering why Clinton and Gore aren't testifying the way everyone else has in front of the commission.

 

[Aquarian]

let's stick to the topic for just a moment, were there warnings that condi denied the existence of? We can blame clinton on another thread.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Aquarian
let's stick to the topic for just a moment, were there warnings that condi denied the existence of? We can blame clinton on another thread.

Sorry, I don't play the typical liberal games. You want to call into question the prior warnings of attacks against America and what was done about it, then the Clinton administration IS on topic.

Liberals typically want to bash Bush and his administration but it's off limits to hold Bubba responsible in any way.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Aquarian
let's stick to the topic for just a moment, were there warnings that condi denied the existence of? We can blame clinton on another thread.

And to specifically answer your question, NO! She never denied the existence of such reports that I've read. She just stated that no one could have predicted the events of 9/11 based on the warnings they received. Sounds like they should have put 2 and 2 together, but that doesn't make her a liar.

 

[Aquarian]

doh- you posted a second while I was typing heh. Thanks for the direct reply.