Aides: Bush Knew of Hijacking Threat Before Sept 11 : LUSENET : Unk's Troll-free Private Saloon : One Thread

Aides: Bush Knew of Hijacking Threat Before Sept 11

Wed May 15, 9:07 PM ET

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration received intelligence that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) could be plotting to hijack U.S. aircraft, prompting it to put security agencies on alert, the White House said on Wednesday.

"The information the president got dealt with hijackings in the traditional sense, not suicide bombers, not using planes as missiles," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) said of the intelligence, which was presented to President Bush (news - web sites) last summer.

Fleischer said the information prompted the administration to put domestic law enforcement agencies on alert, though it was not announced publicly.

"The administration, based on hijackings, notified the appropriate agencies and, I think, that's one of the reasons that you saw that the people who committed the 9/11 attacks used box cutters and plastic knives to get around America's system of protecting against hijackings," Fleischer said.

The disclosure followed reports that an FBI (news - web sites) agent urged the bureau to investigate Middle Eastern men enrolled in U.S. flight schools several months before Sept. 11, even naming bin Laden, who Washington later accused of masterminding the attacks.

When four hijacked airliners plowed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon (news - web sites) and a field in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, Middle Eastern men trained at U.S. flight schools were at the controls. The attacks killed more than 3,000 people and destroyed the World Trade Center.

Fleischer said Bush had been given general information about the threat of hijackings by bin Laden. "That was information that has been known and the president was informed of it," he said.

But Fleischer would not discuss specific information Bush received during his daily intelligence briefings. "We don't discuss the president's morning briefings as a matter of policy," Fleischer said.

"I will say that there has been long-standing speculation, which was shared with the president, about the potential of hijackings in the traditional sense ... I've also indicated that we've had threatens involving bin Laden around the world, and including in the United States," Fleischer said.

-- (, May 15, 2002


Bush Was Warned of Hijacking Plot

Wed May 15, 9:41 PM ET

By RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON (AP) - In the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush (news - web sites) was told by U.S. intelligence that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s terrorist network might hijack American airplanes, prompting the administration to issue a private warning to federal agencies, the White House acknowledged Wednesday night.

But officials said the president and U.S. intelligence did not know that suicide hijackers were plotting to use planes as missiles, as they did against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (news - web sites).

"There has been long-standing speculation, shared with the president, about the potential of hijackings in the traditional sense," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) said. "We had general threats involving Osama bin Laden around the world and including in the United States."

He said the administration, acting on the information received last summer, notified the "appropriate agencies" that hijackings "in the traditional sense" were possible. The warning was never made public, he said.

The development, first reported by CBS News, comes as congressional investigators intensify their study of whether the government failed to adequately respond to warnings of a suicide hijackings before Sept. 11. It is the first direct link between Bush and intelligence gathered before Sept. 11 about the attacks.

Fleischer would not discuss when or how the information was given to Bush, but a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the president was made aware of the potential for hijackings of U.S. planes during one or more routine intelligence briefings last summer.

The CIA (news - web sites) would not confirm what it told Bush, but the agency said the issue of bin Laden's attempting an airline hijacking was among a number of terrorist methods raised to U.S. government officials at the time.

But there was no information that suggested hijackers would crash planes into American landmarks and there was no mention of a date, a CIA official said.

The information was based on intelligence obtained by the U.S. government, the official said, without specifying.

"I will tell you there was, of course, a general awareness of Osama bin Laden and threats around the world, including the United States; and if you recall, last summer we publicly alerted and gave a warning about potential threats on the Arabian peninsula," Fleischer said.

But he said Bush had never been told about the potential for suicide hijackers steering the planes toward U.S targets.

Still, acting on the information the government did have, the administration "notified the appropriate agencies. I think that's one of the reasons that we saw the people who committed the 9-11 attacks used box cutters and plastic knives to get around America's system of protecting against hijackers," he said.

Fleischer said he did not know what agencies were notified or what they were told.

The Associated Press reported earlier this month that FBI (news - web sites) headquarters did not act on a memo last July from its Arizona office warning there were a large number of Arabs seeking pilot, security and airport operations training at at least one U.S. flight school and which urged a check of all flight schools to identify more possible Middle Eastern students.

A section of that classified memo also makes a passing reference to Osama bin Laden, speculating that al-Qaida and other such groups could organize such flight training, officials said. The officials said, however, that the memo offered no evidence bin Laden was behind the students that raised the concern.

Sen. Bob Graham (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla., the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, said through a spokesman Wednesday that the revelations in the memos marked an important discovery in Congress' investigation into why the FBI, CIA and other U.S. agencies failed to learn of and prevent the Sept. 11 plot.

"It represents a failure to connect the dots," said Graham spokesman Paul Anderson. "This was dismissed rather lightly at FBI headquarters."

The FBI also has faced tough questioning about whether it failed to act aggressively enough after arresting Zacarias Moussaoui, a Frenchman of Moroccan descent, in August after he raised concerns by seeking flight training at a Minnesota flight school.

Moussaoui has emerged as the lone defendant charged in the aftermath of the attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. He is charged with conspiring with bin Laden and the 19 suicide hijackers to attack Americans.

FBI Director Robert Mueller repeatedly has said he wished the FBI had acted more aggressively in addressing the Arizona and Minnesota leads but said nothing the FBI possessed before Sept. 11 pointed to the multiple-airliner hijacking plot.

-- Ari Fleischer (Neo-Nazi@Goon.Squad), May 15, 2002.

Ida been happier if upon learning of the threat that Bushy had by executive order (you remember those) revoked all visas, summarily ordered immediate round up and tastefully confined all holders pending deportation. "all" is important cause you can't pretend you're not picking out ethnically perceived bad guys with out catching a civil rights suit. Yep, that mighta worked. No crashes maybe but can you imagine the headlines? Facisti!!! Dubya gone mad!!!

No prob for me cause Yeoman Melissa Barnes (a young lady I knew as a child) might not have died in the pentagon crash while just doing her militaristic job.

-- Carlos (, May 15, 2002.

Or maybe if Bush had simply allowed the FBI to follow through on their leads by enhancing security checks at the airport, that might have prevented it. Instead he told them to forget about it since he knew he could blame Bin Laden, attack Afghanistan, and follow through with the Unocal pipeline. Very convenient.

-- let's roll (Dumbya@our.hero), May 16, 2002.

Why heavens, surprise, surprise! Is there anyone on the face of the planet that DIDN'T know there was a hijacking threat prior to 9/11. There's a hijacking threat now -- so when it occurs, remember that you were warned.

Blowing up the USS Cole -- a small hint about suicide bombers, perhaps?

Many silly things happen in politics, but this is one of the silliest. We all knew there was a threat of terrorist. The questions that we couldn't answer then (and can't answer now) are: (1) where, (2) when, and (3) what do we do to stop it.

-- E.H.Porter (, May 16, 2002.

You know E.H., can’t you just picture all of these slavering liberal idiots if the Government had instituted harsh measures at each of these ‘advanced threat warnings’?

They would be screaming bloody murder at the violation of their civil rights just because we heard a ‘rumor’.

I think it is fair to say that the government as a whole receives THOUSANDS of these threat rumors EVERYDAY.

Freedom often has a steep price and this is part of the equation.

-- Free (head@case.analysis), May 16, 2002.

Plus, look at the response of the Bush administration *since* 9-11. Every significant warning that they've gotten, they've passed along. Since 9-11, we've had several (the most recent is that a nuke power plant *may* be targeted on July 4).

Most of these haven't panned out; they've been false alarms.

-- Stephen (, May 16, 2002.

Poole Foole, what the Dumbya administration has donce since 911 doesn't do much good for the 3500 people who were killed. King Idiot should have done what he is doing now a month BEFORE 911 when he had the information, then those people would still be alive. Duuuuh.

-- (let's roll @ too little. too late), May 16, 2002.

I'm doing this because Bush has stolen my money. I've lost my welfare and had to get a job, but I'm too stupid to keep one. Dumbya killed those 3500 just as he did my welfare entitlements, and now I'm going to make him pay by exposing what kind of man he really is.

-- (dumbya@not.president), May 17, 2002.

Stephen, I watched NBC news last night (first in a long time) just to see what they would say on this issue. They devoted 10 minutes bringing in Tim Russet as an analyst. Too funny! Liberals are jumping all over this one as if something or someone could have prevented 911. They totally exemplified what's wrong with liberal education today. Yet they believe they are so enlightened because they can analyze their naval lint. An oxymoron!

EH, couldn't agree more. There were too many dots to connect and when they are all connected we can see a vague fuzzy cloud. Any one who believes that some crystalized image could have come out of the 'warnings' is thinking on a different plane then the rest of planet earth.

-- Maria (, May 17, 2002.

I hope Patricia left nutcase Doc and went back home to N.Y.

-- (who@could. deal?), May 17, 2002.

Liberals are jumping all over this one as if something or someone could have prevented 911. They totally exemplified what's wrong with liberal education today.

My "crystal balls" tell me that if this happened during Clinton's administration, conservatives would be jumping all over this one as if something or someone could have prevented 911. Heck, maybe they'd try to impeach him over it.

The fact that they are trying to claim that this was preventable has nothing at all to do with the fact that they are liberals or have a liberal education, and everything to do with the fact that they are the opposing party. Once again, my "crystal balls" say that if this incident happened during Clinton's term, you'd be calling for his head on a platter, liberal education or not.

It's funny, really. You and Cherri are essentially opposite sides of the same coin.

-- (what@i.think), May 17, 2002.

I got news for ya; it did happen during Clinton's admin. Remember the first bombing? How 'bout the Cole? How 'bout Somalia? You think this is the first ever terrorist attack on Americans and American soil?

-- Maria (, May 17, 2002.

Doc, I guess your balls don't even have hindsight.

-- Maria (, May 17, 2002.

I'm not Doc, silly.

And those incidents don't hold a candle to two of the tallest buildings in the world collapsed and over 3000 people killed. My crystal balls continue to tell me that you would have raked Clinton over the coals if the situation were reversed.

-- (what@i.think), May 17, 2002.


I got news for ya; it did happen during Clinton's admin. "

No shit. Terrorism happens every day, all over the world. The big difference, you stupid bitch, is that Clinton did not KNOW about it in advance and Dumbya did. Duuuh.

-- (get@clue.cunt), May 17, 2002.

The anti-terrorism bill of 1996 had provisions in it to track and deport members of known terrorists and members of terrorist organizations.

If there was information about potential terrorists, the government and FBI had been given the means to check out their background and remove them from the country.

In the days after 911, all of this information came out on almost every one of those men involved, right down to where they were born, what organizations they were involved with, and their movement prior to the bombings.

Why in the hell couldn't the investigations they made at all of the flight schools etc, been done before 911? It isn't as if the ability didn't exist~~~after all it was done real fast AFTER 911.

And what is this BS aboput "they were warned about hijackings, but had no clue that they would crash into buildings"? Does thamean that a regular hijacking was considered not important enough to stop? According to their reasoning, people being put into danger in a "normal" hijacking was not considered serious enough to investigate and attempt to prevent.

The means were in place to track down the terrorists befor 911, and it WAS NOT DONE.

I have listened to the excuse makers whine that hundreds of people come into this country and train at flight schools. Well, DUH. Almost everyone that does so in conjuction with an airline. That is why so many flight schools were alarmed by middle eastern students walking in with little or no flight experience, ploping down cash and demanding to be taught to fly (not land or take off~just fly). It would not have taken much effort to contact every flight school (there aren't tha many that teach jumbo jets) and ask about this form of behavior, get the names and track the "students down) as was done AFTER 911.

Also, why did Bush himself go to Congress and ask them to NOT investigate how and why the events of 911 came to be? Maybe he controlled the congress of Texas that way, but did he really expect the congress of the United States to ignore the situation and not ask questions?

That alone is enough to make a person wonder why he didn't want it investigated. Why didn't he want them to find out if that could prevent it from happening again?

Unless you are afraid to look, I suggest you read the anti-terrorism act implimented during the Clinton administration, with the safeguards set up that could have prevented the events of 911. Including the authority to hold and investigate people "suspected" of being involved in terrorists organizations around the world. I am sure most of you would be surprized at the ability the president, the authority the Attorney General holds to track down and hold, try and deport people who they find suspicious of "potential" terrorist acts. Bashing me with accuasations made up in your own mind does not and will not change the facts of what happened and what should have happened on or befor 911.

-- Cherri (whatever@who.cares), May 17, 2002.

“Also, why did Bush himself go to Congress and ask them to NOT investigate how and why the events of 911 came to be? Maybe he controlled the congress of Texas that way, but did he really expect the congress of the United States to ignore the situation and not ask questions?”


Care to elaborate on this? Some facts or something other than your misguided hatred.

-- Fact (head@case.analysis), May 17, 2002.

Cherri, you raise some very good points about Middle Eastern flight trainees. It looks like an astounding fuckup by the FBI.

But regarding your political viewpoint (Clinton good, Bush awful), didn't these questions first arise well back in the Clinton Administration?

-- Peter Errington (, May 17, 2002.

`Sec. 501. Definitions.
`Sec. 502. Establishment of special removal court.
`Sec. 503. Application for initiation of special removal proceeding.
`Sec. 504. Consideration of application.
`Sec. 505. Special removal hearings.
`Sec. 506. Appeals.';
(2) by adding at the end the following new title:
`SEC. 501. In this title:
`(1) The term `alien terrorist' means an alien described in section 241(a)(4)(B).
`(2) The term `classified information' has the meaning given such term in section 1(a) of the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.).
`(3) The term `national security' has the meaning given such term in section 1(b) of the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.).
`(4) The term `special removal court' means the court established under section 502(a).
`(5) The term `special removal hearing' means a hearing under section 505.
`(6) The term `special removal proceeding' means a proceeding under this title.

`SEC. 502. (a) IN GENERAL- The Chief Justice of the United States shall publicly designate 5 district court judges from 5 of the United States judicial circuits who shall constitute a court which shall have jurisdiction to conduct all special removal proceedings.
`(b) TERMS- Each judge designated under subsection (a) shall serve for a term of 5 years and shall be eligible for redesignation, except that the four associate judges first so designated shall be designated for terms of one, two, three, and four years so that the term of one judge shall expire each year.
`(c) CHIEF JUDGE- The Chief Justice shall publicly designate one of the judges of the special removal court to be the chief judge of the court. The chief judge shall promulgate rules to facilitate the functioning of the court and shall be responsible for assigning the consideration of cases to the various judges.
`(d) EXPEDITIOUS AND CONFIDENTIAL NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS- The provisions of section 103(c) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(c)) shall apply to proceedings under this title in the same manner as they apply to proceedings under such Act.
`SEC. 503. (a) IN GENERAL- Whenever the Attorney General has classified information that an alien is an alien terrorist, the Attorney General, in the Attorney General's discretion, may seek removal of the alien under this title through the filing with the special removal court of a written application described in subsection (b) that seeks an order authorizing a special removal proceeding under this title. The application shall be submitted in camera and ex parte and shall be filed under seal with the court.
`(b) CONTENTS OF APPLICATION- Each application for a special removal proceeding shall include all of the following:
`(1) The identity of the Department of Justice attorney making the application.
`(2) The approval of the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General for the filing of the application based upon a finding by that individual that the application satisfies the criteria and requirements of this title.
`(3) The identity of the alien for whom authorization for the special removal proceeding is sought.
`(4) A statement of the facts and circumstances relied on by the Department of Justice to establish that--
`(A) the alien is an alien terrorist and is physically present in the United States, and
`(B) with respect to such alien, adherence to the provisions of title II regarding the deportation of aliens would pose a risk to the national security of the United States.
`(5) An oath or affirmation respecting each of the facts and statements described in the previous paragraphs.
`(c) RIGHT TO DISMISS- The Department of Justice retains the right to dismiss a removal action under this title at any stage of the proceeding.

`SEC. 504. (a) IN GENERAL- In the case of an application under section 503 to the special removal court, a single judge of the court shall be assigned to consider the application. The judge, in accordance with the rules of the court, shall consider the application and may consider other information, including classified information,
presented under oath or affirmation. The judge shall consider the application (and any hearing thereof) in camera and ex parte. A verbatim record shall be maintained of any such hearing.
`(b) APPROVAL OF ORDER- The judge shall enter ex parte the order requested in the application if the judge finds, on the basis of such application and such other information (if any), that there is probable cause to believe that--
`(1) the alien who is the subject of the application has been correctly identified and is an alien terrorist, and
`(2) adherence to the provisions of title II regarding the deportation of the identified alien would pose a risk to the national security of the United States.
`(c) DENIAL OF ORDER- If the judge denies the order requested in the application, the judge shall prepare a written statement of the judge's reasons for the denial.
`SEC. 505. (a) IN GENERAL- In any case in which the application for the order is approved under section 504, a special removal hearing shall be conducted under this section for the purpose of determining whether the alien to whom the order pertains should be removed from the United States on the grounds that the alien is an alien terrorist. Consistent with section 506, the alien shall be given reasonable notice of the nature of the charges against the alien and a general account of the basis for the charges. The alien shall be given notice, reasonable under all the circumstances, of the time and place at which the hearing will be held. The hearing shall be held as expeditiously as possible.
`(b) USE OF SAME JUDGE- The special removal hearing shall be held before the same judge who granted the order pursuant to section 504 unless that judge is deemed unavailable due to illness or disability by the chief judge of the special removal court, or has died, in which case the chief judge shall assign another judge to conduct the special removal hearing. A decision by the chief judge pursuant to the preceding sentence shall not be subject to review by either the alien or the Department of Justice.
`(1) PUBLIC HEARING- The special removal hearing shall be open to the public.
`(2) RIGHT OF COUNSEL- The alien shall have a right to be present at such hearing and to be represented by counsel. Any alien financially unable to obtain counsel shall be entitled to have counsel assigned to represent the alien. Such counsel shall be appointed by the judge pursuant to the plan for furnishing representation for any person financially unable to obtain adequate representation for the district in which the hearing is conducted, as provided for in section 3006A of title 18, United States Code. All provisions of that section shall apply and, for purposes of determining the maximum amount of compensation, the matter shall be treated as if a felony was charged.
`(3) INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE- The alien shall have a right to introduce evidence on the alien's own behalf.
`(4) EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES- The alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against the alien and to cross-examine any witness.
`(5) RECORD- A verbatim record of the proceedings and of all testimony and evidence offered or produced at such a hearing shall be kept.
`(6) DECISION BASED ON EVIDENCE AT HEARING- The decision of the judge in the hearing shall be based only on the evidence introduced at the hearing.
`(1) REQUEST- At any time prior to the conclusion of the special removal hearing, either the alien or the Department of Justice may request the judge to issue a subpoena for the presence of a named witness (which subpoena may also command the person to whom it is directed to produce books, papers, documents, or other objects designated therein) upon a satisfactory showing that the presence of the witness is necessary for the determination of any material matter.
`(2) PAYMENT FOR ATTENDANCE- If an application for a subpoena by the alien also makes a showing that the alien is financially unable to pay for the attendance of a witness so requested, the court may order the costs incurred by the process and the fees of the witness so subpoenaed to be paid from funds appropriated for the enforcement of title II.
`(3) NATIONWIDE SERVICE- A subpoena under this subsection may be served anywhere in the United States.
`(4) WITNESS FEES- A witness subpoenaed under this subsection shall receive the same fees and expenses as a witness subpoenaed in connection with a civil proceeding in a court of the United States.
`(e) TREATMENT OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- The judge shall examine in camera and ex parte any item of classified information for which the Attorney General determines that public disclosure would pose a risk to the national security of the United States. With respect to such evidence, the Attorney General shall also submit to the court a summary prepared in accordance with subsection (f).
`(1) The information submitted under subsection (e) shall contain a summary of the information that does not pose a risk to the national security.
`(2) The judge shall approve the summary if the judge finds that the summary will provide the alien with substantially the same ability to make his defense as would disclosure of the specific classified information.
`(3) The Attorney General shall cause to be delivered to the alien a copy of the summary approved under paragraph (2).
`(g) DETERMINATION OF DEPORTATION- If the judge determines that the summary described in subsection (f) will provide the alien with substantially the same ability to make his defense as would the disclosure of the specific classified evidence, a determination of deportation may be made on the basis of the summary and any other evidence entered in the public record and to which the alien has been given access. If the judge does not approve the summary, a determination of deportation may be made on the basis of any other evidence entered in the public record and to which the alien has been given access. In either case, such a determination will be made when the Attorney General proves, by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence that the alien is subject to deportation because such alien is an alien as described in section 241(a)(4)(B).

-- Cherri (whatever@who.cares), May 17, 2002.

What’s your point you dumb cunt!!

-- Oink (oink@welfare.hog), May 17, 2002.

“Also, why did Bush himself go to Congress and ask them to NOT investigate how and why the events of 911 came to be? Maybe he controlled the congress of Texas that way, but did he really expect the congress of the United States to ignore the situation and not ask questions?”


Care to elaborate on this? Some facts or something other than your misguided hatred.

Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes

Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes

January 29, 2002 Posted: 9:26 PM EST (0226 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11, congressional and White House sources told CNN.

The request was made at a private meeting with congressional leaders Tuesday morning. Sources said Bush initiated the conversation.

He asked that only the House and Senate intelligence committees look into the potential breakdowns among federal agencies that could have allowed the terrorist attacks to occur, rather than a broader inquiry that some lawmakers have proposed, the sources said

Tuesday's discussion followed a rare call to Daschle from Vice President Dick Cheney last Friday to make the same request.

"The vice president expressed the concern that a review of what happened on September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism," Daschle told reporters.

But, Daschle said, he has not agreed to limit the investigation.

"I acknowledged that concern, and it is for that reason that the Intelligence Committee is going to begin this effort, trying to limit the scope and the overall review of what happened," said Daschle, D-South Dakota.

"But clearly, I think the American people are entitled to know what happened and why," he said.

Cheney met last week in the Capitol with the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees and, according to a spokesman for Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham, D-Florida, "agreed to cooperate with their effort."

The heads of both intelligence committees have been meeting to map out a way to hold a bipartisan House-Senate investigation and hearings.

They were discussing how the inquiry would proceed, including what would be made public, what would remain classified, and how broad the probe would be.

Graham's spokesman said the committees will review intelligence matters only.

"How ill prepared were we and why? We are looking towards the possibility of addressing systemic problems through legislation," said spokesman Paul Anderson.

Some Democrats, such as Sens. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, have been calling for a broad inquiry looking at various federal government agencies beyond the intelligence community.

"We do not meet our responsibilities to the American people if we do not take an honest look at the federal government and all of its agencies and let the country know what went wrong," Torricelli said.

"The best assurance that there's not another terrorist attack on the United States is not simply to hire more federal agents or spend more money. It's to take an honest look at what went wrong. Who or what failed? There's an explanation owed to the American people," he said.

Although the president and vice president told Daschle they were worried a wide-reaching inquiry could distract from the government's war on terrorism, privately Democrats questioned why the White House feared a broader investigation to determine possible culpability.

"We will take a look at the allocation of resources. Ten thousand federal agents -- where were they? How many assets were used, and what signals were missed?" a Democratic senator told CNN.

-- CNN Capitol Hill Producer Dana Bash and CNN Correspondents Jon Karl and John King contributed to this report.

-- Cherri (whatever@who.cares), May 17, 2002.


Let's do these one at a time.

Several people have asked you to post a link -- ANY link -- to the assertion that you made in another thread, namely, that the Bush Jr. Administration told the Taliban that they would "pave the streets with bombs" if they didn't agree to the Unocal pipeline.

You even went so far as to say that this was "not in dispute" (your exact words).

Where's the link? That's not a difficult request.

-- Stephen (, May 17, 2002.

I messed that up, it was pave your streets with gold or you would recieve a "carpet of bombs" Try looking up "carpet of bombs"

-- Cherri (whatever@who.cares), May 17, 2002.


I know the quote and I know where it comes from: the book "Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth," by two French authors. As usual, I was making a point.

You're being disingenuous by not posting a link, because you know as well as I that, at present, most of those links are to rabid anti-Bush sites (like and the usual NWO/Awl Men/Conspiracy joints. The book is not scheduled to be published in the US until later this year/

These anti-Bush sites are madly spinning the angle mentioned here (in this thread and others): it was all about oil, and that pipeline, with the (usual) tie-in all the way back to Cheney's energy taskforce and the decision to focus on Central Asian, rather than Middle Eastern, oil.

It's all about that pipeline. The PIPELINE. The world revolves around the thing, according to them.

This take on it most assuredly HAS been disputed. The threat to attack Afghanistan was made to get the Taliban to to TURN OVER BIN LADEN, *not* to get them to build that pipeline.

See interview with the authors at Salon (not exactly a pro-Bush Website[g]) in which they clarify this. I quote:

Dasquie: The area was of enormous strategic concern to many nations. The U.N. "six plus two" group [made up of the six countries that border Afghanistan, plus the United States and Russia] had tried to persuade the Taliban to take back the Afghan king in exchange for recognition. The biggest mistake of the U.N. and the U.S. was to consider the Taliban as independent and able to negotiate. Nobody saw the reality of the relationship between Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. So when the U.N.'s six-plus-two group and the U.S. said accept the king and give us Osama, it was incredible; it was like asking them to kill themselves.

At that point, Al Qaeda and the Taliban *activated* a preemptive attack on the WTC -- which had been planned for months *BEFORE THIS REQUEST HAD EVER BEEN MADE.

(You seem to have missed that, and in fact, even the authors seem to have overlooked the chronology here. The Al Qaeda operatives who flew those planes had been training for months *BEFORE* the "carpet of bombs" statement was ever made.)

If you read this interview with the authors, you have been warned: the book actually traces the root of the problem back into the CLINTON administration, not Bush's. :)

CLINTON was the one who decided to appease the Saudis, so that the oil would continue to flow at a reasonable price (remember, the key to his political success and survivability through all those Republican witch-hunts was the booming economy, WHICH DEPENDS ON CHEAP ENERGY).

More to the point, the CLINTON administration was the one which squelched the investigation into the Cole bombing, because they knew that the Saudis were backing the Taliban, and Clinton didn't want to open that can of worms.

But all of this is beside the point. The fact is, we made mistakes in the Gulf War (one State Department flunkie TOLD Saadaam that we probably "wouldn't attack" if he invaded Kuwait!). And -- here's that history thing again -- we directly provoked the Japanese just prior to Pearl Harbor, KNOWING that it might push them into attacking us.

(In particular, we cut off their oil and steel shipments. They HAD to have those to survive. So, they said "Climb Mount Niitaka," Pearl Harbor was attacked ... and four years later, we had crushed them.)

And you know what? I don't care who said what to the Taliban or Bin Laden, or when they said it. (That's assuming, mind you, that we can trust their account of the thing, which I do NOT grant by default.) They attacked and killed thousands of innocent Americans.

Same as the Japanese, they had to pay for that.

Now, failures of intelligence need to be investigated here, no denying that. But it's time to put all this conspiracy nonsense to rest.

-- Stephen M. Poole (, May 18, 2002.

You say I am using conspiracy sites for my information, yet you show something from Saloon.

More to the point, the CLINTON administration was the one which squelched the investigation into the Cole bombing because they knew that the Saudis were backing the Taliban, and Clinton didn't want to open that can of worms.Where did THIS come from?

-- Cherri (whatever@who.cares), May 18, 2002.

Trying to dent the armor of popular president has always been an uphill battle for the opposition but this effort is a hoot.

-- Carlos (, May 18, 2002.


From the very authors of the book that your buddies are quoting on the "carpet of bombs" thing. :)

The authors have done interviews on radio; I'm not aware of any on the Web yet (save for this Salon link), but that'll change by this summer, when the book is released here. You people who are hoping that it'll be a slam-dunk against Bush are going to be disappointed, because they blame Clinton, Bush, the United States, Russia and even the UN in general.

(You have been warned.)

I personally think that maybe it's a stretch to say that Clinton "squelched" it (although, according to the authors, that's the word that frustrated investigators used). And to be sure, Bush didn't want to go there, either.

Bush, same as Clinton, failed to see the link between Al Qaeda and the Talibam, and was trying diplomatic overtures. Now there, I can fault neither; isn't that preferable to war?

Bush offered a carrot and stick to the Taliban: give us Bin Laden, we'll help you build a pipeline and get rich; but keep Bin Laden, and we'll destroy you.

Again: see the quote above.

Re: the USS Cole. Once Clinton knew that Bin Laden was behind it, he basically stopped. He didn't WANT to learn of the links between Bin Laden's organization and the Saudis, because his administration -- just like Bush's -- depended on cheap energy to keep the economy booming.

The people who bombed the Cole certainly had Saudi help, as did the hijackers who attacked the WTC.

Once again, the Democrats had better be very, very careful trying to pursue this, because -- once again -- there are just as many skeletons in their closets as in the Republicans. Maybe they're a different size, maybe they're a different color; but they ARE there.

One day, maybe, you will finally see this and I can stop repeating it.

-- Stephen (, May 18, 2002.


Some other thoughts while I wait for Sandy to finish her shower so we can go shopping. :)

First, yes, I used Salon -- generally regarded as a Democratic-leaning site -- just for you.[g] (What, would you rather I used World Nut Daily?) Salon isn't a conspiracy site; comparing it to is silly.

Second, let me (one more time!) explain what I've been trying to get across since the election two years ago, when you, Paul, Doc and Patricia were apparently shocked that I'd vote for Bush, Jr.

Cherri, the Democratic party has changed. Drastically -- and Clinton was one of the driving forces behind this. In the early 90's, he coined the "new Democrat" label and supported things like welfare reform, anti-protectionist trade policy (ie, NAFTA) and helping big business overseas -- things that would have been anathema to the Democratic party of the 70's and 80's.

In fact, there are very few issues on which the Democrats, as a group, haven't changed position. The environment is one; taxing the wealthy is another. They're still Democrats there. :)

But look at the Bankruptcy Reform Act, which was passed by Republicans AND DEMOCRATS. Clinton refused to sign it -- to his credit -- but that wasn't just a "Republican scam." That should have been an epiphany to you, especially if you'd traced the money. If you had, you'd have seen that there were just as many Democrats with banking money in their pockets as Republicans.

And yet, you won't say a word about that.

So with health care reform. Hillary tried to go WAY too far, which is why her scheme crashed and burned, but we still need SOMETHING. The Democrats aren't even talking about it now ... and once again, I suggest you look at their pockets. You'll see bucks from Kaiser Permanente and other HMOs.

Clinton changed the Democratic party in a fundamental way. He proved the old salt about people "voting their pocketbooks." Remember, at that time, the Democrats had just been through a very bad period which didn't really end until after the mid-term debacle of 1994.

Clinton survived that fiasco by finally brow-beating the Democratic party into moving toward centrism (or even conservativism) on most issues, while retaining a few positions to keep the traditionalists happy (again, like the environment).

And it WORKED.

Now: the point of this rant is that, if you start looking for Oil Men conspiracies and the like, you're going to find Clinton's and Gore's hands all over the place, too. Clinton was in bed with Ken Lay, too; he helped Enron move into India, for example.

Clinton and Gore both understood that energy was vital to a good economy. They managed to convince most congressional Democrats to their point of view, too.

While there were a few differences between the Democrats and Republicans (again, particularly on the environment), I just didn't see stark contrasts there in the 2000 election. Most Americans didn't.

Even Democratic strategists didn't, so they had to resort to silliness like claiming Bush was stupid (which he is NOT), or that he was a drunk (ditto) and the like.

So, I voted for the guy whose positions were closer to my own: Bush. But I also said that if Gore were elected, I wouldn't consider it the end of the world, did I not?

And now you know WHY I said that.

Actually, I think it's time for you to come clean and admit that you are a Democratic activist up in Washington State. You have become a mouthpiece for the dirtiest (and silliest) of Democratic attacks on a guy who, at the end of the day, is really only different by degree from the one you supported (Gore)!

Epiphany. I'm a little slow; it took a while for me to put two and two together, but this also explains why you refuse to acknowledge several key points made here and elsewhere; for example, the FACTs that

1 - the Clinton administration was the one who pushed that Unocal pipeline through Afghanistan. Bush simply continued (sure with a few changes) a policy that had been in effect for years.

2 - Al Qaeda had obviously been planning the suicide attacks for some time long before August 2001, when the "carpet of bombs" statement was allegedly made. You are DELIBERATELY spinning this to put Bush in the worst possible light. DELIBERATELY. WITH MALICE AND FORETHOUGHT.

Just two examples of many.

But the next time you are baffled at why otherwise sensible people like me won't buy into your rage against the Bush machine, you might consider this.

Democrats and Republicans have BOTH sold out to special interests. Until the American people care and get involved in the political process again with a meaningful, non-partisan call for real election and campaign reform, that will continue.

-- Stephen (, May 18, 2002.

The plot culminating on 9-11 was two years in the making.

-- Peter Errington (, May 18, 2002.

Being somewhat short on time I merely scanned this thread. Nice to see all the arguing, venom, and hatred. And just when I thought the place might get dull.

-- Uncle Deedah (, May 18, 2002.

Good stuff Stephen.

-- Carlos (, May 19, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ