Gee, Thanks "Bill Clinton, Hours Before 9/11 Attacks: 'I Could Have Killed' Osama bin Laden"

Search

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
Guesser doesn't get it and he never will. Attacking the USA on 9/11 was not about politics it was about an avowed hatred of the USA and everything it stands for. Until it happened this country was not going to take Islam seriously as a threat to our native soil. It is the hindsight of all time to look back and blame any one person because we as a nation had a false sense of trust in our security. Now it is all on the table and all bets are off. Clinton could have done this and Bush could have done that, it is like playing the same hand over and over. The only thing that came out of 9/11 is a renewed sense of awareness that terrorism is capable of much more than we ever thought up until then.

Guesser is the most predictable idiot in the place. Only a looney tune keeps linking political views with "sanity" over and over again. And Willie don't you know that you can't bring up Obama in a thread without first consulting Guesser, LOL. Obama drops the ball just about daily and here we have a Nobel Peace Prize winner who can't get anything right when it comes to World politics. He has become a laughing stock in the eyes of the world. At least Bush did not trade 5 top terrorists for a Bergdahl and would not have allowed Benghazi to come down as it did. All this immigration smoke and mirrors is probably just a last chance shot at justifying his peace prize. One thing is for sure there is not peace in Washington DC or on our borders and it is all on Obama. I wish Clinton or Bush was still in office at this time because Obama makes them look superior in every way. Can you imagine if Obama would have been President on 9/11 OMG.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
Lol, Russ still bringing up Benghazi. It's hilarious how brainwashed this cult is. Not enough tin foil in the world to help them.
 
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
5,579
Tokens
Lol, Russ still bringing up Benghazi. It's hilarious how brainwashed this cult is. Not enough tin foil in the world to help them.
What I find hilarious about his post is that he says we shouldn't blame just one person for the attacks and not getting Bin Laden, but instead of addressing the person who started the thread blaming one person, he attacks Guesser. Why didn't Russ direct his post towards Ace who was the first to blame one person and the one who started the thread blaming one person?
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
Lol, Russ still bringing up Benghazi. It's hilarious how brainwashed this cult is. Not enough tin foil in the world to help them.

Loon Russ will connect the dots and blame Obama for 911. :):). And the amen chorus down here will endorse it.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
What I find hilarious about his post is that he says we shouldn't blame just one person for the attacks and not getting Bin Laden, but instead of addressing the person who started the thread blaming one person, he attacks Guesser. Why didn't Russ direct his post towards Ace who was the first to blame one person and the one who started the thread blaming one person?

He did not start this thread blaming one person he merely connected the dots to include Clinton. It was not just one person's fault. It is your post that is hilarious you stretched it out of proportion but that is what you guys do. Are you saying Clinton deserves a pass. Get real dude. Ace did nothing wrong. You guys did a Yogi Berra and took the wrong fork in the road.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
Lol, Russ still bringing up Benghazi. It's hilarious how brainwashed this cult is. Not enough tin foil in the world to help them.

You really don't get it and you continue to show it. Benghazi is not going to go away, it happened and it should have been avoided. Obama couldn't handle Benghazi and he damned sure would have been lost after 9/11. Brainwashed is someone who ignore facts and Benghazi is a fact. Cult that would be you and your fellow sheep. You are probably still looking for little Bo Beep. Bergdahl is probably a hero to you guys LOL.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
You really don't get it and you continue to show it. Benghazi is not going to go away, it happened and it should have been avoided. Obama couldn't handle Benghazi and he damned sure would have been lost after 9/11. Brainwashed is someone who ignore facts and Benghazi is a fact. Cult that would be you and your fellow sheep. You are probably still looking for little Bo Beep. Bergdahl is probably a hero to you guys LOL.

Benghazi has gone away except for the extreme nutters. It's a non issue to the vast majority of the voting public.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
What I find hilarious about his post is that he says we shouldn't blame just one person for the attacks and not getting Bin Laden, but instead of addressing the person who started the thread blaming one person, he attacks Guesser. Why didn't Russ direct his post towards Ace who was the first to blame one person and the one who started the thread blaming one person?

what I find interesting is how you run around this forum concerned about how I treat your boys, or how condescending I am, or how I never call out somebody from the right, yet you are all of that times 10. Everything you say I do, you do yourself and your cult is far worse.

it's particularly interesting you do such in a thread where I actually dissented from the OP, what's your point again you're trying to make? I don't voice my disagreement with voices from the right just as I'm in here disagreeing with a voice from the right?

damn, more of that there left wing brilliance at work
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
[h=1]Clarke's Take On Terror[/h] What Bush's Ex-Adviser Says About Efforts to Stop War On Terror

  • 2004 Mar 19
  • Correspondent Rebecca Leung

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

The charge comes from the adviser, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes.

The administration maintains that it cannot find any evidence that the conversation about an Iraq-9/11 tie-in ever took place.

Clarke also tells CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl that White House officials were tepid in their response when he urged them months before Sept. 11 to meet to discuss what he saw as a severe threat from al Qaeda.

"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

The No. 2 man on the president's National Security Council, Stephen Hadley, vehemently disagrees. He says Mr. Bush has taken the fight to the terrorists, and is making the U.S. homeland safer.
Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.

Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking.

Clarke is due to testify this week before the special panel probing whether the attacks were preventable.

His allegations are also made in a book, "Against All Enemies," by Free Press, a subsidiary of Simon & Schuster. Both CBSNews.com and Simon & Schuster are units of Viacom.

Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorism czar, then held over again by the current President Bush.

In the 60 Minutes interview and the book, Clarke tells what happened behind the scenes at the White House before, during and after Sept. 11.

When the terrorists struck, it was thought the White House would be the next target, so it was evacuated. Clarke was one of only a handful of people who stayed behind. He ran the government's response to the attacks from the Situation Room in the West Wing.

"I kept thinking of the words from 'Apocalypse Now,' the whispered words of Marlon Brando, when he thought about Vietnam. 'The horror. The horror.' Because we knew what was going on in New York. We knew about the bodies flying out of the windows. People falling through the air. We knew that Osama bin Laden had succeeded in bringing horror to the streets of America," he tells Stahl.
After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."
Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.

"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

When Stahl pointed out that some administration officials say it's still an open issue, Clarke responded, "Well, they'll say that until hell freezes over."

By June 2001, there still hadn't been a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism, even though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented level of ominous chatter.

The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August."

Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.

Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden.

The president's new campaign ads highlight his handling of Sept. 11 -- which has become the centerpiece of his bid for re-election.

"You are writing this book in the middle of this campaign," Stahl tells Clarke. "The timing, I'm sure, you will be questioned about and criticized for. Why are you doing it now?"

"Well, I'm sure I'll be criticized for lots of things," says Clarke. "And I'm sure they'll launch their dogs on me."

Does a person who works for the White House owe the president his loyalty?

"Yes ... Up to a point. When the president starts doing things that risk American lives, then loyalty to him has to be put aside," says Clarke. "I think the way he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11 has made us less safe. Absolutely."

Hadley staunchly defended the president to Stahl: "The president heard those warnings. The president met daily with ... George Tenet and his staff. They kept him fully informed and at one point the president became somewhat impatient with us and said, 'I'm tired of swatting flies. Where's my new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda?'"

Hadley says that, contrary to Clarke's assertion, Mr. Bush didn't ignore the ominous intelligence chatter in the summer of 2001.

"All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas. But interestingly enough, the president got concerned about whether there was the possibility of an attack on the homeland. He asked the intelligence community: 'Look hard. See if we're missing something about a threat to the homeland.'

"And at that point various alerts went out from the Federal Aviation Administration to the FBI saying the intelligence suggests a threat overseas. We don't want to be caught unprepared. We don't want to rule out the possibility of a threat to the homeland. And therefore preparatory steps need to be made. So the president put us on battle stations."

Hadley asserts Clarke is "just wrong" in saying the administration didn't go to battle stations.

As for the alleged pressure from Mr. Bush to find an Iraq-9/11 link, Hadley says, "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."

When told by Stahl that 60 Minutes has two sources who tell us independently of Clarke that the encounter happened, including "an actual witness," Hadley responded, "Look, I stand on what I said."

Hadley maintained, "Iraq, as the president has said, is at the center of the war on terror. We have narrowed the ground available to al Qaeda and to the terrorists. Their sanctuary in Afghanistan is gone; their sanctuary in Iraq is gone. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are now allies on the war on terror. So Iraq has contributed in that way in narrowing the sanctuaries available to terrorists."
Does Clarke think that Iraq, the Middle East and the world is better off with Saddam Hussein out of power?

"I think the world would be better off if a number of leaders around the world were out of power. The question is what price should the United States pay," says Clarke. "The price we paid was very, very high, and we're still paying that price for doing it."

"Osama bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country. He had been saying this. This is part of his propaganda," adds Clarke.

"So what did we do after 9/11? We invade an oil-rich and occupy an oil-rich Arab country which was doing nothing to threaten us. In other words, we stepped right into bin Laden's propaganda. And the result of that is that al Qaeda and organizations like it, offshoots of it, second-generation al Qaeda have been greatly strengthened."

When Clarke worked for Mr. Clinton, he was known as the terrorism czar. When Mr. Bush came into office, though remaining at the White House, Clarke was stripped of his Cabinet-level rank.

Stahl said to Clarke, "They demoted you. Aren't you open to charges that this is all sour grapes, because they demoted you and reduced your leverage, your power in the White House?"

Clarke's answer: "Frankly, if I had been so upset that the National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism had been downgraded from a Cabinet level position to a staff level position, if that had bothered me enough, I would have quit. I didn't quit."

Until two years later, after 30 years in government service.

A senior White House official told 60 Minutes he thinks the Clarke book is an audition for a job in the Kerry campaign.

"I'm an independent. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign," says Clarke. "I have worked for Ronald Reagan. I have worked for George Bush the first, I have worked for George Bush the second. I'm not participating in this campaign, but I am putting facts out that I think people ought to know."

60 Minutes received a note from the Pentagon saying: "Any suggestion that the president did anything other than act aggressively, quickly and effectively to address the al Qaeda and Taliban threat in Afghanistan is absurd."
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
Benghazi has gone away except for the extreme nutters. It's a non issue to the vast majority of the voting public.

Of course it has. They released yet ANOTHER Bi Partisan report on it last week. Of course never good enough for the Wingnuts, so we'll have yet ANOTHER Taxpayer wasting committee on a settled issue, just for the nutcases like Russ, who will never believe the truth, but need to hear lies that back up their conspiracy theories, so they can blame something else on Obama.




[h=1]Move To Declassify Latest Benghazi Report Undercuts Conspiracy Claims Yet Again[/h] Posted: 07/31/2014 10:55 am EDT Updated: 08/01/2014 3:59 pm EDT






WASHINGTON -- The House Intelligence Committee voted Thursday to declassify its investigative Benghazi report, a move that likely further undercuts the premise behind the House's $3.3 million Benghazi select committee.
When it is released, the report will mark the fourth major probe of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the American consulate in eastern Libya, all of which have identified flaws in the responses, the intelligence and the security surrounding the incident that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stephens.
But none of the reports have found any wrongdoing or hints of conspiracy that the recently created House Benghazi select committee is tasked with unmasking.

The House Armed Services Committee found the military did all that it could to intervene. It also discredited the claim that someone ordered military forces to stand down. The State Department's legally mandated Accountability Review Board investigation came to similar conclusions, led by Ambassador Tom Pickering and retired Adm. Michael Mullen, former Reagan and Bush administration officials.

A Senate Intelligence Committee review achieved similar results.
It is unclear exactly when the Intelligence Committee report will be released, or how much will be declassified after vetting by intelligence officials.
But one member of both the House Intelligence Committee and the Benghazi panel said it will be very much in line with its predecessors.
"The Intelligence Committee report adds to the body of investigative work now completed by numerous committees in Congress, and reaches the same noncontroversial conclusions -- that the initial talking points provided by the intelligence community were flawed because of conflicting assessments not an intention to deceive, that there was no stand down order, that the diplomatic facilities lacked adequate security, and that our personnel at the scene acted bravely and appropriately," said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) in a statement.
"This bipartisan report should be declassified quickly, so that the American people may know what we have learned behind closed doors, and how it concurs with other analysis already made public," he added.
The plan to release the report was so uncontroversial among the secrecy-minded committee members that it passed on a simple voice vote.
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, noted that the new report would be the latest to show the exact opposite of what Boehner said the select committee would prove. Cummings has often sparred with Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) on Benghazi claims.

"The Benghazi Select Committee was created more than two months ago, but Republican committee chairmen who were passed over continue to hold their own hearings, release their own transcripts, and issue their own reports -- achieving exactly the opposite result Speaker Boehner promised when he created the Select Committee and authorized its $3.3 million budget."
UPDATE: 2:50 p.m. -- A statement released later by the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.), was more emphatic and detailed in asserting a lack of any sort of cover-up, including on the much-maligned talking points that the White House used initially linking the attack to a YouTube video.
Here is the full statement:
"The House Intelligence Committee spent nearly two years looking at every aspect of the Intelligence Community's activities before, during and after the attacks of September 11, 2012, in Benghazi Libya. The Committee spent thousands of hours in the course of the investigation, which included poring over pages of intelligence assessments, cables, notes and emails. The Committee held twenty briefings and hearings and conducted detailed interviews with senior intelligence officials and eyewitnesses to the attacks, including eight security personnel on the ground in Benghazi that night. The result is a bipartisan, factual, definitive report on what the Intelligence Community did and did not do.
This report shows that there was no intelligence failure surrounding the Benghazi attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans. Our investigation found the Intelligence Community warned about an increased threat environment, but did not have specific tactical warning of an attack before it happened, Americans which is consistent with testimony that the attacks appeared to be opportunistic. It also found that a mixed group of individuals including those associated with Al-Qaeda, Qadafi loyalists and other Libyan militias participated in the attack. Additionally, the report shows there was no "stand down order" given to American personnel attempting to offer assistance that evening, and no American was left behind.
The report also shows that the process used to develop the talking points was flawed, but that the talking points reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis. Finally, the report demonstrates that there was no illegal activity or illegal arms sales occurring at U.S. facilities in Benghazi. And there was absolutely no evidence, in documents or testimony, that the Intelligence Community's assessments were politically motivated in any way.
This bi-partisan report, adopted unanimously on July 31, 2014, and sent to the Intelligence Community for a declassification review, recognizes that only with a full accounting of the facts, separate from the swirl of rumors and unsupported allegations that have surfaced, can America ensure that tragedies like this don't happen again."
Michael McAuliff covers Congress and politics for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
I rely on experts, like Richard Clarke, to tell me how National security works, and who dropped the ball on 911.
You are so hung up on your irrational Obama hate, you let it steer you in wrong directions. To call me an Obama lover is absurd, and you're falling into the nonsense that far less intelligent posters than you in here fall into, that if you don't Hate Obama on EVERY matter, and Don't think he's a traitorous Kenyan Muslim, then you love him. I would expect a clueless idiot like Wrong Way to bring up Obama in a thread that has nothing to do with him, as he did, not you.

Richard Clarke has the same agenda you do, and he gets on TV. So he's an expert in your view. Again, my post was not about politics but culture and missed opportunities to thwart 9/11 due to the way we viewed hijackings in the past. You decided to post that stupid security warning for the umpteenth time when bin laden had been attacking US interests for years.

I don't irrationally hate Obama. I dislike him intensely, and I dislike the US State Dept even more. But I dislike Obama for valid reasons and my posts regarding why are in the forum. He's a shit president and you're head is a mile up his ass. But yet you don't love him. You're accusing me of nonsense when the only reason we're in this conversation is your nonsensical response to my first post.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
I didn't blame Clinton, Bush, D or R for 9/11. That's a Guesser's game. It is a known fact that our current 'Ally' Qatar helped Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the planner of 9/11 escape mere days before the FBI (under Clinton in 1996) went there to pick him up. Did I ever post it was Clinton's fault the FBI didn't move faster? No, because it's speculati,er,Guessering. Meanwhile Obama is still licking Qatari Qock, and his State Dept Scum are telling Israel to "do more" to avoid the deaths of civilians their own al Queda holds in their arms when they fire at Israeli civilians.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
The vast majority of the following timeline took place when who was president?

Early 1994-January 1995: 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed lives in the Philippines for a year, planning the Bojinka plot until the plot is exposed and he has to flee (see January 6, 1995). Police later say he lives a very expensive and non-religious lifestyle. He meets in karaoke bars and go-go clubs, dates go-go dancers, stays in four-star hotels, and takes scuba diving lessons. Once he rents a helicopter just to fly it past the window of a girlfriend's office in an attempt to impress her. This appears to be a pattern; for instance he has a big drinking party in 1998. [Los Angeles Times, 6/24/02]

Officials believe his obvious access to large sums of money indicate that some larger network is backing him by this time. It has been suggested that Mohammed, a Pakistani, is able "to operate as he pleased in Pakistan" in the 1990s [Los Angeles Times, 6/24/02], and even is linked to the Pakistani ISI (see June 4, 2002). Could the ISI be backing him at this early date? His hedonistic time in the Philippines resembles reports of hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi in the Philippines (see 1998-2000). Mohammed returns to the Philippines occasionally, even being spotted there after 9/11. [Knight Ridder, 9/9/02] He almost gets caught while visiting an old girlfriend there in 1999, and fails in a second plot to kill the Pope when the Pope cancels his visit to the Philippines that year. [Los Angeles Times, 9/1/02, London Times, 11/10/02] Does Mohammed meet the hijackers in the Philippines?

ramziyousef.jpg

Ramzi Yousef. [BBC]
January 6, 1995: While investigating a possible assassination plan against the Pope, Philippine police uncover plans for Operation Bojinka, an al-Qaeda operation led by 1993 WTC bomber Ramzi Yousef (see February 26, 1993) and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (see Early 1994-January 1995). [Independent, 6/6/02, Los Angeles Times, 6/24/02, Los Angeles Times, 9/1/02] The plan is to explode 11 or 12 passenger planes over the Pacific Ocean simultaneously. [Agence France Presse, 12/8/01] If successful, up to 4,000 people would have been killed in planes flying to Los Angeles, San Francisco, Honolulu and New York. [Insight, 5/27/02]

Operation Bojinka was scheduled to go forward just two weeks later on January 21. Apparently a plan was also found for a second phase of attacks. [The Cell, John Miller, Michael Stone and Chris Mitchell, 8/02, p. 124, Insight, 5/27/02] In this phase, planes would be hijacked and flown into civilian targets. The WTC, CIA headquarters, Pentagon and the Sears Tower are mentioned as specific targets. [Agence France Presse, 12/8/01] One pilot, Abdul Hakim Murad, who learned to fly in US flight schools, confesses that his role was to crash a plane into the CIA headquarters as part of this phase of attacks. [Washington Post, 9/23/01]

An interrogation report from 1995 states: "[Murad] will hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters. There will be no bomb or any explosive that he will use in its execution. It is simply a suicidal mission that he is very much willing to execute." [Insight, 5/27/02] A Philippine investigator said on the day of 9/11: "It's Bojinka." He later says: "We told the Americans everything about Bojinka. Why didn't they pay attention?" [Washington Post, 9/23/01] Philippines Chief Police Superintendent Avelino Razon says there is "too much coincidence" between 9/11 and Bojinka. [Insight, 5/27/02] FTW

February 7, 1995: Terrorist Ramzi Yousef is arrested in Pakistan (see February 26, 1993 and January 6, 1995). The next day, as Yousef is flying over New York City on his way to a prison cell, an FBI agent says to Yousef, "You see the Trade Centers down there, they're still standing, aren't they?" Yousef responds, "They wouldn't be if I had enough money and enough explosives." [MSNBC, 9/23/01, The Cell, John Miller, Michael Stone and Chris Mitchell, 8/02, p. 135]

Spring 1995: In the wake of the uncovering of the Operation Bojinka plot, a letter written by the terrorists who planned the failed 1993 WTC bombing (see February 26, 1993) is found on a computer disk in the Philippines. This letter warns that future attacks would be more precise and they would continue to target the WTC if their demands were not met. This letter was never sent, but its contents are revealed in 1998 congressional testimony. [Congressional Hearings, 2/24/98] The Manila, Philippines police chief also reports discovering a statement from bin Laden around this time that although they failed to blow up the WTC in 1993, "on the second attempt they would be successful." [AFP, 9/13/01] Why wasn't security at the WTC noticeably improved after these revelations, or later?

ksmwanted_small.jpg

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, from a 1998 FBI wanted poster.​
January-May 1996: In the months after uncovering Operation Bojinka in the Philippines (see January 6, 1995), nearly all of its major planners, including Ramzi Yousef, are found and arrested.

The one exception is 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. He flees to Qatar in the Persian Gulf, where he lives openly using his real name, enjoying the patronage of Abdallah bin Khalid al-Thani, Qatar's Interior Minister and a member of the royal family. [ABC News, 2/7/03] In January 1996, he is indicted in the US for his role in the 1993 WTC bombing, and in the same month the US determines his location in Qatar. FBI Director Louis Freeh sends a letter to the Qatari government asking for permission to send a team after him. [Los Angeles Times, 12/22/02]One of Freeh's diplomatic notes states that Mohammed was involved in a conspiracy to "bomb US airliners" and is believed to be "in the process of manufacturing an explosive device." [New Yorker, 5/27/02]

Qatar confirms that Mohammed is there and is making an explosive, but they delay in handing him over. After waiting several months, a high level meeting takes place in Washington to consider a commando raid to seize him. But the raid is deemed too risky, and another letter is sent to the Qatari government instead. One person at the meeting later states, "If we had gone in and nabbed this guy, or just cut his head off, the Qatari government would not have complained a bit. Everyone around the table for their own reasons refused to go after someone who fundamentally threatened American interests...." [Los Angeles Times, 12/22/02]

Around May 1996, Mohammed's patron Abdallah bin Khalid al-Thani
makes sure that Mohammed and four others are given blank passports and a chance to escape. Qatar's police chief later says the other men include
Ayman al-Zawahiri and Mohammed Atef, al-Qaeda's number two and number three leaders respectively (see also Late 1998 (E)). [Los Angeles Times, 9/1/02, ABC News, 2/7/03] In late 1997 former CIA agent Robert Baer learns how the Qataris helped Mohammed escape and passes the information to the CIA, but they appear uninterested (see December 1997). Bin Laden twice visits al-Thani in Qatar. [New York Times, 6/8/02, ABC News, 2/7/03] Does the US miss a chance to catch bin Laden by not caring about al-Thani?After leaving Qatar, Mohammed takes part in many terrorist acts (see Mid-1996-September 11, 2001).


ksmreward.jpg

The 1998 reward poster for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. [FBI]
Mid-1996-September 11, 2001: After fleeing Qatar (see January-May 1996), 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed travels the world and plans many terror acts. He is apparently involved in the 1998 US embassy bombings (see August 7, 1998), the 2000 USS Cole bombing (see October 12, 2000) and other attacks. He previously was involved in the 1993 WTC bombing (see February 26, 1993) and the Bojinka plot (see January 6, 1995). [Time, 1/20/03] One US official says, "There is a clear operational link between him and the execution of most, if not all, of the al-Qaeda plots over the past five years." [Los Angeles Times, 12/22/02] He lives in Prague, Czech Republic, through much of 1997. [Los Angeles Times, 9/1/02]

By 1999 he is living in Germany and visiting with the hijackers there (see 1999 (K)). [New York Times, 9/22/02]
Using 60 aliases and as many passports, he travels through Europe, Africa, the Persian Gulf, Southeast Asia and South America, personally setting up al-Qaeda cells. [Los Angeles Times, 12/22/02, Time, 1/20/03] The US announces a $2 million reward for his capture in 1998. [New York Times, 6/5/02] But supposedly, US investigators only learn of Mohammed's large role in al-Qaeda after 9/11. [Committee Findings, 12/11/02, Los Angeles Times, 12/22/02] However, one official says, "We have been after him for years, and to say that we weren't is just wrong. We had identified him as a major al-Qaeda operative before Sept. 11." [New York Times, 9/22/02]

If reports are true that Mohammed is given protection by Pakistan (Early 1994-January 1995), and is possibly even an ISI agent (see June 4, 2002), doesn't that make Pakistan responsible for all of these terrorist acts?


abdullah_althani.jpg

Abdallah al-Thani [ABC News]​
December 1997: CIA agent Robert Baer (see also August 2001 (G) and January 23, 2002), newly retired from the CIA and working as a terrorism consultant, meets a former police chief from the Persian Gulf nation of Qatar. He learns how 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was sheltered from the FBI by the Qatari Interior Minister Abdallah bin Khalid al-Thani (see January-May 1996). He passes this information to the CIA in early 1998, but the CIA takes no action against Qatar's al-Qaeda patrons. The ex-police chief also tells him that Mohammed is a key aide to bin Laden, and that based on Qatari intelligence, Mohammed "is going to hijack some planes." He passes this information to the CIA as well, but again the CIA doesn't seem interested, even when he tries again after 9/11. [UPI, 9/30/02, Vanity Fair, 2/02, See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism, Robert Baer, 2/02, pp. 270-271] Baer also tries to interest reporter Daniel Pearl in a story about Mohammed before 9/11, but Pearl is still working on it when he gets kidnapped and murdered (see December 24, 2001-January 23, 2002). [UPI, 9/30/02]

The ex-police chief later disappears, presumably kidnapped by Qatar. It has been speculated that the CIA turned on the source to protect its relationship with the Qatari government. [Breakdown: How America's Intelligence Failures Led to September 11, Bill Gertz, pp. 55-58] It appears bin Laden visits Mohammed al-Thani, in Qatar between the years 1996 and 2000. [ABC News, 2/7/03] Al-Thani continues to support al-Qaeda, providing Qatari passports and more than $1 million in funds. Even after 9/11, Mohammed is provided shelter in Qatar for two weeks in late 2001. [New York Times, 2/6/03] Yet the US still has not frozen al-Thani's assets or taken other action. Could the US have captured bin Laden if they paid more attention to Robert Baer's information?


1999 (K): 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed "repeatedly" visits Mohamed Atta and others in the Hamburg al-Qaeda cell. [AP, 8/24/02] US and German officials say a number of sources place Mohammed at Atta's Hamburg apartment. It isn't clear when he visits or who he visits. [Los Angeles Times, 6/6/02, New York Times, 11/4/02] However, it would be logical that he at least visits Atta's housemate Ramzi bin al-Shibh, since investigators believe he is the "key contact between the pilots" and Mohammed. [Los Angeles Times, 1/27/03] Mohammed is living in Germany at the time. [New York Times, 9/22/02]

German intelligence surveil the apartment in 1999 but apparently don't notice Mohammed (see November 1, 1998-February 2001). US investigators have been searching for Mohammed since 1996 (see January-May 1996), but apparently never tell the Germans what they know about him. [New York Times, 11/4/02] Even after 9/11, German investigators complain that US investigators don't tell them what they know about Mohammed living in Germany until they read it in the newspapers in June 2002. [New York Times, 6/11/02]

malaysiameeting2.jpg

Attendees of the Malaysian meeting. From left to right top row: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Left to right bottom row: Hambali, Yazid Sufaat, and Ramzi bin al-Shibh. No pictures of bin Atash or Fahad al-Quso are available, the names of other participants have not been
released.

January 5-8, 2000: About a dozen of bin Laden's trusted followers hold a secret, "top-level al-Qaeda summit" in the city of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. [CNN, 8/30/02, San Diego Union-Tribune, 9/27/02] Plans for the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole (see October 12, 2000) and the 9/11 attacks are discussed. [USA Today, 2/12/02, CNN, 8/30/02] At the request of the CIA, the Malaysian secret service follows, photographs, and even videotapes these men, and then passes the information on to the US. However, the meeting is not wiretapped. [Newsweek, 6/2/02, Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/01, Observer, 10/7/01, CNN, 3/14/02, New Yorker, 1/14/02] Attendees of the meeting include:
1 and 2) Hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar.
The CIA and FBI will later miss many opportunities to foil the 9/11 plot through these two hijackers and the knowledge of their presence at this meeting.
3) Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a top al-Qaeda leader and the alleged "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks. [Independent, 6/6/02, CNN, 8/30/02]

The US had known Mohammed was a major terrorist since the exposure of Operation Bojinka in 1995
(see January 6, 1995 and
January-May 1996), and knew what he looked like, as can be seen from a 1998 wanted poster (see Mid-1996-September 11, 2001). US officials have stated that they only realized the meeting was important in the summer of 2001, but the presence of Mohammed should have proved the meeting's importance. [Los Angeles Times, 2/2/02]

4) An Indonesian terrorist known as Hambali. He was the main financier of Operation Bojinka. [CNN, 8/30/02, CNN, 3/14/02] Philippine intelligence officials learned of Hambali's importance in 1995, but didn't track him down or share information about him. [CNN, 3/14/02]
5) Yazid Sufaat, a Malaysian man who owned the condominium where the meeting was held. [Newsweek, 6/2/02, Newsweek, 6/2/02] A possibility to expose the 9/11 plot through Sufaat's presence at this meeting is later missed (see September-October 2000).

6) Fahad al-Quso, a top al-Qaeda operative. [Newsweek, 9/20/01] A possibility to expose the 9/11 plot through al-Quso's presence at this meeting is later missed (see Early December 2000).

7) Tawifiq bin Atash, better known by his alias "Khallad." Bin Atash, a "trusted member of bin Laden’s inner circle," was in charge of bin Laden's bodyguards, and served as bin Laden's personal intermediary at least for the USS Cole attack. [Newsweek, 9/20/01] A possibility to expose the 9/11 plot through bin Atash's presence at this meeting is later missed (see January 4, 2001).

8) Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who investigators believe was supposed to be the 20th hijacker, except he couldn't get a US visa. His presence at the meeting may not have been realized until after 9/11, despite a picture of him next to bin Atash, and even video footage of him. [Los Angeles Times, 9/1/02, Time, 9/15/02 Die Zeit, 10/1/02, Newsweek, 11/26/01]

One account says he was recognized at the time of the meeting, which makes it hard to understand why he wasn't tracked back to Germany. [
Der Spiegel, 10/1/02] Another possibility to expose the 9/11 plot through bin al-Shibh's presence at this meeting is later missed (see June 10, 2000). It appears bin al-Shibh and Almihdhar were directly involved in the attack on the USS Cole [Newsweek, 9/4/02, Washington Post, 7/14/02, Guardian, 10/15/01], so better surveillance or follow-up from this meeting should have prevented that attack as well.

9 and more?) Unnamed members of the Egyptian based Islamic Jihad were also known to have been at the meeting. [Cox News, 10/21/01] Islamic Jihad had merged with al-Qaeda in February 1998. [ABC News, 11/17/01]


June 2001 (I): US intelligence learns that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is interested in "sending terrorists to the United States" and planning to assist their activities once they arrive. The 9/11 Congressional inquiry says the significance of this is not understood at the time, and data collection efforts are not subsequently "targeted on information about [Mohammed] that might have helped understand al-Qaeda's plans and intentions." [Committee Findings, 12/11/02, Los Angeles Times, 12/12/02, USA Today, 12/12/02] The FBI has a $2 million reward for Mohammed at the time (see Mid-1996-September 11, 2001). That summer, the NSA intercepts phone calls between Mohammed and Mohamed Atta, but apparently fails to pay attention (see Summer 2001), and on September 10, 2001, the US monitors a call from Atta to Mohammed in which Atta gets final approval for the 9/11 attacks, but this also doesn't lead to action (see September 10, 2001 (F)). In mid-2002, it is reported that "officials believe that given the warning signals available to the FBI in the summer of 2001, investigators correctly concentrated on the [USS] Cole investigation, rather than turning their attention to the possibility of a domestic attack." [New York Times, 6/9/02]

Summer 2001: Around this time, the NSA intercepts telephone conversations between 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Mohamed Atta, but apparently does not share the information with any other agencies. The FBI has a $2 million reward for Mohammed at the time (see Mid-1996-September 11, 2001), while Atta is in charge of operations inside the US. [Knight Ridder, 6/6/02, Independent, 6/6/02] US intelligence learned in June 2001 that Mohammed was interested in sending terrorists to the US and supporting them there (see June 2001 (I)). Yet supposedly, the NSA either fails to translate these messages in a timely fashion or fails to understand the significance of what was translated. [Knight Ridder Newspapers, 6/6/02] FTW While the contents of these discussions have never been released, doesn't it seem highly likely they were discussing 9/11 plans? Would the NSA fail to translate or properly analyze messages from one of the most wanted terrorists?

August 25, 2001: A supplemental Visa credit card on a "Mustafa Al-Hawsawi" bank account is issued in the name of Abdulrahman A. A. Al-Ghamdi, who the FBI says is an alias for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The FBI believes this helps prove Mohammed is a superior to the 9/11 paymaster. [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/26/02, Houston Chronicle, 6/5/02] The identity of "Mustafa Al-Hawsawi" is highly contested, but may well be Saeed Sheikh (see September 24, 2001-December 26, 2002). Mohammed and Sheikh appear to work together in the kidnapping of reporter Daniel Pearl (see January 23, 2002).

September 10, 2001 (F): Mohamed Atta calls Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, in Afghanistan. Mohammed gives final approval to Atta to launch the attacks. This call is monitored and translated by the US, though it isn't known how quickly that takes, and the specifics of the conversation haven't been released. [Independent, 9/15/02] The NSA had been intercepting calls between Mohammed and Atta for the past several months (see Summer 2001), and US intelligence had learned Mohammed was interested in sending terrorists to the US and supporting them there (see June 2001 (I)). Shouldn't Atta's location have been determined from these calls with a high-profile terrorist (just as bin Laden's location was determined in 1998 from his phone use (Early 1996-October 1998))?

richardreid.jpg

Richard Reid.​
December 22, 2001 (B): British citizen Richard Reid is arrested for allegedly trying to blow up a Miami-bound jet using explosives hidden in his shoe. [AP, 8/19/02] He later pleads guilty to all charges, and declares himself a follower of bin Laden. [CBS, 10/4/02] He may have ties to Pakistan. [Washington Post, 3/31/02] It is later believed that Reid and others in the shoe bomb plot reported directly to 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. [CNN, 1/30/03] It has been suggested that Mohammed has ties to the ISI (see December 24, 2001-January 23, 2002). It is also later suggested that Reid is a follower of Ali Gilani, a religious leader believed to be working with the ISI (see January 6, 2002).
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,899
Tokens
2 pages in and forum idiot guesser is unable to acknowledge the Clinton Presidency vis-a-vis the 9/11 attacks.

Don't worry, forum idiot the guesser is now pasting articles from 2004 that mention the war in Iraq.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
Richard Clarke has the same agenda you do, and he gets on TV. So he's an expert in your view. Again, my post was not about politics but culture and missed opportunities to thwart 9/11 due to the way we viewed hijackings in the past. You decided to post that stupid security warning for the umpteenth time when bin laden had been attacking US interests for years.

I don't irrationally hate Obama. I dislike him intensely, and I dislike the US State Dept even more. But I dislike Obama for valid reasons and my posts regarding why are in the forum. He's a shit president and you're head is a mile up his ass. But yet you don't love him. You're accusing me of nonsense when the only reason we're in this conversation is your nonsensical response to my first post.

Richard Clarke's "agenda" IS and was the same as mine, keeping America safe, and calling out those who failed in the task. That was GWB, on so many levels it's obscene. You can copy and paste all the articles you want, shifting blame wherever you want, but that fact remains it happened under his watch, and he ignored warning signs that it may happen. Your irrational hatred for Obama is all over the forum, and it speaks for itself, and you continue saying my head is up Obama's ass or I love him or other such nonsense, when I criticize him freely and often, just reflect poorly on your observational skills.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
Richard Clarke's "agenda" IS and was the same as mine, keeping America safe, and calling out those who failed in the task. That was GWB, on so many levels it's obscene. You can copy and paste all the articles you want, shifting blame wherever you want, but that fact remains it happened under his watch, and he ignored warning signs that it may happen. Your irrational hatred for Obama is all over the forum, and it speaks for itself, and you continue saying my head is up Obama's ass or I love him or other such nonsense, when I criticize him freely and often, just reflect poorly on your observational skills.

Said the forum's chief dispenser of insipid Copy and Paste. You began this dumb exchange by replying to something I never wrote with a dumb C&P. You really know how to dig a hole and then jump into it. Then you look down your nose and scold me for Copy and Paste, which I use practically never. Someone who uses Copy and Paste to EXCESS shouldn't be whining about 'Copy and Paste' But we all know why you chose the above post to do it. It's your failed effort to push the truth aside when someone else posts what you can't refute. At best all you can do Guesser, is
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
Said the forum's chief dispenser of insipid Copy and Paste. You began this dumb exchange by replying to something I never wrote with a dumb C&P. You really know how to dig a hole and then jump into it. Then you look down your nose and scold me for Copy and Paste, which I use practically never. Someone who uses Copy and Paste to EXCESS shouldn't be whining about 'Copy and Paste' But we all know why you chose the above post to do it. It's your failed effort to push the truth aside when someone else posts what you can't refute. At best all you can do Guesser, is

Actually, it was your failed attempt to push the truth aside which prompted my response, and here we are. Cool Music video though. I'll refrain from the personal insults that you are engaging in, and hope you hit all your middles tonight, and raise the discourse back to your usual level next time.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
Actually, it was your failed attempt to push the truth aside which prompted my response, and here we are. Cool Music video though. I'll refrain from the personal insults that you are engaging in, and hope you hit all your middles tonight, and raise the discourse back to your usual level next time.

I didn't hit you first. I hit you back.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,877
Messages
13,574,560
Members
100,879
Latest member
am_sports
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com