Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US

[CFLarsen]

OK, let's see if this memo was so damning.

All quotes from CNN: Transcript Bin Laden determined to strike in US

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

Well, duh.

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.

Washington, not Backwater, Nevada. Duh. But how, when?

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

It follows.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.

Possibly.

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ---, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation.

An attempted bomb attack on LAX. Foiled.

Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.

Well, duh.

Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

So, Bin Laden is apparently not a hit-and-run, spur-of-the-moment terrorist.

Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

That is a given: I doubt if any Western nation can claim that no AQ members reside in their countries. Mohammed Atta lived in Hamburg, Germany.

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

None of the hijackers lived in NY.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

OK, this looks more like it - on the surface. However, if you want to gain the release of a person by hijacking a plane, you don't slam the plane into the WTC right after. You land the plane and start negotiating.

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

Nothing about planes being used as missiles, though. It makes sense to stake out federal buildings, if you plan to place a bomb or perhaps take hostages. You don't need anything else than a map, if you are going to slam a plane into the building. WTC was not a federal building.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related.

I don't know if 70 "full-field investigations" is a little or a lot, but it sure doesn't seem a little to me.

CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

No explosives were used in the 9-11 attacks. The "explosives" came from the planes.

Sorry, I can't see that this is damning in any way.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Sorry, I can't see that this is damning in any way.

I HOPE you were being sarcastic.

 

[CFLarsen]

I HOPE you were being sarcastic.

I meant, as in predicting the 9-11 attacks. What, in that memo, predicts that?

 

[Reager]

I meant, as in predicting the 9-11 attacks. What, in that memo, predicts that?

Nothing in the memo predicts it directly, but it certainly shows the threat of some sort of Al Qaeda attack was an ongoing, real threat that required action.

- Nowhere in the memo does it state that the threat from bin Laden has ended. This was not a "historical" document, as the Bush administration calls it. (As Al Franken comically but appropriately commented, the title of the PDB was not "Bin Laden used to be determined to strike in US ).

- In a 1998 interview, bin Laden states his desire to "bring the fighting to America." The memo was written in 2001, 3 years later, and states that bin Laden plans his activities years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that bin Laden therefore had years to plan and prepare a major attack on the US.

- bin Laden was recruiting Muslim-American youths in the US for attacks. If I remember correctly, Muslum-youths flew the planes on 9/11. Even if they didn't come from the NYC cell, perhaps that info pointed to a larger, national recruitment plan. Would have been nice to know.

- Survailence of federal buildings. If I'm not mistaken, 2 of the 3 targets on 9/11 were federal buildings (two of the most important federal buildings in the country).

- Preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks. So we knew hijackings were a possibility, but perhaps not what would happen after the planes were hijacked. Still, seems like if we could have prevented the planes from being hijacked in the first place....

The point is, even if we could not predict precisely when and where an attack would occur, or what form it would take, it seems this memo should have been a huge flag that something could happen very soon. Instead of heeding the advice of her counterterrorism expert, Condi was busy prepping her speech on the Maginot Li-- er, missile defense, and W was - where else - on vacation.

Mike

 

[CFLarsen]

Nothing in the memo predicts it directly, but it certainly shows the threat of some sort of Al Qaeda attack was an ongoing, real threat that required action.

Well, that was a given, after WTC'93 and USS Cole.

- Nowhere in the memo does it state that the threat from bin Laden has ended. This was not a "historical" document, as the Bush administration calls it. (As Al Franken comically but appropriately commented, the title of the PDB was not "Bin Laden used to be determined to strike in US ).

Calling it "historical" is a bit silly, I agree. However, I fail to see how a threat from OBL can "end", unless the guy is dead - and then, probably, somebody else will take over.

- In a 1998 interview, bin Laden states his desire to "bring the fighting to America." The memo was written in 2001, 3 years later, and states that bin Laden plans his activities years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that bin Laden therefore had years to plan and prepare a major attack on the US.

But the "fighting" had already been brought to America, with the WTC'93 bombing. I can see why OBL wants to take credit for that.

- bin Laden was recruiting Muslim-American youths in the US for attacks. If I remember correctly, Muslum-youths flew the planes on 9/11. Even if they didn't come from the NYC cell, perhaps that info pointed to a larger, national recruitment plan. Would have been nice to know.

True, Muslim youths - or rather: Not middle-aged men - flew the planes. However, you are not telling me that you had no idea that Muslim extremists didn't try to recruit people in the US before 9/11?

- Survailence of federal buildings. If I'm not mistaken, 2 of the 3 targets on 9/11 were federal buildings (two of the most important federal buildings in the country).

But why watch a federal building, if you are going to crash into it with a plane?

- Preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks. So we knew hijackings were a possibility, but perhaps not what would happen after the planes were hijacked. Still, seems like if we could have prevented the planes from being hijacked in the first place....

Prevention of any hijacking is very hard to do at any point in time. We should also note that before 9/11, a hijacking meant landing the plane and start the negotiations. Although a very serious event in itself, it is hardly comparable to what really happened.

The point is, even if we could not predict precisely when and where an attack would occur, or what form it would take, it seems this memo should have been a huge flag that something could happen very soon. Instead of heeding the advice of her counterterrorism expert, Condi was busy prepping her speech on the Maginot Li-- er, missile defense, and W was - where else - on vacation.

I doubt this was the only memo about possible threats any government has gotten since WW2 - and not just the US government, either. It's what secret services do: Inform the government about possible threats.

 

[Checkmite]

Let me condense the memo into a neat little package, making sure to include all pertinent and specific information:

There may be a terrorist strike in the United States sometime in the future. The strike may involve bombing a federal building.

That's about it. The reports says suggestions of airliner hijacking could not be corroborated. The report mentions that it was federal buildings in New York that were being surveilled. None of the federal buildings struck on 9-11 were in New York, and even so, when the feds refer to a "federal building", they are referring to a Federal Office Building, of the sort that just about every major city has downtown. No suggestions about the Pentagon in the report.

I see not one speck of actionable material in this report - not one. The report says the FBI was already "investigating"...what else is left to do?

 

[EGarrett]

It's a pretty asinine "trial"...hindsight is 20/20.

And has anyone pulled out the thousands of intelligence briefings and warnings about threats that never amounted to anything? People need to recognize the sheer volume of white noise that national security officials have to sift through.

Ugh.

 

[Tmy]

The point is that since 9/12/01 Bill Clinton had been the unoffical blame for the 911 attacks. This is all to expose GW Bush as just as blameworthy and shut up the Clinton bashers.

 

[ssibal]

If you think you could have taken any action to prevent 9/11 based on that memo then sign up for Randi's million dollar prize!

 

[Checkmite]

The point is that since 9/12/01 Bill Clinton had been the unoffical blame for the 911 attacks. This is all to expose GW Bush as just as blameworthy and shut up the Clinton bashers.

If all Clinton had to work with were briefings like these, there isn't much he could've done either.

 

[Tmy]

If all Clinton had to work with were briefings like these, there isn't much he could've done either.

I think your right. Its just that conservatives having taken pot shots at him for 911 for some time now. If you gonna blame clinton then you'd have to blame GW also.

 

[Reager]

I don't think any reasonable person can point at this memo and conclude that Bush knew specifically that 9/11 would happen. Perhaps 9/11 could not even have been prevented. But we'll never know because Bush didn't, for example, "shake the tree," or pound his Presidential Fist on the Presidential Desk and demand answers. Ultimately, the problem I have is one of priorites. The threat of an Al Qaeda attack was real and substantial, if not imminent. But the Bush administration was more concerned with, again, things like missile defense...an unproven system to protect us from a remote threat. Once again, ideology, along with political and financial investment, trumps rational thinking.

Mike

 

[crackmonkey]

Remember, the reason this memo was compiled was because Bush asked for a summary of intel on OBL's activities. As some of the witnesseses testified, the administration had been working on an anti-Al Qaeda plan. Perhaps it wasn;t seen as urgent of a threat as it turned out to be, but a substantive plan was in the works but hadn't yet made it out of committee.
Clinton did make some huge blunders in dealing with OBL, but it wouldn;t be fair to pin 9/11 on him. I think the 'law enforcement' approach to fighting terror was a failure, but we couldn't know until we tried. Clinton did try to fight terror, but just not in the most effective way.
I'd say the blame for allowing 9/11 would have to rest on the bureaucracy - legal impediments preventing FBI and CIA from sharing intelligence, that sort of thing.
To point fingers at one administration or another for allowing 9/11 is intellectually dishonest and counterproductive.

 

[clk]

Clinton did make some huge blunders in dealing with OBL, but it wouldn;t be fair to pin 9/11 on him. I think the 'law enforcement' approach to fighting terror was a failure, but we couldn't know until we tried. Clinton did try to fight terror, but just not in the most effective way.

Yeah, and every time Clinton would try to fight the terror he would get blamed for "wagging the dog". The Republicans claimed that he was just bombing Bin Laden to shift attention away from the Lewinsky affair. Bunch of damn hypocrites. And now they are saying that he didn't do enough. If Clinton had engaged in a full scale war against the Taliban and Al Queda, god only knows what kind of insults and other BS the Republicans would have thrown at him.

As for the memo, I don't think it's a big deal. There are probably tons of similar memos about different subjects that the President probably receives. So in that context, I don't think it proves that the President knew about 9/11. Was he concerned about terrorism? I think Clarke and O'Neill have shown that he was more interested in Iraq that Al Queda, so if he should be faulted in anything, he should be faulted for that.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'd say the blame for allowing 9/11 would have to rest on the bureaucracy - legal impediments preventing FBI and CIA from sharing intelligence, that sort of thing.

"Allowing" indicates that it could have been prevented. Could it? Sure, if the US ruled the whole world in an iron-grip of perfect tyranny, it would have known in advance.

Otherwise, no. Hindsight is indeed 20/20. To say that someone "allowed" this to happen is to ignore the stark reality: That the US isn't invulnerable, especially to someone so outrageously inhumane as those people who will use passenger planes as missiles to bring down skyscrapers.

It isn't a question of who in the US should be "blamed". It is only a question about realizing what kind of monsters are out there, and what they are willing to do.

 

[Marc]

Yea, sure, the memo does not mention any specifics as to what Bin Laden was planning. That was what Rice had stated. So? Do they expect Bin Laden to send them his day-planner? The memo does show that Bin Laden is an enemy that has succesfully attacked us in the past abroad, and is trying to make such attacks in the country as well. A rather clear threat I would think. Since he is not going to tell us when and where he is going to attack, or where he is, I would think it is the government's job to try and locate him, and stop him. It also does not matter if any actions they took would or would not have been able to prevent 9/11, the question is were they doing anything to deal with this threat before it bit us in the butt?

 

[corplinx]

For those not "in the loop". The 9/11 commission had access to this document and a private session with Dr. Rice. Due to partisan grandstanding from both sides, Dr. Rice appeared publicly before the commission. At one point, in an effort to make Dr. Rice look bad; one of the partisan committee members asked her "what was the name of such and such memo". Mind you, he tried to cut her off when she tried to explain the context and content of the memo. He was trying to misdirect in other words since the title was misleading.

Once again, this commission is panning out just as I predicted. Big waste of money.

 

[WildCat]

I think your right. Its just that conservatives having taken pot shots at him for 911 for some time now. If you gonna blame clinton then you'd have to blame GW also.

I don't think many here were blaming Clinton, just pointing out that if one were to blame Bush for the 9/11 strikes (as some here have done) then you must also hold Clinton to the same standards. Because if you blame Bush (which I don't), you must also blame Clinton (which I also wouldn't do). I don't think much could have been done to prevent the 9/11 attacks, given the mood of the country and the structure of the different gov't beauracracies prior to it.

Since he is not going to tell us when and where he is going to attack, or where he is, I would think it is the government's job to try and locate him, and stop him. It also does not matter if any actions they took would or would not have been able to prevent 9/11, the question is were they doing anything to deal with this threat before it bit us in the butt?

I don't think anything less than an invasion of Afghanistan would have had a chance to accomplish this (and as is obvious now, it would still have been very difficult to capture him) and pre-9/11 there just wasn't the political will (by either the citizens or gov't of the USA) to do it. Predator drones (like the one that may have spotted OBL in 1999) weren't capable of carrying missiles pre-9/11.

Once again, this commission is panning out just as I predicted. Big waste of money.

I couldn't agree more. Pure political grandstanding and bulls**t. (Hey, if Randi can use that word in his commentary this week I can use it here!)

Edited to say that apparently there's an automatic censor at work on the board now!

 

[Dorian Gray]

Nothing about planes being used as missiles, though. It makes sense to stake out federal buildings, if you plan to place a bomb or perhaps take hostages. You don't need anything else than a map, if you are going to slam a plane into the building. WTC was not a federal building.

Pentagon was.

Remember, Bush unverifiably said the reason this memo was compiled was because Bush asked for a summary of intel on OBL's activities.

I fixed this quote for you.

Mind you, he tried to cut her off when she tried to recite her carefully prepared stumps rather than answer the question directly. He was trying to keep her on topic in other words since the title was damning.

I fixed this quote for you.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Bah. Didn't read my own link properly.