PDA

View Full Version : More RW Fear Mongering?



Gayle in MD
11-18-2009, 12:04 PM
http://factcheck.org/2009/09/a-false-appeal-to-womens-fears/


Gayle in Md.

No one is better at creating outrage over imaginary injustices or threats than the modern-day right-wing.

sack316
11-18-2009, 01:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bottom line: It remains to be seen how the federal insurance plan will be structured, if it’s part of the final legislation, and which estimates on enrollment turn out to be correct. </div></div>

I do, however, agree that many opposed will tend to use "worst case-scenario" figures to send out alarm.

But I would think some of the things mentioned in the news and on here lately would be cause for concern.

I know you have good insurance... but what if your insurance decided to use what may be a new "standard" of having a mammogram approved only every two years? Conceivably an extra year or more (depending on dates) could pass before diagnosis and treatment. How would that have changed things for you personally? (note: I don't know... I am asking).

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-18-2009, 02:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bottom line: It remains to be seen how the federal insurance plan will be structured, if it’s part of the final legislation, and which estimates on enrollment turn out to be correct. </div></div>

I do, however, agree that many opposed will tend to use "worst case-scenario" figures to send out alarm.

But I would think some of the things mentioned in the news and on here lately would be cause for concern.


<span style="color: #000066">Why so? It's only a study, you know. </span>
I know you have good insurance... but what if your insurance decided to use what may be a new "standard" of having a mammogram approved only every two years?

<span style="color: #000066">In my case, no difference at all, since after one has had breast cancer, the recommendation is quite different from the standard.

</span>


Conceivably an extra year or more (depending on dates) could pass before diagnosis and treatment. How would that have changed things for you personally? (note: I don't know... I am asking).

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">Actually there would have been no change at all for me, because in my case, I could feel the cancer, as I have written here before, I walked in and told them I had cancer, and pointed right to where it actually was. A burning, crawling sensation is what I felt, and I had never heard that as a warning signal.

AND, had I been on time for my Mam, nothing would have shown up, and I may well have just thought, Oh, that feeling is nothing.

Actually, I had all together, four previous "suspicious" lumps removed over the course of my life, the first one when I was just nineteen.

Figure out the cost, four hospital trips, and all the extra mams, sonograms, and radiation going through my breasts????? Kind of makes one wonder, no?

There are many ways to look at these things. I'm quite sure there will be a great deal of study, and statistical analysis, before any major changes come about.

IMO, it's really a shame that the HC Bill is being projected as some sort of forced program, when it is full of options not only for the individual, but for the states, as well.

It is an apportunity for those who have been screwed by insurance, to have somewhere else to turn.

IOW, if insurace stops screwing people, they won't have to worry, will they?

G.

No one is better at creating outrage over imaginary injustices or threats than the modern-day right-wing.


</span>

wolfdancer
11-18-2009, 02:45 PM
"what if"????
You are playing the "what if" trump card? I was hoping that you would save that for a later date....but now that you have unleashed it's awesome power, I'm sure we will see it used regularly from now on, by the "usual suspects" to bolster their weak arguments.
It's hard to argue against "what if"
What if,...Hal Smith hadn't hit that 3 run Homer in the 8th inning of game 7 of the 1960 World Series....would anybody have ever heard of Bill Mazeroski?
What if..these were wrong.. the proposition that Cournot treated both quantity and price rivalry and that Cournot was clearly aware of the symmetry between quantity conjectures and price conjectures in 1838. Or what if the equilibrium of competitive pricing for homogenous goods ..under oligopoly, model was wrong...
would we have ever heard of WalMart?
What if....I knew anything about what I have just written&gt;

Gayle in MD
11-18-2009, 02:57 PM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

What if in a few years, we find out that Mamograms cause breast cancer?

Given all of the women who had no genetic tendency, and the rise in breast cancers, and the number of years they've been doing Mams, and all the dangers of radiation, which most people don't even know about, until you read that scarey little book about all the possible horrible things that can change your life forever, if you have all that radiation....over a period of years....and then you're over fifty, and your body's immunity is compromised, and...more women get cancer as they get older...and only 20% of them had a genetic tendency, mother or sister, or grand mother....

One thing I do know, I wish these people on here would stop bringing up breast cancer. Once you have it, and it's hopefully gone, it's the last thing you want to be reminded of all the time...

Just watching TV becomes a challenge.

Breast cancer, breast cancer, breast cancer....it never ENDS!

Then, no matter how careful you are about not spreading it around, the word gets out. Someone you know, sees you coming out of the radiation center, after which one in every five or six women you have ever known in your entier life, all the way back to Kindergarten, is calling you up to tell you about HER breast cancer!

Women who have had it, or are dealing with it, seem to be coming out from everywhere! It is strange, all of a sudden, every check out girl, every sales lady, neighbors, cousins, everywhere there is another woman, or sometimes a man, who is telling you, (me) that they either have it, or have had it.

WTF! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif

I used to tell those few close friends, those whom I told about it,.... "And, BTW, if you know anyone who has had cancer, please, whatever you do, don't tell me the story!" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif

Hey, I ain't joining that club!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

BTW, did you know.... <span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>OMG!!! The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling! </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

G.

No one is better at creating outrage over imaginary injustices or threats than the modern-day right-wing.
</span>

sack316
11-18-2009, 03:06 PM
Isn't almost any decision predicated on a "what if" of sorts?

I just asked a question, which Gayle answered very well, because I really don't know. In this instance, it had to do with the mammogram thing... as a male and as one who has been fortunate enough to not have to see too many close relatives or friends deal with breast cancer, I do wonder. I don't know if 2 years is acceptable, or not, really. I don't know what happens if something is found in self examination. I don't know much on that particular topic at all to be perfectly honest.

So yes, I asked "what if" to a friend who I knew would answer honestly through personal experience, so that I may learn just a nugget more of information. And now, I do know a little more. And "what if" I didn't ask "what if"? Then I would have one less piece of knowledge on the topic.

"What if" and "why" my friend...keys to critical thinking and learning /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

wolfdancer
11-18-2009, 03:09 PM
When I was a teenager, and continuing until age 21, I had a medium case of acne. I went to a dermatologist who treated it...with X-Rays...
Reading up on that abandoned practice some years later....I began to worry about all kinds of bad things happening as a result.
Turned out it only affected my brain /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

sack316
11-18-2009, 03:14 PM
Wow, sorry I asked. Next time I'll just do my own research and save you the trouble of answering personally and save myself the smart ass commentary. Thank you for your original reply, it was a very good answer and told me what I was curious about.

Afterwards, unfortunately, it seems my original question is now fodder for chicken little scenarios. (which it wasn't, I was truly asking a question to get a first hand account, because I didn't know).

No wonder this board is what it is.

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-18-2009, 03:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wow, sorry I asked. Next time I'll just do my own research and save you the trouble of answering personally and save myself the smart ass commentary. Thank you for your original reply, it was a very good answer and told me what I was curious about.

Afterwards, unfortunately, it seems my original question is now fodder for chicken little scenarios. (which it wasn't, I was truly asking a question to get a first hand account, because I didn't know).

No wonder this board is what it is.

Sack </div></div>

Hey, hold it! I wasn't aiming anything angry at you, just venting about cancer, in general....that's all.

And probably, also, included in that is my feeling about how the right is now blowing this last government study into a mountain, already, when any reeasonable person would, or should know, that this is something completely unconnected to the HC Bill that is hanging in the wind...

It was just a study! They are always doing studies!

G.

No one is better at creating outrage over imaginary injustices or threats than the modern-day right-wing.

wolfdancer
11-18-2009, 03:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"What if" and "why" my friend...keys to critical thinking and learning </div></div>
Probably "why" they threw me out of the 8th grade at age 16.
Just about every scenario outcome can be altered if you change the "what if" parameters.
In this instance, I thought the topic was fear mongering, and not someone's illness

Gayle in MD
11-18-2009, 03:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"What if" and "why" my friend...keys to critical thinking and learning </div></div>
Probably "why" they threw me out of the 8th grade at age 16.
Just about every scenario outcome can be altered if you change the "what if" parameters.
In this instance, I thought the topic was fear mongering, and not someone's illness </div></div>

Well, we do know, friend, that atleast two of them have used my breast cancer to try to make a political point, Ed and Steve, so I can see why you might have wondered the same of Sack...

hmmmm...

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

G.

No one is better at creating outrage over imaginary injustices or threats than the modern-day right-wing.

Bobbyrx
11-19-2009, 09:21 AM
So NOW Factcheck.org is a reliable source.....

pooltchr
11-19-2009, 09:25 AM
I don't believe I used your personal health history to make a political point. I might have asked what your thoughts were on the subject, or if you would recommend your daughters or granddaughters forgoe testing.

I suppose if you are feeling a little bit defensive about the policies coming out of Washington these days, that you might read more into a comment than was actually there.

You're forgiven.

Steve

Gayle in MD
11-19-2009, 09:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So NOW Factcheck.org is a reliable source..... </div></div>

It's always been a reliable source, as far as I'm concerned, unless someone completely distorts a man's statement.

G.
No one is better at creating outrage over imaginary injustices or threats than the modern-day right-wing.

Bobbyrx
11-19-2009, 09:37 AM
or unless they disagree with your version of what happened....

Gayle in MD
11-19-2009, 10:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">or unless they disagree with your version of what happened.... </div></div>

I provided the actual statement by Mr. Clarke, which was in Mr. Clarke's own book. Also, he did not use a ghost writer, and wrote every word himself. HENCE, My version, is his version, while your version, is your version.

G.
No one is better at creating outrage over imaginary injustices or threats than the modern-day right-wing.

Bobbyrx
11-19-2009, 02:58 PM
"My" version was from Factcheck.org which included Clarke's sworn testimony to the 9/11 commission. Your version is from Clarke's book, which he wrote to make a profit and not under oath. Factcheck is either reliable or it's not. You can't have it both ways.

Gayle in MD
11-19-2009, 04:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"My" version was from Factcheck.org which included Clarke's sworn testimony to the 9/11 commission. Your version is from Clarke's book, which he wrote to make a profit and not under oath. Factcheck is either reliable or it's not. You can't have it both ways. </div></div>

You are nuts. Clarke said he did not RECALL. That is not the same thing as you would like to assert.

In his book, he clearly stated the facts. The fact check quote you used does not say what you wish to twist it into, at all.

Further, your imaginary version, doesn't even make sny sense! Clarke, would not be the person to even think about that situation.

If you ever bothered to reaed a book, you'd know the entire story of what he was involved in that day, and you'd also know how totally absurd your version really is.

G.

No one is better at creating outrage over imaginary injustices or threats than the modern-day right-wing.

Bobbyrx
11-20-2009, 10:03 AM
Why am I nuts? I just gave you the Factcheck.org article, it wasn't mine. Which is the entire point. You call the Factcheck.org article nuts when you disagree then go and use Factcheck.org as your source on 2 posts since then when you agree with them. But it is strange that under oath Clarke doesn't remember, but when writing his book, a few years later, his memory of everything is now perfectly clear.....

LWW
11-20-2009, 10:30 AM
When will you learn comrade.

Truth is whatever dearest leader says truth is.

LWW

Gayle in MD
11-20-2009, 12:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why am I nuts? I just gave you the Factcheck.org article, it wasn't mine. Which is the entire point. You call the Factcheck.org article nuts when you disagree then go and use Factcheck.org as your source on 2 posts since then when you agree with them. But it is strange that under oath Clarke doesn't remember, but when writing his book, a few years later, his memory of everything is now perfectly clear..... </div></div>

You twisted his words to mean something other than what he said.

You should get the prize for beating a dead horse to death.

Your little nit picking crusade doesn't even address all the issues mentioned in the video...

Not that I care what you think, if you can't put two and two together, and realize that Bush Sr. and Jr. have been in business with the bin Ladens, and the saudi prince's who have been financing terrorism for decades, then how could anyone expect anything reasonable from you about any of it. You're just another Blind Bushy, who chooses blindness over common knowledge, while picking apart the more irrelevant little side line in the midst of overwhelming proof...

Have at it, just don't waist my time with it until you have read a few books on the subject, and can save yourself from looking as stupid as the rest of the peanut gallary on here, and the bubba club of neanderthals, from Sara's Real Ameria...still living in denial, still avoiding the truth...still dependeing on Faux Noise....

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Bobbyrx
11-20-2009, 01:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You twisted his words to mean something other than what he said. </div></div>
How many ways can I say this. I didn't twist anything. I quoted an article from Factcheck.org. I didn't write it, they did. They quoted his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. If anyone twisted anything then Factcheck had to, they wrote it. So if that is the case, why should we believe (or you believe) anything else that they write?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You should get the prize for beating a dead horse to death.
</div></div>
I had dropped the subject of Bush flying out Bin Ladin's family when you would not believe what Factcheck.org said. I only brought up the hypocrisy of cherry picking what articles you choose to believe and not believe when you posted 2 other articles from Factcheck as fact.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your little nit picking crusade doesn't even address all the issues mentioned in the video... </div></div>
Which video are you referring to, there were 3, none of which said anything about Bush flying out Bin Ladin's family, and none of which were about the same issue.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> still living in denial, still avoiding the truth...still dependeing on Faux Noise....
</div></div>

No actually I was depending on Factcheck.org....just like you did on your 2 links....

Gayle in MD
11-20-2009, 01:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You twisted his words to mean something other than what he said. </div></div>
How many ways can I say this. I didn't twist anything. I quoted an article from Factcheck.org. I didn't write it, they did. They quoted his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. If anyone twisted anything then Factcheck had to, they wrote it. So if that is the case, why should we believe (or you believe) anything else that they write?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You should get the prize for beating a dead horse to death.
</div></div>
I had dropped the subject of Bush flying out Bin Ladin's family when you would not believe what Factcheck.org said. I only brought up the hypocrisy of cherry picking what articles you choose to believe and not believe when you posted 2 other articles from Factcheck as fact.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your little nit picking crusade doesn't even address all the issues mentioned in the video... </div></div>
Which video are you referring to, there were 3, none of which said anything about Bush flying out Bin Ladin's family, and none of which were about the same issue.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> still living in denial, still avoiding the truth...still dependeing on Faux Noise....
</div></div>

No actually I was depending on Factcheck.org....just like you did on your 2 links.... </div></div>



<span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 17pt'> "I don't recall" means I don't recall! It does not mean, "It didn't happen." Obviously, when the man wrote his book, with his notes in front of him, recreating the entire day in his mind, his memory was sharpened far more than under sworn testimony, when the one thing you don't wish to do is tell something that could be distorted as a lie, so if you're not sure, you say,...."I don't recall"...

You are a huge nit picker! Bush was a liar, a cheat, a complete diiot, who destroyed our country, and we're STILL not over him! Still trying to reverse all of his major colossal FUBAR's...

You love him, I think he was the worst in our history, and we are dealing with BUSH'S LEGACY! STILL!!! And probably for the next year and a half, IF WE ARE LUCKY....we will still be clawing our way out of Bush's Two F-ed up wars, his lies, his lawbreaking, his impending depression, and his total foreign and domestic fubar!

Now, go your own damn way, and stop trying to beat a dead horse to death! Clarke stated that the word came from higher up...Bush and his father were business partners, with the bin Laden's and the Saudis. The 9/11 terrorists were nearly AOLL from Saudi Arabia! Sau8di Arabians finance terrorists, including al Qaeda, Who the hell do you THINK flew them out?
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Don't be ridiculous!

G.</span> </span>

pooltchr
11-20-2009, 01:38 PM
Wrong.
I don't recall under oath simply means someone doesn't want to answer a question under oath.

Just because someone writes something in a book doesn't mean it's accurate. If it did, you would have to believe everything in Sarah Palin's new book, and that wouldn't work for you, would it?

Steve

LWW
11-20-2009, 02:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[ <span style="color: #000066">Actually there would have been no change at all for me, because in my case, I could feel the cancer, as I have written here before, I walked in and told them I had cancer, and pointed right to where it actually was. A burning, crawling sensation is what I felt, and I had never heard that as a warning signal.

AND, had I been on time for my Mam, nothing would have shown up, and I may well have just thought, Oh, that feeling is nothing.

Actually, I had all together, four previous "suspicious" lumps removed over the course of my life, the first one when I was just nineteen.

Figure out the cost, four hospital trips, and all the extra mams, sonograms, and radiation going through my breasts????? Kind of makes one wonder, no?

There are many ways to look at these things. I'm quite sure there will be a great deal of study, and statistical analysis, before any major changes come about.

IMO, it's really a shame that the HC Bill is being projected as some sort of forced program, when it is full of options not only for the individual, but for the states, as well.

It is an apportunity for those who have been screwed by insurance, to have somewhere else to turn.

IOW, if insurace stops screwing people, they won't have to worry, will they?

G.

No one is better at creating outrage over imaginary injustices or threats than the modern-day right-wing.


</span> </div></div>

So ... your point is that these tests which prompted you and your doctors to be extra cautious due to your history caused you to be extra cautious and find the problem early enough and this somehow proves that you and your doctor being extra cautious was a waste of time because dearest leader told you that it was a waste of time?

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>WOW!</span> ... just <span style='font-size: 26pt'>WOW!</span>

That is the most disconnected from reality bit of doublethink I have ever read.

LWW

Bobbyrx
11-20-2009, 05:07 PM
Fact 1: Factcheck.org says Clarke approved it.
"Summary
This anti-Bush radio ad is among the worst distortions we've seen in what has become a very ugly campaign. It states as fact some of the most sensational falsehoods that Michael Moore merely insinuated in his anti-Bush movie Farenheit 9/11.

The ad was released Oct. 25 by The Media Fund, an independent Democratic group run by former Clinton deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes. It falsely claims that members of the bin Laden family were allowed to fly out of the US "when most other air traffic was grounded," though in fact commercial air traffic had resumed a week earlier.

The ad also falsely claims that the bin Laden family members were not "detained," when in fact 22 of them were questioned by the FBI before being allowed to leave -- and their plane was searched as well.
<span style='font-size: 23pt'> And by the way, the man who gave approval for the flight wasn't Bush or even any of his close aides, it was former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, now one of Bush's strongest critics.</span>
Fact 2: You say FactCheck.org is wrong about this.
Fact 3: You used FactCheck.org links twice since then to back up your claims.
Question: Why should we trust them now?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Clarke stated that the word came from higher up <span style="color: #CC0000">(no he didn't) </span> ...Bush and his father were business partners, with the bin Laden's and the Saudis. The 9/11 terrorists were nearly AOLL from Saudi Arabia! Sau8di Arabians finance terrorists, including al Qaeda, Who the hell do you THINK flew them out? <span style="color: #CC0000">So now you're saying that Bush knowingly flew out Al Qaeda terrorists!!!!!!! Amazing!! If the people who were flown out (after the skies were reopened and they had been cleared by the FBI, days after 9/11)had links to Al Qaeda, why would he be so concerned about getting THEM out yet be responsible for the killing of tens of thousands of them by our military?</span>
</div></div>

Gayle in MD
11-21-2009, 08:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fact 1: Factcheck.org says Clarke approved it.
"Summary
This anti-Bush radio ad is among the worst distortions we've seen in what has become a very ugly campaign. It states as fact some of the most sensational falsehoods that Michael Moore merely insinuated in his anti-Bush movie Farenheit 9/11.

The ad was released Oct. 25 by The Media Fund, an independent Democratic group run by former Clinton deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes. It falsely claims that members of the bin Laden family were allowed to fly out of the US "when most other air traffic was grounded," though in fact commercial air traffic had resumed a week earlier.

The ad also falsely claims that the bin Laden family members were not "detained," when in fact 22 of them were questioned by the FBI before being allowed to leave -- and their plane was searched as well.
<span style='font-size: 23pt'> And by the way, the man who gave approval for the flight wasn't Bush or even any of his close aides, it was former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, now one of Bush's strongest critics.</span>
Fact 2: You say FactCheck.org is wrong about this.
Fact 3: You used FactCheck.org links twice since then to back up your claims.
Question: Why should we trust them now?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Clarke stated that the word came from higher up <span style="color: #CC0000">(no he didn't) </span> ...Bush and his father were business partners, with the bin Laden's and the Saudis. The 9/11 terrorists were nearly AOLL from Saudi Arabia! Sau8di Arabians finance terrorists, including al Qaeda, Who the hell do you THINK flew them out? <span style="color: #CC0000">So now you're saying that Bush knowingly flew out Al Qaeda terrorists!!!!!!! Amazing!! If the people who were flown out (after the skies were reopened and they had been cleared by the FBI, days after 9/11)had links to Al Qaeda, why would he be so concerned about getting THEM out yet be responsible for the killing of tens of thousands of them by our military?</span>
</div></div>

</div></div>

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a032504BushEverythingPlanes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">January 25, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice Al-Qaeda Cells Are Inside US and Are ‘Major Threat’ Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke’s plan to deal with al-Qaeda is given to National Security Adviser Rice on this day. It includes a warning that al-Qaeda cells already exist in the US. The plan was outlined in a document he prepared in December 2000 (see January 25, 2001), which stated that US intelligence believes there are al-Qaeda “sleeper cells” in the US and that they’re not just a potential problem but “a major threat in being.” Clarke noted in the document that two key al-Qaeda members involved in the Millennium plot were naturalized US citizens (presumably a reference to Raed Hijazi and Khalil Deek) and that one suspect in the 1998 embassy bombings had “informed the FBI that an extensive network of al-Qaeda ‘sleeper agents’ currently exists in the US” (see August 12-25, 1998). It also said that Ahmed Ressam’s attempted December 1999 attack revealed al-Qaeda supporters in the US (see December 15-31, 1999). Finally, the Clarke warned that more attacks have almost certainly been set in motion. [Washington Post, 1/20/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 260, 535]
Entity Tags: Al-Qaeda, Richard A. Clarke



Late March-Early April 2001: CIA Warns Al-Qaeda Leader Zubaida Planning an Attack The CIA issues repeated warnings that al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida may be planning an attack for the near future. One report cites a source indicating an attack on Israel, Saudi Arabia, or India. At this time, the CIA believes Zubaida was a major figure in the Millennium plots (see May 30, 2001). Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke relays these reports to National Security Adviser Rice. She is also briefed on Zubaida’s activities and the CIA’s efforts to locate him. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 255; US District Court of Eastern Virginia, 5/4/2006, pp. 1 ]
Entity Tags: Richard A. Clarke, Central Intelligence Agency, Condoleezza Rice, Abu Zubaida


May 2001: CIA Learns Bin Laden Associates Are Heading to US, Preparing for Martyrdom The Washington Post will later report, “In May 2001, the CIA learned supporters of bin Laden were planning to infiltrate the United States; that seven were on their way to the United States, Canada and Britain; that his key operatives ‘were disappearing while others were preparing for martyrdom,’ and that bin Laden associates ‘were planning attacks in the United States with explosives.’” [US Congress, 9/18/2002; Washington Post, 9/19/2002] This information may be related to a warning given by captured al-Qaeda operative Ahmed Ressam this month that al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida is seeking Canadian passports for himself and five other top militants in order to plant explosives in US cities (see May 30, 2001 and May 2001). [Calgary Herald, 4/3/2002] It is not known if the seven traveling to the US, Canada, and Britain refer to any of the 9/11 hijackers, but 11 of the hijackers travel to the US in May and June (see April 23-June 29, 2001), stopping in Britain along the way (see January-June 2001). Investigators will later say that they are not sure if the aliases Zubaida wanted on the Canadian passports could have been used by some of the 9/11 hijackers. [Calgary Herald, 4/3/2002]
Entity Tags: Abu Zubaida, Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Central Intelligence Agency, Ahmed Ressam


May 16-17, 2001: US Warned Bin Laden Supporters Are Inside US and Planning an Attack On May 16, an anonymous person calls the US embassy in the United Arab Emirates and warns that bin Laden supporters have been in the US and are planning an attack in the US using “high explosives.” The caller mentions that operatives are infiltrating the US from Canada, but there is no mention of when or where the attack might occur. The next day, based on this warning, the first item on the agenda for counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke’s interagency Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) is entitled: “[Osama bin Laden]: Operation Planned in US.” The anonymous caller’s tip cannot be later corroborated. In July, the CIA will share the warning with the FBI, the INS, the US Customs Service, and the State Department. It will also be mentioned in the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing given to President Bush (see August 6, 2001) and Bush will be told that the CIA and FBI are investigating it. But eventually, neither the CIA nor FBI is able to corraborate the information in the call. [US Congress, 9/18/2002; Washington Post, 9/19/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 255, 262, 535] There are some other possibly interlinked warnings this month also warning of an al-Qaeda plot to attack the US from Canada using explosives (see May 30, 2001, May 2001, and May 2001).
Entity Tags: White House, Osama bin Laden, Counterterrorism and Security Group, Richard A. Clarke, George W. Bush


May 23, 2001: White House Told Al-Qaeda May Stage Hijacking or Storm Embassy A Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (SEIB) sent to top White House officials is entitled, “Terrorist Groups Said Cooperating on US Hostage Plot.” It warns of a possible hostage plot against the US abroad to force to release of prisoners being held in the US, including Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman (see July 1990). The report notes operatives might hijack an aircraft or storm a US embassy overseas. SEIBs are typically based on the previous day’s President Daily Briefing (see January 20-September 10, 2001), so it is probable President Bush is given this information. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 255-256, 533; US District Court of Eastern Virginia, 5/4/2006, pp. 2 ] This report leads to an FAA warning to airlines noting the potential for “an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the United States.” [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 255-256]
Entity Tags: George W. Bush, White House, Omar Abdul-Rahman
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline


May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City
Ahmed Ressam as pictured in his Canadian passport. [Source: FBI]Ahmed Ressam is convicted in the spring of 2001 for attempting to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport (see December 14, 1999). Facing the likelihood of life in prison, he starts cooperating with authorities in an attempt to reduce his sentence. On this day, he details his experiences in al-Qaeda training camps and his many dealings with top al-Qaeda deputy Abu Zubaida. According to FBI notes from Ressam’s interrogation, Zubaida asked Ressam to send him six original Canadian passports to help Zubaida “get people to America” (see May 2001 and May 2001). Zubaida “wanted an operation in the US” and talked about the need to get explosives into the US for this operation, but Ressam makes it clear this was a separate plot from the one he was involved with. Notes from this day further explain that Ressam doesn’t know if any explosives made it into the US because once an operation is initiated, operators are not supposed to talk about it to anyone. [Calgary Herald, 4/3/2002; Newsweek, 4/28/2005] Zubaida told this to Ressam in 1999, but also indicated that he is willing to wait a year or more to make sure the plot comes to fruition successfully. [Tenet, 2007, pp. 146]
Similarity to 9/11 Attacks - There’s no concrete evidence that Ressam knows any detail of the 9/11 attacks. [Newsweek, 4/28/2005] However, Fox News will later report that roughly around this time Ressam testifies “that attack plans, including hijackings and attacks on New York City targets, [are] ongoing.” [Fox News, 5/17/2002] Questioned shortly after 9/11, Ressam will point out that given what he’s already told his US interrogators, the 9/11 attacks should not be surprising. He notes that he’d described how Zubaida talked “generally of big operations in [the] US with big impact, needing great preparation, great perseverance, and willingness to die.” Ressam had told of “plans to get people hired at airports, of blowing up airports, and airplanes.” [Newsweek, 4/28/2005]
Sharing the Warning - The CIA learns of this warning in June. [Tenet, 2007, pp. 146] Ressam will repeat some of this in a public trial in July (see July 8, 2001). Apparently, the FBI also waits until July to share the information from this debriefing with most other intelligence agencies, the INS, Customs Service, and the State Department. Ressam’s warnings will first be mentioned to Bush in his now famous August 6, 2001 briefing (see August 6, 2001), but as Newsweek will note, “The information from Ressam that was contained in [Bush’s] PDB [is] watered down and seem[s] far more bland than what the Algerian terrorist was actually telling the FBI.” Zubaida’s second plot will be boiled down to one sentence in the PDB: “Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaida was planning his own US attack.” [Newsweek, 4/28/2005]
Entity Tags: George W. Bush, Ahmed Ressam, Los Angeles International Airport, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Abu Zubaida
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline


June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols German intelligence warns the CIA, Britain’s intelligence agency, and Israel’s Mossad that Middle Eastern militants are planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols, which stand out.” A later article quotes unnamed German intelligence sources who state the information was coming from Echelon surveillance technology, and that British intelligence had access to the same warnings. However, there were other informational sources, including specific information and hints given to, but not reported by, Western and Near Eastern news media six months before 9/11. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 9/11/2001; Washington Post, 9/14/2001; Fox News, 5/17/2002]
Entity Tags: Central Intelligence Agency, UK Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), Israel Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks (Mossad), Echelon
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

June 12, 2001: CIA Learns KSM Is Sending Operatives to US to Meet Up with Operatives Already There A CIA report says that a man named “Khaled” is actively recruiting people to travel to various countries, including the US, to stage attacks. CIA headquarters presume from the details of this report that Khaled is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM). On July 11, the individual source for this report is shown a series of photographs and identifies KSM as the person he called “Khaled.” [USA Today, 12/12/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 277, 533] This report also reveals that:
Al-Qaeda operatives heading to the US would be “expected to establish contact with colleagues already living there.”
KSM himself had traveled to the US frequently, and as recently as May 2001.
KSM is a relative of bomber Ramzi Yousef.
He appears to be one of bin Laden’s most trusted leaders.
He routinely tells others that he can arrange their entry into the US as well. However, the CIA doesn’t find this report credible because they think it is unlikely that he would come to the US (in fact, it appears he had (see Summer 1998)). Nevertheless, they consider it worth pursuing. One agent replies, “If it is KSM, we have both a significant threat and an opportunity to pick him up.” In July, the source clarifies that the last time he can definitely place KSM in the US was in the summer of 1998 (see Summer 1998). The CIA disseminates the report to all other US intelligence agencies, military commanders, and parts of the Treasury and Justice Departments. The 9/11 Congressional Inquiry will later request that the CIA inform them how CIA agents and other agencies reacted to this information, but the CIA does not respond to this. [US Congress, 7/24/2003] It appears that KSM will send at least one and probably two operatives to the US after this time and before 9/11 (see August 4, 2001 and September 10, 2001). On July 23, 2001, the US consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia will give KSM a US visa (he uses an alias but his actual photo appears on his application) (see July 23, 2001). Also, during this summer and as late as September 10, 2001, the NSA will intercept phone calls between KSM and Mohamed Atta, but the NSA will not share this information with any other agencies (see Summer 2001).
Entity Tags: Central Intelligence Agency, US Department of Justice, US Department of the Treasury, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

June 19, 2001: Bin Laden Calls for ‘Blood and Destruction’ and Tells Followers to ‘Penetrate America and Israel’
Scenes in the al-Qaeda recruitment video show operatives training at the al-Farouq camp in Afghanistan. [Source: CBC]An al-Qaeda recruitment video created months earlier is made public. The video had been circling amongst radical militants, but appears on the news worldwide after a Kuwaiti newspaper gets a copy. The video celebrates the bombing of the USS Cole. Bin Laden appears on the video, and while he does not take credit for the bombing, others in the video do. Bin Laden says that Muslims have to leave countries that are ruled by “allies of Jews and Christians,” and join his cause to be “prepared” for holy war. In an address to Palestinians, he calls for “blood, blood and destruction, destruction.” He says, “We give you the good news that the forces of Islam are coming…” He also issues a call to arms: “Your brothers in Palestine are waiting for you; it’s time to penetrate America and Israel and hit them where it hurts the most.” He also tells his supporters to “slay the United States and Israel.” A similar video appeared shortly before the bombing of the USS Cole. [Associated Press, 6/20/2001; Associated Press, 6/20/2001; Newsweek, 7/22/2001; Washington Post, 9/11/2001] Intrest in the videotape will grow in the Muslim world in the months before the 9/11 attacks (see September 9, 2001).
Entity Tags: Osama bin Laden
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline


June 30-July 1, 2001: New York Times Reporter Told Al-Qaeda Is ‘Planning Something So Big the US Will Have to Respond,’ but Fails to Publish Warning
The three authors of the book Germs, Judith Miller (left), Stephen Engelberg (top), and William Broad (bottom). This was the book Miller was working on before 9/11; it was published several weeks after 9/11. [Source: Publicity photo]New York Times reporter Judith Miller learns her government counterterrorism sources are worried that al-Qaeda is going to attack a US target on the Fourth of July holiday. There has been an increase in chatter about an impending attack. In 2005, Miller will recall, “Everyone in Washington was very spun-up in the counterterrorism world at that time. I think everybody knew that an attack was coming—everyone who followed this.… I got the sense that part of the reason that I was being told of what was going on was that the people in counterterrorism were trying to get the word to the president or the senior officials through the press, because they were not able to get listened to themselves.”
Conversation Overheard - She has a conversation with a still-anonymous top-level White House source who reveals there is some concern about a top-secret NSA intercept between two al-Qaeda operatives. She explains, “They had been talking to one another, supposedly expressing disappointment that the United States had not chosen to retaliate more seriously against what had happened to the [USS] Cole. And one al-Qaeda operative was overheard saying to the other, ‘Don’t worry; we’re planning something so big now that the US will have to respond.’ And I was obviously floored by that information. I thought it was a very good story: (1) the source was impeccable; (2) the information was specific, tying al-Qaeda operatives to, at least, knowledge of the attack on the Cole; and (3) they were warning that something big was coming, to which the United States would have to respond. This struck me as a major page one-potential story.”
Not Printed - Miller tells her editor Stephen Engelberg about the story the next day. But Engelberg says, “You have a great first and second paragraph. What’s your third?” Miller finds only one other source to confirm these details.
Yemen Connection - She later learns from her first source that the conversation occurred in Yemen. Though the telephone number is never disclosed, some circumstances suggest one of the parties taking part in the call may have been at the al-Qaeda communications hub in Sana’a, Yemen, that is monitored by US intelligence. One of the hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar, lives there with his wife and children (see Late August 1998), and communicates there will be forthcoming attacks to at least one family member (see Late October 2000-July 4, 2001). The hijackers in the US apparently call the Yemen hub around this time (see (August 2001)). On July 3, the CIA will request the arrest of Djamel Beghal (see July 3, 2001), an al-Qaeda operative whose calls to the hub are apparently being monitored at this time (see Before July 3, 2001).
Regrets - Miller later regrets not following through more because she “had a book coming out” as well as other stories and that there wasn’t a “sense of immediacy” about the information. In 2005, Engelberg will confirm Miller’s story and agree that he wanted more specifics before running the story. Engelberg also later wonders “maybe I made the wrong call,” asking, “More than once I’ve wondered what would have happened if we’d run the piece?” The New York Times has yet to mention the warning in all of their post-9/11 reporting and the 9/11 Commission has never mentioned anything about the warning either. In 2005, Miller will spend 85 days in jail for refusing to reveal a source and then leave the New York Times after widespread criticism about her reporting. [Columbia Journalism Review, 9/2005; AlterNet, 5/18/2006; Editor & Publisher, 5/18/2006]
Entity Tags: Stephen Engelberg, Al-Qaeda, Judith Miller
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline


July 2001: Jordan Warns that Al-Qaeda Is Planning Attack Inside US In February 2002, it will be reported on the ABC News program Nightline that in July 2001, “Jordanian intelligence picked up an… alarming threat. ABC News has learned Jordan told US officials al-Qaeda was planning an attack on American soil.” [ABC News, 2/19/2002] It has been reported elsewhere that in late summer 2001, Jordan warns the US that aircraft will be used in a major attack inside the US, but it is not known if that is a separate warning or the same as this one (see Late Summer 2001). Also in late July, Jordan will offer the US to send its elite troops to Afghanistan to attack al-Qaeda, an offer the US turns down (see July 24, 2001).
Entity Tags: Jordan General Intelligence Department
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

July 5, 2001: Bush Asks for Reports on Domestic Terror Threats In 2002, Newsweek will report: “The White House acknowledged for the first time, [President] Bush was privately beginning to worry about the stream of terror warnings he was hearing that summer, most of them aimed at US targets abroad. On July 5, five days before the Phoenix memo (see July 10, 2001), Bush directed [Condoleezza] Rice to figure out what was going on domestically.” [Newsweek, 5/27/2002] In 2004, President Bush will explain why he requested this: “[T]he reason I did is because there had been a lot of threat intelligence from overseas. And part of it had to do with the Genoa [Italy] G8 conference that I was going to attend.” [US President, 4/19/2004] Though he does not mention it, the chief security concern at the late July 2001 conference he mentions is intelligence that al-Qaeda plans to fly an airplane into the conference. This threat is so widely reported before the conference (with some reports before July 5 (see June 13, 2001 and Mid-July 2001) that the attack is called off (see July 20-22, 2001). For instance, in late June, Time magazine mentioned a German intelligence report of an Osama bin Laden plot “to fly remote-controlled model aircraft packed with Semtex into the conference hall and blow the leaders of the industrialized world to smithereens” (see June 20, 2001). Bush will later claim that this request is specifically for the later-famous August 6, 2001 briefing entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” (see August 6, 2001), although the CIA analysts who draft it will deny this (see July 13, 2004). [US President, 4/19/2004]
Entity Tags: Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Al-Qaeda
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

July 10, 2001: CIA Director Gives Urgent Warning to White House of Imminent, Multiple, Simultaneous Al-Qaeda Attacks, Possibly Within US
Condoleezza Rice and George Tenet in the White House. This picture is actually taken on October 8, 2001, and President Bush is elsewhere in the room. [Source: Eric Draper / White House]CIA Director George Tenet finds the briefing that counterterrorism chief Cofer Black gave him earlier in the day (see July 10, 2001) so alarming that he calls National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice from his car as he heads to the White House and says he needs to see her right away, even though he has regular weekly meetings with her. [Washington Post, 10/1/2006] Tenet and Black let a third CIA official, “Rich B,” who is responsible for Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, brief Rice on the latest intelligence. Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke are also present. [McClatchy Newspapers, 10/2/2006]
'Significant Attack' - Rich B starts by saying, “There will be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months!” He argues that it is impossible to pick the specific day, saying bin Laden “will attack when he believes the attack will be successful.” He mentions a range of threat information including:
A warning related to Chechen leader Ibn Khattab (see (July 9, 2001)) and seven pieces of intelligence the CIA recently received indicating there would soon be a terrorist attack (see July 9-10, 2001);
A mid-June statement by bin Laden to trainees that there would be an attack in the near future (see Mid-June 2001);
Information that talks about moving toward decisive acts;
Late-June information saying a “big event” was forthcoming;
Two separate bits of information collected “a few days before the meeting” in which people predicted a “stunning turn of events” in the weeks ahead. This may be a reference to intercepts of calls in Yemen, possibly involving the father-in-law of 9/11 hijacker Khalid Almihdhar (see June 30-July 1, 2001).
Multiple, Simultaneous Attacks in US Possible - Rich B says that the attacks will be “spectacular,” they will be designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities and interests, there may be multiple, simultaneous attacks, and they may be in the US itself. He outlines the CIA’s efforts to disrupt al-Qaeda by spreading incorrect word that the attack plans have been compromised, in hopes this will cause a delay in the attack. But he says this is not enough and that the CIA should go on the attack. Rich B also discounts the possibility of disinformation, as bin Laden’s threats are known to the public in the Middle East and there will be a loss of face, funds, and popularity if they are not carried out. Rich B urges that the US take a “proactive approach” by using the Northern Alliance. [Tenet, 2007, pp. 151-4] Author Bob Woodward will later write: “Black emphasize[s] that this amount[s] to a strategic warning, meaning the problem [is] so serious that it require[s] an overall plan and strategy. Second, this [is] a major foreign policy problem that need[s] to be addressed immediately. They need[…] to take action that moment—covert, military, whatever—to thwart bin Laden. The United States ha[s] human and technical sources, and all the intelligence [is] consistent…” [Woodward, 2006, pp. 80; Washington Post, 10/1/2006] Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke expresses his agreement with the CIA about the threat’s seriousness, and Black says, “This country needs to go on a war footing now.”
Rice's Response - There are conflicting accounts about the CIA’s reading of Rice’s response. According to Woodward: “Tenet and Black [feel] they [are] not getting through to Rice. She [is] polite, but they [feel] the brush-off.” They leave the meeting frustrated, seeing little prospect for immediate action. Tenet and Black will both later recall the meeting as the starkest warning they gave the White House on al-Qaeda before 9/11 and one that could have potentially stopped the 9/11 attacks if Rice had acted on it (see July 10, 2001) and she conveyed their urgency to President Bush (Tenet was briefing Bush on a daily basis at this time, but he will later say that Rice had a much better rapport with Bush). Black will say, “The only thing we didn’t do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.” [Woodward, 2006, pp. 80; Washington Post, 10/1/2006] Rice says that President Bush will align his policy with the new realities and grant new authorities. Writing in 2007, Tenet will say that this response is “just the outcome I had expected and hoped for,” and recall that as they leave the meeting Rich B and Black congratulate each other on having got the administration’s attention. Nevertheless, Rice does not take the requested action until after 9/11. [Tenet, 2007, pp. 153-4]
Rice Concerned about Genoa - Clarke will recall in 2006 that Rice focuses on the possible threat to President Bush at an upcoming summit meeting in Genoa, Italy (see June 13, 2001 and July 20-22, 2001). Rice and Bush had already been briefed about the Genoa warning by this time (see July 5, 2001). Rice also promises to quickly schedule a high-level White House meeting on al-Qaeda. However, that meeting does not take place until September 4, 2001 (see September 4, 2001). [McClatchy Newspapers, 10/2/2006] Rice also directs that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General Ashcroft be given the same briefing, and they are a short time later (see July 11-17, 2001).
Meeting Not Mentioned in 9/11 Commission Report - The meeting will not be mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report (see August 4, 2002), and there will be controversy when it is fully revealed in 2006 (see September 29, 2006, September 30-October 3, 2006, and October 1-2, 2006).
Entity Tags: Rich B., Stephen J. Hadley, White House, Osama bin Laden, Richard A. Clarke, George J. Tenet, Al-Qaeda, Central Intelligence Agency, Cofer Black, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline


July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West British spy agencies send a report to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other top officials warning that al-Qaeda is in “the final stages” of preparing an attack in the West. The prediction is “based on intelligence gleaned not just from [British intelligence] but also from US agencies, including the CIA and the National Security Agency,” which cooperate with the British. “The contents of the July 16 warning would have been passed to the Americans, Whitehall sources confirmed.” The report states there is “an acute awareness” that the attack is “a very serious threat.” [London Times, 6/14/2002]
Entity Tags: Tony Blair, Al-Qaeda, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly; CIA Is Not Interested CBS later reports, in a long story on another topic: “Just days after [Mohamed] Atta return[s] to the US from Spain, Egyptian intelligence in Cairo says it received a report from one of its operatives in Afghanistan that 20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas. To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn’t sound terribly alarming, but they [pass] on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. The request never [comes].” [CBS News, 10/9/2002] This appears to be just one of several accurate Egyptian warnings from their informants inside al-Qaeda.
Entity Tags: Al-Qaeda, Central Intelligence Agency
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US that Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US Jordanian intelligence (the GID) makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah’s men relay it to Washington, probably through the CIA station in Amman. To make doubly sure the message gets through it is passed through an Arab intermediary to a German intelligence agent. The message states that a major attack, code named “The Big Wedding,” is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used. “When it became clear that the information was embarrassing to Bush administration officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings before September 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their earlier confirmations.” The Christian Science Monitor will call the story “confidently authenticated” even though Jordan has backed away from it. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/2002; Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/2002] It has been reported elsewhere that in July 2001, Jordan warns the US that al-Qaeda is planning an attack inside the US, but it is unknown if this is referring to the same warning or a separate one (see July 2001). In late July 2001, the king of Jordan will offer the US to send two battalions of Jordanian special forces to Afghanistan to eliminate al-Qaeda havens there (see July 24, 2001).
Entity Tags: Central Intelligence Agency, Abdullah II ibn al-Hussein, Jordan General Intelligence Department, Bush administration
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

August 2, 2001: Federal Reserve Governors Encourage Banks to Review Suspicious Activity Reports, Possibly Due to Heightened Terrorist Threat The Federal Reserve Board of Governors issues a non-routine supervisory letter to Federal Reserve banks, emphasizing the need to continue monitoring suspicious activity reports (SARs). The letter gives no explanation why it has been sent out at this particular time, but states, “Reserve banks must continue to conduct a thorough and timely review of all material SARs filed by supervised financial institutions in their districts.” It adds, “A periodic, comprehensive review of SARs will assist Reserve banks in identifying suspicious or suspected criminal activity occurring at or through supervised financial institutions; provide the information necessary to assess the procedures and controls used by the reporting institutions to identify, monitor, and report violations and suspicious illicit activities; and assist in the assessment of the adequacy of anti-money laundering programs.” [Spillenkothen, 8/2/2001] While the letter does not say if there are specific reasons why the banks should currently be watching for suspicious activities, William Bergman, an economist who works at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago from 1990 to 2004, will later point out, “Intelligence warnings on terrorism were rising significantly in mid-2001.” He will therefore question whether, “with terrorism and its financing already recognized as an important element of the national money laundering strategy,” this letter is “related to these warnings.” He will also point out, “negotiations between the Taliban and representatives of the United States over energy production issues in Afghanistan ended on August 2, 2001” (see August 2, 2001), and that, “Four days later, President Bush received a ‘PDB’—a presidential daily brief—with a headline warning that bin Laden was ‘determined to strike in US,’ and the body text of the PDB referred to ‘patterns of suspicious activity’” (see August 6, 2001). [Sanders Research Associates, 1/4/2006] When, in December 2003, Bergman asks the Board of Governors staff why it issued the August 2 letter, and if the letter was related to intelligence about heightened terrorist threats, he will receive no reply and subsequently be told he has “committed an egregious breach of protocol in calling the Board staff and asking the question.” [Veteran Affairs Whistleblowers Coalition, 5/14/2006] Also around this time, between June and August 2001, there is an unexplained surge in the amount of US currency in circulation (see June-August 2001). [Sanders Research Associates, 9/16/2005]
Entity Tags: William Bergman, Federal Reserve Board of Governors
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

August 4-30, 2001: Bush Nearly Sets Record for Longest Presidential Vacation President Bush spends most of August 2001 at his Crawford, Texas, ranch, nearly setting a record for the longest presidential vacation. While it is billed a “working vacation,” news organizations report that Bush is doing “nothing much” aside from his regular daily intelligence briefings. [ABC News, 8/3/2001; Washington Post, 8/7/2001; Salon, 8/29/2001] One such unusually long briefing at the start of his trip is a warning that bin Laden is planning to attack in the US (see August 6, 2001), but Bush spends the rest of that day fishing. By the end of his trip, Bush has spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route. [Washington Post, 8/7/2001] At the time, a poll shows that 55 percent of Americans say Bush is taking too much time off. [USA Today, 8/7/2001] Vice President Cheney also spends the entire month in a remote location in Wyoming. [Jackson Hole News and Guide, 8/15/2001]
Entity Tags: Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

August 6, 2001: Bush Receives Briefing Titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US’
President Bush at his Crawford, Texas, ranch on August 6, 2001. Advisors wait with classified briefings. [Source: White House]President Bush receives a classified presidential daily briefing (PDB) at his Crawford, Texas ranch indicating that Osama bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. The PDB provided to him is entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.” The entire briefing focuses on the possibility of terrorist attacks inside the US. [New York Times, 5/15/2002; Newsweek, 5/27/2002] The analysts who drafted the briefing will say that they drafted it on the CIA’s initiative (see July 13, 2004), whereas in 2004 Bush will state that he requested a briefing on the topic due to threats relating to a conference in Genoa, Italy, in July 2001, where Western intelligence agencies believed Osama bin Laden was involved in a plot to crash an airplane into a building to kill Bush and other leaders (see April 13, 2004). The analysts will later explain that they saw it as an opportunity to convey that the threat of an al-Qaeda attack in the US was both current and serious. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 260] The existence of this briefing is kept secret, until it is leaked in May 2002, causing a storm of controversy (see May 15, 2002). While National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will claim the memo is only one and a half pages long, other accounts state it is 11 1/2 pages instead of the usual two or three. [New York Times, 5/15/2002; Newsweek, 5/27/2002; Die Zeit (Hamburg), 10/1/2002] A page and a half of the contents will be released on April 10, 2004; this reportedly is the full content of the briefing. [Washington Post, 4/10/2004] The briefing, as released, states as follows (note that the spelling of certain words are corrected and links have been added):
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US (see December 1, 1998). Bin Laden implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and “bring the fighting to America” (see May 26, 1998).
After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -REDACTED-service (see December 21, 1998).
An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told -REDACTED- service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.
The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden’s first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself (see December 14, 1999), but that bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaida encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaida was planning his own US attack (see Late March-Early April 2001 and May 30, 2001).
Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation.
Although bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 (see 10:35-10:39 a.m., August 7, 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 (see Late 1993-Late 1994), and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.
Al-Qaeda members—including some who are US citizens—have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks (see January 25, 2001). Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were US citizens (see September 15, 1998), and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s (see November 1989 and September 10, 1998).
A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks (see October-November 1998).
“We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [REDACTED] service in 1998 saying that bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of ‘Blind Sheikh’ Omar Abdul-Rahman and other US-held extremists” (see 1998, December 4, 1998, and May 23, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 223] According to the Washington Post, this information came from a British service. [Washington Post, 5/18/2002]
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 (see May 30, 2001).
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the US that it considers bin Laden-related (see August 6, 2001). 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 US planning attacks with explosives (see May 16-17, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 223]
In retrospect, the briefing is remarkable for the many warnings that apparently are not included (see for instance, from the summer of 2001 prior to August alone: May 2001, June 2001, June 12, 2001, June 19, 2001, Late Summer 2001, July 2001, July 16, 2001, Late July 2001, Late July 2001, Summer 2001, June 30-July 1, 2001, July 10, 2001, and Early August 2001). According to one account, after the PDB has been given to him, Bush tells the CIA briefer, “You’ve covered your ass now” (see August 6, 2001). Incredibly, the New York Times later reports that after being given the briefing, Bush “[breaks] off from work early and [spends] most of the day fishing.” [New York Times, 5/25/2002] In 2002 and again in 2004, National Security Adviser Rice will incorrectly claim under oath that the briefing only contained historical information from 1998 and before (see May 16, 2002 and April 8, 2004).
Entity Tags: George W. Bush, Islamic Jihad, Omar Abdul-Rahman, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Los Angeles International Airport, Condoleezza Rice, Abu Zubaida, Al-Qaeda, World Trade Center, Central Intelligence Agency, 9/11 Commission, Ahmed Ressam, Ramzi Yousef, Osama bin Laden
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline


August 6, 2001: Bush Tells CIA Regarding Bin Laden Warning, ‘You’ve Covered Your Ass, Now’ According to journalist and author Ron Suskind, just after a CIA briefer presents President Bush with the later infamous PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) item entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” (see August 6, 2001), Bush tells the briefer, “You’ve covered your ass, now.” This account is from Suskind’s 2006 book The One Percent Doctrine, which is based largely on anonymous accounts from political insiders. In the book, after describing the presentation of the PDB, Suskind will write: “And, at an eyeball-to-eyeball intelligence briefing during this urgent summer, George W. Bush seems to have made the wrong choice. He looked hard at the panicked CIA briefer. ‘All right,’ he said. ‘You’ve covered your ass, now.’” [Suskind, 2006, pp. 2; Washington Post, 6/20/2006]
Entity Tags: George W. Bush, Central Intelligence Agency
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

August 6, 2001: Bush Misled on Number and Extent of FBI’s Bin Laden Investigations The CIA’s Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) given to President Bush on this day (see August 6, 2001) contains the important line, “The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers bin Laden-related.” Bush will state in 2004 that, based on this, “I was satisfied that some of the matters were being looked into.” National Security Adviser Rice will explain that since the FBI had 70 “full-field investigations under way of cells” in the US, “there was no recommendation [coming from the White House] that we do something about” the large number of warnings coming in. However, the number and content of the FBI investigations appears grossly exaggerated. The FBI later will reveal that the investigations are not limited to al-Qaeda and do not focus on al-Qaeda cells. Many were criminal investigations, which typically are not likely to help prevent future terrorist acts. An FBI spokesman will say the FBI does not know how that number got into Bush’s PDB. The 9/11 Commission will later conclude, “The 70 full-field investigations number was a generous calculation that included fund-raising investigations. It also counted each individual connected to an investigation as a separate full-field investigation. Many of these investigations should not have been included, such as the one that related to a dead person, four that concerned people who had been in long-term custody, and eight that had been closed well before August 6, 2001.” [Newsday, 4/10/2004; Associated Press, 4/11/2004; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 262, 535]
Entity Tags: Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Condoleezza Rice
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

August 6, 2001: Bush Later Recalls His Reaction to ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US’ Memo
Bush being briefed at his ranch on August 6, 2001. [Source: Associated Press]On April 29, 2004, President Bush will testify before the 9/11 Commission, but almost no details of what he said will be publicly released. He testifies with Vice President Cheney, in private, not under oath, is not recorded, and the notes that the commissioners take are censored by the White House (see April 29, 2004). However, the 9/11 Commission will release a one paragraph summary of how Bush claims he responded to the Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001, entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” (see August 6, 2001). The Commission recalls, “The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al-Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. The President said bin Laden had long been talking about his desire to attack America. He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way (see August 6, 2001). As best he could recollect, [National Security Adviser] Rice had mentioned that the Yemenis’ surveillance of a federal building in New York had been looked into in May and June, but there was no actionable intelligence (see May 30, 2001). He did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so. He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it. That never happened.” The 9/11 Commission will conclude that they could find no evidence of any further discussions or actions taken by Bush and his top advisers in response to the briefing (see Between August 6 and September 10, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 260]
Entity Tags: Condoleezza Rice, 9/11 Commission, George W. Bush
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline


Between August 6 and September 10, 2001: ’Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US’ Memo Is Not Acted Upon The 9/11 Commission will later state that after the now famous “bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” memo is given to President Bush on August 6, 2001 (see August 6, 2001), “We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the president and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al-Qaeda attack in the United States.” [Newsweek, 4/28/2005] 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey will later state to CNN,“[B]y the way, there’s a credible case that the president’s own negligence prior to 9/11 at least in part contributed to the disaster in the first place.… [I]n the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn’t do anything to harden our border security, didn’t do anything to harden airport country, didn’t do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn’t do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn’t warn the American people. The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn’t made.… The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That’s what he said. Mr. President, you don’t need to know that. This is an Islamic Jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in ‘96 and ‘98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission.” [CNN, 11/8/2004]
Entity Tags: World Trade Center, Pentagon, Central Intelligence Agency, George W. Bush, Bob Kerrey, Al-Qaeda, 9/11 Commission, Bush administration, Osama bin Laden
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

August 17 and 31, 2001: CIA Director Tenet Briefs President Bush; Fails to Mention Moussaoui CIA records show that CIA Director George Tenet briefed President Bush twice in August—once in Crawford, Texas, on August 17, and once in Washington, on August 31. [Washington Post, 4/15/2004] In Tenet’s 2007 book, he will briefly mention that “A few weeks after the August 6 PDB [titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US’ (see August 6, 2001)] was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure the president stayed current on events. That was my first visit to the ranch.” [Tenet, 2007, pp. 145] Later asked about what he told Bush at this meeting, Tenet will only say, “I held nothing back from the president. He understood our concerns about threats. He understood what we were doing around the world at the time.” [MSNBC, 5/7/2007] By the time of the second briefing, Tenet has been briefed about Zacarias Moussaoui’s arrest (see August 23, 2001), but, apparently, he fails to tell Bush about it. [Washington Post, 4/15/2004] In April 2004, Tenet will testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission that he had no direct communication with President Bush during the month of August. [New York Times, 4/15/2004] This is quickly discovered to be untrue. A CIA spokesperson will then claim, “He momentarily forgot [about the briefings]” (see April 14, 2004). [Washington Post, 4/15/2004] Tenet will personally brief Bush six more times before 9/11 and will still apparently fail to mention Moussaoui to him (see September 1-8, 2001).
Entity Tags: Zacarias Moussaoui, George J. Tenet, George W. Bush, 9/11 Commission
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

September 14-19, 2001: Bin Laden Family Members, Saudi Royals Quietly Leave US
Khalil bin Laden at the Orlando, Florida, airport, about to be flown out of the country in the days after 9/11. [Source: Lions Gate Films]Following a secret flight inside the US that is in violation of a national private airplane flight ban, members of the bin Laden family and Saudi royalty quietly depart the US. The flights are only publicly acknowledged after all the Saudis have left. [Boston Globe, 9/21/2001; New York Times, 9/30/2001] About 140 Saudis, including around 24 members of the bin Laden family, are passengers in these flights. The identities of most of these passengers are not known. However, some of the passengers include:
The son of the Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan. Sultan is sued in August 2002 for alleged complicity in the 9/11 plot. [Tampa Tribune, 10/5/2001] He is alleged to have contributed at least $6 million since 1994 to four charities that finance al-Qaeda. [Vanity Fair, 10/2003]
Khalil bin Laden. He has been investigated by the Brazilian government for possible terrorist connections. [Vanity Fair, 10/2003]
Abdullah bin Laden and Omar bin Laden, cousins of bin Laden. Abdullah was the US director of the Muslim charity World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY). The governments of India, Pakistan, Philippines, and Bosnia have all accused WAMY of funding terrorism. These two relatives were investigated by the FBI in 1996 (see February-September 11, 1996) in a case involving espionage, murder, and national security. Their case is reopened on September 19, right after they leave the country. [Vanity Fair, 10/2003] Remarkably, four of the 9/11 hijackers briefly lived in the town of Falls Church, Virginia, three blocks from the WAMY office headed by Abdullah bin Laden. [BBC, 11/6/2001]
Saleh Ibn Abdul Rahman Hussayen. He is a prominent Saudi official who was in the same hotel as three of the hijackers the night before 9/11. He leaves on one of the first flights to Saudi Arabia before the FBI can properly interview him about this. [Washington Post, 10/2/2003]
Akberali Moawalla. A Pakistani and business partner of Osama’s brother Yeslam bin Laden. In 2000, a transfer of over $250 million was made from a bank account belonging jointly to Moawalla and Osama bin Laden (see 2000). [Washington Post, 7/22/2004]
There is a later dispute regarding how thoroughly the Saudis are interviewed before they leave and who approves the flights. Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke says he agrees to the flights after the FBI assures him none of those on board has connections to terrorism and that it is “a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House.” [US Congress, 9/3/2003] Clarke says the decision to approve the flights “didn’t get any higher than me.” [Hill, 5/18/2004] According to Vanity Fair, both the FBI and the State Department “deny playing any role whatsoever in the episode.” However, Dale Watson, the head of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, says the Saudis on the planes “[are] identified, but they [are] not subject to serious interviews or interrogations” before they leave. [Vanity Fair, 10/2003] An FBI spokesperson says the bin Laden relatives are only interviewed by the FBI “at the airport, as they [are] about to leave.” [National Review, 9/11/2002] There are claims that some passengers are not interviewed by the FBI at all. [Vanity Fair, 10/2003] Abdullah bin Laden, who stays in the US, says that even a month after 9/11, his only contact with the FBI is a brief phone call. [Boston Globe, 9/21/2001; New Yorker, 11/5/2001] The FBI official responsible for coordinating with Clarke is Assistant Director Michael Rolince, who is in charge of the Bureau’s International Terrorism Operations Section and assumes responsibility for the Saudi flights. Rolince decides that the Saudis can leave after their faces are matched to their passport photos and their names are run through various databases, including some watch lists, to check the FBI has no derogatory information about them.” [9/11 Commission, 8/21/2004, pp. 196-197, 209 ] Numerous experts are surprised that the bin Ladens are not interviewed more extensively before leaving, pointing out that interviewing the relatives of suspects is standard investigative procedure. [National Review, 9/11/2002; Vanity Fair, 10/2003] MSNBC claims that “members of the Saudi royal family met frequently with bin Laden—both before and after 9/11” [MSNBC, 9/5/2003] , and many Saudi royals and bin Laden relatives are being sued for their alleged role in 9/11. The Boston Globe opines that the flights occur “too soon after 9/11 for the FBI even to know what questions to ask, much less to decide conclusively that each Saudi [royal] and bin Laden relative [deserve] an ‘all clear,’ never to be available for questions again.” [Boston Globe, 9/30/2003] Senator Charles Schumer (D) says of the secret flights: “This is just another example of our country coddling the Saudis and giving them special privileges that others would never get. It’s almost as if we didn’t want to find out what links existed.” [New York Times, 9/4/2003] Judicial Watch will disclose FBI documents that say, “Osama bin Laden may have chartered one of the Saudi flights.” [Judicial Watch, 6/20/2007]
Entity Tags: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Dale Watson, Khalil bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden Family, Abdullah bin Laden, Michael Rolince, Osama bin Laden, Bush administration, World Assembly of Muslim Youth, Omar bin Laden, US Department of State, Saleh Ibn Abdul Rahman Hussayen, Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, Charles Schumer, Richard A. Clarke
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline


October 4, 2001: British Prime Minister Tony Blair Presents Case for Al-Qaeda 9/11 Involvement
Tony Blair presenting evidence on October 4, 2001. [Source: Associated Press]British Prime Minister Tony Blair publicly presents a paper containing evidence that al-Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. [Los Angeles Times, 10/4/2001; Los Angeles Times, 10/5/2001] Secretary of State Powell and other US officials had promised on September 23 that the US would present a paper containing such evidence. [Los Angeles Times, 9/24/2001] However, the US paper is never released (see September 23-24, 2001). Apparently, the British paper is meant to serve as a substitute. [New Yorker, 5/27/2002] It begins, “This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama bin Laden in a court of law.” Nevertheless, it continues, “on the basis of all the information available [Her Majesty’s Government] is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document.” [BBC, 10/4/2001] In his speech, Blair claims, “One of bin Laden’s closest lieutenants has said clearly that he helped with the planning of the September 11 attacks and admitted the involvement of the al-Qaeda organization” and that “there is other intelligence, we cannot disclose, of an even more direct nature indicating guilt” of al-Qaeda in the attacks. [CNN, 10/4/2001; Time, 10/5/2001] There has been no confirmation or details since of these claims. Even though most of the evidence in the British paper comes from the US, pre-attack warnings, such as the August 6, 2001 memo (see August 6, 2001) to Bush titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US,” are not included. In fact, Blair’s paper states, “incorrectly, that no such information had been available before the attacks: ‘After 11 September we learned that, not long before, bin Laden had indicated he was about to launch a major attack on America.’” [New Yorker, 5/27/2002]
Entity Tags: Al-Qaeda, Colin Powell, Tony Blair, Osama bin Laden
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline


May 15, 2002: Bush’s ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US’ Warning Is Leaked to Public
The New York Post has a banner headline on May 16, 2002. [Source: New York Post]The Bush administration is embarrassed when the CBS Evening News reveals that President Bush had been warned about al-Qaeda domestic attacks in August 2001 (see August 6, 2001). Bush had repeatedly said that he had “no warning” of any kind. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer states unequivocally that while Bush had been warned of possible hijackings, “[t]he president did not—not—receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers.” [New York Times, 5/15/2002; Washington Post, 5/16/2002] “Until the attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.” [MSNBC, 9/18/2002] Fleischer claims the August memo was titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike the US,” but the real title is soon found to end with “… Strike in US” [Washington Post, 5/18/2002] The Guardian will state a few days later, “the memo left little doubt that the hijacked airliners were intended for use as missiles and that intended targets were to be inside the US.” It further states that, “now, as the columnist Joe Conason points out in the current edition of the New York Observer, ‘conspiracy’ begins to take over from ‘incompetence’ as a likely explanation for the failure to heed—and then inform the public about—warnings that might have averted the worst disaster in the nation’s history.” [Guardian, 5/19/2002]
Entity Tags: Al-Qaeda, Ari Fleischer, Bush administration, Joe Conason, George W. Bush
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline


May 16, 2002: Condoleezza Rice Incorrectly Claims President Bush’s Pre-9/11 Warning Contains Only Historical Information National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice holds a press conference to respond to the public leak (see May 15, 2002) of the title of President Bush’s August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief item entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” (see August 6, 2001).
Presidential Daily Brief - She asserts: “It was an analytic report that talked about [Osama bin Laden]‘s methods of operation, talked about what he had done historically, in 1997, in 1998.… I want to reiterate, it was not a warning. There was no specific time, place, or method mentioned.” [White House, 5/16/2002] In April 2004, Rice will testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission and repeatedly assert that it was “a historical memo… not threat reporting” (see April 8, 2004).
Comment by Philip Shenon - Author Philip Shenon will later comment, “She failed to mention, as would later be clear, that the PDB focused entirely on the possibility that al-Qaeda intended to strike within the United States; it cited relatively recent FBI reports of possible terrorist surveillance of government buildings in New York.” After rereading the transcript of the press conference, Shenon will call it a “remarkable document,” because “To many of the Commission’s staff, it offered proof of how, to Condoleezza Rice, everything is semantics. A threat is not a threat, a warning is not a warning, unless she says it is. The word historical appeared to have an especially broad definition to Rice. To her, a warning that was a few weeks or months old was of relatively little value because it was ‘historical.’”
Aircraft as Weapons - Rice also says, “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon—that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.” However, various government agencies were well aware of the concept of planes as missiles, including the FBI (see August 27, 2001), the Defense Department (see April 17-26, 2001), and the White House itself (see June 20, 2001). Shenon will point out that this news conference occurs eight months after the attacks, yet Rice is “suggesting that in all that time, no one had bothered to tell her [of these reports].” [Shenon, 2008, pp. 213, 237-239]
Entity Tags: Philip Shenon, Condoleezza Rice
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

May 17, 2002: White House Misstates Title of Key Presidential Daily Brief on Bin Laden White House spokesman Ari Fleischer misstates the title of a key presidential daily brief item from August 2001 about al-Qaeda’s intentions to attack the US (see August 6, 2001). Fleischer says: “The president was aware that bin Laden, of course, as previous administrations have well known, that bin Laden was determined to strike the United States. In fact, the label on the president’s (presidential daily briefing) was ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike the United States.’” [Fox News, 5/17/2002] Author Philip Shenon will later point out that “Fleischer had left out the title’s all-important preposition—‘in’ the United States.” [Shenon, 2008, pp. 214] The full

Bobbyrx
11-21-2009, 12:20 PM
From your own source, whatever History Commons is:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Following a secret flight inside the US that is in violation of a national private airplane flight ban, members of the bin Laden family and Saudi royalty quietly depart the US. The flights are only publicly acknowledged after all the Saudis have left. [Boston Globe, 9/21/2001</div></div>

Well if you go to the Boston Globe article they used (http://web.archive.org/web/20010927124917/www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/264/nation/Family_weighed_staying_in_US%2B.shtml) , it has quite a different tone: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">lthough many of the Boston-area relatives of Osama bin Laden flew to Saudi Arabia this week, some were reluctant to listen to <span style='font-size: 20pt'> warnings by their government and the FBI last week that they faced possible retaliatory violence. </span>


A Saudi diplomat said it remained unclear how many of bin Laden's relatives remain in the United States, where some work and others go to school. ''Some of them didn't want to leave. They think they can ride it out,'' said the diplomat, who spoke on the condition he was not named.



The diplomat said the bin Ladens were advised by their government and the FBI they should return to Saudi Arabia for their own safety. ''The advice given last week was that they should consider leaving, at least until things cool down,'' he said.

The bin Ladens, who paid for their own plane, and about two dozen Saudi citizens who took up their government's offer to fly home free, were questioned by the FBI before being allowed to leave the United States.
</div></div>

We asked them to leave for their own safety, some left some didn't. The ones who left were questioned by the FBI. YOUR SOURCE !!!

Gayle in MD
11-21-2009, 01:04 PM
This really isn't and wasn't a gotcha thread. However, that is the only tone any of the right on here are capable, particularly you, and Sack, but then you two are about the only righties I read anymore...

However, last attempt....as you can readily see, or could have, had you read all of the info...there were other FBI agents, who have testified that no questions were asked.

I am not going to go through every book I have read on the subject, however, a number of my sources led to this scenario.

Saudi Embassy either contacted, or was contacted, by the Saudis and bin Ladens, then contacted the White House, where they were unable to speak with anyone there...this was the day of the attack.

Within twenty four hours, they were contacted by Bush, which he denies, but then, let's not forget, he was the president, and somng their oldest and dearest friends, as we could readily see, every time he kissed them...

Logically speaking, much of what I have read indicates that they were assisted by "The While House" a term often used when no one from the WHite House wishes to reveal exactly who was in charge of any particular undertaking....

Suffice it to say, that under the usual Bush administration M.O., lies were told, wistle blowers emerged, evidence was refused under the auspices of "National Security" and certain information was put into "Classfied" status.

My opinion is that Bush arranged for his dear old friends, and business associates, the Saudis, and the bin Ladens, Financiers of terrorists around the world, to get out as fast as possible.

I couldn't care less what your opinion is about the subject....you parsed through a link until you found something you likes, just as you always do.

the timeline link I provided, gives information that is different yet.

obviously, where ever there is a cover up, there emerges a slew of varrying statements about what occured.

Logically speaking, there was only one person who had the power, and the cause, to see that they escaped, without delay....

Given that I am an avid reader, I have read numerous accounts, and I have no doubt who that person was....Their dear family friends, who were in the top level...the president, who covered up everything eh could get away with, including trying to prevent any investigation at all, and even trying to prevent the funds for any investigation into his part in the attack, through his questionable relationships, business and otherwise, with the financiers of al Qaeda, and other terrorist organization, the Saudis and the bin Ladens.

Perhaps you should ask yourself what you might think, had obama had the long decades old business friendships with the bin Ladens, and the Saudis, known finciers of terrorists.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

g.

pooltchr
11-21-2009, 06:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps you should ask yourself what you might think, had obama had the long decades old business friendships with the bin Ladens, and the Saudis, known finciers of terrorists.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

g. </div></div>

Obama's ties have been with domestic terrorists. What's the difference?

Steve

Bobbyrx
11-22-2009, 06:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I couldn't care less what your opinion is about the subject....you parsed through a link until you found something you likes, just as you always do.
</div></div>

That "link" if you want to call it that, was so full of holes that I just picked the first one I came to. You again, copied and pasted an article so long that you figured no one would read it, just as YOU always do. Do you even know what kind of site HistoryCommons.org is??? Anyone can write their own conspiracy theory and have it on the web. They employ zero journalists.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I am not going to go through every book I have read on the subject,</div></div>

Please list just one on the subject. I don't recall seeing one about how Bush flew terrorists out of the country within hours of 9/11.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Logically speaking, there was only one person who had the power, and the cause, to see that they escaped, without delay....
</div></div> Who escaped? We asked them to leave for their own saftey. We already knew who these people were. Some had been here for decades. Have any of these people been accused of anything? No. Without delay? It was days later that they left, not hours like you said in your first comment.

With all your reading you may have missed this one:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Story of the Bin Ladens offers a window into two different worlds
By Richard A. Clarke
March 26, 2008
One of the many conspiracy theories surrounding Sept. 11, 2001, is some inchoate suspicion about the request the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C., made to fly out Saudi citizens and members of the Bin Laden family in the days after the attack. That Osama Bin Laden’s relatives were among those asking to get out of the United States and that the government let them go is seen as some sort of indicator of a hidden hand, secrets, evil deeds. Who let them go?

<span style='font-size: 17pt'> I did.</span> When the embassy request came to me as the White House crisis manager, it seemed understandable that these people might think themselves at risk after disclosures that almost all of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis. I had arranged evacuation flights for Americans from crisis zones many times when I thought they might be at risk.
</div></div>
link (http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2008/03/26/story_of_the_bin_ladens_offers_a_window_into_two_d ifferent_worlds/?page=1)

Gayle in MD
11-23-2009, 02:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I couldn't care less what your opinion is about the subject....you parsed through a link until you found something you likes, just as you always do.
</div></div>

That "link" if you want to call it that, was so full of holes that I just picked the first one I came to. You again, copied and pasted an article so long that you figured no one would read it, just as YOU always do. Do you even know what kind of site HistoryCommons.org is??? Anyone can write their own conspiracy theory and have it on the web. They employ zero journalists.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I am not going to go through every book I have read on the subject,</div></div>

Please list just one on the subject. I don't recall seeing one about how Bush flew terrorists out of the country within hours of 9/11.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Logically speaking, there was only one person who had the power, and the cause, to see that they escaped, without delay....
</div></div> Who escaped? We asked them to leave for their own saftey. We already knew who these people were. Some had been here for decades. Have any of these people been accused of anything? No. Without delay? It was days later that they left, not hours like you said in your first comment.

With all your reading you may have missed this one:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Story of the Bin Ladens offers a window into two different worlds
By Richard A. Clarke
March 26, 2008
One of the many conspiracy theories surrounding Sept. 11, 2001, is some inchoate suspicion about the request the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C., made to fly out Saudi citizens and members of the Bin Laden family in the days after the attack. That Osama Bin Laden’s relatives were among those asking to get out of the United States and that the government let them go is seen as some sort of indicator of a hidden hand, secrets, evil deeds. Who let them go?

<span style='font-size: 17pt'> I did.</span> When the embassy request came to me as the White House crisis manager, it seemed understandable that these people might think themselves at risk after disclosures that almost all of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis. I had arranged evacuation flights for Americans from crisis zones many times when I thought they might be at risk.
</div></div>
link (http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2008/03/26/story_of_the_bin_ladens_offers_a_window_into_two_d ifferent_worlds/?page=1)

</div></div>

This is my last comment on the subject.

As I stated, Richard Clarke, was not the person who originally decided to fly the Saudis and THE BIN LADENS, out of the country,
and if they were unable to reach Bush, which I seriously doubt, given their estremely close, decades old "Friendship" it would be logical they would have contacted their Embassy, or their Embassy would have contacted them, whichever, Clarke did not have them on his mind that day, rest assured.



There are a number of versions, each of them has dissenters. If it please you to think that neither Bush, nor Cheney was contacted for aid in leaving, fine, i isn't likely at all, and illogical that they wouldn't have gone striaght to the top, to their dear firend, Geroge Bush, the president.

Clarke, was NOT THE PERSON WHO ORIGINALLY DECIDED ATO FLYA THEAM OUT.

As for your other comments, who cares, what you think of the site, which I have often used, and found reliable, or the incident in question. I heard Clarke address the subject, in person, and it was not his idea. He was in charge, at the White House, and got a request, and gave premission. If Bush or Cheney wanted to keep them here for questionaing, they surely could have, given they were at the very top. Nothing beyond the standard proceedures, would have gone through that day without their input.

Think whatever you like...I couldn't care less what you think about it, since you are never reasonable in your thinking anyway.

g.

Bobbyrx
11-24-2009, 07:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Note; Within hours of 9/11, Geroge W. Bush flew more than one hundred relatives of the bin Laden family out of the country...
</div></div>

Let's start with your original quote.
It was actually 2 dozen members of the family, not more than 100. Other Saudi's left after air traffic reopened 3 days later but the Bin Ladin family plane actually didn't leave until 9/20. Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp)
YOU even said "if they were unable to reach Bush, which I seriously doubt, given their estremely close, decades old "Friendship" it would be logical they would have contacted their Embassy, or their Embassy would have contacted them, whichever".... Well they DID contact their embassy. Why do that if they had already talked to Bush??? If Bush ok'ed it, why would anyone need to call Clarke. These people feared for their lives, called their embassy for help, their embassy called the state dept who called the White House, spoke to Clarke,who ok'ed it. Just like Clarke says. Most of these people were students. None of them have ever been accused of having any links to terrorists. FactCheck says there is nothing to it. Snopes.com says there is nothing to it. Richard Clarke calls it a conspiracy theory and there is nothing to it. No one has brought out ANY evidence that Bush had anything to do with it. No one except the 9/11 commission has even deemed it worthy of any kind of investigation and they said there was nothing to it. You still can't give me the name of one book of the many you said you read on the subject. But I'M never reasonable in my thinking......right

jayalley
11-24-2009, 08:15 PM
GREAT POST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank heavens someone is challenging that nitwit to backup her keyboard diarrhea. This woman has long played fast and loose with the facts. But, most of us are too busy with work and family to stop and call her on her rants.