PDA

View Full Version : What was known prior to 9/11.


ACPlayer
03-27-2004, 07:52 AM
A couple of links passed by me today that I thought I would share, given all the interest surrounding Mr Clarke.

The Misleader page (a blatantly anti-admin site). (http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df03262004.html)

Life and death of O'Neill. (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC27Aa01.html)

Extract from the first:

A previously forgotten report from April 2001 (four months before 9/11) shows that the Bush Administration officially declared it "a mistake" to focus "so much energy on Osama bin Laden." The report directly contradicts the White House's continued assertion that fighting terrorism was its "top priority" before the 9/11 attacks1.

Extract from the second:

There were some obstacles that O'Neill's charismatic persona couldn't overcome, however. That first became clear after the Khobar Towers bombings in Saudi Arabia in 1996, which killed 19 American soldiers.

According to his friend Chris Isham, O'Neill "felt the Saudis were definitely playing games and that the senior officials in the US government just didn't get it".

Similar problems dogged O'Neill's investigation of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, when he clashed so severely with US ambassador Barbara Bodine that he was refused clearance to enter the country.

The level of opposition he faced within the US government may have contributed to O'Neill's decision to leave the FBI in July 2001, even though there were signs of increasing al-Qaeda activity. He took up a new post as head of security at the World Trade Center.

Chris Alger
03-28-2004, 03:24 PM
Thanks for this. The subscribe link seems worthwhile because it's so hard to track all the misinformation from the White House on one's own. The media's performance throughout this has been appalling. Two examples: (1) the "news" that Clarke might have "changed his story," although nobody can identify any material fact he's altered, while downplaying Rice's refusal to testify under oath, apparently intending to either conceal or lie; (2) the failure to follow up on Clarke's allegation that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz actively campaigned for war against Iraq immediately after 9/11. Here's a respected insider, eyewitness going on record, under oath, confirming prior media reports, with neither Wolfowitz nor Rumsfeld denying them, yet Stephanopolous didn't even ask Rumsfeld about that charge on TV yesterday.

andyfox
03-28-2004, 10:07 PM
There's a new book out by Watergate figure John Dean claiming that Bush and Cheney are more secretive and worse liars than "we" were in the Nixon White House.

I'm no fan of John Kerry, but it would be hard to find people more dangerous to our future than those currently residing in power.