They knew!

sovtek

So lets see what the Bushies can come up with this time......"she's just trying to make a name for herself", "she was incompetant and is disgruntled", "she just wanted that promotion".
I'm sorry, the more comes out the more my suspicion grows that this was meant to happen and then be exploited.
It may be premature, but maybe some truth will come out of this after all.

http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=507514&host=3&dir=70

shotamoose

Maybe they'll say that she was only a lowly translator who wasn't even employed by the FBI until AFTER 11th September.

That said, if she can back up what she's saying, it's bad news for the Bush junta.

sovtek

Originally posted by shotamoose
Maybe they'll say that she was only a lowly translator who wasn't even employed by the FBI until AFTER 11th September.

True but then someone could just point out that it doesn't matter when she worked there, she is providing information that was prior to Sept 11th.

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001

That said, if she can back up what she's saying, it's bad news for the Bush junta.

Possibly, but then we have the whole media equation to deal with. They've been pretty bad about covering the commission and other related stories. At best they will present it as a "he said she said" type of thing.
It's working well for the 2004 election coverage so far.

vorbis

what are you trying to draw from that?
Theres no specific targets mentioned. Besides I'd imagine that the US is ALWAYS at risk from terrorist attacks. This article is pretty poor imo. If I told you that terrorists would attack a european train station a month before the Madrid bombings, would that have helped in stopping it?

bonkey

Originally posted by vorbis
If I told you that terrorists would attack a european train station a month before the Madrid bombings, would that have helped in stopping it?

/me looks at the French who knew there were bombs somewhere on their lines, somewhere in the country....and proceeded to go and find them and deal with the problem.

/me compares the amount of train-line in France vs. the number of train-stations in Europe.....

Yeah...it would have helped.

jc

rde

Once again, everyone's focussing on the wrong issue. Would acting on this information have prevented the 11/9 attacks? I doubt it. However, that doesn't matter.
Condi is on record as saying that it was inconceivable before the event that anyone could consider this method of attack; that they can't be held accountable for that very reason. If that information were true, then she'd be right, and we'd have no reason at all to consider that the Bush government should be held accountable. However, as time goes by more and more people are coming out and saying that they tried and tried to warn Dr. Rice of the impending attack. Recently on salon.com (paid site; can't provide a link. Sorry.) Gary Hart talked of his time on a commission that in the weeks before the 11th tried and tried to warn the government that something was afoot, and very soon. Sample quote: "a bipartisan commission of seven Democrats and seven Republicans who had spent two and a half years studying the problem, a group of Americans with a cumulative 300 years in national security affairs, recommended to the president of the United States on a reasonably urgent basis the creation of a Cabinet-level agency to protect our country -- and the president did nothing!"

This issue isn't whether the attacks could've been prevented; the issue is that the government has spent its time since then lying and engaged in arse-covering exercises.

Sand

/me looks at the French who knew there were bombs somewhere on their lines, somewhere in the country....and proceeded to go and find them and deal with the problem.

/me compares the amount of train-line in France vs. the number of train-stations in Europe.....

Yeah...it would have helped.

Werent the French looking for something that was there?

It does no good to look at every train station or train in europe because the bombs wont be there, until some unknown date and time which will be shortly before they explode. A grand security sweep will only ward off the terrorists until the heat dies down.

Youre not only looking for a needle in a haystack, you dont know when that needle will even be placed in the haystack - you dont know if it will ever be placed there if were honest.

halkar

Even if they knew few months, weeks, days, hours earlier, they could have at least try to do something about it. Maybe it wouldn't have prevented the attacks but maybe it would. Biiiiig maybe. But at least they would have tried to do something. On that day with tighter airport securities these attacks could have been prevented and it doesn't take months to alert the airports. They could have had the terror alert system as now and depending on the alerts some actions could have been taken. The fact is, the have ignored it.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

halkar

Open your eyes and see what is going on over there. These people are not any people like me and you sitting at home or work and writing to boards, these are the member of Bush's own administration . And what was the attacks to US embassies abroad and others before sept 11? Shouldn't that have given them some hints what was coming? Only 2 now and how many more will be later. Even Powell admitted his evidence for Iraqs wmd plan may have been wrong . And I remember laughing off to his speech for UN that day, with his WMD jokes. It is clear now the current US administration have a policy of "do it now, deal with it later". And events of Sept 11 is still in dark even to this date with so many questions not answered. Who knows what will be next that we will hear.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

daveirl - did u see the interview that has been posted here several times? by john pilger?

Cheney is interviewed in it and he blatently outright denies that the US ever supplied Saddam with WMD... however everyone know that this is true and the proof is in the US library of congress.

So we have proof that Cheney has no problem with telling blatent lies on things that are proven facts, then how can u trust him about anything that is speculative or ambiguous?????

Also add this to the fact the forged document the US gave to UK to submit to UN in the run up to the war to try and say that Iraq tried to get plutonium from Africa... when the document was proven as a forgery they say.. oh sorry we made a mistake.. i mean seriously... you'd have to be the MOST naieve person on earth to believe that they would make such a basic mistake over something so important?

Add this to the 45 minutes claim made by Blair... and you can see quite clearly that these people are not trustworthy OR honest and that is why no one will take their words... because they are SCUM

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

halkar

Originally posted by daveirl
No, I never said that it wasn't true. What I said is that everyone takes what Richard Clarke and this unamed translator says as fact, and yet Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush are never trusted.

You're saying that you believe what Clarke and co are saying is true because they are in the administration, and yet you won't believe what other administration officials are saying.

Again I'm not saying they did or didn't know, I'm just saying that a thread title such as "They Knew!" is sensational to say the least.

That translator's name is Sibel Edmods, you can google around for that. I have never beleived in Bush, Cheney, Rumsweld and Rice and Powell. No reason I should beleive them now. As I said above I was laughing my @ss off when powell was adressing to UN on that day about Iraq's WMD capabilities and now he says it may have been wrong info :rolleyes:. Go figure. Lets see what Condoleezza Rice has in the plate for us

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

halkar

Lets say , same reason makes you beleive the other gangsters of the show

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

rde

Why I believe Clarke
In general, I'm behind daveirl in his insistence on scepticism with regard to sources. I'm a fervent anti-Bush kinda guy, but find it incredibly annoying when unqualified or unattributed comments are made; when they're repeated on a wider scale they just give ammunition to the enemy, who can and do dismiss an entire argument based on one inconsistency.

However, in this case I believe Clarke. Why? Because he's a registered Republican. Generally speaking, we can expect politicans to lie for one of two reasons; politics or money. As Clarke is a republican, it's less likely (not impossible, but pretty unlikely) that the reasons are political. So could he have done it to sell a few more books? Again, possible, but not probable. Look at the number of copies lunatics like Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly sell. If he'd written a pro-Bush book that backed up eveything the president said, he'd have sold it by the shi tload. Sure, he's got a larger foreign audience now, but I don't think that'd make up for it.

Oh, and there's another compelling reason to assume that Bush is lying; his track record. From the first week in office "those environmental promises? Oh, I'm not going to do that" he's lied, and lied, and lied.

halkar

Why "They Knew" is a bit crazy? Before even Clarke has showed up it was clear that there was many things hiding behind all these. I still don't beleive most of their stories about Sept 11. When Blinx said there was no WMDs in Iraq, Powell came up with some silly pictures and made a show of himself, his administration and his nation infront of billions and soon the Iraqi invasion went ahead. "They Knew" there was no WMD in Iraq. Do they care? nope!!