Did Intelligence Warn of Possible Hijackings Before 9/11 ?

[MegalosSkylaki]

According to abcNews article EARLY WARNING there were Three Warnings:

I) FBI Office in Pheonix asked that visa of Flight School students be examined nationwide after discovering a group at a Pheonix flight school and warned that terrorists might be seeking jobs at US Airports/Airlines--not followed up.

II) Moussaoui--"20th hijacker" arrested at St. Paul flight school and Minn. FBI asked and was denied search of his computer.

Don't recall 3rd..Brower died twice..

[EDIT: 3'rd seems to be warning given to Bush in August--article unclear}

Usually da DOOG ignores these musings as there is always the search for a scapegoat and the media like "stories"--but this is developing into a credible scenario of plauralistic ignorance.

Like the Pheonix Flight School said, "If the FBI were concerned, we would have ben concerned" . But the Pheonix FBI was concerned and asked for a nationwide examination of visas of flight school students--and didn't get it.

MegalosSkylaki

[SickPup404]

First thing that comes to mind: "Hindsight is 20/20."

(don't intend to sound like I'm thread-crapping )

[Knothead]

Interesting. I recall, right after the tragedy, the sight of FBI spokesmen earnestly explaining that, well, if they'd had a bit more funding...you know...maybe they could have gotten a handle on it...

I was disgusted. I don't expect them to be omnipotent, it just struck me as exploitation, and at a time like that...

Politics.

[MegalosSkylaki]

Quote:

Was anything done about those things?...Why are we finding out eight months later? --Sen. John Edwards, Dem. N.C.

Mostly Dems raising questions about the Pheonix FBI Memo--which mentioned Ben Ladin [according to ABCNews] by name-but Sen. Charles Grassley, Rep. Iowa has also asked for the Memo's official release.

My view it should be released AND the esteemed Congreess should remember that this is still a "wartime President " and act accordingly.

That means act in the National Interest--not the 2004 Election.

[In Social Psychology "pluralist ignorance " occurs when two people look into each others "poker faces" and conclude that nothing is wrong, since the other is not alarmed. AKA "bystander apathy"]

Quote:

They[FBI] raised very serious terrorrism concern and the use of training at aviation schools...That should have been fair warning--sen. Dick Durbin, De. Ill.

[Knothead]

Quote:

That means act in the National Interest--not the 2004 Election.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Yep, heads are gonna roll...and not neccessarily the right ones...

Again, politics.

[MegalosSkylaki]

Yipes ! Knothead & SickPup[hope you get better...] I was typing my "Politics" statement while you were posting yours...Thought Broadcasting ?

[HomeYield]

Maybe they did know but I wonder how many leads they have to stuff like this everyday (where lack of funding may cut down on the number of investigations they can do). Maybe they were thinking that they were going to attack an airport or hijack some planes but not become kamikazi's. I seriously think that they knew what was going on and just didn't try and stop it.

[MegalosSkylaki]

I think part of the problem is that turning airplanes into suicide bombers was so wildly improbable in the American experience, that no one could think-- without the "mindlessness" that besets ALL bureaucracies-- of such an event.

In any event, the two aviation school events --linked to Ben Ladin--within weeks of each other [if the article is correct] should have rang some bell somewhere. Not necessarily of WTC but of something amiss.

Problem is--dating back to '60's--the intelligence community has been so straddled with Marquis of Queensbury rules--as to mitigate its effectiveness.

Point is--you got to hunt your game the way your game lives.

MegalosSkylaki

P.S. The public should hold their politicians--of both parties-- to some standard of appropriateness in any review of intelligence events prior to 9/11. Yeah, Easier said than done....

[Mr. Goodbytes]

The point which none of these ridiculous news stories address is the process of handling intelligence that comes into the CIA, or other intelligence agencies (there are many of them). Whatever source an intelligence report comes from (be it an intercept or a human source), no matter how reliable this source is, it must be confirmed. It may take one or many additional sources of information to confirm certain alerts that come across the board. Reports indicating threats to our country are received every day. Not many make it to the President, and the ones that do of course are the ones that seem to be the most plausible or the most dangerous. But even if the Director of Central Intelligence runs one of these reports over and tells the President that we have reason to be concerned over it, although the report isn't solidly confirmed, any wise President will tell his director to confirm it. Taking action based on information not widely believe to be undoubtedly true is a dangerous choice.

Now what we have here is yet another attempt to tear apart the country's support of and faith in President Bush. The media and the liberals in Congress are at the moment alleging that Bush knew that threats existed and did nothing about them. Senior Congressional democrats are saying they knew nothing of this information until now, but that is a blatant lie. By law, intelligence reports as critical as these may have been must be briefed to certain committees in Congress (perhaps not in front of the whole committee but at least to key members so that they dispense the information to other members). They are trying to show that he had the information but was too incompetent to do anything serious about it. They are likely to try and run with the idea that Sept. 11 was preventable but our administration didn't act properly to ensure our safety. I believe that a good number of the people offering these allegations are hoping that they are right on the money with them.

But we have to look at a few things here. First of all, action was taken. SecDefense Rumsfeld has said that emabassies and other agencies were placed on a heightened status of alert as deemed necessary. Some would ask "What exactly is appropraiate action?" That's a good question to which there isn't always a good answer. Many would like to believe that the CIA, for example, has all the answers and can make snap decisions, more importantly the right decisions, when any amount of information is put in front of them. Sure would be nice, but it's not possible. Maybe if everything made sense in this world. But if that were the case, we wouldn't need spooks. Secondly (sorry to have diverged), there is certain action that cannot be taken based on intelligence reports (unless there is a dire need of course) because that compromises our sources, and real people die when that happens. Then we are cut off to information that could prove to be infinitely more valuable. Third, let's look at some of the other things that did happen.

Hijackers took control of 4 jumbo jets (later losing control of one--thank God) using plastic knives and boxcutters, items that were perfectly legal to be carried on airplanes. In fact, knives with blades up to 3" (serrated blades didn't always pass) were also allowed by law to be carried. Let's say that Bush issued an executive order circumventing this law. First of all, the FAA would have coniptions over it, even when told of the security threat. If Bush wanted Armed Forces to provide additional security at airports without the law he recently passed to beef up homeland security, he would have likely to declare martial law. That would never fly. And passing that law without Sept. 11 would have never been possible, especially if it's based on intel that is not 100% solid. Not to mention that passing such a bill takes a considerable amount of time. Even if it did get implemented, we would not necessarily be safer. To this day, officials testing the extent to which our airport security has improve can still get weapons more dangerous than knives past the so-called professional federal baggage screeners. (Federalizing airport security is such a joke, but I'll save that for another thread.) This gets more ugly, so bear with me.

Considering the unlikelyhood of upgrading security without the events on Sept. 11, what else could Bush had done? Two things immediately come to mind, both of which are bad moves. In these news reports, they speculate that the administration knew about a large number of arabs were training at American flight schools. Before I state what Bush could have done in response to that (that may or may not have resulted in any change of events on Sept. 11), keep some things in mind: we have the best flight schools in the world, so it's natural for all sorts of nationalities to attend them; also, nobody would have ever believed that the hijackers would fly the planes into targets (and I firmly believe that most of the hijackers knew nothing of the full extent of their mission). Ok, so Bush comes out, let's say last August, and says that we have credible information and good reason to believe that a number of arabs under the command of Osama bin Laden are planning to hijack a number of airplanes. So he has the FBI arrest or detain all of the arab students currently or very recently enrolled in these schools. Will some terrorists turn up in the batch? Maybe, maybe not. But there will be certain dire consequences for such an action. Bush would immediately be accused of racial profiling by the same people who attack him now for allegedly doing nothing. He would be labeled a racist and a bigot even more so that the democrats have done in the past.

Alright, so that option doesn't work. So what else could he have done? Let's say Bush decides to simply warn the American people in a public address. "My fellow Americans,... we have good reason to believe based on credible information that Osama bin Laden is planning numerous hijackings of commercial aircraft in the near future... may God be with you on your journies." Now what happens? One word... panic. People en masse are inherently stupid when dealing with such warnings. Flight bookings would drop dramatically causing further financial suffering to airlines still dealing with financial woes spawned from deregulation. Bush would have just consigned an untold number of airlines, major ones included, to bankruptcy. Tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands would lose jobs, and the number of lawsuits would be enough to fill the oval office to the ceiling, I guarantee you. And further still, no net gain in security would result; in fact, the inverse is likely true.

So there's no substantial reason to believe that there is any truth in the argument the liberal media is trying to make. They are simply looking for yet another scandal to try and stick to the President, seeing as nothing has to date. They want to shake our confidence in Bush. And the democrats in Congress want to turn it into a circus, hoping to take political advantage of the "controversy." Gephardt, minority leader of the House, wants hearings, and Daschle, the "bipartisan" obstructionist Senate Majority Leader, is calling for a "Blue Ribbon Panel" to investigate the matter. This is all a sick joke, and when, if in fact the investigations take place, the panels come across the fact that the Clinton administration has had similar security threats and took the same action the Bush administration took before Sept. 11, their voices will become background noise. They will shut up, just as they have lately on the Enron matter (now that any new material they make known will show how much Enron and the Clinton administration were intertwined). I'm interested to see how this whole thing plays out, but when it all boils down, all we have here is another attempt to create a scandal, one more attempt that will surely fail.

*edit* Sorry for being so long, but it was necessary.

[caddmannq]

Very good points all, Mr Goodbytes.

Quote:

if in fact the investigations take place, the panels come across the fact that the Clinton administration has had similar security threats

That is exactly what he did have. Just since the Gulf War, the FBI & CIA, and all other law enforcement agencies, have been flooded with thousands of terrorism "reports" and have amassed millions of pages of documents regarding the same. There is no way that any of them had (or in any concievable universe, could have) the resources to check out more than a small percentage of them. Nor do they have such to this day.

Politics is quite often about luck. This happened on Bush's watch, so he is the unlucky one.