Skip to main content

France Warned CIA of Hijack Plot in 2001

By Angela Donald
Associated Press Writer

Nine months before al-Qaida slammed airliners into the World Trade Center, French intelligence suspected the terror network was plotting a hijacking - possibly involving a U.S. airline - and warned the CIA, former French intelligence officials said Monday.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17548.htm
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

France is not the only country to warn us. Israel, Germany, Egypt, Jordan, and a few others all had picked up a major attack about to occur on US soil. Some reported bin Laden was openly boasting in the camps of a major attack about to happen.

Captured al Qaeda computers in the mid 1990's had plans to use airplanes as weapons to attack buildings in America and Europe.

Former FBI agent Colleen Rowley wanted to get into Moussouis' computer but was blocked by higher ups in Washington.

Richard Clark wrote that he tried to brief Rice and the Bush administration on al Qaeda but was brushed off. He was told they were downgrading the threat from al Qaeda and concentrating on Iraq.

Our own intelligence gave the administration a report in August 2001 that "bin Laden was determined to attack on US soil." Rumsfeld claimed he didn't read it and Rice said "It didn't give a specific date." Bush went on vacation.

Tenet himself became alarmed at reports and went to Bush himself only to be ignored.

Now the "war on terror" has become the anthem of the Bush administration as they carryout wars across the globe and on our rights.
Note to self: step one, put the link to the AP story on Yahoo in your reply to get ICH out of the mix. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_eu/france911
besides, the AP website is a lot more "lively" than ICH it has pitsurs and everthang.
Step Two: remind the readers that at least 22 warnings were sent to the Bush Minions prior to the hijacking.
Step Three: remind the readers that these warnings were taken seriously enough for internal memos to circulate telling Administration officials to use Charter Flights to avoid the possibility of being on hijacked Airliners.
Step Four: remind readers that Condi Rice, in her position as National Security Adviser Says the warnings were received, but the Administration "never imagined" that the Hijacked planes would be used as bombs.

Add to this, that the implication of that statement was that the Administration planned to deal with the hijackings after the fact. In fact, Ms. Rice did say that they expected the hijackers to land the planes in remote areas and demand the release of convicted terrorists.

I know we are dealing with a War Presidency. It was not a war Presidency when it began, but the plan was to make war on Iraq at that time.

The administration KNEW the hijackings were planned, that they were coming, and that they would be an excuse for war. THEY LET THEM HAPPEN.

I think that explains the look of shock on Bush's face at the reading of "The Pet Goat" in Florida. He was expecting the hijackings, he was not expecting them to be SO DEADLY. He let them happen, thinking the hijackers would demand the release of the Blind Ayatollah or some other prisoner. When they turned deadly, and out of his control, he had two problems. One he welcomed, he had a casus belli. The other was extreme. He had to 1) lie to cover up his prior knowledge of the hijackings, and 2) He had to admit that he had made one WHOPPER of a misjudgment.

How he accomplished this was by coming out with a highly aggressive stance on Islamic terrorism. He went to the point of using the word "crusade."

He continues, to this day, to characterize the war on terrorism as a War on ISLAMIC terrorism. He continues to raise the specter of 9/11 when questioned on his motives for invading Iraq.

by the way pba, you can save me a lot of trouble if you will click on the underscored portion of this ICH heading: 04/17/07 "AP" --- - PARIS - . The forum system will not reproduce underlined text, but the AP in that line is a link to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_eu/france911
The reason I bring this up is, I am sick of defending ICH. They publish, with ICH in place of AP, their own opinions.

I have been thinking you are "insulating" yourself from criticism by putting the responsibility on ICH. Well pba, If you post it you should take responsibility for it. Besides, you are being surgically connected at the hip to ICH. You could better serve your objectives, and Mine, if you would do your best to distance yourself from ICH.

Take the criticism and advice as "FREE" and be mindful that it is worth what you pay for it.
One other move regarding the error in judgment, He promoted his National Security Adviser to Secretary of State. Had he fired her, she would have been a "loose" disgruntled employee, especially if she concluded that the Hijackers should have been prevented prior to the hijacking. Had he left her in the position of NSA Chief, she would have continued to isolate him from information from people Like Clarke, who IS A DISGRUNTLED FORMER EMPLOYEE.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
Note to self: step one, put the link to the AP story on Yahoo in your reply to get ICH out of the mix. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_eu/france911
besides, the AP website is a lot more "lively" than ICH it has pitsurs and everthang.
Step Two: remind the readers that at least 22 warnings were sent to the Bush Minions prior to the hijacking.
Step Three: remind the readers that these warnings were taken seriously enough for internal memos to circulate telling Administration officials to use Charter Flights to avoid the possibility of being on hijacked Airliners.
Step Four: remind readers that Condi Rice, in her position as National Security Adviser Says the warnings were received, but the Administration "never imagined" that the Hijacked planes would be used as bombs.

Add to this, that the implication of that statement was that the Administration planned to deal with the hijackings after the fact. In fact, Ms. Rice did say that they expected the hijackers to land the planes in remote areas and demand the release of convicted terrorists.

I know we are dealing with a War Presidency. It was not a war Presidency when it began, but the plan was to make war on Iraq at that time.

The administration KNEW the hijackings were planned, that they were coming, and that they would be an excuse for war. THEY LET THEM HAPPEN.

I think that explains the look of shock on Bush's face at the reading of "The Pet Goat" in Florida. He was expecting the hijackings, he was not expecting them to be SO DEADLY. He let them happen, thinking the hijackers would demand the release of the Blind Ayatollah or some other prisoner. When they turned deadly, and out of his control, he had two problems. One he welcomed, he had a casus belli. The other was extreme. He had to 1) lie to cover up his prior knowledge of the hijackings, and 2) He had to admit that he had made one WHOPPER of a misjudgment.

How he accomplished this was by coming out with a highly aggressive stance on Islamic terrorism. He went to the point of using the word "crusade."

He continues, to this day, to characterize the war on terrorism as a War on ISLAMIC terrorism. He continues to raise the specter of 9/11 when questioned on his motives for invading Iraq.

by the way pba, you can save me a lot of trouble if you will click on the underscored portion of this ICH heading: 04/17/07 "AP" --- - PARIS - . The forum system will not reproduce underlined text, but the AP in that line is a link to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_eu/france911
The reason I bring this up is, I am sick of defending ICH. They publish, with ICH in place of AP, their own opinions.

I have been thinking you are "insulating" yourself from criticism by putting the responsibility on ICH. Well pba, If you post it you should take responsibility for it. Besides, you are being surgically connected at the hip to ICH. You could better serve your objectives, and Mine, if you would do your best to distance yourself from ICH.

Take the criticism and advice as "FREE" and be mindful that it is worth what you pay for it.



I trust ICH because not like fox they're fair and balance. ICH News you won't get from ap,fox,or cnn!! Thanks for your criticism.
pba, This threads starter is an Associated Press story that ICH copied and pasted from Yahoo, and linked to Yahoo to prove it.

Bill Moyers, who comes back to PBS Wednesday, 4/25 with a program that looks at US Media's role in the run up to war, Says none of it is Fair and balanced, On the Tavis Smiley Show Monday he actually said Fox News has so "poisoned" the phrase "Fair and Balanced" that he, Moyers, does not like to use it. Listen. Moyers, says in that interview, The media is "in cahoots with the arsonist."
Good analyses on the 9/11 warnings Ed.

In general I like the ICH site but it's up to each person to make their own decisions on what they read. I don't agree with everything but as I say, in general.

I enjoy the articles and their authors, some of which I find in other independent publications and sites I have been reading for years.

As far as Clarke being a "disgruntled employee" he has good reason to blow the whistle on this criminal administration. Paul O'Neil also came forward with his experiences. Just because a former insider exposes the lies, incompetence and criminal behavior of his former employer doesn't automatically discredit them.

Without whistle blowers we would be in bad shape.
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo142:
Good analyses on the 9/11 warnings Ed.

In general I like the ICH site but it's up to each person to make their own decisions on what they read. I don't agree with everything but as I say, in general.

I enjoy the articles and their authors, some of which I find in other independent publications and sites I have been reading for years.

As far as Clarke being a "disgruntled employee" he has good reason to blow the whistle on this criminal administration. Paul O'Neil also came forward with his experiences. Just because a former insider exposes the lies, incompetence and criminal behavior of his former employer doesn't automatically discredit them.

Without whistle blowers we would be in bad shape.
I have no issue with ICH. I subscribe to it, and a few dozen other Blogs and Newspapers and News Magazines. My issue is with pba.

Let me demonstrate the problem.

This is an ICH posting. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17590.htm
That link takes you to the story on ICH.
It has this link: Kucinich introduced Articles of Impeachment against Cheney in the Congress today. And, here is where it takes you: http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm
That is the Kucinich website, and the page is links to the list of charges, one of those links takes you to this pdf file of the Lancet report on Iraqi Mortality. (good read if you have time) http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo2.pdf
Another link, CQ Transcripts Wire takes you to this, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...AR2007042401542.html
which is the transcript of the statement made by Kucinich when he introduced the resolution. Now, I am not objecting to posting ICH pages if there is an explanation of the reasoning. On this Thread, ICH is the link, but they provide a single link to the source, AP, and that link takes you to the AP story on Yahoo. The only other link is
quote:
Sign up for our Daily Email Newsletter
If you want to do that, or if pba wants to help you do that, this is where that link takes you http://visitor.constantcontact.com/optin.jsp?m=1101581137416&ea=
Sign up I did, years ago. Love the site.

The problem is this, "Perception is everything." By posting ICH pba is creating the perception that ICH is the source. It rarely is.

My criticism here is pretty simple, and I don't much care for revealing this, but I post material from ICH often. RARELY do I post ICH though. Simple reason, I get ICH by e mail...all the links include my e mail address. So I go to the ICH links. But the perception is that I got the story from the Tribune, or the Times or the London Observer or the Journal Constitution. I also get, and give, the opportunity for others to sign up with any one of those papers. ICH is not a huge news service. It is a gathering service, and an excellent one. But, like all filters, it does not post articles that are not in the ICH agenda.

I think that pba is doing us a dis service by not going to the source material.
EdEKit:

The problem is this, "Perception is everything." By posting ICH pba is creating the perception that ICH is the source. It rarely is.

My criticism here is pretty simple, and I don't much care for revealing this, but I post material from ICH often. RARELY do I post ICH though. Simple reason, I get ICH by e mail...all the links include my e mail address. So I go to the ICH links. But the perception is that I got the story from the Tribune, or the Times or the London Observer or the Journal Constitution. I also get, and give, the opportunity for others to sign up with any one of those papers. ICH is not a huge news service. It is a gathering service, and an excellent one. But, like all filters, it does not post articles that are not in the ICH agenda.

I think that pba is doing us a dis service by not going to the source material.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, and no. I will post things I find in the Truthoutsite. They will also have the link to the original news article where you can find the story. I too will post the original story from the original source, like the Washington Post or whatever paper they found it in but I usually say I found this in the Truthout site, then post it from the source. It's more professional and adds to the credibility of the story.

I do mention the Truthout site because I am trying to make people aware of the Truthout site, which I find very helpful. Also I am not trying to take the credit for finfding the story and present a false impression. I am taking it from someone else who did the research

I think pba is just trying to show people a good source of information.

But I understand your criticism.
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo142:
EdEKit:

The problem is this, "Perception is everything." By posting ICH pba is creating the perception that ICH is the source. It rarely is.

My criticism here is pretty simple, and I don't much care for revealing this, but I post material from ICH often. RARELY do I post ICH though. Simple reason, I get ICH by e mail...all the links include my e mail address. So I go to the ICH links. But the perception is that I got the story from the Tribune, or the Times or the London Observer or the Journal Constitution. I also get, and give, the opportunity for others to sign up with any one of those papers. ICH is not a huge news service. It is a gathering service, and an excellent one. But, like all filters, it does not post articles that are not in the ICH agenda.

I think that pba is doing us a dis service by not going to the source material.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, and no. I will post things I find in the Truthoutsite. They will also have the link to the original news article where you can find the story. I too will post the original story from the original source, like the Washington Post or whatever paper they found it in but I usually say I found this in the Truthout site, then post it from the source. It's more professional and adds to the credibility of the story.

I do mention the Truthout site because I am trying to make people aware of the Truthout site, which I find very helpful. Also I am not trying to take the credit for finfding the story and present a false impression. I am taking it from someone else who did the research

I think pba is just trying to show people a good source of information.

But I understand your criticism.
your solution is "gooder" than mine. I mean gooder as well, Your solution is good, mine is not as good. In fact, mine is bad, in the sense that I don't always share the places I find Material. The fact is the moderators here have on occasion suggested, rather forcefully, that I post the originating source to avoid copyright infringement. My response has been to get to the source, or as close to it as I can, Take a look here: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/HOME?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME
©2006 The Associated Press.
All rights reserved. Terms under which this site is provided. is the bottom line of that site. Now, if Times Daily is an AP member, THEY can publish this site, intact, but I am not sure that I am not violating copyright if I post, especially without attribution, any part of that page.

I regularly read the "Pakistan Daily Times." I often link to that paper, http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/ and suggest that you go, right now, to that site, and bookmark it. This is the bottom line on that page, "Daily Times - All Rights Reserved." Same problem, and it is not likely that TimesDaily and DailyTimes have a sharing agreement. They might, they could, but I doubt they are willing to.

Here is an interesting story, on their national pages. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\04\25\story_25-4-2007_pg7_4

Here is another piece, not likely to show on the pages of US papers, http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\04\25\story_25-4-2007_pg4_2
Israel and Palestine are meeting in Europe in an effort to establish a Palestinian state by the end of Next year.

That is the problem with linking to a source that is linked to a source like ICH. It is problematic to quote anything from the ICH page, less problematic to quote from the originating source.

pogo, I was a radio newsman for years. I could read or rewrite and read any article, by saying, in the story, FROM THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC. Then they changed their policy, they owned a radio station. ONLY that station could use their material. There was a loophole, The Republic had agreements with other newspapers. If the story was in the Tucson Daily Star, I could use it, without attribution at all. The rules have probably changed since I was last involved, it sure looks like they have.

I really love this forum. It is an outlet for me that is very important to me. I don't want an innocent mistake to close this place down.
That is not an unfounded fear. Similar forums have been shut down.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×