White House releases bin Laden memo

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
White House releases bin Laden memo
78
Sat, 04-10-2004 - 7:46pm

Presidential briefing was at center of Rice's testimony.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/bush.briefing/index.html


The White House declassified and released Saturday the daily intelligence briefing delivered to President Bush a month before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.


Portions of the intelligence report dealing with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network and dated August 6, 2001, have been redacted for national security reasons, the White House said.


The memo, titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States," had been described by the White House as a largely historical document with scant information about domestic al Qaeda threats.


The memo includes intelligence on al Qaeda threats as recent as three months before the attacks.


More.......... http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/bush.briefing/index.html


Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/index.html


The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.


Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. 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."


After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.


An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. 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 U.S.


Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ---, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.


Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 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, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.


Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.


Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.


A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.


We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.


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.


The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. 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 U.S. planning attacks with explosives.


PDF file of transcript. You can see the areas deleted. It appears very sketchy, as if pages are missing, JIMO.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 04-15-2004 - 3:12pm
One would hope, but as I have said, it seems as thought this commission is doomed to head down the same path as the Warren Commission, and that truly is a sad, sad thing.

With much of the information gathered, taking out the partisan politics, there is plenty to go on, with regards to what needs to be immediately addressed to help correct the obvious problem with the intelligence community, for one.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Thu, 04-15-2004 - 5:57pm
Is the notorious Aug. 6, 2001, "President's Daily Brief" a smoking gun or merely historical information? Who can tell with all those complicated paragraphs and complete sentences? Surely life in the Oval Office (or on the ranch) would be much easier if POTUS got his predigested information the 21st-century way—in a PowerPoint presentation. Here's the President's Daily Even Briefer, the way it should have been.

To see the Power Point presentation go to

http://slate.msn.com/id/2098908/

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Thu, 04-15-2004 - 8:46pm
Rolling OX The Floor Laughing Out Loud

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 04-15-2004 - 10:53pm
So it's derivative from the Weekly Standard? Not to impugn the investigative journalism of the Weekly Standard but many of its staff are neocons and I find that they have an agenda. Would I accept their proof as unbiased? No, I would not (am having fun with Rumsfeldspeak)! Have you ever heard of the PNAC--short for "Project for the New American Century"? Their mission statement makes for interesting reading especially if you have sons you want to keep out of the military any time in the next 100 years or so!

Out of curiosity--why do they think Bush would understate the link between 9/11, Al Qaeda and Iraq. Or is it just the Al Qaeda/Iraq link they're referring to? That's almost what it sounds like and though it certainly is a big concern, I think most Americans wanted to get to the person(s) responsible for 9/11. God knows, Bush kept trying to tie SH to 9/11 in his speeches and I can't imagine that he would pass on the opportunity to have concrete evidence. If the issue is state sponsorship, the Saudis have supported OBL through charities tied to Al Qaeda. And of course there's the issue of the 14 out of 19 hijackers being from Saudi Arabia. As I pointed out in previous posts, there are other nations which have either winked at or covertly supported Al Qaeda. So I don't think we're any closer to having proof of a terrorist link that would justify a war on Iraq.

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 3:49am
Made my day - thanks ROFL !
Octagonal
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 10:17am

LOL That's great!



Happy

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 10:27am
>> God knows, Bush kept trying to tie SH to 9/11 in his speeches and I can't imagine that he would pass on the opportunity to have concrete evidence

I have read many of his speeches he has given since 9/11 and I think you are grossly mischaracterizing them. He does not try to tie Saddam Hussein to 9/11 at all. He is making a case in the speeches that hussein is an extremely dangerous man in the fact that (at the time it was believed) he had weapons of mass destruction and we (the US) were fearful that he could give them to a terrorist organization such as al Qaeda, Islamic Jhihad (spelling?) or Hamas.

Only now, after we have been to Iraq and have been unable to locate the WMD's does it show that the intelligence was either very wrong, or very old.

One thing that I have noticed is that it is seemingly okay for the press to say that intelligence agencies seemed to have failed us on 9/11 but it is not okay to say that the same intelligence agencies failed President Bush on the information on Iraq. I wonder why that is?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 10:29am
There are a few "Bush-haters" on here that would not believe anything presented as fact by this administration, even if the creator himself made it known that it was in fact the truth.

In saying that I would also say that I believe that they are in the minority of posters.

You do have to admit that.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 10:33am
I have a little news flash for you.

Saudi Arabia does not want us to succeed in Iraq because there is a possibility that we will no longer need military bases in their country.

If this happens, there is a very good chance that a civil uprising will result to overthrow the corrupt ruling Royal family.

They are our friends as a matter of convenience on both sides. We are protecting their oil, and they want us there to help protect their Royal family.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 1:47pm

I wouldn't deny that there are a


Pages