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titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States," had been described by the White House as a largely historical document with scant information about domestic al Qaeda threats.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
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 2:09pm
I agree.

Labels only work on bottles of detergent and beer, not people.

Just because someone disagrees with my viewpoint, I dont necessarily feel that person hates me.

I agree that there are some regular posters on here that are a bit venomous with their posts, and show their outright hatred for President Bush. I can see why some dislike his positions, but I cannot see why people hate him. He has done nothing worthy of such hatred.

Some people act as though it were President Bush himself who flew the planes into the WTC and Pentagon.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 2:25pm

Polit, I think that Bush allowed a "presumed" association with 9/11 and made a number of "sound bytes" to make sure that that perception stuck around in the "general public" for quite a long while.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 2:29pm

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.


I think there are a few "Bush-Lovers" here that would not believe anything as fact if it did not come from or support the administration.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 2:46pm
Point taken, and I would agree.

It seems that this administration is slow when it comes to giving out a certain message, that would not hurt its possition, but just the appearance of being slow, makes people wonder.

I point specifically to this commission, although looking at it from the standpoint of GWB, I feel he knew how this would try to be used against him for his re-election.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 2:47pm
Very true on your point here.

I include many of the extremists in Washington along with those people with tunnel vision.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-16-2004 - 4:51pm
You may think I grossly mischaracterized Bush's speech. Actually, I think I was remarkably restrained! When people talk about how how he's a man of "conviction" and "good", I remember going to this link http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Please note it's from the White House Web site--there's some grim irony in the words in the upper right hand corner--"Denial and Deception". I don't know that hate is the right word to use for my feelings to the man who gave this speech but I certainly despise the manipulative way the speech was constructed. As James pointed out, Bush established and nurtured the misconception of a link between SH and 9/11.

There WAS evidence from the intelligence agencies (CIA) that suggested that the yellow cake from Niger was not credible information. But the Bush administration selected only those bits and pieces that supported its actions and goals and swept much of the other information aside. Please remember that the Donald Rumsfeld was so dissatisfied with the information he was getting that he established an Office of Special Plans to gather his own selective version of the facts. We're looking at the fallout of that now.

What do you call someone who alienates traditional allies, sets up a dummy intelligence agency, falls in love with the intelligence from that agency and makes it actionable? What do you call a man who denigrates and forces a subordinate out of command because he doesn't like the analysis of that subordinate? I would call that man an arrogant fool and ask why the heck HIS superior didn't rein him in? Eric Shinseki called for more troops in Congressional hearings, was humiliated and marched into early retirement by Donald Rumsfeld. Now Iraq is in a state of disarray. Heads should roll at DOD but probably won't because they were right in line with what Bush and Cheney wanted.

One last thought about Bush. It might not belong in this post because the issue has been raised in other threads. In the military, an officer is taught that when something goes awry on his watch, regardless of whether he was personally involved or not, the officer is responsible. When called to account for that error, an officer is supposed to say "No excuses, sir, it won't happen again, sir". Evidently neither Bush nor Rumsfeld learned that lesson in their military days.

Gettingahandle

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Sat, 04-17-2004 - 10:15am
Do you know what fascinates me? That liberals will discount the research of a report because it was printed in a conservative forum, without any investigating on their own. Where's the independent thought on the left? I usually take the information that I get from the left and investigate to separate the facts from the opinion, so that my own opinion can be formed. I don't see that happening from the left. It seems to me that they have been so programmed that they distrust ANYTHING from a conservative, not only the opinions, but the FACTS. This is astounding to me, but I see it every day.

This report does not prove concret evidence that Saddam is tied to 9-ll. It does prove concrete evidence that Saddam is tied to Al Qaeda. In other words, Saddam my not have even known 9-11 was being planned (they were very good at keeping it secret), but Saddam DID have these very dangerous weapons, Saddam DID hate us, Saddam was tied to Al Qaeda - Saddam was not cooperating with the UN. These circumstances were very dangerous to us. You can't see that?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 04-21-2004 - 11:33am
LOL

Pages