U.S. warned in 1995 of plot to hijack planes, attack buildings (9/18/01 flashback)

cnn ^

[chance33_98]

MANILA, Philippines (CNN) -- The FBI was warned six years ago of a terrorist plot to hijack commercial planes and slam them into the Pentagon, the CIA headquarters and other buildings, Philippine investigators told CNN.

Philippine authorities learned of the plot after a small fire in a Manila apartment, which turned out to be the hideout of Ramzi Yousef, who was later convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Yousef escaped at the time, but agents caught his right-hand man, Abdul Hakim Murad, who told them a chilling tale.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Thanks very interesting information. I wonder if he met the American Terry Nichols there about that time?

[chance33_98]

Just keeps getting better imho. 8 years of clinton, his people did not take airline security seriously and they had lots of information - plus tons of time to act on it. They did as usual, go through some motions for show and then get back to the business of corruption.

IF the 9/11 commission wanted to really find out the truth all they have to do is go back over the reports they have. The FBI was lead agency in the U.S. Government’s response to terrorism in the United States, the FBI did not do it's job.

[DLfromthedesert]

And the Governor of Texas did nothing about this?!?

[Stew Padasso]

The president's people should hit the airwaves and relentlessly demand Clinton address this incompetence. </wishful thinking>

[holdonnow]

National Review Online
Mark R. Levin, Contributing Editor
September 6, 2002 11:05 a.m.
The Objectors
Daschle, Carter, and Clinton.

Excerpt:

At least as early as 1995, the Philippine government informed the Clinton administration that al Qaeda was plotting to hijack commercial U.S. airlines and fly them into U.S. buildings, including CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. In 1999, Clinton received an intelligence analysis repeating this possible scenario, but he ignored it. Last spring, when asked about this report while he was playing golf in Hawaii, Clinton answered, in part: "That has nothing to do with intelligence," he said. "All that it [the report] says is they used public sources to speculate on what bin Laden might do." In other words, Clinton dismissed the report.

[DefCon]

"...I wonder, might it be time to put him under oath and have him testify in public..."
- - -
What so we can hear him LIE under oath?
-
-
-
-
-
Again?

[Kirkwood]

This was Clinton's watch. So was he so busy boinking an intern that he missed this? Oh, I forgot... He had no interest in capturing terrorists.

[GeronL]

It is time to launch a new Commission looking into this 1995 scandal!!

[chance33_98]

My overall view is, in defense of both presidents, that such information, while known, was not as likely a scenario. Car bombs were the big thing, Hijackings were way way down. Oklahoma city and the first WTC were vehicle bombs, which seemed to be where they needed to focus (and obviously didn't).

If they went based on historical information and data, hijacking a plane and crashing it into a building was not something one had really seen before. With limited resources and intelligence you focus on what you know has been the weapons of choice first, and set aside a small cadre of intel folks on the rest.

That does not excuse the lapse, but it does help to understand why a little better. All the fbi reports I have read (and saved) give only brief mention to the hijack idea. Most hijackings were more for money or to free some political detainee. Most domestic terrorism were car bomb types and other items (the biggest ones being vehicle bombs as mentioned). The potential for more of those was there, as well as some of those containing chemicals.

When Okie city was bombed, we saw it as a tragedy and the work of evil people. The fault was with them primarily. With 9/11 the left wants it to be Bush's fault. I doubt those on the left, particulary at du and such, wanted clinton out for the oklahoma city bombing. People do things you don't expect (even though 2 such incidents occured during clinton's tenure on American Soil).

The focus should be on what went wrong, root cause analysis, and how to better handle things in the future. Presidents come and go, our intelligence community sticks around and keeps working. Those are the people who failed in preventing this and they should, and have, analyzed why and how to fix it.

Another attack may occur, but the probablility of such has declined. Despite our best laws and intentions, we still have a high murder rate. The wackos are out there trying, only a matter of time before one suceeds again - but I am more confident of the vigilance we are seeing now than I was when Clinton was in office. And Bush at least does not take such things laying down, he hits back.

[hinckley buzzard]

Project Bojinka. Well-documented for years in the public domain. CNN has known about this, as has every other news organization in the world. Wonder why they would publicize it now.

[holdonnow]

I see this is a rather simple matter. There is no denying that Clinton had multiple opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden. He refused. Bush never had such an opportunity.

[Delta 21]

The lust of the American President has been a very deadly sin, indeed.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Well... if Yousef had the early plans for 9/11 on his computer, maybe his alleged ties to Iraq should be looked into by the commission...

It is the truth we're looking for, right?

"Saddam's Fingerprints on N.Y. Bombings" (Wall Street Journal, June 1993)

[syriacus]

The FBI must follow a pragmatic path; the terrorist can take any path.

Good point.

I think the Senatorial Anti-Bushites have used this method of distraction to tie up the Bush Administration, too. .. Levin, Schumer, Kennedy, Leahy ... just to name a few... Their hamfisted attempts to put their own agendas on center stage put our country's security at risk.

Levin
While Senator Levin was holding up their appointments, the incoming Pentagon policy team had no legal or political authority to do their vital jobs

and

Schumer:
"I am, for one, heartened that there were 42 votes against him. It's a shot across the bow in terms of the Justice Department and how it conducts itself.It's a shot across the bow in terms of Supreme Court nominations. It's a shot across the bow in terms of the push and pull within the Bush administration, to be moderate and bipartisan or to play to hard right.

[Since when has Schumer been boss of the Attorney General, the Department of Justice and the FBI?]

Should a commission be formed to investigate pre-911 obstruction by Democratic Senators?

[Tunehead54]

CNN Knew! 5-13-1996

---

My comments on another thread:

Al-Qaeda threat included in Bush memo, sources say ^

Posted by Tunehead54 to onevoter; dirtboy

On News/Activism ^ 04/10/2004 12:25:06 PM EDT #27 of 42 ^

This is all so much crap. No mention in any of the current press reports do they cover Project Bojinka and the "mastermind" of the 1st WTC bombing - Ramzi Yousef - traveling on an Iraqi passport. Terrorism trial begins in New York (May 13, 1996)

Noted in a much later article but known to the FBI in 1995 was a plan to crash an airliner in the CIA headquarters. Thus all the basic aspects of our vulnerabilty were known in 1995. And even less than nothing was done. The Clinton administration actively worked with the airlines to prevent the implementation of measures that might have prevented 9-11 including hardened cockpit doors. :-( Yet another plan on the computer called for the terrorists to dive-bomb an airplane into CIA headquarters.

As I note in an email today:

Just a test to see if your email is up but also all you need to refute any crap from the 9-11 commission.

We knew they were planning to use airliners as weapons, Al Bore was head of an airline security overview investigation that came in with (in the preliminary release) very strict security measures for airlines. Once the airlines saw the prelim they squawked loudly and mysteriously hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into the DNC and report recommendations including cockpit door fortifications disappeared from the recommendations.

We had 5 years to prevent 9-11 and nothing was done. We all knew it - its all our fault. But really its not. We didn't press for more protection - we relied on the government to protect us and they failed. President Bush was still moving in - the Clinton administration had 5 years and did less than nothing - they deliberately watered down stepped-up airline security rules, took campaign donations as payoff and left us vulnerable to a known and credible attack scenario from a group of proven terrorists who had declared war on the USA.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies

[Maria S]

Operation Bojinka's bombshell

http://propagandamatrix.com/operation_bojinkas_bombshell.html

Jan. 2, 2002. 11:48 AM

In 1995, Philippine policewoman helped crack terror cell
By Matthew Brzezinski
(BTW, Zbig. (sp?) Brzezinski is Matthew's uncle)


Clinton and 9/11

By Allan J. Favish

FrontPageMagazine.com | October 14, 2003

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=10324

From this great article:

"Given the knowledge that al-Qaida’s operatives who had tried to topple the WTC in 1993 with a bomb that caused immense damage and loss of life, were plotting to use airplanes to crash into buildings, including the WTC and Pentagon, one would think that the Clinton Administration would have put sky marshals on all commercial jets, had the airlines install secure doors for the pilot cabins and alerted the public and the flight schools. But the Clinton Administration did not do any of this. At the very least, one would think that the Clinton Administration would have told the incoming Bush Administration about this aspect of Bojinka. However, that does not appear to have happened either.

"Speaking at a press conference on May 16, 2002, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, President Bush’s National Security Advisor, defended the Bush Administration against charges that Bush learned enough information about a possible airborne attack on the WTC in the spring and summer of 2001 to have prevented the attack. Rice stated that the Clinton Administration did not tell her about Bojinka:"

[Triple]

I find it difficult to reconcile this article with Condi Rice's testimony that there was no knowledge in the administration of the use of hijacked airplanes in any non-traditional way (bargaining chips).

IMO, she should have known about al queda's plan to use planes as guided missiles.

[Triple]

"At the very least, one would think that the Clinton Administration would have told the incoming Bush Administration about this aspect of Bojinka. However, that does not appear to have happened either. " - quote in your 36

I fault both administrations and the intelligence community *if* bojinka way not communicated to the Bush administration. (I concur it is possible, but Bojinka was discussed on FR pre-911.)

[chance33_98]

They probably did know of it - but what else did they know of? There may have been hundreds of ideas floated by the nutjobs, some promising more destruction than others (ie chemical, et al). How they prioritize and categorize the threats may be at the core of the problem. With only X in resources you have to pick and choose which threats are highest. Having broken up earlier plots and uncovered this it might have dropped lower onto the list feeling that since it was discovered the wackos would try something different.

Not making excuses, someone should have paid far more attention to this, but I can at least grasp why other things may have seemed more likely and needed more attention first. Such ideas were obviously wrong in hindsight.

I don't think one person failed us, I think the system and how it works failed - the red tape we all have so often complained of in the government has cost us all.

[kevao]

Seems Clinton had plenty of time to increase airport security, beef up the sky-marshall program, and harden cockpit doors, yet chose to do nothing. Probably just too busy getting a hummer that day.