Posted on 07/24/2004 7:14:52 PM PDT by True Capitalist
The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.
SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks
1. Reporting [—] suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq ‘Awda. One source quoted a senior member of the Gama’at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that, as of late October, the IG had completed planning for an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin, but that the operation was on hold.A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soon thereafter to discuss options—perhaps including an aircraft hijacking.
• IG leader Islambuli in late September was planning to hijack a US airliner during the “next couple of weeks” to free ‘Abd al- Rahman and the other prisoners, according to what may be a different source.
• The same source late last month said that Bin Ladin might implement plans to hijack US aircraft before the beginning of Ramadan on 20 December and that two members of the operational team had evaded security checks during a recent trial run at an unidentified New York airport. [—]
2. Some members of the Bin Ladin network have received hijack training, according to various sources,but no group directly tied to Bin Ladin’s al-Qa’ida organization has ever carried out an aircraft hijacking.Bin Ladin could be weighing other types of operations against US aircraft.According to [—] the IG in October obtained SA-7 missiles and intended to move them from Yemen into Saudi Arabia to shoot down an Egyptian plane or, if unsuccessful, a US military or civilian aircraft.
• A [—] in October told us that unspecified “extremist elements” in Yemen had acquired SA-7s. [—]
3. [—] indicate the Bin Ladin organization or its allies are moving closer to implementing anti-US attacks at unspecified locations, but we do not know whether they are related to attacks on aircraft. A Bin Ladin associate in Sudan late last month told a colleague in Kandahar that he had shipped a group of containers to Afghanistan. Bin Ladin associates also talked about the movement of containers to Afghanistan before the East Africa bombings.
• In other [—] Bin Ladin associates last month discussed picking up a package in Malaysia. One told his colleague in Malaysia that “they”were in the “ninth month [of pregnancy].” • An alleged Bin Ladin supporter in Yemen late last month remarked to his mother that he planned to work in “commerce” from abroad and said his impending “marriage,” which would take place soon,would be a “surprise.”“Commerce” and “marriage” often are codewords for terrorist attacks. [—]
The book version doesn't have an index, but in adobe you can run a SEARCH for specific words. For example the word "misspoken" only occurs once, in footnote 7 on page 480, when President Clinton told the Commission he had "misspoken" when he was videotaped describing how Sudan had offer to turn over Bin Ladin to the U.S. and he refused to accept their offer.
That was the first thing I did. :)
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/911finalrpt/ch5.pdf
Page 148.......
Also, worth underlining is footnote 11 on page 500: "In the margin next to Clarke's suggestion to attack al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote "no."
Another good word to search in Adobe is "Berger". A noteworthy appearance is at footnote 46 on page 482: "We did not find documentation on the after-action review mentioned by Berger."
Thanks for your posts!
Please do us a favor and some time in the next few weeks post a thread with your important findings.
Then we can have that thread for all of us and those who monitor Free Republic.
Good Work!
Some commentator on the day of release zeroed right in on that. Funny how the media hasn't played that up. :-/
You have to go to p117 to read what after action report they're talking about.......It was after action report after an Aug. 20 air strike on UBL's camps..
Or then cryptically stating "Until today, that title was secret".
With Condi, he did that with the 2001 PDB. Problem is, the title had been publicized via a press briefing and then published on the front page of the Washington Post in 2002. Ben Veniste lied.
The 2001 PDB was leaked in 2002 to spur the formation of this commission. It was the foundation that led to the New York Post's infamous "Bush Knew" headline. It was then spoken of and described by Condi Rice and Ari Fleischer, yet during the commission everyone developed amnesia and acted like they just found out about its existance and then ben Veniste pulled that lie about the title being tightly kept under wraps.
We know that some documents Berger took were 1999. We also know he had notes from "the nineties" about ME peace talks. God knows what else, but items from 1998 surely would have been reviewed by him and perhaps "cleaned up". There has not been full disclosure or accounting of what's missing.
In July 1995, Attorney General Reno issued formal procedures aimed at managing information sharing between Justice Department prosecutors and the FBI.They were developed in a working group led by the Justice Department’s Executive Office of National Security, overseen by Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick.33 These procedures—while requiring the sharing of intelligence information with prosecutors—regulated the manner in which such information could be shared from the intelligence side of the house to the criminal side.
These procedures were almost immediately misunderstood and misapplied. As a result, there was far less information sharing and coordination between the FBI and the Criminal Division in practice than was allowed under the department’s procedures. Over time the procedures came to be referred to as “the wall.” The term “the wall” is misleading, however, because several factors led to a series of barriers to information sharing that developed.34
The Office of Intelligence Policy and Review became the sole gatekeeper for passing information to the Criminal Division.Though Attorney General Reno’s procedures did not include such a provision, the Office assumed the role anyway, arguing that its position reflected the concerns of Judge Royce Lamberth, then chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.The Office threatened that if it could not regulate the flow of information to criminal prosecutors, it would no longer present the FBI’s warrant requests to the FISA Court.The information flow withered.35
The 1995 procedures dealt only with sharing between agents and criminal prosecutors, not between two kinds of FBI agents, those working on intelligence matters and those working on criminal matters. But pressure from the Office of Intelligence Policy Review, FBI leadership, and the FISA Court built barriers between agents—even agents serving on the same squads. FBI Deputy Director Bryant reinforced the Office’s caution by informing agents that too much information sharing could be a career stopper.Agents in the field began to believe—incorrectly—that no FISA information could be shared with agents working on criminal investigations.36
This perception evolved into the still more exaggerated belief that the FBI could not share any intelligence information with criminal investigators, even if no FISA procedures had been used. Thus, relevant information from the National Security Agency and the CIA often failed to make its way to criminal investigators. Separate reviews in 1999, 2000, and 2001 concluded independently that information sharing was not occurring, and that the intent of the 1995 procedures was ignored routinely.37 We will describe some of the unfortunate consequences of these accumulated institutional beliefs and practices in chapter 8.
Thanks!
It probably wasn't Jake Reno who really did this. It probably was her Clone Gorelick.
Thanks again for posting your reply and the ping.
A more accurate conclusion would be that these procedures were purposefully "misapplied" by Gorelick.
I agree. This struck me as a huge effort to cover GoreLick's backside.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/911finalrpt/index.html
What is this??
Executive Summary [5.7 MB] [PDF]
I don't see this in the book........[awaiting download]
If you haven't seen it yet... more Clinton Legacy
"We know that some documents Berger took were 1999. We also know he had notes from "the nineties" about ME peace talks. God knows what else, but items from 1998 surely would have been reviewed by him and perhaps "cleaned up". There has not been full disclosure or accounting of what's missing."
This is true. Many more questions than answers.
Thanks for the ping!
A rehash somewhat from last year...
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/Web%20Pages/NEW%20YORK%20POST_Revealed%20-%20Al%20Qaeda%20Held%20%27Dry%20Run%27%20at%20New%20York%20Airport.htm
Piles of the steaming manure of the Clinton book stand unattended at the bookstore I dropped into yesterday in Chicago no 9/11.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.