Posted on 06/18/2004 6:38:11 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
Could be a number of things. One, the info might simply be too dated to be useful. Two, they may have put the info in the appropriate record, and that's all they have the manpower to do with it at the moment. Or three, they already knew, are onto the guy, and need to keep the operation under wraps until the optimal time to act.
You've done your part. Trust the FBI to do theirs. If we can't trust them to do their job, we're screwed whether or not they act on this particular piece of info. Nothing more you can do on this item but pray.
Remind me again who was President in 1996! His name escapes me because I keep hearing how honest he is and that cannot be the same man! :)
Cannot believe they wrote this article -- I am in shock!
Also, Sept 12, 1994, a small plane crashed into the white house south lawn. I think anti-aircraft guns were installed afterwards.
If it concerns you that deeply, and you can't put it to rest, sign up at the FBI and use that energy positively.
I was suprised at how uneventful that seemed to go.
The 2-3 days while the planes were out of the skies, scientists were able to conduct a number of 'clear-skies' tests. (No contrails anywhere in the skies)
We don't even know if that is true Clinton used a cigar remember.
There was a Dallas to San Francisco flight that was going to be hijacked -- and would have been, had it not been delayed by a cargo-net problem.
I heard this first-hand from a passenger. He said four young, Arab males were pacing and fighting amongst themselves during the delay. When the passengers were released, the four Arabs bolted (The same men were apparently arrested trying to board an Amtrack train in San Antonio a couple of days later).
Looking at the path from DFW to SFO, Sears Tower in Chicago would seem like a likely target.
Excerpt below from National Review Online - September 11, 2003
A Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez with Richard Miniter, author of Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror
Lopez: Bill Clinton was actually offered bin Laden? Could you set the scene a little and clue us in on why, for heavens sakes, he would not take advantage of such opportunities?
Miniter: On March 3, 1996, U.S. ambassador to Sudan, Tim Carney, Director of East African Affairs at the State Department, David Shinn, and a member of the CIA's directorate of operations' Africa division met with Sudan's then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa in a Rosslyn, Virginia hotel room. Item number two on the CIA's list of demands was to provide information about Osama bin Laden. Five days later, Erwa met with the CIA officer and offered more than information. He offered to arrest and turn over bin Laden himself. Two years earlier, the Sudan had turned over the infamous terrorist, Carlos the Jackal to the French. He now sits in a French prison. Sudan wanted to repeat that scenario with bin Laden in the starring role.
Clinton administration officials have offered various explanations for not taking the Sudanese offer. One argument is that an offer was never made. But the same officials are on the record as saying the offer was "not serious." Even a supposedly non-serious offer is an offer. Another argument is that the Sudanese had not come through on a prior request so this offer could not be trusted. But, as Ambassador Tim Carney had argued at the time, even if you believe that, why not call their bluff and ask for bin Laden?
The Clinton administration simply did not want the responsibility of taking Osama bin Laden into custody. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is on the record as saying: "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." Even if that was true — and it wasn't — the U.S. could have turned bin Laden over to Yemen or Libya, both of which had valid warrants for his arrest stemming from terrorist activities in those countries. Given the legal systems of those two countries, Osama would have soon ceased to be a threat to anyone.
After months of debating how to respond to the Sudanese offer, the Clinton administration simply asked Sudan to deport him. Where to? Ambassador Carney told me what he told the Sudanese: "Anywhere but Somalia."
In May 1996 bin Laden was welcomed into Afghanistan by the Taliban. It could not have been a better haven for Osama bin Laden.
Steven Simon, Clinton's counterterrorism director on the National Security Council thought that kicking bin Laden out of Sudan would benefit U.S. security since "It's going to take him a while to reconstitute, and that screws him up and buys time." Buys time? Oh yeah, 1996 was an election year and team Clinton did not want to deal with bin Laden until after it was safely reelected.
Richard Miniter (author of "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror") talking about what Clinton was up to back in May 1996... post #52.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
Well, I heard from the 9/11 Commission that the original plan was to use 10 planes, but they were worried ti was too complicated and lowered it to 4.
OTOH, the 9/11 Commission's reliability is rather stunningly low, so give it the consideration you would Debka or Stratfor...
Well, maybe you should give them another try.
What's his face at the FBI staked his career on Hatfill and the FBI would allow no other considerations.
He left in disgrace, obviously, and I'm aware they have actually looked elsewhere since then...the most recent investigation being into an Egyptian named Dr. Ayaad Assaad.
He claims he was framed by his Jewish coworkers, which seems to me means he is guilty as all hell...but they haven't charged him yet.
So at least they are willing to consider the obvious Islamist connections now...
bttt
From what I've read, there were only two arrested in San Antonio: Gul Mohammed Shah a.k.a. Ali Ayub Khan, and Mohammed Jaweed Azmath. They were arrested with box cutters, $5000 in cash, and hair dye; their bodies were apparently shaved. But they got off, charged only with credit card fraud; as I recall, they've both been deported.
So, if the hijacking story is true, why are they not being held in the same manner as Jose Padilla?
[By the way, these two are connected with Mohammed Pervez and possibly with Sabash Gurung. But, as far as I know, those two weren't on the plane.]
Heh. I was thinking the same thing last week, especially since there will need to be ways to 'cool off' in the hot Grecian climate.
Well one could hope we either turned them or at least followed them to a bigger fish...
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.