Speakeasy forum

General discussion

FBI Ignored 4/2001 informant's report of Al Qaeda Plot

by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 29, 2004 2:47 AM PST
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: FBI Ignored 4/2001 informant's report of Al Qaeda Plot
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: FBI Ignored 4/2001 informant's report of Al Qaeda Plot
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re:FBI Ignored 4/2001 informant's report of Al Qaeda Plot
by SteveGargini / March 29, 2004 3:17 AM PST

The exact plan according to this "At no time did he intimate that planes would be used as missiles" wasn't fully realised. It appears that nothing was passed on to Bush, so it would be ludicrous to blame him.
If anybody is to fault it's the F.B.I, not the administration.

Collapse -
Re: FBI Ignored 4/2001 informant's report of Al Qaeda Plot

Hi, Steve.

Who do you think runs the FBI, the Congress? Clarke addressed this issue in his 60 Minutes interview, in contrasting how Clinton's people handed an alert the year before (they had daily cabinet-level meetings where the cabinet Secretaries were told to alert their underlings to report any suspicious activity. As a result, a plot to bomb LAX was discovered and foiled. There were several memos that, if followed up, would have led to the Al Qaeda plot. This is one; another had to do with foreigners at flight schools. Had Al Qaeda been on the front burner, instead of the back, the plot might have ben discovered and foiled. But this was definitely on Bush's watch, so the failure has to devolve at least partly to him and Ashcroft (the FBI is a major agency in Ashcroft's DOJ).

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
The congress should have put Dave K in charge.....
by Del McMullen / March 29, 2004 4:25 AM PST

....of the Agency, and then none of this could
have happened, guaranteed.

Collapse -
Dave, we all know bureaucracies don't turn on a dime.
by Kiddpeat / March 29, 2004 4:40 AM PST

If they were doing what you claim they were doing when President Bush came into office, they would still have been doing it in April of 2001. If they weren't, then they weren't doing it under Clinton either. If a bureaucracy significantly changes course, it's going to take a few years to do so. Claiming that it's under Bush's watch is like giving credit to Clinton for an economic recovery that was already underway when he took office.

Collapse -
Re:Dave, we all know bureaucracies don't turn on a dime.
by Josh K / March 29, 2004 4:48 AM PST

KP, do you really think "a few years" is an OK length of time to respond to a serious and growing threat? Shouldn't our system be able to act more quickly than that when lives and national security are at stake? I think the Clinton Administration could have done more, but if the Bush team was that much more on top of things than the Clinton team was, they should have been running in overdrive from day one.

Collapse -
What makes you think they weren't doing things? They would, however, be limited
by Kiddpeat / March 29, 2004 5:17 AM PST

by a lot of considerations and forces. For example, if Ashcroft had tried to force the FBI to suddenly change course, the Democrats would have screamed bloody murder. In fact, you could reasonably argue that Democrat intransigence was part of the failure to prevent 9/11. Remember how the Dems screamed about the TSA not being unionized or under civil service? We REALLY needed delays like that didn't we?

Collapse -
Re:Re:Dave, we all know bureaucracies don't turn on a dime.
by David Evans / March 29, 2004 7:25 AM PST

About that "from day one" thing, worthy of mention is the delay in getting to "day one" caused by Al Gore's court challenges to the Florida election.

The rest has been pretty much gone over.

DE

Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:Dave, we all know bureaucracies don't turn on a dime.
by Josh K / March 29, 2004 11:11 AM PST

C'mon, DavE, Bush was organizing his cabinet while that was still going on. It had no bearing at all.

Collapse -
Not saying that it was a valid reason, but...
by Bo Boggs / March 29, 2004 9:26 PM PST

The normal security briefings for the President-Elect and incoming staff were delayed over a month from the normal.

Considering that the Cole incident was only a month old at the time, there was a bunch of "fresh" intel that was getting stale before any of the Bush people got access to it.

Bo

Collapse -
And if you paid any attention to the 9-11 Commission REPORTS...
by Edward ODaniel / March 29, 2004 6:47 AM PST

you would find that they have determined that Both administrations handled ALL intel in pretty much the same manner despite Clarke's claims.

Of course the Commission has listened to more than just Clarke and are aware that his testimony appears to vary depending on audience and book sales.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

Collapse -
Re: And if you paid any attention to the 9-11 Commission REPORTS...

Hi, Ed.

This is apparently a NEW report, just testified to late last week and leaked over the weekend -- not yet in the Commission reports. And Clarke specifically said there was a major difference in the response of Clinton's team to the 2000 threat (which resulted in the LAX bomb plot being foiled) vs. Bush's response to the warnings in 2001. Unfortunately, we all remember how well THAT one worked out.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Won't fly Dave--there are no 'new reports'...

other than those at the link.

You still haven't bothered reading them have you.

Collapse -
Nope - don't buy that at all Dave - that's ludicrous
by SteveGargini / March 29, 2004 9:31 AM PST

The FBI simply let Bush down - didn't pass on the alert as they are paid to do - A head should roll in the FBI, not Bush's.
It's quite amazing how you pin everything that goes wrong onto Bush - If Clinton was in power and the same thing happened would you blame Clinton - puh!
If your attitude is anything to go on then Bush is home and dry in the election.

Collapse -
Re: Nope - don't buy that at all Dave - that's ludicrous

Hi, Steve.

What do you think a President is supposed to do -- just show up for photo ops, like the Queen? Harry Truman used to have a sign on his desk saying "The Buck Stops Here," meaning he is ultimately responsible for whatever the government does. The one on Bush's desk apparently reads "take that bnuck away from here!" Bush has been a total disaster in just about every area, notably domestic security, personal liberty, the economy, and international relations. He needs to be replaced.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Goodness, that makes the FBI and Kerry quite similar...
by Edward ODaniel / March 29, 2004 6:44 AM PST
Collapse -
Re:Goodness, that makes the FBI and Kerry quite similar...
by Diana Forum moderator / March 29, 2004 7:32 AM PST

I noticed that only Kerry was mentioned in the article. If Brian Sullivan was so worried, didn't he notify the Govenor and the other Senator of the lapses?

He was singing a different tune the day after 9/11.

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0912/Crashes_in_NYC_had_grim_origins_at_Logan+.shtml

''Two of the planes flew out of Logan, but I don't think Logan is weaker than any other airport. The problem is systemic,'' Sullivan said. ''Morale problems are horrendous'' among FAA security staff whose job includes trying to prevent terrorists from boarding planes. ''All you need to do is look at turnover and employee satisfaction,'' Sullivan added.

Logan wasn't the only problem.

Collapse -
No he wasn't ...
by Edward ODaniel / March 30, 2004 2:31 AM PST

he was still saying the same thing:

Brian Sullivan, a retired FAA special agent who had been working to focus congressional and media attention on security concerns at Logan, said yesterday, ''If a determined terrorist wants to take out a target, they will get it. The question we have to ask is, `Have we done everything possible to prevent that?' and I think the answer is no.''

Regarding the Whys you ask, the letter to Kerry explains them as well as the article. Constituency was a factor as well as this being a Federal rather than State matter.

Right after 9-11, he told the Boston Globe that he'd triggered an undercover probe of Logan security by the General Accounting Office in June 2001, based on the TV report.

Only, he wrote Sullivan no such thing in his July letter, stating only that he passed his warning and the tape on to Transportation, not GAO.

And GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, did not test security at Logan. (Kerry confessed he didn't know the outcome of the probe he says he initiated.)

GAO spokesman Jeff Nelligan says there is no evidence Kerry requested anything specific with regard to Logan, although he says GAO had communications with "a number of interested members and staff, including Sen. John Kerry's office" about airport screener testing work in 2001.


Kerry being less than honest yet again? GAO isn't backing up his claims, they are denying them.

Collapse -
The truth is out about Kerry's lying
by SteveGargini / March 29, 2004 9:47 AM PST

"Kerry boasts in campaign ads he "sounded the alarm on terrorism years before 9-11."

But he waited three months to reply to Sullivan's letter. And his July 24, 2001, letter, a copy of which was obtained by WorldNetDaily, merely offers to pass Sullivan's warning on to the Transportation Department's inspector general ? even though Sullivan had made it clear in his letter that going to his old agency was a dead end. He and other agents, including Dzakovic, had complained about security lapses for years and got nowhere.

Collapse -
An FBI insider cautions that the 66-year-old Sarshar may be a disgruntled former employee.
by Diana Forum moderator / March 29, 2004 6:56 AM PST

Notice that seems to be answer to any criticism?

Collapse -
Re: An FBI insider cautions that the 66-year-old Sarshar may be a disgruntled former employee.

Hi, Diana.

Just because an employee is disgruntled doesn't mean they aren't telling the truth. There's nothing so disgruntling as making a dire prediction andbeing proved right when it wasn't taken seriously. BTW, what's a GRUNTLED employee? Wink

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
I didn't mean that they weren't telling the truth

I was commenting on the first knee-jerk reaction of any organization to any criticism by any ex-employee is to say that he/she is a disgruntled employee. It's also implied that he/she was fired for cause instead of quiting rather than staying where no one wanted to listen to her/him.

Collapse -
(NT) Old news going to bureaucratic behemoths
by Evie / March 29, 2004 10:38 AM PST

.

Collapse -
nt) sayeth the mammoths. Both extinct, or at least, somewhat smelly. VVBG
by IanC_OZ / March 29, 2004 7:08 PM PST

.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?