Report of the joint inquiry into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-27-2003, 02:23 PM   #1
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:34 AM
Report of the joint inquiry into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001

more background informations at:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/nationa...al2/index.html

Quote:
ASHINGTON, July 25 ó Senior officials of Saudi Arabia have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to charitable groups and other organizations that may have helped finance the September 2001 attacks, a still-classified section of a Congressional report on the hijackings says, according to people who have read it.

The 28-page section of the report was deleted from the nearly 900-page declassified version released on Thursday by a joint committee of the House and Senate intelligence committees. The chapter focuses on the role foreign governments played in the hijackings, but centers almost entirely on Saudi Arabia, the people who saw the section said.

The Bush administration's refusal to allow the committee to disclose the contents of the chapter has stirred resentment in Congress, where some lawmakers have said the administration's desire to protect the ruling Saudi family had prevented the American public from learning crucial facts about the attacks. The report has been denounced by the Saudi ambassador to the United States, and some American officials questioned whether the committee had made a conclusive case linking Saudi funding to the hijackings.

The public report concluded that the F.B.I. and C.I.A. had known for years that Al Qaeda sought to strike inside the United States, but focused their attention on the possibility of attacks overseas....
and

Quote:
The report today on intelligence failures may force the Bush administration to confront a vexing question that the White House thought it put to rest months ago: how best to prevent another terrorist attack.

The findings, providing an even more damning indictment of the intelligence community than many had predicted, are already prompting fresh debate over whether the federal government should create a national intelligence czar or even strip the F.B.I. of its domestic intelligence duties in favor of a wholly new agency...

Here you can read the public version:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/9...eport72403.pdf

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-29-2003, 03:46 AM   #2
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:34 AM
I really hoped that there was more response to the background of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

"die Zeit" called the published document for example as a "example of governments censorship" and compared it to Heinrich Henis "Buch Le Grand"
For those who don't know that book. I paste the full page

Quote:
The german censors

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- dumbheads ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
(the rest with the page was filled with "-"s

They say they understand fully that you have to censor some parts to protect some secret service employees but, especially if you think about the WMDs documents from the past, lots of people will continue to distrust the government,

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-29-2003, 02:41 PM   #3
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 633
Local Time: 09:34 AM
I usually support the Bush administration but this one goes too far. If three of the four people who wrote the report say that it won't damage national security, then why won't they release the 'classified' pages? Because it paints the Saudis in a negative light? I think it's time the American people know what kind of people their government are in bed with. Put the info out there and let the Saudis spin it like they always do.

What happened to a government for the people by the people?
__________________
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 07-30-2003, 03:18 AM   #4
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 09:34 AM
No, what the Bush Admin will do is spin it or ignore it or distract from it or talk alot about it without actually saying anything about it for a week or so and then the collective A.D.D of the US public (in regards to news stories) will kick in and it will be replaced by the next story, and then it will be forgotten. It appears from outside the US that thats how it works.

(Then in a year a Michael Moore movie will come out with all these 'outrageous' claims about how Bush is in bed with the Saudis and everyone can cry "Bullsh*t! Not George! Crazy loony Michael Moore!" Or something like that.)
__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 07-30-2003, 10:23 AM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 05:34 AM
this thread should really be in FYM

Quote:
from the nation by david corn

The 9/11 Investigation
[from the August 4, 2003 issue]
...
The White House also refused to release to the committees the contents of an August 6, 2001, President's Daily Brief (PDB) that contained information on bin Laden. In May 2002 National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed this PDB only included information about bin Laden's methods of operation from a historical perspective and contained no specific warnings. But the joint inquiry appears to have managed to find a source in the intelligence community who informed it that "a closely held intelligence report" for "senior government officials" in August 2001 (read: the PDB prepared for Bush) said that bin Laden was seeking to conduct attacks within the United States, that Al Qaeda maintained a support structure here and that information obtained in May 2001 indicated that a group of bin Laden supporters were planning attacks in the United States with explosives. This is quite different from Rice's characterization of the PDB. Did she mislead the public about it? And presuming that this "closely held intelligence report" was indeed the PDB, the obvious question is, how did Bush react? But through its use--or abuse--of the classification process, the Administration has prevented such questions from inconveniencing the White House.

The committees tried to gain access to National Security Council documents that, the report says, "would have been helpful in determining why certain options and program were or were not pursued." But, it notes, "access to most information that involved NSC-level discussions were blocked...by the White House." Bush has said, "We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th." Just not those details about him and his National Security Council.

One big chunk of the report that the Administration refused to declassify concerns foreign support for the 9/11 hijackers. Of these twenty-seven pages, all but one and a half have been redacted. The prevailing assumption among the journalists covering the committees--and it is well-founded--is that most of the missing material concerns Saudi Arabia and the possibility that the hijackers received financial support from there. Is the Bush Administration treading too softly on a sensitive--and explosive--subject? "Neither CIA nor FBI officials," the report says, "were able to address definitively the extent of [foreign] support for the hijackers globally or within the United States or the extent to which such support, if it exists, is knowing or inadvertent in nature. Only recently, and at least in part due to the joint inquiry's focus on this issue, did the FBI and CIA strengthen their efforts to address these issues.... [T]his gap in US intelligence coverage is unacceptable." At one point in the final report, the committees reveal that a July 2002 CIA cable included a CIA officer's concerns that persons associated with a foreign government may have provided financial assistance to the hijackers. "Those indications addressed in greater detail elsewhere in this report obviously raise issues with serious national implications," the report notes. But these "indications" are not addressed elsewhere in the report. The Administration would not declassify the material.

The report does include a list of quotes from unnamed US officials each of whom says that Saudi Arabia has been reluctant to cooperate with the United States on matters related to bin Laden. "In May 2001," according to the report, "the US government became aware that an individual in Saudi Arabia was in contact with a senior al Qaeda operative and was most likely aware of an upcoming operation." The following sentences--which likely cover how the United States responded to this intelligence and what the Saudis did or did not do--is deleted from the report, thanks to the Bush Administration.
...
The report is a good start in establishing the historical record. It reads at times like tragedy, at other times almost as farce. The signs were there. Few paid attention. Two, if not more, of the hijackers were within reach of US law enforcement, but nobody saw that. Five days after the attacks, Bush said, "No one could have conceivably imagined suicide bombers burrowing into our society." And in May 2002, Rice said, "I don't think anyone could have predicted these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center." Actually, the report has proof that the attacks of 9/11 were foreseen. Not in terms of date and time. But intelligence reporting indicated and terrorism experts warned that Al Qaeda was interested in mounting precisely these types of attacks. Yet the US government--the Bush II and Clinton administrations--did not prepare adequately. The attacks were far less outside the box than Bush and his aides have suggested. Thwarting them was within the realm of possibility.
...
__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 08-02-2003, 11:27 AM   #6
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 633
Local Time: 09:34 AM
I'm very suspicious as to why the Saudis would fly someone out to the White House the next day after this story broke to meet with the prez. I think there may be something more here than meets the eye and it might have actually been a good thing that prez. Bush is keeping the pages secret.
__________________
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 08-02-2003, 12:01 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 10:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by wolfwill23
I'm very suspicious as to why the Saudis would fly someone out to the White House the next day after this story broke to meet with the prez. I think there may be something more here than meets the eye and it might have actually been a good thing that prez. Bush is keeping the pages secret.
Because the Saudi foriegn minster wanted to know what was on that pages and guess what, even he did not get this information.


The Saudi`s want to know what was on that pages so they know what to expect and they can deffend themselfs.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 08-02-2003, 01:40 PM   #8
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 633
Local Time: 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono


The Saudi`s want to know what was on that pages so they know what to expect and they can deffend themselfs.
That's what I'm saying. I think there's some real sticky evidence of Saudi involvement in 9/11 on those pages and of course, the Saudis don't want that info to be made public (even though they say they do.)
__________________
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 08-02-2003, 01:59 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 10:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by wolfwill23


That's what I'm saying. I think there's some real sticky evidence of Saudi involvement in 9/11 on those pages and of course, the Saudis don't want that info to be made public (even though they say they do.)
I think they want that info to be made public,...


BTW, it does not have to be the Saudi goverment that supposed to be involved. It could be individuals.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 08-02-2003, 05:45 PM   #10
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 633
Local Time: 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono
BTW, it does not have to be the Saudi goverment that supposed to be involved. It could be individuals.
Sure. It could also be individuals inside the Saudi government, which seems quite likely.
__________________
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 08-02-2003, 07:47 PM   #11
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:34 AM
Could it be that the administration willingly classified parts of the document to make someone look guilty?

we know how they handeled secret informations before the iraq war.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 08-02-2003, 09:57 PM   #12
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 09:34 AM
I've heard it has something to do with the Saudi equivalent of the CIA knowing quite a bit more about some of the 9/11 hijackers and their plans before the event then they've admitted, and they didn't tell the US about it. Something about how a Saudi 'CIA' guy was personal friends with one of them or something.

Thats just 'what I've heard'. It's not like GW returns my calls anymore.
__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 02:15 AM   #13
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 633
Local Time: 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Could it be that the administration willingly classified parts of the document to make someone look guilty?

we know how they handeled secret informations before the iraq war.
Ooooo, I smell conspiracy...
__________________
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 02:49 AM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 10:34 AM
And what about the good contact between the CIA and the FBI ?

Maybe the missing info is about that.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 02:51 AM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:34 AM
I am starting to think Bin Laden really may not have been involved with 9-11.

Donít misunderstand me, I believe Bin laden and al Qaeda have planned some attacks on US and other western and Saudi targets.

It seems more and more 9-11 was a Saudi operation. I donít mean the Saudi Government, the House of Saud,. But people in Saudi and maybe even some serving in their Government that would like to see it toppled.
There are many Saudi dissident groups who would like to overthrow the House of Saud, some 30,000 people who control and benefit from the Kingdom of Saud because of their relationship with the US.


Bin laden was a threat and deserved to be taken out. Yes he was happy that 9-11 happened and praised the hi-jackers. With Saddam taken out we can pull back from and even mostly out of Saudi, we have a new base in Qatar. I think Bin Laden and Saddam were targets of opportunity in relationship to 9-11.

BinLaden was busy fighting the Mhamood and the Northern Alliance.
BinLaden fits in the War on Terror for other activities. Saddam only does loosely if you include rhetoric against Israel and money paid to families of bombers. I do not believe Saddam was a threat to the US.

The 9-11 planning and financing most likely came out of Saudi. That may explain why the Administration has had this obsession with secrecy.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com