DH B7 Planes As Weapons 1 of 2 FDR - May 16-17 2002 News Leaders - Aug 6 PDB

Jrowse Display Page 1 of 21
Copyright 2002 Bulletin Broadfaxing Network, Inc.

The Bulletin's Frontrunner
May 17, 2002 Friday
SECTION: Leading The News
LENGTH: 13783 words
HEADLINE: White House Defends Response To Pre-9/11 Intelligence Reports.
BODY:
CBS (5/16, lead story, Rather) reports, "The Bush Administration spent this day trying to
explain what President Bush knew about terror threats before the September 11 attack on
America, why he never shared what he knew with the public, and why US intelligence could
not — in the phrase of the day — 'connect the dots,' and possibly prevent the attack. This
follows the story CBS1 David Martin broke on this broadcast last night, that President Bush
was told in August that Osama bin Laden might be planning an attack involving the hijacking
of US aircraft. The White House now insists there was no indication an aircraft would be in
effect turned into a missile." CBS (Roberts) adds, "It was a revelation the White House had
no intention of making public. And officials spent the entire day in full damage control,
insisting last August's [briefing] about possible al Qaeda hijackings contained no specific
threat." CBS adds, "National security advisor Rice claims intelligence pointed only to
traditional hijackings, where al Qaeda may attempt to trade hostages for prisoners;
specifically the Blind Sheik who masterminded the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.
Airlines were given a routine notification by the FAA to be on alert for hijackings, and watch
out for a new generation of weapons to carry them out." Rice was shown saying, "They were
concerned about some reports that the terrorists had made breakthroughs in cell phones,
key chains and pens as weapons." CBS adds, "CIA officials say they had plenty of good
intelligence on the structure and strategies of bin Laden's network — even knew he was
planning a major strike — but they were missing a critical piece of the puzzle." CIA Deputy
Director of Operations Jim Pavitt was shown saying, "We never found the tactical
intelligence, never uncovered the specifics that could have stopped those tragic strikes that
we all remember so well." CBS adds, "The White House today argued the August intelligence
report is being viewed through a post-9/11 prism in which hijackings have a completely
different meaning." White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was shown saying, "I think it's fair
to say that if I walked up to you in August of 2001 and said, 'We have information that
Muslim extremists seek to hijack American airplanes,' you'd have said, 'So what?
Everybody's known that for a long, long time.'"
ABC News (5/16, lead story, Jennings) reports, "All over the country today people are
wondering whether the White House knew more about the possibility the country would be
attacked by Osama bin Laden's terrorists." ABC (Moran) adds, "The August 6 briefing memo
was 1 1/2 pages long. Near the bottom of it came the analysis that Al Qaeda could attempt
hijackings in the US. The big question, what was done with that information? Administration
officials said today during the summer of 2001 there were at least a half dozen advisories
issued by the FAA to the aviation industry to be on high alert, primarily overseas. But
officials insist the information the government had was too general to issue an alert to the
public. ... One question stalked officials here today. Why did it take so long for all this
information to come out? The answer, is that officials say it is only now as Congress ramps
up its investigation into the events leading up to September llth that officials here are
building their record of what the President knew and when he knew it."
NBC (5/16, lead story, Brown) reports, "The atmosphere here today, one of damage control,
with White House officials insisting they did everything they could, given the nature of the
http://www.nexis.com/research/search/documentDisplay?_docnum=8&_ansset=W-WA-W-... 1/8/2004
threats. Tonight, White House officials say the hijacking threat was brought to President
Bush's attention during a CIA intelligence briefing on August 6th. The President was
spending the month on his Texas ranch. A senior US official familiar with the briefing, tells
NBC News the possibility of a hijacking was not the only thing mentioned. That in fact, 'It
was not the major thing mentioned.' Other threats, like biological and chemical terror were
discussed. The official did say the President was informed al Qaeda was 'planning to strike
us, probably here,' meaning in the US. The official says the possibility of al Qaeda using
traditional hijackings 'pops up, but not in a major way.' ... But even after a morning briefing
by the President's spokesman, his national security adviser makes a rare appearance before
reporters to give a more in-depth explanation, saying there was enough concern to issue a
warning to Federal agencies and put airlines on notice, but the information never involved
specifics."
ABC News 'Nightline' (5/16, Koppel) reports, "There may be no more dangerous weapon in
the arsenal of politics than hindsight. Certainly in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there
was nothing but praise for the conduct and judgment of President Bush, although there was
a minor flap about whether the President returned to Washington as quickly as he should
have and a little bit of confusion over why he didn't. But fundamentally he got high marks all
around. ... But hindsight often offers critics a second bite at the apple. Today the White
House spokesman and the National Security Adviser were trying to deal with the news that
last summer, some significant time before those attacks on the Pentagon and the World
Trade Center, the President had received intelligence briefings that warned of potential
hijackings."
CNN (5/16, Karl) reports, "We've had Democrats come out right from the very beginning
this morning, starting with Democratic leaders, Daschle and Gephardt, very critical of the
President and the White House for not letting people know earlier that he had had some kind
of warning about hijacking back in August. And you even had Hillary Clinton come to the
floor today and make some very pointed remarks, talking about a New York Post' headline
that you may have seen where it simply said, 'He Knew,' referring to Bush. She wanted to
know, well, what did Bush know? And of course, when did he know it?"
Fox News"Special Report' (5/16, Cameron) reports, "Once it became clear that Democrats
did know more than had first been acknowledged, the Democratic chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee suggested that the administration had gotten a bad rap and that the
president and lawmakers are not intelligence analysts in the first place. And by late in the
day, other Democrats, including Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman were backing away
from assertions that the Bush administration had mishandled it, even as Republicans,
including Senate Majority Leader (sic) Trent Lott, said that what Democrats had done by
suggesting there was impropriety was, quote, 'despicable."
The New York Post (5/17, Blomquist) this morning headlines its story "Top Aides Rally Round
The Prez," reporting, "Top White House aides yesterday aggressively defended President
Bush...trying to tamp down the growing furor over what the White House knew and when it
knew it." Bush "made two public appearances yesterday, but never referred to the Aug. 6
warning."
The New York Times (5/17, Al, Sanger, Bumiller) reports, "Confronting a political
uproar...the White House said today that the assessment was in a CIA report that was not
based on specific intelligence that terrorists were planning the Sept. 11 attacks. In a detailed
briefing this afternoon, Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, said the
government had received numerous reports of terrorist threats last summer, but she
emphasized that the information seemed general and pointed toward potential attacks
overseas." In addition, Rice "said that the briefing Mr. Bush received from the CIA on Aug. 6
did not mention a July memorandum from an FBI agent in Phoenix who had warned that
X
irowse Display Page 3 of 21
Middle Eastern men connected to Mr. bin Laden might be receiving flight training in the
United States." Rice's "comments to reporters this afternoon came amid a rising chorus of
criticism among Democrats in Congress who questioned what government officials knew
before the attacks and why the administration had withheld for eight months the information
about Mr. Bush's CIA briefing." Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking in New York, "came to
Mr. Bush's defense, calling 'incendiary' any suggestion that the White House had advance
knowledge of the attacks. He added, 'Such commentary is thoroughly irresponsible and
totally unworthy of national leaders in time of war.'" The Times adds, "A senior intelligence
official who has reviewed the briefing given to Mr. Bush on Aug. 6 said the reference to Al
Qaeda's interest in hijackings was based on one unconfirmed intelligence report that was
three to four years old."
The Los Angeles Times (5/17, Miller) reports that the Bush administration was "on the
defensive for the first time over Sept. 11," and it "mobilized...to justify its handling of
information it received in August that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might seek to
hijack US aircraft." Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and House Minority Leader Richard
Gephardt both "expressed concern with the administration's handling of the matter, and said
expanded investigations of Sept. 11 might be warranted. ... While not specifically criticizing
President Bush, the comments from dozens of lawmakers — mainly Democrats --
represented the most forceful challenge yet of the president on a matter relating directly to
the Sept. 11 attacks. Until now, the president's post-attack popularity has rendered him
beyond political reproach on counter-terrorism matters." Republicans "accused Democrats of
seeking to exploit the issue for partisan gain. House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas)
called the criticism aimed at the White House 'deplorable' and 'unconscionable.'" Bush, who
"attended a previously scheduled noontime meeting with Republican senators in the Capitol,
was said to have remarked that there was a 'sniff of politics in the air.'"
The Washington Post (5/17, Al, Eggen, Priest) reports, "Rice characterized the briefing
document for the president as an 'analytic report' that summed up bin Laden's methods of
operation. 'It was not a warning,' she said." The Times adds, "The disclosure of the
intelligence briefing touched off a furor on Capitol Hill. Democratic leaders and some
Republicans demanded a public investigation of the administration's handling of the
information. But Republican leaders accused Democrats of seeking political advantage and
dividing the country." Bush, "who did not address the issue publicly yesterday, told Senate
Republicans during a private lunch that he would have acted forcefully if he had advance
knowledge of any credible threat, according to participants. He also suggested that much of
the criticism was politically motivated."
The New York Daily News (5/17, DeFrank) reports, "Sending out national security adviser
Condoleezza Rice -- the Bush lieutenant the press respects most — to stop the bleeding was
an extraordinary indication of just how seriously Bush's political handlers see the possible
damage to his leadership aura." Rice "was unflappable but seemed ill at ease performing
essentially a grubby political chore. And by day's end, some Bush loyalists were quietly
worrying that the story looked like it was growing legs." One "key source" said, "We haven't
been able to quiet the talking heads. The situation has now improved from absolutely
miserable to just terrible."
Long Island Newsday (5/17, Fireman) reports, "White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer
found his own credibility under challenge when one reporter reminded him of an exchange
Fleischer had with a journalist aboard Air Force One on the afternoon of Sept. 11. 'Had there
been any warnings that the president knew of?' Fleischer was asked that day. 'No warnings,'
he replied." Yesterday, Fleischer "argued that his answer was truthful because he had
interpreted the question to mean any warnings about the specific kind of attacks carried out
on Sept. 11, not a generalized threat of hijackings."
http://www.nexis.com/research/search/documentDisplay?_docnum:::;8&_ansset=:W-WA-W-... 1/8/2004
The Baltimore Sun (5/17, Sullivan, Greene, Matthews) reports, "In a speech at the state
Conservative Party's annual dinner, Cheney warned Democrats 'to not seek political
advantage by making incendiary suggestions...that the White House had advance
information that would have prevented the tragic attacks of 9-11.' Cheney said that
Democratic attacks could backfire. 'The people and agencies responsible to help us learn to
defeat such an attack are the very ones most likely to be distracted from their critical duties
if Congress fails to carry their obligation in a responsible fashion,' he said." Rice "recounted
several threats that intelligence officials picked up, beginning in September 2000 and
peaking last summer, that focused on likely targets overseas."
The Wall Street Journal (5/17, Cloud, Cummings) reports, "Bush's briefing came at a time
when the Central Intelligence Agency was revising its conclusions about the location of a
possible attack. After worrying for months that the most likely target was overseas, CIA
analysts had concluded -- based on recent intelligence from several sources -- that planning
was underway for an al Qaeda attack on US soil, intelligence officials said. The document
shown to Mr. Bush warned 'that they would very much like to hurt us' domestically, an
official said." The Journal adds, "In a day of damage control, White House officials defended
their decision not to issue a public alert last summer, saying reports pointing to possible
hijackings were too vague to be useful and would have shut down the airline system."
The Washington Times (5/17, Hallow, Boyer) headlines its story "White House Slams Hijack
Politics,"1 reporting, "Daschle called on President Bush to turn over documents from his
intelligence briefings and a classified FBI memo written last July that outlined attempts by
Arabs to train as pilots in the United States. ... Behind closed doors, Mr. Bush...passionately
denounced the media reports as politically motivated and that he would have 'unleashed the
full force and fury' of the military if he had known. ... Those who heard the president speak
said there was no doubt he was referring to congressional Democrats and their calls for
investigations. ... American intelligence officials had been warning about potential attacks by
bin Laden on US targets since the Clinton administration. Time magazine reported in
December 1998 that bin Laden was planning strikes on Washington or New York to avenge a
US missile strike on his headquarters in Afghanistan. The report was widely picked up by
other press outlets, including the New York Daily News and Agence France-Presse."
The Miami Herald/Knight Ridder (5/17, Enda, Savino, Borenstein) reports that Robert Gates,
who "ran the CIA under the president's father, former President George Bush," said
"criticism that the current president should have acted on last summer's warnings was
'neither fair or accurate.1 Generalized reports lacking specifics of where, when and how an
attack would occur make it nearly impossible to prevent them, Gates said.' He said the
"nonspecific warnings Bush received were 'characteristic of the type of reporting on terror
we've received in the last 30 years.'" Former CIA Director James Woolsey "said there was
little reason for the administration to disclose the August intelligence briefing. 'I don't think
there is a great deal (of information) here,' he said. But Woolsey also questioned why US
intelligence officials didn't try to connect the dots on a number of warnings."
The Orlando Sentinel (5/17, Shaw) reports, "The White House on Thursday quickly
dispatched some of its biggest guns — Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and White House spokesman Ari
Fleischer - - to defend the president. They characterized the criticism as 20/20 hindsight and
suggested political motivations as well." Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott "called the
criticism 'malicious' politicking. Does anyone really believe, he asked, that Bush — or any
president — would have ignored any warnings that hinted at a specific attack?"
The Washington Times (5/17, Gertz) reports, "Administration intelligence officials said
shortly after September 11 that there was no warning of an attack, although there were
signs of terrorist planning overseas. CIA officials, saying the agency was too busy taking
http://www.nexis.com/research/search/documentDisplay?_docnumi=8&_ansset=::W-WA-W-... 1/8/2004
r
part in the war on terrorism, did nothing to review the intelligence failure until after
Congress formed a joint committee to investigate the matter earlier this year. CIA Director
George J. Tenet then formed a secret task force to look into the matter."
The Houston Chronicle (5/17, Hedges) reports, "White House spokesman Ari Fleischer
sidestepped a question about whether Bush would turn over the classified written briefing
paper to Congress but said the administration had already supplied many documents to
congressional staffs reviewing events leading up to the attacks."
The Houston Chronicle (5/17, Masterson, Hedges) reports that Rep. Ken Bentsen "said that
the questions over what the administration or the FBI knew prior to Sept. 11 feeds into
congressional frustrations over the perceived veil of secrecy under which the administration
has been working."
Controversy Ends Bipartisan Unity On Terrorism-Related Issues.
The Dallas Morning News (5/17, Whittle, Hillman, Mittelstadt) reports, "Once politically off-
limits, the question of whether the Sept. 11 attacks were foreseeable ignited Thursday as
the White House further revealed what Mr. Bush had been told. ... Republicans in Congress
and intelligence experts outside government generally backed the White House view. Some
accused Democrats of exaggerating the development for political advantage. ... The debate
began after an eight-month interval in which Democrats, mindful of polls showing Americans
united in grief and anger over the attacks and in backing Mr. Bush, mostly avoided criticizing
the president's handling of the tragedy." But 'with six months until elections that will decide
which party runs Congress, the demands for further investigation suggested that Mr. Bush's
political immunity had expired."
The New York Times (5/17, Mitchell) reports that Democrats "were the fiercest" in the
pursuit of the issue, as "for the first time since Sept. 11, the bipartisan unity over how Mr.
Bush has conducted the war on terror appeared to be dissolving in sharp questions,
accusations and partisan finger-pointing."
Bush's "Image Of Invincibility Is Shaken."
In a story headlined "An Image of Invincibility Is Shaken by Disclosures," the Washington

Post (5/17, Al, Milbank, Allen) reports, "The terrorist attacks transformed Bush's
presidency, lifting him from just over 50 percent support in opinion polls to 90 percent. For
that reason, Democrats are hopeful — and some GOP congressional aides were nervous —
that the sudden questioning of whether Bush did enough to prevent the attacks could
damage Bush's standing as a decisive and competent war leader." They said "it could also
undermine the administration's credibility, as Bush aides' vaunted ability to keep information
secret now appears to some on Capitol Hill to be an effort to deceive the public and the
Congress." Bush "ignored the issue during two speeches today, and when reporters shouted
questions at him during a visit to Capitol Hill. During a private meeting with senators, he
immediately raised the topic and expressed great annoyance, according to a source who was
there."
Gallup Poll Finds 68% Think Administration Should Have Released Information Sooner.
USA Today (5/17, Keen) reports, "A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll on Thursday showed that
68% of Americans said the Bush administration should have disclosed sooner that it had the
information. But 29% said the White House should not have discussed the information
before now. The disclosure, however, did not affect how most view Bush. Two-thirds, 66%,
said it had not affected their opinion of him, while 32% said they viewed him less favorably.
Overall, 58% said the attacks could not have been predicted, while 38% said they could
r
Browse Display Page 6 of 21
have been." The results were based on interviews with 598 adults and have a margin of
error of +/-4 percentage points.
Zogby Expects Bush's Job Approval To Drop To Mid-50s By Mid Summer.
The Boston Globe (5/17, Leonard) reports, "Pollster John Zogby, whose latest survey shows
Bush's popularity at 69 percent, said he expects the president's approval rating to be in the
mid-50s by the end of summer, not because of new information about Osama bin Laden, but
because domestic issues such as the economy and prescription drugs are beginning to
reemerge and Democrats and independents who supported his war effort are 'going home.'"
Zogby added, "It's the normal law of gravity. If the Democrats overplay their hand, it could
backfire."
Lawmakers Say Far More Damaging Information Yet To Be Released.
The Washington Post (5/17, Al, Eggen, Priest) reports, "Members of the congressional
committees investigating the pre-Sept. 11 warnings said yesterday that there is far more
damaging information that has not yet been disclosed about the government's knowledge of
and inaction over events leading up to Sept. 11. 'We've just scratched the surface,' said Sen.
Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), ranking Republican member of the Senate intelligence committee."
CIA Counterterror Chief Moved Out; Similar Moves At FBI.
ABC News (5/17, Shipman) reports this morning, "ABC News has learned that the chief of
the CIA's counterterrorism center for the last three years, Kofer Black, has just been moved
out. That's the very team tasked with finding bin Laden." ABC adds, "There have been
similar changes at the FBI, and we're told there will be more at the CIA, though the
President remains happy with the top bosses -- George Tenet and Robert Mueller."
August 6 Report Came From 1998 Data From Single British Source.
The New York Times (5/17, Johnston, Risen) reports that "the report provided to the
president on Aug. 6, which warned him that Mr. bin Laden's followers might hijack airplanes,
was based on 1998 intelligence data drawn from a single British source, government officials
said today." That source "said Al Qaeda had an interest in hijacking airplanes in order to
obtain hostages who could be used as bargaining chips so the terrorist organization could
demand the freedom of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a Muslim cleric who was convicted in
1995 for his role in the failed plot to blow up landmarks in the New York area."
Information Received By White House Had Been Public For Months.
The New York Times (5/17, Al, Sanger, Bumiller) reports, "In fact, the information Mr. Bush
received in the Aug. 6 briefing had been public for months. The Federal Aviation
Administration published a report called Criminal Acts Against Aviation on its Web site in
2001 before the hijackings that said that although Osama bin Laden 'is not known to have
attacked civil aviation, he has both the motivation and the wherewithal to do so.' It added,
'Bin Laden's anti-Western and anti- American attitudes make him and his followers a
significant threat to civil aviation, particularly to US civil aviation.'"
The New York Post (5/17, Blomquist) reports, "The FAA alert went out to the airlines July
31...based on an intelligence report that domestic flights could be a terror target." It said
that "although nothing specific was known, 'some of the current active groups are known to
plan and train for hijacking' and that airlines should be on a 'high degree of alertness.'"
State Department, FBI, FAA Issued Eight Terrorism Warnings Between June And August.
http://www.nexis.com/research/search/documentDisplay?_docnum=8&_ansset-W-WA-W-... 1/8/2004
r
kowse Display Page 7 of 21
The Washington Post (5/17, Al, Eggen, Priest) reports, "In her lengthy afternoon news
conference, Rice said the State Department, the FBI and the FAA issued eight separate
warnings about terrorist activities between June 22 and Aug. 1. The FAA alone issued four
general security alerts about possible hijackings to airlines and airports between May and
mid-August, officials said." Rice also "said the FAA believed that terrorists had learned how
to turn pens, key chains and cell phones into weapons." But "officials of airlines, pilot
associations and airports all said they had received no warnings of substance. Accusations
flew yesterday between the government and the airlines, which argued that the FAA's
circulars on terrorism were not particularly helpful."
The Miami Herald/Knight Ridder (5/17, Enda, Savino, Borenstein) reports, "Bush became
concerned enough about the repeated threats that he directed Rice on July 5 to look into
them. But the administration never pulled together disparate clues on potential threats and
did not alert the public." Nonetheless, "the FAA issued four generalized security 'alerts' about
possible hijackings to airlines and airports between May and mid-August 2001."
The Washington Times (5/17, Seper) reports, "One airline executive, who asked not to be
identified, said the warning 'contained no specificity' regarding targets or sites, and never
mentioned the possibility a hijacked jetliner laden with fuel could be used in a suicide strike
against US buildings or other targets. According to the executive, the FAA notice said there
was 'no credible' information regarding any specific hijacking target, although terrorists were
believed to be planning and training for hijackings. He said the FAA advised the airlines to
'use caution.' Another industry official, who also requested anonymity, said the warning was
not clear as to whether the hijackers had planned to target aircraft in the United States or
overseas."
The Wall Street Journal (5/17, Cloud, Cummings) reports, "Federal authorities had informed
the airline industry a half-dozen times in midsummer of "nonspecific" intelligence about
possible terrorist attacks, officials said. The most significant was a July 31 Federal Aviation
Administration notice that terrorists might be training for and planning hijackings, officials
said, but the warning didn't include a reference to Osama bin Laden."
ABC News (5/16, lead story, Moran) reports, "The big question, what was done with that
information? Administration officials said today during the summer of 2001 there were at
least a half dozen advisories issued by the FAA to the aviation industry to be on high alert,
primarily overseas. But officials insist the information the government had was too general
to issue an alert to the public."
CBS (5/16, lead story, Roberts) reports, "Between May and August of the summer of 2001,
the FAA put out four, perhaps as many as six, directives, bulletins to the airline, warning of
various threats. The latest one most closely resembling anything that the President heard
about was on July 31 where the FAA directed airlines to say the target is not clear. The FAA
has no credible information about an attack on US civilian interests. Nevertheless, some
current active groups are known to plan and train for hijackings. The FAA encourages all US
carriers to exercise prudence and demonstrate a high degree of alertness. But according to
the FAA, that's just another routine bulletin."
Mineta Also Received "General Information" About Threats.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (5/17, Shesgreen, Dine) reports, "During a stop Thursday in St.
Louis, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said he, too, had received 'general
information' about potential threats to commercial aviation in June or July of last year.
Mineta said most of the threats focused on overseas airline operations — not domestic
flights."
http://www.nexis.com/research/search/documentDisplay?_docnum=8&_ansset-W-WA-W-... 1/8/2004
3rowse Display Page 8 of 21
9/11 Families Angry No Public Warning Was Issued.
The AP (5/17, Crary) reports, "Some relatives of Sept. 11 victims are seething over
revelations that President Bush got advance warnings -- not shared with the public -- that
Osama bin Laden's terror network might hijack US planes. ... Several relatives expressed
hope Thursday that the revelations would intensify pressure for a high-powered investigation
into possible intelligence and security failures preceding the attacks."
CBS (5/16, lead story, Roberts) reports, "Carie Lemack's mother died on American Airlines
flight 11." Lemack was shown saying, "And I would hope that they would tell citizens that
there is a threat, because my mom would not be on that plane if she had known that she
was going to be murdered that day." Marian Fontana of the 9/11 Widows & Victims Families
Association was shown saying, "Anything good that will come out of this will be a wakeup
call that we really need to demand full disclosure from the government and demand that
they act on things swiftly, the way my husband acted swiftly as a firefighter."
Long Island Newsday (5/17, Cuza) reports, "The jarring disclosure that President George W.
Bush was warned about threats of hijackings before Sept. 11 elicited fresh outrage from
victims' families yesterday, even as local elected officials rushed to Bush's defense." Steve
Push, a co-founder of the group Families of Sept. 11, whose wife was onboard American
Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, said, "I'm shocked, saddened, livid. If
that was important enough to brief the president about, they should've told the American
people. My wife would be here today if they had disclosed that information in August,
because she was on a one-day business trip that was completely optional." While some
victims' families "said they were reserving judgment on Bush's actions, the majority of those
interviewed said the revelation confirmed their worst fears about US intelligence failures and
even fueled speculation about darker, more sinister scenarios." Many "said the new
disclosure, coming eight months after the attacks, casts serious doubt on the credibility of
the Bush administration. Some could not help but wonder: What else might the government
be withholding, for fear of touching off lawsuits?" Steve Campbell, 36, of Middle Village,
whose wife, Jill, was killed in the south tower of the World Trade Center, said, "I'm
wondering what else they did know, and they're not choosing to share with us, because
they're so afraid of liability. That would explain the federal compensation, too. They want
people paid off as fast as humanly possible." But others ""refused to blame Bush, contending
that he never could have anticipated the scale of the attacks."
The Boston Herald (5/17, Richardson) reports, "Many still-grieving relatives of the Sept. 11
victims said yesterday they don't blame President Bush for not doing more after receiving a
warning that al-Qaeda terrorists may have been planning to hijack American jetliners on
domestic flights." Loris Hill, the Framingham mother of Todd Hill, who was killed in the
collapse of the World Trade Center, said, "I don't believe that (Bush) knew that all these
people were going to get killed and he didn't do anything about it." Yet "some thought that
Americans had a right to know about the threat before they made the decision to board a
plane." United Airlines stewardess Barbara MacFarland, 55, of Watertown, who lost several
friends and colleagues when Flight 175 crashed into the south tower, said, "If (the White
House) knew, they should have warned the airlines."
Government Briefly Went Into Counterterror Frenzy On July 5.
The Washington Post (5/17, Al, Gellman) reports, "On July 5 of last year, a month and a
day before President Bush first heard that al Qaeda might plan a hijacking, the White House
summoned officials of a dozen federal agencies to the Situation Room. 'Something really
spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon,' the government's top
counterterrorism official, Richard Clarke, told the assembled group, according to two of
5rowse Display Page 9 of 21
those present. The group included the Federal Aviation Administration, along with the Coast
Guard, FBI, Secret Service and Immigration and Naturalization Service." Clarke "directed
every counterterrorist office to cancel vacations, defer nonvital travel, put off scheduled
exercises and place domestic rapid-response teams on much shorter alert. For six weeks last
summer, at home and overseas, the US government was at its highest possible state of
readiness -- and anxiety — against imminent terrorist attack. That intensity — defensive in
nature — did not last. By the time Bush received his briefing at his ranch in Crawford, Tex.,
on Aug. 6, the government had begun to stand down from the alert. Offensive planning
against al Qaeda remained in a mid- level interagency panel, which had spent half a year
already in a policy review. The Deputies Committee, the second tier of national security
officials, had not finished considering the emerging plan, and Bush's Cabinet-rank advisers
were still a month away from their first meeting on terrorism. That took place Sept. 4, a
week before hijacked planes were flown into the Pentagon and World Trade Center in
synchronized attacks."
Administration Had, But Never Implemented, Pre-9/11 Plan For Offensive Against Al Qaeda.
NBC (5/16, story 3, Brokaw) reports, "Because of all those terror warnings, NBC News now
has learned, the Administration did have a plan in the works to go after Osama bin Laden
and the Al Qaeda network. And that plan was on the President's desk the weekend before
9/11." NBC (Miklaszewski) adds, "US and foreign sources tell NBC News that two days
before 9/11, President Bush was given what amounted as a detailed war plan for an all-out
war against Al Qaeda network worldwide. It was a formal national security presidential
directive, which one US official called the 'game plan to wipe Al Qaeda off the face of the
earth.' It dealt with all aspects of a war against Al Qaeda, from diplomacy to military
operations. First, convincing other countries to cooperate, share intelligence, use their law
enforcement agencies to round up Al Qaeda suspects. It included covert US operations to
disrupt Al Qaeda cells in 60 countries. The directive also had a plan to freeze bank accounts
and money laundering. It also included efforts to go to the Taliban in Afghanistan, to
convince them to turn over Osama bin Laden. If all else failed, military operations. It's pretty
much the same plan that the White House, CIA and Pentagon quickly put into action
immediately after the attacks on 9/11. Now, ironically, although the Presidential directive
was on the President's desk two days before, he never had a chance to sign it before the
terrorist attacks."
No Single Agency Had All Pieces Of Threat Information.
The New York Times (5/17, Johnston, Risen) reports, "Bush and his aides did not have all
the threat information that was circulating through lower levels of the government in July
and August, some of it more specific. Bits and pieces of intelligence began to be picked up
American counterterrorism officials, but they were never coherently assembled because
agencies did not share or act on the information before the Sept. 11 attacks. Even when
information did reach the president, its possible relevance to the plot seems evident only in
hindsight."
The Washington Post (5/17, Al, Gellman) reports, "One major US government error before
Sept. 11, according to some counterterrorist officials, was the FBI's failure to share its field
reports from aviation schools." FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III "has acknowledged that the
bureau should have responded more aggressively to that report." But "the FBI did not share
it within the interagency Counterterrorism Security Group, which had a 'threat subgroup'
meeting three times a week. According to sources, the Phoenix report reached no further
than FBI headquarters and the New York field office."
The Houston Chronicle (5/17, Masterson, Hedges) reports, "Key lawmakers said they hoped
cooler heads would prevail as partisan heat hit the White House on Thursday for its failure to
jrowse Display Page 10 of 21
disclose warnings before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden wanted to hijack US
airplanes. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, said it would be inappropriate to criticize President Bush for failing to act.
Instead, he said the FBI needs to be taken to task for having received at least three
communications about the potential use of an airplane for an attack, but failed 'to connect
the dots.'"
The Christian Science Monitor (5/17, Mclaughlin) reports that "the fact that the US didn't
disrupt Al Qaeda's plans highlights the problems governments have always faced when
trying to peer into the future and head off attacks in a dangerous world. Officials must sift
through haystacks of misleading data, coordinate a multitude of competing agencies, and -
amid the press of other priorities - actually imagine an assault could take place. These new
revelations have echoes of 1941, when information about a possible Japanese attack at Pearl
Harbor floated around the US government — but was never synthesized or acted upon."
USA Today (5/17, Diamond, Kiely) reports, "The government's management of information
and critical intelligence has been one of the most glaring weaknesses highlighted in the
aftermath of Sept. 11. ... Underlying the current controversy about what government
officials knew about bin Laden's plans is a larger and more disturbing truth: Experts have
been warning for years about the threat terrorism posed to the country and the gaps in the
nation's defenses, but their warnings and recommendations fell victim to bureaucratic and
political inertia."
The Los Angeles Times (5/17, Lichtblau, Meyer) reports that "poor communication,
disjointed coordination among intelligence agencies and questionable attention to counter-
terrorism operations may have hindered the ability of any one individual or agency to
determine their collective significance, experts said. The new evidence about last summer
becomes even more pronounced against a backdrop of previous warnings about Al Qaeda-
linked terrorist threats against Americans in such far-flung spots as Canada, France, Spain,
Turkey and the Philippines."
Gephardt Denies Political Motives, Says Inquiry Is Aimed At Better Performance In The
Future.
House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt was asked on CBS' "Early Show" (5/17) this morning
what questions about the pre-9/11 warnings are upper most in his mind. Gephardt said, "I
think what we have to do and what the American people want to know is exactly what did
the White House know and more importantly what was done about it. This is an inquiry that
needs to go on simply to avoid other terrorist attacks from happening in the future. We've
got a committee that's been set up. And the Intelligence Committee, a bipartisan committee,
to look at this so that we can do better in the futures, and the American people need and
want this information. And that's all that's here. We're trying to get to a better performance.
Our first duty is to protect our citizens." Asked if he sees "anything suspicious in the fact
that it's been eight months, it's taken eight months for this news to surface," Gephardt said,
"I don't know. We don't know the facts. That's precisely why this kind of inquiry needs to go
on. It is eight months. This information may have been out there. We don't know. Let me
rephrase — no one knows here." Asked why the President "never shared any of this
information that he had these warnings prior to 9/11,"Gephardt said, "I don't know. That's
one of the questions that needs to be examined. We need to know what the White House
knew, when they knew it, what they did about it, and why this didn't come to light until now.
Those are all valid, important questions that the American people deserve to know. We've
got to find a way to try to do better in the future. The American people want us to keep
them secure. And that's why this kind of inquiry is so important. It is future- oriented. We're
not trying to put blame anywhere. We're trying to find out how to do things better and this
information is important to that effort." Asked about comments from Vice President Cheney
and Sen. Kit Bond that efforts to politicize the situation are irresponsible, Gephardt said,
"That's just not what's happening here. We have a duty and responsibility to keep the
American people safe. Obviously that didn't happen on September llth. We've got do better
in the future. And with this information, finding out what happened at the CIA, at the FBI, in
the White House, maybe we can do a better job in the future."
Republicans Say Intelligence Committees Got Hijacking Briefing; Democrats Say They Did
Not.
CNN (5/16, Karl) reports, "Some Republicans saying that yes, the intelligence committees
up here got the same information the President did. And Democrats saying that that is
absolutely not true. That's clearly something that will need to be sorted out. But one thing
that's interesting about that is that even the Democrats acknowledge they, since September
11, have gotten information about what was in that August briefing to the President. So
some Democrats up here have told me that the Intelligence committees did know that there
was this warning previous to September 11." That raises the question of why the intelligence
committees "didn't they come forth earlier and say that they knew about this."
CNN (5/16, Crowley) interviewed Senate Intelligence Committee ranking Republican Richard
Shelby. Asked if he "or anyone else on the Hill received the same information the White
House received last August," Shelby said, "The Intelligence Committee, at least the four of
us that were the senior people on the House and Senate committees, have reviewed today
and we basically got the same information on August 7, if not before, that the President did.
Our staff has told us that and after going over what the daily intelligence brief was that day
for the President, what they have told us it was, it was a rehash basically of things from '98
warnings, '99 and then I believe it was a June warning of possible use of explosives. But not
in any of those briefings were any specific threats mentioned of airliners blowing up
buildings or anything. Now, there were mention of possible hijacking, but that goes back to
'98." Shelby said that "what upsets me overall is some of the work of the FBI recently, the
Phoenix memo. I believe it did have a lot of content in it. July the 10th, August the 17th, the
Minnesota deal, dealing with the schools. None of that information was really acted upon. ...
That was not given to the President then. The FBI basically kept this in. They should have
given it to the President. They should have given it to the committee, but in reality, they sat
on it."
CNN (5/16, Blitzer) reports, "You have Democrats saying that they were not given this
information, that this general information still about the possibility, possibility, of bin Laden's
al Qaeda network getting involved in the hijacking of a US commercial airliner should have
been released to the Congress." House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt was shown saying,
"We had not received this information. And I think the Congress should have known this
information."
CQ (5/16, Sorrells, McCutcheon, Pierce, Willis) reports lawmakers "also fielded questions
about how much they knew before Sept. 11." House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter
Goss "said there were more warnings than usual in the summer, but said no specific threats
could be discerned from the mountain of information given to intelligence authorizers." Goss
said, "We had an increase in volume, but all we were getting is static." Goss also "disputed
comments by" Minority Leader Richard Gephardt "that Congress had not received the
information." Goss said, "Mr. Gephardt said we didn't have the information. We did. He
apparently just didn't know about it." CQ adds, "Although congressional leaders get different
versions of the reports given to the president, Goss said, any member of Congress can
access it."
Edwards Said To Have Changed His Story On What Intelligence Panel Was Told.
http://www.nexis.com/researchysearch/documentDisplay?_docnum=8&_ansset=W-WA-W-... 1/8/2004
The Winston Salem Journal (5/17, Begos), in an article titled "Fuzzy Memory," reports, "Sen.
John Edwards and Rep. Richard Burr hold seats on congressional intelligence committees
that had pre-Sept. 11 briefings about the possibility that Osama bin Laden's terrorist
network might hijack American airliners. But the two politicians have very different answers
about what they heard. Asked Thursday by the Winston-Salem Journal if he knew in August
about the general warning that al-Qaida might be planning to hijack airplanes, Edwards was
vague. 'I don't know. Not that I'm aware of,' the Democrat, who is a member of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, said. But Sen. Richard Shelby, R- Ala. and vice chairman of the
Intelligence Committee, said on NBC's Today show that 'we were aware of that general
warning the president got.' Edwards' story seemed to change as the day progressed. 'We
received generic information over a period of time about Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida, the
possibility of attacks,' he said during one interview. Later, Edwards said, 'I don't specifically
remember discussions about hijacking, but I suspect hijacking could have been part of that
discussion."1
McCain, Lieberman To Announce Legislation Creating Investigative Committee.
The Washington Post (5/17, Al, Eggen, Priest) reports, "McCain, Bush's opponent in the
Republican presidential primary in 2000, and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), the
Democratic vice presidential candidate in the general election, announced that they will push
for legislation to create a 14-member commission to investigate the matter. The
administration had previously resisted that idea."
The Newark Star-Ledger (5/17, Cohen) reports, "Lawmakers, including Sens. Robert
Torricelli (D-N.J.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Charles Grassley
(R-Iowa), renewed their call for an independent commission to investigate the actions of the
intelligence and law enforcement agencies." Torricelli said, "The American people deserve to
know exactly what their government knew prior to Sept. 11 and just what went wrong. It
seems as if each day there is a new revelation of warning signs that went unheeded and
calls for investigation that went unanswered." Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) "said his
Democratic colleagues are trying to use the latest revelation as a way to 'take a shot at the
President."'
Rumsfeld Defends Administration Response.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked on NBC's "Today" (5/17) this morning, "What
is your reaction that the Bush Administration perhaps did not act quickly enough or
efficaciously enough when it came to warnings some kind of terrorist attack might occur on
this country?" Rumsfeld said, "I think when all the dust settles, the American people will
know that the truth, and the truth is, that every day, there are numerous threat warnings.
They walk in off the street, pieces of scraps of intelligence collected by the FBI, pieces of
information that are gathered by the Central Intelligence Agency in one way or another and
they are then looked at and sorted and sifted and what has to be done is to recognize that
when you're all through sifting all of those, some very small number prove to be actionable.
That is to say, there's sufficiently specific information that someone can do something about
it. And needless to say when that happens, someone does do something about it. They make
an effort to either alert people, which we do in the pentagon, for example, if we have a
threat warning in the Middle East. We alert the commander there and he then puts his forces
on a different alert level. And there are procedures for that taking place. The vast majority
of the reports and scraps of information that come in tend to be eventually discounted as not
being valid, or at the minimum, not being actionable." Asked if the various warnings should
have been "taken in total," and if more should "have been done as a result of these things,"
Rumsfeld said, "The advantage a terrorist has is a terrorist can attack at any time at any
place using any conceivable technique, and it is not physically possible to defend in
everyplace at every moment of the day or night against every conceivable technique. ... You
can be certain, the American people can be certain which is what's important, that changes
that have taken place over the past year or two and as the threats have increased the
warnings have increased, have been substantial, and that the caution and the heightened
awareness and the steps that have been taken at airports, the steps that have been taken
by the FBI and the CIA all are contributing to a safer circumstance for the American people.
But even that does not suggest that there cannot be a terrorist event somewhere,
someplace in the world and I suspect there will be. That's just the nature of the world we
live in. That's why President Bush is focusing on the right thing, and that is to go after the
global terrorist networks, where they are and to go after the countries that are harboring
those terrorists. That is really the only way to defend against terrorism."
Cheney Angry Over Intelligence Failures.
ABC News (5/17, Shipman) reports this morning, "Vice President Dick Cheney, "may be
angrily defending the Administration in public, but behind the scenes, sources tell us for
months he's been just as angry about lapses in US intelligence gathering."
Cheney Told Russert There Had Been "No Specific Threat."
NBC (5/16, lead story, Brown) reports, "On Capitol Hill, Democrats railed against the White
House for not admitting sooner there were concerns about a hijacking." Senate Majority
Leader Tom Daschle was shown saying, "Why did it take eight months for us to receive this
information?" NBC adds, "The Sunday after September llth, here's what Vice President
Cheney told NBC's Tim Russert." Cheney was shown saying, "There had been information
coming in that a big operation was planned. But that's the sort of a trend you see all the
time in these kinds of reports." Russert: "No specific threat?" Cheney: "No specific threat."
Administration's Decision-Making On Threat To US Banks Recounted.
The Wall Street Journal (5/17, Cummings, Fields) reports, "Around 8:30 a.m. on Thursday,
April 18, President Bush and his top advisers gathered in the Oval Office to ponder a
disturbing intelligence report: A suicide bomber might be targeting a US bank." FBI Director
Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson "wanted to warn banks and
the public. Publicity, they argued, is key to prevention." Homeland Security Director Tom
Ridge and Deputy Treasury Secretary Kenneth Dam "objected. The threat, they argued,
wasn't credible enough to risk harm to the still-fragile economy." Bush, "who loathes high-
level indecision, leaned forward in his chair, pointed toward his advisers and said, 'You ought
to talk about it,' according to people who were present." The Journal adds, "For the next 24
hours, the president's advisers huddled in hallways and talked in telephone conference calls
that stretched into the night. They sifted through the available evidence together but were
unable to reach a consensus — until an unexpected new piece of evidence finally tipped the
scales." The issue "was still unresolved that evening." Attorney General John Ashcroft also
"had a restless night. At about 9 p.m., his aides say, he gave up trying to relax at home and
headed back to the office. After punching his code into the wall box outside the 6th-floor
command center where sensitive Justice operations are handled, he headed for a secure
telephone to get the latest news. Messrs. Thompson, Tenet, Mueller and Ridge joined him on
a conference call, Mr. Ridge and others say. The men batted around the credibility of the
threat again. But with no new information, they agreed only to regroup in the morning."
After Abu Zubayda, "the man US officials believe was the third-highest ranking officer in Mr.
bin Laden's al Qaeda network," told interrogators "terrorists were planning to blow up a US
bank in the eastern part of the country," the Administration decided to issue a public
warning.
McKinney Claims Vindication.
Bob Novak said on NN's "Crossfire" (5/16), "Back in March, Democratic Congresswoman
Cynthia McKinney of Georgia insinuated that the Bush administration may have ignored
warnings about September llth. She hinted at a plot to benefit defense contractors close to
the Republican administration. The reaction was fierce. Her fellow Georgia Democrat,
Senator Zel Miller, called her loony, dangerous, and irresponsible. Well, Representative
McKinney now claims she's been vindicated and is the source of our quote of the day. 'I was
derided by the White House, right wing, talk radio, and spokespersons for the military
industrial complex as a conspiracy theorist. Well, I won't sit down and I won't shut up until
the full and unvarnished truth is placed before the American people.' Well, I want to tell you
one other thing that Cynthia McKinney also said. She said, 'Why did they not warn the
innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?'"
WXIA-TV of Atlanta (5/16) reports, "Rep. Cynthia McKinney called for a congressional
investigation in March, after accusing the Bush Administration of prior knowledge of the
attacks before September 11. Today, she and her supporters feel vindicated." Sen. Zell
Miller "harshly criticized Congresswoman McKinney after she said the Bush Administration
ignored warnings of a terror attack and implied that the Administration delayed action to
perhaps benefit some of President's friends in the defense industry. Today, Senator Miller
and Congresswoman McKinney issued statements. Miller saying, he's not apologizing and
McKinney saying, her critics are starting to sound just like her. Congresswoman McKinney
has not spoken on camera. But she issued a statement, in which she responded to critics:
'Ever since I came to Congress in 1992, there have been those trying to silence my voice. I
have been told to sit down and shut up over and over. But I won't shut up until the full and
unvarnished truth is put before the American people.' A former Atlanta mayor says she's
vindicated." McKinney backers "delivered a letter to Zell Miller, demanding he apologize for
calling her statements loony and dangerous. But Miller said he has no intention of
apologizing."
More Congressional Reaction.
Sen. Bob Graham, on CNN's "Larry King Live" (5/16), said, "I frankly think this is probably
an overblown story. The president gets a briefing every day on the major issues that he's
likely to face. I have not seen the specific document from which he was briefed on August
the 7th, but we heard a summary of it, and if that summary is correct, it had some
important information, but not exceptional information in terms of what I'm certain that the
White House already knew, about the threat of Osama bin Laden."
CNN (5/16, Crowley) interviewed Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham.
Asked if President Bush "neglected protecting the country as a result of what he knew in
August," Graham said, "The answer to the question is no. The President of the United States
can't be expected to be an intelligence analyst and a case officer. The people who are
responsible for taking action are the same people who wrote the intelligence information that
was submitted to the President."
Sen. Dick Durbin, on CNN's "Crossfire" (5/16), explained that he was in agreement with Sen.
Graham in characterizing many of the allegations leveled at the White House as overblown,
saying, "I was standing next to him, and I agree with him. But I think we have to put it in
this context. ... We've learned a few things in the last few days that are very troubling. We
know that the FBI office in Phoenix on July 10th sent a memo to Washington saying — this
has all been in the press — saying that 'We suspect there are foreign nationals who are
terrorists who are connected with Osama bin Laden, who are involved in aviation training.
Here is the name of one of the schools, and we recommend that the FBI take this seriously
and go after the other aviation training schools.' That memo went through the FBI, and,
frankly, it died. It wasn't distributed. You don't have to be an analyst when it comes to
intelligence to know that there was a breakdown there. ... If you've been in Washington over
the weekend, you know that when Condoleezza Rice comes in at 4:00 this afternoon to
answer what was on the news last night, it's a big story in the White House. The president's
going to face this. Whether he wants to face it in four days, five days or two weeks,
ultimately, he's going to have to answer some questions."
Sen. Richard Shelby, on CNN's "Larry King Live" (5/16) said, "I don't believe what the White
House was briefed on was anything new. I don't believe it was anything that we had not
briefed — been briefed before on, but it was sort of a recapitulation of some events, general,
not specific, as to anything."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, on ABC's "Nightline" (5/16), said, "What I think is real is that there's
a broken part of our system. First place, let's leave out the blame game. I don't think it's
really appropriate to go through that now. And I don't really think there is any individual to
blame for this."
On CNN (5/16), Sen. John Edwards said, "This should not be a focus on what the President
did or didn't do. It certainly shouldn't be a political question. We have a very serious issue to
resolve here. It's an issue of national security to the country, not a political question."
Edwards added, "As a member of the Intelligence Committee, Congressman Chambliss and I
both have a responsibility here. Our responsibility is to not engage in politicizing this, but to
get to the facts. ... And so, we ought to have a full and open investigation." Rep. Saxby
Chambliss said, "I don't think you're seeing politics played so much at this level right now.
Senator Edwards is right. This is a very, very serious issue. We have got to get to the
bottom of it. We've got to see what the facts are."
The Providence Journal-Bulletin (5/17) reports, "Reports that the administration had
information prior to Sept. 11 regarding potential terrorist attacks prompted calls for
explanation yesterday among members of Rhode Island's congressional delegation." Sen.
Jack Reed (D-RI) said, "It raises very serious questions about what the president knew, and
how he responded to it. The president should have an opportunity to put the information in
context, and explain as best he can not only that information, but anything else that's
relevant." Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee "said he was 'deeply concerned by recent
assertions that America's intelligence agencies may have failed to take adequate action to
prevent the tragic events of Sept. 11.'" Chafee added that Bush and Congress "must now
work together to determine where failures may have occurred, and how they can be
prevented in the future."
More Commentary.
The New York Post (5/17) editorializes, "Let's be frank: Suggestions that President Bush last
summer received a CIA warning of a specific airplane-hijacking plot by Osama bin Laden are
pernicious nonsense. To hear some tell it, the entire Sept. 11 scenario had been laid out
weeks in advance with startling precision for Bush - who then did nothing about it. Which is
ridiculous. Plus, it misses the point: That America's failure to prevent 9/11 had little to do
with an unheeded intelligence warning. And everything to do with this country's decades-
long failure to take terrorism seriously."
The Washington Post (5/17) entitles its editorial "Missed Warnings," and writes, "The
tempest seems overblown. At least based on what the White House has revealed thus far,
the information Mr. Bush received was very general, and the possibility of a domestic
hijacking was far less salient in the briefing he received from the CIA than the possibility of
an overseas attack. The administration warned airlines to take precautions. It's easy after
Sept. 11 to insist that more should have been done. But what? Without any idea of what was
in the works, it's hard to know what further action could have been taken." The Post adds,
"Far more troubling are growing indications that isolated components of the federal
government had insights into the plot, insights that were never merged or pushed up the
administrative ladder."
In an editorial entitled "The Blame Game," the New York Times (5/17) writes, "The story line
of the Sept. 11 terror attacks would unquestionably be a lot tidier if we knew that President
Bush had been warned about possible strikes and done nothing to prevent them. That's why
Washington is buzzing about the disclosure that the Central Intelligence Agency told Mr.
Bush early last August that Osama bin Laden might try to hijack airplanes. But tragedies of
the magnitude of Sept. 11 are rarely so neatly explained. Until someone produces evidence
that the Bush administration received and ignored information pointing directly to the suicide
hijackings, the country will have to live with the much messier and no less disturbing fact
that the government as a whole dropped the ball and even now is not doing nearly enough
to ensure that it doesn't happen again." The White House "should long ago have told the
country about the briefing Mr. Bush received last August," and "it is natural to look back and
wonder why the dots weren't connected when a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent in
Arizona suggested in July that the bureau investigate Middle Eastern men enrolled in
American flight schools. So far, however, everything points to a much broader government
failure to recognize that the bin Laden network might attack targets within the United States
after years of conducting its operations overseas." The Bush "administration has made some
progress remedying a few of the most egregious problems exposed by the attacks," but
"unfortunately, the government still lacks a common intelligence database about terrorist
threats, a lapse that must be corrected quickly."
The Washington Times (5/17) editorializes, "While Democrats on Capitol Hill were
hyperventilating over the fact that a picture of President Bush doing his job on September
11 was auctioned at a Republican Party fund-raiser, a serious national security issue came to
the fore: the fact that the administration missed a series of previously undisclosed warnings
about the possibility of an upcoming terrorist attack on US soil. ... At the very minimum,
Americans deserve to know how this country's national security establishment will improve
the way it handles such intelligence in order to spare the nation a repeat of September 11."
The New York Daily News (5/17) editorializes, "A stunned nation has learned that the CIA
warned President Bush in August that Osama Bin Laden's terror minions might attempt to
hijack US domestic flights. That certainly explains why, within hours of the Sept. 11 attacks,
the government was fingering the cave dweller as the culprit. But it leaves open a helluva lot
of other questions. The most obvious — who knew what and when did they know it? —
should be answered soon, thanks to the understandable demands from an outraged
Congress. But it is even more essential to pinpoint and close any and all gaps between
intelligence agencies." The CIA "briefed Bush in early August that Bin Laden might try a U.S.
hijacking. There were no details about targets or timing, and certainly no notion that
jetliners would be turned into missiles. Nonetheless, the info foreshadowed September's
devastation."
The Chicago Tribune (5/17) editorializes, "On Thursday, official Washington was looking for
someone to blame and the conspiracy theorists were puffing up for a collective, 'told you so.1
It is important to create as clear and full a record of the events before and after Sept. 11 as
is possible. Congress should probe the intelligence gathering and dissemination process-
something it is already doing. It is crucial to know just what information was available, and
how it was disseminated within the CIA, FBI and other agencies. For example, what, if
anything, was done after a remarkably prescient FBI agent in Phoenix urged headquarters to
investigate men from the Mideast who were enrolling in US flight schools?" The Tribune
concludes, "In many respects the government has started to address these issues.
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge created a terrorism warning system. We've gotten
used to that system, but it is far from perfect. There is still no clear protocol on how and
when the public will be told of specific threats. The finger-pointing will go on for some time,
but the overall message to government should be clear: Trust us, tell us, lest you forfeit our
trust."
The Chicago Sun-Times (5/17) editorializes, "Although pointing a finger at the Bush
administration may help us vent some of our tangled post- 9/11 emotions, it's unfair to call
it to task for not treating the al-Qaida threat back then with the heightened urgency it
warrants now. Like the rest of us, the president was living in a different world, one in which
the notion of anyone flying a plane into a skyscraper was so unimaginable that reports of
Moroccan-born Frenchman Zacarias Moussaoui's possible plot to crash an aircraft into the
World Trade Center were not treated seriously. Indeed, the threat of a hijacking in what
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer termed "the traditional sense" was negligible. It
had been years since an American plane was hijacked." This Administration "has made an
issue of dealing straight with the American people—whether emphasizing that the war on
terrorism would be long and difficult or issuing high-security alerts so that citizens could
prepare for and perhaps prevent terrorist acts. Now we're finding out that the Bush
administration has been less than forthcoming. Life in this new millennium may require new
rules to cope with some horrific new realities. But when it comes to the disclosure of
information that directly impacts Americans' lives and well-being, certain essential rules
must stand pat."
The Las Vegas Review-Journal (5/17) editorializes, "That there would be second-guessing
after American intelligence agencies failed to detect and stymie the plans of 19 suicidal Arab
terrorists last Sept. 11 comes as no surprise. ... But do these opportunist congressional
scandal- mongers really believe Mr. Bush was told in advance and in detail about the
terrorists' Sept. 11 plans, only to pause, stroke his chin, and cynically instruct his black-
hatted henchmen down on the ranch, 'You know what, boys? Let them blow up the World
Trade Center. As I lead this nation in our righteous war of retribution, my popularity ratings
will soar. It'll also provide a good excuse to finally give the Israelis a green light to massacre
every Palestinian from Jenin to Bethlehem. And by the way, remind me to go short on airline
stocks'? ... Calm and systematic hearings with an eye to reforming intelligence gathering —
and particularly the coordination and evaluation of raw data -- are in order. But if the
Democratic leadership is attempting to use 20/20 hindsight as a way to attack the president
on 9-11 for political gain, they should be prepared to take the electoral consequences."
Howard Kurtz writes in the Washington Post (5/17), "In a single day, the capital's media
climate has been transformed. Reporters pounded White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and
national security adviser Condoleezza Rice at briefings yesterday, skepticism and even
indignation in their voices, as they demanded detailed explanations. It was, in short, far
different from the tone of flag-bedecked networks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President
Bush, riding a wave of popularity and patriotism, was treated with deference by the media.
Indeed, the administration likely never faced a more hostile press corps than yesterday."
Kurtz adds that "the question permeating the news briefings was whether last summer's
intelligence warning was specific enough to have been made public — even after the
tragedy."
David Corn writes in The Nation (5/17) reports, "Before conspiracy theorists run away with
this latest revelation, it is important to note" the news's "true significance. First, the news
raises an obvious question, is there anything else the White House is not telling us? Bush
and his lieutenants kept word of the CIA briefing secret for eight months." Corn adds, "Once
again, the Bush crowd has demonstrated its fondness for secrecy. And for spinning. ...
Second-guessing is easy, but it is tragic that the Phoenix FBI report (suspects in a terrorist
investigation linked to al Qaeda are attending flight school), the mysterious Moussaoui case
(a suspicious fellow, enrolled in a flight school, is up to something, maybe crashing an
airliner into the World Trade Towers), and the CIA warning (bin Laden is planning a terrorist
action) were never placed side-by-side on the same desk. Had they been, that might not
have spelled out what was coming."
James Pinkerton wrote in his Long Island Newsday (5/17) column, "Static. That's the word
to bear in mind as the 9/11 investigations fly forth, on and off Capitol Hill. And the sound will
grow louder in the multimedia mixer, as the farrago of facts and factoids echo from here to
cyberspace eternity. In the din, it will be easy for conspiracists to connect data-dots to
'prove1 that Bush or the FBI or Karl Rove knew that 9/11 was coming. But the fair-minded
will see that such retrospective blaming is easy. What's hard is prospective threat-assessing.
And so, while it's likely that Bush will be tarnished by the investigating and scooping to
come, it's hard to believe he'll be revealed as treacherous."
Bob Novak, on CNN's "Crossfire" (5/16) said, "I think I know what's happening, and I think
you'll agree with me. What has happened -- why is all this stuff coming out right now? What
has happened is that the Senate committees are coming closer on their investigation.
They've been given classified material, and there are certain people who want to cover their
posteriors. There are people in the FBI, maybe the CIA who said, 'Hey, I put out something
to warn them. It's not my fault. It's the other guy.' They leak the stuff, and then you have
this feeding frenzy."
Bill O'Reilly on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" (5/16) said, "Our government has fallen into
a pattern of keeping information from the folks. National security, criminal investigations,
litigation, are all used to drop a curtain over information flow. If some madman terrorist
wants to kill Americans, we have a right to know about that, unless it violates a covert
operation, which was not the case here. I believe Mr. Bush probably didn't think the threat
was all that credible. It wasn't that he was hiding anything, he just put it in the bottom
drawer, let the underlings handle it. But if the open government theme was in place, even
bottom- drawer stuff would have been released, and that should, that's what should have
happened."
NPR's Mara Liasson, on Fox News "Special Report" (5/16) said, "I don't think that politically
this is any danger to the president at all. I don't think the American people are going to
suddenly decide that he could have, but didn't, stop the terrorist attacks. I do think it's
important, in the ongoing effort to figure out what went wrong with our intelligence and
what could we do better to create a system where information is shared and attacks like this
could be prevented, on getting the FBI and the CIA, for instance, to coordinate."
Roll Call's Morton Kondracke on Fox News "Special Report" (5/16) said, "One of the reasons
why Congress has been so long delayed in starting this big inquiry into what happened
September llth, is that some of their lapses would also have been exposed. I mean, here
we have a case where the members of Congress, especially the Democrats, in what strikes
me as an exceedingly unseemly fashion, are making Watergate- style allegations when their
own intelligence committees, as it turns out, knew as much as the president knew."
NBC (5/16, story 4, Brokaw) last night spoke with Washington bureau chief Tim Russert.
Brokaw: "A Republican senator emerged from a meeting with the President and quoted the
President as saying he thought a lot of the reaction was political. Is that the general reaction
in Washington?" Russert: "It sure is, amongst Republicans. Democrats say they are duty-
bound to look at this to find any lapses in intelligence gathering. But privately, Democrats
will acknowledge there are some politics at play. They point to the use of the photograph of
the President on the phone September llth in Republican literature. And they also want to
neutralize any attempt by Republicans that suggest the previous Democratic Administration
was responsible for September llth. A good combination of policy and politics at work."
Brokaw: "What about how the White House handled it last night? It emerged, and then Ari
Fleischer went to some lengths to try to defend the President's actions." Russert: "Sources
I've spoken to in the intelligence community are very troubled the way the White House
handled this last night. They believe if the White House had stated, 'I'm sorry, we do not
comment on the President's intelligence briefings,' they could have gotten down to the
Senate hearings and testified before closed-door sessions. They think the White House put
out a public statement with some detail in it, and only opened the floodgates. They're
extremely troubled by it. Some folks within the Bush White House are also troubled by the
way the matter was handled last night." Brokaw: "Where does it go from here, from a
Capitol Hill point of view, with Republican Sen. Richard Shelby on the Intelligence Committee
asking tough questions. And the White House, obviously, in a full defense posture?" Russert:
"We will now have a bipartisan call for hearings in the Senate with Sen. Graham and Shelby
on the Intelligence Committee. Sen. John McCain, the Republican, Joe Lieberman, the
Democrat, calling for a national commission to look into this. There is no doubt, the
Democrats and some Republicans, not friendly to President Bush or CIA Director George
Tenet, are going to demand a lot of answers. They believe they have an opportunity to
explore this issue very, very deeply. And the President will not like some of the things they
find."
Local TV Coverage.
WEWS-TV of Cleveland (5/16) reports, "The criticism has been non-stop and coming from all
corners, from family members of the victims of 9/11 who are seething over the news, to
members of Congress who are now calling for a thorough investigation. ... Not only did the
President have advance warning, but the information was shared with some congressional
lawmakers, the State Department, the Department of Transportation and the FAA."
KARE-TV of Minneapolis (5/16) reports, "Democrats are calling into an investigation into
whether someone dropped the ball in the weeks before September llth. The White House
confirms there were warning in August about possible terrorism but they were too vague to
be of much help."
KSTP-TV of Minneapolis (5/16) reports, "During his time as Vice President to Jimmy Carter,
Walter Mondale was invited to the daily security briefing at the White House, a closed
meeting between the head of the CIA, the NSA, and the President. Those briefings were the
final analysis of countless forms of intelligence." Mondale was shown saying, "When they
saw this information at the time they saw it, it may not have seemed clear to even the best
of agents there was an awful lot to it." KSTP adds, "Vice President Mondale cautioned
against finding someone to blame for the apparent security lapse that led to the vents of
September llth. He said it is more important to focus on fixing the problems."
KTVI-TV of St. Louis (5/16) reports, "House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt is demanding the
White House turn over the CIA briefing about the terrorist threat. Transportation Secretary
Norman Mineta was in Saint Louis today and much of his time was spent answering
questions about what President Bush knew before 9-11. Mineta was in town to talk about
Lambert Airport expansion, and inland waterways. ... The Secretary told reporters that
airline officials knew what they knew [in the Department ]."
KDKA-TV of Pittsburgh (5/16) reports, "The White House has acknowledged it had
information of a possible terrorist attack prior to September llth, but maintains it took
appropriate action against those threats. ... Now some key Democrats want an independent
commission to investigate exactly what the government knew before the attacks."
WFTV-TV of Orlando (5/16) reports, "It turns out the President wasn't the only one who had
some advance warning. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees were also briefed by
the CIA and had the same information."
KGW-TV of Portland, Oregon (5/16) reports, "The President's approval ratings have soared
since September. But today the White House was thrown on the defensive, answering
charged questions about why the White House and the FBI were warned last summer about
a terrorist plot and no one connected the dots." Sens. Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden "both
agree last summer's terror alert is proof that government agencies need to improve the way
they share information."
KING-TV of Seattle (5/16) reports, "The White House comes under intense scrutiny today
after it was learned that President Bush was told about possible attacks before September
llth. ... What did the White House know and what was done about it? The President and his
staff, thrown on the defensive, answering questions about why the pieces of a terrorist plot
that emerged last summer were never put together."
WABC-TV of New York (5/16) reports, "The White House is under fire after admitting that
the Administration had been briefed about possible hijackings. ... Ground Zero may be
cleaned up, but there is another mess, a political one, that is only growing in Washington.
The Bush Administration has admitted eight months after the fact, it had warning of a
terrorists attacks in the works by bin Laden, that those warnings suggested plane hijackings.
The alert was put out to law enforcement, but many asking today if enough was done."
WCBS-TV of New York (5/16) reports, "A firestorm of controversy tonight over word that
President Bush was warned about possible terrorist hijackings before September llth. ...
Tonight, lawmakers and Americans are demanding answers." The White House "says
transportation officials and FAA were told of the threat as well as the airlines, but a
spokesman for an airline trade group disputes it."
WNBC-TV of New York (5/16) reports, "In Washington, lawmakers are calling for an
investigation into what the Bush Administration knew before the September llth attacks.
White House officials now acknowledge the President was warned last summer that Osama
bin Laden's terror network might try to hijack US airliners."
WMAQ-TV of Chicago (5/16) reports, "Members of Congress are calling for an investigation
about what the Administration knew and when they knew it in relation to the September
llth attacks last year. White House officials say President Bush was warned last summer
that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack a US passenger plane. But the
President's spokesman says there was no indication hijackers would use those planes as
missiles the way they did at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. ... Some critics say
proper reaction to intelligence available last summer may have prevented the attacks."
WCAU-TV of Philadelphia (5/16) reports, "The news has enraged a Bucks County mother
who lost a son in the terror attacks. She says she is devastated and feels betrayed by
President Bush. Judy Rice lost her 23-year-old son in the World Trade Center attack. Joshua
Rice was a trader who worked in the 105th floor of the North Tower. ... Judy Rice believes
the Congress should investigate how much the President and FBI knew about the threat
before September llth."
KYW-TV of Philadelphia (5/16) reports, "Congress is in a uproar over a White House

revelation, that before 9/11, President Bush was given intelligence warnings, about possible
plane hijacking. Within the past hour, National Security advisor Condoleeza Rice said the
White House did not publicly announce the warnings because it may have shutdown the
nation's airline system. The White House says the warnings did not mention suicide attacks."
WBZ-TV of Boston (5/16) reports, "What did the President know and when did he know it?
That's the question lawmakers are asking tonight after the White House revealed that
President Bush had been warned about an Al Qaeda terrorist attack against the US." So far,
President Bush "is not reacting to accusations that he failed to act on those warnings, but his
staff has come out in full force to set the record straight."
WBZ-TV of Boston (5/16) reports, "The President was not the first one to know about this
terrorist threat. The White House says the CIA received intelligence warnings in the
beginning of May 2001. Then they notified the Department of Transportation and the FAA,
who alerted the airlines. President Bush heard the warning himself during a routine morning
briefing in the first week of August. And of course, just more than a month later, the
terrorists struck on September llth."
KTVT-TV of Dallas (5/16) reports, "In Washington, some Democrats are calling for an
investigation into what President Bush knew about terror threats prior to September llth.
The White House says the president was briefed in general terms last august while he was
on a month-long vacation at his Crawford ranch. But a White House spokesman emphasizes
there were no specific details. Fort Worth Republican Kay Granger is defending the
Administration's handling of the information."
WAGA-TV of Atlanta (5/16) reports, "Legislators called for President Bush to hand over the
top secret CIA briefing he received about the threats."
WSB-TV of Atlanta (5/16) reports, "Senator Max Cleland also said that President Bush should
not be blamed in this situation, but the American public has a right to know about what went
wrong or what happened before September llth."
LOAD-DATE: May 21, 2002

-< prev Document 8 of 443 next >•
About LexisNexis™ | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy | Support Identifier

Copyright© 2004 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

DH B7 Planes As Weapons 1 of 2 FDR - May 16-17 2002 News Leaders - Aug 6 PDB

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

DH B7 Planes As Weapons 1 of 2 FDR - May 16-17 2002 News Leaders - Aug 6 PDB

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Jrowse Display Page 1 of 21

Copyright 2002 Bulletin Broadfaxing Network, Inc.

May 17, 2002 Friday

SECTION: Leading The News

LENGTH: 13783 words

HEADLINE: White House Defends Response To Pre-9/11 Intelligence Reports.

Controversy Ends Bipartisan Unity On Terrorism-Related Issues.

Bush's "Image Of Invincibility Is Shaken."

In a story headlined "An Image of Invincibility Is Shaken by Disclosures," the Washington

Zogby Expects Bush's Job Approval To Drop To Mid-50s By Mid Summer.

Lawmakers Say Far More Damaging Information Yet To Be Released.

CIA Counterterror Chief Moved Out; Similar Moves At FBI.

Information Received By White House Had Been Public For Months.

Mineta Also Received "General Information" About Threats.

9/11 Families Angry No Public Warning Was Issued.

Government Briefly Went Into Counterterror Frenzy On July 5.

No Single Agency Had All Pieces Of Threat Information.

McCain, Lieberman To Announce Legislation Creating Investigative Committee.

Rumsfeld Defends Administration Response.

Cheney Angry Over Intelligence Failures.

Cheney Told Russert There Had Been "No Specific Threat."

Administration's Decision-Making On Threat To US Banks Recounted.

McKinney Claims Vindication.

More Congressional Reaction.

have spelled out what was coming."

KYW-TV of Philadelphia (5/16) reports, "Congress is in a uproar over a White House

LOAD-DATE: May 21, 2002

About LexisNexis™ | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy | Support Identifier

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen