Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Condi 9/11 Fundamental Question - Possible Smoking Gun

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
mhr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 11:05 PM
Original message
Condi 9/11 Fundamental Question - Possible Smoking Gun
Edited on Thu Apr-08-04 11:07 PM by mhr
In the wake of Condi's testimony before the 9/11 commission, there appears to be a fundamental unanswered question.

Condi claimed in sworn testimony that the 8/6/2001 PDB discussing Ben Laden was a historical document.

If that is true, then why were key administration officials, like John Ashcroft, told to fly non-commercial aircraft beginning in July?

Seems that if key officials were considered valuable enough to keep off commercial flights then the PDB was not a historical document but truly a threat document. Hence measures should have been taken to protect all Americans not just key officials.

This strikes some as the fundamental inconsistency and a potential smoking gun.

Do any other DUers have thoughts or feedback on this reasoning?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SilasSoule Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. Bob Kerrey was asked on Al Frankens show

If Condi would be asked about The whole Ashcroft stopped flying commercial flap and Kerrey said that outside the one CBS report, they could find no confirmation that it ever happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. So What Does This Mean? Is Someone Hiding Something? Found By Google
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml

July 26, 2001

(CBS) Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.

A senior official at the CIA said he was unaware of specific threats against any Cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself, in a speech in California, seemed unsure of the nature of the threat.

Snip .....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
revcarol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. There has to be a record of payments to the flight contractor.
GAO should have the answer to this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. And How About This Report On The CBS Report And More
It seems Condi Hung herself today.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2002/06/03/hsorensen.DTL

Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11
Harley Sorensen
June 3, 2002

Don't let them fool you, folks: They knew.

They might have been surprised by the ferocity of the attacks, but the highest-ranking members of the George W. Bush administration knew before Sept. 11 that something terrible was going to happen soon.

Bush knew something was going to happen involving airplanes. He just didn't know what or exactly when. His attorney general, John Ashcroft, knew. His national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, knew. They all knew.

And, in spite of its apparent ineptness, the FBI knew, too.

Not only did they all know, but they told us. Obliquely. And we didn't pay attention. Why would we? Then, as now, terrorist threats were a dime a dozen.

Is this my opinion? No, it's published fact.

Snip ......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThoughtCriminal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. Well did it occur to anyone to just ask the FBI?
Sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jane Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. I think the 9-11 Commission
Edited on Fri Apr-09-04 12:23 PM by janeaustin
is having the FBI directors' hearing next week.


(edited for typo)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Must_B_Free Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. Not to mention the unprecedented 1 month vacations for Bush and Cheney
Edited on Thu Apr-08-04 11:13 PM by Must_B_Free
just 8 months into their term. No president in history ever took a month long vacation. Furthermore, for the most part, they stayed away from DC even after the vacations ended.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #2
13. Not true about Cheney...he was in Washington with Condi and Clarke
and in touch with Bush via secured telecommunications...according to what we've been told. Cheney was not in the Situation Room if I remember correctly. Condi was with Cheney in his office - or one of his offices. Clarke was running the intelligence and activity operations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
4. And another thing...
...she, er, "misspoke" about: she talked about what Sandy Berger told her during the transition.

Only thing is, in the past when asked about his briefing to her on Al Qaeda, she said she "didn't remember" ever meeting with him personally.

So which is it?

But no one calls her on her b.s. Sad, the way she was allowed to dissemble. Only once or twice was she asked to just answer the question, and when she refused she was allowed to get away with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skeptic9 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
6. The question is, what does Condi mean by "old reporting"?
By "old", does she mean a day, a week, a month, a year?

From http://wid.ap.org/transcripts/rice.html

"BEN-VENISTE: ... I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States. ...

It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. But, just in case-
(6:00 a.m.)

President Bush has just spent the night at Colony Beach and Tennis Resort on Longboat Key, Florida. Surface-to-air missiles have been placed on the roof of the resort. <Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02> Bush wakes up around 6:00 a.m. and is preparing for his morning jog. A van occupied by men of Middle Eastern descent pull up to the Colony stating they have a “poolside” interview with the president. They are turned away for not having an appointment.


From www.cooperativeresearch.org Bush 9/11 Timeline

So what was the purpose of the surface-to-air missiles? Was that SOP for Dimson on overnighters before 9/10? What kind of security calls for a SAM battery? Were they worried about the Saudi's flying planes a few miles down the coast in Venice?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Must_B_Free Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. that's 2002 - 9/11 was in 01
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparky McGruff Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. No, that was in 2001
That was a "year after" recap of the events of 9/11/2001.

The placement of surface to air missles at the resort can be found in numerous accounts from that time frame. Also, similar defenses were used at the G4 (G7?) summit in Genoa, where Bush-boy slept on a yacht with naval ships nearby to keep the terra-ists at bay.

They knew something was up, they just figured it didn't matter for the "little people" as long as the boy-king and his court were safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. It was a recap as noted below.....but I assume someone at
the Sarasota newspaper could verify. Love to see pics of that SAM battery.

Seems like a very odd and extreme measure of security....I mean, would this really be SOP without a threat of an air attack? McDill is a 2 minute scramble from Tampa, so what was the reasoning behind this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
12. Kick For Discussion
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
15. LIHOP.
LIHOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC