9/11 panel: FAA had early al Qaeda warnings

[Neil D]

[:"blue"] Ok, some of you are trying to tell me that Bush didn't know...Here we have MORE paperwork that shows that other people knew but had no authority to do something about it. Bush is at the very least, negligent. An ignoramous who doesn't listen. And some of you are allowing him to fool around with your Social Security....[eyesroll] [/]

From Phil Hirschkorn

CNN

Friday, February 11, 2005 Posted: 2121 GMT (0521 HKT)

Former 9/11 commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Dozens of Federal Aviation Administration memos warned of al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden in 2001, but the agency didn't order new security measures before the September 11 attacks, a newly released declassified report by the 9/11 commission says.

The FAA's security branch generated 105 so-called daily summaries between April 1 and September 10, 2001, the report said. Fifty-two of those summaries mentioned bin Laden or al Qaeda, and five discussed hijacking "as a capability al Qaeda was training for or possessed."

Two summaries cited suicide operations, "but not connected to a threat in aviation," the report said.

The commission found no evidence that the FAA knew what al Qaeda was plotting -- hijacking planes and using them as missiles -- but the agency had at least considered "the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon," the report said.

Despite the warnings, the FAA ordered no new security measures on airlines or airports in advance of the attacks, according to the 9/11 panel's final report, which was released in July and became a best seller.

Officials perceived the threat to be against overseas flights, the report said.

Former commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste said Thursday that a lack of information-sharing by U.S. intelligence services also hampered the FAA. For example, Ben-Veniste pointed to his questioning of an FAA security official at the commission's last public hearing.

"I asked him,'what would you have liked to have known about this plot that was known to our intelligence agencies prior to 9/11?' Ben-Veniste said. "And he said, 'we never knew the hijackers could fly the plane.' "

The Justice Department submitted the new 120-page report to the National Archives two weeks ago. Parts of the declassified version were censored, triggering complaints from some commission members.

The negligence of Bush

[Dr. Shane]

This is old news. We went through this with the 9/11 Commission. The FAA and FBI got hundreds of warnings. The problem was to figure out which they should heed if any. Hindsight is 20/20. Easy to cricise after the fact. Shameless to accuse someone of being "negligent. An ignoramous who doesn't listen" God will judge us for the words we use.

[Nicodema]

It's "old" news, but it's been the target of efforts to bury and invalidate it. Why not let people decide for themselves with open honest minds and free and open inquiry instead of automatically dismissing it? It can stand or fall on its own merits. Let it.

[Dr. Shane]

This story is being reported by CNN, which is known for its selective reporting. CNN is trying to get us to draw a conclusion with only part of the facts.

As I mentioned, the government agencies recieved hundreds of warnings. It is like the little boy that cried wolf. Every night he cried wolf and one night a wolf finally came and ate him. No one responded because he always cried wolf. Now to say someone was neglegant because they didn't respond to the cry of wolf after hearing it hundreds of times falsely is simply goofy.

CNN is simply doing what so many other networks do. It is all about money. If you want their brand of news coverage (like many do) you will stay tuned. If they become objective and fair those that want slanted news will go elsewhere.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

This story is being reported by CNN, which is known for its selective reporting. CNN is trying to get us to draw a conclusion with only part of the facts.

CNN is simply doing what so many other networks do. It is all about money. If you want their brand of news coverage (like many do) you will stay tuned. If they become objective and fair those that want slanted news will go elsewhere.

---

Shane, this is a tired old tune, really. The same can be said of any news outlet, and that includes your beloved Fox.

You said yourself all media is slanted and has a bias one way or another. Your post sounds like you are trying to get us yourself to draw a conclusion with your selective representation of the facts as well. It seems as if you also want us to see it in a certain light instead of having the full picture from which to draw our own conclusions. The only difference is, you want us to draw a different conclusion from CNN. The same could be said of Fox or anyone else reporting on a different slant.

I think people are just tired of it all and want the truth, and eventually will realize they have to dig for it themselves. This is not a bad thing, but it's fraught with complications as you have astutely pointed out. But they won't get to it unless they are permitted to mine the depths without comment and slant from fellow men interfering in their process -- do you get what I mean here? The more you try to spin it dismissively, the more you interfere with them getting to the truth. We need less spin, not more.

My prayer is that people will be spurred rather to dig deeper and to seek out those very sources that are discouraged and dismissed to see what light they might present on matters. And also to seek especially alternative media sources that do not have Americocentric agenda at heart, because these are far more reliable for objectivity than that which panders to putting ourselves first and best in all things. The old saying "history is always written by the conqueror" comes into play here. The bully may conquer in brute force; it does not make him right. We (the human species) gave up the "might makes right" LIE sometime back after the Dark Ages, by the way.

[Dr. Shane]

All news sources are biased in one direction or the other. However that is not to say that some don't try to be objective. Far from FOXNews being my "beloved", I don't have cable TV. If anything is my "beloved" it would be the News Hour with Jim Lerheh. It does have a slightly liberal slant to it but he tries to be objective.

In this particular story, the Bush Administration conducted itself just as the Clinton Administration had. Remember 9/11 happened just 8 months after Bush became President. These warnings or "wolf" cries didn't start on January 20, 2001. Yet that is the side of the story CNN doesn't give you. What was Clinton's reaction to these warnings? How did Bush's reaction differ from Clinton's?

There is no evidence that either Bush or Clinton took these threats seriously. Hindsight is 20/20 and it might make for a sensational news story to sell a few ads and make a few dollars. There is really no story here other than the boy that cried wolf.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

In this particular story, the Bush Administration conducted itself just as the Clinton Administration had. Remember 9/11 happened just 8 months after Bush became President. These warnings or "wolf" cries didn't start on January 20, 2001. Yet that is the side of the story CNN doesn't give you. What was Clinton's reaction to these warnings? How did Bush's reaction differ from Clinton's?

---

Oh man oh man oh man......

Last night I worked in a hospital. I got report on my patients, and the floor that I was on [potiential patients]...takes about a 1/2 hr..Nothing should happen for another 1/2, but I am there if it does...This is called a "transition period"...After that, if anything happens, I am to be aware of it and take care of it, if possible, ie, contact the nurse, or doctor as the case maybe, and get orders to change the Patient's medication. I work 12 hour shifts, but once in a while, I work an 8 hr shift. Anything happens during that time, and even into the next hour [transition time], the responsibility is mine. If a patient codes during those 8 hrs, it happened during MY watch.

When 9/11 happened, Bush was 8 more like 9 months into his term of office. That is the equivalent of being 1.3 hrs into my shift when the code came....Every single employer would tell me that I am responsible for that code. If there were warning signs [and in Bush's case, there were], I would be held responsible for ignoring them. Bush did. In fact, Condi said that the warning were "historical" and could not be taken as seriously as they should have been. Unfortunately, these reports from CNN AND OTHER NEWS SOURCES say that these warnings were, at the time, CURRENT.

Any hospital that employed me, and I did what Bush did, would have me fired.

Shane, your making excuses for Bush is tantamount to diliberate neglect, of which a hospital would sorely loose in a civil suit.

I just thought you might like to know that your reasoning is very shoddy....

[Dr. Shane]

First, it is goofy to compare a hosptial shift to being President of the United States of America. That's not comparing apples with oranges. That's comparing apples with oil tankers.

No, I am not making excuses for Bush or Clinton. I am simply pointing out that these "warnings" had become so common place that no one was taking them as serious as they should have. Remember Al Queda bombed the WTC just after Clinton became President. Threats from Al Queda were being made all during his presidency and into Bush's too.