Support 911Blogger


Tenet told 9/11 panel that he warned Rice of Al Qaeda

This article should be saved. It contains more than the headline suggests. Not only did Tenet inform Rice, who denied being informed of imminent attacks on US soil. It goes on:

"Despite this, [State Department Spokesman] McCormack said, Rice asked that Tenet provide the same briefing to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and then-US Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. The two men received it by July 17, he said."

Can you say prima facie evidence of high treason?

Ashcroft ALSO denied that it ever happened.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/10/03/tenet_told_911_panel_that_he_warned_rice_of_al_qaeda/

Tenet told 9/11 panel that he warned Rice of Al Qaeda Former CIA head said she took threat seriously

By Dan Eggen and Robin Wright, Washington Post | October 3, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Former CIA director George Tenet told the 9/11 Commission that he had warned of an imminent threat from Al Qaeda in a July 2001 meeting with Condoleezza Rice, adding that he believed Rice took the warning seriously, according to a transcript of the interview and the recollection of a commissioner who was there.

Tenet's statements to the commission in January 2004 confirm the outlines of an event in a new book by Bob Woodward, Washington Post assistant managing editor, which has been disputed by some Bush administration officials. But the testimony also is at odds with Woodward's depiction of Tenet and former CIA counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black as being frustrated that ``they were not getting through to Rice" after the July 10, 2001, meeting.

Rice angrily rejected those assertions yesterday, saying that it was ``incomprehensible" that she would have ignored such explicit intelligence from senior CIA officials and that she received no warning at the meeting of an attack within the United States.

Rice acknowledged that the White House was receiving a ``steady stream of quite alarmist reports of potential attacks" during that period, but said the targets were assumed to be in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Israel, and Jordan.

``What I am quite certain of, however, is that I would remember if I was told -- as this account apparently says -- that there was about to be an attack in the United States," Rice said. ``The idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible."

The meeting has become the focus of a fierce and often confusing round of finger-pointing involving Rice, the White House, and the 9/11 Commission, all of whom dispatched staffers to the National Archives and other locations yesterday in attempts to sort out what had occurred.

Members of the commission, an independent bipartisan panel created by Congress to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, have said for days that they were not told about the July 10 meeting and were angry at being left out. As recently as yesterday afternoon, both commission chairman Thomas H. Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton said they believed the panel had not been told about the July 10 meeting.

But it turns out that the panel was, in fact, told about the meeting, according to the interview transcript and Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste, who sat in on the interview with Tenet. The meeting was not identified by the July 10 date in the commission's best-selling report.

Rice added to the confusion yesterday by strongly suggesting that the meeting may never have occurred at all, even though administration officials had conceded for several days that it had. A State Department spokesman said later that while the meeting definitely happened, Rice and Tenet disputed Woodward's characterization of her response.

``The briefing was a summary of the threat reporting from the previous weeks," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters traveling with Rice in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia. ``There was nothing new."

Despite this, McCormack said, Rice asked that Tenet provide the same briefing to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and then-US Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. The two men received it by July 17, he said. McCormack was unable to explain why Rice felt the briefing should be repeated if it did not include new material.

Ashcroft said in an interview yesterday that he was never briefed by Tenet or Black about an imminent domestic threat.

``I didn't get called on by Black or Tenet if they were going around doing such briefings," Ashcroft said.

Al Qaeda Threat

But I thought Al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11, so how were they part of an imminent attack on US soil?

OK

JamesB.....

how would 9/11 have been different if they had prior knowledge that an attempted attack was possible?
___________________
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Well, perhaps...

...you thought wrong.

I believe the point of the "truth movement" is to open up new investigations which tell us these answers. As Lorie Van Aucken said: "W don't know the whole story at all."

A lot of people pretend they know the whole story, but they can't prove it. The information in the public record is conflicting and inconclusive.

For example, while you probably can't prove that the alleged hijackers got on board the planes, you also can't prove they didn't.

Regardless of the actual events, the warnings before the fact expose the statements and actions of the administration as a fraud. Every member of the white house pretended they weren't warned, and that such attacks were never considered. These were all lies, and reveal a criminal conspiracy which has a great bearing on the success of the attacks. If the whtie house deliberately chose not to stop attacks that they knew were coming, that could qualify as high treason.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

All information is vetted for accuracy. If you have a factual challenge to any of the information, email: johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Warnings from CIA = DISINFO

Let me suggest that the 9/11 truth movement question the validity of these warnings emanating from the same intelligence agencies who CONTROL THE HIJACKERS. I submit that many of the warnings are disinformation to put the blame for the attacks on Bush's incompetence. Coming to this conclusion supports the bogus idea of an independent group of Muslims being behind the massive attacks.
Spreading around warnings that come from the CIA does not help us wake up the sleeping masses. People already know about Bush's incompetence. They do not know that the CIA worked with Al Quaeda all the way through 2001.

what hijackers?

Of course this talk of warnings or no warnings is disinfo--it's being published in the WashPost, isn't it? This is just to frame the debate as "who let the evil muzzle-'im terrists™ carry out Attack on America™? It's a way to appear to be thorougholy investigating 9/11 when doing nothing of the sort. I know some people disagree with me on this, but the bottom line is that if planes were actually hijacked by those 19 dudes that day there would be piles of incontrovertible evidence proving it. There are no such piles. The Washington Post lies as a matter of policy. Warnings that al Qaeda™ was going to strike mean nothing if they did not in fact strike. If they were talking about warnings that Lucky Larry Silverstein was going to demolish his buildings, then we'd be talking sense. the "hijackers" were here for one reason, whether or not they knew it--to give the appearnace that THEY were responsible for flying planes into the towers, the Pentagon, and down the rabbit hole in a field in Shanksville. That's all we know they did--move around with everyone quite aware of what they were doing. The herring don't get any more red than this one, folks!

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

SPOT ON !!!!

If you're gunna frame "someone" for doing something...

Then you have to construct pointers to "someone", removing all pointers to "someone else"...

If you know what I mean !!!

Good luck

This is a big deal

I hadn't seen the thing about Ben-Veniste before.

This is simply a limited hangout option

which maintains the government myth of 9/11.

The perps created many levels of limited hangout and this is just the one they are currently promoting in an effort to derail the 9/11 Truth movement. I call this the Rice option and it began shortly before last November's elections. Expect more stories as we make further inroads.

Sacrificing Rice and Rumsfeld to shut down any deeper investigations by the MSM into 9/11 should be very familiar to all those who watched North and Pointdexter fall on their swords to end the Iran/Contra investigations and prevent further exposure of the shadow government to public daylight.

It won't work this time as the perps have no reasonable explanation for WTC 7 and the 100 minute NORAD stand down, among other things.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

IMO not so easy

it WAS used afterwards for the "incompetence theory".

OK.

But not all of this was planted.

There are to many reports about forewarnings, and if you look at all you can clearly recognize that everything was done to protect the patsies discovery.

If you can't see how this information helps the case...

then I don't know what to tell you.

The object is not to convince people spouting conspiracy theories they can't prove. The object is to convince the people who won't accept even the possibility that the top of the US government was involved in 9-11. That is the only way to increase the numbers.

While you deliberately conflate the term 'CIA' with both Cofer Black and George Tenet, you don't have the evidence to even do that. No one can tell if Tenet was pressured to make this presentation because Black was genuinely trying to stop the attacks, or vice-versa. The particulars remain hidden from the public, and that is why we need a legitimate investigation.

This article corroborates what I've already known about some principal conspirators: Rice, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld.

Rice, as national security advisor, was in the role of screening out warnings and refusing to discuss the possibility of attacks in order to give the administration cover.

Rumsfeld had direct command aurhority over the jet fighter interceptors as a result of a June 1, 2001 rewriting of the "Air Piracy" procedures. He should have been giving "approval" for the launch of interceptor aircraft, by these orders, yet is on record as giving none, claiming complete ignorance of the situation.

Ashcroft, as attorney general, was receiving information from acting head of FBI Pickard about terrorist threats in the US. Ashcroft was supposed to assign justice department prosecutors to make cases and arrest persons for plotting terrorism. Instead he told Pickard that he didn't want to hear anymore about terrorism, as Pickard testified at the 911 commission hearings.

If you're genuinely interested in what happened on 9-11, it's pretty backward and counter-productive to ignore the roles of the most powerful people in the country in facilitating these attacks.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

All information is vetted for accuracy. If you have a factual challenge to any of the information, email: johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Further...

Just because something may (or may not) be considered a "limited hangout," doesn't mean that it isn't true. Equating "limited" with "false" is a stretch that you are in no position to determine.

There was no reason for the state department official McCormack to confirm these meetings, but he did.

We don't know the extent of the information discussed, which of course, points to the need for new investigations.

However, it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the white house lied repeatedly about September 11th warnings, and that they were derelict in their duties to protect the nation from what they were told was an "Al Qaeda" attack.

This brings us to the warnings themselves. There are numerous warnings before the fact. What did they consist of? Who made them? We are always left out in the cold on the specifics.

It is plausible that the warnings were created by intelligence operatives for the benefit of other intelligence operatives to find. It is also plausible that some aspects of the plot were discovered by intelligence services, and bonafide warnings were provided to the US.

Someone mentioned "incompetence." That is not what this evidence shows. Criminal negligence and dereliction of duty is what it shows. Those are genuine crimes that demand investigation, despite other theories about the attacks.

I don't claim to know whether actual hijackers carried out the attacks or not, or how they happened specifically. I do claim to know a hell of a lot of incriminating facts that the administration can't explain away. In my opinion, that is far more powerful evidence. Your conspiracy theories are always challenged, mocked, ridiculed and waste whatever opportunity was presented. That is completely counterproductive in the limited space we are given to show that something is wrong with September 11th.

If I were to get on national TV for a few minutes, the last thing I would want to talk about is that there were "no hijackers" and that the "planes were controlled by remote control." The second you do that, the game is over. You will not be able to say another thing that is going to convince the unconvced of anything.

I have here a mainstream publication that is edited and vetted for corroborating sources. They are telling us that Rice, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft were warned of impending attacks on US soil on July 10th, yet Rice and Ashcroft are lying about it. This leads, naturally, into their numerous other lies and position that 1) there were "no warnings" at all (Ari Fleischer, 9-11-01), and that 2) "No one could have ever imagined someone flying a hijacked jet" blah blah blah, even as numerous Air Force drills were war gaming that scenario during the attacks.

I would certainly rather rely on information that is rock solid, incontrovertible and published by a mainstream news outlet (as does Paul Thompson), than on whatever crazy sounding conspiracy theory of the week is going around.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

All information is vetted for accuracy. If you have a factual challenge to any of the information, email: johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

A more important point

"I don't claim to know whether actual hijackers carried out the attacks or not, or how they happened specifically. "

So John, do you believe that these mentally disabled, cocaine addict, awful pilots have the physical and mental capacity to carry out these attacks?

By the way, right on for the people above spotting the disinfo. It's not that ALL warnings are disinfo. But certainly documents coming from George Tenet most likely are...

My opinion about the hijackings is...

now a "more important point" in your paranoid world. Because you want to find something about me to exploit. This is childish. I said exactly what's what above.

Are you trying to claim that George Tenet and Cofer Black DIDN'T brief Rice, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, despite The Washington Post, Bob Woodward, Boston Globe and State Department official saying they did?

Based on what? Get your facts straight. What is it you think you are saying, and what facts do you have to back it up?

"So John, do you believe that these mentally disabled, cocaine addict, awful pilots have the physical and mental capacity to carry out these attacks?"

I'm not sure how much genius it takes to crash a plane into a skyscraper. Daniel Hopsicker believes they did it. He's far more knowledgeable about the hijackers than am I.

Atta had pilot's licenses from several countries before he even arrived in Florida, according to his girlfireind Amanda Keller. He was probably a covert drug runner, whose pilots tend to be top notch, if you ever read anything about Air America.

That doesn't mesh with your assumption above.

One of the hijackers is said to be an incompetent pilot, but that doesn't mean he was the one at the controls.

Further, the attacks on the WTC and the attack on the Pentagon could be completely different events carried out by different parties, and for much different reasons. This is entering the realm of speculation, of course, because neither I nor YOU can prove what happened on those planes that day. If you think you can, you are deluded.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

All information is vetted for accuracy. If you have a factual challenge to any of the information, email: johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.