Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

News & Supplemental  

August, 2001: Israeli Intelligence Officers Travel to Washington to Warn of Impending “Large Scale” Bin Laden Terror Attacks

NB: A new fea­ture is being launched in the “News and Sup­ple­men­tal” Cat­e­go­ry. For some time, “Pter­rafractyl” has been con­tribut­ing very infor­ma­tive com­ments. That con­trib­u­tor will now  be post­ing arti­cles as a guest author in the “Pter­rafractyl’s Nest” sec­tion.

COMMENT: In the bliz­zard of anti-Semit­ic pro­pa­gan­da (cloaked as “anti-Zion­ist” pro­pa­gan­da) cir­cu­lat­ing in the “Truther” milieu, the sto­ry below has been total­ly eclipsed. 

In point of fact, the Islamist attack­ers were deeply asso­ci­at­ed with Nazi and fas­cist ele­ments, who had motive enough to try and divert pub­lic opin­ion from the facts. The Bush admin­is­tra­tion also had pro­found involve­ment with the ele­ments tar­get­ed by the Oper­a­tion  Green Quest raids of 3/20/2002. Those links to the SAAR net­work, plus the numer­ous intel­li­gence fail­ures of which the admin­is­tra­tion was guilty gave Dubya, Grover Norquist and dis­in­for­ma­tion mas­ter Karl Rove abun­dant motive for drag­ging red her­rings across the inves­tiga­tive path­way.

One should note that, in the Bank al-Taqwa, the Nazi and Mus­lim Broth­er­hood fas­cists and the Bush/Norquist/Rove milieux over­lap.

Pin­ning blame on “Da Jooz” attacks serves the inter­ests of all guilty par­ties. Indeed, Achmed Huber–a direc­tor of al-Taqwa, pro­tege of Omar Amin (nee Johann) von Leers (Goebbels’ chief anti-Semit­ic pro­pa­gan­dist) and liai­son between Islamists and Euro­pean and Amer­i­can neo-Nazis, float­ed dis­in­for­ma­tion blam­ing the attacks on the “Mossad” short­ly after the attacks.

Huber also indi­cat­ed that ele­ments in the Bush admin­is­tra­tion and oth­er elite Wash­ing­ton cir­cles shared his anti-Semit­ic views and saw the 9/11 attacks as a vehi­cle for increas­ing anti-Israeli pro­pa­gan­da.

“Israeli Secu­ri­ty Issued Urgent Warn­ing to CIA of Large-Scale Ter­ror Attacks” by David Wastell and Philip Jacob­son; The Tele­graph; 9/16/2001.

EXCERPT: The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Cen­tre’s twin tow­ers and the Pen­ta­gon were humil­i­at­ing blows to the intel­li­gence ser­vices, which failed to fore­see them, and to the defence forces of the most pow­er­ful nation in the world, which failed to deflect them.

The Tele­graph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli mil­i­tary intel­li­gence ser­vice, were sent to Wash­ing­ton in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the exis­tence of a cell of as many of 200 ter­ror­ists said to be prepar­ing a big oper­a­tion.
“They had no spe­cif­ic infor­ma­tion about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Amer­i­cans that there were strong grounds for sus­pect­ing Iraqi involve­ment,” said a senior Israeli secu­ri­ty offi­cial. . . .

. . . Amer­i­ca’s intel­li­gence agen­cies are being wide­ly blamed for their fail­ure to pre­dict the attacks, or any­thing like them, and for not dis­cov­er­ing any of the ter­ror­ist cells before the hijack­ings on Tues­day. Some of those who took part had lived in the US for months, or even years.

Evi­dence that a clear Israeli warn­ing was deliv­ered to Amer­i­can author­i­ties, but ignored, would be a fur­ther blow to the rep­u­ta­tion of the CIA, which is under fire for its fail­ure last week.

An admin­is­tra­tion offi­cial in Wash­ing­ton said: “If this is true then the refusal to take it seri­ous­ly will mean heads will roll. It is quite cred­i­ble that the CIA might not heed a Mossad warn­ing: it has a his­to­ry of being over­cau­tious about Israeli infor­ma­tion.” . . .

Discussion

5 comments for “August, 2001: Israeli Intelligence Officers Travel to Washington to Warn of Impending “Large Scale” Bin Laden Terror Attacks”

  1. “jew­ish vic­tims of sep­tem­ber 11” google this takes you to a page that deals with the lie that jew­ish peo­ple work­ing at the world trade cen­ter were told to remain home on 9/11.

    Posted by David | May 23, 2012, 5:42 pm
  2. @David — Googling that does­n’t nec­es­sar­i­ly take you there. You’re being bub­bled. See http://dontbubble.us/.

    Posted by Rob Coogan | May 23, 2012, 5:42 pm
  3. oh,yes it does. just type “jew­ish vic­tims of 9/11” and you would see a whole freak­en list of signs to go to. The num­ber of jew­ish vic­tims who were killed at the world trade cen­ter on 9/11 is between 400 to 500 peo­ple. if i could find these fig­ures, any­one can, Rob.

    Posted by David | June 2, 2012, 3:31 pm
  4. OK then...:

    NYTimes
    Op-Ed Con­trib­u­tor
    The Deaf­ness Before the Storm
    By KURT EICHENWALD
    Pub­lished: Sep­tem­ber 10, 2012

    IT was per­haps the most famous pres­i­den­tial brief­ing in his­to­ry.

    On Aug. 6, 2001, Pres­i­dent George W. Bush received a clas­si­fied review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his ter­ror­ist net­work, Al Qae­da. That morning’s “pres­i­den­tial dai­ly brief” — the top-secret doc­u­ment pre­pared by America’s intel­li­gence agen­cies — fea­tured the now-infa­mous head­ing: “Bin Laden Deter­mined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks lat­er, on 9/11, Al Qae­da accom­plished that goal.

    On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declas­si­fied that dai­ly brief — and only that dai­ly brief — in response to pres­sure from the 9/11 Com­mis­sion, which was inves­ti­gat­ing the events lead­ing to the attack. Admin­is­tra­tion offi­cials dis­missed the document’s sig­nif­i­cance, say­ing that, despite the jaw-drop­ping head­line, it was only an assess­ment of Al Qaeda’s his­to­ry, not a warn­ing of the impend­ing attack. While some crit­ics con­sid­ered that claim absurd, a close read­ing of the brief showed that the argu­ment had some valid­i­ty.

    That is, unless it was read in con­junc­tion with the dai­ly briefs pre­ced­ing Aug. 6, the ones the Bush admin­is­tra­tion would not release. While those doc­u­ments are still not pub­lic, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with oth­er recent­ly declas­si­fied records, and come to an inescapable con­clu­sion: the administration’s reac­tion to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infa­mous brief­ing reflect­ed sig­nif­i­cant­ly more neg­li­gence than has been dis­closed. In oth­er words, the Aug. 6 doc­u­ment, for all of the con­tro­ver­sy it pro­voked, is not near­ly as shock­ing as the briefs that came before it.

    The direct warn­ings to Mr. Bush about the pos­si­bil­i­ty of a Qae­da attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group present­ly in the Unit­ed States” was plan­ning a ter­ror­ist oper­a­tion. Weeks lat­er, on June 22, the dai­ly brief report­ed that Qae­da strikes could be “immi­nent,” although intel­li­gence sug­gest­ed the time frame was flex­i­ble.

    But some in the admin­is­tra­tion con­sid­ered the warn­ing to be just blus­ter. An intel­li­gence offi­cial and a mem­ber of the Bush admin­is­tra­tion both told me in inter­views that the neo­con­ser­v­a­tive lead­ers who had recent­ly assumed pow­er at the Pen­ta­gon were warn­ing the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; accord­ing to this the­o­ry, Bin Laden was mere­ly pre­tend­ing to be plan­ning an attack to dis­tract the admin­is­tra­tion from Sad­dam Hus­sein, whom the neo­con­ser­v­a­tives saw as a greater threat. Intel­li­gence offi­cials, these sources said, protest­ed that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islam­ic fun­da­men­tal­ist, con­spir­ing with Mr. Hus­sein, an Iraqi sec­u­lar­ist, was ridicu­lous, but the neo­con­ser­v­a­tives’ sus­pi­cions were nev­er­the­less car­ry­ing the day.

    In response, the C.I.A. pre­pared an analy­sis that all but plead­ed with the White House to accept that the dan­ger from Bin Laden was real.

    “The U.S. is not the tar­get of a dis­in­for­ma­tion cam­paign by Usama Bin Laden,” the dai­ly brief of June 29 read, using the government’s translit­er­a­tion of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the doc­u­ment recit­ed much of the evi­dence, includ­ing an inter­view that month with a Mid­dle East­ern jour­nal­ist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a com­ing attack, as well as com­pet­i­tive pres­sures that the ter­ror­ist leader was feel­ing, giv­en the num­ber of Islamists being recruit­ed for the sep­a­ratist Russ­ian region of Chech­nya.

    And the C.I.A. repeat­ed the warn­ings in the briefs that fol­lowed. Oper­a­tives con­nect­ed to Bin Laden, one report­ed on June 29, expect­ed the planned near-term attacks to have “dra­mat­ic con­se­quences,” includ­ing major casu­al­ties. On July 1, the brief stat­ed that the oper­a­tion had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again remind­ed Mr. Bush that the attack tim­ing was flex­i­ble, and that, despite any per­ceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

    Yet, the White House failed to take sig­nif­i­cant action. Offi­cials at the Coun­tert­er­ror­ism Cen­ter of the C.I.A. grew apoplec­tic. On July 9, at a meet­ing of the coun­tert­er­ror­ism group, one offi­cial sug­gest­ed that the staff put in for a trans­fer so that some­body else would be respon­si­ble when the attack took place, two peo­ple who were there told me in inter­views. The sug­ges­tion was bat­ted down, they said, because there would be no time to train any­one else.

    ...

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 11, 2012, 1:15 pm
  5. So then log­i­cal­ly if they had been warned that **Sad­dam** was plan­ning an attack they would have lis­tened and planned to avert it??

    This response to Dav­e’s post smells to me like “lim­it­ed hang­out”.

    “...accord­ing to this the­ory, Bin Laden was mere­ly pre­tend­ing to be plan­ning an attack to dis­tract the admin­is­tra­tion from Sad­dam Hus­sein, whom the neo­con­ser­v­a­tives saw as a greater threat. Intel­li­gence offi­cials, these sources said, protest­ed that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islam­ic fun­da­men­tal­ist, con­spir­ing with Mr. Hus­sein, an Iraqi sec­u­lar­ist, was ridicu­lous, but the neo­con­ser­v­a­tives’ sus­pi­cions were nev­er­the­less car­ry­ing the day.”

    Posted by ironcloudz | September 12, 2012, 9:59 am

Post a comment