Edmonds, a former translator and employee with the FBI, with a
top-secret security clearance had been desperately trying to provide
input to Kean's 9-11 commission
WHERE'S THE LIBERAL MEDIA?
Posted April 5,
By: Ted Lang
Where's the "liberal" media when you really need them?
Haven't the popular talk radio shows and their anti-liberal agenda
consistently offered that the media is liberal and anti-Bush?
Aren't they consistently criticized as always serving anyone and
everyone that opposes the Republican Party and its sole mission to
return US to constitutional government?
Now if this is true, then where is the "piling on" insofar as
the charges advanced by one Sibel Edmonds, a former Bush administration
FBI employee, who was requested to forge documents, and then threatened
by the Republican Party's number two law enforcement man, Attorney
General John Ashcroft, to "keep quiet" about it or face jail?
Intercepted al-Qaeda communiqués showed that President George W. Bush
and his cabal of neoconservative warmongers were informed of the
impending 9-11 carnage and elected to do nothing about it.
Where's the outrage on the part of The New York Times? Where's the
hammered follow-up on the part of CBS News, an organization that had
interviewed Sibel Edmonds on one of their 60 Minutes segments? If
what Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly offer as a biased
liberal press really exists, then why hasn't this liberal press jumped
on this golden opportunity to hang President George W. Bush? It is
beginning to appear that a biased liberal press is far more desirable
than the bought-and-paid-for-by government rubber-stamp one we are now
After the astonishing revelation by Sibel Edmonds, amplification and
additional information was virtually non-existent. But The New
York Times did finally weigh in. Five NY Times reporters were
involved in producing an article entitled, "Uneven Response Seen on
Terror in Summer of 2001," dated April 4th. The article
listed reporters David Johnston and Eric Schmitt on the byline.
The article also offered that David E. Sanger, Richard W. Stevenson and
Steven R. Weisman contributed their input as well.
Another article concerning the activities of the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly referred to as the
Kean 9-11 commission, headed by Chairman and former New Jersey
Republican Governor Thomas Kean, was carried in the United Kingdom's
It was only certain select sites on the Internet and the Independent
that carried the story of Sibel Edmonds, a former translator and
employee with the FBI, with a top-secret security clearance that had
been desperately trying to provide input to Kean's 9-11 commission.
In an April 2nd article by Andrew Buncombe, the Independent's
correspondent in Washington, entitled "I saw papers that show US
knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes," Buncombe
offers that Edmonds provided information to the 9-11 commission
".which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack
the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened."
And as investigative reporter Tom Flocco reported, Attorney General John
Ashcroft threatened Edmonds with prison if she "talked," and
reported that she was offered a bribe in the form of a permanent job
with a substantial pay increase. Why isn't this headline news?
Yet, the UK Independent provided the reader with a "heads-up"
as to the next move by the Bush crime cabal in terms of the televised
fiction planned for National Security advisor Condoleezza Rice's act
before the 9-11 commission this Thursday, April 8th. It would seem
that the Times' article was a preview of Ms. Rice's scheduled
performance; and as always, distraction and bait-and-switch is the name
of the Bush game plan.
The thrust will be to admit that intelligence was available that US
assets would indeed be targeted by al Qaeda, but that could be
"anywhere in the world." The next falsehood will be that
the only thing suspected of possibly happening in the US prior to 9-11
with airplanes, would be a hijacking only, and that such hijackings were
never suspected as intended suicide crashes into buildings.
The Independent, in another article by Buncombe on April 3rd entitled,
"White House moves to defend Rice," begins, "The Bush
administration has released a previously classified document about its
plan to attack Osama bin Laden in an effort to protect its beleaguered
National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, against claims that she
failed to recognize the threat posed by al-Qa'ida. After a week of
damaging allegations that the administration failed to heed warnings
that al-Qa'ida was planning to attack the US, the White House released
information which showed that a week before 11 September 2001, President
Bush ordered his military planners to draw up plans to strike the terror
What has this to do with 9-11? Isn't it the mission of the 9-11
commission to inquire as to how the plot was drawn up, by whom, how
coordinated, why the attacks were made, and when and where the attacks
were decided upon? Shouldn't it be foremost to find out and document
what failures existed in both our intelligence and military defense
structures? Planning pre-emptive attacks is no a substitute for
answers to these questions. And saying those in government were
blindsided just aren't true. Sibel Edmonds came forward and
offered that the FBI, CIA, FAA, and the White House had intercepted
documents proving al Qaeda as not only the conspiring culprits, but also
documenting precisely how the attacks were going to be carried out.
It is highly doubtful that as well coordinated as those attacks were,
that no mention was made in the intercepted information concerning the
targets, the airports, or the cities involved. Instead of
answering Edmond's contentions, the Bush administration intends to
divert the public's focus from their knowledge of the impending attack
and non-action to intended attacks on al Qaeda.
Buncombe continues, "Ms. Rice's appearance - under oath and with
the threat of perjury - has the potential to be hugely damaging for the
Bush administration, given her previous comments. On 23 March Ms. Rice
wrote in The Washington Post: 'Despite what some have suggested, we
received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the
homeland using airplanes as missiles.' The panel members are likely to
confront Ms. Rice with the findings of an earlier congressional inquiry
that would appear to directly contradict Ms. Rice's comments. The Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence joint inquiry issued its report in December
2002. In its conclusions, it said: 'Beginning in 1998 and continuing
into the summer of 2001, the intelligence community received a modest,
but relatively steady, stream of intelligence reporting that indicated
the possibility of terrorist attacks within the United States ... From
at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the intelligence
community received information indicating that terrorists were
contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as
Buncombe elaborates on the evidence: "Sibel Edmonds, 33, said: 'I
gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the
specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge
of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back
and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are
documented. These things can be established very easily.'"
The Johnston and Schmitt article in the Times offers, "On July 5,
2001, as threats of an impending terrorist attack against the United
States were pouring into Washington, Condoleezza Rice, the national
security advisor, and Andrew H. Card Jr., the president's chief of
staff, directed the administration's counterterrorism office to assemble
top officials from many of the country's domestic agencies for a meeting
in the White House situation room."
And in the next paragraph, "Even though the warnings focused mostly
on threats overseas, Ms. Rice and Mr. Card wanted the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Customs Service,
the Immigration and Naturalization Service and other agencies put on
alert inside the United States. Ms. Rice and Mr. Card did not attend the
meeting, run by Richard A. Clarke, the White House counterterrorism
coordinator. When the meeting broke up, several new security advisories
were issued, including an F.A.A. bulletin warning of an increased risk
of air hijackings intended to free terrorists imprisoned in the United
It appears that it was important that the report specifies that Rice and
Card "did not attend the meeting." And it seems intended
to serve as protection as well to Ms. Rice's planned testimony to focus
on standard hijackings to free political prisoners - this aligns with
Rice's prior statement that no one in government knew that planes would
be used as suicide missiles. Sibel Edmonds calls this an
The article goes on: "That meeting represented a peak moment in the
Bush administration's efforts in the months before Sept. 11, 2001, to
prevent a terrorist attack inside the United States. The issue of
whether the meeting and the actions that preceded and followed it were a
reasonable response to the gathering threat that summer now lies at the
heart of the independent inquiry into the attacks. Ms. Rice will be
questioned intensively about these matters when she appears in public on
Thursday for the first time before the independent commission
investigating the 2001 attacks, members of the commission said."
How did we get from standard hijackings perpetrated to free political
prisoners to terrorist attacks? How did we arrive at the
conclusion that the 9-11 commission is independent when it has been
shown that commission Chairman Tom Kean had a business relationship with
bin Laden, and that Bush did as well? All the members are
The Times offers a possible defense: "The review shows that over
that summer, with terror warnings mounting, the government's response
was often scattered and inconsistent as the new administration struggled
to develop a comprehensive strategy for combating Al Qaeda and other
terror organizations. The warnings during the summer were more
dire and more specific than generally recognized. Descriptions of the
threat were communicated repeatedly to the highest levels within the
White House. In more than 40 briefings, Mr. Bush was told by George J.
Tenet, the director of central intelligence, of threats involving Al
Qaeda. The review suggests that the government never collected in
one place all the information that was flowing into Washington about Al
Qaeda and its interest in using commercial aircraft to carry out
attacks, and about extremist groups' interest in pilot training. A
Congressional inquiry into intelligence activities before Sept. 11 found
12 reports over a seven-year period suggesting that terrorists might use
airplanes as weapons."
And then there is this from the Times: "By July, most of the 19
hijackers who later took part in the Sept. 11 attacks had arrived in the
United States, as plans for the hijacking, meticulously prepared in
Germany and elsewhere for nearly three years, were coming to a final
phase, without the knowledge of either the C.I.A. or the F.B.I."
This is a contradiction to a report not only from a German newspaper but
also to what was reported by CBSNews.com, which offered a chronology of
intelligence-related facts carried on their website March 30th when it
was learned that Rice would testify.
CBSNews reported, " March 1999 - According to a newspaper report
published in February 2004, German intelligence officials claim this is
around the time they gave the CIA the first name and telephone number of
hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi, asking U.S. officials to track him. Al-Shehhi
was a member of the al-Qaeda cell in Hamburg and a roommate of Mohammed
Atta. The Germans say they never heard back from the U.S.
officials until after Sept. 11."
The latter can easily be understood as a major foul-up; it fits the
Times' obvious intent to help out the administration. But the
actions of Attorney General John Ashcroft, and his heavy-handed Nazi
Gestapo approach in trying to threaten a future witness with prison for
going public with obvious corruption and abuse of power charges, shows
deliberate criminal intent with malice of forethought. And the
Bush administration's attempt to force Sibel Edmonds to alter
intelligence evidence efforts points a very serious accusatory finger at
everyone in the Bush administration. It is obvious that a fear
existed, a fear that somehow the American people would find out about
what Sibel Edmonds knew.
So what did she know? Considering that Commission Chairman Tom
Kean put her off and avoided her for almost a year, along with the bin
Laden/Bush family ties, things don't look very good for the truth in
today's We-the-People Republik of Amerika!
© Copyright THEODORE E. LANG 4/04/04 All
rights reserved. Ted Lang is a political analyst and a freelance writer.