Bush Tough On...The Truth
A former FBI translator testified that the FBI had detailed information, prior to 9-11, that terrorists were planning to attack the US with airplanes. Eric Boehlert writes in Salon:
Referring to the Homeland Security Department's color-coded warnings instituted in the wake of 9/11, the former translator, Sibel Edmonds, told Salon, "We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001. There was that much information available." Edmonds is offended by the Bush White House claim that it lacked foreknowledge of the kind of attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11. "Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That's an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it's a lie."Edmonds' charge comes when the Bush White House is trying to fend off former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke's testimony that it did not take serious measures to combat the threat of Islamic terrorism, and al-Qaida specifically, in the months leading up to 9/11.
Edmonds, who is Turkish-American, is a 10-year U.S. citizen who has passed a polygraph examination conducted by FBI investigators. She speaks fluent Farsi, Arabic and Turkish and worked part-time for the FBI, making $32 an hour for six months, beginning Sept. 20, 2001. She was assigned to the FBI's investigation into Sept. 11 attacks and other counterterrorism and counterintelligence cases, where she translated reams of documents seized by agents who, for the previous year, had been rounding up suspected terrorists.
She says those tapes, often connected to terrorism, money laundering or other criminal activity, provide evidence that should have made apparent that an al- Qaida plot was in the works. Edmonds cannot talk in detail about the tapes publicly because she's been under a Justice Department gag order since 2002.
"President Bush said they had no specific information about Sept. 11, and that's accurate," says Edmonds. "But there was specific information about use of airplanes, that an attack was on the way two or three months beforehand and that several people were already in the country by May of 2001. They should've alerted the people to the threat we're facing."
Edmonds testified before 9/11 commission staffers in February for more than three hours, providing detailed information about FBI investigations, documents and dates. This week Edmonds attended the commission hearings and plans to return in April when FBI Director Robert Mueller is scheduled to testify. "I'm hoping the commission asks him real questions -- like, in April 2001, did an FBI field office receive legitimate information indicating the use of airplanes for an attack on major cities? And is it true that through an FBI informant, who'd been used [by the Bureau] for 10 years, did you get information about specific terrorist plans and specific cells in this country? He couldn't say no," she insists.
Edmonds first made headlines in 2002 when she blew the whistle on the FBI's translation department, which was suddenly thrown into the spotlight as investigators clamored for original terrorist-related information, often in Arabic. Edmonds made several reports of serious misconduct, security lapses and gross incompetence in the FBI translations unit, including supervisors who told translators to work slowly during the crucial post-9/11 period to ensure the agency would get more funds for its next annual budget. As a result of her reports, Edmonds says she was harassed at the FBI. She was fired in March 2002.
Calling all the disingenuous Republicans, who were quick to call for Clinton's impeachment when he lied about the whereabouts of his penis. Isn't it time to impeach Bush and Co. for lying about stuff that really matters? At the very least, join the Anyone But Bush parade: I'll vote for Kerry...or my movie wardrobe lady-next-door neighbor before I vote for Bush.
Worried about huge Democratic-style entitlements? Well, that's what a vote for Bush gets you. Like the Medicare package the administration slimed through Congress by hushing up the real numbers. There's no Big Democrat like a lying Republican giving handouts to ensure his re-election.
UPDATE: Four 9-11 moms go to the intelligence failure hearings in the Senate, and don't like what they hear -- especially that nobody takes responsibility for being less-than-vigilant.







Edmunds is really late to the show. All this "new revelation" was well documented and covered ad nauseum in 2001-2002. The FBI and CIA had extensive files on the bombers and their handlers up to 2 years before 911. They even had info on Al-Qaida pre-1993 WTC bombing right under Clinton's nose. Clinton had a chance to extradite Osama from the Sudan. He was tied up by legal and political restraints. C'mon folks. We live in a big, bureaucratic, political, and legalistic quagmire. Layer by layer the administration, the legislature, and the courts are bringing realistic problem solving to a grinding halt.
So let's say we have all these foreign guys training to fly airliners. So we decide to follow them. So we see them get on these planes. We think they may be up to something. So we send the jets after the airliners. Hey, they hijacked the planes. Shoot them out of the sky? You can't kill bad guys unless you catch them in the act. They have to draw first. Marshall Dillon rules. It's the way we Americans do it. Read them the mirandas at the foot of the World Trade Towers.
Except Bush broke the rules and went after Saddam. Maybe that's why the Iraq war was so despised by some and loved by others. One side says you can't strike until stricken. While the other side says finally we stand up to the bad guy before he does more bad stuff. And why stop with him? Iran, N. Korea, bad guys abound. Our current system is incapable of handling this divergence between lovers and haters. Thus the continuing expansion of polarization.
Lying Republicans doesn't roll off the tongue as easily as lying Democrats, although the underlying reality is no doubt equivalent. We are dealing with politicians here. Republicans have a slightly better public image on outright lying which gives more dissonance to the phrase. Lying Democrat only brings a shrug of the shoulders, and a "so?" Perhaps that's why the legal industry is strewn so heavily with Democrats. Can't wait until they begin foreign outsourcing for legal research and such. Give me the earplugs now.
allan at March 28, 2004 8:27 AM
It's easy to have 20/20 hindsight.
Jeep Crew at March 28, 2004 10:36 AM
I was about to respond to Amy's blog-post, but I see that Allan took the words right out of my mouth, Q.E.D. Nailed it.
Robert at March 30, 2004 2:25 PM