Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, January 8, 2009 10:29 AM

  @libertyson

  Do you believe Richard Clarke was lying when he said the importance of the August 6 PDB was "overblown"? How about when Richard Ben-Veniste agreed with Condoleezza Rice when she said it contained no specifics.

  "An allegation that al Qaeda had been considering ways to hijack American planes to win the release of operatives who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999."

  Pardon me, but this only highlights your gross ignorance on this topic.

  According to a Washington Post article on the PDB, "What emerged was a primarily historical analysis that talked about bin Laden's methods of operation and mentioned events in 1997, 1998 and 2001. One mention of hijacking was in reference to a proposed plot to take over an airliner and demand the release of an al Qaeda operative or Sheik Omar Ab-del Rahman, who is serving a life sentence for plotting to blow up the Holland and Lincoln tunnels in New York in 1993."

  That information was from the December 4, 1998 PDB. As I noted above, all acton on that PDB was concluded by February 1999. That PDB did not say that al Qaeda planned to use airliners as missiles, which would not be an effective way to gain the release of a prisoner.

  According to the 9/11 Commission, after investigation, the FBI could find no information to support the hijack threat, and the FAA alert at the New York area airports ended on January 31, 1999. Why would the Bush administration take action on a PDB--based on an uncorrobated report--that was nearly three years old when the Clinton administration concluded action on that PDB before February 1999?

  God gave you a brain. Use it.

  —Groenhagen Read Groenhagen's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel