Bush Says L.A. Skyscraper Was Terror Target

 

POSTED: 11:11 am EST February 9, 2006

UPDATED: 3:32 pm EST February 9, 2006

 

WASHINGTON -- President Bush said the U.S.-led global war on terror has "weakened and fractured" al-Qaida and allied groups, outlining as proof new details about the multinational cooperation that foiled purported terrorist plans to fly a commercial airplane into the tallest skyscraper on the West Coast.

 

"The terrorists are living under constrant pressure and this adds to our security," Bush said. "When terrorists spend their days working to avoid death or capture, it's harder for them to plan and execute new attacks on our country. By striking the terrorists where they live, we're protecting the American homeland."

 

But the president said the anti-terror battle is far from over.

 

"The terrorists are weakenend and fractured, yet they're still lethal," the president said in a speech at the National Guard Memorial Building. "We cannot let the fact that America hasn't been attacked in 41/2 years since September the 11th lull us into the illusion that the threats to our nation have disappeared. They have not."

 

Bush has referred to the 2002 plot before. In an address last October, he said the United States and its allies had foiled at least 10 serious plots by the al-Qaida terror network in the last four years, including plans for Sept. 11-like attacks on both U.S. coasts. The White House initially would not give details of the plots but later released a fact sheet with a brief, and vague, description of each.

 

The president filled in details on Thursday.

 

He said that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who was captured in 2003, had already begun planning the West Coast operation in October, just after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. One of Mohammed's key planners was Hambali, the alleged operations chief of the al-Quaida related terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah. Instead of recruiting Arab hijackers, Hambali found Southeast Asian men who would be less likely to arouse suspicion and who were sent to meet with Osama bin Laden, Bush said.

 

Under the plot, the hijackers were to use shoe bombs to blow open the cockpit door of a commercial jetliner, take control of the plane and crash it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, since renamed the US Bank Tower, Bush said.

 

The president said the plot was derailed when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al-Qaida operative. Bush did not name the country or the operative.

 

Bush has been on a campaign to defend his controversial domestic monitoring program. But the White House would not say whether the 2002 plot was thwarted as a result of the National Security Agency program to eavesdrop on the international emails and phone calls of people inside the United States with suspected ties to terrorists.

 

Bush said only that "subsequent debriefings and other intelligence operations" after the arrest of the unnamed operative led to information about the plot, and to the capture of other ringleaders and operatives involved in it. Hambali, for instance, was captured in Thailand in 2003 and handed over to the United States.

 

"It took the combined efforts of several countries to break up this plot," the president said. "By working together, we took dangerous terrorists off the streets. By working together, we stopped a catastrophic attack on our homeland."

 

Bush's speech in October cited two other attacks inside the United States that were foiled, including one to use hijacked planes to attack the East Coast in mid-2003.

 

The third was the case of Jose Padilla, a former Chicago gang member who converted to Islam and allegedly plotted with top al-Qaida commanders to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a U.S. city. Padilla, whose plot never materialized, now is being held without bail in civilian custody on charges that he was part of a secret network that supported Muslim terrorists. He was arrested in May 2002 and had been held as an enemy combatant without criminal charge at a Navy brig in South Carolina until last month.

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Anyone else think this timing is interesting? Talking about a 4 year old attempted terrorist attack when the administration is getting hammered with wiretapping criticism? Hmmm...

 

I think a certain president is politicizing this issue again...

Instead of recruiting Arab hijackers, Hambali found Southeast Asian men who would be less likely to arouse suspicion and who were sent to meet with Osama bin Laden, Bush said.

 

Maybe people who want to only racially profile brown people will actually wake up and smell the coffee now. Dont think they cant get white people too.

 

The president said the plot was derailed when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al-Qaida operative. Bush did not name the country or the operative.

 

And we see why it's important not to alienate the rest of the world?

 

Anyone else think this timing is interesting? Talking about a 4 year old attempted terrorist attack when the administration is getting hammered with wiretapping criticism? Hmmm...

 

Oh the timing is transparent. Like I said in the other post. National security will be driven into the forefront again.

It's his strong suit. Forgive him for being a politician. God knows *insert politician name here* wouldn't do the same.

Southeast asian country is probably the Philippines. Educated guess.

Southeast asian country is probably the Philippines. Educated guess.

 

Could be Indonesia or Malaysia too.

As much backpatting for averting terrorist strikes as this administration would be, you'd think they'd have been bragging about it then.

 

"We have saved you lives, THANKYEW!" So close to the election, too. I'm skeptical.

Southeast asian country is probably the Philippines. Educated guess.

 

Could be Indonesia or Malaysia too.

 

Could be because muslim fundamentalists are to be found in all three, but my guess goes to Philippines because (I believe) their government has close ties to the US. I believe the US helps them a lot with their problems in West Timor (breeding ground of the savage beast which is the muslim fundamentalist). Or is West Timor Indonesia? Yes it is. I meant to say Indonesia. I confused the two.

 

Just a guess based on a vague understanding of the region. (which obvioulsy isn't that good)

As much backpatting for averting terrorist strikes as this administration would be, you'd think they'd have been bragging about it then.

 

"We have saved you lives, THANKYEW!" So close to the election, too. I'm skeptical.

 

 

He doesn't need any votes this is his final term.

As much backpatting for averting terrorist strikes as this administration would be, you'd think they'd have been bragging about it then.

 

"We have saved you lives, THANKYEW!" So close to the election, too. I'm skeptical.

 

 

He doesn't need any votes this is his final term.

but he did need them in 2004 when he could have released this info or even in 2002 right after it happened.

 

 

or was he just that confident back then?

 

 

i think thats the point buckeye is trying to make.

As much backpatting for averting terrorist strikes as this administration would be, you'd think they'd have been bragging about it then.

 

"We have saved you lives, THANKYEW!" So close to the election, too. I'm skeptical.

 

 

He doesn't need any votes this is his final term.

but he did need them in 2004 when he could have released this info or even in 2002 right after it happened.

 

 

or was he just that confident back then?

 

 

i think thats the point buckeye is trying to make.

 

10/10 for reading comprehension, Das.

As much backpatting for averting terrorist strikes as this administration would be, you'd think they'd have been bragging about it then.

 

"We have saved you lives, THANKYEW!" So close to the election, too. I'm skeptical.

 

 

He doesn't need any votes this is his final term.

but he did need them in 2004 when he could have released this info or even in 2002 right after it happened.

 

 

or was he just that confident back then?

 

 

i think thats the point buckeye is trying to make.

 

10/10 for reading comprehension, Das.

i want a gold star also.

 

thanks.

As much backpatting for averting terrorist strikes as this administration would be, you'd think they'd have been bragging about it then.

 

"We have saved you lives, THANKYEW!" So close to the election, too. I'm skeptical.

 

 

He doesn't need any votes this is his final term.

 

He needs people to vote for Republicans in the fall so they can maintian control of Congress.

As much backpatting for averting terrorist strikes as this administration would be, you'd think they'd have been bragging about it then.

 

"We have saved you lives, THANKYEW!" So close to the election, too. I'm skeptical.

 

 

He doesn't need any votes this is his final term.

 

He needs people to vote for Republicans in the fall so they can maintian control of Congress.

Exactly. Of course he himself doesn't need the votes, but because he's the president, he's the head of the party. Therefore, part of his job is to get as many votes (or keep them) as possible.

As much backpatting for averting terrorist strikes as this administration would be, you'd think they'd have been bragging about it then.

 

"We have saved you lives, THANKYEW!" So close to the election, too. I'm skeptical.

 

 

He doesn't need any votes this is his final term.

but he did need them in 2004 when he could have released this info or even in 2002 right after it happened.

 

 

or was he just that confident back then?

 

 

i think thats the point buckeye is trying to make.

 

10/10 for reading comprehension, Das.

i want a gold star also.

 

thanks.

Get enough gold stars by the end of the week and you'll get a grape Jolly Rancher.

What's so bad about the timing? You want the guy to be like "See! We stopped an attempted attack!" whenever it happens? You can't just release information like that right away - especially since there's a chance the Administration had looked over something and L.A. did get attacked anyway.

 

I think he's releasing this information now as an attempt to get credibility (yes - for the 'wiretapping' controversy). Though I don't agree with civilian surveillance on a Constitutional basis, I see no problem with George trying to get his programs backed in this manner.

 

What do you wacky Dems expect him to do? Institute something this controversial and give NO reason for us to support it? That's what he's been doing - and the consensus has been that there aren't any threats that warrant more security.

 

Bush retorts, and it's still not good enough.

 

 

 

 

 

:banghead :banghead :banghead

Oh come on, it's been over 4 years since this thing happened. There's no other reason for him to get this information out than a political one.

Thanks! You are the perfect example of the point I'm making!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BEFORE: There aren't any threats, we don't need domestic surveillance, give us a reason, etc etc

 

AFTER: He just released that information for political reasons!

 

Typical

Dodge, Bush's actions in the NSA spying are not an issue of whether we need to engage in the spying or not. It's about totally subverting the minimum checks on the system to make sure they aren't abusing it. All he has to do is give minimal justification that the person being spied on is in fact under investigation for possible terrorist threat. This isnt even given to a regular court. It's given to a special surveillance court so that the cat doesn't come out of the bag and undermine the investigation. If you don't go through that court, NSA operatives could be spying on American citizens for any reason whatsover and we would have no way to know or stop it(Ill try to find the links but I know there have been questional uses of the spying). I bet money that he could have stopped the LA attack if he had gone through the process as it is, ie legally instead illegally.

 

But his claim is that he should be able to spy on people without any single check to make sure it isn't being abused. This LA incident, as it is told, doesn't justify his illegal actions. But how could this LA incident justify this? Only if he can show that the threat was SO IMMINENT that the minimal time in going through the surveillance court would have allowed the attack to happen. But he isn't go to show that. Instead he allows the perpetual emergency of fear to broadly attach itself to anything he does. Why should we trust him? Remember the imminent threat of Iraq bombing us with nukes also justified going to war without making sure first.

 

And this isnt a republican or democratic issue. It's about the federal government having not one single check on it in spying on the American people. A lot of libertarians are pretty upset with this and they arent hardcore dems. When it comes to civil liberties, the government should have a pretty sharp and solid justification. But we don't force them to. If youve ever read anything about the Japanese internment camps, it's another example of a really bad and broad justification allowing a really bad action basically because we were afraid.

I'm upset with it too, F_M and I'm not a libertarian or a hardcore Dem. I don't think you got the point I'm making.

What's so bad about the timing? You want the guy to be like "See! We stopped an attempted attack!" whenever it happens? You can't just release information like that right away - especially since there's a chance the Administration had looked over something and L.A. did get attacked anyway.

 

I think he's releasing this information now as an attempt to get credibility (yes - for the 'wiretapping' controversy). Though I don't agree with civilian surveillance on a Constitutional basis, I see no problem with George trying to get his programs backed in this manner.

 

What do you wacky Dems expect him to do? Institute something this controversial and give NO reason for us to support it? That's what he's been doing - and the consensus has been that there aren't any threats that warrant more security.

 

Bush retorts, and it's still not good enough.

 

 

Dodge it isn't even so much that people don't like the surveillance idea. Hell if it was put to a vote, what he's doing would be supported in a landslide. It's the manner in which he's doing it. He's blatantly turned up his nose at the accusations that this has no legal grounds. First he was quoted at that speech in Buffalo in full finger-pointing, "I did not have sex with that woman"-mode, saying (I'm paraphrasing) "when we're talking about wiretaps, we're talking about getting a court order. Nothing has changed!" And then we're told "well... that's not really what he meant, we're talking now about when one person communicating is out of the country... and a terrorist.... and it didn't really include e-mail" or whatever nonsense. Then he actually defended it with "but the FISA laws are so OLD!!!" WTF?? Are you kidding me with that bullsh*t? Then amend FISA! Get a new law passed! Enact new programs! You've got carte blanche to get virtually any anti-terror program you could ever dream up passed right now, with the amount of fear his administration has managed to instill the country with.

 

If he's been given super-powers after 9/11 to do basically anything he wants when it comes to his definition of defending the country, then why does he need the Patriot Act?? He doesn't NEED any new laws!

 

Hell, even George Will was on this morning saying that the Administration has given him a headache listening to them try & defend what they're doing.