Left un-said on 60-Minutes tonight:

[DemoTex]

A question that should have been asked of both Clark and Hadley (I know what Clark would have answered): Why did the Attorney General of the US, John Ashcroft, stop flying on public air transportation (airlines) in July, 2001, for what the DOJ called then "security threats," if those threats were not exactly what Richard Clark talked about tonight on 60-Minutes?

I was an active MD-80 captain at the time and remember being put on a slightly elevated security alert. When I read the highly publicized articles about Ashcroft's travel restrictions in July, 2001, I started briefing my crews to very high security awareness standards on my flights. I knew something was up. How strongly did I know this? In August 2001 I withdrew all of my 401k investments from the stock markets. I directed 100% of my 401k into low-yield government money market accounts. I knew we were going to get hit. The Ashcroft travel restrictions pointed a finger to where everyone should have been looking.

[Faygo Kid]

1. Good question. Also, good move (410K)

You knew it. Many others did, too. The Bush Administration ignored it, I believe, because it was not Iraq - the only mantra they cared about (except for the unprecedented transfer of wealth upwards, and the dismantling of the New Deal - but, for another day). Thanks for a great post.

[davekriss]

6. Bush Knew

>>The Bush Administration ignored it<<

Well, since Ashcroft stopped flying commercial jets, did the Bush administration really ignore it? This seems to imply they were (at least Ashcroft was) fully cognizant of the threat and perhaps made some unique decisions ahead of events (9-11).

Further, we all know about Bush and the pet goat story. But don't forget General Meyers. After hearing a "plane" had struck the first tower, he went ahead with his morning meeting with Max Cleland and didn't emerge until after the Pentagon was struck. This, our second in command when it comes to our security. Why? Given the chatter, the PDB of August 6, Clark's expressions of urgency including his long wanted Cabinet-level meeting on September 4 -- why would both Bush and Meyers not then jump up on 9-11, after hearing of the first attacks, and take on their respective responsibilities to defend this nation? Instead they left Clark in command in the White House situation room in the early moments of 9-11, the "terrorism czar" they demoted when Bush took power. Standdown anyone?

LIHOP seems so probable to me.

[question everything]

24. What's LIHOP? Thanks n/t

[DemoTex]

25. LIHOP= Let It Happen On Purpose

n/t

[greatauntoftriplets]

2. My hat is off to you, DemoTex.

You certainly could see the handwriting on the wall.

[imax2268]

3. Whats sad...

is that the freeps and the rethugs around the country will be saying exactly what the pentagon said..."Absurd"...or they will cry sour grapes...or they will do whatever it takes to discredit Clarke in any way they can...

it's such a shame that they can't admit that they screwed up...

[girl gone mad]

15. This administration will..

never ever ever admit they were wrong about anything.

It's an affliction.

[freeforall]

4. Hey DemoTex!

Good move. Proves that being aware pays off.

BTW, what is an MD-80 captain?

[DemoTex]

5. McDonnell-Douglas MD-80 (stretched, re-engined DC-9)

The MD-80 (82/88/90) are basically 150 passenger, twin-jet airline aircraft.

[Nomad559]

7. Here Is a pic of one

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/md-80-90/

[DemoTex]

9. Thanks, I lost my pic link!

Good aircraft description on your link too.

[Trajan]

28. I worked on the first MD 80 ...

The very first .... in Long Beach ....

I swear: .. the wire harnesses were STILL all hangin out when that thing flight tested ..... What a mess ...

Egads ... Im old ...

[Maccagirl]

8. Has the Put-Options stories about United and American

ever been investigated, other than being "conspiracy theories"?

[davekriss]

11. It was whitewashed long ago

I'll have to search for some links, but a report was issued some time ago that stated the options were placed by reputable firms, but it did not spell out for whom the options were placed.

[DemoTex]

13. Investigated, maybe

Reported, not to my knowledge.
Squashed, my guess.

BTW: If I was astute in anything, let it not be remembered as my personal finances related to a gut feeling. Let it be remembered that crew members, who I can verify from my log, were briefed by me - the captain - that I thought from other outside and inside sources that a high potential for hi-jack (our big concern then) existed, or pre-placed explosive devices from relatively un-screened ground personnel (such as night-time aircraft cleaners). My concern was for: 1. My passengers' safety; 2. My crew's safety, and; 3. My airline's exposure to financial harm.

[napi21]

10. I respect you for that decision, but why didn't other pilots do the same?

I didn't realize a pilot would have known about Ashcroft deciding not to fly, but if you did, shouldn't other pilots have known as well? I'm not putting down the pilots who lost their lives in the crashes, but if they knew what you did, and briefed their crew, might there have been a different outcome? In at least one of those flights? Or maybe that was why the one went down in Pa????

[DemoTex]

14. It was common knowledge about Ashcroft's commercial flight ban.

I was in a company-sponsored training event in late July 2001, where the potential implication of Ashcroft's travel restriction was discussed, and I, again, found the same discussion germane in a mid-August ALPA safety meeting in Washington, DC. I was on the Central Air Safety Committee as an Accident Investigator. Ashcroft's security protection from commercial airline travel was our red flag. It should have been the publics!

[Octafish]

12. Ashcan knew.

Ashcroft Flying High

WASHINGTON, July 26, 2001

CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart reports on Aschcroft's travel arrangements.

(CBS) Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.

A senior official at the CIA said he was unaware of specific threats against any Cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself, in a speech in California, seemed unsure of the nature of the threat.

CONTINUED...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml

The BFEE is lower than whale shit. They are liars, murderers and traitors.

[cureautismnow]

16. Another Question That Should Have Been Asked

Why did Bush-boy fly the Bin Laden family out of the country on 9/12/01 when all other flights were grounded? I wonder what Clarke would have said to this agregious intelligence failure.

[DemoTex]

17. Yep. Another missed opportunity.

However! Maybe the answer is in his book. I'm sure it's $30 or so. But I have a birthday coming up. I'll get his book. I'll report back.

[kentuck]

18. Clarke did say the Attorney General sat in on the briefings...

So maybe Ashcroft took the warnings more seriously than Bush and the others???

[DemoTex]

20. Could be, but leaves a big Q

Why was it publicized, during 7/2001, that the AG would no longer be taking anymore commercial flights? That was the story. It was unfiltered. Filtering the story could have been damning too. It was such a loose, irresponsible story. But it was a very, very public story. That is why I briefed my crew as I did. Life then, was between them and me, on a very ad-hoc basis.

[RamboLiberal]

19. DemoTex - too bad the b*stards in the WH didn't warn all the air crews

or had as Richard Clarke had so aptly said tonight "shaken the trees" so maybe those in the lower echelons of the FBI and CIA who knew that a couple of those guys were here and training would've reached those in charge. But the more I hear the more I fear it truly was LIHOP with these PNAC'ers.

What you've told us here at DU of your background it doesn't surprise me that a least one aircrew captain knew some bad shit was coming down.

I've heard there were those military pilots who also knew something was going to happen. Just wish we knew what the hell was going on that day that prevented them from doing their jobs.

[DemoTex]

21. RMP

Basically, the FAA did warn aircrews by upping a security level in the late summer (to FAR 121 operators, at least). That is what I was alluding to. That proves that the NSA noise "chatter" was not ignored. In fact, it was what was warned vis-a-vis what was known that in most damning. That is, of course, a classic characteristic of a government on the rocks.

[RamboLiberal]

23. I know you were getting warnings

but were they about traditional hijackings and bomb threats? Would you have treated differently if known that the hijackers might be training to takeover the planes?

A couple of other things always upset me, and it probably goes to the way the Congress and the FAA coddled airlines and business in general.

1 - Even after all the air rage incidents including some cockpit breakins that the doors were strengthened.

2 - That security was basically people paid Mickey D wages who for that reason and sheer boredom probably didn't stay long. I read after 9-11 that the longevity of these people was weeks or just a couple months. Most of us would've paid a couple dollars more a ticket to have highly-trained, well-paid, well-tested, professional security in place. But most of us were too fat, dumb and happy to know they weren't.

3 - And there were a lot of people as you pointed out DemoTex who had access to the planes.

We've never gotten the full truth about what was smuggled aboard those planes, or if the items could've already been placed. I doubt it was just boxcutters (and that only came about because of Barbara Olsen's call - I doubt she was a weapons expert). Only recently (unless you read a lot of sources) did we even hear about Pepper spray or mace. And we've never heard the full story about an early report of a passenger being shot on one of the planes.

I read recently too about them using plastic knives. Most would be thinking of "plastic knives" you get at a fast food place. That's laughable. I've always wondered if they hadn't brought aboard knives made of plastic or ceramic often referred to as a "CIA Letter Opener".

[leesa]

22. Good question. There are so many questions that need to be answered

The one I need to know is who ordered the air defense to stand down and to respond at slow rates of speed when they finally activated. Where are those pilots? Why are they quiet?

[revcarol]

26. You're absolutely right.

And one other question: did the pilots catch on to there being a threat from the air when Bush stayed on a ship for the Italian G-8 meeting because of fear of planes targetting the embassy or hotel ---or the Eiffel Tower-airplane plot was foiled?

I thought the warnings were all over the place about planes hitting buildings and I'm a CIVILIAN NON-PILOT out in the middle of no place...which makes me all the more suspicious of LIHOP (there was supposed to be a hijacking and the pilot would fly to Algeria or Cuba, and it turned into a murderous event.)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

27. 9-11 was (is) the mother of all outrages

Their only choice afterwards was to concoct an even bigger outrage (Iraq) to balance things.
They have (so far) gotten away with it.

[RainDog]

29. 9-11 was their pretext for Iraq

...which they wanted for years and years...it was already concocted.

As Clarke said, they were willing to, basically, let Osama go so that they could attack Iraq. The only reason they went into Afghanistan was because Bush was told the whole world would be against them.

Juan Cole has an interesting take on Blair...I should go get the link to his blog, but I'm being lazy...

Cole thinks that Blair agreed to the Bush/neocon obsession to go into Iraq IF they would first go into Afghanistan and stop Al Qaeda because Blair worried that the UK would be next if they didn't break up Al Q. there.

...which explains a lot, for me, about Blair's insistence on Iraq, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

and which also says a lot about Bush and the neocons.

Eric Margolis, in The American Conservative, also from a link at Juan Cole's blog, talks about the right wing Israeli wish to break up Iraq...conveniently for them, pro-Likudnik Perle was helping to cook evidence over at the Pentagon to lie the U.S. into an invasion, huh?