« Wind Gusts Cause Southern California Fires to Escalate | Main | Virginia Tech Shooting Largest in History »

French reports show French secret service aware of al Qaida 9/11 planning.

A Reuters article published today on defensenews.com has published an article saying that the French daily paper Le Monde has published information saying that French secret services produced 9 reports looking at the al Qaeda threat to the United States, and knew the terrorist organization intended to hijack an aircraft. The reports show that French's foreign intelligence knew about the planned attack as early as January 2001. The reports show that the attack was meant to happen at some point in 200, but was pushed back. Le Monde quoted a former secret official at France's DGSE secret service agency as saying that although France was aware of a potential hijacking, it was unaware of the plans to fly the plane into a building. The documents also showed that BIn Laden was receiving aid from family members and senior officials in Saudi Arabia ahead of September 11th.

The article's rather short, and its lead simply gets across the key information about the potential knowledge of the hijacking. It then goes into detail about the specific documents that the article is talking about, giving their length and content and who saw them. A senior official with France's DGSE secret service is quoted, and talks about the significance of the documents and the actions taken by those in possession of them.

An Associated Press article published online through Forbes also covers the issue and gives more details about the reports themselves, which are important. More attribution is used in the article as well, more quoes from those in the CIA and other intelligence agencies. It is revealed that the note listed potential targets, and also that it was not all that different from intelligence that the U.S. also possessed. The chief of staff with the French DGSE is quoted again.

Between the two articles I prefer the Associated Press' coverage because it contains more information and attribution, and it's clear there was just more reporting done to get to the final article. For this reason I prefer it to the Reuters article.