Washington ? The congressional report on pre-Sept. 11 intelligence calls into question answers that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice gave the public last year about the White House’s knowledge of terrorism threats.

It’s a fresh credibility issue for the adviser whose remarks about prewar Iraq information also have been questioned by members of Congress.

President Bush’s adviser told the public in May 2002 that a pre-Sept. 11 intelligence briefing for the president on terrorism contained only a general warning of threats and largely historical information, not specific plots, the report said.

But the authors of the congressional report, released last week, stated the briefing given to the president a month before the suicide hijackings included recent intelligence that al-Qaida was planning to send operatives into the United States to carry out an attack using high explosives.

The White House defended Rice, saying her answers were accurate given what she could state publicly at the time about still-classified information and that Bush retains full confidence in Rice.

Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, endorsed Rice’s work Monday. And Rice’s spokeswoman, Anna Perez, said her boss’ statement was accurate because the information about a possible Osama bin Laden-backed explosives attack in the United States “does not constitute a specific warning. It is in fact general with no when, how or where.”

The Sept. 11 congressional investigators underscore their point three times in their report, using nearly identical language to contrast Rice’s answers with the actual information in the presidential briefing.

The president’s daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, contained “information acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives,” the report stated.

A footnote to that passage then quotes what Rice told the public at a May 16, 2002, news conference.

Rice “stated, however, that the report did not contain specific warning information, but only a generalized warning, and did not contain information that al-Qaida was discussing a particular planned attack against a specific target at any specific time, place, or by any specific method,” the footnote said.

At the same May 2002 press briefing, Rice also said that “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.”

But the congressional report states that “from at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons.”

The report says that Rice and other top officials, including Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, weren’t told of the intelligence and concluded the information was “not widely known” even in the intelligence community.

White House officials defended Rice’s answers.

“Dr. Rice’s briefing was a full and accurate accounting of the materials in question without compromising classified material that could endanger national security,” National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Perez said Rice, during her May 2002 briefing, did mention that U.S. intelligence received specific threats against U.S. interests in April and May 2001 but said the focus at that time was principally on overseas targets.

“She did not avoid specifics about she could talk about. She was pretty specific,” Perez said.

More recently, Rice’s explanations about what the White House knew about Iraq also have been questioned by members of Congress and by Democrats seeking the presidential nomination.

But Goss, the Intelligence Committee chairman, said Monday night he believes Rice has been honest in her answers and served Bush well and that some of the recent criticism in Congress stems more from some lawmakers’ frustration at not getting full access to information from the NSC about terrorism and Iraq.

“I don’t think there is anything in the report that casts any shadows at all on Dr. Rice’s credibility,” Goss said. “I think she has served the president very well. She is more than a capable person, she is a brilliant person.”