Full Version: Has Condoleezza Rice been lying?
Link
August 6, PDB
Although the article tends to support the position that President Bush should not have been expected to know about the level of threat facing the US in the immediate future, there is this issue of Dr. Rice's description of the contents of the memo while it was still classified.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0020516-13.html
Is MSN on target here in pointing out an inaccurate statement made by Dr. Rice or is this an exaggeration of her descriptions of the situation?
August 6, PDB
Although the article tends to support the position that President Bush should not have been expected to know about the level of threat facing the US in the immediate future, there is this issue of Dr. Rice's description of the contents of the memo while it was still classified.
QUOTE
The memo’s contents are somewhat of a surprise because for two years, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice starting with a May 2002 news conference left the impression that the document focused on historical information and that any current threats mostly involved overseas targets.
Rice first outlined the then-classified memo’s contents at a news conference in May 2002. The “overwhelming bulk of the evidence” before Sept. 11, she declared, was that any terrorist attack “was likely to take place overseas.”
Rice first outlined the then-classified memo’s contents at a news conference in May 2002. The “overwhelming bulk of the evidence” before Sept. 11, she declared, was that any terrorist attack “was likely to take place overseas.”
QUOTE
Now, on August 6th, the President received a presidential daily briefing which was not a warning briefing, but an analytic report. This analytic report, which did not have warning information in it of the kind that said, they are talking about an attack against so forth or so on, it was an analytic report that talked about UBL's methods of operation, talked about what he had done historically, in 1997, in 1998. It mentioned hijacking, but hijacking in the traditional sense, and in a sense, said that the most important and most likely thing was that they would take over an airliner, holding passengers and demand the release of one of their operatives. And the blind sheikh was mentioned by name as -- even though he's not an operative of al Qaeda, but as somebody who might be bargained in this way.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0020516-13.html
Is MSN on target here in pointing out an inaccurate statement made by Dr. Rice or is this an exaggeration of her descriptions of the situation?
I think they're looking for controversy to keep the story in the news.
The memo is no smoking gun. It was practically presented as such during her grilling by the democrats in the "non-partisan" panel, but it's panned out to be a fairly expensive infomercial.
Hot title. Lukewarm contents.
There may be some gray areas and typical political spinnings, but nothing more. Continued berating of this issue will cause subsequent PDB's to be watered down because committes will be using them in fishing expeditions (like this one). The new PDB will look like this:
Presidential Daily Briefing:
1. Potentially, [redacted] reports there possibly could be maybe some bad stuff, with no specific words and adjectives to describe an unspecified event which may or may not happen.
2. [redacted] seems to substantiate a [redacted] that may or may not have been made that could indicate something very specific could happen if we knew the specifics.
3. Yankees in game 6
How is this helpful?
The memo is no smoking gun. It was practically presented as such during her grilling by the democrats in the "non-partisan" panel, but it's panned out to be a fairly expensive infomercial.
Hot title. Lukewarm contents.
There may be some gray areas and typical political spinnings, but nothing more. Continued berating of this issue will cause subsequent PDB's to be watered down because committes will be using them in fishing expeditions (like this one). The new PDB will look like this:
Presidential Daily Briefing:
1. Potentially, [redacted] reports there possibly could be maybe some bad stuff, with no specific words and adjectives to describe an unspecified event which may or may not happen.
2. [redacted] seems to substantiate a [redacted] that may or may not have been made that could indicate something very specific could happen if we knew the specifics.
3. Yankees in game 6
How is this helpful?
After rethinking Condi's testimony in preparation for President Bush's surprise news conference tonight, I wonder if they found a letter like the following while they were reviewing their pre-9/11 PDB files, that might need some explaining before the press finds out first:
CAUTION: This is not known to be a real letter
"Lost"
Letter To Condoleezza Rice: "Where, Who (first and last names), and How"
June 30, 2001
Your Excellency Ms. Rice:
I know how you require formal requests for Saud family tours of your country, so I most respectfully submit this letter to meet your requirements for "Where,"" Who (First and Last Names)," and "How."
I know of you require a six months notice, but since I am sort of a cousin in the Saud family I hope that this request is not submitted to you too late, because I move around a lot and never know when I will be able communicate.
As to "Where" and "How," some cousins of mine plan to fly into New York on September 11 to tour the World Trade Center.
We cordially extend an invitation to your President, if he is not occupied down at his ranch, to join us and discuss the overthrow of our mutual enemy Saddam.
Saddam is the only obstacle for my friends in the Middle East, and since Saddam also threatened to kill the President's father I thought he would be interested in our cover story for using Weapons of Mass Destruction as justification for attacking Saddam.
We have plenty of digital pictures for you to show to your friends at the UN.
As to your requirement for "Who," your FBI already have this information and are investigating their backgrounds at this moment.
Have a Nice Day,
Osama bin Laden
Please respond through the King Saud's Ambassador, he always knows where to find me
CAUTION: This is not known to be a real letter
"Lost"
Letter To Condoleezza Rice: "Where, Who (first and last names), and How"June 30, 2001
Your Excellency Ms. Rice:
I know how you require formal requests for Saud family tours of your country, so I most respectfully submit this letter to meet your requirements for "Where,"" Who (First and Last Names)," and "How."
I know of you require a six months notice, but since I am sort of a cousin in the Saud family I hope that this request is not submitted to you too late, because I move around a lot and never know when I will be able communicate.
As to "Where" and "How," some cousins of mine plan to fly into New York on September 11 to tour the World Trade Center.
We cordially extend an invitation to your President, if he is not occupied down at his ranch, to join us and discuss the overthrow of our mutual enemy Saddam.
Saddam is the only obstacle for my friends in the Middle East, and since Saddam also threatened to kill the President's father I thought he would be interested in our cover story for using Weapons of Mass Destruction as justification for attacking Saddam.
We have plenty of digital pictures for you to show to your friends at the UN.
As to your requirement for "Who," your FBI already have this information and are investigating their backgrounds at this moment.
Have a Nice Day,
Osama bin Laden
Please respond through the King Saud's Ambassador, he always knows where to find me
Falco - if that is a REAL letter, cite the source. If it is not, DO NOT SPAM our forum again. SPAM is against the AD Rules. Take the debates seriously.
TOPIC TO DEBATE:
Is MSN on target here in pointing out an inaccurate statement made by Dr. Rice or is this an exaggeration of her descriptions of the situation?
TOPIC TO DEBATE:
Is MSN on target here in pointing out an inaccurate statement made by Dr. Rice or is this an exaggeration of her descriptions of the situation?
Like I emphasized in blue, but I admit it can still be overlooked:
"I wonder if they found a letter like the following while they were reviewing their pre-9/11 PDB files, ---"
This is not known to be a real letter, and I apologize if I didn't make that clear.
I hope this eliminates any misunderstanding, it is my attempt to imitate the style of Maureen Dowd.
"I wonder if they found a letter like the following while they were reviewing their pre-9/11 PDB files, ---"
This is not known to be a real letter, and I apologize if I didn't make that clear.
I hope this eliminates any misunderstanding, it is my attempt to imitate the style of Maureen Dowd.
It’s an exaggeration. Rice did a good job of laying out the facts despite some Dems browbeating her.
The person who is obviously lying is Clark. His book claimed that the recommendations from the Clinton folks gave OBL and AQ as a major immanent threat. And the reading of the document said otherwise.
The fact that this man is not crucified by the press for the lies and exaggerations shows us how biased they are.
The person who is obviously lying is Clark. His book claimed that the recommendations from the Clinton folks gave OBL and AQ as a major immanent threat. And the reading of the document said otherwise.
The fact that this man is not crucified by the press for the lies and exaggerations shows us how biased they are.
We have a thread elsewhere for trashing Richard Clarke, Ted. Let's try to keep this one on topic.
Of course Dr. Rice has been lying - though in relation to the August 6 PDB, she has been more exaggerating, spinning, and misrepresenting. Her outright lies are in other areas. As this thread is looking exclusively at the August 6 PDB, though, it need only be pointed out that this was not a "historic" document and it does imply a mounting threat - and, yes, it was a warning (even more so if one accepts the White House story that it was prompted by questions which Bush had asked). Further, it indicates much more collaboration between the FBI and the CIA than Dr. Rice and everyone else in this administration has been trying to imply - but that goes to related, not direct, lies.
QUOTE
Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US
FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.
FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.
Of course Dr. Rice has been lying - though in relation to the August 6 PDB, she has been more exaggerating, spinning, and misrepresenting. Her outright lies are in other areas. As this thread is looking exclusively at the August 6 PDB, though, it need only be pointed out that this was not a "historic" document and it does imply a mounting threat - and, yes, it was a warning (even more so if one accepts the White House story that it was prompted by questions which Bush had asked). Further, it indicates much more collaboration between the FBI and the CIA than Dr. Rice and everyone else in this administration has been trying to imply - but that goes to related, not direct, lies.
Ms. Rice did her best to be disingenuous; it seems only fair to point out her inaccuracies. I checked out the link at the top of your post, and though I didn't see anything relating to Rice's tap dancing around the issue (sorry, couldn't help myself), I found this Bush quote fascinating:
It's almost as if he (gasp) is admitting that maybe, just maybe they didn't adequately protect the American people or (double gasp) there were WEAKNESSES?!
But then he reverts right back to form with:
It's like it has never occurred to him that the Iraqis don't see us as the great benevolent liberators, and that maybe Bush's idea of "progress" isn't the same as the average Iraqi citizen's.
QUOTE
“Now, the 9/11 commission hearings are going to analyze that which went on and hopefully bring recommendations forward to help this administration and future administrations do our solemn duty to protect the American people,” he said. “And that’s why I think the hearings are a good thing, particularly when they address any weaknesses in the system.” Bush, MSNBC 4/13/04
It's almost as if he (gasp) is admitting that maybe, just maybe they didn't adequately protect the American people or (double gasp) there were WEAKNESSES?!
But then he reverts right back to form with:
QUOTE
“A civil society, a peaceful society can’t grow with people who are willing to kill in order to stop progress,” Bush said. “And our job is to provide security for the Iraqi people so that a transition can take place.”
It's like it has never occurred to him that the Iraqis don't see us as the great benevolent liberators, and that maybe Bush's idea of "progress" isn't the same as the average Iraqi citizen's.
I suppose I am just dense and asking this question may make me appear that way, but can someone point me to the inaccuracy?
Thanks
Thanks
The PDB references a timeframe in nearly every single paragraph:
Paragraph 1: 1997 and 1998
Paragraph 2: 1998
Paragraph 3: no specific time reference except "at the same time" i.e. 1998
Paragraph 4: 1999 and 1998
Paragraph 5: no time reference (one sentence paragraph relating to Para 4)
Paragraph 6: 1998, 1993 and 1997
Paragraph 7: mid 1990s
Paragraph 8: 1998
Paragraph 9: 1998
Paragraph 10: references that since 1998 : "Nevertheless, FBI information since that time (1998) indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
Paragraph 11: The Summary:
So, to summarize: all this stuff has happened since the 1990s, we currently have 70 investigations on-going investigating Bin Laden.
It seems pretty historical (with the current response to known historicals) to me.
Paragraph 1: 1997 and 1998
Paragraph 2: 1998
Paragraph 3: no specific time reference except "at the same time" i.e. 1998
Paragraph 4: 1999 and 1998
Paragraph 5: no time reference (one sentence paragraph relating to Para 4)
Paragraph 6: 1998, 1993 and 1997
Paragraph 7: mid 1990s
Paragraph 8: 1998
Paragraph 9: 1998
Paragraph 10: references that since 1998 : "Nevertheless, FBI information since that time (1998) indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
Paragraph 11: The Summary:
QUOTE
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.
So, to summarize: all this stuff has happened since the 1990s, we currently have 70 investigations on-going investigating Bin Laden.
It seems pretty historical (with the current response to known historicals) to me.
Bush and Cheney and their national security team had seen a series of reports indicating a mounting threat; reports from April and May 2001 with titles like "Bin Laden planning multiple operations" and "Bin Laden network's plans advancing" and "Bin Laden threats are real". The intelligence included reports of a hostage plot against Americans and noted that operatives might choose to hijack an aircraft or storm a US embassy. According to Commission staff, the CIA "consistently described the upcoming attacks as occurring on a catastrophic level, indicating that they would cause the world to be in turmoil" and "Reports similar to these were made available to President Bush in the morning meetings with Tenet".
These reports lead up to the August 6 PDB, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" - a report in which all those paragraphs mentioned by Amlord provide foundation for the conclusions: there had been a pattern of activity for three years indicating preparations attacks - notably hijackings - and that there had been recent surveillance of buildings in New York. There is another "timeframe" which is "referenced" in this Brief, Amlord - one which you happened to leave out: August 6, 2001.
If, as Bush and Rice have claimed (though this has been contradicted by other testimony), this report was the result of the president asking if al-Qaeda might launch an attack on US soil, then the claim that this was some history lesson unrelated to what was going on then, a month before the attack, is more than disingenuous, it is an outrage - especially considering all the reports which preceded it, not to mention the wealth of intelligence coming in from other sources.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I had been warned for months that Osama bin Laden was planning multiple operations, that those plans were advancing, that the threat was real, and that, yes, he was planning an attack on US soil involving hijackings and targeting New York City, I think I might have asked what the nature of those seventy investigations was and how they were advancing. I might have asked if there had been any progress in the investigation which had been going on for three months into the intelligence that "a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives". I might have asked if we had anything else on bin Laden or al-Qaeda or anyone associated with either who might also happen to be in the United States already. I might even have called a meeting of my principlas and actually shared some of this with them. And, having done so, I might have prevented the September 11 attack. Again - if absolutely nothing else - I would most definitely have passed such intelligence on to the FAA and the authorities in New York.
Unless, of course, I had no moral sensibility whatsoever and wanted to exploit rather than prevent such an attack.
In Bush's embarrassingly bad press conference last night, after first reiterating that "there was nobody in our government at least - and I don't think the prior government - [who] could envision flying airplanes into buildings", went on to make an astonishing reference to G8 summit in Genoa:
Why has no one picked up on this blunder?? The threat surrounding the G8 summit in Genoa specifically included the possibility of terrorists flying planes into buildings!
From the LA Times:
From The Observer:
And CNN told us exactly who might be behind such and attack:
And this is the threat which Bush used - in the same answer! - to demonstrate that they had no clue that bin Laden might use a hijacked plane "to fly into a building"??? The stupidity of this man knows no more bounds than the ignorance of the average American.
This was no "historical document". It was one in an ongoing series of warnings - warnings generated by our intelligence services and delivered to the desk of the President of the United States, warnings which were totally ignored.
Was Dr. Rice lying? The answer is painfully self-evident.
These reports lead up to the August 6 PDB, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" - a report in which all those paragraphs mentioned by Amlord provide foundation for the conclusions: there had been a pattern of activity for three years indicating preparations attacks - notably hijackings - and that there had been recent surveillance of buildings in New York. There is another "timeframe" which is "referenced" in this Brief, Amlord - one which you happened to leave out: August 6, 2001.
If, as Bush and Rice have claimed (though this has been contradicted by other testimony), this report was the result of the president asking if al-Qaeda might launch an attack on US soil, then the claim that this was some history lesson unrelated to what was going on then, a month before the attack, is more than disingenuous, it is an outrage - especially considering all the reports which preceded it, not to mention the wealth of intelligence coming in from other sources.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I had been warned for months that Osama bin Laden was planning multiple operations, that those plans were advancing, that the threat was real, and that, yes, he was planning an attack on US soil involving hijackings and targeting New York City, I think I might have asked what the nature of those seventy investigations was and how they were advancing. I might have asked if there had been any progress in the investigation which had been going on for three months into the intelligence that "a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives". I might have asked if we had anything else on bin Laden or al-Qaeda or anyone associated with either who might also happen to be in the United States already. I might even have called a meeting of my principlas and actually shared some of this with them. And, having done so, I might have prevented the September 11 attack. Again - if absolutely nothing else - I would most definitely have passed such intelligence on to the FAA and the authorities in New York.
Unless, of course, I had no moral sensibility whatsoever and wanted to exploit rather than prevent such an attack.
In Bush's embarrassingly bad press conference last night, after first reiterating that "there was nobody in our government at least - and I don't think the prior government - [who] could envision flying airplanes into buildings", went on to make an astonishing reference to G8 summit in Genoa:
QUOTE
I asked for the briefing. And the reason I did is because there had been a lot of threat intelligence from overseas. And part of it had to do with the Genoa G8 conference that I was going to attend. And I asked at that point in time, let's make sure we are paying attention here at home as well. And that's what triggered the report.
The report itself, I've characterized it as mainly history. And I think when you look at it you'll see that it was talking about a - '97 and '98 and '99. It was also an indication as you mentioned that - that bin Laden might want to hijack an airplane, but as you said, not to fly into a building...
The report itself, I've characterized it as mainly history. And I think when you look at it you'll see that it was talking about a - '97 and '98 and '99. It was also an indication as you mentioned that - that bin Laden might want to hijack an airplane, but as you said, not to fly into a building...
Why has no one picked up on this blunder?? The threat surrounding the G8 summit in Genoa specifically included the possibility of terrorists flying planes into buildings!
From the LA Times:
QUOTE
U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July that Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations, officials said Wednesday.
Italian officials took the reports seriously enough to prompt extraordinary precautions during the July summit of the Group of 8 nations, including closing the airspace over Genoa and stationing antiaircraft guns at the city's airport.
Italian officials took the reports seriously enough to prompt extraordinary precautions during the July summit of the Group of 8 nations, including closing the airspace over Genoa and stationing antiaircraft guns at the city's airport.
From The Observer:
QUOTE
There were also warnings put about by 'US officials' and quoted in the Herald Tribune newspaper at the time of the Genoa summit last July, when it emerged that US intelligence had picked up information on a plot by Islamic terrorists to kill Bush by crashing an airliner into the summit of industrialised nations.
The Genoa warning was disclosed by Italy's deputy Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini, who said: 'Many people were ironic about the Italian secret services. But in fact they got the information that there was the possibility of an attack against the US president using an airliner. That's why we closed the airspace and installed missiles.'
The Italian intelligence was supplemented by information from Egypt, whose president Hosni Mubarak was quoted in Le Monde newspaper as saying: 'there was a question of an airplane stuffed with explosives. As a result, precautions were taken.'
The Genoa warning was disclosed by Italy's deputy Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini, who said: 'Many people were ironic about the Italian secret services. But in fact they got the information that there was the possibility of an attack against the US president using an airliner. That's why we closed the airspace and installed missiles.'
The Italian intelligence was supplemented by information from Egypt, whose president Hosni Mubarak was quoted in Le Monde newspaper as saying: 'there was a question of an airplane stuffed with explosives. As a result, precautions were taken.'
And CNN told us exactly who might be behind such and attack:
QUOTE
The official G8 Summit Web site said it was not so much violence by the demonstrators that they feared most, but "the possibility of a terrorist attack."
The head of Russia's Federal Bodyguard Service has warned of a plot by terrorist Osama bin Laden to assassinate George W. Bush at the summit and the U.S. President may be staying at U.S. Camp Darby military base in Livorno or offshore on the American aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise to avoid any terrorist risk.
The head of Russia's Federal Bodyguard Service has warned of a plot by terrorist Osama bin Laden to assassinate George W. Bush at the summit and the U.S. President may be staying at U.S. Camp Darby military base in Livorno or offshore on the American aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise to avoid any terrorist risk.
And this is the threat which Bush used - in the same answer! - to demonstrate that they had no clue that bin Laden might use a hijacked plane "to fly into a building"??? The stupidity of this man knows no more bounds than the ignorance of the average American.
This was no "historical document". It was one in an ongoing series of warnings - warnings generated by our intelligence services and delivered to the desk of the President of the United States, warnings which were totally ignored.
Was Dr. Rice lying? The answer is painfully self-evident.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Apr 12 2004, 08:04 PM)
Is MSN on target here in pointing out an inaccurate statement made by Dr. Rice or is this an exaggeration of her descriptions of the situation?
You asked a a good question here. I think Rice is merely splitting hairs here. Whether or not the hijackers would conduct a "traditional " hijacking or not, it wouldn't make one iota of difference in terms of capturing them. It turns out that the Bush folks knew more than the Clinton people did about this. The first quote deals with increased Al-Qaeda activity. No matter how or what the hijackers intended, the fact is-some of the hijackers were under direct surveillance and U.S. officials knew they were in the country. I find it extremely hard to believe that with the reports and communiques coming through-that our government would not be able to obtain information about who was in this country and why. The second quote from the article is what I find to be disturbing. Whether or not they intended to attack a building in lower Manhattan like the '93 trade towers bombing or not, what more could they have possibly needed to sniff this thing out? How can anyone read that second quote and not feel a sense of outrage? If not at the president, then his advisors or the flunkies who were supposed to be on watch for this kind of thing. I've heard people blame Clinton for the Cole or Africa embassy bombings, but why not blame Bush when a specific threat against a mentioned area is even brought to their attention?? Clinton didn't have that kind of intelligence to work with. Imagine if the second quote occured under him-tell me that it would not have been his fault.
QUOTE
In the first eight months of the Bush administration, the commission found, the president and his advisers received far more information, much of it dire in tone and detailed in content, than had been generally understood.
The most striking came in the Aug. 6 memorandum presented in an intelligence briefing the White House says Mr. Bush requested. Titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," the memorandum was declassified this month under pressure from the commission. After referring to a British tip in 1998 that Islamic fundamentalists wanted to hijack a plane, it went on to warn: "Nevertheless, F.B.I. information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks." Mr. Bush has said the briefing did not provide specific details of when and where an attack might take place.
Furthermore.... and read this very carefully.
QUOTE
The briefing paper was presented to Mr. Bush on Aug. 6 at his Texas ranch. The memorandum, declassified on April 10 by the White House at the commission's request, included some ominous information. It said that Qaeda operatives had been in the United States for years, might be planning an attack in the United States and could be focusing on a building in Lower Manhattan as a target.
(April 18th New York Times article by: David Johnston & Jim Dwyer)
Has Condoleezza Rice been lying?
Well, I haven't missed listening to any testimony before the 9.11 Committee panel in the last three weeks and I don't remember anyone saying that the information in the August 6 memo could have prevented 9.11. What information in that memo told the Bush administration that on 9.11 two planes were going to be used as weapons and slam into the WTC?
As former FBI Director, Pickard testified to last week, the number of 70 ongoing FBI investigations stated in the memo was wrong, but he couldn't give the correct number because it was classified. So that bit of information was wrong. And he also testified that it was tourists who were taking pictures in Lower Manhattan and not terrorists. So that bit of information is wrong. So between all the 1990's information and excluding some of the wrong information.....there is not much there that is new and Condi Rice is not lying when she said "historical" from her viewpoint and with her knowledge of other classified information that we (the public) are not privy to.
When it is all said and done....there was pertinent and current classified information that didn't go through the proper channels within the FBI and CIA; the information the President was given was not always correct or the most current, and some vital information that should have been passed on to the President was excluded.
IMO, there is going to be a major overhaul within the intelligence agency with George Tenent probably getting fired or resigning as he has made too many mistakes. Bush has given him the benefit of the doubt once too often and has resisted previous suggestions that he fire Tenent. After the 9.11 Committee panel gives their recommendations and criticisms, I hope for starters, Bush fires Tenent.
Well, I haven't missed listening to any testimony before the 9.11 Committee panel in the last three weeks and I don't remember anyone saying that the information in the August 6 memo could have prevented 9.11. What information in that memo told the Bush administration that on 9.11 two planes were going to be used as weapons and slam into the WTC?
As former FBI Director, Pickard testified to last week, the number of 70 ongoing FBI investigations stated in the memo was wrong, but he couldn't give the correct number because it was classified. So that bit of information was wrong. And he also testified that it was tourists who were taking pictures in Lower Manhattan and not terrorists. So that bit of information is wrong. So between all the 1990's information and excluding some of the wrong information.....there is not much there that is new and Condi Rice is not lying when she said "historical" from her viewpoint and with her knowledge of other classified information that we (the public) are not privy to.
When it is all said and done....there was pertinent and current classified information that didn't go through the proper channels within the FBI and CIA; the information the President was given was not always correct or the most current, and some vital information that should have been passed on to the President was excluded.
IMO, there is going to be a major overhaul within the intelligence agency with George Tenent probably getting fired or resigning as he has made too many mistakes. Bush has given him the benefit of the doubt once too often and has resisted previous suggestions that he fire Tenent. After the 9.11 Committee panel gives their recommendations and criticisms, I hope for starters, Bush fires Tenent.
Wait..Readers digest version:
Bush meets with Tenet every day, Bush gets information in early summer, all summer that Al-Qaeda is going to attack the US any time soon and supposedly asks for more than fly swatting, Richard Clarke also says attacks are imminent, has a plan for Osama, but Condi Rice ignores him as a non-entity, afterwards claims that noone had a clue that anyone would use planes as missles, incredible since the possible scenario had been in question for years. Intelligence has briefed the President consistantly that terrorist attacks or hijackings are almost a sure thing soon, as well as the Clinton Admin telling the new admin that terrorism will be their number one objective, they ignore all of it. Even a novelist is writing about the WTC being attacked by planes as missles ( John Grisham), FBI agent John Oneil is fired, although he is the most informed about Osama and has been tracking him 10 years!, and suspects that an attack is iminent, most likely on WTC and takes a job as WTC security.
In comes August PDB that is 'supposedly historical', in the eyes of the admin, WRONG. Noone pays the least bit of attention. Post 911...News comes out ALL OVER THE PLACE that the Admin was primarily focused on Iraq to the point of blinding stupidity. Cheney claims Richard Clarke was a nobody on Rush Limbaugh, Condi disputes this but its proven that Clarke had no face time until early Sept. on his plan to take out Osama, and they approved his plan then.
Condi testifies, and did she lie?
No, she told the truth as only the blind to the truth can.
Now DR, you want to blame George Tenet, who asked the admin repeatedly to stop using untruths to lead us into the war with Iraq on his reputation? I bet you want him fired. That would certainely solve a nasty problem for Bush. It might be interesting that 'somebody' lose their job over 911, but I dont think Tenet, as well as Wilson will take it lying down.
The overwhelming philosophy in this administration is 'blame somebody else, anyone, stall investigations, appear basically stupid and unprepared but blame it on the previous administration. Take down the people who turn on you as credibility suspect, and under no circumnstances admit to any mistakes'.
The problem is, the evidence suggests exactly what the reality was, the Admin wanted Iraq, above all objectives, enough to ignore anything else. This was NOT Tenets fault.
Bush meets with Tenet every day, Bush gets information in early summer, all summer that Al-Qaeda is going to attack the US any time soon and supposedly asks for more than fly swatting, Richard Clarke also says attacks are imminent, has a plan for Osama, but Condi Rice ignores him as a non-entity, afterwards claims that noone had a clue that anyone would use planes as missles, incredible since the possible scenario had been in question for years. Intelligence has briefed the President consistantly that terrorist attacks or hijackings are almost a sure thing soon, as well as the Clinton Admin telling the new admin that terrorism will be their number one objective, they ignore all of it. Even a novelist is writing about the WTC being attacked by planes as missles ( John Grisham), FBI agent John Oneil is fired, although he is the most informed about Osama and has been tracking him 10 years!, and suspects that an attack is iminent, most likely on WTC and takes a job as WTC security.
In comes August PDB that is 'supposedly historical', in the eyes of the admin, WRONG. Noone pays the least bit of attention. Post 911...News comes out ALL OVER THE PLACE that the Admin was primarily focused on Iraq to the point of blinding stupidity. Cheney claims Richard Clarke was a nobody on Rush Limbaugh, Condi disputes this but its proven that Clarke had no face time until early Sept. on his plan to take out Osama, and they approved his plan then.
Condi testifies, and did she lie?
No, she told the truth as only the blind to the truth can.
Now DR, you want to blame George Tenet, who asked the admin repeatedly to stop using untruths to lead us into the war with Iraq on his reputation? I bet you want him fired. That would certainely solve a nasty problem for Bush. It might be interesting that 'somebody' lose their job over 911, but I dont think Tenet, as well as Wilson will take it lying down.
The overwhelming philosophy in this administration is 'blame somebody else, anyone, stall investigations, appear basically stupid and unprepared but blame it on the previous administration. Take down the people who turn on you as credibility suspect, and under no circumnstances admit to any mistakes'.
The problem is, the evidence suggests exactly what the reality was, the Admin wanted Iraq, above all objectives, enough to ignore anything else. This was NOT Tenets fault.
When I got worked up and started this thread I was leaning toward the belief that Dr. Rice had misrepresented the contents of this briefing while it was still classified. As I was researching the May 2003 press conference that was referenced in the MSN article, it seemed this quote
had Dr. Rice, not only misrepresenting the contents of the PDB, but lying in describing it as a historical document and saying that the memo asserted that any terrorist attack was likely to take place overseas.
I have subsequently realized that it was my interpretation or deceptive wording in the article (and others) about the content of Dr. Rice's press briefing in May 2003.
So in regards to the issue I had in mind, I have concluded that Dr. Rice was not lying and was misrepresenting the PDB. I think historical document is a stretch, but a non-perjury type of stretch. I also think that Dr. Rice was assessing the level of threat facing the United States when she said that the 'overwhelming bulk of evidence" implied that terrorist attacks were focusing on overseas. So, I do not think she was lying bout this subject.
In that same conference, the comment about it being inconceivable that someone would take a plane and fly it into a building, now either looks like incompetence from our NSA or a gross overstatement.
QUOTE
Rice first outlined the then-classified memo’s contents at a news conference in May 2002. The “overwhelming bulk of the evidence” before Sept. 11, she declared, was that any terrorist attack “was likely to take place overseas.”
had Dr. Rice, not only misrepresenting the contents of the PDB, but lying in describing it as a historical document and saying that the memo asserted that any terrorist attack was likely to take place overseas.
I have subsequently realized that it was my interpretation or deceptive wording in the article (and others) about the content of Dr. Rice's press briefing in May 2003.
So in regards to the issue I had in mind, I have concluded that Dr. Rice was not lying and was misrepresenting the PDB. I think historical document is a stretch, but a non-perjury type of stretch. I also think that Dr. Rice was assessing the level of threat facing the United States when she said that the 'overwhelming bulk of evidence" implied that terrorist attacks were focusing on overseas. So, I do not think she was lying bout this subject.
In that same conference, the comment about it being inconceivable that someone would take a plane and fly it into a building, now either looks like incompetence from our NSA or a gross overstatement.
QUOTE(Desert Resident @ Apr 18 2004, 03:31 AM)
What information in that memo told the Bush administration that on 9.11 two planes were going to be used as weapons and slam into the WTC?
Actually, evidence existed that airplanes would be used as "missiles" even before his inauguration.
QUOTE
The 9-11 report released by Congress seven months later listed no less than 12 pieces of intelligence to show she was all wet – from the al-Qaida plot uncovered in 1995 to crash a plane into CIA headquarters to another plot uncovered in August 2001 to crash a plane into the U.S. embassy in Nairobi.
http://www.antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=2221
Nebraska29....the closest any public testimony to the 9.11 Committee panel (and that is what counts rather than some armchair pundits' quarterbacking) has come in saying that MAYBE or POSSIBLY the plans of 9.11 could have been thwarted or delayed if...and I will refer you to a few quotes and statements from our Intelligence Community rather than interpretations from some media or political hacks that don't have a clue or the benefits to classified information.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
These testimonies do not include Q&A which helps in clarifying some information given in these witnesses' statements.
TESTIMONY OF LOUIS J. FREEH
BEFORE THE
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
April 13, 2004
===========================================
TESTIMONY OF J. COFER BLACK
BEFORE THE
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
April 13, 2004
=========================
STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. PICKARD
BEFORE THE
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
APRIL 13, 2004
=======================================
As far as my comments about Tenent are concerned...I believe George Tenent is a good man who is competent, intelligent, and experienced. However, during several of the question and answer sessions during testimony of all of the above and according to George Tenent's own answers to the 9.11 panel questions - there were too many bits of crucial and current information that were not included in the President's briefings (including the August 6 memo) and there were errors in some memo briefings (including the August 6 memo) which has led some 9.11 Committee members to believe that for just those reasons alone...briefings such as the August 6th memo provided the President with a false sense that "everything was under control" or "nailed down" or being investigated when in fact it wasn't.
What we are finding out through various public testimonies (can't imagine what is being said or learned through the private testimonies) there were serious mistakes made in the channeling of pertinent information through the various levels of the intelligence community...and there were errors in judgement on what information was relevant or irrelevant to forward to the President.
Maybe I am wrong in thinking Tenent should be fired and I am not saying had he made some better calls in briefing the President that 9.11 wouldn't have happened. I just believe that not only should our intelligence community organization be rethought...but that maybe it is time for someone other than George Tenent to be in charge. The 9.11 Committee will most likely be a better jude than I...and will not hesitate to make their recommendations known.
So...to call these government officials, including Condi Rice, liars is a bit premature and biased. If there are liars they will be declared, or at the minimum, announced as giving testimony that could not be substantiated.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
These testimonies do not include Q&A which helps in clarifying some information given in these witnesses' statements.
TESTIMONY OF LOUIS J. FREEH
BEFORE THE
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
April 13, 2004
QUOTE
After extensive investigation and hearings focusing on September 11, 2001, the Congressional Joint Inquiry Report concludes that “… neither President Clinton nor President Bush nor their National Security Councils put the government or the Intelligence Community on a war footing before September 11th.”
"Thirty-one months after that Day of Infamy, exhaustive study by the Joint Intelligence Committee “uncovered no intelligence information in the possession of the Intelligence Community prior to the attacks of September 11 that, if fully considered, would have provided specific, advance warning of the details of those attacks.”
The complex question before the Commission is why the political leadership of our nation – which includes Presidents and Congresses – declared war back on al-Qaeda only after that horrific day. Bin Laden had been indicted years before for blowing up American soldiers and Embassies and was known as a clear and present danger to the United States. Endless and ultimately useless speculation about “various threads and pieces of information,” which are certainly “relevant and significant,” at least “in retrospect,” will not take us very far in answering this central question. ‘What would have happened had the United States declared war on al-
Qaeda before September 11th?’
President Clinton along with his National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, and Attorney General Janet Reno were clearly focused on terrorism during my tenure. Based upon my observations, President Bush and Dr. Rice were equally committed.
On January 26, 2001 at 8:45 a.m., I had my first meeting with President Bush and Vice President Cheney. They had been in office four days. We discussed, among other things, terrorism and in particular al-Qaeda, the East African Embassy bombings, USS Cole attack and the June, 1996 al Khobar bombing in Saudi Arabia. When I advised the President that Hizballah and Iran were responsible for the Khobar attack, he directed me to follow-up with National Security Advisor
Dr. Condoleezza Rice. I did so 2:30 p.m. that afternoon and she told me to pursue our investigation with the Attorney General and to bring whatever charges possible. Within weeks, a new prosecutor was put in charge of the case and, on June 21, 2001, an indictment was returned against thirteen Hizballah subjects who had been directed to bomb Khobar by senior officials of the Iranian government. I know that the families of the 19 murdered Khobar Airmen were deeply grateful to President Bush and Dr. Rice for their prompt response and focus on terrorism.
I firmly believe that any American President and Congress faced with the reality of September 11 would have acted swiftly and overwhelmingly as did President Bush and the 107th Congress. They are to be commended for their courageous political leadership and decisiveness. However, those who came before him can only be faulted if they had the political means and the will of the Nation to declare a war back then but failed to do so. The fact that terrorism and the bloody war
being waged against us by al-Qaeda was not even an issue in the 2000 Presidential campaign strongly suggests that the political means and will to declare and fight this war didn’t exist before September 11.
"Thirty-one months after that Day of Infamy, exhaustive study by the Joint Intelligence Committee “uncovered no intelligence information in the possession of the Intelligence Community prior to the attacks of September 11 that, if fully considered, would have provided specific, advance warning of the details of those attacks.”
The complex question before the Commission is why the political leadership of our nation – which includes Presidents and Congresses – declared war back on al-Qaeda only after that horrific day. Bin Laden had been indicted years before for blowing up American soldiers and Embassies and was known as a clear and present danger to the United States. Endless and ultimately useless speculation about “various threads and pieces of information,” which are certainly “relevant and significant,” at least “in retrospect,” will not take us very far in answering this central question. ‘What would have happened had the United States declared war on al-
Qaeda before September 11th?’
President Clinton along with his National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, and Attorney General Janet Reno were clearly focused on terrorism during my tenure. Based upon my observations, President Bush and Dr. Rice were equally committed.
On January 26, 2001 at 8:45 a.m., I had my first meeting with President Bush and Vice President Cheney. They had been in office four days. We discussed, among other things, terrorism and in particular al-Qaeda, the East African Embassy bombings, USS Cole attack and the June, 1996 al Khobar bombing in Saudi Arabia. When I advised the President that Hizballah and Iran were responsible for the Khobar attack, he directed me to follow-up with National Security Advisor
Dr. Condoleezza Rice. I did so 2:30 p.m. that afternoon and she told me to pursue our investigation with the Attorney General and to bring whatever charges possible. Within weeks, a new prosecutor was put in charge of the case and, on June 21, 2001, an indictment was returned against thirteen Hizballah subjects who had been directed to bomb Khobar by senior officials of the Iranian government. I know that the families of the 19 murdered Khobar Airmen were deeply grateful to President Bush and Dr. Rice for their prompt response and focus on terrorism.
I firmly believe that any American President and Congress faced with the reality of September 11 would have acted swiftly and overwhelmingly as did President Bush and the 107th Congress. They are to be commended for their courageous political leadership and decisiveness. However, those who came before him can only be faulted if they had the political means and the will of the Nation to declare a war back then but failed to do so. The fact that terrorism and the bloody war
being waged against us by al-Qaeda was not even an issue in the 2000 Presidential campaign strongly suggests that the political means and will to declare and fight this war didn’t exist before September 11.
===========================================
TESTIMONY OF J. COFER BLACK
BEFORE THE
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
April 13, 2004
QUOTE
Good afternoon. My name is Cofer Black. From 1999 until 2002 I was the Director of the DCI’s Counterterrorist Center.
Overshadowing all this was the rising volume of threat reporting. By the summer of 2001 we were seeing: · An increasing amount of so-called “chatter” alluding to a massive terrorist strike. We were receiving this intelligence not only from our own sources, but also from liaison. · Human intelligence was providing the same kind of insights. · Disruption efforts and detentions were also corroborating our concerns about a coming attack. · None of this, unfortunately, specified method, time, or place. Where we had clues, it looked like planning was underway for an attack in the Middle East or Europe. At the same time, we were working on two tracks: · To go after al-Qa’ida, and · To disrupt the threatened terrorist attacks.
Overshadowing all this was the rising volume of threat reporting. By the summer of 2001 we were seeing: · An increasing amount of so-called “chatter” alluding to a massive terrorist strike. We were receiving this intelligence not only from our own sources, but also from liaison. · Human intelligence was providing the same kind of insights. · Disruption efforts and detentions were also corroborating our concerns about a coming attack. · None of this, unfortunately, specified method, time, or place. Where we had clues, it looked like planning was underway for an attack in the Middle East or Europe. At the same time, we were working on two tracks: · To go after al-Qa’ida, and · To disrupt the threatened terrorist attacks.
=========================
STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. PICKARD
BEFORE THE
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
APRIL 13, 2004
QUOTE
MUCH HAS BEEN MADE ABOUT THE FAILURE OF THE FBI TO CONNECT
THE SO-CALLED DOTS. I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW THE DOTS AS I RECALL
THEY EXISTED ON SEPTEMBER 10TH.
POINT #1 -- THERE WAS A MEETING IN MALAYSIA IN JANUARY, 2000, OF HIGHLEVEL AL QAEDA OPERATIVES. THE INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS THEORIZED
THAT AL QAEDA WAS PLANNING SOME KIND OF ATTACK. SINCE THEY WERE
MEETING IN MALAYSIA AND NOT IN A CAMP IN AFGHANISTAN, THE
CONJECTURE WAS THAT IT WAS PROBABLY AN OPERATION AGAINST
AMERICAN FACILITIES IN THE REGION.
POINT #2 -- THE LEVEL OF CHATTER WENT UP IN JUNE AND JULY, 2001, BUT DROPPED IN AUGUST, 2001. THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY NEVER HAD
ANYTHING MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT THE LEVEL OF CHATTER HAD
INCREASED AND THEN DECREASED. THERE WAS NO SPECIFICITY TO THE
CHATTER AS TO PRECISELY WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, OR HOW.
POINT #3 -- IN JULY, SPECIAL AGENT WILLIAMS IN PHOENIX NOTED THAT MANY MIDDLE EASTERNERS WERE TAKING FLYING LESSONS AS WELL AS
ADVANCED DEGREE COURSES IN THE PHOENIX AREA. UNDER THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES, HE DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT
PREDICATION TO OPEN A CASE BASED SOLELY ON THOSE FACTS. HE SENT
THE INFORMATION TO FBIHQ FOR FURTHER THOUGHT AND ANALYSIS AND TO
THE NEW YORK OFFICE, WHICH HAD THE MOST INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE
OF AL QAEDA. WHAT WAS LEARNED IS THAT MOST PEOPLE FROM AROUND
THE WORLD COME TO THE UNITED STATES TO LEARN TO FLY BECAUSE THE
WEATHER IS GOOD, THE TRAINING IS INEXPENSIVE, AND UNITED STATES
FLIGHTS SCHOOLS SET THE WORLDWIDE STANDARD. AS I UNDERSTAND IT,
THERE WERE OVER 30,000 M-1 AND M-2 VISAS GRANTED BY THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT IN 2001 TO FOREIGNERS WISHING TO COME TO THE UNITED
STATES TO LEARN AVIATION SKILLS. THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 108 FLIGHT
CENTERS IN THE UNITED STATES WITH THOUSANDS OF FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS
AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS. TO THIS DAY THERE IS NO PROHIBITION TO
ANYONE COMING TO AMERICA TO LEARN TO FLY. NONE OF THE 19 CAME TO
THE UNITED STATES ON AN M-1 OR M-2 VISA.
POINT #4 -- ZACARIAS MOUSSAUI ALLEGEDLY MADE A STATEMENT AT A
FLIGHT SCHOOL IN MINNESOTA THAT HE DID NOT NEED TO LEARN HOW TO
TAKE OFF OR LAND, JUST FLY. THAT HAS BEEN REPORTED REPEATEDLY BUT
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WAS NOT WHAT WAS SAID. THE SCHOOL
WAS CONCERNED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL LIKE HIM WAS TAKING INSTRUCTION
BUT HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY LEARNED TO FLY AND HAD PAID FOR HIS
INSTRUCTION IN CASH. AGENTS FROM THE FBI AND INS RESPONDED AND HE
WAS ARRESTED ON AUGUST 16, 2001, FOR BEING AN ILLEGAL ALIEN. AN
APPLICATION FOR A FISA WAS MADE TO FBIHQ BUT IT WAS NOT PRESENTED
TO THE FISA COURT SINCE IT LACKED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT. TODAY, 2½
YEARS LATER, HE HAS NEITHER BEEN ACQUITTED NOR CONVICTED OF ANY
CRIME, NOR IS HE DIRECTLY LINKED TO ANY OF THE 9-11 HIJACKERS. HE HAS
BEEN CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY, NOT WITH BEING THE “20TH HIJACKER” AS
HAS BEEN WIDELY REPORTED.
POINT #5 -- ON AUGUST 23, 2001, THE CIA NOTIFIED THE U.S. STATE
DEPARTMENT THAT TWO INDIVIDUALS MAY HAVE ENTERED THE UNITED
STATES AND THEY SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE VISA WATCH LIST. THE FBI
RECEIVED AN INFORMATION COPY OF THE REQUEST TO STATE. THERE WAS
NO URGENCY ATTACHED TO THE REQUEST OR ANY INDICATION THAT THEY
CAME HERE FOR ANY WORRISOME REASON. ACCORDING TO IMMIGRATION
RECORDS, WHEN NOTICE OF THEIR ARRIVAL CAME, THEY HAD ALREADY
ENTERED THE UNITED STATES AT NEW YORK, STATING ONLY THAT THEY ARE
DESTINED FOR THE “MARRIOTT” HOTEL. NOTHING FURTHER AS TO LOCATION,
PURPOSE, OR CONTACT INFORMATION WAS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED.
THE FBI CONTACTED ALL THE MARRIOTT’S IN NEW YORK AND THEN
CONTACTED THE MARRIOTT’S CENTRAL RESERVATIONS SYSTEM IN
BALTIMORE BUT COULD FIND NO ENTRY FOR THEM. COMPUTER CHECKS
WERE DONE OF A VARIETY OF DATABASES BUT NO HITS RESULTED. NO ONE
KNEW WHY THEY CAME TO THE UNITED STATES OR WHETHER THEY HAD
ALREADY LEFT THE UNITED STATES AT THAT TIME, THERE WAS NO
REQUIREMENT TO NOTIFY AUTHORITIES OF DEPARTURE FROM THE UNITED
STATES.
DICK CLARKE, BEFORE THIS COMMISSION, STATED THAT IF HE HAD
KNOWN ABOUT THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS, HE WOULD HAVE PUT THEM ON
AMERICA’S MOST WANTED. IF WE KNEW THEN WHAT WE KNOW NOW, I AGREE
WITH HIM THAT JOHN WALSH WOULD HAVE PUT ON A SPECIAL SHOW ABOUT
THEM. HOWEVER, ON SEPTEMBER 10TH, ALL WE KNEW WAS THAT THEY WERE
TO BE PUT ON THE VISA WATCH LIST AND WE SHOULD ATTEMPT TO LOCATE
THEM. THE FBI DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THEY HAD DEPARTED THE UNITED
STATES AND WE CERTAINLY HAD NO INFORMATION, NONE, THAT THEY WERE
HERE TO CARRY OUT AN ACT OF TERRORISM.
I WILL ALWAYS BELIEVE THAT HAVING SO LITTLE INFORMATION ABOUT
THE SPECIFIC INTENTIONS OF AL QAEDA WAS A TERRIBLE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE FAILURE, ESPECIALLY WITH ALL THE
RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO
BEAR. FOR YEARS PRIOR TO 9-11 AL QAEDA COMMITTED ACTS OF WAR
AGAINST US, FROM THE BOMBING OF OUR EMBASSIES IN KENYA AND
TANZANIA, TO THE ATTEMPTED SINKING OF THE U.S.S. COLE. CONNECTING
THESE FEW DOTS WOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN US A PICTURE OF WHAT WAS TO
HAPPEN ON SEPTEMBER 11TH BUT AS THIS COMMISSION HAS ALREADY
CONCLUDED, MORE COULD HAVE BEEN DONE. I BELIEVE WHAT WE NEEDED
WERE OLD-FASHIONED HUMAN SOURCES IN AFGHANISTAN, GERMANY,
MALAYSIA, AND ELSEWHERE TO, AS GEORGE TENET STATED, STEAL THEIR
SECRETS. AND WE NEEDED TO RESPOND TO WAR WITH WAR, NOT JUST
ARREST WARRANTS AND LIMITED SECRET MISSIONS. THE PASSING OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT BY THE ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS WAS A GREAT
BENEFIT TO THE FBI AND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. I WOULD
STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT IT NOT BE ALLOWED TO LAPSE BUT BE
RENEWED AND STRENGTHENED BASED UPON THE EXPERIENCES OF THOSE
IN THE TRENCHES FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERRORISM.
THE SO-CALLED DOTS. I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW THE DOTS AS I RECALL
THEY EXISTED ON SEPTEMBER 10TH.
POINT #1 -- THERE WAS A MEETING IN MALAYSIA IN JANUARY, 2000, OF HIGHLEVEL AL QAEDA OPERATIVES. THE INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS THEORIZED
THAT AL QAEDA WAS PLANNING SOME KIND OF ATTACK. SINCE THEY WERE
MEETING IN MALAYSIA AND NOT IN A CAMP IN AFGHANISTAN, THE
CONJECTURE WAS THAT IT WAS PROBABLY AN OPERATION AGAINST
AMERICAN FACILITIES IN THE REGION.
POINT #2 -- THE LEVEL OF CHATTER WENT UP IN JUNE AND JULY, 2001, BUT DROPPED IN AUGUST, 2001. THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY NEVER HAD
ANYTHING MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT THE LEVEL OF CHATTER HAD
INCREASED AND THEN DECREASED. THERE WAS NO SPECIFICITY TO THE
CHATTER AS TO PRECISELY WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, OR HOW.
POINT #3 -- IN JULY, SPECIAL AGENT WILLIAMS IN PHOENIX NOTED THAT MANY MIDDLE EASTERNERS WERE TAKING FLYING LESSONS AS WELL AS
ADVANCED DEGREE COURSES IN THE PHOENIX AREA. UNDER THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES, HE DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT
PREDICATION TO OPEN A CASE BASED SOLELY ON THOSE FACTS. HE SENT
THE INFORMATION TO FBIHQ FOR FURTHER THOUGHT AND ANALYSIS AND TO
THE NEW YORK OFFICE, WHICH HAD THE MOST INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE
OF AL QAEDA. WHAT WAS LEARNED IS THAT MOST PEOPLE FROM AROUND
THE WORLD COME TO THE UNITED STATES TO LEARN TO FLY BECAUSE THE
WEATHER IS GOOD, THE TRAINING IS INEXPENSIVE, AND UNITED STATES
FLIGHTS SCHOOLS SET THE WORLDWIDE STANDARD. AS I UNDERSTAND IT,
THERE WERE OVER 30,000 M-1 AND M-2 VISAS GRANTED BY THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT IN 2001 TO FOREIGNERS WISHING TO COME TO THE UNITED
STATES TO LEARN AVIATION SKILLS. THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 108 FLIGHT
CENTERS IN THE UNITED STATES WITH THOUSANDS OF FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS
AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS. TO THIS DAY THERE IS NO PROHIBITION TO
ANYONE COMING TO AMERICA TO LEARN TO FLY. NONE OF THE 19 CAME TO
THE UNITED STATES ON AN M-1 OR M-2 VISA.
POINT #4 -- ZACARIAS MOUSSAUI ALLEGEDLY MADE A STATEMENT AT A
FLIGHT SCHOOL IN MINNESOTA THAT HE DID NOT NEED TO LEARN HOW TO
TAKE OFF OR LAND, JUST FLY. THAT HAS BEEN REPORTED REPEATEDLY BUT
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WAS NOT WHAT WAS SAID. THE SCHOOL
WAS CONCERNED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL LIKE HIM WAS TAKING INSTRUCTION
BUT HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY LEARNED TO FLY AND HAD PAID FOR HIS
INSTRUCTION IN CASH. AGENTS FROM THE FBI AND INS RESPONDED AND HE
WAS ARRESTED ON AUGUST 16, 2001, FOR BEING AN ILLEGAL ALIEN. AN
APPLICATION FOR A FISA WAS MADE TO FBIHQ BUT IT WAS NOT PRESENTED
TO THE FISA COURT SINCE IT LACKED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT. TODAY, 2½
YEARS LATER, HE HAS NEITHER BEEN ACQUITTED NOR CONVICTED OF ANY
CRIME, NOR IS HE DIRECTLY LINKED TO ANY OF THE 9-11 HIJACKERS. HE HAS
BEEN CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY, NOT WITH BEING THE “20TH HIJACKER” AS
HAS BEEN WIDELY REPORTED.
POINT #5 -- ON AUGUST 23, 2001, THE CIA NOTIFIED THE U.S. STATE
DEPARTMENT THAT TWO INDIVIDUALS MAY HAVE ENTERED THE UNITED
STATES AND THEY SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE VISA WATCH LIST. THE FBI
RECEIVED AN INFORMATION COPY OF THE REQUEST TO STATE. THERE WAS
NO URGENCY ATTACHED TO THE REQUEST OR ANY INDICATION THAT THEY
CAME HERE FOR ANY WORRISOME REASON. ACCORDING TO IMMIGRATION
RECORDS, WHEN NOTICE OF THEIR ARRIVAL CAME, THEY HAD ALREADY
ENTERED THE UNITED STATES AT NEW YORK, STATING ONLY THAT THEY ARE
DESTINED FOR THE “MARRIOTT” HOTEL. NOTHING FURTHER AS TO LOCATION,
PURPOSE, OR CONTACT INFORMATION WAS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED.
THE FBI CONTACTED ALL THE MARRIOTT’S IN NEW YORK AND THEN
CONTACTED THE MARRIOTT’S CENTRAL RESERVATIONS SYSTEM IN
BALTIMORE BUT COULD FIND NO ENTRY FOR THEM. COMPUTER CHECKS
WERE DONE OF A VARIETY OF DATABASES BUT NO HITS RESULTED. NO ONE
KNEW WHY THEY CAME TO THE UNITED STATES OR WHETHER THEY HAD
ALREADY LEFT THE UNITED STATES AT THAT TIME, THERE WAS NO
REQUIREMENT TO NOTIFY AUTHORITIES OF DEPARTURE FROM THE UNITED
STATES.
DICK CLARKE, BEFORE THIS COMMISSION, STATED THAT IF HE HAD
KNOWN ABOUT THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS, HE WOULD HAVE PUT THEM ON
AMERICA’S MOST WANTED. IF WE KNEW THEN WHAT WE KNOW NOW, I AGREE
WITH HIM THAT JOHN WALSH WOULD HAVE PUT ON A SPECIAL SHOW ABOUT
THEM. HOWEVER, ON SEPTEMBER 10TH, ALL WE KNEW WAS THAT THEY WERE
TO BE PUT ON THE VISA WATCH LIST AND WE SHOULD ATTEMPT TO LOCATE
THEM. THE FBI DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THEY HAD DEPARTED THE UNITED
STATES AND WE CERTAINLY HAD NO INFORMATION, NONE, THAT THEY WERE
HERE TO CARRY OUT AN ACT OF TERRORISM.
I WILL ALWAYS BELIEVE THAT HAVING SO LITTLE INFORMATION ABOUT
THE SPECIFIC INTENTIONS OF AL QAEDA WAS A TERRIBLE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE FAILURE, ESPECIALLY WITH ALL THE
RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO
BEAR. FOR YEARS PRIOR TO 9-11 AL QAEDA COMMITTED ACTS OF WAR
AGAINST US, FROM THE BOMBING OF OUR EMBASSIES IN KENYA AND
TANZANIA, TO THE ATTEMPTED SINKING OF THE U.S.S. COLE. CONNECTING
THESE FEW DOTS WOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN US A PICTURE OF WHAT WAS TO
HAPPEN ON SEPTEMBER 11TH BUT AS THIS COMMISSION HAS ALREADY
CONCLUDED, MORE COULD HAVE BEEN DONE. I BELIEVE WHAT WE NEEDED
WERE OLD-FASHIONED HUMAN SOURCES IN AFGHANISTAN, GERMANY,
MALAYSIA, AND ELSEWHERE TO, AS GEORGE TENET STATED, STEAL THEIR
SECRETS. AND WE NEEDED TO RESPOND TO WAR WITH WAR, NOT JUST
ARREST WARRANTS AND LIMITED SECRET MISSIONS. THE PASSING OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT BY THE ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS WAS A GREAT
BENEFIT TO THE FBI AND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. I WOULD
STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT IT NOT BE ALLOWED TO LAPSE BUT BE
RENEWED AND STRENGTHENED BASED UPON THE EXPERIENCES OF THOSE
IN THE TRENCHES FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERRORISM.
=======================================
As far as my comments about Tenent are concerned...I believe George Tenent is a good man who is competent, intelligent, and experienced. However, during several of the question and answer sessions during testimony of all of the above and according to George Tenent's own answers to the 9.11 panel questions - there were too many bits of crucial and current information that were not included in the President's briefings (including the August 6 memo) and there were errors in some memo briefings (including the August 6 memo) which has led some 9.11 Committee members to believe that for just those reasons alone...briefings such as the August 6th memo provided the President with a false sense that "everything was under control" or "nailed down" or being investigated when in fact it wasn't.
What we are finding out through various public testimonies (can't imagine what is being said or learned through the private testimonies) there were serious mistakes made in the channeling of pertinent information through the various levels of the intelligence community...and there were errors in judgement on what information was relevant or irrelevant to forward to the President.
Maybe I am wrong in thinking Tenent should be fired and I am not saying had he made some better calls in briefing the President that 9.11 wouldn't have happened. I just believe that not only should our intelligence community organization be rethought...but that maybe it is time for someone other than George Tenent to be in charge. The 9.11 Committee will most likely be a better jude than I...and will not hesitate to make their recommendations known.
So...to call these government officials, including Condi Rice, liars is a bit premature and biased. If there are liars they will be declared, or at the minimum, announced as giving testimony that could not be substantiated.
QUOTE(Desert Resident @ Apr 18 2004, 12:36 PM)
Nebraska29....the closest any public testimony to the 9.11 Committee panel (and that is what counts rather than some armchair pundits' quarterbacking) has come in saying that MAYBE or POSSIBLY the plans of 9.11 could have been thwarted or delayed if...and I will refer you to a few quotes and statements from our Intelligence Community rather than interpretations from some media or political hacks that don't have a clue or the benefits to classified information.
So let met get this straight-you don't believe that in 1995, we uncovered plans of terrorists to use planes to fly into CIA headquarters, or to fly a plane into our embassy in Nairobi??? Are you seriously saying that any findings about this are just made up??
QUOTE
So let met get this straight-you don't believe that in 1995, we uncovered plans of terrorists to use planes to fly into CIA headquarters, or to fly a plane into our embassy in Nairobi??? Are you seriously saying that any findings about this are just made up?? nebraska29
What we are debating is whether Condi Rice is a liar when she called the Aug 6th memo "historical." As indicated a major part of that memo is reference to information that dates back to 1995 which means much of the information relates to intelligence that is, by the time of the briefing memo August 6, 2001, six years old! With hundreds and thousands of pieces of data coming through the various intelligence pipes per day times 6 years, I imagine much of that information with specific "buzz words" pops up more than once or several times in briefings. And after six years, much of the information is old and historical. No matter what the "buzz words" or threats....without a who, what, when and where....and with a pre-9.11 mindset....what else could our government do other than put the whole nation on high risk alert and for how long? And would an indefinite nationwide terror alert BEFORE 9.11 have prevented 9.11? And we know how the American people reacted to the first several Homeland Security Terror threats AFTER 9.11...how do you think we would have reacted to such a terror threat warning before 9.11? As so many officials have said, our nation was not on a "warfooting" mode even though the terrorists declared war on us long before 9-11-2001.
When the administration did become alarmed (not so much at the buzz words, but at the urgency (spike) with the chatter of eminent threat, they did go into high gear as stated below:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Apr13.html (free registration to read)
QUOTE
The intelligence included reports of a hostage plot against Americans. It noted that operatives might choose to hijack an aircraft or storm a U.S. embassy. Without knowing when, where or how the terrorists would strike, the CIA "consistently described the upcoming attacks as occurring on a catastrophic level, indicating that they would cause the world to be in turmoil," according to one of two staff reports released by the panel yesterday.
The information offers the most detailed account to date of the warnings the intelligence community gave top Bush administration officials, and it provides the context in which a CIA briefer put together a memo on Osama bin Laden's activities in the Aug. 6 brief for Bush.
The government moved on several fronts to counter the threats. The CIA launched "disruption operations" in 20 countries. Tenet met or phoned 20 foreign intelligence officials. Units of the 5th Fleet were redeployed. Embassies went on alert. Cheney called Crown Prince Adbullah of Saudi Arabia to ask for help. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice asked the CIA to brief Attorney General John D. Ashcroft about an "imminent" terrorist attack whose location was unknown.
"The system was blinking red," Tenet told the commission in private testimony, the panel's report noted.
The information offers the most detailed account to date of the warnings the intelligence community gave top Bush administration officials, and it provides the context in which a CIA briefer put together a memo on Osama bin Laden's activities in the Aug. 6 brief for Bush.
The government moved on several fronts to counter the threats. The CIA launched "disruption operations" in 20 countries. Tenet met or phoned 20 foreign intelligence officials. Units of the 5th Fleet were redeployed. Embassies went on alert. Cheney called Crown Prince Adbullah of Saudi Arabia to ask for help. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice asked the CIA to brief Attorney General John D. Ashcroft about an "imminent" terrorist attack whose location was unknown.
"The system was blinking red," Tenet told the commission in private testimony, the panel's report noted.
Contrary to Richard Clarke's declaration that when he briefed Condi Rice about al Qaeda during the transition period, she acted like "she didn't seem to know what al Qaeda was about" is absurd and not true according to then FBI Director Freeh's testimony. When the panel questioned Freeh about Clarke's testimony, Freeh said that Clarke had never been present in any briefing that he (Freeh) was called to. So now we know why Mr. Clarke's statements may be all wet about Condi Rice and al Qaeda.
QUOTE
On January 26, 2001 at 8:45 a.m., I had my first meeting with President Bush and Vice President Cheney. They had been in office four days. We discussed, among other things, [U]terrorism and in particular al-Qaeda, the East African Embassy bombings, USS Cole attack and the June, 1996 al Khobar bombing in Saudi Arabia. When I advised the President that Hizballah and Iran were responsible for the Khobar attack, he directed me to follow-up with National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice. I did so 2:30 p.m. that afternoon and she told me to pursue our investigation with the Attorney General and to bring whatever charges possible. [/U]Within weeks, a new prosecutor was put in charge of the case and, on June 21, 2001, an indictment was returned against thirteen Hizballah subjects who had been directed to bomb Khobar by senior officials of the Iranian government. I know that the families of the 19 murdered Khobar Airmen were deeply grateful to President Bush and Dr. Rice for their prompt response and focus on terrorism. TESTIMONY OF LOUIS J. FREEH
What I believe is going to be the "day of reckoning" with the 9.11 Committee is the misinformation, lack of follow-through, and mistakes made within the Intelligence community such as:
QUOTE
The commission also released new details showing how the CIA and FBI failures to track the movements of two hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, and share information foiled what now appears to have been the best chance to disrupt the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
but the CIA station in Malaysia did not inform the CIA station in Bangkok in a timely manner.
But "we found no effort by the CIA to renew the long-abandoned search for [Almihdhar] or his traveling companions," the staff report noted.
Also, contrary to the previous testimony of Tenet, the CIA did not tell the FBI about this discovery until late August 2001, according to the report.
In mid-May 2001, during the height of threat reporting, a CIA official went back through the Almihdhar files and discovered that he had a U.S. visa and that Alhazmi had come to Los Angeles on Jan. 15, 2000. The official concluded "something bad was definitely up," the staff report said, but he did not alert his FBI counterparts. "He was focused on Malaysia."
But the report said he did ask an FBI analyst detailed to the CIA to review the Kuala Lumpur material again -- "in her free time." She began on July 24, 2001, and learned from the Immigration and Naturalization Service that the two might be in the country. She drafted a cable asking that Almihdhar and Alhazmi be put on a terrorist watch list. The FBI analyst, meanwhile, "took responsibility for the search effort inside the United States."
The analyst thought Almihdhar was in New York and informed the FBI's New York field office. But she labeled her first e-mail to the office "routine," which gave the FBI 30 days to respond.
"No one apparently felt they needed to inform higher levels of management in either the FBI or CIA about the case," the commission staff said.
The search was assigned to an FBI agent who had never before handled a counterterrorism lead.
"Many witnesses have suggested that even if [Almihdhar] had been found, there was nothing the agents could have done except follow him onto the planes," the report said. "We believe this is incorrect.
"Both [Alhazmi] and [Almihdhar] could have been held for immigration violations, or as material witnesses in the Cole bombing case," the commission report said. Interrogations "also may have yielded evidence of connections to other participants in the 9/11 plot. In any case, the opportunity did not arise."
but the CIA station in Malaysia did not inform the CIA station in Bangkok in a timely manner.
But "we found no effort by the CIA to renew the long-abandoned search for [Almihdhar] or his traveling companions," the staff report noted.
Also, contrary to the previous testimony of Tenet, the CIA did not tell the FBI about this discovery until late August 2001, according to the report.
In mid-May 2001, during the height of threat reporting, a CIA official went back through the Almihdhar files and discovered that he had a U.S. visa and that Alhazmi had come to Los Angeles on Jan. 15, 2000. The official concluded "something bad was definitely up," the staff report said, but he did not alert his FBI counterparts. "He was focused on Malaysia."
But the report said he did ask an FBI analyst detailed to the CIA to review the Kuala Lumpur material again -- "in her free time." She began on July 24, 2001, and learned from the Immigration and Naturalization Service that the two might be in the country. She drafted a cable asking that Almihdhar and Alhazmi be put on a terrorist watch list. The FBI analyst, meanwhile, "took responsibility for the search effort inside the United States."
The analyst thought Almihdhar was in New York and informed the FBI's New York field office. But she labeled her first e-mail to the office "routine," which gave the FBI 30 days to respond.
"No one apparently felt they needed to inform higher levels of management in either the FBI or CIA about the case," the commission staff said.
The search was assigned to an FBI agent who had never before handled a counterterrorism lead.
"Many witnesses have suggested that even if [Almihdhar] had been found, there was nothing the agents could have done except follow him onto the planes," the report said. "We believe this is incorrect.
"Both [Alhazmi] and [Almihdhar] could have been held for immigration violations, or as material witnesses in the Cole bombing case," the commission report said. Interrogations "also may have yielded evidence of connections to other participants in the 9/11 plot. In any case, the opportunity did not arise."
I agree with the article regarding some panel members of the 9.11 Committee that quite possibly if channels of intelligence on the above two terrorists had been functioning in full capacity from lower to the very top levels...MAYBE OR POSSIBLY the outcome of events on 9.11 could have been different. But...to now put blame on any administration-past or present- is wrong. What needs to be done is to CORRECT the areas that failed in our intelligence community.
And again, I will let the 9.11 Committee decide if there are "liars" and how best to deal with them.
Claiming the Aug 6 PDB was 'historical' makes me wonder if Condi even read it as it contained a pretty chilling summary of current terrorist activity.
Why would the National Security Advisor ask the CIA to brief The Attorney General about an 'imminent' attack? Youd think she'd want to be the first to know. If it was imminent than no need to be charged by the AG or both should have been immediately informed.
Six of ten in the 911 commission say the attack could have been prevented, although they dont say how or by whom. There is plenty of evidence that information sharing between the FBI and CIA were a major problem and lower agents to their superiors as well. However, frequent warnings were sounded to Ms. Rice and the President all summer long.
If I knew what they could have , should have and did not do about it I would be a government official, but I am not. That is their job and they have resources.
I cant help but question why so little attention was given to the matter.
I saw the report last night done two years ago called 'The Man that Knew" about FBO agent John ONeil. He had a good handle on Osama, was obsessed above all about the issue of a major attack on the US at Osamas hands, but inter politics in the FBI worked to remove him from his job since he was supposedly a maverick in the organization. That included Pickard. Several top supervisors said their hands were tied on ONeil, and thats all they would say, two years ago. ONeil died in the Sept attack as Security for the WTC Towers which he insisted, even the night before, that terrorists were going to try to finish that job. Huh.
I will give it to you Desert that our intelligence agencies need a complete overhaul.
However, considering the plentiful information that was coming to the Admin, that was not believed or acted upon, while bogus information on Iraq was exagerated if not outright fabricated, something is really smelly in this administration.
Beyond that I am beginning to get insenced by seeing our National Security Advisor spending so much time on television screens attacking others credibility from the books they write, rather than in the Whitehouse doing her job. I believe we have a Whitehouse Press Secretary and Whitehouse Spokespeople. Condi is constantly being 'peddled out' by this Adnmin as damage control; so who is doing her job while she spends hours briefing herself to make it all sound good for television?
QUOTE
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice asked the CIA to brief Attorney General John D. Ashcroft about an "imminent" terrorist attack whose location was unknown.
Why would the National Security Advisor ask the CIA to brief The Attorney General about an 'imminent' attack? Youd think she'd want to be the first to know. If it was imminent than no need to be charged by the AG or both should have been immediately informed.
Six of ten in the 911 commission say the attack could have been prevented, although they dont say how or by whom. There is plenty of evidence that information sharing between the FBI and CIA were a major problem and lower agents to their superiors as well. However, frequent warnings were sounded to Ms. Rice and the President all summer long.
If I knew what they could have , should have and did not do about it I would be a government official, but I am not. That is their job and they have resources.
I cant help but question why so little attention was given to the matter.
I saw the report last night done two years ago called 'The Man that Knew" about FBO agent John ONeil. He had a good handle on Osama, was obsessed above all about the issue of a major attack on the US at Osamas hands, but inter politics in the FBI worked to remove him from his job since he was supposedly a maverick in the organization. That included Pickard. Several top supervisors said their hands were tied on ONeil, and thats all they would say, two years ago. ONeil died in the Sept attack as Security for the WTC Towers which he insisted, even the night before, that terrorists were going to try to finish that job. Huh.
I will give it to you Desert that our intelligence agencies need a complete overhaul.
However, considering the plentiful information that was coming to the Admin, that was not believed or acted upon, while bogus information on Iraq was exagerated if not outright fabricated, something is really smelly in this administration.
Beyond that I am beginning to get insenced by seeing our National Security Advisor spending so much time on television screens attacking others credibility from the books they write, rather than in the Whitehouse doing her job. I believe we have a Whitehouse Press Secretary and Whitehouse Spokespeople. Condi is constantly being 'peddled out' by this Adnmin as damage control; so who is doing her job while she spends hours briefing herself to make it all sound good for television?
Just my humble opinion, and not worth more than the time it takes to type. But... having said that, I find the 9-11 commission almost a waste of time. Who didn't know that law enforcement agencies didn't like each(that old terrority thing) and that the CIA has almost always been considered by the general public as the bad buy.
The real truth is, (again only my opinion)this country would have gone ballastic prior to 9-11 if ANY President have tried to put the country on high alert. As a whole, we as a nation thought we were safe(there might have been individuals who didn't) and couldn't image a 9-11. When both sides of this argument agree to that, and not trying to place blame,(as an aside, why do we have this blame game in the first place?)then we get fix the problem.
The real truth is, (again only my opinion)this country would have gone ballastic prior to 9-11 if ANY President have tried to put the country on high alert. As a whole, we as a nation thought we were safe(there might have been individuals who didn't) and couldn't image a 9-11. When both sides of this argument agree to that, and not trying to place blame,(as an aside, why do we have this blame game in the first place?)then we get fix the problem.
QUOTE
However, considering the plentiful information that was coming to the Admin, that was not believed or acted upon...
I am still not sure if this is a true characterization of events....I have not seen anything that indicates that this information was not acted upon. Given the normal process, the action would have been to corroborate or follow up on the information, trying to narrow it down to a specific event. Unfortunately, given the system, this process took time.
QUOTE
If I knew what they could have , should have and did not do about it I would be a government official, but I am not. That is their job and they have resources
Granted. But until we know such things, then there isn't really any fault that can be placed anywhere, is there? In general, I don't like the concept of placing blame based on results--unless a root cause can be identified, we're just following the usual American policy of getting rid of scapegoats, which doesn't solve anything.
QUOTE
He had a good handle on Osama, was obsessed above all about the issue of a major attack on the US at Osamas hands...
Yes...this is exactly the type of issue I think the commission should focus on. Why were these warnings not heeded (which started pre-GWB; the problems, I think, will be shown to be systemic rather than the particular fault of either administration). I do think we might discover that both were also very concerned with public perception/reaction, which isn't really something that could be addressed easily until after there was an attack.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Apr 19 2004, 11:49 AM)
QUOTE
However, considering the plentiful information that was coming to the Admin, that was not believed or acted upon...
I am still not sure if this is a true characterization of events....I have not seen anything that indicates that this information was not acted upon. Given the normal process, the action would have been to corroborate or follow up on the information, trying to narrow it down to a specific event. Unfortunately, given the system, this process took time.
I would agree that the correct action would have been to follow up on the information and try and narrow the wide array of information down into something concrete.
Where I disagree with you is that the process takes time, that is just a cop out. I'll agree that the complete process takes time, but not even starting the process is inexcusable.
Rice testified that there were 70 full field investigations going, but the director of the FBI later came back and said that number was incorrect but the real number was classified. As National Security Advisor shouldn't it have been Rice's job to know exactly how many investigations were being conducted? Shouldn't she have also been apprised of the details of those investigations and how they were progressing?
A logical and common sense assumption here would be that she would have at the very least called weekly status meetings to be briefed on the progress of these investigations since domestic terrorism is so squarely within her scope of responsibility. Yet she didn't testify to even taking those steps. I still say that is complete deriliction of duty on her part. Personally I'd like to know what she was doing all summer in 2001 if she wasn't meeting with various agencies about terrorism.
QUOTE
A logical and common sense assumption here would be that she would have at the very least called weekly status meetings to be briefed on the progress of these investigations since domestic terrorism is so squarely within her scope of responsibility. Yet she didn't testify to even taking those steps. I still say that is complete deriliction of duty on her part. Personally I'd like to know what she was doing all summer in 2001 if she wasn't meeting with various agencies about terrorism.
Very good point, which I would tend to agree with.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.