New documents make it appear that the Bush administration let 9/11 happen.

[wollclark]

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/new_...ths/singleton/

[000063]

As the comments pointed out, it was the Clinton Administration who stopped them from killing bin Laden, not the Bush.

I note the nutjobs are out in force.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by 000063

As the comments pointed out, it was the Clinton Administration who stopped them from killing bin Laden, not the Bush.

I note the nutjobs are out in force.

Well look at this:

Quote:

“I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released," an expert tells Salon

and we all know what an "expert' is don't we

[BCR]

Well, I got that stack of documents too and quite frankly, they were a boring read for me. I really saw no stunning new revelations. The redactions did make some things fuzzy as heck though. One line visible, 2 pages redacted, three words visible, 5 pages redacted, end of document. Darn, there was one that was nothing but redactions.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by 000063

As the comments pointed out, it was the Clinton Administration who stopped them from killing bin Laden, not the Bush.

I note the nutjobs are out in force.

"Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him."

It's funny when truthers can't even get the most basic facts straight, like who the US President was in September 2000. But I suppose that's why they're truthers in the first place, definitely not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

[dannyb]

That's not the way I interpret that article at all. If anything it's just further confirmation of Bush administration incompetence and recognition the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the main driving force behind this kind of terrorism.

Nothing revelatory, but interesting nonetheless.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by WildCat

"Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him."

It's funny when truthers can't even get the most basic facts straight, like who the US President was in September 2000. But I suppose that's why they're truthers in the first place, definitely not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Well apparently they figure if the CIA knew where he was in Sept 2000 - He didn't move a muscle for 12 months so GW should have got him

[dannyb]

Originally Posted by WildCat

"Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him."

It's funny when truthers can't even get the most basic facts straight, like who the US President was in September 2000. But I suppose that's why they're truthers in the first place, definitely not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

That part is badly worded, but I don't think it's a truther article. If anything it just solidifies 9/11 Commission findings, in my opinion.

[Scott Sommers]

Quote:

"Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him."

When I read that, the first thing I thought about was the bottomless pit of Homeland Security. Clearly the point is that national security was compromised for financial reasons. If there had been an unlimited budget for national security back then, and no qualms at all about killing people because the President says so, perhaps 9/11 could have been avoided. I don't see how anyone who can read could conclude anything much different from that. But then I have suggested that some of the problems with Truthers stem from poorly developed verbal skills - and I do mean that seriously.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

... But then I have suggested that some of the problems with Truthers stem from poorly developed verbal skills - and I do mean that seriously.

I think you are right about poor verbal skills. However I suggest that there is a more fundamental issue underlying the low verbal skills. They also possess low reasoning skills which are demonstrated regularly in this forum and other places where they "publish" their ideas. Here are my thoughts:

Analysis of an event which has multiple factors such as 9/11 requires the skill to classify and draw relationships between those multiple factors in a way that converges to reasoned logical outcomes. The process being what I have called "convergent thinking" because the reasoning converges from multiple factors down to the one, two or a few logically reasoned outcomes.

Conversely "truthers" display an inability to consider events involving multiple factors. They don't, and I suggest "can't", make any reasoned meaning out of them leading them to not appreciate valid conclusions or to go further and form invalid ones. They don't "converge" from many to few, rather they "diverge" by finding even more factors or details but with no overall concept of relationships between those factors. So I label that "divergent thinking."

The bold step came in recent posts where I have taken those concepts a step further.

I have suggested that people who are divergent thinkers are pre-disposed to become truthers simply because their limited reasoning skills don't allow them to process either the raw data OR other peoples reasoned and "convergent" explanations of multi-faceted events.

And conversely, people who can reason with "converging" logic are pre-disposed to become "debunkers" because they have the reasoning skills required for understanding complex issues PLUS, for 9/11 matters, the truth happens to be on the debunker side.

DISCLAIMER: For simplicity I have written those suggestions as if they were of global applicability or exclusion. Please read them as "tendencies" which are "more likely" - you will know what I mean.

[BCR]

"New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims"

I really did not read the article, but just glanced over. I figure if they write an article about a CIA document release and then can't even get the article title correct, then the rest of the article can't be very informed reading either.

[Childlike Empress]

Wait for it, Farmer, you missed something:

Originally Posted by OP article

The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.

Guess we can do a rare collective facepalm on this.

[Lenbrazil]

I agree the article was poorly written but it seems many of the people making comments didn't bother to read it. The author does not seem to be a truther not even a LIHOP, wollclark's title was a real stretch.

He wrote 'Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration.' but postulates the Bush administration failed to do it's part 1/20 - 9/11. Later on he wrote:

Still, the drone program began in September 2000. One drone swiftly twice observed an individual “most likely to have been Bin Laden.” But since the CIA only had permission to use the drones for intelligence gathering, it had no way to act on its findings. The agency submitted a proposal to the National Security Council staff in December 2000 that would have significantly expanded the program. “It was too late for the departing Clinton Administration to take action on this strategic request,” however. It wasn’t too late for the Bush administration, though. It just never did.

Quote:

and we all know what an "expert' is don't we

The expert was identified in the article "...says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA [National Security Archive] fellow who edited the materials."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/arc_staff.html

Quote:

"New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims"

I really did not read the article, but just glanced over. I figure if they write an article about a CIA document release and then can't even get the article title correct, then the rest of the article can't be very informed reading either.

In many publications someone other than the author writes the titles, as the text makes clear NSA stands for National Security Archive.

I haven't had time to go through it yet but here's the archive's page regarding the documents.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB381/

[Horatius]

NSA = National Security Archive.


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB381/

TLA Fail.


ETA: Posting while playing poker fail!

[Lenbrazil]

Originally Posted by wollclark

New documents make it appear that the Bush administration let 9/11 happen.http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/new_...ths/singleton/

That claim is a huge stretch because by the time Bush took office 9/11 was already in the works. There would have been no reason to call it off if OBL had been killed especially since he seems not to have been directly involved in planning or executing the operation.

There is still the CIA's failure to act after it discovered AQ operatives were in the US but that is old news and was not mentioned. None of this changes the fact that various administration officials lied about their failures to act, IMO that was lack of foresight and CYA rather than conspiracy.

[dannyb]

The failure to prevent 9/11 was both a long term and short term policy failure. I believe the short term issues have largely been addressed, the long term ones not at all.

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Wait for it, Farmer, you missed something:




Guess we can do a rare collective facepalm on this.

No, I missed nothing at all. I have a fair grasp of the English language and they are CIA docs, not NSA docs. They may have been obtained by FOIA by someone going by that moniker, but it is like calling the 84 RADES data, the FARMER data. Or we could call them the FARMER docs, since I obtained the same records via FOIA.

Sorry, if they can't even get the title right ....

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Lenbrazil

I agree the article was poorly written but it seems many of the people making comments didn't bother to read it.

As I stated, no I did not bother to read it. I glanced it. Why should I read their spin on the documents when I've had the CIA documents for a few weeks now and read them? What is more important, the documents and what they say, or someone's spin on them?

See, we are actually taking our time going through this stuff and not doing some knee-jerk response to promote some political agenda.

Quote:

I've downloaded all the CIA 9/11 Cmssn docs NSAarchive; there's 118 docs, 972 pgs. The CIA's letter to you says they sent you 5 in their entirety, and 115 in their redacted form, and they don't say the # of pgs. You got 2 more docs than them, for some reason. It seems unlikely the CIA counted wrong, or NSArchive didn't upload a couple.

As you can see from the comments of one of my colleagues, it is going to take a little time to sort all of this out in a factual and objective manner.

[BCR]

Or to sum up my feelings about this article and the misleading headline, I shall quote Sir Walter Scott.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”

[Lenbrazil]

Originally Posted by BCR

As I stated, no I did not bother to read it. I glanced it. Why should I read their spin on the documents when I've had the CIA documents for a few weeks now and read them? What is more important, the documents and what they say, or someone's spin on them?

See, we are actually taking our time going through this stuff and not doing some knee-jerk response to promote some political agenda.

Fair enough based on what you're read so far do you think Elias-Sanborn's 'spin' is at all accurate?

Quote:

As you can see from the comments of one of my colleagues, it is going to take a little time to sort all of this out in a factual and objective manner.

What group are you with now?

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Lenbrazil

Fair enough based on what you're read so far do you think Elias-Sanborn's 'spin' is at all accurate?

I have no idea who that is.

Originally Posted by Lenbrazil

What group are you with now?

No group. Over the years a number of us have formed "cells" (learned that one from Al Qaeda ) to work on different aspects of 9/11 off-line and out-of-the-public-eye to avoid the "crazies". You might be surprised at some of the folks still working on these issues. But, I can't tell you who they are, or that would defeat the whole purpose of the "cells".

Man, I just re-read that. Sounds like some kind of conspiracy or something.

[Lenbrazil]

Originally Posted by BCR

I have no idea who that is.

She is the NSArchive analyst cited by the Salon author.

The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn’t get the institutional support they needed,” says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.

Let’s start there. In 2000 and 2001, the CIA began using Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Afghanistan. “The idea of using UAVs originated in April 2000 as a result of a request from the NSC’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism to the CIA and the Department of Defense to come up with new ideas to go after the terrorists in Afghanistan,” a 2004 document summarizes. The Pentagon approved the plan for surveillance purposes.

And yet, simultaneously, the CIA declared that budget concerns were forcing it to move its Counterterrorism Center/Osama bin Laden Unit from an “offensive” to a “defensive” posture. For the CIA, that meant trying to get Afghan tribal leaders and the Northern Alliance to kill or capture bin Laden, Elias-Sanborn says. “It was forced to be less of a kinetic operation,” she says. “It had to be only for surveillance, which was not what they considered an offensive posture.”

“Budget concerns … CT [counterterrorism] supplemental still at NSC-OMB [National Security Council – Office of Management and Budget] level,” an April 2000 document reads. “Need forward movement on supplemental soonest due to expected early recess due to conventions, campaigning and elections.” In addition, the Air Force told the CIA that if it lost a drone, the CIA would have to pay for it, which made the agency more reluctant to use the technology.

[...]

Rice claimed that the Bush administration continued the Clinton administration’s counterterrorism policies, a claim the documents disprove. “If the administration wanted to get it done, I’m sure they could have gotten it done,” says Elias-Sanborn.

[...]

For all the information the documents reveal, one huge matter is conspicuously absent: torture. There are nearly 50 CIA documents relating to such matters as the interrogation of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the intelligence gleaned from him, and yet “none of them were declassified at all,” notes Elias-Sanborn. “Certainly, the CIA has a stake in revealing what they did,” and they clearly do not want to reveal their complicity in war crimes.

Quote:

Or to sum up my feelings about this article and the misleading headline, I shall quote Sir Walter Scott.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”

'Newly released CIA docs contradict 9/11 claims' would have been more accurate AND sexier so I doubt that was intentional.

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Lenbrazil

'Newly released CIA docs contradict 9/11 claims' would have been more accurate AND sexier so I doubt that was intentional.

I have found nothing "new" in the documents. I did find something "new" to me, but turns out it was addressed in the 911 Commission Report. These are the footnoted documents from the Report, so I'm not sure how they "contradict 9/11 claims".

These seem to be the three I received that are not in the NSArchive.

Quote:

2001-06-30 SEIB Terrorism: Bin Ladin Threats are Real C05453671
1993-07-14 Sudanese links to Egypt's Gama'at al-Islamiya and training of Egyptians - C01164987 - Cmssn Rpt Chp 4 n1
1998-12-04 DCI Memo: Subject: Usama Bin Ladin - We must now enter a new phase in our effort against Bin Ladin - aka December 1998 DCI declaration of war memorandum - C05453693

I'll let you know when they go online.

[Sabretooth]

Originally Posted by WildCat

"Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him."

Well, duh! They had to use that funding to rig the WTC complex with the latest Hushaboom^TM bombs and thermite!

[Animal]

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

Well, duh! They had to use that funding to rig the WTC complex with the latest Hushaboom^TM bombs and thermite!

It wasn't hush a boom bombs...it was NitroWhisperin

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

Well, duh! They had to use that funding to rig the WTC complex with the latest Hushaboom^TM bombs and thermite!

I think my biggest exception is that the article likes to point to the "Bush administration". Yes, the BA definitely did not have OBL and AQ high on their priority list. Their focus was more on a strategic missile defense than worrying about some nutcase running around in the mountains of Afghanistan. That does not mean that AQ was not on their radar, just that they did not take it as seriously as they perhaps should have (old news).

I would like for once someone to focus on the the Clinton administration. I know it is not as much fun as bashing Bush, but the reality is that the CA had many opportunities to either capture or kill OBL, from Sudan to Afghanistan. Yet for the most part, ignored him until 1996. Why? Because he was the Saudi proxy for funneling money and arms into Bosnia, one of Clinton's pet projects. Once again, the "Islamist solution" was being played out when conventional resources could not be used. Then they were playing the "Islamist solution" in Central Asia to insure that the oil reserves in those areas were not controlled by Russia or Iran (The Great Game).

But, I reckon it is more fun to point the finger at Bush. But let's be honest, there is enough blame to go around for everyone. It is not the first time an incoming administration got sidelined by problems rolling over from a previous administration and made to look foolish. And it won't be the last.

[Oystein]

There is some OBL history going back to the Reagan Administration even

Clinton eventually did target AQ and, implicitly, OBL in Afghanistan with a few Tomahawks in retaliation for this or that terror attack, didn't he? Apparently, there was more will to act tough than good intelligence to act upon. I remember that the night after 9/11, there were reports of rocket attacks on Kabul or some other places in Afghanistan, and speculation if the USA was already striking against AQ there, and I remember thinking "hey, you can't know it was them just yet, or can you??"; I am not sure anymore today, but I think I knew pretty well at the time that OBL existed, was considered the main terror threat, and had been targeted by Clinton before, so I probably thought "not again!" that night. (It later turned out that these rockets were "business as usual" in the still ongoing civil war in Aghanistan, with the "Northern Alliance", scumbags who did enjoy US support more than the other side, launching an attack on the Taleban, with apparently no direct connection to 9/11).

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Clinton eventually did target AQ and, implicitly, OBL in Afghanistan with a few Tomahawks in retaliation for this or that terror attack, didn't he?

[conspiracy mode]
But didn't OBL get an advance warning and leave before the hit? So was Clinton really trying to hit OBL, or just make a good showing?
[/conspiracy mode]

[A W Smith]

I can remember in the seventies during his reign of terrorist attacks, thinking, "Why cant they just kill this guy?" apparently he is still alive to this day,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_the_Jackal

[Brainster]

I find it especially interesting that the URL of the page is:

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/new_...ths/singleton/

Reveal 9-11 Truths? Sounds like the original title to the article was more Truthy.

One of my liberal commenters pointed out that the final Clinton budget was for the government's fiscal year ending 9/30/01. Thus the only way Bush could have authorized the drone strike program (as compared to the drone surveillance program) would have been with a special supplemental spending bill. Also, note that there is no claim in the article that Osama was again spotted after the Bush administration took over. And of course the pilot hijackers were already inside the US before bin Laden was spotted by the unmanned drones, so it seems very likely that the operation would still have been carried out even if OBL had been killed.

[aggle-rithm]

Bush let 9/11 happen the way the New England Patriots let the Giants win the Super Bowl.

[Lenbrazil]

Originally Posted by Brainster

I find it especially interesting that the URL of the page is:

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/new_...ths/singleton/

Reveal 9-11 Truths? Sounds like the original title to the article was more Truthy.

One of my liberal commenters pointed out that the final Clinton budget was for the government's fiscal year ending 9/30/01. Thus the only way Bush could have authorized the drone strike program (as compared to the drone surveillance program) would have been with a special supplemental spending bill. Also, note that there is no claim in the article that Osama was again spotted after the Bush administration took over. And of course the pilot hijackers were already inside the US before bin Laden was spotted by the unmanned drones, so it seems very likely that the operation would still have been carried out even if OBL had been killed.

Except that the CIA's budget is secret and IIRC there are a few black ops in the military that are secretly funded. It's ingenuous to say Bush & Co. could not have gotten the dollars if they wanted to. Unfortunately the author didn't tell us what the cost of the 12/2000 CIA proposal was.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by BCR

I think my biggest exception is that the article likes to point to the "Bush administration". Yes, the BA definitely did not have OBL and AQ high on their priority list. Their focus was more on a strategic missile defense than worrying about some nutcase running around in the mountains of Afghanistan. That does not mean that AQ was not on their radar, just that they did not take it as seriously as they perhaps should have (old news).

I would like for once someone to focus on the the Clinton administration. I know it is not as much fun as bashing Bush, but the reality is that the CA had many opportunities to either capture or kill OBL, from Sudan to Afghanistan. Yet for the most part, ignored him until 1996. Why? Because he was the Saudi proxy for funneling money and arms into Bosnia, one of Clinton's pet projects. Once again, the "Islamist solution" was being played out when conventional resources could not be used. Then they were playing the "Islamist solution" in Central Asia to insure that the oil reserves in those areas were not controlled by Russia or Iran (The Great Game).

Have you read
The Mission, The Men, and Me: Lessons from a Former Delta Force Commander by Pete Blaber? He discusses being tasked to design a plan to capture bin Laden in the late 90s, and then having the operation dropped.

Quote:

But, I reckon it is more fun to point the finger at Bush. But let's be honest, there is enough blame to go around for everyone. It is not the first time an incoming administration got sidelined by problems rolling over from a previous administration and made to look foolish. And it won't be the last

...like the Bay of Pigs...

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Have you read
The Mission, The Men, and Me: Lessons from a Former Delta Force Commander by Pete Blaber? He discusses being tasked to design a plan to capture bin Laden in the late 90s, and then having the operation dropped.

No, I missed that one. Thanks, I'll have to find it.

Originally Posted by Axxman300

...like the Bay of Pigs...

Exactly what was on my mind as well

[ElMondoHummus]

Despite not talking about the Salon article or the Bush administration, I hope my post is viewed as merely tangental rather than derailing since it is still talking about the CIA and the focus on Bin Laden prior to 9/11.

Anyway...

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Have you read
The Mission, The Men, and Me: Lessons from a Former Delta Force Commander by Pete Blaber? He discusses being tasked to design a plan to capture bin Laden in the late 90s, and then having the operation dropped.

Like BCR, I haven't read it either. But as an interesting tangent, I'm currently in reading ex-CIA director George Tenet's book At The Center Of The Storm, and there's some interesting, if not particularly surprising reading in it. An important thing to note and emphasize for those wondering why Bin Laden was "allowed" to operate prior to 9/11 was what Tenet says the pre-September 11th attitude was:

Quote:

... there are two other tracks that a country can follow to go after a threat like Bin Ladin. It can attempt to use overt military force or the clandestine capabilities of its intelligence services... The requirements to make each of these methods successful and the rules under which they are conducted are very different.

If we had been able to provide timely and reliable information about where UBL was at a given moment, and precisely where he was going to be a number of hours hence, while simultaneously assuring policy makers that an atteck could be conducted without endangering many innocent women and children, the administration would have ordered the use of military force.

Although there were a number of opportunities, we could never get over the critical hurdle of being able to corroborate Bin Ladin's whereabouts, beyond the single thread of data provided by Afghan tribal source. Policymakers wanted more. I understood their dilemma. As much as we all wanted Bin Ladin dead, the use of force by a superpower requires information, discipline, and time. We rarely had the information in sufficient quantities or the time to evaluate and act on it.

I really wish he had been more specific than just saying "rarely had the information in sufficient quantities...", because that leaves open the possibility of there having been rare circumstances where everything did come together, and inaction being the result of something else. However, despite that critique, Tenet's message is clear: Intelligence was often simply not actionable, or was not actionable without endangering others not targeted. That chapter as well as others makes clear the fact that the Clinton administration was very concerned about collateral damage:

Quote:

Almost all of the "authorities" President Clinton provided to us with regard to Bin Ladin were predicated on the planning of a capture operation. It was understood that in the context of such an operation, Bin Ladin would resist and might be killed in the ensuing battle. But the context was almost always to attempt to capture him first. This was the way people up and down the CIA chain of command understood the president's orders. My own understanding of that constraint was deepened in a meeting I had with Attorney General Janet Reno. She made it clear to me and to Geoff O'Connell, the then head of CTC, that she would view an attempt simply to kill Bin Ladin as illegal. Legal guidance by the attorney general matters.

The review of covert-action proposals was very carefully handled. Each time these authorities were updated they showed a deep concern for proportionality and the minimization of loss of life. There was even greater sensitivity shown when the use of surrogates to carry out our will was contemplated.

This is something not often discussed: Some of the restraints against acting on intelligence were not in regards to clarity or time. That reads as though some plans had to be scrubbed simply because it would kill more than terrorists.

It also clearly indicates that the CIA at least considered themselves under some strict prohibitions.

Quote:

After 9/11, some policy makers asked rhetorically why I wouldn't have wanted to kill Usama Bin Ladin with covert action when I had tried to do so with cruise missiles. this was a completely misleading argument. Our country has appropriately always viewed the secret activities of CIA far differently from the overt use of military force. Despite what they might have said subsequently, everyone understood the differences at the time. Almost every authority granted to CIA prior to 9/11 made it clear that just going out and assassinating UBL would not have been permissible or acceptable.

In the aftermath of 9/11, everyone has become fixated on the word "kill," as if anything but the most vigorous pursuit of the term prior to 9/11 represented some form of risk aversion. It is easy to adopt such a stance after a tragedy like 9/11, but it was simply not the legal or political reality that we operated under prior to that day.

From my perspective, this is a largely pointless debate. Policy makers can sign some covert authorities and lull themselves into thinking that they have done their jobs. But in the absence of hard intelligence - in this case regarding Bin Ladin and the Al-Qa-'ida leadership structure operating inside Afghanitstan - covert action is a fool's game, an illusory silver bullet...

... There were a number of opportunities to use military action against Bin Ladin, but these opportunities were fleeting, and tough decisions would have to have been made in narrow windows of time. My job was to assess objectively whether the data we had, often only from a single source, could ever get policy makers above a 50 or 60 percent confidence level so they could launch cruise missiles in the next thirty minutes. It never did.

Again, none of this is either surprising or unexpected. But, my point is that in history, as in so many other things, the devil is always in the details. And the details of pre-9/11 history is no different in this regard.

Anyway, all of that is an interesting tangent on Axxman's post about that Delta officer's recollections. It would be interesting to compare and contrast his narrative regarding that operation being dropped to what Tenet says. It's really important to build historical narratives from a variety of sources (which is why I want to go find that other book), because what appears to be conspiratorial in a superficial reading can often be nothing more than complex interactions with many influences. And I'd be interested in reading what other viewpoints are presented by other individuals besides Tenet. It would make for a better rounded understanding of pre-9/11 history.

[paloalto]

Originally Posted by wollclark

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/new_...ths/singleton/

"New documents make it appear that the Bush administration let 9/11 happen."

Several of these documents that were released had been released before in a much less redetected form in the DOJ IG report.

Document #C05453679;

This was email from Tom Wilshire, former Deputy Chief of the CIA bin laden unit who had been moved over to the FBI as Deputy Chief of the FBI ITOS unit in mid-may, to CIA officer in the bin Laden unit, Clarke Shannon, on May 24, 2001;

“Khalid al-Mihdhar in Malaysia, can't see Khallad [redacted] ["in the three photos of Mihdhar"] I'm either missing something or someone saw something that wasn’t there.” Wilshire said prior to this sentence that he remembered the cable that had identified Khallad bin Attach at Kuala Lumpur but he did not have the cable in his possession. He was asking CIA officers Clarke Shannon if he remembered if bin Attash had been identified in the Kuala Lumpur photos. Shannon confirmed that in deed he did remember the fact that bin Attash had been identified in the Kuala Lumpur photos.

In this email Wilshire had been trying to identify Khallad in the three photos of Khalid al-Mihdhar taken at Kuala Lumpur that he had obtained from the CIA in order to see if he could to identify Khallad any of the photos with Mihdhar. In April 2001 FBI Agent Ali Soufan had sent his second request directly to the CIA asking for any information that the CIA had on Walid Bin Attash and/or any al Qaeda meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000. The CIA did not reply to his request.

The CIA had been sufficiently worried because of Soufan’s request that somehow the FBI Cole bombing investigators had gotten enough information on this Kuala Lumpur meeting, information that the CIA had been keeping absolutely secret, that they moved CIA bin Laden deputy chief Tom Wilshire over to the FBI ITOS unit to be Deputy chief of this FBI unit to spy on these investigators and find out what they knew about the Kuala Lumpur meeting. This was the information that the CIA had been keeping super secret since Khallad had been identified in one of the Kuala Lumpur photos on January 4, 2001. This letter along with information in the DOJ IG report proves that both Tom Wilshire and CIA officer Clarke Shannon had Soufan’s request for information, a request that also had attached a passport photo of bin Attash. The CIA wanted to know, did the FBI Cole bombing investigators know that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing?

Instead of giving Soufan the information the CIA already had on this meeting and on bin Attash, the CIA had Wilshire, direct FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi to set up a meeting with the people who worked for Soufan in the FBI New York field office, his assistant FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team. This meeting was set for June 11, 2001 at the FBI New York field office. At this meeting Corsi presented the three photos of Mihdhar taken at Kuala Lumpur that Wilshire had obtained from the CIA, and CIA officer, Clarke Shannon, who worked in the CIA bin Laden unit, asked Bongardt if he or any one on his team could recognize anyone in these photos.

It is clear that since one photo only had Mihdhar and Hazmi in it and no one else, and the CIA knew exactly what Mihdhar and Hazmi looked like, that the CIA only wanted to know if in their search for Walid bin Attash, had the FBI Cole bombing investigators uncovered that fact that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing? At this meeting in spite of Bongardt’s questions, “who are these people in these photos, and what do they have to do with the Cole bombing?”, Clarke Shannon said nothing even though he knew that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing. Clarke finally admitted that one al Qaeda terrorist in the photos was named Khalid al-Mihdhar who had a Saudi passport, but gave no further information that could have lead the Cole bombing investigators to start any investigation for Mihdhar or Hazmi.

Beyond all belief, Shannon, as did Wilshire, who had set up this meeting knew that al Qaeda terrorist Nawaf al-Hazmi was already inside of the US to carry out some horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack and knew that Khalid al-Mihdhar had a US multi-entry visa for the US so he could join Hazmi later in this terrorist attack inside of the US.

In November 2000, almost 6 months earlier, Soufan had sent almost the same request to the CIA Yemen station, and in spite of the fact that the CIA Yemen station knew about the meeting in Kuala Lumpur and even knew that Mihdhar and Walid bin Attash had both been at that meeting planning the Cole bombing, had told Soufan that the CIA had none of this information. Using the passport photo that Soufan had attached to his request, the Yemen station had the CIA/FBI joint source identify bin Attash on December 16, 2000. Just after this identification, the Yemen Station requested from the CIA Bin Laden unit the photos of bin Attash and Mihdhar taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting. On January 4, 2001 the Yemen requested photo of bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, was identified by the CIA/FBI Joint source.

The CIA at that point knew that they had photographed all of the attendees at this al Qaeda planning meeting, all known to be long time al Qaeda terrorists, and then let then all walk away to carry out the Cole bombing. The al Qaeda terrorists at the Kuala Lumpur meeting were in fact connected to the east Africa bombings that had killed over 200 people including 12 Americans, and the FBI had an active FBI investigation going on this bombing.

In spite of this information known at the CIA bin Laden unit, the CIA Yemen station and the CIA Pakistan station, all of these units kept this information absolutely secret from Soufan. Even when Soufan flew out to Islamabad on February 1, 2001 and had the CIA/FBI Joint source re-identify the passport photo of bin Attash, the Pakistan CIA alat who was sitting right next to Soufan when the joint CIA/FBI joint source re-identified Soufan’s passport photo of Bin Attash, said nothing about the fact that bin Attash had been identified in his photo taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planing meeting just the month before, or that the CIA/FBI joint source had also been shown a photo of Mihdhar also taken at Kuala Lumpur.

At this point a huge criminal conspiracy had been put into effect that involved the CIA Yemen station, the CIA Pakistan station and the CIA bin Laden unit, and clearly most of the upper management of the CIA who were the only ones that had direct control over these CIA overseas stations to hide the Kuala Lumpur information from the FBI Cole bombing investigators. Since this involved committing major Federal felonies, this criminal obstruction of the Cole bombing investigation clearly had to have come from the very top of the CIA, George Tenet himself and his other high level CIA managers.

C05464169;
July 13, 2001, Email from Tom Wilshire back to his CIA managers Blee, Black and Tenet:

“OK this is important, after an inordinate amount of digging I finally found the cable identifying Khallad...[redacted]
This is a major league killer, who orchestrated the Cole attack and possibly the Africa bombings...[redacted] also can this be sent to the [redacted]. This last redaction was "to the FBI (FBI Cole bombing investigators).”

At this point this email shows that Wilshire had finally, located the cable that he had referred to in his earlier May 24, 2001 email, after an inordinate amount of digging , that he had remembered but did not have, that had been described above. This cable also included the photo of Walid bin Attash taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting

This was email sent on July 13, 2001 just three days after Blee, Black and Tenet had requested an emergency meeting at the White House with Rice, Hadley, and Clarke in order to discuss the fact that Blee, Black and Tenet were convinced that a huge al Qaeda attack was immenent and was aimed right at the US.

Why these emails would still be redacted on June 19, 2012 when most of these emails were in the DOJ IG report in un-redacted form is at first a mystery. But upon closer examination it is clear that even though this email was un-redacted in the DOJ IG report, the CIA did not want a broad distribution of this information in these emails since it shows that Tom Wilshire, the CIA spy inside of the FBI ITOS unit, was concerned enough about a huge al Qaeda attack inside of the US involving the people who were at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting on January 5-8, 2000 that he wanted this Kuala Lumpur information passed on to the FBI. This was the information that Walid Bin Attash, (Khallad) had been identified at this meeting with Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi actually planning the Cole, bombing. In this email, it is clear that Wilshire had identified Khallad as the mastermind of the Cole, bombing. His request to pass this information to the FBI was never answered.

On July 23, 2001 in an email kept absolutely secret by both the CIA and FBI and not even released with these other emails, but ultimately released under subpoena as part of the Moussaoui trial documents, DE #939, Wilshire makes this same request again, to pass the Kuala Lumpur information to the FBI, and again he is denied this request. In this later email Wilshire identifies by name Khalid al-Mihdhar as an al Qaeda terrorists with a direct connection to Khallad who will be found at the next big al Qaeda operation.

After being turned down for a second time in his request to transfer the Kuala Lumpur information to the FBI Cole bombing investigators, Wilshire realizes that his role at the FBI and the reason for him to have been moved over from the CIA to the FBI ITOS unit was not just to spy of the FBI Cole bombing investigators, and find out what they knew about the Kuala Lumpur meeting, but to criminally withhold and block the Kuala Lumpur information from ever getting to the FBI Cole bombing investigators, and FBI Agents Ali Soufan and Steve Bongardt.

On August 22, 2001, FBI Agent Margaret Gillespie, who was working as an IOS agent at the CIA bin Laden unit, and who was actually at the June 11, 2001 New York meeting with Corsi, Shannon, and Bongardt, found out from the INS that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and immediately gave this information to FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and then to Tom Wilshire. Wilshire knew immediately that al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001.

Wilshire gave Corsi the task to write up an EC to start an intelligence investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. Both Corsi and Wilshire knew that if an intelligence investigation for Mihdhar was started, the FBI OIPR would almost never allow a parallel criminal investigation to be started for the same target, meaning this intelligence investigation will keep Bongardt from investigating and searching for Mihdhar. This information was sent by Gillespie after this meeting to the rest of the CIA, to the State Department and to some as yet unknown destination at the FBI, but it never went to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt or his team. The State Department even had Hazmi’s last visa request on file that listed his California address.

In spite of Wilshire knowing that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were in the US to take part in a huge al Qaeda attack that will cause mass casualties, this EC which was started at the behest of Wilshire, was labeled “Routine” when it was sent to the FBI New York office on August 28, 2001, meaning this investigation had no real importance or urgency to finding Mihdhar or Hazmi quickly. Wilshire even reviewed this EC just before it was sent over to the FBI New York office on August 28.

When this EC was accidently routed to FBI Agent and Cole bombing investigator Steve Bongardt on August 28, 2001, Bongardt called Corsi immediately and said that this of Mihdhar and Hazmi investigation should go to him and his team, because it looked like that Mihdhar and Hazmi were possibly connected to the Cole bombing, and that they were clearly inside of the US in order to carry out some horrific al Qaeda attack. Corsi, and her boss Rod Middleton, told Bongardt, that because the EC contained a NSA cable, and the NSA had restrictions on giving this cable to FBI criminal investigators, he had to destroy her EC and he could not start any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. But we know from the DOJ IG report, that the permission for Corsi to send the NSA cable to the FBI Cole bombing investigators had already been approved by the NSA general counsel the day before, on August 27, 2001. So Corsi had no legal right to block Bongardt’s investigation and knew it.

When Bongardt complained and stated that the NSA information did not appear to be connected to any FISA warrant, he requested that Corsi get a legal ruling from the FBI NSLU to see if he could start an immediate investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, knowing that they were inside of the US in order to take part in some horrific al Qaeda attack.

On August 29, 2001 Corsi, and her boss Rod Middleton, told Bongardt that the NSLU attorney she had contacted, Sherry Sabol, had ruled that he could have no part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. But the 9/11 Commission report states, page 538 in footnote 81, that Sabol told Corsi and Rod Middleton on August 28, 2001 that since the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant, Bongardt could take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

These lies cost almost 3000 people their lives on 9/11 and this has never been explained, not by the 9/11 Commission not by the DOJ IOG, not by anyone. But it gets worse, much worse.

On August 29, 2001 Corsi send Bongardt an email that stated; “at such time as information is developed of a substantial Federal crime, (by Mihdhar and Hazmi), this information will be passed over the wall”.

But the the DOJ IG report page 301-302 says that Corsi knew by August 22, 2001 that the CIA had a photo of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur. This photo directly connected the mastermind of the Cole bombing that had killed 17 US sailors to both Mihdhar and Hazmi who were at this al Qaeda planning meeting at the same time as bin Attash. So Corsi already knew that there was information of a substantial Federal crime at least 6 days before she tells Bongardt that he has to stop his investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. She also knew that it would be illegal and serious Federal crime for her to block Bongardt's investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, yet she does this anyway.

She, Middleton, Wilshire and the CIA all knew that the CIA had been deliberately hiding this photo of bin Attash from Bongardt so he would never have the information he needed to start any investigation for these al Qaeda terrorists. They all knew without some connection to the planning of the Cole bombing or some other crime, Bongardt would never have the information he needed to start any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.


But they all also know that a huge al Qaeda attack is just about to take place inside of the US that will cause mass American casualties. In spite of knowing about this attack and knowing that blocking Bongardt’s investigation will allow this attack to take place, they all continue to either block Bongardt’s investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi or allow Corsi and Middleton to block Bongardt’s investigation of these two al Qaeda terrorists who will take part in this huge al Qaeda attack.

On August 30, 2001 the photo of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur was sent by the CIA to Rod Middleton, FBI Agent Dina Corsi's supervisor. So on this date he now has the photographic proof that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing. Yet in spite of being on the phone with Corsi shutting down Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, and being at the meeting with Sabol, where she told Corsi Bongardt could take part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, he never gave this horrific information to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt so Bongardt could start an investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi before they had time to carry out some horrific al Qaeda attack.

On September 5, 2001, after the intelligence investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi was given to an inexperienced FBI Intelligence Agent, Robert Fuller, Fuller called Corsi to say he has gotten nowhere in his investigation and search for Mihdhar and he needed Mihdhar’s credit card number, which was known by Saudi Arabian Airlines, since Mihdhar had flown into the US on July 4, 2001 on this airline. In spite of knowing that Fullers investigation has stalled out without this credit card number, Corsi refused to give Fuller permission to call Saudi Arabian Airlines and get this credit card number. This effectively blocked all forward progress in Fullers investigation. Six days later, on September 11, 2001 the attacks on 9/11 took place. 2001, killing almost 300 innocent people.

It is clear from the documents just released that not only almost all of the high level CIA managers knew this al Qaeda attack was just about to take place, knew the warnings were real, and in fact had no doubt this attack was just about to take place, but also high level Bush administration officials also knew about this huge attack. These new reports even stated, which is new information, that bin Laden was making preparations for air defenses against US air attacks meaning the al Qaeda terrorists thought this attack was going to be so big it would elicit a response from the US.

These additional documents add new depth to the what were called the intelligence failures prior to the attacks on 9/11. But these questions remain.

Why did Blee, Black and Tenet refuse to give the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi to the Rice, Hadley and Clarke on July 10, 2001 at the White House meeting set up to discuss this imminent and expected to be horrific al Qaeda attack. These documents make it clear that there was absolutely no doubt in anyone’s mind that this attack was coming and soon. Tenet even said that had Rice taken him more seriously, she could have prevented the attacks on 9/11. But then why did he refuse to allow Wilshire permission to give the Kuala Lumpur information to the FBI Cole bombing investigators on July 13, 2001 just three days after the July 10, 2001 meeting at the White House, and again on July 23, 2001, as these documents indicated, when he must have known this would block the one investigation that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11?

Why did Wilshire work with FBI Agent Dina Corsi and SSA Rod Middleton to illegally shut down Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when they all knew that the result would be many Americans would be killed in the al Qaeda terrorist attacks that Bongardt could have prevented?

Why did Blee, Black and Tenet allow their man inside of the FBI, Tom Wilshire, to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, using Corsi and Middleton, when they knew this would allow a huge attack inside of the US that would kill many Americans? Both Tenet and Wilshire also even knew that someone was blocking FBI Agent Harry Samit’s investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, and did nothing about this.

Why did none of this information come out at the 911 Commission Public hearings when they had Tenet testify under oath at these hearings?

The 9/11 Commission report asked the question; Why did the CIA and FBI HQ not connect the fact that Mihdhar and Hazmi were in the US to their knowledge of a huge al Qaeda attack the CIA and FBI HQ knew was just about to take place? The July 5, 2001 email from Wilshire back to Blee, Black, and Tenet had connected the people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting to the warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack, and his July 23, 2001 email to Blee, Black and Tenet, directed connected Mihdhar by name and by association Hazmi to this huge attack? This was email collected by the DOJ IG, and was information that the 9/11 Commission claimed to have had. Tom Wilshire’s July 13, 2001 and July 23 email back to Blee, Black and Tenet all showed that in spite of the fact that Wilshire was ostensibly working for the FBI he was really under the control of his former managers at the CIA, who had refused every request he made to transfer the information from the Kuala Lumpur meeting over to the FBI. Why did this fact not come out at the 9/11 hearings?

Not only does this information show that the CIA and FBI HQ had deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks that took place on 9/11, but that the 9/11 Commission covered over their criminal and nefarious deeds, even when they claimed to have had all of the same information that I have cited in this blog.

[Axxman300]

Quote:

Not only does this information show that the CIA and FBI HQ had deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks that took place on 9/11, but that the 9/11 Commission covered over their criminal and nefarious deeds, even when they claimed to have had all of the same information that I have cited in this blog.

Actually it doesn't show this at all, Brian.

[BCR]

Originally Posted by paloalto

Not only does this information show that the CIA and FBI HQ had deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks that took place on 9/11, but that the 9/11 Commission covered over their criminal and nefarious deeds, even when they claimed to have had all of the same information that I have cited in this blog.

Actually, all of this is "old news". Perhaps I should remind you. These documents are those referenced in the 911 Commission Report. Perhaps you should read the Report again. I found that I had too when I found "new" information in them. Turns out, it was already covered in the Report. I had just forgotten that reference.

[BCR]

As promised, here are the 3 I got that are not found in either the Berger or NSArchive dumps.

Report Sudanese Links 7-14-1993

OBL War Declaration Memo 12-4-1998

Bin Laden Threats Are Real 6-30-2001

[paloalto]

Originally Posted by BCR

Actually, all of this is "old news". Perhaps I should remind you. These documents are those referenced in the 911 Commission Report. Perhaps you should read the Report again. I found that I had too when I found "new" information in them. Turns out, it was already covered in the Report. I had just forgotten that reference.

The documents that were just released were documents referenced in the 9/11 Commission report footnotes, but most of this material was so obscured, or obfuscated or outright distorted no one could really tell what these reports and emails said. An example of this when the 9/11 Commission report stated that the fact that the information that Walid bin Attash had been identified by the CIA at the Kuala Lumpur meeting and that photos of both Mihdhar and bin Attash had been shown to the CIA/FBI joint source but that this information was never given to the FBI showed “that information sharing will sometimes fail even when there is good faith on both sides”. But there was no evidence of good faith on both sides.

In fact it is clear that FBI Agent Ali Soufan stated in his book, that the CIA knew that both Mihdhar and bin Attash had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting, actually planning the Cole bombing, but never gave this information to him or any other FBI criminal investigator, information that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11. Soufan even told the 9/11 Commission that all of the cables that were sent to the FBI and him, from the CIA and the identification of bin Attash, had information missing that was contained in the cables that went only inside of the CIA and to CIA stations, the fact bin Attash had been identified from the photo taken of him at Kuala Lumpur.

At least one of the 9/11 Commission investigators who had interviewed Soufan, fully understood what Soufan was saying, that the CIA had engaged in a massive criminal conspiracy to hide this information from Soufan and the other FBI Cole bombing investigators, but this fact never made it into the 9/11 Commission report. When he was shown the photos of Hazmi, Mihdhar and bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur by the CIA station chief, just after the attacks on 9/11 Soufan stated “that they knew, they knew”.

The very person the FBI had been most interested in getting more information on and who had been the person that Soufan and the FBI had made repeated requests about to the CIA, Walid bin Attash, had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Khalid al-Mihdhar actually planning the Cole bombing and the CIA knew it but never shared this information with him or any other criminal investigator on his team.

The CIA and later even the FBI HQ kept this information as a complete secret from Soufan and his team, and then used lies to keep even the information that Mihdhar and Hazmi were possibly connected to the Cole bombing, out of his possession. It was these lies by even his own FBI HQ agents that has allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place, and prevent him from stopping these attacks.

This information incredibly went to FBI Agent Dina Corsi and her supervisor SSA Rod Middleton, but they never shard this information with FBI Agent Bongardt or any other FBI criminal Cole bombing investigator on Bongardt’s team. Hence this statement, “that information sharing will sometimes fail even when there is good faith on both sides” was an out and out lie by the 9/11 Commission to cover up this massive criminal conspiracy that had taken place at the CIA.

It is now clear that the 9/11 Commission report tried to cover up the crimes that had taken place at the CIA and FBI HQ that had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place. Just the very simple fact that the 9/11 Commission report says that the commission could never figure out why the CIA (and FBI HQ) had not connected the fact that al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US to the huge al Qaeda attack the CIA and FBI HQ knew was just about to take place inside of the US when DE 939 with Wilshire’s July 23, 2001 email says that they had connected these two horrific bits of information together, was further proof of the 9/11 Commission efforts to cover over the crimes at both the CIA and FBI HQ. It is now clear that either the 9/11 Commission had Wilshire’s email or could have used subpoenas to get it, the very information that was now in Wilshire’s July 23, 2001 email back to his CTC managers Blee, Black. It was this information that directly connected Mihdhar and by association Hazmi to the warnings of these attacks, and shows that the 9/11 Commission report was in fact a complete and total fraud.