The 9/11 Hearings

[subgenius]

Figured someone would have started a thread, so here goes:

I find these statements to be very interesting, in the way Ollie North's testimony was "interesting":

"First, I know of no actionable intelligence since January 20, 2001 that would have allowed the US to attack and capture or kill Osama bin Laden," Rumsfeld said in his opening statement.

"Second, even if bin Laden had been captured or killed in the weeks before 9/11, no one I know believes it would have prevented 9/11," he said.
....

Even if actionable intelligence had appeared, he said, "9/11 would likely still have happened."

Rumsfeld said he knew of no information before the attacks that terrorists intended to hijack the commercial airliners.

"Further, I believe that the attacks taken since September 11 in the global war on terrorist, and the international coalition assembled to fight that war, would have been impossible to achieve before the September 11 attacks," he said.
...
He acknowledged he was briefed in February 2001 on ways of dealing with bin Laden and documents he submitted indicated that one plan included a phased campaign in Afghanistan (news - web sites).

But he said he did not consider it "a comprehensive plan to deal with al-Qaeda and its sanctuary in Afghanistan."

"One thing is clear -- as of February 2001, we had not yet developed the kind of clear new policy direction which must properly precede the development of war plans," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...0044&printer=1

[subgenius]

The commission is scheduled to hear from Clarke tomorrow. Until then, his allegations are ``the elephant in the room,'' former Illinois Governor James Thompson said during today's proceedings.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...op_world_news#

And then he'll be subject to appropriate questioning about the substance of his allegations.

[subgenius]

Well this is interesting:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Even if the United States had gone after al Qaeda before the September 11, 2001, attacks it might not have prevented them from taking place, Secretary of State Colin Powell has told investigators.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040323/3/3izjr.html

No, it might not have. But then again.....

And note the difference in the wording between Rumsfeld and Powell.

" "Second, even if bin Laden had been captured or killed in the weeks before 9/11, no one I know believes it would have prevented 9/11," he said. "


Rum limits his comment to taking out OBL, in particular, and, with respect to prevention, the people Rumsfeld knows.

So either some action against Al-Qaedat might have, or no one Rumsfeld know thinks taking out OBL specifically would have.

Dancing on the point of pins.

[Marc]

Quote:

"First, I know of no actionable intelligence since January 20, 2001 that would have allowed the US to attack and capture or kill Osama bin Laden," Rumsfeld said in his opening statement.

of course there was such intelligence, but since Rumsfeld said "I know of no..." he gets to play ignorant.


On the Daly Show last night (repeats at 7pm EST tonight) he pointed out how Rice could not sit before the commision, but went on just about every news morning show she could. Ponted out how the statements she gave, and the statements given by someone else (don't remember who) were word for word identical.

Also interesting how to deflect the criticisms of Clark the administration (think it was Rumsfeld) said he does not know what he is talking about because Clark was "out of the loop". Gee, don't you think it is kinda important that the person in charge of handling terrorism issues should be kept in the loop on terrorism?

[Hexxenhammer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Marc
On the Daly Show last night (repeats at 7pm EST tonight) he pointed out how Rice could not sit before the commision, but went on just about every news morning show she could. Ponted out how the statements she gave, and the statements given by someone else (don't remember who) were word for word identical.

It was the press secretary, what's his name. Him and Condy must have practiced together because they used the EXACT same words.

[Kodiak]

I've been impressed with how unbiased the commision has been thus far (except the one time where a democrat started banging Clark's book around... ).

The comment about the death of Bin Laden not stopping the 9/11 attacks is a reasonable one considering that once terrorist cells have their instructions, they are completely independent and self sufficient. Only the deaths of the Al Quida leadership before the instructions were ever given could've possibly made a difference.

[aerocontrols]

I'm now picturing a 9/12 where world opinion is that the 9/11 attacks were revenge for Osama's death in July 2001.

[Luke T.]

I'm listening to the hearings live right now. Go to NPR's web site for the link.

As for that guy Clark, Hannity had an interesting bit last night. In his book, Clark claimed Condi appeared clueless as to what Al Queda was when he first mentioned them to her in March 2001. His estimate of her cluelessness was based solely on the appearance of her face at their mention.

Hannity then played a tape of a radio interview of Condi in October 2000 where she discusses Bin Laden at length.

Newt Gingrich responded to the bit by saying Clark is an example of a huge ego in a small job.

Ordinarily, Hannity annoys the heck out of me (I actually like Colmes as a person more, if you can believe that!), but that was a pretty good spot on Clark's self-serving motives.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I'm now picturing a 9/12 where world opinion is that the 9/11 attacks were revenge for Osama's death in July 2001.

Exactly!

[zenith-nadir]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
...but that was a pretty good spot on Clark's self-serving motives.

Richard Clarke's book is released two days before he appears before the 9-11 panel and during a re-election campaign. If he is really worried about America why now and not after the 9-11 panel appearance or the election? Wouldn't his 'concerns' be better served infront of the panel rather than in a for-profit tell-all book? Timing is everything...

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I'm now picturing a 9/12 where world opinion is that the 9/11 attacks were revenge for Osama's death in July 2001.

Maybe 9/11 was revenge for the attack on Osama in August 1998 that failed.

[corplinx]

Who's to blame for 9-11? Ronald Reagan. People lambast the Clinton admin for not killing Osama. However, that was a leftover of Reagan era cold war policy regarding hits.

Sandy Berger and Warren Christopher really were offered Osama on a silver platter if you look at the evidence. However, we couldn't pursue it as a law enforcement issue and more importantly we couldn't just kill him.

[crackmonkey]

I always take these public hearings with a grain of salt. They're pure theater... nothing but an opportunity for Senators to grandstand for their subjects and get in a few partisan jabs.
Regarding Clarke, his aide (I don;t recall the name) was a witness and concurred that Clarke and Bush had an exchange similar to the one Clarke alleged, where Bush asked him to look into Iraqi participation - but the aide denies that this was anything other than an innocent inquiry. He denied that Bush's question was an attempt to atribute 9/11 to Saddam.

[Luke T.]

Clark is testifying right now. Go to npr.org and click the 9/11 hearings link for a live stream.

[Hexxenhammer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
Clark is testifying right now. Go to npr.org and click the 9/11 hearings link for a live stream.

Listening to him now. Seems like a straight shooter. I don't think this is a guy that is "playing politics" (god I hate that phrase), or being partisan (I hate that too). He worked for how many years at this stuff? Always behind the scenes. Sounds like he really did just get fed up with how he was being treated and had to speak out since he'd been quiet so long.

[corplinx]

Ouch, Clarke is playing Hitman for the Kerry campaign. Despite testimoney from Dick Morris and others to the contrary, Clarke claims Clinton focused on terrorism "extraordinarily high" and the Bush dropped the ball.

The kicker here is Clarke is in good with one of the bigwigs in the Kerry campaign.

Does anyone still believe like Tom Dashcle that Clarke is telling the truth and that republicans are out to silence the truth?

[corplinx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Listening to him now. Seems like a straight shooter.

That's why I read transcripts.

[Luke T.]

Clark's opening statement sounded a little obsequious to me. Especially his "I failed you" statment.

A protestor was removed from the room earlier today. And when someone just thanked Clark for his "apology" there was applause.

Moveon in the house?

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
Ouch, Clarke is playing Hitman for the Kerry campaign. Despite testimoney from Dick Morris and others to the contrary, Clarke claims Clinton focused on terrorism "extraordinarily high" and the Bush dropped the ball.

The kicker here is Clarke is in good with one of the bigwigs in the Kerry campaign.

Does anyone still believe like Tom Dashcle that Clarke is telling the truth and that republicans are out to silence the truth?

He also took a few shots at Bush, Sr. by saying the CIA was decimated in the late 80s and early 90s.

[Hexxenhammer]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx


That's why I read transcripts.

Don't misunderstand me, I mean what he's saying. If I had to listen to him talk about something I wasn't interested in, I'd be asleep. Talk about a monotone.

So you think this is all political? That the Kerry campaign somehow fixed all this up?

[Hexxenhammer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.


He also took a few shots at Bush, Sr. by saying the CIA was decimated in the late 80s and early 90s.

I missed a minute there. Was that actually a shot at Bush Sr., or at the CIA director who thought human intelligence was useless and dangerous?

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
I missed a minute there. Was that actually a shot at Bush Sr., or at the CIA director who thought human intelligence was useless and dangerous?

He said Tenet backed him up on the point. I don't know who the CIA director was back then, though.

[Luke T.]

I was in the military from 1980 to 2000. We had a huge buildup in the Reagan era, a fairly stable situation during Bush, Sr. until the collapse of the USSR. Then all through the 90s we were downsized all the way up to when I retired in 2000 to about half of what we were at the end of the Reagan era. Right about where we were before Reagan. I wouldn't be suprised if the intelligence community followed a parallel course.

[corplinx]

The FBI/CIA budgets were cut during the Clinton years also. I think much of it affected new hires and new recruiting.

[DavidJames]

Thompson, former gov. of Ill did his best to "bully the witness" and highlight discrepancies between press a release Clark made under GWB and his book. Clark did well to diffuse by basically pointing out he was telling the story the way his boss wanted it told, highlighting the good, downplaying the bad.

As we see, however, many will try to deflect away from the current administration and blame Clinton.

Edit to add above for those that think Clinton is still president

[Hexxenhammer]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
The FBI/CIA budgets were cut during the Clinton years also. I think much of it affected new hires and new recruiting.

Probably. Since the CIA downplayed it's need for field agents in favor of technology. Too bad that was the wrong move.

[subgenius]

Former Secretary of the Navy Lehman questioning:

(A member of one of Philadelphia's oldest families and an acolyte of former President Ronald Reagan, Lehman was named Navy secretary in 1981 at 38, one of the youngest in U.S. history. Like Reagan, Lehman believed the American military had become too passive. He wanted to shake things up and was skeptical of government bureaucracies, particularly intelligence-gathering agencies.

Time after time, Lehman said, he had seen the CIA get it wrong, misreading tactics of the Vietnamese army and the Viet Cong and failing to grasp the scope of the Soviet naval buildup. By the time Lehman left the Navy in 1987, he had presided over a huge buildup of U.S. naval forces and put in place a leadership team that endorsed Reagan's aim of pressuring the Soviet Union militarily.

Lehman has been out of the Navy for 16 years, but his jaundiced view of American intelligence-gathering burns as hotly as ever and has come into play in his role as a member of an independent commission looking into the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.)

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/7546164.htm?1c



Last time Clarke declared parties was Republican.
Not working for Kerry.
Will not accept any position in a Kerry administration.
Difference between his book and testimony, he wasn't asked about Iraq by the commission.

[corplinx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Probably. Since the CIA downplayed it's need for field agents in favor of technology. Too bad that was the wrong move.

In hindsight it was the wrong move. Back then it was a progressive notion. We would use technology and put local thugs and immoral people on the dime.


Perhaps we reacted a bit naively in the wake of the cold war being over, but I don't think it was anyone's fault.

[Hexxenhammer]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx

In hindsight it was the wrong move. Back then it was a progressive notion. We would use technology and put local thugs and immoral people on the dime.

Perhaps we reacted a bit naively in the wake of the cold war being over, but I don't think it was anyone's fault.

I don't either. I'm sure it seemed like the right move. Hearing all those NSA intercepted cell phone calls from all over the world, I'm sure they thought they'd never have to put a spy in field again. Until some guy squatting in a cave using horsemen for messengers came along and decided to kill every american.

[Hexxenhammer]

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius
Last time Clarke declared parties was Republican.
Not working for Kerry.
Will not accept any position in a Kerry administration.
Difference between his book and testimony, he wasn't asked about Iraq by the commission.

I'm glad he addressed this little conspiracy theory.

[subgenius]

He refused to approve the flight evacuating Saudis after 9/11 at a time all other flights were grounded. Members of the bin Laden family were on board. FBI approved and later said no one on the flight was a concern.

[Kodiak]

Clinton and Bush Officials Refute Clark Statements

[subgenius]

Rummy trying to hypmotize (sic) the commission:

[Evolver]

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius
Rummy trying to hypmotize (sic) the commission:

Not the dreaded "Pull My Finger!" joke?!?

In stereo?

[subgenius]

Powell throwing gang signs:

[TillEulenspiegel]

While others here seem to want to deflect the criticism against the Bush administration by peripheral conduct of Clinton..Bleh There are three cogent facts gleaned from the inquiry so far.

1 That had OBL been assassinated during 2001 it probably would have not stopped the 9/11 Al-Quida plan for an attack as it was formed over years.

2 That Clinton's administration attempted 3 separate times to kill OBL, including a tomahawk cruse missile attack, considered OBL a direct threat and had daily meetings on him. There was a separate office that did nothing but gather intelligence and formulate threat easement in re Al-Quida.

3 That OBL in Afghanistan at the time caused various attacks around the world and if either administration had proposed attacking Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11, the American people would have not allowed it.


More to come...........................

[Hexxenhammer]

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius
Rummy trying to hypmotize (sic) the commission:

He's actually going to organize a deadly martial arts tournament where Dick Clarke will have to fight each commision member in succession, each more deadly than the last. Ending with Goro! A republican so far to the right he has 2 right arms.

[DavidJames]

FWIW - if Clinton is found culpable in any of this, I have no problem nailing his butt for it. Likewise with GWB. Get to the root cause and deal with it. Screw the politics

[Frank Newgent]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Listening to him now. Seems like a straight shooter. I don't think this is a guy that is "playing politics" (god I hate that phrase), or being partisan (I hate that too). He worked for how many years at this stuff? Always behind the scenes. Sounds like he really did just get fed up with how he was being treated and had to speak out since he'd been quiet so long.

I agree. Here are transcripts.

Quote:

THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, as we sit here this afternoon, we have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true?

CLARKE: Well, I think the question is a little misleading. The press briefing you're referring to comes in the following context: Time magazine had published a cover story article highlighting what your staff briefing talks about. They had learned that, as your staff briefing notes, that there was a strategy or a plan and a series of additional options that were presented to the national security adviser and the new Bush team when they came into office. Time magazine ran a somewhat sensational story that implied that the Bush administration hadn't worked on that plan. And this, of course, coming after 9/11 caused the Bush White House a great deal of concern. So I was asked by several people in senior levels of the Bush White House to do a press backgrounder to try to explain that set of facts in a way that minimized criticism of the administration. And so I did. Now, we can get into semantic games of whether it was a strategy, or whether it was a plan, or whether it was a series of options to be decided upon. I think the facts are as they were outlined in your staff briefing.

THOMPSON: Well, let's take a look, then, at your press briefing, because I don't want to engage in semantic games. You said, the Bush administration decided, then, you know, mid-January -- that's mid- January, 2001 -- to do 2 things: one, vigorously pursue the existing the policy -- that would be the Clinton policy -- including all of the lethal covert action findings which we've now made public to some extent. Is that so? Did they decide in January of 2001 to vigorously pursue the existing Clinton policy?

CLARKE: They decided that the existing covert action findings would remain in effect.

THOMPSON: OK. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided. Now, that seems to indicate to me that proposals had been sitting on the table in the Clinton administration for a couple of years, but that the Bush administration was going to get them done. Is that a correct assumption?

CLARKE: Well, that was my hope at the time. It turned out not to be the case.

THOMPSON: Well, then why in August of 2002, over a year later, did you say that it was the case?

CLARKE: I was asked to make that case to the press. I was a special assistant to the president, and I made the case I was asked to make.

THOMPSON: Are you saying to be you were asked to make an untrue case to the press and the public, and that you went ahead and did it?

CLARKE: No, sir. Not untrue. Not an untrue case. I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done. And as a special assistant to the president, one is frequently asked to do that kind of thing. I've done it for several presidents.

THOMPSON: Well, OK, over the course of the summer, they developed implementation details. The principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold. Did they authorize the increase in funding five-fold?

CLARKE: Authorized but not appropriated.

THOMPSON: Well, but the Congress appropriates, don't they, Mr. Clarke?

CLARKE: Well, within the executive branch, there are two steps as well. In the executive branch, there's the policy process which you can compare to authorization, which is to say we would like to spend this amount of money for this program. And then there is the second step, the budgetary step, which is to find the offsets. And that had not been done. In fact, it wasn't done until after September 11th.

THOMPSON: Changing the policy on Pakistan, was the policy on Pakistan changed?

CLARKE: Yes, sir it was.

THOMPSON: Changing the policy on Uzbekistan, was it changed?

CLARKE: Yes, sir.

THOMPSON: Changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance, was that changed?

CLARKE: Well, let me back up. I said yes to the last two answers. It was changed only after September 11th. It had gone through an approvals process. It was going through an approvals process with the deputies committee. And they had approved it -- The deputies had approved those policy changes. It had then gone to a principals committee for approval, and that occurred on September 4th. Those three things which you mentioned were approved by the principals. They were not approved by the president, and therefore the final approval hadn't occurred until after September 11th.

THOMPSON: But they were approved by people in the administration below the level of the president, moving toward the president. Is that correct?

CLARKE: Yes, so over the course of many, many months, they went through several committee meetings at the sub-Cabinet level. And then there was a hiatus. And then they went to finally on September 4th, a week before the attacks, they went to the principals for their approval. Of course, the final approval by the president didn't take place until after the attacks.

THOMPSON: Well is that eight-month period unusual?

CLARKE: It is unusual when you are being told every day that there is an urgent threat.

THOMPSON: Well, but the policy involved changing, for example, the policy on Pakistan, right? So you would have to involve those people in the administration who had charge of the Pakistani policy, would you not?

CLARKE: The secretary of state has, as a member of the principals committee, that kind of authority over all foreign policy issues.

THOMPSON: Changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance, that would have been DOD?

CLARKE: No. Governor, that would have been the CIA. But again, all of the right people to make those kinds of changes were represented by the five or six people on the principals committee.

THOMPSON: But they were also represented on the smaller group, were they not, the deputies committee?

CLARKE: But they didn't have the authority to approve it. They only had the authority to recommend it further up the process.

THOMPSON: Well, is policy usually made at the level of the principals committee before it comes up?

CLARKE: Policy usually originates in working groups. Recommendations and differences then are floated up from working groups to the deputies committee. If there are differences there, policy recommendations and differences are then floated up to the principals. And occasionally, when there is not a consensus at the principals level, policy recommendations and options, or differences, go to the president. And the president makes these kinds of decisions. By law, in fact, many of the kinds of decisions you're talking about can only be made by the president.

THOMPSON: And you said that the strategy changed from one of rollback with Al Qaida over the course of five years, which it had been, which I presume is the Clinton policy, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaida, that is in fact the time line. Is that correct?

CLARKE: It is, but it requires a bit of elaboration. As your staff brief said, the goal of the Delenda Plan was to roll back Al Qaida over the course of three to five years so that it was just a nub of an organization like Abu Nidal that didn't threaten the United States. I tried to insert the phrase early in the Bush administration in the draft NSPD that our goal should be to eliminate Al Qaida. And I was told by various members of the deputies committee that that was overly ambitious and that we should take the word eliminate out and say significantly erode.

CLARKE: And then, following 9/11, we were able to go back to my language of eliminate, rather than significantly erode. And so, the version of the national security presidential decision directive that President Bush finally got to see after 9/11, had my original language of eliminate, not the interim language of erode.

THOMPSON: And you were asked when was...

KEAN: Governor, one more question.

THOMPSON: When was that presented to the president? And you answered: the president was briefed throughout this process.

CLARKE: Yes. The president apparently asked, on one occasion that I'm aware of, for a strategy. And when he asked that, he apparently didn't know there was a strategy in the works. I, therefore, was told about this by the national security adviser. I came back to her and said, well, there is a strategy; after all, it's basically what I showed you in January. It stuck in the deputies committee. She said she would tell the president that, and she said she would try to break it out of the deputies committee.

THOMPSON: So you believed that your conference with the press in August of 2002 is consistent with what you've said in your book and what you've said in press interviews the last five days about your book?

CLARKE: I do. I think the think that's obviously bothering you is the tenor and the tone. And I've tried to explain to you, sir, that when you're on the staff of the president of the United States, you try to make his policies look as good as possible.

The guy is unflappable.

[Outcast]

Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02

Quote:

Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.