LOL, hilarious alternate history

[Glocksman]

To blatantly say that it's a good idea to shoot down airlines that started deviating from its course is just silly, it would've meant killing innocents without any good reason. Wong, are you actually saying that this would've been your policy given that PDB?

Unauthorized course deviations have caused midair collisions before because the pilot deviated course right into another aircraft. EVERYTHING involving airliners MUST be done with full knowledge and consent of the ground because American airspace is so crowded that a single rogue airplane is a danger to everything else in the sky.

Course deviations alone don't justify shooting down an airplane, however.

[Iceberg]

To blatantly say that it's a good idea to shoot down airlines that started deviating from its course is just silly, it would've meant killing innocents without any good reason. Wong, are you actually saying that this would've been your policy given that PDB?

Unauthorized course deviations have caused midair collisions before because the pilot deviated course right into another aircraft. EVERYTHING involving airliners MUST be done with full knowledge and consent of the ground because American airspace is so crowded that a single rogue airplane is a danger to everything else in the sky.

Course deviations alone don't justify shooting down an airplane, however.

Unauthorized course devations PLUS the deliberate disablement of the plane's transponder, though...

[Glocksman]

Obviously, you're one of those people that thinks repetition of the same argument ad-infinitum somehow validates it. And how do you explain JFK managing to put together EXCOMM in one day? How was it possible for the Clinton White House to coordinate the effort to snuff out the Millenium plot within a month?

Do you even know what EXCOMM was?

EXCOMM was merely an ad-hoc group of advisors that JFK put together whose job it was to explore options and act as a sounding board during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Quite a different task than breaking down 30 years of bureaucratic bullshit and turf fighting, eh?

NO IT ISN'T YOU GODDAMN IMBECILE! There were enough intel warnings coming in over the previous eight months that something major was brewing, involving Al-Qaeda attacking inside the United States, possibly using hijacked aircraft. Kindly explain to the class why it would have been utterly impossible for George Bush to put together his own ad-hoc advisory/coordination group to uncover and avert this threat.

So you think that an ad-hoc advisory group would have broken down the institutional barriers and forced the various law enforcement and intelligence agencies into ending their turf wars and playing nice together practically overnight? Right....

It'd take a lot more than an EXCOMM style advisory panel to do that.

The real use of such a panel would have been high level sharing of information, and the members of the panel can only present the information if they have it. Going by that 8/6 PDB, they didn't have it (the information about the Arab flying students).

Again, the Millenium Bomb plot wasn't uncovered by the FBI until a Customs agent got suspicious. The FBI subsequently broke up the plot because the captured bomber and a coconspirator talked. The White House team didn't even raise the alert status at the borders until Ressam was already in jail.

And again, the Ressam arrest was the beginning of the Millenium bomb-plot story, not its end. How many times must this be said and in how many different ways?

My entire point was that the FBI got lucky in Ressam being busted by customs. Without that break, the Millenium Bomb Plot would have happened. It wasn't the White House Task Force, the CIA, or the FBI that caused that lucky break to happen.

The White House Task Force does deserve credit for making it be known that there was high level interest in the case and meeting to decide options, but it in and of itself didn't do a thing as regards to the big break in the case.

In fact, according to Clarke, the task force was created in December 1999. Ressam was caught at the border on December 14, 1999. It would be reasonable to infer that it was Ressam's arrest and the information he provided that led to the formation of the task force.

Of course I could be wrong and if you know the exact date that the task force was assembled, I'd like to know as well.

If the FBI had captured one of the hijackers and he talked prior to the attacks and Bush did nothing, your argument would be valid.

Wrong. Preliminary measures against skyjacking and air defence could have been implemented. Increased surveilance on the Arab students known to be learning how to fly but strangely not land planes in the flight schools could have been implemented. Undercover armed sky-marshals could have been assigned to commercial flights on a continuing basis. You keep trying to argue in absolutes in order to manufacture a False Dilemma.

Did the White House know about the Arab students learning to fly but not land? My entire point is that the information was there, but it was buried in the FBI bureaucracy and no one at the DC headquarters thought it important enough to follow up or inform the President.


The hearings coming up should reveal more about this.

The quality and quantity of information that let to the setup of the Millenium task force didn't exist for 9/11.

If we ignore warnings from the CIA, MI6, French, Italian, Russian, Israeli, and Egyptian intelligence, you might have an argument there.

What we had was a lot of activity that indicated anti-US activities both within the US and overseas. There were a lot of vague warnings, but nothing specific other than '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.'.

There was no information of the quality that the FBI was able to sweat out of Ressam available. If there was, I'd be the first one calling for GWB's impeachment.

Perhaps the FAA should have been ordered to tighten up security, but that still would have let the hijackers through as their weapons were legal under the pre 9/11 inspection system. As it was, from reports on the sloppy security at Logan, they probably could have brought RPG-7's aboard.

At the time, there was no system in place to 'pre screen' potential passengers with records checks, either.

Executive Order. Good enough for a short-term extraordinary situation. Happens all the time.

Executive orders can't violate the law.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS ARE PART OF THE LAW, moron. They empower the president to act in absence of Congressional action within the scope of the law. And in terms of organising national defences and security, the president has very broad power as Commander-in-Chief.

Your own words reveal that the President cannot contravene the law. There were laws passed in the 1970's that limited contacts between the FBI and CIA because of the abuses that occured then. In other words, there was Congressional action on the issue of FBI and CIA contacts.

No EO ordering a direct violation of the law is legal. Period.

[Glocksman]

Unauthorized course deviations have caused midair collisions before because the pilot deviated course right into another aircraft. EVERYTHING involving airliners MUST be done with full knowledge and consent of the ground because American airspace is so crowded that a single rogue airplane is a danger to everything else in the sky.

Course deviations alone don't justify shooting down an airplane, however.

Unauthorized course devations PLUS the deliberate disablement of the plane's transponder, though...

Post 9/11? Yeah that's different.
Pre 9/11 when all previous hijackings ended on the ground with either negotiations or a hostage rescue?

[MKSheppard]

The poison is in the dose, Shep. Sketchy evidence => limited response with limited consequences. In the case of Iraq, no real evidence => massive response with massive consequences. See the problem?

Fine, let's talk about Clinton's own Iraq, the Kosovo war of 1999.

We go to war, blow up a modern country's infastructure, blow up
a passenger train crossing a bridge (now that was a really bad fuck up),
commit an act of war against another major country by JDAMing the
Chinese embassy right in it's intelligence section, and come within a
hair's breadth of WW3 when Wes Clark orders british troops to open fire
on Russian Paratroopers in Kosovo.

And when it's all done and said, we have no evidence of any major mass
ethnic cleansing or mass graves which were used as "evidence" by
Team Clinton. Instead, we have lots of individually marked graves
with crosses, and we end up bravely defeating a non-existent
case of Ethnic Cleansing, and in the end, aid and abet the KLA in it's
own ethnic cleansing campaign against the Serbian population of
Kosovo, which continues to this day.

There's a reason we turned down KLA offers for help in the War on Terror,
and accepted Serbian help instead. The KLA is little different than the
Islamofascists we're fighting now.

And Kosovo was a massive money sink for the US Army that forced
cancellation of a lot of programs, and caused the entire Stryker Brigade
Fiasco to be started in the first place.

And it's looking highly likely that Slobodoan Milosevic might in fact walk
from the Hague a free man, completely negating everything Team Clinton
went to war for.

Great policy decision there, Team Clinton!

[MKSheppard]

Lets not forget Team Clinton's complete utter fear of American Casualties
led to us bombing from over 20,000 feet, leading to almost virtually zero
casualties inflicted on the Serbian Army, which withdrew from Kosovo in
ordely columns full of "destroyed' vehicles.

[MKSheppard]

Let's not forget Team CLinton's response to having destroyed a modern
country's infrastructure for no real reason at all in the end.

They told the Serbs to piss off, and we ended up giving aid money to terrorists instead. The only real foreign aid relief for Serbia came from
Russia, who we pissed off MAJORLY with our Kosovo escapade.

Contrast this with Iraq; Bush blows the fuck out of Iraq, invades it, and
then begins handing out billions of dollars of contracts to rebuild the shit
we blew up to be better than before (not hard in light of 12 years of sanctions'
effects), and he's attacked for trying to fix up the damage we did in
toppling Saddam

[SirNitram]

The Right Wing Red Herring rises again: If All Else Fails, Bring Up Clinton.

[Illuminatus Primus]

[MKSheppard]

The Right Wing Red Herring rises again: If All Else Fails, Bring Up Clinton.

Whatever. Why is it you like attacking Bush's record, but don't like it when
the Right wing brings up Clinton's successes....oh wait......wrong word.

Haiti.....where he sent US Marines in to overthrow the government of Haiti
and install a new government.......nope, didn't work out.

Somalia.......that was Bush I's problem, but CLinton turned it from an
embarassing problem into a catastrophic Failure by replacing
a 20,000 man marine division in Somolia equipped with heavy armor
and artillery, with a 10,000 man light infantry division which was
denied all requests for armor of it's own, and then topped it off after
the Mogadishu battle by withdrawing our troops after Mogadishu,
making the Arab world think we were weak, and emboldening
scumfucks like OBL.

WTC 1993 - Treats it as a criminal case, instead of an act of war, despite
the terrorists intentions to use cyanide gas to kill thousands of people.

Africa Embassy Bombings 1998 - 219 people are killed and thousands
more are wounded in the SIMULTANEOUS bombings of two US Embassies,
yet Team Clinton does..........nothing, despite this being as much an act
of war as 9/11 was.

Sudan, he blows up an Asprin factory on nonexistent intelligence, and
blows up a few of OBL's tents in Afghanistan, elevating OBL to superstar
status in the Islamic world.

USS Cole, 2000- another act of war, nearly sinking a US Naval
Warship, and Team Clinton continues to treat it as a criminal case, with
predictable results

We can also thank Clinton era gender equality policies for nearly
sinking Cole, which was equipped with lighter emergency pumps
to make it easier for women to carry them, that couldn't do the damn
job right.

They had to cut a hole in the hull to drain it out of which involved
men using a cutting torch while standing in fuel contaminated
water - not a good combination.

Lets not forget that Boris Yeltsin and President H.W. Bush were both in
enthuastic agreement for a limited Missile Defense Shield, but in a few
years, Team Clinton turned the russians into enemys of said
Missile Defense. Great policy success there!

And of course we must not forget his frantic efforts after his impeachment
to secure a foreign policy legacy by wasting massive amounts of time trying to broker an Israeli/Palestinian "peace agreement"....nevermind
that his earlier Oslo accords didn't work out so well, nor did him sending
Cue-ball Carville to rig the Israeli elections in favor of Ehud Barak...

So many successes here

[SirNitram]

The Right Wing Red Herring rises again: If All Else Fails, Bring Up Clinton.

Whatever. Why is it you like attacking Bush's record, but don't like it when
the Right wing brings up Clinton's successes....oh wait......wrong word.

Probably for the fact it's a red herring. You know, a logical fallacy, to bring it up in a discussion of Bush's actions.

[MKSheppard]

Probably for the fact it's a red herring. You know, a logical fallacy, to bring it up in a discussion of Bush's actions.

Except they're literally the opposite of each other politically, and they faced
the saem gang of usual suspects, North Korea......damn I forgot all about them!

Team Clinton almost started the Second Korean War all by themselves back
in 1994 over the NK Nuke program, and we didn't even tell the South Koreans
about it. Carter Saved Team Clinton's asses with that fuel oil and food agreement which turned out in the end to be so much bullshit.

Anyway, they've faced the same suspects, like Saddam, Osama, Kim Jong Il, etc, so it's a good baseline for comparison, considering their diametically opposed viewpoints.

[SirNitram]

Probably for the fact it's a red herring. You know, a logical fallacy, to bring it up in a discussion of Bush's actions.

Except they're literally the opposite of each other politically, and they faced
the saem gang of usual suspects, North Korea......damn I forgot all about them!

Team Clinton almost started the Second Korean War all by themselves back
in 1994 over the NK Nuke program, and we didn't even tell the South Koreans
about it. Carter Saved Team Clinton's asses with that fuel oil and food agreement which turned out in the end to be so much bullshit.

Anyway, they've faced the same suspects, like Saddam, Osama, Kim Jong Il, etc, so it's a good baseline for comparison, considering their diametically opposed viewpoints.

Apparently you are a little short on knowledge of logical debates. In a discussion of Bush vs. Clinton, this little tirade would be sensible. It is not, however, at all applicable to a thread discussing Bush. Would it be asking alot to expect something approaching logical debate?

[Patrick Degan]

Do you even know what EXCOMM was?

EXCOMM was merely an ad-hoc group of advisors that JFK put together whose job it was to explore options and act as a sounding board during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Quite a different task than breaking down 30 years of bureaucratic bullshit and turf fighting, eh?

NO IT ISN'T YOU GODDAMN IMBECILE! There were enough intel warnings coming in over the previous eight months that something major was brewing, involving Al-Qaeda attacking inside the United States, possibly using hijacked aircraft. Kindly explain to the class why it would have been utterly impossible for George Bush to put together his own ad-hoc advisory/coordination group to uncover and avert this threat.

So you think that an ad-hoc advisory group would have broken down the institutional barriers and forced the various law enforcement and intelligence agencies into ending their turf wars and playing nice together practically overnight? Right....

The president can ORDER this. Just what the fuck about this is so difficult for you to grasp?

The real use of such a panel would have been high level sharing of information, and the members of the panel can only present the information if they have it. Going by that 8/6 PDB, they didn't have it (the information about the Arab flying students).

The August 6 PDB plus eight months of updated intel warnings.

Again, the Millenium Bomb plot wasn't uncovered by the FBI until a Customs agent got suspicious. The FBI subsequently broke up the plot because the captured bomber and a coconspirator talked. The White House team didn't even raise the alert status at the borders until Ressam was already in jail.

And again, the Ressam arrest was the beginning of the Millenium bomb-plot story, not its end. How many times must this be said and in how many different ways?

My entire point was that the FBI got lucky in Ressam being busted by customs. Without that break, the Millenium Bomb Plot would have happened. It wasn't the White House Task Force, the CIA, or the FBI that caused that lucky break to happen.

And once more —had there been no follow-up of any sort after Ressam's arrest, with no Federal investigation or interdiction effort, the rest of the attack would have been carried out. The "lucky break" wouldn't have meant dick without follow-up.

The White House Task Force does deserve credit for making it be known that there was high level interest in the case and meeting to decide options, but it in and of itself didn't do a thing as regards to the big break in the case.

The "big break" was the BEGINNING of that story, not its ending. No follow-up = successful bombings by Al-Qaeda at their other targets. I fail to understand why this eludes you.

In fact, according to Clarke, the task force was created in December 1999. Ressam was caught at the border on December 14, 1999. It would be reasonable to infer that it was Ressam's arrest and the information he provided that led to the formation of the task force.

And if Clinton and co. had simply decided to blow off the "lucky break"...?

If the FBI had captured one of the hijackers and he talked prior to the attacks and Bush did nothing, your argument would be valid.

Wrong. Preliminary measures against skyjacking and air defence could have been implemented. Increased surveilance on the Arab students known to be learning how to fly but strangely not land planes in the flight schools could have been implemented. Undercover armed sky-marshals could have been assigned to commercial flights on a continuing basis. You keep trying to argue in absolutes in order to manufacture a False Dilemma.

Did the White House know about the Arab students learning to fly but not land? My entire point is that the information was there, but it was buried in the FBI bureaucracy and no one at the DC headquarters thought it important enough to follow up or inform the President.

This is Axis Kast-level stupidity on your part. The White House and the CIA were receiving intel warnings from Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Israel, and Egypt for EIGHT FUCKING MONTHS that Al-Qaeda were planning a major operation aimed at the United States, and the CIA had already projected the possibility of hijackers using planes as missiles. That very possibility was incorporated into the security planning for the 2001 G8 summit. Given this, and given a PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.", what exactly makes it utterly impossible for George W. Bush to call together a counter-terror EXCOMM to start pulling the various threads of investigation together?

The quality and quantity of information that let to the setup of the Millenium task force didn't exist for 9/11.

If we ignore warnings from the CIA, MI6, French, Italian, Russian, Israeli, and Egyptian intelligence, you might have an argument there.

What we had was a lot of activity that indicated anti-US activities both within the US and overseas. There were a lot of vague warnings, but nothing specific other than '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.'.

That's why, when you get a PDB with a title like "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." you start taking control of the situation. I will put the question to you again: what exactly makes it utterly impossible for George W. Bush to call together a counter-terror EXCOMM to start pulling the various threads of investigation together?

There was no information of the quality that the FBI was able to sweat out of Ressam available. If there was, I'd be the first one calling for GWB's impeachment.

Yeah, right, sure, whatever...

Perhaps the FAA should have been ordered to tighten up security, but that still would have let the hijackers through as their weapons were legal under the pre 9/11 inspection system. As it was, from reports on the sloppy security at Logan, they probably could have brought RPG-7's aboard.

Red Herring fallacy.

At the time, there was no system in place to 'pre screen' potential passengers with records checks, either.

Which isn't the fucking point either, so that's another Red Herring.

Executive orders can't violate the law.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS ARE PART OF THE LAW, moron. They empower the president to act in absence of Congressional action within the scope of the law. And in terms of organising national defences and security, the president has very broad power as Commander-in-Chief.

Your own words reveal that the President cannot contravene the law. There were laws passed in the 1970's that limited contacts between the FBI and CIA because of the abuses that occured then. In other words, there was Congressional action on the issue of FBI and CIA contacts.

No, the law prohibits the CIA from spying on American citizens as they did during the bad old days of COINTELPRO. It says nothing about coordination between CIA and FBI investigations of foreign threats within the U.S or even internationally.

No EO ordering a direct violation of the law is legal. Period.

Actually, Executive Orders pretty much are law. They become legal within thirty days of listing in the Federal Registry. You evidently didn't read that Wikipedia article I quoted (no surprise there) which stated that Congress has to take specific action to repeal an EO. To reiterate:

Many critics have accused the Presidents of abusing executive orders, both to make new laws without Congressional approval and to move existing laws away from their original mandates. Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been passed into law through executive order, including the integration of the Armed Forces under Harry Truman and the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower. Even entire wars have been fought upon executive order, including Bill Clinton's 1999 Kosovo War. (However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the President may exercise military power independently of Congress, and the scope of the War Powers Resolution, remain undecided Constitutional questions.) Critics fear that the President could make himself a de facto dictator by side-stepping the other branches of government and making autocratic laws. The Presidents, however, cite executive order as often the only way to clarify laws passed through the Congress, laws which often require vague wording in order to please all political parties involved in their creation.

To date, the courts have only overturned two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1996 order issued by President Bill Clinton which attempted to prevent the U.S. government from contracting with organizations that had "strikebreakers" on the payroll. Likewise, the Congress may also overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it or refusing to approve funding to enforce it. Because the President retains the power to veto such a decision, however, the Congress usually needs a 2/3 majority to override a veto and truly end an executive order.

And we're not talking about doing anything extralegal or extraconstitutional (despite the fact there there are a large stack of EOs allowing all sorts of extralegal powers to the president awaiting only a penstroke to implement them) but calling together a counter-terror EXCOMM group to coordinate investigation, intel, and interdiction for a short-term emergency situation. You fail continuously to explain why this is impossible and why the already-existing powers of the presidency cannot be applied to ordering the FBI and CIA to share their files with the president at the same meeting they're attending together or with the National Security Adviser.

So I will ask this again and keep asking until I get a straight answer: what exactly makes it utterly impossible for George W. Bush to call together a counter-terror EXCOMM to start pulling the various threads of investigation together?

[Howedar]

Whatever. Why is it you like attacking Bush's record, but don't like it when
the Right wing brings up Clinton's successes....oh wait......wrong word.

Get this through your head you fucking incompetent retard. Clinton has nothing to do with Bush's lack of action in 2001. Clinton was out of office. Clinton had no power. Clinton was out of the loop.

What Clinton did or did not do DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER and frankly I'm astonished that you aren't regarded in the same light as Comical Axi for bringing this red herring up over and over and over.

[MKSheppard]

Clinton had no power. Clinton was out of the loop.

Clinton certainly had the fucking power in 1998 to order Osama Bin Laden
and Al Quaeda's fucking head kicked the fuck in and smashed into the
ground after they blew up two US embassies on the same day in Africa.

But no, he decided to treat that as a criminal matter, rather than the outright act of war it was .

I wonder how many people would be alive nowadays if Clinton
had actually found some balls (probably from hillary's panties)
and actively ordered that Al Quaeda and OBL be hunted down
mercilessly without remorse and destroyed wherever they
were found.

Osama bin Laden is a rabid dog who should have long ago been
put to sleep, but the dogcatcher for the last eight years was
asleep at the switch.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Who the fuck cares? We're talking about whether Bush could have stopped 9/11, not Clinton.

[Howedar]

Clinton had no power. Clinton was out of the loop.

Clinton certainly had the fucking power in 1998 to order Osama Bin Laden
and Al Quaeda's fucking head kicked the fuck in and smashed into the
ground after they blew up two US embassies on the same day in Africa.

But no, he decided to treat that as a criminal matter, rather than the outright act of war it was .

I wonder how many people would be alive nowadays if Clinton
had actually found some balls (probably from hillary's panties)
and actively ordered that Al Quaeda and OBL be hunted down
mercilessly without remorse and destroyed wherever they
were found.

Osama bin Laden is a rabid dog who should have long ago been
put to sleep, but the dogcatcher for the last eight years was
asleep at the switch.

------------The point--------------------->










Your head

[Glocksman]

I think we've gotten off track here:

This is Axis Kast-level stupidity on your part. The White House and the CIA were receiving intel warnings from Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Israel, and Egypt for EIGHT FUCKING MONTHS that Al-Qaeda were planning a major operation aimed at the United States, and the CIA had already projected the possibility of hijackers using planes as missiles. That very possibility was incorporated into the security planning for the 2001 G8 summit. Given this, and given a PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.", what exactly makes it utterly impossible for George W. Bush to call together a counter-terror EXCOMM to start pulling the various threads of investigation together?

He has to know the nature of the threat before he can do that. The PDB talks about the threats, but it also states that there are a lot of active investigations going on. I can't speak for Bush, but I would assume that with 70 investigations going on, the FBI has their thumb on the pulse.

I would have assumed wrong, of course.

This statement from the PDB also undermined the intelligence received from the powers you mentioned:

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (edited)... service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other US-held extremists.

The only thing Bush is guilty of IMHO regarding 9/11 is that he trusted his underlings too much. He trusted the FBI to handle the investigations and he took the PDB at its word when it stated that 'some of the more sensational threat reporting' couldn't be corroborated by the CIA.

Now some of the things I'm hearing about AG John 'Let's chase after porn' Ashcroft and his slashing of the counterterror budget and reportedly telling his acting FBI director that 'he had no interest' in terrorism would lead me to look at him as one of the prime culprits.

This is probably an instance where GWB's delegational leadership style failed. It works when you have competent subordinates, but it fails with idiots such as Asscroft.

While GWB could have done more, I don't think it rises to the level of saying that 9/11 wouldn't have happened except for Bush.


Shep, unless Clinton knew about the attacks and didn't tell the incoming administration, he's immaterial to this discussion. I didn't like the SOB, but I certainly don't think he'd do something like that.

The "big break" was the BEGINNING of that story, not its ending. No follow-up = successful bombings by Al-Qaeda at their other targets. I fail to understand why this eludes you.

And exactly where and when was the kind of intelligence that Ressam provided for the bomb plot that led to the formation of that team provided to GWB for 9/11?

If he was going by that PDB, there was nothing in it to suggest that forming a team was necessary. In fact, it would indicate that it wasn't necessary as the CIA wasn't able to corroborate the more sensational threats.

And if Clinton and co. had simply decided to blow off the "lucky break"...?

They didn't. And that's my point. Bush didn't get a 'lucky break' of that kind to blow off. Instead of a captured terrorist singing like a canary, all he had were a shitload of vague warnings, the FBI telling him that there were over 70 investigations going on, and the CIA telling him that they couldn't corroborate some of the more sensational warnings.

No, the law prohibits the CIA from spying on American citizens as they did during the bad old days of COINTELPRO. It says nothing about coordination between CIA and FBI investigations of foreign threats within the U.S or even internationally.

COINTELPRO was actually an FBI op, but point conceded. The barriers to FBI-CIA cooperation are more institutional than legal.

Even now they're feuding over the makeup of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center

Bobby Brady, deputy chief information officer for the CIA, said last week that the agency had asked the FBI to name a deputy director and lead liaison representing federal law enforcement to the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC), which is scheduled to open May 1. The CIA named John Brennan as the center's director.

Despite Brady's concerns, the FBI is not in the process of appointing a deputy director for the center and may not need to, according to an FBI spokesman. The guidelines for the center require a director and three deputy directors for analysis, management and liaison, all appointed from different agencies.

The CIA and FBI deal with sensitive information, and there might be struggles to determine what information to share. "There are times when we don't want to share sources and methods, and I'm sure the CIA has similar concerns in some cases," FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said. "It's not as simple as getting a room and putting analysts in it. But to the extent we can integrate the intelligence sharing, certainly the better off we are."

In his State of the Union address in January, Bush called on four agencies to work together to establish the center.

"Tonight, I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, the CIA, the Homeland Security [Department (DHS)] and the Department of Defense to develop a Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to merge and analyze all threat information in a single location," Bush said. "Our government must have the very best information possible, and we will use it to make sure the right people are in the right places to protect our citizens."

You would think that 9/11 pointed out that the FBI and CIA do need to coordinate terrorist information, yet the FBI doesn't seem to understand that.

[Patrick Degan]

This is Axis Kast-level stupidity on your part. The White House and the CIA were receiving intel warnings from Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Israel, and Egypt for EIGHT FUCKING MONTHS that Al-Qaeda were planning a major operation aimed at the United States, and the CIA had already projected the possibility of hijackers using planes as missiles. That very possibility was incorporated into the security planning for the 2001 G8 summit. Given this, and given a PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.", what exactly makes it utterly impossible for George W. Bush to call together a counter-terror EXCOMM to start pulling the various threads of investigation together?

He has to know the nature of the threat before he can do that. The PDB talks about the threats, but it also states that there are a lot of active investigations going on. I can't speak for Bush, but I would assume that with 70 investigations going on, the FBI has their thumb on the pulse.

That's why you start calling your intelligence agencies and defence people together when you get something titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.". I really cannot believe you are this thick.

This statement from the PDB also undermined the intelligence received from the powers you mentioned:

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (edited)... service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Uh huh:

Linky
March 2001 (B)
The Italian government gives the US information about possible attacks based on apartment wiretaps in the Italian city of Milan. [Fox News, 5/17/02] Presumably, the information includes a discussion between two al-Qaeda agents talking about a “very, very secret” plan to forge documents “for the brothers who are going to the United States” (see January 24, 2001). The warning may also have mentioned a wiretap the previous August involving one of the same people that discussed a massive strike against the enemies of Islam involving aircraft (see August 12, 2000). Two months later, wiretaps of the same Milan cell also reveal a plot to attack a summit of world leaders (see May 2001).

March-August 2001
In March and August, Atta visits a small airport in South Florida and asks detailed questions about how to start and fly a crop-duster plane. People there easily recall him because he was so persistent. After explaining his abilities, Atta is told he is not skilled enough to fly a crop-duster. [Miami Herald, 9/24/01] Employees at South Florida Crop Care in Belle Glade, Florida later tell the FBI that Atta was among the men who in groups of two or three visited the crop dusting firm nearly every weekend for six or eight weeks before the attacks. Says employee James Lester: “I recognized him because he stayed on my feet all the time. I just about had to push him away from me.” [AP 9/15/01] Yet, according to US investigators, Atta and the other hijackers gave up on the crop-duster idea back in 2000. (see Late April-Mid-May 2000).

March 7, 2001
The Russian Permanent Mission at the United Nations secretly submits “an unprecedentedly detailed report” to the UN Security Council about bin Laden, his whereabouts, details of his al-Qaeda network, Afghan drug running, and Taliban connections in Pakistan. The report provides “a listing of all bin Laden's bases, his government contacts and foreign advisors,” and enough information to potentially kill him. The US fails to act. Alex Standish, the editor of the highly respected Jane's Intelligence Review, concludes that the attacks of 9/11 were less of an American intelligence failure and more the result of “a political decision not to act against bin Laden.” [Jane's Intelligence Review 10/5/01]

April 2001 (B)
A source with terrorist connections speculates to US intelligence that “bin Laden would be interested in commercial pilots as potential terrorists.” The source warns that the US should not focus only on embassy bombings, because terrorists are seeking “spectacular and traumatic” attacks, along the lines of the WTC bombing in 1993. Because the source was offering personal speculation and not hard information, the information is not disseminated widely. [Senate Intelligence Committee 9/18/02; New York Times 9/18/02]

April 1, 2001
Hijacker Nawaf Alhazmi is stopped by an Oklahoma policeman for speeding. His license is run through a computer to check if there is a warrant for his arrest. There is none, so he is given a ticket and sent on his way. The CIA has known Alhazmi is a terrorist and possibly living in the US since March 2000 (see March 5, 2000), but has failed to share this knowledge with other agency. [Daily Oklahoman, 1/20/02, Newsweek, 6/2/02] He also has been in the country illegally since January 2001, but this also doesn't raise any flags. [Congressional Intelligence Committee 9/20/02]

April 18, 2001 (B)
The FAA sends a warning to US airlines that Middle Eastern terrorists could try to hijack or blow up a US plane and that carriers should “demonstrate a high degree of alertness.” The warning stems from the April 6, 2001, conviction of Ahmed Ressam over a failed plot to blow up Los Angeles International Airport during the millennium celebrations. This warning expires on July 31, 2001. [AP, 5/18/02] This is one of 15 general warnings issued to airlines between January and August (the airlines have been getting an average of more than one warning a month for a long time), but this one is slightly more specific. [CNN 3/02; CNN 5/17/02] As one newspaper later reports, “there were so many that airline officials grew numb to them.” [St. Petersburg Times, 9/23/02] The Bush administration officials have said the threats were so vague that they did not require tighter security. [AP 5/18/02]

May 2001
Around this time, intercepts from Afghanistan warn that al-Qaeda could attack an American target in late June or on the July 4 holiday. However, The White House's Counterterrorism Security Group does not meet to discuss this prospect. This group also fails to meet after intelligence analysts overhear conversations from an al-Qaeda cell in Milan suggesting that bin Laden's agents might be plotting to kill Bush at the European summit in Genoa, Italy, in late July (see July 20-22, 2001). In fact, the group hardly meets at all. By comparison, the Counterterrorism Security Group met two or three times a week between 1998 and 2000 under Clinton. [New York Times 12/30/01]

May 2001 (B)
US intelligence obtains information that al-Qaeda is planning to infiltrate the US from Canada and carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives. The report doesn't say exactly where inside the US, or when, or how an attack might occur. Two months later, the information is shared with the FBI, the INS, US Customs Service, and the State Department, and told to Bush in August (see August 6, 2001). [Senate Intelligence Committee 9/18/02; Washington Post 9/19/02]

May 2001 (C)
The Defense Department gains and shares information indicating that seven people associated with bin Laden have departed from various locations for Canada, Britain, and the US. This is around the time that most of the 19 hijackers enter the US—could those be some of the people referred to? The next month, the CIA learns that key operatives in al-Qaeda are disappearing while others are preparing for martyrdom. [Senate Intelligence Committee 9/18/02; Washington Post 9/19/02]

May 2001 (J)
US Medicine magazine later reports, “Though the Department of Defense had no capability in place to protect the Pentagon from an ersatz guided missile in the form of a hijacked 757 airliner, DoD [Department of Defense] medical personnel trained for exactly that scenario in May.” The tri-Service DiLorenzo Health Care Clinic and the Air Force Flight Medicine Clinic train inside the Pentagon this month “to fine-tune their emergency preparedness.” [US Medicine 10/01]

May 2001 (K)
The Defense Department learns and shares with US intelligence that seven people associated with bin Laden had left from various locations and headed to Canada, Britain, and the US. The next month, the CIA learns that key operatives in al-Qaeda are disappearing, while others are preparing for martyrdom. [Congressional Inquiry 7/24/03]

May 15, 2001
A Supervisor at the CIA's Counter Terrorism Center sends a request to CIA headquarters for the surveillance photos of the al-Qaeda meeting in Malaysia at the start of 2000 (see January 5-8, 2000 and January 6-9, 2000). Three days later, the supervisor explains the reason for the interest in an e-mail to a CIA analyst: “I'm interested because Khalid Almihdhar's two companions also were couriers of a sort, who traveled between [the Far East] and Los Angeles at the same time (hazmi and salah).” Hazmi refers to hijacker Nawaf Alhazmi, and Salah Said is the alias al-Qaeda leader Khallad bin Attash traveled under during the meeting. Apparently the supervisor receives the photos. Towards the end of May, a CIA analyst contacts a specialist working at FBI headquarters about the photographs. The CIA wanted the FBI analyst to review the photographs and determine if a person who had carried money to Southeast Asia for Khallad bin Attash in January 2000 could be identified. The CIA fails to tell the FBI analyst anything about Almihdhar or Alhazmi. Around the same time, the CIA analyst receives an e-mail mentioning Alhazmi's travel to the US. These two analysts travel to New York the next month and again the CIA analyst fails to divulge what he knows (see June 11, 2001). [Congressional Inquiry 7/24/03]

June 2001
German intelligence warns the CIA, Britain's MI6, and Israel's Mossad that Middle Eastern terrorists are planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols, which stand out.” A later article quotes unnamed German intelligence sources who state the information was coming from Echelon surveillance technology, and that British intelligence had access to the same warnings. However, there were other informational sources, including specific information and hints given to, but not reported by, Western and Near Eastern news media six months before 9/11. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01, Fox News, 5/17/02] FTW

June 1-2, 2001

Cover of a NORAD exercise proposal.
A multi-agency planning exercise sponsored by NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defense Command, in charge of defending US airspace) involves the hypothetical scenario of a cruise missile launched by “a rogue (government) or somebody” from a barge off the East Coast. Bin Laden is pictured on the cover of the proposal for the exercise. [American Forces Press Service 6/4/02] After 9/11, the government claims that this type of an attack was completely unexpected, and as a result it had only 14 fighters on standby to defend the entire US. [Newsday 9/23/01]



June 3, 2001
This is one of only two dates that Bush's national security leadership meets formally to discuss terrorism (see also September 4, 2001). This group, made up of the National Security Adviser, CIA Director, Defense Secretary, Secretary of State, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others, met around 100 times before 9/11 to discuss a variety of topics, but apparently rarely terrorism. In wake of these reports, the White House “aggressively defended the level of attention, given only scattered hints of al-Qaeda activity.” This lack of discussion stands in sharp contrast to the Clinton administration and public comments by the Bush administration. [Time, 8/4/02] Bush said in February 2001: “I will put a high priority on detecting and responding to terrorism on our soil.” A few weeks earlier, Tenet had told Congress, “The threat from terrorism is real, it is immediate, and it is evolving.” [AP 6/28/02]

June 11, 2001
A CIA analyst and FBI analyst travel to New York and meet with FBI officials at FBI headquarters about the USS Cole investigation. The CIA analyst has already showed photographs from the al-Qaeda Malaysia meeting attended by hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi (see January 5-8, 2000), to the FBI analyst, but failed to explain what he knows about them (see May 15, 2001). The CIA analyst now shows the same photos to the additional FBI agents. He wants to know if the FBI agents can identify anyone in the photos for a different case he's working on. “The FBI agents recognized the men from the Cole investigation, but when they asked the CIA what they knew about the men, they were told that they didn't have clearance to share that information. It ended up in a shouting match. ” [ABC News, 8/16/02] The CIA analyst later admits that at the time he knows Almihdhar had a US visa (see April 3-7, 1999), that Alhazmi had traveled to the US (see March 5, 2000), that al-Qaeda leader Khallad bin Attash had been recognized in one of the photos (see January 4, 2001), and that Alhazmi was known to be an experienced terrorist. But he doesn't tell any of this to any FBI agent. He doesn't let them keep copies of the photos either. [Congressional Inquiry, 7/24/03] He promises them more information later, but the FBI agents don't receive more information until after 9/11. [Congressional Inquiry, 9/20/02] Two days after this meeting, Almihdhar has no trouble getting a new multiple reentry US visa. [US News and World Report 12/12/01; Congressional Inquiry 9/20/02] CIA Director Tenet later claims, “Almihdhar was not who they were talking about in this meeting.” When Senator Carl Levin (D) reads the following to Tenet, “The CIA analyst who attended the New York meeting acknowledged to the joint inquiry staff that he had seen the information regarding Almihdhar's US visa and Alhazmi's travel to the United States but he stated that he would not share information outside of the CIA unless he had authority to do so,” Tenet claims that he talked to the same analyst and was told something completely different. [New York Times 10/17/02]

June 13, 2001
Egyptian President Hasni Mubarak claims that Egyptian intelligence discovers a “communiqué from bin Laden saying he wanted to assassinate George W. Bush and other G8 heads of state during their summit in Italy.” The communiqué specifically mentions this would be done via “an airplane stuffed with explosives.” The US and Italy are sent urgent warnings of this and the attack is apparently aborted (see July 20-22, 2001). [New York Times, 9/26/01] Mubarak claims that Egyptian intelligence officials informed American intelligence officers between March and May 2001 that an Egyptian agent had penetrated the bin Laden organization. Presumably this explains how Egypt is able to give the US these warnings (see also Late July 2001 (D) and August 30, 2001). [New York Times 6/4/02]

June 23, 2001
Reuters reports that “Followers of exiled Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden are planning a major attack on US and Israeli interests in the next two weeks.” The report is based on the impression of a reporter who interviewed bin Laden and some of his followers two days earlier. This reporter is quoted as saying: “There is a major state of mobilization among the Osama bin Laden forces. It seems that there is a race of who will strike first. Will it be the United States or Osama bin Laden?” [Reuters 6/23/01]

June 28, 2001
CIA Director Tenet writes an intelligence summary for National Security Adviser Rice: “It is highly likely that a significant al-Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks.” Rice will later claim that everyone was taken by complete surprise by the 9/11 attack (see May 16, 2002 (B)). [Washington Post 5/17/02] This comes several days after a reporter visits bin Laden, and is given the impression that an attack will occur in the next two weeks. He isn't actually told that by anyone, but he is told by at least one bin Laden follower that “a severe blow is expected against USA and Israeli interests worldwide.” [Pravda 6/26/01]

June 28, 2001
A briefing prepared for senior US government officials: “Based on a review of all-source reporting over the last five months, we believe that [bin Laden] will launch a significant terrorist attack against US and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.” As the weeks go by, intelligence information given to senior officials show that al-Qaeda continues to expect an imminent attack on US interests. [Senate Intelligence Committee 9/18/02; Washington Post 9/19/02; Congressional Inquiry 7/24/03 (B)]

Summer 2001
Around this time, the NSA intercepts telephone conversations between 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Mohamed Atta, but apparently does not share the information with any other agencies. The FBI has a $2 million reward for Mohammed at the time (see Mid-1996-September 11, 2001), while Atta is in charge of operations inside the US. [Knight Ridder, 6/6/02, Independent, 6/6/02] US intelligence learned in June 2001 that Mohammed was interested in sending terrorists to the US and supporting them there (see June 2001 (I)). Yet supposedly, the NSA either fails to translate these messages in a timely fashion or fails to understand the significance of what was translated. [Knight Ridder Newspapers, 6/6/02] While the contents of these discussions have never been released, doesn't it seem highly likely they were discussing 9/11 plans? Would the NSA fail to translate or properly analyze messages from one of the most wanted terrorists?

Congressman Porter Goss (R), Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, later says on the intelligence monitoring of terrorist groups: “the chatter level went way off the charts” around this time and stayed high until 9/11. Given his history as a CIA operative, presumably he was kept “in the know” to some extent. [Los Angeles Times, 5/18/02] A later Congressional report states: “Some individuals within the intelligence community have suggested that the increase in threat reporting was unprecedented, at least in terms of their own experience.” [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02] Two counter-terrorism officials [later describe] the alerts of this summer as “the most urgent in decades.” [Senate Intelligence Committee 9/18/02]


Supposedly, since 1997 there are only fourteen fighter planes on active alert to defend the continental US. But in the months before 9/11, rather than increase the number, the Pentagon was planning to reduce the number still further. Just after 9/11, the Los Angeles Times reported, “While defense officials say a decision had not yet been made, a reduction in air defenses had been gaining currency in recent months among task forces assigned by [Defense Secretary] Rumsfeld to put together recommendations for a reassessment of the military.” By comparison, in the Cold War atmosphere of the 1950s, the US had thousands of fighters on alert throughout the US. [Los Angeles Times 9/15/01 (B)] Also during this time, FAA officials try to dispense with “primary” radars altogether, so that if a plane were to turn its transponder off, no radar could see it. NORAD rejects the proposal. [Aviation Week and Space Technology 6/3/02]

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, later claims that at this time, CIA Director “Tenet [is] around town literally pounding on desks saying, something is happening, this is an unprecedented level of threat information. He didn't know where it was going to happen, but he knew that it was coming.” [Congressional Inquiry 7/24/03]

July 5, 2001
Counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke leads a meeting of the Counterterrorism Security Group, attended by officials from a dozen federal agencies, to discuss intelligence regarding terrorism threats and potential attacks on US installations overseas. He states, “Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon.” One who attended the meeting later calls the evidence that “something spectacular” is being planned by al-Qaeda “very gripping.” [Time, 8/4/02] Clarke directs every counter-terrorist office to cancel vacations, defer nonvital travel, put off scheduled exercises and place domestic rapid-response teams on much shorter alert. By early August, all of these emergency measures are no longer in effect. [CNN 3/02; Washington Post 5/17/02]

Mid-July 2001
US intelligence reports another spike in warnings (see June 13, 2001 for a previous warning) related to the July 20-22 G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy (see July 20-22, 2001). The reports include specific threats discovered by the head of Russia's Federal Bodyguard Service that al-Qaeda will try to kill Bush as he attends the summit. [CNN, 3/02] The reports are taken so seriously that Bush stays overnight on an aircraft carrier offshore, and other world leaders stay on a luxury ship. [CNN, 7/18/01] Two days before the summit begins, the BBC reports: “The huge force of officers and equipment which has been assembled to deal with unrest has been spurred on by a warning that supporters of Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden might attempt an air attack on some of the world leaders present.” [BBC 7/18/01]

Mid-July 2001 (B)
John O'Neill, FBI counter-terrorism expert, privately discusses White House obstruction in his bin Laden investigation. O'Neill says: “The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.” He adds: “All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia.” O'Neill also believes the White House is obstructing his investigation of bin Laden because they are still keeping the idea of a pipeline deal with the Taliban open. [CNN 1/8/02; CNN 1/9/02; Irish Times 11/19/01; Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth]

July 16, 2001
British spy agencies send a report to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other top officials warning that al-Qaeda is in “the final stages” of preparing a terrorist attack in the West. The prediction is “based on intelligence gleaned not just from MI6 and GCHQ but also from US agencies, including the CIA and the National Security Agency,” which cooperate with the British. “The contents of the July 16 warning would have been passed to the Americans, Whitehall sources confirmed.” The report states there is “an acute awareness” that the attack is “a very serious threat.” [London Times, 6/14/02] This information could be from or in addition to a warning based on surveillance of al-Qaeda prisoner Khalid al-Fawwaz (see August 21, 2001). [Fox News 5/17/02]

July 18, 2001
The FBI issues another warning to domestic law enforcement agencies about threats stemming from the convictions in the millennium bomb plot trial. The FAA also issues a warning, telling the airlines to “use the highest level of caution.” [CNN 3/02]

July 20-22, 2001
The G8 summit is held in Genoa, Italy. Acting on previous warnings that al-Qaeda would attempt to kill Bush and other leaders (see Mid-July 2001), Italy surrounds the summit with antiaircraft guns, keeps fighters in the air, and closes off local airspace to all planes. No attack occurs. US officials at the time state that the warnings were “unsubstantiated” but after 9/11 claim success in preventing an attack. Lying about Genoa keeps the public and the airlines uninformed about the seriousness of the current terrorist threat. [Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01 (B)] FTW

July 26, 2001
CBS News reports that Attorney General Ashcroft has stopped flying commercial airlines due to a threat assessment, but “neither the FBI nor the Justice Department … would identify [to CBS] what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.” [CBS, 7/26/01] FTW“Ashcroft demonstrated an amazing lack of curiosity when asked if he knew anything about the threat. ‘Frankly, I don't,’ he told reporters.” [San Francisco Chronicle 6/3/02] It is later reported that he stopped flying in July based on threat assessments made on May 8 and June 19. In May 2002 its claimed the threat assessment had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, but Ashcroft walked out of his office rather than answer questions about it. [AP, 5/16/02] The San Francisco Chronicle concludes, “The FBI obviously knew something was in the wind … The FBI did advise Ashcroft to stay off commercial aircraft. The rest of us just had to take our chances.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 6/3/02] CBS's Dan Rather later says of this warning: “Why wasn't it shared with the public at large?” [Washington Post 5/27/02]

Late July 2001 (D)
CBS later has a brief mention in a long story on another topic: “Just days after Atta return to the US from Spain, Egyptian intelligence in Cairo says it received a report from one of its operatives in Afghanistan that 20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas. To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn't sound terribly alarming, but they [pass] on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. The request never [comes]. ” [CBS 10/9/02] This appears to be one of several accurate Egyptian warnings based on informants (see June 13, 2001 and August 30, 2001). Could Egypt have known the names of some or all of the hijackers? Given FBI agent Ken Williams' memo about flight schools a short time before (see July 10, 2001), shouldn't the US have investigated this closely instead of completely ignoring it?

Late summer 2001
Jordanian intelligence (the GID) makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah's men relay it to Washington, probably through the CIA station in Amman. To make doubly sure the message gets through it is passed through an Arab intermediary to a German intelligence agent. The message states that a major attack, code named The Big Wedding, is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used. “When it became clear that the information was embarrassing to Bush Administration officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings before September 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their earlier confirmations.” Christian Science Monitor calls the story “confidently authenticated” even though Jordan has backed away from it. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02]

August 2001 (D)
Russian President Putin warns the US that suicide pilots are training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News 5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence also later states, “We had clearly warned them” on several occasions, but they “did not pay the necessary attention.” [Agence France-Presse 9/16/01] A Russian newspaper on September 12, 2001 claims that “Russian Intelligence agents know the organizers and executors of these terrorist attacks. More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation to these actions a couple of weeks before they happened.” Interestingly, the article claims that at least two of the terrorists were Muslim radicals from Uzbekistan. [Izvestia 9/12/01] (the story currently on the Izvestia web site has been edited to delete a key paragraph, the link is to a translation of the original article from From the Wilderness)

Early August 2001 (C)
Britain gives the US another warning about an al-Qaeda attack.The previous British warning (see July 16, 2001) was vague as to method, but this warning specifies multiple airplane hijackings. This warning is included in Bush's briefing on August 6. [Sunday Herald 5/19/02]

August 4-30, 2001
President Bush spends most of August 2001 at his Crawford, Texas, ranch, nearly setting a record for the longest presidential vacation. While it is billed a “working vacation,” ABC reports Bush is doing “nothing much” aside from his regular daily intelligence briefings. [ABC 8/3/01; Washington Post 8/7/01; Salon 8/29/01] One such unusually long briefing at the start of his trip is a warning that bin Laden is planning to attack in the US, but Bush spends the rest of that day fishing (see August 6, 2001). By the end of his trip, Bush has spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route. [Washington Post 8/7/01] At the time, a poll shows that 55 percent of Americans say Bush is taking too much time off. [USA Today, 8/7/01] Vice President Cheney also spends the entire month in a remote location in Wyoming. [Jackson Hole News and Guide 8/15/01]

August 6, 2001

President Bush receives a classified intelligence briefing at his Crawford, Texas ranch indicating that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. The memo read to him is titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”, and the entire memo focuses on the possibility of terrorist attacks inside the US. [Newsweek, 5/27/02, New York Times, 5/15/02] The contents have never been made public. However, according to the 9/11 Congressional inquiry (they call it “a closely held intelligence report for senior government officials” presented in early August 2001), the memo includes at least the following information:

1. Bin Laden has wanted to conduct attacks inside the US since 1997.
2. “Members of al-Qaeda, including some US citizens, [have] resided in or traveled to the US for years and that the group apparently maintain a support structure” in the US.
3. A discussion of the arrest of Ahmed Ressam (see December 14, 1999) and the 1998 US embassy bombings (see August 7, 1998).
4. Uncorroborated information obtained in 1998 that bin Laden wants to hijack airplanes to gain the release of US-held extremists such as Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman (see July 1990).
5. Information acquired in May 2001 indicating al-Qaeda is planning to infiltrate the US from Canada and attack the US using high explosives (see May 2001 (B)).
6. “FBI judgments about patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks.”
7. The number of bin Laden-related investigations underway [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02, Congressional Inquiry, 7/24/03]

Incredibly, the New York Times later reports that Bush “[breaks] off from work early and [spends] most of the day fishing” (see also August 4-30, 2001). [New York Times, 5/25/02] FTW The existence of this memo is kept secret, until it is leaked in May 2002, causing a storm of controversy (see May 15, 2002). National Security Advisor Rice gives an inaccurate description of the memo, claiming it is only one and a half pages long (other accounts state it is 11 and a half pages instead of the usual two or three). [Newsweek 5/27/02; New York Times 5/15/02; Die Zeit 10/1/02] She falsely claims “it was an analytic report that talked about [bin Laden]'s methods of operation, talked about what he had done historically, in 1997, in 1998. … I want to reiterate, it was not a warning. There was no specific time, place, or method mentioned.” [White House 5/16/02]


All this undermines the argument that there wasn't enough information or that it was all "vague" or "historical". It's also quite obivous that Condoleeza Rice's version of events simply do not bear close examination.

The only thing Bush is guilty of IMHO regarding 9/11 is that he trusted his underlings too much. He trusted the FBI to handle the investigations and he took the PDB at its word when it stated that 'some of the more sensational threat reporting' couldn't be corroborated by the CIA.

And exactly how does that little excuse bolster any case that this man was on the job?

Now some of the things I'm hearing about AG John 'Let's chase after porn' Ashcroft and his slashing of the counterterror budget and reportedly telling his acting FBI director that 'he had no interest' in terrorism would lead me to look at him as one of the prime culprits.

Ashcroft certainly has his part to answer for, but his incompetence merely reflects the whole character of this White House. Bush was the one who picked him and continues to retain this incompetent after the most spectacular job-failure conceivable. The fish rots from the head down.

This is probably an instance where GWB's delegational leadership style failed. It works when you have competent subordinates, but it fails with idiots such as Asscroft.

How charitable of you.

While GWB could have done more, I don't think it rises to the level of saying that 9/11 wouldn't have happened except for Bush.

As you wish.

The "big break" was the BEGINNING of that story, not its ending. No follow-up = successful bombings by Al-Qaeda at their other targets. I fail to understand why this eludes you.

And exactly where and when was the kind of intelligence that Ressam provided for the bomb plot that led to the formation of that team provided to GWB for 9/11?

Red Herring fallacy.

If he was going by that PDB, there was nothing in it to suggest that forming a team was necessary. In fact, it would indicate that it wasn't necessary as the CIA wasn't able to corroborate the more sensational threats.

See above.

And if Clinton and co. had simply decided to blow off the "lucky break"...?

They didn't. And that's my point. Bush didn't get a 'lucky break' of that kind to blow off. Instead of a captured terrorist singing like a canary, all he had were a shitload of vague warnings, the FBI telling him that there were over 70 investigations going on, and the CIA telling him that they couldn't corroborate some of the more sensational warnings.

And your point misses the point. It isn't the "lucky break" that's the crux of the matter but the wherewithal to know, when you get something like it or, for example, a report titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.", that you GET OFF YOUR LAZY ASS AND START DOING YOUR FUCKING JOB. That's when you start coordinating your agencies' efforts and make precautionary preparations.

No, the law prohibits the CIA from spying on American citizens as they did during the bad old days of COINTELPRO. It says nothing about coordination between CIA and FBI investigations of foreign threats within the U.S or even internationally.

COINTELPRO was actually an FBI op, but point conceded. The barriers to FBI-CIA cooperation are more institutional than legal.

Moving on then...

Even now they're feuding over the makeup of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center

Bobby Brady, deputy chief information officer for the CIA, said last week that the agency had asked the FBI to name a deputy director and lead liaison representing federal law enforcement to the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC), which is scheduled to open May 1. The CIA named John Brennan as the center's director.

Despite Brady's concerns, the FBI is not in the process of appointing a deputy director for the center and may not need to, according to an FBI spokesman. The guidelines for the center require a director and three deputy directors for analysis, management and liaison, all appointed from different agencies.

The CIA and FBI deal with sensitive information, and there might be struggles to determine what information to share. "There are times when we don't want to share sources and methods, and I'm sure the CIA has similar concerns in some cases," FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said. "It's not as simple as getting a room and putting analysts in it. But to the extent we can integrate the intelligence sharing, certainly the better off we are."

In his State of the Union address in January, Bush called on four agencies to work together to establish the center.

"Tonight, I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, the CIA, the Homeland Security [Department (DHS)] and the Department of Defense to develop a Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to merge and analyze all threat information in a single location," Bush said. "Our government must have the very best information possible, and we will use it to make sure the right people are in the right places to protect our citizens."


You would think that 9/11 pointed out that the FBI and CIA do need to coordinate terrorist information, yet the FBI doesn't seem to understand that.

Agreed on that score.

[Glocksman]

That's why you start calling your intelligence agencies and defence people together when you get something titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.". I really cannot believe you are this thick.

If Rice is to be believed, the August 6 PDB was the result of Bush asking questions about the subject.

Anyway, contrary to what your link asserts:

National Security Advisor Rice gives an inaccurate description of the memo, claiming it is only one and a half pages long (other accounts state it is 11 and a half pages instead of the usual two or three). [Newsweek 5/27/02; New York Times 5/15/02; Die Zeit 10/1/02] She falsely claims “it was an analytic report that talked about [bin Laden]'s methods of operation, talked about what he had done historically, in 1997, in 1998. … I want to reiterate, it was not a warning. There was no specific time, place, or method mentioned.” [White House 5/16/02]

The entire memo was barely over 1 page long.

PDF of the PDB

For the President Only
Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate (Osama) Bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America".

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a ...(edited)... service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told a ... (edited) ... service at the same time that Bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US.

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation.

Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.

Ressam says Bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks.

Bin Laden associates surveilled our embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al-Qaeda members - including some who are US citizens - have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (edited)... service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, 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 Laden-related.

The CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the United Arab Emirates in May saying that a group of Bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

That's the entire memo. Rice's description was mostly accurate as it is a 'historic' document except for the final 3 sentences which indicate that there are 'patterns of suspicious activity' and that the FBI and CIA are running investigations.

Contrary to the characterization of the PDB as a 'smoking gun', I don't see anything damning in it, and other than the fact that the Bushies are totally paranoid about releasing any information about anything, I don't see why they sat on it this long.

The President was told of the 'patterns of suspicious activity'. He was also told that the FBI and CIA were investigating. The fact that bin Laden was determined to strike the US certainly wasn't news. The title of the PDB is somewhat sensationalistic, but the contents aren't nearly so. It certainly didn't predict 9/11.

And your point misses the point. It isn't the "lucky break" that's the crux of the matter but the wherewithal to know, when you get something like it or, for example, a report titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.", that you GET OFF YOUR LAZY ASS AND START DOING YOUR FUCKING JOB. That's when you start coordinating your agencies' efforts and make precautionary preparations.

And what in the report justifies it? Ignoring the sensationalist title, what in that report justified going into a crisis mode? Everything can't be a crisis and taking that report at face value would indicate that the FBI and CIA were on the job.

If the President was aware of all the warnings and indicators your link mentions, then I'd agree with you. However, there are no indications that he was aware of any of it other than the G8 threat and the PDB.


I'm not saying that the government is totally innocent, but that the failures were at a level below that of the Oval Office. Shit, if the FBI is practically being insubordinate today in refusing to cooperate and coordinate with the CIA, why would they have done so then even if the President had ordered it. Bureaucratic foot dragging isn't exactly a new problem.

As far as warnings go, the FAA was issuing them, but there were so many issued that the airlines weren't paying attention any more.

This is one of 15 general warnings issued to airlines between January and August (the airlines have been getting an average of more than one warning a month for a long time), but this one is slightly more specific. [CNN 3/02; CNN 5/17/02] As one newspaper later reports, “there were so many that airline officials grew numb to them.”

On a personal note: I don't like Bush and I don't like defending him, but I don't see much of anything he personally could have done, knowing what he is alleged to have known at the time, to prevent 9/11. If it can later be proven that he knew of all the warnings and did nothing, then I'll blame him. As it is, the failures were at levels far below the Oval Office.

[Glocksman]

Apparently there was a 'wall' that prevented intelligence sharing within the FBI between counterintelligence and criminal agents.

New York Times Story

The wall, which has since been demolished by a special appeals court ruling, was part of a body of law that was little known to the public. It involved secret testimony and decisions by a special federal court that ruled on the requests of government investigators to install wiretaps or other listening devices on people suspected of being involved in espionage. The 1978 law that created the court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, set a lower threshold for counterintelligence agents to obtain permission for secret surveillance of espionage suspects than was required for investigators in criminal cases.

To prevent criminal investigators from using the intelligence act to seek warrants, officials and courts gradually created a rule keeping the two spheres largely separate. It was known in the government as the wall.

Applications for criminal warrants must comply with the Fourth Amendment's proscriptions against intrusive searches and required an official declaration that there was "probable cause" to believe a crime had occurred. By contrast, the intelligence surveillance law required only a showing that there was probable cause that the subject was the agent of a foreign power.

Confusion over how to interpret the wall also figured in the dispute of why the F.B.I. refused the request of its agent Colleen Rowley to seek a court authorization to explore the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was arrested in August 2001 on immigration violations. Inspection of the computer would have disclosed information showing that Islamic extremists were taking flight lessons in the United States

Interesting.

In his Tuesday testimony, Mr. Ashcroft pointedly blamed one of the commission members, Jamie S. Gorelick, for enacting the wall. Ms. Gorelick was the deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration who signed regulations in 1995 enforcing the wall.

Ashcroft's playing the blame game in this instance. Yes, Gorelick wrote the regulations mentioned, but they were only a reiteration of existing policy. In fact it was a policy he apparently agreed with at the time.

But Slade Gorton, a former Republican senator from Washington, challenged Mr. Ashcroft, noting that the deputy attorney general under Mr. Ashcroft renewed the 1995 guidelines. Mr. Gorton said the Bush Justice Department ratified those guidelines, saying in its own secret memorandum on Aug. 6, 2001, that "the 1995 procedures remain in effect today."

Now if you want to attack Gorelick's impartiality, I think the fact that the law firm in which she is a partner is representing Saudi Prince Mohammed al-Faisal in a lawsuit brought against him by 9/11 survivors and family members would be a better attack.

That article is over a year old and the law firm could have dropped the Prince as a client. If they didn't though, Gorelick should resign either the law firm or the commission immediately as this is a direct conflict of interest.

[MKSheppard]

Yep. The FBI had one of the Hijackers in custody, but couldnt keep
him in their custody, or do anything with him because they couldn't
see the CIA information which had been gathered outside legal
channels, because of that law which Glocksman just posted about.

And if you treat terrorism as a criminal case, which was how clinton
treated it, everything you do is geared towards a trial - meaning you
can't use the evidence you gather through methods that would be
thrown out of court or couldn't be used, like satellite intercepts, etc
for reasons of National Security...

Now, if you treat terrorism as an act of war, you get a lot more leeway.

[Illuminatus Primus]

How can non-governmental entities commit acts of war?

[phongn]

How can non-governmental entities commit acts of war?

Weren't the Barbary Pirates a non-governmental entity (granted, one that received protection from a government)?