Officials ignored warning signs, 9/11 panel says

[Natoma]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4585010/

The failure of the Bush and Clinton administrations to pursue military action against al-Qaida operatives allowed the Sept. 11 terrorists to elude capture despite warning signs years before the attacks, a federal panel said Tuesday.

Publicly airing what appears certain to be a central issue in the presidential campaign, the commission released its preliminary findings as it opened a two-day public hearing on the U.S. response to the growing al-Qaida threat prior to the deadly attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon of Sept. 11, 2001.

In its preliminary report, the commission found that the Clinton administration had early indications of terrorist links between Osama bin Laden and future Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as early as 1995, but let years pass as it pursued criminal indictments and diplomatic solutions in an effort to subduing them abroad.

Bush officials failed to act immediately on increasing intelligence chatter and urgent warnings in early 2001 by its counterterrorism adviser, Richard Clarke, to take out al-Qaida targets, according to preliminary findings by the commission reviewing the attacks.

The hearing took on new urgency following a weekend bombshell by Clarke, a senior counterterrorism official under both Bush and former President Bill Clinton, charging that the Bush administration did not take the al-Qaida threat seriously before the Sept. 11 attacks and then focused on tying the strikes to Iraq.

The bipartisan report released Tuesday said that U.S. agencies sacrificed speed in comprehensively investigating pre-9/11 terrorist attacks that ultimately were attributed to al-Qaida.

"We found that the CIA and the FBI tended to be careful in discussing the attribution for terrorist attacks," the bipartisan report said. "The time lag between terrorist act and any definitive attribution grew to months, then years, as the evidence was compiled."

The preliminary report said that the U.S. government had determined bin Laden was a key terrorist financier as early as 1995, but that efforts to expel him from Sudan stalled after Clinton officials determined he couldn't be brought to the United States without an indictment. A year later, bin Laden left Sudan and set up his base in Afghanistan without resistance.

Bush officials, meanwhile, should expect scrutiny about their counterterrorism strategy after taking office in January 2001 and whether officials downplayed the al-Qaida threat despite warnings from Clinton officials as well as growing intelligence chatter about a possible strike during the summer of 2001.

“We will focus on the lead-up to 9-11 and the extraordinary information that was being collected during the summer of 2001 and how that information was or was not disseminated to the appropriate agencies,â€￾ said Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic commissioner and former Watergate prosecutor.

Clarke said he warned Bush officials in a January 2001 memo, just as they were taking office, about the growing al-Qaida threat after the Cole attack but was put off by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who “gave me the impression she had never heard the term before.â€￾

Rice responded in a series of morning talk show interviews Monday that she asked Clarke to come back with a more comprehensive strategy to eliminate al-Qaida, including military options rather than “pinprick strikes against training camps that had already been abandoned.â€￾

The commission's preliminary report released Tuesday offered some support for both accounts, saying that Clarke had pushed for immediate and secret military aid to the Taliban's foe, the Northern Alliance. But Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, proposed a broader review of the al Qaida response that would take more time.

The proposal wasn't approved for Bush's review until just weeks before Sept. 11.

Looks like Clarke isn't lacking in credibility wrt his accusations at the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations and their failures to address Al-Qaeda effectively. Unless of course we start questioning the bias and credibility of the bipartisan 9/11 committee now.

 

[Natoma]

Some more links:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/911.commission/index.html

"I think the message is that the United States' mechanisms -- the FBI, the CIA, the DOD [Department of Defense], the White House -- failed during both the Clinton administration and during the Bush administration," Clarke said Tuesday on CNN's "American Morning."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/bush.clarke/index.html

"The White House is papering over facts, such as in the weeks immediately after 9/11, the president signed a national security directive instructing the Pentagon to prepare for the invasion of Iraq, even though they knew at the time -- from me, from the FBI, from the CIA -- that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11," Clarke said.

Clarke, a 30-year White House veteran who served under Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton before the current president, referred to Bush's own comments to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, author of "Bush at War," in which the president said he "didn't have a sense of urgency" about Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda.

"He is saying that," Clarke said. "President Bush said that to Bob Woodward. I'm not the first one to say this."

"They're trying to divert attention from the truth here," he said. "... And they've got all sorts of people on the taxpayers' rolls going around attacking me and attacking the book and writing talking points and distributing them to radio talk shows and what not, around the country."

But the facts, Clarke said, are that "the administration had done nothing about al Qaeda prior to 9/11 despite the fact that the CIA director [George Tenet] was telling them virtually every day that there was a major threat."

 

[Natoma]

So far everyone is towing the administration line. Clinton officials say Clinton did everything possible. Bush officials say Bush is doing everything possible. The 9/11 committee on the other hand is poo pooing both of those stances. They should be releasing their comprehensive report detailing their findings in a couple of months.

It's about time we found out what the hell happened.

 

[Citrous]

What happened is the american public would have been outraged when BushI, Clinton, or even BushII had started "active military operations" in such an poor, innocent country like Afghanistan. No matter what level of intelligence we had at the time, any administration would have been slaughtered for it. I can show you pictures of an Iraqi supergun called project babylon that could have theoretically dropped ricin/anthrax/what-have-you on the continental US. People are still bitching about that action, even though overall it was a very clean operation, with almost no loss of life compared to military activities in the past. Note, I do not wish military operations on anyone. I am a pacifist, but when there are men with weapons capable of killing millions on a whim,(or are close to getting them) and they are calling for the destruction of me and my kind, the infidel, merely because I disagree with their creation myth not only must we be ready, we must do what it takes to ensure the infidel does not die. Most liberals do not seem to understand that they are infidels as well.

 

[Natoma]

Iraqi supergun? Continental United States? :?

And please, do not tar anyone who has disagreements with the way to handle the war against terrorism as not understanding what we're facing. That is completely useless in this endeavour, as we're finding out from the 9/11 commission.

 

[Citrous]

I meant no disrepect, it just seems most of the people with qualms really dont know what we're dealing with. I have no doubts you are above that Natoma . The Iraqi supergun was built by none other then the canadian artillery super-genius Gerald Bull. He is responsible for about every piece of modern western field artillery in service. Saddam basically bought him to use as a personal weapons scientist during the Iran-Iraq conflict. Project Babylon was an enormous howitzer, capable of launching an unassisted projectile about 1000-1500km, or a rocket assisted 2000kg projectile into orbit. If they can get something into orbit, they can put it in a decaying orbit that will drop out onto the US, farfetched maybe, possible, yes.

As far as I'm concerned iraq may not have had the readily accepted definition of WMDs. I have no doubt however they did have what I consider weapons of mass destruction. We've had them too, but we dont seem to be as intent on killing all the infidels, just making them shop at the gap. Shopping at the gap is better then being dead! So sayeth Rhonda, scribe of the seventh level of Yar.

linky http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/other/supergun.htm

[/i]

 

[John Reynolds]

A 39" long supergun?

 

[London Geezer]

A 39" long supergun?

For someone with a dirty mind who just got into the thread (see: me), that is material...

 

[Citrous]

I had to edit it! lol I was looking for the exact figure on the page, then got sidetracked and forgot to put it in. Obviously the supergun is not a meter long; as evidenced by the photos.

 

[Natoma]

A 39" long supergun?

For someone with a dirty mind who just got into the thread (see: me), that is material...

Good jeebus you two. Get a room.

 

[speng]

Powell was discussing their plans prior to 9/11.

I did not see where they ignored warning signs. They may not have come up with great effect plans in time, but saying they ignored them is a stretch.

Also, some of these people on the committee act as though it's a simple process. See a problem, fix it in 1 month. When issues like getting Pakistan's help needs months of work.

Also as Citrous points out, if we were to "invade" Afghanistan prior to 9/11 we'd be seen as some bully pushing around a poor country. We were building up ways to get in position to handle them or put political and international pressure on the Taliban to get rid of Al Queda.

Instead of spending all this time trying to find out who ignored what or accuse the administration of how they dealt with threats prior to 9/11, they should be focusing on those weaknesses and how they are addressed today and the future.

Any President takes protecting the american people very seriously and I doubt anyone downplayed any threats. Their methods didn't succeed (9/11) but searching for someone to "blame" other than the terrorists is a waste of time imo.

Speng.

 

[Natoma]

Instead of spending all this time trying to find out who ignored what or accuse the administration of how they dealt with threats prior to 9/11, they should be focusing on those weaknesses and how they are addressed today and the future.

The best way to address this imo is to find out what went wrong, and where. The point of spending all this time trying to find out who ignored what and how the threats were not assessed properly is to avoid those mistakes in the future.

Post project evaluations are always valuable in any line of work, and yes there are times where "finger pointing" and "ass covering" comes into play. But those mistakes generally aren't made again. That is the point of this inquiry. Not just to tar someone and say "neener it was your fault." That would be a complete waste of time and counterproductive.

 

[speng]

The whole point of this 9/11 commission right now is to place blame and finding out what went wrong. I see no connection atm to see how we are doing now.

The point of spending all this time trying to find out who ignored what and how the threats were not assessed properly is to avoid those mistakes in the future.

I'm pretty convinced that nothing is being "ignored now". So I call this effort to place blame a waste of time.

If there is such as a squeak about terrrorism, it's investigated..and our threat level increases and our bridges gets locked down and we are stuck in traffic an extra hour.

So, I still think this is a waste of time. As Powell said, the main issue is that the administrations did not focus on terrorism happening in the US but abroad. How have we addressed those things and tying it to how we failed earlier should be the main focus. With every question by the commission, there should be a follow up to whether we've fixed it and how effective it is supposed to be.

Speng.

 

[Natoma]

Citrous,

Living in NYC has given me, and millions others for that matter, a perspective on the war on terrorism that we take very seriously. Were it not for me waking up late, I would have been about a 15 minute walk from the WTC on 9/11. Were it not for my bf waking up late, he would have been 2 blocks away.

My goal in this is to find out what went wrong, where, and why, in order to avoid this in the future as much as possible. I have serious disagreements with the way the administration has prosecuted the war against terrorism post-9/11, which I have laid out many times in my 3300+ posts here at B3D. However, I want to know what happened regarding 9/11 itself. If that means the Clinton Administration is found heavily culpable, I don't give a damn. Let's blame them, find out what went wrong, and fix it. If that means the Bush Administration is found heavily culpable, I don't give a damn. Let's blame them, find out what went wrong, and fix it.

However, I must say that the reticence on the part of the current Administration to cooperate with the 9/11 commission, before bowing to political pressure, skewed my viewpoint of them in this regard moreso than the Clinton Administration. If it's one thing I don't appreciate, it's being lied to, and/or deflected, when it comes to matters as gravely important as this.

I hope you understand my position better now.

p.s.: I'm reading up on the supergun. Thanks for the link.

 

[Citrous]

Their methods didn't succeed (9/11) but searching for someone to "blame" other than the terrorists is a waste of time imo.

Speng.

Genious. The criminals take the blame. There are no congressional hearings on why the neighborhood rapist committed his crime. I recognize AQ poses a greater threat to society then the neighborhood rapist, and thusly may be deserving of a "blame game"; that doesn't mean I agree with it.

 

[speng]

Wasn't there a movie about building this super gun?

Doomsday Gun (1994)

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id=1800214949&cf=info&intl=us

It was a good movie too that I watched.

Speng.

 

[Citrous]

That is the point of this inquiry. Not just to tar someone and say "neener it was your fault." That would be a complete waste of time and counterproductive.

I couldnt agree with you more, however I am afraid it will turn into a tar and feather orgy just because of the forum. If this happened in a corporate environment, you can be damn sure we would have seen results already. Ahh the sweet succinct power of the dollar.

*edited for quote repair, I have no idea how that happened.*

 

[epicstruggle]

Ive seen a few clarke interviews, and everytime someone asks him about how much blame he should take. He starts out saying some, within seconds transitioning into attacking bush and his admin. He was the one who was responsible for keeping an eye on terrorist and protecting the country. I just didnt realize it was a blind eye.

later,
epic

 

[Natoma]

I'm pretty convinced that nothing is being "ignored now". So I call this effort to place blame a waste of time.

If there is such as a squeak about terrrorism, it's investigated..and our threat level increases and our bridges gets locked down and we are stuck in traffic an extra hour.

Speng,

Our border patrols and port security are still woefully underfunded. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, government officials state that in order to act as a deterrant, minimal security inspections of crates coming into our ports needs to hover around 20%. Right now we are inspecting 1%.

Our border security has not increased in funding and is still very porous, especially along the Mexican-United States border.

Airport security screenings are not equipped to handle radiation detection and plastic explosives.

The NY Subway system has absolutely no comprehensive plan to deal with a terrorist attack. There has been no calls for implementing ventilation systems in the subway to reduce deaths from fire or chem-bio attack in crowded trains for instance.

Chemical and Nuclear Plants are still unprotected and lack security upgrades necessary to deal with terrorist infiltrations. This report I read in Newsweek last week in an update on the war on Terrorism.

Do you know that there are still states where you can get a driver's license without presenting ID? Virginia, the state where Mohammed Atta and his crew got their drivers licenses, which they then used to open bank accounts from which they were transferred their funds, took almost a year to close that loophole. No federal legislation as of yet has been passed to close this.

We are still as dependent on foreign oil today as we were in 2001. Why did the congress and the white house shoot down legislation that would increase CAFE standards and help us wean ourselves off the oil from the middle east, easing our geopolitical stake in the region?

[EDIT]

The Federal Aviation Agency has security protocols on the books that if a plane deviates from its flight plan and does not establish contact with a flight tower within ~15 minutes, fighter planes are to be immediately scrambled in order to intercept them. This procedure didn't happen on 9/11.

I want to know why, and whether this has been fixed or not.

[/EDIT]

[EDIT II]

Did you know that Homeland Security is sending Hazmat funding and supplies to states like Wyoming, but major metropolitan centers such as NY have received none?

[/EDIT II]

The list goes on and on. I've mentioned many things in prior threads that still need to be addressed and have not been as of yet. There have been improvements thus far, but even the improvements (such as the color coded warning system. good lord) have been merely bandaids on the larger problem.

 

[Citrous]

It comes down to the impossiblity of being able to guard against a someone considered your "brother" right up until they pull the knife out and stab you to death for your beliefs.