The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket

[cato2]

9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket
By Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times



Tuesday 19 October 2004

The agency is withholding a ****ing report that points at senior officials.

It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago.

"It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed," an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward."

When I asked about the report, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she and committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) sent a letter 14 days ago asking for it to be delivered. "We believe that the CIA has been told not to distribute the report," she said. "We are very concerned."

According to the intelligence official, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity, release of the report, which represents an exhaustive 17-month investigation by an 11-member team within the agency, has been "stalled." First by acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and now by Porter J. Goss, the former Republican House member (and chairman of the Intelligence Committee) who recently was appointed CIA chief by President Bush.

The official stressed that the report was more blunt and more specific than the earlier bipartisan reports produced by the Bush-appointed Sept. 11 commission and Congress.

"What all the other reports on 9/11 did not do is point the finger at individuals, and give the how and what of their responsibility. This report does that," said the intelligence official. "The report found very senior-level officials responsible."

By law, the only legitimate reason the CIA director has for holding back such a report is national security. Yet neither Goss nor McLaughlin has invoked national security as an explanation for not delivering the report to Congress.

"It surely does not involve issues of national security," said the intelligence official.

"The agency directorate is basically sitting on the report until after the election," the official continued. "No previous director of CIA has ever tried to stop the inspector general from releasing a report to the Congress, in this case a report requested by Congress."

None of this should surprise us given the Bush administration's great determination since 9/11 to resist any serious investigation into how the security of this nation was so easily breached. In Bush's much ballyhooed war on terror, ignorance has been bliss.

The president fought against the creation of the Sept. 11 commission, for example, agreeing only after enormous political pressure was applied by a grass-roots movement led by the families of those slain.

And then Bush refused to testify to the commission under oath, or on the record. Instead he deigned only to chat with the commission members, with Vice President Dick Cheney present, in a White House meeting in which commission members were not allowed to take notes. All in all, strange behavior for a man who seeks reelection to the top office in the land based on his handling of the so-called war on terror.

In September, the New York Times reported that several family members met with Goss privately to demand the release of the CIA inspector general's report. "Three thousand people were killed on 9/11, and no one has been held accountable," 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser told the paper.

The failure to furnish the report to Congress, said Harman, "fuels the perception that no one is being held accountable. It is unacceptable that we don't have [the report]; it not only disrespects Congress but it disrespects the American people." The stonewalling by the Bush administration and the failure of Congress to gain release of the report have, said the intelligence source, "led the management of the CIA to believe it can engage in a cover-up with impunity. Unless the public demands an accounting, the administration and CIA's leadership will have won and the nation will have lost."

[odannyboy]

None of this should surprise us given the Bush administration's great determination since 9/11 to resist any serious investigation into how the security of this nation was so easily breached. In Bush's much ballyhooed war on terror, ignorance has been bliss.

The president fought against the creation of the Sept. 11 commission, for example, agreeing only after enormous political pressure was applied by a grass-roots movement led by the families of those slain.

And then Bush refused to testify to the commission under oath, or on the record. Instead he deigned only to chat with the commission members, with Vice President Dick Cheney present, in a White House meeting in which commission members were not allowed to take notes. All in all, strange behavior for a man who seeks reelection to the top office in the land based on his handling of the so-called war on terror.

If people would just read these three paragraphs and think about what they mean, perhaps they would rethink the tough talk and patriotic blather put forth by this administration as an effective way to fight terrorism.

Unfortunately, blind faith has never been open to scrutiny.

[Snowden]

None of this should surprise us given the Bush administration's great determination since 9/11 to resist any serious investigation into how the security of this nation was so easily breached. In Bush's much ballyhooed war on terror, ignorance has been bliss.

The president fought against the creation of the Sept. 11 commission, for example, agreeing only after enormous political pressure was applied by a grass-roots movement led by the families of those slain.

And then Bush refused to testify to the commission under oath, or on the record. Instead he deigned only to chat with the commission members, with Vice President Dick Cheney present, in a White House meeting in which commission members were not allowed to take notes. All in all, strange behavior for a man who seeks reelection to the top office in the land based on his handling of the so-called war on terror.

Originally Posted by odannyboy

If people would just read these three paragraphs and think about what they mean, perhaps they would rethink the tough talk and patriotic blather put forth by this administration as an effective way to fight terrorism.

Unfortunately, blind faith has never been open to scrutiny.

Danny, if the terrorism had started on 9/11, this would make more sense to me. This was, after all, the second attack on the Twin Towers. It could well be that the man who blew up the Oklahoma City building was working with al Qaeda or similar. Go back to the first attack against the US that I can think of, the attack on our Marines in Lebanon - the method of attack? A truckload of explosives driving into their compound. The Khobar Towers in Saudi - same method. The USS Cole attack - same method, only using a boat instead of car or truck. The Embassy in Africa - it's all the same line of thought, and could easily be the same group of thinkers/planners behind it.

We are so used to being safe in the US - it takes a long time to open our eyes. These attacks seem to me to have started during the last part of the Reagan administration. They've been far enough apart that it takes a while to realize they could be the same group - we are so used to being safe!

We should also be used to political campaigns being dirty - but this is the dirtiest I can remember. Ignorance of what's going on didn't start with the Bush administration - Clinton having Sandy Berger sneaking out classified papers from files that are of such limited access should also make one stop and think. Berger, though resigned from the position of advisor to Kerry, is still advising him. And some of the stolen papers were destroyed - "inadvertantly," if you can believe that.

You have to think deeper than Bush - further back than Bush. Dubya had barely started by 9/11 - he had to set up the cabinet and had just finished that. How much can he be blamed for of the background that laid us open for that attack?

[odannyboy]

Originally Posted by Snowden

You have to think deeper than Bush - further back than Bush. Dubya had barely started by 9/11 - he had to set up the cabinet and had just finished that. How much can he be blamed for of the background that laid us open for that attack?

I have never blamed the Bush administration for the 9/11 attack, but I hold them entirely responsible for the way we have conducted the WOT since, and to think that invading Iraq was the smartest, most effective route is the most absurd thing I can think of.

I get tired of people using the same old tired reasons on how bad Saddam was. Yep, it a tough world, full of mean, nasty people, but until people realize we are in this world, and in this fight in the WOT, for ourselves, and must proceed forward in the most effective fashion to protect ourselves, they will fail to understand the ineptness of our current approach.

There are lots of bad dictators in the world who murder their own people. To somehow use this reason as justification for invading Iraq is mind-boggling to me.

We are in one hell of a mess, and it is a mess ENTIRELY of this administrations making. I hope a majority of Americans hold them responsible for this on November 2nd.

[BrianK]

Originally Posted by cato2

9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket
By Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times





Tuesday 19 October 2004

The agency is withholding a ****ing report that points at senior officials.

It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago.

"It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed," an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward."

When I asked about the report, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she and committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) sent a letter 14 days ago asking for it to be delivered. "We believe that the CIA has been told not to distribute the report," she said. "We are very concerned."

An article written for the Los Angeles Times. The article states that the report hasn't been released to the intelligence committee yet an intelligence official who has read the report is explaining to Robert Scheer ?


The report was completed in June. This article is dated Tuesday 19 October 2004. 14 days ago a letter was sent asking for the report. 3 months later after the completion being "very concerned".

Take notice too that the words "potentially damaging" are used. Interesting use of words. Doesn't commit the writer to any specifics just negative speculation. If bias in presentation is to be obscured weasle words have to be used.

Concerning the WOT with Iraq as part of it, what would the advantage be to isolating the effort to Afganistan only? I could accept the arguement that loss of lives for both sides would have been primary. But since we've experienced loss of lives for the last 18 years in an ever increasing attack on un armed civilians what deters the terrorists from continuing. We could focus on Afganistan ONLY blinding ourselves to where funding for other terrorism efforts come from?

As the information slowly comes forward from the oil for food scandal we could begin looking at the fallacy of never expecting the wealth of Iraq's oil to be used against America.

Isolating our efforts to Afganistan seems to me like pushing down on a water filled balloon. The balloon doesn't break the water just shifts to another area. But if strategy is used and the balloon is compressed to where the water overcomes the ability of the balloon to take the pressure it breaks. Removing a place to train, removing funding, removing supplies, & removing leadership compresses the ability of terrorists. Just like water in the balloon instant breakage doesn't occur; terrorists can move about until enough compression breaks their ability to terrorise.

[Snowden]

Originally Posted by odannyboy

I have never blamed the Bush administration for the 9/11 attack, but I hold them entirely responsible for the way we have conducted the WOT since, and to think that invading Iraq was the smartest, most effective route is the most absurd thing I can think of.

I get tired of people using the same old tired reasons on how bad Saddam was. Yep, it a tough world, full of mean, nasty people, but until people realize we are in this world, and in this fight in the WOT, for ourselves, and must proceed forward in the most effective fashion to protect ourselves, they will fail to understand the ineptness of our current approach.

There are lots of bad dictators in the world who murder their own people. To somehow use this reason as justification for invading Iraq is mind-boggling to me.

We are in one hell of a mess, and it is a mess ENTIRELY of this administrations making. I hope a majority of Americans hold them responsible for this on November 2nd.

Well, since I didn't mention Saddam, Danny, I don't think you are addressing my post in that part of yours. But you really cannot discount his contributions to terrorism, even if you look only at his contributions to the Palestinian familys of suicide bombers. That is contributing to terrorism.

If you remember Bush's address to the nation shortly after 9/11, this is exactly what he said he would do - and we all agreed with him. Take the war on terrorism to all and sundry who were contributing to it financially, by giving haven to terrorists, training terrorists, etc. It was a statement that won high praise and accolades nationwide.

Oh - but he meant what he said! I grant you that was a shock after eight years of Clinton's endless broken promises and lies. That Iraq was the next place we went was for reasons we can see (as I just mentioned) and because of its central location to other nations in that general area. By keeping a presence there for the rest of the time we must fight these terrorists, we can get to them much more quickly than from Europe or the States. That makes sense.

I have a nephew who is living in Finland with his new Finnish bride, after a couple years in Scotland. Today he sent me a letter which he said the following:

"I had the pleasure of living next to a former Iraqi soldier that assures me
that there are plenty of things buried in the desert on purpose.
Unfortunately , deserts tend to look the same, and a many things got lost,
some on purpose, some not. He also said that quite a bit of Iraqi equipment
got buried in neighboring deserts. An Iranian freind confirmed this. One
lives in Scotland, the other lives here in Finland. Also, the 9 years of
routine bombing of Iraqi weapons by the Clinton and Blair administrations is
likely to have kept quite a few things from leaving the qround."

I can't verify this, but the people he's talked with seem to have been witnesses. The truth is, we still don't know about weapons and weaponry that was in Iraq and if some of it is not still there.

By BrianK: Concerning the WOT with Iraq as part of it, what would the advantage be to isolating the effort to Afganistan only? I could accept the arguement that loss of lives for both sides would have been primary. But since we've experienced loss of lives for the last 18 years in an ever increasing attack on un armed civilians what deters the terrorists from continuing. We could focus on Afganistan ONLY blinding ourselves to where funding for other terrorism efforts come from?

As the information slowly comes forward from the oil for food scandal we could begin looking at the fallacy of never expecting the wealth of Iraq's oil to be used against America.

We know al Qaeda is supported and financed by countries other than Saudi, where bin Laden is exceptionally wealthy. Afghanistan is a victim country - but it's not the only place where terrorists are. They are also in Malaysia, as well as other Arab countries. And in places in Africa, no doubt.

One thing we must remember is that we are not fighting a conventional war in that we are not fighting a country. We are fighting a shadowy enemy who can and will take advantage of every possible hiding place anywhere in the world. Hopefully we can ferret him out without making another national attack - but if we must fight governing factors as well as the members of al Qaeda, then we will simply have to do it. We don't have a choice.

As Brian so capably points out, we could have ended up paying the UN to fund the terrorists - if we haven't already done so. Many members there hate the US - and have always hated the US, even as they love living here.

Kerry wants to use the law against the terrorists instead of fighting with them? To negotiate with them - instead of fighting them? Do you really think this would work, Danny? I don't, but I'm not all-wise. I do have a bit of common sense, but as much as I hate war I see no other way of beating out terrorism than to kill it before it gets so much stronger that they can win.