<img src="Shocking911Revelations_files/masthead_noads.jpg" alt="Daily Kos" height="123" width="543">

Tracking energy and transportation news.

by joel3000 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:41:17 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Agreed. (none / 0)

I know this breaches the "forbidden conspiracy theory" ban, but fuck that.

I don't really have a professional understanding of the issues involved, but a siginficant portion of the incident really confuses me.

First off: i am positively convinced (though the reason why is very drawn out) that the actual hijacking and crashing of the planes was done by religious extremists set on terrorism through suicidal tactics. But things gets pretty fuzzy after that. (IE, what happened to WTC7, why did the main two towers collapse when they were designed to withstand this sort of event safely, etc...)

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:25:44 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

"Significant", of course... (none / 0)

Way to mis-spell a word you intentionally emphasized, Shapeshifter...

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:28:17 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Easy There! (none / 0)

I'm quoting you here:

(IE, what happened to WTC7, why did the main two towers collapse when they were designed to withstand this sort of event safely, etc...)

Surely, you don't mean to say what you did. (Or is it possible I misunderstood your intent?) The WTC towers were built to withstand collapse if certain parts failed, say a beam here or there, due to their egg-crate-like construction. No building is built to withstand the impact AND explosion of tons of hurtling incendiary bomb. The WTC towers were also built to withstand wind load hitting them from the side -- that's why they, and other skyscrapers sway in the wind. They're built to bend, rather than break.

The wonder is that the towers stood as long as they did in the face of the intense heat produced by the fires.

To aid in informing yourself and avoiding unnecessary reliance on conspiracy theories regarding their collapse, visit the PBS Nova site "Why the Towers Fell".

The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.
That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.
On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse.

And for joel3000 who implies a conspiracy for the implosion of Bldg. 7, I'm quoting your here:

Buildings don't just collapse in on themselves like that. Implosions are the work of highly trained engineers. The probability of WTC 7 imploding by chance is akin to that of a monkey typing out a Shakespeare work by accident.

I suggest you take note of the following from that program:

Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.

Be careful in leaping to conclusions and then to conspiracy theories. You often land in a "claptrap."

They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

by Limelite on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:10:51 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Heard it before... (none / 0)

There are some substantial, but complex, objections. I was writing them up, but the post became so intricate and long that i just scrapped it. I don't expect else anyone to treat that seriously, but i do not feel this is a compelling explanation.

However, the person at your link (though, i think, somewhat specious in reasoning) proposes the one explanation that i think is most reasonable: the WTC simply was not capable of withstanding a fire its own sprinklers could not put out. This person hides that assertion behind a bunch of random things but that's what i'm reading.

Secondly, the WTC towers were designed to withstand precisely the event: an aircraft crashing into them and any subsequent fires. The specific scenario was a plane lost in a fog and looking to land, but there is no reason an intentional collision would be different. Another note: there was no explosion anywhere (that i'm aware of), the fireball seen on impact is precisely that. A rapid burn developing the characteristic "fireball" shape, not an explosion.

Other points: WTC7 was not struck by an airplane. And the question, barring foolish claims along the lines of "If an airliner had really struck a skyscraper it would have knocked it over right there!", is not "topple" versus "implode" but rather "collapse" versus "implode". I don't, however, give a damn about how the main WTC towers fell apart but only why. (WTC7 is a little different because it's more of a known quantity.)

Finally, before assuming i'm spouting this conspiracy theory or that: please understand that i am not proposing any particular theory for what happened. Rather, as i stated above, i have questions and want answers.

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 02:18:20 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Something key to remember with the tower collapses (none / 0)

Is that the official concludes that the towers would have held had the fireproofing not been dislodged:

he NIST report concludes that a combination of factors caused both buildings to collapse shortly after terrorists flew hijacked commercial airliners into them on 11 September 2001. Computer simulations have been used to help piece together the chain of events that unfolded between impact and the collapse of each structure.

The report says the initial collisions severely damaged several of the columns at the core of each building. Critically, they are also thought to have dislodged fireproofing on both the columns and the floors - the floors linked the inner columns to the supports on the outer structure.

"While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts," says Sunder, who led the NIST investigation. "This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and [became] buckled."

"The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse.

It's also worth noting that the conclusion that the fireproofing was dislodged was due primarily to computer simulations because they mysteriously hauled off all the steel from ground zero and had it melted down in China:

Fire Engineering Magazine, January 2002

$ELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION

BY BILL MANNING

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members-described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.
...

So yeah, this info is crucial when discussing the towers' collapses.

by glooperoo on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 03:42:49 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Easy There! (none / 0)

I'm quoting you here:

(IE, what happened to WTC7, why did the main two towers collapse when they were designed to withstand this sort of event safely, etc...)

The wonder is that the towers stood as long as they did in the face of the intense heat produced by the fires.

To aid in informing yourself and avoiding unnecessary reliance on conspiracy theories regarding their collapse, visit the credible site of PBS Nova program, "Why the Towers Fell."

The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.
That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.
On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse.

And for joel3000 who implies a conspiracy for the implosion of Bldg. 7, I'm quoting your here:

Buildings don't just collapse in on themselves like that. Implosions are the work of highly trained engineers. The probability of WTC 7 imploding by chance is akin to that of a monkey typing out a Shakespeare work by accident.

I suggest you take note of the following from that program:

Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.

Be careful in leaping to conclusions and then to conspiracy theories. You often land in a "claptrap."

They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

by Limelite on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:14:33 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

been here (none / 0)

We've had this thrash before. I'm going to skip it.

Why Are We Back In Iraq?

Tracking energy and transportation news.

by joel3000 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:38:06 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

WTC7 was not hit (none / 0)

Your condescension conveniently ignores that.
No acre-wide fire...no impact...no jet fuel.

Just one point on the other 2 towers that were hit...they fell in less than 9 seconds.
That's at the speed of free-fall. Hardly a designed-in capability of skyscrapers to collapse as if nothing was holding them up.

Try this:
http://www.erichufschmid.net.nyud.net:8090/AreTheCriminalsFrightened.wmv

The waves carry up little bits of knowledge and deposit them on the shore, and before you know it you've got Finland. Or whatever.

by dougr on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:06:13 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

No... (none / 0)

Freefall is, i think, what would be expected from any sort of breakdown in a building that size. Even though the building could support itself that's only at rest. Once something that size (20 stories and massive beyond reason) starts moving the effective "load" increases incredibly to the point where there isn't anything on this planet that could even slow it down.

Force = Mass * Acceleration

At rest (really, with gravity pulling it down) that's not a lot. Once it starts moving, though, it becomes far greater.

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 01:49:54 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

As I've been told from somone who designs them (none / 0)

However, you forget skyscrapers are built to collapse rather than fall over. It's a saftey mechanism built into the design.

by Sharon in MD on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:40:11 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

perspective (none / 0)

Put that into context with what we know about planned demolitions. They don't put a charge at the base of the building and then count on pancake collapse as a "safety feature" built into the design.

I have no idea what caused 3 unprecedented pancake collapses on the same day, and neither do "the experts". All of evidence was removed from the scene and destroyed, evidence that critical to understanding structural collapse for future skyscraper design and safety. This was also a crime scene, removing the evidence was not only illegal, it went against every known investigative procedure. That is a smoldering gun.

by debraz on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 07:06:14 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

dude if this is true (none / 0)

you need to get your friend to go on record about it: for the sake of the country. Otherwise it's just another rumor the debunkers will easily dismiss.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:48:14 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I sort of do (none / 0)

I got him to post it clearly on the web (not on this site, and I don't want to reveal my real name and stuff), but also this guy is a Bush supporter and thinks going into Iraq was the right thing to do. I'll see if I can get him to say it in a more official manner, but it may be easier looking for other ex-military people to verify it.

by theboz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:16:36 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Don't bother (none / 0)

It's already common knowledge that the building came down from implosion. It was scheduled to do so before 9-11. But experts will tell you that the Oklahoma building was imploded as were the two WTC buildings. And for a number of months there were a lot of fire drills in the WTC buildings. People were out of there. Plenty of opportunities to plant explosives.

At last it is coming out here!

We better have backup on the Grassy Noll in case Oswald misses.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:31:11 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

um (none / 0)

i ain't afraid to wear tin foil...and there's a ton of unanswered questions...and i have a ton of suspicion

but if you get banned from this website...make sure you tell everyone it wasn't because of your controversial beliefs (as others have been purged for on the election or 9/11) it was because of that grassy noll line you just wrote which you should be ashamed of writing.

ePluribus rules!

by edkra on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:56:51 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Book by Bibi in 1995 Mentions WTC Attack! (4.00 / 2)

Future US Foreign Policy ◊ An Insight From Men of Power
G. Gordon Liddy Interviews Bibi Netanyahu [WMP]
22 October 2001 -- The G Man in Israel

PS I found this interview this week, tells all about US policy equated to Likud proposals. Listen to the rhetoric of these two criminals. A must to listen for all!

~~~

Oui - Liberté - Egalité - Fraternité

by new creve coeur on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:18:18 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

asdf (none / 1)

France and Saudis knew of plans to attack UK

French intelligence warns of risk from al-Qaida Pakistani activists

Jon Henley in Paris and Duncan Campbell
Tuesday August 9, 2005
The Guardian

Both France and Saudi Arabia had advance warning that Britain was about to be attacked by al-Qaida, according to a classified report and claims by the Saudi ambassador to London. The warnings came at a time when the British intelligence services had concluded that there was no imminent attack planned...."

if a small attack like 7/7 in london was known in advance, then don't you think an undertaking like 9/11 with a very long planning and training phase plus multiple participants would have been detected in advance?

if i remember correctly there were numerous foreign intelligence agencies and governments that warned the bush admin prior to 9/11.

by cyclonejim on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:26:09 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Well planned (none / 1)

Both 9-11 and 7-7 were dates for simulations of attacks. A coincidence?

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:34:36 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Great and sad diary. (4.00 / 2)

This might get some play in the SCLM since the information was allegedly available during Clinton's term.

If it was known prior to Bush's taking office it is Clinton's fault, and unknowable to the Bush people. If it was learned after Bush took office there was nothing that be done about it so early in his administration. For the first year (well now five years) of a Republican presidency America is defenseless.

by Thistime on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:10:26 AM PDT

Clinton (4.00 / 6)

What I got from reading this is that obviously folks in the intelligence community during the Clinton administration were extremely interested in Al Qaeda. Several pundits have tried erroneously to claim that Clinton wasn't interested and let Al Qaeda run amok during his administration and that is why Bush couldn't control them during his first year.

Jesus Saves...He Buys Wholesale.

by Mote Dai on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:19:20 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

As I recall Clinton warned Condi (4.00 / 2)

directly about AQ, admonishing her that it poses one of the greatest security threats to the country.

But a truth has no place in the news.

by Thistime on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:29:38 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Clinton is to blame (4.00 / 4)

If Clinton warned Condi about al Queda, then how could we put all the blame on Clinton?

Remember the montra of those in power now: When all else fails, blame Clinton.

The bad economy: Clinton.
al Queda: Clinton.
Bad Morals: Clinton.
Bad Healthcare: Clinton.
Global Warming: Trick question, there is no such thing.
High Gas Prices: Clinton.
High Taxes for the Rich: Clinton.
Homesexuality: Clinton.
The Civil War: Clinton.
The Failure of the Crusades: Clinton.
Original Sin: Clinton.

by dad2jac on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:18:57 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Don't forget (4.00 / 7)

Clinton coming into my house and losing my car keys. Took me hours to find them. Damn that Clinton, anyhow. I also think he got my cat pregnant, though I was blaming that on Armando earlier.

-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further

by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:56:57 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Well, there is this list of Clinton sins; (4.00 / 4)

however, it is odd that with a legal expense of $50 million + we were not able to charge him with ANY crime other than penny ante lying about "having sex with that woman." God, if only Bush liked sex so there could be something bad enough about him to spend a few millions getting the SOB out of office.....(for the clean language police, SOB=son-of-Barbara...;)

It is crazy how a few determined neo-cons have been able to turn right and wrong on its head. So that one who defends the terrorists who murder doctors who do abortion is a hero and an authentic hero who did his duty in Viet Nam is a sham hero who "dis-assembled" in order to get a purple heart. What black, evil genius we have seen.

by macmcd on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:57:06 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Also Clinton's fault: the hummer deficit (none / 1)

I'm not talking about the car, although the two may be related. Clinton used up all the good BJs, so now we all have to go out and buy Hummers with our small business tax exemptions to compensate for our wounded masculinity.

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

by Septic Tank on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:30:03 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

That's another of the rights great lies... (4.00 / 7)

...because anyone who watched TV back then remembers the Republicans ridiculing Clinton for going after Osama Bin Laden in the middle of a "blow job" crisis. Hell, Clinton and Gore tried to increase airport security back then, but the Republicans shot that one down themselves.

During the 90's, Clinton kept warning everyone that Al Qaeda was a major threat to the U.S. and the Republicans laughed at him. I've said it before, I'll say it again,"The Republicans are weak on actually defending America." They think giving the Pentagon a blank check makes them strong on defense, but we see how well they protected us from terrorists on 9/11/2001 and how well their strategy worked in Iraq and Afghanistan vs. Clinton in Bosnia.

Of course, I mean that in the political sense, I don't mean that in the sense of the Republicans who serve in the military or intel community.

-8.25,-4.97 * Everybody For President!

by Alumbrados on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:26:40 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Yup, (4.00 / 4)

as I remember it, Orrin Hatch said that the focus on terrorism was a distraction from the REAL issue, namely did Clinton boff Lewinsky, if so when, and what are all of the salacious details?

That whole time was better than Viagra for these kinky, sex-starved hypocrites. "Hell with the terr'ists, I've got the biggest woody I've had since they executed the Rosenbergs!"

-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further

by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:00:51 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

You are exactly right! (4.00 / 2)

What a refreshing thought of the good old days when the Clinton administration was actually working to keep our country safe from terrorists instead of hiding information because it would show how incompetent the administration is. Recall what an odd thing it used to be when Clinton would nominate judges and justices because they were intelligent and capable instead of because they were demanded by some splinter group of extremests. How long ago that was.

by macmcd on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:05:12 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

GOP loves terrorism (4.00 / 2)

The GOP loves terrorism, by lowering our defenses it creates more business for them. Imagine if they would have gotten Clinton to let down the defenses and an attack would have happened on his watch?

You know we'd still be hearing about how you can't trust Dems on anti-terrorism, it'd be worse than the BJ.

Never forget that 9/11 transformed W in the public eye from an unpopular President of dubious legitimacy to wartime CiC. 9/11 was the crowning moment of the neocons, they treasure it like an angel's kiss.

Tracking energy and transportation news.

by joel3000 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:57:35 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Rumsfeld even called (4.00 / 2)

9/11 a "blessing in disguise."

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:23:26 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Watch the Video (none / 0)

Bush Knew & Did Nothing.

"An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics."--Plato

by Ranting Roland on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:04:23 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

RIGHT ON! (none / 0)

Always look for who profited. Usually follow the money trail but in this case follow the power trail.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:40:44 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Today's Papers Demolishes The NYT Story (3.55 / 9)

From Slate:

Relying on Representative Curt Weldon, R-Pa., and a "former defense intelligence official," the NYT says above the fold on Page One that a secret Pentagon program actually pegged four of the 9/11 hijackers--including Mohamed Atta--as al-Qaida men back in 2000. The secret program, which used data-mining, was called "Able Danger." Again, according to Weldon and the other source, program officials wanted to pass along the tips to the FBI but were overruled by Pentagon lawyers concerned that the military would be overstepping its authority. "We knew these were bad guys, and we wanted to do something about them," the former unnamed DoD official said. That source also charged that the 9/11 commission was told about the scoop but never followed up.
Now to the wrinkles in the NYT's piece: This is the first time the story has hit the big-time, but it's been around for at least a few months. As the Times mentions Weldon actually spoke about the whole deal publicly back in June in a "speech on the House floor." The allegations were picked up only in Weldon's local paper and then recently in more depth by an industry magazine. Presumably, there are only two explanations for this: 1) Other reporters just blew it and didn't notice. 2) They did notice but didn't buy it.
Which brings us to the next wrinkle: As Times mentions in passing, Weldon has a reputation for relying on iffy sources. He recently wrote a much-panned book alleging all sorts of Iranian plots, including that Tehran is hosting Bin Laden. The book relied on one source--a source one CIA official told the Times "was a waste of my time and resources." A "fabricator" recalled another former spook. (The American Prospect has more on Weldon's source troubles.)
As for the former unnamed defense official, he talked to the NYT while "in Mr. Weldon's office." And given the allegations being made, the Times offers a loopy explanation for why the former official isn't named: "He did not want to jeopardize political support and the possible financing for future data-mining operations by speaking publicly." (If his accusations are true, how would his being named undercut future data-mining efforts?)
So, what we have in the NYT are allegations by a congressman known to make wildly dubious claims, and one former defense official who backs up the congressman but for some reason declines to put his good name to the ... facts. On the other side, you have--as the Times mentions up high but only details in, oh, the 29th paragraph--the 9/11 commission insisting that they did look into the program and found nothing.
Papers should give articles prominence commensurate with the level of confidence they have in the story's sources--obviously. TP has no idea whether the major allegations in the above piece are accurate. Does the NYT?

Need proof Weldon is a complete loon? Laura Rozen (of War and Piece) and Jeet Heer lay it all out here in the American Prospect.

Remember, the NYT editors let the work of Judith Miller get published. No reason to think their judgment doesn't still lapse egregiously.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:14:33 AM PDT

I'm fully aware (4.00 / 6)

of Weldon's book and history. If you read the article you'll see the many of the facts are not in dispute. The program's existence is acknowledged, and the briefing is acknowledged.

The facts in dispute are whether or not Atta was specifically mentioned in the briefing, and whether the 'Brooklyn' cell was specifically mentioned.

Does Weldon have some reason to bring this up now? Does he want to make Bush look bad?

Someone is lying, we know that. But who? My money is on Felzenberg.

by BooMan23 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:21:26 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Weldon's Got a Book to Hawk (3.50 / 4)

You have to accept the fact that Weldon is a complete loon, and as Today's Papers pointed out, he made the allegation a while back and everyone ignored it except his local paper. And Weldon is also the guy pushing the story that OBL is in Iran.

He's a very, very disreputable source.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:27:34 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Yes he is (4.00 / 4)

but that changes little. He is in a position to know these details. Does this serve his interests? Selling a book? The book has nothing in it about this. This just embarrasses everyone, and especially his own party.

You are correct to raise questions about his credibility. But we should consider the implications of his information being correct.

by BooMan23 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:31:20 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Wha? (3.33 / 3)

He's in a position to know lots of things. That doesn't mean that more than 7.36% of what comes out of his mouth is even close to being true.

And don't miss the point that Atta has been the focus of most of the loopiest theories of the far frings of neocondom. Woolsey has a bizarre theory that the "real" Atta is still out there, and that his identity was concealed by the Iraqis through messing with Kuwati files or some such crap, and Laurie Mylorie has long been obessed with similar theories.

And Weldon is saying that some of this stuff happened during he Clinton administration.

He's a loon, and if you're going to accept his credibility on this, you should explain how can on this but don't, I assume, accept his claims about Iran.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:38:41 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Do you think the NYT (none / 0)

are relying too much on Weldon? You are right, he is a well-known loon, which leads me to believe that the NYT has better sources than him...

by Eph on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:46:04 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

You've got (4.00 / 14)

your facts way fucked up on Woolsey. That shit has to do with Ramzi Yousef, not Atta.

Do me a favor. Look at the timeline, and piece it together. The Brooklyn angle makes sense. We know that Atta and al-Shehhi arrived and settled in Brooklyn for about a month before heading for Florida. It makes sense that they linked up Atta and al-Shehhi with the San Diego guys, and called them the Brooklyn cell in that specific time period.

You should work as hard at looking for the plausibility as you do in your role as official debunker of any and all non-offically approved theories of history.

by BooMan23 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:46:08 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Like I Said Downthread, Whatever (2.00 / 1)

You're right about me mixing up the Ramzi Youssef thing. But as for official debunker? Weldon does a good enough job debunking himself, he hardly needs me to do it for him.

Why people would latch on to something so obviously reliant on him for credibility is beyond me.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:50:00 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Take a vacation (4.00 / 20)

from debunking. It's boring because you're not any good at it. You made a very valid initial point, which is to regard this information with some serious skepticism. However, I looked at the information, checked it against what I know about the hijackers movements (which I think is more extensive than any other civilian source I know of) and found this article entirely plausible.

But you give no credibility to the New York Times, to the weight of Jehl's reporting, or to my expertise on 9/11 issues. So, of course, you can't understand why I would bother to spell out the implications of this article, if true.

It doesn't interest you because it implies something is fishy, and that always brings you out in a diary thread to restore order.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050809/ap_on_go_co/sept_11_hijackers

by BooMan23 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:58:59 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

this is exactly (3.33 / 3)

why I can't stand this place sometimes and spend so little time here lately. people are talking rationally about something that is partially in the realm of speculation and then the diary police come out. and they don't just post once. they keep harping without making any points beyond the initial... and proving they have no interest in anything that might make this site look bad (in their minds) - even if it is entirely reasonable to discuss.

Mistrusted User

by Planet B on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:15:53 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

yes, (4.00 / 2)

if the diary police aren't on duty 24/7, in every diary, maybe they should be troll rated?

by CrawfordMan on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:10:07 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

DHinMI, JJB, & Plutonium Page (3.00 / 3)

I grew tired of their antics (worse than what DHinMI is doing here) many diaries ago.

Here are a couple of instances where they trashed my diaries with their childlike behaviour:

HERE
and

HERE

Glad to see DHinMI is being called on it in this diary.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE DIARIST HAS TO SAY -- MAKE YOUR POINT AND MOVE ON.

Why is that such a difficult concept?

by STOP George on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:41:55 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Here's his hitch (none / 1)

And Weldon is saying that some of this stuff happened during he Clinton administration.

And....? Are you really saying that if some of this stuff happened during the Clinton administration it can't possibly be true? That's absurd.

by debraz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:24:27 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

No, I'm Not Saying That (none / 0)

I think you need to follow along with the conversation a little more closely.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:27:07 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

What you're saying is not what you're saying? (none / 0)

It's a direct quote taken in context with all of your posts which follow your "Weldon is a loon" theme. Yes?

When someone challenges your facts, you say, "yeah, whatever", when someone challenges your opinion, you say, "you need to follow more closely". That's diversion and it's hypocritical, particularly while you're bashing someone else's credibility.

by debraz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:40:01 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Read For Context (none / 0)

Point out where I implied that it can't be true if the claim was about the Clinton administration. And try to figure out why I even wrote that sentence about some of it supposedly having happened during the Clinton administration.

Should be easy...for most people anyway.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:56:27 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

a little Motown for DHinMI (none / 0)

Nowhere to run to, baby
Nowhere to hide
Got nowhere to run to, baby
Nowhere to hide
Got nowhere to run
Got nowhere to run...

You got nowhere to run dude, nowhere to hide. Once you bring in the bogus to refute fact, and then dismiss it with "yeah, whatever", you got less credibility than Weldon.

by debraz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:29:02 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

You're Pathetic (2.50 / 2)

I asked you to show me where I supposedly argued what you claimed I argued, and you quote a song lyric.

There are few people on Daily Kos who combined obstinance, confusion and obnoxiousness like you do.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:33:52 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

tears of a clown (none / 0)

Wipe your eyes, you'll find your own post here.

And, for full-on obstinance, confusion and obnoxiousness, I'd have to head over to The Next Hurrah.

by debraz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:14:12 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Damn, You're Really Fucking Stupid (1.00 / 2)

Booman wrote:

This just embarrasses everyone, and especially his own party.

Which prompted my response:

And Weldon is saying that some of this stuff happened during he Clinton administration.

In other words, Weldon is trying to pin this on Clinton and the CIA.

Get it?

Nah, of course you don't.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:00:01 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

well the AP is not taking the bait (none / 0)

and no one else will either. The meat of this story remains the uncomplicated revelation that Atta was (possibly) being monitered by the Defense Department prior to 9/11:

Congressman: 9/11 Hijackers Were Monitored By

KIMBERLY HEFLING, Associated Press Writer
48 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Sept. 11 ringleader Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers were identified by defense intelligence officials more than a year before the attacks, but information about possible al-Qaida connections never was sent to law enforcement, Rep. Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record) said Tuesday.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:40:48 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

So What? (none / 1)

They also reported that Iraq was loaded with WMD.

OK, everyone believe what the hell you want. Just don't tell me that you're reality based and the neocons aren't, because your standards for evidence and argument aren't any better. The only reason anyone is believing this stuff from Weldon is because they think it makes Bush look bad.

So tell me, when do you think we should go into Iraq and seize Osama Bin Laden? He's in Iran, according to Curt Weldon. Why belive the stuff about Atta but not about OBL? In both cases there's no source independent of Curt Weldon?

Oh, that's right, I already covered it: because you think this makes Bush look bad, so you'll believe this, but not all the rest of the crazy shit Weldon says.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:37:48 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

who said I believed it? (none / 1)

go back and read my posts on this thread: I am careful to acknowledge Weldon's source (remember unlike the OBL-in-Iran story the Atta-was-watched story is NOT directly from Weldon, and the former was NOT on the front page of the NYT) may or may not be true. What I have said consistently is that it's hard for me to envision how this story could be spun for some hidden neocon purpose. The OBL-in-Iran story could very clearly be spun that way. Methinks thou doth protest too much.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:56:21 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

You Lack... (none / 0)

...imagination for things that are verified and already happening. Why do you find it so hard to believe this stuff, but easy to accept Curt Weldon as being a source without a partisan, neocon ax to grind?

Like I said, plenty of people lower the bar on standards for belief if they're convinced what they believe is the fault of George W. Bush.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:14:10 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

I don't care if the source is Karl Rove (none / 0)

himself. What I care about is if there is any truth to the claims in this article. That's all.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:59:33 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

DHinMI's facts run out and $%&#$ insults flow (4.00 / 3)

I've been watching this pattern from DHinMI for a LONG time. DHinMI gets very threatened by anything not strickly of mainstream origin. Election 2000, Election 2004, 9/11 discussions threaten DHinMI's worldview, and he lashes out at any and all attempts to discuss them. When DHinMI runs out of facts, DHinMI can and does continue to fill threads with insults and obscenity until anyone else trying to post gives up in sheer exhaustion.

I let it lay on this thread until DHinMI started cursing at people again. Now that DHinMI has run out of anything remotely useful to contribute and is again filling ANOTHER thread with insults and profanity, we need to tell DHinMI to get off this thread, and to stay off these type of threads. This is pattern behavior, and the pattern always ends up with DHinMI cussing people out.

by rebellingboxer on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:41:34 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

well said (none / 1)

I'm disappointed in the 'mini wars' that go on here from time to time @ dKos.
Some folks got into a pissing, rating 'mini war' screamfest today on the thread about Cindy Sheehan.
Totally fucking inappropriate forum to toss verbal abuse back and forth.
This was a tread about a lady who's courage and commitment are nothing short of inspiring.
I love this place (dKos) for the information, points of view, theories and interesting facts and wit that are hard to find in the MSM.
I really wish that if someone feels they want to get in an argument go out in the back yard and punch a pillow
Enough said.

by Kdoug on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:13:57 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Hey, Hypocrite, Bite Me (1.00 / 2)

You rated my first comment with a 2, which indicates you're threatened by any opinion that doesn't accord with what you want to believe. And check out this comment, the first one from the always obnoxious debraz, who didn't bother to understand my comment, said it was absurd, wouldn't provide an example of where I said what he or she claimed I said, and hid behind innanities.

You're the one threatened by anything that isn't what you want to believe, and then you lash out at someone who threatens your beliefs by telling them to get off the thread.

You don't want discourse or exhange of ideas, you want everyone agree with what you already think. That's mental masturbation.

Scroll through this thread, moron, and you'll see over and over people doing what you just did: insult me first, and then claim they're victims.

Grow up.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:26:39 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Call me whatever you like... (4.00 / 2)

...just don't call me late for dinner.

Like I said, DHinMI... I know your pattern. Look at the times of the ratings. You had already started tossing the four letter word filled insults when the ratings appeared on the thread. The rating were placed after I had seen the depths to which you would descend on the thread.

I'm not silly enough to be drawn into another DHinMI demonstration of the ability to go sleepless for days in order to get the last word on a subject. We all know your Lance Armstrong-like endurance on threads, DHinMI. Rarely on the internet is the last word said in a discussion the wisest word said in that discussion, though.

by rebellingboxer on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:26:52 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

You Never Stuck In My Head (none / 0)

I vaguely remember your moniker, but other than that I couldn't remember anything about you.

But now I do. You're an asshole who just wants everyone to believe the same thing.

Like I said, mental masturbation.

Now, you can have the last word if you chose. I'm done with you.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 07:51:26 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Guess Ed Shultz and Al Franken are assholes, too. (none / 0)

Ed Shultz just brought this up. You don't get anymore dead center mainstream than Ed Shultz.

So did Al Franken.

So did Thom Hartmann on our local KPOJ morning show.

The New York Times, Air America and...well... pretty much everyone on the left are just big ""mental masturbation" asshole conspiracy theorists" today, huh, DHinMI?

by rebellingboxer on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 01:12:25 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

which brings us back to (none / 0)

so it can't be true? Full circle.

by debraz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:53:31 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

That's Not Surprising (none / 0)

That your thoughts go in circles, that is.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 07:54:00 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

The Permanent Government? (none / 1)

Where the same policy was followed under two very different administrations, we may be talking about a policy of the permanent government.

by lysias on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:04:09 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I gave you a 4 for two reasons (none / 1)

I agree with your position
You just coined an excellent new word "neocondom" ... something I truly wish the parents of the neocons wore on a regular basis. ;-)

"You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

by Glinda on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:27:58 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Thanks, I Too... (none / 0)

...was pleased with "neocondom."

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:15:10 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I don't know about Atta, (none / 1)

but it's a fact that many of the 9/11 hijackers were misidentified and, instead of dying on their planes, are still running around loose. Check Paul Thompson's CCR for more info.

-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further

by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:33:17 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Hijackers (none / 0)

A number of them are alive and yet are still on the list. And how come if no one knew anything and it all was a complete surprise,that the list came out after 9-11 slam bang fast. I read as opposed to know that the lists of the planes' passengers were not showing all these arabs.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:51:46 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Atta timeline (none / 0)

The Atta timeline in the diary has Atta meeting with an Iraqi agent in Prague in June, 2000. I thought that story had been totally debunked and was believed only by Dick Cheney at this point. Atta was supposedly (and from your tinmeline clearly) in the US before this.

"False language, evil in itself, infects the soul with evil." ----Socrates

by Mimikatz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:04:18 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Granted I'm a tinhatter on this subject.. (none / 1)

..but I have smelled the rat that is Bushco since Cheney's mujahadeen buddies did 9/11..

Bin laden and International Fascist Inc., of which Cheney is a founding member (snark), has enjoyed Cheney's largesse to this day, mostly rpg launchers and missiles, and Saddam enjoyed Cheney's largesse with all the chemical weapons he provided that were used against Iran...

..so, conspiracy? No. Cheney has been working with these disgusting idiots, allegedly to fight the Ruskies, for decades and has many strings he can pull and has pulled.

Jesus: "Destroy this Temple" - Gospel of John

by The Gnostic on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:01:24 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

he's not the only source (4.00 / 3)

for the article, and neither you nor I know if the intelligence analyst who is also sourced here is or is not valid.

As usual, you miss the larger context of this story, and conveniently ignore the other salient items in the diary: the rather detailed timeline of Atta's comings and goings reveals that this man would have raised red flags, that as we know 2 of the San Diego highjackers lived with an FBI informant, that major foreign intelligence units (Egyptian, German, etc) were watching these guys closely, that ZM's laptop could not be searched b/c a routne request to do so was inexplicably stalled, that Norman, OK is a military town, that Att's Venice Flight School was run by a Dutch crook and had numerous drug busts, that at least 52 FAA warnings were issued the summer of 2001, that agent Williams' flight-school memo was ignored, that the question of whether or not Atta had a driver's license is not yet cleared up (although he rented cars and appears to have gotten both parking and a possible driving-without-a-license violation), etc etc etc

Look, we don't know, do we? But there's a lot to suggest that these guys were being watched, and that for whatever reason (ineptitude?) were not stopped.

I fid it remarkable the degree of certainty you show that all questions of 9/11 foreknowledge are spurious. The diarist here does not come up with an over-arching explanation. He is simply trying to do some detective work.

Let me make a small claim: the 9/11 Commission could have done a better and more thorough job in considering the degree to which forewarnings may have been ignored or dots unconnected. That's all. Note that I am not saying anything about any overarching theory. I am simply assering my opinion that the Commission was perhaps less exhaustive than it could/should have been. That's all.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:42:48 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Yeah, Yeah, As Usual I Miss What You See (none / 1)

Whatever.

And did I say he was the only source? No. In fact, if you read the comment, it made clear there were two, but apparently only two sources, and they weren't independent of each other, because the "former intellegence official" was in Weldon's office. And as Today's Papers points out, the other source's rationale for remaining unnamed are strange and nonsensical.

As for whatever certainty I do or don't claim, you'll find nothing on this thread to draw such an inference. My point is about Weldon as a source, and the dubiousness of the other source's explanation for why he couldn't be named. Everything else you write about what I supposedly do or don't believe is a bunch of straw.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:47:52 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

considering how possibly explosive (4.00 / 5)

the information the other source has given may or may not turn out to be, the lack of a revealed name is not nearly so strange to me as it to you.

Furthermore, b/c the NYT just had one of its reporters JAILED for failure to reveal sources, one would think the NYT is a wee bit more careful vetting sources (in the wake of both Miller and Jayson Blair cases).

You want to smear Weldon here, as if anyone he's connected to is unreliable. I'm no buying it.

And you are blinded to the larger CONTEXT: this story is but one of many that raises legitimate questions (just questions, not answers, you do understand the difference?) about what was and was not known about 9/11 beforehand.

Your attitude of "nothing to see here, move along" rings remarkably hollow.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:57:56 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Yeah, Sure (1.00 / 3)

I'm blinded to context. Therefore, I should accept Curt Weldon as a legitimate source, but only when he says things that would make the Bush adminitration look bad.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:02:48 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

no you should accept the fact (4.00 / 2)

that Jehl is probably more interested in the OTHER source here than he is in Weldon per se, and that the NYT likely has the strictest policy regarding sources NOW (after Judith and Jayson) of any major daily.

Once again, I have no idea if this story is legit or not, but the fact that it is:

a) on the front page of the NYT
b) does NOT make the current WH look good at all

definitely piques my interest.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:08:28 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

And They Still Defend Judith Miller (none / 1)

They still defend their Whitewater reporting too.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:13:38 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

One anonymous source (none / 0)

and no independant research? DHinMI is contemptuous of overwrought speculation and he grates on people, but I must agree with him almost 100% on this. Is this article anything more than dictation from Weldon and his friend?

The dubya stands for freedom.

by paraphrase on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:46:09 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

no idea (none / 0)

but why's it on the front page of the NYT?

If the Bushies wanted to plant something in the "paper of record" through Weldon to further their cause (the one that less and less Americns now believe in), I can think of better headlines...

"Iran Supplying Nukes to Iraqi Insurgency"
"Iraqi WMD Found Outside Damascus"
"OBL Really Pissed Now"

...you know, something a little less opaque than an article that suggests M. Atta's existence in the States (with its strange comings and goings) was not only known about, but conveniently overlooked by the 9/11 Commission.

How this NYT article is a slam-dunk for some Republican agenda or War on Terror shenanigans...
I just don't see.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:06:06 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Sorry (none / 0)

I'm not talking about motives. I just think this is a poor excuse for an article and typical of Mediacorp. They take dictation from their magnificent sources and pretend that critical analysis equals bias.

The dubya stands for freedom.

by paraphrase on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:52:44 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Actually this story doesn't make BushCo look bad (none / 1)

It's designed to make intelligence under the Clinton administration look timid and inept. The CIA under Clinton was obviously too concerned with civil rights to have caught the evildoers before they did evil. </snark>

It smells like a RW lie and an attempt to get John Poindexter back to the job of gathering as much info on us all for those mega-terabyte datbases that watch us by keeping track of everything that we do that they can gather from multiple sources..

This isn't a paranoid fantasy. This is what Poindexter was tasked with in the daye following 9/11: taking some of the huge terabyte marketing databases that have information on everyone and that are maintained by about a dozen or more credit service agencies and putting all that information in the government's control.

I'm sure that this information on Atta was dug up post 9/11 but not before. But the Weldon's of this world love using fear to induce us to surrender our rights. Maybe you have no special feeling for the right to privacy, but I sure as hell do.

This stinks to high heaven of neocon, "Big Brother" to me.

And as for the NY Times doing some self-examination and vetting its stories properly ... heh ... not with this executive management.

"You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

by Glinda on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:12:24 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Weldon may be attempting (none / 0)

to spin this a certian way:

"...Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation because they said Atta and the others were in the country legally..."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050809/ap_on_go_co/sept_11_hijackers

...for Patriot Act Three or what have you, but it won't fly. It won't fly.

The meat of the story remains that there is possibly yet one more indication the government could have prevented 9/11.

Let Welson spin. The real news here, IF THERE IS ANY, is about what the Pentagon knew beforehand.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:48:21 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

It won't help us any if it's nothing more than (none / 0)

Weldon's conspiracy machine.

But only time will tell.

"You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

by Glinda on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:54:02 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

And As for Certainty... (none / 0)

...I typically don't think in terms of certainty, I think in terms of probability. And the odds of Curt Weldon being right and everyone else being wrong are beyond calculation.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:53:21 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I'm with you on probabalistic reasoning (none / 0)

Though Doug Jehl's reporting is probably some of the finest the Times puts out (though to be honest I have been pretty distressed by the Times' political reporting of late - it seems to have become much more willing to openly present the administration's side without much critical consideration), I just can't really trust anyone who would use Ghorbinafar as a source for anything (which is precisely what Weldon does over and over again).

Put another way as to why I really don't trust Weldon:

Weldon:Ghorbinafair::Miller:Chalabi

I wouldn't want to rely too much on any information coming fron anyone in that analogy. That said perhaps there is something to this story because it is Jehl reporting on it.

by salsa0000 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:29:58 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Agreed (none / 0)

Even Sy Hirsh has screwed up in the past from relying on crappy sources. I've never noticed Jehl to be bad, and emptywheel has written some stuff at The Next Hurrah about how Jehl seems to be systematically refuting Judith Miller's claims. But this piece is a joke.

Who knows, maybe some stupid editor was being dogged by some neocon, and they got on Jehl's butt and made him write the piece.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:53:53 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

My theory is that this story is an outgrowth (none / 0)

... of Jehl's investigation unto Judith Miller's involvement in the Plame leak. Doesn't Weldon and the guy in Weldon's office sound just like the type of nuts that Miller favored? It's just a hunch but I wouldn't be surprised.

"You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

by Glinda on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:17:18 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Norman a military town? (none / 0)

that Norman, OK is a military town
-----------
Not hardly. Norman, OK is a very liberal college town. It's the home town of actor James Garner the bad The Chainsaw Kittens and several Olympic gymnast train there.

The military in OKC area is at Tinker AFB which is based in Midwest City.

Here's some bits of gossip, that I have heard from friends still living in Norman. I moved away a year or so after the OKC bombing. I don't believe most of this stuff, but there's a few things to ponder.

Atta and some of the other supposed 9/11 hijackers/plotters were spotted in Norman prior to the OKC bombing and left on April 19th. And came back in early 2000. Don't get me started on the Nick Berg gossip about his time in OK. It makes me head hurt.

During the Monica debacle, several Israel men were arrested in Norman, by either the Feds or the OBI, and rumor had it that they were spying in the US.

Steve Emerson- a journalist and self proclaimed terror expert, who worked for Richard Mellon Scaife - claimed the OKC bombing was Saddam's doing. The DA of OKC wasted millions of taxpayer's dollars with hearing and trials in an attempt prove this tinfoil crap. Some people claim Monica was revenge for Clinton not going along with the Saddam story and attacking Iraq.
Most of the gossip about the OKC bombing involves the terrorist who live in panhandle and robberies and a plot to bomb the Lawton Courthouse.

war is a racket.

by RINO on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:33:14 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Pretty Obvious (4.00 / 2)

Well, it's pretty obvious what Weldon is trying to do. Just look at the title of his book: "Countdown to Terror: The Top-Secret Information That Could Prevent the Next Terrorist Attack on America and How the C.I.A. Has Ignored It."

IOW, he's not trying to make Bush look bad, he's trying to slam the CIA. Fortunately for us, he's not a very slick operator!

As for Weldon's Iranian source, I can't say I was surprised to see that the "fabricator" was none other Manucher Ghorbanifar, of Iran-Contra and (allegedly) Niger yellowcake fame. He is completely full of shit and tied to guys like Michael Ledeen.

So, here's the formula:

Weldon + CIA attack + Ghorbanifar = Neocon

This is par for the course, folks: attack and dicredit the CIA, pump up shady and falsified evidence using guys like Ghorbanifar and dissidents, and then try to scare the crap out of everybody with titles like "Countdown to TERRORRRRR!!!!"

Let's not fall for this shit again...

by LITBMueller on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:32:32 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

This is not slamming the CIA (4.00 / 4)

it is slamming the Pentagon's Special Operations Command in Tampa, and it is slamming the Staff Investigators of the 9/11 Commission.

by BooMan23 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:35:51 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

With All Due Respect (none / 0)

Yes, you're right, he does slam the 9/11 Commission. But, Weldon LOVES the military. I suggest you take a look at the "famous" speech Weldon gave on the floor of the House.

Weldon has repeatedly called for centralizing intelligence operations under the control of the Pentagon. In that, he is opposed to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and he doesn't think the reforms Bush made went far enough.

He wants more Able Bodies and Pentagon control over all intelligence operations.

So, again, Weldon is a Neocon, he is slamming CIA and FBI, supporting the military, and trying to scare people.

Don't fall for his crazy shit.

by LITBMueller on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:17:24 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Plus, Who's The Other Source... (none / 0)

...and do we know he doesn't have a business interest in trying to get the Pentagon more money for contracts related to data mining?

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:22:43 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

My impression (none / 1)

was that Weldon is slamming the constraints on the sharing of intelligence between the FBI and the CIA and restrictions on monitoring immigrants while failing to address the real issue was the mismanagement and incompetence of John Ashcroft.

Essential funk: 'Impeach the President' by the Honeydrippers

by pontechango on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:17:40 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

this sounds right (none / 1)

they were not really constrained under the law, but since they mistakenly believed they were, there is something wrong with the law.

And it's all Jamie Gorelick's fault.

Talk doesn't cook rice.

by sophiebrown on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:16:44 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I had forgotten about that attack on Gorelick n/t (none / 0)

Essential funk: 'Impeach the President' by the Honeydrippers

by pontechango on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:53:19 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

me too (none / 0)

I had forgotten her name and had to look it up

Talk doesn't cook rice.

by sophiebrown on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:12:29 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

If Weldon Was Saying... (none / 1)

...and te NYT was reporting that Iraq had WMD and that during the invasion they were shipped into Iran and/or Syria, everyone around here would be (rightfully) be calling bullshit. But because this is percieved as making the Bush adminitration look bad, a bunch of people latch on to it.

Could it be true? I suppose. But no way in hell I give it a shred of credibility as long as it's being pushed by Curt Weldon and nobody else, regardless of how it could be percieved as making the Bush administration.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:59:37 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

but that's because (4.00 / 3)

the Iraqi WMD theory has been so thoroughly discredited by so many sources that not even the WH itself defends it any longer.

The difference is that it's safe to assume the WH wants the publi to believe they were as surprised by 9/11 as we all were. This is only natural.

But since the "official" Commission on 9/11 finished its report, a number of alarming revelations (formerly classified) have come out suggesting that a great deal of forewarning about the 9/11 highjackers was ignored. This in turn suggests ineptitude or worse.

I really see this more as a detective or logic problem than as a chance to bash Bush. I'm fascinated by the fact that as more time passes since 9/11, more info surfaces revealing the WH may have knon more beforehand than it let on.

That's all.

Even Rummy has said that on 9/11 itself he was commenting to someone (just minutes before the Pentagon was struck) that "something big (by way or terrorism) was around the corner" (that's a paraphrase, not an exact quote, but the quote does in fact exist). Is Rummy psychic?

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:16:46 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

gnat - you've got the right thread in this story (none / 0)

The WH had warnings from a lot of credible people and they brushed them off. This story just verifies that a) unless it was something they were vitally interested in (like how to attack Iraq) no intelligence really interested them and they did not support any efforts to protect the country. and b) we did have some good intelligence but could not (or did not) put it to good use. We knew this from other sources. It is possible that the fault in the intelligence agencies lies in the upper strata of management rather than the actual people doing the day to day work.

So have they changed anything in the intelligence arena to aid in our defense? Well they shucked off some of the upper managers and are now looking for loyalty to Bush as the main theme. Doesn't make me feel any safer.

Grandma Jo

by glitterscale on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:59:43 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

yes I've maintained all along (4.00 / 3)

that the facts around 9/11 suggest at the very LEAST the biggest blunder in US intelligence history, if not in fact something far worse.

But who did the Bush WH hold accountable in this regard?

All of the upper management was rewarded, promoted, or let off the hook. And only sycophants remain.

We know now that the Iraqi WMD story was not really "failed" intel, it was "fixed" intel. This distinction is critical.

And we know now that a lot of damning revelations about 9/11 foreknowledge are only coming to light now, almost four years after that day.

The 9/11 Commission really failed to dig deep to find out what went wrong, and who was to blame. That is a tragedy.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:18:09 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I wonder why the administration (4.00 / 2)

resisted the creation of the 9/11 Commission, resisted providing documents to it, and is now again refusing to provide documents to its successor.

by lysias on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:35:27 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

well the best case scenario (4.00 / 3)

is they know they fucked up by failing to catch these guys before it happened, since they had what can be only be called a mountain of clues.

The worst case scenario is that they ignored these clues on purpose.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:41:02 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Another thing your comment brings (none / 1)

to mind is that anything the Clinton Administration had done or considered important, the Bush Administration absolutely ignored. This information was begun in the 1999 so Bush et al spat on it. They had all sorts of information that should have waved huge red flags partly because of the nature of the information they were getting and partly because members of the Clinton Administration were telling them and they refused to give any credibility to ANY of it. Then when 911 happened, it wasn't their fault because Bush had been in office such a short time.

by macmcd on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:16:43 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I'm just curious, (none / 1)

but why is it that you always seem to be taking up for the Bush Administration?

Just a cursory glance through your diaries seems to reveal a propensity for defending the Bush Administration or at the very least denigrating its critics.

The Democratic Party stands for equality for ALL, freedom with responsibility, and a civil and just society.

by TexasLefty on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:09:23 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

BEST COMMENT EVER (3.33 / 3)

Yeah, I'm a defender of the Bush administration.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:50:11 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

If the NYT story is true.. (none / 0)

..I really don't see how it would be the Bush White House's fault, unless the intelligence senior management was told again by the intelligence gatherers that Atta et al were in an Al Qaeda cell in America and were again rebuffed during the Bush years. If we're going to 'blame' any administration, it sounds like we should blame the Clinton administration. And I think that that is ridiculous because, given how aggressively Clinton was pursuing Al Qaeda, there's no way that they would have overlooked this unless there were worried about losing real signal over the frequent noise emanating from Curt Weldon.

by salsa0000 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:32:11 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

don't know much (none / 0)

about DHinMI, but he or she is correct here. all this person is saying is CONSIDER THE SOURCE. not blaming the clinton administration (utterly ridiculous). not defending bush (utterlier ridiculouser).

personally, I think this information makes a lot of sense and fits in the context of the overall 9-11 narrative. highly possible if not probable. but don't forget: it comes from an anonymous source via weldon. if tenet were here, he might call it a slam dunk, but I won't. funny that we're having an angry circle jerk concerning quality of information, you know, given the subject and all.

ok. I'm done. I'll take my 0's now (thank you sir, may I have another?)

"Scott, this is ridiculous."

by jokeysmurf on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:08:32 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

The program's existence is not acknowledged. (none / 0)

In fact, Col. Taylor specifically said he'd never heard of the operation. In fact there is no confirmation from anyone that "Able Danger" really existed.

That there was a briefing on a plane ... there is obviously no doubt of this since there is corroberation. However, I wonder if Mr. Jehl had the sense to confirn that the guy in Weldon's office actually was on that plane or is really who he says he is.

He sounds a lot like that strange guy on that website who claims to have "data mined" al Qaeda, Iran Contra, and a host of other "conspiracies".

Sorry. But I'm skeptical. Especially when I see Weldon's name involved.

"You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

by Glinda on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:20:29 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Confirmed (none / 0)

"A former spokesman for the Sept. 11 commission, Al Felzenberg, confirmed that members of its staff, including Philip Zelikow, the executive director, were told about the program on an overseas trip in October 2003 that included stops in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

by BooMan23 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:35:06 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

No, (none / 0)

Told about what program? A program to track the movements of suspected al Qaeda operatives worldwide? (That we know existed.) Or "Able Danger"?

I doubt that the Times reporter was swift enough to ask his questions this specifically.

In my opinion you are missing the conspiracy before your eyes. Weldon is a rightwing nutcase who supports strengthening the Patriot Act which critics have said has not helped out anti-terrorist efforts one iota. He's manufacturing proff that Poindexter-like privacy violations work.

But that's JMHO

"You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

by Glinda on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:45:52 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Man (4.00 / 6)

the NYT has really fallen hasn't it?

Jehl obviously asked SPECIFICALLY about the program in question and about who briefed and when, and what they were told. He received specific confirmations and specific denials.

If they had never heard of the program it would have been reported that way. Jehl knows Weldon is a loose cannon.

The level of paranoia in this thread is amazing. And it is coming from every angle.

Weldon has his reasons for pushing this story, but it is not helpful to the Bush administration in any way. In fact, it isn't even helpful to Weldon, because it makes the Defense Dept. look bad, not the CIA or the FBI.

Bottom line? My whole point in this article isn't even mentioned in the article. My whole point is about linking up the San Diego cell to the Hamburg cell. If Weldon wanted the story to be about intelligence sharing, he's in for a rude surprise, because his story is aimed directly at the heart of the 9/11 commission.

by BooMan23 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:54:57 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Yes the NYT has fallen into the toilet of late (none / 0)

And you are drawing conclusions of your own from this article. There is nothing "obvious" about what Jehl "knows" or what how he formed his questions. Read the damned thing again. It is a very sketchy article.

I'm not paranoid. I just have healthy cynicism about Curt Weldon and his pals and about a paper of which I happen to know the intricate workings from about a half dozen friends on staff. And I am more than a little aware of the turmoil at the Times at present and the continued bad judgement that amazes even the employees there. The bold missteps of the Times management as they try to regain their dignity and credibility are almost comic in their ineptitude. But they keep digging themselves deeper. It's all rather amusing.

Booman, I love you, but stories like this are your weakness. For some people it's celebrity affairs, for you it's a good conspiracy or coverup. You love this stuff and I don't blame you. But you tend to lack skepticism with these things.

Tell you what, I will reserve final judgement until I see, or don't see, several follow up articles in the Times digging into this more. And I will eat my words if any of the other major, respectable newspapers covers this story and does their own investigation uncovering more infomation on "Able Danger".

Fair enough?

"You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

by Glinda on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:44:33 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Okay Glinda (4.00 / 2)

one day you may read my columns with the same jaundiced eye that you read the NYT.

After all, I just torpedoed Weldon by reframing, and had it up top all day at dKos.

His agenda was ignored and the implications of his story were fleshed out to show who the true villians would be if his story is true.

Put the bastard on defense and take him seriously at the same time.

But my evil machinations are easily mistook for credulity.

http://www.scolesforcongress.com/

by BooMan23 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:14:45 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Stay with it Booman (none / 1)

This is real and there is a lot of disinformation around about it. But it was deliberate on the part of this administration. Four years seems like a long time for it to come out,but heck,Pearl Harbor is now common knowledge in my little Ozark town after 50 years. and no one gives a shit. This is what they are counting on. Time and indifference.
Nixon almost got away with Watergate. Just recently it has been determined that there really were shots from the Grassy Knoll. Even Jackie Kennedy married Onassis because she felt he could protect her children as she felt they also were targets. Now who would hold them in their sights but the ones who killed JFK and RFK and that could only be the shadow government.

This is only surfacing fast because of the internet. In December 04 I was banned from dkos for this. Today it is frontpage. Because the NYT put it on the front page,kos will not knock it off here.

THIS IS REAL!!!

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:08:30 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

whatever Weldon's motives (none / 1)

ths article brings to light that Atta was being watched by the US government. This is not good news for the WH. Operation "able danger" may have been revealed by Weldon previously, but it was not exactly in wider circulation as a news story and I did not know about it.

Can the wingnuts now say that this story proves a need to strengthen the Patriot Act? Of course they can say that, but it makes absolutely zero sense--since the remarkable thing about this new revelation is that the HUMINT (human intel) was there (about Atta) but the dots were not connected...

So more surveillence would not have helped.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:55:28 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

NO NO NO NO NO! (3.00 / 2)

Why don't you get it?

ths article brings to light that Atta was being watched by the US government.

No, the article "brings to light" a claim by Curt Weldon and some unnamed person from the Pentagon sitting in Weldon's office that Atta was being watched by the government. I'm not sure anyone here is saying it's not true; I know I'm not dismissing the possibility. No, what I see people like myself saying is that, based upon past record, there's no reason to believe it's true just because Curt Weldon said it, and there's plenty of reason to believe it's being said to advance a neocon agenda!

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:02:03 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

You are right. I DON'T get it! (none / 0)

How does this advance the neo-con agenda? To me it seems that you are saying that it should be dismissed out of hand without being looked at and that Boo is saying it is something that must be looked at. That is like saying that those of us who were skeptical about WMD in Iraq should have been skeptical because it was the Bush Administration saying it. I was skeptical because there were weapons inspectors inside the country that had to be called out for the invasion; however, I also looked carefully at the Bush Administration evidence. That is a prudent person handles information rather than dismissing it out of hand.

by macmcd on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:30:57 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Read the Comments! (4.00 / 2)

It's been said several times, including on this subthread: Weldon, like all the neocons, is an advocate of putting all the intellegence decisions in the hands of the Pentagon. And who's the other "source" for this story? Some unnamed "former defense intellegence official" or whatever euphemism they used.

It's about discrediting the civillian analysts at the CIA and putting that function in the hands of the neos at DoD.

I don't know how you missed that.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:38:08 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

but (none / 1)

since the information (if true) from this NYT article is that the DIA or a Pentagon data-mining sub-unit was tracing Atta but could not seem to make the rest of the intelligence community (CIA, NSA, FBI, SS) follow their lead...who's fault is that?

How can the buck be passed as your suggesting when the real isue is that the Pentagon failed to connect the dots themselves?

Your argument that this is a neocon ruse to give the Pentagaon (through Poindexter's supposedly closeted TIA or whatnot) a greater intelligence role seems unnecessarily convoluted. I mean the Pentagon already has more power in these areas than ever before. Why the need right now to make such a roundabout, convoluted case (that could backfire if the press focuses on the simple fact that Atta was being monitered and not all the rest of the story) for more Pentagon power?

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:52:13 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

It's Curt Weldon (3.00 / 2)

Everything he says is convoluted and crazy.

That's why almost nobody believes anything he says..

You asked why a neocon would do that. I told you why. It only requires internal consistency, not consistency with external reality. If it did, how could one explain how the neocon agenda of building out military into something so strong and overpowering that everyone would cow to our demands would be served by getting the military bogged down in Iraq, losing career soldiers and even more reservists, wiping out our force deployment flexibility, and being unable to attract sufficient numbers of new recruits?

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:56:51 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

However (none / 1)

This information makes it clear that the military had the information but was not able to connect the dots. It does not appear to advance the case that the Pentagon should be more powerful. In fact, it makes it appear that none of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc. were all unnecessary. It makes it appear that the Bush Administration should have been paying more attention to the information that was available to it from all sources.

by macmcd on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:12:11 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

exactly (none / 1)

if the revelations of the NYT are true, it suggests at the very least that the problem was just plain fucking stupidity on the part of someone or some group with the intel community working for Bush.

They had all the infor-fucking-mation they needed if they had bothered to look.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:18:42 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

NO (2.33 / 3)

There's a claim, buy only two people, Curt Weldon and an unnamed guy sitting in Curt Weldon's office, that this happened.

Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. But I need, and everyone else should need, more support than Curt Weldon and a guy sitting in his Congressional office talking on the phone.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:22:22 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

is your problem that the source (4.00 / 3)

is unreliable, or that the information in the article suggests a neocon ruse? You cannot have it both ways, since as I've said elsewhere it's really, really hard to see how exactly the Bush WH would use this article to their advantage.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:31:51 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

You are absolutely right and said (none / 0)

it so much more succenctly than I.

by macmcd on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:16:33 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

No, It's Easy (none / 1)

I think he's a crap source. But you asked why he would do it, and people told you, and you keep saying you don't see any way it could benefit the neocons.

We get it.

You don't see any way it could benefit the neocons. Plenty of others do.

In fact, I have to wonder how hard you're really trying to see what so many other people see. The problem might not be with what's visible, it might be your eyesight.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:43:58 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

The Blame Bill Clinton First crowd IS back (none / 0)

Yes they will blame Bill Clinton. I head the nut go on TV and say "administration officials kept it from the FBI to avoid a raid and the political fallout from Waco"

This is just like when they claimed that Clinton was offered Bin Laden, the book sold like hotcakes, even tho the claim was discredited many a times. The source was a complete liar, but no one cared when the fake story broke, they never shut up about it until not only did Sandy Berger help show it was bullshit, the 9/11 comission itself says it in Chapter 4, Paragraph 9. The media will have a field day, because the truth just does not matter. NO matter how partisan its sources are.

"The Democratic Party IS the party of Lincoln in all but name only"-Ted Kennedy 1996 DNC

by deaniac20 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:06:33 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

I think you're right about that. (none / 0)

I think that there are elements who will use this as new propaganda in the anti-Clinton "smear of the month".

But I doubt the Kossacks here are seeking to tarnish Clinton. They're looking at this as a way to further tarnish Bush. And this is a complete misreading of what Weldon is about in this.

Even if the guy in Weldon's office isn't the nutjob conspiracy-monger that some of us think the guy is, this looks like a way of smearing the CIA as timid in intelligence gathering ... something that I think is dangerous in and of itself.

"You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

by Glinda on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:03:14 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

I'm not referring to the Kossers (none / 0)

I'm referring to tis Weldon guy and the media. Anyway to imply he was bod on terror is always used by the media. I guarantee Rush Limbaugh will just mention this story all damn day tomorrow, and Fox will have on the chiron "How Bill Clinton could have prevented 9/11" This story is clearly to smear Clinton, if you saw Weldon on CNN's "situation room" bullshit

"The Democratic Party IS the party of Lincoln in all but name only"-Ted Kennedy 1996 DNC

by deaniac20 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:20:10 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Stop the ratings abuse! (3.00 / 3)

Those people who are downrating comments that they don't agree with are abusing the ratings!! You don't get to give 0s, 1s and 2s just because you can't effectively argue your position. This is a reasonable comment. The 2 was childish!

.... Jeeze ... and I can't stand those diary cops. I don't want to be one. But for God's sake ...

"You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

by Glinda on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:34:43 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Heh. (none / 1)

And I just got a '1' from an aptly named individual!

Thank you for serving as a perfect illustration of the kind of cowardice associated with ratings abuse.

"You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

by Glinda on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:43:52 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

is this PROMIS? (none / 0)

or a version of that software stolen by the US government and reportedly in the hands of bin Laden as well as US intelligence agencies?

Mistrusted User

by Planet B on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:31:03 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Able Danger mentioned 6/19/05. (none / 0)

Times-Herald article from June 19, 2005 mentions Able Danger.

by lysias on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:42:29 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

It sure does ... (none / 0)

And whose name pops up again in that one? Why golly, if it doesn't happen to be Rep. Curt Weldon.

You can also fin "Able Danger" mentioned in the June 27th 2005 Congressional Record. And who bring it up in Congress? Why Rep. Weldon.

You think having the same fruitcake cited in two newspapers and the Congressional Record makes for some kind of corroboration?

Come on!

"You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

by Glinda on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:45:36 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

How does putting it in Clinton's term (none / 1)

and attacking the "wall" between agencies that the BushCo. crew have been screaming that Clinton's administration erected not serve Weldon and the GOP well?

cheers,

Mitch Gore

Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

by Lestatdelc on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:03:55 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

yes weldon is a loon (4.00 / 3)

and up for reelection

we should capitalize on his looniness and help paul scoles defeat him in 06

paul scoles is a progressive candidate and a doctor

remind you of anyone?

reading his issues page sounds like reading a dean speech

we can get rid of that dinosaur weldon and replace him with a great man.

I wish I had a penis on the back of my head.

by anna in philly on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:38:09 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

thanks (none / 0)

thanks for the info. I'll look into it.

"He not busy being born is busy dying" - It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)

by chicagochamp on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:09:39 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

in a similar vein (none / 0)

Carpetbagger Report, a site I like, argues similarly here (just posted a few minutes ago).

we are the goon squad and we're coming to town ...

by arb on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:39:29 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Weldon's latest Looney Tune Trip in Paris... (none / 1)

...just for some what-is-Weldon-up-to-next background, story on his not-so-secret trip to Paris to meet best buddy of Iran-Contra arms dealer.

Again, our friend and myth-maker Zelikow is also in the mix, this time as the fact "cleaner" on the 911 Commission.

Both of these whackos are working the Iran case for war/air strikes.

by Hector Solon on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:13:48 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Check Out This Article (none / 1)

Thanks for the link Hector, because this is great:

Lawmakers met with Iranian exile scrutinized over intelligence
By Warren P. Strobel
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Peter Hoekstra and Rep. Curt Weldon met secretly in Europe last week with an Iranian exile who CIA officials charge has passed worthless or bogus intelligence to the United States, current and former U.S. government officials said.
The Paris meeting appears to be the latest in a string of incidents in which players outside the intelligence community try to affect American foreign policy by highlighting threats that the CIA and other agencies find dubious...
Among the reports apparently generated by Mahdavi and Ghorbanifar was one that Iraq had allegedly transferred highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons to Iran in an effort to hide the material. Then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow confirmed at the time that the agency checked out the tip, although it refused to meet with Ghorbanifar. The report never checked out, Knight Ridder reported in October 2003.
Ghorbanifar has made other approaches to the Bush administration. He met with Pentagon officials Harold Rhode and Lawrence Franklin in late 2001. The meetings were vigorously protested by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, but a second meeting, which Pentagon officials say was unplanned, took place in Paris in June 2003.
Franklin was charged earlier this year with unauthorized disclosure of classified information, in an apparently unrelated matter.
Mahdavi, former CIA counterterrorism official Vincent Cannistraro said, "is just part and parcel of the longest-running, on-going fabrication in U.S. history."

Two things to note. One, Strobel and Knight Ridder were probably the best reporters in the leadup to the Iraq war; they NEVER got caught advancing any of he BS from the adminstration and the neocons. Two, and distressingly, people who would scoff at an article like today's NYT article if the names were Perle and Chalabi apparently suspend their critical thinking when the names are changed to Weldon and Ghorbanifar, at least if they believe the story makes the Bush administration look bad.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:23:11 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

what is your agenda (none / 0)

here?

I had already seen this article but I'm not sure if it's relevant or not.

For the last time: I have no fucking clue if the NYT piece diaried above is accurate or not, but I fail to see how (if it is a bogus bit of propaganda by Weldon) it helps the neocon cause.

Maybe we should think of this way: some of us here are emphasizing what this information (and if this information is bogus, we will find out I'm sure) suggests: that Atta MAY (emphasis on may) have been shadowed by our government.

If that revelation proves to be true
(and again I think we will know soon enough, given how prominently this article is placed in the Times), then all the rest of your concerns about Weldon or whatnot are besides the point.

We shall see.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:38:38 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Agenda? (none / 0)

Plese point to where I ever said anything about whether or not Atta was survieled.

I didn't.

I assailed the source of this NYT article.

Your problem and that of others is you didn't address only what I was saying, you filled in mental blanks and assumed I was saying things I didn't even address, like whether or not it may be true. All I was addressing was the complete lack of credibility of Curt Weldon, and how an article that relies for sourcing only on him and some unnamed person, sitting in Weldon's office, with a half-assed excuse for why he had to remain nameless is a completely unreliable report.

My advice to you is to read what is written, maybe make note of what wasn't written if it's pertinent, and stop looking for agendas.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:48:58 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

The response to this event... (none / 0)

...which was made public in this piece in July.

NOTE: Quotes cut-out in order
"The Paris meeting appears to be the latest incident in which players outside the intelligence community try to affect U.S. foreign policy by highlighting threats that the CIA and other agencies find dubious."
"But the CIA says it has wasted hundreds of hours checking the claims of Ali -- whose real name is Fereidoun Mahdavi -- and that they're a mix of fabrications and embellishments of news reports, according to a letter from the CIA to Weldon."
"Jamal Ware, a spokesman for Hoekstra, R-Mich., said the congressman wouldn't comment, and it's unclear whether Hoekstra shares Weldon's assessment of Mahdavi. Weldon's office didn't reply to e-mailed questions."
"Mahdavi, said former CIA counter-terrorism official Vincent Cannistraro, "is just part and parcel of the longest-running, ongoing fabrication in U.S. history.""
[emphasis added]

No understatement there, Vince. These amatuerish misadventures continue on Iran, this time with fewer experts, that might have second thoughts, in the mix.... Rinsh, Recontruct, Repeat.

by Hector Solon on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:07:25 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

yes but what exactly (none / 0)

does this have to do with the NYT article diaried here?

The OSO in the Pentagon was keyed in with at least three Mossad spies currently in FBI custody, and the WMD story was at least partially fabricated in the runup to the war. Which tells us there is no shortage of fixed, failed, or shitty intelligence swirling around this administration.

But the core of the NYT piece diaried here, to me at least, is yet another revelation that the government knew more about the 9/11 highjackers than they have previously let on. (Assuming it's true)

How this NYT piece is to be used for some neocon agenda for Patriot Act Three or attacking Iran or whatnot makes no sense to me. There would have been far easier ways to draw up more effective propaganda in that regard: without letting the cat out of the bag about our knowledge of Atta.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:26:19 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

One possible explaination for... (none / 0)

... Weldon's motivations, apart from book promotion (could be that simple), is the building of justification and support of DIA data/methods/assets to support a case against Iran. DIA is using SOCOM assets and a DIA chain of command is that this new family of ops in Iran that are "no-(congressional)oversight" reducing complications. But, at some part in the process the credibility of DIA, hence the leak of "Able Danger", must be reinforced. Its a continuation of the shifting of assets from CIA to DIA control and its associated discrediting of CIA judgement and analysis. The "myth" is that the DIA "never failed us" like the others. Perhaps they did not consider the linkage back, or figured the 911 and the WMD investigations (without the Phase II into policy development) are not going to be revisited since they were tabled by Roberts and Hoekstra essentially.

Just a theory. Perhaps a stretch, but plausable none the less.

by Hector Solon on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:25:13 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

So you don't find anything suspicious.. (none / 1)

..about the faux 9/11 commission members ALL THE SUDDEN complaining about document access...

CYA is what it is.

Jesus: "Destroy this Temple" - Gospel of John

by The Gnostic on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:03:21 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

What Does That Have To Do... (none / 0)

...with the credibility of a newspaper story that relies on just two sources, Curt Weldon and some unnamed "former defense intelligence official" talking on teh phone from Weldon's Congressional office?

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:11:27 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I don't claim to know much about this except... (4.00 / 2)

..this appears to say that "Able Danger" was revealed to the so-called 9/11 Commission, which was mysteriously forbidded into looking into culpability, but these so-called commissioners "don't recall any mention of Mohammed Atta, per se, or any mention of a ... cell" and NOW they want some documents, again quite convenient for CYA purposes.

Convenient. NONE of them "recall."

Granted you want to be the voice of reason, but this "unreliable" source is a REPUBLICAN vice-chairman of 2 committees... why can't you admit there was likely a cover-up? That doesn't mean that you believe Bush "did" 9/11...

As someone said, it appears that the key to this whole affair is Al Felzenberg:

The issue resurfaced Monday in a story by the bimonthly Government Security News, which covers national security matters.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the 9/11 commission looked into the matter during its investigation into government missteps leading to the attacks and chose not to include it in thew final report.

Al Felzenberg, a spokesman for the 9/11 Commission, confirmed that the panel's investigators had been aware of Able Danger but said they "don't recall any mention of Mohammed Atta, per se, or any mention of a ... cell."

Jesus: "Destroy this Temple" - Gospel of John

by The Gnostic on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:38:01 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Why Can't I Admit It's a Cover Up? (none / 0)

How many times in how many different ways do I have to say this: CURT WELDON IS AN UNRELIABLE SOURCE, AND NOTHING HE SAYS SHOULD BE BELIEVED UNLESS CONFIRMED BY INDEPENDENT SOURCES.

And somebody sitting in his office who refuses to use his name doesn't count as an independent source.

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:47:16 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I HEAR YOU, no need to shout, but reasonable.. (4.00 / 2)

..people would see something amiss when the 9/11 commission has acknowledged that "Able Danger" was presented to them, but this is the first time we have heard about it... remember Condi saying that we never imagined airplanes could be used as missiles? well, we now know that she did "imagine" that because we know she was briefed on it...see a pattern sir? give an inch, please... nothing is amiss, nothing at all?

Jesus: "Destroy this Temple" - Gospel of John

by The Gnostic on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:59:00 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Jeeze (none / 0)

Last time: I am not making any statement about whether or not any of this is true. I'm saying the fact that Curt Weldon is the only person on record saying it's true is far, far from sufficient to believe it.

Weldon continues to shout "fire!" I'm saying that I want to see either smoke or flames, or have someone else corroborate his claim of fire. Your retorts are about whether the tinder is dry. I'm not talking about the tinder, and whether it's wet or dry has nothing to do with Weldon's credibility when he shouts "fire!"

The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

by DHinMI on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:06:47 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

jeeze, i just wanted your comment on the tinder.. (none / 0)

i don't recall hearing the AP say he is so discredited... they just reported the information..

Jesus: "Destroy this Temple" - Gospel of John

by The Gnostic on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:18:33 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Weldon is not alone (none / 1)

It's just that the other sources are silenced They have been privately printed. The mainstream media won't touch it. They wouldn't touch Watergate either until the Post took the plunge.

And god,look how long the JFK thing was whitewashed and hushed. The doctor who saw his body in Dallas was told to shut up if he knew what was good for him. Now that he is an old man,doesn't have to worry about his career,he has written a book to tell what he saw that day concerning JFK's body. And it had been altered by the time it got to DC. The Warren Commission got a false autopsy report. The doctor says that the final autopsy was not the body he viewed in Dallas.

We can get them for treason on this one. No resignation this time to save ass. Heads! I demand heads!

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:14:24 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Don't confuse the message w/ the messenger (none / 0)

Weldon's story is a limited hang-out. A partisan one, at that. There were several overlapping multi-agency surveillance operations that detected the Atta/al Shehhi and al-Hazmi/al-Midhar groups than this particular DoD program. The joint CIA/FBI/NSA/DOS surveillance of the January 2000 Kuala Lumpur meeting was revealed during the Joint Congressional Committee hearings in September 2002.http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/03/01_crimes.html

Weldon is trying to poison the well in advance of bigger revelations to come - and spin it so it seems to be Clinton's fault -- but, Jehl's version is pretty close to accurate picture of a small piece of the program.

There will be a lot more pieces of the program, and details about WH misdirection and outright sabotage of them revealed in coming weeks.

by leveymg on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:00:09 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Are these your words or the NYTs?: (none / 0)

"The law did not apply to mere visa holders. The bottom line is that there is no good reason for such a request to be rejected."

Reigning Welterweight Female Piefighter since 1998

by ablington on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:19:57 AM PDT

Those are my words (none / 0)

these are the NYT's words: 'That protection does not extend to visa holders.'

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0302/S00217.htm

by BooMan23 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:23:14 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

The words were clearly yours, I should have (none / 0)

asked whether you got the info from the story or just happened to know this particular detail. Thanks.

Reigning Welterweight Female Piefighter since 1998

by ablington on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:25:14 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

The so-called Wall is a red-herring. (none / 0)

For a general discussion of what the FISA warrant requirements actually were, and how the law was misconstrued in the surveillance of the UBL cells, please see:

For a more extended discussion of how US intelligence tried to get around warrant requirements through consensual monitoring, see:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00257.htm

by leveymg on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:12:08 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

So where did the line break down? (none / 0)

Booman, you imply that the excuse given - that info sharing was against policy - is lame. So why did the FBI in Spring-Summer 2000 not follow up on the Brooklyn cell? Speculation?

The name is not the thing named, the map is not the territory. -- Gregory Bateson

by semiot on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:26:12 AM PDT

Booman did a whole series (none / 0)

of remarkable diaries on Atta etc., which would offer a bunch of possible explanations, but I am afraid my posting a link might be verboten too.

by Eph on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:31:28 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

The FBI didn't follow up (none / 0)

because, according to this story, they were never told about the Brooklyn cell.

PBS Frontline documentary

by BooMan23 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:32:40 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

protecting the Saudis (none / 1)

This is from memory:

Some dude who was the number two guy at the FBI quit out of frustration that efforts to investigate Al Queda were being stimied from above in order not to embarass our Saudi allies who were connected to the terrorists. This policy existed under Clinton but became even worse under Bush. The FBI dude spilled his guts to two French reporters about this before dying in the WTC on 9/11 (He took a job as head of security for the WTC after he left the FBI.)

Someone correct me if my memory is foggy.

miasmo.com

by miasmo on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:46:49 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

John P. O'Neill (4.00 / 5)

New Yorker article

But I don't know how reliable that account by Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie is.

Essential funk: 'Impeach the President' by the Honeydrippers

by pontechango on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:23:11 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Was going to link the Frontline... (none / 0)

... documentary, but found your link. Thanks.

Highly, highly recommended. You can watch it online, please take the time to do so! It is titled The Man Who Knew and it will leave you dumfounded.

Misled Into War: A Timeline/DowningStreetMemo.com

by highacidity on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:13:54 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Also, from my own site (4.00 / 4)

January 2001: The Bush administration orders the FBI and intelligence agencies to "back off" investigations involving the bin Laden family, including two of Osama bin Laden's relatives (Abdullah and Omar) who were living in Falls Church, VA, right next to CIA headquarters. This followed previous orders dating back to 1996, frustrating efforts to investigate the bin Laden family. According to a highly-placed source in U.S. intelligence, there have always been "constraints" on investigating members of the bin Laden family, but "under President Bush it had become much worse." The former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, Michael Springarn, told BBC2's Newsnight that "In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high-level State Department officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants [including suspected terrorists]. People who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I complained there. I complained here in Washington to Main State, to the inspector-general and to Diplomatic Security and I was ignored."

The original source is Greg Palast.

-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further

by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:05:00 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Were we training terrorists? (4.00 / 2)

That visa story is one of the big unexplored issues here. There does seem to have been a program where our military intelligence or CIA or someone trained Saudi men as terrorists (or, at the time, "freedom fighters"), and that bin Laden and probably some of his people were trained in that program. I wonder how long it continued after the Soviets left Afghanistan. I have also read that our military also trained many Saudi pilots. That may have sonething to do with the name discrepancies--they can't be traced.

"False language, evil in itself, infects the soul with evil." ----Socrates

by Mimikatz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:21:19 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

EXACTLY.. we created Bin Laden.. (4.00 / 2)

Jesus: "Destroy this Temple" - Gospel of John

by The Gnostic on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:04:55 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Jan 2001?? (none / 1)

So the egg on Bush's limo wasn't even dry and he was up to no good.

by SFOrange on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:33:21 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

You are correct. (none / 0)

Stay with it.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:17:53 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Ask Colleen Rowley (4.00 / 4)

Read her letter to Mueller about the Moussaoui investigation.

"During the early aftermath of September 11th, when I happened to be recounting the pre-September 11th events concerning the Moussaoui investigation to other FBI personnel in other divisions or in FBIHQ, almost everyone's first question was "Why?--Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case? (I know I shouldn't be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBIHQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like Robert Hansen, who were actually working for Osama Bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis' effort.)

Ask Kenneth Williams. Read his "Phoenix Memo" naming UBL and warning about Islamic terrorists training at US flight schools.

Ask David Frasca, at the FBI headquarters' Radical Fundamentalist Unit who received both the Phoenix Memo and the Minneapolis FISA requests. Ask why he was promoted after 9/11.

Ask why the full list of government employees responsible for 9/11 failures were promoted.

by debraz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:57:59 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Ah yes, the promotions (none / 1)

You have to wonder just what beans could have been spilled if there had been any real investigation into the FBI's high-level obstruction of field-agent's investigations actually hapened:

WASHINGTON - The FBI supervisor who allegedly hamstrung the pre-Sept. 11 Minneapolis investigation into the alleged 20th hijacker has been transferred to a position where bureau sources say he'll actually have more authority.

Michael Maltbie, the FBI supervisory special agent accused of blocking field agents from obtaining a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer, has been moved out of the counterterrorism division at bureau headquarters to the Cleveland office, where he'll work as a field supervisor, sources say.

"That's really a promotion," a bureau veteran told WorldNetDaily, "because a field supervisor is a big notch over a headquarters supervisor."

"He'll actually be directing investigations, rather than twiddling his thumbs half the time," he explained.

[b]FBI spokesman Bill Carter told WorldNetDaily that the bureau will not be opening an internal investigation into complaints about the Minneapolis investigation. That means Maltbie's conduct and that of his boss, David Frasca, the FBI's Radical Fundamentalists unit chief, as well as their section chief, will not be reviewed by the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility, the bureau's version of internal affairs[/b].

Instead, Carter said FBI Director Robert Mueller will wait for the results of the investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general into FBI whistleblower-agent Coleen Rowley's charges before taking any possible "administrative action."

Frasca led headquarters' allegedly inept supervision of the Minneapolis field office's probe of Moussaoui in August. Rowley and other field agents were tipped off by a flight-school instructor that Moussaoui was interested only in steering planes, and not taking off or landing. Other evidence confirmed agents' suspicions he was part of a possible terrorist plot.

Another FBI whistleblower, Phoenix agent Kenneth J. Williams, sent a July 10 memo to Frasca warning that Osama bin Laden's followers might be training for terrorist operations at U.S. flight schools. Frasca claims he never saw the letter, which was not shared with the Minneapolis office.
...

by glooperoo on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:45:23 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I'll bet John O'Neill, (none / 1)

top FBI anti-terrorist agent, resigned/ fired for trying to follow up on the USS COle, was working frantically on it.

O'Neill, died on September 11, 2001 on his first day of work as head of security at the World Trade Center.

The was never a man who could get into more undeserved trouble for trying to be in the middle of things, trying to do good.

by gogol on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:58:12 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

The FBI was only one of several agencies, US and (none / 0)

foreign, which continued to surveil the UBL cells known to be inside the US.

There was some information sharing, but more surveillance of each other going on. Poor coordination played a large part in creating a huge gap in coverage that allowed the 19 to complete their missions.

by leveymg on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:18:13 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Methinks... (none / 1)

...something is truly rotten in the state of Florida, circa 2000. And I'm not just talking about citrus canker either.

Of course, the sad thing about all of this is that the RWNM will spin this as being "all Clinton's fault" and that if we only had the draconian intelligence measures they're pushing for now, the FBI would have known about all of this and 9/11 would never have happened. Never mind that people at the FBI were aware of these people and yet nothing was done.

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

by viget on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:31:40 AM PDT

They don't give a shit about protecting (3.71 / 7)

us from another attack, any more than they gave a shit about protecting us from the 9/11 attacks. It's all about the draconian intelligence measures. That's why I believe they sat back and allowed 9/11 to happen.

Occam's Razor: with 9/11, we have a two-term Bush presidency, the invasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act, a packed USSC, and a raft of ugly post-9/11 legislation covering everything under the conservative sun. Without 9/11, we probably have Bush impeached over his participation in the Enron scandals.

Damn the verboten conspiracy theories. They knew about the attacks, and they let them happen for their own political ends.

-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further

by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:11:33 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

no (none / 1)

Occam's Razor would indicate that Bush is inept and therefore despite having enough "dots" he failed to connect them or act out of nothing more than laziness and lack of motivation.

It certainly does not indicate that Bush would take a huge calculated gamble. He's an idiot, not a steely gutted gambler. His idea of a big risk is using a lackey to discredit the opposition.

by danheskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:53:49 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

But remember, (none / 1)

Bush is neither an idiot nor is he the big dog in this administration. When push comes to shove, he is just another lackey.

I've always wrestled with the question of why, if he knew something was coming down on 9/11 (or thereabouts) that he looked so shit-scared that afternoon when he gave us that five-minute videotaped speech while immured in Barksdale AFB. I think it was because he couldn't help himself -- even though he knew what was going on in general, he was still scared out of his little cowardly mind. I don't think this was his little concoction. Without proof, I'd have to lay this at the door of the Rove-Cheney-Perle axis of evil.

-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further

by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:58:30 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I agree with almost everything (none / 0)

in your comment. I disagree that Rove is part of the neo-con cabal. I think Rove is an operative for the sport of domestic politics. I believe Rove is an idiot savant whose area of genius is domestic politics. I just haven't ever heard of Rove being involved in foreign affiar intelligence or manipulation.

by macmcd on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:51:04 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Inept? Perhaps. In the know? (4.00 / 2)

Very possibly maybe. There are far too many "happy accidents" that worked to further the terrorists cause that day.

My favorite example is Cheney setting the day aside for war games that simulated hijacked airliners crashing into government and commercial buildings. NORAD was expecting hijackings that day. They were told to stand down. It was all a drill to them until it hit the networks.

by BornUnderPunches on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:16:45 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Common (none / 0)

The "Cheney Wargames" thing is a very common thing on conspiracy websites.

I have asked before, but I'd love you ask you.

Can you provide any primary source that verifies that there was in fact war games that day.

The best I've heard is nn ATC controller asking if it's "real world or an exercise". Not proof. That response is very common - "the house is on fire? Are you for real?".

So, do you have any proof of this claim?

Alternatively.

Let's say Bush/Cheney were in on it. Why not capture the terrorists and/or shoot the planes down at the last second? It would be a much grander political statement, and it would be much more beneficial politically.

I think the simplest solution is that given what information was available the Bush administration should have and could have prevented 9/11 but that they failed because they are incompetant and incapable.

by danheskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:24:11 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

You're right... (none / 1)

It is a common claim to see on conspiracy sites, but that doesn't mean it should be discounted outright.

The AP reported on it 08/22/02, and I remember reading it buried near the back of the A-section of the paper. I don't have a subscription to the AP's archives, but I managed to find the beginning of the article online. I'm sure it's available in it's entirety elsewhere, but I have very limited time to search the net until I get home.

"Associated Press
August 22, 2002

WASHINGTON -- In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft crashed into one of its buildings."

To say that intercepting the terrorists in the act would have been better for the administration's cause is debatable. This lot has deep ties with the PNAC which envisions a future where America is out "protecting the American way of life" through "multiple ongoing wars". The attacks handed them their justification for war on a silver platter.

by BornUnderPunches on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:34:16 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

there are lots of MSM reports of the wargames (4.00 / 3)

they've simply been "forgotten" amongst the much larger volume of 9/11-related stories. Here's one:

Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building

By John J. Lumpkin, Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.

Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.

The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.

Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. No actual plane was to be involved -- to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building.

"It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said. "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."
...

Here's another one on some of the past wargames they've conducted using jet's as weapons.

One of the other wargames they had going that morning was Vigilant Guardian, that had a ton of our jets like up around Alaska drilling against a hypothetical soviet bombing run (and we only had 14 jets on alert at seven locations all along our borders). You can find a refernce to Vigilant Guardian in the 9/11 cOmmission Report. They have a whole footnote on it! :-)

Here's a bit more on some 9/11 wargames. Here's a much more exhaustive 9/11 timeline that's filled with various wargames and drills.

And here's a nice report on Senator Dayton's courageous speech last year railing against the NORAD/FAA lies in their stories, and who could blame him.

Perhaps the most important aspect of all this wargame stuff is that our official 9/11 myth has been purged of just about any reference to it.

by glooperoo on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:30:50 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

snip (none / 0)

The article snip you suggest doesn't line up with what the conspiracy tin hatters talk about; they suggest that the radar was filled with fake blips and that NORAD was ordered to stand down (presumably by Cheney)

The report of the wargame you quote is much, much, much more reasonable.

The Vigiliant Guardian thing - I knew about that. But again, does it line up with the conspiracy types theories that it was a distraction? It had been planned for months, after all.

by danheskett on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 05:37:00 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

yeah, I don't think the crash simulation wargame (none / 0)

was directly involved with distrupting any sort of NORAD response. If it provided any use to the perpetrators my suspicion is that it would be to add to the general confusion. I see it's importance more as an example of the kind of information you would expect our media to highlight as at least a bizarro coincidence, which it did, in a single AP article after the CIA officer running the thing publicly mentioned it a year later (see the section on John Fulton).

Operation Northern Vigilance (which might also be Vigiliant Guardian since the 9/11 cOmmission Report only makes reference to one wargame, Vigilant Guardian, that it says was postulating a soviety bomber attack) appears to have helped dramatically reduce the number of jets available by sending them off to Alaska and Canada to that drill. The best site to get more info on this stuff is cooperative research.org and their various 9/11 timelines. Unfortunately it appears to barely responsive at this point, so be sure to check it out later once they get it back up to speed. They do an excellent job of taking all the info available and providing a minute-by-minute timeline of NORAD's and the FAA's responses. It's interesting because you get to see the difference in the FAA's and NORAD's timelines they provided to the investigators (which is part of what Senator Dayton was so angry about), and you also get to see just how incredibly delayed our response was. Prisonplanet.com also has a nice summary page on the wargames. Here's a washington post article on the kind of confusion taking place that day:

Alerts and groundings of aircraft on Sept. 11 came minutes too late to help find Flight 77. The aircraft disappeared just nine minutes after the FAA was notified that a plane had hit the World Trade Center, and 12 minutes before the second plane struck, a period of general confusion.

An alert to controllers to watch for planes disappearing from radar or changing to unauthorized courses did not go out until 22 minutes after Flight 77 disappeared, when it was at least halfway back to Washington.

* When they reconstructed Flight 77's path, investigators determined that it was picked up by some distant radars, but none that were available to the Indianapolis controller, FAA officials said.

As the airliner sped east, controllers handling other sectors of high-altitude airspace in the Indianapolis center and the Washington center, at Leesburg, did not notice it, sources said. As usual, they were not monitoring primary radar, either. The two centers cover large areas of the Ohio Valley and Mid-Atlantic areas.

With no signal on their radar screens, controllers did not realize that Flight 77 had reversed direction. At 9:09 a.m., unable to reach the plane by radio, the Indianapolis controller reported a possible crash, sources said.

The first time that anyone became aware an aircraft was headed at high speed toward Washington was when the hijacked flight began descending and entered airspace controlled by the Dulles International Airport TRACON facility, an aviation source said.

The first Dulles controller noticed the fast-moving plane at 9:25 a.m. Moments later, controllers sounded an alert that an aircraft appeared to be headed directly toward the White House. It later turned and hit the Pentagon.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown noted that the Indianapolis controller properly followed all procedures in effect before Sept. 11. He or she assumed an electrical power failure and made every possible attempt to contact the plane. In the meantime, the controller cleared other aircraft from the plane's presumed flight path.

Those procedures changed, effectively, 22 minutes after Flight 77 disappeared from radar, when the FAA Command Center -- reacting to the World Trade Center crashes -- told controllers nationwide to be alert for planes dropping from radar or making unauthorized course changes.

Today, controllers would alert supervisors, who likely would call for military aircraft to search for the missing plane

Here's an audio clip that points out that the FAA flight controllers were aware of these drills taking place when one of the controllers asks "is this real world, or an exercise?' in response to new of a hijacked flight heading towards New York. Once again, take a look at cooperativeresearche's timelines, and you'll learn about all the other confusion taking place that morning. And it's that confusion, and how it ties into the unprecedented delay in NORADs response that makes the official story's amnesia about these wargame so troubling. I mean, in the 9/11 Commission Report they only refer to Vigilant Guardian, and they conclude that it actually enhanced their response time. If that's the case, than how long would it have been without those wargames? Why does a commission that claims to just find out what happened so it can never happen again ommit this crucial aspect of the story. I mean, even if the wargames themselves didn't dramatically slow down our response time, why the ommission? Watch Cynthia McKinney grill Rumsfeld and Meyers about these wargames (and many other things, like the $1 trillion the Pentagon admitted it couldn't account for). They aren't exactly open and expressive in their answers. Why? And given all this confusion, why did the FAA controller tapes get so completely destroyed without and permanent transcipts being taken. I know what the official excuse is, but I sure don't know if I believe it.

And this is all just the wargames angle of the story. And what about the investigaton of P-Tech, a Saudi-owned software firm with major government contracts, including the FAA's radar systems, that Michael Chertoff (before he was head of DHS) managed to get shut down? Why has there been so little about this in our press? It sure is a lot like the minimal press coverage of the all the FBI coverups, where we had one big moment of hype involving Coleen Rowley, and then pretty much nothing else. On pretty much every major aspect about 9/11 we find one lie or ommission after another that went unchallenged and passively accepted by virtually everyone, and many of these lies (so many you could write a book on them). It's all of that kind of stuff that should shatter our faith in not just the official story, but the trusted institutions that we depend on to inform us about the crucial events of our times. Institutions that haven't just been lazy in their investigation of these ommission, but have been actively and enthusiastically enforcing the official myths. Taken all together, it's a sign of the times. Dark, dangerous, scary times. :-(

by glooperoo on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:41:05 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

cover-up (none / 0)

I dont deny a cover-up of many of the issues you talk about.

But the question is what is behind the cover-up. Reality suggests to me that it's not a grand conspiracy but rank incompetance.

Prisonplanet is not a source to be trusted. They claim the wargames were a cover conconcuted by Cheney so he could run the 9/11 "operation", of course, with no evidence.

The flight controller asking "is this real life, or an exercise" to me doesn't mean anything at all. It's a very common response "is this a drill? is this for real?" etc. Prisonplanet says this is proof. It's not!

by danheskett on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 11:02:32 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

The wargames are just a starting point (none / 0)

They are by no means the end all "proof" of a "grand conspiracy". And I don't know of any definitive smoking gun that proves exactly who did what when. I suspect a relatively small and very clever group (most likely surrounding Cheney, but I don't really know) that had the right people in the right places to game the system and cover its tracks. At least, that's how it appears to me, but there's just too much to fit in a comment or even a single diary. That's part of why this coverup has been so successful: it's just a wildly messy story.

I suggest taking a close look at the wargames, but don't expect to find all the answers there. Look into, say, the mysterious collapse of WTC7, another topic the 9/11 Commission completely left out of their report. Seriously, it's listed as "7WTC", and you can find references to it in the report, but absolutely no mention of its anomalous collapse, which is odd considering it's only the third steel framed building to collapse due primarily to fire in history (guess the other two). Then investigate the investigation of the tower collapses. There's plenty of interesting stuff there too. Then read about the hero janitor, who was the last man to escape the towers, and who's story almost no one heard about in this country...could that have anything to do with his reports of basement explosions? Also be sure to look into the details of the FBI coverups (this is a great page to start on but there's a lot on that topic). It really does seem like some did not want these terror cells disrupted, which is so odd considering 2001 had the "summer of warnings"...warnings I remember reading about before 9/11 and are hardly mentioned to this day other than that August PDB. Then recall all the airline stocks shortselling, and how that investigation literally went nowhere, and you really have to start to wonder because it wasn't just incompetence, but widly fortuitous (for the terrorists) incompetence at that hitting across all the layers of our defense systems at once. I mean, I'm willing to believe the incompetence alibi, in fact I want to believe that, but with the kind of investigation we've seen so far and all this circumstantial evidence (yes, I'll admit my suspicions are based on circumstancial evidence), I'm just not able to get myself to climb aboard the incompetence bandwagon. And the topics I've listed are just those that I can recall at the moment. There's just so much more, the vast majority of which is based on the MSM press accounts that just somehow get filtered out of the official story.

I can understand if someone looks at all this and chooses not to believe there's more there (although I'd be a bit puzzled). But if there's one thing that we all should be able to unit around is the need for a real investigation. It's just beyond absurd that what got instead was sold as the friggin' gold-standard of investigations by our trusted media.

As far as PrisonPlanet.com goes as a source, in my experience reading them I've noticed that they definately put their particular spin on things but the actual evidence they site is from real, legitimate sources. The whole "this was done so Cheney could run the operation" is clearly a conclusion they've come to and their using that particular clip as a piece of supporting evidence. That's what we all do when trying to make a case. We certainly shouldn't blindly accept their conclusions like with anyone else, but they really do have one of the most comprehensive 9/11 related libraries in existence that I'm aware of. And if you want to follow all global trend towards more government powers over their citizens (just take a look at what Europe has been doing since 7/7), prisonplanet.com is probably one of the best sites out there for doing that, IMHO.

by glooperoo on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 02:14:37 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Same for 7-7 in London (none / 1)

War games that day too. Simulated bombings in the transportation department.

The code for our wargames had been broken and we intercepted a message using it,so we knew that they knew but didn't know how they knew.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:23:38 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Conspiracy of the inept? (4.00 / 3)

Occam's Razor doesn't hold because "inept" doesn't explain the FBI, CIA, INS, NSC, FAA, NORAD, DoD, SEC all failed. I howl when I hear "We have to be right 100% of the time, they only have to be right once." Bullshit, they were right 100% of the time, and that alphabet soup wasn't "right" once.

Ineptitude is the least simple explanation for failure after failure after failure. Not even a army of George Castanzas could fuck up that much up.

To believe the "failed to connect the dots" theory, you have to be willing to throw out all of the evidence of foreknowledge and blocked investigations and fall back on this administration's WMD, Al Qaeda/Iraq "bad intelligence" position.

Ask yourself, with ineptness the official explanation for 9/11 and Iraq, why the lies?

by debraz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:59:00 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Very good point (none / 0)

They are counting on no concerted effort to nail them. They know it will come out but all those cold warriors will be dead by them and Bush will be a senile old man.

No I don't think Bush knew. I mean,would you let him in the loop? Why his awful face that day in Farenheit 9-11. And why all those happy faces getting ready for the TV cameras. Why in god's name were they like that while they were on camera for Moore. Or did he get them with a telephoto lens before they went public on camera. Wolfie is joyous!

There is a publisher in CA who puts out a lot of this stuff. Tree of Life Publications. The War on Freedom-You're Not Stupid (devestating)but no one has figured out a way to collate the mess and get it out there. It's so fragmented. and when youb know and talk about it you sound nuts.

I suggested to TOLP a huge room size board game like Waterloo and WWII with all this info in a timeline to tour the country and educate people. Or a smart video game. I think that's the only way. Print isn't going to do it,and they know that too.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:31:34 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Oof, a 2! (none / 0)

Guess I touched a nerve. Or something. I am suitably chastised now and will go hide under a box.

Not. ;-)

Though I probably deserve some 1's for making Condi Rice sound like Butterfly McQueen in another post on this thread.

-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further

by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:54:09 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

IMHO (none / 0)

That send up deserved a 4.

It's hard to write in dialect -- any dialect. ;-)

by mmacdDE on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:06:49 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Thankee kin'ly (none / 0)

Ah've always depended on the kahndness of stranghuhs. Leastways fo' mah ratins.

-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further

by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:08:13 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Plus a long list of justifications (none / 0)

for huge tax cuts, deficit funding of corporations who are friends of Bush and endorse corporate fascism, excuses for secrecy so they can engage in all this corrupt behavior under the radar (and even openly a lot of the time).

Do not trust Republican Donor TV: GE-NBC and Time-Warner-CNN

by lecsmith on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:01:34 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Reminiscent of Pearl Harbor and the after analysis (4.00 / 4)

In organizations as large as the government lots of information gets lost or filtered as it moves around. Nothing insidious in this most of the time, everyone can't know everything. People make decisions during their normal work day that go on to have far reaching consequences. Mistakes were no doubt made. The Senate hearings in the 70's left a strong aversion in most of the intelligence and federal law enforcement community to appearing too big brother-ish. That may have contributed to it.

In the end you don't know how many other cells they identified that turned out to be nothing or false positives. I can't believe anyone realized what was coming or saw anything close to what was coming and didn't act out of laziness or deriliction of duty.

Mistakes were made, horrible mistakes. Not surprisingly if the more egregious ones were subject to a cover up. But in the end we prized fiscal conservatism and civil liberties over a robust and redundant domestic intel monitoring capability. I personally don't think we were totally wrong in that, we just need to find a balance.

It was such a tragedy that finger pointing and exposure in minute detail of all the mistakes made is inevitable. Happened in the US after WWII, happened in Israel after the Yom Kippur War, its just a function of healthy open societies. But personally I can't really muster anything but sadness over all of it. The government and the society clearly weren't prepared for such a threat. To lay the blame on those who made the most immediate failures seems a bit unfair.

To lodge all power in one party and keep it there is to insure bad government and the sure and gradual deterioration of the public morals. - Mark Twain

by Windowdog on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:33:29 AM PDT

Good points (4.00 / 13)

but there is still the cover-up, however 'understandable'.

They built a whole narrative about how 9/11 couldn't have been prevented by nabbing the San Diego terrorists, because they had no link to the Hamburg terrorists.

If this story is true, the 9/11 Commission was given information that destroyed that narrative.

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/06/26/8695.html

by BooMan23 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:40:58 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

exactly (4.00 / 4)

just stick to the facts and there are red flags all over the place. A lot of people are attacking the messenger on this story, but the problem is that there are multiple facts (yes facts) fro numerous sources regarding 9/11 foreknowledge that raise serious questions about what was known before hand.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:48:59 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Windowdog nailed this (none / 0)

and so did you.

There's nothing unusual here--and isn't there worse, really, in Bob Graham's book?--but there's nothing unusual in murder, either. Still gotta fight it with everything we have.

Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

by GussieFN on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:13:06 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Just to point out the obvious (none / 0)

I don't mean to excuse any cover up and I hope most if all are brought to light as quickly as possible so that we can learn from them. I just hope this is used as a impetus for structural examination and possible reform rather than ammo for a partisan witch hunt. It would be a shame to see it wasted that way.

To lodge all power in one party and keep it there is to insure bad government and the sure and gradual deterioration of the public morals. - Mark Twain

by Windowdog on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:01:18 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Hmmm (none / 0)

But didn't FDR insist on the investigation to figure out what went wrong. As a military wife and former brat, I know the government is screwed in the head. It is so big things get missed. But the fact this administration doesn't want to uncover what went wrong to prevent it from happening again is scary and downright incompetent. Do I think they had a hand in it, probably not. But the fact that they do not want to learn from mistakes makes them derelict in the duty to protect te US citizens from further attacks.
Now, if they could link it to Clinton's sex life to it, boy Rove would have it out there everyday.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~ Benjamin Franklin

by melthewriter on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:26:33 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I really doubt (none / 0)

That the administration is capable of learning the true lessons of 9/11. It is important to get to all the truth, but people have a vested interest in hiding info that will end or stall their careers in government service. This event is too big for all the data to come out, but just going by similar cases in history we'll be getting revelations for the next 20 years about 9/11. I doubt very much the educated view of that tragic morning in 2015 will very much resemble how we think of it now.

What we really need to focus on is battleing over classification and unjustified government secrecy. It matters more what structural flaws existed and still exist than who screwed up what. No trillion dollar defense establishment should rely on a couple people being on their A game on any given day to prevent a 9/11 type catastrophe.

To lodge all power in one party and keep it there is to insure bad government and the sure and gradual deterioration of the public morals. - Mark Twain

by Windowdog on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:55:40 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I don't think Bush Admin sees 9/11 (none / 0)

as a situation to learn from. I think they saw it as an opportunity to invade Iraq and they never looked back. I do not think that the tragedy of it registered on them.

by macmcd on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:01:15 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

There were 8 separate investigations (4.00 / 4)

of Pearl Harbor, the first one beginning the day after the attacks. Bush fought tooth and nail to keep even one investigation from taking on 9/11, and when the 9/11 families buffaloed him into allowing the investigation to take place, hamstrung the investigation every way he possibly could and packed the commission with enough reliable Republicans and cooperative Democrats to ensure a finding that he could live with.

-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further

by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:38:07 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

True (none / 0)

Good point. Though the alot of the most damning facts didn't come out until long after Roosevelt was dead and the Generals involved were at least retired.

To lodge all power in one party and keep it there is to insure bad government and the sure and gradual deterioration of the public morals. - Mark Twain

by Windowdog on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:06:56 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Yes, assign the Church Committee blame for 9-11 (none / 1)

No doubt mistakes were made. A mistake here, a mistake there, add them all up. Keep adding. Keep adding. Keep adding. Then, poof 9-11. I'm with you. Who needs to check the math?

I suggest reading the Church Committee reports and one may get a taste of the kind of dangerous and indeed at times evil elements clawing for control of the levers of power. Yes, evil.

by stirringstill on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:54:24 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

If I had to read the Church Reports one more time (none / 0)

my eyes would bleed. The abuses by the Federal government catalogged in them as well as other disclosures around that time are more than enough reason to break the back of the CIA and the intel branch of the FBI.

It had to be done, those in charge clearly could not be trusted with the amount of power they had previously been given. But there was a price for curtailing the statutory powers of the agencies involved. Most realized it then and it did hinder us in our efforts to combat terrorism through the 80's, 90's, right up to 9/11. Now we've swung back the other way, no doubt more effective in tracking threats, but we're once again seeing the brief glimpses of abuse that probably are the tip of the ice berg.

In a perfect country we could have a highly effective intelligence and law enforcement establishment that was subject to rigorous and effective oversight by elected officials. Looking at our history however the US doesn't seem able to pull off both at once.

To lodge all power in one party and keep it there is to insure bad government and the sure and gradual deterioration of the public morals. - Mark Twain

by Windowdog on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:04:27 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

We are an empire in the stage of disinigration (none / 0)

and all that it implies is going on. Toynbee described it endlessly and exhaustively. He warned about the middole east problem in 1966 in a Playboy interview. And of course in his 12 volume A Study of History. The two volume condensation is no lightweight analysis either,so it comes highly recommended,even by the great one himself. But all the signs are well and alive in the here and now.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:40:03 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Toynbee (none / 0)

Please elaborate...(showing my ignorance). I'm afraid I'm not familiar with him.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: IRAQ IS BROKEN

by martik on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:10:16 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

So, who exactly is editing the New York Times? (4.00 / 2)

Is there anybody with a journalism degree actually in charge? Is there a 'monitor' at the Times who is taking orders from someone in the WH?
'Cos if this Weldon guy really is a bit 'out there' and the 9/11 commission actually looked into this but didn't find it relevent, then this story looks like an attempt at distraction and smear. Were they holding back on this tasty bit of information for the day when the Times itself would be the story? Does the WH want to fire up its base for another round of Clinton bashing to divert attention from the Plame grand Jury?
Someone is using the Times.
If I were a real journalist there I'd be pretty pissed.

"Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

by goldberry on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:45:44 AM PDT

I fail to see the logic (none / 1)

about how this story in any way works to the advantage of the WH. The kernal of this story is that the highjackers may have been identified prior to 9/11, but for whatever reason were not stopped. That the initial identification may have occurred under Clinton hardly matters, since presumably the information was handed over to the current WH.

It's a little early to conjecture on how this story may or may not play itself out, assuming it has legs at all.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:52:16 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Can't you hear Rush now? (4.00 / 2)

"The Defense Intelligence analysts KNEW about Muhammad Atta more than a year before 9/11. They wanted to share this information with the FBI but the wall between intelligence and law enforcement prevented them from preventing the greatest tragedy on Amercian soil. And who was in a better position to know about that wall than former Assistant Attorney General in the Clinton administration Jamie Gorelick, who was also coincidentally on the 9/11 commission. Folks, I smell a cover-up. Jamie Gorelick wanted to keep this information from you. The Clintonistas wanted to keep this information from you because they know that the ultimate responsibility for this tragedy lies at their feet."

Oh, I have no doubt that the WH is going to spin this to their advantage. That's why I'm convinced they put it out there in the first place.

"Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

by goldberry on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:02:47 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

yes but this spin is really weak (none / 1)

and consider the counter-spin:

Bush was having daily briefings in the summer of 2001 when he received his famous "OBL Determined to Attack US" memo. Did it occur to Bush and the people working for him to explore the information that the previous administration had given them regarding Atta and the other highjackers? 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's, and many foreign intelligence services were warning the Bush WH that the lights were flashing red. Why did the Bush administration fail to connect the dots?

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:31:14 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

They aren't spinning for us (none / 0)

We can figure out this argument and be suspicious and wary.
They are trotting out this argument for the great unwashed masses. They see the poll numbers and decide they need to do something because otherwise the lowest common denominator may start paying attention to the Rove/Plame investigation or some other underhanded thing they're involved in. What better way to do it than to point to Clinton. It's like throwing red-meat to a lion.
Also, it pings them with a little reminder of the fear they felt on 9/11.
Clinton and fear. It's worked so well in the past.

"Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

by goldberry on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:53:11 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

You say: (none / 1)

"If I were a real journalist there I'd be pretty pissed."

If you were a real journalist you wouldn't be working there.

Charles.

by Charleslives on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:57:07 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I can't stop laughing (4.00 / 3)

What a hoot! You can't be serious. That farce of Committee with the likes of Lee Hamilton who tried to bury Iran-Contra and did bury the October Surprise Senate investigations. Yes they should be given the final word on 9-11. Please don't stop.

by stirringstill on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:27:00 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Two separate issues (none / 0)

There's probably a lot of very ugly details that never made it into the 9/11 report. The whole concept of the commission was flawed when the WH had a hand in picking the members and support staff. The WH wanted to cover it all up. I'd say they've done a pretty good job for the most part of obfuscating direct responsibility for the failure to be proactive about the catastrophe.
HOWEVER, this has never prevented anyone in the great Wurlitzer from capitalizing on any information that might be damaging to Clinton. He's the Emmanuel Goldstein go-to guy. Get a really good hate on. What are the 3 D's again? Deny, distract, destroy? I'm guessing this is distract.
But from what?

"Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

by goldberry on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:00:28 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Here I go again (none / 0)

Please read Harper's Nov 04 issue on its analysis of the Commission report. Electrifying.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:44:01 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Yes, this NYT article (none / 0)

has an odor about it that made it difficult for me to find it credible when I read it last night.
(Then there is the little matter of the relationship between this reporter and Steno Judy.) A special task force during the Clinton Admin that was on to something and then ignored?

I may not buy all elements of the official 9/11 story, but postulating a massive US government conspiracy in it is ridiculous, and more so when the conspiracy would have had to involve two separate administrations.

What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

by Marie on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:43:48 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

who's asking you to buy (none / 1)

a "massive conspiacy theory"?

Read up on the subject first might be a good idea. Lots of headscratching details in there.

If you don't believe in everything about the 9/11 Commission, then you are where most people on this thread are. Nothing more, nothing less.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:57:42 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

This is uncalled for: (none / 0)

Read up on the subject first might be a good idea. I read the NYT article and am fairly well versed in a lot of the 9/11 details, including pre and post the event.

Exactly what are we to make of this claim? That this unit was set up during the Clinton administration and then ignored when they uncovered something? Such a unit would not be like a local field officer turning in a report on some strange doings in AZ. Or even like the CIA ID of a couple of guys in Malaysia and the information doesn't get properly routed to domestic counterterroism units. Had the timeline on this unit not gotten any information until 2001, it would be understandable that the Bush admin wasn't interested. But the Clinton guys not interested?

What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

by Marie on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:26:45 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I have no idea (none / 1)

what to make of the claim, anymore than I know what to make of the April 2, 2005 NY Post article claiming Sandy Berger pled guilty to stealing classified 9/11 documents or the recent NYT article revealing that 2 of the highjackers lived with an FBI informant in San Diego or any of the other numerous and troublesome reports about 9/11: what was known beforehand or not known.

Excuse the above run-on.

All I know is this: as we get further and further from 9/11 it becomes more evident the 9/11 Commission did a SHITTY job at looking at some of the more troublesome details of what was known beforehand, etc. That's all.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:38:28 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

IIRC the initial report on (none / 0)

the hijackers living in San Diego with an FBI "asset" came out long ago. The Berger story isn't at all hard to understand - file purging is common in all institutions after something bad happens. Although if that was what Sandy was doing, he's not too swift.

The obvious implications to this story are 1) imcompetence 2) cover-up and/or 3) collusion to let 9/11 happen. On the part of two administrations and the 9/11 Commission. Or the story is not factually accurate. I really have trouble accepting that a special unit in the Pentagon would have been completely ignored by Clinton Admin counterterrorism people and the 9/11 Commission. I just don't think that both of them could be that incompetent. Nor do I think that the 9/11 Commission shied away from anything that pointed a finger at the Clinton Admin. (And you know that I'm not an apologist for and am a harsh critic of the Clinton Admin.) The "collusion" element is far too fantastic for my tastes -- mostly because the plot would have involved far too many people for it not to have broken down. So, if none of those hypothesis hold water, the alternative one that the story isn't credible seems the most likely.

What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

by Marie on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:30:50 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Credible Stories (none / 1)

Lincoln's assasination.
JFK and RFK's the same.
Martin Luther King
Pearl Harbor
The Lusitania
The Maine

Why try something new when the old model works so well. Most people will think it's so fantastic they will dismiss it as a possibility.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:49:00 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Kredible Story (none / 1)

1933 Reichstag Fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

by arielian on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:15:25 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

It may be that (none / 0)

'Brooklyn' was simply a code word, not the actual borough. The other cells may have been designated Cleveland, Daytona, and Eugene.

I agree with the post about large organizations and the difficulty of sharing info. Also, military organizations are very slow to see things as a huge threat, and this also is now known to have plagued the FBI as well (Arizona field reports not acted upon).

Real time verse post mortem.

by Spud1 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:50:44 AM PDT

The problem with this theory (4.00 / 9)

is the FBI, both in Minnesota and D.C. was aware that agent Coleen Rowley was trying to crawl over the FBI's information mazed barbed wire to alert them to Moussaoui and his computed, while simultaneously getting feeds from an FBI informer about the San Diego pair and the Arizona Flight school probe.

All while highly placed John O'Neill in "anti-terror" (I really hate that phrase)is being down graded for wanting to catch these guys.

There's just to much info coming in to the Bureau, at the same time. And the CIA. And the DOD.And the White House.

All at the same damned time.

There is a concerted effort to down grade the info and disgrace and degrade all who knew and were frantic to do something about it.

Those, and other whistle blowers are STILL being down graded and held up for ridicule. Conspiracy tinfoilers my eye.

I've always wanted to see George Tenet with his hair on fire.

"Only historical" information my ass.

Read Imperial Hubris by Anonymous, another CIA agent outed by the Bush crime family, because they can't stand the truth and don't want the American people to hear it.

by gogol on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:28:38 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Bumble nuts (none / 0)

I'm not sure "conspiracy" is the right word. It certainly adds more evidence of gross incompetence, though.

Anybody with even a tenuous grasp on reality must realize by now that Gee Dubya ain't got enough sense to run a lemonade stand.

by KS McCann on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:56:16 AM PDT

Even an idiot running his lemonade stand into the (none / 1)

ground could have called this one: "Sumpin's comin'! Call out the dawgs! Lock up yer daughters! Find them Duke boys!" Instead, nothing.

Combine that with the stunning failure of the US response -- at a time when "Vigilant Guardian," a security scenario, was operating and the entire Eastern Seaboard was on alert -- and tell me it "jes' happened that way."

-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further

by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:16:48 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Bush is Perfect cover (none / 1)

Even down to the video on 9-11 reading the Goat Story and the look on his face. Now who could have programmed that. The dodo didn't know and he was whisked hither and thither to pretend to keep him safe. What kwe need to be afraid of is another attack before 2008 that would require military takeover here for "our protection".

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:54:23 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Does Aluminum Foil Work as Well as Tin? (none / 0)

Prior to 9/11, the intelligence "community" had many pieces of information that conceivably could have been used to remove some of the hijackers from the picture. That is about the extent of it.

The "community" at that time was not working together very much, with the exception of the CIA and the Defense Department. Much of the information on activities in the U.S. was held by the FBI in paper files seen only by the agents working the case at the branch office. At that time, a legal "wall" was in effect that prevented the FBI and the CIA from sharing information without special measures.

Perhaps the closest anyone near the top came to putting it together was when Richard Clarke's "hair was on fire" in July/August of 2001. Even Clarke couldn't come up with anything more particular than the fact that something really big was about to happen somewhere, soon.

The U.S. intelligence agencies, along with everyone else, had a very different mindset prior to 9/11. Hindsight makes things look different.

This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

by Mr X on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:57:58 AM PDT

please (3.33 / 3)

what a load of revisionist face-saving.

by heterodoxy on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:03:05 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Face-Saving? (none / 0)

The people running the agencies all admit that they agencies were not prepared for 9/11. That is not "face-saving". But it's not a conspiracy.

Many people have the impression, maybe from watching "Mission Impossible", that the U.S. intelligence community was capable of watching everyone everywhere, and analyzing all that data as well. It wasn't.

I strongly suggest reading the reports of the 9/11 Commission and the interviews with the agency heads by the commission. Or are they all in on it?

This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

by Mr X on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:32:21 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

good points (none / 1)

but what I find really fascinating by the NYT piece is the suggestion that a small, special, high clearance, top secret data-mining sub-organization may have been monitering the movements of Atta (the 9/11 ringleader). The reason this is so provocative is b/c it is within the realm of (admitedly tinfoil) possibility that this organization was designed to actually protect Atta from being uncovered.

I throw this out merely as an exercise in thinking outside the box, b/c I was struck that the source here may turn out to be a high-clearance Special Ops unit.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:39:02 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Sorry, it's not a matter (4.00 / 2)

of failing to connect the dots. It's a failure to allow the dots to be connected.

I'm not saying the Bushistas engineered 9/11, but I'm damn sure they knew it was coming and made an executive decision to let it come.

-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further

by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:18:41 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

as a matter of fact, (none / 1)

they are all a part of it. yes. all carefully "vetted" by the bush administration so as to not speak outside the box. the commission was a no-go until this had been realized.

by heterodoxy on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:33:37 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

they are all a part of it. yes.... (none / 0)

Try using two layers of foil. :-)

or actually reading the reports.

This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

by Mr X on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:39:35 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

here's one whitewash (4.00 / 2)

the 9/11 commission repeatedly assured us that "security of the flying public was" the principal motivation of the airline industy and the FAA. this was a lie designed to divert attention from the role played by republican hacks like gordon bethune working incessantly to weaken airport security in the years and months leading up to 9/11.

it could never touch the saudi royal family. it could never touch the airline executives. it could never touch the bush admin ignoring warning signals.

yeah, i'm "tin foil hat" to think about those caveats.

by heterodoxy on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:30:04 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

They got rid of Cleland. (4.00 / 2)

It was most noticeable how the administration found a way to get Max Cleland off the 9/11 Commission.

by lysias on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:57:14 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

commission reports (none / 0)

Yes,reread them with the commentary in the Harper's article of Nov 04. Scary.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:57:38 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Harpers Nov 04 article (none / 0)

http://www.harpers.org/WhitewashAsPublicService.html

This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

by Agathena on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:49:31 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Not true (none / 0)

That's the offical story which runs counter to all of the known facts of the case. There was no "legal wall", no "failure to connect the dots", see Phoenix Memo and Moussaoui's arrest above for what the FBI headquarters' Radical Fundamentalist Unit alone knew. Now, put those in context with what we know was contained in the infamous August 6 PDB, "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US," which refers to possible hijacking attempts by Osama Bin Laden.

Look the part that comforted the vacationing presnit, "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Laden related. CIA and FBI investigating a call to our US Embassy in the UEA in May saying a group of Bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives."

by debraz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:15:22 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

This is the lie (none / 0)

he told to the commission. The one they knew was a lie and could not confront without bringing down the government. So they mention it in a footnote and the accompanying testimony that gives the lie by others is included somewhere else fo readers will not connect the dots. But the author of the Harper's Nov 04 article on it does exactly that.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:01:34 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Depends (4.00 / 4)

Does Aluminum Foil Work as Well as Tin?

Yes. But--if it's anodized aluminum foil--and this is according to the U.S. government's own milliners--you have to machine off the anodized coating before fashioning it into a hat. And, of course, any practical machining process that removes the anodization also creates residual stresses that destroy the foil's temper (metallurgical temper, not emotional temper).

So, yes--aluminum foil works, but don't be suckered into buying anodized foil. It's more trouble than it's worth.

by abw on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:26:03 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Embarrassing (2.20 / 5)

People here want to know who edits the N.Y. Times. I want to know who the hell edits DailyKos?

So you want to be media, huh? Well, DailyKos sure is acting like the media.

by numediaman on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:58:59 AM PDT

couple of things (none / 1)

'booman23' has a lot of integrity by me on his interpretations here
perhaps the diary title could say "allegations" rather than "revelations"?
do you honestly think the red state trash out there aren't going to hear on foxnews that the summer of 2000 was clinton, not bush? more broadly, this story plays into the GOP's hands. imbeciles aren't going to blame the CIA or FBI- those are "fine white people who kill those bad arabs"- they will blame "weak" politicians like clinton (their frame, not mine). they will think the patriot act and bush is the right answer on this.
relatedly, the bit about the patriot act is salient in terms of criticizing weldon- if weldon really wants to be above-board with the 120+ IQ crowd here he would admit that is a canard- the law in 2000 did not prevent information sharing of this kind in any way.

by heterodoxy on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:59:41 AM PDT

You are wrong (none / 1)

Your sterotypical racial comments about "red state trash" are not only wrong, but incorrectly cast.

The averate "red state trash" does not trust the CIA or FBI. The see both as the ultimate liberal big brother organizations.

The see the FBI as a politically correct super-sherif who comes into two and turns everything upside down.

They will see that CIA and FBI were organizations loyal to democrat politicans and who have always rebelled against conservatices with different world views.

by danheskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:00:10 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Rep. Weldon on Meet the Press, June 12, 2005 (none / 0)

From Meet the Press, June 12, 2005

MR. RUSSERT: But, Congressman Weldon, you have a new book, "Countdown to Terror: The Top- Secret Information That Could Prevent the Next Terrorist Attack on America and How the CIA Has Ignored It." You write on page one, "This book is an act of desperation. I bring it before you, the reader, because I could not get our intelligence community to act on it, though my source has proven his credibility, and though the information he provides predicts a major terrorist attack against the United States."

Now, the CIA and former members of it are hopping mad about your allegations. This was from Thursday's New York Times: "Mr. Weldon's allegations have infuriated CIA officials, including a veteran case officer who said he had met with the congressman's source four times in Paris. `He's never given us any information that was the slightest bit credible,' said Bill Murray, the CIA station chief in Paris when he met Mr. Weldon's source, an elderly Iranian who once served in the government of the shah of Iran. `This guy was a waste of my time and resources.'"

Your response.

REP. WELDON: Well, it's interesting that the CIA is able to spin things that up until now have been classified, but yet when I called the CIA on Thursday and talked to Porter Goss' chief of staff, I asked them to release a classified two-page letter that they sent me on June 15 of 2004. That letter was an official response by the CIA to me of the informant that I had given them. And that letter ended with, "We welcome further information from Ali."

Now, if we follow the words of this former employee, who I assume had the permission of the CIA to speak or he wouldn't have been allowed to speak, then how could he say that my source lied and that it wasn't valid if, in fact, they were welcoming me and asking me to encourage him to provide more information for them? I think the CIA's been caught, and I want the CIA to release that letter. I have the letter. When I called over to the CIA on Thursday, they couldn't find it. I have the letter. I gave them the documentation. Let the American people judge for themselves. Let them see whether or not what the spin master for the CIA is saying is really jiving with the letter they sent me last year about my source.

There is much more, you have to scan down to about the middle of the page to find it. The interview doesn't talk about the specific allegations mentioned in this diary, but Russert does ask Weldon about many other allegations that he makes in his new book.

by Rescate on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:02:09 AM PDT

i remember hearing once, recently that (none / 0)

weldon is famous for saying (paraphrase) I have the information, I have the documents, etc.

But when asked to provide them they are unavailable.

I can gather at least then that this kind of tossing between teh two is perpetual.

I heard him speak on npr once and he was unstable, very defensive.

by seth ren on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:00:43 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Question for Weldon (none / 0)

Why didn't you return your phone calls in the fall of 2003?

The calls telling you that the military knew but did not pass on the ID of 4 of the 9/11 attackers to US Security agencies, FAA, and Immigration.

This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

by Agathena on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:04:28 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Don't forget Richard Clarke's testimony (4.00 / 4)

I practically broke down Bush's door with this type of information. He was like Paul Revere only no one would listen. Imagine what it must have been like to have been him. He had this information and believed their was a clear and imminent threat of a terrorist attack about to occur on American soil. Only, this administration, for some strange reason (snark), refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of his fear.

Gee, I wonder why....

Actually, there are only two reasons I can think of but if any of you have others to add, I'd be grateful for further conversation.

Bushco is so full of hubris that they were only listening to each other and therefore, dismissed the importance of any "messages" coming from outside their inner circle. If this was the case, then this absolutely proves they are too incompetent to govern a pizza parlor. Or ..
They purposely ignored warnings because they already knew about the plan but wanted it to happen anyway as it was a critical piece in a bigger plan. If they ignored warnings from someone outside "the plan", then they could claim innocence or claim they had info (that they "sexed up" to the contrary.)

Either way, the Bush regime is guilty to heinous crimes and should be brought to justice. This all reminds me of how much I absolutely hate Bush and all that he stands for. This is pure evil.

nolalily

by nolalily on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:12:51 AM PDT

At this point this is no more shocking than (none / 0)

watching Bush read to school kids during the attack.
learning that he had daily briefings in summer about Al-queda just before 9/11 in Crawford and ignored them.
that he flew all the Saudi family home without any interviews or investigations into what they knew - when no one else could fly
that he made 9/11 his gateway event for preemptive war on Iraq.
that BushCo took 9/11 and made Democrats look weak on defense of our Nation

Progressives - stay UNDECIDED on 2008

by AustinSF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:16:58 AM PDT

Bingo (none / 0)

There's a pattern here, and it stinks.

by dnamj on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:23:18 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

That Cheney gave an executive order (none / 0)

that exceeded his constitutional authority and lied about it. There are no phone records to prove that Cheney called Bush before he gave the order.
THAT is in the 9/11 report.

This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

by Agathena on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:19:46 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Ah, but... (none / 0)

What if Cheney called Bush through the WH switchboard? We all know now that such a call wouldn't have been logged.

(kidding)

by abw on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:58:29 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Ha! but Bush's response on Air Force One (none / 0)

would have been recorded, no?

This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

by Agathena on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:51:16 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

corrections (none / 0)

I generally agree with your points, except:

that he flew all the Saudi family home without any interviews or investigations into what they knew - when no one else could fly

This is simply untrue and easily disproven.

First, it was Richard Clarke who personally authorized the Saudi Royals to leave the country. Both Clarke (in his book) and 9/11 Commission make this clear.

Second, the 9/11 Commission report states with no equivocation that all the flights in question left the country between September 14 and 24, after airspace was generally re-opened on September 13.

Third, the FBI interviewed 30 of the 142 persons leaving to Saudi Arabia. It has the opportunity to question each of them and elected to question 30. The FBI states with no equivocation that it questioned to satisfaction all Saudi nationals involved.

Just an FYI!

by danheskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:37:25 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Thanks - I did not know that this was not accurate (none / 0)

good - I had not come across the correction to this misinformation. Appreciated.

Progressives - stay UNDECIDED on 2008

by AustinSF on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:21:52 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

no problem (none / 0)

No problem. It's tough because there is a lot out there that is true or almost true. This one really disappointed me bacause Moore so strongly pushed it in his movie, and it was really not accurate. Blame Bush for everything thats legit, but be careful about saying things that aren't true. It's not worth the damage.

Something that's actually interesting is that Usama Bin Laden's family is both huge and very well respected. His father was a first-generation construction magnate who rebuilt many of the holy sites of Islam. Usama was the product of his least favorite concumbine and wife.

In Saudi Arabia the bin Ladens are like the Kennedy's or the Rockafella's or whomever. An old, well respected, well connected family.

Usama has something like 50 siblings, and they essentially ex-communicated him from the family just before the first gulf war (when bin Laden himself was deported from Saudi Arabia for speaking out against the royal family).

Usama's mother is realtively kept in the Kingdom because of her status as a wife of the former bin Laden but otherwise he is cut off from the wealth and prestige of his name.

It's really actually kinda shameful the bigoted associations people make against bin Laden's in the US. It's a cultural difference that we can't really fully appreciate. A family in the muslim world is much larger than an average US person would image - even a family orientated one. The bin Laden family would probably easily consist of 2500 people - Usama's father had siblings, and they married, and each or his 50 children married and had several wives, etc. It really is a "clan" in the sense that when you consider multiple marriages and re-marriages, births and adoptions, deaths and births a family like the bin Laden family is huge.

by danheskett on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:40:04 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Philip Zelikow, exec. dir of 9-11 commission: (none / 1)

He wrote a book with Condi Rice. He's pretty close to the Bush admin. That's why the 9-11 commission report leaves out so much damning information.

I Supported the War When I Believed the Lies

by bejammin075 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:19:36 AM PDT

Zelikow (4.00 / 2)

was personally named to the committee by the White House. Remember, they're the ones who wanted to name Henry Kissinger to head the committee. Instead, we got Thomas Kean, who has no intelligence background and whose highest recommendation was the fact that he's always been a reliable watercarrier for the GOP.

And fuck Lee Hamilton. He's the main Democrat responsible for covering up the "October Surprise."

-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further

by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:22:40 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

pardon my ignorance... (none / 0)

Who is Lee Hamilton and what was the October surprise?

I Supported the War When I Believed the Lies

by bejammin075 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:07:29 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

October Surprise (none / 0)

In 1980, Jimmy Carter vowed to negotiate the release of the hostages taken by Iran. He did not campaign aggressively because he was actively pursuing the release of the hostages. Republicans, in true projection mode, feared that he would get them released in October.

They were released in 5 minutes after Ronald Reagan took the oath of office. A mighty suspicious coincidence that was.

Later, it came out that the US decided to provide Iran with surface-to-air missiles shortly after Reagan was inaugurated.

During the Bush I administration, a former Carter aide, Gary Sick, wrote a book October Surprise, alledging that the Republicans (primarily Bush and William Casey, Reagan's CIA Director) had behind-the-scenes negotiations with the Iranians before the election. This would be important because the Logan Act prohibits US citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on their own without the knowledge and acquiescence of the US government. It would also show that the 1980 election was manipulated at the expense of delaying the release of Americans held in captivity.

The Congress decided to investigate. Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, was chair of the committee that investigated these allegations. The committee failed to prove that the events happened as Gary Sick claimed. A key problem with the investigation is that William Casey, the purported main player had died (of old age) before Sick's book was released and thus before the investigation started.

The revolution starts now--in your own back yard, in your own home town

by TarheelDem on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:38:01 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

thanks for the explanantion (none / 0)

that was very good. i thought october surprize revered to someting more recent. many typos very tired.

I Supported the War When I Believed the Lies

by bejammin075 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:13:38 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Need to keep an eye on this guy... (none / 0)

...Zelikow. He is moving up in the world and gaining more responsibilities at State now.

by Hector Solon on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:19:52 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

A lot of people are missing the point (4.00 / 17)

and it is partly my fault.

But:

1)Weldon is known for making wild allegations. That does not mean that the substance of this article is inaccurate. In fact, the existence of this intelligence unit is not in dispute. Nor is the fact that they briefed the 9/11 commission staff about their findings. All that is in dispute is whether the name 'Atta' was mentioned, or whether the name 'Brooklyn cell' was mentioned. Someone is lying. We don't know who.

2)Atta and al-Shehhi moved to Brooklyn when they arrived in this country. They were in Brooklyn in the exact time period that this article alleges the unit picked up on them.

3)The story is not whether or not the Special Operations Command received this information, so much as it is whether or not the 9/11 commission received this information and covered it up.

4)If it is true that the Special Operations Command had linkage of the San Diego cell and the Hamburg cell, then the entire 9/11 commission narrative is false, and 9/11 DEFINITELY could have been prevented by arresting the San Diego cell, and doing a round-up of available intelligence.

The real question is, if these facts are true, who is responsible for covering it up, and why did they do it.

There is no reason to think that this is some attempt to blame Clinton. This is an attack on the commission. The commission's staff was appointed by Bush, not Clinton.

by BooMan23 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:19:42 AM PDT

Can you please unpack this sentence? (none / 0)

If it is true that the Special Operations Command had linkage of the San Diego cell and the Hamburg cell, then the entire 9/11 commission narrative is false

What would have prompted the arrest and interrogation of the San Diego cell?

Essential funk: 'Impeach the President' by the Honeydrippers

by pontechango on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:05:19 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I'll try (4.00 / 9)

if you'll forgive me for not going to the commission report to give you an exact quote.

The San Diego hijackers were an embarrassment to the government, and to the CIA.

They were monitored at a meeting in Kuala Lumpur and then they were tailed to Thailand. The CIA officer in Bangkok was late getting to the airport and lost their trail.

They later learned that they had flown to LAX, but they didn't tell anyone they were here (supposedly).

These guys then shacked up in San Diego with a FBI informant (who was not allowed to be interviewed by the committee staff).

Eventually, in August 2001, a APB was put out for them, but the FBI couldn't locate them in time.

Now, everyone wanted to know whether we could have stopped 9/11 if we had only caught those guys in time. The answer of the commission was 'no' because there was no intelligence linking them to the Hamburg cell.

But this story today, totally debunks that explanation and it would have been obvious that we didn't even need to catch them to make the connection to the Hamburg cell. The connection had been made and reported to the Special Operations Command in Tampa in 2000.

by BooMan23 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:25:29 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Thanks! (none / 0)

So, it would have been a matter of arresting and interrogating the Hamburg cell, which had been identified and linked to the San Diego cell under the umbrella "Brooklyn" cell, to prevent 9/11?

Essential funk: 'Impeach the President' by the Honeydrippers

by pontechango on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:35:03 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Well (4.00 / 4)

it comes down to sharing information. We had all the pieces, but did we put them together?

And my point here is that, if the 9/11 Commission received this information, then there is a HUGE cover-up, because this info destroys their narrative.

You can take that for what it's worth.

But this story means that the Pentagon knew about this cell, but did nothing about it. They knew about Atta. They knew he was connected to the San Diego cell. The CIA was very interested in the Sand Diego cell, especially after the Cole bombing.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

by BooMan23 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:44:44 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Weldon's was definately asking why (none / 1)

the 9/11 commission didn't cover the info he's talking about. I watched the original CSPAN speech Weldon did on this and there was a lot of angry "why didn't the commission cover this?" type of rhetoric. That was one of the primary themes of his whole rant, from what I can remember.

by glooperoo on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:49:40 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Maybe you could (none / 0)

call and ask members of the Commission what they were told about the data mining operation. You might get an answer from the members who are democrats.

by taylormattd on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:23:16 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I can't believe that Atta timeline. (none / 0)

I can't believe that he did things like abandon a plane while on a student visa, and he wasn't being TRACKED after that.

I'll never forget going to Germany for a year in the mid-80s and having to register with the police in the town I was staying in. I was a graduate student, but I had to register, as did every other person who was going to reside in the town for over three months. And you'd better believe that if I'd done something messy like take extensive foreign flying lessons and abandon a plane on the runway at some point, the German police would have checked into me.

So how come we didn't check into Atta?

by concernedamerican on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:21:25 AM PDT

Who's to say we didn't? <nt> (none / 0)

by mrblifil on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:24:18 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I wasn't clear, then; by "check into" (none / 0)

I meant "watch closely, very closely."

by concernedamerican on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:27:24 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

My point was (none / 0)

they couldn't get permission to get a warrant on Moussaoui after tons of alarm bells had gone off. There's no reason to say that if Atta had been shadowed 24/7 that he would've been intercepted at any point along the line. He may well have been shadowed. We may never know. It's not reasonable to expect that whoever might have been assigned to track him would step forward now and say "my bad!"

by mrblifil on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:53:05 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

good point (none / 1)

my gut (only my gut here, but it's based on a great deal of suspicious circumstantial evidence, including the NYT piece diaried above) tells me has was indeed being shadowed, but that he was allowed to run around the country (and in a highly suspicious way) because 9/11 was necessary for a much larger agenda: the PNAC war on terror and Iraq.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:07:02 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Yes, and this goes back to my (rhetorical) (none / 0)

question. Why was nothing done about Atta, who was behaving suspiciously and who was apparently watched closely at times? Because it was in somebody's interest not to do anything. And that's what's horrifying.

by concernedamerican on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:34:58 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

No conspiracy theories required (4.00 / 4)

The 9/11 Commission Report was a whitewash, of that there can be no doubt. This story proves it, but not in favor of the loopy "9/11 Truth.org" idiots. Islamic extremists bent on massive destructions were singled out rightly as dangers, and because of misplaced sensitivity (from the FBI of all places and people) to their religion and skin tone, they were given a pass.

Much the same way the Feds dropped the ball on Moussaoui, who may or may not have been involved in the 9/11 plot, but his arrest would have shone a bright light on the flight schools in this country, and perhaps in time to thwart the 9/11 attacks.

Gross incompetence and antiquated methods designed to preserve power among an aging elite. That is the real scandal, the failure to hold that elite accountable for the deaths of thousands on their watch.

And to add insult to injury, now nobody in Washington associated with the administration is returning Tom Kean's phone calls. Surprise, surprise Tom, you enabling hack. Now go cry a river to the widows and orphans, because that's who you sold out by sticking to business as usual.

by mrblifil on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:23:39 AM PDT

"given a pass"? (none / 0)

what evidence do you have of this?

can you refute the counter theory that the intelligence community is led by a bunch of fucktard do-nothings who are only absorbed with corporate interests such as the geopolitics of crude oil and natural gas pipelines and the like?

by heterodoxy on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:37:53 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Moussoaui case (none / 0)

When FBI agents who smelled a rat attempted to get warrants to grab Moussaoui's computer, they got the run around, and a lot of resistance from their bosses at HQ. This was due to sensitivity about racial profiling, which at the time had proven to be a very thorny issue for law enforcement, as it created a lot of bad publicity for conservatives.

Get your Democracy Bonds now!

by mrblifil on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:47:06 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Moussaioui (none / 0)

was not picked up in time because:
John Ashcrofrt was the new attorny general. Under Reso's policy this kind of person went to the head of the line. Ashcroft took him in the order in which he was received. Well,he's from Springfield MO and that's where I sit typing now. It's not known for its brilliant citizens. They all seem to get out and go elsewhere to shine. Like Brad Pitt.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:16:55 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Bin Laden and Debkafile.org (none / 0)

Does anyone here read Debkafile.org? They posted a report last night claiming that Bin Laden is moving to IRAQ in September. Sounds preposterous to me, but it's their claim, not mine.

Fringe is the new black. - Me

by chillindame on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:36:58 AM PDT

You have to take DEBKAfile (none / 0)

with a grain of salt. It's essentially a news arm of Israel's Mossad. DEBKA is the site that told us after the Iraq invasion that Hussein had hidden his "vast stores" of WMDs in the Syrian desert.

I always keep an eye on them, but I don't always swallow the info they're providing.

-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further

by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:25:30 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Oh yes... (none / 0)

Of course. It just seemed a bit inflammatory even for them. And if true, should it have ben published? Seems the sort of info an intelligence agency would hold close to the vest. And if they know the info is NOT true, what do they gain by publishing it?

Fringe is the new black. - Me

by chillindame on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:20:34 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Bin Laden and Debkafile.org (none / 0)

I do, and have been for some time now. I often find their delivery confusing and disjointed. But I appreciate the 'view' from their perspective. There is often just enough substance in what they say--corroborated by subsequent developments discussed elsewhere--to make it worth the time to read.

As for OBL, it probably doesn't matter where he goes. With him and his ilk, the genie has escaped the bottle. We (the USA) probably have no one to blame but ourselves...

I'd like to see other's feedback on DEBKAfile, too.

danz

by danz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:12:54 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

The Bush administration allowed 9/11 to happen... (4.00 / 14)

...and the facts support it.

We know the intel community knew the terrorists wanted to hit the WTC, because they had tried once already!
We know the head of the FBI that covered NYC quit his job at the FBI and went to work at the WTC to try and protect them because he knew they were a target and because the Bush administration had willfully decided to not do anything about it. He was killed in the attacks, BTW.
We know certain administration officials were told not take any airliners at that time; re: Ashcroft.
We know that people in the intel community were telling Bushco that a huge attack was imminent, but they couldn't be bothered with it. We all know about the warnings that were so dire that they said it was like "their hair was on fire." George W. Bush willfully decided to stay on vacation when he received this information. i.e.- He Chose to not do anything about it.
Added on top of what Booman reveals here, don;t forget the FBI agent in Minnesota that was denied wanting to look at that terrorists laptop, Moussawi (sp?)?
The Clinton administration used to run annual drills simulating a terrorist attack on the WTC with airliners attacking it (That doesn't mean they actually used airliners in the drill, I'm sure it was just electronic, but that our fighters were scrambled to practice intercepts.)
Norad was operating a war game that had all of our air defence squadrons grounded at the time of the attacks? Coincidence, my ass.

If you just run down the list, much of the information made it to the Bush administration and they chose to not do anything about it. The people in the Bush administration are Neocons and the report at Bill Kristol's think tank, PNAC, from the late 90's reported they felt they needed a new "Pearl Harbor" to push the country in the direction they wanted it to go.

Now, if I was someone who believed in coincidence, I could almost be led to believe that this was just one big fuck up where hundreds of federal agencies just "failed to connect the dots." What a load of bullshit.

You can also see how well Bushco is worried about America by how hard they going after the terrorists who used weaponized Anthrax to attack us. Of course, we've seen how bad they want to get OBL, so we know it really never was about him for them.

This administration has lied about everything that matters. Why anyone would think they didn;t lie about 9/11/2001 is beyond me.

-8.25,-4.97 * Everybody For President!

by Alumbrados on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:42:40 AM PDT

And in keeping with Booman23's point... (4.00 / 7)

...I never thought the 9/11/2001 commission was anything but a group set up to exonerate Bushco of any wrong doing. That was clear from the beginning. If it had beena commission set-up to find the real failure's of 9/11/2001, there wouldn't have been any limitations on who could see various documents and who they could share them with. Either everyone on the commission has the authority to get ot the bottom of it or they don't.

I'll believe they want to know how 9/11/2001 happened when they put Fitzgerald on it and tell him he has the power to go after anyone for information and can see any documents he chooses. We all know that will never happen.

-8.25,-4.97 * Everybody For President!

by Alumbrados on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:49:49 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

well said (4.00 / 6)

if one distances oneself from the emotion, and looks at 9/11 and the context (who benefits, PNAC agenda, David Schippers forewarnings, O'Neill forewarnings, Rowley and Williams, etc etc) around 9/11 (specifically with regard to foreknowledge), the most dispassionate, LOGICAL (not necessarily correct, mind you, but logical) conclusion to my mind is that 9/11 was allowed to happen by certain elements in the administration who were gunning for war. Means, motive, method.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:50:53 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Oh! (none / 0)

I thought the phrase was "method, motive, opportunity." Your point was still well made.

by Richard Bowser on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:00:21 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

2. is misleading (3.50 / 2)

We know the head of the FBI that covered NYC quit his job at the FBI and went to work at the WTC to try and protect them because he knew they were a target

John O'Neill left the FBI because he wasn't getting promoted, the new deputy director, Pickard, didn't support him during his lost briefcase incident and the pay at WTC security was double his salary at the FBI.

source

Essential funk: 'Impeach the President' by the Honeydrippers

by pontechango on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:03:49 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I always wonder... (4.00 / 3)

There are people on this site who will say "Bush is the most dishonest, dishonorable President ever, you can't trust anything, it is all for political gain" and then turn around and vehemntly defend the Bush Admin when it comes to ANY claim that they had a wee bit of foreknowledge and deliebrately let it pass.

Look--

Either-
1) They KNEW it was going to happen

2) They are massively incompetent

Either way- Bush looks real bad- IMPEACHMENT bad.

Had we pursued the "who knew what when" line that Cynthia McKinney was pushing in 2001, we may have been talking about this stuff in October of 2004 and not August of 2005.

Bush will be impeached.

by jgkojak on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:15:31 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

BINGO (4.00 / 3)

The best case scenario, based on all the available facts, suggests criminal negligence (re: systematic ineptitude) resulting in the death of 3000 Americans.

The worst case scenario suggests criminal complicity (re: allowing or even making 9/11 happen to further te agenda that has since followed).

The fact is even the best case scenario as I've just stated is NOT what we are being told. Not by a long shot.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:29:27 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Yep (none / 0)

And if Dems were afraid of being "unpopular" by pursuing this- shame on them, and... uhhhh... how much more unpopular can you get than what the mealy-mouthed milquetoast pre-Dean party had become in 2002???

Bush will be impeached.

by jgkojak on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:57:06 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I've covered this in-depth (none / 1)

here:

Hell Yes, They Knew

Go through it yourselves (Alumbrados doesn't need convincing). Skip the editorial commentary if you like -- there's a link directly to the timeline at the top of the page. Go through it all and tell me it's "just a tragedy" where some well-meaning people "dropped the ball."

Horseshit. If you can say that after going through everything on this page, then you need to get yourself a spot on OJ's next defense team.

-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further

by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:43:26 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Yawn (1.00 / 3)

W was the 2nd gunman too.

by Q and A on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:45:46 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

The only thing worse than a Consipiracy theory (4.00 / 2)

...a coincidence theory.

和平

by aitoaster on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:57:52 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Pearl Harbor angle pushed immediately. (none / 1)

I am still skeptical. I think it was more incompetence than anything planned. That being said, when I heard about the attacks I turned on the television and the first words I saw on the screen were "Attacks called 'a new Pearl Harbor.'"

by thinkdouble on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:16:17 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Gore Vidal, from a highly connected family (none / 1)

in politics in D.C. in the thirties and forties (grandfather a powerful Democratic senator, father in FDR's cabinet, Vidal himself a graduate of St. Alban's,) believes in the conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbor, and writes as if they were commonly believed in Washington. Read his novel The Golden Age.

by lysias on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:36:57 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Even the great can be wrong (none / 0)

GV is my hero. But in regards conspiracies, I will not follow the master down the rabbit hole. Vidal also believes in a JFK conspiracy.

Get your Democracy Bonds now!

by thinkdouble on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 02:54:54 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I don't get it. (3.50 / 2)

Where's the story here? Military Intel were tracking Atta, but the FBI couldn't use it because they had rules (laws?) against using military intel info on visa holders and citizens?

Well then, break down those walls! Let's get those military intel people surveil visa holders and suspicious citizens and sharing it with the FBI, DEA, Telephone Marketing companies! </snark>

Or was it this:

"Ultimately, Able Danger was going to give decision makers options for taking out Al Qaeda targets," the former defense intelligence official said.

"We knew these were bad guys, and we wanted to do something about them," the former intelligence official said. [snip]

By gawd, defense intel guy wanted to whack these guys and the "liberal" laws were preventing him from doing it!

Seriously though, I can't look at anything coming from the NYT without thinking that it's part of a larger NeoCon agenda in the works. One cog on the wheel of some fascist move the Administration is planning for the greater oppression of our freedoms with the promise it's going to make us safer from the terrorists.

But maybe I'm just a little jaded.

Otherwise, wasn't it common knowledge that those supposed to be protecting us fucked up and that this article just shows to a greater extent that fuck up?

"We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation." - George W. Bush, July 2, 2003

by Pescadero Bill on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:46:49 AM PDT

It's significant (4.00 / 2)

It's significant to learn that Atta was being watched, and that the 9/11 Commission knew that information and didn't include it in their report. What exactly the ramifications are is unknown, but there can't be any doubt that it's a significant discovery.

by mrblifil on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:55:20 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

First of all (4.00 / 3)

you are definitely a little jaded. LOL.

Okay. There were no laws against sharing this information with the FBI. If this report is true, the Special Operations Command was given information about a cell. Their job was to take that information and go kill or 'rendition' the cell. But the cell was already in the United States, so they couldn't do anything but tell the FBI. For some reason, they refused to do this. But there was no law against them doing it, and it was specifically recommended to them that they do do it.

So, why did they make that decision?

But even more importantly, if this story is true, why did the 9/11 staff leave this information out of their narrative, and in fact, write a narrative totally inconsistent with this information?

I'd say this is potentially explosive news. And it is aimed directly at the commission, not Clinton.

Inter-Services Intelligence [ISI]

by BooMan23 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:58:57 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

9/11 commision was set up to cover Bush's ass (none / 0)

That said, I see your point. If hard evidence or someone willing to go on the record can verify this, then it's probably just a little light being shed on what's truly being covered up.

God, I hope someone is digging really, really deep into this. I want Bush to be the first president to have to flee the country like some third world dictator fleeing the rebel army of the people closing in on his palace.

Run baby Bush, ruuuuuunnnn. They're coming for you!

Wouldn't that be sweet.

"We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation." - George W. Bush, July 2, 2003

by Pescadero Bill on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:08:51 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

AQ cells all over the US (none / 0)

Bernard Henri-Levy's Who Killed Daniel Pearl? investigates all the AQ cells in the US and visits them. They are all over the place. In rural upstate NY etc and the midwest.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:27:33 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

BBC :: US 'planned attack on Taleban' (4.00 / 10)

BBC News - US 'planned attack on Taleban' by the BBC's George Arney

The wider objective was to oust the Taleban

A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials mid-July, that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin. At the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.

The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.

Mr Naik was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.

Anti-Taliban warrior Ahmad Shah Massoud
.
~ Recently posted in diary Afghanistan going down the tubes ◊ by Athenian ~

MY DIARY December 17, 2004 -

9/11 was pre-emptive strike on US ◊ by creve coeur

Lion of Panjshir

Sebastian Junger on Afghanistan's Slain Rebel Leader ◊
[National Geographic Adventure]

The Perfect Storm author spent a month with anti-Taliban warrior Ahmad Shah Massoud in 2000. Now he offers his reaction to the recent murder of the Northern Alliance leader--and the subsequent attacks on the U.S.

In November 2000 Adventure sent contributing editor Sebastian Junger and photojournalist Reza to profile Afghan resistance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud. The resulting article appeared in our March/April 2001 issue and has just been reprinted in Fire, a collection of Junger's journalistic work.

On September 9, 2001, suicide bombers killed Massoud. Two days later the U.S. was under attack. Here Junger offers his thoughts on those two days of terror and their implications.

~~~

Oui - Liberté - Egalité - Fraternité

by new creve coeur on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:50:38 AM PDT

more proof... (none / 1)

that the day Bush was selected was the day the oil industry was expanded to include a new "division" -- the United States military to do their bidding, one way or another.

I feel particularly sorry for those who lost loved ones to this global oil conquest that Chenney/Bush are pursuing; from the workers in the Trade Towers, to the innocent civilians and suckered soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq today.

IMPEACHMENT and CRIMINAL PROSICUTION NOW!

"We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation." - George W. Bush, July 2, 2003

by Pescadero Bill on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:55:29 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Another article (none / 1)

In March of 2003 Janes Defense was reporting U.S. intent to invade Afghanistan.

by BornUnderPunches on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:05:25 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

DOH! (none / 0)

March of 2001 not 3.

The perils of posting before waking up are many.

by BornUnderPunches on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:26:31 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

do you think (none / 0)

that the stuff sibel edmonds http://www.justacitizen.com/ knows would clarify any of this?

by sc kitty on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:07:45 AM PDT

Freeh (4.00 / 3)

I have always felt that the major unindicted character in 9-11 was Louis Freeh. Somehow he has ALWAYS gotten a free pass when questioned about what events he knew about before 9-11. And unfortunately, despite his depature, I don't think much has changed positively at the FBI.

by never forget 2000 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:20:17 AM PDT

Very good point. (none / 1)

Freeh spent most of his time at the FBI cooperating with the Republicans on digging up dirt on Clinton. He was given the kid glove treatment during his interview with the commission. Freeh's involvement is something I'd like to know more about.

-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further

by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:27:31 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Good job (4.00 / 3)

You're doing a good job, booman, just keep sticking to the facts and the questions about the facts, and keep going! I don't see you taking wild unsupported leaps into conjecture
People who in effect say 'don't talk about it' can read other diaries to amuse themselves

by jimpol on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:23:16 AM PDT

Someday when this all comes to light (none / 0)

people will be so amazed at how crazy, reckless, and cruel out leaders are.

by dnamj on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:26:08 AM PDT

More dots for BooMan23 (none / 0)

Given your interest in Atta (i.e. the timeline), I thought you might be interested in this article from The Observer. It includes some "dots" in his itinerary that are missing from your timeline. Or have you already been through this article and concluded that it's bogus?

TINFOIL BONUS
From The Department of Embarrassing Diaries: I wrote this one awhile back. The only comment is my own and, in it, I half-assedly speculate on the long-shot possibility that Atta was the EIJ informant mentioned (and burned) in the Aug. 6 PDB. I regret both the diary and the comment, but--regrets aside--it still does "creep me out" a bit.

by abw on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:27:26 AM PDT

I only included (none / 0)

the portion of Atta's timeline that is relevant to this story. My timeline goes from 1998 to 9/11.

I don't see much in there from the time period in question.

by BooMan23 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:03:20 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I see (none / 0)

Didn't know your personal version of the timeline extended further back. These are the dots I don't see in the version of the timeline you've attached to the diary:

June 1999 weekly meetings in Hamburg to polish his thesis
Ten-day, 1250-mile road trip in Spain July 9-18, 1999
August 16, 1999 plane rental in Palm Beach, FL

I'm not trying to be a jerk, here, but you did mention above how comprehensive your timeline is. Just thought you might want some dots from between 6/15/99 and 9/1/99. Apologies if you already have this and chose to excise it from the diary for clarity.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm

by abw on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:44:42 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

2003: the calls were not returned. (4.00 / 3)

NYT

The official said he had explicitly mentioned Mr. Atta as a member of a Qaeda cell in the United States. He said the staff encouraged him to call the commission when he returned to Washington at the end of the year. When he did so, the ex-official said, the calls were not returned.

The commission did not return his calls. We knew it was a cover up. There were comprehensive articles in Vanity Fair and New York Review of Books both calling the 9/11 Commission Report a whitewash.

From Vanity Fair's Nov. 04 description of the article:

THE PATH TO 9/11
The 9/11 commission sidestepped a vital question: Could better intelligence cooperation have prevented the attacks? Debriefing key CIA, FBI, White House and European sources, Ned Zeman, David Wise, David Rose, and Bryan Burrough reconstruct the lost opportunities, the ongoing tug-of-war between the agencies, the Clinton Whie House's reluctance to go after bin Laden, and the Bush administration's faiulre to treat the threat seriously. Plus, David Wise investigates what Dick Cheney was doing while the president was in a Florida second-grade classroom on September 11, 2001.

Could the attacks have been prevented?
Even at 567 densely worded, sometimes electrifying pages, the published report of the 9/11 commission studiously avoids answering that question.

I read the article amost a year ago and I do not remember any mention of the military's role in the lead up to 9/11. Vanity Fair is available at most libraries if anyone wants to read the article. Not sure if it is online.

This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

by Agathena on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:34:58 AM PDT

A Little Reality... (none / 1)

>>Could the attacks have been prevented?
Even at 567 densely worded, sometimes electrifying pages, the published report of the 9/11 commission studiously avoids answering that question.<<

The question is asked and answered repeatedly. The answer was always "no".

The 9/11 Commission did a lot of work. I really think that any of you who talk about this matter should read the reports and interviews.

This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

by Mr X on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:01:40 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

The answer was wrong. (none / 0)

This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

by Agathena on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:06:36 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Reality? (none / 1)

They avoid answering the question in any definative way that might get people in trouble or budgets cut. I think the answer wasn't "no" as you claim, but more like "maybe yes, maybe no." From the executive summary:

Nonetheless, there were specific points of vulnerability in the plot and opportunities to disrupt it. Operational failures-opportunities that were not or could not be exploited by the organizations and systems of that time-included
not watchlisting future hijackers Hazmi and Mihdhar, not trailing them after they traveled to Bangkok, and not informing the FBI about one future hijacker's U.S. visa or his companion's travel to the United States;
not sharing information linking individuals in the Cole attack to Mihdhar;
not taking adequate steps in time to find Mihdhar or Hazmi in the United States;
not linking the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, described as interested in flight training for the purpose of using an airplane in a terrorist act, to the heightened indications of attack;
not discovering false statements on visa applications;
not recognizing passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner;
not expanding no-fly lists to include names from terrorist watchlists;
not searching airline passengers identified by the computer-based CAPPS screening system; and
not hardening aircraft cockpit doors or taking other measures to prepare for the possibility of suicide hijackings.

GENERAL FINDINGS
Since the plotters were flexible and resourceful, we cannot know whether any single step or series of steps would have defeated them. What we can say with confidence is that none of the measures adopted by the U.S. government from 1998 to 2001 disturbed or even delayed the progress of the al Qaeda plot. Across the government, there were failures of imagination, policy, capabilities, and management.

That reads to me like, yeah, a lot could have been done -- but wasn't, due to "failures across government".

There's nothing in the middle of the road but a yellow stripe and dead armadillos. -- Jim Hightower

by TexH on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:58:57 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

It Would Have Been Possible, Yes... (none / 0)

but only if a lot of things happened that simply weren't going to happen in the pre 9/11 world.

When Clark, Tenet, and other were asked about specific actions that were contemplated or asked for, but not carried-out, they all admitted that even if they had received what they asked for, the attacks would not have been prevented.

My real point here is that there is a lot of information in the reports and interviews which could correct some misconceptions in this thread. It seems a lot of folks who have something to say about this issue haven't even read the reports.

This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

by Mr X on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:16:00 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

They would have been done (none / 0)

Had Al Gore accepted the presidency, he would have 1) continued keeping anti-terrorism at a high priority and would have actually listened to Richard Clarke, 2) listened to the bi-partisan committee that wrote the Hart-Rudman report, and enacted those reccomendations. Those two things alone likely would have prevented 9/11 from happening, because they would have made anti-terrorism a high priority for our intelligence officials instead of finding lies to go to war with Iraq, and it would have made the laws streamlined and put mechanisms in place to share the kind of information that was not shared. I could go into other reasons, but those two alone are sufficient.

by theboz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:24:43 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

True (none / 0)

But I think that many feel as I do: Don't put too much stock into a government commission tasked with the duty of investigating the same government. Throughout the history of time, these internal investigations have shown to be worthless. Remember, too that for everyone of those you named, there is a Sibel Edmonds who are screaming that YES it could have been prevented. What happens to her? The Justice Dept puts the kabosh on her speaking and classifies her previously public statements.

I wonder if I ever get accused of a crime, the court would allow me to investigate my own actions, pick and choose which witness testimony to include, and arrive at the conclusion that I am completely innocent?

It's silly.

Maybe people haven't read the report. Or, more likely they have and came to the same conclusion--it's soooooooo middle of the road and PC it says absolutely nothing.

Just from my post above, the summary says (paraphrase) "The one thing we can say for sure is that the attacks weren't prevented.

Duh.

There's nothing in the middle of the road but a yellow stripe and dead armadillos. -- Jim Hightower

by TexH on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:27:15 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Sounds like a "Blame Clinton" to me (4.00 / 4)

I seems to me the article at least focuses a lot more on the "wall" between FBI and CIA and on 2000 inaction than on 2001 snoozing by Bush.

The Republican "values" are not for me: I'd rather be a sinful heathen than shun reality while condoning torture, stealing, treason and bigotry

by lawnorder on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:03:02 AM PDT

My thought, too (none / 1)

And no doubt, prepping the media to look the other way as things start to look bad for BushCo.

by dash888 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:42:59 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

Weldon was on CSPAN with huge charts (4.00 / 2)

talking about his 9/11 revelations back in June (June 27th at like 10:30 PM EST). He was talking about their data mining techniques and how it allowed them to assemble the massive web of connections surrounding the hijackers. He was also making a big hoopla about how the 9/11 cOmmission was avoiding all this, and if I remember right, he was also claiming that there was a team of FBI and CIA agents that were prepared to bust Atta on like September 10th and were prevented. by "the system" or something. It was one of those House Floor speeches to an empty chamber, and there were a number of highly charged claims in his address. If someone can get a copy of the whole thing you would get to see just how massive, almost comically massive, their chart of people was.

I'm willing to listen to Weldon and hear what he has to say, but like so many our public officials regarding 9/11 (but not all of our public officials) I suspect he will continue to ignore any real talk of taboo topics, like the numerous 9/11 wargames that were so crucial in preventing our defenses from stopping those planes (talk of these wargames was even allegedly edited out of CSPAN's presentation of one of the main speakers at the recent 9/11 Congressional Briefing).

And don't forget the hero Janitor, William Rodgriguez, who was the last man to escape the towers after risking life and limb to free dozens of trapped people. He happened to have witnessed multiple explosions in basement of the towers (and he's not the only one) and any mention of him has been scrubbed from the 9/11 cOmmission Report, along with just about all our collective memories of that event, which is really odd when you think about it. I mean, this guy is a mega-hero, and he hardly anyone in this country has heard about him. He even testified to seeing one of the hijackers in the building just months before the attacks, and no one has dismissed his claimes or anything. It's just more eerily unexplained media silence.

But we can't talk about this kind of stuff even though what I posted here is just a few appetizers to the full scale of all the 9/11 lies we've been collective sold. Maybe it's just me, but I find our National 9/11 Silence all very scarily strange. Strange and dangerous. :-(

by glooperoo on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:03:41 AM PDT

Unbelieveable (none / 0)

Mr. Weldon and the former intelligence official said it might have reinforced a sense of discomfort common before Sept. 11 about sharing intelligence information with a law enforcement agency.

This was exactly the situation that Jamie Gorelick's famous Chinese wall opinion addressed. It made it possible for the FBI and CIA to work together in New York to prosecute the first World Trade Center bombers without having evidence invalidated because of its origin in intelligence investigations. Essentially, the CIA operated as a tip line for the FBI, telling them where to look, just as any other tip from a citizen would.

It is well known that FBI Headquarters did not want to hear about al Quaeda and drove its principal terrorism investigator in New York into retirement. No doubt that there were people in the Special Operations Command who knew about this position as well. Why send them information and make them mad?

Weldon is a Republican. It is in his interest to try to shift blame for being asleep at the switch back to the Clinton administration. The question is why this information was not pushed on the new Administration after it took office. Where were the people who could have taken the floor size diagram to Condi Rice's office?

And might this not reflect some internal politics in the struggle among the several intelligence agencies now under Negroponte's authority?

This article is tip, not a fact. Who is available to search out the facts? Apparently the New York Times isn't interested.

The revolution starts now--in your own back yard, in your own home town

by TarheelDem on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:25:55 AM PDT

They let it happen. Period. <eom> (4.00 / 2)

Buy Democracy Bonds or Justice sleeps with the fishes.

by Don Quixotic on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:43:13 AM PDT

Hey Conyers and Kerry staffers! (none / 0)

let's get some answers from Ben-Veniste or someone on this.

Buy Democracy Bonds or Justice sleeps with the fishes.

by Don Quixotic on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:58:25 AM PDT

Maybe there are lots of possible bombers (none / 0)

I think one issue here might simply be that there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people who are serious terrorism threats on various watch lists, and tracking all of them carefully is really difficult and expensive.

And various federal agencies very clearly put out all sorts of terrorism warnings in the summer of 2001. The WTC attack was NOT any kind of big surprise. The only surprise was in how it was carried out. And even that shouldn't have been too surprising to people who'd read the summer of 2001 articles about the G-7 leaders worrying about Al Qaeda drone planes stuffed with explosives crashing into the G-7 conference in Genoa.

I honestly think that people are beating up on the FBI and CIA to distract us from the miserable failure of the U.S. airline security system and civil air defense system.

The idea that hijackers could hijack 4 planes is appalling, and the idea that it took so long for fighter jets to fly by to even see what was going on is appalling.

If Cuba had decided to launch the best invasion it could muster on Sept. 10, 2001, chances are we'd now be Cuban.

by sclminc on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:58:37 AM PDT

Able Danger was given orders under which admin??? (none / 0)

Bush or Clinton?????????????????????

Brings new light to the August 6 Presidential Daily Briefing.

A failed President= August 6 PDB, Bin Laden? DSM, WMD's? Abu Ghraib, Rove/Plame, Katrina

by Gator on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:59:11 AM PDT

new to the search tool but there is much (none / 0)

discussion

by seth ren on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:50:46 AM PDT

See (none / 0)

my new diary discussing all the paranoia in this thread.

http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/911_mainstream_media.htm

by BooMan23 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:57:31 AM PDT

Wow (none / 0)

9/11 Allowed to Happen!

IMO!

by Northstar on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:52:11 PM PDT

They let 9/11 happen ! (none / 0)

Go read PNAC's doctrines. They need something big to happen on our soil and it did happen on 9/11/2001.

They classified all air traffic tapes and communication tapes between Cheney and NORAD. Bush was on the red phone but Cheney was in control.

Hopefully, someday we will get to hear the tapes.

by DonM on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:58:07 PM PDT

I don't expect to be listening to those tapes (none / 0)

any time soon, considering...

Six air traffic controllers provided accounts of their communications with hijacked planes on Sept. 11, 2001, on a tape recording that was later destroyed by Federal Aviation Administration managers, according to a government investigative report issued today.

[b]It is unclear what information was on the tape because no one ever listened to, transcribed or duplicated it, the report by the Department of Transportation inspector general said.[/b]

...

According to the report, a second manager at the New York center promised a union official representing the controllers that he would "get rid of" the tape after controllers used it to provide written statements to federal officials about the events of the day.

[b]Instead, the second manager said he destroyed the tape between December 2001 and January 2002 by crushing the tape with his hand, cutting it into small pieces and depositing the pieces into trash cans around the building, the report said.[/b]

The tape's existence was never made known to federal officials investigating the attack, nor to FAA officials in Washington. Staff members of the 9/11 panel found out about the tape during interviews with some controllers who participated in the recording.

by glooperoo on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:18:41 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Alright, I'm a dumbass (none / 0)

What does this all mean exactly?

Feel free to explain it to me like I'm in grade school, I won't get offended.

by drug free radio on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:07:31 PM PDT

Let's Lay This Out Once and For All, Okay? (none / 1)

The August 6 PDB was a confirmation that all systems were go for 9/11. That key neocons in the US government and the Israeli intelligence agents all around the hijackers in Florida had successfully shielded the plot from scrutiny and there was now no stopping it. Bin Laden was convinced he was about to pull of a huge surprise attack - only he was duped because it was no surprise at all.

They knew this was an Al Quada plot, they learned about it very early on (either Mossad did or the CIA did). When dometic intelligence started raising flags they tamped down any moves to investagate. Then they watched it. They tracked it. They protected it. And then on September 11, 2001 they let it happen in the most massive crime ever committed against America.

All that was left after the August 6 PDB was to wait and watch it unfold.

Sound paranoid? Connect the dots.

by iCassandra on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:17:49 PM PDT

YES (none / 0)

Additions:

There were simulated terrorist attacks scheduled for 9-11.

The attackers knew that. They flaunted their breaking of our top secret code about it. So we knew that they knew about it.

There was also a simulated one planned in London on 7-7.

No intercepts for 90 minutes. All intercepts from Maine and Florida not Maryland and Virginia where they were readyd on alert and could have been there in seconds if not minutes.

Who profited? The Bush presidency and all that has followed.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:47:01 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

But we knew that the hijackers were a known (none / 0)

quantity - they reported in the days immediately after 9/11.

All the more reason that Condi ignoring the PDB was outrageous.

by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:21:26 PM PDT

I Can Recommend (none / 0)

the entire diary.

But not many of the posted comments.

They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

by Limelite on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:16:28 PM PDT

Does this fit into this story? (none / 0)

I apologize if this has been mentioned in this diary before. But I checked up on an old article I remembered from the post 9/11 days. Perhaps it adds something to this story.

Mohammed Atta's flight school received his visa approval six months after 9/11/2001.

The article also states that the actual visa approval ocurred before 9/11. I wonder how long before?

by Jersey Joe on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:49:14 PM PDT

Atta (none / 0)

And so convenient to have found his passport a few blocks from the WTC to prove he was on the plane. All that unrecognizable debris but a clear passport of Atta's.

And they sure did get that wreckage out of there pronto. No poking around in those ruins for more evidence. And the scrap shipped overseas.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:57:13 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

was not his passport (none / 0)

was another one of the highjackers.

by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:29:42 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

Some of the truth is now out (none / 0)

and let the discussion begin all over the world. I know I only hold a limited number of facts as do most others. A book about this isn't going to do it.

Maybe a huge boardgame or video game.

My father read the book on Nixon and couldn't see that he did anything really wrong. People will distort the facts to support their beliefs.

If too much time goes by then there will be the same apathy as over Pearl Harbor. I mean who really cares anymore. We got Hitler,disn't we. So it's justified. But Saddam is not in the same class.

These middle east dictators are all serious students of Stalin BTW. Never forget that. I thought it was a brilliant piece by Zargawi(sp)about our being after and exploiting their resources as our real reason.

by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:53:24 PM PDT

A conspracy is a conspracy (none / 0)

by JoeTx on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:55:04 PM PDT

booman (none / 0)

you rock!

ePluribus rules!

Why Are We Back In Iraq?

by edkra on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:28:42 PM PDT

Our Government Botched It! (none / 0)

The question is whether they botched it accidentally or purposefully.

IMO, we don't need more intelligence gatherers or gathered, we need people to stop stovepiping the intelligence we are already able to gather in order to support previously planned political agendas.

by Patricia Taylor on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:49:26 PM PDT

Perhaps this is true... (none / 0)

however the visual evidence points to an implosion.

Also, the fineness of the particulate matter and the decimation of the building materials support the hypothesis of high explosives as a factor in the destruction of WTC 7.

The funny thing is they could have just come out and said WTC 7 was too damaged and we decided to "pull it" (constrution speak for demolishing a building),
but they didn't.

The 9/11 report has FEMA's self admitted wacky conjecture about the building coming down to a diesel fire and incidental damage from WTC 1&2 which were about 100 feet away (IIRC). No one officially knows exactly why WTC 7 collapsed. People can look back after the fact and conjecture with scientific sounding theories, but no one knows.