SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (591)12/19/2003 1:02:58 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
THE 9/11 COMMISSION says that the attacks were preventable.

Well, yes. In fact, they might have been prevented, had dropped balls at the FBI (which led to morbid speculation that Osama had a mole at headquarters) not frustrated the Moussaoui investigation. Note that no one was fired for that. <font size=4>Of course, had all the 9/11 terrorists been rounded up on 9/10, many of Bush's critics would have argued that it was a racist effort to distract people from the economy, or some such. And worries about such charges -- particularly the racism part -- clearly got in the way. I wonder if the Commission will look at that.

For that matter, the attacks might have been prevented if the Clinton missile attacks on Osama, delayed just a bit too long because of Clinton's fears of causing civilian casualties, had proceeded on time.

The story linked above is right to heap scorn on Condi Rice's statement that the attacks were unimaginable before they happened. There was plenty of reason to imagine them before they happened. That in itself doesn't mean that they could have, or even should have, been prevented -- I can imagine a lot of things that I couldn't prevent -- but Rice's statement has always struck me as absurd to the point of being insulting.
<font size=3>
instapundit.com



To: Sully- who wrote (591)12/19/2003 2:37:14 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
<font size=4>Chief of Sept. 11 Panel Assesses Blame but Holds Off on Higher-Ups<font size=3>
By PHILIP SHENON - New York Times

WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 — <font size=4>The chairman of a federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks said on Thursday that information long available to the public showed that the attacks could have been prevented had a group of low- and mid-level government employees at the F.B.I., the immigration service and elsewhere done their jobs properly.

The chairman, Thomas H. Kean, former Republican governor of New Jersey, said in a telephone interview that his investigators were still studying whether senior Bush administration officials should also share the blame. He said it was too early to suggest that White House aides or other senior officials had been derelict.

"There were people at the borders who let these people in even though they didn't have proper papers to get into this country," Mr. Kean said of immigration inspectors who allowed the hijackers into the United States.

"There were visa people who let these people in," he said. "There were F.B.I. people who, when they got reports from Phoenix and Minnesota and elsewhere, didn't think they were important enough to buck up to the higher-ups. There were security officers at the airports who let these people onto airplanes even though they were carrying materials that weren't allowed on airplanes."
<font size=5>
Mr. Kean said an interview that was broadcast Wednesday by
CBS News was being misinterpreted as suggesting that he
was calling for the departure of senior administration
officials.

"We don't have the evidence to do that yet," he
said. "We're doing the work. The report may in fact end up
suggesting that people are the subject of some serious
criticism."
<font size=4>
Mr. Kean, whose bipartisan 10-member panel is to issue a final report in May, said he was surprised that some midlevel officials at the F.B.I. and in federal immigration agencies had not been removed from their jobs, given errors before the Sept. 11 attacks that may have allowed the hijacking plot to go undetected.

"It surprises me that if there were serious mistakes, there haven't been any consequences of those mistakes," he said.

The F.B.I. had no formal response to Mr. Kean's comments. A bureau official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the actions of the midlevel personnel before Sept. 11 were "under review, including an inspector general's review of whether there were institutional or personnel issues that should be addressed."
<font size=3>
nytimes.com



To: Sully- who wrote (591)3/17/2004 12:42:42 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Osama bin Laden: missed opportunities

The CIA had pictures. Why wasn’t the al-Qaida leader captured or killed?

By Lisa Myers
Senior investigative correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:01 p.m. ET March 16, 2004
<font size=4>
As the 9/11 commission investigates what Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush might have done to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, one piece of evidence the commission will examine is a videotape secretly recorded by a CIA plane high above Afghanistan. The tape shows a man believed to Osama bin Laden walking at a known al-Qaida camp.

The question for the 9/11 commission: If the CIA was able to get that close to bin Laden before 9/11, why wasn’t he captured or killed? The videotape has remained secret until now.

Over the next three nights, NBC News will present this incredible spy footage and reveal some of the difficult questions it has raised for the 9/11 commission.

In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing killed six people.

In 1998, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa killed 224.
<font size=5>
Both were the work of al-Qaida and bin Laden, who in 1998
declared holy war on America, making him arguably the most
wanted man in the world.

In 1998, President Clinton announced, “We will use all the
means at our disposal to bring those responsible to
justice, no matter what or how long it takes.”
<font size=4>
NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.

Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.

Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden? NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. “You see a tall man…. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.”

Bin Laden is 6 foot 5. The man in the video clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.

Another clue: The video was shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live. The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches secret U.S. intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm obtained by NBC.

“It’s dynamite. It’s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn’t happen every day.… I guess you could say we’ve done it once, and this is it,” Arkin added.
<font size=5>
The tape proves the Clinton administration was
aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But
that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S.
government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in
real time, why was no action taken against them?
<font size=4>
“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.

“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says
the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin
Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.
<font size=5>
A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was
a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin
Laden as a law enforcement problem.

Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission
member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton
administration could have done would have been for the
president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking
for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-
Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared
war on us.”
<font size=4>
In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.

NBC News contacted the three top Clinton national security officials. None would do an on-camera interview. However, they vigorously defend their record and say they disrupted terrorist cells and made al-Qaida a top national security priority.
<font size=3>
“We used military force, we used covert operations, we used all of the tools available to us because we realized what a serious threat this was,” said President Clinton’s former national security adviser James Steinberg.

One Clinton Cabinet official said, looking back, the military should have been more involved, “We did a lot, but we did not see the gathering storm that was out there.”

Wednesday: What more could the Bush administration have done to get bin Laden?

Lisa Myers is NBC’s senior investigative correspondent

© 2004 MSNBC Interactive

msnbc.msn.com