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 : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mephisto who wrote (8511)4/15/2004 12:19:26 PM
From: Skywatcher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15516
 
I couldn't BELIEVE the HANDLERS let BUshki wear THAT TIE!...
thank goodness I wasn't the only one
George and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamtie
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Thursday 15 April 2004

The first thing you got was the tie.

You lost the importance of the press conference. You lost the fact that Bush had only done two of
these prime time gigs in his entire term, and that he hates them because he isn't good at them. You
lost the fact that the 9/11 Commission had been punching him and his administration around the room
for the last couple of weeks. You lost the fact that September 11 had been demystified, that the going
wisdom now says it could have been stopped by an administration that was actually paying attention.
You lost the fact that almost 80 American soldiers and something like 900 Iraqis had been killed in the
last month of fighting, that almost 700 American soldiers have been killed since the invasion was
undertaken, and that, oh by the way, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

You lost all of that and were left with the tie around Bush's neck, the gray spotted tie that was
flashing and heliographing in the camera's eye like something out of a Hunter S. Thompson fever
dream, the mesmerizing swirl of reds and yellows and purples and blues that left the whole press
conference behind in a hypnotizing, dazzling, inebriating swirl of flummoxed technology which almost
certainly caused Americans from sea to shining sea to lean towards their televisions and exclaim,
"Holy Christ, Marjorie, look at the man's necktie!"

But then the shock of the collision between necktie and television wore off, and you were left with the
man, and his words, and certainly the most ridiculous press conference since Al Haig blithered about
being in charge after Hinckley put a bullet into Ronald Reagan. They sacked Haig pretty much on the
spot after that sad display. Would that the American people in the year of our Lord 2004 could be so
lucky.

Leaving aside the fact that Bush sounded for all the world like he was speaking through a mouthful of
glue - and they say John Kerry is boring on the stump? - the preamble to this train wreck of a press
conference is worthy of some analysis:

GWB: This has been tough weeks in that country.

WRP: Huh?

GWB: Coalition forces have encountered serious violence in some areas of Iraq.

WRP: You don't say.

GWB: In the south of Iraq, coalition forces face riots and attacks that are being incited by a radical
cleric named al-Sadr.

WRP: And you know why? Because your goober proconsul Paul Bremer shut down al-Sadr's piddly
little tabloid newspaper on April 4, giving this pampered brat more street cred than he ever had before.
He had plenty of people to whip into a frenzy against American forces, George, because your whole
project in Iraq has been utterly devoid of meaning, direction, or even coherent planning. You went and
made a free-speech martyr out of al-Sadr by closing down his newspaper, lighting a fuse that has left
dozens of Americans and hundreds of Iraqis dead. Kudos, Chief.

GWB: As a proud, independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation, and neither
does America. We're not an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can attest. We're
a liberating power, as nations in Europe and Asia can attest as well.

WRP: Brilliant. American military forces remain in Germany and Japan to this very day. That's not
much of an object lesson. As for being a 'liberating power' in Asia, I can't imagine you are referring to
Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos.

GWB: Were the coalition to step back from the June 30th pledge, many Iraqis would question our
intentions and feel their hopes betrayed. And those in Iraq who trade in hatred and conspiracy theories
would find a larger audience and gain a stronger hand.

WRP: I can't be sure how up on current events you are, George, but that horse pretty much left the
barn.

GWB: In Fallujah, coalition forces have suspended offensive operations, allowing members of the Iraqi
Governing Council and local leaders to work on the restoration of central authority in that city. These
leaders are communicating with the insurgents to ensure an orderly turnover of that city to Iraqi forces,
so that the resumption of military action does not become necessary.

WRP: Translation - American forces were totally shocked by the fury of the Iraqi people after this
catastrophe of a military adventure, further shocked by the alliance between Shia and Sunni, and
betrayed by ham-handed actions like Bremer's decision to shut down al-Sadr's nothing newspaper.
Because the Iraqi fighters seemed perfectly capable of killing dozens of Americans at will, and
because this was a political mess for you right during election season, you were forced to sue for a
'cease-fire' with the people you had supposedly defeated. The result of this will be an Iraqi military
opposition in Falluja and Najaf that has had time to regroup and rearm. Congratulations. You're about
to get even more people killed.

GWB: The violence we are seeing in Iraq is familiar. The terrorists who take hostages or plants a
roadside bomb near Baghdad is serving the same ideology of murder that kills innocent people on
trains in Madrid, and murders children on buses in Jerusalem, and blows up a nightclub in Bali and
cuts the throat of a young reporter for being a Jew. We've seen the same ideology of murder in the
killing of 241 Marines in Beirut, the first attack on the World Trade Center, in the destruction of two
embassies in Africa, in the attack on the USS Cole, and in the merciless horror inflicted upon
thousands of innocent men and women and children on September the 11th, 2001.

WRP: Two problems, one of which is the same grammar catastrophe you appear incapable of
avoiding. You say "The terrorists who...is serving..." Come on, George. "The terrorists who...are
serving..." is the way to work that English language. Make it yours, George. Work it. Beyond that, the
fact that you have again connected Iraq to September 11 - and, boy, Beirut was just out of nowhere - is
shameful and disgraceful. Just stop. This has been batted down more times than a Serena Williams
forehand.

GWB: The terrorists have lost the shelter of the Taliban and the training camps in Afghanistan. They
have lost safe havens in Pakistan.

WRP: Um, no. Because you took the best troops out of Afghanistan and threw them into Iraq, the
Taliban and al Qaeda are pretty much running around free there again. They have free and open access
to Pakistan for the same reason. I hear the heroin crop in Afghanistan this year is going to be simply
divine, which works in your favor if you think about it. After all, what good is a severe economic
downturn if there isn't cheap access to good smack?

GWB: They lost an ally in Baghdad.

WRP: They never had an ally in Baghdad. Again, this allegation has been disproven more times than
Piltdown man. You need to get some new material, George. I suggest invading France immediately. It's
not like those cheese-eating surrender monkeys were dead-bang right about this invasion being a
disaster in the making. A good military stomping will shut them up, and you can bring back the
Freedom Fries fad.

GWB: We will succeed in Iraq. We're carrying out a decision that has already been made and will not
change.

WRP: Yup, you made the decision the day you showed up in Washington with your band of neocon
Vulcans. Never let pesky things like facts get in the way of a decision that has already been made.

That's about as much of that as anyone could stand. My mother had called me by this point screami
ng, "This is a President? I feel like I want to cry!" I had to break it to her that the worst was yet to
come. The press were about to get their shot. Seldom in human history have so many pointed
questions gone so amazingly unanswered. Some examples which speak for themselves:

QUESTION: Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several
claims about Iraq: that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers; that Iraqi oil
revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass
destruction but, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are. How do you explain
to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents who say that you
took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series of false premises?

GWB: Well, let me step back and review my thinking prior to going into Iraq. First, the lesson of
September the 11th is that when this nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we got to deal with it.
We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm. Every threat we must take seriously.
Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on
his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded
suiciders. He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States.

And we've been there a year. I know that seems like a long time. It seems like a long time to the
loved ones whose troops have been overseas. But when you think about where the country has come
from, it's a relatively short period of time. And we're making progress. There's no question it's been a
tough, tough series of weeks for the American people. It's been really tough for the families. I
understand that. It's been tough on this administration. But we're doing the right thing. And as to
whether or not I made decisions based upon polls, I don't. I just don't make decisions that way. I fully
understand the consequences of what we're doing. We're changing the world, and the world will be
better off and America will be more secure as a result of the actions we're taking.

WRP: Ooooookay...raise your hand if you see an answer in there? There are no weapons of mass
destruction, despite the fact that Rumsfeld said he knew where they were - and it bears mention that
Bush referred to Rumsfeld in his preamble as the Secretary of State. We were hardly welcomed as
liberators, and the oil infrastructure is in total disarray. No answers from George. And as far as "We're
changing the world" goes, George, there's an old saying: Any jackass can knock down a barn. You
change the barn when you smash it, but not many people would label it an improvement. Good thing
your triumphalist streak is under control, though.

Moving on:

QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before
the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June
30th?

GWB: We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the
entity we'll be handing sovereignty over. And, secondly, because the 9-11 commission wants to ask us
questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their
questions.

FOLLOW-UP: I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their
request.

GWB: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9-11 commission is
looking forward to asking us. And I'm looking forward to answering them.

WRP: The talking heads before this press conference were saying it was absolutely, positively vital
for Bush to deliver some sort of coherent plan for the immediate future of Iraq, including the handover.
Here was a perfect opportunity to explain that plan, and George punted. You'll know when I know, hyuk
hyuk hyuk. As for the whole thing about Bush and Cheney appearing together, the answer is pretty
plain. George doesn't know much of anything about how his administration is being run, as was made
horrifyingly clear in this event. Dick needs to be there to work the strings. The 9/11 Commission
couldn't do much with "I love America, I love freedom, I love America, freedom, America, democracy,
pzzzzcheeeeezzzz..." That's about all Bush could give them without a wingman.

Moving on:

QUESTION: In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made
in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before
9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would
you say, and what lessons have learned from it?

GWB: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it. John, I'm
sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know,
I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the
pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet. I would've gone into Afghanistan the way
we went into Afghanistan. Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still
would've called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein. See, I'm of the belief that we'll find out the
truth on the weapons. That's why we sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing the
truth as to exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of
mustard gas in a turkey farm.

One of the things that Charlie Duelfer talked about was that he was surprised of the level of
intimidation he found amongst people who should know about weapons and their fear of talking about
them because they don't want to be killed. You know, there's this kind of -- there's a terror still in the
soul of some of the people in Iraq. They're worried about getting killed, and therefore they're not going
to talk. But it'll all settle out, John. We'll find out the truth about the weapons at some point in time.
However, the fact that he had the capacity to make them bothers me today just like it would have
bothered me then. He's a dangerous man. He's a man who actually not only had weapons of mass
destruction -- the reason I can say that with certainty is because he used them. And I have no doubt in
my mind that he would like to have inflicted harm, or paid people to inflict harm, or trained people to
inflict harm, on America, because he hated us. I hope -- I don't want to sound like I have made no
mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not
as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

WRP: So much of this question and answer sums up the entire issue that squats incoherently before
the American people, and never mind the tacit admission that he is helpless if he doesn't get the
questions beforehand. Even Nixon admitted making mistakes. Have you made any mistakes, George?
The Towers came down, the Taliban and al Qaeda are back in force in Afghanistan, there are about 700
dead American soldiers and well over 10,000 dead Iraqis in the Middle East, there are no weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq, they had nothing to do with September 11, Osama bin Laden has been given
this great gift because we invaded a Muslim country on a nonexistent pretext, and by the way we failed
to catch the guy "Dead or Alive," we have manufactured thousands more terrorists with this invasion,
the budget is annihilated, the Homeland Security Department is a total boondoggle...nope, I can't think
of any mistakes. By the way, the Iraqi WMDs are hidden at a turkey farm. Pass it on.

The tie only worked for a minute. After that, the only thing hypnotizing on the television was this small
fraction of a man playing at being Presidential while the world crashes down around his ears.

God help us all.

CC



To: Mephisto who wrote (8511)6/18/2004 6:26:22 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Confusion Prevented 9/11 Response

By James Gerstenzang, Times Staff Writer
latimes.com

WASHINGTON - The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001
terrorist attacks drew a portrait today of confused and delayed responses to
the four hijackings that targeted New York and Washington and overwhelmed
civilian agencies and the military.

In a detailed account of each hijacking and the responses by the White House,
the Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration, the staff of the
bipartisan commission said in its 17th report that the operating procedures in
place at the time of the attacks were "unsuited in every respect for what was
about to happen."

The report follows by a
day the publication of
two commission reports
that said the terrorist
organization Al Qaeda
had considered a plan
that would have tried to
hijack 10 airplanes to
strike targets on both
U.S. coasts, and that the
panel could find no
evidence linking Al
Qaeda and Saddam
Hussein, the Iraqi leader
driven from power by
the U.S. invasion of
Iraq.

The 29-page document recounts conversations among air traffic controllers,
FAA officials, the North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD), radio transmissions from the hijackers, and deliberations of senior
government officials, including President Bush and Vice President Dick
Cheney.

Bush was arriving at an elementary school in Florida as the plot unfolded, and
Cheney, in his office, was hustled to a presidential emergency command post
beneath the White House shortly after the second plane struck the World
Trade Center.

In the final minutes of the attacks, Cheney issued the only order that had even
a chance of preventing part of the catastrophe: He gave permission for military
aircraft then deployed over Washington to shoot down a hijacked aircraft
believed to be headed to the city. But the pilots in the warplanes thought they
were looking for an incoming Russian missile, and in the end, the plane that
officials thought was targeting the nation's capital crashed in Pennsylvania.

The commission said that three assumptions that lay at the heart of the
government's preparations turned out to be false: That "the hijacked aircraft
would be readily identifiable and would not attempt to disappear; there would
be time to address the problem through the appropriate FAA and NORAD
chains of command; and the hijacking would take the traditional form, not a
suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided missile."

With the multiple agencies involved with the response unprepared for the sort
of attack that unfolded, "what ensued was the hurried attempt to create an
improved defense by officials who had never encountered or trained against
the situation they faced," the report said.

It added: "On the morning of 9/11 there was no one decision-maker in
Washington with perfect information. Various people had various pieces of
information, and they were in different locations."

Bush was in the elementary school and then began an odyssey that took him
to air bases in Louisiana and Nebraska before he reached the capital; Cheney
and other senior White House officials were in the White House Situation
Room or the underground Presidential Emergency Operations Center. The
Pentagon's crisis management team was at the national Military Command
Center, and key FAA personnel were at their headquarters in Washington and
their command center in Herndon, Va.

The FAA said in a written response that since the attacks it had "developed
specific plans and procedures that now ensure a rapid response to any
potential aviation threat."

The report said that the four hijacked airplanes were monitored by four FAA
Air Route Traffic Control Centers, in Boston, New York, Cleveland and
Indianapolis.

Each knew part of what was happening, but did not necessarily know what
the others knew, it said.

The efforts to track the aircraft was made more complicated because the
hijackers on three planes turned off the transponders that emit a unique signal
in flight.

The military response was complicated by a shrinking of the air defense system after the Cold War
ended. On Sept. 11, 2001, the report said, NORAD was operating seven alert sights, with two fighter
aircraft on alert at each. To counter the threat posed by the terrorists, the Northeast Air Defense
Sector, based in Rome, N.Y., could call on a pair of fighter jets on alert at the Otis Air National Guard
Base on Cape Cod, Mass., and at Langley Air Force Base in Langley, Va.

The procedures for the FAA to gain military help, the report said, "required multiple levels of
notification and approval at the highest levels of government."

"The protocols," it said, "did not contemplate an intercept."

The report tracked the progress of each flight, from takeoff to hijacking to crash. The accounts are
chilling, beginning with the routine of controller-to-airplane contact that takes place hundreds of times a
day at thousands of airports.

American Airlines Flight 11 began its takeoff roll at Logan Airport in Boston at 8 a.m., carrying 81
passengers, 11 crew members, and 24,000 gallons of fuel aboard a Boeing 767. Thirteen minutes later,
a controller instructed it to "turn 20 degrees right." That was the last transmission to which the flight
responded.

Sixteen seconds later, the controller ordered the plane to climb to 35,000 feet. There was no response.
At 8:21 a.m., the plane's transponder was turned off, "immediately degrading the available information
about the aircraft," and raising suspicions that "something was seriously wrong with the plane," the
report said.

At 8:24:38, the report said, the following transmission came from the plane: "We have some planes.
Just stay quiet, and you'll be OK. We are returning to the airport."

Seconds later, another transmission: "Nobody move. Everything will be OK. If you try to make any
moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet."

Although the controller realized that a hijacking had occurred, he was ordered to play a tape recording
of the transmission and listen to it closely because the first part of the transmission was unclear.

Between 8:25 and 8:32, following FAA procedures, managers at the Boston air traffic control center,
located in New Hampshire, notified the chain of command of a hijacking in progress.

At 8:34 a.m., the Boston Center, as it is known, jumped ahead of the chain of command. Working
through the FAA's Cape Cod facility, it gave the first notification to the military that an airplane had
been commandeered.

According to the report, this was the conversation that began at 8:37:52:

FAA: "Hi. Boston Center TMU, we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards
New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up
there, help us out."

The Northeast Air Defense Sector: "Is this real-world or exercise?

FAA: "No, this is not an exercise, not a test."

The air defense office ordered two F-15 alert aircraft to battle stations.

"The air defense of America began with this call," the report said.

The order to scramble the fighters came at 8:46 - with no specific destination because the hijacked
airplane had disappeared from the primary tracking device. Forty seconds later, American 11 struck
the World Trade Center. Six minutes later, the fighters were airborne.

As the terror escalated, so too did the confusion, fed both by a lack of information as the hijackers
masked their whereabouts and intentions, and by a lack of planned responses that could be carried out
with split-second timing.

United Flight 175, another Boeing 767 headed from Boston to Los Angeles, was 14 minutes behind
the American flight. Just as American Flight 11 hit the North Tower of the trade center, United 175's
transponder code was changed, then changed again. As the second hijacking became apparent, the
manager at the New York Center told the FAA's command center in Herndon, Va.: "We have several
situations going on here. It's escalating big, big time. We need to get the military involved with us."

And at just about that moment, the New York center said in a transmission to the New York terminal
approach control: "All right. Heads up man, it looks like another one coming in."

Within a minute, United 175 struck the trade center's South Tower.

American Flight 77 began its takeoff roll from Dulles International Airport outside Washington at 8:20
a.m. All was routine for roughly 34 minutes. But the Indianapolis center that was tracking it did not
learn until 9:20 a.m. that there had been other hijackings. Controllers at the center never saw the plane
reverse course and head back toward Washington.

"American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington, D.C.,"
the report said. When the airplane, still unidentified, was found on radar, it was six minutes from striking
the Pentagon.

Similar confusion followed the flight of United 93, which took off from Newark, N.J., at 8:42 a.m. The
plane, which the hijackers were believed to have been aiming at the Capitol or the White House,
crashed in Pennsylvania. The commission's staff statement does not deal with reports that the
passengers fought with the hijackers.

Correcting what it said was erroneous testimony, the report said that the military did not have 14
minutes to respond to the hijacking of American 77.

"It had at most one or two minutes to respond to the unidentified plane approaching Washington, and
the fighters were in the wrong place to be able to help. They had been responding to a report about an
aircraft that did not exist," it said, referring to a mistaken report that Flight 11, the first plane to hit the
World Trade Center, was headed to Washington.

"Nor did the military have 47 minutes to respond to United 93, as would be implied by the account that
it received notice about it at 9:16. By the time the military learned about the flight, it had crashed," the
report said.

And while Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, was forecast to reach Washington about 10:15
a.m., as late a 10:10 a.m. the two fighters dispatched from Langley did not have permission to shoot it
down.

In moments, however, that permission came from Cheney. He had spoken minutes before with Bush,
who, the vice president said, according to the report, "signed off on that concept."

Bush, according to the report, "said he remembered such a conversation, and that it reminded him of
when he had been a fighter pilot."

Some time between 10:10 a.m. and 10:15 a.m., the report said, "a military aide told the vice president
and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for authority to engage
the aircraft.

"The vice president's reaction was described as quick and decisive: 'in about the time it takes a batter
to decide to swing.' He authorized fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane."

Had the United flight not crashed at 10:03 a.m., it would not have reached Washington any earlier than
10:13 a.m., and possibly not until 10:23 a.m. By then, there were two fighters flying a combat air patrol
over the capital. But the pilots had not been briefed on why they had been sent aloft, and one said later:

"I reverted to the Russian threat.… I'm thinking cruise missiles threat from the sea. You know you look
down and see the Pentagon burning and I thought the bastards snuck one by us….[Y]ou couldn't see
any airplanes, and no one told us anything."

Underlining his point, the report said the pilots "did not know that the threat came from hijacked
commercial airliners." Tracing the controversial decision that kept Bush out of Washington for roughly
10 hours after the attacks, the report said the president came under strong pressure to not return to the
capital. Before the president left Florida, White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr., the lead
Secret Service agent, Bush's military aide and the pilot conferred about a destination. The Secret
Service agent felt strongly, the report said, that it was too unstable in Washington for the president to
return, and Card agreed. Bush, it said, "needed convincing."

With the plane taking off, Bush spoke with Cheney, who said, according to the report, that he also
urged Bush to stay out of Washington.

"Air Force One departed at approximately 9:55, with no destination at take-off," the report said. "The
objective was to get up in the air - as fast and as high as possible - and then decide where to go."



To: Mephisto who wrote (8511)7/23/2004 2:45:51 AM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
'Our leaders did not understand the gravity of the threat'
Commission catalogues string of 9/11 failures


Julian Borger in Washington
Friday July 23, 2004
The Guardian

The US government failed to protect the American people
through a fatal lack of imagination, the commission into the
September 11 attacks said yesterday.


The withering 567-page report found fault with almost every
government department and agency involved in
counter-terrorism, but stopped short of ruling definitively whether
the attacks should have been prevented, and did not attempt to
apportion blame between the Clinton and Bush administrations.

But the commission concluded: "What we can say with
confidence is that none of the measures adopted by the US
government from 1998 to 2001 disturbed or even delayed the
progress of the al-Qaida plot.


"Across the government, there were failures of imagination,
policy, capabilities and management," the report said, adding:
"The most important failure was one of imagination. We do not
believe leaders understood the gravity of the threat."

Yet the report concludes that "we cannot know whether any
single step or series of steps would have defeated" the 19
hijackers.

Following the report's publication, the commission chairman,
Thomas Kean, said: "Nineteen men armed with knives, box
cutters, Mace and pepper spray penetrated the defences of the
most powerful nation in the world. They inflicted unbearable
trauma on our people and at the same time they turned our
international order upside down."

President Bush said he welcomed the report, repeating his
claim that before September 11, he had had "no inkling that
terrorists were about to attack our country".

However the report, which contains minute detail of the plot, the
hijackers, and the aftermath of the atrocities, highlights the
opportunities that were missed by intelligence services, which
were aware that an attack was coming.

The report notes that in 2001 "intelligence reporting consistently
described the upcoming attacks as occurring on a calamitous
level, indicating that they would cause the world to be in
turmoil".

George Tenet, who recently resigned as the CIA director, told
the commission: "The system was blinking red". By late July,
Mr Tenet said, it could not "get any worse".

Despite pressure from the Bush administration, the commission
found no evidence of collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaida.
In
particular, it declared "the available evidence does not support" a
Czech report of a meeting in Prague between the lead
September 11 hijacker, Muhammad Atta, and an Iraqi agent.

Instead, it found evidence of at least passive Iranian complicity
in al-Qaida's movements, noting that eight of the 19 hijackers
travelled through Iran without having their passports stamped.

The commission's report estimated that the September 11
conspiracy cost a total of between $400,000 and $500,000
(£217,000 to £270,000) but came to no conclusions over the
source of the money. It absolved the Saudi government of
funding the conspiracy, and argued that the money transfers
involved were "unremarkable and essentially invisible amid the
billions of dollars flowing around the world every day".

The plot, the commission found, was the work of "a determined
and capable group of plotters". But it added: "The group was
fragile and occasionally left vulnerable by the marginal, unstable
people often attracted to such causes. The enemy made
mistakes. The US government was not able to capitalise on
them."

The report lists the squandered opportunities to disrupt the plot,
including the CIA's failure to put two of the hijackers, whom it
had been following as al-Qaida suspects, on an immigration
watchlist, a failure to act on warnings by FBI field agents that
al-Qaida might be training pilots to commandeer commercial
planes, and a failure to spot doctored passports.

"These examples make a part of a broader national security
picture where the government failed to protect the American
people," Mr Kean said. "The United States government was
simply not active enough in combating the terrorist threat before
9/11."

Mr Kean, a Republican former governor of New Jersey, said it
was not the commission's job to assign blame on a particular
administration. Instead, he said: "Any person in a senior
position within our government during this time bears some
element of responsibility for our government's actions."

The commission also faulted Congress for failing to monitor the
intelligence and counter-terrorist agencies properly and
recommended it create a single committee to oversee homeland
security. "So long as oversight is undermined by current
congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American
people will not get the security they want and need," the
commissioners wrote.

President Bush said the report contained "some very
constructive recommendations" and promised "where the
government needs to act, we will". But his administration
opposes the bipartisan commission's principle advice, the
unification of America's 15 intelligence agencies under a national
intelligence director with cabinet rank.

It has not committed itself on a parallel recommendation to
create a national counter-terrorism centre, along the lines of
unified military commands.

The president's Democratic challenger, John Kerry, embraced
the report, accusing the administration of failing to do enough in
the wake of the attacks to make the country safer. He called for
a rapid implementation of the commission's recommendations.

"If I am elected president and there has still not been sufficient
progress on these issues, I will not wait a single day more. I will
lead," Mr Kerry said, promising to convene a "emergency
security summit" to deal with the terrorist threat.


That threat was as great as ever, Mr Kean, said, noting that:
"Every expert with whom we spoke told us an attack of even
greater magnitude is now possible and even probable. We do
not have the luxury of time. We must prepare and we must act."

guardian.co.uk



To: Mephisto who wrote (8511)7/24/2004 5:30:08 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15516
 
Security reform is made election issue by 9/11 Commission

By Andrew Buncombe in
Washington

news.independent.co.uk
24 July 2004

The panel that produced the 11 September report
vowed yesterday to ensure that the overhaul of
the intelligence services becomes an election year
issue even as they admitted it would not happen
soon enough to prevent another attack.


The 10 commissioners set about arguing their
case for the recommendations that they outlined
while acknowledging that they faced obstacles.
"I would call myself hopeful but not optimistic that
these changes will be enacted prior to another
terrorist attack on the United States, regrettable
though that may be," said Bob Kerrey, a former
Democratic senator from Nebraska. "I'm hopeful
that Congress will do something about it, but
unfortunately I think we've already forgotten how
vulnerable we were on 9-11 and how many
mistakes were made to produce that vulnerability."
Speaking to CNN, he added: "I'm just not optimistic
that it's going to happen any time soon, unless the
American people rise up and ask their
Congressmen, their Senators and their President,
'Look, we've got to get these changes in place
because if we don't, the country simply is not
going to be as safe as it needs to be'."

The commission's report listed a series of steps it
believed were vital to prevent a repeat of the
attacks on New York and Washington that killed
almost 3,000 people. Primary among those
recommendations was the creation of a new
intelligence centre and a senior level official to
oversee the disparate elements of the US
intelligence community and report directly to the
president.

President George Bush and Congress promised
on Thursday that the recommendations would be
taken seriously. Yesterday morning, Condeleezza
Rice, the National Security Adviser, said that she
agreed change was needed but stopped short of endorsing the creation of a
national intelligence directorship. "Any specific recommendation has to be looked at
for its up sides and its down sides," she said.
Few people appear to believe that the commission's detailed recommendations will
be carried out soon, with political observers pointing to the problems of "turf, politics
and money" that stand in the way. Some of the commission's proposals, for
instance, would require legislation from Congress at a time when it is deeply divided
along partisan lines.
Others would need widespread bureaucratic reorganisation that would likely take
power and influence from groups and individuals. Some recommendations included
in the 567-page report would require new money at a time of budget deficits.

The commissioners, who spent almost 20 months completing the investigation, also
appear to realise that, while their work was largely free of party politics, their
demands have been made at a time when both parties are contesting the upcoming
presidential election.

"We're in danger of just letting things slide," said the commission chairman Thomas
Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey. "We believe unless we
implement these recommendations, we're vulnerable to another attack."


The commission's report detailed a series of failings that had allowed the 19
hijackers take control of four passenger planes almost three years ago. But while it
said that President Bush and his predecessor, Bill Clinton, could and should have
done more to counter the threat, it did not criticise either in harsh terms. "We do not
believe they fully understood just how many people al-Qa'ida might kill and how soon
it might do it," the panel said.

For the Republicans in particular, this absence of criticism must have come as a
relief given that Mr Bush has made his role in the so-called war on terror a central
part of his reelection campaign.

Many of the relatives of those who died in the attack fought for this report. Their
next fight will be getting its recommendations put in place. "We're going to hold these
people's feet to the fire," said Debra Burlingame, whose brother, Charles, was the
pilot of the plane that struck the Pentagon.

But even yesterday there was an admission from those most able to enforce the
recommendations that nothing was likely to happen soon. Dennis Hastert, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, voiced doubt that lawmakers would have
time to consider an intelligence overhaul this year.

24 July 2004



To: Mephisto who wrote (8511)7/27/2004 3:52:12 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
An Excuse-Spouting Bush Is Busted by
9/11 Report

July 27, 2004

latimes.com

Robert Scheer:

Busted! Like a teenager whose beer bash is interrupted
by his parents' early return home, President Bush's
nearly three years of bragging about his "war on terror"
credentials has been exposed by the bipartisan 9/11
commission as nothing more than empty posturing.


Without dissent, five prominent Republicans joined an
equal number of their Democratic Party peers in stating
unequivocally that the Bush administration got it wrong,
both in its lethargic response to an unprecedented level
of warnings during what the commission calls the
"Summer of Threat," as well as in its inclusion of Iraq in
the war on terror.

Although the language of the commission's report was
carefully couched to obtain a bipartisan consensus, the
indictment of this administration surfaces on almost
every page.

Bush was not the first U.S. president to play footsie
with Muslim extremists in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia
and Pakistan, nor was the Clinton administration
without fault in its fitful and ineffective response to the
Al Qaeda threat. But there was simply no excuse for
the near-total indifference of the new president and his
top Cabinet officials to strenuous warnings from the
outgoing Clinton administration and the government's
counter-terrorism experts that something terrible was
coming, fast and hard, from Al Qaeda. Osama bin
Laden's gang, they said repeatedly, was planning
"near-term attacks," which Al Qaeda operatives
expected "to have dramatic consequences of catastrophic proportions."


As early as May 2001, the FBI was receiving tips that Bin Laden supporters
were planning attacks in the U.S., possibly including the hijacking of planes. On
May 29, White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke wrote national
security advisor Condoleezza Rice that "when these attacks [on Israeli or U.S.
facilities] occur, as they likely will, we will wonder what more we could have
done to stop them." At the end of June, the commission wrote, "the intelligence
reporting consistently described the upcoming attacks as occurring on a
calamitous level." In early July, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft was told "that
preparations for multiple attacks [by Al Qaeda] were in late stages or already
complete and that little additional warning could be expected." By month's end,
"the system was blinking red" and could not "get any worse," then-CIA Director
George Tenet told the 9/11 commission.


It was at this point, of course, that George W. Bush began the longest presidential
vacation in 32 years.
On the very first day of his visit to his Texas ranch, Aug. 6,
Bush received the now-infamous two-page intelligence alert titled, "Bin Laden
Determined to Attack in the United States." Yet instead of returning to the capital
to mobilize an energetic defensive posture, he spent an additional 27 days away
as the government languished in summer mode, in deep denial.


"In sum," said the 9/11 commission report, "the domestic agencies never
mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have the direction, and did not
have a plan to institute. The borders were not hardened. Transportation systems
were not fortified. Electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic
threat. State and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI's
efforts. The public was not warned."

In her public testimony to the commission, Rice argued that the Aug. 6 briefing
concerned vague "historical information based on old reporting," adding that
"there was no new threat information." When the commission forced the White
House to release the document, however, this was exposed as a lie: The
document included explicit FBI warnings of "suspicious activity in this country
consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including
recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." Furthermore, this briefing
was only one of 40 on the threat of Bin Laden that the president received
between Jan. 20 and Sept. 11, 2001.

Bush, the commission report also makes clear, compounded U.S. vulnerability by
totally misleading Americans about the need to invade Iraq as a part of the "war
on terror."


For those, like Vice President Dick Cheney, who continue to insist that the jury is
still out on whether Al Qaeda and Iraq were collaborators, the commission's
report should be the final word, finding after an exhaustive review that there is no
evidence that any of the alleged contacts between Bin Laden and Saddam
Hussein "ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have
we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with Al Qaeda in developing or
carrying out any attacks against the United States."


So, before 9/11, incompetence and sloth. And after? Much worse: a war without
end on the wrong battlefield.



To: Mephisto who wrote (8511)7/28/2004 1:32:13 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 

Honorable Commission, Toothless Report

The New York Times

July 25, 2004

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

By RICHARD A. CLARKE

Americans owe the 9/11 commission a deep debt for its extensive exposition
of the facts surrounding the World Trade Center and Pentagon
attacks. Yet, because the commission had a goal of creating
a unanimous report from a bipartisan group, it softened the edges and left it to
the public to draw many conclusions.

Among the obvious truths that were documented but unarticulated
were the facts that the Bush administration did little on terrorism before 9/11,
and that by invading Iraq the administration has left us less safe as a nation.
(Fortunately, opinion polls show that the majority of Americans have
already come to these conclusions on their own. )


What the commissioners did clearly state was that Iraq had
no collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda and no hand in 9/11.
They also disclosed that Iran provided support to Al Qaeda, including
to some 9/11 hijackers. These two facts may cause many people
to conclude that the Bush administration focused on the wrong
country. They would be right to think that.

So what now?
News coverage of the commission's recommendations
has focused on the organizational improvements: a new cabinet-level national
intelligence director and a new National Counterterrorism Center
to ensure that our 15 or so intelligence agencies play well together. Both are
good ideas, but they are purely incremental. Had these changes been
made six years ago, they would not have significantly altered the way we
dealt with Al Qaeda; they certainly would not have prevented 9/11.
Putting these recommendations in place will marginally improve our ability to
crush the new, decentralized Al Qaeda, but there are other changes that would help more.

First, we need not only a more powerful person at the top of the
intelligence community, but also more capable people throughout the agencies -
especially the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central
Intelligence Agency. In other branches of the government, employees can and do
join on as mid- and senior-level managers after beginning their careers
and gaining experience elsewhere. But at the F.B.I. and C.I.A., the key
posts are held almost exclusively by those who joined young and
worked their way up. This has created uniformity, insularity, risk-aversion,
torpidity and often mediocrity.

The only way to infuse these key agencies with creative
new blood is to overhaul their hiring and promotion practices
to attract workers who don't suffer the "failures of imagination"
that the 9/11 commissioners repeatedly blame for past failures.

Second, in addition to separating the job of C.I.A. director from
the overall head of American intelligence, we must also place the C.I.A.'s analysts
in an agency that is independent from the one that collects the intelligence.
This is the only way to avoid the "groupthink" that hampered the
agency's ability to report accurately on Iraq. It is no accident that
the only intelligence agency that got it right on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
was the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State
Department - a small, elite group of analysts encouraged to be independent thinkers
rather than spies or policy makers.

Analysts aren't the only ones who should be reconstituted
in small, elite groups. Either the C.I.A. or the military must create a larger and more
capable commando force for covert antiterrorism work, along with a network
of agents and front companies working under "nonofficial cover'' - that
is, without diplomatic protection - to support the commandos.

Even more important than any bureaucratic suggestions is the report's
cogent discussion of who the enemy is and what strategies we need in the
fight. The commission properly identified the threat not as terrorism
(which is a tactic, not an enemy), but as Islamic jihadism, which must be
defeated in a battle of ideas as well as in armed conflict.


We need to expose the Islamic world to values that are more attractive
than those of the jihadists. This means aiding economic development and
political openness in Muslim countries, and efforts to stabilize places
like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Restarting the
Israel-Palestinian peace process is also vital.

Also, we can't do this alone. In addition to "hearts and minds" television
and radio programming by the American government, we would be greatly
helped by a pan-Islamic council of respected spiritual and secular
leaders to coordinate (without United States involvement) the Islamic world's
own ideological effort against the new Al Qaeda.

Unfortunately, because of America's low standing in the Islamic world,
we are now at a great disadvantage in the battle of ideas. This is primarily
because of the unnecessary and counterproductive invasion of Iraq.
In pulling its bipartisan punches, the commission failed to admit the obvious:
we are less capable of defeating the jihadists because of the Iraq war.

Unanimity has its value, but so do debate and dissent in a democracy
facing a crisis. To fully realize the potential of the commission's report, we
must see it not as the end of the discussion but as a partial blueprint for victory.
The jihadist enemy has learned how to spread hate and how to
kill - and it is still doing both very effectively three years after 9/11.

Richard A. Clarke, former head of counterterrorism at the National Security Council, is the author of "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
nytimes.com



To: Mephisto who wrote (8511)8/3/2004 6:41:09 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Mr. Bush's Wrong Solution
Editorial
The New York Times


August 3, 2004


At a time when Americans need strong leadership and bold action,
President Bush offered tired nostrums and bureaucratic half-measures
yesterday. He wanted to appear to be embracing the recommendations
of the 9/11 commission, but he actually rejected the panel's most
significant ideas, and thus missed a chance to confront the twin burdens
he faces at this late point in his term: the need to get intelligence reform
moving whether he's re-elected or not, and the equally urgent need
to repair the government's credibility on national security.

Mr. Bush spoke on a day when Americans were still digesting
the terrifying warning of possible terrorist attacks
against financial institutions in New York, Newark and
Washington. The authorities in those cities
did the right thing by stepping up security. But it's unfortunate that it is
necessary to fight suspicions of political timing, suspicions
the administration has sown by misleading the public on security.
The Times reports today that much of the information that led to the
heightened alert is actually three or four years old and that authorities
had found no concrete evidence that a terror plot was actually under way.
This news does nothing to bolster the confidence Americans
need that the administration is
not using intelligence for political gain.

The 9/11 panel's most important recommendation was
to create the post of national intelligence director.

Such a director would be confirmed by
the Senate and have real power to supervise the 15
disparate intelligence agencies. The director of central
intelligence has that charge now,
without the power to do it. The commission said the
new official should be part of the White House Executive Office,
not a cabinet member, to
ensure access to the president.

There are a variety of credible ways to construct the job,
whether in the cabinet or not, but what Mr. Bush proposed
is not one of them. His intelligence director would be in the worst
of all worlds: cut out of the president's inner circle and lacking
any real power.
Andrew Card Jr., Mr.
Bush's chief of staff, said the post would not carry real
authority over the intelligence agencies' budgets or intelligence
jobs in the Pentagon, the Justice Department and other agencies.
The decision bore the unmistakable stamp of Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld, who was never going to
willingly give up control of appointments or his share
of the intelligence budget: $32 billion of the overall $40 billion.

Mr. Bush did embrace the 9/11 commission's suggestion - one that
did not challenge his turf - that Congress stop supervising intelligence and
homeland security through scores of committees and instead have
one committee in each house to oversee intelligence and one for homeland
security. And he went beyond the 9/11 panel in one way by proposing
a post to coordinate intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. That
sounds like a bad idea, especially with the administration's record
of fanciful interpretations of that intelligence on Iraq.

Mr. Bush's bureaucratic dodge on the intelligence director's job is the
same one he used on the job of director of homeland security. Then he was
forced to reverse field, endorse a new cabinet department and claim it
as his own idea.
We don't care who gets credit. What's important is that
Congress reject what Mr. Bush came up with yesterday
and do the job right when it returns in September.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

nytimes.com



To: Mephisto who wrote (8511)10/22/2004 12:49:39 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket
The agency is withholding a damning report that points at senior officials.

October 19, 2004

latimes.com

Robert Scheer:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The failure to furnish the report to Congress, said Harman, "fuels the perception
that no one is being held accountable. It is unacceptable that we don't have [the
report]; it not only disrespects Congress but it disrespects the American people."

The stonewalling by the Bush administration and the failure of Congress to gain
release of the report have, said the intelligence source, "led the management of the
CIA to believe it can engage in a cover-up with impunity. Unless the public
demands an accounting, the administration and CIA's leadership will have won
and the nation will have lost."