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 (2040)4/26/2004 11:40:09 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
How about that "Rush to war" in '98?

Australia 'joined war talk in 2002'

Australia Herald Sun
<font size=4>
AUSTRALIA did not begin serious talks with the United States about military action in Iraq until mid-2002, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said today.

He said the Bush administration had been less concerned
about military intervention in Iraq than the previous
Clinton administration.

In 1998, then US secretary of state Madeleine Albright
wanted to take military action to overthrow Iraqi dictator
Saddam Hussein, Mr Downer said.

"That was her view in 1998," he told Channel 10.

But Mr Downer said the focus shifted once George W. Bush took over as US president.

"In 2001, I don't recall there being too much focus in our conversations with the Americans about Iraq," he said.

"But 2002, from around the middle of 2002, it became something of an issue that we spent time discussing with them.

"But prior to around June or July 2002 it had been more of
an issue with the Clinton administration.

"We'd spent a lot of time talking with them about it and
less with the Bush administration."

Mr Downer said some people were determined to come up with
conspiracy theories to condemn the US-led war in Iraq.

"There's some people who were against the overthrow of
Saddam Hussein ... and they've done everything they
possibly can to prove a conspiracy theory," he said.
<font size=3>
© Herald and Weekly Times



To: Sully- who wrote (2040)4/27/2004 4:58:23 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Panel debunks some 9/11 myths

Sunday, April 25, 2004

By Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON --<font size=4>The hearings earlier this month on the Sept. 11 attacks produced a stream of revelations about the terrorist strikes and the government's failure to prevent them. But in addition to revealing details the public had not heard, the commission debunked others retold so many times they were widely assumed to be true:

- Intelligence intercepts that foretold of the attacks with warnings such as "tomorrow is zero hour;"

- The peculiar request of a Minnesota flight student who didn't want to learn how to take off or land;

- The hijackers' use of box cutters as weapons;

- And the planeloads of Saudis that were allowed to slip out of the country unchecked.

These are persistent pieces of Sept. 11 lore, serving as fodder for conspiracy theories and spreading with the help of everything from anonymous Internet postings to mentions in the mainstream media.

But in testimony and a series of interim reports, the 9/11 Commission has concluded that these claims and others that have cropped up over the last two years fall somewhere between minor embellishments and urban myth.
<font size=3>
Al Felzenberg, a spokesman for the commission, said the panel doesn't consider it part of its charter to run down every rumor related to the Sept. 11 attacks, but that the investigative staff has made a point of addressing some of the most common erroneous claims.

"I won't say it's part of our mission, but part of what we're trying to do is tell the definitive account of 9/11," Felzenberg said. "As you go along, you discover things in the public discourse that staff research has indicated may have been incomplete or in some cases incorrect. When we see one of the more glaring omissions or misstatements we've taken the opportunity to correct it."
<font size=4>
In some cases the commission has challenged assertions by high-level officials. In its first report, issued in January, the commission produced evidence that contradicted statements by FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III that the hijackers had entered the country "easily and lawfully," doing nothing to arouse suspicion of authorities.<font size=3>

Since then, the panel has corrected or cast doubt on an array of other claims, some of which were of unclear origin.
<font size=4>
In one recent report, for example, the commission devoted almost a full page to addressing allegations that Saudi nationals including relatives of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden were allowed to leave the country on chartered jets in the immediate aftermath of the attack, while all other flights were still grounded.

In fact, six chartered flights carrying 142 Saudis did leave the country in the days after the attacks, the report said, and one plane had 26 passengers, "most of them relatives" of bin Laden.

But the commission cleared the government of any wrongdoing, saying that all of the passengers were screened by the FBI and other agencies, and that none of the planes left before commercial airspace was reopened. The commission did not address reports in Vanity Fair magazine and other publications that Saudis were able to arrange flights within the United States before the ban was lifted so that they could gather at major airports for their overseas departure.

The panel did say it had checked all of the names on the flight manifests against current government watch lists, and found no matches.

The commission also devoted a portion of its latest report to dissecting the case of suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen who was detained a month before the attacks in Minnesota after he tried to enroll in an area flight school.

The report disclosed a number of new details on the case making it clear that it was a botched opportunity to detect the Sept. 11 plot. Moussaoui probably was not intended to be one of the hijackers, but he had financial ties to some of them, and British intelligence knew that he had been to al-Qaida training camps.

Moussaoui did have a peculiar request for his flight school instructors, but it was not the one that is most frequently attributed to him. "Contrary to popular belief, Moussaoui did not say he was not interested in learning how to take off or land," the report said. "Instead, he stood out because, with little knowledge of flying, he wanted to learn how to take off and land a Boeing 747."

The commission has taken on a number of other apparently erroneous accounts.

It's true that U.S. intelligence intercepted communications on Sept. 10 in which suspected al-Qaida operatives said "tomorrow is zero hour" and referred to the beginning of "the match," another report said. However, the commission said it has received new information that suggests these were not references to the Sept. 11 attacks, but to a military offensive in Afghanistan.

In a report on aviation security, the commission cast doubt on the idea that the hijackers used box cutters to subdue passengers. Instead, the panel said it was more likely they used "Leatherman" utility knives that have multiple tools and a long, sharp blade that locks into position. Evidence shows that at least two of the hijackers purchased such knives, the report said, and FAA guidelines permitted people to carry them onto planes. Box cutters, on the other hand, were banned.

Skeptics of the commission's work and self-appointed Sept. 11 investigators say the commission still has failed to address an array of suspicious events surrounding the attacks.

They cite lingering questions about why U.S. fighter jets didn't shoot down the plane before it hit the Pentagon, and whether the CIA provided funding, training or other support for bin Laden in the 1980s when he was among Arab fighters seeking to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan -- a charge the CIA vehemently denies.
<font size=3>
post-gazette.com



To: Sully- who wrote (2040)4/27/2004 7:25:30 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Why Does Clinton Escape 9/11 Blame?

Joel Mowbray
April 27, 2004

In recent weeks, a long-brewing conspiratorial question managed to make its way off of loony web sites and onto the front page of the paper of record, the New York Times: What did Bush know, and when did he know it, before 9/11?

Seemingly lost in the “discussion” is any similar treatment of the former president with such what-and-when-did-he-know questions. Not about 9/11, but about Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, or simply the general threat posed by radical Islam.

These are crucial questions, and they cannot be ignored.
<font size=4>
Two days after Condoleezza Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission, the New York Times announced in the lead of a front-page, above-the-fold story that Bush was warned in an August 6 briefing “that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes.” The article then went so far as to suggest that Condi lied in her testimony when referring to the document as “historical.”

Never mind that the document was “historical”—a fact revealed when the White House released the formerly top-secret briefing hours after the Times story ran—or that even the most rabid Democrat couldn’t have contorted the contents of it in any manner more damning to Bush than the paper itself did.

Some have argued that the treatment is justified because
the Times was simply reporting news as it breaks, leading
one to believe that Clinton could be fair game under like
circumstances.

But when that theory came up for a real-life test, the
Times flunked. Badly.

Roughly a week after the flap over the August 6, 2001 briefing dominated the national discussion, we learned that the CIA had warned in a classified memo, according to the Associated Press, “that Islamic extremists likely would strike on U.S. soil at landmarks in Washington or New York, or through the airline industry.”

The same AP story also reveals, “And in 1997, the CIA updated its intelligence estimate to ensure bin Laden appeared on its very first page as an emerging threat, cautioning that his growing movement might translate into attacks on U.S. soil.”

The man who was running the show when the CIA made these
assessments? Clinton, of course—though you wouldn’t know
it from the Times or the AP, which didn’t even mention the
former president in its story.


Not that news outlets have an obligation to pin blame for 9/11 on Clinton, to be sure. Even most conservative commentators and politicians, for that matter, have not tried to directly scapegoat the former president.

The Clinton legacy, however, cannot be dismissed in any analysis of 9/11. The United States was struck repeatedly under his watch—and our inaction did not go unnoticed.

Despite the apparent involvement of both Iraq and al Qaeda, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 was treated as a police matter, not as the international terrorist attack it was. The Khobar Towers U.S. military housing complex was bombed by Islamic extremists three years later, and the United States did nothing.

When al Qaeda killed more than 200 people in 1998 by blowing up two U.S. Embassies in East Africa, Clinton’s “response” was bombing empty training camps in Afghanistan and somebody else’s pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

And when 17 servicemen were killed and 39 injured in what could only be construed as an act of war on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, the response was an FBI investigation.

The historical record should make it clear to anyone not
blinded by partisanship that Bush is not to blame for
9/11. Neither is Clinton, though. The terrorists are.

Could more have been done before 9/11? Absolutely.

The United States could have used more force to punish those who attack us—and in the process, possibly deter future attacks. Or we could have aggressively pursued the threat posed by radical Islam, particularly inside our borders. But considering the hue and cry over “racial profiling” even after 9/11, almost any such efforts would have been squashed by the P.C. police.

The job of the 9/11 Commission should not be to delve into high-profile finger-pointing. What matters is what lessons we need to learn—and what mistakes we must not repeat.

©2004 Joel Mowbray

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (2040)4/30/2004 2:14:00 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
THE 9/11 COMMISSION IS MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING -- how else do you explain this:

Instapundit

The commission of five Republicans and five Democrats issued a statement saying Bush and Cheney had been "forthcoming and candid" and their input would be of great assistance as it looks to complete a final report by July 26.

Two Democrats on the panel, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton and former U.S. Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, left the session about an hour early. Hamilton, a former congressman from Indiana, was said to have had a prior commitment to introduce visiting Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin at a lunch
<font size=4>
If it's worth ditching the President's testimony for a luncheon introduction, the whole enterprise can't amount to much.



To: Sully- who wrote (2040)4/30/2004 4:08:03 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Chorus Gets Louder for Gorelick Testimony

Thursday, April 29, 2004

WASHINGTON — <font size=4>More lawmakers are joining the chorus calling for a member of the commission probing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to testify before the panel, saying that as a former high-ranking Justice official in the Clinton administration, she has a conflict of interest.

Thirteen U.S. senators recently asked Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, chairman and vice-chairman of the National Commission on Terror Attacks Upon the United States, to reconsider their decision on allowing former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick to publicly testify before the panel.

The senators wrote that they "particularly interested" to learn that the Gorelick has already testified before the commission in private, "and we presume not under oath."

The lawmakers wrote that there are "significant unresolved differences" in the public statements of Gorelick and Attorney General John Ashcroft, and others involved in the "wall" issue — separating criminal and terrorism/intelligence gathering investigations.

"Conflicting versions of who created the wall, how the wall was created, when it was created, and what dots were not connected because of it, all require that the commission pursue fully the facts," the senators wrote.
<font size=3>
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney (search) met Thursday behind closed doors with the panel.

Democrats say the president abdicated his responsibility before the attack, and <font size=4>Republican lawmakers are charging that Gorelick should resign from the panel altogether.

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., pointed out that it was Gorelick and Hamilton who were most vocal in calling for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to publicly testify after she spent about four hours with the commission behind closed doors.

"I think that standard not only applied to Dr. Rice ... I think that same standard applies to Ms. Gorelick even though she is a commissioner," Bond told Fox News on Thursday. "She knows more about what happened than almost any other witness they could call before that commission."

The Justice Department released documents publicly on Wednesday that were given to the commission on Tuesday. The documents show that Gorelick was responsible for signing off on the new policy of separation and rejecting criticism from U.S. prosecutors who feared it could undermine future efforts to stop terror attacks.

The documents show that despite public comments to the contrary, Gorelick was heavily involved in Clinton Justice Department rules that fortified or heightened the wall separating criminal and terrorism/intelligence gathering investigations.

Gorelick came under fire from Ashcroft during his recent testimony before the commission.

He released a previously classified 1995 memo written by Gorelick that had instructions to "more clearly separate" counterintelligence from criminal investigations. Ashcroft said this "wall" was a major barrier to terrorism probes.

The Justice documents released Wednesday also show sharp criticism from Mary Jo White, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, whose office prosecuted the terrorists convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. That office also indicted Usama bin Laden for the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

"It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorneys' offices when such prohibitions are not legally required," White wrote in a June 13, 1995, memo to then-Attorney General Janet Reno.

White wrote that the new policy would leave prosecutors blind to ongoing terror investigations and could create arbitrary lines of communication.
<font size=3>
A top aide to Gorelick, Michael Vatis, wrote that Reno should ask for White's proposal that U.S. attorneys' offices should be notified of ongoing terrorism investigations at the outset. Vatis wrote that the request seemed to seek special treatment for White's office.

Gorelick reviewed the Vatis memo and sent her handwritten approval of it to Reno.
<font size=4>
"We now have had public statements and documents by people
directly involved in the Department of Justice that it
[actions of the Clinton Justice Department] was a
significant impediment" to the War on Terror, Bond
said. "I think the public needs to know more about the
wall as well."

Gorelick has said that she will not resign, and commission chairman Thomas Kean and other panel members — even Republicans — have said she is doing a fine job on the panel and will not ask her to leave. <font size=3>

"I have worked hard to help the American public understand what happened on Sept. 11," Gorelick wrote in an opinion column published April 18 in The Washington Post. "I intend — with my brethren on the commission — to finish the job."

"I think she served with great honor," Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., told Fox News on Thursday. "She's been defended by Republican members of the commission and she ought to finish the job.

"I think these commissioners have risen to their national responsibility here" to try to arrive at a "unanimous report that's constructive," Lieberman continued. "So I'm very optimistic."

The Justice documents were released per the request of U.S. Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
<font size=4>
"These documents show what I've said all along: Commissioner Gorelick has special knowledge of the facts and circumstances leading up to the erection and buttressing of 'that wall' that, before the enactment of the Patriot Act, was the primary obstacle to the sharing of communications between law enforcement and intelligence agencies," Cornyn said in a statement.

"This is a person with knowledge of relevant facts. Either the commission wants the whole truth, or it does not. If it does, she should appear in public testimony so that the families of the victims, the American people and the Congress can have a full and complete picture of what led to the failures of 9/11."
<font size=3>
Fox News' Major Garrett, Liza Porteus and Anna Stolley contributed to this report.

foxnews.com



To: Sully- who wrote (2040)5/2/2004 8:34:07 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The leaking starts. The thing that got me-not mentioned
in this TIME report-that the media has missed, is the
significance of Bush's reported remarks about Ashcroft's
release of the "Wall" document. Bush apoligised for it! If
Bush is so cunning and defensive on 911, he should have
agreed with Ashcroft, but he didn't. His, "let the chips
fall," attitude is refreshing, but the media let it ride.
-
From: LindyBill

TIME - Contradicting Bill

President Bush says Clinton placed little emphasis on terrorism

By TIMOTHY J. BURGER
<font size=4>
How much of a warning did Bill Clinton give incoming President George W. Bush that Osama bin Laden posed a grave danger? It depends on which President you ask. In his interview with the 9/11 commission last week, sources tell Time, Bush testified that Clinton appeared far more passionate about the dangers of North Korea's nuclear program and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to sources, Bush said Clinton "probably mentioned" terrorism as a national-security threat "but did not make it a point of emphasis."

Clinton earlier told the panel that he had ranked bin Laden as the No. 1 problem the new Administration would face; he made the same point in a speech in New York City last October. <font size=3>

The content of the testimony Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney gave in the Oval Office remains confidential. But a source says Bush told the commission he had not been warned of the CIA's and the FBI's concerns about would-be 747 pilot Zacarias Moussaoui, who was arrested in August 2001. Yet Bush went out of his way to express confidence in CIA director George Tenet. Bush described his activities on Sept. 11 and explained how he communicated from the road with Cheney, in a secure bunker back at the White House. A top Administration aide explained this was one reason Cheney accompanied Bush at the session—"because they were both a part of that day." The session had light moments as well. When Bob Kerrey, one of the panel's most outspoken members, left early for an appointment (as did commission vice chairman Lee Hamilton), Bush called out to him as he was leaving and told Kerrey, "Keep your spirits up." Some thought Bush was alluding to Kerrey's especially "spirited" recent appearance on Comedy Central's The Daily Show, an appearance some G.O.P. leaders in Congress had complained about to commission leaders. Reached later, Kerrey said, "I thought he was talking about the energy I bring to questioning people. Maybe not."



To: Sully- who wrote (2040)5/5/2004 4:57:41 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Bob Kerrey’s 9/11 Commission Fiasco~~What really happened when the 9/11 commissioner left the White House.

May 03, 2004, 3:13 p.m.

By Byron York
<font size=4>
Democratic 9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey made an early departure from the commission's long-anticipated session with President Bush and Vice President Cheney only to find himself waiting for what turned out to be a late, and very brief, meeting on Capitol Hill<font size=3>. Now, Kerrey says that if he had it do over again, he would not have left the White House in the first place.
<font size=4>
Kerrey had scheduled a meeting at noon Thursday with New Mexico Republican Sen. Pete Domenici<font size=3>, a member of the Appropriations Committee, at Domenici's office in the Hart Senate Office Building <font size=4>(the two were to discuss an issue related to the New School, of which Kerrey is president). To make the meeting, Kerry left the White House at about 11:40 A.M., missing the last hour of the commission's questioning of Bush and Cheney.

But when Kerrey arrived at the Hart Building, he was told that Domenici was busy on the Senate floor, voting on a series of amendments. Noon came and went. Instead of meeting in the office, Kerrey went to an area just off the Senate floor, where, at about 12:30 P.M., he was finally able to have a quick word with Domenici.

In the end, Kerrey says<font size=3>, he would have done things differently. <font size=4>"If I had known that<font size=3> there were votes in the Senate at the time, and Sen. Domenici was not in his office, and I would not be able to see him until later, and <font size=4>I would only get 30 seconds or a minute with him, then yes, I would have stayed at the White House," Kerrey told NRO.

Other than the general topic of the meeting — a matter affecting the New School — both Kerrey and Domenici's office have declined to reveal any details of what the talk was about.<font size=3>

Kerrey says the meeting with Domenici, a former Senate colleague, was arranged by the Carmen Group, a Washington lobbying firm which handles matters for the New School. Kerrey says he originally canceled the Domenici meeting in order to be at the White House but then re-instated it when he was told that there would be time to do both. When the commission session stretched on, Kerrey says he felt he had to leave.

He has been surprised at the criticism his departure has prompted. "If I had known there would be this kind of public storm, I would not have left that [commission] meeting," Kerrey says. "If I had this thing to do over again, I wouldn't leave."

Fellow Democratic commissioner Lee Hamilton also left the meeting with the president and vice president, but his departure has been the target of less criticism, apparently because Hamilton had made arrangements for his departure in advance. Hamilton was scheduled to be at a meeting with the prime minister of Canada at lunchtime Thursday, and a source close to the committee says Hamilton informed the White House of his plans before the meeting.

"Lee pointed out that he had a program that he had been working on for many months with the prime minister of Canada," says the source. "The White House understood that and knew going in that he had to leave by a certain time." In the end, the source continues, "the president turned out to be exceptionally generous with his time," and Hamilton had to leave before the commission meeting was over.

No Republican commissioners left the meeting early.
<font size=4>
Commission members of both parties had sought the
Bush/Cheney meeting for months. The commission protested
vigorously when the president originally intended to give
the commission just an hour of his time.
<font size=3> Bush later
relented, and the session stretched to three hours.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (2040)5/11/2004 3:22:51 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Caution and Years of Budget Cuts Are Seen to Limit C.I.A.

NEW YORK TIMES
By DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, May 10 - <font size=4>Even now, 32 months after the Sept. 11 attacks, America's clandestine intelligence service has fewer than 1,100 case officers posted overseas, fewer than the number of F.B.I. agents assigned to the New York City field office alone, government officials say.<font size=3>

Since George J. Tenet took charge of the Central Intelligence Agency seven years ago, rebuilding that service has been his top priority. This year, more new case officers will graduate from a year-long course at Camp Peary in Virginia than in any year since the Vietnam War. They are the products of aggressive new recruiting aimed in particular at speakers of Arabic and others capable of operating in the Middle East and South Asia.

But it will be an additional five years, Mr. Tenet and others have warned, before the rebuilding is complete and the United States has the network it needs to adequately confront a global threat posed by terrorist groups and hostile foreign governments. In an interview on April 30, James L. Pavitt, who as the C.I.A.'s deputy director for operations oversees the clandestine service, said he still needed 30 to 35 percent more people, including officers based overseas and in the United States, supervisors and support workers.

"I need hundreds and hundreds, thousands," Mr. Pavitt said. At a time when the United States is fighting a war on terrorism and a war in Iraq, he said, "we are running hard to get the resources we need."

On Capitol Hill and among former intelligence officers, most experts agree that the clandestine service needs improvement, but there is some debate about whether the agency is addressing the right problems.

"The question is, should you require better before you get bigger?" said a senior Congressional official, describing a question on Capitol Hill that he said had been prompted by inquiries into intelligence failures involving Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.

The size and scope of the clandestine service, whose overseas officers recruit and supervise spies and work with foreign intelligence services but rarely try to infiltrate foreign targets themselves, has always been among the government's most closely guarded secrets.
<font size=4>
But as the dimensions of the intelligence failures on Iraq
and Sept. 11 have come to light in recent months, so too
has a picture of American spying operations stretched thin
through the 1990's and only now recovering.

In numbers, Mr. Pavitt said in the interview, the
clandestine service hit a low point in 1999, when its
ranks had been trimmed by 20 percent from its highs during
the cold war. And in morale and sense of mission, other
experts say, the clandestine service suffered through the
1990's because it was slow to shift its sights from cold
war targets, and in some ways became more cautious.

"I cannot tell you the amount of information we didn't
get, the operations we didn't undertake, the number of
good sources we didn't recruit," Representative Porter J.
Goss, the Florida Republican and former C.I.A. case
officer who is chairman of the House intelligence
committee, said of the 1990's. "We did hurt ourselves."
<font size=3>
From the agency's failure to anticipate India's nuclear test in 1998 to the as yet unsubstantiated reports about Iraq's illicit weapons capabilities, the weakness of the agency's human intelligence operations has been manifest in repeated embarrassments. At critical junctures, intelligence officials have acknowledged in recent testimony and interviews, the C.I.A. has proved unable to recruit agents who could provide reliable information about Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda, and has had to rely extensively on foreign intelligence services whose information is often unreliable.

A year before the invasion of Iraq, a top intelligence target for more than a decade, the C.I.A. had just four human sources of intelligence in the Iraqi government, senior intelligence officials now acknowledge.

"If we had been able to successfully penetrate Al Qaeda, imagine what that would have meant!" said Jeffrey H. Smith, a former general counsel of the agency. "If we had been able to penetrate Saddam Hussein's government, imagine what that would have meant!"

A Program 'in Disarray'

In his own recent public remarks, Mr. Tenet has blended defiance with candor. "To be sure, we had difficulty penetrating the Iraqi regime with human sources, but a blanket indictment of our human intelligence around the world is simply wrong," he said in a speech in February at Georgetown University in which he called attention to the role played by human intelligence in the capture of leading Qaeda figures.
<font size=4>
Still, in testimony this month before the independent commission on the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet was scathing in describing the clandestine service he inherited when he took charge in 1997. "The infrastructure to recruit, train and sustain officers for our clandestine services - the nation's human intelligence capability - was in disarray," he said.

In interviews, current and former intelligence officials along with senior Republican and Democratic lawmakers were blunt in acknowledging weaknesses of human intelligence operations stemming from the Clinton administration, even as they insisted that improvements were being made and praised the courage and sacrifices of clandestine officers abroad. The officials and lawmakers said they understood that it would take time to complete the overhaul.

They said the problems were a product in part of inadequate personnel, after a six-year stretch of Congressional budget cutting during the early and mid-1990's in which some C.I.A. stations and bases overseas were closed and the number of officers was slashed.
<font size=3>
But they also cited a culture of "risk aversion" that was intensified by a 1995 directive by Mr. Tenet's predecessor, John M. Deutch, amid a scandal over C.I.A. activities in Guatemala. The order was widely interpreted by the agency's officers as a warning against consorting with unsavory individuals.

"I'm not going to succeed against terrorism unless I recruit terrorists," Mr. Pavitt said. "I'm not going to succeed in terms of the tough issues in this business unless I'm right in the middle of it."

The officials also pointed to a lack of nimbleness within what is still a highly bureaucratic organization, whose clandestine officers remain primarily white men posted in embassies overseas. In the large majority of cases they pose as diplomats or other government officials under what is known as official cover, an arrangement that some critics say limits the officers' ability to operate outside diplomatic circles.

"Ideally, within 10 years, 50 percent of case officers should be under nonofficial cover," said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former C.I.A. officer who referred to a more elaborate arrangement in which officers assume identities as bankers, consultants or other professionals. Mr. Gerecht, who served in the Middle East, has criticized the embassy-centered structure for its lack of success in recruiting spies capable of penetrating terrorist groups.
<font size=4>
Removing Hurdles

Mr. Smith, who served as the C.I.A.'s general counsel under Mr. Deutch and who drafted the guidelines for him, said the guidelines had been intended as a "hunting license" to establish a formal process for the recruiting of questionable new agents and allow case officers to work with them without worrying about being disciplined. But in retrospect, Mr. Smith said, he regarded the guidelines as a mistake, in part because "many in the field resented the guidelines and some may have used them as an excuse when they were not able to recruit sources in terrorist groups."

"Management tried to address this by encouraging risk," Mr. Smith said, "but were not successful because it became a kind of mantra that the guidelines were a tremendous hindrance to recruiting. My understanding is that post 9/11, that's all in the past."

The directorate of operations "is aggressively recruiting and management is fully supporting their efforts, including encouraging great risk taking,'' he continued. "To my mind, this shows the folly of trying to manage intelligence activities by looking at scandals in the rear view mirror. We tried to fix one problem and created another one. Hopefully, it's now been solved."
<font size=3>
Even now, intelligence officials acknowledge, the agency's success in hiring case officers fluent in critical languages and comfortable in foreign cultures has been limited by a system that generally requires that new officers be no older than 35 and that they qualify for a top secret security clearance. That entails a background check that takes at least six months and in which recent drug use, a criminal record or questionable integrity can be disqualifying.

The intelligence officials also said the impact of the aggressive hiring has not been felt immediately because of the time it takes to teach new hires, which includes not only the course at Camp Peary but often extensive language training, sometimes overseas. Some former intelligence officials said that at least some of these rules should be loosened, but in an interview, a senior intelligence official said a decision had been made "not to lower the bar."

Because even the C.I.A.'s overall budget and staffing levels remain classified, agency officials declined in interviews to say how much the agency or the clandestine service had grown in recent years.

By all other accounts, there has been an extraordinary surge in spending and hiring since the Sept. 11 attacks across the vast intelligence community, which spans some 15 agencies and has an overall budget that is nearing $40 billion a year.

"Budgets and recruitment efforts are dramatically improved, but I don't think we are where we need to be," said Representative Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.
<font size=4>
Producing New Officers

Still, recent public statements by Mr. Tenet and others, along with comments made by Mr. Pavitt in the interview, have described a major turnabout since 1995, when Mr. Tenet came to the agency as deputy director and found that only 25 new officers were emerging from that year's two graduating classes - a rate Mr. Tenet publicly called "unbelievably low." In the last year, more than 300 people have graduated, former intelligence officials say.
<font size=3>
The C.I.A. will not confirm that number, or even the existence of the training facility at Camp Peary. But in an interview, officials in charge of recruiting at the agency, including Bob Rebello, the chief human resources officer, said that the number of hires into the clandestine service was still rising, at a rate at least 20 percent a year for the last two years.

The directorate of operations, with an overall staff estimated at 5,000, is only one of the C.I.A.'s three main branches. (The others include the directorate of science and technology, and the directorate of intelligence, which is in charge of analysis.) Along with case officers and others who recruit and supervise agents, the directorate includes professional and support staff and groups responsible for covert and paramilitary operations and other so-called "special activities."

But the role played by its case officers is regarded by intelligence professionals as particularly critical, in that their mission aims to obtain from human sources the kind of information that no spy satellite or listening device can provide.

"Having reliable sources that can get to the plans and intentions information is the core mission; it always has been," Representative Goss said.

A Turnaround

It was Mr. Pavitt, a career spy with bushy white hair who has spent more than 30 years at the C.I.A., who recently provided the clearest indication of how limited the agency's overseas foreign presence remains.

"We cover a terrorist target around this globe using a cadre of case officers that is smaller than the number of F.B.I. officers who work in New York City alone," Mr. Pavitt said in a "written statement for the record" that accompanied his testimony on April 14 to the Sept. 11 commission. It was rare public testimony from a clandestine service chief.

An F.B.I. spokesman said that about 1,100 agents are assigned to the New York field office, which includes the city's five boroughs, Long Island and six counties north of the city. In the interview on April 30, Mr. Pavitt declined to expand on his written statement, but other officials confirmed that fewer than 1,100 officers were assigned overseas.

Today, Mr. Pavitt said, 50 percent of the funding in the directorate of operations and 30 percent of personnel within the clandestine service are focused on terrorism, representing an enormous change from 15 years ago, when the vast bulk of the agency was oriented to the Soviet Union. "Every station in the clandestine service has counterterrorism as its top priority," Mr. Pavitt said in his April 14 testimony.

In the interview, Mr. Pavitt said it would be wrong to regard the agency as risk-averse. But he also described as "unnecessary" the directive that was issued by Mr. Deutch, which was rescinded under Mr. Tenet in 2002. Mr. Pavitt said the C.I.A. was only now "turning around" what he called a mistaken perception among some officers that they could not deal with criminals and other unsavory individuals.

"I worry immensely that there are people who are trying to kill us as we sit here and talk," Mr. Pavitt added. "It is an extraordinary threat."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: Sully- who wrote (2040)5/12/2004 7:29:41 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
9/11 Panel Grandstanding Again

By Captain Ed on War on Terror
Captain's Quarters
<font size=4>
The Washington Post reports today that the 9/11 Commission, whose public hearings provoked bitter partisan bickering but produced little in the way of actionable information, now wants to question al-Qaeda detainees:
<font size=3>
The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks is trying to gain access to some members of al Qaeda in U.S. custody to pose questions to them, panel officials said yesterday. ...

The Sept. 11 panel, which has sporadically feuded with the Bush administration over access to information and witnesses during the past year, already has had access to transcripts and reports about al Qaeda detainees in U.S. custody, officials said. But an ability to directly question them would give the panel a remarkable level of access to detainees held in secrecy and generally off limits to defense attorneys.

<font size=4>
The panel has particular interest, the Post reports, in interviewing Zacarias Moussaoui and Ramzi Binalshibh. Lee Hamilton, the ranking Democrat, claims that "they have a procedure in mind" for questioning these and possibly other detainees. What they don't explain is why they feel the need to directly question them. They have access to the interrogation reports, as the Post makes clear in the article. They also have access to the interrogators. Do they mean to imply that these politicians can somehow do a better job of interrogating terrorists than the FBI and the CIA?

Obviously, the idea here is not to gather more
information; the 9/11 Commission hopes to drum up
publicity by grandstanding once again. Either they get to
meet the detainees, up close and personal, for no
particular reason except for their own ego, or they force
the Bush administration to act like grown-ups and block
access, which allows the panel to paint the White House as
uncooperative again. Let's remember that the panel's
original mandate was to determine the mechanics of the
intelligence failures that led us to be unprepared for the
9/11 attacks, not to play Clue with the crimes themselves.

Someone needs to put Hamilton and his Baker Street
Irregulars back in their box. They have all the
information they need to fulfill their original mandate,
and we don't need them expanding their swollen mandate any
further than it's already gone. Their continued efforts at
self-aggrandizement have irreparably damaged this panel's
reputation and have relegated its eventual product to
nothing more than partisan fodder in an election year.

Besides, with all of the sensitivity towards detainees currently in vogue, wouldn't having Jamie Gorelick question Moussaoui amount to humiliation and abuse?



To: Sully- who wrote (2040)5/26/2004 10:36:24 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
This puts the lie to Moore's major charge in his new
documentary. Clarke reneges on his sworn testimony. Now
hold your breath until the major media picks it up. -
From: LindyBill

Clarke claims responsibility
<font size=4>
Ex-counterterrorism czar approved post-9-11 flights for bin Laden family<font size=3>

By Alexander Bolton - The Hill
<font size=4>
Richard Clarke, who served as President Bush’s chief of counterterrorism, has claimed sole responsibility for approving flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Osama bin Laden’s family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In an interview with The Hill yesterday, Clarke said, “I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.”

Most of the 26 passengers aboard one flight, which departed from the United States on Sept. 20, 2001, were relatives of Osama bin Laden, whom intelligence officials blamed for the attacks almost immediately after they happened.

Clarke’s claim of responsibility is likely to put an end to a brewing political controversy on Capitol Hill over who approved the controversial flights of members of the Saudi elite at a time when the administration was preparing to detain dozens of Muslim-Americans and people with Muslim backgrounds as material witnesses to the attacks. <font size=3>

Several Democrats say that at a closed-door meeting May 6, they pressed members of the commission investigating the attacks of Sept. 11 to find out who approved the flights.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who attended the meeting, said she asked former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) and former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, a Republican, “Who authorized the flight[s] and why?”

“They said it’s been a part of their inquiry and they haven’t received satisfactory answers yet and they were pushing,” Boxer added.

Another Democrat who attended the meeting confirmed Boxer’s account and reported that Hamilton said: “We don’t know who authorized it. We’ve asked that question 50 times.”

Referring to questions about who authorized the flights, former Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.), one of the 10 members of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission, said in an interview Monday: “In my mind, this isn’t resolved right now. We need more clarity and information from the relevant political sources and FBI sources.”

But Clarke yesterday appeared to put an end to the mystery.

“It didn’t get any higher than me,” he said. “On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”

Clarke’s explanation fit with a new stance Hamilton has taken on the issue of the Saudi flights.

Hamilton said in an interview Friday that when he told Democratic senators that the commission did not know who authorized the Saudi flights, he was not fully informed.

“They asked the question ‘Who authorized the flight?’ and I said I did not know and I’d try to find out,” Hamilton said. “I learned subsequently from talking to the staff that we thought Clarke authorized the flight and it did not go higher.”

“I did not at any point say the White House was stalling,” Hamilton added. “They asked me who authorized it, and I said we didn’t know.”

Hamilton said, however, that “we asked the question of who authorized the flight many times to many people.”

“The FBI cleared the names [of the passengers on the flights] and Clarke’s CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] team cleared the departure,” Hamilton said.

He cautioned that this is “a story that could shift, and we still have this under review.”

This new account of the events seemed to contradict Clarke’s sworn testimony before the Sept. 11 commission at the end of March about who approved the flights.

“The request came to me, and I refused to approve it,” Clarke testified. “I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the — at the time — No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved … the flight.”

“That’s a little different than saying, ‘I claim sole responsibility for it now,’” Roemer said yesterday.

However, the FBI has denied approving the flight.

FBI spokeswoman Donna Spiser said, “We haven’t had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights.”

“We did know who was on the flights and interviewed anyone we thought we needed to,” she said. “We didn’t interview 100 percent of the [passengers on the] flight. We didn’t think anyone on the flight was of investigative interest.”

When Roemer asked Clarke during the commission’s March hearing, “Who gave the final approval, then, to say, ‘Yes, you’re clear to go, it’s all right with the United States government,’” Clarke seemed to suggest it came from the White House.

“I believe after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all these decisions that we were making in those hours, which was the interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference,” Clarke testified. “I was making or coordinating a lot of the decisions on 9-11 in the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don’t know. The two — since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House chief of staff’s office.”

Instead of putting the issue to rest, Clarke’s testimony fueled speculation among Democrats that someone higher up in the administration, perhaps White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, approved the flights.

“It couldn’t have come from Clarke. It should have come from someone further up the chain,” said a Democratic Senate aide who watched Clarke’s testimony.
Clarke’s testimony did not settle the issue for Roemer, either.

“It doesn’t seem that Richard Clarke had enough information to clear it,” Roemer said Monday.

“I just don’t think that the questions are resolved, and we need to dig deeper,” Roemer added. “Clarke sure didn’t seem to say that he was the final decisionmaker. I believe we need to continue to look for some more answers.”

Roemer said there are important policy issues to address, such as the need to develop a flight-departure control system.

Several Democrats on and off the Hill say that bin Laden’s family should have been detained as material witnesses to the attacks. They note that after the attacks, the Bush administration lowered the threshold for detaining potential witnesses. The Department of Justice is estimated to have detained more than 50 material witnesses since Sept. 11.

Clarke said yesterday that the furor over the flights of Saudi citizens is much ado about nothing.

“This is a tempest in a teapot,” he said, adding that, since the attacks, the FBI has never said that any of the passengers aboard the flight shouldn’t have been allowed to leave or were wanted for further investigation.

He said that many members of the bin Laden family had been subjects of FBI surveillance for years before the attacks and were well-known to law-enforcement officials.

“It’s very funny that people on the Hill are now trying to second-guess the FBI investigation.”

The Sept. 11 commission released a statement last month declaring that six chartered flights that evacuated close to 140 Saudi citizens were handled properly by the Bush administration.

thehill.com



To: Sully- who wrote (2040)5/26/2004 3:48:11 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Clarke says the issue of the flight is a "tempest in a teapot", but Chairman Hamilton warned that it is "a story that could shift" and it still "under review."

Real Clear Politics
<font size=4>
So what gives? On one hand, it looks pretty simple: Clarke was the person responsible for authorizing the flight. If so, then his testimony before the Commission was at best misleading and the fact he's kept silent about it knowing the Commission has been desperately seeking the answer shreds whatever is left of his credibility (which isn't much, if you ask me). <font size=3>

But if Clarke really was responsible for authorizing the flight for bin Laden's relatives it begs the obvious question: wouldn't someone from the White House have testified to that effect or leaked the information to the press?

On the other hand the article still seems to suggest, as do the quotes from Commissioner Roemer, that Clarke simply could not have been responsible for authorizing the flight on his own and had to have received direction from someone higher up in the White House. In other words, Clarke is taking the fall.

Why on earth would he do that? It makes absolutely no sense that Clarke would step up and fall on his sword to do the Bush administration any favors.
<font size=4>
Nevertheless, Clarke is now on record saying he was the
guy responsible for the flight. Watch how the left deals
with this fact.

Will Al Franken apologize to President Bush on Air
America? Will he even acknowledge the story at all? Will
Michael Moore edit his award-winning film (which I believe
contains references to Bush being directly responsible for
spiriting bin Laden's relatives out of the country)?

Warning to my fellow Americans: do not hold your breath.

Or will the left turn on a person they've just spent
months fawning over as a courageous, truth-telling
whistleblower and now call Richard Clarke a liar? At least
that would be a little more realistic, because Clarke was
either lying before or he's lying now.
<font size=3>
realclearpolitics.com



To: Sully- who wrote (2040)5/26/2004 4:11:50 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Richard Clarke, Liar: Part II

powerline blog
<font size=4>
We have already described Richard Clarke as a fraud and a liar. More evidence arrived today in this story from The Hill, linked by Real Clear Politics:<font size=3>

Richard Clarke, who served as President Bush’s chief of counterterrorism, has claimed sole responsibility for approving flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Osama bin Laden’s family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
In an interview with The Hill yesterday, Clarke said, “I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again. It didn’t get any higher than me. On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI."


This is newsworthy because it flatly contradicts what Clarke told the 9/11 Commission:

"The request came to me, and I refused to approve it," Clarke testified. "I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the — at the time — No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved … the flight."
Clarke also testified that he wasn't sure who made the proposal to clear the Saudi flights, but "since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House chief of staff’s office." This suggestion had Congressional Democrats buzzing about the possibility of blaming the bin Ladens' exit on Andy Card, a hope that is now dashed.

Clarke expressed puzzlement over the controversy in his interview with The Hill: "This is a tempest in a teapot....It’s very funny that people on the Hill are now trying to second-guess the FBI investigation."

For once, I agree with Clarke.

powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (2040)6/22/2004 12:50:26 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
9/11 Commission Fails to Connect Terror Dots

Friday, June 18, 2004
By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

The 9/11 Commission’s (search) conclusion that “We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States” does not augur well for the rest of the panel’s inquiry.
<font size=4>
If the members of the commission could not connect dots that are all too obvious – or recognize their staff’s inability to do so – it seems likely that their work will fall short in other important areas as well.

The commission has allowed itself to be used as a political instrument by critics of President Bush and his liberation of Iraq. This is the ineluctable result of the shortcomings of its staff report, so brilliantly illuminated by Andrew McCarthy in an essay published today by National Review Online.

The staff’s statement concerning Iraq and Al Qaeda (search) is internally inconsistent; it ignores key facts; it selectively addresses others; and it effectively condemns as incredible the considerable amount of evidence that suggests Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden did indeed have a collaborative relationship – as President Bush and Vice President Cheney have insisted.

Particularly egregious is the supposedly conclusive finding that Mohammed Atta (search) could not have been in Prague for his final meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer simply because calls were made in Florida on Atta's cell phone during the time period the meeting was to have occurred. Czech intelligence contends Atta was in Prague and attended the meeting, and Mr. McCarthy observes that it would be entirely possible (to say nothing of prudent tradecraft) to have someone – perhaps his co-conspiring roommate – use the phone at a time when Atta could not, because he was overseas where the phone would not work.

This sort of proof-by-assertion is all too familiar to
those who used to confront the unwillingness of some in the
U.S. intelligence community to recognize that the Soviet
Union was a state sponsor of terror and a serial violator
of arms control agreements. Perhaps, as the communists used
to say, the similarity is “no accident.”

As it happens, the staff member who reported to 9/11
Commission members yesterday that there was no “collaborative
relationship” between Iraq and Al Qaeda was none other than
Douglas MacEachin (search) – a man who once held senior
positions at the CIA, including posts with the Office of
Soviet Analysis from 1984-1989, the Arms Control
Intelligence Staff for the next few years, and the job of
Deputy Director for Intelligence from 1992 until 1995.

In these capacities, MacEachin appeared to colleagues to
get things wrong with some regularity.
For example, he was
reflexively averse to conclusions that the Soviets were
responsible for supporting terrorism. He reportedly
rejected as “absurd” analyses that suggested Moscow was
illegally developing bioweapons. And, as DDI, he forced CIA
analysts to tailor their assessments to please Clinton
administration policy-makers.

In short, in the old days, MacEachin refused to believe the
Soviets were a threat. Now, he offers support to those who
insist that Iraq was no threat. There may be a role for
a "see-no-evil" sort of guy, but it should not be at the
Central Intelligence Agency — and certainly not at a
commission whose charter is to connect the dots, no matter
where they lead.

Even as the press had a feeding-frenzy over MacEachin’s
statement absolving Saddam of ties to Al Qaeda, fresh
evidence of malevolent intentions toward the United States
that would have made anti-American collaboration between
Saddam and Al Qaeda only natural was supplied by an
unlikely source: another old intelligence hand, Russian
President Vladimir Putin (search).

According to Putin, his intelligence agencies shared
sensitive information with the Bush administration after
the Sept. 11 attacks and before the United States went to
war with Iraq in March of 2003. According to Putin's
intelligence, Saddam Hussein’s regime was crafting plans to
execute terror attacks against America, both inside and
outside of this country. Thus far, Putin has not elaborated
on whether Al Qaeda was also involved with these particular
plans. At the very least, however, this information
confirms the Bush team’s contention that Saddam dealt
deeply in terror and its judgment that to leave Saddam in
power would be to invite murderous attacks in the future.

One wonders whether the 9/11 Commission was exposed to the Putin intelligence before it effectively dismissed the possibility that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the 2001 attacks. For that matter, did they review the information contained in three highly informative books providing “credible evidence” — of at least a circumstantial nature — that Saddam had already acted on his desire to strike this country?

Dr. Laurie Mylroie’s The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks – A Study of Revenge, which concerns the first effort to destroy the Twin Towers in 1993; Jayna Davis’ The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, which concerns the 1995 destruction of the Murrah Building; and Stephen Hayes’ The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America, all persuasively support a very different conclusion than that advanced yesterday by Douglas MacEachin.

It is high time that their conclusions, together with
arguments like those presented so cogently by Andrew
McCarthy, are given at least a fraction of the media
attention — and credibility — afforded a statement that so
manifestly fails to connect the dots.



To: Sully- who wrote (2040)6/22/2004 2:53:02 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Here comes the evidence.

<font size=4>9/11 Commission Wakes Up, Smells Coffee
<font size=3>
By Captain Ed on War on Terror
<font size=4>
The Washington Post reports in tomorrow's edition that the 9/11 Commission has just heard about new evidence supporting the Bush administration's contention that the Saddam Hussein regime had serious connections to al-Qaeda:
<font color=blue>
The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has been told "a very prominent member" of al Qaeda served as an officer in Saddam Hussein's militia, a panel member said yesterday. Republican commissioner John Lehman told NBC's "Meet the Press" that the new intelligence, if proved true, buttresses claims by the Bush administration of ties between Iraq and the militant network believed responsible for the attacks on the United States. ...

"Some of these documents indicate that [there was] at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al Qaeda," Lehman said. "That still has to be confirmed, but the vice president was right when he said that he may have things that we don't yet have," said Lehman, a former Navy secretary.
<font color=black>
If this sounds familiar, it should -- you read it here on my blog three weeks ago, and prior to that in the Wall Street Journal:
<font color=blue>
One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.

This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own.
<font color=black>
The story has also been covered by reporter Stephen Hayes, both in the Weekly Standard and in his excellent book on Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda and Islamofascist terrorists in general, The Connection.

The fact that John Lehman and the rest of the 9/11
Commission had no clue about Shakir until this weekend
underscores the incompetence of this supposed blue-ribbon
committee. How could they have not known of Shakir and his
connections to both al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime? The 9/11
Commission had no idea about intelligence reports that
Americans can read on the newstand and in the bookstores?

What have these commissioners been reading during their
investigation? Mother Jones and the funny pages?
<font size=3>
captainsquartersblog.com

And here is the WP article.

washingtonpost.com
Iraqi Officer Linked to Al Qaeda
9/11 Commission Gets New Intelligence on Militia Colonel

Reuters
Monday, June 21, 2004; Page A09

The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has been told "a very prominent member" of al Qaeda served as an officer in Saddam Hussein's militia, a panel member said yesterday.

Republican commissioner John Lehman told NBC's "Meet the Press" that the new intelligence, if proved true, buttresses claims by the Bush administration of ties between Iraq and the militant network believed responsible for the attacks on the United States.

"We are now in the process of getting this latest intelligence," Lehman said.

Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean urged the administration to make any such information available to the panel quickly. "Obviously, if there is any information [that] has to do with the subject of the report, we need it, and we need it pretty fast," Kean said on ABC's "This Week" program. "We'll ask for it and see."

He said the final report would be modified to take any new intelligence into account.

Lehman said the information, contained in "captured documents," was obtained after the commission report was written that stated there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda. "Some of these documents indicate that [there was] at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al Qaeda," Lehman said. "That still has to be confirmed, but the vice president was right when he said that he may have things that we don't yet have," said Lehman, a former Navy secretary.

Vice President Cheney and President Bush repeated their assertions that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda after the commission report issued last week found no evidence that Iraq collaborated with al Qaeda.

Lehman said there was no evidence Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. But he said the recent information about the Fedayeen officer "demonstrates the difficulty that we've had in this commission."

© 2004 The Washington Post Company



To: Sully- who wrote (2040)7/2/2004 2:07:02 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
How the Sept. 11 commission blew it

June 27, 2004

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Been following the 9/11 Commission? Me neither. But every so often I zap the remote and every third channel seems to be carrying Bob Kerrey or Richard Ben Veniste badgering some federal, state or local official about his or her agency's preparedness for the events of Sept. 11.
<font size=4>
Well, the other week the showboating hacks of the Ben Veniste Anti-Social Club stopped preening themselves on Wolf and Larry and the other cable yakfests long enough to issue a 9/11 interim report. And for me it raises serious questions about whether America's commissions are ready for the challenges of this new war on terror. I'm tempted to call on the president to appoint a blue-ribbon commission to lead a thorough investigation into blue-ribbon commissions. Perhaps he needs to consider appointing a cabinet-level Secretary of the Department of Commissions to coordinate commission strategy.

The big news out of the report was, as the Washington Post headline had it, "Al-Qaida-Hussein Link Is Dismissed." As it happens, the report didn't "dismiss" anything, but you can't blame the media for rushing out special commemorative editions and sending out 11-year old newsboys to shout, "Uxtry! Uxtry! New Bush Lie! Vote Kerry!"

The actual report put it this way:

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida
cooperated on attacks against the United States."

That means what it says: As intelligence types always say,
the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
And, insofar as there was a lack of evidence, it was only
for specific links between Saddam and specific attacks
against the United States.


But what nobody except Michael Moore and the rest of the conspirazoids would dispute is that there is a significant accumulation of circumstantial links between al-Qaida and Iraq -- including meetings between Osama bin Laden himself and Iraqi officials, the presence of al-Qaida operatives at Iraqi embassy functions, the presence of al-Qaida associates within Iraq, etc. The Czechs are sticking to their story that Mohammed Atta met with a big-shot Iraqi in Prague.

Meanwhile, the CIA is sticking to its story that Mohammed Atta was in America at the time of the alleged meeting -- the basis for this assertion being that his U.S. cell phone was used that day. That, of course, is no proof of anything, except perhaps of what's wrong with U.S. intelligence. Oh, and also of the inadequacy of U.S. immigration "records."

But, by now the New York Times, Washington Post and the rest of the gang were in full "Bush Battered By Devastating 9/11 Report!" mode, even as the commission chairmen patiently tried to explain that, in fact, they largely see eye-to-eye with the battered presidential liar on this one. Well, they should have thought about that before they put their carelessly worded typescript on the photocopier.

A couple of days later, on June 21, commission member John Lehman went on "Meet the Press" and mentioned a lieutenant-colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen who had significant ties to al-Qaida, including sitting in on a three-day meeting in Malaysia in January 2001 with several of the 9/11 hijackers. This, said Lehman, is "new intelligence, and this has come since our staff report has been written."

Really? I mentioned the lieutenant-colonel in question in a column in the Australian a month ago. I first heard of it months before that. And I'm just a third-rate pundit, not a big commission with gazillions of dollars and unlimited access.

The reality is this: There are connections between Saddam and al-Qaida. A mere 14 months after the liberation of Iraq, we don't yet know enough to reach a definitive conclusion about those connections. The jury is still out, and so should the commission's camera-hoggers have been.

These poseurs have blown it so badly they've become the definitive example of what they're meant to be investigating: a culture so stuck in its way it's unable to change even in the most extreme circumstances. Take this example from their report on Sept. 11:

FAA Command Center: "Do we want to think about scrambling aircraft?"

FAA Headquarters: "God, I don't know."

FAA Command Center: "That's a decision somebody's going to have to make, probably in the next 10 minutes."

FAA Headquarters: "You know, everybody just left the room."

What's going on there? Well, the guys at HQ didn't
understand this was their rendezvous with history, and
they were unable to rise to the occasion. Isn't that just
what the 9/11 Commission's done? They were appointed to
take a cool, dispassionate look at the government's
response to an act of war, but they were unable to rise
above the most pointless partisan point-scoring.

But I'd go further. I'd say the underlying assumption
behind all the whiny point-scoring is false, and deeply
dangerous. Most of what went wrong on Sept. 11 we knew
about in the first days after. Generally, it falls into
two categories:

a) Government agencies didn't enforce their own rules (as
in the terrorists' laughably inadequate visa applications); or

b) The agencies' rules were out of date --three out of
those four planes reached their targets because their
crews, passengers and ground staff all blindly followed
the FAA's 1970s hijack procedures until it was too late,
as the terrorists knew they would.

The next time a terrorist gets through and pulls off an attack, it will be for the same reasons: There'll be a bunch of new post-9/11 regulations, and some bureaucrat somewhere will have neglected to follow them, or some wily Islamist will have rendered them as obsolete as his predecessors made all those 30-year old hijack rules. That's the nature of government: 90 percent of its agencies just aren't very good and, if you put your life in their hands, more fool you.

Giving bureaucrats new acronyms and smarter shoulder insignia won't make America more secure. What makes America more secure is going to where the terrorists are, killing large numbers of them, and fixing -- or at least neutralizing -- the dysfunctional states in whose murky waters they breed. Remember Sheikh Muqtada al-Sadr, the Khomeini-wannabe with the 10,000-strong Mahdi Army? He threw in the towel last week. And, of that 10,000, the 1st Armored Division estimates it killed "at least several thousand."
<font size=5>
You haven't heard about that on the network news? Well,
there's a surprise.



To: Sully- who wrote (2040)7/2/2004 6:14:50 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Richard Clarke, Michael Moore's hero (and fellow liar),
adds to his list of lies & makes a liar of Moore in the
process.....

<font size=4>Clarke claims responsibilty

Ex-counterterrorism czar approved post-9-11 flights for bin Laden family<font size=3>
By Alexander Bolton
hillnews.com
<font size=4>
Richard Clarke, who served as President Bush’s chief of counterterrorism, has claimed sole responsibility for approving flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Osama bin Laden’s family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In an interview with The Hill yesterday, Clarke said, “I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.”

Most of the 26 passengers aboard one flight, which departed from the United States on Sept. 20, 2001, were relatives of Osama bin Laden, whom intelligence officials blamed for the attacks almost immediately after they happened.

Clarke’s claim of responsibility is likely to put an end to a brewing political controversy on Capitol Hill over who approved the controversial flights of members of the Saudi elite at a time when the administration was preparing to detain dozens of Muslim-Americans and people with Muslim backgrounds as material witnesses to the attacks.

Several Democrats say that at a closed-door meeting May 6, they pressed members of the commission investigating the attacks of Sept. 11 to find out who approved the flights.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who attended the meeting, said she asked former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) and former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, a Republican, <font color=blue><font size=3>“Who authorized the flight[s] and why?”

“They said it’s been a part of their inquiry and they haven’t received satisfactory answers yet and they were pushing,” Boxer added.
<font color=black>
Another Democrat who attended the meeting confirmed Boxer’s account and reported that Hamilton said: “We don’t know who authorized it. We’ve asked that question 50 times.”<font color=black>

Referring to questions about who authorized the flights, former Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.), one of the 10 members of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission, said in an interview Monday: <font color=blue>“In my mind, this isn’t resolved right now. We need more clarity and information from the relevant political sources and FBI sources.”

But Clarke yesterday appeared to put an end to the mystery.

“It didn’t get any higher than me,” he said. “On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”
<font color=black>
Clarke’s explanation fit with a new stance Hamilton has taken on the issue of the Saudi flights.

Hamilton said in an interview Friday that when he told Democratic senators that the commission did not know who authorized the Saudi flights, he was not fully informed.
<font color=blue>
“They asked the question ‘Who authorized the flight?’ and I said I did not know and I’d try to find out,” Hamilton said. “I learned subsequently from talking to the staff that we thought Clarke authorized the flight and it did not go higher.”
<font size=4>
“I did not at any point say the White House was stalling,”
Hamilton added. “They asked me who authorized it, and I
said we didn’t know.”


Hamilton said, however, that “we asked the question of who authorized the flight many times to many people.”

“The FBI cleared the names [of the passengers on the flights] and Clarke’s CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] team cleared the departure,” Hamilton said.

He cautioned that this is “a story that could shift, and we still have this under review.”
<font color=black><font size=4>
This new account of the events seemed to contradict Clarke’s sworn testimony before the Sept. 11 commission at the end of March about who approved the flights.
<font color=blue>
“The request came to me, and I refused to approve it,” Clarke testified. “I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the — at the time — No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved … the flight.”

“That’s a little different than saying, ‘I claim sole responsibility for it now,’” Roemer said yesterday.
<font color=black>
However, the FBI has denied approving the flight.

FBI spokeswoman Donna Spiser said,<font color=blue><font size=3> “We haven’t had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights.”

“We did know who was on the flights and interviewed anyone we thought we needed to,” she said. “We didn’t interview 100 percent of the [passengers on the] flight. We didn’t think anyone on the flight was of investigative interest.”
<font size=4>
When Roemer asked Clarke during the commission’s March hearing, <font color=blue><font size=3>“Who gave the final approval, then, to say, ‘Yes, you’re clear to go, it’s all right with the United States government,’”<font color=black><font size=4> Clarke seemed to suggest it came from the White House.
<font color=blue><font size=3>
“I believe after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all these decisions that we were making in those hours, which was the interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference,” Clarke testified. “I was making or coordinating a lot of the decisions on 9-11 in the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don’t know. The two — since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House chief of staff’s office.”
<font color=black><font size=4>
Instead of putting the issue to rest, Clarke’s testimony fueled speculation among Democrats that someone higher up in the administration, perhaps White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, approved the flights.
<font color=blue><font size=3>
“It couldn’t have come from Clarke. It should have come from someone further up the chain,”<font color=black> said a Democratic Senate aide who watched Clarke’s testimony.
Clarke’s testimony did not settle the issue for Roemer, either.
<font color=blue><font size=3>
“It doesn’t seem that Richard Clarke had enough information to clear it,” Roemer said Monday.

“I just don’t think that the questions are resolved, and we need to dig deeper,” Roemer added. “Clarke sure didn’t seem to say that he was the final decisionmaker. I believe we need to continue to look for some more answers.”
<font color=black><font size=3>
Roemer said there are important policy issues to address, such as the need to develop a flight-departure control system.

Several Democrats on and off the Hill say that bin Laden’s family should have been detained as material witnesses to the attacks. They note that after the attacks, the Bush administration lowered the threshold for detaining potential witnesses. The Department of Justice is estimated to have detained more than 50 material witnesses since Sept. 11.

Clarke said yesterday that the furor over the flights of Saudi citizens is much ado about nothing.
<font color=blue><font size=3>
“This is a tempest in a teapot,” he said, adding that, since the attacks, the FBI has never said that any of the passengers aboard the flight shouldn’t have been allowed to leave or were wanted for further investigation.

He said that many members of the bin Laden family had been subjects of FBI surveillance for years before the attacks and were well-known to law-enforcement officials.

“It’s very funny that people on the Hill are now trying to second-guess the FBI investigation.”
<font color=black><font size=4>
The Sept. 11 commission released a statement last month declaring that six chartered flights that evacuated close to 140 Saudi citizens were handled properly by the Bush administration. <font size=3>
88888888888888888888888

Another good source for debunking rumors and conspiracy type things....

snopes.com



To: Sully- who wrote (2040)7/9/2004 5:08:23 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
JUST SO LONG AS WE'RE ALL CLEAR

By Cori Dauber
<font size=4>
The New York Times, July 8, 2004, on the question of whether the Senate Intelligence Comm. report to be released today will say CIA intelligence analysts were pressured by the administration to shape their findings:
<font color=blue>
The unanimous report by the panel will say there is no
evidence that intelligence officials were subjected to
pressure to reach particular conclusions about Iraq. That
issue had been an early focus of Democrats, but none of
the more than 200 intelligence officials interviewed by
the panel made such a claim, and the Democrats have
recently focused criticism on the question of whether the
intelligence was misused.<font color=black>
(My emph.)

Senator Carl Levin, committe member, July 9, 2004, The Today Show, on the question of whether CIA intelligence analysts were pressured by the adiministration to shape their findings:<font color=blue>

" . . . shaping intelligence to meet the needs of the administration. There can't be much doubt about that." [In response to the next question.] " . . . tremendous pressure . . . no analyst is going to admit that . . . tremendous pressure . . . Tenet said that . . . it was clearly there . . ."



To: Sully- who wrote (2040)7/12/2004 7:50:49 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Pointing fingers after the fact: everyone BUT Congress is to blame

Thomas Barnett blog
<font color=blue>
“Senators Assail C.I.A. Judgments On Iraq’s Arms As Deeply Flawed: Panel Unanimous: ‘Group Think’ Backed Prewar Assumptions, Report Concludes,”<font color=black> by Douglas Jehl, New York Times, 10 July, p. A1.

The Senate report is completely predictable: <font color=blue>“America’s intelligence sucks as always, which is why our 20/20 hindsight is so valuable to the American public. We’ll take our usual approach to ‘reforming intelligence’ and five years from now, when the next big intell failure is—yet again—uncovered by yours truly, rest assured, everyone but Congress will be forced to shoulder the blame.”<font color=black>

Why, never in all my years of public service . . . [huff] . . . have I ever seen such a [puff] . . . why I oughta . . . [#*@!#$&?!].
<font size=4>
Oh, do us all a favor and go blow your own house down.

Congress never gets sold anything they don’t want to buy—deep down. Yes, sometimes they get buyer’s remorse on the far side, and we get brilliant reports like this one, but frankly they gave Bush the hunting license he wanted on Saddam because he had enough political momentum at the time and plenty of solidity in his party’s ranks. They bought all his various rationales hook, line and sinker because, in the end, everyone wanted Saddam gone after more than a dozen years of bombing him—almost daily.

Of course, everyone reserves the right to change their mind and start pointing fingers once things get tough, but don’t kid yourself, if the occupation had gone as well as some had hoped (and sold publicly in effusive statements), this whole WMD thing would have gone by the wayside.

Knowing that Congress won’t do anything real or comprehensive to reform the Intell Community as a result of this report, I see it as nothing more than payback for a job poorly done (the occupation). Fair enough in a political season, but it doesn’t answer the mail for next time.

But don’t worry, that mail is already being answered throughout the military: the lessons learned from OIF (second half) are being explored as I type. None of this will be in vain, because there is no institution that learns better from its mistakes than the military.

As for the IC, expect more bitchy tell-alls and I-told-ys-so’s like Clarke’s and the new one by Anonymous, but they’ll do little to change things for the better. In the end, you can file them right next to this Senate report.<font size=3> Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at July 11, 2004 09:45 AM

Israel’s fence is simply “never again” for this era’s warfare

“In the Ancient Streets of Najaf, Pledges of Martyrdom for Cleric,” by Somini Sengupta, New York Times, 10 July, p. A1.

“Major Portion of Israeli Fence Is Ruled Illegal: Decision by World Court: Palestinians Hail Verdict, Though Not Binding, on West Bank Wall,” by Gregory Crouch and Grey Myre, New York Times, 10 July, p. A1.

Here’s a great bit from the first article:

“At 23, with no more than a primary school education and a short stint as a soldier in Saddam Hussein’s army, Mustafa Jabbar says he and his wife stand ready to be martyrs for Mr. Sadr’s movement. If need be, he said, they will volunteer their first born as well, a baby boy, now 45 days old. ‘I will mines in the baby and blow him up,’ Mr. Jabbar said. He has named the baby Moqtada.”
When that is what you face on the other side of the street, you build a wall—pure and simple. You wait them out, cause it’ll take years and years before that hatred burns itself out. Meanwhile, you just keep saying to yourself, “never again, never again.”

We live in an era where the threats are based at the level of the individual, not the state and not some system-level superpowers. To deter armies, you deploy armies, and to deter global nuclear war, you field a survivable second-strike force. But to deter people willing to load up their children with explosives, you simply throw up walls.

thomaspmbarnett.com



To: Sully- who wrote (2040)7/22/2004 4:13:01 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
9/11 Panel Is Said to Sharply Fault Role of Congress

By CARL HULSE and PHILIP SHENON - NYT
July 22, 2004

WASHINGTON, July 21 - <font size=4>The unanimous final report of the Sept. 11 commission will sharply criticize Congress for failing in its role as overall watchdog over the nation's intelligence agencies and will call for wholesale changes in the way lawmakers oversee intelligence agencies and the Homeland Security Department, lawmakers and others briefed on the panel's findings said Wednesday.<font size=3>

The people who went to the briefings said proposals to revise Congressional oversight would be among dozens of sweeping recommendations aimed at preventing future attacks. The report, scheduled to be made public on Thursday, will detail the intelligence and law-enforcement failures that preceded the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Lawmakers and other government officials who have read or been briefed on the book-length report said that among its recommendations the commission would call for a reorganization of domestic-intelligence programs within the F.B.I., although not for a separate domestic security intelligence agency; for an office within the White House with an estimated 200 employees to coordinate the work of the 15 intelligence agencies; and for an interagency counterterrorism center to absorb the smaller antiterrorism center that the C.I.A. operates.

Officials had previously disclosed the central recommendation, the creation of a post of so-called national intelligence director to coordinate the intelligence community, with budget authority over the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies. But they offered new details about the proposal on Wednesday, saying the report called for the intelligence director to operate in the executive office of the president and to have cabinet-level authority, but not to be in the cabinet itself.
<font size=4>
The officials also gave details about the criticisms of the government's performance before 9/11, saying one passage of the report found that Al Qaeda and the 19 hijackers exploited <font color=blue>"deep institutional failings within our government"<font color=black> over a long period. The officials said the report did not directly blame the Bush or Clinton administration for the failures, even as it harshly criticizes several agencies, especially the C.I.A. and F.B.I.

Although Congressional oversight was not a focus of the commission's public hearings, officials said Congress's management of intelligence will also be a target of criticism in the final report, with the commission's urging lawmakers to scrap the watchdog system now used for intelligence and domestic security.
<font size=3>
The s report will propose that both the House and Senate establish permanent committees on domestic security to oversee activities that are the jurisdiction of dozens of competing committees, officials said. The report will also reportedly recommend that the existing House and Senate intelligence committees be given much broader discretion over intelligence policy and spending, or alternatively to establish a joint House-Senate intelligence panel.

The proposals involving Congress are certain to touch off fierce turf wars in the House and Senate, where lawmakers historically protect the power they wield through their responsibility for setting policy and budgets for federal agencies. Such jurisdictional fights have for years blocked similar proposed changes in the intelligence field, but some lawmakers said Wednesday that they should not stand in the way of the changes recommended by the panel.

"If we're going to, based on the findings of this report, respond and improve, we are going to have the challenge of overcoming the institutional inertia which is a product of a lot of what we have in Washington, D.C.," the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, said after being briefed by the panel's leaders. "That's going to be the challenge for us as leaders."

As they braced for the release of the report, Republican Congressional leaders prepared to emphasize the changes they have enacted since 9/11. But the conclusions and recommendations show that the bipartisan independent commission believes that significant work remains.

The recommendations could force House and Senate leaders either to follow through on the ideas or risk being accused of ignoring the findings in the event of another attack.

"Before, this was unpredictable," the House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi of California, said as she urged strong consideration for the proposals. "Now it is predictable, and we all have a heightened responsibility to avoid another tragedy."

The House has a temporary special committee on domestic security while the Senate has none, dispersing those responsibilities through its committees like Defense, Appropriations and Commerce. The shortcomings of even the House approach were exhibited this month when an effort to write comprehensive domestic security legislation for next year broke down in jurisdictional disputes with other committees.

"It goes without saying that chairmen of committees are generally very vigorous in guarding their committee's jurisdiction," Representative Jim Turner of Texas, senior Democrat on the House domestic security panel, said. "But to get this job done, we can't move at a snail's pace."

Congressional aides with long experience in the intelligence field said the proposals for the intelligence panels would represent major changes and would encounter significant resistance.

The intelligence panels now have authority to set policy for the intelligence agencies. They share that power with the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, because the military controls such a large segment of the intelligence apparatus. The actual spending for the agencies is established through the appropriations committees, mainly by subcommittees responsible for military spending.

Under the panel's recommendation, as described by the lawmakers and aides, the intelligence committees would gain much greater control over policy and spending, a significant shift in the Congressional approach. Aides said the report would also urge consideration of a joint House-Senate panel responsible for intelligence agencies. That, too, would be rare, because House and Senate committees usually draw up individual items of legislation and then work out the differences in conference committees.

"That would be a major change for Congress," a Democratic official familiar with the report said about the intelligence committee alternative. That official and others said the report represented a clear criticism of Congress's oversight role.

But Dr. Frist, the Senate majority leader, said he did not see it that way. "Congress is doing a very good job,'' he said. "But there are going to be very clear areas of improvement."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: Sully- who wrote (2040)7/22/2004 2:25:36 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Reading the 9/11 Report

What to look for.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is an NRO contributor. McCarthy is reachable through www.benadorassociates.com.

The 9/11 Commission's much ballyhooed final report has just been released. It's voluminous, and it would be foolish to analyze it before reading it. A few things, however, bear careful watching.

The first is reliability. The commission's report is said to be heavy on factual analysis and tentative on policy recommendations. This is as it should be. The commission's primary task was to compile a comprehensive report on the circumstances that preceded the 9/11 attacks, including national preparedness. It would be difficult to imagine how this could be done without some thought to how things could have worked better, and for that reason it will be worth considering the recommendations the commission makes, including any proposal for a new national intelligence directorate. On balance, I think this is a bad idea that has a better chance of exacerbating the real problem — a bloated, sclerotic, disorganized intelligence bureaucracy — by adding more bureaucracy. But that's an argument for another day, and the commissioners' contrary views will certainly be worth weighing.
<font size=4>
More important for present purposes will be the reliability of the factual, analytical product. On that, there is great reason to be skeptical, and pessimistic.

First, the commission's sloppy, headline-grabbing practices have not been conducive to a worthy fact-finding process. Because we consider a jury trial an almost sacral <font color=blue>"search for truth,"<font color=black> we follow certain prophylactic measures to protect the integrity of the process.

Jurors are constantly admonished to keep an open mind, and
avoid arguing the case with one another, until they have
heard all of the evidence. Why? You know the answer from
your everyday experience. Once you have publicly planted
your feet on an issue, your objectivity — i.e., the asset
that caused you to be chosen to analyze the facts in the
first place — is a distant memory. It becomes much harder
to refine your understanding evenhandedly as new facts
emerge.


Imagine a murder trial in which witness A gives an eyewitness account that you, a juror, find suspect — say, that A claims to have seen the defendant shoot from 60 feet away even though it was night-time. Let's say you then go out and tell people: That's ridiculous, A's lying, she couldn't have seen that. The next day, B, the investigating officer, comes to court and testifies that the spot A said the defendant was standing in was under a powerful streetlight; he points out that <font color=blue>"60 feet away"<font color=black> may sound like a lot, but it's the same distance at which a pitcher can easily see that the catcher is putting down two fingers for a curveball instead of one for a fastball. If you had stayed responsibly silent and deliberative, you'd have no trouble objectively saying, <font color=blue>"Oh, now I understand how A saw the shooting."<font color=black> But, instead, you're now in a bind — you've already pronounced A a liar; you can't change your mind without eating crow.
<font color=red>
People don't like to eat crow, and ambitious politicians like it even less. The 9/11 commissioners have imprudently allowed themselves to be interviewed here, there and everywhere as their investigation proceeded. Commissioner Bob Kerrey wrote an op-ed claiming 9/11 could have been prevented <font color=blue>(the final commission report is said to take no position);<font color=red> Commissioner Jamie Gorelick penned an op-ed accusing John Ashcroft, the sitting Attorney General of the United States of giving sworn testimony that was <font color=blue>"simply not true."<font color=red> It will be interesting to study how this disturbing tendency affects the final product.

Especially, that is, when that tendency is considered in conjunction with a second problem: the sometimes blatant politicization of the commission's work. Some of the commissioners' grandstanding with the media no doubt owed to the familiar political impulse to be the center of attention. But far more disturbing was the agenda-driven shenanigans. Commissioners Gorelick, Richard BenVeniste and Timothy Roemer did nothing to dispel reports in the Wall Street Journal back in March that they were regularly caucusing together, and regularly consulting with Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, to coordinate a political strategy: to use the commission as a political opportunity to suggest that the Bush administration had been asleep at the switch in the run-up to the 9/11 attacks. Gorelick and BenVeniste dramatically, and repeatedly, took to referring to 2001's <font color=blue>"Summer of Threat"<font color=red> — a thinly veiled device to conjure the image of obvious warning signs being ignored. This, they studiously contrasted with another phrase repeated ad nauseum: <font color=blue>"battle stations"<font color=red> — the condition in which super-competent Clinton officials, during late 1999, were portrayed as tirelessly monitoring the threat environment and thwarting the Millennium attack.

Of course, it turns out that the 1999 performance wasn't so impressive after all. The Millennium attack was prevented by sheer luck: an alert Customs agent, who knew nothing of the uninformative <font color=blue>"battle stations"<font color=red>-generated warnings — stopped Ahmed Ressam (because she thought he might be a drug dealer) and discovered his explosives arsenal. An after-action review, reportedly highly critical of the Clinton administration's performance, was prepared by Richard Clarke. Thus far, it remains classified and undisclosed, but it is reportedly at the heart of criminal investigation of former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, who is said to have pilfered highly classified drafts of the after-action review from the National Archives. How does that after-action review stack up against the commission testimony of Berger and Clarke, against the histrionics of Gorelick and BenVeniste? It will be interesting to see what the commission's final report has to say about the subject.

The agenda-driving was, at times, obvious to the point of embarrassing. There was, for example, great teeth-gnashing following Clarke's testimony about the need for national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice to appear. After all, Clarke had directly contradicted some of her account of the run-up to 9/11. Indignant speechifying was had about the epic importance of the commission's work: No purported matter of principle (in that instance, constitutional separation of powers) could be allowed to interfere with that. Except, it turned out, a principle as trivial as the commission protecting its own more than sufficed.

When Attorney General John Ashcroft gave testimony on the critical matter of structural barriers to intelligence sharing that made manifest the already palpable fact that Gorelick had played a central role in creating those barriers, no commissioner called for her testimony. Remarkably, when Gorelick, as noted above, took to the airwaves and the op-ed pages and publicly made unsworn allegations that Ashcroft had given untrue testimony, utter silence remained the tack of the same grandstanders — except to lash out at critics who dared point out the hypocrisy.

The episode demonstrated not only brass-knuckles partisanship but a distinct lack of seriousness: if the commission's work was as important as claimed, both Rice and Gorelick should have testified, and Gorelick should have stepped down as a commissioner. If not, they should have closed up shop, left Rice alone, and saved us all the time and money.

Gorelick's conflict presents another troubled ingredient. Fact-finding processes with integrity do not combine the role of judge and witness. But that's what Gorelick is. There is no issue considered by the commission — not a single one — more critical than intelligence sharing, the so-called imperative to <font color=blue>"connect the dots."<font color=red> They can talk about <font color=blue>"battle stations"<font color=red> all they want; incontestably, the most important hindrance to detection of terrorist activities from 1995 through 2001 was the erection of a self-imposed, structural wall between intelligence agents on one side and criminal investigators and prosecutors on the other. If the 9/11 Commission had probed nothing but that, its time would have been well spent. But, the commission barely touched it — and reluctantly at that — because Gorelick was neck-deep in it. Did her conflict become the commission's conflict? Does the commission's final report give the wall the significance and attention it deserved? We'll see.

Finally, there is the basis for the commission's fact-finding to consider. Less than two weeks ago, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a blistering critique of the CIA and the U.S. intelligence community. How much of what the commission says it has learned comes from this source? The commission, for example, has previously discounted the possibility that chief hijacker Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague five months before the 9/11 attacks. Did the commission interview the eyewitness directly? Or is it relying on an assessment by the intelligence community? If it's the latter <font color=blue>(it is — bet on it)<font color=red>, how much hard information is that based on? We know we had no good sources in Iraq. Why should we think this is not more of the same discredited intelligence community <font color=blue>"group think"<font color=red> and unsupported theorizing we heard about two weeks ago?

If the 9/11 Commission's work is so vital, and the commission freely relies on the intelligence community, and we are told we should accept that, then why do we keep hearing that the intelligence community needs radical reformation? Will the commission explain Atta's pair of 2000 trips to Prague — right before he left for the U.S. to begin preparing for the 9/11 attacks? What will it have to say about Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the likely Iraqi operative who escorted at least one hijacker (Khalid al-Midhar) to a 9/11 planning meeting in Kuala Lampur in January 2000? — a meeting the intelligence community knew about but over which it somehow forgot to put al-Midhar (and his sidekick, Nawaf al-Hazmi) on the terrorist watch list that would have kept him out of our country.

The commissioners and their staff are comprised of some smart, dedicated, earnest people. What they find after all this careful study should not be dismissed out of hand. But there's reason to be highly skeptical. Oh, and did I mention that the Democratic National Convention starts Monday?<font color=black><font size=3>

nationalreview.com