[dcmacdaddy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3616005.stm

The following is the full text of the intelligence briefing of 6 August 2001, prepared for President George W Bush, concerning the al-Qaeda threat to the United States.

It was declassified on 10 April.

Three sections were edited, the White House said, to "protect the names of foreign governments that provided information to CIA".



For the President Only

Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate (Osama) Bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America".

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a ...(edited)... service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told a ... (edited) ... service at the same time that Bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US.

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation.

Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.

Ressam says Bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks.

Bin Laden associates surveilled our embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al-Qaeda members - including some who are US citizens - have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (edited)... service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Laden-related.

The CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the United Arab Emirates in May saying that a group of Bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

[Ayelbourne]

Hmmm... sounds like a "grave and gathering threat". Tell you what, it's at least as compelling at Powell's puppet show at the UN.

[stupendousman]

Wow. Un-corroborated rumors and 'suspicious activity". That's some real nailed-down intelligence there. Surely enough to stop a long term and well-planned out terrorist attack!

Unfortuneately, the more the Democrats try to blame Bush for 9/11, the more desperate they look. They can only cry "wolf" so many times before EVERYTHING they say becomes "wolf" and people stop paying much attention. In fact, I'd say that time probably has already passed. Unless they come up with some hardcore "smoking gun" that shows that Bush knew precisely what was going to happen and did nothing, they're just beating a dead horse and deserve to lose big again in November.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
They can only cry "wolf" so many times before EVERYTHING they say becomes "wolf" and people stop paying much attention. In fact, I'd say that time probably has already passed.

Something the Bush administration has had to learn the hard way over the past year...

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Something the Bush administration has had to learn the hard way over the past year...

Sad, but true.

[slow moe]

Two things strike me about this memo.

First, (and perhaps the most damning for the Democrats) all of the dates are of events from the 1990's.

Second, Mohammed Atta's name is never mentioned.

[nam_pog]

The Democrats can attack the Bush Administration all they want, but that changes nothing in reality. They need to get a grip.

[BRussell]

"If I had known that hijackers were going to crash some planes into the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, and if I had the flight numbers for those flights, and I had the names of the hijackers, and I had all the specifics of their plans, I would have really really tried to stop them. Short of that, there's absolutely nothing we could have done."

- George W. Bush

Disclaimer: THIS IS A FAKE QUOTE

[chris v]

Originally posted by Nam_Pog:

What I find funny is, the attacks didn't come "FROM" within our country. They were from planes that were inbound from other countries that were used as missiles.

WHAT??

CV

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by BRussell:
"If I had known that hijackers were going to crash some planes into the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, and if I had the flight numbers for those flights, and I had the names of the hijackers, and I had all the specifics of their plans, I would have really really tried to stop them. Short of that, there's absolutely nothing we could have done."

- George W. Bush

The key words, with all that information, short of the addresses of the terrorists and the size of their underwear are the following:

"I would have really really tried to stop them."

With that much certainty, one wonder how much "trying" this would require...

[Libin8tor]

Originally posted by chris v:
Originally posted by Nam_Pog:


WHAT??

CV

Chris, you are too fast for me. I edited that out. For some reason I had it in my craw that they came from offshore, not Boston. I changed it man. Let go.

[mr. natural]

This is quite a "historical review" filled with all manner of top-secret info that threatens our sources.

[Libin8tor]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
The key words, with all that information, short of the addresses of the terrorists and the size of their underwear are the following:

"I would have really really tried to stop them."

With that much certainty, one wonder how much "trying" this would require...

Well, that is better than Clinton would have done. He would have waited until the girl under the desk was finished giving her pledge of alliegance to his flagpole before acting.

There is nothing that could have been done. Nothing. Do you shoot the hijacked planes out of the sky? You don't even know their intentions until it is too late. NOW, we shoot them down.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
The key words, with all that information, short of the addresses of the terrorists and the size of their underwear are the following:

"I would have really really tried to stop them."

With that much certainty, one wonder how much "trying" this would require...

Without the name and location of the 19 hijackers, then I think you answered your own question.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Libin8tor:
Chris, you are too fast for me. I edited that out. For some reason I had it in my craw that they came from offshore, not Boston. I changed it man. Let go.

I ,as in we? Creating multiple accounts so you can agree with yourself and make it seem like there's some sort of big majority here?

Sorry, I will call you a dunce, at risk of a tounge-lashing from DH. Get a clue.

CV

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Libin8tor:
Well, that is better than Clinton would have done. He would have waited until the girl under the desk was finished giving her pledge of alliegance to his flagpole before acting.

There is nothing that could have been done. Nothing. Do you shoot the hijacked planes out of the sky? You don't even know their intentions until it is too late. NOW, we shoot them down.

Read my post carefully.

I am refering to the whole quote from BRussell. I am referring to what Bush said then. I am being sarcastic.

The memo at the top of this thread gives nothing, obviously.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Libin8tor:
Chris, you are too fast for me. I edited that out. For some reason I had it in my craw that they came from offshore, not Boston. I changed it man. Let go.

Oops, you accidentally changed usernames before posting that. I'm just curious, what's the point of having multiple usernames that all post the same types of posts?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Libin8tor:
Chris, you are too fast for me. I edited that out. For some reason I had it in my craw that they came from offshore, not Boston. I changed it man. Let go.

What kind of game are you playing?

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
What kind of game are you playing?

My stupid brother is playing the game. I caught him messing around with my computer the other day and was wondering what the heck he was doing. Just caught him posting in here. Someone is getting a beating later on.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
My stupid brother is playing the game. I caught him messing around with my computer the other day and was wondering what the heck he was doing. Just caught him posting in here. Someone is getting a beating later on.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by chris v:
I ,as in we? Creating multiple accounts so you can agree with yourself and make it seem like there's some sort of big majority here?

Sorry, I will call you a dunce, at risk of a tounge-lashing from DH. Get a clue.

CV

nam_pog, Libin8tor, ghost_flash - it's all the same. He actually said that the administration could not have done anything because the planes were from off-shore? Wow. I mean, wow.

And then blames the sudden identity change on his brother? Unbelievable.

[BRussell]

One of the points Rice and the Bush administration have made is that they couldn't have known hijackers would try to use planes as missiles. Aside from the fact that there were precedents for that, what does it really matter if they were going to hijack them and land them or hijack them and use them as missiles? They've made such a big point of this, but how would that really effect how they would stop it from happening? Why do they keep emphasizing that point so much, when it's really irrelevant as to what they could have done?

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Read my post carefully.

I am refering to the whole quote from BRussell. I am referring to what Bush said then. I am being sarcastic.

The memo at the top of this thread gives nothing, obviously.

I thought the key words in BRussels post were:

"Disclaimer: THIS IS A FAKE QUOTE"

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
The Democrats can attack the Bush Administration all they want, but that changes nothing in reality. They need to get a grip.

The 9/11 Commission is a bipartisan panel. Appointed by President Bush, the commission consists of both Democrats and Republicans and headed by a Republican ex-Govenner of NJ. The Commission is an independent panel, not Congressional, who are not seeking re-election and therefore are not using their positions for immediate political gain.

Every American, especially the families of those killed in the attacks, have a right to ask this Administration, and the previous one, if they were taking the appropriate steps to protect the citizens of this country.

To characterize this Commission as an attack by Democrats is both wrong and misleading. That you see this as a partisan attack doesn't negate the reality that citizens from the entire political spectrum are asking tough questions.

[dcmacdaddy]

This is the part that gets me all fired up.

"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (edited)... service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Laden-related."

Then to hear about the institutional lapses within the FBI, particularly the memo from FBI agent Colleen Rowley and the arrest of Zacharias Moussaui (sp?), it makes me wonder if any President could have done the right thing.

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand the guy (Bush) and his policies but I don't see anything in this memo that says he could have, should have done more. However, I strongly feel those in the directorship at the FBI and CIA should be taken out and publicly flogged, perhaps publicly stoned as well, for falling down on the job.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by BRussell:
One of the points Rice and the Bush administration have made is that they couldn't have known hijackers would try to use planes as missiles. Aside from the fact that there were precedents for that, what does it really matter if they were going to hijack them and land them or hijack them and use them as missiles? They've made such a big point of this, but how would that really effect how they would stop it from happening? Why do they keep emphasizing that point so much, when it's really irrelevant as to what they could have done?

OMG!

The way you'd stop a hijacked airplane that's on a oneway mission to smack into the side of skyscraper in the heart of downtown Manhattan is ABSOLUTELY different from the way you deal with a hijacked plane sitting on the tarmac!

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:

Then to hear about the institutional lapses within the FBI, particularly the memo from FBI agent Colleen Rowley and the arrest of Zacharias Moussaui (sp?), it makes me wonder if any President could have done the right thing.

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand the guy (Bush) and his policies but I don't see anything in this memo that says he could have, should have done more. However, I strongly feel those in the directorship at the FBI and CIA should be taken out and publicly flogged, perhaps publicly stoned as well, for falling down on the job.

But remember, the point is did the Bush Administration do enough to address this impending threat? What was his response to this PDB? Was it to call the FBI and CIA in to 'shake the tress' as Clinton did or was it to put it on the back burner and continue with his vacation (as I might add, he's doing right now)?

I can't shake the feeling that even with a briefing titled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US' and all the chatter coming from within and outside his administration, Bush had other political priorities he was more concerned with.

You're right. Would that have succeeded? Maybe not but did he even try?

[slow moe]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
But remember, the point is did the Bush Administration do enough to address this impending threat? What was his response to this PDB? Was it to call the FBI and CIA in to 'shake the tress' as Clinton did or was it to put it on the back burner and continue with his vacation (as I might add, he's doing right now)?

I can't shake the feeling that even with a briefing titled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US' and all the chatter coming from within and outside his administration, Bush had other political priorities he was more concerned with.

You're right. Would that have succeeded? Maybe not but did he even try?

Perhaps you could show us some specific actionable information on this 'impending threat' contained in the memo.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by slow moe:
OMG!

The way you'd stop a hijacked airplane that's on a oneway mission to smack into the side of skyscraper in the heart of downtown Manhattan is ABSOLUTELY different from the way you deal with a hijacked plane sitting on the tarmac!

It's different after they've already been hijacked, but by that time you're screwed anyway. All of this discussion and the investigation of the commission is about what you do to prevent them from being hijacked. In that respect, it's irrelevant what the hijackers do with the planes once they've hijacked them.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by slow moe:
Perhaps you could show us some specific actionable information on this 'impending threat' contained in the memo.

Bush and Rice are these people's bosses, not the other way around. Bush and Rice give the order to the CIA and FBI and the rest of them. Rice talks as if no one told her what to do. But she's supposed to receive information and then with the preznit tell others what to do.

I think more and more that she was the problem in all this. It's her job to emphasize to Bush what's important and then they get on people's cases to do their jobs. Her "no one told me I needed to do anything" tone makes her look negligent.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
I thought the key words in BRussels post were:

"Disclaimer: THIS IS A FAKE QUOTE"

Again, read my post carefully. BRussell edited his 10 minutes AFTER I posted mine.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Again, read my post carefully. BRussell edited his 10 minutes AFTER I posted mine.

Relax, it was good natured teasing, hence the

People around here are far to... tense.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Relax, it was good natured teasing, hence the

People around here are far to... tense.

True.

And I hope you understand why some of us are feeling very defensive...

[BRussell]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Again, read my post carefully. BRussell edited his 10 minutes AFTER I posted mine.

Sorry about that, I thought it would be obvious, but in reality it's not all that different from what he has actually said.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by slow moe:
Perhaps you could show us some specific actionable information on this 'impending threat' contained in the memo.

Off the top of my head, how about putting pressure on the FBI and CIA to follow up? Or how about having a meeting of the principals of each department, like Clarke suggested, instead of the Deputies? Or escalating to daily briefings like Clinton did during their heightened awareness phase? Or how about a briefing from the terrorism task force headed by Cheney, which NEVER MET? That's just a start. I'm sure there are many more avenues available to a President than just sitting back waiting for something to happen.

I just saw on one of the Sunday morning shows a clip of the President the day after he was given that PDB on Bin Laden (Aug 7). They were asking him about terrorism. You know what his response was? "I think Saddam Hussein should open his country to inspectors so the world can see what he's doing" (that's a paraphrase since I don't have the clip in front of me). He's talking about Saddam Hussein, before Sept 11th even happened!! A day after he was given a briefing entitled, "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the US". All from his comfy golf cart.

C'mon. This administration was obsessed with Iraq at the expense of everything else to the point of negligence. Even considering that, I don't blame him for what happened on 9/11. I don't think most clear minded people will. Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queada are responsible for 9/11. But was he doing everything he could to protect this country given the briefings, warnings, and admonitions from the previous Admistration? I don't think so.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:The 9/11 Commission is a bipartisan panel. Appointed by President Bush, the commission consists of both Democrats and Republicans and headed by a Republican ex-Govenner of NJ. The Commission is an independent panel, not Congressional, who are not seeking re-election and therefore are not using their positions for immediate political gain.

The Commission is bipartisan. However, a number of your other statements above are inaccurate. Here is a link to the statute that created the Commission on the Commission's official web site.

You say that the Commission is "not Congressional." In fact, the Commission is Congressional. Section 601 of the Act says:

SEC. 601. <> ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

There is established in the legislative branch the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (in this title
referred to as the ``Commission'').

You said that the members were appointed by the President. Only one of the 10 members was appointed by the President. The other 9 are appointed by Congress. Again, here is the statutory provision:

SEC. 603. <> COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION.

(a) Members.--The Commission shall be composed of 10 members, of
whom--
(1) 1 member shall be appointed by the President, who shall
serve as chairman of the Commission;
(2) 1 member shall be appointed by the leader of the Senate
(majority or minority leader, as the case may be) of the
Democratic Party, in consultation with the leader of the House
of Representatives (majority or minority leader, as the

[[Page 116 STAT. 2409]]

case may be) of the Democratic Party, who shall serve as vice
chairman of the Commission;
(3) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
Senate leadership of the Democratic Party;
(4) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
leadership of the House of Representatives of the Republican
Party;
(5) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
Senate leadership of the Republican Party; and
(6) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
leadership of the House of Representatives of the Democratic
Party.

I think as well as making some inaccurate statements above, the wider point is that you are being a little naive to discount the politics swirling around the Commission. You suggest that none of the Commissioners have any personal interests in the outcome. These are political insiders. Reading their biographies, that is clear. Here are the commissioner's biographies and here are the staff biographies. Several of them (especially their staff) would be plausible appointments in future administrations of either party. Moreover, the Commission's appointments were made explicitly along party lines, and above all else, this is an election year. The idea that "bipartisan" = "apolitical" is absurd.

[eklipse]

All this 'could the tragedy of 9/11 have been prevented' hypothesizing is absolute crap.

Decades of questionable foreign policy created the climate for terrorists to strike the US mainland - there was nothing Bush could have done to prevent it after just a few months in office. Not that Bush is the kind of leader to head off any future attacks - he has more or less guaranteed, in my opinion, that further strikes will occur on American soil sooner rather than later.

9/11 may have been postponable or even forced to take a different form, but, a tragedy, in one form or another, was inevitable.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Off the top of my head, how about putting pressure on the FBI and CIA to follow up? Or how about having a meeting of the principals of each department, like Clarke suggested, instead of the Deputies?

Clarke is mostly pissed that Bush stopped Clinton's practice of meeting with Clarke instead of his CIA Director. Bush was the president who received the daily brief directly from CIA Director Tenet. Clinton was the one who preferred not to meet with his DCI.

Over at FBI the situation is a bit more complex. Unlike the CIA, the FBI does not report firectly to the president. The FBI is a step down the food chain. During this period (August 2001), the FBI was being run by an interim Director. Thomas Pickering was the acting Director between June 25, 2001 and September 4, 2001, when the new FBI Director Robert Moeller came on board. I don't know enough about the FBI's operations to know what the impact of that would have been specifically, but I've been around government long enough to know that whenever you have a seat warmer and a period of leadership transition, things are lethargic. The interim guy is allmost always hesitant to initiate anything dramatic. That may have something to do with things, but that would be for the Commission to investigate.

[mr. natural]

Posted by BRussell:
Rice talks as if no one told her what to do.

Who remembers the U.S. Commission on National Security, which warned in January 2001 that a devastating terrorist attack on the United States was likely. It wasn't like this was unexpected.

But her field of expertise, the Soviet Union, no longer existed, so she was a fish out of water, but that didn't stop Bush from hiring her. As vmpaul notes: "I don't blame him for what happened on 9/11," and nor do I, but it's clear Bush/Cheney were more interested in robbing the American treasury than in worrying about protecting it, as well as plotting against Saddam.

In any event, The Buck Stops with Bush for hiring folks who had no clue.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by BRussell:
It's different after they've already been hijacked, but by that time you're screwed anyway. All of this discussion and the investigation of the commission is about what you do to prevent them from being hijacked. In that respect, it's irrelevant what the hijackers do with the planes once they've hijacked them.

You can't stop them from being hijacked. You can deter them from hijacking planes, but you can't stop them. You don't need a congressional commission to figure this stuff out.

Originally posted by BRussell:
Bush and Rice are these people's bosses, not the other way around.

And keeping a file on my boss would get me fired.

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Off the top of my head, how about putting pressure on the FBI and CIA to follow up? Or how about having a meeting of the principals of each department, like Clarke suggested, instead of the Deputies? Or escalating to daily briefings like Clinton did during their heightened awareness phase? Or how about a briefing from the terrorism task force headed by Cheney, which NEVER MET? That's just a start. I'm sure there are many more avenues available to a President than just sitting back waiting for something to happen.

I just saw on one of the Sunday morning shows a clip of the President the day after he was given that PDB on Bin Laden (Aug 7). They were asking him about terrorism. You know what his response was? "I think Saddam Hussein should open his country to inspectors so the world can see what he's doing" (that's a paraphrase since I don't have the clip in front of me). He's talking about Saddam Hussein, before Sept 11th even happened!! A day after he was given a briefing entitled, "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the US". All from his comfy golf cart.

C'mon. This administration was obsessed with Iraq at the expense of everything else to the point of negligence. Even considering that, I don't blame him for what happened on 9/11. I don't think most clear minded people will. Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queada are responsible for 9/11. But was he doing everything he could to protect this country given the briefings, warnings, and admonitions from the previous Admistration? I don't think so.

Was there a specific plan for dealing with AQ handed from one Administration to another? No, and to say that Iraq never had anything to do with terrorism, particularly terrorism within the Middle East, is absurd. Besides was there anything in that memo about Afghanistan or something?

[netgear]

'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US'

Well, isn't that special. That really narrows it down.

I don't blame anyone for this mess. Short of having one of the hijackers call before take-off and have a change of heart THERE'S NOTHING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE to stop this.

I don't think Bush is to blame, Clinton, etc. Bin Laden knows how to keep a secret well and unless we penetrate his organization (which we can't) then we can't stop another attack. Just better be ready for another one.

[theolein]

I mainly wonder why the attributes of logic were so apparently missing in American intelligence agencies. I would think that the logic of:
1.there are Al Qaida cells in the US and there is a support structure
2.there is an intent to highjack a plane, and
3.Moussaoui arrest at the flight training center
would have presented a kind of 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 logic.

I don't know who is to blame, and I personally think that trying to put all the blame on GW for 9/11 is counter productive, as it seems as if there had/has been a general failure of intelligence across the board.

What is even more alarming is that this hasn't really improved much since then, if the article I read on the NYTimes site yesterday is to be believed. They claim that there is still a large amount of bureaucratic haggling between the various agencies.

Not only this , but from what we have seen with the WMD debacle in Iraq, if there is blame to be placed at GW's door, it is that his administration, at the very least, used intelligence very selectively in order to further their own goals and not to promote clarity and efficiency in the intelligence agencies.

The problem is that there was definitely enough intelligence available prior to 9/11 to, at the very least, make the intelligence agencies suspicious. The FBI and CIA whistle blowers showed that, along with the August 6 2001 memo and Moussaoui's arrest at the flight center, there was enough information available. There was neither a need for the patriot Act, nor was there a need for the Dept. Of Homeland Security. These have mainly only added to the national fear and paranoia, and worse to the bureaucratic jungle that is the intelligence agencies.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The Commission is bipartisan. However, a number of your other statements above are inaccurate. Here is a link to the statute that created the Commission on the Commission's official web site.

You say that the Commission is "not Congressional." In fact, the Commission is Congressional. Section 601 of the Act says:

I plead guilty of not being specific enough. They are not sitting members of Congress. Big difference between being currently elected official than being appointed by members of Congress. You're arguing semantics. They are, in fact, not made up of members of Congress.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You said that the members were appointed by the President. Only one of the 10 members was appointed by the President. The other 9 are appointed by Congress. Again, here is the statutory provision:

Again, I plead guilty of not being specific enough. The Commission was created with the permission of the President and appointed according to guidelines to ensure a bipartisan panel. The point is the Commission wouldn't be in session if it wasn't for the President's approval. The point is the president wouldn't appoint a purely partisan Commission. There are members of both parties asking tough questions.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think as well as making some inaccurate statements above, the wider point is that you are being a little naive to discount the politics swirling around the Commission. You suggest that none of the Commissioners have any personal interests in the outcome. These are political insiders. Reading their biographies, that is clear. Here are the commissioner's biographies and here are the staff biographies. Several of them (especially their staff) would be plausible appointments in future administrations of either party. Moreover, the Commission's appointments were made explicitly along party lines, and above all else, this is an election year. The idea that "bipartisan" = "apolitical" is absurd.

You can parse every sentence you like but the point of my post is that this is a bipartian commission, approved by the President, headed by a republican. To characterize it as a solely Democratic attack, as I was responding to, is patently absurd.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by netgear:
Well, isn't that special. That really narrows it down.

It does narrow it down. Down to the 3,537,441 Sq. miles within the US border compared to the 53,771,297 Sq. Miles outside of it.

[netgear]

Originally posted by theolein:
I mainly wonder why the attributes of logic were so apparently missing in American intelligence agencies. I would think that the logic of:
1.there are Al Qaida cells in the US and there is a support structure
2.there is an intent to highjack a plane, and
3.Moussaoui arrest at the flight training center
would have presented a kind of 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 logic.

I don't know who is to blame, and I personally think that trying to put all the blame on GW for 9/11 is counter productive, as it seems as if there had/has been a general failure of intelligence across the board.

What is even more alarming is that this hasn't really improved much since then, if the article I read on the NYTimes site yesterday is to be believed. They claim that there is still a large amount of bureaucratic haggling between the various agencies.

Not only this , but from what we have seen with the WMD debacle in Iraq, if there is blame to be placed at GW's door, it is that his administration, at the very least, used intelligence very selectively in order to further their own goals and not to promote clarity and efficiency in the intelligence agencies.

The problem is that there was definitely enough intelligence available prior to 9/11 to, at the very least, make the intelligence agencies suspicious. The FBI and CIA whistle blowers showed that, along with the August 6 2001 memo and Moussaoui's arrest at the flight center, there was enough information available. There was neither a need for the patriot Act, nor was there a need for the Dept. Of Homeland Security. These have mainly only added to the national fear and paranoia, and worse to the bureaucratic jungle that is the intelligence agencies.

Quick! Sometime in the future there's definately going to be another terrorist attack in the world somewhere. Please make sure you stop it. Thanks.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Clarke is mostly pissed that Bush stopped Clinton's practice of meeting with Clarke instead of his CIA Director. Bush was the president who received the daily brief directly from CIA Director Tenet. Clinton was the one who preferred not to meet with his DCI.

Over at FBI the situation is a bit more complex. Unlike the CIA, the FBI does not report firectly to the president. The FBI is a step down the food chain. During this period (August 2001), the FBI was being run by an interim Director. Thomas Pickering was the acting Director between June 25, 2001 and September 4, 2001, when the new FBI Director Robert Moeller came on board. I don't know enough about the FBI's operations to know what the impact of that would have been specifically, but I've been around government long enough to know that whenever you have a seat warmer and a period of leadership transition, things are lethargic. The interim guy is allmost always hesitant to initiate anything dramatic. That may have something to do with things, but that would be for the Commission to investigate.

You and I both have no idea what motivates Richard Clarke. It's all speculation so to keep harping on his supposed 'pissed' state of mind is ridiculous. It says nothing. It adds nothing.

Are you saying the President has no say over what the priorities are assigned to the FBI? Because that's is what we are talking about. If George Bush isn't in charge than who is?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
You can parse every sentence you like but the point of my post is that this is a bipartian commission, approved by the President, headed by a republican. To characterize it as a solely Democratic attack, as I was responding to, is patently absurd.

Whether or not the Commission as a whole is bipartisan doesn't dilute the partisan interests of its members, 50% of whom are Democrats (and the other 50% Republican). So it is still 100% partisan, and 50% of that partisan interest is basically anti-Bush. Given that this is an election year, that is bound to influence things negatively. That's not parseing sentences, it's political reality.

The Commission was approved by the president in that he signed the legislation and didn't veto it. But it is still Congress' baby. I haven't checked the votes, but my guess would be that there probably would have been enough votes to overrule a presidential veto. So Bush's support is probably a little forced.

Because it is a legislative body, it answers to Congress, not the Executive. There is nothing wrong with that, but it does change the dynamic. I point that out because there is a popular misconception that bodies aren't Congressional unless there are members of Congress directly involved. You are correct that this is not the case here, but it is still a Congressional body, and it answers to Congress, and only to Congress. That means institutionally, this is Congress investigating the Bush Administration, which inevitably makes things a little adversarial, and critical on the part of Congress, and defensive, on the part of the Administration. So on top of the partisan interests of 50% of the Commission, you have an institutional interest of 100% of the Commission.

[theolein]

Originally posted by netgear:
Quick! Sometime in the future there's definately going to be another terrorist attack in the world somewhere. Please make sure you stop it. Thanks.

Wouldn't responding to the points made present a better picture of your arguments than bad grammar and the defensive posture of an 8 year old trying to out shout critical voices?

[zigzag]

It's true that you can't point to any specific intelligence that was directly before Bush or Rice that pointed to an attack on 9/11. In that sense, they're not responsible. But that doesn't necessarily mean they were doing their jobs effectively.

Similarly, no one doubts that if Bush had had specific prior knowledge of an attack, he would have moved heaven and earth to prevent it. But that's not really the question - the question is whether sufficient attention was being paid.

As vmpaul and BRussell suggest, it all seems to come down to the "shaking the trees" issue - knowing what they did know, did they direct sufficient attention to making sure the information that was out there was being shared? Did they give the matter sufficient urgency? Clarke testified that even if the plan he submitted in January 2001 had been implemented, it wouldn't have prevented 9/11. But he was only referring to that particular plan - there were other things that he felt should have been done, particularly the weekly "shaking the trees" meetings that Sandy Berger conducted but that Condi Rice appears to have abandoned. This and other decisions appear to have had the cumulative effect of, as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff put it, putting the matter on the back burner.

Everyone will come to different conclusions as to whether this amounted to negligence or whether it was just a normal and reasonable variation in focus and management style. Obviously, people who don't like Bush are going to lean one way, and people who like Bush will lean the other. But it's legitimate to pose this and related questions. Is Bush's management style adequate? How much confidence can we have in a guy who will only talk to the 9/11 Commission with Dick Cheney in the room? Does it mean they work well as a team, or does it suggest that the President isn't sufficiently engaged?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
You and I both have no idea what motivates Richard Clarke. It's all speculation so to keep harping on his supposed 'pissed' state of mind is ridiculous. It says nothing. It adds nothing.

Are you saying the President has no say over what the priorities are assigned to the FBI? Because that's is what we are talking about. If George Bush isn't in charge than who is?

Did you read my post, or just knee jerk? You said you wanted Bush to meet with his CIA Director. I pointed out that Bush met with him, daily. I mention Clarke only because you did, and because the consequence of Bush meeting with Tenet meant that Clarke was shunted aside in favor of meeting with the principal.

As for the FBI, of course it is under the supervision of the president via the Attorney General, as well as having oversight from a number of Congressional committees. But in practice, the daily business of its operations, and especially its investigations, are supervised by itself. That's why it has a Director. But unfortunately, the Director in the critical period was a chair warmer. I think that may be important because the tendency is for chair warmers not to make radical changes.