911, investigation

[PerryLogan]

The Covert Hunt for bin Laden
Broad Effort Launched After '98 Attacks

Clinton administration ordered the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six hours of receiving the order.

• Three times after Aug. 20, 1998, when Clinton ordered the only missile strike of his presidency against bin Laden's organization, the CIA came close enough to pinpointing bin Laden that Clinton authorized final preparations to launch. In each case, doubts about the intelligence aborted the mission.

• The CIA's directorate of operations recruited, trained, paid or equipped surrogate forces in Pakistan, Uzbekistan and among tribal militias inside Afghanistan, with the common purpose of capturing or killing bin Laden. The Pakistani channel, disclosed previously in The Washington Post, and its Uzbek counterpart, which has not been reported before, never bore fruit. Inside Afghanistan, tribal allies twice reported to their CIA handlers that they fought skirmishes with bin Laden's forces, but they inflicted no verified damage.

• Operatives of the CIA's Special Activities Division made at least one clandestine entry into Afghanistan in 1999. They prepared a desert airstrip to extract bin Laden, if captured, or to evacuate U.S. tribal allies, if cornered. The Special Collection Service, a joint project of the CIA and the National Security Agency, also slipped into Afghanistan to place listening devices within range of al Qaeda's tactical radios.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62725-2001Dec18

 

[PerryLogan]

Roger Cressy, National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism in the period 1999-2001, responded to these allegations in an article for the Washington Times in 2003. "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda," wrote Cressy. "As President Bush well knows, bin Laden was and remains very good at staying hidden. The current administration faces many of the same challenges. Confusing the American people with misinformation and distortions will not generate the support we need to come together as a nation and defeat our terrorist enemies."

Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:

Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million

Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million

Passenger Profiling: $10 million

Screener Training: $5.3 million

Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million

Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million

Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million

Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million

Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million

Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million

Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million

Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million

Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million

Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million

Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million

Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million

Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million

Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million

Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million

Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million

Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million

Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm

 

[Donal]

So, when you approve of the action, it was all Clinton and no one else. Never mind Congress actually passes laws and has oversight of the military. You make it sound like he put on the grease paint and BDUs and was hunting for OBL himself.

Ever take a civics class?

 

[PerryLogan]

The point would be that the Republicans were fighting Clinton in every way. That--combined with the Bush Administration's grotesque incompetence--allowed 9/11 to happen:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess. (1.6 MB AIFF or WAV sound)

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."
Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

 

[gumboot]

Interestingly, despite Clinton's air security initiatives, as late as 1998 the FAA found that airport security was appalling, and FAA staff, testing security, managed to smuggle just about every weapon imaginable aboard aircraft.

In the wake of this shocking revelation, what did Mr Clinton the Wonderful do?

Nothing.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

The point would be that the Republicans were fighting Clinton in every way. That--combined with the Bush Administration's grotesque incompetence--allowed 9/11 to happen:

Dear Perry,

9/11 happened because of American arrogance. Americans think they are invincible. You are not. Al Qaeda outmatched you. They beat you. They were the superior force. You lost because you were not good enough. Al Qaeda out-smarted you, they out-thought you, they out-planned you, they danced circles around your entire military and intelligence community for decades.

-Gumboot

 

[cornelius]

hello gumbot
yes. i think so too. but i think it is not all true, only part. because so many warnings mean some people was smart enough!!
now need find out who was not!!
nobody spend more than usa for intelligence service. and many other country did warning. something is not good at all in usa intelligence service. and because nobody fired and not find out why it is still so. not good.

 

[busherie]

I think the large number of warnings argues incompetence, not a conspiracy.

If 9/11 had been an inside job, there would not have been tons of forewarnings. If you're pulling off a hoax, you don't want your own people trying to warn you of the job you are trying to pull off! So you engineer forewarnings out of the picture. To me, a vast amount of "prior knowledge" suggests no conspiracy.

Well, it's not in favor of MIHOP, but it sure is in favour of LIHOP. Think about it again: the neocons plans for Iraq, Caspian sea and afghanistan, the taliban ban on opium trade etc, etc... When you start getting all this intel from around the world, is it so impossible that some in the US thought administration that it was their long-awaited chance to impose their agenda (then think about the anthrax affair, the constant reminding of AlQaida etc...). All they had to do, at the minimum, was to ignore these warnings, ingoring what Richar Clarke was telling them in numrous meetings, and see if it would actually happen!

Doesn't it make sens, after 6 years??? I don't believe in MIHOP, but LIHOP is definitly posible, and substantiated. It makes me angry that so many people focus on CD, totally unprovable, and way too big to be hidden for 6 years.

 

[busherie]

About the warnings: There were indeed quite specific watnings about the WTC and espcially about the Pentagon. But consider this: How many threaths against in particular the Pentagon, but also other land-marks do you think intelligence gets, annually? I can tell you it is plenty. Onve 911 had happened, any idiot could, with the benefit of hindsight, single out the specific warnings that, if heeded, might have prevented 911 or reduced losses. But in the months leading up to the event, nobody could know which warnings to take seriously, and which to ignore.

Hans

Well, there is a good way to find out about that: analyze the specific warnings related to terrorist attacks, count them, classify them, and see how serious it could have appeared to the Bush administration. (I know that's difficult intel to gather) You shouldn't conclude that they have hundreds of specific threats, because those which are really serious (like those who end up as PDBs on the President's desk for instance) are not very common....

I know that at least Richar Clarke asked to meet with Rice, Rumsfelf etc.. but they were always distant, didn't care, or didn't want to care. They gathered a couple of times (as revealed by Bob Woodward in his books). But they really did nothing.

Overall, I kust don't get why JREF people don't accept the LIHOP theory as highly plausible.

 

[cornelius]

oh this is horrible. this is why we need new big investigation!!

 

[uk_dave]

Overall, I kust don't get why JREF people don't accept the LIHOP theory as highly plausible.

Because letting something like 9/11 occur does not mean you can be 100% sure of the outcome!

How does the Bush Admin know that its plans, whatever they were, would be successfully progressed by allowing 9/11?

They struggled to form a coalition to invade iraq and have landed themselves with a desert version of vietnam.

They blew all the sympathy the world had for them after 9/11 by invading iraq on a false premise, and then didn't even have the good sense to plant some wmd there to justify their actions.

Just what have the neocons got from 9/11?

 

[cornelius]

uuuh? really, i think they got alot!! this is not prove anything, but it is true.
dont you think??
but you are right that if allow to happen is very dangerous.

 

[Belz...]

Well, it's not in favor of MIHOP, but it sure is in favour of LIHOP. Think about it again: the neocons plans for Iraq, Caspian sea and afghanistan, the taliban ban on opium trade etc, etc... When you start getting all this intel from around the world, is it so impossible that some in the US thought administration that it was their long-awaited chance to impose their agenda

First off, your premise (bolded) needs to be true. Second, the rest is just speculation.

 

[cornelius]

but is true!
the rest speculation i agree. but the bold thing is true

 

[Pardalis]

oh this is horrible. this is why we need new big investigation!!

Who is going to do that "big" investigation?

 

[uk_dave]

Yep, the neocons got alot from 9/11......

Huge debt
Two foreign wars, one of which is shaping up to be a dry vietnam
Rumsfeld got sacked
A currency weak and under pressure
Record oil prices leading to inflationary pressure
A rethink of the sacred cows of the PNAC plan for updating the US military
A massive recruitment drive for mid-east terrorism
An almost gauranteed democrat victory in 2008

They obviously messed up with the cost/benefit analysis.

 

[busherie]

Because letting something like 9/11 occur does not mean you can be 100% sure of the outcome!

How does the Bush Admin know that its plans, whatever they were, would be successfully progressed by allowing 9/11?

They struggled to form a coalition to invade iraq and have landed themselves with a desert version of vietnam.

They blew all the sympathy the world had for them after 9/11 by invading iraq on a false premise, and then didn't even have the good sense to plant some wmd there to justify their actions.

Just what have the neocons got from 9/11?

If you consider it was a way of advancing their agenda, they didn't need to be 100% sure. After all these people are human, they are not always full conscious of the issue as a whole. They might have though :" well, it's not sure it will indeed happen (planes might be intercepted, the plotters might be discoverd,) but if it succeeds, then we have our pearl harbour and we will be able implement our agenda which we think is indispensable for the US ont the long-term, even if it involved the death of civilians on the short-term"

As for the opportunity created by 9/11, it's not too difficult to understand. In order to undertake wars, you need the people's agreement. You need a "catalysing event" (as the PNAC report puts it). 9/11 made all this possible.

Then, indeed, it's strange they would go to war, struggle to get the coallition together, blow up the world's sympathy, to end up in this mess. But in my opinion, they just didn't think it would fail this way!
If you have watched the very good BBC documentary "The power of nightmares" (a bit long, 3 parts, but very interesting and available on googlevideo) you will see that, after the success of the support to the resistance in Afghanistan in the 80's and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the neocons thought that they could transform the world, and that it could be good for the world ("spread of democracy") and for America. But this was a myth because the world is very big, populated, dangerous, unstable: it is not "a grand chessboard". This ignorance of realities led them to the terrible strategic failure we are witnessing right now.

As for not planting WMDs in Iraq, it would have been very tough to fool the international community, and especially the UN bodies in charge of supervising the inspections. I admit they could have tried.

Overall, the important point is to understand how much 9/11 was a "blessing" (how Rumsfeld recently put it in an interview) for the neocons agenda, how they probably chose to ignore the warnings, implicitly decidind that the lives of a few thousands of American citizens was a sacrifice at the service of a greater cause - ie the world's democracies, and the future of America.

 

[busherie]

First off, your premise (bolded) needs to be true. Second, the rest is just speculation.

-For the neocons plans for Iraq, numerous pre-9/11 neocons articles enphasized Iraq as a major part of their plan to transform the world. And we know that immediately after 9/11, the administration was asked to focus on Iraq.
-The caspian sea rush (and the afghanistan pipeline to take it to India and the Bengal gulf through Pakistan) there is also no doubt about it (Cheney's may 2001 National energy policy develoment group, for which he fought all the way to the Supreme Court to avoid having to disclose the full content).
-I do not know if there were plans to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11, there is little proof about this, it was partially debunked on 911myths.com. But there is one good reason for this: the US was still negociating with the Taliban (US recognition of the regime against pipeline) until at least until 2000.
- The taliban ban on opium: well it is diffcult to show the direct link between this event and 9/11. (remember links between opium, heroin, money laundering, financial markets = app. 800 billions a year). it's another topic, so I'll take it back.

- The specific warnings from numerous foreign intelligence agencies: this is widely supported by evidence.

- Other things: the Bin Laden PDB: it speaks for itself (although it wasn't specific about using planes etc..)

What is sure is that there were initially a lot of motives for the necons to see 9/11 as a "blessing". Not sure they are so happy now though.... (I recently read an article about Richard Perle accusing Colin Powell, who committed a political suicide by accepting to present the "evidence" of the existence of iraqi WMD at the UN in feb 2003, and Rice, who franckly is not the biggest culprit for the failure)

 

[Firestone]

...
As for the opportunity created by 9/11, it's not too difficult to understand. In order to undertake wars, you need the people's agreement. You need a "catalysing event" (as the PNAC report puts it). 9/11 made all this possible.
...

Have you read the PNAC-report?

Where exactly does it say that they need (or want) a "catalysing event" to undertake wars?

 

[cornelius]

Who is going to do that "big" investigation?

i dont think this is the first question to answer. always, first come realise investigation need, *then* say who do.
if i can choose i think international judge and investigators do.
independent of usa gouvernment. more so than 911 commission was.
maybe you think is hopeless, but i dont like this attitude.
i dont understand why so many people dont like new investigation here.
i think saying is too expensive is not really a good argument.
because now we spend so many time (and money) speaking about this everywhere, sooo many people. so many have question. not only conspiracy people. i dont understand why not investigate. because it is cheaper after some years believe me. i think only people scared of investigation dont want it.