Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
36. From 2012: New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims
Thu May 29, 2014, 10:30 AM
May 2014


New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims

“I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released," an expert tells Salon

By Jordan Michael Smith
Salon.com
Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 04:24 PM EDT

Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.

The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida’s relationship with America’s ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn’t get the institutional support they needed,” says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.

SNIP...

Former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice has taken credit for the drone program that the Bush administration ignored. “Things like working to get an armed Predator that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important, working to get a strategy that would allow us to get better cooperation from Pakistan and from the Central Asians,” she said in 2006. “We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida.” Rice claimed that the Bush administration continued the Clinton administration’s counterterrorism policies, a claim the documents disprove. “If the administration wanted to get it done, I’m sure they could have gotten it done,” says Elias-Sanborn.

Many of the documents publicize for the first time what was first made clear in the 9/11 Commission: The White House received a truly remarkable amount of warnings that al-Qaida was trying to attack the United States. From June to September 2001, a full seven CIA Senior Intelligence Briefs detailed that attacks were imminent, an incredible amount of information from one intelligence agency. One from June called “Bin-Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” writes that “[redacted] expects Usama Bin Laden to launch multiple attacks over the coming days.” The famous August brief called “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike the US” is included. “Al-Qai’da members, including some US citizens, have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure here,” it says. During the entire month of August, President Bush was on vacation at his ranch in Texas — which tied with one of Richard Nixon’s as the longest vacation ever taken by a president. CIA Director George Tenet has said he didn’t speak to Bush once that month, describing the president as being “on leave.” Bush did not hold a Principals’ meeting on terrorism until September 4, 2001, having downgraded the meetings to a deputies’ meeting, which then-counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has repeatedly said slowed down anti-Bin Laden efforts “enormously, by months.”

CONTINUED w LINKS...

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/new_nsa_docs_reveal_911_truths/

War crimes. Treason. Banksters. What else is in the rear view mirror?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Statute of Limitations? And did they really act without knowledge of certain Congressional merrily May 2014 #1
No statute of limitations on war crimes or crimes against humanity gratuitous May 2014 #8
We have intervened on behalf of Buscho with other nations, after deciding domestically to look only merrily May 2014 #9
All good points gratuitous May 2014 #13
Apparently, Democrats with principles have become an object of ridicule to "pragmatic" Democrats. merrily May 2014 #15
about just the comment "Too bad I can't unknow something once I know it." Leme May 2014 #18
True, we were scammed, it seems. During the Bush years we were led to believe that sabrina 1 May 2014 #24
Even without holding them accountable, I could have lived with it, if merrily May 2014 #25
Here you go: Heywood J May 2014 #31
they don't even trust our medical providers. Leme May 2014 #17
No longer do what? No longer seek information while giving vaccinations? merrily May 2014 #26
just telling you what I think they said Leme May 2014 #27
Oh, I see. I didn't think that there had been any doubt that they had done it. merrily May 2014 #28
File under No Shit. NuclearDem May 2014 #2
Big K&R! This is the criminal who John Kerry and crew should be focusing on quinnox May 2014 #3
+100 million G_j May 2014 #4
Well yeah, but there's a big power difference there. JoeyT May 2014 #12
Fight back? Or line your pockets? merrily May 2014 #16
We've come to learn that well. pacalo May 2014 #23
Impeachment is off the table: Pelosi. Need to look forward and not back: Obama neverforget May 2014 #5
Did Pelosi articulate a valid reason for taking impeachment "off the table"? Martin Eden May 2014 #7
Of course, why Obama wants to get along with a man he campaigned so hard against in 2008, merrily May 2014 #10
* 'unsigned' the US from the ICC right after stealing office, has President Obama resigned to it? If Mnemosyne May 2014 #6
No. delta17 May 2014 #55
I was afraid of that. A damn shame. nt Mnemosyne May 2014 #58
1998: PNAC wanted a "new Pearl Harbor". 2000: Got themselves installed. 2001: MIHOP/LIHOP. nt ChisolmTrailDem May 2014 #11
Reformer expans over the years. DhhD May 2014 #57
K&R!!!!!!!!!!! burrowowl May 2014 #14
Duh Solly Mack May 2014 #19
I know right? G_j May 2014 #29
You're right, of course. Solly Mack May 2014 #42
somehow G_j May 2014 #44
It is a topic that many avoid. Solly Mack May 2014 #47
If we don't take responsibility for grievous wrongs (in this case, war crimes) all else rings hollow G_j May 2014 #62
Kicked and recommended for water being wet and fire being hot. Uncle Joe May 2014 #20
Right. We heard you the first time, but it bears repeating because a lot of people were in denial. Hekate May 2014 #21
"Would (charging them with war crimes) be useful?" pacalo May 2014 #22
We also need to ask our own government if they are harboring futitives Major Nikon May 2014 #30
Bush crimes started with the theft of the 2000 election. Enthusiast May 2014 #32
+1000 noiretextatique May 2014 #38
Duh! malaise May 2014 #33
War crimes? Election theft? Oh, crazy DU CTers, this is all just so much woo. Gidney N Cloyd May 2014 #34
+1000. Was just about to post that there's always a contingent bullwinkle428 May 2014 #35
From 2012: New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims Octafish May 2014 #36
Interesting how the usual suspects never reply in these kind of threads. nt. Rex May 2014 #43
Cowards. Octafish May 2014 #45
Hopefully they are all over at the New Site, having their never ending arguments Rex May 2014 #46
Give em a break. They got some fresh Snowden or Greenwald threads to swarm. nm rhett o rick May 2014 #49
Well as long as we talk about GG/Snowden and NOT the NSA spying on every person in America. Rex May 2014 #51
It's a bit harder I suppose, to attack the messenger here (Clarke) nt G_j May 2014 #60
Love this guy. Would follow him anywhere, the real deal. joanbarnes May 2014 #37
It doesn't matter what you think now.... AnneD May 2014 #39
Shocking, I tell you, shocking indepat May 2014 #40
You Liberals will post anything to change the subject. sellitman May 2014 #41
I thought the current distraction was Snowden. nm rhett o rick May 2014 #50
You don't say, Mr. Clarke! sakabatou May 2014 #48
It would be productive. obxhead May 2014 #52
they see it as leadership, not war crimes SleeplessinSoCal May 2014 #53
An American patriot Faygo Kid May 2014 #54
MUST. blkmusclmachine May 2014 #56
Rec'd for truth and justice, although neither matter to current government Corruption Inc May 2014 #59
Some? Hissyspit May 2014 #61
Now if we can only get the Attorney General to listen Jake2413 May 2014 #63
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Former Counterterrorism C...»Reply #36