CIA conduct before 9/11

[noise]

Ali Soufan (Op-Ed in the NYT 4/22/09):

One of the worst consequences of the use of these harsh techniques was that it reintroduced the so-called Chinese wall between the C.I.A. and F.B.I., similar to the communications obstacles that prevented us from working together to stop the 9/11 attacks. Because the bureau would not employ these problematic techniques, our agents who knew the most about the terrorists could have no part in the investigation. An F.B.I. colleague of mine who knew more about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed than anyone in the government was not allowed to speak to him.

My Tortured Decision

In all the torture discussion, there has been no mention of the bizarre pre-9/11 conduct by the CIA. Author Lawrence Wright on Soufan in relation to the Cole investigation (from the first printing of The Looming Tower):

Because there was a preexisting indictment for bin Laden in New York, and al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were his associates, the bureau already had the authority to follow the suspects, wiretap their apartment, intercept their communications, clone their computer, investigate their contacts--all the essential steps that might have prevented 9/11. (pg. 330-331)

Soufan wondered why money was leaving Yemen when a major operation was about to take place. Could there be another operation under way that he didn’t know about? Soufan queried the CIA, asking for information about Khallad and whether there might have been an al-Qaeda meeting in the region. The agency did not respond to his clearly stated request. The fact that the CIA withheld information about the mastermind of the Cole bombing and the meeting in Malaysia, when directly asked by the FBI, amounted to obstruction of justice in the death of seventeen American sailors. Much more tragic consequences were on the horizon. (page 329)

Then the CIA chief drew Soufan aside and handed him a manila envelope. Inside were three surveillance photos and a complete report about the Malaysia meeting-the very material Soufan had been asking for, which the CIA had denied him until now. The wall had come down. When Soufan realized that the agency and some people in the bureau had known for more than a year and a half that two of the hijackers were in the country, he ran into the bathroom and retched. (page 362)

The NSA and FBI UBLU also withheld information about al Qaeda operatives inside the US. The "Gorelick wall" explanation is BS. It was used to justify giving US intelligence police state powers. We still don't know why the NSA and FBI UBLU acted as they did. Top secret. Redacted interviews with officials involved might show up on the NARA website in about 50 years.

The CIA acted in bad faith before and after 9/11. Soufan clearly states that the legal interrogation methods were working but evidently weren't sufficient for linking Bin Laden to Hussein. It appears the same crowd at the CIA who withheld the al Qaeda information before 9/11 were also involved in pushing for the CIA to take over high level detainee interrogations in mid 2002. The result? False confessions were used for political advantage and social conditioning (i.e. the constant fearmongering ensured there would be less resistance to White House goals. And though it's difficult to believe, the White House doesn't always have the best interests of the public in mind). An added benefit was that torture resonated with the authoritarian GOP base. Tough on terror indeed. "All this stupid (here stupid referred to the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions) red tape was giving al Qaeda free reign!"

[spooked911]

1. Well, yes.

9/11 was obviously an inside job, and the job of the CIA, and to some extent the FBI, was to protect their Al Qaeda (al-CIA-duh) patsies.

Torture was used also to cover up the truth about al-CIA-duh.

[noise]

3. It is hard to understand why the public

should trust the intelligence agencies. After all, some of the key officials involved in bizarre pre-9/11 conduct have never explained WTF they were doing.

[spooked911]

15. unfortunately most of the public is poorly informed and very susceptible to propaganda

and the 9/11 perps control the media. Many people distrust the intel agencies, but not enough to make a real difference.

[NowHearThis]

4. Who else do you believe was involved in 9/11: any of these?

U.S. Military? PR firms? Corporate media (here and abroad -- as in the case of the premature BBC announcement of the demolition

of WTC7)? Technical/high-tech firms under contract to the D.O.D. (other than MSoft for it's flight simulator software - and I

supposed they probably weren't even needed as sure the Pentagon had its own)? American and United airlines? AIG?

Larry "Pull it" Silverstein? WTC security contractor (Bush boy)? Senior members of

NYFD? Rudy G? Certain ATControllers & their superiors? Cleveland, Ohio Mayor?



U.S. Solicitor General Theodore "Ted" Olson? Intelligence service of Pakistan? Other foreign governments (e.g. Saudi Arabia)?

[SDuderstadt]

6. This is getting dumber by the moment...

let me make sure I get this straight.

"Perp": "Ted, we have a great plan to pave the way for the invasion of Iraq, but there's a catch".

Olson: "Sounds good...what's the catch"?

"Perp": Well, your wife, Barbara will have to die in the plot".

Olson: "Okay."

[spooked911]

17. of course it didn't happen like that

though it's quite possible Ted Olson wanted to get rid of his wife as part of the plan.

[SDuderstadt]

18. jesus, spooked...

when presented with another improbability of your theory, rather than subject it to critical examination, you just find a pretext to fold it into your goofy theory.

[spooked911]

20. what you wrote wasn't my theory, it was yours

:P

[SDuderstadt]

21. It was a "parody", Spooked....

you should be familiar with them so you author so many of them.

[spooked911]

22. my point remains

[NowHearThis]

5. Who else do you believe was involved in 9/11: any of these?

U.S. Military? PR firms? Corporate media (here and abroad -- as in the case of the premature BBC announcement of the demolition

of WTC7)? Technical/high-tech firms under contract to the D.O.D. (other than MSoft for it's flight simulator software & they probably weren't even needed as surely the Pentagon had its own)? American and United airlines? AIG?

Larry "Pull it" Silverstein? WTC security contractor (Bush boy)? Senior members of

NYFD? Rudy G? Certain ATControllers & their superiors? Cleveland, Ohio Mayor?

U.S. Solicitor General Theodore "Ted" Olson? Intelligence service of Pakistan? Other foreign governments (e.g. Saudi Arabia)?

[spooked911]

16. all of those-- to different degrees

I would say a covert military group are the main perps; but lots of groups were also involved, with various levels of knowledge.

[BeFree]

2. The OCT ;)

Covers all of this real well. It goes into great detail about how the 19+ were able to go about the country unimpeded. It lays out all the details of where the 19+ got the money they needed to pay rent, buy airplane tickets, take flying lessons and everything else to live in America for months and months.

Its all right there, clearly spelled out, there is no need for further investigations of how those 19+ were able to do what they did.

Right? It must be in there somewhere because otherwise the critically thinking 'debunkers' here would be debunking their bunks to debunk this debunking.

Crickets?

[hack89]

7. If the truth movement had taken this path

instead of going down the CD/mini-nuke/no planes/holograph/space weapons you would have a lot more credibility. I believe that we would find a lot of common ground concerning intelligence failures and incompetence pre-911.

[BeFree]

8. Maybe

But what I am pointing out is that POST 9/11 the goings of the 19 are still unknown. Maybe if the un(whatevers) were truly critical thinkers and in search of all the facts they would have joined us in demanding answers?

Basically the lack of such mundane investigative procedures has produced more skepticism about the OCT than anything else, and we are still on our own asking these types of questions.

The lack of any help to get to the bottom of so many of these things is what really destroys the credibility of the OCT backers who ignore the basics of what really happened.

[hack89]

9. But we are reluctant to join you

because we refuse to have anything to do with the wildly speculative "truth" that is so offensive to many of us. You refuse to accept the fact that many here have the education and professional experience to judge what happened on 911 without any input from the government at all. We don't want to associate with CD, mini-nukes, no planes, space rays, etc. When the truth movement abandons those ideas, you will get all the help you need.

[procopia]

10. In the meantime...

go with the boxcutter theory.

[hack89]

13. Why not?

it is not like the truth movement as even bothered to put forward a single, coherent scenario that explains everything that happened on 911.

You don't believe it - OK, we got it. Now tell me what really happened. Or are you just "asking questions" like so many truthers?

[BeFree]

14. Haha

And you think the Bushco OCT is coherent?

You even fail at the beginning with the what, where and when about your 19 perps. Fail. And yall are so taken by the Bushco OCT you won't even dare go ask about your leaders about your perps.

The credibility of all of you is in the negatives.

Its all right, we will overcome, the truth will be known, no thanks to ANY of you.

[procopia]

19. It is difficult

to reconstruct the events of 9/11 when the evidence is suppressed and destroyed, investigations are stonewalled and whitewashed, and anyone who so much as questions the official version is immediately ridiculed and labeled (ironically) as a conspiracy theorist.

It isn't necessary to know what actually happened (and no one does) to realize that the official story is a lie.

What truthers do know is that the criteria of means, motive and opportunity do not point to a gaggle of fanatical Arabs.

And the puzzle pieces are slowly coming together.

[BeFree]

23. Indeed

The signs all point to the idea that Bushco is involved up to their eyeballs.

You just have to ask: Would they do this? The answer is yes. No Doubt.

So the pieces have to be put together by the citizens. So be it. Glad to see you aboard, procopia.

[NowHearThis]

24. The citizens DO often need a little help to see thru the fog.

Some of Bush's supporters simply can't bear the thought that 9/11 happened on his watch and that he, Bush, may well have known something about it prior to when it happened. Maybe he didn't know as much as Cheney, but maybe just as much. It wouldn't surprise me if one day a smoking gun piece of evidence comes out proving (to most rational people) that Bush DID know as much about it as Cheney and even ordered it.

So few people know much about 9/11 that they are easily lost in the propaganda fog and they our help to see thru it.

[BeFree]

25. Yeah boy

The Bush supporters act like Active thermite when you mention 9/11 to them. 9/11 is the last and only thing they can cling to as a legacy of the last eight years?

Now, I don't think those on this board who get all lit up are Bushco supporters, but they sure act similar to Bushco supporters. Eh?

[SDuderstadt]

27. More bullshit....

calling you on your arrors is not remotely acting limk a "Bushco supporter". Your clumsy attempts at guilt by association are getting tiring.

[NowHearThis]

29. "they sure act similar to Bushco supporters. Eh?"

Come to think of it, the similarities ARE surprising. Maybe that explains some of the curiosities & peculiarities. Are Bushco supporters known for having high-grade skills in denying, diverting, insulting, hijacking threads, having a very good understanding of the rules of the game and just how far they can go without anyone blowing the whistle on them, trying to frame or reframe issues so as to further the notion of letting 'em BELIEVE anything but know nothing for certain, exploiting the natural inclination of most intellectually curious people to conduct themselves fairly and treat others with respect and sensitivity, belittle right-wingers while simultaneously promoting right-wing viewpoints, piously denounce those who place great emphasis on knowing and spreading ONLY the truth, intentionally inflict migraine headaches, strain, and excruciating pain and never once providing for any ocular relief.

[BeFree]

30. Oh, they aren't Bushco supporters

But yes, they sure do act a lot like Bushco supporters act. Same MO, same way of arguing.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Your silly guilt by association ploy isn't working....

why don't you stick to debating the facts instead of trying to make this about motivation? You're exhibiting the "true believer" syndrome.

[BeFree]

33. Aww, shucks

I'm just doing what I see the dungeon masters doing.

Face it, I don't like being in this dungeon.

Some people are quite happy here and they should be proud I am copying their style. Especially you. I have learned an awful lot from you. Thanks.

[SDuderstadt]

34. Please give me an example of anywhere where I have used...

guilt by association. Be specific, otherwise, this is just more of your bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

31. Thanks for your three sentence incoherent post...

Are you channelling James Joyce? Your stream-of-consciousness writing style seems familiar.

[SDuderstadt]

26. Let us know when you've found that "smoking gun"...

in the meantime, I hope you're not implying anyone here is a Bush supporter, as you would be dead wrong.

[BeFree]

28. Never

Bush okayed it, but he didn't know as much as Cheney.

And we are here to help them see through the fog, at least those who aren't on ignore.

[noise]

35. What about the 9/11 Commission?

The CIA? The FBI? The NSA? Why did they refuse to answer these questions?

Where is their respect for murdered citizens?

[seemslikeadream]

11. “Whistleblower” Told Hastert About Suppression of Harman Wiretap

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=hsnews-000003103377&parm1=5&cpage=1

Former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert says he learned from a CIA-connected “whistleblower” in 2006 that Bush administration officials were suppressing the existence of a wiretapped conversation between Rep. Jane Harman and a suspected Israeli agent.

John D. Negroponte, former head of the then newly established Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), had blocked then CIA Director Porter J. Goss from briefing Hastert, according to the account the whistleblower gave the former Republican House speaker.

Gen. Michael V. Hayden , who became CIA director upon Goss’s forced resignation in May 2006, also had not informed Hastert about the wiretap, according to what the whistleblower told Hastert’s aides.

Under a decades-old agreement between Congress and the CIA, the head of U.S. intelligence was supposed to brief the top House Republican and Democrat if one of their members became ensnared in a national security investigation

[Bolo Boffin]

12. I wonder if it's the same one that told Pelosi? n/t