Interesting opinion piece by a former CIA analyst

[Eiru]

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10224

[Rooster]

Still biased.

[Mulletious]

isnt most everything is biased since it is written by a human anyways and they will most likely take in their opinions? its extremely hard to have objectivity

[spyder913]

yeah i'd have to say if it was written by a person it's biased

[Eiru]

I DID identify it as an opinion, Roo.

[Noleader]

Roo everything points to your boy G.W. B. yet you STILL mantain the guy is all on the up and up...

I will tell you want - show we a report from someone that has some authority to speak on these matters that clears all these other reports and I will drop my attacks on Bush. (someone that is not a current member of his administration)

[Swifty_Johnson]

Sigh,

If you remove all thoughts of 9/11 from your mind and looked at that PDB, would you in any way infer that 9/11 was about to happen? No not even close. Bin Lader stuck U.S. intrests abroad, and when he tried to strike inside the U.S.A. he was caught (Y2K). So the memo says he'll keep trying, and you know what, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other goverment offices were trying to stop him too.

Are you so desperate that you'll blame Bush for everything you think is wrong?

Swifty

[Rooster]

That's my point.

While I think Bush's defense of "nothing pointed to flying aircraft on 9/11 into the WTC" -- it just SOUNDS weak. It's not... but it sounds it.

It appears people have COMPLETELY forgotten that HINDSIGHT is 20/20. We didn't elect Madame Cleo as President folks, nor Chief CIA or FBI.

Yes, the big red tape machine that is our National Security is slow and cumbersome, but for the most part they get it right. Bush is trying to streamline it: Homeland Security Dept. At least get them all playing on the same team. This kind of thing doesn't happen overnight - and the citizens wouldn't have stood for Homeland Security dept shakeup without 9/11 happening.

9/11 has TOTALLY changed the way people see the role of government. I've always known it is there to PROTECT us. But so many people in the years prior to 9/11 feel it was to provide entitlements. Then wonder why bad stuff happens. The focus was NOT on these acts because it's so rare. People want hand-outs.

[Hammer]

Would it surprise you to know that Memo was old news? That it had already been reported on and fell by the wayside? Here's a 2002 article from Bob Woodward(watergate reporter) that talks about it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35744-2002May17?language=printer Notice the date line;) I'm guessing you've already heard that the panel had already seen the PDB as well, before grandstanding about it and demanding it be declassified for the TV cameras. The only catchy thing about it is the headline, which is why the ole Ben wanted Rice to just say the title of the PDB and shut up.

It's doesn't matter though, because the hate will continue and nothing will come from this commision except some nice sound bites. I guess the president should have ordered a seventy first FBI field investigation. That would have stopped 9/11 for sure.

[Eiru]

From the op/ed piece:

"The PDB article released Saturday is a classic CIA response to such a request. It lays out the historical and evidentiary antecedents that undergird the analyst’s belief about the nature of the threat and provides current intelligence indicators that reinforce the basic conclusion of the piece—i.e., Bin Laden was determined to attack the United States. It is true that the piece did not contain specific details about the plot that was launched subsequently on 9/11. However, the details that are included in the piece are so alarming that anyone familiar with the nature of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda should have asked, “What are they planning and what can we do to stop it?”"

Thoughts on that suggestion?

[Eiru]

And of course, the sad, sad truth of reality:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0412042phoenix1.html

[Allison]

I agree with you, Roo, insofar as it took a 9/11 to generate enough political will to do some of the things we've done since then to fight terrorism. It's always been that way. We didn't close down vulnerable embassies and find the funding to beef up others until after our embassies were attacked. We didn't start stockpiling vaccines until after the Sarin attack in Tokyo. We didn't create inter-agency counter-terrorism and security committees under the umbrella of a national coordinator until after Al Qaeda had been identified as a global threat, as opposed to unrelated terror events.

To paraphrase our favorite, controversial figure, this country often requires body bags before things get done.

As for the article, and criticisms in general of the Bush administration's actions prior to 9/11 ... I don't think it's fair to speculate about what could or couldn't have been prevented, and honestly, I haven't heard anyone of reason claim that the Bush administration could have prevented 9/11. What I have heard people say, and what I think is a legitimate observation, is that the Bush administration wasn't focused on terrorism prior to 9/11. I think it's clear, even from their own statements, that they weren't. But, the real debate here is whether or not they had enough knowlege to warrant that focus. Did they mistrust anything Clinton to the point that it clouded their interpretation of the information they were provided? Were they not provided enough information? Did they come into office locked in to outdated policies that ignored emerging threats? Was their lack of focus on Al Qaeda reasonable with the information they had? If they had reason to do more, can it be expected that a new administration can get rolling on these things in less than 8 months?

These are some of the questions I want answered. I'm not looking to blame anyone here. It may be that the Bush administration acted with perfect competence. Or, it may be that they dropped the ball. I want to know, either way. Again, it's not about what might have been prevented. It's about whether or not there are organizational and political roadblocks within the government that need to be addressed. And I think it's perfectly legitimate to want to know how our government is going about the business of doing their job, because it relates directly to how they might do their job in the future.

[Eiru]

OMG! More terrifying proof that the only thing greater than evil is a mediocre mind:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10240

[Rooster]

Unfortunately, having been in the military, the people that really do have a clue aren't found out to have a clue until it's too late.

There's a structure there for a reason. If everyone's opinions were counted equally, you'd basically having the same odds as a fortune cookie in predicting your future. Open enough and one is bound to be right.

[Hammer]

What is really sad is that the goals of the commision as set forth by the president and congress are really simple and shouldn't even be done in public. They were ask to get an accurate account of what occurred and to come up with recommendations for congress and the president. Now, is the best way to accomplish this by have public meetings with witnesses testifing under oath or low key private meetings? I know which setting I would be comfortable in and which one I would be covering my ass. The goal here is not the truth but TV time. Anybody know when the failures of Pearl Harbor were investigated?

[Allison]

I see your point, Hammer, and it's a valid concern. The truth is sometimes better served in private. But, once the decision has been made to launch a formal inquiry into the possible failures of government, there are major problems with conducting that inquiry in private.

First and foremost, there is the issue of the public trust. If the public had full faith in the actions of government, there would be no problem with a private inquiry. But, they don't. When the government is the entity being investigated, and the government is the one doing the investigating, the only way to maintain the faith of the public is to make the investigations as transparant as possible. Yes, it opens up the process to partisan politics, making it more difficult under some circumstances to get to the absolute truth (if such a thing exists), but the alternative is going back to the good ol' days of striking deals in smokey back rooms while the public stays in the dark.

Personally, I don't want to have to guess at what's going on, or have to decipher all the rumors that result from private inquiries.

As for Pearl Harbor, a quick Googling produced 9 separate investigations. The first was begun the month of the bombing, in Dec. 1941; the last was concluded by Congress in May of 1946.

[Hammer]

The congressional one is the one I'm referring to. It most closely resembles what we are seeing here. Not only are the meetings in public the members of the commision are holding court daily for the reporters after the main show. It didn't even occur to me until Ashcrofts testimony yesterday that some members of the commision should be witnesses. I enjoyed Reno's testimony. It's clear she didn't get briefed properly because she kept screwing up the softballs they tossed her by telling the truth.

[Swifty_Johnson]

The saddest part of this whole mess is the politics that have now been injected into the commission. Someone said this should have been done after the Nov. elections, as now it'll become a partisan launch point for attacks on the President.

I'm fully expecting the commission to utterly break down as it nears report time, with the democrats trying to lay the blame on the Bush administration, while the Republicans will take shots at Clinton. Don't be surprised if two reports come out of this mess instead of one.

Swifty

[Allison]

I highly doubt that, Swifty. The preliminary reports of the commission have been amazingly non-partisan. I expect the same of their final report.