PDA

View Full Version : The Bush Team should have acted, too, I agree, but...


kdrago
Aug 10th, 2005, 08:26 AM
Clinton Admin. Knew of 9/11 Hijackers

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/9/120750.shtml?et=y

More than a year before the 9/11 attacks, Clinton administration intelligence officials had identified four of the 19 9/11 hijackers as a terrorist threat - including al-Qaida team leader Mohamed Atta and his partner Marwan al-Shehhi, whose planes destroyed the World Trade Center and killed over 2,700 people.

But the critical information was not acted on, at least in part, because of prohibitions against intelligence sharing implemented by former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, who was reportedly installed in her post at the insistence of then-first lady Hillary Clinton.

In the summer of 2000, a military team, known as Able Danger, had prepared a chart that included visa photographs of Atta and al Shehhi and recommended to the military's Special Operations Command that the information be shared with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rep. Curt Weldon and a former intelligence official told the New York Times.
"We knew these were bad guys, and we wanted to do something about them," the former intelligence official said.

However, the recommendation was rejected and the information was not shared, in part, said the Times, because the four suspects had entered the United States on valid entry visas.

But Rep. Weldon and the unnamed intelligence official also cited what the paper described as "a sense of discomfort common before Sept. 11 about sharing intelligence information with a law enforcement agency."

In fact, such intelligence sharing was strictly prohibited under Ms. Gorelick's policy, known at the Justice Department as "The Wall," which, in the spring of 2000, had also prevented the CIA from tipping off the FBI that two additional 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, had entered the country.

TIES2
Aug 10th, 2005, 11:10 AM
Both the Clinton and Bush administrations are negligent in missed cues, etc. Proving once again that hindsight is 20/20 and foresight is legally blind. There was an article in the Sunday NYT a few weeks ago about the missed cues by the Allies during WWII w/regard to the mass executions taking place at the Nazi concentration camps...perhaps it is difficult to see the forest through the trees....

Flory Days
Aug 10th, 2005, 12:03 PM
I have to agree with you Ties2. How about that? :D

What this all says to me, more than anything; is that there is no difference in how Dems and Repubs will react to real terror threats and real terror actions. The Clinton team had put together the intelligence gathering system to identify Atta and the other 3 as Al-queda cell operatives yet did not do anything. The Bush team pretty much did the same thing in a pre 9/11 world. Both parties supported the 9/11 reactions by President Bush.

The idea that Democrats would be weaker or softer on national defense is a myth that Republicans successfully cultivated, at least in the 2004 election.

HeldUp
Aug 10th, 2005, 04:54 PM
I don't understand how our policies allow us to let these guys go unnoticed because we can't share information. If I leave the keys to my house under the mat, doesn't that make me at least partially responsible if my house get robbed?

mhafinancial
Aug 10th, 2005, 09:06 PM
I don't understand how our policies allow us to let these guys go unnoticed because we can't share information. If I leave the keys to my house under the mat, doesn't that make me at least partially responsible if my house get robbed?
Well that depends. If someone tells you a month before that criminals were seen casing your house, but you went on vacation and did nothing about it, then yes, you are partly responsible.

If, however, you simply know that yes, there are criminals out there, but have had no reason to believe that your house might be a target, your blame is somewhat mitigated.

HeldUp
Aug 10th, 2005, 10:30 PM
Welcome back, David. How was the southern Caribbean? Or was it western? What's the difference - how was paradise? ;)

mhafinancial
Aug 11th, 2005, 08:08 AM
Welcome back, David. How was the southern Caribbean? Or was it western? What's the difference - how was paradise? ;)
Thanks, Tarik. Western Caribbean was great. Smooth sailing all the way, only rained at night, great snorkeling in Grand Cayman and Belize.

The biggest problem (other than someone stealing my camera bag in Miami before we left) was the first night back, when we sat at the dinner table for 3 hours and could not figure out why no one was bringing us our food. ;)