posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 02:18 AM
LIHOP/MIHOP debates are a distraction.
Alhazmi and Almihdhar were involved in 9/11 in some manner. For years the public has been told that the CIA and FBI failures were due to:
1. Incompetence 2. Turf battles 3. Gorelick wall (and other bureaucratic impediments) 4. Lack of counterterrorism funding 5. Risk aversion
Rossini and Miller are claiming they were ordered to withhold intel from the FBI. The CIA official who told them to withhold the intel is quoted by
Bamford in his new book (The Shadow Factory) as saying that the next attack would take place in Southeast Asia. The suggestion being the FBI had no
operational reason to be told. Obviously this is absurd. Al Qaeda operatives came to the US to plan an attack in Southeast Asia? Huh? One of the
points of assigning FBI agents to the CIA and vice versa was to improve inter-agency cooperation. The other key issue is Tenet's conduct. He has
claimed he was very worried about an attack. If this is true then how on earth did he expect an attack to be prevented if the FBI wasn't in the loop?
That makes no sense at all.
Of course, it isn't as simple as sharing intel as we had bizarre conduct in the FBI ITOS. The RFU obstructed the Moussaoui investigation. The UBLU
withheld intel from the Cole investigators, thus the search for Alhazmi and Almihdhar was given to a single intelligence agent instead of the Cole
(criminal side) investigators.
1. Incompetence=nonsense. Orders to withhold intel rule that out.
2. Turf battle=bizarre. One, the FBI had jurisdiction. Period. Two, CIA officials can't have it both ways--either they wanted to prevent attack or
they didn't. If they did then they had to share intel unless they wanted to conduct an illegal operation of their own. Obviously they didn't do so
as the attack went forward. Three, Rice, Hadley and Clarke didn't have any turf battle issues. What were they doing to ensure CIA/FBI cooperation?
3. Gorelick wall=nonsense. Alhazmi and Almihdhar were linked to al Qaeda by the NSA by 1999. They were linked to Cole plotters in late 2000 by way of
the Malaysia meeting. CIA witholding intel had nothing to do with the "wall." FBI UBLU agent Corsi knew they were linked to a Cole plotter but
withheld that intel. Bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings in 1998.
4. Lack of CT funding=absurd. The executive summary of the CIA IG report stated that Tenet diverted CT funding to other areas. The funding issue comes
up because acting Director Pickard asked AG Ashcroft for increased funding and reportedly Ashcroft said CT wasn't a priority. This does nothing to
explain the strange conduct at the FBI in the lead up to 9/11.
5. Risk aversion=idiotic excuse. Going after terrorists was risky? Huh? That makes no sense. Getting FISA warrants was risky? The only way this makes
sense is if the FBI and CIA are criminal organizations whereby successful terrorist attacks are considered more helpful for career advancement. In the
commonly accepted definition, risk aversion is a pathetic excuse that makes one wonder why any officials with such an attitude wanted to be in the CT