Condi's On Air Now...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I heard Kerrey was a former seal. How could this be? I do not now believe he has the brains to have been a seal. After all, he called Doctor Rice, Doctor Clark five times. He expects others to be intelligent and he has no idea who he is talking to. Even Jay Leno was having a big laugh about it.


Doctor Rice has read war and peace two times. It was written in the orgianl Russian. She speaks five languages fluently. The 911 idots are going to tell her how to do her job? What a hoot.


Mrs. Toro


Judges 6:12-14
And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him, and said unto him, The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valor. And Gideon said unto him, Oh my Lord, if the Lord be with us, why then is all this befallen us? And where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, did not the lord bring us up from Egypt? but now the Lord hath forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites. And the Lord looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent thee?
 
idd, Ben-Veniste is an attack-dog former prosecutor. If you were being questioned by him, you might be considered foolish to simply answer his questions yes or no ... assuming the venue gave you a choice.

Ben-Veniste has spent a lifetime learning how to ask questions in a precise way to generate the impression he needs before a jury. He cuts witnesses off so they cannot more fully frame their answers, and correct misimpressions created by the question's structure. Think of it as a real-time polling situation ... the structure of the questions tends to create the result desired.

Now, you can go ahead and think less of Dr. Rice for insisting that she answer the questions as she desired ... or, you might sit back for a moment and ask yourself who was the fool. The witness, who was unwilling to be browbeaten by a prosecutorial attack dog, or ... the attack dog who was unable, even with his grandstanding, to bring courtroom rules into a public policy hearing.

Personally, while I have to admire and learn from Ben-Veniste's ability, I don't care for the man as a human being. I'll take Dr. Rice any day of the week.

Regards from TX
 
Jeff,

nail hit squarely on head. BZ.

I get the feeling this will backfire on the Dems.
 
Clarke Says Rice's Testimony Bolstered His Claims
…
And frankly, I think that Dr. Rice's testimony today, and she did a very good job, basically corroborates what I said. She said that the president received 40 warnings face to face from the director of central intelligence that a major al Qaeda attack was going to take place and she admitted that the president did not have a meeting on the subject, did not convene the Cabinet. She admitted that she didn't convene the Cabinet. And as some of the commissioners pointed out, this was in marked contrast to the way the government operated in December of 1999, when it had similar information and it successfully thwarted attacks

Jennings: Do you agree with her, and she said it repeatedly this morning, that the structural deficiencies, most notably in the relationship between the FBI and the CIA prevented and would have prevented any administration from doing a better job?

Clarke: No, I don't. We had meetings that I chaired two and three times a week where FBI and the CIA shared information. My deputy had a daily meeting where that took place. The problem was that there was information buried in FBI and the CIA that wasn't shaken out.

And by having the Cabinet members come to the White House every day in crisis mode and then go back to their departments and look for anything that is stop the attacks. You know, there may be structural problems within those agencies, but the way you overcome them in a crisis mode is by having the leaders of the agencies get together in the White House as a team in crisis mode.
…
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/clarke_interview_transcript_040408-2.html

9/11 panel seeks public release of intelligence document
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The 9/11 commission has asked the White House to declassify the presidential daily briefing -- called a "PDB" -- of August 6, 2001, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

The memo was brought up frequently during national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's three hours of testimony before the commission Thursday, with Rice repeatedly insisting the PDB was "not a warning."

"I am asking you whether it is not the case that you learned in the PDB memo of August 6th that the FBI was saying that it had information suggesting that preparations ... were being made consistent with hijackings within the United States," said commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste.
…
The memo contained a "discussion" on whether al Qaeda might use hijacking to try to free a prisoner in the United States, and it said that "the FBI had full field investigations under way," she said.
…
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/911.commission.memo/

U.S. to Declassify Bin Laden Memo
Friday April 9, 2004 9:01 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration says it plans to follow recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission and declassify an intelligence document titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."
…
Commissioners already have seen the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB …
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3957804,00.html

In summary, the testimony verified that:
Rice said that the president received 40 warnings face to face from the director of central intelligence that a major al Qaeda attack was going to take place. She admitted that the president did not have a meeting on the subject, did not convene the Cabinet. She admitted that she didn't convene the Cabinet. Bush had a presidential daily briefing on August 6, 2001, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

Note, Bush is on his yearly 1 month vacation the next day:
Bush vacation puts spotlight on tiny Crawford
August 7, 2001 Posted: 9:43 PM EDT (0143 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/06/bush.crawford/

According to Clarke, taking these actions would have helped prevent 911:
The problem was that there was information buried in FBI and the CIA that wasn't shaken out. The way you overcome them in a crisis mode is by having the leaders of the agencies get together in the White House as a team in crisis mode.
 
Last edited:
W4,

no offense, pal, but I'm learning to skip your posts because they're never your own words, just somebody else's. And they call *Rush* fans dittoheads???
 
Khornet

no offense, pal, but I'm learning to skip your posts because they're never your own words, just somebody else's. And they call *Rush* fans dittoheads???
The cure is to click HERE to put him on your ignore list; but don't click on it unless you want him added.
 
Thanks, Jim

But I don't want to ginore W4 so much as hear what HE, not liberal commentators, thinks.
 
It is my understanding that Rice said that Bush "received 40 warnings face to face from the director of central intelligence that a major al Qaeda attack was going to take place." She also admitted that Bush didn't have a Cabinet meeting on this subject and she didn't have one, either. Bush had a presidential daily briefing on August 6, 2001, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." (The next day, Bush is on vacation for about a month.)

My opinion is that Clarke knows *much* more than I do about what was going on behind the scenes (obviously). What he says about what should have been done, which might have led to preventing 911, is logical to me:

The problem was that there was information buried in FBI and the CIA that wasn't shaken out. The way you overcome them in a crisis mode is by having the leaders of the agencies get together in the White House as a team in crisis mode.
 
Fair point, W4

about getting FBI and CIA et. al. together. 'course, that was exactly what the Left worked so hard to prevent all through the 1970s....and what people are screaming about now as a violation of civil rights.

Bush is being blamed for not doing then what he's being blamed for doing now. I can only explain this as partisan rancor, since it defies logic.
 
about getting FBI and CIA et. al. together. 'course, that was exactly what the Left worked so hard to prevent all through the 1970s....

That is a misunderstanding of history.

Criticism of the FBI and CIA in the 1970s focused on abuse of government power, not on whether the FBI and CIA were working together to prevent terrorist attacks inside the US (of which there were damn few). The FBI was criticized in large part for its COINTELPRO in which the Bureau under J. Edgar Hoover was heavily involved in policing nonviolent political expression. He maintained files on senators, congressmen, candidates, activists, etc. He blackmailed opponents. The Bureau carried out illegal Big Brother-type domestic spying on political groups that involved break-ins, wiretaps, infiltration, dirty tricks, agents provocateur, violence, etc. In November 1974, the Justice Department released a report detailing FBI efforts against various U.S. citizens. A month later The New York Times exposed a massive CIA campaign against the anti-war movement, in explicit violation of the organization's charter. And in 1975 various congressional committees documented government officials' use of surveillance for political and personal reasons. Unconstitutional police state bull???? that it completely unacceptable in a free society.

The criticism was not that the FBI and CIA worked together. It was that federal agencies were violating the law.

See The American Police State: The Government Against the People by David Wise (Random House; 1978)

and what people are screaming about now as a violation of civil rights.

Oh really? Who exactly are you talking about? Care to name names? (I think you have misunderstood the arguments of civil libertarians.)
 
Re Dr. Rice's commentaries and the lack of that "silver bullet", the following comes to mind.

It wouldn't have taken so much as a sinble "silver bullet" to have foiled the September 11 Hijacking Plot. While the following is of course, speculative, and perhaps otherwise arguable, I submit the following.

50 rounds comprise one box of handgun ammunition. 6 rounds fully load the average revolver. 2 revolvers per aircraft, pilot and co-pilot x 4 aircraft brings the total to 48 rounds of plain lead round nose or gilding metal jacketed rounds, as I noted, less than one box of cartridges. Not so much as a single silver bullet needed, yet with all the information available, none of the pilots were armed, as they routinely used to be.

WHY THE HELL WEREN'T THEY, and who is responsible for that FOBAR?? Also why, as is likely the case, do they still occupy the jobs they held on 10 September, 2001, unless they have since retired??
 
idd

So what was the impetus for the Toricelli Bill, which Clinton signed into law, that hamstrung the CIA and restricted the "type" of people they could use for intel? That bill hamstrung the CIA and made us dependent on foreign intel, which we now have found to be less than reliable.

The CIA was restricted from using people of ill repute as contacts; and we all know that only the best of people hang out with terrorists.
 
The Torricelli Bill, aka the Cuban Democracy Act, prohibits foreign-based subsidiaries of U.S. companies from trading with Cuba, travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens, and family remittances to Cuba. The law allows private groups to deliver food and medicine to Cuba.

Sorry, Jim, I am not sure what you are talking about. Can you tell us more? When the bill was supposedly passed or signed into law?

That bill hamstrung the CIA and made us dependent on foreign intel, which we now have found to be less than reliable.

The CIA is and was free to hire foreign agents on the ground. They did this in Afghanistan. For examples, see Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001.
 
idd

This was at the time when Toricelli was implored upon by a woman, Jennifer Harbury, whose husband, Efraín Bámaca, was arrested and murdered in, Guatemala. He went on the record with secret information that should have sent him to jail; but he was a Democrat so he was exempt. He subsequently wrote legislation that would prevent the CIA from dealing with, or using as assets, people like Alpírez.

Here's some stuff to chew on.

From George Washington University: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB32/vol2.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB32/45-01.htm

Document 45

November 24, 1994
The Rising Impact of the Bámaca Case on the Guatemalan Military Establishment
Defense Intelligence Agency, secret message

A source within the Guatemalan military describes the army’s response to increasing U.S. pressure to clarify the fate of captured rebel leader Efraín Bámaca Velásquez – husband of U.S. lawyer Jennifer Harbury. The army high command, the source states, has ordered military personnel to destroy any “incriminating evidence . . . which could compromise the security or status of any member of the Guatemalan military.†The destruction of documents, holding pens and interrogation facilities has already been accomplished at the Retalhuleu air base, and the army has designed a strategy to block future “United Nations investigating commissions†from entering bases to examine army files. The author of the cable asserts that, “All written records concerning this case and probably a thousand others like it have, by now, been destroyed.â€

Here is the link to Document 45: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB32/45-01.htm

Document 46

February 1, 1995
Perspective on Colonel Julio Roberto Alpírez
Defense Intelligence Agency, secret message

A source discusses whether Colonel Julio Roberto Alpírez was responsible for the torture and execution of guerrilla leader Efraín Bámaca Velasquez. The source asserts that Colonel Alpírez “was fully capable†of the performing these actions, but believes that he “would have probably delegated the final responsibility to eliminate Bámaca to a junior officer or a specialist that he trusted.†The source also believes that the army “would not offer up one of its own†to reduce international pressure on the case, adding that anyone willing to come forward with information “would have a great deal to lose if Colonel Alpírez were to talk.†Alpírez was a paid intelligence asset for the CIA until 1995, when then-Congressman Robert Toricelli revealed his role in the cover-up of the 1990 killing of American innkeeper Michael DeVine, and the torture and murder of Bámaca in 1992.

Here is the link to Document 46: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB32/46-01.htm

Both of those documents were classified SECRET when Toricelli revealed them and their information.

So here is Toricelli giving up the name of a CIA asset and nothing happens. He discloses secret documents and nothing happens. In the meantime, today, we have a full scale investigation into the role of the White House in the revealing of the name of a CIA asset to Robert Novak whose name and role in the CIA were already well known in Washington circles.

A pretty good synopsis of what happened in Guatemala

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_Guat.html

Jennifer Harbury vs. the US government
In 1995, US policy toward Guatemala was driven by the unprecedented public attention to the plight of US citizen Jennifer Harbury, the wife of disappeared guerrilla leader Efrain Bamaca. In 1992, Bamaca was captured and murdered. His wife, American attorney Jennifer Harbury, waged an impassioned campaign to find her husband and bring his killers to justice. Her hunger strikes first in Guatemala City and then in front of the White House, touched a chord among Americans. Representative Robert Toricelli of the House Intelligence Committee revealed that both Michael DeVine and Efrain Bamaca had been executed on the orders of Colonel Julio Roberto Alpirez, who had been on the CIA payroll for years, and had been trained at the School of the Americas.

Harbury's struggle against the lies, intimidation, and cover-up mounted by the Guatemalan authorities brought to US public attention a reality all too familiar to Guatemalans. In addition, her pressure for answers from the US government prompted the unraveling of a series of revelations about the CIA's secret assistance to abusive military institutions and officers in Guatemala. The scandal revealed a secret policy that for many years had made all but irrelevant Washington's public postures on human rights in Guatemala. In the cascade of revelations, it became clear the CIA had secretly provided millions of dollars in assistance to Guatemala's G-2 unit, even after the US government cut-off of overt military aid and sales in 1990.

In March 1995, the Clinton Administration, as a result of Jennifer Harbury's hunger strike in front of the White House, suspended military training for Guatemalan Army officers. Shortly thereafter, Clinton ordered most of the CIA's assistance to the Guatemalan military suspended, except for anti-narcotics funding. The Intelligence Oversight Board (it had never before been convened) was convened at the end of 1995, but its report was a whitewash, concluding that "No evidence has been found that any employee of the CIA in any way directed, participated in or condoned the murder of Michael DeVine." Perhaps, Alpirez was not considered an "employee" even though he was on the CIA payroll. It seems certain that there will be a similar finding in the Bamaca execution as well.

Several millions of dollars in military aid cut off in 1990 by the Bush administration, was channeled by Clinton into a peace fund to support the work of the MINUGUA human rights verification mission.

More on Toricelli's role http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~pavr/harbury/archive/1995/19.html

BAMACA ALLEGEDLY ASSASSINATED BY GUATEMALAN ON CIA PAYROLL
MARCH 23, 1995

In a March 23 press conference in Washington, D.C., Congressman Robert Toricelli of New Jersey revealed that he had received information from sources in the U.S. government confirming that Efrain Bamaca Velásquez was executed by order of Guatemalan military Colonel Julio Alpirez in 1992. Colonel Alpirez also reportedly ordered the murder of U.S. citizen Michael Devine in 1990. He was under contract with the CIA at the time of Devine's murder and had close but unclear links with the agency when he ordered Bamaca's murder. Congressman Toricelli said the CIA had known about Bamaca's capture and murder for several years but had concealed the information from Jennifer Harbury and U.S. government officials. According to Congressman Toricelli, White House and State Department officials received the information between October 1994 and January 1995.

Congressman Toricelli explained that the March 10 decision to cancel military training funds to Guatemala and to suspend joint training exercises with the Guatemala military was a response to the Guatemalan government's refusal to question Colonel Alpirez. Robert White, former ambassador to El Salvador, pointed out that the U.S. government with that action was punishing Guatemala for refusing to relinquish information the CIA already had. Both Toricelli and White criticized the CIA for entering into contract agreements with officers of repressive militaries, especially when U.S. national security issues were not at issue. Toricelli said the U.S. government had used "extraordinarily poor judgment...in not being honest about the case."

Jennifer Harbury said she felt deeply sad to know that she no longer had any chance of getting her husband back alive, and yet felt relieved to know that he was not still under torture in a secret cell. She said she wanted to locate her husband's body so that she could give him a decent burial. She stated that she would request an investigation into U.S. government misconduct in Latin America, which could involve Senate and Congressional hearings. "Let us hope that this is just the first step," she said. "Let us hope that our friends in other countries will be given the privilege of knowing the truth." Harbury said she would suspend her fast tonight.

Harbury sued the government and lost.

http://www.guatemalanewsupdate.com/GNU 2002/Edition6-2002.htm

The U.S. Supreme Court rules against Jennifer Harbury holding unanimously that she cannot sue former Clinton administration officials for allegedly misleading her about her husband's fate. Harbury, the alleged widow of Guatemalan guerrilla leader Efraín Bámaca, argued for the right to sue government officials who did not tell her all they knew about the apprehension, torture and death of Bámaca at the hands of the Guatemalan armed forces in 1992.
 
My opinion is that Clarke knows *much* more than I do about what was going on behind the scenes (obviously). What he says about what should have been done, which might have led to preventing 911, is logical to me:

Check out what Clarke really did and what he he thought was urgent.

Link...
 
It is my understanding that Rice said that Bush "received 40 warnings face to face from the director of central intelligence that a major al Qaeda attack was going to take place."


And it appears that these pointed to foreign threats.


RICE: Of course. Let me start by talking about what we were doing and the structure we used. I've mentioned this.

The CSG, yes, was the counterterrorism group, was the nerve center, if you will. And that's been true through all crises. I think it was, in fact, a nerve center as well during the millennium, that they were the counterterrorism experts, they were able to get together. They got together frequently. They came up with taskings that needed to be done.

I would say that if you look at the list of taskings that they came up with, it reflected the fact that the threat information was from abroad. It was that the agencies like the Department of State needed to make clear to Americans traveling abroad that there was a danger, that embassies needed to be on alert, that our force protection needed to be strong for our military forces.

The Central Intelligence Agency was asked to do some things. It was very foreign policy or foreign threat-based as well. And of course, the warning to the FBI to go out and task their field agents.

RICE: The CSG was made up of not junior people, but the top level of counterterrorism experts. Now, they were in contact with their principals.

Dick Clarke was in contact with me quite frequently during this period of time. When the CSG would meet, he would come back usually through e-mail, sometimes personally, and say, here's what we've done. I would talk everyday, several times a day, with George Tenet about what the threat spike looked like.

In fact, George Tenet was meeting with the president during this period of time so the president was hearing directly about what was being done about the threats to -- the only really specific threats we had -- to Genoa, to the Persian Gulf, there was one to Israel. So the president was hearing what was being done.

The CSG was the nerve center. But I just don't believe that bringing the principals over to the White House every day and having their counterterrorism people have to come with them and be pulled away from what they were doing to disrupt was a good way to go about this. It wasn't an efficient way to go about it.

I talked to Powell, I talked to Rumsfeld about what was happening with the threats and with the alerts. I talked to George. I asked that the attorney general be briefed, because even though there were no domestic threats, I didn't want him to be without that briefing.

It's also the case that I think if you actually look back at the millennium period, it's questionable to me whether the argument that has been made that somehow shaking the trees is what broke up the millennium period is actually accurate -- and I was not there, clearly.

But I will tell you this. I will say this. That the millennium, of course, was a period of high threat by its very nature. We all knew that the millennium was a period of high threat.

And after September 11, Dick Clarke sent us the after-action report that had been done after the millennium plot and their assessment was that Ressam had been caught by chance -- Ressam being the person who was entering the United States over the Canadian border with bomb-making materials in store.

RICE: I think it actually wasn't by chance, which was Washington's view of it. It was because a very alert customs agent named Diana Dean and her colleagues sniffed something about Ressam. They saw that something was wrong. They tried to apprehend him. He tried to run. They then apprehended him, found that there was bomb- making material and a map of Los Angeles.

Now, at that point, you have pretty clear indication that you've got a problem inside the United States.

I don't think it was shaking the trees that produced the breakthrough in the millennium plot. It was that you got a -- Dick Clarke would say a "lucky break" -- I would say you got an alert customs agent who got it right.

And the interesting thing is that I've checked with Customs and according to their records, they weren't actually on alert at that point.

So I just don't buy the argument that we weren't shaking the trees enough and that something was going to fall out that gave us somehow that little piece of information that would have led to connecting all of those dots.

In any case, you cannot be dependent on the chance that something might come together. That's why the structural reforms are important.

And the president of the United States had us at battle station during this period of time. He expected his secretary of state to be locking down embassies. He expected his secretary of defense to be providing force protection.

RICE: He expected his FBI director to be tasking his agents and getting people out there. He expected his director of central intelligence to be out and doing what needed to be done in terms of disruption, and he expected his national security advisor to be looking to see that -- or talking to people to see that that was done.

=====
RICE: If you'll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions that you've asked.

First of all, yes, the August 6 PDB was in response to questions of the president -- and that since he asked that this be done. It was not a particular threat report. And there was historical information in there about various aspects of al Qaeda's operations.

Dick Clarke had told me, I think in a memorandum -- I remember it as being only a line or two -- that there were al Qaeda cells in the United States.

Now, the question is, what did we need to do about that?

And I also understood that that was what the FBI was doing, that the FBI was pursuing these al Qaeda cells. I believe in the August 6 memorandum it says that there were 70 full field investigations under way of these cells. And so there was no recommendation that we do something about this; the FBI was pursuing it. I really don't remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president.
=====
RICE: ...But I can also tell you that there was nothing in this memo that suggested that an attack was coming on New York or Washington, D.C. There was nothing in this memo as to time, place, how or where. This was not a threat report to the president or a threat report to me.

BEN-VENISTE: We agree that there were no specifics. Let me move on, if I may.

RICE: There were no specifics, and, in fact, the country had already taken steps through the FAA to warn of potential hijackings. The country had already taken steps through the FBI to task their 56 field offices to increase their activity. The country had taken the steps that it could given that there was no threat reporting about what might happen inside the United States.

Link...
 
Here's some stuff to chew on.

Thanks for the links, Jim. Yes, US government support for repressive policies of various Guatemalan governments are well-documented. Murder, torture, rape, genocide - the kind of thing that our leaders get upset about when engaged in by official enemies such as Saddam. No argument there, but that's tangentially related to my question about your claim regarding something you called the "Toricelli Bill."

You claimed that Clinton signed the "Toricelli Bill" into law, and that this law supposedly restricted the type of people that the CIA could hire as agents, i.e., informants. I ran the search terms "Toricelli Bill" and "CIA" into google.com and found references only to a Cuban Democracy Bill, nothing about the CIA's authority to recruit agents. So let me put forward the questions again. What specific bill are you talking about? When was it introduced? What was its bill number? When was it passed? When was it signed? Do you have a copy of this bill? Can you point me to a copy of the bill?

And it appears that these pointed to foreign threats.

US government officials entrusted with protecting the national security of the United States received a steady stream of intel and warnings about a planned attack inside the US. Clarke's office described bin Laden as an "existential threat" to the United States. Both Clarke and the CIA's Counterterrorist Center firmly believed that bin Laden sought mass American casualties and would use weapons of mass destruction in American cities if they could. On 23 January 2001 Clarke gave a memo to Rice which stated that a Cabinet-level meeting about Al Qaeda was "urgently needed" because suspected al Qaeda "sleeper cells" inside the United States were a "major threat in being."

In early June 2001 bin Laden met with Saudi journalist Bakr Atiani and stated that there would be attacks against American and Israeli facilities in the next few weeks. His remarks were published in The Washington post on 8 July 2001.

An US gov intelligence report in early June said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was recruiting volunteers to undertake missions in the United States where they would "establish contact with colleagues already living there."

The CIA prepared a briefing paper on 10 July 2001 for senior Bush officials: "Based on a review of all-source reporting over the last five months, we believe that [bin Laden] will launch a significant terrorist attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning."

In mid-July Tenet ordered the Counterterrorist Center to review its files for clues about bin Laden's next attack which they knew was coming. An FBI agent assigned to the bin Laden unit did some digging and found out something interesting about Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaf al-Hazma aka Nawaf Alhazmi, two of bin Laden's lieutenants. Al-Mihdar and al-Hazma were known to have met in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in January 2000 with a senior aide to Osama bin Laden who was a principal suspect in the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. The FBI agent realized that that these two Al Qaeda operatives had already entered the United States in January 2000. Unfortunately the Federal Aviation Administration was not notified about the suspects, and at the FBI, only the New York office received a request to search for them.

Al-Hazma stayed continously in the United States after his arrival, and lived openly as if he had no fear of being detected or challenged. He was listed in the phone book in San Diego. He opened a bank account. He even reported an attempted street robbery to the police in suburban Fairfax, Virginia, on 1 May 2001.

And there is the by now famous PDB [President's Daily Brief] of 6 August 2001 titled BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S.
 
The reference here is to the so-called Torricelli doctrine, which says the government should not rely on people with criminal backgrounds to provide information on foreign policy or national security matters.

I do not know how it was codified, whether by legislation or executive order, but it apparently constrained and restricted intelligence gathering prior to 9/11-during the Clinton Administration.

There's an opinion on it here: http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/archive/topic/32478-1.html

I don't know how valid that information is. Point is, his "politically correct" views that the U.S. Gov should not deal with or pay "unsavory" informants led to 9/11. Just another example of liberal nonsense.
 
IDD

What specific bill are you talking about? When was it introduced? What was its bill number? When was it passed? When was it signed? Do you have a copy of this bill? Can you point me to a copy of the bill?
I have pored through the various Congresses from 104 through 106, which is where I assume it would be, and have been unable to locate the specfic bill. I remembered that it was stated on the news that this bill would restrict bad guys being recruited by the CIA. It was also a hot topic of discussion on talk radio. I will try to find more on it.
 
IDD

This discussion started two days after 9-11 on Free Republic.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/522426/posts

The original story was at the Star-Ledger webpage at: http://www.nj.com/columns/mulshine/index.ssf?/columns/mulshine/1461eb3.html but has apparently fallen off of the archive.

It sounds like it was merely implemented by Clinton rather than a bill. My error if that is true.

It was a campaign issue for him as well: http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/7/24/155050

More: http://www.garrettforcongress.com/html/7-22-02.html

More: http://209.35.180.132/forrester090902b.htm
 
RileyMc

Thanks for the help. I couldn't remember the "Torricelli Principle" part.

If anything caused 9-11, there could be nothing higher on the list than the "Torricelli Principle".
 
Not to throw this thread off its rails....

But since idd's fervent desire to discredit the U.S. and its policies is lashing out once again:

************************************************************
"Yes, US government support for repressive policies of various Guatemalan governments are well-documented. Murder, torture, rape, genocide - the kind of thing that our leaders get upset about when engaged in by official enemies such as Saddam."
************************************************************

I'll just mention that these U.S. actions were conducted in defense of the U.S. and it's interests as perceived by the administration(s) of the day.

Saddam's brutality was directed at maintaining his control of Iraq by actions within his nation-state.

The U.S. actions alluded to above are within the realm of legitimate international action, as practiced by the former Soviet Bloc nations, China, the U.K., France, and many, many others. "Progressives" may find these actions distasteful, but they are a recognized function of forward national defense.

Saddam's actions were tyranny, plain and simple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top