CIA warned Bush Admin about Al-Queda strike

[CAA Flagship]

Good lord, did any of you actually read the article?

In all seriousness, what part specifically?

[kalm]

Well I'm glad we've established that Obama and Climton are to blame for the Bush administration completely ignoring the threat!

Good lord, did any of you actually read the article?

Huh?

Did YOU read the article?

Did it say that Bush did nothing?

You know this article is an advertisement for a documentary, right?

"The drama of failed warnings began when Tenet and Black pitched a plan, in the spring of 2001, called “the Blue Sky paper” to Bush’s new national security team. It called for a covert CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat—“getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan.” “And the word back,” says Tenet, “‘was ‘we’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking.’” (Translation: they did not want a paper trail to show that they’d been warned.)"

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z3rfK0hzCw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Gosh, that sure worked.

No paper trail wanted...yeah, good translation by the author.

What a load of crap...from a guy trying to sell his movie/documentary.

Read the article again...with a clear mind. The ass clowns mention no specific threat...just that they are coming!

Movie trailer material.

However, the actual meat of the article is fascinating (it just isn't Obama friendly, so dback didn't frame the thread in that light).

Under Obama, we have launched missile strikes, KNOWING WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that we were going to kill specific innocent women and small children with our drone strikes. In fact, we said, fvck it, we want the guy dead and if other people will die, that's OK. Yup...that's what we did.

Nobel. Peace. Prize.

We also know that we've killed innocent hostages with Obama's drone strikes.

Fog of war.

And let's bring this wonderful topic full circle. We allowed ISIL/Deash/ISIS/IS to come together in Syria. Obama will eventually be correctly identified as the clown who helped unify the extremist Muslins with his bizarre and so-called righteous decisions to take out/kill/remove two secular leaders. The hoards of refugees that are overwhelming Europe are coming from the very places that Obama intentionally destabilized (while lying to us that we were only providing non-lethal assistance to the so called moderates). One of those refugees from Obama's whacked out wars just helped kill 129 innocent people in France...with more attacks to come. Chew on that for a while.

And, what are the odds that Obama's NSA had wind of some part of that operation? And what did Obama do about that intel?

Don't worry, I'm sure dback will be back here posting about that story in a few years.

Jesus, youre all over the map. Condense it a little, JSO, and maybe I can figure out to respond to.

[kalm]

Well I'm glad we've established that Obama and Climton are to blame for the Bush administration completely ignoring the threat!

Good lord, did any of you actually read the article?

First, lubeboi and then WTAG passed. Now it's your turn.

OK, since we didn't know which planes were flying from where and when these planes would be flying, Bush should have just shut down all commercial air traffic? For how long?

Yeah, because that was the only option.

How about the suggestions from the CIA? You know...the ones mentioned IN THE ARTICLE.

[CID1990]

Hey Jon-

Here's an intel warning for you:

In November 2021, someone is going to pork you in the butt

you wont know if it will be with lube or not until after it happens

[Baldy]

First, lubeboi and then WTAG passed. Now it's your turn.

Yeah, because that was the only option.

How about the suggestions from the CIA? You know...the ones mentioned IN THE ARTICLE.

Suggestions?

There was only one suggestion. As a Monday morning QB, it was probably a good suggestion.

The problem is that it was probably way too late to stop the 9/11 attacks.

[kalm]

Yeah, because that was the only option.

How about the suggestions from the CIA? You know...the ones mentioned IN THE ARTICLE.

Suggestions?

There was only one suggestion. As a Monday morning QB, it was probably a good suggestion.

The problem is that it was probably way too late to stop the 9/11 attacks.

Just because it's Monday morning QBing doesn't mean it's not a legit criticism. The first plan was dismissed. In hindsight, going on a war time footing would have been appropriate as well.

Again, both obvious and fair criticisms.

The drama of failed warnings began when Tenet and Black pitched a plan, in the spring of 2001, called “the Blue Sky paper” to Bush’s new national security team. It called for a covert CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat—“getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan.”

“Rich [Blee] started by saying, ‘There will be significant terrorist attacks against the United States in the coming weeks or months. The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al Qaeda's intention is the destruction of the United States.’" [Condi said:] ‘What do you think we need to do?’ Black responded by slamming his fist on the table, and saying, ‘We need to go on a wartime footing now!’”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z3rfqahnSm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[YoUDeeMan]

First, lubeboi and then WTAG passed. Now it's your turn.

Yeah, because that was the only option.

How about the suggestions from the CIA? You know...the ones mentioned IN THE ARTICLE.

Oh, you mean these suggestions?

"It called for a covert CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat—“getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan.”

Odd though...they said that the camps were already closing and that the bad guys were already going underground...so exactly where were we going to drop our guys...in a sovereign country? And how long would it take to build a bridge from Uzbekistan (you know, the bridge that has since helped us supply our efforts in Afghanistan)? Yeah, the AQ targets would just sit around waiting for us to build that thing so we could attack.

Given the technology we had back in 2000, yup, we would have definitely been able to end any AQ threat...exactly how?

How have those suggestions worked out so far? We built that bridge, how has it worked out? We've attacked AQ camps, we've gone in AQ sanctuaries, we've launched paramilitary operations...heck, we've gone everywhere all over the world to chase the enemy...just like we did in Vietnam. Got the enemy on the run, we do (cough...Tet...cough...Kunduz...cough...Paris).

Say, how are those types of suggestions working these days in Syria, Lybia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ethiopia, and everywhere else?

Seriously, how is our War on Terror going? Has everything been safe in the past 14 years? Good thing no one else has been blown up.

The effort to put blame of 911 on Bush is simply a distraction from today's news.

We have been engaged in removing Assad for over 4 effing years...with Saudi and Turkish help. Think about that. WTF? Turkey allowed ISIS reinforcements to pass through their borders...and the Turks have been supplying arms to the hard liners in Libya, while Saudi Arabia bombs people who are fighting the extremists in Yemen.

Funny world, huh?

This isn't about, and should never have been about, covert operations. We are openly supporting the leaders of the very Muslim sects that are attacking the West. We are helping breed future generations of terrorists by allowing those Saudi ass clowns to run our foreign policy.

Until we address the countries and their governments that are breeding the hate of Western civilization and freedom, we aren't going to get anywhere in the war on terror.

Obama's on the clock...and he ain't getting it done.

[kalm]

And then there's good ol' Richard Clarke. As mentioned earlier and suggested here, the Clinton Administration wiffed on attempts at Bin Laden as well. Failure abounds, but regardless of what happened prior, the Bush administration royally fucked this up.

And to think Paul Wolfowitz is a FP advisor to Jeb Bush. Wow!

In February 1999 Clarke wrote the Deputy National Security Advisor that one reliable source reported Iraqi officials had met with Bin Ladin and may have offered him asylum. Therefore, Clarke advised against surveillance flights to track bin Laden in Afghanistan: Anticipating an attack, “old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”, where he would be impossible to find.[11] Clarke also made statements that year to the press linking "Iraqi nerve gas experts" and al-Qaeda to an alleged joint-chemical-weapons-development effort at the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.[12]

Michael Scheuer is the former chief of the bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center at the CIA. Matthew Continetti writes: "Scheuer believes that Clarke’s risk aversion and politicking negatively impacted the hunt for bin Laden prior to September 11, 2001. Scheuer stated that his unit, codename 'Alec,' had provided information that could have led to the capture and or killing of Osama bin Laden on ten different occasions during the Clinton administration, only to have his recommendations for action turned down by senior intelligence officials, including Clarke."[13]

Bush administration[edit]
Clarke and his communications with the Bush administration regarding bin Laden and associated terrorist plots targeting the United States were mentioned frequently in Condoleezza Rice's public interview by the 9/11 investigatory commission on April 8, 2004. Of particular significance was a memo[14] from January 25, 2001, that Clarke had authored and sent to Condoleezza Rice. Along with making an urgent request for a meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss the growing al-Qaeda threat in the greater Middle East, the memo also suggests strategies for combating al-Qaeda that might be adopted by the new Bush administration.[15]

In his memoir, "Against All Enemies", Clarke wrote that Condoleezza Rice made a decision that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism should be downgraded. By demoting the office, the Administration sent a signal through the national security bureaucracy about the salience they assigned to terrorism. No longer would Clarke's memos go to the President; instead they had to pass through a chain of command of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.

Within a week of the inauguration, I wrote to Rice and Hadley asking 'urgently' for a Principals, or Cabinet-level, meeting to review the imminent Al-Qaeda threat. Rice told me that the Principals Committee, which had been the first venue for terrorism policy discussions in the Clinton administration, would not address the issue until it had been 'framed' by the Deputies.[16]

At the first Deputies Committee meeting on Terrorism held in April 2001, Clarke strongly suggested that the U.S. put pressure on both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda by arming the Northern Alliance and other groups in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, that they target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the MQ-1 Predators. To which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz responded, "Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden." Clarke replied that he was talking about bin Laden and his network because it posed "an immediate and serious threat to the United States." According to Clarke, Wolfowitz turned to him and said, "You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist."[16]

Clarke wrote in Against All Enemies that in the summer of 2001, the intelligence community was convinced of an imminent attack by al Qaeda, but could not get the attention of the highest levels of the Bush administration, most famously writing that Director of the Central Intelligence Agency George Tenet was running around with his "hair on fire".[16]

At a July 5, 2001, White House gathering of the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI, Secret Service and INS, Clarke stated that "something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A ... nistration" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

Yeah, because that was the only option.

How about the suggestions from the CIA? You know...the ones mentioned IN THE ARTICLE.

Oh, you mean these suggestions?

"It called for a covert CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat—“getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan.”

Odd though...they said that the camps were already closing and that the bad guys were already going underground...so exactly where were we going to drop our guys...in a sovereign country? And how long would it take to build a bridge from Uzbekistan (you know, the bridge that has since helped us supply our efforts in Afghanistan)? Yeah, the AQ targets would just sit around waiting for us to build that thing so we could attack.

Given the technology we had back in 2000, yup, we would have definitely been able to end any AQ threat...exactly how?

How have those suggestions worked out so far? We built that bridge, how has it worked out? We've attacked AQ camps, we've gone in AQ sanctuaries, we've launched paramilitary operations...heck, we've gone everywhere all over the world to chase the enemy...just like we did in Vietnam. Got the enemy on the run, we do (cough...Tet...cough...Kunduz...cough...Paris).

Say, how are those types of suggestions working these days in Syria, Lybia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ethiopia, and everywhere else?

Seriously, how is our War on Terror going? Has everything been safe in the past 14 years? Good thing no one else has been blown up.

The effort to put blame of 911 on Bush is simply a distraction from today's news.

We have been engaged in removing Assad for over 4 effing years...with Saudi and Turkish help. Think about that. WTF? Turkey allowed ISIS reinforcements to pass through their borders...and the Turks have been supplying arms to the hard liners in Libya, while Saudi Arabia bombs people who are fighting the extremists in Yemen.

Funny world, huh?

This isn't about, and should never have been about, covert operations. We are openly supporting the leaders of the very Muslim sects that are attacking the West. We are helping breed future generations of terrorists by allowing those Saudi ass clowns to run our foreign policy.

Until we address the countries and their governments that are breeding the hate of Western civilization and freedom, we aren't going to get anywhere in the war on terror.

Obama's on the clock...and he ain't getting it done.

You know I tend to agree with you on most of these issues, but it's OK to admit that Bush fucked up too.

[SDHornet]

You know I tend to agree with you on most of these issues, but it's OK to admit that Bush fucked up too.

Clearly you missed the greater point of Cluck’s epic rant: the leaders of this government (past, present, and most certainly the future) have no fucking idea what they are doing in the ME…but let’s not address that and just focus on “but Bush” amirite? Laughable.

[YoUDeeMan]

You know I tend to agree with you on most of these issues, but it's OK to admit that Bush fucked up too.

That depends on what you mean by fucked up.

People have said that we fucked up Pearl Harbor...to the extent that some believe we intentionally allowed the attack (sound familiar ).

But, with a boatload of intel coming in from all directions, and only so many assets, there is only so much people can do when trying to put their fingers in the holes of the dykes (yes, hot lesbo).

The Left already hated Bush from the get go...do you think they would have allowed him to put the country on a wartime alert forever? These book sellers speak about meeting in May, June, and July. What would the Left have done if Bush came in and suddenly outfitted our country's police forces with today's modern weapons (cripes, you still hear people bitching about how our police are too well armed)? What would the Left had done if we suddenly made the TSA inconvenience their travel WITHOUT ANY HARD EVIDENCE OF A THREAT (that we would release to the public)?

July, 2001, Bush speaks: "Hey folks, there might be a spectacular attack on us, unlike anything we've seen before. We don't know where or when, and we don't know what kind of attack, but I am launching initiatives to spy on your communications, limit your freedoms, better arm our civil protectors, change the entire way you travel, and we're sending our troops into a backwoods, sovereign country, half way around the world, with difficult, mountainous terrain where, as you remember so well, the Soviets recently lost thousands of their young boys, and we'll be fighting the very same people that we armed and trained so well. Oh, the people we want to help us engage the people we think are bad, are actually greedy, local warlords that will take our cash and laugh because they have no allegiance to us, and they will use our money and guns to supply and sell drugs that will eventually trickle down to our streets. Get comfortable folks, because we don't know when this threat will end...it might be forever, because these people are very determined and don't think like us...they are willing to sacrifice themselves in spectacular explosions so they can meet their God.

So, who is with me?"


Yeah, that would have gone over sooooooooooooooooooooooo well.

It took Obama, with access to more modern tech, a built up intel network, a massive budget, and boots on the ground close by, 3 years to get Bin Laden. Yet some people think a simple raid on a compound in a remote area of Affy, would have stopped the WTC incident.

Face it...an attack on the US was inevitable. Attacks have, and will, happen again.

Obama failed to protect the Boston Marathon victims, despite the fact we knew those clowns went overseas...why didn't Obama do more?

Should we stop trying to prevent attacks? No. But should we Monday morning QB every attack and dig deep to make it a political distraction (and in this case, make it a profitable advertisement for a movie)? No.

But feel free to carry on and take a bunch of clouded information and make it seem like it was massive negligence simply because it fills a partisan need.

[Ibanez]

You know I tend to agree with you on most of these issues, but it's OK to admit that Bush fucked up too.

Clearly you missed the greater point of Cluck’s epic rant: the leaders of this government (past, present, and most certainly the future) have no fucking idea what they are doing in the ME…but let’s not address that and just focus on “but Bush” amirite? Laughable.

Exactly. Good executive summary.

[Baldy]

Suggestions?

There was only one suggestion. As a Monday morning QB, it was probably a good suggestion.

The problem is that it was probably way too late to stop the 9/11 attacks.

Just because it's Monday morning QBing doesn't mean it's not a legit criticism. The first plan was dismissed. In hindsight, going on a war time footing would have been appropriate as well.

Again, both obvious and fair criticisms.

The drama of failed warnings began when Tenet and Black pitched a plan, in the spring of 2001, called “the Blue Sky paper” to Bush’s new national security team. It called for a covert CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat—“getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan.”

“Rich [Blee] started by saying, ‘There will be significant terrorist attacks against the United States in the coming weeks or months. The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al Qaeda's intention is the destruction of the United States.’" [Condi said:] ‘What do you think we need to do?’ Black responded by slamming his fist on the table, and saying, ‘We need to go on a wartime footing now!’”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z3rfqahnSm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nevertheless, still too late in the game to thwart the 9/11 attacks.

[CAA Flagship]

Well ISIS just sent out a threat about an attack on DC. Let's see what the current administration, with more tools at their disposal, does to thwart it.

[SDHornet]

Well ISIS just sent out a threat about an attack on DC. Let's see what the current administration, with more tools at their disposal, does to thwart it.

Link?

[CAA Flagship]

Well ISIS just sent out a threat about an attack on DC. Let's see what the current administration, with more tools at their disposal, does to thwart it.

Link?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2436210" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[YoUDeeMan]

Well ISIS just sent out a threat about an attack on DC. Let's see what the current administration, with more tools at their disposal, does to thwart it.

The Administration tells the congressmen and their staffs to use the tunnels...yet the public will be left out in the open.

BTW, that's a little unfair of those ISIL dudes to not tell us exactly where in D.C. they will attack.

[kalm]

You know I tend to agree with you on most of these issues, but it's OK to admit that Bush fucked up too.

Clearly you missed the greater point of Cluck’s epic rant: the leaders of this government (past, present, and most certainly the future) have no fucking idea what they are doing in the ME…but let’s not address that and just focus on “but Bush” amirite? Laughable.

I agreed with Cluck, but the thread was about the Bush administration, Gertrude.

[TheDancinMonarch]

Maybe Bush was at fault, moron though he may have been. But at this point what difference does it make. It's a great academic discussion. But if the house next door to you is on fire, it does not matter if the current owner knocked over a candle or the preceding owner refused to rewire the place. The fire still has to be put out.

[SDHornet]

Clearly you missed the greater point of Cluck’s epic rant: the leaders of this government (past, present, and most certainly the future) have no fucking idea what they are doing in the ME…but let’s not address that and just focus on “but Bush” amirite? Laughable.

I agreed with Cluck, but the thread was about the Bush administration, Gertrude.

14 years after the event and folks are still hung up on him. It's like he is a Kardashian or something.

[kalm]

^^

History haters...

[Ibanez]

Clearly you missed the greater point of Cluck’s epic rant: the leaders of this government (past, present, and most certainly the future) have no fucking idea what they are doing in the ME…but let’s not address that and just focus on “but Bush” amirite? Laughable.

I agreed with Cluck, but the thread was about the Bush administration, Gertrude.

Seriously, what is the point? Obama is President. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc.. they were all POTUS. The various Congress' have as much blame as anyone else. Various cabinet members, intel officers, etc....

But yea, let's put it all on Bush.


And let's remember, it wasn't Bush gathering and analyzing intel. He was working with what he was given. If you depend on someone else's expertise, and they lead you astray which causes you to make a certain decision, do you own all the blame when it comes out that Intel was wrong?

[kalm]

I agreed with Cluck, but the thread was about the Bush administration, Gertrude.

Seriously, what is the point? Obama is President. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc.. they were all POTUS. The various Congress' have as much blame as anyone else. Various cabinet members, intel officers, etc....

But yea, let's put it all on Bush.


And let's remember, it wasn't Bush gathering and analyzing intel. He was working with what he was given. If you depend on someone else's expertise, and they lead you astray which causes you to make a certain decision, do you own all the blame when it comes out that Intel was wrong?

The buck stops...somewhere over there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Seriously, it's just history and I've already admitted that blame should be spread. Even quoted an article that said as much.

Relax...Bush lover.

[Ibanez]

Seriously, what is the point? Obama is President. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc.. they were all POTUS. The various Congress' have as much blame as anyone else. Various cabinet members, intel officers, etc....

But yea, let's put it all on Bush.


And let's remember, it wasn't Bush gathering and analyzing intel. He was working with what he was given. If you depend on someone else's expertise, and they lead you astray which causes you to make a certain decision, do you own all the blame when it comes out that Intel was wrong?

The buck stops...somewhere over there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Seriously, it's just history and I've already admitted that blame should be spread. Even quoted an article that said as much.

Relax...Bush lover.

I prefer a smooth runway.

[Baldy]

The buck stops...somewhere over there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Seriously, it's just history and I've already admitted that blame should be spread. Even quoted an article that said as much.

Relax...Bush lover.

I prefer a smooth runway.

Grass doesn't grow on a playground.