Remember, Remember, The 11th of September

[Nbadan]

http://redsox.collider.com/uploads/images/category/vendetta.jpg

Vendetta 911 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNDzLYpN_Q8)

[boutons_]

The Sheriff Can't Get His Man

==========

Bin Laden Trail 'Stone Cold'

U.S. Steps Up Efforts, But Good Intelligence On Ground is Lacking

( Good Intelligence in dubya's stone-cold head is also lacking )

By Dana Priest and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 10, 2006; A01

The clandestine U.S. commandos whose job is to capture or kill Osama bin Laden have not received a credible lead in more than two years. Nothing from the vast U.S. intelligence world -- no tips from informants, no snippets from electronic intercepts, no points on any satellite image -- has led them anywhere near the al-Qaeda leader, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials.

( now that Pakistan has basically let the uncontrollable tribal lands on the Afghanistan border secede from Pakistan, the US could attack them without really attacking Pakistan, except that the US military is wasting its time and lives in Iraq )

"The handful of assets we have have given us nothing close to real-time intelligence" that could have led to his capture, said one counterterrorism official, who said the trail, despite the most extensive manhunt in U.S. history, has gone "stone cold."

But in the last three months, following a request from President Bush to "flood the zone," the CIA has sharply increased the number of intelligence officers and assets devoted to the pursuit of bin Laden. The intelligence officers will team with the military's secretive Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and with more resources from the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies.

( hmm, there must be an Repug election coming up, huh? Wouldn't it be great to catch the meaningless Osama just before the 2006 mid-terms? Then we'd hear how important it was to capture Osama and how wimpy the Dems are on NatSec. Repugs are all politics all time and fuck everything else, including NatSec, that cannot be exploited for Repug political gain )

The problem, former and current counterterrorism officials say, is that no one is certain where the "zone" is.

"Here you've got a guy who's gone off the net and is hiding in some of the most formidable terrain in one of the most remote parts of the world surrounded by people he trusts implicitly," said T. McCreary, spokesman for the National Counterterrorism Center. "And he stays off the net and is probably not mobile. That's an extremely difficult problem."

Intelligence officials think that bin Laden is hiding in the northern reaches of the autonomous tribal region along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This calculation is based largely on a lack of activity elsewhere and on other intelligence, including a videotape, obtained exclusively by the CIA and not previously reported, that shows bin Laden walking on a trail toward Pakistan at the end of the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, when U.S. forces came close but failed to capture him.

Many factors have combined in the five years since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to make the pursuit more difficult. They include the lack of CIA access to people close to al-Qaeda's inner circle; Pakistan's unwillingness to pursue him;

the reemergence of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan;

the strength of the Iraqi insurgency, which has depleted U.S. military and intelligence resources;

and the U.S. government's own disorganization.

( The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight )

But the underlying reality is that finding one person in hiding is difficult under any circumstances. Eric Rudolph, the confessed Olympics and abortion clinic bomber, evaded authorities for five years, only to be captured miles from where he was last seen in North Carolina.

It has been so long since there has been anything like a real close call that some operatives have given bin Laden a nickname: "Elvis," http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif for all the wishful-thinking sightings that have substituted for anything real.

After playing down bin Laden's importance and barely mentioning him for several years, Bush last week repeatedly invoked his name and quoted from his writings and speeches to underscore what Bush said is the continuing threat of terrorism.

Many terrorism experts, however, say the importance of finding bin Laden has diminished since Bush first pledged to capture him "dead or alive" in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. Terrorists worldwide have repeatedly shown they no longer need him to organize or carry out attacks, the experts say. Attacks in Europe, Asia and the Middle East were perpetrated by homegrown terrorists unaffiliated with al-Qaeda.

"Will his capture stop terrorism? No," Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a recent interview. "But in terms of a message to the world, it's a huge message."

( It would be a message meaningful only to the Repug base and other sheeple )

Despite a lack of progress, at CIA headquarters bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are still the most wanted of the High Value Targets, referred to as "HVT 1 and 2." The CIA station in Kabul still offers a briefing to VIP visitors that declares: "We are here for the hunt!" -- a reminder that finding bin Laden is a top priority.

Gary Berntsen, the former CIA officer who led the first and last hunt for bin Laden at Tora Bora, in December 2001, says, "This could all end tomorrow." One unsolicited walk-in. One tribesman seeking to collect the $25 million reward. One courier who would rather his kids grow up in the United States. One dealmaker, "and this could all change," Berntsen said.

Bin Laden Still Alive

On the videotape obtained by the CIA, bin Laden is seen confidently instructing his party how to dig holes in the ground to lie in undetected at night. A bomb dropped by a U.S. aircraft can be seen exploding in the distance. "We were there last night," bin Laden says without much concern in his voice. He was in or headed toward Pakistan, counterterrorism officials think.

That was December 2001. Only two months later, Bush decided to pull out most of the special operations troops and their CIA counterparts in the paramilitary division that were leading the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for war in Iraq, said Flynt L. Leverett, then an expert on the Middle East at the National Security Council.

( ... confirmed by the majority of the US that thinks the war in Iraq is worthless and a distraction from the real war on real terrorists )

"I was appalled when I learned about it," said Leverett, who has become an outspoken critic of the administration's counterterrorism policy. "I don't know of anyone who thought it was a good idea. It's very likely that bin Laden would be dead or in American custody if we hadn't done that."

Several officers confirmed that the number of special operations troops was reduced in March 2001.

White House spokeswoman Michele Davis said she would not comment on the specific allegation. "Military and intelligence units move routinely in and out," she said. "The intelligence and military community's hunt for bin Laden has been aggressive and constant since the attacks."

The Pakistani intelligence service, notoriously difficult to trust but also the service with the best access to al-Qaeda circles, is convinced bin Laden is alive because no one has ever intercepted or heard a message mourning his death. "Al-Qaeda will mourn his death and will retaliate in a big way. We are pretty sure Osama is alive," Pakistan's interior minister, Aftab Khan Sherpao, said in a recent interview with The Washington Post.

Pakistani intelligence officials also say they think bin Laden remains actively involved in al-Qaeda activities. They cite the interrogations of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a key planner of the bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998, and Abu-Faraj al-Libbi, who served as a communications conduit between bin Laden and senior al-Qaeda operatives until his capture last year.

Libbi and Ghailani, who was arrested in Pakistan in July 2004, were the last two people taken into custody to have met with and taken orders from Zawahiri and to hear directly from bin Laden. "Both Ghailani and Libbi were informed that Osama was well and alive and in the picture by none other than Zawahiri himself," one Pakistani intelligence official said.

( Libbi ? Put Fitzgerald on his ass! http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

Two Pakistani intelligence officials recently interviewed in Karachi said that the last time they received firsthand information on bin Laden was in April 2003, when an arrested al-Qaeda leader, Tawfiq bin Attash, disclosed having met him in the Khost province of Afghanistan three months earlier.

Attash, who helped plan the 2000 USS Cole bombing, told interrogators that the meeting took place in the Afghan mountains about two hours from the town of Khost.

By then, Pakistan was the United States' best bet for information after an infusion of funds from the U.S. intelligence community, particularly in the area of expensive NSA eavesdropping equipment.

"For technical intelligence ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) works hand in hand with the NSA," a senior Pakistani intelligence official said. "The U.S. assistance in building Pakistan's capabilities for technical intelligence since 9/11 is superb."

Since early 2002, the United States has stationed a small number of personnel from the NSA and the CIA near where bin Laden may be hiding. They are embedded with counterterrorism units of the Pakistan army's elite Special Services Group, according to senior Pakistani intelligence officials.

The NSA and other specialists collect imagery and electronic intercepts that their CIA counterparts then share with the Pakistani units in the tribal areas and with the province of Baluchistan to the south.

But even with sophisticated technology, the local geography presents formidable obstacles. In a land of dead-end valleys, high peaks and winding ridge lines, it is easy to hide within the miles of caves and deep ravines, or to live unnoticed in mud-walled compounds barely distinguishable from the surrounding terrain.

The Afghan-Pakistan border is about 1,500 miles. Pakistan deploys 70,000 troops there. Its army had never entered the area until October 2001, more than a half century after Pakistan's founding.

Pakistani Sources Lost

A Muslim country where many consider bin Laden a hero, Pakistan has grown increasingly reluctant to help the U.S. search. The army lost its best source of intelligence in 2004, after it began raids inside the tribal areas. Scouts with blood ties to the tribes ceased sharing information for fear of retaliation.

They had good reason. At least 23 senior anti-Taliban tribesmen have been assassinated in South and North Waziristan since May 2005. "Al-Qaeda footprints were found everywhere," Interior Minister Sherpao said in a recent interview. "They kidnapped and chopped off heads of at least seven of these pro-government tribesmen."

Pakistani and U.S. counterterrorism and military officials admit that Pakistan has now all but stopped looking for bin Laden. "The dirty little secret is, they have nothing, no operations, without the Paks," one former counterterrorism officer said.

Last week, Pakistan announced a truce with the Taliban that calls on the insurgent Afghan group to end armed attacks inside Pakistan and to stop crossing into Afghanistan to fight the government and international troops. The agreement also requires foreign militants to leave the tribal area of North Waziristan or take up a peaceable life there.

In Afghanistan, the hunt for bin Laden has been upstaged by the reemergence of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and by Afghan infighting for control of territory and opium poppy cropland.

( hmm, Iraq is lost, and Afghanistan is getting lost, too )
Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2003, said he thinks bin Laden kept close to the border, not wandering far into either country. That belief is still current among military and intelligence analysts.

"We believe that he held to a pretty narrow range of within 15 kilometers of the border," said Vines, who now commands the XVIII Airborne Corps, "so that if the Pakistanis, for whatever reason, chose to do something to him, he could cross into Afghanistan and vice versa."

He said he thinks bin Laden's protection force "had a series of outposts with radios that could alert each other" if helicopters were coming or other troop movements were evident.

Pakistani military officials in Wana, the capital of South Waziristan, described bin Laden as having three rings of security, each ring unaware of the movements and identities of the other. Sometimes they communicated with specially marked flashlights. Sometimes they dressed as women to avoid detection by U.S. spy planes.

Pakistan will permit only small numbers of U.S. forces to operate with its troops at times and, because their role is so sensitive politically, it officially denies any U.S. presence. A frequent complaint from U.S. troops is that they have too little to do. The same complaint is also heard from U.S. forces in Afghanistan, where there were few targets to go after.

Although the hunt for bin Laden has depended to a large extent on technology, until recently unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were in short supply, especially when the war in Iraq became a priority in 2003.

( The phony Repug Iraq war is draining resources from the war on the real terrorists )

In July 2003, Vines said that U.S. forces under his command thought they were close to striking bin Laden, but had only one drone to send over three possible routes he might take. "A UAV was positioned on the route that was most likely, but he didn't go that way," Vines said. "We believed that we were within a half-hour of possibly getting him, but nothing materialized."

Faced with the most sophisticated technology in the world, bin Laden has gone decidedly low-tech. His 23 video or audiotapes in the last five years are thought to have been hand-carried to news outlets or nearby mail drops by a series of couriers who know nothing about the contents of their deliveries or the real identity of the sender, a simple method used by spies and drug traffickers for centuries.

"They are really good at operational security," said Ben Venzke, chief executive officer of IntelCenter, a private company that analyzes terrorist information and has obtained, analyzed and published all bin Laden's communiques. "They are very good at having enough cut-outs" to move videos into circulation without detection. "It's some of the simplest things to do."

Uncertain Command Structure

Bureaucratic battles slowed down the hunt for bin Laden for the first two or three years, according to officials in several agencies, with both the Pentagon and the CIA accusing each other of withholding information.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's sense of territoriality has become legendary, according to these officials.

In early November 2002, for example, a CIA drone armed with a Hellfire missile killed a top al-Qaeda leader traveling through the Yemeni desert. About a week later, Rumsfeld expressed anger that it was the CIA, not the Defense Department, that had carried out the successful strike.

( Just like the Repugs put Repug welfare first, and the USA somewhere downt the list, Rumsfeld put his territtory first and doing his job somewhere down the list )

"How did they get the intel?" he demanded of the intelligence and other military personnel in a high-level meeting, recalled one person knowledgeable about the meeting.

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then director of the National Security Agency and technically part of the Defense Department, said he had given it to them.

"Why aren't you giving it to us?" Rumsfeld wanted to know.

Hayden, according to this source, told Rumsfeld that the information-sharing mechanism with the CIA was working well. Rumsfeld said it would have to stop. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

( Connecting the dots is the last thing Rumsfeld wants, unless it is Rumsfeld doing the connecting http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

A CIA spokesman said Hayden, now the CIA director, does not recall this conversation. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "The notion that the department would do anything that would jeopardize the success of an operation to kill or capture bin Laden is ridiculous." The NSA continues to share intelligence with the CIA and the Defense Department.

At that time, Rumsfeld was putting in place his own aggressive plan, led by the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), to dominate the hunt for bin Laden and other terrorists. The overall special operations budget has grown by 60 percent since 2003 to $8 billion in fiscal year 2007.

Rows and rows of temporary buildings sprang up on SOCOM's parking lots in Tampa as Rumsfeld refocused the mission of a small group of counterterrorism experts from long-term planning for the war on terrorism to manhunting. The group "went from 20 years to 24-hour crisis-mode operations," one former special operations officer said. "It went from planning to manhunting."

In 2004, Rumsfeld finally won the president's approval to put SOCOM in charge of the "Global War on Terrorism."

Today, however, no one person is in charge of the overall hunt for bin Laden with the authority to direct covert CIA operations to collect intelligence and to dispatch JSOC units. Some counterterrorism officials find this absurd. "There's nobody in the United States government whose job it is to find Osama bin Laden!" one frustrated counterterrorism official shouted. "Nobody!"

"We work by consensus," explained Brig. Gen. Robert L. Caslen Jr., who recently stepped down as deputy director of counterterrorism under the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "In order to find Osama bin Laden, certain departments will come together. . . . It's not that effective, or we'd find the guy, but in terms of advancing United States power for that mission, I think that process is effective."

But Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the JSOC commander since 2003, has become the de facto leader of the hunt for bin Laden and developed a good working relationship with the CIA to the extent that he recently was able to persuade the former station chief in Kabul to become his special assistant. He asks for targets from the CIA, and it tries to comply. "We serve the military," one intelligence officer said.

McChrystal's troops have shuttled between Afghanistan and Iraq, where they succeeded in killing al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and killed or captured dozens of his followers.

Under McChrystal, JSOC has improved its ability to quickly turn captured documents, computers and cellphones into leads and then to act upon them, while waiting for more analysis from CIA or SOCOM.

Industry experts and military officers say they are being aided by computer forensic field kits that let technicians retrieve information from surviving hard drives, cellphones and other electronic devices, as was the case in the Zarqawi strike.

McChrystal, who has commanded JSOC since 2003, now has the authority to go after bin Laden inside Pakistan without having to seek permission first, two U.S. officials said.

"The authority," one knowledgeable person said, "follows the target," meaning that if the target is bin Laden, the stakes are high enough for McChrystal to decide any action on his own. The understanding is that U.S. units will not enter Pakistan, except under extreme circumstances, and that Pakistan will deny giving them permission.

Such was the case in early January, when JSOC troops clandestinely entered the village of Saidgai, two officials familiar with the operation said, and Pakistan protested.

A week later, acting on what Pakistani intelligence officials said was information developed out of Libbi's interrogation, the CIA ordered a missile strike against a house in the village of Damadola, about 120 miles northwest of Islamabad, where Pakistani and American officials thought Zawahiri to be hiding.

The missile killed 13 civilians and several suspected terrorists. But Zawahiri was not among them. The strike "could have changed the destiny of the war on terror. Zawahiri was 100 percent sure to visit Damadola . . . but he disappeared at the last moment," one Pakistani intelligence official said.

Tens of thousands of Pakistanis staged an angry anti-American protest near Damadola, shouting, "Death to America!"

"Once again, we have lost track of Ayman al-Zawahiri," the Pakistani intelligence official said in a recent interview. "He keeps popping on television screens. It's miserable, but we don't know where he or his boss are hiding."

( THAT's meaningful to the terrorist base )

Contributing to this report were staff writers Bradley Graham, Thomas E. Ricks, Josh White, Griff Witte and Allan Lengel in Washington, Kamran Khan in Islamabad and John Lancaster in Wana, Pakistan, and staff researchers Julie Tate and Robert E. Thomason.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[01Snake]

I'm sure once a Democrat is in charge OBL will be captured. :rolleyes:

[valluco]

I'm sure once a Democrat is in charge OBL will be captured. :rolleyes:
Eh..

I'm sure that once we have a competent administration, democrat or republican instead of these fools he'll be captured.

[Ya Vez]

I like how no one likes to discuss the chances we had to get OBL even before 911.. I mean wasn't OBL practically given to us by Sudan... ?

[Ya Vez]

oh wait... thats the clinton years... we can't talk about what happened during the clinton years.. it's not relevant....

[01Snake]

Eh..

I'm sure that once we have a competent administration, democrat or republican instead of these fools he'll be captured.

Please enlighten us to why the tatics currently being used to locate OBL are not working and what methods would be used by a so called "competent" leader.

[valluco]

Please enlighten us to why the tatics currently being used to locate OBL are not working and what methods would be used by a so called "competent" leader.
What tactics?

They have no tactics. One day Bush tells us that we're going to find Osama at all costs, no matter where these "terrarists" hide, we're gonna find them.

Then, the invasion of Iraq happens. What about Bin Laden? Well, what about him? In a speech the president himself said that he doesn't even think about him.

Now, just two months before the election Bush is talking about Osama again. He's quoting him in speeches and comparing him to Hitler, etc.

I'm no strategic mastermind, but something tells me that if we were to finish the job with Al Qaeda and the Taliban instead of getting ass-deep in Iraq, we might have captured or killed Osama by now. Just a guess.

Maybe you can tell me why the current tactics aren't working.

[boutons_]

"the clinton years"

As long as equal opportunity blame goes to the dubya months, Jan-Sep 2001.

Clinton apparently tried, ineffectively, but he tried, and it was reported the Clinton team warned the incoming bushies very strongly about al Quaida.

But by all reports and observations, DUBYA DIDN'T EVEN TRY to go after al Qaida or even put his Exec branch on alert from Jan-Sep 2001.

Clinton was badly distracted by the partisan attacks from the Repugs and by impeachment. What distracted dubya from doing his NatSec job fully?

[boutons_]

http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/09/10/ta060910.gif



http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/09/09/bs060909.gif

[valluco]

What distracted dubya from doing his NatSec job fully?
Vacations.

[valluco]

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a185/valluco/VACATION_KING.jpg

[Ya Vez]

oh yeah congress just got off a month long vacation, I wonder how many democrats stayed behind to work.... lol

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Leave it to the two biggest assholes on the board to start a 9/11 thread with political attacks.

Y'all are pathetic.

[Clandestino]

no what's pathetic is that we haven't been able to capture the perpetrator of the largest crime in american history

:rolleyes

[boutons_]

"political attacks."

don't go all touchy-feely on us, dickless, you wanna-be hard-ass.

The Repugs have done NOTHING in 5 years except play politics with 9/11 and the war on terror.

[ChumpDumper]

:rolleyesYou're happy he's not caught or you're denying the severity of his crime.

Probably both.

Nice.

Thank God we declared that mission accomplished and caught the real guy behind 9-11 -- Saddam!

That is appropriate for :rolleyes

[George W Bush]

no what's pathetic is that we haven't been able to capture the perpetrator of the largest crime in american history

You'll never catch me!

[Clandestino]

You're happy he's not caught or you're denying the severity of his crime.

Probably both.

Nice.

Thank God we declared that mission accomplished and caught the real guy behind 9-11 -- Saddam!

That is appropriate for :rolleyes

i am happy we are looking for him... that we have many guys and gals(including many of my friends) doing their best work... what sucks is many of their intel gathering methods are thwarted daily by bitchers and whiners who think the fucking terrorists should have rights... the only right they should have is the right to being tortured, then killed

[ChumpDumper]

i am happy we are looking for him... that we have many guys and gals(including many of my friends) doing their best work...So you're happy Bush stopped those people and their best work and put them in Iraq?

Yes or no.

[Zunni]

i am happy we are looking for him... that we have many guys and gals(including many of my friends) doing their best work... what sucks is many of their intel gathering methods are thwarted daily by bitchers and whiners who think the fucking terrorists should have rights... the only right they should have is the right to being tortured, then killed
The only thing thwarting them is the Pakistani government, Bush's butt buddy Musharraf. With "friends" like that, who need terrorists or despots?

[Clandestino]

So you're happy Bush stopped those people and their best work and put them in Iraq?

Yes or no.

you have no idea what goes on in the intel world... it is 24/7/365.. it never stops.

[Clandestino]

The only thing thwarting them is the Pakistani government, Bush's butt buddy Musharraf. With "friends" like that, who need terrorists or despots?

how about news outlets and terrorist lovers complaining about the treatment of prisoners? or outing collection methods?

[ChumpDumper]

you have no idea what goes on in the intel world... it is 24/7/365.. it never stops.
:lol I didn't expect a straight answer from you. So resources were never pulled from the hunt for Osama to Iraq -- is that what you believe? Is that what all your friends in intel tell you? What's your security clearance anyway?

[ChumpDumper]

it is 24/7/365.. it never stops.I mean so is 7-Eleven, but it's not always fully staffed.

Are you saying the resources dedicated to hunting Osama are exactly the same as they were before the invasion of Iraq? Even when the President said "I truly am not that concerned about him." in 2004?

[boutons_]

Cheney sought Rice's role at National Security Council, Vanity Fair to report

Ron Brynaert
Published: Tuesday May 2, 2006

Bush apparently gave Cheney power to preside over National Security Council meetings

Shortly after taking office, Vice President Dick Cheney fought to take over one of the national security adviser's key duties, claims an unnamed ex-official in the June issue of Vanity Fair.

"At one point early in this Bush administration, a former official tells me, Cheney wanted to chair meetings of the National Security Council "principals"— the secretaries of state and defense, the C.I.A. director, and so on—in Bush’s absence, co-opting the usual role of the national security adviser, then Condoleezza Rice," writes Vanity Fair national editor Todd Purdum in an advance copy provided by the magazine to RAW STORY.

"He lost," Purdum adds within parenthesis.

Although Cheney's alleged desire to chair principals meetings has been reported before, the results of a RAW STORY investigation suggest that the Vice President may have gotten what he wanted.

Practically unnoticed, a National Security Presidential Directive issued Feb.13, 2001, and signed by President George W. Bush, formally gave the vice president that duty, albeit at the President's discretion.

"When I am absent from a meeting of the NSC, at my direction the Vice President may preside," Bush wrote.

But before the document was officially released, an article in the New York Times published in February, 2001 claimed that "officials who read the directive today and who were familiar with its development" said that it "rejected suggestions that Vice President Cheney head important meetings of the National Security Council."

"Given Mr. Cheney's broad powers and his past posts as defense secretary in the first Bush administration and chief of staff to President Gerald R. Ford, there were expectations at the White House that he would assume a more prominent role in the security council," the Times' Jane Perlez wrote.

"But the directive today affirmed Ms. Rice's primacy," Perlez claimed. "The directive means that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld will sit "deferentially" beside Ms. Rice at the meetings."

The directive was formally approved for release by the National Security Council staff on Mar. 13, 2001, but the vice president's new role went unnoticed.

A Washington Post article from February, 2001 noted that Bush's directive was issued later than usual, which may have been related to Cheney's jockeying for more power.

"Bush still has not issued the traditional presidential directive formally spelling out his national security structure -- a document his two immediate predecessors signed their first day in office," wrote Karen DeYoung and Steven Mufson for the Post.

In his book, Against All Enemies, Richard A. Clarke, former special advisor to the National Security Council, mentioned Cheney's attendance at the principals meetings.

"In the first weeks of the Administration, however, Cheney had heard me loud and clear about al-Qaida," Clarke wrote. "Now that he was attending the NSC Principals meetings chaired by Condi Rice (something no Vice President had ever done), I hoped he would speak up about the urgency of the problem, put it on a short list for immediate action. He didn't."

( the Clinton people warned the shrubbies about al Qaida, but on principle and ideology, the Repugs think anything coming from the Dems is by definition to be useless and ingnorable )

Clarke was taken off the principals committee by Rice in Bush's first year before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

In April 2004, a U.S. News & World Report article claimed that the vice president's unprecedented role on the N.S.C. caused it to become "dysfunctional."

"This is the most dysfunctional NSC that ever existed," an unnamed senior U.S. official told the magazine. "But it's not Condi's fault. The person that's made it so dysfunctional is Cheney."

"For the first time, a vice president is sitting in on meetings with other NSC principals and is constantly involved in the policymaking," wrote Kenneth T. Walsh for U.S. News. "A copy of every NSC memo goes to the vice president's staff, so that Cheney can play an active role on issues that interest him."

( apparently, National Security and al Qaida didn't interest dickhead between Jan - Sep 2001 )

[mookie2001]

Leave it to the two biggest assholes on the board to start a 9/11 thread with political attacks.

Y'all are pathetic.ROFL, what? Bushs whole 04 campaign was run on 9-11

[boutons_]

September 10, 2006

Rice Says U.S. Not Entirely Safe From Attack

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 10:43 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States is safer now than it was before the Sept. 11 attacks, but must not relent in fighting terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday. ''I think it's clear that we are safe -- safer -- but not really yet safe,'' Rice said.

( there she goes again, parroting the party line that Iraq = terrorism )

''We've done a lot. In terms of homeland, we're more secure. Our ports are more secure. Our airports are more secure. We have a much stronger intelligence sharing operation,'' said Rice, who was President Bush's national security adviser when al-Qaida masterminded the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

( see the following article about US not cooperating with European allies on intelligence )

Rice defended the invasion of Iraq and the ouster of President Saddam Hussein despite persistent questions about any evidence of a link to the attacks.

( yawn )

She said ''Iraq is going through very difficult times'' but said the U.S. must help create an environment there that does not allow extremism to flourish.

''It's hard to imagine that different kind of environment with Saddam Hussein in power and Iraq at the center of a nexus between terrorism and conflict,'' Rice said on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

( what bullshit. There was no conflict in Iraq with Saddam in power, he was not at all on terms with or support al Quaida. What's difficult to imagine is how much better position the US military would be vs Iran, Afghanistan, and the REAL war real on real terrorists with the US hadn't invaded Iraq. )

A Senate report released Friday disclosed for the first time that a CIA assessment in October 2005 said Saddam's government ''did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward'' al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.

( but Condi parrots the opposite )
Rice said Sunday she does not remember seeing that particular report.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif Just take the 5th amendment, bitch.

She maintained ''there were ties between Iraq and al-Qaida. Are we learning more now that we have access to people like Saddam Hussein's intelligence services? Of course we're going to learn more.''

( oh yeah? where's all this learning going, hidden in your bra or dichhead's underwear )

Republican John Lehman, a former member of the Sept. 11 commission, said the U.S. has taken important steps to stem terrorism by capturing many of those responsible for planning the Sept. 11 attacks.

( ... who weren't in Iraq )

''We have gotten rid of most if not all theater commanders of al-Qaida, but we have not addressed as a nation the root cause ... this jihadist ideology that is being preached around the world, basically funded with Persian Gulf money.''

( the root cause is oil and Israel )

Democrat Richard Ben-Veniste, also a commission member, said the war in Iraq ''has been a recruiting poster for jihadists throughout the Muslim world, and there are far more terrorists now than there were on 9/11. The Iraq invasion and occupation had nothing to do with terrorism. It had nothing to do with 9-11.''

( ... the precise position of the majority of Americans, and very probably the US mlitary on the ground, inspite of the vast right-wing media conspiracy to spin the opposite )

Rice appeared on ''Fox News Sunday.'' Lehman and Ben-Veniste were on ABC's ''This Week.''

===================

So Condi, as NSA head in Jan - Sep 2001, WTF were you doing?

Did you also forget to read the FBI, NSA, CIA reports about "planes into buldings", etc, in the summer of 2001?

Did you forget, or ever know, how to mobilize the national security apparatus in that period?

Really, really, really, WTF were you doing?

[boutons_]

Share Data -- and Protect Rights

By Sophie in't Veld
Saturday, September 9, 2006; A17

In his op-ed of Aug. 29, "A Tool We Need to Stop the Next Airliner Plot," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff claimed that the fight against terrorism is being hampered by European privacy concerns about the U.S. government's use of data collected on airline passengers. This is a very serious allegation that calls for a reaction and some qualification.

( the Repugs are at the most despicable best when blaming everybody else for the Repugs' legendary incompetence )
Europeans are no less concerned about the threat of terrorism than our American friends, not least since several attacks have occurred on our own continent since Sept. 11, 2001 (Madrid, London, the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh in Holland) and many more have been prevented. But we are also very aware that one aim of terrorists is to undermine our democracy, the rule of law and our human rights. We should never grant them the pleasure of achieving that goal.

Many Europeans have only recently acquired freedom and democracy, having lived for decades under authoritarian regimes. Therefore we are extremely aware of how precious democracy is. Due democratic process -- holding the executive to account, maintaining proportionality, transparency, the possibility of judicial review and respect for the rule of law, including international agreements -- is of the essence.

But the first question that must be answered about any anti-terrorism measure is this: Does it help make our world safer?

( hey, no fair!! don't ask this question about the phony Iraq war )Since Sept. 11 a host of measures have been taken in the fight against terrorism, often in a rush and in a climate of fear. It is high time for an in-depth evaluation of the results: Are the measures effective in terms of increased security? How many bad guys did we catch? How many plots were prevented? How many innocent citizens were held by mistake? Do we need further measures, or can some of them be revoked or adapted?

Asking critical questions, and insisting on proper safeguards and proportionality, are vital parts of the democratic process. Arguing that democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties get in the way of the fight against terrorism is nonsense. On the contrary, they are our best defense against those who want to destroy our society.

No one will deny that data collection and information sharing are necessary in the fight against terrorism. But such measures should not go beyond what's needed to achieve that purpose, and any restriction on the freedom and privacy of citizens must be accompanied by safeguards against mistakes and abuse, and by provision for proper means of redress.

In the case of the European Union-United States Passenger Name Record (PNR) agreement, neither condition has been met. The United States requires 34 items of data from travelers to the United States. E.U. citizens are not covered by American privacy laws, as U.S. citizens are, so they have little protection in this regard. The United States was not willing to make any promises to provide such protection but agreed only to "undertakings" in this area. It's hardly surprising that the European Parliament was not reassured.

It can be done differently, as shown by the PNR agreement between the European Union and Canada. Canada requires only 25 data items, and the protection of personal data that applies to Canadian citizens has been extended to cover E.U. citizens traveling to Canada.

In general, for the purpose of identifying certain individuals, the so-called APIS data (name, passport number, etc.) are sufficient. In practice, the carriers do not provide all 34 items requested by the United States but only the eight to 10 available to them. The need for further data has not been convincingly demonstrated. There may be a case for it, but as I understand democracy, it is up to the authorities to prove they need personal data, not to parliaments or individual citizens to prove that they don't.

A very critical report by the privacy officer of the Department of Homeland Security and an evaluation of the implementation of the E.U.-U.S. agreement show that implementation by the United States has been slow and inadequate. At the time of the evaluation, passengers did not receive any information about the PNR program and their rights.

Contrary to what was agreed to, the United States has so far failed to switch from the so-called PULL system (whereby the United States has direct access to the computer systems of the European carriers) to the PUSH system (whereby the carriers forward the data). There are serious questions regarding the use of data for purposes other than the ones agreed on and over the forwarding of data to third parties.

Secretary Chertoff states that the United States does not do ethnic profiling. To my knowledge no Western nation has admitted to ethnic profiling as an official policy, but we all know it happens in practice. So-called "trusted traveler" programs are essentially that. What chance has, say, a 25-year-old man with a beard, wearing a turban or having a Muslim appearance (whatever that may be) of being a "trusted traveler"?

Europeans are eager to work with their American friends and allies to eliminate the scourge of terrorism. But friends and allies work together on the basis of mutual respect, trust and shared values. Issues such as Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, illegal rendition flights and secret detention camps, the SWIFT spying scandal and the unsatisfactory implementation of the PNR agreement have done much harm to the traditional trust between the transatlantic partners. If we want to beat the terrorists, it is essential that trust be restored. That will not be achieved by tough language between the parties but through respect and willingness to seek compromises.

I am convinced that together we can find ways to protect our democracy and freedom while preserving our hard-won civil rights. Only in that scenario do the terrorists lose.

The writer is a Dutch member of the European Parliament and its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

==============

The Repugs would rather stew in their own incompetence, as has been clear to everybody, and policy-free, non-governing politics rather than work with the Dems or allies.

[Zunni]

how about news outlets and terrorist lovers complaining about the treatment of prisoners? or outing collection methods?
I haven't heard one person complain about Afghanistan or going after ObL, the real supporters and perpetrators of 9/11, other than we're doing them both half assed or not at all.

[boutons_]

Cheney Defends Hardline White House Role

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 10, 2006

Filed at 4:04 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday defended his lightning-rod role as a leading advocate for invading Iraq, for a warrantless surveillance program and for harsh treatment of suspected terrorists.

''Part of my job is to think about the unthinkable, to focus what in fact the terrorists may have in store for us,'' Cheney told NBC's ''Meet the Press'' when asked about his ''dark side.''

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Cheney.html

================

So, darth dickhead, what were you thinking that was unthinkable from Jan - Sep 2001?

Cancelling all taxes?

Outlawing all political parties except the Repug party?

Cancelling all TV licenses except Fox News?

Disbanding the US Govt?

Cancelling US democracy?

http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

[Ozzman]

Well, I can tell you this: There is a LOT you don't know...all of you. Even myself. I will tell you this also: There is a race going on right now; for the stopping of suitcase bombs going off in ten large cities around the united states. Russia has sold these unknowingly to Terrorists, Actual DIRTY bombs, and told them how to work them. there is a LOT that the American public does not know; you are nowhere NEAR as safe as you would like to think.

The prisons Bush was talking of, the Clinto Admin. had MANY of them all over the place, using ANY methods possible to retrieve info with them, Killing, torture, anything.
AND OBL could have been captured, BUT, he was using kids and such as human shields, and Clinton could not pull the trigger, had he, this would be MANY years in.

There will come a day when the U.S. public will have to dig it's heads from the sand and realize that the RADICALS do NOT want peace, and NO we can NOT all get along.
If they wanted peace so badly, then why did they ram 2 planes into skyscrapers and then REJOICE it?????????????(!)

[ChumpDumper]

How could Russia sell dirty bombs to terrorists unknowingly? Is there a legit market for suitcase bombs?

eBay?

[Nbadan]

How could Russia sell dirty bombs to terrorists unknowingly? Is there a legit market for suitcase bombs?

eBay?

Not to mention that the batteries that start of the reaction in these supposed 'suit-case bombs' are long expired and they are protected by unbreakable encryption codes. What you don't know can hurt you.

[boutons_]

"Russia has sold these unknowingly to Terrorists, Actual DIRTY bombs"

I really doubt that since Russia has a huge problem with an exploding and violent Muslim population, eg Chechens, all along its southern border. How could Russia sell suitcase bombs to terrorists and be assured that wouldn't be used by Chechens hitting Moscow?

[gtownspur]

How could Russia sell dirty bombs to terrorists unknowingly? Is there a legit market for suitcase bombs?

eBay?


Are you that moronic?

There's a black market for anything, what's to say that dirty bombs aren't one of those items?

And whose to say that the Russian govt is so organized as to track every transaction made from one of their rogue military personell?

[ChumpDumper]

There's a black market for anything, what's to say that dirty bombs aren't one of those items?That would be selling them knowingly, douchebag.
And whose to say that the Russian govt is so organized as to track every transaction made from one of their rogue military personell?That would mean Russia did not sell them, douchebag.

Nice to know you didn't even question the source, douchebag.

[gtownspur]

That would be selling them knowingly, douchebag.That would mean Russia did not sell them, douchebag.

Nice to know you didn't even question the source, douchebag.

I didn't say i believe the source did i,..moron.
So on the other hand, did russia knowingly\unknowingly sold bombs to terrorist,

Or they knowlingly sold bombs to terrorist?

[RandomGuy]

i am happy we are looking for him... that we have many guys and gals(including many of my friends) doing their best work... what sucks is many of their intel gathering methods are thwarted daily by bitchers and whiners who think the fucking terrorists should have rights... the only right they should have is the right to being tortured, then killed

Yeah, because the Israelis have done *that* so successfully.

Jeez, when they did that to the Palestinians, they just stopped complaining and all got along to live happily ever after. :rolleyes