CNN talking head: Our intelligence gurus missed 25 to 29 warnings

[The Backlash Cometh]

leading up to 9/11? This was just said on CNN by a Lou Dobb's talking head, Roger Simon from U.S. News and World Report. He stated it as a matter of fact to support Negroponte's appointment. He thinks it's a good thing that Negroponte does not have intelligence background for the reason given.

Does this logic pass muster with everyone here?

This conversation came about when Lou Dobbs said that there is no opposition to Negroponte, except from the 9/11 victim's survivors who wanted someone who had a better intelligence background.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. 52 from the FAA alone.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050210/ap_on_re_us/sept_11_faa

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. What I don't understand is how this turned out to be an intelligence

failure, when the system that was in place during the Clinton Administration, diverted the Millenium bombings, yet was dismantled by the Bush Administration. It's obvious 9/11 was a policy failure. The intelligence was out there, it just needed the same kind of focus that the Clinton Administration, Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke (in the higher staff position) gave it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. Indubitably, an "intelligence" failure.

To get the real answer one has to explore LIHOP, MIHOP and WHAHOPpened?.

LIHOP and MIHOP means that it suited their purposes.
WHAHOPpened? means they had other priorities.

No matter which theory one ascribes to, it doesn't look good.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Okay, let's assume that LIHOP is accurate. How is allowing Bush

to appoint Negroponte going to make a difference from the next LIHOP from happening? Get my point? The information was out there, but it required someone from the Bush Administration, namely Condoleeza Rice, to make it a major focus of their meetings. Shake the trees.

9/11 was a policy failure. The intelligence was out there. If it didn't get to the right people, it was because the Bush Administration didn't think it was important, or LIHOP.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Let's assume WHAHOPpened? is accurate.

While they were spinning their evil plans for taxes, oil exploration and "How To Deal With the Chinese When They Get Their Grubby Hands On One Of Our Spyplanes" they looked upon the incoming terrorist warnings as an acceptable risk and put it on the side-burner. BAM! 9-11. This is their best case scenario. A policy failure. A priorities fuck-up. An Oath of Office infringement. Best case.

It only gets worse from there.

Negroponte is just a cog.

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. Right. Do you see the advantage of referring to it as a policy failure?

Instead of an intelligence failure? There was no question that the intelligence was out there. But there was no policy in place to collect it and analyze it the way the Clinton Administration did. Why that policy was not in place could be LIHOP or it could be sheer Bush incompetence.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. Hmm. Either way it's a "policy failure."

If it was low on their priority list, then it's a policy failure.

If they instigated it, then it was a policy failure.

So, yes, I see the advantage. It has the advantage of being correct no matter the circumstances.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. Yes. So write to Lou Dobbs and tell him because to call it an

intelligence failure is putting the full responsibility on the CIA, FBI etc. and not the Bush Administration.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Me and Dobbs aren't corresponding.

:cry:

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. He doesn't write, he doesn't call.

LOL

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. .

:thumbsup:

[burythehatchet]

11. to apply a little curvature to the logic

that's why its MIHOP...

[rainy]

9. Please fill me in on WHAHOPpened? And, the wargames

I am a little rusty about. I'll google if you just give me the topic to get the best info.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. WHAHOPpened?

= asleep at the switch.

Wargames? An adult's version of Army Men.

[EVDebs]

2. And no mention of Wargames or Ptech in the FAA....Lovely reporting !

Wargames like Vigilant Warrior and the Saudi software company with FAA and intell access ! No mention ... means that's the real story. The silence is deafening.

[indepat]

4. Guess his little Central American stint matters to absolutely no one

[rman]

7. still they warned the admin several times,

which Bush and the gang somehow managed so miss.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. My point exactly. The intelligence was out there. 9/11 was a policy

failure. Not an intelligence failure.

[burythehatchet]

10. I think Negroponte is the perfect appointment

Lets say you have to hire someone to run a casino's security operation. You're responsible for preventing cheats from getting on tables. Wouldn't you want someone who knew every trick, every move, perhaps someone who's even been one of the bad guys?

Negroponte is a terrorist. A state-sanctioned terrorist. Who better to keep up with what the terrorists (CIA) are up to.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. You're going to have the perfect game in town.

They'll continue to use government resources to advance their shadow government.

[LinuxInsurgent]

12. so he's logic is essentially...

Our intelligence before sucked...so in order to improve it...let's put a man whose governmental experience includes terrorizing Central American Republics on behalf of the U.S embassy...that'll sort out the intelligence problems.

[prodigal_green]

13. uhhh

don't the warnings come from intelligence agencies? The FAA knew terrorists were going to hijack planes. Once the planes went off course, they should have assumed hijacking.

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. If you take the analogy out of "Against All Enemies" and the

9/11 hearings:

Before the Millenium attempted bombing, this process was in place:

There was already a process in place to get the agency heads sharing information. Richard Clarke was in charge of it. Richard Clarke was also given a staff position under the Clinton Administration so the flow of information went directly to the decision makers. When there was a report submitted that stated that there was "chatter", Richard Clarke "shook some trees" in the agencies to get the information he needed from the lower levels and passed it on to Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor. Decisions were made, and the Millenium bombing was avoided.

Then came Bush.

The information was still flowing. There was still chatter, but Richard Clarke had been demoted and there was no one shaking the trees and no one was being a liaison between the agencies. Rice's incompetence will be legendary to us news junkies, but will be buried along with the rest of this administration's mistakes.

Ergo. 9/11 was not an intelligence failure. It was a policy failure.

[ComerPerro]

24. So, if that's the case, why did Tenet get a medal

from Bush?

If he fucked up so bad and he is responsible for 9/11 happening, then why did Bush reward him?

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. Exactly.

From what I could gander from Richard Clarke's book, the CIA was always worried about getting the blame for anything that was pushed by the executive branch. You see, by the time the media would discovered one of their operations, the people in the executive branch were out of office, so the CIA would get the blame for something the previous president requested. That's why they wanted everything on paper. And that's why, if they didn't have a decisive president, such as Clinton was (and who gave Richard Clarke's position a higher profile), they would do nothing that might jeopardize their agency. In fact, just the opposite. If the intelligence they discovered would be incriminating to the friends of the executive branch, they would probably keep it under wraps instead of taking a chance of pissing off the president and his people.

Of course, now it's a whole lot worse, because you have the CIA that is totally under the control of Rove.

[prodigal_green]

27. I've said it before on here, but it bears repeating

I have a friend who is an analyst at the CIA (not an undercover operative, so I'm not Novaking here). I asked him about the so-called "intelligence failure" and supposedly bad info from his employer. His response, "Maybe if we had presented it in coloring-book form he would have understood it. Yes, there was an intelligence failure, but not in the information gathering sense of the phrase."

[The Backlash Cometh]

29. The 13 page report to Condoleeza Rice on January 25th 2001 supports

your position. It was probably too much information for her to digest.

[moondust]

25. Starting at the top.

Like anything else there are ins and outs to intelligence work that some people spend years learning. Doubtful many seasoned intel personnel will be thrilled about teaching him the ropes from the ground up so that he can turn around and be their boss, things they all mastered years or decades ago. Intel encompasses lots more than counter-terrorism.

[Hugin]

28. Seems to me there were 52 very specific non-systemic-failure warnings

which were ignored at the very top.

There's your intelligence failure... At the top.

Anyone care to argue?