Is this the "real truth" about 9/11?

[rushmc 23]

How many have heard about this in the main news outlets?
(I am not implying anthing here as I really don't know if it has been on the news)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/11/104424.shtml


Thursday, Aug. 11, 2005 10:42 a.m. EDT
9/11 Widows 'Horrified' at Intelligence Blunder

A group of 9/11 widows say they are "horrified" over reports that the 9/11 Commission ignored evidence that the Clinton administration had identified the two 9/11 hijackers who destroyed the World Trade Center as terrorist threats two years before the attack.

"We are horrified to learn ... that the 9/11 Commission failed to fully investigate all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the 9/11 attacks," the group Sept. 11 Advocates said in a statement late Wednesday.

A separate group of 9/11 widows, known as "the Jersey Girls," is also expressing outrage over the 9/11 Commission's decision to ignore testimony that military intelligence had identified Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi in 1999 as terrorist threats operating inside the U.S. - but was ordered not to share the information with the FBI.
"This calls into question the credibility of the [9/11 Commission] report because this is not an insignificant piece of information," Kristen Breitweiser told the Asbury Park Press.

"The idea we didn't know this is quite disturbing," she added.

"People have been led to believe that the hijackers were in the country undetected, but this information shows that is not true," said fellow Jersey Girl Mindy Kleinberg.

"Now the truth is our intelligence agencies did not fail," Kleinberg told the Press. "They were tracking them. Now the question is why did we perpetrate that myth and why were we not able to unravel the plot, especially in light of the fact that we had Mohamed Atta in our sights."

Rep. Curt Weldon, who first revealed the 9/11 intelligence blunder on Monday, blamed the "firewall" erected by the Clinton Justice Department that prevented sharing intelligence with law enforcement.

"There was no reason not to share this information with the FBI," he complained in a radio interview Wednesday night, "except that the firewalls that existed back then were so severe that they wouldn't let these agencies talk to one another."

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

There you go trying to shove the blame for all the worlds problems off on Clinton when we all know it's the Evil Bushs' fault.

Seriously, I have typed many many words describing how Gorelick and Toriccelli help create the conditions that allowed 9/11. I don't know why this information is surprising to anyone considering Gorelick was on the 9/11 Commission.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

"There was no reason not to share this information with the FBI," he complained in a radio interview

Now for what this news story didn't bother to tell you.

The law at that time forbid sharing of info between military and domestic intelligence agencies. This had to do with the seperation of the military from domestic police issues. If they had shared that info, it would have been a violation of the law, and they could have gone to jail for it.

The Patriot Act, which everyone seems to hate, knocked down that wall and allowed these agencies to share such information.

So, don't make this out to be some kind of Bush-bashing scenario. Bush got the law changed so it won't happen again.

[gravitational 0]

Quote

The law at that time forbid sharing of info between military and domestic intelligence agencies.

This is the first I've heard this and I consider myself pretty well informed. Any reference to the law you're referring to? (link?)

Here's a cnn article on the topic. It makes reference to not sharing the info, but not due to a 'law'.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

The law at that time forbid sharing of info between military and domestic intelligence agencies.

This is the first I've heard this and I consider myself pretty well informed. Any reference to the law you're referring to? (link?)

Here's a cnn article on the topic. It makes reference to not sharing the info, but not due to a 'law'.

Presidential Directive 24.

PDD 24 put intelligence gathering under the direct control of the president's National Security Council, and ultimately the White House, through a four-level, top-down chain of command set up to govern (that is, stifle) intelligence sharing and cooperation between intelligence agencies. From the moment the directive was implemented, intelligence sharing became a bureaucratic nightmare that required negotiating a befuddling bureaucracy that stopped directly at the President's office.
...

The result was a massive bureaucratic roadblock for the CIA - which at the time had a vast lead on the FBI in foreign intelligence - and for the FBI itself, which was also forced to report to the NCOB. This hampered cooperation between the two entities. All this occurred at a time when both agencies were working separate ends of investigations that would eventually implicate China in technology transfers and the Democratic Party in a Chinese campaign cash grab.

A year after PDD 24, with the new bureaucratic structure loaded with administration appointees, Gorelick drafted the 1995 memo Attorney General John Ashcroft mentioned while testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The Gorelick memo, and other supporting memos released in recent weeks, not only created walls within the intelligence agencies that prevented information sharing among their own agents, but effectively walled these agencies off from each other and from outside contact with the U.S. prosecutors instrumental in helping them gather the evidence needed to make the case for criminal charges.

...

It is no coincidence that this occurred at the same time both the FBI and the CIA were churning up evidence damaging to the Democratic Party, its fundraisers, the Chinese and ultimately the Clinton administration itself. Between 1994 and the 1996 election, as Chinese dollars poured into Democratic coffers, Clinton struggled to reopen high-tech trade to China. Had agents confirmed Chinese theft of weapons technology or its transfer of weapons technology to nations like Pakistan, Iran and Syria, Clinton would have been forced by law and international treaty to react.


Full story here:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13516

[sfzombie13 324]

the news i read about this said he was known for a year prior to the attacks, not two. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050812/ap_on_go_co/sept_11_hijackers_22
i tried to make a clicky.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050812/ap_on_go_co/sept_11_hijackers_22

Fixed it for you.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

A group of 9/11 widows say they are "horrified"

What a load of crap.

So the widows are horrified. Are we to go check with them to confirm what we should think?

The fact that it was so avoidable is not at all surprising. Using the widows as a headline enhancer is just sensationalistic journalism at its worst.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[gravitational 0]

Quote

Presidential Directive 24.

Thanx...This is helpful.

------
Michael

[ViperPilot 0]

There's a lot of things that could have been done to either prevent or lessen the 9/11 attacks. Clinton could have taken up Sudan on its Osama offer the few times they made it. Our stupid laws could have NOT prevented intel sharing between civilians and military, and more importantly, this country and the rest of the world could stop being so damn worried about PC and just do what it takes to keep us safe. Lastly, our intelligence could have stepped it up. Maybe I'm wrong in this assumption and there was stuff I don't know about (100% likely), but it still seems we should have had some wind.

[rushmc 23]

I know that they were forbidden. They sure don't want to talk about who or why now do they??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

There's a lot of things that could have been done to either prevent or lessen the 9/11 attacks. Clinton could have taken up Sudan on its Osama offer the few times they made it. Our stupid laws could have NOT prevented intel sharing between civilians and military, and more importantly, this country and the rest of the world could stop being so damn worried about PC and just do what it takes to keep us safe. Lastly, our intelligence could have stepped it up. Maybe I'm wrong in this assumption and there was stuff I don't know about (100% likely), but it still seems we should have had some wind.

I agree.

The reason I posted this was not specifically for the info but to see if those wanting to put the blame directly on the Bush administration might have something different to say.

I guess I knew better......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[AlexCrowley 0]

Ok. newsflash. It's not a Left/Right thing. The CIA was well known for using the US embassy in Saudi to procure visas for terrorists over the last 20 years or so - Embassy staff have stepped forward since 9/11 and admitted so.

I think the intel sharing is a red herring. Bear in mind the huge pissing contest between the various agencies. My thought is that 9/11 was a very large wake up call for the agencies to stop acting like assholes.

It really has nothing to do with which administration did what, as this really is the fruit of a multiple-administration situation.

We created monsters and they turned on us.

Blame the CIA if you really want to pin it on anyone, or you could simply accept that the world is a fucked up place, and that hindsight is 20/20.

If you blame Bush then you're blaming Clinton, Bush SR and Reagan also.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Ok. newsflash. It's not a Left/Right thing. The CIA was well known for using the US embassy in Saudi to procure visas for terrorists over the last 20 years or so - Embassy staff have stepped forward since 9/11 and admitted so.

I think the intel sharing is a red herring. Bear in mind the huge pissing contest between the various agencies. My thought is that 9/11 was a very large wake up call for the agencies to stop acting like assholes.

It really has nothing to do with which administration did what, as this really is the fruit of a multiple-administration situation.

We created monsters and they turned on us.

Blame the CIA if you really want to pin it on anyone, or you could simply accept that the world is a fucked up place, and that hindsight is 20/20.

If you blame Bush then you're blaming Clinton, Bush SR and Reagan also.

For the most part I agree with your post. My point is more at the double standards in reporting. If the figer is pointed at a right winger then it is all over the news. Point it left................................................................................defening silence.

Another example. That New York rag did 56 favorable articles on the new Air America since March of this year. Now they have all but admitted "procurring" millions from a charity to fund the failing broadcaster

Not one article. Would the silence be the same had the EIB network done the same?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[markd_nscr986 0]

***For the most part I agree with your post. My point is more at the double standards in reporting. If the figer is pointed at a right winger then it is all over the news. Point it left................................................................................defening silence.



You do realise don't you,there is NO liberal bias in the media

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[jdhill 0]

Quote

The law at that time forbid sharing of info between military and domestic intelligence agencies.

Not exactly... there was and Executive Order (which is further propogated in to DOD and other Branch regulations) that lays out how and when DOD Intellignece Activities may conduct domestic operations, or operations that involve "US Persons" (which means US Citizens or known perminent resident aliens status)... generally it prohibits collection against "US Persons" both domestically and internationally... and generally limits operations to that of collecting foriegn intelligence and counter-intelligence...

Given that Atta was a foriegn national, under the control of a foreign group, and not a US citizen or perminent resident alien, he did not (or should not) have "US Person" status... so collecting and diseminating information on him should not have caused any legal problem, and if in the course of collecting and processing the information on him revealed that he was operating inside the US, the FBI (who is responsible for domestic intelligence) should have been notified, and in fact may have been required to be notified.

Just because it becomes a domestic matter does not mean you close the file and shove it in the drawer... Someone screwed up by not allowing the info to be passed... not sources or methods, just the names and locations...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Not one article. Would the silence be the same had the EIB network done the same?

I think you're seeing the media as liberal biased because you're to the right of center. Many liberals see the media as right wing biased because they're too the left of center.

Media answeres to $$$$$$. For 3 years you could not find one negative story about Bush. EVER. I looked, trust me.

Then his approval ratings came down and we saw negative Bush stories for a little while, then it looked like Kerry might win! BIG NEGATIVE BUSH STORIES!!!!! then not so much, and little negative stories and then BUSH WON! GASP! and no negative stories, now his approval ratings are in the shitter and its back to HUGE NEGATIVE STORIES!.

Journalism does not exist at a national for-profit level, it simply panders to the largest demographic available to pad it's ratings and generate more advertizing revenue.

It has been this way from the day they stopped using their programming to fund their news reports and started seeing it as its own profit center.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rushmc 23]

I can not imagine where you have been getting your news.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

I guess I knew better......Unsure

Indeed you did.

[rushmc 23]

...sorry.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[AlexCrowley 0]

Rush,

It comes from watching media trends over the last 10 years.

It was especially pronounced when it looked like Kerry might win, according to polls.

Of course, I was only monitoring the top 5 papers in the US at the time so YMMV.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Presidential Directive 24.

what president was it? ........Clinton

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Presidential Directive 24.

what president was it? ........Clinton

Shhhhh..... we are supposed to pretend it's all GWBs fault. The entire 9/11 plan wasn't hatched until after Bush took office. They did everything in 8 months including eluding the CIA abd FBI. There were WMDs until Bush took office, then they disappeared. Haven't you been paying attention?

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Haven't you been paying attention?

no I have been to busy laughing at Kerry and friends