Slashdot Mirror
Wiki Editor Helps Reveal Pre-9/11 CIA Mistakes
An anonymous reader writes "Kevin Fenton was reading the Department of Justice's 2004 Inspector General report on pre-9/11 intelligence failures. Parts of it didn't make sense to him, so he decided to add the information in the report to Paul Thompson's 9/11 timeline at the wiki-style website History Commons. Eventually, Fenton's work led him to uncover the identity of a CIA manager who ran the Bin Ladin unit before 9/11, when agents there deliberately withheld information about two 9/11 hijackers from the FBI. That manager was named Richard Earl Blee and he is now the subject of a documentary by Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy, of secrecykills.org, who confirmed his identity using techniques right out of the 70s film All the President's Men. Blee, along with Cofer Black and George Tenet, have found the work disturbing enough to release a joint statement denying some of the allegations."
And if it were a conspiracy, it would still look like low-level bureaucratic infighting at its best. What better cover?
.. doesn't make it where it needs to go in time.
..
I'm sure someone in the chain recognized the credibility of the threat they were analyzing, and given how compartmentalized info is in the intelligence community, it was probably only a handful of people at most. A tacit standing agreement here and there, no phone calls or emails on the record, just an understanding and a recognition of the value of such an event in certain circles, and information just
Bush II had just made it into office in an election a fair chunk of the country still believed he'd flat out stolen, and the legitimacy of his presidency was being debated way too openly by way too many people for people cliose to him (like Cheney) not to have been sorely tempted to arrange a major disaster very much like 9/11. I just can't see those guys not having at least some desire for something to come along to scare the hell out of the population and provide the right climate to intimidate the critics into silence.
You're right, there's no real evidence of it. There won't be, if they did it right. But look at the situation the administration was in, and look at their possible motives. A few face to face conversations off the record with a few key people most likely to have the right scope of "need to know", setting the pieces in place for the right kind of event and the right kind of calculated tactical delay at the right time, and oops! Sorry, we should have caught that, boy, that's terrible, isn't it?
If it hadn't also conveniently provided the justification for passing the USA PATRIOT Act (and what Congresscritter in his/her right mind would vote against America and patriotism, the day after a bunch of scary swarthy foreign people attacked us, right?), it wouldn't resonate this way with me. But I've come to believe it because it's the only coherent story I can make of it. Yeah, that marks me as crazy in some circles. But it's just too convenient in too many ways
"no real evidence of any sort of high-level conspiracy"
The CIA made lots of mistakes. The single worst mistake they made, was when they allowed the White House to influence their reports, and even to edit the data to support political agendas. The CIA could well have denied some of the bullshit gushing from the White House. While they couldn't get away with using the direct language that I tend to use, there are many ways to tell the world that the White House is lying, while making it sound like you really respect the wisdom of the Pres, VP, etc.
I can forgive everything the CIA did and did not do - except for allowing Bush and Cheney to hijack the CIA's intelligence. They should have found a way to assert themselves, and to assert the real information.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The difference is that the people RESPONSIBLE for those turf wars are now being IDENTIFIED by NAME.
Look at how many "mistakes" were made on critical issues ... without anyone being identified or fired.
President Clinton took an oath of office. In that oath of office, he swore that he would see to it each and every American received the full protections of law without respect to position or privilege. It was his job to respect the civil rights of the mentally ill homeless guy who lives under the bridge, the schoolteacher, the dockworker, the farmer, the banker, the lawyer, and the priest. It was his job to do this without the slightest regard for who they were.
Gennifer Flowers had the right to the due process of law. The President deliberately and willfully subverted this.
If you say that's "of no consequence to the nation," that's your lookout. As for me, if he'll throw Gennifer Flowers' civil rights under the bus in order to avoid telling his wife he's having an affair then he'll do the same thing to me the instant I become inconvenient. I find that to be of immense consequence, and his conduct to be worthy of impeachment.
YMMV, and apparently does. Welcome to America, where we have the right to hold different opinions -- but only so long as we're wise enough to elect administrations that will defend our rights.