Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:38 PM Jun 2012

Salon.com: "New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims"

New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims
“I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released," an expert tells Salon

By Jordan Michael Smith

Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.

The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida’s relationship with America’s ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn’t get the institutional support they needed,” says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.

Let’s start there. In 2000 and 2001, the CIA began using Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Afghanistan. “The idea of using UAVs originated in April 2000 as a result of a request from the NSC’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism to the CIA and the Department of Defense to come up with new ideas to go after the terrorists in Afghanistan,” a 2004 document summarizes. The Pentagon approved the plan for surveillance purposes.

And yet, simultaneously, the CIA declared that budget concerns were forcing it to move its Counterterrorism Center/Osama bin Laden Unit from an “offensive” to a “defensive” posture. For the CIA, that meant trying to get Afghan tribal leaders and the Northern Alliance to kill or capture bin Laden, Elias-Sanborn says. “It was forced to be less of a kinetic operation,” she says. “It had to be only for surveillance, which was not what they considered an offensive posture.”

The rest, read it: http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/new_nsa_docs_reveal_911_truths/
13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

kenny blankenship

(15,689 posts)
1. So the Bush Administration was lying to us and covering up its own incompetence...
Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:57 PM
Jun 2012

I know we're all SHOCKED. There - got that out of the way.

This may not be the best time to start this BUT - this kind of revelation, which we knew in a general way was sure to be lurking around in the file cabinets, could have done WONDERS to prevent a midterm resurgence for Republicans.

As I said prior to the Inauguration, "Obama has to level with the country".
About everything.

The Republicans should have been BURIED with every stupid, illegal and horrifying thing Bush and Cheney and Delay and Hasturd ever did in a Truth Commission style deNazification campaign. Making a "clean breast" of things for the nation was necessary so we could MARK THE END of and begin to move beyond the Reagan-Bush Generational Error, and to forestall the inevitable Repuke counterrevolution.

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
3. The liberal media will never let this information see the light of day
Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:09 PM
Jun 2012

And the Obama administration will do nothing to force the issue, even while they are getting the blame for fuckups that took place before the American people even knew who Obama was.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
5. the cooperation of Democrats in coverups......
Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:13 PM
Jun 2012

...words fail me. From the time of coup attempt against Roosevelt (foiled by General Smedley Butler), there have been numerous attacks on the Constitution by Republicans. Democrats continue to let them off easy, afraid to hold them accountable to the public!

Now they count on Democratic weakness, and act with impunity.

When?

When?

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
8. The 9/11 claims were made a full year prior to 9/11?
Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:15 PM
Jun 2012

The 9/11 claims were made a full year prior to 9/11?

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
9. But they didn't have armed drones at the time.
Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:39 PM
Jun 2012

Bushco squelched the recommendations to increase funding for the program.

From the article:

Still, the drone program began in September 2000. One drone swiftly twice observed an individual “most likely to have been Bin Laden.” But since the CIA only had permission to use the drones for intelligence gathering, it had no way to act on its findings. The agency submitted a proposal to the National Security Council staff in December 2000 that would have significantly expanded the program. “It was too late for the departing Clinton Administration to take action on this strategic request,” however. It wasn’t too late for the Bush administration, though. It just never did.

 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
11. It wasn't Bill Clinton's
Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:44 PM
Jun 2012

Pentagon that let itself get hit. It is after all our DEFENSE building. Billions of dollars on defense, and they couldn't even defend themselves. Does that make sense to you? And we the people ONLY get to see a blurry video of that attack, but to some that is good enough.

Would you want to be tried for a crime with this kind of evidence? Wouldn't you demand a clear video of the crime? How do we accept their evidence? It's the Pentagon, and there should be hundreds if not thousands of camera's, but we ONLY get to see the one they want us to see.

ThomasP

(29 posts)
7. I have
Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:15 PM
Jun 2012

given up hope that we will ever really know what happened that day. No one has the political will to really investigate it.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
10. Looks like the intelligence community...
Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:40 PM
Jun 2012

...is tired of being the public whipping boy. How many times have we heard the phrase "massive intelligence failure" put out there as a reason for the 9/11 attacks...

From the article:

The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.

and
Rice claimed that the Bush administration continued the Clinton administration’s counterterrorism policies, a claim the documents disprove.

and
Many of the documents publicize for the first time what was first made clear in the 9/11 Commission: The White House received a truly remarkable amount of warnings that al-Qaida was trying to attack the United States.


And on and on...
 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
12. And we are supposed to believe it
Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:51 PM
Jun 2012

All the while they can't even show us the attack at the Pentagon. Was that a "Massive Camera" failure? Other surrounding places had video, but they took it. Why can't we see the other videos? Is that asking too much. That's going to Trutherland. How dare we question our government.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
13. It's hard for me to question that an airplane hit the Pentagon...
Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:32 PM
Jun 2012

...in spite of the various arguments to the contrary.

For one thing, many witnesses claimed to have seen the plane coming in. For another thing, everyone with friends and relatives on that flight, have not heard of those friends and relatives since. So what else could have happened to them? As an aside, Ted Olsen's wife was on that plane -- she had planned to show up as a surprise on his birthday -- and she, too, has not been seen or heard from since.

On the other hand, it really is remarkable how much information has been withheld, including film of the events of that day, as you note. Even the well documented and undisputed facts that we do know, raise huge questions, such as: (a) GWB sitting in that classroom -- how weird was that? It was only because the school posted the video on their web site that we know about this incident -- once it got out, it was too late to scrub it. You can be sure that Bush, Cheney et al would have preferred that video never came to light. (b) Or the fact that jets were not scrambled in time to protect the Pentagon, headquarters of the most powerful and sophisticated military the world has ever seen? Yet a known-to-be-hijacked jet flown by an amateur pilot was able to get through that well-protected airspace? Doesn't pass the smell test.

Note, I am only citing a couple of undisputed facts about the events of 9/11. You can leave out all of the disputed facts and IMO you still have to come up wondering WTF???

I think there has been a coverup of massive proportions, and I don't care who wants to throw around that old "Truther" label. We constantly find out about government malfeasance, 50 or 75 or 100 years later, yet people still refer scornfully to "conspiracy theories" and accuse people of wearing tinfoil hats if they don't accept the official story. And always remember, we're talking about Bush and Cheney here (think BFEE). There is a narrative that has yet to be told, I only hope enough records exist to piece it back together at some point in the future.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Salon.com: "New NSA ...