HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Foreign Affairs & National Security » National Security & Defense (Group) » New NSA docs contradict 9...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jun 22, 2012, 07:04 AM

New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims of Bush administration

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.”

http://www.salon.com/topic/osama_bin_laden/

9 replies, 1540 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims of Bush administration (Original post)
BridgeTheGap Jun 2012 OP
rfranklin Jun 2012 #1
liberal N proud Jun 2012 #3
Atman Jun 2012 #2
FarPoint Jun 2012 #4
Atman Jun 2012 #5
Atman Jun 2012 #6
Atman Jun 2012 #7
BridgeTheGap Jun 2012 #8
juajen Oct 2012 #9

Response to BridgeTheGap (Original post)

Fri Jun 22, 2012, 07:08 AM

1. Those who said they Let It Happen On Purpose have been right all along...

 

"Is it the terrorists?" Bush asked on hearing the news of airplanes smashing into the WTC.

My personal belief is in MIHOP but it will probably take decades longer for that to come out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rfranklin (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 22, 2012, 07:21 AM

3. Yep

And so many were eager to jump on those who felt that is was an opportunity taken by the bu$h regime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BridgeTheGap (Original post)

Fri Jun 22, 2012, 07:11 AM

2. So CLINTON missed Bin Laden?

This article says the CIA had Bin Laden in its sites "a full year before 9/11," but that Bush failed to provide funding. However, a full year before 9/11, Bush hadn't even been selected by the SCOTUS yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 22, 2012, 08:20 AM

4. *bush took the office January 20 th,2001...

911 was 9/11/2001....so he was in office for 9 months....I recall Condi and NSA with a memo about a high alert attack warning in August 2001 as well....*bush was in Crawford at the time chopping wood and never acted on the warning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #4)


Response to FarPoint (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 22, 2012, 08:52 AM

6. I understand that...9 months is NOT "a full year."

The article further states that the drone program over Afghanistan/Pakistan started in April 2000. Again, that would have been under CLINTON, not Bush. However, it does go on to say that under Bush, he refused to properly fund the program. This does lead to questions of LIHOP. Why the hell would he defund the program and then claim "who could have seen this coming?" Clearly, people saw it coming, but chose not to do anything about it.

My only contention is that the headline and the gist of the story tends to lean on Bush for not taking action on information that was provided before he was even in office. The real question should be, did the Clinton administration, having had this intel, properly brief the incoming Bush administration (although, according to the docs, Bin Laden was "in their sites" a full three months before Clinton left office).

I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, because I've already had this thrown in my face by righties, and they DO have a point. I just tell them that Clinton didn't have time to get Bin Laden because he was busy taking the W's off the White House keyboards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BridgeTheGap (Original post)

Fri Jun 22, 2012, 01:28 PM

7. Hmm...thread kind of died after I pointed out the timeline.

Why is that? I think Bush is as evil as the next guy, but it's a legitimate question...why does this article impugn Bush, but mentions nothing of the intel they had under Clinton?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:03 AM

8. Remember that the Oklahoma City bombing led to the

Anti-Terrorism act, the forerunner of the Patriot Act. The new world order has been extremely busy errecting a police state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #7)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 07:08 PM

9. I distinctly remember that Bush was accused of

ignoring a warning by Clinton that Bin Laden was a danger to us and should be watched carefully and to note everything that he and his people had documented and were warning about. Look up Clinton administration and Bin Laden. Bush and Condi ignored it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread