9/11 Panel Plans Hard Questions for the F.B.I. and Justice Dept.

[jbfam4]

April 6, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/06/politics/06PANE.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

9/11 Panel Plans Hard Questions for the F.B.I. and Justice Dept.
By PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, April 5 — Current and former leaders of the Justice
Panel members said the most probing questions were likely to be directed at Mr. Ashcroft, who was sworn in as attorney general seven months before the attacks, and at Mr. Freeh, who ran the F.B.I. from 1993 until he retired in June 2001. He is now an executive with the MBNA Corporation, a large financial-services company.


But commission officials said evidence gathered in their investigation, when added to the detailed public record about law enforcement failings before Sept. 11, showed that the F.B.I. and the Justice Department had never given adequate attention to counterterrorism, and that the bureau had not seen connections among seemingly obvious danger signs in the summer of 2001.


Commission officials said their evidence showed that Mr. Ashcroft had taken little interest in counterterrorism before Sept. 11 and, days before the attacks, had rejected pleas from senior F.B.I. officials for more money for counterterrorism even as intelligence agencies warned of an imminent, possibly catastrophic, terrorist attack.

They said the commission may make public a series of internal memorandums written by Thomas J. Pickard, who was the F.B.I. acting director in the summer of 2001, criticizing what he perceived to be Mr. Ashcroft's disinterest in counterterrorism. Mr. Pickard, who did not return phone calls seeking comment, is also expected to testify next week.

Mr. Ashcroft may also be confronted with an internal administration budget document, dated Oct. 12, 2001, showing that he had gone along with a White House plan to sharply cut an emergency F.B.I. request for $1.5 billion in extra counterterrorism money after the attacks.

[Ready4Change]

1. I want someone to ask "Why no interceptors?"

I can understand giving or not giving shoot down orders.

What I want to find out is why the automatic processes that launch interceptors weren't triggered. This event was FAR within the boundaries that trigger intercepts. Except MAYBE for the first plane to hit the towers I see no excuse for the other 3 not being followed by interceptors.That would have been the normal, trained for response.

What, or who, short circuited that normal response? And why?

[quispquake]

2. Moved by Moderator

Not an editorial...