Intelligence Matters

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

I had the fortune of listening to Bob Graham speak tonight about 9/11, the events before and after it, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

– I heard him recount the many slip ups in our system, including Agent Williams getting close but not getting heard.

– He told of a ‘terrorist summit’ that took place in Malaysia, that we knew about but couldn’t infiltrate in some way.

– I heard him speak of the ties of the 9/11 hijackers to Saudi Arabia, including some potential signs that their gov’t was aware of the plot.

– I listened to him recount what General Franks said to him personally about the diversion of critical resources from the war on terror to the war on Iraq. He also shared which sites he thought ought to be addressed before Iraq was addressed (Somalia, Yemen)

– I heard him say that OBL was cornered – trapped in the mountains – but we “outsourced” the job of his hunting and lost him.

Lastly, I’d like to address something that relates to the 1st Debate – Bush’s argument that Kerry saw the same intelligence that he saw.

I found this accusation – or “blame sharing”, if you will – to be curious, but also somewhat effective. After discussing it with friends, however, it came to my attention that , well, OF COURSE IT’S NOT THE SAME INTELLIGENCE – HE’S THE PRESIDENT! This opinion was corroborated by Graham, tonight, when he noted two effective responses to Bush’s attack:

  1. Bush receives PDB’s and Executive Daily Memo’s (remember 8/6?), both of which the Senate does not. Further, and my own observation, Bush had Dick Clarke breathing down his neck from day one.
  2. Congress, on the whole, for the most part, gives the Commander in Chief a certain level of trust. A certain level of “he knows best” authority. In other words, Bush spoke with such strength in conviction (a nice tagline, btw, from the 1st debate) that Congress gave him some benefit of the doubt.

Bush should NOT be “replacing” the blame.

I purchased the book from Graham and will undoubtedly be sharing more of what I learn from it.

Has anyone else read it? I think it’s in everyone’s interest, no matter the side, as 9/11 seems to have been an avoidable atrocity.

2

You were moved by criticism and second guessing galore? An entire evening devoid of substantative alternatives.

No wonder you loved Kerry’s performance in the first debate.

Graham sounds like your kind of guy.

I’ll look for you in the footage of the event.

JeffR

3

[quote]JeffR wrote:
You were moved by criticism and second guessing galore? An entire evening devoid of substantative alternatives
No wonder you loved Kerry’s performance in the first debate.

Graham sounds like your kind of guy.

I’ll look for you in the footage of the event.

JeffR[/quote]

Have you read the book, JeffR?

4

As an aside, when I saw the thread title ‘Intelligence Matters’, I thought it was referring to the drop in Bush’s popularity since the debate!

5

RSU,

I have not.

Do you think it offers any positive insights that would allow our country to win in Iraq?

Will someone who thinks that George Bush is not the boogey-man actually learn anything from it?

Or is it written by a failed candidate for the Democratic nomination for the sole purpose of bringing down the Administration?

Please be honest. If I spend my precious time reading a sour-grapes Democratic slander-fest, I’m going to be pissed.

Frankly, the quotes you offered sound like another second guessing, conspiracy theorist.

I’ve been wrong before. I’m interested in your honest report on the book.

JeffR

6

Graham was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, if I recall correctly (?)

I’m sure I don’t have to remind JeffR that the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief (“Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within US”) was 11 pages long, and specifically mentioned possible hijackings and that Al Qaeda targets were likely to be federal government buildings and major financial institutions. Bush responded by going fishing. He spent the entire month of August on vacation.

I’m sure JeffR remembers when the head of the FBI testified under oath that Attorney General John Ashcroft told him he was tired of hearing about terrorism threats, and to drop the subject.

Senator Graham is retiring this year and has nothing to gain politically from publishing this book, despite JeffR’s usual knee-jerk reaction that people like General Zinni and Senator Graham are just writing these exposes ‘for the money’.

[edited for spelling]

7

[quote]JeffR wrote:
RSU,

I have not.

Do you think it offers any positive insights that would allow our country to win in Iraq?[/quote]
I don’t know if it addresses this directly, but is this the only thing in the world that matters now? Is this the only topic one can write a book about?

Are the events that led up to 9/11 not worthy of attention? Might it not be useful to consider what we could have done better pre and post-9/11 so as to not allow it to happen again?

[quote]
Will someone who thinks that George Bush is not the boogey-man actually learn anything from it?[/quote]

I don’t know. You don’t think he’s the boogie man, so why not be your own experiment?

[quote]
Or is it written by a failed candidate for the Democratic nomination for the sole purpose of bringing down the Administration?[/quote]

Bringing down the administration? C’mon now! It is perfectly acceptable to point out the errs of anyone – including the administration. Doing so does not necessarily mean political desires lie within – as Lumpy has pointed out, Graham is done with public life…(he revealed his possible future plans this evening, and I’m excited!)

If you approach it that way, then perhaps you might be doomed to remain blissfully ignorant.

They were not quotes from the book, but merely a summation of some of the points he spoke on.

8

I have to agree with the “bloods” on this one. The more we learn about 9/11, the more it looks like it was a colossal security F-up. But one question: how often did the president receive memos about terrorism threats and whatnot? I mean, let’s not say that we should ever disregard CIA intelligence, but what was the context of the the times, you know? Was this just one more memo he got about terrorism sitting in a pile of a thousand? Just wondering.

9

You know, intelligence is what it is – a bunch of informed (some better, some worse) guesses, always qualified to some degree or other. I find it interesting that, when it comes to this subject, one side is willing to throw away CIA briefings qualified by such words as ‘solid’, ‘credible’, ‘unspecified’, ‘believe to be reliable’ – associated with intelligence work but short of the one word which has become the retrospective requirement for action, ‘certain’ – when it comes to Saddam sponsoring international terrorism prior to our Iraq invasion, and yet consider it a major intelligence failure that an even more qualified executive briefing warned of the possibility that a terrorist might attack the U.S. by hijacking a plane.

Flip it around, and it makes the same amount of sense (not so much) from the other side.

As I said above, intelligence is informed guesses, and the reports are generally CYA stuff put together by bureaucrats who cover all the possibilities in the kitchen sink. The executives who deal with the intel have to prioritize what to deal with. In retrospect, one looks back and says “How could Bush possibly have lowered the priority given to terrorist attacks, especially when one possibility shoved under his nose one day mentioned attack by an airplane?”

However, at the time, we’d never been attacked by an airplane – hijackers blew them up or tried to get money while killing some of the passengers. No one else had ever been attacked by an airplane either. And the outgoing administration had de-prioritized terrorism from groups such as al Queda. The incoming administration had rogue states as higher priorities.

Right now I’m sure there are briefs about attacking nuclear plants, poisoning the water supply, poisoning the food supply, attacks with various viral agents, attacks with dirty bombs, suitcase nukes, etc. Some of these are dealt with on a higher priority than are others, due to probability calculations and the cost of a suitable level of protection (which can never be 100%, and grows exponentially as one approaches 100%). At the time, what made a briefing on being attacked by a plane seem more likely than being attacked by a dirty bomb, or poisoning the food supply?

The same general idea goes for the President’s evaluation of the info he had concerning Saddam’s involvement in international terrorism. He got qualified info and had to prioritize both its quality and importance – and of course, he had to do it in the wake of 9/11. One can perhaps see how it was prioritized a little bit higher at that juncture.

Basically, intelligence is by its nature not a certainty. Intelligence involving possible threats, rather than specific plans, is the most uncertain type of all. Thus, intelligence about the possible threat of an airplane attack would seem to be less precise or certain that intelligence that Saddam was specifically collaborating with international terrorists, assuming the quality of the initial information on which the assessments were based to be the same.

Now, as to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, I’ve never worked in the government or for intel, but I assume they would be given access to at least the important information – as judged by the intelligence officers who report to the committees. Of course, given Kerry’s attendance record at the committee hearings, one can only guess at what he actually had a chance to read…

10

RSU stated: “If you approach it that way, then perhaps you might be doomed to remain blissfully ignorant.”

More name calling.

11

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
In retrospect, one looks back and says “How could Bush possibly have lowered the priority given to terrorist attacks, especially when one possibility shoved under his nose one day mentioned attack by an airplane?”

However, at the time, we’d never been attacked by an airplane – hijackers blew them up or tried to get money while killing some of the passengers. No one else had ever been attacked by an airplane either. And the outgoing administration had de-prioritized terrorism from groups such as al Queda. The incoming administration had rogue states as higher priorities.
[/quote]

Nice attempt at rewriting history. Our agencies were on alert against attack by plane during the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. Also at the 2001 G8 summit in Europe. We knew there was a terrorist plot to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower. And the August 6th brief “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within US” specifically mentioned hijacking airplanes, and attacks on federal buildings.

Also. terrorism was a main priority for the Clinton administration. During the 2000 presidential race, Al Gore cited terrorism as his foriegn policy priority. Bush had other priorities.

As the 9-11 commission revealed, the Bush administration repeatedly ignored warnings from counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke.

I never thought of the CIA as being incompetent, until the Bush administration took over. I have to doubt that the folks at the CIA enjoy being scapegoated for the 9-11 attacks, or the no-WMDs fiasco.

Think that’s a good political strategy? A president waging a war on his own intelligence agencies?

12

My God, Lumpy - Is there nothing left to sling in your I-Hate-Bush bag of crap?

How old is the whole PDB gotcha, anyhow?

You gotta find some more crap to sling - cause the shit you flinging now just ain’t stickin’.

13

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
In retrospect, one looks back and says “How could Bush possibly have lowered the priority given to terrorist attacks, especially when one possibility shoved under his nose one day mentioned attack by an airplane?”

However, at the time, we’d never been attacked by an airplane – hijackers blew them up or tried to get money while killing some of the passengers. No one else had ever been attacked by an airplane either. And the outgoing administration had de-prioritized terrorism from groups such as al Queda. The incoming administration had rogue states as higher priorities.

Nice attempt at rewriting history. Our agencies were on alert against attack by plane during the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. Also at the 2001 G8 summit in Europe. We knew there was a terrorist plot to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower. And the August 6th brief “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within US” specifically mentioned hijacking airplanes, and attacks on federal buildings. [/quote]

Where in there are you saying that anyone had ever been attacked by crashing a plane into a building? Once again, one possibility among the haystack.

Yes – citing it in speechs while not doing anything about it for 8 years definitely shows it’s place on the Clinton/Gore priority list. I know, I know – only mean Republicans would actually require actions after someone has so clearly stated something. I’m sure he felt their pain.

[quote] As the 9-11 commission revealed, the Bush administration repeatedly ignored warnings from counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke.

I never thought of the CIA as being incompetent, until the Bush administration took over. I have to doubt that the folks at the CIA enjoy being scapegoated for the 9-11 attacks, or the no-WMDs fiasco.

Think that’s a good political strategy? A president waging a war on his own intelligence agencies? [/quote]

No one is scapegoating the CIA for 9/11. I’m blaming the terrorists. You’re blaming Bush.

I’m also not blaming the CIA for the WMD. I’m blaming Saddam, as you can see from my other posts. You’re blaming Bush.

BTW, your line about not viewing the CIA as incompetent made me laugh out loud – I guess you’re right though. Throughout the Cold War they were usually only viewed as evil by the left.

[/quote]

14

BB – have you read the Graham book? If not, will you?

Do you think Bush should have/could have done ANYTHING different prior to 9/11 that may have at least been steps toward possibly preventing it?

My position is that the operation was so simple, it was almost unpreventable. However, I think Bush should have paid more attention to the many warnings he received regarding potential domestic terrorist attacks, particularly Morris and 8/6/01.

15

“I think Bush should have paid more attention to the many warnings he received regarding potential domestic terrorist attacks, particularly Morris and 8/6/01.[/quote]”

RSU:

Who received more “warnings” than Bill Clinton? To think that signs of terrorist activity came only after President Bush took office is a bit naive.

Do you think Bill Clinton responded appropriately to the USS Cole attack, where 17 American service men and women lost their lives? What did Clinton do about the attack on the United Nations?

Do you honestly think that a President in office for only eight months is more culpable than a President who was in office for eight years?

Can you tell me specifically what President Clinton did to deter terrorism during his eight years in office?

Fair question?

16

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
BB – have you read the Graham book? If not, will you?

Do you think Bush should have/could have done ANYTHING different prior to 9/11 that may have at least been steps toward possibly preventing it?

My position is that the operation was so simple, it was almost unpreventable. However, I think Bush should have paid more attention to the many warnings he received regarding potential domestic terrorist attacks, particularly Morris and 8/6/01.[/quote]

RSU:

I have not read it, but I will put it on my “Wish List” on Amazon, (which, unfortunately, is quite long…) and try to read it.

I agree with you on the defensibility of the act. That is a concise way of stating what I was getting at above. As defenders, we have to try to defend against limitless possibilities of attack and try to address the most likely and the biggest threats – but the terrorists only need to find one vulnerability. It’s sobering to ponder.

So basically, in hindsight it would be silly to say Bush COULDN’T have done more. The problem is trying to figure, given what was known to him at the time and given the relevant probabilities, whether he SHOULD have done more. Then consider what you think he should have done, given our vulnerabilities, and whether it would have been feasible, from political or cost perspectives, given the uncertainty of the event and the uncertainty of whether the attack still would have been completed. Tough call – and of course the fact that we suffered the attack makes it an easy answer for some people, but it’s really not an easy question.

Of course, some of those same people bridle at even what little was done in the Patriot Act, or about taking their shoes off at the airport metal detector. Or at the idea of a domestic spy shop, something like the MI-6. Even after the fact we can’t get people to agree on what sacrifices need to be made to make us safer.

17

Zeb, perfectly fair questions, especially if Bill Clinton was running for the presidency!

As it is… pointing at Big Bad Bill when the ability to stand up for GW fails you is not really a valid strategy.

Maybe you could address the questions as asked instead of trying to divert them?

18

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Do you think Bill Clinton responded appropriately to the USS Cole attack, where 17 American service men and women lost their lives? What did Clinton do about the attack on the United Nations?[/quote]

The Cole bombing happened in October 2000, just one month before the Bush-Gore election contest. It was not immediately obvious who bombed the Cole. Clinton deployed the FBI and CIA to investigate. By the time the investigation concluded that Bin Laden was responsible, in early 2001, Bush had already been in office for a couple of months. At that time, it was decided that retaliation would be a bad idea because it was considered ‘old news’ and wasn’t recent enough to rationalize a miltary response (according to Richard Clarke’s explanation).

If you want to blame somebody for “doing nothing about the Cole bombing” then George Bush is the one to blame!

When does a president become responsible as a leader? What is the official ZEB Grace Period? How many months does a president get, until he is responsible for what happens on his watch? I await your answer.

The first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 happened 38 days after Bill Clinton took office. Unlike George Bush and his toadies, Bill Clinton didn’t whine like a pussy that it was all somebody else’s fault. Clinton caught the responsible parties and they are all serving life sentences in prison.

Remember the big terrorist attacks that happened on New Years Eve 2000 (the Millenium Attacks)? How about the massive attacks during the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games? ME NEITHER! Team Clinton successfully thwarted known threats on the homeland, after the already-mentioned first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Bill Clinton was able to keep Americans safe in their own homeland for his entire term in office, after that incident.

By contrast, George Bush and the other clowns in his cabinet IGNORED repeated warnings of an imminent terrorist attack. Almost 3000 Americans died on George Bush’s watch. Bush was in charge during the worst ever attack on American soil. But Bushies whine like babies that somebody else should have stepped in.

Could the attacks in September have been prevented if George Bush wouldn’t have spent the entire month of August on vacation? We’ll never know!

Those are the FACTS.

When George Bush campaigned in 2000, he promised that “personal accountability” would be a hallmark of his administration. Unfortunately, that is obviously not true.

19

vroom:

Never stated that Clinton was running for President. That however does not change the important historical perspective that is in fact quite valid and important.

It is also important from a current political perspective as well. Is it a diversion to bring to the table how the previous President handled terrorism, or are we to judge President Bush in a vacuum?

If you think that he is so “bad” as not being worthy of comparison, please let me know. Otherwise, you can respond by answering the questions in my previous post.

20

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zeb, perfectly fair questions, especially if Bill Clinton was running for the presidency!

As it is… pointing at Big Bad Bill when the ability to stand up for GW fails you is not really a valid strategy.

Maybe you could address the questions as asked instead of trying to divert them?[/quote]

I didn’t think I was going to get to do this so soon, but that is one of the worst posts I’ve seen you make in a long time, vroom. (It feels just as good as I imagined).

Take the blinders off, pull your head out of the sand, and remove your thumb from your ass.

Clinton’s inaction wrt terrorists, particularly Al Qaeda, has some direct consequences that we are dealing with.

You want to say that it all happened on Bush’s watch? that’s a lie. You don’t want to hold Clinton’s feet to the fire equally with Bush’s? You are revising history.

9/11 wasn’t the first time the WTC was attacked by Al Qaeda. Do your history books go back to 1993? Who was the President, then? What about the Cole bombing? Who was President in late 2000? Who didn’t do a damn thing about it? Who had UBL delivered to him - all he had to do was grow a nut and step up? Who gutted the CIA?

To say that Clinton’s beyond culpability because he’s not running for office is the most ludicrous thought process I’ve ever heard of.