Former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-Terrorism Richard Clarke suggests that former CIA Director George Tenet blocked the sharing of information within the government on two members of al Qaeda in the United States, information that Clarke believes could have prevented 911. The CIA admits it knew about the two future hijackers but claims the Director was not informed.
“In early 2000, a number of more junior personnel (including FBI agents on detail to CIA) did see travel information on individuals who later became hijackers but the significance of the data was not adequately recognized at the time.”
Clark claims to have been very close to Tenet and to find this impossible to believe. Clarke maintains that the Director must have been informed and must have made the decision not to share the information with Clarke and others. Clarke speculates that the presence of these two al Qaeda members was kept secret because the CIA had tried to recruit, or “flip,” those al Qaeda members and failed. Yet he has no evidence of such attempts.
But why not report that you tried to recruit someone and failed? What is the reason not to report that?
It seems more likely to me that Clarke is going easy on Tenet. “The September 11th attacks could have been prevented” has an “Obama could have fought for progressive principles” ring to it; it builds in the assumption that those involved WANTED the attacks to be prevented. Whatever this other new report ends up meaning, the history of Able Danger, and of White House inaction, and of Clarke’s earlier revelations begins to suggest a pattern.
I hate to underestimate incompetence and petty infighting as explanations for things, but I also hate to accept as the only possible explanation Clarke’s theory — of which he himself does not seem at all convinced — as to why Tenet apparently withheld information. I asked FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds what she thought, and her reply suggested a level of contempt for both Clarke and Tenet: “I think sometimes it takes one evil fighting another evil to get to the truth. In this case, the clash of two guilty egos has helped unearth some truth on 9/11. Hope to have more clashes.”
I turned to Pentagon whistleblower Karen Kwiatkowski. She ought to have a sense of how accurate Clarke’s description is of standard practice versus inexplicable deviation from it. She seemed to think this new angle fit an existing pattern:
“[This] is just one more unanswered question regarding our own government’s involvement and possible complicity in the events. There are more gaping questions that lend credence to the theory that the U.S. government or parts of it were supportive and facilitated the 9/11 events (and the subsequent Amerithrax case). One, why was there no investigation of and no discussion of WTC 7 in the 9/11 commission report? And why has the case of the Israeli ‘art students’ (actually agents) who were tracking and had detailed operational intelligence on a significant number of the purported hijackers in this country in the months leading up to 9/11 never dealt with in a big way by any commission or any government agency? The after-the-fact lack of interest in these events kind of confirms the before-the-fact activities of those who were in a position to stop the attacks.”
Note that Karen does not here suggest, and neither do I have much use for theories to explain away what we know, theories that suggest there were no airplanes, no hijackers, etc., etc., some of which theories are extremely valuable but purely as entertainment. Rather, Karen is asking questions about things we don’t know, and things our government has gone to considerable lengths to avoid making known. When it comes to such matters, it’s hard to do better than turning to retired CIA officer Ray McGovern. I’ve just done so, and he hasn’t disappointed. Here’s a comment of McGovernian length and perception that he’s sent me:
“Withholding critical intelligence from the makers and implementers of security policy can be worse than lying. Of lying, we have plenty of evidence that former CIA director George Tenet is a serial offender — as is his long-time spokesman, Bill Harlow.
“But withholding intelligence on two of the 9/11 hijackers would have been unconscionable — the epitome of malfeasance, not just misfeasance. That’s why Richard Clarke’s conclusion that he should have received information from CIA about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, ‘unless somebody intervened to stop the normal automatic distribution’ is a most serious charge, given the role of the two in hijacking of American Airlines Flight 77 on 9/11.
“Tenet has denied that the information on the two hijackers was ‘intentionally withheld’ from Clarke, and has enlisted former CIA operatives Cofer Black (more recently a senior official of Blackwater) and Richard Blee (a more shadowy figure) to concur in saying, Not us; we didn’t withhold.
“Whom to believe? It is a no-brainer. One would have to have been born yesterday to regard the ‘George is right’ testimony from Black and Blee as collaborative.
“Tenet is the same fellow who provided the ‘slam dunk’ on the existence of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ in Iraq, as well as the ‘artist renderings’ of equally non-existent mobile laboratories for developing biological warfare agents, based on unconfirmed information from the imposter code-named (appropriately) ‘Curveball.’ Tenet is the fellow who, under orders from Bush and Cheney, ordered up and disseminated a fraudulent National Intelligence Estimate on WMD in Iraq to deceive our elected representatives out of their Constitutional prerogative to authorize a war of aggression. Not small infractions.
“After a five-year investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Chairman Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence adduced under Tenet to ‘justify’ attacking Iraq as ‘uncorroborated, contradicted, and non-existent.’ Good enough to win Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom, though. It worked just fine for the purposes of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, thank you very much.
“It is a matter of record that Tenet lies a lot — on occasion, demonstrating a sort of chutzpah on steroids. Recall, for example, Tenet telling Scott Pelley on ’60 Minutes,’ five times, in five consecutive sentences, ‘We do not torture people.’
“Tenet has lied about 9/11 too. The joint statement from Tenet, Black, and Blee, provided by Bill Harlow, concludes: ‘We testified under oath about what we did, what we knew and what we didn’t know. We stand by that testimony.’ Almost made me laugh….almost.
“In his sworn testimony to the 9/11 Commission on April 14, 2004, Tenet told the Commission under the prime-time klieg lights that he had not spoken to Bush — even on the telephone — during the entire month of August 2001.
“But Tenet did visit fly to see the President in Crawford — not once, but twice during August 2001, and briefed Bush again in Washington on the 31st. After the TV cameras at the 9/11 Commission hearing were shut off, Bill Harlow phoned the commission staff to say, Oops, sorry, Tenet misspoke. Even then, Harlow admitted to only Tenet’s August 17 visit to Crawford (and to the briefing on the 31st).
“How do we know Tenet was again in Crawford on August 24? From a White House press release quoting President George W. Bush to that effect — information somehow completely missed by our vigilant Fawning Corporate Media (FCM).
“Funny how Tenet could have forgotten his first visit to Crawford. In his memoir, At the Center of the Storm, Tenet waxes eloquent about the ‘president graciously driving me around the spread in his pickup and me trying to make small talk about the flora and the fauna.’ But the visit was not limited to small talk.
“In his book Tenet writes: ‘A few weeks after the August 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure the president stayed current on events.’ The Aug. 6, 2001 President’s Daily Brief contained the article ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US.’ According to Ron Suskind’s ‘The One-Percent Doctrine’, the president reacted by telling the CIA briefer, ‘All right, you’ve covered your ass now.’
“If, as Tenet says in his memoir, it was the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB that prompted his visit on Aug. 17, what might have brought him back on Aug. 24? I believe the answer can be found in court documents released at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the fledgling pilot in Minnesota interested in learning to steer a plane but indifferent as to how to land it.
“Those documents show that on Aug. 23, 2001, Tenet was given an alarming briefing, focusing on Moussaoui, titled ‘Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly.’ Tenet was told that Moussaoui was training to fly a 747 and, among other suspicion-arousing data, had paid for the training in cash.
“It is an open question — if a key one — whether Tenet told Bush about the two hijackers, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, while keeping that key information from the person who most needed it — White House counter-terrorist czar Richard Clarke. Clarke finds the only plausible explanation in his conclusion that Tenet was personally responsible. Clarke says:
“‘For me to this day, it is inexplicable, when I had every other detail about everything related to terrorism, that the director didn’t tell me, that the director of the counterterrorism center didn’t tell me, that the other 48 people inside CIA that knew about it never mentioned it to me or anyone in my staff in a period of over 12 months.’
“But Tenet’s aide-de-camp Bill Harlow has branded Clarke’s statements ‘absurd and patently false.’ The statement Harlow shepherded for Tenet, Black, and Blee adds ‘reckless and profoundly wrong…baseless…belied by the record…unworthy of serious consideration.’
“And Harlow never lies. Right. I’m reminded of Harlow’s reaction to Newsweek’s publication on February 24, 2003 of the remarks of Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, who had been in charge of Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs for almost a decade before he defected to Jordan in 1995. Kamel did provide some information on residual, closed-down sites relating to WMD, and that information proved correct.
“Kamel ALSO said that after the first Gulf War in 1991:
“‘I ordered the destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons — biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed.’
“This was not at all what Bush, Cheney, and — by extension — Tenet wanted Newsweek readers, or the rest of us, to learn just three weeks before the U.S./U.K. attack on Iraq, ostensibly to find and destroy those threatening, non-existent weapons.
“So Bill Harlow rose to the occasion, telling the FCM that the Newsweek story was, ‘incorrect, bogus, wrong, untrue.’ And the FCM said, Gosh, thanks for telling us.
“By all indications, Harlow is still able to work his fraudulent magic on the FCM, which has virtually ignored this major story since it broke several days ago. If Harlow says it’s not true…and throws in still more pejorative adjectives to dismiss what Clarke says, it is surely Richard Clarke who is not telling the truth. No matter Clarke’s well deserved reputation for honesty and professionalism.
“And so it goes.”
Yes, it is as likely as that the sky is blue that Tenet knew and that Tenet is lying about what he knew. But I’m interested in why. Did he try to convert two members of al Qaeda to his team and fail, and then choose to keep quiet about it, despite his established habit of trying to “cover his ass”? Wouldn’t his ass have been better covered by sharing the information? And wouldn’t we all then be better off, in particular the million Iraqis and thousands of Americans and Afghans who’ve paid for this malfeasance with their lives?
But what if, just as Obama’s actions make sense when we stop fantasizing about him being a liberal, Tenet’s actions make sense when we stop assuming his top priority was protecting the people of this country?
##
David Swanson is the author of “War Is A Lie” http://warisalie.org
This Controversy Is A Bullet-Train To Nowhere
- Even if Clarke's allegations even prove to be true, Tenet will likely claim he took a calculated risk in the national security interest and ... failed. (the weak and worn out "failures" card (as opposed to foul-play) is the dominant theme of this controversy)
In the meantime, the unproven allegation that is the official story is reinforced.
a switch was flipped and the one voice turned on
" the unproven allegation that is the official story is reinforced."
Moderators
When are you going to finally intervene and stop this constant off-topic whining about "limited hangouts"? You know damn well that this is pure disruption and divisiveness, much less so than a few back-and-forths about the Pentagon.
Aidan: your pet theories aren't superior by way of you and your buddies sanctioning them "unofficial".
it is relevant to the topic
.
SC - since you obviously feel that Clarke's fingerpointing
is quite an important development, why don't you write and submit a blog analyzing it objectively and putting it in context?
Don't forget to include all the facts that Clarke leaves out, which clearly undercuts the validity of his speculation and also undermines his credibility (at least to some of us rational, scientific types). I believe most of this work has already been done by others and is posted on this site.
It would also help if your analysis included the equally plausible explanation that Clarke is engaging in political theater (for some of us, it is the most plausible explanation).
Please note that I am NOT snitchjacketing anyone here, just pointing out what should be an obvious possibility to any critical thinker.
I also think that you may need to re-calibrate your confirmation bias, it seems a bit off here, imo.
[ No one other than you has said anything about "limited hangouts" here and you are the one who called for a moderator. I think you need to clarify your second sentence, btw]
I look forward to reading your comprehensive analysis.
John
Thanks for the reply. It's clear that you'll allow this cross-posting assault on anything about pre-9/11 intelligence research to continue, in fact, you agree with it. It's out of my hands.
And please note that whenever I try to post these days, my comments are either "too sarcastic" or considered off-topic, or some rule prohibiting my or others' posts will be invented on the spot. History will judge this movement harshly for its hostility towards accomplishing its own goals: truth and accountability.
this is pure
condescension. Were you writing as a moderator in this comment?
"Don't forget to include all the facts that Clarke leaves out..." = diversion. Please read the article and stay on the topic of the thread.
The work has also been done, on this site, to point out that this is not about Clarke or his speculation, but about the facts which have been shown to the public through his comments, whether or not we can decipher his motives for presenting them.
Agreed 100%
Cutting Off Your Nose to Spite Your Face
Pursuit Of This Matter Will Not Generate 9/11 Justice
The White House and EPA could not even be held accoutable for the purposely "cooked" WTC dust evaluations that severely harmed thousands.
If pursued, Tenet will simply claim he made a calculated decision to withhold information, while acting in the best interests of national security ... and "failed". And he will be absolved.
This controversy is "fools gold" - a dead end.
your comments are
short circuiting the positive
charging the negative
causing the most unusual circumstances
Aidan: "Pursuit Of This Matter Will Not Generate 9/11 Justice"
Tenet was "acting in the best interests of national security" by withholding info that led to the mass murder of 3000 people and billions in property and economic damage? Perhaps Aidan is saying that any new inquiry would simply dead end in some limited hangout or new false version, such as a conclusion that the info was withheld in order to facilitate the attack. I find it incredible that Tenet was unaware of the Almihdhar/Alhazmi presence in the US info, but it is not clear what he knew about it and when. It is clear he's made numerous false and misleading statements, including under oath, and he's completely untrustworthy.
It's certainly possible, even likely, that a new investigation would be corrupt/compromised, especially if the public does not exercise oversight - and if the public continues to support the MSM, Democrats and Republicans, there won't be a new investigation.
However, I don't understand why anyone supporting truth and justice would be opposed to the identification and prosecution of anyone at the NSA, CIA and FBI who facilitated the 9/11 plot. The 9/11 crimes don't begin and end w/ the intelligence 'failures' and they don't begin and end w/ remote control of planes and controlled demolition of the WTC.
Clark Asserts Tenet "Failed", Not Purposely Aided Any Plot
So why offer the following:
"I don't understand why anyone supporting truth and justice would be opposed to the identification and prosecution of anyone at the NSA, CIA and FBI who facilitated the 9/11 plot."
Tenet will not be prosecuted for "failing". And he obviously will not say that he purposely facilitated any terrorist plot. Clarke's theory creates plausible deniability for Tenet.
"The 9/11 crimes don't begin and end w/ the intelligence 'failures' and they don't begin and end w/ remote control of planes and controlled demolition of the WTC."
But the evidence that the official stories of the building destructions and the alleged 9/11 flight activity is false, is much more abundant than evidence that Tenet is criminally liable for 9/11. One should not defer to weaker cards in place of stronger ones.
Moreover, this entire controversy assumes the unproven official story of the accused hijackers being responsible for 9/11 as being true.
apples and oranges
Clarke presents a set of facts, which are largely undisputed, and then a theory to explain them.
Tenet and anyone else would be prosecuted and convicted based on evidence, not Clarke's theory, or anyone else's. The evidence of deliberate obstruction is much deeper than Clarke testifying that he wasn't informed. The documentary record would show whether or not the info was passed on. Tenet is not going for Clarke's theory to give him cover, he's continued to insist he was unaware.
The questions about why the info was passed on, when people were clearly aware of its importance, and why other people passed on false information which also had the effect of impeding investigations, have never been answered. The most plausible explanation is deliberate obstruction.
I've explained this in response to quite a number of your comments over the past several days, yet you continue to make the same or similar claims.
Aidan: "But the evidence that the official stories of the building destructions and the alleged 9/11 flight activity is false, is much more abundant than evidence that Tenet is criminally liable for 9/11."
This is your personal opinion about the evidence, but your remarks demonstrate you're not familiar w/ the evidence for deliberate obstruction, which is strong, based simply on the official reports and the limited amount of official records made public so far. The best presentation of this evidence has been made in Kevin Fenton's book, Disconnecting the Dots (disclosure: we're both historycommons.org contributors).
Blee, Wilshere and some of their subordinates acted deliberately to block investigations into Almihdhar and Alhazmi, though not all of those involved may have understood their actions were being used to facilitate 9/11. I don't know that Tenet is criminally liable for 9/11 - he may be, and he's almost certainly complicit in a deliberate cover up, but his own knowledge, understanding and awareness prior to 9/11 have yet to be documented. This is one of the many failings of the officials investigations, and this alone is evidence the govt under Dems and Reps is compromised, corrupt and unaccountable and almost all of them should be turned out of office. Simply acknowledging that the official investigations were inadequate and calling for a new investigation delegitimizes the official story and deflates its power.
"One should not defer to weaker cards in place of stronger ones."
Again, this is simply your ill-informed opinion, and in any case, there doesn't need to be a focus on one or the other. Not investigating this aspect means those involved would not be held accountable. Furthermore, an investigation doesn't need to be limited to even these two areas. The official conspiracy theory falls apart when examined from many dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different angles.
"Moreover, this entire controversy assumes the unproven official story of the accused hijackers being responsible for 9/11 as being true."
This evidence has to do w/ CIA and FBI officials obstructing investigations that would have prevented 9/11, based on the Establishment's own claims about 9/11, and using their own evidence. You've consistently tried to frame it as being about other things, but open minded people reading the debates in these comment threads are comparing, contrasting and weighing the evidence and arguments for themselves, and coming to their own conclusions.
Yes but . . .
>>One should not defer to weaker cards in place of stronger ones.
Aiden, while this makes sense, I think the point should rather be that people should advocate what it is that excites them and gets them feeling motivated.
For some that will be CD and for others it will be statements by Richard Clarke. We all have unique views and interests and that quality comes down to the survival of the human species -- we each have unique DNA in order to meet every possible obstacle, somehow, and get past it, so we are all inherently different and will hold a variety of opinions.
So let's try to let everyone express their views and not determine their own views for them, even if they seem illogical.
What is NOT okay is for people to try to force their views on others if others do not agree, or attempt to shame them into submission when they do not agree.
We also need to all learn to leave the personal insults out of it. I've seen that going on on all sides, and the Internet fosters it, but those doling it out will also find themselves feeling badly on some level, just as those taking it will feel hurt. Both sides need to take care of everyone in our movement and treat people with respect, even as you may feel frustrated.
That doesn't apply to evidence that is hotly debated and contradictory, or likely hoaxes, which need to be exposed and addressed.
But importantly, evidence that is hotly debated should not be coming to the surface, inserted into discussion threads, or being put out on front pages on the Anniversary.
We have all year to discuss evidence and make the case, but debating emotionally it now -- on the 10th Anniversary -- uses up the valuable resources of everyone's time when our resources are needed the most to put out our message to the public and respond to attacks by MSM. We know they are on the horizon, i.e., the BBC.
Swanson comments are a significant development
As most people here know, David Swanson has been harshly critical of some of the info promoted in the 9/11 truth movement, though democrats.com has an extensive September 11 archive http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=September%2011%20Investigation, he's promoted the film 9/11: Press for Truth and has raised questions about what we were told on a number of occasions.
I don't recall if he's commented on CD claims before, but in this article he only says: "Note that Karen does not here suggest, and neither do I have much use for theories to explain away what we know, theories that suggest there were no airplanes, no hijackers, etc., etc., some of which theories are extremely valuable but purely as entertainment."
Swanson seems to accept it as a given that info was withheld, but throughout the article he's critical of Clarke's theory being the most plausible explanation, concluding w/ this question: "But what if, just as Obama’s actions make sense when we stop fantasizing about him being a liberal, Tenet’s actions make sense when we stop assuming his top priority was protecting the people of this country?"
>>"Note that Karen does not
>>"Note that Karen does not here suggest, and neither do I have much use for theories to explain away what we know"
Karen K is published for her no Boeing claims at the Pentagon due to lack of debris in 2006. Seems odd DS wouldn't know that --
There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. . . . But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight. . . .The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Yes
Which is why Karen has lost credibility. In my opinion. Did she bother to interview witnesses, including those who were nearly hit by the plane crashing into the Pentagon? No... What is the meaning of PhD in this context? Nothing.
Just stumbled into this:
“Debunking 9/11 Myths is a reliable and rational answer to the many fanciful conspiracy theories about 9/11… What happened on 9/11 has been well established by the 9/11 Commission. What did not happen has now been clearly explained by Popular Mechanics.”--Richard A. Clarke, former national security advisor, author of Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror
Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts Publisher: Hearst; Updated edition (August 2, 2011)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1588165477/ref=asc_df_15881654771736703?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=asn&creative=39...
WTF? That is not what he told Duffy and Nowolsielski.
Tenet "lied to the Inquiry Committee and Commission" and "got away with it," I though I remember Clarke saying.