Cutting Through The Crap

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Tunnel Vision


Speaking of 9/11, here's an interesting article with new information about the warnings George Bush received before the attack, and how his administration reacted (as in "didn't") to them. Hindsight is, as they say, plenty twenty. Still, it seems there was a mindset among his neocon advisers (maybe because they came to office saying, overtly, if Clinton was for it, we're against it) that the warnings from Clinton about al Queda being the biggest threat were stupid, and it was Saddam Hussein that threatened the most.

We'll never know, of course, whether the attack could have been prevented. But, as the article states, if the government were on a higher alert status, looking hard, as requested by the CIA, dots were connectable.
... The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real...

[...]

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” ... Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews.

[...]

That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound...

Well, too late now. And I don't suppose knowing this stuff makes much difference -- other than to realize what a neocon-inspired disaster it was to focus on Saddam Hussein, how using 9/11 as a pretext to do what they'd wanted all along led to arguably the biggest foreign "policy" debacle in our history.

The more we learn, the more open we are to reality (don't say I'm never helpful, teabaggers), the clearer it is that George W. Bush was the worst president ever. To acknowledge that, however, is to admit how close to irreparable were the multiple disasters he left for his successor. And that would step all over the R/R/RWS™ message that Obama failed so let's go back and do it all again.

But don't take it from me: look at the recent Republican convention and try to find any mention at all of George W. Bush.


No comments: