Unheeded Warnings & The Incompetent bush admin

[greyl]

http://www.newwartimes.com/warnings.html

June 1994: A Pentagon-commissioned report concludes that religious terrorists could hijack commercial airliners and crash them into the Pentagon or the White House December 1994: Algerian terrorists hijack an Air France jetliner, intending to crash it into the Eiffel Tower - A French SWAT team storms the grounded plane and foils the plot.

January 1995: Police in the Philippines stumble upon a bomb factory run by Islamist terrorists. One arrested suspect confesses he learned to fly at U.S. flight schools and reveals plans to crash a plane into the CIA headquarters. "Murad's idea is that he will board an American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger, then he will hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters," the report stated. "There will be no bomb or any explosive that he will use in its execution. It is a suicidal mission that he is very much willing to execute."

1998: African-embassies bombing.... At the conspirators' trial, several al-Qaeda witnesses testify that bin Laden was sending agents for flight school training and acquiring planes.

September 1999: A Library of Congress report concludes that "suicide bombers" could "crash-land and aircraft...into the Pentagon, the CIA or the White House."

January, 2001: Bush's national-security aides are warned of an al-Qaeda presence in the U.S.. When Berger gave national security adviser Condoleezza Rice her handover briefing, he covered the bin Laden threat in detail, and, sources say, warned her: "You will be spending more time on this issue than on any other."

January 31, 2001: The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, a bipartisan commission put together in 1998 by then-President Bill Clinton and then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, releases its final report. The report took 2 1/2 years to complete and makes 50 recommendations on combating terrorism in the United States. The Bush administration ignores all of them.

Late January, 2001: The U.S. intelligence agencies are told to "back off" investigating the Bin Laden family and Saudi royals and the Bush administration discontinues the deployment of cruise missile submarines and gunships near Afghanistan's borders that had begun under President Clinton.
more: http://www.newwartimes.com/warnings.html

[Peter Frank]

1. I Am In Total Agreement With Your Signature...

"If a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy..."

[greyl]

2. Uhh, and you aren't somehow spinning it?

You're being serious?

If so, cool.

[mirandapriestly]

3. How convenient that those "terrorists" left such a trail..

from their FBI provided housing.

[greyl]

4. What do you mean? nt

[staticstopper]

5. Someone else wrote the following

responce to the incompetence theory, and I kinda like it..

I found it on the RI board.

“Funny how when you ask perfectly logical, specific questions about the September 11 attacks, you're supposed to be satisfied with stunningly penetrating observations such as "the FBI is a clumsy bureaucracy", "our spy agencies are deaf and dumb" and "our skyscrapers are not 100 percent safe."

But if that is the case, then why have these hopelessly bumbling, deaf and "dumb" halfwits been promoted and rewarded with greater responsibilities? Why have these incompetent goofballs been granted historically unprecedented power to violate our privacy and rights, with no safeguards and fewer and fewer checks and balances?

How come, if they're such well-meaning but pin-headed nitwits they're getting way richer and way more powerful while the rest of us are getting poorer and more oppressed? (while the numskulls sip champagne in the grandeur of their palatial homes and elite clubs, those who insist on logical answers to very important questions are relegated to "dark" church basements -- gotta love the imagery...)

You really can't have it both ways...We are total idiots but trust us with your lives and your safety and all your money, your children and the planet, too! Hmmm... If I say no, does that make me one of those nasty "odd characters"?”

[greyl]

10. The OP isn't about "incompetence theory".

It's nice to see a few people at DU who are still giving the bush admin credit, though.
It's heartwarming.

[JackRiddler]

6. Ahem...

The two entries for Jan. 2001 combine

a warning to the Bush admin that

al Qaeda (the creature evolved from that created by the earlier Bush-Reagan admins, and headed by a member of the family with which the Bushes do business)

is in the US and planning bad things.

And in the same month, US intel is told to "back off" the Bin Ladin family and the admin discontinues deployment of forces near Afghanistan.

And this is supposed to indicate "incompetence"? It fits perfectly with the idea that the admin was actively protecting its favored "terrorists."

Once again: If they're so "incompetent," how come they always get away with everything - election fraud, tax cut, 9/11, PATRIOT Act, Homeland Sec. bill, Iraq War resolution, second election fraud - in every case with active help from the Democratic "leadership."

Please!

[Old and In the Way]

22. If not incomptence...treason.

So Bush undoes everything Clinton did to give bin Laden breathing room. OK, maybe Poppy asks Dimson to call off the dogs as a favor from his fellow board members in the Carlyle Group. But how does this square with the 8/6/01 PDB, "bin Laden planning to hit the US"? Bush does nothing to react to this memo. Nothing.

Sorry, incompetence is a the defense that Bush's lawyers will use to plead for mercy before the court. Since we never had an independent investigation of 9/11, I have to say that the circumstantial evidence points to letting 9/11 happen so he could get his war on for Big Oil. No incompetence, but certainly part of the cover on their plans.

[HamdenRice]

7. The paymaster of the 9/11 hijackings was in the Pentagon ...

That goes a bit beyond "warnings" doesn't it? I mean if the guy who paid for flight school training for Mohammed Atta was meeting with the Pentagon, CIA, National Security Council and State Department, from 9/06/01 to 9/11, doesn't that go beyond missing "warning"?

How do you explain that with the incompetence theory?

[JackRiddler]

8. The answer to this will be...

"Let's talk about demolitions."

The other usual answer to the fact that the ISI director was meeting with all of these people including the alleged Congressional investigators Goss and Graham who somehow left the ISI out of their 700 page report is...

*chirp* *chirp*

[HamdenRice]

11. Jack, you're right: Here's greyl's answer: .. ..chirp.. chirp ..chirp .

I don't mind talking about controlled demolition either. But the claim for controlled demo has to be made in the context of all the other evidence. Sure a plane and fire might have brought down the building; but in the context of the paymaster meeting with US officials, the standdown, FEMA in NYC 9/10, bin Laden-Bush family connections, the Bush family in charge of security at the WTC, the CIA meeting bin Laden in the American Hospital of Dubai, etc, etc, etc, then the plausibility of demolition takes on a different cast.

But try to put it in context and this is exactly the response one gets: Cue the cricket sound:

<chirp>.. <chirp> ..<chirp>

[greyl]

12. As I said, the OP isn't about "incompetence theory".

In hindsight, I shouldn't have used the word "incompetent" in the 9/11 forum unless I was talking about the Arab hijackers.

Is there anything on the Unheeded Warnings page that you think isn't true?

As the Unheeded Warnings page makes clear, and as rman noticed, the admin's claims that "nobody could have predicted they'd use planes to fly into buildings" is total bullshit.
That's the point of the OP.
I think it's at least definite criminal negligence and treason, and possible complicity, but no controlled demolition.

[HamdenRice]

13. WTF? The hijackers were incompetent now?

The subject line of the OP includes this: "The Incompetent bush admin". Along with other "incompetence theorists" you explain 9/11 by repeating the bush administration's mantra that all those pointed warnings were missed because they "couldn't connect the dots" or because the "CIA and FBI didn't talk to each other" or because "no one could imagine hijackers flying planes into buildings" even after being explicitly warned of this.

The issue is not just the things they were told in your list, but the things we have to infer they were told when they met for days before 9/11 with the hijackers paymaster; they all publicly admitted they were discussing bin Laden and terrorism emanating from Afghanistan.

So I'll ask the question once again, which of course you NEVER, EVER even attempt to answer:

How can you reconcile your theory of "missed warnings" with the publicly admitted fact that the paymaster of the hijackers was meeting with the Pentagon, CIA, National Security Council and State Department between 9/06/01 and 9/11?

I can already guess what my response to your answer or non answer will be:

non-answer: chirp ... chirp ... chirp

non-responsive, non-sequitur, non-answer: No Soap. Radio.

[greyl]

14. What the hell are you talking about?

"you explain 9/11 by repeating the bush administration's mantra that all those pointed warnings were missed because they "couldn't connect the dots" or because the "CIA and FBI didn't talk to each other" or because "no one could imagine hijackers flying planes into buildings" even after being explicitly warned of this."

That's absolutely untrue, and if you read my post again for comprehension, maybe you'll discover that. Maybe you don't know what complicity is.

Who do you believe was the paymaster?

[HamdenRice]

16. No Soap. Radio.

So predictable.

[greyl]

18. I have just placed you on ignore. nt

[HamdenRice]

19. Of course, because you won't answer Jack or my questions

I don't need to put you on ignore because I have my two handy logical answers to most of your posts:

chirp ... chirp .... chirp. or


No soap. Radio.

[Twist_U_Up]

25. add me to please.

[JackRiddler]

15. you're avoiding again

1) Tell us how the decision to tell the FBI to back off the Bin Ladin family immediately after hearing al Qaeda is planning an attack is "incompetent."

I say it's intentional.

2) Tell us how ISI chief Mahmud Ahmed's visit to DC and meeting with Goss/Graham on the morning of 9/11 and subsequent reports he approved ISI financing to M. Atta fits into your incompetence scheme.

[greyl]

17. Read posts 12 and 14 again.

With those posts hopefully fresh in your memory, I'll answer your questions.

"1) Tell us how the decision to tell the FBI to back off the Bin Ladin family immediately after hearing al Qaeda is planning an attack is "incompetent."

If true, I think it's at least incompetence, definite criminal negligence and treason, and possible complicity.

"2) Tell us how ISI chief Mahmud Ahmed's visit to DC and meeting with Goss/Graham on the morning of 9/11 and subsequent reports he approved ISI financing to M. Atta fits into your incompetence scheme."

Guilt by association, eh? That's a logical fallacy. You've no solid reason to believe that Goss and Graham were discussing the imminent attack or that they were all in on the plans.
There is, however, plenty of solid reason to believe that the meeting was evidence of incompetence.

"Mr Goss, when asked to comment on the meeting, said he was not discussing Osama bin Laden or terrorism with Gen Mahmud Ahmed, but India-Pakistan relations. Mr Goss, a Republican congressman and former CIA case officer, has headed the House Intelligence Committee for the last seven years. President Bush announced his nomination on Tuesday.

Although the Senate must confirm his nomination before he takes charge of the world's largest spy agency, leaders of the Democratic Party have indicated they may not dispute his appointment.

Reports appearing in the US media say that it was no coincidence that Mr Goss did not discuss terrorism or Al Qaeda when he met Gen Ahmad on the day American was attacked.

The US administration was not focused on combating terrorism before 9/11, was the media consensus. Under Mr Goss's leadership the House Intelligence Committee held only two hearings on terrorism before Sept 11, far fewer than any other congressional panel with jurisdiction over intelligence.

http://www.dawn.com/2004/08/14/int2.htm

[HamdenRice]

20. Goss was already busted by Graham's admission ....

Selective sourcing is a form of dishonesty.

Graham and Goss were both widely quoted as admitting that they were discussing terrorism from Afghanistan at the breakfast, as here:

"When the news came, the two Florida lawmakers who lead the House and Senate intelligence committees were having breakfast with the head of the Pakistani intelligence service. Rep. Porter Goss, R-Sanibel, Sen. Bob Graham and other members of the House Intelligence Committee were talking about terrorism issues with the Pakistani official when a member of Goss' staff handed a note to Goss, who handed it to Graham. "We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan," Graham said.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html

Of course, in the days before his confirmation hearings, Goss is not going to highlight in unsworn statements to the press, that they were discussing terrorism generated in Afghanistan. Of course, that terrorism from Afghanistan meant "bin Laden," as both Graham and Goss admitted elsewhere.

In fact, Goss and Graham had been in Pakistan in August 2001 discussing the same issue, so the early Sept. discussions in DC were a continuation of those meetings.

Of course, since I'm on greyl's ignore list, he won't read this and can conveniently ignore this refutation of his post. Another opportunity for a .... "chirp ... chirp.... chirp."

[JackRiddler]

21. still avoiding...

The point is not that Graham/Goss look guilty merely because they were meeting with Ahmed. (And I know you're smarter than this - all you ever do when cornered, however, is to apply the lamest interpretation of what your interlocutor says, and then attack that. Strawman.)

No. They look guilty because a year later they presented a report on 9/11 that conveniently omits Ahmed, ISI, the ISI-Qaeda connection, the longstanding ISI-CIA connection, ISI creation of the Taliban, and allegations of ISI financing of the 9/11 operation or of Atta directly.

Guilty of what? Well, a cover-up, for starters. An intentional deception of the public.

By the time Goss/Graham produced their report, the Pentagon had allowed ISI to open safe air passage (in Nov. 2001) from Kunduz to Pakistan for a few days, so that ISI personnel and an unknown number of Taliban and al Qaeda operatives could escape US forces. This is not incompetence (incompetence would have been to accidentally shoot down the wrong plane, or fail to shoot down a genuine enemy). This was a decision to allow them to escape. Exactly as was done with Bin Ladin out of Tora Bora, also in that month.

So with all this active facilitation of the supposed evildoers going on, and with Goss/Graham covering for Ahmed even after they met him on the morning of the attacks he allegedly financed, "incompetence" seems like the least of it.

[Old and In the Way]

23. As the ranking Democrat...was Graham set up?

Seems to me, the best way to get a Senator to mute his criticsm would be to make sure that he's implicated by chance. Having his meeting with the ISI guy who is Atta's maoney man makes Bob look like he's in on this. Was this a pre-emptive strike on SIC ranking Democrat from asking tough questions the attack right away? The story did get out, almost immediately, before it went down the memory hole. Was that a message for Graham?

[JackRiddler]

30. why do I doubt this?

Graham was the one who, 20 years earlier, got Goss's political career started in Florida.

Small world.

Anyway, this isn't about Graham per se. I do not care to attack or defend him. The 9/11 cover-up is systematic and sees Republicans and Democrats hand in hand.

But items like Ahmed meeting Goss/Graham, the later authors of the report that ignored Ahmed, make it all rather more obvious.

[greyl]

24. I can't possibly avoid what you haven't posted yet.

You asked a particular question about the DC meeting which had no reference to a cover-up You were asking me to show how I could call the meeting incompetent. I answered that question, but you claim I'm avoiding.

Now you're moving the goalpost and saying the DC meeting alone doesn't make them look guilty of covering-up but this other stuff does.

I have never taken the position that the bush admin hasn't covered anything up about 9/11.
It's difficult to tell the difference between their covering-up of incompetence and covering-up of sinister competence, because they do both constantly.

"By the time Goss/Graham produced their report, the Pentagon had allowed ISI to open safe air passage (in Nov. 2001) from Kunduz to Pakistan for a few days, so that ISI personnel and an unknown number of Taliban and al Qaeda operatives could escape US forces.

I'm not familiar with the specifics on this. Gotta link?

edit: forgot the question mark

[Kevin Fenton]

27. The number is not unknown

"By the time Goss/Graham produced their report, the Pentagon had allowed ISI to open safe air passage (in Nov. 2001) from Kunduz to Pakistan for a few days, so that ISI personnel and an unknown number of Taliban and al Qaeda operatives could escape US forces."
It's supposed to be about 2,500.

Paul McGeough, an Australian reporter who was outside Kunduz with the Northern Alliance and then hung around to count the prisoners, writes:
"The numbers didn't add up. The Alliance had a reliable account of numbers if the town because they had debriefed hundreds of defectors. They insisted that the defctions did not account for the remarkable fall-off in the Taliban numbers. They wheeled out Muhkdumi Said Ramrandim, a Taliban commander who had surrendered with several hundred men. He claimed that about half of the 5,000 foerign Taliban in Kunduz had simply disappeared. He said: "There are fewer and fewer. They were disappearing."
"We had been conned and we had missed a story. It seemed there had been a secret airlift out of Kunduz and that the US had been deeply involved in its organisation... The story was unearthed two months later by one of the doyens of US investigative journalism, Seymour Hersh."
Manhattan to Baghdad, pp. 121-2

[greyl]

28. Here's a NOW Hersh interview on the matter. Must read.

It paints a slightly different picture than what some would have us see.
Hersh cites incompetence:

The initial plan was to take out the Pakistani military. What happened is that they took out al Qaeda with them. And we had no way of stopping it. We lost control. Once their planes began to go, the Pakistanis began-- thousands of al Qaeda got out. And so-- we weren't able to stop it and screen it. The intent wasn't to let al Qaeda out. It was to protect the Pakistani military.

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hersh.html

Looks like a possible example of incompetence to me. (If you believe Sy Hersh)

[HamdenRice]

29. This of course has nothing to do with the question of Gen. Ahmad

Another "No Soap, Radio" response from greyl.

The Hersh interview refers to events during the Afghanistan War, which of course occurred much later and refers to the allegation that the US forces were instructed to allow Pakistani forces within Afghanistan to escape into Pakistan, and inadvertently, incompetently, allowed the Taliban to escape into Pakistan as well.

The original question is why the paymaster of the 9/11 hijackings was meeting with the CIA, National Security Council, Pentagon and chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees in the days before 9/11.

Another question is why the 9/11 paymaster, Gen. Ahmad, would risk being in DC when the attacks occurred unless he had very secure assurances that he would not be arrested and prosecuted for participation in the attacks.

If you were the head of the intelligence agency funding 9/11, assuming that the US CIA has very good penetration of your agency, would you be in the capitol of the nation suffering the attack you funded on the day of the attack?

Any rational person without such assurances would assume that he ran the risk of ending up in Manuel Noriega-land by being present in the US on 9/11.

[rman]

9. * admin's claim "they could not have know" is a blatant lie -

now what else did they lie about?

Given that so far they have gotten away with it, they are quite competent liars.

[greyl]

26. In my perfect world, a few would have said "cool, I'm sending this

to my right-wing Uncle".

One can dream.