Friday, September 14, 2012

The Eichenwald Article on Other PDBs

My feeling is that it's a tad overdramatic; on the other hand it is intended to sell a book. Key paragraph:

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.

Okay, on May 1, 2001, the CIA warns that a group presently in the US was planning a terror strike. And yet the CIA, which had known since 2000 that Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Mihdhar were in the US, didn't see fit to tell the FBI about their presence until two weeks before the attacks? Or are we supposed to believe that the CIA had information on another group then-presently in the US? Once again, I find myself wondering how George Tenet gets a pass on this stuff. I guess because it doesn't suit the narrative that Bush was at fault.

Gawker says there's nothing to see here. They also link to a bizarre article about a controversial investigation Eichenwald did of a child pornography business. Reading the latter piece, I can get no clear sense of whether Eichenwald is credible on that prior investigation, and obviously that has some bearing on his current work.

89 Comments:

At 14 September, 2012 10:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The article is overblown, and frankly, insignificant.

"...Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know." -- Kurt Eichenwald

It sounds like Kurt Eichenwald let Bush off the hook.

So why all the fuss?

You don't really expect the New York Times to seriously pursue a former US president, do you?

Sheesh...

**********

"The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators."

(Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 14 September, 2012 11:05, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"I find myself wondering how George Tenet gets a pass on this stuff." -Pat Curley

"Accountability for what?"
-Pat Curley

Your dissonance is showing again, Pat.

 
At 14 September, 2012 11:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

The article simply augments what we already knew.


We already knew that the warnings from Behrooz Sarshar's source in the spring of 2001 resulted in an FBI memo entitled "Kamikaze Pilots".

We already knew that al Qaeda's plot to fly hijacked airliners into the WTC, Pentagon, Sears Tower, and TransAmerica Pyramid had been known to US authorities since 1995.

We already knew that NORAD had drilled on airliner-into-WTC scenarios.

We already knew that the CIA had briefed Condi on 5/30/01 and 7/10/01 on the dire and imminent nature of the al Qaeda threat. We knew that Tenet and Blee had agreed that if Condi had acted on these warnings, then 9/11 might have been prevented. We knew that Cofer Black said "We did everything but pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head."

We already knew that the CIA was aware of two known al Qaeda agents inside the USA, agents who had lived under their real names with an FBI informant in San Diego and who freely telephoned back to the al Qaeda communications hub in Yemen.

We knew that the Mossad had warned of 19 terrorists inside the USA planning something big, and named names including that of the alleged lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta, and the name of another 9/11 pilot, and the names of the two agents from San Diego.

We knew that there were warnings from 13 foreign countries and 4 FBI offices of upcoming attacks. Many of them mentioned airplanes or airlines. Vladimir Putin warned of suicide pilots training for attacks on US targets.

We knew that the FBI had begun an intelligence investigation on the 2 al Qaeda agents from San Diego.

We knew that these 2 agents, the ones known to the CIA, the ones who had lived with an FBI informant, the ones who phoned the al Qaeda communications hub, the ones the Mossad named, had bought 10 airline tickets under their own names for 9/11/01.

We know that a simple credit card check would have revealed these ticket purchases. We know that the FBI rookie assigned to the intelligence investigation wanted to run such a check. We know that his superior, Dana Corsi, said no.

Still, the article does a valuable service in pointing out the existence of a large number of PDB documents that deserve further scrutiny.




 
At 14 September, 2012 11:57, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The key to the article is at the very end.

Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs?

Urgency in the absence of actionable information is called "paranoia".

 
At 14 September, 2012 12:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

There was actionable information. There was a known al Qaeda plot to fly airliners into buildings. There was a known program of terrorists in flight schools. There were warnings involving pilots, airplanes, and airlines. There were warnings about named terrorists who were pilots. There were known al Qaeda agents inside the USA buying 10 airline tickets dated 9/11/01 under their own names.

 
At 14 September, 2012 13:13, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

There was actionable information.

None of what you list was actionable, separately or taken together. I know you have difficulty grasping that, and I forgive you.

 
At 14 September, 2012 13:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

I guess you must have some very strange definition of
"actionable" in an airtight wrapper in your wallet.

You don't consider the CIA's August 23, 2001 “all-points bulletin” to the State Department, Customs, INS and FBI, instructing them to put Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar on the terrorist watch list “due to their confirmed links to Egyptian Islamic Jihad operatives and suspicious activities while traveling in East Asia” actionable?

 
At 14 September, 2012 13:59, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You don't consider the CIA's August 23, 2001 “all-points bulletin” ... actionable?

The information on Almihdhar was not specific enough to be actionable. If it were, the CIA would have done more than watchlist him and the FBI would have picked him up.

 
At 14 September, 2012 14:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another lie by omission, goat fucker? The FBI didn't not know the whereabouts of al-Midhar. Nor was the investigation a criminal investigation. It was an INTEL investigation. Cretin.

"...If al-Midhar is located, the interview must be conducted by an intel agent. A criminal agent CAN NOT be present at the interview. This case, in its entirety, is based on intel. If at such time as information is developed indicating the existence of substantial federal crime, that information will be passed over the wall according to proper procedures and turned over for the follow up criminal investigation." -- FBI, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, page 153.

See? You can't be trusted to tell the truth.

Pervert.

**********

"The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators."

(Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 14 September, 2012 14:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, I see. You reverse-engineer your facts. They didn't pick them up, therefore there was no actionable intelligence.

Yes, life is much more neat and tidy if you support your desired conclusions with made-up "facts".

 
At 14 September, 2012 14:10, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

They didn't pick them up, therefore there was no actionable intelligence.

That's the rational judgment. I much prefer that to your alternative theory (they didn't pick them up, therefore INSIDE JOB!!!1).

 
At 14 September, 2012 14:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 14 September, 2012 14:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

How could they "pick them up"? The authorities had no idea where they were. Nor were they under CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. THEY WERE SUBJECTS OF AN INTEL INVESTIGATION.

Can either one of you read?

**********

"The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators."

(Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 14 September, 2012 14:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't say it was an inside job. I said there was actionable intelligence, and I demanded some kind of rational basis for your claim that there wasn't.

So now you've upped the ante from "There was no action therefore there was no actionable intelligence" to "It wasn't an inside job and therefore there was no actionable intelligence."

A DOJ official said: "There was a clear basis to charge Almihdhar criminally with false statements or visa fraud." He had lied on his visa application.

There was actionable intelligence. You guys are so lame. Keep doubling down, fool.

 
At 14 September, 2012 14:18, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

How could they "pick them up"?

With specific information, and for the purposes of preventing a crime, the CIA was permitted to break the wall. That's the entire point here. The wall was not broken because the information didn't justify it.

Can either one of you read?

I can, a little.

 
At 14 September, 2012 14:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Citing yourself as an authority while providing not a scintilla of evidence to substantiate your propaganda, sex predator?

Keep reading it, dumb fack:

"...If al-Midhar is located, the interview must be conducted by an intel agent. A criminal agent CAN NOT be present at the interview. This case, in its entirety, is based on intel. If at such time as information is developed indicating the existence of substantial federal crime, that information will be passed over the wall according to proper procedures and turned over for the follow up criminal investigation." -- FBI, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, page 153.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

**********

"The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators."

(Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 14 September, 2012 14:32, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

So now you've upped the ante from derp derp derp derp derp derp.

My position remains the same. There was no actionable intelligence. As I mentioned, your thinking here is muddled.

 
At 14 September, 2012 14:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 14 September, 2012 14:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

His "thinking" isn't "muddled." He's a liar.

For pity's sake, RGT, you saw the TroofAction thread wherein he admitted that he's a propagandist.

He's a liar--plain and simple.

**********

**********

"The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators."

(Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 14 September, 2012 14:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, the Mossad named Al Mihdhar as one of 19 terrorists inside the USA, the CIA knew him as an attendee of a CIA terrorist summit in Kulala Lumpur and a suspect in the USS Cole bombing, he was known to have lied on his visa application, and the CIA had asked the State Department, Customs, INS and FBI, to put Almihdhar on the terrorist watch list.

And this was not actionable? Pray tell, would ANYTHING be actionable?

You guys are embarrassing.

 
At 14 September, 2012 14:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Impervious to logic and knowledge, aren't you, sex predator?

Citing yourself as an authority while providing not a scintilla of evidence to substantiate your propaganda isn't 'evidence," sex predator, IT'S DECEIT.


False.

Keep reading it douche-bag:

"...If al-Midhar is located, the interview must be conducted by an intel agent. A criminal agent CAN NOT be present at the interview. This case, in its entirety, is based on intel. If at such time as information is developed indicating the existence of substantial federal crime, that information will be passed over the wall according to proper procedures and turned over for the follow up criminal investigation." -- FBI, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, page 153.

**********

"The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators."

(Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 14 September, 2012 15:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, do you imagine that your quote has some bearing on whether there is actionable intelligence? You're babbling--as usual.

 
At 14 September, 2012 15:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

There was no "actionable intelligence." And your 100% fact-free babbling isn't evidence of anything other than your never-ending DECEIT.

As usual, I provide evidence from an impeccable source and you cite yourself as an authority.

Your "commentary" is worthless.

FAIL.

**********

"The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators."

(Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 14 September, 2012 15:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

What would be actionable, if an al Qaeda agent suspected of the USS Cole bombing and suspected of planning new operartions, who was known to have a visa violation, was not actionable?

So you mean he couldn't be taken in for visa violations?

 
At 14 September, 2012 16:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another non-sequitur, jackass?

Either provide evidence to substantiate your assertions, ass, or STFU.

Got it, pervert?

**********

"The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators."

(Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!


 
At 14 September, 2012 16:17, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

So you mean he couldn't be taken in for visa violations?

The visa violation wasn't discovered until after 9/11. With specific knowledge of Almihdhar's plans, it would not have been needed.

Your understanding of the relevant law falls somewhere between Law & Order and Minority Report.

 
At 14 September, 2012 16:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You simply are not going to get anything approaching the truth from this degenerate, RGT.

All you're going to get are bald-faced lies, half-truths and lies by omission.

So what's new? Same shit, different day.

Should we expect less from a psychopath? Probably not.

**********

"The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators."

(Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 14 September, 2012 16:34, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You simply are not going to get anything approaching the truth from this degenerate, RGT.

I know. I find his version of the truth amusing. Talking to snug is sort of like looking up filth on 4chan -- a waste of time in large doses but relaxing once in a while.

 
At 14 September, 2012 16:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, how do you know the visa violation wasn't discovered until after 9/11?

Is this another one of your "Since they didn't act, they must not have known" constructs?

 
At 14 September, 2012 16:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Still babbling, asshole?

Anything but produce that evidence. Right, jackass?

FAIL.

**********

"The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators."

(Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 14 September, 2012 16:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

scum.bag whines, "...RGT, how do you know the visa violation wasn't discovered until after 9/11?"

Hypocrite!

You demand evidence from RGT, yet you feel no need to provide a scintilla of evidence to substantiate YOUR argument.

It's a wonder that you don't choke on your hypocrisy.

Now cite yourself as an authority, while you steadfastly REFUSE to substantiate YOUR argument.

Cretin. Scumbag. Pervert. Liar. Hypocrite. Duplicitous cocksucker.

FAIL.

**********

"The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators."

(Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 14 September, 2012 17:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

There's no point in providing you guys with evidence.

I'm glad RGT has finally revealed his epistemic procedure for us all: start with the desired conclusions and then invent the assumptions to suit it.

 
At 14 September, 2012 17:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The scum.bag hypocrite bald-faced lies, "...I'm glad RGT has finally revealed his epistemic procedure for us all: start with the desired conclusions and then invent the assumptions to suit it."

Project much, asshole?

You won't provide the evidence to substantiate your 100% fact-free assertions because, as always, you're lying.

Who do you think you're fooling, hypocrite?

Cretin. Scumbag. Pervert. Liar. Hypocrite. Duplicitous cocksucker.

FAIL.

**********

"The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators."

(Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 14 September, 2012 17:20, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, how do you know the visa violation wasn't discovered until after 9/11?

"[T]he State Department's computer system was not set up to
catch these false statements by bringing up Mihdhar's prior visa history." -- 9/11 Terror and Travel, p. 24.

That indicates it was not discovered until after the attacks. It's your rabbit hole though, so assume whatever coverups you like.

 
At 14 September, 2012 17:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

That does not indicate that it wasn't discovered until after the attacks. The CIA knew about al Mihdhar's earlier multiple-entry visa for the US issued on April 7, 1999 and good until April 6, 2000. Multiple CIA people knew al Mihdhar had been in the US. If the CIA looked at his current application, they could know that it was a lie without accessing the State Department database.

Your curiosity is very easily satusfied. You are very quick to close the books.

 
At 14 September, 2012 19:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

There you go again citing yourself as an authority.

Citing yourself as an authority isn't evidence of anything other than your intellectual dishonesty.

Once again, you FAIL, asshole.

**********

"The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators."

(Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 14 September, 2012 20:46, Blogger Ian said...

Well, it's good to see that Brian is firmly in the "al Qaeda did it" camp now and no longer thinks there were invisible, silent explosives or magic thermite involved in destroying the towers.

 
At 14 September, 2012 22:48, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Lets see if this sounds familiar:

"According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted."

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html

See...this continues to be a systemic problem. Threat warnings continue to be ignored by middle management, and are not passed onto the people who need to be warned.

 
At 15 September, 2012 02:14, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

If the CIA looked at his current application, they could know that it was a lie without accessing the State Department database.

Each of your scenarios suffers from hindsight bias. You might as well be blaming the widows for failing to check their husbands' workplaces for threats.

 
At 15 September, 2012 07:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's hindsight bias to expect the CIA to take a look at the current visa status of a couple of known al Qaeda agents inside the USA when the system is blinking red, Tenet's hair is on fire, there are warnings from 13 foreign countries and 4 FBI offices, and the Mossad has named these two guys as dangerous terrorists planning something big?

I used to think you were smarter than the other clowns around here.


 
At 15 September, 2012 07:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, don't try to tell me what I think. You're not competent to tell me what you think.

 
At 15 September, 2012 10:29, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

It's hindsight bias to expect the CIA to derp derp derp derp derp...?

There you go again, connecting dots in the present and applying the connections to the past. The information was not actionable. There is nobody to hold accountable for failure to act on it.

 
At 15 September, 2012 11:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

So you're claiming that State didn't know Almihdhar had been in the country before, and CIA didn't bother to check his current visa status even though they knew he was inthe country and had asked State to put him on a terrorist watch list?

What makes you the expert on what is not actionable? Do you subscribe to that phony wall theory? Bamford says the law not only permitted the sharing of information, it required it.

 
At 15 September, 2012 11:19, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, don't try to tell me what I think. You're not competent to tell me what you think.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian, I've humiliated him by reminding him that he has spent countless hours here babbling about invisible silent explosives and invisible magic thermite, and it embarrasses him.

 
At 15 September, 2012 11:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie. I have never babbled about anything invisible.

Why don't you make yourself useful and identify the people that Willie Fraudriguez rescued, since he ran away screaming and crying with his ass in a sling and isn't here to do it himself?

 
At 15 September, 2012 11:39, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

So you're claiming that State didn't know derp derp derp derp derp derp derp...?

I'm claiming the same as always. None of the agencies involved had sufficient information to prevent the attacks in time.

Bamford says the law not only permitted the sharing of information, it required it.

Bamford is mistaken. You'll notice he cites no legal authority for the claim.

 
At 15 September, 2012 11:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Gosh, you almost sound like you think you know! But since you have admitted that you reverse-engineer your assumptions to justify your conclusions (Since they didn't stop it, they couldn't stop it) there's no reason to give your bare assertions any credence at all.

 
At 15 September, 2012 12:59, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie. I have never babbled about anything invisible.

So you have photographs of the explosives and/or thermite that you insist was used to destroy the towers?

Why don't you make yourself useful and identify the people that Willie Fraudriguez rescued, since he ran away screaming and crying with his ass in a sling and isn't here to do it himself?

I will, but first you have to admit that you are petgoat.

Gosh, you almost sound like you think you know! But since you have admitted that you reverse-engineer your assumptions to justify your conclusions (Since they didn't stop it, they couldn't stop it) there's no reason to give your bare assertions any credence at all.

Yup, RGT has completely humiliated Brian, so all we get now is hysterical squealing from the failed janitor who lives with his parents.

 
At 15 September, 2012 14:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you only fool eight-year-olds, and only the dumb ones at that.

 
At 15 September, 2012 14:23, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"It's hindsight bias to expect the CIA to take a look at the current visa status of a couple of known al Qaeda agents inside the USA when the system is blinking red..."

Actually it was illegal for the CIA to investigate ANYTHING inside the U.S., that's the FBI's job. Even today the CIA is restricted from conducting surveillance inside of the US (as it should be). The FBI had, and has access to the same Visa database the CIA would have used.

Derp.

 
At 15 September, 2012 14:56, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you only fool eight-year-olds, and only the dumb ones at that.

Poor Brian. He has no facts on his side, so all he can do is squeal and squeal every time I mock him.

 
At 15 September, 2012 16:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, where do you get your information that the CIA is not permitted to investigate inside the USA? I think you made that up.

 
At 15 September, 2012 18:20, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

National Security Act of 1947:

:SEC. 3. [50 U.S.C. 401a] As used in this Act:

"(1) The term "intelligence" includes foreign intelligence and counterintelligence...

(5) The terms "national intelligence" and "intelligence-related to the national security" -

(A) each refer to intelligence which pertains to the interests of more than one department or agency of the Government; and

(B) do not refer to counterintelligence or law enforcement activities conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation except to the extent provided for in procedures agreed to by the Director of Central Intelligence and the Attorney General, or otherwise as expressly provided for in this title."

The Privacy Act of 1974 added more hoops and penalties for CIA agents who violate the restrictions governing CI within CONU

 
At 16 September, 2012 07:33, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, where do you get your information that the CIA is not permitted to investigate inside the USA? I think you made that up.

Poor Brian. He's so stupid he actually thinks the CIA can investigate things inside the US. No wonder he's so confused about 9/11.

It's Brian's utter stupidity that leads him to babble about "baffling" aspects of the collapse that no normal person would be baffled by. But then again, Brian is a mentally ill unemployed janitor. He's not a engineer or architect.

 
At 16 September, 2012 08:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

So according to MGF, the National Security Act of 1947 prohibits the CIA from conducting intelligence operations inside the USA, even when these involve investigations of known foreign terrorists who have visa violations and of whom we have been warned by other intelligence agencies?

Where does the National Security Act of 1947 say this?

You guys make shit up, and when you're shown to be wrong, you lie about it.

 
At 16 September, 2012 08:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

Speaking of making stuff up, where's old jiggle-cheeks? I'm still waiting for him to explain why--if thousands of people were trapped behind locked fire exit doors waiting for him to come and save their lives, how come there was not a single 911 call documenting that?

 
At 16 September, 2012 09:13, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

So according to MGF, the National Security Act of 1947 prohibits the CIA from conducting intelligence operations inside the USA, even when derp derp derp derp derp derp...?

Jurisdiction is conferred by statute. There is no statute conferring domestic law enforcement jurisdiction on the CIA. Feel free to correct me on this.

 
At 16 September, 2012 09:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't say anything about domestic law enforcement. I said intelligence about foreign terrorists operating in the USA.

You guys are very confused, or very slippery, about all this. You seem to have a great need to believe that it illegal for the USA to protect itself from terrorists operating within its borders.

 
At 16 September, 2012 09:37, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I didn't say anything about domestic law enforcement.

Intelligence operations on foreign nationals operating within the United States become domestic law enforcement matters when the foreigners interact with US citizens.

It's bizarre to expect a nonviolent crime like visa violation to raise the attention of the FBI pre-9/11.

 
At 16 September, 2012 09:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

An intelligence investigation of a foreign terrorist need not involve US citizens.

Since a visa violation provides a legitimate excuse to haul known terrorists in for questioning, and even deport them, there's nothing bizarre about interest in their failure to use that excuse.

You guys seem to have a powerful need to believe that it was illegal for the USA to defend itself against known foreign terrorists operating inside the USA. You're doing a lousy job of showing that your belief is justified.

 
At 16 September, 2012 11:46, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Since a visa violation derp derp derp, there's nothing bizarre about interest in derp derp derp derp derp.

Hindsight bias. You're literally unable to distinguish past knowledge from present knowledge.

I was surprised to learn of a correlation between chronic hindsight bias and schizophrenia.

 
At 16 September, 2012 13:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 September, 2012 13:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

So you're so busy inventing fantasies about the impossibility of acting that you miss the FACT that on on 8/23 Almihdhar was placed on a terrorist watch list, on 9/4/01 the State Department revoked Almihdhar's visa and on 9/5/01 this fact was entered in the INS database. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the State Department told the Joint Inquiry that they might have been able to locate these guys, had they been asked.

You live in a fantasy world, and you're trying desperately to project that on me.

 
At 16 September, 2012 15:19, Blogger Ian said...

Notice that Brian has no facts to his arguments, just incredulity. Given that Brian is a delusional liar who believes in "widows" with "questions", nobody should care about his incredulity.

 
At 16 September, 2012 16:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I just cited the FACT that Almihdhar was placed on a terrorist watch list 8/23, the FACT that his visa was revoked 9/4, the FACT that his name was forwarded to INS on 9/5, and the FACT that the Bureau of Diplomatic Security told the Joint Inquiry that they might have been able to locate Almihdhar had they been asked.

 
At 16 September, 2012 16:11, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"So according to MGF, the National Security Act of 1947 prohibits the CIA from conducting intelligence operations inside the USA, even when these involve investigations of known foreign terrorists who have visa violations and of whom we have been warned by other intelligence agencies? "

Not according to me, according to the National Security Act of 1947...which I quoted.

Poor Brian. Anybody else would be embarrassed to have their pedestrian lack of basic intellect on display for the world to see. Not Brian, he still thinks nobody can see him in his cool blanket fort in his room at his sister's condo.

Go back on your meds, dumbass.

 
At 16 September, 2012 16:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, does it not trouble you that your quotations in no way supported your claims?

 
At 16 September, 2012 16:55, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

So you're so busy inventing fantasies about the impossibility of acting that you derp derp derpity derp derp...

I never said action was impossible. I said inaction was neither negligent nor suspicious, merely regrettable. Your failure to grasp the distinction is caused by cognitive shortcomings.

 
At 16 September, 2012 19:00, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I just cited the FACT that Almihdhar was placed on a terrorist watch list 8/23, the FACT that his visa was revoked 9/4, the FACT that his name was forwarded to INS on 9/5, and the FACT that the Bureau of Diplomatic Security told the Joint Inquiry that they might have been able to locate Almihdhar had they been asked.

That's nice, Brian. I will now state the FACT that the Baltimore Orioles won their 82nd game today, guaranteeing a winning record for the 1st time since 1997.

What does this have to do with 9/11? Nothing, just like your facts are completely irrelevant.

If you had actually graduated from college instead of doing massive amounts of drugs and destroying your mind, you might understand this.

 
At 16 September, 2012 21:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 September, 2012 21:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

My facts are completely relevant to the issue under discussion, which is the silly claims by a couple of ideologues that the CIA's tolerance for a couple of known al Qaeda agents inside the USA when there were warnings from 13 foreign countries and the system was blinking red has been adequately explained, and does not give rise to justifiable suspicion.

Baltimore Orioles? Who's got time to sit and watch the grass grow?

 
At 16 September, 2012 22:33, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, does it not trouble you that your quotations in no way supported your claims?"

No. I doesn't even trouble me you can't read either.

Between the charter (NSA1947), the Privacy Act of 1974, and the many revisions to all three over the years prior to 9/11 it was clear where the CIA's jurisdiction ended, and the FBI's began.

On 9/10/2001 terrorism was a law enforcement problem, not a national security problem. The FBI dropped the ball. The FBI's long poisonous relationship with the CIA should have motivated them to do their own work. The CIA is not the only intelligence agency in the United States, and the others can be easier to work with due to their direct access to raw information.

The INS didn't send agents looking for the hijackers either, and that IS their job. It is a job they've only been doing in a half-assed fashion for the last 30 years. Even today INS doesn't work consistently when visas expire.

In 2002 the INS approved visas for Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi... so they could attend a Florida flight school...

Stupidity is a systemic government problem.

 
At 16 September, 2012 22:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, so it doesn't bother you that your quotes didn't support your claims. Thanks for making that clear. You live in a fantasy world.

 
At 17 September, 2012 04:39, Blogger Ian said...

My facts are completely relevant to the issue under discussion, which is the silly claims by a couple of ideologues that the CIA's tolerance for a couple of known al Qaeda agents inside the USA when there were warnings from 13 foreign countries and the system was blinking red has been adequately explained, and does not give rise to justifiable suspicion.

False. Your fact are irrelevant squealspam that we've come to expect from a failed janitor, liar, and lunatic.

Baltimore Orioles? Who's got time to sit and watch the grass grow?

Hilarious coming from someone who spends hours upon hours each day spamming the internet with his homosexual fantasies about Willie Rodriguez.

Oh, so it doesn't bother you that your quotes didn't support your claims. Thanks for making that clear. You live in a fantasy world.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. He's been humiliated again and he's hysterical because of it. I guess this wouldn't be a good time to mention that Brian STILL hasn't gotten a single question from a widow answered. Not one.

 
At 17 September, 2012 08:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian lies and lies, and expresses satisfaction in the continued frustration of the 9/11 widows in their quest for answers.

 
At 17 September, 2012 16:28, Blogger Ian said...

Ian lies and lies, and expresses satisfaction in the continued frustration of the 9/11 widows in their quest for answers.

False.

 
At 17 September, 2012 19:23, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"You live in a fantasy world, and you're trying desperately to project that on me."

I missed that one. Looks like Brian has a new therapist, because he learned a new phrase. My guess is he's already ignoring the medications his new therapist has prescribed.

Projecting. Neat-o word.

Why don't you tell everyone why you lost your last job?

 
At 17 September, 2012 19:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, I knew the word "projecting" when I was 15.

 
At 17 September, 2012 19:44, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, I knew the word "projecting" when I was 15.

Brian, you don't know what it means now. You're a pathetic liar and lunatic who lives with his parents because he can't hold down a job.

 
At 17 September, 2012 20:00, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

" I knew the word "projecting" when I was 15"

Wow, three years behind the other kids who learned it in junior high. How did being the slow kid in school make you feel?

 
At 18 September, 2012 08:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF is trying to change the subject to the field of psychology, in which he believes he is expert, because he made such a fool of himself by presenting random quotes as if they supported his claim that the CIA was barred from domestic investigations of foreign terrorists when they didn't.

Certainly the FBI dropped the ball, though to blame the entire institution is not appropriate when the ball-droppers can be much more precisely pointed out: Frasca, Maltbie, Corsi, the higher-ups who ignored the "Kamikaze Pilots" memo, and the higher-ups who ignored the agents' warnings of upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan.

Condi Rice dropped the ball. The new PDBs that GutterBall calls "insignificant" came to her. She got urgent CIA briefings on 5/30 and 7/10 and did nothing. She told the 9/11 Commission she couldn't even remember if she'd discussed domestic al Qaeda cells with the president. Cofer Black said "We did everything but pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head." Tenet and Blee said that if she had acted, 9/11 might have been prevented.

MGF's claim that terrorism was not a National Security issue is a facile falsehood--one he promotes because he relies for his information upon lying propaganda websites.

 
At 18 September, 2012 17:34, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

In this thread we learn Brian is familiar with psychological terms stemming from many hours of therapy.

We learned he was the slow kid in school stemming from poor reading skills.

Brian has also lived down to the standard conspiracy loon's belief that the CIA can do whatever it wishes within the United States regardless of the Church Committee, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the many CIA witch hunts which set strict restrictions on the CIA's activities within the country.

The CIA is magic to troofers.

His assumption of evil plots where impenitence is obvious is a reflection of his own motives in life. He doesn't care about peace, he just wants to be in a position to molest women. He has a track record.

He is defeated in every way a person can be defeated.

 
At 18 September, 2012 18:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're trying to cover over your inability to support your claims by putting up a straw man argument. I never said "the CIA can do whatever it wishes within the United States".
I said you have not shown that they were not permitted to track known foreign terrorists within the USA, though you claim that's so.

James Bamford said they were not only permitted to share their information about Alhazmi and Almihdhar, they were legally obligated to.

 
At 18 September, 2012 20:34, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I said you have not shown that they were not permitted to track known foreign terrorists within the USA, though you claim that's so."

I did. I quoted the National Security Act of 1947. My mistake is not then translating it into smaller words that your sister can print out for you to color.

""(1) The term "intelligence" includes foreign intelligence and counterintelligence..."

Foreign means "not inside the United States" (you'll probably need a map).

"(5) The terms "national intelligence" and "intelligence-related to the national security" -

(A) each refer to intelligence which pertains to the interests of more than one department or agency of the Government; and"

This means they're supposed to "share" information to the various government agencies who might need it.

"(B) do not refer to counterintelligence or law enforcement activities conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation"

Okay, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is also known as the "FBI". The FBI investigates things, it's how they got their name. Unlike the CIA, the FBI operates inside the United States. They hunt bad guys, also known as "criminals". In 2001, terrorism was considered a law enforcement problem so it was up to the FBI to know who was running around attending flight schools. They all had visas, the FBI doesn't need to wait for the CIA before calling INS to see if so & so is still in the country.

On the other hand, the CIA can't officially call the INS in 2001 without permission. See the next part:

"except to the extent provided for in procedures agreed to by the Director of Central Intelligence and the Attorney General, or otherwise as expressly provided for in this title."

So before Joe CIA Agent could check on someone inside of the USA, they would need permission from George Tenent, Janet Reno, and later John Ashcroft. If he doesn't, Joe CIA Agent is subject to a $5000 fine, reassignment, or termination. So not many CIA agents make this call. They call the FBI, and the CIA did call the FBI about two of the hijackers in late August.


"James Bamford said they were not only permitted to share their information about Alhazmi and Almihdhar, they were legally obligated to."

Good for him. You are misquoting him anyway.

 
At 19 September, 2012 09:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 September, 2012 09:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, your misinterpretations of the definitions in an inept attempt to support your claims are a real hoot.

You left out definition 2: "The term ‘‘foreign intelligence’’ means information relating to the capabilities, intentions, or activities of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities." There's no restriction of domestic activities there.

You left out part of the definition #5:

The terms ‘‘national intelligence’’ and ‘‘intelligence related to national security’’ refer to all intelligence, regardless of the source from which derived and including information gathered within or outside the United States "

You're a liar, dude.

 
At 20 September, 2012 09:45, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Not my definition, it's the government's.

Thanks for playing.

 
At 20 September, 2012 19:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 20 September, 2012 20:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your interpretations of the government's definitions were inaccurate, and your quotes were dishonestly edited. You're a liar, dude.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home