The Facts Prior to 9/11
05 September 2006 11:57 am by Taylor Marsh
Rep.
Louise Slaughter has a must read diary
up on Kos.
I've not had the pleasure of meeting this extraordinary political
leader, but Ms. Slaughter never fails to grab an issue and take down the hypocrisy
and lies offered up by wingnut operatives, while also offering readers a way
to take action on the insanity that assaults us every day.
Read her
diary and then tell ABC they need to “come clean”. Once again,
Rep. Slaughter gets it right.
ABC has a responsibility to make clear that this film is not a documentary,
and does not present an official account of the facts surrounding the September
11th attacks.We think the ABC should at least run disclaimers noting that The
Path to 9/11 is a docudrama throughout its airing. The American people need
to know that the people behind it and the incendiary claims it advances are
questionable in their impartiality and accuracy.I am also extremely concerned over the timing of the mini-series, as well
as recent reckless Administration rhetoric on the issue of national security
and its connection to the war in Iraq.The anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on my home state is an emotional time,
and it is wrong for anyone to play on those emotions and use them to advance
a political agenda. …Ask
ABC to Come Clean on Its 9-11 'Docudrama” – Rep. Louise Slaughter
As Rep. Slaughter knows, playing on our emotions and fears is the backbone
of Bush's campaign rhetoric, as was witnessed today in the speech the president made earlier
this morning. Jennifer Nix offers another angle, which after my failed attempt to talk to John Bolton is very important.
But all you have to do is look at the 9/11 Commission's report to find out
that what ABC is about to offer as a “docudrama” is nothing more than
an attempt to rewrite history and launch a last ditch effort to move the electorate
in November.
Many people do not take the time to download pdf files, so I'm going to play
stenographer on this one, because it's that important. Richard
Clarke blasted ABC, which is nothing short of presidential propaganda wrapped
in an election year hail Mary.
1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground
in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was
no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not
recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced
and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the
time a cruise missile hit it.
On page 199 of the 9/11
Commission Report, something very interesting appears; nothing
less than a warning from President Clinton. “Us” refers to the 9/11
Commission.
… In December, Bush met with Clinton for a two-hour, one-on-one
discussion of national security and foreign policy challenges. Clinton recalled
saying to Bush, “I think you will find that by far your biggest threat
is Bin Ladin and the al Qaeda.” …
However, the “Organizing a New Administration” section that follows
puts further emphasis on where Bush's head was turned: During the short
transition, Rice and Hadley concentrated on staffing and organizing the NSC.
Their policy priorities differed from those of the Clinton administration. Those
priorities included China, missile defense, the collapse of the Middle East
peace process, and the Persian Gulf. …
The Vulcans of the Bush administration had different priorities, which didn't
include following up on Clinton's warnings. They were still rooted in cold war
thinking. It went on in other sections from page 199 – 201, with “Early
Decisions” being something that cost this country dearly.
Early Decisions
Within the first few days after Bush's inauguration, Clarke approached Rice
in an effort to get her–and the new President–to give terrorism very high
priority and to act on the agenda that he had pushed during the last few months
of the previous administration. After Rice requested that all senior staff
identify desirable major policy reviews or initiatives, Clarke submitted an
elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached to it his 1998 Delenda
Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper. “We urgently
need … a Principals level review on the al Qida network,” Clarke wrote.He wanted the Principals Committee to decide whether al Qaeda was “a
first order threat” or a more modest worry being overblown by “chicken
little alarmists. Alluding to the transition briefing that he had prepared
for Rice, Clarke wrote that al Qaeda “is not some narrow, little terrorist
issue that needs to be included in broader regional policy.” Two key
decisions that had been deferred, he noted, concerned covert aid to keep the
Northern Alliance alive when fighting began again in Afghanistan in the spring,
and covert aid to the Uzbeks. Clarke also suggested that decisions should
be made soon on messages to the Taliban and Pakistan over the al Qaeda sanctuary
in Afghanistan, on possible new money for CIA operations, and on “when
and how … to respond to the attack on the USS Cole.”The national security adviser (Dr. Condoleezza Rice) did not respond directly
to Clarke's memorandum. No Principals Committee meeting on al Qaeda was held
until September 4, 2001 (although the Principals Committee met frequently
on other subjects, such as the Middle East peace process, Russia, and the
Persian Gulf).
As you likely know, the result of Clarke's warnings ended up in the only public
apology given to the American people, after the Bush administration demoted
Clarke's counterterrorism czar position to a below the Principals Committee
level.
For President Bush, “Bin Ladin and the al Qaeda” just weren't job
one.
In fact, even after 9/11, Bush's first priority, before bin Laden was even
captured was to go after Saddam. Bush never understood the fight and doesn't
to this very day.
UPDATE (12:11 p.m.): Okay, so just getting back from New York after a long trip, I'm learning some interesting things. First, Lee Hamilton, the other co-chair opposite Tom Kean, is in Iraq right now. That could explain the unfettered bunk that's being spread this week, with the help of Tom Kean, Sr. Some links were just emailed to me re: Mr. Kean, Sr. Since he was actually involved with “Path to 9/11″, his background is even more important. See here and here about Kean family ethics. It explains so much.
