Able Danger

[arnegrim]

What culpability does Clinton bear for 911 in light of the newly released info regarding 'Able Danger'?

 

[mnphysicist]

His staff screwed up big time. Sure, the buck stops with him... but realisitically, the problem imho was at a lower level, so personally I'd give him the benefit of a doubt. Eg, do we hold Bush responsible for improper treatment of prisoners in Iraq, no. Its a lower level function.

Check out executive order eo12333 section 1.11d and 1.12d
http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/eo12333.html

Thats pretty explicit on what can be done.... but in 1995 it got shot full of holes by Gorelick, who was also on the 911 commision. Here is part of one of her memo's I found on the web at:
http://www.theshapeofdays.com/2004/04/more_fingerpoin.html

“During the course of those investigations, significant counterintelligence information has been developed related to the activities and plans of agents of foreign powers operating in this country and overseas, including previously unknown connections between separate terrorist groups." We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."

Now one could start off with conspiracy theories, and possibly Berger's attempt to hide it from the 911 commision as well. But realisitically, I think its a lot more important to fix things, rather than going on a witch hunt for those responsible for the screwups of the past.

Knowing what they did, and that all those people died when it might have been prevented, must weigh very heavily on the part of Goerlick and crew. They will have to live with that the rest of their lives.

Ron

edited, fixed a bad link, and formatting

 

[tulc]

What culpability does Clinton bear for 911 in light of the newly released info regarding 'Able Danger'?

Where is the part where Clinton knew any of this? Just wondering.
tulc(wondering if this is a "drink" thing or not?)

 

[TheBear]

Where is the part where Clinton knew any of this? Just wondering.
tulc(wondering if this is a "drink" thing or not?)

Thing is, this is not limited to Clinton or Bush. America was not taking seriously, the threat of terrorism on the homeland prior to 9-11. There were some concerns, but they were always put on the back burner and ignored, like the PDB titled, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US". ;

 

[Doctrine1st]

His staff screwed up big time. Sure, the buck stops with him... but realisitically, the problem imho was at a lower level, so personally I'd give him the benefit of a doubt. Eg, do we hold Bush responsible for improper treatment of prisoners in Iraq, no. Its a lower level function.

Well given his Whitehouse council was writing memos to justify torture in avoidance of the Geneva convention, I'm not so sure the same can be said about Bush. Unless of course they just let him know what he needs to know.

 

[arnegrim]

His staff screwed up big time. Sure, the buck stops with him... but realisitically, the problem imho was at a lower level, so personally I'd give him the benefit of a doubt. Eg, do we hold Bush responsible for improper treatment of prisoners in Iraq, no. Its a lower level function.

With the number of people who blame Bush for 911... AND Abu Ghraib... I don't think it would be out of line to make sure that question is asked of Clinton.

 

[Billnew]

So far I have heard that his administration screwed up.

And 9-11 commision screwed up.
But I hesitate to point fingers until all evidence is reviewed.

I feel that this renders the 9-11 comision report incomplete,
And bordering on cover up.

This group has evidence that 9-11 attackers were planning something in Aug.2000.
And the commision ignored this.

During the 9-11 investigation, everyone knew we screwed up and
wanted a complete investigation to learn how to prevent this.
Well this group was not allowed to tell FBI,CIA, or others of their suspicions.

The problem isn't that this group was forced to be quiet but that no one
included it in the report. IE :COVER UP.


And when asked they said:

1. we were not briefed on able danger.
2. we were briefed on able danger but didn't have time to include it.
3. We were briefed but it didn't seem relevant.
All responses made within a week of each other.

 

[Verv]

Honestly, though I am a Republican, I cannot hold Pres. Clinton responsible for any of this. Prior to 9/11 domestic terrorism (read: Timothy McVeigh) looked like a much bigger problem than foreign terrorists threats in the 1990s.

Should he have taken a harder line? In retrospect, yes, but hindsight is 20/20. He focused on issues that were far closer to where the American mindset was in the 1990s (economics, healthcare). Ultimately, that was what America was concerned with in the end so he cannot be faulted.

He represented the American interests of the time -- it is unfortunate that terrorism was not on that list in the mid-late 1990s.

 

[arnegrim]

So far I have heard that his administration screwed up.

And 9-11 commision screwed up.
But I hesitate to point fingers until all evidence is reviewed.

I feel that this renders the 9-11 comision report incomplete,
And bordering on cover up.

This group has evidence that 9-11 attackers were planning something in Aug.2000.
And the commision ignored this.

During the 9-11 investigation, everyone knew we screwed up and
wanted a complete investigation to learn how to prevent this.
Well this group was not allowed to tell FBI,CIA, or others of their suspicions.

The problem isn't that this group was forced to be quiet but that no one
included it in the report. IE :COVER UP.


And when asked they said:

1. we were not briefed on able danger.
2. we were briefed on able danger but didn't have time to include it.
3. We were briefed but it didn't seem relevant.
All responses made within a week of each other.

Ahh... but there was a Clintonite who put herself on the Commission... and with the revelation of this info, the reason for her being there is getting muddy...

 

[Scribbler]

With the number of people who blame Bush for 911... AND Abu Ghraib....

Let's not forget 'killer bees'.

 

[marshlewis]

You know, the only way this will be cleared up is if there is an independant investigation with the power to sopena whomever it needs to.

well one can wish cant one?

 

[theeyesoftammyfaye]

Where is the part where Clinton knew any of this? Just wondering.
tulc(wondering if this is a "drink" thing or not?)

drink, tulc, drink! actually, with all the "it's clinton's fault!" posts and threads lately, i may need to go somewhere to dry out soon...

 

[Zoot]

Simple.

Why did 9/11 occur? US-imposed medical sanctions on Iraq killing children. Making Israel's treatment of its indigenous population possible. Maintaining military bases in Saudi Arabia.

Did Clinton try to stop these things? No. Did Clinton encourage these things? Yes. Was he warned of consequences of his crimes? Yes.

Therefore, Clinton is responsible for 3000 dead on 9/11. Not Bush. Bush is responsible for over 100,000 dead in Iraq, and any deaths in the inevitable next successful attack on the US.

 

[Verv]

Simple.

Why did 9/11 occur? US-imposed medical sanctions on Iraq killing children. Making Israel's treatment of its indigenous population possible. Maintaining military bases in Saudi Arabia.

Did Clinton try to stop these things? No. Did Clinton encourage these things? Yes. Was he warned of consequences of his crimes? Yes.

Therefore, Clinton is responsible for 3000 dead on 9/11. Not Bush. Bush is responsible for over 100,000 dead in Iraq, and any deaths in the inevitable next successful attack on the US.

(1) The embargoes on Iraq were approved of by the United Nations and enforced, essentially, by the UN; would you say that the world, as a whole, would then be responsible?

And how do you know that Mohammed Atta organized himself solely to attack the US over this reason?

Isn't the Hussein being the most secular leader in the ME, the least involved in religious disputes, etc. one of the reasons why some of the left wingers think that he should not have been top priority?

(2) And if Pres. Bush is responsible for the 100,000 deaths in the removal of Hussein (an extremely questionable number), wouldn't that make him also responsible for any deaths that were prevented by the removal of Hussein (political and genocidal murders)?

I think that your view here is one-sided.

 

[arnegrim]

drink, tulc, drink! actually, with all the "it's clinton's fault!" posts and threads lately, i may need to go somewhere to dry out soon...

WHAT?

Count up the number of 'It's Clintons fault' threads and posts and then count up the number of 'It's Bushs' fault' threads and posts...

If you see anything near equality on those then let me know.

 

[arnegrim]

WHAT?

Count up the number of 'It's Clintons fault' threads and posts and then count up the number of 'It's Bushs' fault' threads and posts...

If you see anything near equality on those then let me know.

Done counting the 'It's Bushs fault' yet?

 

[arnegrim]

I wonder how much the Democrats would be touting this if the information had been collected during the first few months of GWBs term rather then in the last few months of Clintons term...

 

[Law of Loud]

I'll put the same answer to this that I put to the government failure to stop the prison abuse at Abu Ghraib. Every single person in knowledge of this should be removed from their position and likely from their job. The person who put each of these people in their position should be reprimanded, but should be able to keep their role as the failure itself was not their fault. Micromanagement of any vast effort tends to turn out poorly.

So, just like in the Abu Ghraib scandal, the punishments for this failure should go as far up the chain of command as it was known.

 

[arnegrim]

Ahh... then you are seemingly in the minority of the Democratic party. Many of whom want GWB if not at least Rumsfelds resignation. Too bad the offenders of Able Danger are no longer around to punish... or too convenient...

 

[Voegelin]

Gorelick and Reno made it more difficult for foreign intel to share information with the FBI because the DNC had taken money from the PRC. The funding by Riady, Ng Lap Seng, Charlie Trie, John Huang, Chen Kai Kit and others had been exposed. Democrats didn't want the FBI to find out from the CIA and military Intel any more about the corruption.

This goes back to Carter, Turner and Church. At that time the New Left was on the payroll of the Soviets. Democrats found the radicals useful and did not want them exposed. Hence Carter's firing over over 1,000 CIA field agents and 300 or so FBI counterintel agents.

We can even go back to WWII. The Army's Venona exposed several hundred Soviet agents in the US government. Hoover heard about it. Truman knew about it. But Democrats denied Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and others were spies. Only after the KGB archives and the Venona transcripts were made public in the 1990s did we finally have the conclusive proof of what everyone (those who denied it and those who did not) knew was true.