Archive for the ‘9/11’ Category

Morning Quote

April 13, 2007

“WTC-7 is the gateway drug to 9-11 Denial” — Pat at Screw Loose Change

Attack on Free Speech by democrats summed up

September 8, 2006

Ace has more.

Isn’t it interesting how many times we’ve heard that Hollywood is all about dramatizations and entertainment when the lesson conveyed is pro-left, pro-Democrat, pro-liberal? “Don’t take that seriously,” we are admonished, “It’s poetic license, darling.”

Now we have the 9/11 movie that will air this Sunday. It certainly appears that ABC’s head Iger is caving to pressure brought by the Clinton Foundation’s Bruce Lindsay. Why? Because the dramatization paints the Clinton Administration accurately. Of course, efforts at “It’s just a dramatization” somehow fall on deaf ears when you’re trying to tell it to someone who really understands the power of memes and mass communication.

Look, I’m not saying that the portrayal is letter perfect. I’m not saying that in its smallest, parsable details, it is accurate to the nth degree. And I’m not saying that I’ve seen the movie. But I’m listening to the discussion, and I’m listening to people who have seen the movie (Rush, Patterico’s co-blogger). And the portrayal is very likely as accurate as TV can be.

Why do I say this? First, because of the reaction by Clinton’s camp. If this wasn’t damning and true, then it would be damnably (and provably) false. Second, because all three of the “questionable” scenes in the above article are certainly believable given what we learned over the years about the Clinton Administration. Does it matter whether Berger slammed the phone down or laid it gently upon its cradle? Does it matter if Albright met the head of Pakistan’s State Security apparatus in a dark alley or whether she sent a message by a messenger? Does it matter that Clinton didn’t exercise leadership on a habitually self-serving, liberal, and disjointed foreign policy?

Yes. Yes it does. And from what I understand, this movie accurately portrays the lack of leadership and the lack of focus that was part and parcel of that foreign policy.

The Texas Rainmaker chimes in with quotes from the 9/11 Commission’s report:

Clarke wrote to Berger’s deputy on February 10 that the military was then doing targeting work to hit the main camp with cruise missiles and should be in position to strike the following morning. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert appears to have been briefed on the situation.

No strike was launched. By February 12 Bin Ladin had apparently moved on, and the immediate strike plans became moot. According to CIA and Defense officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin Ladin or close by. Clarke told us the strike was called off after consultations with Director Tenet because the intelligence was dubious, and it seemed to Clarke as if the CIA was presenting an option to attack America’s best counterterrorism ally in the Gulf. The lead CIA official in the field, Gary Schroen, felt that the intelligence reporting in this case was very reliable; the Bin Ladin unit chief, “Mike,” agreed. Schroen believes today that this was a lost opportunity to kill Bin Ladin before 9/11.

and

On March 7, 1999, Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and Bin Ladin. Clarke later wrote in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA. When the former Bin Ladin unit chief found out about Clarke’s call, he questioned CIA officials, who denied having given such a clearance. Imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke’s phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted. CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt, were irate. “Mike” thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting Bin Ladin.

and this from 1998

In Washington, Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals. In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted.

and

National Security Council counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke sent Berger a memo suggesting a strike against al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan. According to the commission, however, in the “margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’“

9/11 film review…

August 28, 2006

Govindini Murty reviews the movie The Path to 9/11, that will air on ABC (not to be confused with the movie currently in theaters).

The writing, acting, directing, editing, cinematography, and overall story-telling are first-rate. “The Path to 9/11” is fast-paced and thoroughly gripping the entire way. The five-hour miniseries (aired over two nights) is based on the 9/11 Commission report, and also on ABC News correspondent John Miller’s book, “The Cell.”

This is the first Hollywood production I’ve seen that honestly depicts how the Clinton administration repeatedly bungled the capture of Osama Bin Laden. One astonishing sequence in “The Path to 9/11” shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden’s house in Afghanistan. They’re on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they’ll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization. That way, their necks will be on the line – and not his. The astonished CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan repeatedly asks Berger if this is really what the administration wants. Berger refuses to answer, and then finally just hangs up on the agent. The CIA team and the Northern Alliance, just a few feet from capturing Bin Laden, have to abandon the entire mission.

HT to Ace.

9/11 Commision report back in the news.

August 11, 2005

Set the Wayback Machine to Thursday, October 28, 2004, when I quoted the Washington Times:

“According to 9/11 Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean, Mr. Clinton believed with ‘absolute certainty’ that Iraq provided al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction expertise and technology in the 1990s. He believed it as president when he ordered the destruction of the al Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, and he believes it now. And it’s not just Mr. Clinton. According to Mr. Kean, ‘Top officials — Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger and others — told us with absolute certainty that there were chemical weapons of mass destruction at that factory and that’s why we sent missiles.’ “

Well, the 9/11 Commission is back in the news. Namely, Clintonite and 9/11Commissoner Jamie Gorelick who set up the “wall of separation” between US Intelligence Agencies.
Via Ace comes Phinn’s recap of the Able Danger story:

I think the Able Danger story is going to be the biggest of the year.

A. A SOCOM unit, run by Gen. Shelton himself, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, identifies Atta and the Brooklyn cell as a threat as early as 1999. (It doesn’t hurt that the unit has a cool sounding name, too.)

B. A year before 9/11, they recommend that that the FBI close down the cell. (Who was president a year before 9/11 again?)

C. DOD lawyers (lawyers!) overrule this recommendation, and refuse to allow the Able Danger guys to pass this information on to the FBI, because Atta has a legal immigration status, and they are worried about political fallout after Waco. They put Post-It notes over Atta’s face so that all reference to him is kept secret (a nice touch, dont’ you think?).

D. The 9/11 Commission chose to omit any reference to it or investigate. This is inexcusible, regardless of how accurate the story is. It clearly deserves to be addressed and the facts explored, to be proved or disproved.

Update: Flopping Aces has more

This will become huge people. Wait for the firestorm. I do agree with the good doctor tho, the people to blame for 9/11 are the attackers themselves and Al-Qaeda. If there was this huge of an intelligence failure as I wrote about in my earlier post then it should be known. If there was an attempted cover-up by Sandy Berger & Co, as I believe there was, then they should be put in jail.

But the only one’s responsible for 9/11 is Al-Qaeda.

Taking one for the Willy…

April 7, 2005

That is Dick Morris’ take on former National Security Adviser (under Bill Clinton) Sandy Berger decision to plead guilty to the theft and destrution of top-secret documents.
Mr. Morris applies Occam’s Razor with great skill when he says:

But why did Berger steal them?

The most obvious reason would be to stop the 9/11 commission from including embarrassing revelations in its report.

Read the whole thing.

The words of Clinton…

October 28, 2004

From the Washington Times:

“According to 9/11 Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean, Mr. Clinton believed with ‘absolute certainty’ that Iraq provided al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction expertise and technology in the 1990s. He believed it as president when he ordered the destruction of the al Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, and he believes it now. And it’s not just Mr. Clinton. According to Mr. Kean, ‘Top officials — Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger and others — told us with absolute certainty that there were chemical weapons of mass destruction at that factory and that’s why we sent missiles.’ ”