9/11 - CIA IG REPORT: A Little More Light Through the Cracks
Crimes of the State Blog
OF CIA INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, "OIG Report on CIA Accountability With Respect to the 9/11 Attacks", June 2005
George Tenet is pissed. He wrote a lengthy and
ed response to this CIA Inspector General report, printed in the NY Times (August 21, 2007). Here is his closing line:
"But just as we owed it to the country to do better — the CIA IG owed it to the nation and the men and women of the intelligence community to do a better job in reviewing the circumstances that led to the tragedy of September 11th." --Former Director of CIA, George Tenet
What's gotten Tenet so frosty? I mean, he does admit that "...we owed it to the country to do better..."
The CIA's "Summary" doesn't spill too many beans, but in general language they hint at realities that other reports like the FBI Inspector General Report have already revealed.
"Concerning certain issues [unspecified], the ["Accountability Review"] Team concluded that the [Central Intelligence] Agency and its officers did not discharge their responsibilities in a satisfactory manner.
That is a pretty powerful statement, depending upon what the "issues" actually refer to. The previous FBI IG report (2004) exposed how the CounterTerrorism Center (CTC) -- run by CIA -- deliberately blocked a memo from alerting the FBI about two of the purported 9/11 skyjackers.
Two of the alleged terrorists had multi-entry United States visas, and were observed at a "high level Al Qaeda meeting" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
An FBI official assigned to the CIA/CTC wrote the memo to inform his agency to look out for the terrorists, who later easily entered the US with valid visas. Believing that his memo was sent over to FBI, the FBI official was unaware that CIA supervisors had held the memo and never sent it to FBI.
Was this protection of known terrorists, and hiding them from FBI tantamount to treason ("aiding the enemy")?
That's a question we should not expect answered by the CIA, nor the FBI, nor the Congress apparently.
"The Team found no instance in which an employee violated the law, and none of the errors discussed herein involves misconduct."
So much for the "Accountability" part. We are back to the incompetence defense, where it is only possible to make "errors," and no one ever violates the law.
It should be noted clearly, here, that the CIA is itself a terrorist organization, and has terrorized populations around the world for sixty years now. It is well documented how CIA overthrew numerous democratically elected governments, and installed in their place "strong man" military dictators, like Saddam Hussein amongst numerous others, and aided them in creating fascistic police state apparatuses. The CIA has actively fought against democracy in a very real sense, for most of its sordid history. The CIA pioneered the use of advanced psychological torture techniques (illegal), and funded, trained and armed death squads from Asia to the Americas (illegal), as well as participated in the global narcotics trade (illegal) for a very, very long time.
So, when the CIA clears itself of any wrongdoing, one should keep a skeptical mindset at the very least.
"On occasion, the Team has found that a specific officer was responsible for a particular action or lack of action, but has not recommended that an Accountability Board review the officer's performance."
Well, apparently everything is a-ok over at the CIA, because "Accountability", as opposed to "accountability" with a small-a, is somewhat "off the table." I take this as a sign that everything went quite well regarding September 11th, 2001, over at the CIA, and the outcome was well within desired parameters. Complicit officers will not be punished.
Here is why George Tenet went ballistic:
"At the same time, the Team concludes that the former DCI [Tenet] by virtue of his position, bears ultimate responsibility for the fact that no such strategic plan was ever created, despite his specific direction that this should be done."
It's a wishy-washy bit of forgettable blame that appears purely symbolic. This whole affair seems to be theater, just enough reflection to get the newspapers typing, but of course they claim that there was no "misconduct" by anyone, so there's nothing to see here.
Or is there?
On to the Specifics
In the what-they-say vs. what-they-do department, we have a little clue about what went on, in this discussion of counterterrorism funding:
"The Team found that FY 1997 to FY 2001 (as of 9/11) [REDACTED DOLLAR AMOUNT] was redistributed from counterterrorism programs to other Agency priorities (...) funds were used to cover nonspecific corporate "taxes" and for a variety of purposes that, based on the Agency's budgetary definitions, were unrelated to terrorism. Conversely, no resources were reprogrammed from other Agency programs to counterterrorism, even after the DCI's statement in December 1998 that he wanted no resources spared in this effort."
This isn't a smoking gun revelation, but it fits nicely with a similar development over at the FBI during the summer of 2001.
The acting FBI head Thomas Pickard was requesting more counterterrorim funding -- and it was seriously lacking over at FBI -- from Attorney General John Ashcroft. With all the terrorism threat reporting and many leads unfollowed, this was clearly a high priority for Pickard. On September 10th, 2001Ashcroft flatly refused the additional funds.
Starving particular investigative units of money, and therefore of additional personnel, is a command-level decision made by political operatives with agendas. What sort of agenda fits the above known facts?
The CIA IG then goes on to blame Khalid Shaykh Muhammad (KSM) for being the "mastermind" of 9/11. While being the official theory, there is a huge and glaring dispute about KSM: that he was reported killed by Pakistani security forces in a massive gun battle, and then he was captured alive (resurrected?) although no witnesses saw him at the scene of his alleged post-mortum capture. Then "KSM" became the source of most of the 9/11 Commission Report, although no one in the US government has positively proven that Muhammad is indeed in their custody, and of course, no 9/11 "Commissioners" actually met with or interviewed him.
So while details in the public domain are unreliable at best, the CIA takes it for granted that Muhammad was the "mastermind" of 9/11, and then claims it had intelligence to this effect even before the 9/11 attacks:
"Thus intelligence reporting (...) was noteworthy even in the pre-9/11 period because it included the allegation that KSM was sending terrorists to the United States to engage in activities on behalf of Bin Ladin."
Is this true? Is it false?
More importantly -- if true -- why didn't they do anything about it?
Returning to al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, the two alleged terrorists at the Kuala Lumpur meeting: we have an actual revelation here, and one which should absolutely raise suspicions:
"In January 2000, CTC officers received information that one of these suspected terrorists had a US visa; in March 2000, these officers had information that the other had flown from Bangkok to Los Angeles."
This is black and white admission that "these" CIA "officers" had "information" that an Al Qaeda "terrorist" had entered the United States; yet they did nothing whatsoever about it. As a matter of fact, the two "terrorists" lived openly under their own names for a year and a half. Nawaf al-Hazmi was even reportedly listed in the San Diego telephone book.
The CIA IG then spins on behalf of the CTC, in a mindboggling paragraph which attempts to distract from the core issue, that al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were deliberately allowed to enter and remain in the United States, although they were identified as "UBL associates." The FBI agent assigned to the CIA CounterTerrorism Center wrote a memo to inform the FBI of the visa issue, but:
"Apparently because it was in the wrong format or needed editing, the message was never sent."
I'm not sure if excuses like these would fly in junior high school, but this is what our $40 Billion "Intelligence Community" has come up with to explain away 9/11.
"Whatever the case, the Team found no indication that anyone in CTC checked to ensure FBI receipt of the information, which, a few UBL station officers said, should have been routine practice."
There's that old violaton of standard operating procedures concerning 9/11 again. This FBI memo affair was on January 5th of 2000 (yes, under the Clinton regime).
Just two months later -- coincidentally -- the same failure to inform the FBI happened again over at the CIA/CTC:
"Seperately in March 2000, two CIA field locations sent to a number of addresses cables reporting that al-Hazmi and another al-Qa'ida associate had traveled to the United States. Tney were clearly identified in the cables as "UBL associates." The Team has found no evidence, and heard no claim from any party, that this information was shared in any manner with the FBI or that anyone in UBL station took other appropriate operational action at that time."
By the CIA's own admission, numerous parties in their own organization were informed that two Al Qaeda terrorists had entered the country. This information was broadcast to their officers, yet withheld from the FBI, and no criminal investigations or arrests resulted.
This is glaring evidence of wrongdoing. Taken in context with thousands of other facts, we have a prima facie case for treason.
We're just not allowed to call it treason in the corporate media, which controls the mass consciousness.
Certain parties in the CIA and in the FBI acted to prevent criminal investigations of known terrorists. These parties have committed treason, and were complicit with the 9/11 attacks, and thereby generated a "Global War on Terrorism," which seems to be their motive. This CIA IG report, along with other relevant documentation, should be taken to federal judges and presented as evidence of high treason.
This reality is confirmed by several whistleblowers, such as FBI Special Agent Robert Wright, who said:
“[T]here existed a concerted effort on the part of agents conducting counterterrorism intelligence investigations to insulate the subjects of their investigations from criminal investigation and prosecution. (...) There is virtually no effort on the part of the FBI’s International Terrorism Unit to neutralize known and suspected terrorists residing within the United States."
Another bit of juicy evidence in the CIA IG report is this tidbit:
"No comprehensive report focusing on UBL since 1993."
"UBL" is of course Usama Bin Laden, the man who declared "war" on the United States in February 1998. He is the man with whom George Tenet claimed "We are at war", in December 1998. The man who changed countries several times since 1993, first to Sudan, then to Afghanistan, with trips to Saudi Arabia, Dubai (and a US military hospital), Pakistan, and who knows where else? Yet, the CIA wrote no "comprehensive report" on him since 1993???
Worse than that, the US government refused to accept a thick intelligence file offered by the Sudan intelligence service
regarding Bin Laden and, "more than 200 leading members of his al-Qaeda terrorist network."
Something's rotten in ... Langley, Virginia.
"No comprehensive analysis that put into context the threats received in the spring and summer of 2001."
Incompetence or Machiavellianism? It's up to the reader to dig deeper. Accept these sometimes laughable excuses for the "failure" of 9/11, or stop trusting the spinmeisters.
"The Team also found that UBL station and [REDACTED CIA UNIT] were hostile to each other and working at cross purposes over a period of years before 9/11. The Team cannot measure the specific impact of this counterproductive behavior."
Well now! The stated and official purpose of the "UBL station" is to stop Bin Ladin, no? So what exactly are the "cross purposes" of this other Agency entity?
We know that during this stated time period Al Qaeda was being actively supported by the US in the Balkans wars. US personnel supplied arms and training to Al Qaeda affiliated KLA fighters.
So, which side in this "cross purposes" dispute is being admonished here? Who didn't get out of the way of whom? And just what is all this vague language trying to conceal?
No mention is made of Ali Mohamed, who worked for the Army Speical Forces, the FBI and the CIA, has ties to Al Qaeda, and is said to have run the US embassy bombing operation in Africa as well as trained some ot the alleged 9/11 hijackers.
No mention of Omar Saeed Shaykh
, Osama Bin Ladin's "money man" linked to the head of Pakistani intelligence, and the huge wire transfers to and from Mohammed Atta.
Nor is Bin Ladin's protection by Pakistan, nor his admission to the military hospital in Rawalpindi mentioned.
No mention is made of the highly suspicious flight school, Huffman Aviation (where Atta and others trained to fly), whose planes participated in narcotics trafficking from South America, and is linked to a CIA front company.
A lot remains unmentioned. This CIA report reveals very little, except maybe that there are some over at CIA genuinely interested in stopping terrorism, yet they remain powerless to expose the full breadth of treachery and deception in their organization.
Other recent articles:
The 9/11 B.S. Movement
Blatant Insanity = Intentional DIS-Information
"Skeptics" or Dupes? Skeptic Magazine Not So Skeptical of 9/11 Lies
ISI and The Wire Transfers of 9/11
The Limits of Christopher Ketcham's / Counterpunch's Israeli Hangout
[url=http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-george-monbiot-these-are-facts-of.html]No George Monbiot, These Are the Facts of September 11th 2001