Report blasts Tenet's pre-9/11 CIA - no Osama intelligence reports since 1993

Link to Full Original Report

Report blasts Tenet's pre-9/11 CIA

By Richard Willing, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — CIA Director George Tenet declared "war" on al-Qaeda in 1998 but failed to follow up with a thorough counterterrorism plan until after the September 2001 attacks, the CIA inspector general charged in an internal report partially declassified on Tuesday.


The report, completed in June 2005, said the pre-9/11 CIA failed to develop "assets" needed to disrupt al-Qaeda before it launched its devastating attacks.


ON DEADLINE: Read the report summary

Echoing the public 9/11 Commission Report in 2004, the CIA watchdog also criticized the agency for not sharing intelligence that could have led authorities to two 9/11 hijackers who traveled to the USA in 2000 and 2001.

Neither the CIA nor its officers discharged "their responsibilities in a satisfactory manner," Inspector General John Helgerson concluded in the report's 19-page summary.


However, the summary also found "no silver bullet" or "single point of failure" that "would have enabled the Intelligence Community to predict or prevent the 9/11 attacks."

Tenet, who resigned in 2004, said in a statement Tuesday that the report is "flat wrong" in its assertion that the CIA lacked a clear plan. Instead, he said, the agency had a "robust" plan that helped it attack al-Qaeda after 9/11 and chase it from its "Afghan sanctuary."

Tenet and at least six other top agency officials should face review boards to further evaluate their actions, the report said. In June 2005, then-CIA director Porter Goss rejected that proposal, a decision the agency's current director, Gen. Michael Hayden, said he supported.

Hayden told CIA employees in a statement Tuesday that he opposed declassifying and releasing the report because that would "distract officers serving … on the front lines of a global conflict."

The inspector general's summary was required to be released under a law passed this month that implemented some recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Although Hayden said the report is mostly old news, it included several points that were either new or offered internal CIA views that had not been made public. For example:

• The CIA targeted 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for capture and rendition but did not "recognize the significance" of his role in al-Qaeda.

• No comprehensive study of Osama bin Laden was written after 1993. "Strategic analysis" of al-Qaeda was lacking.

• The CIA and National Security Agency were sometimes unclear about their pre-9/11 roles in pursuit of al-Qaeda.

• As many as 60 CIA officials read at least one cable in 2000 or 2001 dealing with the American travel plans of two 9/11 hijackers, but the information wasn't quickly shared with domestic law enforcement

http://www.usatoday.com/

Link to Full Original Report


Interesting new report. There was a failure of the CIA and other agencies to act on information under Clinton and under Bush.

The report echoed information from the 9/11 commission regarding the mistakes made by the CIA and other agencies under Bush.

It does dispell the myth that Clinton had a program in place to address al Qaida and Bush fumbled the ball. It clearly shows that since 1993 there was no comprehensive report on Osama Bin Ladden and that there were key errors, lack of communication, under development of intelligents assets, and a general lack of alarm over al Qaida under Clinton.


I think one of the key things it really highlights is the utter failure of Madeleine Albright, not that the article states that explicitly, but many of the issues are directly attributable to her direction and her advice to Clinton.

While we tend to hold presidents responsible for failures, as we should because they are ultimately in charge, in reality the direct failures fall to key cabinet and staff members.

Link to Full Original Report
Post edited by Bigguns 93 at 8/22/2007 7:55:08 PM

The CIA in general has been covering their ass since 2001. So I'm not ready to put this all on Tenet. Although he has his share.

The organization has a terrible culture. They want own all intel activities, but won't share their findings with other organizations and if they do they water it down to the point where its not actionable (ie the CIA takes no responsibility).

I've always thought that Tenet's blustering after he retired was an attempt to shift responsibility. Not that everyone else didn't totally screw the pooch, but Tenet certainly should bear a large percentage of the responsibility.

So, what does this article tell us:

Neither Republicans nor Democrats can be trusted with national security or fighting terrorism.


My non-political signature goes here

Originally posted by: cimat1984
So, what does this article tell us:

Neither Republicans nor Democrats can be trusted with national security or fighting terrorism.

it tells us that nepotism is still alive and well in the government (who knew? )

• No comprehensive study of Osama bin Laden was written after 1993. "Strategic analysis" of al-Qaeda was lacking.

There are several key points of interest and I would like to read the entire report.

This one quote was very puzzling. I was under the impression that Osama was a big target and we had him in our sights even firing missiles at him in Afghanistan.

How could we have no CIA comprehensive study on Osama from 1993 until 9/11?

Osama was part of the investigation into the 1993 WTC bombing. Perhaps the full study will add some clarity to this point.

You mean the CIA and federal government in general is incompetent? This is breaking news!

Originally posted by: DieselFuel!
You mean the CIA and federal government in general is incompetent? This is breaking news!

indeed! did you know that our government is so competent that they completely orchestrated 9/11 as a ploy to go into the middle east for oil?!

It tells you what they didn't have - 'thorough' plans.

But what did they have? a rough idea? a flawed plan? no plan?

As far as not having assets to deal with Al Qaeda, that was a trend all the way back to reagan, when they took funds for the CIA and used them to launch spy satellites rather than develop human assets. What good is a spy satellite when the enemy resides in caves and moves in small numbers?

Its been known for years the shortcommings in the intelligence community was there, but addressing it has been slow and lacking under every administration since Reagan, including Bush, Clinton, and Bush. Translators? almost non-existant. Resident illegals? I don't know for sure, but likely lacking.

Since Carter was president, because of the blowback from the Watergate scandal. Reagan focused on rebuilding the military which Carter dismantled, and George Bush had started rebuilding the intelligence community which met with great resistance since people felt that with the threat of the USSR gone the US did not require a large intelligence operation.

Clinton had some minor growth in intelligence but Madeline Albright was a major inhibitor to that growth looking more to domestic groups like the FBI.

shifting resources to modernization as savings are
means to deliver them, will be a significant and
realized through downsizing and efficiency.

1997 US foriegn policy agenda
- reduction of US military forces
- downsize ( a key aspect was downsizing human assets and greater reliance on technology)
- Iraq and North Korea are the biggest and most immediate threats to US security


http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0397/ijpe/ijpe0397.pdf


Add to that former NSA chief Sandy Berger's role in stealing classigied White House documents, reminiscent of the Watergate scandal, and the criminal charges imposed on him caused a surge of anti-intelligence agency support.

Then add the fumbling of intelligence information immediately prior to 9/11 by Condaliza Rice, and although it was a short period, they did have access to long term assets. Now some of those assets are proving to be much less well informed than we may have been lead to believe.



I want to read the whole report to get a full picture of its findings.
Post edited by Bigguns 93 at 8/22/2007 3:46:48 PM

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93
Since Carter was president, because of the blowback from the Watergate scandal. Reagan focused on rebuilding the military which Carter dismantled, and George Bush had started rebuilding the intelligence community which met with great resistance since people felt that with the threat of the USSR gone the US did not require a large intelligence operation.

Clinton had some minor growth in intelligence but Madeline Albright was a major inhibitor to that growth looking more to domestic groups like the FBI.

The fact is, when reagan got into office there was a clear effort to exploit space-based recon and weapons. These things cost lots of $$$, and the way the CIA got a bigger budget (the life blood of every bureaucracy) was to jump on board and ask for major increases in their budget for spy satellites.

This was all well and good for the cold-war period, which we were emerging from at that point, but does nothing to help us fight individual non-state entities. Sure you can spot an ICBM site from space, but you cant find individuals with that sort of information. The lack of focusing on human intelligence to deal with non-government organizations, in exchange for the space-based technology to fight nation-states enabled the unforeseen complications in the 90s of lacking info on our enemies.

Was it reagans FAULT? no, but it was his administrations trend of space-technology and major big budget military industrial contracts which contributed to the problem of not having agents IN PLACE when they were needed by the time 93' rolled around. An intelligence agent takes around 10 years to prepare before you can begin getting useful information, this was told to me by a former army counterintelligence agent. That means that in 83, if we had been focusing on this problem, by 93 we would've probably had agents infiltrating these organizations. If we started in 93, by 2003 we would've been in place.
If we start now, they won't be any good till 2017. That doesn't mean we shouldn't start now though.


Post edited by Coba|t at 8/22/2007 5:53:58 PM

And I did not disagree. What I pointed out was that Jimmy Carter began the trend in not only dismantling our military but devasting our intelligence community as a result of the blowback from Watergate.

Carter was dismantiling our intelligence while at the same time facing threats from Iran, Syria, Russia and others and also ripped into our military to the point that US forces in Germany (and other NATO countries) were sometimes forced to buy black market parts to keep vehicles operating.

Reagan was faced with mutiple requirements and focused on rebuilding the military, and so on as stated above.

The dismantiling of the US intelligence services starts with Jimmy Carter and stems from the Watergate fiasco as well as his personal policy agenda.
Post edited by Bigguns 93 at 8/22/2007 6:08:57 PM

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93
And I did not disagree. What I pointed out was that Jimmy Carter began the trend in not only dismantling our military but devasting our intelligence community as a result of the blowback from Watergate.

Carter was dismantiling our intelligence while at the same time facing threats from Iran, Syria, Russia and others and also ripped into our military to the point that US forces in Germany (and other NATO countries) were sometimes forced to buy black market parts to keep vehicles operating.

Reagan was faced with mutiple requirements and focused on rebuilding the military, and so on as stated above.

The dismantiling of the US intelligence services starts with Jimmy Carter and stems from the Watergate fiasco as well as his personal policy agenda.

Actually, defense spending rose during the Carter administration.

But, I am not sure why defense spending is being discussed regarding terrorism.

When the federal building was bombed in oklahoma city, the US had the most powerful military in the world. Likewise when the world trade center was first bombed in 1993, likewise when the olympics in atlanta was bombed, likewise when the USS Cole was bombed, likewise when the US embassies in africa were attacked, likewise on 9-11-01.

So, it seems that military strength does not really factor into our ability to defend against terrorism.

Perhaps Clinton and Bush should have focussed on intel more than enormously expensive weapons systems.....


My non-political signature goes here

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93
And I did not disagree. What I pointed out was that Jimmy Carter began ...dismantling our military

Then he should have been a founding father, since they believed standing armies were anti-ethical to a free society.
Post edited by DieselFuel! at 8/22/2007 6:33:39 PM

bigguns has the biggest raging hard-on for jimmy carter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Originally posted by: [-NM-] Pudd¿nheäd
bigguns has the biggest raging hard-on for jimmy carter.

Why doesn't he stick it up Jimmy's ass, and get done with it?

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

while Tenet famously issued a “We are at war” directive against Al Qaeda on Dec. 4, 1998, and ordered that “no resources or people [be] spared” in the effort, the memorandum had little impact on the overall U.S. intelligence community. It was sent only to CIA officials—not other U.S. intelligence agencies that Tenet, as director of central intelligence, had overall responsibility for supervising. According to the 9/11 Commission, Lt. Gen. Kenneth Minihan, then the NSA's director, didn’t believe Tenet's directive applied to NSA because no one had informed him of any shortcomings by his agency.

another view point on the report from NewsWeek

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9149402/site/newsweek/page/2/

Originally posted by: cimat1984


So, it seems that military strength does not really factor into our ability to defend against terrorism.

Perhaps Clinton and Bush should have focussed on intel more than enormously expensive weapons systems.....

Wow, I missed this because I was posting at the same time... good stuff, Cimat.

bigguns is this your blog?

http://nwrepublican.blogspot.com/2006/02/it-is-all-jimmy-carters-fault.html

" It Is All Jimmy Carter's Fault

Really it is. Well at least the entire Muslim extremist and terrorism problem that is. It is also about time that history properly laid the deaths of thousands of innocent people at his feet. Including those innocent Americans who died on 9/11.

You know there is this part of me that really really wants to blame it on Bill Clinton. But I just can't, because that would not be fair. It existed before him."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

while Tenet famously issued a “We are at war” directive against Al Qaeda on Dec. 4, 1998, and ordered that “no resources or people [be] spared” in the effort, the memorandum had little impact on the overall U.S. intelligence community. It was sent only to CIA officials—not other U.S. intelligence agencies that Tenet, as director of central intelligence, had overall responsibility for supervising. According to the 9/11 Commission, Lt. Gen. Kenneth Minihan, then the NSA's director, didn’t believe Tenet's directive applied to NSA because no one had informed him of any shortcomings by his agency.

another view point on the report from NewsWeek

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9149402/site/newsweek/page/2/


(back on topic)

Bigguns, I know it is painful for you but the fact remains, you don't get to dictate what is on topic and what isn't. This is a public forum. When you lay out your opinions on former President Carter and present them as fact, you are opening the door to a variety of responses that are still on topic according to the path you set.

If you wish for people to stick to exactly the topic at hand, quit using every thread you create as a platform to manifest your bizarre infatuation with Jimmy Carter. Either that, or just accept the directions your threads take and, instead of pointing fingers at everyone else, maybe try to figure out what the one constant is in all the threads.
Post edited by DieselFuel! at 8/22/2007 7:30:02 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/pdf/2007%2008%2021%20cia%20ig%20report.pdf


I finally found a link to the enitre report in a PDF format.
Worth reading. After only a few pages it seems like the summary in the news articles is does not tell a complete story.


It starts with discussing an active anti-terrorism role of the CIA and spefic actions against Bin Ladden by the CIA and specifically Tennant.


Take some time to read it, like I said, after a few pages I think the papers gave skewed summary.

Most of our efforts were focused on attacking the Taliban/A.Q. through the northern alliance with field commanders, infiltrating them was apparently not as high on their to-do list as launching attacks on them. They probably relied heavily on Northern Alliance intelligence gathered by locals, rather than by illegal residents within the country acting as spies as you would have in your classic nation-vs-nation espionage. This wasn't the classic nation, where you expect some quantity of security, as one would in Germany, or England. When you think about it, a war-torn nation ruled by foreign people who know nothing other than killing, and puritan Islam is extremely hard to penetrate, and its even harder to 'turn' people within the organization for information.
Working with the less hostile, less extreme groups to eliminate an internationally funded and supplied radically extremist group was seen as the most effective method of keeping them in check. We figured it was just another Saudi Arabia, with more guns and less money, which could keep to itself and make a niche market of piping oil out of the Caspian.

I have to finish reading this report this week. Has a lot of very interesting information that gives new persepctive to the situation.

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93


I think one of the key things it really highlights is the utter failure of Madeleine Albright, not that the article states that explicitly, but many of the issues are directly attributable to her direction and her advice to Clinton.

While we tend to hold presidents responsible for failures, as we should because they are ultimately in charge, in reality the direct failures fall to key cabinet and staff members.

QFT

Originally posted by: -bingo-

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93


I think one of the key things it really highlights is the utter failure of Madeleine Albright, not that the article states that explicitly, but many of the issues are directly attributable to her direction and her advice to Clinton.

While we tend to hold presidents responsible for failures, as we should because they are ultimately in charge, in reality the direct failures fall to key cabinet and staff members.

QFT

Am I still in violation?


President Obama
|
|
|
|

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Well, Im retorted

Originally posted by: Coba|t

Am I still in violation?

LoL. I should definitely use that as my sig.

Signs point to yes.

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93
Link to Full Original Report

Report blasts Tenet's pre-9/11 CIA

By Richard Willing, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — CIA Director George Tenet declared "war" on al-Qaeda in 1998 but failed to follow up with a thorough counterterrorism plan until after the September 2001 attacks, the CIA inspector general charged in an internal report partially declassified on Tuesday.


The report, completed in June 2005, said the pre-9/11 CIA failed to develop "assets" needed to disrupt al-Qaeda before it launched its devastating attacks.


ON DEADLINE: Read the report summary

Echoing the public 9/11 Commission Report in 2004, the CIA watchdog also criticized the agency for not sharing intelligence that could have led authorities to two 9/11 hijackers who traveled to the USA in 2000 and 2001.

Neither the CIA nor its officers discharged "their responsibilities in a satisfactory manner," Inspector General John Helgerson concluded in the report's 19-page summary.


However, the summary also found "no silver bullet" or "single point of failure" that "would have enabled the Intelligence Community to predict or prevent the 9/11 attacks."

Tenet, who resigned in 2004, said in a statement Tuesday that the report is "flat wrong" in its assertion that the CIA lacked a clear plan. Instead, he said, the agency had a "robust" plan that helped it attack al-Qaeda after 9/11 and chase it from its "Afghan sanctuary."

Tenet and at least six other top agency officials should face review boards to further evaluate their actions, the report said. In June 2005, then-CIA director Porter Goss rejected that proposal, a decision the agency's current director, Gen. Michael Hayden, said he supported.

Hayden told CIA employees in a statement Tuesday that he opposed declassifying and releasing the report because that would "distract officers serving … on the front lines of a global conflict."

The inspector general's summary was required to be released under a law passed this month that implemented some recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Although Hayden said the report is mostly old news, it included several points that were either new or offered internal CIA views that had not been made public. For example:

• The CIA targeted 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for capture and rendition but did not "recognize the significance" of his role in al-Qaeda.

• No comprehensive study of Osama bin Laden was written after 1993. "Strategic analysis" of al-Qaeda was lacking.

• The CIA and National Security Agency were sometimes unclear about their pre-9/11 roles in pursuit of al-Qaeda.

• As many as 60 CIA officials read at least one cable in 2000 or 2001 dealing with the American travel plans of two 9/11 hijackers, but the information wasn't quickly shared with domestic law enforcement

http://www.usatoday.com/

Link to Full Original Report


Interesting new report. There was a failure of the CIA and other agencies to act on information under Clinton and under Bush.

The report echoed information from the 9/11 commission regarding the mistakes made by the CIA and other agencies under Bush.

It does dispell the myth that Clinton had a program in place to address al Qaida and Bush fumbled the ball. It clearly shows that since 1993 there was no comprehensive report on Osama Bin Ladden and that there were key errors, lack of communication, under development of intelligents assets, and a general lack of alarm over al Qaida under Clinton.


I think one of the key things it really highlights is the utter failure of Madeleine Albright, not that the article states that explicitly, but many of the issues are directly attributable to her direction and her advice to Clinton.

While we tend to hold presidents responsible for failures, as we should because they are ultimately in charge, in reality the direct failures fall to key cabinet and staff members.

Link to Full Original Report

None of this is comparable to the failures of George W. Bush.

Since 9/11, he has done nothing but sacrifice more American lives in the name of the mighty IED.

We need a leader who has the balls to stand up to both the Democrats AND the terrorist.

Who gives a shit about Tenet. Try to keep up with current events. We currently have a President who still fails to fight the terrorists.

He allows them to die every day via the almighty IED. You can try to dispute that, or feel that is acceptable, but it would be nice if our military would start acting like the best military in the world.

It's fairly sad seeing them die via such primitive means. How are we supposed to instill fear into the rest of the world now ?

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93
http://www.usatoday.com/news/pdf/2007%2008%2021%20cia%20ig%20report.pdf


link to the enitre report in a PDF format.

Has anyone read the entire report?

What happened to the thread about Turkey? weirdo and I were hoping you would answer our question.

why post anything in depth or analysis in a thread that will get deleted in a fit of 'honesty' by the creator of it.

it has become quite habitual, perhaps occurring during a rather impressive logical somersault that takes place inside the vast cavernous minds of our resident self-thread bandit.

this may happen when some random Freudian unconscious-like desire to kiss Bill Clinton occurs, and peeks its way up the cortex, and this untimely thought makes him feel a need to deny his very existence by eliminating things he has created. must suppress. negatory. deny deny deny.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Originally posted by: [-NM-] Pudd¿nheäd
this may happen when some random Freudian unconscious-like desire to kiss Bill Clinton occurs,

Or perhaps a desire to play footsy with the guy in the stall next to yours.


Post edited by Bunks at 8/29/2007 9:49:20 PM

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93

Originally posted by: Bigguns 93
http://www.usatoday.com/news/pdf/2007%2008%2021%20cia%20ig%20report.pdf


link to the enitre report in a PDF format.

Has anyone read the entire report?

You've deleted something like your last 6 threads, why would we take this one seriously?

In fact, probably the only way for us to keep you from deleting a thread is to actively avoid responding seriously, because that way you might be able to "win."
Post edited by the wierdo at 8/29/2007 11:20:13 PM

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by: US Army
Por favor, sus mensajes de la charla mantengalos en letras minusculas. No utilice TODOS LOS CASQUILLOS.

I'm betting $20 that this will be self-deleted by page 4.
___________

Pure 2: Tribes 2 movie - keeping hope alive for fps games

Originally posted by: Evil Napkin


I'm betting $20 that this will be self-deleted by page 4.

The Phantom Phallus strikes again.

Funny its the same trolls attacking Bigguns like children again.

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Funny its the same trolls attacking Bigguns like children again.

Okay son.

Originally posted by: DieselFuel!

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Funny its the same trolls attacking Bigguns like children again.

Okay son.

Speaking of the biggest troll Right on time.

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~


Speaking of the biggest troll Right on time.

How funny is it that Snake calls people trolls in a thread that he was trolling?

rofl...

Snake trolling about trolling. Stop being a hypocrite.

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
I have forwarded videos of porn stars fucking horses.