Is the CIA Holding Back a Damning Report on 9-11?

[ODShowtime]

The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket

The agency is withholding a damning report that points at senior officials.

Robert Scheer

10/19/04 "ICH" -- "Los Angeles Times" -- It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago.

"It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed," an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward."

When I asked about the report, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she and committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) sent a letter 14 days ago asking for it to be delivered. "We believe that the CIA has been told not to distribute the report," she said. "We are very concerned."

According to the intelligence official, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity, release of the report, which represents an exhaustive 17-month investigation by an 11-member team within the agency, has been "stalled." First by acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and now by Porter J. Goss, the former Republican House member (and chairman of the Intelligence Committee) who recently was appointed CIA chief by President Bush.

The official stressed that the report was more blunt and more specific than the earlier bipartisan reports produced by the Bush-appointed Sept. 11 commission and Congress.

"What all the other reports on 9/11 did not do is point the finger at individuals, and give the how and what of their responsibility. This report does that," said the intelligence official. "The report found very senior-level officials responsible."

By law, the only legitimate reason the CIA director has for holding back such a report is national security. Yet neither Goss nor McLaughlin has invoked national security as an explanation for not delivering the report to Congress.

"It surely does not involve issues of national security," said the intelligence official.

"The agency directorate is basically sitting on the report until after the election," the official continued. "No previous director of CIA has ever tried to stop the inspector general from releasing a report to the Congress, in this case a report requested by Congress."

None of this should surprise us given the Bush administration's great determination since 9/11 to resist any serious investigation into how the security of this nation was so easily breached. In Bush's much ballyhooed war on terror, ignorance has been bliss.

The president fought against the creation of the Sept. 11 commission, for example, agreeing only after enormous political pressure was applied by a grass-roots movement led by the families of those slain.

And then Bush refused to testify to the commission under oath, or on the record. Instead he deigned only to chat with the commission members, with Vice President Dick Cheney present, in a White House meeting in which commission members were not allowed to take notes. All in all, strange behavior for a man who seeks reelection to the top office in the land based on his handling of the so-called war on terror.

In September, the New York Times reported that several family members met with Goss privately to demand the release of the CIA inspector general's report. "Three thousand people were killed on 9/11, and no one has been held accountable," 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser told the paper.

The failure to furnish the report to Congress, said Harman, "fuels the perception that no one is being held accountable. It is unacceptable that we don't have [the report]; it not only disrespects Congress but it disrespects the American people."

The stonewalling by the Bush administration and the failure of Congress to gain release of the report have, said the intelligence source, "led the management of the CIA to believe it can engage in a cover-up with impunity. Unless the public demands an accounting, the administration and CIA's leadership will have won and the nation will have lost."

Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-scheer19oct19,1,654534,print.column?coll=la-util-op-ed


This is why the CIA needs to be even more independent of the White House

[FORD]

Beat me to it.... I was just about to post this one.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DEMAND THE RELEASE OF THIS REPORT **NOW**!!

[ODShowtime]

The American people demand more news on Britney Spears now!!!

Ford, we need to piss people off today and generate some discussion...

[Warham]

'In September, the New York Times reported that several family members met with Goss privately to demand the release of the CIA inspector general's report. "Three thousand people were killed on 9/11, and no one has been held accountable," 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser told the paper.'

Al Queda is the one that's to be held accountable, not Bush.

I think this widow, and I'm sorry for her tragedy, is putting the blame in the wrong place.

Bush and Cheney were not the pilot and co-pilot of Flight 11, no matter what FORD will tell you.

[ODShowtime]

Warham, it's obvious that the pilots have their share of blame. But considering we are the most powerful country in the world, I think some Americans must have made some mistakes to allow a tragedy of this magnitude to occur. Those people should be held accountable. The message to terrorists is that we haven't improved anything and are still wide open to attack.

And holding a damning report until after the election is classic gw&friends bullshit.

[Warham]

Well, OD, when the Clinton adminstration is held for as much, or most of the blame, you let me know.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Well, OD, when the Clinton adminstration is held for as much, or most of the blame, you let me know.

Warham, why would they be holding back a report for Bush's election if all it blamed was Clinton's administration?

[Warham]

So, OD, you think the Bush administration is fully responsible?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
So, OD, you think the Bush administration is fully responsible?

No I didn't say that and I haven't read the report. I don't have all the facts, but it's obvious that if this report is being held until after the election when it's already completed, the reason for that is because gw wants it suppressed. That's not too hard to understand.

You constantly ignore the facts or the point of articles and blame Clinton for things. I'm willing to believe that he may have made decisions that compromised our ability to deter terrorist attacks. He made those decisions in the pre 9-11 world. Really, it's is irrelevant because we are not voting for Clinton.

We live in a post 9-11 world where we need all the information possible to make an informed decision about the election coming up and it's clear the gw&friends have a vested interest in preventing us from getting that info. WHY????

[John Kerry]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
it's clear the gw&friends have a vested interest in preventing us from getting that info. WHY????

Because they don't have a plan. I do.

[Rush Limbaugh]

And what are you gonna do Lurch? Pour ketchup on it?

Hey, that reminds me, I haven't had lunch yet.

[ODShowtime]

bunch of bums over there...

[diamond den™]

Panda-skins make great throw rugs

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Well, OD, when the Clinton adminstration is held for as much, or most of the blame, you let me know.

Let me get this straight....

You refuse to acknowledge or hold accountable THIS administration's many FUCK UPS until the Clinton administration is?

wha?

ridiculous, yet somewhat predictable.

[ODShowtime]

Warham HATES Clinton.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Well, OD, when the Clinton adminstration is held for as much, or most of the blame, you let me know.

1. Last time I checked Bush was president for nine months prior to 9/11. But W., Tricky Dick Hallaburton, Rummy the Mummy, Condi "Hot Ass" Rice are all very astute at playing the blame shifting game.

2. This story really isn't new. Richard Clark in his book portrays the Bush Administration as a bunch monomaniacal jack-offs who pretty much ignored Terrorism because it interfered with their neocon. Iraqi war planning time.

[fanofdave]

CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY!

EVERYONE IS AGAINST US! TRUST NO ONE!

WOE IS US!

I'm John Kerry, and I approve this message.

[ODShowtime]

where's the DLR content?

[Nickdfresh]

MMMmmm...Heinz Ketchup all over my $50 Hallaburton Burger.

The iconoclast Bush in-action figure stands heroically avoiding service in Vietnam.:cato2:

[FORD]

Originally posted by fanofdave
CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY!

EVERYONE IS AGAINST US! TRUST NO ONE!

WOE IS US!

I'm John Kerry, and I approve this message.

Not only is there absolutely no DLR content in that response, it is also inaccurate. For it's Dumbshit and Dick the Dyke's Daddy who are running on the perpetual fear platform.

[McCarrens]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Warham HATES Clinton.

Warham is smart.

[FORD]

The Busheep are afraid of this report. As they should be......

[McCarrens]

Ford, you fall prey to every mass communication theory I know. You are like a walking, talking example of how the media and the liberal government has brainwashed a good part of this nation.

The next time you call somebody a sheep, you'd better be looking in the mirror.

[Big Train]

Who said that? Man you guys are off to the races about this. If you showed up early to the donut shop Ford and they told you to wait, I'm sure you'd be peeking in windows trying to figure out what Halliburton and Aramark are trying to hide...

An "anonymous, High ranking" official tells the FUCKIN LA TIMES...a shill sheet if there ever was one, that it is "Damning".

That isn't to debate the report or it's findings. We will have to wait until it does come out. However the adjectives used above more than compensate to create damage against GW. They obviously want their head on a platter and will stoop to nothing to get it.

BTW, has Kerry signed his Form 180 yet, or is HE waiting till after the election? Or is he gonna give us a real plan on anything that involves making a decision not "forming a blue ribbon panel" or "working with global leaders"?

[ODShowtime]

I think you're FORD providing himself with foil. Because you two say the exactly the same things about directly opposite things.

[McCarrens]

Ford is a lying idiot who believes anyone that starts a coloumn or sentence with the something along the lines of "Bush did somehting wrong."

Train seems to actually think for himself and not just repeat what the Euro- and Canadian-press tell him. Or the American press, for that matter.

[FORD]

Two things nobody can call me are "liar" and "idiot". I am neither. Unlike your so called pResident.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Let me get this straight....

You refuse to acknowledge or hold accountable THIS administration's many FUCK UPS until the Clinton administration is?

wha?

ridiculous, yet somewhat predictable.

Actually the one mistake I think this administration made was not realizing that every terrorist in the world would crawl out of their spider hole and come to Iraq and stir up trouble. I hold them accountable for the aftermath planning.

I also hold the Clinton administration responsible (Bill, George Tenet, and Janet Reno are some real winners) for eight years of basically shrinking the military, cutting intelligence, and basically not doing anything after the first WTC bombing in '93, and the USS Cole being hit. The only thing Clinton did was shoot a couple missiles at an aspirin factory, as much to try to divert attention away from Monica-gate as a warning shot.

Clinton had several times to bring Osama in, and basically shrugged it off. They were not gung-ho about terrorism in the late 90's, and hold more blame than Bush for what happened on 9/11.

But I've always said, their blame is one of not seeing it ahead of time. Al Qaeda is to blame for the 9/11 bombings.

[Big Train]

OD,

I just like to ask as many questions as I can before coming to a conclusion. A lot of what Ford has presented on this board as "Fact" I have checked into and come to the opposite conclusion, as I felt his facts didn't stack up.

This "damning" report is another example.

I am conservative because 9 out of 10 times, when you ask enough questions, the coservative response seems to be the correct one. Which, as you say, usually puts me at odds with Ford. It's just a dialogue however..

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Big Train
OD,

I just like to ask as many questions as I can before coming to a conclusion. A lot of what Ford has presented on this board as "Fact" I have checked into and come to the opposite conclusion, as I felt his facts didn't stack up.

This "damning" report is another example.

I am conservative because 9 out of 10 times, when you ask enough questions, the coservative response seems to be the correct one. Which, as you say, usually puts me at odds with Ford. It's just a dialogue however..

Train, this quote:

"I think you're FORD providing himself with foil. Because you two say the exactly the same things about directly opposite things."

Was directed at McCrarren and not at you. Your post kinda snuck in there. You seem to be at odds with Ford often, but you are not the mirror opposite of Ford. Sorry for the confusion. I have got to remember to quote posts...

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by FORD
Two things nobody can call me are "liar" and "idiot". I am neither. Unlike your so called pResident.

When you present opinion as fact, and fail to back it up, it is essentially the same as lying.

For what it's worth, though, you're not an idiot. :)

[lucky wilbury]

i'm amazed that people are calling for the release of this report even though it is an INTERNAL cia report. the only "senior officials" are department heads and individual analyst names. no one would know who these people are if it came out tomorrow. and just think if the dems had their way you couldn't fire any one because they would be in the union the dmes wanted set up for the department of homland security. remember with unions you can't fire people only promote them!

[FORD]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
i'm amazed that people are calling for the release of this report even though it is an INTERNAL cia report. the only "senior officials" are department heads and individual analyst names. no one would know who these people are if it came out tomorrow. and just think if the dems had their way you couldn't fire any one because they would be in the union the dmes wanted set up for the department of homland security. remember with unions you can't fire people only promote them!

So if it's an internal report.... leak us a copy. Porter won't know ;)

[diamondD]

Won't Carl Rove's operatives that have been sent here tell?

[FORD]

Originally posted by diamondD
Won't Carl Rove's operatives that have been sent here tell?

Rove has no power in the CIA.

[Dr. Love]

Except, of course, to leak names to the press, right?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
i'm amazed that people are calling for the release of this report even though it is an INTERNAL cia report. the only "senior officials" are department heads and individual analyst names. no one would know who these people are if it came out tomorrow. and just think if the dems had their way you couldn't fire any one because they would be in the union the dmes wanted set up for the department of homland security. remember with unions you can't fire people only promote them!


Lucky, iIf you understand the scope of the report, can you share with us the reason for it's withholding? If there's a better reason than gw&friends trying to keep it quite than let's here it and I'll be all set.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
Except, of course, to leak names to the press, right?

That was insightful. But supposedly from some article I read recently everyone who wanted to know who Valerie Plame worked for knew.

[Dr. Love]

I'm just yankin' FORD's chain.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
Except, of course, to leak names to the press, right?

Only because Dick leaked it to him first.

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
When you present opinion as fact, and fail to back it up, it is essentially the same as lying.

For what it's worth, though, you're not an idiot. :)

{{Matt reaches for Dave's hand in a tender moment}}


:gulp:

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Lucky, iIf you understand the scope of the report, can you share with us the reason for it's withholding? If there's a better reason than gw&friends trying to keep it quite than let's here it and I'll be all set.

Yeah, God knows we here at a DLR message board deserve to hear this report more than any other senior official.

[diamondD]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
{{Matt reaches for Dave's hand in a tender moment}}


:gulp:

Man, I SO want to post that picture of them walking side by side at this touching moment. :)

[Lqskdiver]

Why not! :D

[FORD]

Uh..... no. We definitely don't need that shit starting up again.

[Nickdfresh]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warham
[B]Actually the one mistake I think this administration made was not realizing that every terrorist in the world would crawl out of their spider hole and come to Iraq and stir up trouble. I hold them accountable for the aftermath planning.

I also hold the Clinton administration responsible (Bill, George Tenet, and Janet Reno are some real winners) for eight years of basically shrinking the military, cutting intelligence, and basically not doing anything after the first WTC bombing in '93, and the USS Cole being hit. The only thing Clinton did was shoot a couple missiles at an aspirin factory, as much to try to divert attention away from Monica-gate as a warning shot.

Clinton had several times to bring Osama in, and basically shrugged it off. They were not gung-ho about terrorism in the late 90's, and hold more blame than Bush for what happened on 9/11.

Actually, according to Richard Clark, Clinton took the Al-Qaida threat very seriously. He held regular meetings on the subject and at several points hatched plots to kill Osama Bin-Cocksucker. But once Bush took office, it took several months for Bush to bother to meet with Clark and he was repeatedly ignored by Condi. Bush had nine months to disrupt the plot or to pursue a more agressive policy towards Al-Qaida. In his book, Clark recounts a continued theme of a dissmissive attitude towards the subject of terrorism.

Clinton did cut the military budget, those cuts were bi-partisian because the Cold War had ended. He also tried to restructure America's intelligence and military organizations to better deal with low-intensity conflicts. Rumsfield to his credit tried to initiate his own reforms. But his efforts havew failed due to his arrogence and the fact that he has been at war with his own Generals since day one. His efforts to revamp the armed forces into a more mobile, lighter, and undermanned organiztion has resulted in failure in Iraq and numerous casualties because US soldiers are forced to go into combat in unarmored or under armored vehicle.

[McCarrens]

I am not a foil to Ford.

And as for Ford, you say you are not a liar or an idiot, yet you cannot prove that statement, just as you cannot prove any of the shit theories you post on this site.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Lucky, iIf you understand the scope of the report, can you share with us the reason for it's withholding? If there's a better reason than gw&friends trying to keep it quite than let's here it and I'll be all set.

it's my understanding that it's not being made public because there is no reason to have it made public. its an internal report on the cia performance. done by the cia for the cia and the investigation never left the walls of the cia. meaning no one else but cia employees were investigated.no one in the bush admin or clinotn admin. for example why make it publically known that analyst "jane q public" didn't put two names on a no fly list? we know it wasen't done but why should that persons name be released? can you imagine the hell they would catch? what would the public do with the report anyway? no one outside the agency knows who these people are so saying "jane q public" has been repremanded does what in the public discourse? nothing.

[lucky wilbury]

clinton literally had obl in the crosshairs more then once and didn't want to pull the trigger because he didn't want innocent people to get killed. bush asked for a plan to deal with obl early on in his admin it was done by the time 9-11 happend and was put into action.

[diamondD]

Originally posted by FORD
Uh..... no. We definitely don't need that shit starting up again.

Why do you think there will be shit started up? It doesn't show your face or anything. How would anyone know it was you? :)

[Dr. Love]

FORD's just a controversial figure.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
it's my understanding that it's not being made public because there is no reason to have it made public. its an internal report on the cia performance. done by the cia for the cia and the investigation never left the walls of the cia. meaning no one else but cia employees were investigated.no one in the bush admin or clinotn admin. for example why make it publically known that analyst "jane q public" didn't put two names on a no fly list? we know it wasen't done but why should that persons name be released? can you imagine the hell they would catch? what would the public do with the report anyway? no one outside the agency knows who these people are so saying "jane q public" has been repremanded does what in the public discourse? nothing.

Well, that's sounds like a reasonable explanation to me. That's all I wanted. :)

[Nickdfresh]

The "internal memo." may be made public one way or another because the CIA high-command hates Bush and are looking for pay-back for the Bush administration's felonious outing of one of it's agents.

[McCarrens]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
FORD's just a controversial figure.

Ford's a delusional moron.

[FORD]

Originally posted by McCarrens
Ford's a delusional moron.

Now come on, the guy tripped and fell a lot, but that's hardly a proper thing to say about the 38th President of the United States.

Hell, I'd take that unelected President again over the current unelected pResident.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The "internal memo." may be made public one way or another because the CIA high-command hates Bush and are looking for pay-back for the Bush administration's felonious outing of one of it's agents.

no they don't. all the recent leaks have been coming from congress not the cia. somehow all the reports the dems are asking for which are classified somehow get leaked to the media. i wonder why their doing that.

[McCarrens]

Originally posted by FORD
Now come on, the guy tripped and fell a lot, but that's hardly a proper thing to say about the 38th President of the United States.

Hell, I'd take that unelected President again over the current unelected pResident.

,,,