WASHINGTON -- FBI officials in Washington not only stymied an investigation into flight school student Zacarias Moussaoui before Sept. 11, but also actively tried to stop field agents from connecting the suspected 20th hijacker to the terrorist attacks even after they occurred, a Minnesota field agent contends in a 13-page "whistle-blower" letter made public Sunday.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., seized on the Rowley memo as proof that an independent commission was needed to investigate the FBI, despite vigorous opposition to such an inquiry from the White House. Daschle said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney personally lobbied him in January "not to investigate the events of Sept. 11."
posted on May 27, 2002 12:24:02 PM new
Hello Borillar - I thought even Carville had given up on this line of thought.
I read (on CNN perhaps (??)) that even Carville and other democratic leaders/advisors were giving up on this 'pointing the finger' game. They had decided to start going after [returning to] other issues they are in disagreement with the Bush administration about.....as this didn't appear to be getting the mileage they'd hope it would.
From what I've read, I don't think there was enough specific information to make a connection to what was about to happen. Had there been I have no doubt *ANY* president would have done everything within his power to prevent it.
I'm not saying that there might not have been some mis-communication between the FBI and the CIA, and that does need to be looked into - to prevent it in the future, if possible, but 20/20 hindsite is not what was available at the time. Plus they had thousands of warnings....coming from every direction. Just like we do now. Which ones to believe...which ones to warn the public about....
posted on May 27, 2002 06:15:39 PM new
Having a history personally with a lot of slimeballs in my family I have seen the way they sweat and direct you away from an issue when there is something to cover up - and all my slime ball alarms are ringing LOUDLY that there is something lurking just below the surface here that they know is reachable by connecting just a few pieces of available information together. Scientific? No..But I have seen the same slick behavior from my slime ball brother in law who tries to look so cool and innocent, and is so distainful of anyone doubting him - until you see the sweat beading along his hair line.....It usually falls apart when someone asks why he wasn't at the convention he said he attended - or something turns up in his pockets from Vegas when he was supposed to be in Chicago...
posted on May 27, 2002 06:23:21 PM new
Hi, Linda_K. It's good to see you again.
I think part of the problem stems from adversarial positions between the FBI and the CIA and also between the FBI's field offices and the bureau. Each views the other as bumbling idiots.
posted on May 27, 2002 07:43:03 PM newFrom what I've read, I don't think there was enough specific information to make a connection to what was about to happen.
But at this point serious questions have been raised about whether an investigation was squelched.
The excuse being passed around, (paraphrasing) that tips are routinely ignored, is bad enough to make one wonder how bad the truth really is.
posted on May 28, 2002 06:27:54 AM new
Hi saabsister - Thanks for the welcome.
You're right, of course. They both have to be made aware of the importance of working together.
My problem is with those who were so quick to directly point their fingers at President Bush...stating as fact that he knew about this terrorist plan, and did nothing to prevent it. Now Daschle and others have withdrawn their accusations....
Anyone who reads the news or listens to the news on TV is well aware that these warning of attacts [and how they would/could be impleminted] have been occurring well back into the previous administration, not just this one.
When I read that in his Congressional testimony the FBI Memo Author stated he did *NOT* envision the 9-11 attacks....stated his warning was routine, not high priority....it leads me to believe that this accusation was only made as a smear.
Fox News, this morning, gives details of the sweeping changes about to be made in the FBI.
posted on May 28, 2002 10:59:43 AM new
Hello Linda_K! Long time no debate! Good to see you've taken the credit card plunge here to reveal your identity as you post. Tough choice.
"I read (on CNN perhaps (??)) that even Carville and other democratic leaders/advisors were giving up on this 'pointing the finger' game."
Typical of the yellow-bellied Democratic Politicians that we have in Congress. Of course, I'm not a Democrat at all, so it doesn't matter what those whips do. Do you know what the definition of a Democratic Politician is? As follows: "A Democratic Politician is defined A Dog that Rolls Over on the ground and Bares It's Throat to the Republicans - particularly Bush." Bah! Gutless wonders all of them! The Republicans have made 100% TOTAL PATISANSHIP WARFARE since 1994 and when the Democrats start to show a little backbone and then Bush cries out "Foul! It's PARTISANSHIP!", why the Democrat Politicians all go check their mail for Anthrax and then they squeak: "Sorry, SIR! Won't Happen AGAIN!"
In the meantime, Linda_K, there has ALWAYS been valid concerns as to what happened and why things happened at every level and type of inquiry. Way too many to list here. I notice that you didn't mention that you had read the thread link above Hell To Pay, which would have informed you of some things that make questioning Bush very closely and harshly would be much more than merely "appropriate", but Totally Necessary! Heck, you ought to look back on the last five or six threads that I've posted on here to see that a very LARGE picture of what Bush & Co. has been up to behind our backs. Do I feel that Bush orchestrated the 9-11 attacks? Not at all! Do I feel that Bush may have precipitated Al-Queda to unlock a plan of devastation that it had been planning of for a long time? Yes! Do I think that Bush had advance warning? Questionable, as Bush is not that bright to formulate such a plan, but was probably privy to more than we know about right now. Were others in high government offices aware of the IMMINENT possibility of a 9-11 attack and opened a breach, a hole in our security shield on this country to allow the plan to go through? I say, very likely, given the evidence so far. And if that be true, was it because Bush's polls were so low that he was about to be asked to resign and NEEDED this to bolster his ratings? Yes!
Now Linda_K, all I am doing right now is to put up dots to follow and draw some possible lines. What it ends up being is still unclear. It will also continue to be unclear if Bush & Cheney get their way and are able to sweep all findings under the National Security rug like they keep pressing to do. I suppose that worse come to worse, Bush & Co. will do what they did with their involvement in Enron and the ripping off of billions of dollars -- they'll just send all of the evidence to the Bush Presidential Library where it will remain hidden forever.
posted on May 28, 2002 02:01:30 PM new
I certainly think there should be a probe.
Did Bush know about the attack beforehand? I doubt it, but it's possible. A lot of people think FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and he let it happen so that the US would be pulled in to WWII. Maybe Bush knew about the terrorist attacks and let them happen so we'd be pulled into a war against the terrorists and Iraq. Again, I think it's doubtful, but Bush really wants to go after Saddam.
The really question is should Bush and the Intelligence Community have known about the attacks beforehand. Apparently, a lot of the pieces of the puzzle were known before 9/11. But, could those pieces have been put together then or can we only put them together with the benefit of hindsight?
If Clinton's sex life was worth investigating then, certainly, the biggest attack on US soil is worth investigating.
posted on May 28, 2002 07:45:02 PM new
I would like to hear the rationale of why terrorism was given a lowered priority under the Bush administration, and especially Ashcroft's reductions. Even without the warnings, which now appear to have been multitudinous, both internal and external, the probability was high that another terrorist attack was imminent. Why the soft position prior to 9/11?
