Global War on Terror a fraud

[Paul Baxter #4]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Do you guys really believe that the CIA needs 'permission' from the White House to investigate threats it believes are worthy of memos?

Seriously. You guys keep saying the CIA warned the administration....what the hell does that have to do with anything? What did the CIA do to follow up?

Unless you can show that the White House told them to back off any blame should fall squarely on the CIA, FBI and associated agencies for dropping the freaking ball.

Technically, the CIA needs to have "permission" to take certain actions. Information collection and processing is their primary mandate, so clandestine operations require executive orders. The attempted coup and assassination of Hugo Chavez six years ago is an example of an operation that required executive order. Plus the CIA is not allowed to maintain domestic operations. So technically, they were not allowed to "follow up".

I agree with you that the FBI, NSA and associated agencies deserve to take a lot of heat, which they have, but the White House is still the decision maker in America and they are the ones that have to make certain calls. Truman said it best, the buck stops there.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Paul Baxter #4

Technically, the CIA needs to have "permission" to take certain actions. Information collection and processing is their primary mandate, so clandestine operations require executive orders. The attempted coup and assassination of Hugo Chavez six years ago is an example of an operation that required executive order. Plus the CIA is not allowed to maintain domestic operations. So technically, they were not allowed to "follow up".

I agree with you that the FBI, NSA and associated agencies deserve to take a lot of heat, which they have, but the White House is still the decision maker in America and they are the ones that have to make certain calls. Truman said it best, the buck stops there.

Never tried to say otherwise. Certainly, the man was in charge and deserves to be blamed...as he has said himself. I have been involved in 200 threads about this subject here over the last 7 years and have continually seen the argument made that Bush was warned and did nothing. It's a stupid argument.

Following up can involve more than clandestine domestic operations. Communication with other agencies would've been a great place to start.

[RougeUnderoos]

Well thanks guys, but I'm aware, despite the image he likes to portray, that George doesn't carry a pistol and take on the bad guys himself.

I would think, though I'll happily concede the point if I'm wrong, that he and his cronies have a say in all matters of national security, which this of course was. Saying "well, the CIA didn't fix it" is a buck passed if I've ever seen it.

It was quite a failure all the way around, you gotta admit that. I wonder if you blame the guy who told the Captain of the Exxon Valdez to go easy on the martinis.

And besides, wasn't the main thrust of this article about all the nonsense that we heard after 9/11?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Paul Baxter #4

Technically, the CIA needs to have "permission" to take certain actions. Information collection and processing is their primary mandate, so clandestine operations require executive orders. The attempted coup and assassination of Hugo Chavez six years ago is an example of an operation that required executive order. Plus the CIA is not allowed to maintain domestic operations. So technically, they were not allowed to "follow up".

Technically, part of the information collection involves the National Clandestine Service, which BTW, is not required to receive executive orders from the POTUS everytime they carry out an operation. He might know about the more important operations, but the CIA is a pretty large organization, with something happening virtually all over the world each day.

Can you imagine how many orders he would have to sign?

Plus, I'm pretty sure following up on a terrorist threat wouldn't be classified as a 'clandestine operation.'

I think your point should include intelligence sharing. In a perfect world, the CIA would have turned over the information about domestic threats to the FBI, who would have taken further action.

Considering how crazy the FBI went after 9/11 telling the public about everything they missed, I doubt that happened. Plus, internal politics with the intelligence community has been well documented. Its not hard to believe that the stuff isn't shared like it should be.

I agree with you that the FBI, NSA and associated agencies deserve to take a lot of heat, which they have, but the White House is still the decision maker in America and they are the ones that have to make certain calls. Truman said it best, the buck stops there.

Well, if it didn't stop there before, I'm sure with the creation of a head honcho to oversea the entire intelligence community and report directly to the President, I'm sure it stops there now.

Somehow that doesn't make me feel any better.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Never tried to say otherwise. Certainly, the man was in charge and deserves to be blamed...as he has said himself. I have been involved in 200 threads about this subject here over the last 7 years and have continually seen the argument made that Bush was warned and did nothing. It's a stupid argument.

Following up can involve more than clandestine domestic operations. Communication with other agencies would've been a great place to start.

Only 200?

[Paul Baxter #4]

Originally Posted by Azure

Heh, I never thought of that.

I think you're bang on. One would assume that such a massive organizations would automatically follow up on any intelligence pertaining to terrorist attacks. One would ALSO assume that the CIA didn't need to ask the POTUS for permission to 'stop' those attacks.

What would Bush do? Stop them from doing their job?

What would intelligence agencies do? Their job, which includes briefing the White House, laying out options, and then executing the executive orders required to launch given operations. In other words, when the briefings are ignored, the potential for them to do certain aspects of their jobs impossible. The CIA would also not have been able to do anything in regards to stopping the potential attacks, as the threat was already on American soil and that agency is not allowed to act domestically. That would have fallen to the NSA or FBI, and both suffered through communication failures and poor leadership on this issue. Ironically, the FBI had the suspects under surveillance but did not take action because they did not have orders from the top, who did participate in some of the briefings. The failures were epic, and most of them took place during the meetings in the oval office.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well thanks guys, but I'm aware, despite the image he likes to portray, that George doesn't carry a pistol and take on the bad guys himself.

I would think, though I'll happily concede the point if I'm wrong, that he and his cronies have a say in all matters of national security, which this of course was. Saying "well, the CIA didn't fix it" is a buck passed if I've ever seen it.

It was quite a failure all the way around, you gotta admit that. I wonder if you blame the guy who told the Captain of the Exxon Valdez to go easy on the martinis.

And besides, wasn't the main thrust of this article about all the nonsense that we heard after 9/11?

You're taking the point completely to the other extreme now.

I'm pretty sure you get my point though, and don't disagree.

As I said in my previous post, Bush is to blame...but he didn't keep the attacks from being foiled.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Paul Baxter #4

What would intelligence agencies do? Their job, which includes briefing the White House, laying out options, and then executing the executive orders required to launch given operations. In other words, when the briefings are ignored, the potential for them to do certain aspects of their jobs impossible. The CIA would also not have been able to do anything in regards to stopping the potential attacks, as the threat was already on American soil and that agency is not allowed to act domestically. That would have fallen to the NSA or FBI, and both suffered through communication failures and poor leadership on this issue. Ironically, the FBI had the suspects under surveillance but did not take action because they did not have orders from the top, who did participate in some of the briefings. The failures were epic, and most of them took place during the meetings in the oval office.

Are you really saying the White House has to issue orders for anything to be done to address a threat? Seriously?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Paul Baxter #4

What would intelligence agencies do? Their job,

One would hope.

which includes briefing the White House,

Technically, until the creation of the DNI, the White House wasn't briefed that often.

laying out options, and then executing the executive orders required to launch given operations. In other words, when the briefings are ignored, the potential for them to do certain aspects of their jobs impossible. The CIA would also not have been able to do anything in regards to stopping the potential attacks, as the threat was already on American soil and that agency is not allowed to act domestically. That would have fallen to the NSA or FBI, and both suffered through communication failures and poor leadership on this issue. Ironically, the FBI had the suspects under surveillance but did not take action because they did not have orders from the top, who did participate in some of the briefings. The failures were epic, and most of them took place during the meetings in the oval office.

Meh.

You have any evidence to prove that the FBI didn't take action on the terrorist because the White House stopped them?

I have a hard time believing a simple 'surveillance' issue would make its way all the way up to the Director of the FBI, let alone the Oval Office.

[Paul Baxter #4]

Originally Posted by Azure

Technically, part of the information collection involves the National Clandestine Service, which BTW, is not required to receive executive orders from the POTUS everytime they carry out an operation. He might know about the more important operations, but the CIA is a pretty large organization, with something happening virtually all over the world each day.

Can you imagine how many orders he would have to sign?

Plus, I'm pretty sure following up on a terrorist threat wouldn't be classified as a 'clandestine operation.'

I think your point should include intelligence sharing. In a perfect world, the CIA would have turned over the information about domestic threats to the FBI, who would have taken further action.

Considering how crazy the FBI went after 9/11 telling the public about everything they missed, I doubt that happened. Plus, internal politics with the intelligence community has been well documented. Its not hard to believe that the stuff isn't shared like it should be.

Well, if it didn't stop there before, I'm sure with the creation of a head honcho to oversea the entire intelligence community and report directly to the President, I'm sure it stops there now.

Somehow that doesn't make me feel any better.

What are you talking about? I thought we were talking about 9/11 and the intelligence community at that time. The NCS wasn't even created until 2005, so how could that agency act as you suggest?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Paul Baxter #4

What are you talking about? I thought we were talking about 9/11 and the intelligence community at that time. The NCS wasn't even created until 2005, so how could that agency act as you suggest?

Its not like HUMINT didn't exist prior to 2005.

Sure, I know they were 'degraded'....or whatever the 9/11 commission found, but it still existed.

[Paul Baxter #4]

Originally Posted by Azure

One would hope.



Technically, until the creation of the DNI, the White House wasn't briefed that often.



Meh.

You have any evidence to prove that the FBI didn't take action on the terrorist because the White House stopped them?

I have a hard time believing a simple 'surveillance' issue would make its way all the way up to the Director of the FBI, let alone the Oval Office.

Again, what are you talking about? The President's Daily Brief has been used since Lyndon Johnson was in office, and has been used to disseminate information to top ranking cabinet members for decades! This briefing is a daily summary and has been for decades. The Director of National Intelligence has little to do with this conversation since the position was not established until 2005, well after the time frame in question. If we were talking about current issues, the DNI would be an interesting position to discuss, but with the subject matter being 9/11 and the decisions to go into Iraq, the DNI is not relevant.

The FBI surveillance issue did make it to the PDB and the oval office. Several books have mentioned this fact including George Tenet's. I have no idea why the issue would make the PDB, considering it was an issue of national security.

[Paul Baxter #4]

Originally Posted by Azure

Its not like HUMINT didn't exist prior to 2005.

Sure, I know they were 'degraded'....or whatever the 9/11 commission found, but it still existed.

You got a thing about tossing out acronyms, don't you? HUMan INTelligence has been around for as long as man, so I'm not sure what 2005 or the 9/11 commission has to do with issue. The OSS, America's original intelligence agency, relied almost completely on HUMINT. I'm not sure I see what point you're trying to make?

[Azure]

Pretty sure I read somewhere that prior to the DNI being created, there was a problem with the intelligence communities communicating with the President.

In fact, that was one of the reasons it was created.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Paul Baxter #4

You got a thing about tossing out acronyms, don't you? HUMan INTelligence has been around for as long as man, so I'm not sure what 2005 or the 9/11 commission has to do with issue. The OSS, America's original intelligence agency, relied almost completely on HUMINT. I'm not sure I see what point you're trying to make?

Is there a problem if I use acronyms?

Either way....

That there was no reason Bush needed to sign an executive order and get the CIA to follow up on the terror threat. Or the FBI. Or any other intelligence agency. It wasn't an operation that required an executive order. Something you claimed earlier.

The 9/11 commission found out that the HUMINT services in the CIA were severely degraded when 9/11 happened.

[Paul Baxter #4]

Originally Posted by Azure

Is there a problem if I use acronyms?

Either way....

That there was no reason Bush needed to sign an executive order and get the CIA to follow up on the terror threat. Or the FBI. Or any other intelligence agency. It wasn't an operation that required an executive order. Something you claimed earlier.

The 9/11 commission found out that the HUMINT services in the CIA were severely degraded when 9/11 happened.

No problem, if you define them first. It just makes the conversation that much more accessible for more people.

On the executive order, quit trying to confuse the issue. The original question by Displaced Flames Fan was why the CIA didn't take action to stop the attacks if they had intelligence to do so. I explained that the CIA couldn't take action since it was a domestic situation. If they were to take action, that being the removal of the threat through assassination, an executive order likely would have to be issued. Domestically that is a completely different story. Its a law enforcement issue and proper warrants would have to be issued. No executive order required, just leadership from the FBI, which was sorely lacking as you pointed out.

Its also not a surprise that HUMINT was degraded prior to 9/11. All of the intelligence agencies around the world took a budget hit after the end of the cold war and human resources were the sections that took the biggest hit. Hard lessons were learned from 9/11, and the biggest was probably that HUMINT is the best asset to use in the intelligence game.

Thanks for the discussion. Time to go to sleep.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I think hindsight is 20/20 in these instances. I'm the first to line up to bash Bush, but the President has a high-paced job that I imagine involves dealing separately with a million issues in blindingly fast succession. To lay the blame for 9/11 solely at his feet is to ignore that there were hundreds of people in positions to act more directly than he could, and the failure was probably one of co-ordination and information-sharing more than anything.

So there's some incompetence here and there--that's nothing new in government. Plus, he's new on the job, and--this is important--entirely focused on his domestic agenda, which is what he ran on. Did he ignore the threat? Maybe. If he had had different priorities on Sept. 10, 2001, would it have made a difference? Who knows? But that doesn't necessarily mean that a reasonable person could have predicted (and/or prevented) 9/11 given the information he had at that time.

I think Condoleeza Rice has a much bigger share of the blame, but that's just me--and probably a question for another thread.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Welcome back, Lanny!

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by TheCommodoreAfro

Welcome back, Lanny!

Banned again.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Paul Baxter #4

Thanks for the discussion. Time to go to sleep.

No problem.

I hesitate to believe that anything 'changed' after 9/11.

Heck, Tenet even admitted that prior to going into Iraq, they have absolutely no people there gathering intelligence, and almost everything was based on reports from other intelligence agencies, or defectors from Iraq itself.

That happened TWO freakin' years after 9/11.

I guess we truly don't know about the state of the US intelligence community, as everything we hear is based on hearsay and released 'reports'....but you gotta wonder what the heck they were doing from September 12, 2001, to the day of the Iraq invasion.

And what went wrong.