Kerry & Clarke 9/11 Culpability: The Senate Intel Committee Findings on 9/11!

Senate Intelligence Committee: John Kerry Knew There Was 9/11 Danger and Did NOTHING!

Kerry is an Experienced Leader in the Intelligence Field – John Kerry served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is the former Vice Chairman of the Committee. Kerry joined the Committee in early 1995 and served until early 2001. Among the areas closely investigated by John Kerry and the Intelligence Committee include global terrorism, world wide threats to U.S. national security, international espionage, weapons of mass destruction, drug trafficking, arms trafficking and nuclear security. John Kerry is also the former Chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations and conducted several high profile Intelligence and International Security investigations. Additionally, Kerry is the author of the 1997 book ‘The New War’ which addressed the challenges of global terrorism and has served on the Foreign Relations Committee for more than eighteen years. ......... “As chairman and then ranking Democrat on the Senate subcommittee on terrorism, narcotics, and international operations, John Kerry has been out front in pushing three presidential administrations to take seriously what is going on in the international underworld.” [Cleveland Plain Dealer, 11/6/96, 7/20/97; Boston Globe 6/28/97; The Guardian, 6/19/96]

1. Finding:
While the Intelligence Community had amassed a great deal of valuable intelligence regarding Usama Bin Ladin and his terrorist activities, none of it identified the time, place, and specific nature of the attacks that were planned for September 11, 2001. Nonetheless, the Community did have information that was clearly relevant to the September 11attacks, particularly when considered for its collective significance.

2. Finding:
During the spring and summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community experienced a significant increase in information indicating that Bin Ladin and al-Qa’ida intended to strike against U.S. interests in the very near future.

3. Finding:
Beginning in 1998 and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received a modest, but relatively steady, stream of intelligence reporting that indicated the possibility of terrorist attacks within the United States. Nonetheless, testimony and interviews confirm that it was the general view of the Intelligence Community, in the spring and summer of 2001, that the threatened Bin Ladin attacks would most likely occur against U.S. interests overseas, despite indications of plans and intentions to attack in the domestic United States.

4. Finding:
From at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons. This information did not stimulate any specific Intelligence Community assessment of, or collective U.S. Government reaction to, this form of threat.

5. Finding:
Although relevant information that is significant in retrospect regarding the attacks was available to the Intelligence Community prior to September 11, 2001, the Community too often failed to focus on that information and consider and appreciate its collective significance in terms of a probable terrorist attack. Neither did the Intelligence Community demonstrate sufficient initiative in coming to grips with the new transnational threats. Some significant pieces of information in the vast stream of data being collected were overlooked, some were not recognized as potentially significant at the time and therefore not disseminated, and some required additional action on the part of foreign governments before a direct connection to the hijackers could have been established. For all those reasons, the Intelligence Community failed to fully capitalize on available, and potentially important, information. The sub-findings below identify each category of this information.

5.a. During 1999, the National Security Agency obtained a number of communications – none of which included specific detail regarding the time, place or nature of the September 11 attacks -- connecting individuals to terrorism who were identified, after September 11, 2001, as participants in the attacks that occurred on that day. Malaysia Meeting and Travel of al-Qa’ida Operatives to the United States

5.b. The Intelligence Community acquired additional, and highly significant, information regarding Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi in early 2000. Critical parts of the information concerning al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi lay dormant within the Intelligence Community for as long as eighteen months, at the very time when plans for the September 11 attacks were proceeding. The CIA missed repeated opportunities to act based on information in its possession that these two Bin Ladin-associated terrorists were traveling to the United States, and to add their names to watchlists.

5.c. In January 2000, after the meeting of al-Qa’ida operatives in Malaysia, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi entered the United States. Thereafter, the Intelligence Community obtained information indicating that an individual named “Khaled” at an unknown location had contacted a suspected terrorist facility in the Middle East. The Intelligence Community reported some of this information but did not report all of it. Some of it was not reported because it was deemed not terrorist-related. It was not until after September 11, 2001 that the Intelligence Community determined that these contacts had been made by future hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar while he was living within the domestic United States.

5.e. On July 10, 2001, a Phoenix FBI field office agent sent an “Electronic Communication” to 4 individuals in the Radical Fundamentalist Unit (RFU) and two people in the Usama Bin Ladin Unit (UBLU) at FBI headquarters, and to two agents on International Terrorism squads in the New York Field Office. In the communication, the agent expressed his concerns, based on his first-hand knowledge, that there was a coordinated effort underway by Bin Ladin to send students to the United States for civil aviation-related training. He noted that there was an “inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest” participating in this type of training in Arizona and expressed his suspicion that this was an effort to establish a cadre of individuals in civil aviation who would conduct future terrorist activity. The Phoenix EC requested that FBI Headquarters consider implementing four recommendations:

•accumulate a list of civil aviation university/colleges around the country;
•establish liaison with these schools;
•discuss the theories contained in the Phoenix EC with the Intelligence Community; and
•consider seeking authority to obtain visa information concerning individuals seeking to attend flight schools.

However, the FBI headquarters personnel did not take the action requested by the Phoenix agent prior to September 11, 2001. The communication generated little or no interest at either FBI Headquarters or the FBI’s New York field office.

5.f. In August 2001, the FBI’s Minneapolis field office, in conjunction with the INS, detained Zacarias Moussaoui, a French national who had enrolled in flight training in Minnesota because FBI agents there suspected that Moussaoui was involved in a hijacking plot. FBI Headquarters attorneys determined that there was not probable cause to obtain a court order to search Moussaoui’s belongings under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, personnel at FBI Headquarters, including the Radical Fundamentalist Unit and the National Security Law Unit, as well as agents in the Minneapolis field office, misunderstood the legal standard for obtaining an order under FISA. Therefore FBI Minneapolis field office personnel wasted valuable investigative resources trying to connect the Chechen rebels to al-Qa’ida. Finally, no one at the FBI apparently connected the Moussaoui investigation with the heightened threat environment in the summer of 2001, the Phoenix communication, or the entry of al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi into the United States.

Hijackers In Contact With Persons of FBI Investigative Interest in the United States

5.g. The Joint Inquiry confirmed that at least some of the hijackers were not as isolated during their time in the United States as has been previously suggested. Rather, they maintained a number of contacts both in the United States and abroad during this time period. Some of those contacts were with individuals who were known to the FBI, through either past or, at the time, ongoing FBI inquiries and investigations. Although it is not known to what extent any of these contacts in the United States were aware of the plot, it is now clear that they did provide at least some of the hijackers with substantial assistance while they were living in this country.

5.h. Since 1995, the CIA had been aware of a radical Islamic presence in Germany, including individuals with connections to Usama Bin Ladin. Prior to September 11, 2001, the CIA had unsuccessfully sought additional information on individuals who have now been identified as associates of some of the hijackers.

5.i. Prior to September 11, the Intelligence Community had information linking Khalid Shaykh Mohammed (KSM), now recognized by the Intelligence Community as the mastermind of the attacks, to Bin Ladin, to terrorist plans to use aircraft as weapons, and to terrorist activity in the United States. The Intelligence Community, however, relegated Khalid Shaykh Mohammed (KSM) to rendition target status following his 1996 indictment in connection with the Bojinka Plot and, as a result, focused primarily on his location, rather than his activities and place in the al-Qa’ida hierarchy. The Community also did not recognize the significance of reporting in June 2001 concerning KSM’s active role in sending terrorists to the United States, or the facilitation of their activities upon arriving in the United States. Collection efforts were not targeted on information about KSM that might have helped better understand al-Qa’ida’s plans and intentions, and KSM’s role in the September 11 attacks was a surprise to the Intelligence Community.

5.j. In the period from September 8 to September 10, 2001 NSA intercepted, but did not translate or disseminate until after September 11, some communications that indicated possible impending terrorist activity.

In short, for a variety of reasons, the Intelligence Community failed to capitalize on both the individual and collective significance of available information that appears relevant to the events of September 11. As a result, the Community missed opportunities to disrupt the September 11 th plot by denying entry to or detaining would-be hijackers; to at least try to unravel the plot through surveillance and other investigative work within the United States; and, finally, to generate a heightened state of alert and thus harden the homeland against attack. No one will ever know what might have happened had more connections been drawn between these disparate pieces of information. We will never definitively know to what extent the Community would have been able and willing to exploit fully all the opportunities that may have emerged. The important point is that the Intelligence Community, for a variety of reasons, did not bring together and fully appreciate a range of information that could have greatly enhanced its chances of uncovering and preventing Usama Bin Ladin’s plan to attack these United States on September 11 th , 2001.

Our review of the events surrounding September 11 has revealed a number of systemic weaknesses that hindered the Intelligence Community’s counterterrorism efforts before September 11. If not addressed, these weaknesses will continue to undercut U.S. counterterrorist efforts. In order to minimize the possibility of attacks like September 11 in the future, effective solutions to those problems need to be developed and fully implemented as soon as possible.

1. Finding:
Prior to September 11, the Intelligence Community was neither well organized nor equipped, and did not adequately adapt, to meet the challenge posed by global terrorists focused on targets within the domestic United States. Serious gaps existed between the collection coverage provided by U.S. foreign and U.S. domestic intelligence capabilities. The U.S. foreign intelligence agencies paid inadequate attention to the potential for a domestic attack. The CIA’s failure to watchlist suspected terrorists aggressively reflected a lack of emphasis on a process designed to protect the homeland from the terrorist threat. As a result, CIA employees failed to watchlist al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi. At home, the counterterrorism effort suffered from the lack of an effective domestic intelligence capability. The FBI was unable to identify and monitor effectively the extent of activity by al-Qa’ida and other international terrorist groups operating in the United States. Taken together, these problems greatly exacerbated the nation’s vulnerability to an increasingly dangerous and immediate international terrorist threat inside the United States.

2. Finding:
Prior to September 11, 2001, neither the U.S. Government as a whole nor the Intelligence Community had a comprehensive counterterrorist strategy for combating the threat posed by Usama Bin Ladin. Furthermore, the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) was either unwilling or unable to marshal the full range of Intelligence Community resources necessary to combat the growing threat to the United States.

3. Finding:
Between the end of the Cold War and September 11, 2001, overall Intelligence Community funding fell or remained even in constant dollars, while funding for the Community’s counterterrorism efforts increased considerably. Despite those increases, the accumulation of intelli gence priorities, a burdensome requirements process, the overall decline in Intelligence Community funding, and reliance on supplemental appropriations made it difficult to allocate Community resources effectively against an evolving terrorist threat. Inefficiencies in the resource and requirements process were compounded by problems in Intelligence Community budgeting practices and procedures.

4. Finding:
While technology remains one of this nation’s greatest advantages, it has not been fully and most effectively applied in support of U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Persistent problems in this area included a lack of collaboration between Intelligence Community agencies, a reluctance to develop and implement new technical capabilities aggressively, the FBI’s reliance on outdated and insufficient technical systems, and the absence of a central counterterrorism database.

5. Finding:
Prior to September 11, the Intelligence Community’s understanding of al-Qa’ida was hampered by insufficient analytic focus and quality, particularly in terms of strategic analysis. Analysis and analysts were not always used effectively because of the perception in some quarters of the Intelligence Community that they were less important to agency counterterrorism missions than were operations personnel. The quality of counterterrorism analysis was inconsistent, and many analysts were inexperienced, unqualified, under-trained, and without access to critical information. As a result, there was a dearth of creative, aggressive analysis targeting Bin Ladin and a persistent inability to comprehend the collective significance of individual pieces of intelligence. These analytic deficiencies seriously undercut the ability of U.S. policymakers to understand the full nature of the threat, and to make fully informed decisions.

6. Finding:
Prior to September 11, the Intelligence Community was not prepared to handle the challenge it faced in translating the volumes of foreign language counterterrorism intelligence it collected. Agencies within the Intelligence Community experienced backlogs in material awaiting translation, a shortage of language specialists and language-qualified field officers, and a readiness level of only 30% in the most critical terrorism-related languages.

7. Finding:
Prior to September 11, the Intelligence Community’s ability to produce significant and timely signals intelligence on counterterrorism was limited by NSA’s failure to address modern communications technology aggressively, continuing conflict between Intelligence Community agencies, NSA’s cautious approach to any collection of intelligence relating to activities in the United States, and insufficient collaboration between NSA and the FBI regarding the potential for terrorist attacks within the United States.

8. Finding:
The continuing erosion of NSA’s program management expertise and experience has hindered its contribution to the fight against terrorism. NSA continues to have mixed results in providing timely technical solutions to modern intelligence collection, analysis, and information sharing problems.

9. Finding:
The U.S. Government does not presently bring together in one place all terrorism-related information from all sources. While the CTC does manage overseas operations and has access to most Intelligence Community information, it does not collect terrorism-related information from all sources, domestic and foreign. Within the Intelligence Community, agencies did not adequately share relevant counterterrorism information, prior to September 11. This breakdown in communications was the result of a number of factors, including differences in the agencies’ missions, legal authorities and cultures. Information was not sufficiently shared, not only between different Intelligence Community agencies, but also within individual agencies, and between the intelligence and the law enforcement agencies.

10. Finding:
Serious problems in information sharing also persisted, prior to September 11, between the Intelligence Community and relevant non-Intelligence Community agencies. This included other federal agencies as well as state and local authorities. This lack of communication and collaboration deprived those other entities, as well as the Intelligence Community, of access to potentially valuable information in the “war” against Bin Ladin. The Inquiry’s focus on the Intelligence Community limited the extent to which it explored these issues, and this is an area that should be reviewed further.

11. Finding:
Prior to September 11, 2001, the Intelligence Community did not effectively develop and use human sources to penetrate the al-Qa’ida inner circle. This lack of reliable and knowledgeable human sources significantly limited the Community’s ability to acquire intelligence that could be acted upon before the September 11 attacks. In part, at least, the lack of unilateral (i.e., U.S.-recruited) counterterrorism sources was a product of an excessive reliance on foreign liaison services.

12. Finding:
During the summer of 2001, when the Intelligence Community was bracing for an imminent al-Qa’ida attack, difficulties with FBI applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance and the FISA process led to a diminished level of coverage of suspected al-Qa’ida operatives in the United States. The effect of these difficulties was compounded by the perception that spread among FBI personnel at Headquarters and the field offices that the FISA process was lengthy and fraught with peril.

15. Finding:
The Intelligence Community depended heavily on foreign intelligence and law enforcement services for the collection of counterterrorism intelligence and the conduct of other counterterrorism activities. The results were mixed in terms of productive intelligence, reflecting vast differences in the ability and willingness of the various foreign services to target the Bin Ladin and al-Qa’ida network. Intelligence Community agencies sometimes failed to coordinate their relationships with foreign services adequately, either within the Intelligence Community or with broader U.S. Government liaison and foreign policy efforts. This reliance on foreign liaison services also resulted in a lack of focus on the development of unilateral human sources.

16. Finding:
The activities of the September 11 hijackers in the United States appear to have been financed, in large part, from monies sent to them from abroad. Prior to September 11, there was no coordinated U.S. Government-wide strategy, and reluctance in some parts of the U.S. Government, to track terrorist funding and close down their financial support networks. As a result, the U.S. Government was unable to disrupt financial support for Usama Bin Ladin’s terrorist activities effectively.

17. Finding:
Despite intelligence reporting from 1998 through the summer of 2001 indicating that Usama Bin Ladin’s terrorist network intended to strike inside the United States, the United States Government did not undertake a comprehensive effort to implement defensive measures in the United States.

18. Finding:
Between 1996 and September 2001, the counterterrorism strategy adopted by the U. S. Government did not succeed in eliminating Afghanistan as a sanctuary and training ground for Usama Bin Ladin’s terrorist network. A range of instruments was used to counter al-Qa’ida, with law enforcement often emerging as a leading tool because other means were deemed not to be feasible or failed to produce results. While generating numerous successful prosecutions, law enforcement efforts were not adequate by themselves to target or eliminate Bin Ladin’s sanctuary. While the United States persisted in observing the rule of law and accepted norms of international behavior, Bin Ladin and al-Qa’ida recognized no rules and thrived in the safe haven provided by Afghanistan.

19. Finding:
Prior to September 11, the Intelligence Community and the U.S. Government labored to prevent attacks by Usama Bin Ladin and his terrorist network against the United States, but largely without the benefit of an alert, mobilized and committed American public. Despite intelligence information on the immediacy of the threat level in the spring and summer of 2001, the assumption prevailed in the U.S. Government that attacks of the magnitude of September 11 could not happen here. As a result, there was insufficient effort to alert the American public to the reality and gravity of the threat.

I think it is entirely unfair to attack anyone in a highly complex job after only 8 mos. Not only that, President Bush didn't get to have a transition team get into the White House and prepare to take over because of Gore's insistence on recounting dead men's votes in only 3 counties in Florida.

Add to that the deliberate attempt to delay many of President Bush's appointments in key national security positions:

For months, Sen. Levin personally had held up the confirmation hearings of Bush's appointees who were to design the U.S. antiterrorism strategy - Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Programs J.D. Crouch and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Peter W. Rodman - refusing for apparently partisan purposes to allow them to take office until late July 2001. While Levin was holding up their appointments, the incoming Pentagon policy team had no legal or political authority to do their vital jobs - a fact that helps explain why it took eight months for the Bush administration to draw up a strategic operational plan to destroy al-Qaeda.

(Clinton) Holdovers in addition to Clarke) Held Up Security Strategy ("MUST READ")

As you read through this report, you see awesome ignorance on the part of the so-called "Terror Czar" Richard Clarke. It is now evident that part of his purpose in slamming Bush is obfuscating his own culpability....criminal negligence(?)...in the 9/11 disaster. He was the one who was supposed to pull all these things together.

Kerry was Vice-Chair of the Senate Intel Committee and is constitutionally charged with providing for the security of the nation.....and PROVIDING means both oversight AND MONEY! He starved the intel community.

They also received briefings from the Clintonistas who were in charge...they MISSED this stuff that they should have known! For Pete's sake they endured Al Qaeda attack after Al Qaeda attack -- Why wouldn't they have put 2+2 together??!!!

I agree with all that you wrote . . .

I remember how badly everyone treated Bush between Jan 20 - Sept 11, 2001. The transition was difficult. Even the media treated him poorly - they practically boycotted George until 9/11.

I will never forgive Trent Lott and the Republicans for "sharing" leadership on the Hill - and I will never forget little Tommy Daschle dancing around the Capitol when Jeffords switched parties. The people of South Dakota would be dong this nation a great favor if they voted Tommy out of office this fall. His opponent, Thune, has a pretty good chance - just got a key Indian endorsement.

Anyway, Kerry should be made to eat the committee report you posted before he tries to utter one more word about Bush.

Excellent stuff and right on the money! Thanks Quilla.

I know that Kerry left the Intel Committee in mid-2001. Any idea if Levin was also on that committee?

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but one has to wonder if they had a plan to discredit the Bush Administration. The Intelligence Committee was closed down by Pat Roberts because of Dem Strategies to use their Intel Knowledge AGAINST the President.

Would they hate America so much that they'd PLAN or ALLOW Al Qaeda to get through the breeches that they already knew existed? Would they keep new people out of their positions so things couldn't get fixed?

It explains Kerry ignoring SPECIFIC LETTERS written to him about Boston Logan Airport being the site where the hijackings would occur....Click here for Kerry Culpability for Logan Airpost, Boston

That is not my area to concentrate upon. I am called to pray for Bush daily - for Godly wisdom and that the LORD turn his heart where HE wants it and the LORD's will be done. And, for the LORD to raise up prayer warriors in this Nation! For the victory will be achieved not by might, not by power but by the Holy Spirit of the LORD God of Israel. The other issue does not interest me in the least! Foolish people bearing fools lawsuits! I shall not be distracted.

And Kerry (and Levin) slow-rolled the Bush transition in 2001, forcing them to keep holdovers like Clarke, Beers, etc. From another thread this morning:

Cheney's comment [that Clarke was out of the loop on the evolving counter-terrorism strategy] is consistent with previous news reports, which administration officials confirm, that the White House national-security process is unusually compartmented, so that even senior NSC officials would not necessarily know of secret strategic planning. Much of the reason, administration sources say, is because of the many Clinton holdovers in the top ranks of government who were from the start working to kill plans they didn't like by leaking them to left-wing media.

The Bush team was too accommodating to the lousy Clintonoids -- shouldn't have kept them on because, as we've seen, they've betrayed any trust that was given to them. There are still plenty lurking in the rat corners of the Administration today.

Bush and Condi should now turn on these rats, and place the blame where it belongs: Clinton (and Clarke) had 8 years to address the problem and did NOTHING! Bush had, at best, 8 months... even less when you think of the slow-roll the Democrats gave his transition. I know he doesn't want to point fingers, but the way the Dems/Media are spinning it, perhaps he needs to acknowlege: He didn't do enough -- and for that, perhaps, he should "apologize" along with the recognition that his mistake was in not cleaning out the weak, appeasing Clintonoids as soon as he entereed the White House. Just some angry thoughts this morning.

I think you're right on the money.

I'm convinced that the Dems are culpable for 9/11. There might have even been a conspiracy to HAVE it happen.

I also think they covered up Al Qaeda connections to the OKC bombing.

If there are any clintonistas remaining in positions of influence....it's time to get rid of them.

Remember the Wilson/Africa/CIA/Wife deal? --- caused by Dem Party Operatives still in positions of influence.

Levin has been on the Intel Committee since 1997. As for thinking you may be a "conspiracy theorist" with respect to the rats desire to deliberately discredit this administration, it appears you are simply connecting the dots. Recall their intentions of the infamous 'memo' as described in the Washington Times:

The memo suggested that Democrats "pull the majority along as far as we can," then "take full advantage" of the panel rules to "among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry." It said the best time to "pull the trigger on an independent investigation" of the Bush administration would be next year, when the president will be campaigning for re-election.

The Republicans hold a one-vote majority on the panel and could use that edge to reconfigure the committee's rules and structure.

Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, refused to disavow the memo's contents and said Republicans are the ones acting in bad faith to shift attention away from the inquiry.

"The purpose of the memo apparently was to lay out options. And I don't disavow the options, including the words 'independent investigation,'" Mr. Levin said.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.