"Let me please introduce myself
I am a man of wealth and taste.
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a mans soul and faith
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name".
Posted on 09/05/2014 1:47:21 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[SNIP]
".....In all, the U.S. government would have access to more than a million documents detailing al Qaeda’s funding, training, personnel, and future plans. The raid promised to be a turning point in America’s war on terror, not only because it eliminated al Qaeda’s leader, but also because the materials taken from his compound had great intelligence value. Analysts and policymakers would no longer need to depend on the inherently incomplete picture that had emerged from the piecing together of disparate threads of intelligence—collected via methods with varying records of success and from sources of uneven reliability. The bin Laden documents were primary source material, providing unmediated access to the thinking of al Qaeda leaders expressed in their own words.
A comprehensive and systematic examination of those documents could give U.S. intelligence officials—and eventually the American public—a better understanding of al Qaeda’s leadership, its affiliates, its recruitment efforts, its methods of communication; a better understanding, that is, of the enemy America has fought for over a decade now, at a cost of trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives.
Incredibly, such a comprehensive study—a thorough “document exploitation,” in the parlance of the intelligence community—never took place. The Weekly Standard has spoken to more than two dozen individuals with knowledge of the U.S. government’s handling of the bin Laden documents. And on that, there is widespread agreement.
“They haven’t done anything close to a full exploitation,” says Derek Harvey, a former senior intelligence analyst with the Defense Intelligence Agency and ex-director of the Afghanistan-Pakistan Center of Excellence at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM).
“A full exploitation? No,” he says. “Not even close. Maybe 10 percent.”
More disturbing, many of the analysts and military experts with access to the documents were struck by a glaring contradiction: As President Obama and his team campaigned on the coming demise of al Qaeda in the runup to the 2012 election, the documents told a very different story.
In the days immediately following the bin Laden raid, the document haul was taken to a triage center where a CIA-led interagency team of analysts and subject-matter experts began to comb through it for perishable intelligence. It was, by all accounts, a fruitful effort. .........."
[SNIP]
....Three weeks before the anniversary, the administration provided that handpicked set of documents to analysts at the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at West Point. The CTC team, according to two sources familiar with the events, was instructed to prepare a study to accompany the release of the documents around the upcoming anniversary....
[SNIP]
........The CTC report was released on May 3 under the title “Letters from Abbottabad: Bin Laden Sidelined?” The authors were careful to note that they were given just a fraction of the document collection and that researchers there had “no part in the selection of documents.” The conclusions of the study were consistent with the administration’s line: Al Qaeda had been badly weakened, and in the months before his death Osama bin Laden had been marginalized.
As the public heard this carefully managed story about al Qaeda, analysts at CENTCOM were poring over documents that showed something close to the opposite.
The broader collection of documents paints a far more complicated picture of al Qaeda. There are documents laying out al Qaeda’s relationships with terror-sponsoring states, including Iran and Pakistan. There are documents that provide a close look at bin Laden’s careful cultivation of a vast array of increasingly deadly affiliates, including the one we now know as ISIS. Other documents provide a window into the complex and highly secretive system of communications between al Qaeda leaders and operatives plotting attacks. Still others offer a glimpse of relations between bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, and the others who run the global terror syndicate..............
.........[Derek] Harvey would not discuss the contents of the documents. But he acknowledges that the DIA/CENTCOM conclusions contradicted the story the administration was telling the American people. “They were saying al Qaeda was on the run,” he recalls. “We were telling them al Qaeda was expanding and growing stronger.”
Meanwhile, the internal squabbling continued. The CIA, now under the direction of John Brennan, who had moved back to the agency from the White House, sought once again to limit DIA/CENTCOM’s access to the documents. And some analysts at the CTC were becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the analysis in “Letters from Abbottabad.” According to three sources with knowledge of the handling of the documents, at least one CTC analyst drafted a memo—sometimes referred to as an “affidavit”—describing how the conclusions of the study would have been different had analysts been provided access to the full range of documents. The Weekly Standard asked CTC director Liam Collins about the memo in April. He responded: “I’m not tracking you on that.” Collins denied that anyone at CTC had written or distributed such a memo, and he reiterated his denial this month.
But one U.S. intelligence official, told of Collins’s claim, scoffed, “It exists. Period.”
In July, Lieutenant General Flynn left his post as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, a year earlier than scheduled. Many intelligence professionals believe he was forced out, in part because he—and many who worked for him—aggressively challenged the administration’s view that al Qaeda was dying. Flynn’s views were shaped by the intelligence in the bin Laden documents.
Before he left, Flynn spoke to reporter James Kitfield, of Breaking Defense, who asked why he pushed back on the White House’s view that al Qaeda had died with Osama bin Laden. “There’s a political component to that issue, but when bin Laden was killed there was a general sense that maybe this threat would go away. We all had those hopes, including me. But I also remembered my many years in Afghanistan and Iraq. We kept decapitating the leadership of these groups, and more leaders would just appear from the ranks to take their place. That’s when I realized that decapitation alone was a failed strategy.”
Flynn recalled pushing to get information to policymakers with the hope that it might influence their decisions. “We said many times, ‘Hey, we need to get this intelligence in front of the secretary of defense, the secretary of state, the national security adviser! The White House needs to see this intelligence picture we have!’ ” He added: “We saw all this connective tissue developing between these [proliferating] terrorist groups. So when asked if the terrorists were on the run, we couldn’t respond with any answer but ‘no.’ When asked if the terrorists were defeated, we had to say ‘no.’ Anyone who answers ‘yes’ to either of those questions either doesn’t know what they are talking about, they are misinformed, or they are flat out lying.”
There is, nevertheless, some good news. After sustained pressure from members of Congress, led by Representative Devin Nunes of California, and outside experts, including Bruce Riedel, the public will soon begin to see more of the bin Laden documents. “I have gone to great lengths to get access to these documents, but I have met with excuses and stonewalling at every turn,” says Nunes. “If there is nothing to hide, as the Obama administration claims, then it should release these vital papers.” Nunes inserted language into the Intelligence Authorization Bill requiring the director of national intelligence to complete a declassification review of the documents within 120 days and justify in writing any remaining classification.
There is little reason to believe the law will lead to the release of documents contradicting the administration’s narrative—at least not right away. Those in the administration and the intelligence community who propagated the myth that al Qaeda was dying have every incentive to fight revelations that make clear their mendacity.
It’s far more likely that the declassification requirement will trigger another round of fighting over the documents. But that fight will take place in public—and the administration will be forced to defend withholding information. This is a small victory.
Already in congressional testimony last year, DNI Clapper said there is “good reason for us to declassify” more of the documents, so long as doing so does not jeopardize “current operations.”
This crowd has perverted the oath to destroy enemies foreign and domestic.
They are obsessed with their domestic political enemies.
Consider that today, Bill Clinton -- the miserable, lying scoundrel who sold out our country for personal gain on many occasions -- is lauded as a great president and statesman by most Americans.
I'm not optimistic that Obama will ever be portrayed as the unmitigated disaster that he actually is.
" The CIA, now under the direction of John Brennan, who had moved back to the agency from the White House, sought once again to limit DIA/CENTCOM’s access to the documents. And some analysts at the CTC were becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the analysis in “Letters from Abbottabad.” According to three sources with knowledge of the handling of the documents, at least one CTC analyst drafted a memo—sometimes referred to as an “affidavit”—describing how the conclusions of the study would have been different had analysts been provided access to the full range of documents. The Weekly Standard asked CTC director Liam Collins about the memo in April. He responded: “I’m not tracking you on that.” Collins denied that anyone at CTC had written or distributed such a memo, and he reiterated his denial this month.
But one U.S. intelligence official, told of Collins’s claim, scoffed, “It exists. Period.”
-------------------------
"CIA-Brennan-cover-up" seems to come up a lot.
I watched Bret Baier interview 3 of the CIA contractors last night (a special will be run on Fox tonight with the full interview - covering details in their book, "13 Hours").
In the clip on Baier's show last night they said that the station chief [whose identity is concealed; he's referred to as "Bob"] WAS ON THE PHONE in front of these CIA contractors, as they kept telling him that they had to go and help Stevens; they were repeatedly told by "Bob" (who was on the phone) "no" to wait and to "stand down." The CIA contractors believe that if they had those lost 30 minutes back, Amb Stevens would be alive today. After waiting 30 minutes the CIA commandos defied orders and took off in an attempt to help the Americans only 1/2 mile away.
Yet, the NYT's account twists it:
NYT: New Book Says C.I.A. Official in Benghazi Held Up Rescue "....American officials have previously acknowledged that the Central Intelligence Agency security team paused to try to enlist support from Libyan militia allies. But the book is the first detailed account of the extent of the delay, its consequences for the rescue attempt, and who made the decisions.
The commandos’ account — which fits with the publicly known facts and chronology — suggests that the station chief issued the “stand down” orders on his own authority. He hoped to enlist local Libyan militiamen, and the commandos speculate that he hoped the Libyans could carry out the rescue alone to avoid exposing the C.I.A. base.
No meaningful Libyan help ever materialized.
In an emailed statement on Thursday, a senior intelligence official said “a prudent, fast attempt was made to rally local support for the rescue effort and secure heavier weapons.” The official said “there was no second-guessing those decisions being made on the ground” and “there were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”
The commandos were former members of American Special Forces teams hired by the intelligence agency as private contractors. Two of the team, both former Navy Seals, died fighting the attackers at the C.I.A. base later that night. Five others are credited as co-authors of “13 Hours,” which was written with their cooperation by Mitchell Zuckoff, a professor of journalism at Boston University. Mark Geist, Kris Paronto and John Tiegen are credited by name, and two of the authors use pseudonyms......"
Treasonous lies from Traitorobama and his regime.
That’s what I thought in 2008.
I couldn’t believe people thought he was great. All the other guys in the squadron were talking about how great it was going to be (Canadians). To this day a lot of Canadians still disgust me with their lack of knowledge.
However, that said, in northern Alberta, folks seem to generally have their heads screwed on straight.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/opinion/at-john-brennans-cia-confirmation-hearing.html
NYT Editorial Board - Feb 7, 3013 - Re: John Brennan’s CIA confirmation:
“.......Mr. Brennan’s current job as President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser has required him to keep the nation safe from a vicious, determined and ever-changing enemy. The Senate should confirm him to the new post, in which we hope he does not forget that the heightened danger does not free the executive branch from oversight or the normal system of checks and balances.”
"Let me please introduce myself
I am a man of wealth and taste.
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a mans soul and faith
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name".
Good points.
At the time, it seemed odd that Obama bragged about "killing" bin Laden. B/L was in plain sight for ages....and only THEN did he come under the gun--sites of Obama?
Bill Clinton weighed in, as well---invented some cockamamie story WRT whey he didn't nail B/L....even though he knew where he was.
For all we know, B/L could still be alive.
=============================================
That campaign slogan is prolly the reason we see the "cautious" Obama of today. 2012 candidate Obama's campaign ploy repeatedly assured Americans that he had “decimated” the jihadist enemies---famously saying "Bin Laden was dead and al Quaeda was on the run."
Obama duped Americans into believing he had "heroically" put the villains on “the path to defeat” ....even as he appointed top Muslims to WH jobs and fashioned laws to allow terrorists into the US.
Observing Obama's activities leading up to the beheading of James Foley---clearly, this was not supposed to happen. Obama had done everything in his power to appease the jihadists---funding the Muslim Brotherhood, appointing the Brotherhood to key WH positions.....even calling Egyptian President al Sisi trying to convince him to leave the M/B alone (al Sisi refused to take Obama's call and proceeded to decimate the M/B).
Benghazi was also one of Obama's "done deals"---gone awry when four Americans were slaughtered.
Obama's stupidity began when he figured that, as a Muslim Kenyan (disguised as an American), that he was one of them; that his reaching out to terrorists was productive----that only he could "reason" w/ them.
Clearly, Obama was in collusion w/ the savages---stupidly believing he had bought them off......as Americans now discover they are stronger than ever. They're even making beheading videos----like they were rock stars entertaining global audiences.
Fighting the war on terror? Hardly. Obama's making plans to install them in our communities.
The first time the CTC at West Point released al Qaeda docs was in 2004.
One of the docs released, Osama bin Laden himself ties the Clintons to the terrorist attacks.
“Can you name one thing that Obama’s done for the “good of the country” “
Hillary’s not president.
If she was it would be much worse, for starters you wouldn’t be reading this.
Can you provide a brief explanation or a link?
Thanx
“suggests that the station chief issued the “stand down” orders on his own authority”
Bull$hit
I hope this post isn’t deleted. If so, so be it.
The doc was listed as doc # AFGP-2002-600321 in the CTC at West Points Harmony Database.
The doc was a letter from OBL to Mullah Omar, in the doc OBL makes a passing statement that was missed. They didn’t pick up on the significance of what he said.
The comment was to the effect the media, meaning the news, is 90% of the preparations for the battle, meaning the terrorist attack.
If you have a small scale attack you can carry out the attack based on what is in the news, for a large scale attack you can’t you have to orchestrate the news for the attack then follow up with the spin of the news after the attack to achieve the objective of the attack.
The terrorist don’t have the ability to orchestrate the news for the attack much less follow up with the spin of the news after the attack.
The only people that can do that are the left in this country, and since 1991-1992 it’s been the Clintons that controlled the content of the news.
This is where Hillary’s “spontaneous” lie came from.
No one is making preparation, meaning orchestrating news, for the attacks they’re “spontaneous”, the terrorist are picking up on what’s in the news and “spontaneously” planning attacks around the news.
It’s a little more complicated than that but that is the basics.
Bflr
Thanx
You might also recall the Clintons had what they referred to as “their 20 year plan”.
B Clinton would be president 8 years, someone else would be president 4 years, then Hillary would be president 8 years.
Not only did the Clintons have to make sure Gore didn’t get elected but they had to come up with a plan to bring down a sitting president.
The orchestrated news before the 9/11 attack was “Bush stole the election”.
The spin of the news after the 9/11 attack was “Bush knew”.
After the 2004 election OBL released a tape lamenting that not only did 9/11 not bring down the president but he was reelected. By all accounts the objective of the 9/11 attack was to bring down the sitting president.
OBL began planning the 9/11 attack with the objective of bringing down the next president, sometime in 1991 the exact same time the Clintons are hatching their “20 year plan”.
The orchestrated news before the attack to bring down the sitting president and the spin of the news after the attack is the Clintons 20 year plan.
OBL has in effect put his finger on the Clintons twice as being behind the attacks.
Didn’t know that about Clinton’s
I remember Miami herald recount showed bush won
I forget who wrote the book on the Clintons but he’s the one that said the Clintons had a 20 year plan and it came out before the doc was recovered and before OBL said the objective was to bring down the president.
Thanx
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.