Well, apparently everything is a-ok over at the CIA, because "Accountability", as opposed to "accountability" with a small-a, is somewhat "off the table." I take this as a sign that everything went quite well regarding September 11th, 2001, over at the CIA, and the outcome was well within desired parameters. Complicit officers will not be punished.

Here is why George Tenet went ballistic:

"At the same time, the Team concludes that the former DCI [Tenet] by virtue of his position, bears ultimate responsibility for the fact that no such strategic plan was ever created, despite his specific direction that this should be done."

It's a wishy-washy bit of forgettable blame that appears purely symbolic. This whole affair seems to be theater, just enough reflection to get the newspapers typing, but of course they claim that there was no "misconduct" by anyone, so there's nothing to see here.

Or is there?

On to the Specifics

In the what-they-say vs. what-they-do department, we have a little clue about what went on, in this discussion of counterterrorism funding:

"The Team found that FY 1997 to FY 2001 (as of 9/11) [REDACTED DOLLAR AMOUNT] was redistributed from counterterrorism programs to other Agency priorities (...) funds were used to cover nonspecific corporate "taxes" and for a variety of purposes that, based on the Agency's budgetary definitions, were unrelated to terrorism. Conversely, no resources were reprogrammed from other Agency programs to counterterrorism, even after the DCI's statement in December 1998 that he wanted no resources spared in this effort."

This isn't a smoking gun revelation, but it fits nicely with a similar development over at the FBI during the summer of 2001.

The acting FBI head Thomas Pickard was requesting more counterterrorim funding -- and it was seriously lacking over at FBI -- from Attorney General John Ashcroft. With all the terrorism threat reporting and many leads unfollowed, this was clearly a high priority for Pickard. On September 10th, 2001Ashcroft flatly refused the additional funds.

Starving particular investigative units of money, and therefore of additional personnel, is a command-level decision made by political operatives with agendas. What sort of agenda fits the above known facts?

The CIA IG then goes on to blame Khalid Shaykh Muhammad (KSM) for being the "mastermind" of 9/11. While being the official theory, there is a huge and glaring dispute about KSM: that he was reported killed by Pakistani security forces in a massive gun battle, and then he was captured alive (resurrected?) although no witnesses saw him at the scene of his alleged post-mortum capture. Then "KSM" became the source of most of the 9/11 Commission Report, although no one in the US government has positively proven that Muhammad is indeed in their custody, and of course, no 9/11 "Commissioners" actually met with or interviewed him.

So while details in the public domain are unreliable at best, the CIA takes it for granted that Muhammad was the "mastermind" of 9/11, and then claims it had intelligence to this effect even before the 9/11 attacks:

"Thus intelligence reporting (...) was noteworthy even in the pre-9/11 period because it included the allegation that KSM was sending terrorists to the United States to engage in activities on behalf of Bin Ladin."

Is this true? Is it false?

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5