Earlier I asked:
Max Sawicky Connects the Dots: Archive Entry From Brad DeLong's Webjournal: Did the claim at the end of the [August 6, 2001 PDB] memo that the FBI was conducting 70 Bin Laden-related "full field investigation" reassure George W. Bush? Should that have reassured him--did it mean more than that there were 70 open files in various FBI offices?
The answer to the first question appears to be "Yes, it did reassure George W. Bush." The answer to the second question appears to be "No, it didn't mean much more than that there were 70 open files." It is hard to understand the disconnect between that "70 full field investigations" claim and FBI activity as anything other than an attempt to mislead George W. Bush into thinking the FBI was more aggressively on the case than it in fact was.
Dave Niewert quotes Newsday:
Orcinus: ...Rice, testifying before the Sept. 11 commission Thursday, said that those 70 investigations were mentioned in a CIA briefing to the president and satisfied the White House that the FBI was doing its job in response to dire warnings that attacks were imminent and that the administration felt it had no need to act further. But the FBI Friday said that those investigations were not limited to al-Qaida and did not focus on al-Qaida cells. FBI spokesman Ed Coggswell said the bureau was trying to determine how the number 70 got into the report.... [Rice] said the briefing memo disclosed that the FBI had 70 "full-field investigations under way of cells" in the United States. And that, Rice said, explained why "there was no recommendation [coming from the White House] that we do something about" the flurry of threat warnings in the months preceding the attacks.
But Coggswell Friday said that those 70 investigations involved a number of international terrorist organizations, not just al-Qaida. He said that many were criminal investigations, which terrorism experts say are not likely to focus on preventing terrorist acts. And he said he would "not characterize" the targets of the investigations as cells, or groups acting in concert, as was the case with the Sept. 11 hijackers. In addition to these investigations, Rice told the panel that FBI headquarters, reacting to alarming but vague intelligence in the spring and summer of 2001 that attacks were imminent, "tasked all 56 of its U.S. field offices to increase surveillance of known suspected terrorists" and to contact informants who might provide leads.
That, too, is news to the field offices. Commissioner Timothy J. Roemer told Rice that the commission had "to date ... found nobody, nobody at the FBI, who knows anything about a tasking of field offices." Even Thomas Pickard, at the time acting FBI director, told the panel that he "did not tell the field offices to do this," Roemer said.
And Ted Barlow quotes Ogged:
Posted by DeLong at April 13, 2004 01:48 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postCrooked Timber: Fact-check, v.2 : I haven’t seen this anywhere but Unfogged, so I’m going to take the liberty of restating his post:
The famous August 6th briefing contained this sentence:
The FBI is conducting approximately The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related.
But commisioner Roemer said the following when Rice was testifying:
We have done thousands of interviews here at the 9/11 Commission. We’ve gone through literally millions of pieces of paper. To date, we have found nobody — nobody at the FBI who knows anything about a tasking of field offices. We have talked to the director at the time of the FBI during this threat period, Mr. Pickard. He says he did not tell the field offices to do this. And we have talked to the special agents in charge. They don’t have any recollection of receiving a notice of threat. Nothing went down the chain to the FBI field offices on spiking of information, on knowledge of al Qaeda in the country, and still, the FBI doesn’t do anything.
Roemer brought this up before the briefing was released- he had read it, but the press had not. The apparent discrepancy has slipped past everyone but Ogged. 70 full-field investigations is a significant investment of manpower. It’s the kind of thing that the commission should have been easily able to verify, but Roemer is saying that they haven’t. Ogged charitably suggests that it may just be a difference in classification, but I find that hard to believe. Not if the number “70” bears any relationship to reality.
Unfortunately, his subsequent question (“Isn’t that some of the responsibility of the national security advisor?”) just put Rice on the defensive about her responsibilities vs. the FBI’s. It’s a shame, because there’s an important point there: was the person who prepares the President’s Defense Briefing deceiving the President? I do hope that we get an answer to that.
I heard a radio interview with a former CIA agent wo now works at a think-tank, discuss the general question of what the President and his national security staff are likely to hear vs what actually goes on. He said that, while working overseas, where he had direct knowledge of CIA operations, he would read quotes from national security officials about those operations that were simply wrong. In general, they vastly overstated the effort and resources going into various intelligence operations. I know from my own experience working for Uncle Sam overseas (not in the clandestine services) that the routine was to take in instructions from DC, and turn around a response as quickly as possible, leaving the burden on headquarters to come back and request more. There were far more requests than could be dealt with in more than a cursory fashion, but the job was to turn them around. Often, the response was Congressionally mandated.
Did the FBI operate in similar manner? Don't know, but I can imagine a mid-level guy in DC being told to put together a record of every activity with any bearing on al Qaeda ("al what?") and what do you know, it totaled 70, including individual phone calls, individual reports, conversations with local authorities that resulted in a record. The task comes down - add up all the al Qaeda stuff - and it gets done.
So somebody lied to Condi? And the lie stood till now? She never asked to see the results of all those field investigations, before or after September of 2001? And she still has a job. To think, it's a Republican thing to complain about do-nothing public employees.
Posted by: K Harris on April 13, 2004 02:38 PMI was hearing Ashcroft on NPR on my way home, and weaving through traffic caught only a couple of snatches as follows:
"...I am incapable..."
then "...paralytic"
I think he gave quite honest testimony.
Doesn't this just emphasize the importance of knowing how Bush and Rice reacted to the information about the 70 investigations. It seems that if they had bothered to ask even the most obvious questions, they would not have been deceived.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov on April 13, 2004 08:06 PMThis is the scenario. Trust me.
A CIA analyst asks an FBI counterpart to tell her how many open investigations it has underway regarding Al Qaeda. She says, "I'm writing a piece. I'd like to convey the scope of the problem in various ways. Please let me know how committed you are in the field." He gets back to her: "We think about 70 at the moment; it varies, and there really isn't any sort of central data base. I'd go with 70."
So she cites 70, thinking this is as authoritative as it's going to get. She means to convey something like this: "Listen, Mr. President, this is a big problem. 70 investigations represents a lot of manpower in the field. Al Qaeda has THAT BIG a presence here!"
My point is (i) that only the FBI can speak about how many investigations are ongoing, and this is where the number came from; it was an honest estimate. And (ii) the message of the piece was not meant to reassure but to convey concern about the magnitude of the challenge. Read the rest of the Aug 6 PDB.
You say Bush is a liar? Listen to Clinton's lies:
Friday, April 9, 2004 4:53 p.m. EDT
Clinton Denies Taped bin Laden Admission, Blames 'Misquote'
During his private interview with the 9/11 Commission on Thursday, ex-President Bill Clinton denied that he told a New York business group in 2002 that he turned down an offer from Sudan for Osama bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., according to 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey.
"Bill Clinton said yesterday that that was a misquote," Kerrey told WDAY Fargo, N.D., radio host Scott Hennen, in an interview set for broadcast on Monday.
A transcript of the exchange between Hennen and Kerrey was read on the air by national radio host Sean Hannity late Friday. It shows that the 9/11 Commission was unaware that Clinton's bombshell admission that he spurned the bin Laden offer had been recorded by NewsMax.
After Kerrey said Clinton had denied the quote, Hennen said: "But wait a minute - I heard it in his own voice. I've heard him say it. I have the tape of him saying just that."
"Really?" said a perplexed Kerrey. "Well, then - ship it to me, because Clinton said yesterday [in private 9/11 testimony] that he didn't have a recollection of that."
Clinton made the bombshell admission to the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002. Though the LIA videotaped his appearance, the group has refused requests for copies from NBC News, Fox News and NewsMax.
Though NewsMax has the only publicly available recording of Clinton's remarks that day, they were also reported by Newsday the next day.
Transcript of Clinton's admission:
We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.
They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan. [End of Excerpt]
Posted by: Adrian Spidle on April 14, 2004 06:58 AMAdrian, Clinton is no longer president and more to the point, unlike Bush, he is not seeking re-election. The relevancy of your comment would be what?
Posted by: Dubblblind on April 14, 2004 09:48 AM"Adrian, Clinton is no longer president and more to the point, unlike Bush, he is not seeking re-election. The relevancy of your comment would be what?
Posted by Dubblblind"
Another high school debate team trick deployed to gain political power rather than deal effectivly with an important national crisis.
Clinton is a Democrat. Kerry is a Democrat. All Democrats share the same philosophy. Therefore if Clinton is a liar, then Kerry is a liar. (Joke) However, if Clinton was incompetent dealing with terrorism, then Kerry would also be incompetent at dealing with terrorism. (not a joke).
THE WORLD IS WAY TO DANGEROUS TO ALLOW A DEMOCRAT TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY.
Adrian
Posted by: Adrian Spidle on April 14, 2004 10:41 AMgreat argument adrian... do you live in an alternate universe where bush was strong on terrorism before september 11?
Posted by: anon on April 14, 2004 01:21 PMassuming that wasnt sarcasm in the first place
Posted by: anon on April 14, 2004 01:23 PMOnline Casino Directory
Posted by: Online Casinos on June 23, 2004 03:09 AM