2 months before 9/11 Tenet tricked Condi into a meeting to WARN her...

This came out 8 years ago today! I can finally read it without feeling like I was suckerpunched. Now it is sheer anger. Condi essentially being tricked into taking a meeting with Tenet (an abrupt meeting out of cycle would "shake" her), Richard Clarke (mocked by the administration later) saying "I can feel it this is going to be the big one", Rumsfeld's thinking they were being tricked by bogus intelligence. And be sure to read the very last sentence about 'putting a gun to Condi's head and doing everything but not pulling the trigge'r.

"Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off. President Bush
had said he didn't want to swat at flies."
​

Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice


Sunday, October 1, 2006 - WASHINGTON POST

On July 10, 2001, two months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet met with his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, at CIA headquarters to review the latest on Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Black laid out the case, consisting of communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. It was a mass of fragments and dots that nonetheless made a compelling case, so compelling to Tenet that he decided he and Black should go to the White House immediately.

Tenet called Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, from the car and said he needed to see her right away. There was no practical way she could refuse such a request from the CIA director.

For months, Tenet had been pressing Rice to set a clear counterterrorism policy, including specific presidential orders called "findings" that would give the CIA stronger authority to conduct covert action against bin Laden. Perhaps a dramatic appearance -- Black called it an "out of cycle" session, beyond Tenet's regular weekly meeting with Rice -- would get her attention.

Tenet had been losing sleep over the recent intelligence he'd seen. There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer's instinct strongly suggested that something was coming. He and Black hoped to convey the depth of their anxiety and get Rice to kick-start the the government into immediate action.

He did not know when, where or how, but Tenet felt there was too much noise in the intelligence systems. Two weeks earlier, he had told Richard A. Clarke, the National Security Council's counterterrorism director: "It's my sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one."

But Tenet had been having difficulty getting traction on an immediate bin Laden action plan, in part because Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had questioned all the National Security Agency intercepts and other intelligence. Could all this be a grand deception? Rumsfeld had asked. Perhaps it was a plan to measure U.S. reactions and defenses....

"Black later said, "The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html

 

WHY WAS THIS MOVED? There is a dotted line directly between 9/11 and ISIS cutting off Americans heads. 9/11 isn't political?

 

No, they say it's a conspiracy theory.

 

Thank you for posting this.

 

The proof that the government planned and carried out the attacks is so clear that the above is obviously part of their plan to fool the American people into thinking that terrorists really did it.

Here's some of the proof.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=348380&p=1063729867#post1063729867

 

Your spam isn't proof,scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c.....

 

And yet in this meeting Tenet, Black et al still didn't tell Condi/Bush/Clark that 2 known al Qaeda terrorists were inside the US and had been for months. Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar were the two names the CIA had to speak in that meeting the Clark would have been all over it. But they didn't. The administration were not perfect, but certainly not at fault here.

[video=youtube;bl6w1YaZdf8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl6w1YaZdf8[/video]

 

Because discussions about 9/11 like this are strictly monitored and relocated from the general forum areas to the area where many don't visit. There could be other aspects to it, but I don't want to anger the management here, as they've previously shown that accusations hurled their way are unacceptable.

 

That's one meeting. What do we know about the transition? President Clinton had been repeatedly warned about al Qaeda and that they had infiltrated the U.S. and were preparing to attack the homeland, and he has said that he personally warned President Bush about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. And if we had the Bush NSC meetings list, we'd know for sure that Bush's administration at the upper echelons refused to put the threat of OBL and al Qaeda on the docket in relation to the attention it required. The administration, like you said, were not perfect, but, they were at fault.

 

True except for the last part. The 19 al Qaeda murders and their associates who decided to plan an attack using civilian airliners were at fault. The administration can share some of the blame for being negligent in relation to the information they were given, but saying they were at "fault" is not correct.

 

If this true, then why have this section of the forum at all? Why not just delete the threads entirely?

 

There are some forums, that at the mere mention of 9/11/2001
the moderators delete the whole thing and ban the poster.
whatever ..... I can only hope that in the spirit of AMERICAN freedom of expression, people can utilize the forums that abound on the network at present and have meaningful discussions to arrive at the truth of the matter.

and as we all know ..... the TRUTH shall set you free!

 

You speak of it as though you're an American. Are you? Were you born and (*)(*)(*)(*)ing raised in the U.S.? No? Then don't give me that (*)(*)(*)(*) that MY government is not at fault. THEY ARE THE DEFENDERS OF MY COUNTRY. They failed. It is there fault.

 

While the 9/11 section is IIRC the tenth largest on this entire forum, the overwhelming majority of posts made are done so by "the regulars" of the forum. I don't have statistics on Views, but I assume that the majority of them are made by "the regulars" and bots. So deleting threads entirely would expose censorship, more so than there currently is, for all to see. When information is purposely withheld, it is suspicious.

 

But the very fact that this part of the forum exists means that threads stay 'near the top' longer. If the same threads stayed in the more populated sections, they would disappear much, much faster.

 

Perhaps, but maybe not. It all depends on the context of the thread, don't you agree? I mean, if it is a thread about space aliens and underground lizard men using nuclear or energy weapons to cause the collapses of the buildings... or that there were no planes used on 9/11. But, if the thread is directed in the vein of, "Hey, we don't have the full story here. Thirteen years have passed since 9/11 and we're still being kept in the dark about much of the historical background of the attacks that changed America and therefore the world." The threads that have talked about the 28 classified pages from the 2002 Joint Congressional Investigation have gained some steam, but the day-to-day minutia does eventually overcome the thread, so you are right in that regard. Nevertheless, realistic exchanges are being made, but typically if the back-and-forth between members gets off the "beaten path" I.e. "asking too many questions" or the obligatory crazy comments made by unstable individuals.

 

I'm confused here.

What action was the administration supposed to take based on this information?

 

important info here is the fact that the {alleged} world greatest military power failed to defend even its own HQ ...... and yet, nobody got held accountable for it, the fact is that many military officers who were in a position to act on 9/11/2001 and didn't, were promoted. Clearly there is something very wrong with this picture.

We have events in lower Manhattan reported by the mainstream media in such a manner as to be violations of the laws of physics as reported in the "NEWS". The whole 9/11/2001 story is a total scam!

Wake UP & smell the burnt Reichstag!

To quote the late George Carlin,
" they aren't going to investigate themselves .... "

 

You're trying to change the subject without answering the question posed. "What action was the administration supposed to take based on this information?"

 

What part of the military was tasked with keeping an eye out for rogue jetliners inside our own airspace?...Hmmm?

 

The same thing that a smaller unit of control (the man of the house) would do if they had been warned that some guy named Malik from a state over desired to kill him and his family and was known to have cased their home already. What are some actions a man could take to safeguard his loved ones, home and other assets? Hire people to do it, buy guns, get several large "aggressive" breed dogs, install surveillance equipment, hire someone to excommunicate Malik, hire someone to surveil him, if Malik has electronic equipment have it exploited or call the police. But the man of the house who was repeatedly warned and did nothing substantive to stop Malik from attacking him and his family has only himself to blame for the blood on the floor and the walls.

Besides, they were operating openly inside the U.S. Do you really think the Russians or Chinese could be as sloppy as the 9/11 hijackers were and avoid detection and capture?

 

Say you are on a radar watch that as your territory includes this nations capital, and there is a stray blip, big 'nuff to be a bomber, and having no transponder signal to identify it however is on a course that is steady bearing decreasing range to the capital, what do you do?

 

that would be the responsibility of the civilian ATC's

 

so you are saying that the U.S. military doesn't maintain radar surveillance of the area around the Capital? What?

 

Not every aircraft has a transponder bob...The military's radar is looking outward...If there is something out of sort,civilian ATC's contact the local air national guard unit,and report it