Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11

SFGATE (San Francisco Chronicle online) ^ | June 3, 2002 | Harley Sorensen

[DoughtyOne]

Not only that, but the Airforce base closest to W., D.C. doesn't even have fighters assigned to it. The capital is wide open to attack. Never in my life did I even consider this was a possibility.

[Richard Axtell]

"Now, do you find it unreasonable for us to question why even our capital was left exposed to these suicide flights? I don't."

You miss my point, but in doing so, you inadvertently make my point. And my point attempts to answer your not-at-all-unreasonable question. What I was trying to say, and pardon tinge of sarcasm used, was... what could our leaders (Bush, Ashcroft, Ridge, etc.) have done to protect our capital from suicide flights? Yes, it was reported that there were theorized "suicide attacks" in CIA reports as early as 1995, perhaps even earlier. So? We already had metal detectors and security staff in place at every airport. We also had decades of cumulative PC interference sabotaging our intelligence agency's effectiveness, from the Church Hearings in the 70's to Clinton and Toricelli in the 90's. What practical measures should we have instituted to protect our capital from suicide flights? Shut down the private air travel system indefinately? Or, profile the passengers, selecting out the "terrorist" types? "Racial profiling?" Haven't we just had years of endless, pointless, debate and PC demogoguery belaboring just that issue? Is this begining to hit home? Just what would you have done?

The evil "genius" of Bin Laden's plan in the 9/11 attacks was just how he used our free society against us. Our sophisticated and instantaneous communication systems, the ease of travel, the freedom of movement, the lack of a police state-checking papers at every point of movement, the size, speed, range, fuel capacity, and power of the aircraft we use at such affordable ticket prices, even the professional and non-judgemental courtesy of flight attendants, were all taken advantage of and subsequently turned on us... and they became a deadly and terrifying weapon of mass destruction, that has shook this country to it's very foundation. Your comments are an indication of the depth of that terror... to the point where we are becoming irrational, demanding that our leaders do the impossible; protect us from future terrors unknown, but don't inconvenience us or in any way appear racially insensitive, or change anything that might upset us in the process. Unless you have access to a time machine, or a special pair of "hindsight" binoculars, I don't know of a way to protect us from the effects of an event that has yet to happen, perpetrated by a fiend that so thoroughly used our very national nature, culture, and fruits of our economy against us, without us shutting down that very culture altogether.

Now, do you find it unreasonable for me to question why you don't understand that regardless of what anyone could have realistically done, with the information they had, and our laws and society as it is, against a determined, well planned, suicide attack, even our capital was left exposed? I don't.

[Mike Darancette]

On July 26, 2001, cbsnews.com reported that John Ashcroft had stopped flying on commercial airlines.

Oh really? Did CBS report that the FBI Director, Deputy Attorney General, Condeleza Rice, Sec of Labor, Sec of Defense, CIA Director, Sec of Interior, Sec of the Treasury, or dozens of other top administration officials stopped flying on commercial airlines?

It wasn't reported because Ashcroft was the only individual personally threatened. Can any reasoning individual believe that if the general threat was serious enough to preclude Ashcroft from traveling commercial that this would not apply to other officials as well. Or, maybe Ashcroft had a personal vision.

[BlackbirdSST]

It's hard to imagine that he would not have been singled out by hijackers and used as an additional bargaining chip.

Are we to assume the AG would fly alone and without armed guard? Hardly a feather in someones cap. These folks are never alone!!! Blackbird.

[Jorge]

It's hard to believe that anyone in the media is STILL publishing this sort of nonsense.
Especially after it's been so soundly and widely refuted by more responsible members of the media.
Even the Demoncrats knew enough to back off these sorts of wild and hysterical accusations.

[DoughtyOne]

"Now, do you find it unreasonable for us to question why even our capital was left exposed to these suicide flights? I don't."

You miss my point, but in doing so, you inadvertently make my point. And my point attempts to answer your not-at-all-unreasonable question. What I was trying to say, and pardon tinge of sarcasm used, was... what could our leaders (Bush, Ashcroft, Ridge, etc.) have done to protect our capital from suicide flights?

You may disagree with me, and that's okay.  I think it would have been purdent to have a small flight wing just outside Washington, D.C. for just such occurances.  We had a hijacked airliner in route to our nation's capital and couldn't respond fast enough to deter it.  Why not?  What would happen if we had a foreign aircraft headed for Washington, D.C.?  I mean this is crazy.  Even a child would relize that we should have airforce assets close enough to protect the capital.

You've got a suspect airliner headed for the nation's capital and it won't respond to radio inquiries.  Should a fighter be scrambled?  When the aircraft drops below one hundred feet headed directly into the Pentagon, do you hold off and let it impact?  These are elemental questions and I don't think the consideration of this is that difficult or the answers that hard to devine.

Yes, it was reported that there were theorized "suicide attacks" in CIA reports as early as 1995, perhaps even earlier. So? We already had metal detectors and security staff in place at every airport. We also had decades of cumulative PC interference sabotaging our intelligence agency's effectiveness, from the Church Hearings in the 70's to Clinton and Toricelli in the 90's. What practical measures should we have instituted to protect our capital from suicide flights? Shut down the private air travel system indefinately? Or, profile the passengers, selecting out the "terrorist" types? "Racial profiling?" Haven't we just had years of endless, pointless, debate and PC demogoguery belaboring just that issue? Is this begining to hit home? Just what would you have done?

Here's what we could have done, that wouldn't infringe on citizen's rights.  We knew that middle-eastern operatives were hell bent on doing this nation harm.  Did we do any of the following?

1. effectively restrict middle-eastern immigration in a meaningful way to reduce the possibility that terrorists would infiltrate
2. tighten restrictions on educational visas
3. make sure each intelligence agency was onforming the others of known terrorists
4. tighten illegal immigration entry points

I could go on, but what need is there?  We didn't even take the most elemental of steps to limit damage to our nation.  Why is that?  You'll never convince me our intelligence community was so inept and so ineffective as to be unable to fix this problem.  Sorry, but I'm just not that stupid.

The evil "genius" of Bin Laden's plan in the 9/11 attacks was just how he used our free society against us. Our sophisticated and instantaneous communication systems, the ease of travel, the freedom of movement, the lack of a police state-checking papers at every point of movement, the size, speed, range, fuel capacity, and power of the aircraft we use at such affordable ticket prices, even the professional and non-judgemental courtesy of flight attendants, were all taken advantage of and subsequently turned on us... and they became a deadly and terrifying weapon of mass destruction, that has shook this country to it's very foundation. Your comments are an indication of the depth of that terror... to the point where we are becoming irrational, demanding that our leaders do the impossible; protect us from future terrors unknown, but don't inconvenience us or in any way appear racially insensitive, or change anything that might upset us in the process. Unless you have access to a time machine, or a special pair of "hindsight" binoculars, I don't know of a way to protect us from the effects of an event that has yet to happen, perpetrated by a fiend that so thoroughly used our very national nature, culture, and fruits of our economy against us, without us shutting down that very culture altogether.

Yes, you're right, I am astounded that our intelligence agencies didn't take the measures I've already outlined.  I can think of a lot more.  Now, this you see as proof that Bin Laden has been very successful.  Pardon me, but the successes of Bin Laden were related to his ability to morph our government, not my ability to understand that our federal government agencies utterly failed their prime directive, ignoring mountains of evidence in order to do so.

This garbage at the airports isn't necessary.  Developing a profile on me isn't going to save this nation.  However, stopping known terrorists from entering this nation just may.  Lets look at this simple concept.  Our leaders absolutely refuse to stop illegal immigration.  Not only that, they simply refuse to stop middle-eastern immigration.  The hatred of America in the middle-east is so thick you could cut it with a knife.  Yet this is an immigration demographic that recieves the full blessing from our leaders for the immigration green light.

There are perhaps twenty elemental actions this government could take to make this nation safer.  None of them infringe on citizen's rights.  Sadly this government will NOT take those actions, not even after 09/11.

Now, do you find it unreasonable for me to question why you don't understand that regardless of what anyone could have realistically done, with the information they had, and our laws and society as it is, against a determined, well planned, suicide attack, even our capital was left exposed? I don't.

Look, I realize you're convinced that nothing could have been done.  If that is true, then we don't need an FBI, we don't need the CIA, the NSA, the INS or a whole host of other agencies and federal offices.  We can just throw in the towel, inject each citizen with identifiers and set up the readers by every roadway, public site and home.  Then police officers will know where to find us when they want us.  Short of that, there's nothing that can be done if you're theory holds true, and you totally dismiss any culpability of those who failed their duties.

[section9]

Look, I realize you're convinced that nothing could have been done. If that is true, then we don't need an FBI, we don't need the CIA, the NSA, the INS or a whole host of other agencies and federal offices. We can just throw in the towel, inject each citizen with identifiers and set up the readers by every roadway, public site and home. Then police officers will know where to find us when they want us. Short of that, there's nothing that can be done if you're theory holds true, and you totally dismiss any culpability of those who failed their duties.

The original article was a study in Blak Helikopter Thinking.

Ashcroft flew private in July of 2001, so he must have been in on the Plot!

Your responses have been reasonable in comparison. However, it fails to recognize the historical reality prior to September 11th.

Remember that the United States was secure in its isolation prior to September 11th. I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but the political class in Washington was not prepared to confront bin Laden and do the things that needed to be done prior to the attack. And no one thought about putting planes on strip alert, simply because some beancounter who didn't see the threat thought that the threat didn't exist. There was no conspiracy, and whatever malfeasance there was reminds one more of Admiral Kimmel at Pearl Harbor than some mysterious fellow on a Grassy Knoll in Dallas.

This always happens to the United States in peacetime. Our physical isolation from Eurasia has led to a sense of inviolability, both on the part of the government and on the part of the citizenry. The government itself was simply not prepared to deal with terrorism. Their idea of a threat was the one they had been conditioned to fight since the dawn of the Cold War: a large land army fighting on behalf of an opposing power.

You are not giving proper credit where credit was due: to our opponents. Al Qaeda sent its best people into this operation. How do we know? No one talked. The hijack teams did not know each other. Communications security was excellent. Compartmentalization was complete. The timing of the attack was worked out to the minute so that each flight would impact shortly after the other, in order to achieve maximum confusion and psychological impact. Our own nonchalant attitude towards airport security, emphasizing on-time performance of airlines and scheduling over, say, El Al's attention to detail, was tailor made for an attack.

You want to point fingers at the Washington establishment? You're wasting your time. It was Al Qaeda that ran a professional operation against a slow-moving, slow-responding U.S. Government conditioned to peace. That's what the author of this article doesn't appear to understand.

It's ALWAYS more fun to look for recriminations and to doubt those who swore to defend us, instead of analyzing how Al Qaeda actually did what they did to find patterns behind their operations. We've done this before. Rather than recognize that we had a huge intelligence cock-up in November of 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt decided to scapegoat Husband Kimmel and Walter Short, even though the Navy knew that six Japanese aircraft carriers, the entire First Mobile Fleet with its air complement, had disappeared off the face of the earth.

We did not know time, place, and method of attack. In terrorist operations, the initiative lies with the attacker, as does the element of surprise. This is your basic Sun Tzu. Just because Master Sun said nothing about terrorism (although he was big on the use of spies), doesn't mean that the terrorists didn't use his methods.

You say:"Look, I realize you're convinced that nothing could have been done. If that is true, then we don't need an FBI, we don't need the CIA, the NSA, the INS or a whole host of other agencies and federal offices."

I respond by saying that you missed his whole point. We were unprepared AT THAT TIME AND PLACE IN HISTORY. The situation is different now. We have learned much. It does NOT follow from the fact that virtually nothing could have been done to forestall this attack that we, all at once, have no need of intelligence agencies.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Richard Axtell]

Look, I realize you're convinced that nothing could have been done. If that is true, then we don't need an FBI, we don't need the CIA, the NSA, the INS or a whole host of other agencies and federal offices. We can just throw in the towel, inject each citizen with identifiers and set up the readers by every roadway, public site and home. Then police officers will know where to find us when they want us. Short of that, there's nothing that can be done if you're theory holds true, and you totally dismiss any culpability of those who failed their duties.

I really don't want for us to get into a flame exchange on this subject, but I do want you to better understand my original intent and certainly clear a few other things up. I feel you misunderstand my thesis. I was from the begining trying to explain my understanding of WHY events transpired as they did; not to endorse them, not to justify them, not to excuse them. I see a kind of irrational hysteria going on regarding this issue. People are grasping for clues to a conspiratorial coverup that is just not there. And as a conspiracy buff, that is quite statement on my part.

Of course I am not convinced that "nothing could be done." That not at all what I am saying. What WAS done, and what was NOT done and why in the light of what was known then, and what was bureaucraticly and politically possible are the only issues that would benefit from our discussion, since virtually anything else would only be speculation. Your reaction to my post ephasises my thesis: that "the current spate of second guessing and recrimination are the product of hindsight." That is my point. Everything you have outlined in your posts, for the most part, does make sense, but only in hindsight.

Did you see the political cartoon of "President Daschle" that Tim Russert showed during his interview of Daschle a week ago on Sunday? It shows a fantasy where "President" Daschle is presented with the same report that reached Bush's desk. He jumps up, and gets on the phone, and orders that all airports be on the lookout for "Mohamed bin Atta, Jamil il Mazerif, Ali Binali, etc." and have them arrested, seize any box cutters that anyone might have, and, .... oh yes, check their shoes!" You can see the absurdity of this fantasy, because that is all it is, a fantasy. Daschle is no more prescient or has no more ability to anticipate the future than anyone else, yet he cynically implies that Bush should somehow have been guess at exactly what a series of diverse opinions, several year old theroies, obscure clues, and facts buried in reports were ultimately to mean. Had he actually done so, he would certainly have a 99% approval rating, but that too, is just a fantasy. We live in the real world. And our leaders are just people. Shame, isn't it.

The lack of coordination that you decry between our intelligence agencies is the condition that George Bush found them in. It has taken decades of anti intelligence establishment liberal Democrat politics, fundamental mismanagement, and the inevitable and infuriating reality of the nature of bureaucracies to achieve the level of un-integration that we have suffered from for so many years. Trouble is, we don't know the specifics of what is wrong, until something does go wrong. And this time it went REALLY wrong. Terrorist plots have been foiled in the past, and we mostly don't hear about them at all. And we also don't praise our leaders for foiling them, for the same reason. But we sure feel it when a titanic disaster like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor suddenly happens, blasting us out of our complacency.

We have woken up to the terrible world of Islamic terrorism. Now we must deal with it. But if you ask why it happened in the first place, it was because, during Clinton's reign at least, it was not politically correct to mention it, ...much. Plus Clinton simply did not know what to do about it, so he did nothing. He actually did worse, in that the stupid rules about racial profiling hamstrung our agents in the field, as I mentioned FBI agent Rowley pointed out in her memo. The question is really, what do we do now?

Havng f-16s handy at a nearby airbase is fine. And we undoubtably will in the future, but the exact circumstances of 9/11, are not likely to happen again. That is not the point. F-16s are designed to intercept and defend against enemy aircraft and other military attacks; it will always be an extremely difficult decision to shoot down a civilian airliner, unless there is no recourse. Unfortunately, there is seldom time for serious deliberation when something like this happens. The pilot would have to have had been prewarned, and would have to know which plane to shoot down. If ever this policy resulted in an accidental shootdown, you can imagine the political firestorm that would ignite! Clinton, the FAA, NTSB, and FBI still are stonewalling about TWA 800... if you know what I mean. There are plenty of unanswered questions regarding that flight, as you probably know well. An understatement, surely.

What we don't need is to waste our time and energies with another "court marshall of Admiral Kimmel." He, if you didn't know this, was comanding officer of the Naval base at Pearl Harbor at the time of the December 7th, 1941 attack. He actually did make preparations for war, and I think his orders may have saved our aircraft carriers from destruction, but he was made the scapegoat regardless. And we lost the services of a competent and experienced Admiral right when we needed them the most.

We are now watching the press and congressional Democrats try and do the same to FBI chief Mueller, even though he was on the job only days before the 9/11 atrocity. They are doing their best to spin and distort every major and minor press report, memo and bit of information into a politcal cudgel to clobber Bush or his administration with. Don't fall for this idiocy, please.

Of course ask questions, and expect real answers, for the right reasons. To fix the security holes in our ship, as best and as realistically as we can. But that is not what the cynical Democrats are even slightly interested in. In fact, they will stonewall and coverup themselves, when the investigation gets into timelines before January 20th, 2001. National security takes a back seat to their political obsessions and lust for power. If you doubt me, you must only watch and be convinced, they will deliver. Clinton is still pulling their strings, make no mistake. That's why Hillary is in the Senate, to act as proxy puppeteer.

Well, pardon my ample expostion, but I guess I am really responding to the general mood and rather ignorant talk I hear regarding this issue in the press and public, and am not trying to brow beat or be condicending in any way. I respect the opinions you have made in your posts, despite any initial hyperbole or sarcasm I might have used as polemic device. I just hope my point about the distortion hindsight makes in our judgements was made clear.

[dsutah]

You're right! You know, I've noticed lately that Mr.
Ashcroft seems to be getting dumped on by people I
never thought would dump on him. He gets crap from
liberals, I expect that. But lately, it seems to be coming
from so-called 'conservatives' too! Do you notice that?
I wonder what happened? Some people are never satisfied!

[Plummz]

Because both administrations were running interference for UBL/Al Qaeda.

[Coop]

Such as: fighter planes scrambling immediately after the first plane crashed into the building, protecting the airlanes over major cities. Haven't you ever wondered why there was no such fighter presence in that interim time in New York?

Huh? There was like 11 minutes between the tower attacks. You really think you're gonna get planes scrambled and into position in that time? Concerning the Pentagon, the planes were scrambled and in the air, but they were still transiting to the D.C. area when the building was hit. Hindsight is wonderful.

[Coop]

Now, do you find it unreasonable for me to question why you don't understand that regardless of what anyone could have realistically done, with the information they had, and our laws and society as it is, against a determined, well planned, suicide attack, even our capital was left exposed? I don't.

Well said. Folks want to find someone to blame, other than the evil terrorists, for some reason. There is simply no truly effective defense against terrorism, short of a police state, other than solid intelligence collection and offensive operations against terrorist infrastructures. Political realities would not have allowed the latter until we were attacked, and the Impeached Rapist and his thugs ensured our intel capabilities were severely hampered.

[Amelia]

It's funny how all these libs don't ask what Clinton knew and when he knew it! The Al Queida and Bin Laden didn't just materialize out of then air on Jan. 20, 2001, but you'd never know that from the liberal media!

Bears repeating.

[cinFLA]

I knew too.

We all knew that terrorists would hijack planes. But the airlines' mode of operation was to "cooperate" with hijackers and negotiate once on the ground.

[Alan Chapman]

You know as well as anyone that had a Democrat been in office the rank-and-file Republican supporters would be screaming bloody-murder. They be calling for investigations and indictments. But, their guy is in office now and he must be defended at all costs. Afterall, it's not about doing what's right. It's about winning and staying in power.

Sure, the current administration could have taken the initiative when they got in office and looked for ways to weed out waste, corruption, fraud, negligence, and incompetence that pervades every agency of the federal government. But, what would there be to gain by doing that? There were special interest groups banging on the doors of Congress like Trick-or-Treaters and Bush and Congress are busy handing out government money like candy.

It's a matter of priority. Pander to special interest groups first by buying their votes with taxpayers' money. Then do what's right last, and only after being forced to because of a catastrophe.

[RDangerfield]

Coop: Huh? There was like 11 minutes between the tower attacks. You really think you're gonna get planes scrambled and into position in that time? Concerning the Pentagon, the planes were scrambled and in the air, but they were still transiting to the D.C. area when the building was hit. Hindsight is wonderful.

The original question posed was: what could have been done? Among others, I have answered that a contingency plan should be in place to scramble planes immediately upon attack.
8:45 a.m. (all times are EDT): A hijacked passenger jet, American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston, Massachusetts, crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Center, tearing a gaping hole in the building and setting it afire.

9:03 a.m.: A second hijacked airliner, United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston, crashes into the south tower of the World Trade Center and explodes. Both buildings are burning.

9:43 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon, sending up a huge plume of smoke. Evacuation begins immediately.

What if there had been an enemy plane attacking? The Pentagon was attacked an hour after New York, but planes could not be scrambled in an hour? Was there a contingency plan at all? Is there one now? God, I hope so.
--Raoul

[Coop]

The last time I checked the Pentagon was in VA, and the WTC was in NY. Hindsight is just wonderful.