What did Congress know? Reports from Yr 2000

Congressional Records ^ | March 18, 2002

[TomGuy]

What did Congress know?

This week, we've been bombarded with old "news" about who knew what regarding terrorist threats. Most of the "late breaking" reports have been circulating since 9-11, but they have beed dredged up as "new" news. Who knew what and when did they know it?

Looking back over Congressional (Senate and House) Intelligence reports for the year 2000, one finds that terrorism, Afghanistan, Taliban, and Bin Ladin didn't just suddenly appear in September, 2001. They have been discussed in Congressional Hearings and some of those discussions (year 2000) included warnings.

The two lists of quotes are taken from two Hearings, one from the Senate and one from the House. [Much more information is contained at the links to the documents. Also, two additional links are listed at the end of these quotations.]

Committee hearings during the year 2000

.

HEARING before the SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE of the UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION on CURRENT AND PROJECTED NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS TO THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 2, 2000

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Chairman RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana JON KYL, Arizona JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PAT ROBERTS, Kansas WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado TRENT LOTT, Mississippi, Ex Officio

RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada, Vice Chairman BOB GRAHAM, Florida JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts MAX BAUCUS, Montana CHARLES S. ROBB, Virginia FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey CARL LEVIN, Michigan CONNIE MACK, Florida THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota, Ex Officio

The threats we face today are less direct and more diffuse. Efforts by countries to acquire nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capabilities remain of high concern. International terrorists--Usama bin Ladin's organization is the most prominent--threaten Americans at home and around the globe. Narcotraffickers and international criminals endanger our way of life and corrupt governments and societies everywhere. Globalization has brought manifold benefits, but it has created new vulnerabilities. ``Soft'' threats, such as the spread of epidemic disease, environmental degradation, or conflict over water rights, pose new challenges that we are only beginning to understand.
......
Increasingly, where attacks occur does not fully reflect the origin of the threat. The far-flung reach of Usama bin Ladin (UBL) from his base in Afghanistan is reflected in a continuous flurry of threats by his organization on almost every continent. Although we cannot attribute any of last year's anti-U.S. attacks to him, his transnational network and the devastating example of his 1998 attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania make him the primary threat to U.S. interests at home and abroad. Members of his network and other like-minded radical Mujahedin are active globally. Bin Ladin funds training camps and participates in a worldwide terrorist network. But he is not responsible for every Mujahedin attack. The UBL network is analogous to a large corporation with UBL as a CEO who provides guidance, funding, and logistical support. His supporter, like regional directors or affiliates, are not micromanaged, and may be left to follow separate agendas. A number of terrorists, including bin Ladin, have evinced interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
......
In Afghanistan, production of opium and heroin is a major source of revenue for the ruling Taleban and a political instrument of bin Ladin to ``corrupt'' the West.
......
Since July 1998, working with foreign governments worldwide, we have helped to render more than two dozen terrorists to justice. More than half were associates of Usama Bin Ladin's Al-Qaida organization. These renditions have shattered terrorist cells and networks, thwarted terrorist plans, and in some cases even prevented attacks from occurring.
......
Usama Bin Ladin is still foremost among these terrorists, because of the immediacy and seriousness of the threat he poses. Everything we have learned recently confirms our conviction that he wants to strike further blows against America. Despite some well-publicized disruptions, we believe he could still strike without additional warning. Indeed, Usama Bin Ladin's organization and other terrorist groups are placing increased emphasis on developing surrogates to carry our attacks in an effort to avoid detection. For example, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) is linked closed by Bin Ladin's organization and has operatives located around the world--including in Europe, Yemen, Pakistan, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. And, there is now an intricate web of alliances among Sunni extremists worldwide, including North Africans, radical Palestinians, Pakistanis, and Central Asians.
......
Mr. Chairman, we remain concerned that terrorist groups worldwide continue to explore how rapidly evolving and spreading technologies might enhance the lethality of their operations. Although terrorists we've preempted still appear to be relying on conventional weapons, we know that a number of these groups are seeking chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) agents. We are aware of several instances in which terrorists have contemplated using these materials. Among them is Bin Ladin, who has shown a strong interest in chemical weapons. His operatives have trained to conduct attacks with toxic chemicals or biological toxins.
......
Middle East-based terrorist groups will remain the most important threat. State sponsors (primarily Iran) and individuals with the financial means (such as Usama bin Ladin) will continue to provide much of the economic and technological support needed by terrorists. The potential for terrorist WMD use will increase over time, with chemical, biological, and radiological agents the most likely choice.
......
We are learning more about our perpetrators every day. Bin Ladin is still foremost among these terrorists because of the immediacy and seriousness of the threat he poses. Everything that we have learned recently confirms our conviction that he wants to strike further blows against the United States. Despite some well-publicized disruptions, we still believe he could strike without additional warning. Indeed, Bin Ladin's organization and other terrorist groups are placing increased emphasis on developing surrogates to carry out attacks, in an effort to avoid detection.
....
.. Of course, in terms of the bigger picture, at the end of the day ... you've got to go back and look at the economics and demographics of the region of the world that basically is going to spawn, unless some changes are made, large numbers of unemployed men to whom bin Ladin's message resonates, and people like him.
......

=======================================================

GLOBAL TERRORISM: SOUTH ASIA--THE NEW LOCUS ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION

JULY 12, 2000

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois HOWARD L. BERMAN, California DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana ELTON GALLEGLY, California MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey DANA ROHRABACHER, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia EDWARD R. ROYCE, California ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida PETER T. KING, New York PAT DANNER, Missouri STEVE CHABOT, Ohio EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South Carolina BRAD SHERMAN, California ROBERT WEXLER, Florida MATT SALMON, Arizona

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey AMO HOUGHTON, New York JIM DAVIS, Florida TOM CAMPBELL, California EARL POMEROY, North Dakota JOHN M. McHUGH, New York WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts KEVIN BRADY, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BARBARA LEE, California

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York GEORGE RADANOVICH, California JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

In particular, we will focus on the most recent shift in the patterns of international terrorism to South Asia. This move away from the more traditional Middle East-based terrorist activity clearly deserves our attention and careful policy analysis. Earlier this year, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright noted that the shift of the center of gravity for international terrorism has been eastward, toward Afghanistan in Southwest Asia.
......

Afghanistan has emerged as a safe haven for master terrorists like Usama bin Laden and his radical supporters. We have on display today the State Department's wanted posters for bin Laden, offering a $5 million reward for his capture.
......

Mr. Rohrabacher.
After a year of requesting to see State Department documents on Afghan policy, and I would remind the Committee that I have stated that I believe there is a covert policy by this Administration, a shameful covert policy of supporting the Taliban, the State Department after many, many months--actually years of prodding--finally began giving me documents, Mr. Chairman.

In the assessment of those documents, I have found nothing to persuade me that I was wrong in my criticism. I might add, however, that there have been no documents provided to me even after all of these years of requesting it. There have been no documents concerning the time period of the formation of the Taliban. Again, I would hope the State Department gets the message that I expect to see all of those documents. The documents that I have read, Mr. Chairman, indicate that the State Department time and again has had as its position that they have no quarrel or that it would give them no heartburn to have the Taliban in power, this during the time period when the Taliban was struggling to take over Afghanistan.

Although the Administration has denied supporting the Taliban, it is clear that they discouraged all of the anti- Taliban supporters from supporting the efforts in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban, even so much as when the Taliban was ripe for being defeated on the ground in Afghanistan.

Bill Richardson and Karl Inderfurth, high ranking members of this Administration, personally visited the region in order to discourage the Taliban's opposition from attacking the Taliban when they were vulnerable, and then going to neighboring countries to cutoff any type of military assistance to the Taliban, this at a time when Pakistan was heavily resupplying and rearming the Taliban. What did this lead to? It led to the defeat of all the Taliban's major enemies except for one, Commander Masood in the north, and left the Taliban the supreme power in Afghanistan. So when we hear today about terrorism and crocodile tears from this Administration, let us remember this Administration is responsible for the Taliban.

This Administration has acted in a way that has kept the Taliban in power. One last note. Many people here understand that I have been in Afghanistan on numerous occasions and have close ties to people there, and let me just say that some of my sources of information inform me of where bin Laden was. They told me they knew and could tell people where bin Laden could be located, and it took me three tries before this Administration responded to someone who obviously has personal contacts in Afghanistan to even investigate that there might be someone who could give them the information. And when my informant was actually contacted, he said that the people who contacted him were half hearted and did not follow through, did not appear to be all that interested, appeared to be forced to be talking to him.

Mr. Chairman, we are concerned about terrorism. We are concerned about the Taliban because we believe in human life and human dignity. The worst terrorist acts of the Taliban are committed against the women of their own society, and let us not forget that. But none of the terrorism which we will hear about today by Mr. bin Laden or others would be taking place with Afghanistan as their home base if it were not for the policies of this Administration.

This Administration has had a policy concerning the Taliban which has created this terrorist mess, which I predicted in this body on numerous occasions 3 and 4 years ago.
......

Mr. Royce.
Let me also say that I think that there has been a lack of purpose on the mayhem and anarchy coming out of Afghanistan. For many years now, we have held hearings to try to get the Administration to focus on the lack of policy, the lack of a strategy to try to bring resolution to what has happened there in Afghanistan. It seems to me that we are not dealing with the terror that is coming out of the region, given the fact that there has been a great call for a policy to try to do something about resolving the underlying problems that have given rise now to Afghanistan offering Usama bin Laden and others a place to do business, a place to prepare for the next round of terrorist activity. But this is a result of a lack of focus in our foreign policy in South Asia, and I hope that we can muster some attention and resolve in the future to develop a strategy to deal with Afghanistan.
......
Mr. Eastham.
I would remind the Committee that in October 1999, the Security Council of the United Nations unanimously passed U.N. Resolution 1267, which calls on the Taliban to hand over Usama bin Laden to a country where he can be brought to justice.
......
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Everyone in this Committee has heard me time and again over the years say unless we did something Afghanistan was going to become a base for terrorism and drug dealing. Mr. Chairman, how many times did you hear me say that? This Administration either ignored that or are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Again, I am sorry Mr. Inderfurth is not here to defend himself, but let me state for the record at a time when the Taliban were vulnerable, the top person in this Administration, Mr. Inderfurth, and Bill Richardson personally went to Afghanistan and convinced the anti-Taliban forces not to go on the offensive. Furthermore, they convinced all of the anti-Taliban forces and their supporters, to disarm and to cease their flow of support for the anti-Taliban forces.
......

[To] Mr. Inderfurth; Mr. Bill Richardson, a good friend of mine, doing the bidding of this Administration, basically convinced the anti-Taliban's mentors to quit providing them the weapons they needed with some scheme that the Taliban were then going to lay down their arms, and immediately thereafter Pakistan started a massive shift of military supplies which resulted in the total defeat of the anti-Taliban forces. Now, this is either collusion or incompetence on the part of the State Department as far as this Congressman is concerned. The people will have to look at the record and determine that for themselves, and when this Congressman says this Administration has a covert policy of supporting the Taliban, I see examples of what I just described over and over and over again. I have read the documents you have given me, and the documents over and over again to me indicate that the State Department has been telling the Taliban, ``Hand this over, bin Laden, and we can deal with you.'' Now, I am not going to quote because it is secret information. None of the documents I have seen, by the way, should have been classified, and let's get to those documents. Why haven't I been provided any documents about State Department analysis during the formation period of the Taliban and about whether or not the Taliban was a good force or a bad force? Why have none of those documents reached my desk after 2 years?

===========

Additional links of interest:

STATE DEPARTMENT DOMESTIC SECURITY LAPSES AND STATUS OF OVERSEAS SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS . MAY 11 AND MAY 17, 2000

U.S. SECURITY CONCERNS IN ASIA . WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2000

[John Galt's cousin]

ping

[backhoe]

Here's a Note to Activists:

Want to do something? Go here:

Ignorance Making You Ill? Cure It!

for links, tools, & instructions about how to contact a pile of different people, and how to send a link to this story right here ( or anywhere else ) to a "mass email" using Outlook Express.

---

Do be advised that since I increased my volume of mass emails to letters to editors I have gotten return volleys of virus attacks- my ISP filters them out before the get to my PC, but if yours does not, take appropriate precautions to guard your PC.

I take this as a positive- my emails are simply links with no editorial content; so the other side must fear & loath the information even reaching the public.

[Jolly Green]

IMHO, this is absolutely, positively one of the most important posts ever entered on FR. Great work!

Also note the presence of Cynthia McKinney in those hearings. Hypocritical SOBs. I can hardly wait for a DIM to admit he/she is a DIM in my presence. I'll tear them to shreds!

[callisto]

Wonderful post. Bump.

[Prodigal Son]

Good stuff.

[DKM]

Good work.................bump

[DKM]

Now that this whole issue has gone from "what did he know and when" to "how did we let this happen", here is some really great info that TomGuy put together.

[Lady In Blue]

Bump!