Posted on 05/21/2002 8:24:50 AM PDT by dittomom
By now, most Americans understand that President Bush did not receive a "warning" of an impending attack by al-Qaida when he was briefed by the Central Intelligence Agency in August.
Though some partisans continue to "ask questions" about what the president knew, it's clear that the intelligence community just didn't have specific information about an attack - only vague, general bits of information suggesting that Osama bin Laden wanted to hurt Americans some time, some place, somehow.
Our intelligence agencies collect an enormous amount of information, most of it too general to be of much use. Much of it is uncorroborated and from sources of questionable credibility.
Rarely are threats specific enough to defend against. This is why the issuance of threat warnings is so problematic.
In summary form, here's what happened last summer: About a year ago, intelligence officers began to pick up more and more reporting that al-Qaida operatives thought something big was in the works. Though uncorroborated, there was some information focusing specifically on the Arabian peninsula, the Middle East and Europe.
As a result of this increase in reporting, the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) began meeting almost constantly. Comprised of representatives from all relevant agencies of the intelligence community, the CSG eventually suspended non-essential travel of U.S. counterterrorism staff members and began contingency planning on how to deal with a series of worldwide simultaneous attacks. It was that plan that was presented to the president the weekend before Sept. 11, and which was the basis for his actions after the 11th.
In July, the FBI issued several warnings to law-enforcement agencies about possible threats, one of which was based on specific reporting of an intention to use explosives in an airport terminal.
While the warnings to law enforcement focused mostly on places like Paris, Turkey and Rome, it was noted that domestic attacks could not be ruled out.
A spike of information in mid-July also caused major concern about the impending G-8 summit, and preventive actions were taken.
Five Federal Aviation Administration information circulars were issued to airlines from June 22 to July 31, alerting air carriers of potential threats such as bombs in airport terminals and hijackings for the purpose of freeing other terrorists.
From the end of July to Sept. 11, there was virtually no new specific information picked up by the intelligence community, though the FAA issued another alert on Aug. 16 about disguised weapons that could be used in hijackings, including cellphones, key chains and pins.
The president's daily briefing on Aug. 6 - the focus of so much attention in the last week - was not a threat report, but rather an analysis the president had requested of all the information that had been collected about bin Laden and other terrorists.
It outlined al-Qaida's preferred methods of operation and its desire to attack the United States and Americans. While it mentioned hijacking as a possible al-Qaida operation, the concern was that passengers would be held hostage to secure release of the Blind Sheik and other terrorists, but not that planes would be used on suicide missions.
In short, there was nothing in the briefing to justify a warning to the American people of an impending attack. It is gross irresponsibility to intimate otherwise.
The real question is what our intelligence community could have done differently to collect and analyze information before Sept. 11, and here the story is much more disturbing. While we should wait to gather all possible information before reaching conclusions, I am very concerned about what our intelligence committee is learning.
In the "Phoenix memorandum," an FBI agent in Arizona urged headquarters to investigate why an inordinate number of Arab men were enrolled in flight schools. The new FBI director, Robert Mueller (who was confirmed by the Senate just one month before Sept. 11) testified that the FBI did not adequately follow up on the memo. He has created a new Office of Intelligence in the FBI to ensure that such information is handled properly in the future.
We will learn more in the coming months. Whether bits and pieces of intelligence, if properly analyzed, would have warned of Sept. 11 is doubtful, though that remains an open question. The key is to learn why some of the dots were not connected, and to reform the intelligence community to ensure it's done right in the future.
In the meantime, we should remain skeptical of media hype, partisan attacks and conspiracy theories. Fighting terrorism will be difficult enough if we remain unified. It will be much more difficult if we are divided.
Jon Kyl, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Arizona.
This is the first I had heard of the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) - but then I have trouble keeping track of all those alphabet groups. Guess this is the answer to what was being done about the increase in threat information last summer. Does anyone know anything more about this CSG? How long it's been around, etc.?
I see that the CSG is mentioned in this ABC News timeline...ABCNEWS TIMELINE
No, rather, "Conservatives" will act like lefties demanding ever more money to fix an extra-Constitutional system, rather than scrap it and admit that the government cannot protect its citizens.
"The real question is what our intelligence community could have done differently to collect and analyze information..." Here is where the good Senator should have spoken the truth...The Clinton's shut information gathering down to save their own skins all the while allowing Hillary to peruse FBI files on whomever she wished!
Is CSG as stupid as Condi Rice?
They dont remember that small airplane that crashed into the White House a few years back?
CSG dosnt know Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Murad?
Project Bojinka didnt ring a bell?
Never read Clancys book?
Ahh,yes,we see nothing, know nothing,advise the President on nothing!
Give us more money, but please dont fire us!
Not two years ago, Republicans were investigating the FBI's "relationship" with the Pentagon in regards to Delta Force's participation in the Waco massacre.
The Pentagon and the FBI covered for each other and they are covering for each other again.
Where are the high level resignations?
There is a problem. The CSG seems to be like a think tank. The think tank idea seems pretty useful at first, everybody throws out ideas however wild, nobody criticizes in the first round, later the ideas as listed are analyzed to find the best. The problem is that even if all members of the think tank were valedictorians in college and are Mensans as well, the type of thing they are looking for will come from the one person who is clued in to the subject. That one person has it right and is often outvoted by the think tank.
The solution is to find that one person and listen to him. And that won't happen. Ignoring a warning from the ranks such as that potential terrorist hijackers are taking flying lessons is very common, and will continue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.