Judy On Hold

A few days back, Arianna passed along an e-mail on the Judy Miller question telling us that Times reporter Douglas Jehl "who is a dogged and respected reporter, has been assigned to do an in-house investigative report for the Times and that he is already cutting pretty close to the bone.  Several editors he has spoken to are now asking themselves why there wasn't more questioning of whether Miller's silence reflects a fear of incriminating herself rather than betraying a source. I predict this will start to unravel in the next couple of weeks -- if only because the Times is afraid of getting scooped again by outside rivals."

And it may be true!  But meanwhile, Doug Jehl's other assignment - babysit Congressman Curt Weldon and se why he is screaming about this "Able Danger" thing - has blossomed into a possible Pulitzer Prize.  OK, the whole story may fizzle out.  But if it eventually encompasses ghastly conflicts of interest on the 9/11 Commission and uncertainty about lead hijacker Mohammed Atta's travel schedule, (how sure are we he was not in Prague?) well... if we have to wait for Judy, we can stand it.

MORE:  Via the Captain, we see that John Podhoretz of The Corner is also on this, with a summary of the main points.  Hmm, but now we can't play the normal game, which would be to scream until the Times picks up on this...

Well, we have some useful links (and a Skeptic's Corner) below.  And yes, my heart and my head are divided on this story - sue me.

STILL MORE:  Captain V, a former intelligence officer, provides a useful perspective.

Comments

[Appalled Moderate]

Looks like the 9-11 Commission staff got their report drafting strategy the end of the Jimmy Stewart/John Wayne opus: "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance":

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

[Dwilkers]

Thanks for the links.

I thought this was just more 20/20 hindsight stuff. Now I see why people are so up in arms over it.

[Mackenzie]

Maybe it will be ultimately be proven that Atta did meet an Iraqi official in Prague, "proving" a connection between Saddam and 9/11. But such an Iraqi connection to 9/11, if any, would still be a minor issue. Remember that we were terrorized by 15 Saudi nationals plus 4 from other Arab countries (not including Iraq) whose Saudi-financed operation was based in Afghanistan under the protection of the Pakistan-backed Taliban regime.

Nearly 4 years after we were attacked, Bin Laden has still not been captured. We should be investigating the failure since 9/11 to capture Bin Laden and shut down Al Qaeda.

[boris]

Sorry Mac, justice for OBL can wait. Rummy and Bush look like the best pair of clang to come down the pike in a long long time.

[J Mann]

It's jaw-dropping that the Commission didn't even discuss this report.

I'll grant, it's possible that Able Danger flagged so many people that the information was essentially useless. It's also possible that the Commission just didn't believe that the DOD could have fingered Atta several months before he arrived in the country.

But at a very minimum, the Commission owed us a serious investigation of (1) what the DOD actually knew; (2) how it knew it; and (3) whether the legal "wall" actually stopped the DOD from alerting the FBI to Atta's threat potential.

[cahmd]

A proven Iraqi connection to 9-11 a minor issue? That argument is the equivalent to putting a lamp shade on the elephant sitting in your living room and pretending it's just another fixture: Its unbelievable.

[Mackenzie]

If Iraq is an elephant in the 9/11 waiting room, it is a very small one compared to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have only addessed 1 of these 3, and even that situation is far from being resolved.

[Appalled Moderate]

Don't lose sight of what's important here. certain members of the 9-11 commission chose to disregard this story and not investigate it at all though the story was told to them twice. Since the Commission was supposed to tell the nation all that went on with respect to our intelligence failures, this was a distinct mission failure. It's not unimportant to know the reason why this happened.

The problem I have is not that there was no mention of this program in the report. That sort of thing is frequently a judgment call. It's that, after being told about this program, nobody followed up -- asked questions to find out more -- responded to follow-up calls. It may be that investigators decided that the people telling them the story were in no way credible. They owe us that explanation -- though caling military intelligence people not credible does make a telling statement, doesn't it?

[Davis]

It all leads back to Clinton ... 9/11, North Korea's nukes, Iran's nuclear program, the failure to share intelligence and the under-equipped military. He had the chance during his 8 years to deal with each of these situations and failed to do so. The 9/11 Commission was exceedingly kind to Clinton.

[boris]

Don't waste your ammo on Clinton. This is a better opportunity to discredit the discreditors.

[TexasToast]

Don't waste your ammo on Clinton. This is a better opportunity to discredit the discreditors.

What a striking statement/admission. Who cares about what really happened, as long as we can discredit the "other side".

[boris]

discredit the "other side".

You're either lying about what I said or you are admitting that the "other side" has been fixing intelligence claims to discredit the adminstration.

[Mackenzie]

The 9/11 Commission was under tremendous time pressure to wrap up their work, receiving but a brief extension when they requested it. It is understandable that they did not have time to pursue all leads. The Commissioners are willing to do additional work. Would it not make sense to have them continue, and provide the resources required?

[boris]

The 9/11 Commission was under tremendous time pressure to wrap up their ...

... agenda.

[Mackenzie]

There were at least three 9/11 Commission agendas - one group wanted to pin responsibility on Clinton, the 2nd group wanted to nail GW Bush, and the 3rd group wanted to put out all the relevant facts and base the recommendations on those facts.

[Mike C.]

"Here is your table, sir," he said, handing him four unattached legs. "Because of tremendous time pressure to wrap up my work it is without a top."

[Seven Machos]

Among many other dumb claims, Mackenzie says that "we should be investigating the failure since 9/11 to capture Bin Laden and shut down Al Qaeda."

How do you propose to capture bin Laden, Mac? Do we send in the entire army to Pakistan/Afghanistan/Whereever and starting knocking on doors? Are there doors?

How do you propose that we shut down Al Qaeda, Mac? Is it like a business? Do we revoke its license? Dissolve it as a corporation? Do we sue the principals?

Mackenzie also says that "we were terrorized by 15 Saudi nationals plus 4 from other Arab countries (not including Iraq) whose Saudi-financed operation was based in Afghanistan under the protection of the Pakistan-backed Taliban regime." This is 100 percent true.

SO WHAT? Do we invade Pakistan? Do we invade Saudi Arabia? Is the Saudi government the same as the financiers of terror in Saudi Arabia? Is the Pakistani government the same as the backers of terror in Pakistan? Do Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have "governments" remotely comparable to what we in the West understand governments to be? Maybe we could pass some "Patriot Act" that allows us to trace and freeze terrorist assets all over the world, unless, of course, it would infringe in any ways on anyone's rights...

It sounds to me like, if you take Mac's innuendo-laden arguments to their reasonable conclusions, mac wants the United States (all alone) to invade Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and re-invade Afghanistan continually until we produce Osama en corpus. Somehow, I reckon that Mac doesn't really want a three (four? five?) front war, and heaven forfend not without "international agreement."

Do you Mac?

[boris]

put out all the relevant facts

leave out

[Mackenzie]

Seven, I'm not the person you should be asking about how to deal with the terrorist threats from large segments of Saudi Arabian and Pakistani societies. That is a question that should be posed to the White House, and is something that would interest many Americans. The Administration decided to take the pressure off Bin Laden and Al Queda in early 2002, just a few months after the beginning of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, and a few weeks after Tora Bora. The White House decided to move Special Forces troops and intelligence assets out of Afghanistan in early 2002, and prepared to send one half of our combat troops into Iraq on an indefinite basis.

Earlier I was merely pointing out that Iraq had little or nothing to do with 9/11. That doesn't mean that Saddam wasn't a threat in a different way. But he has been out of power for nearly 2-1/2 years, and there aren't any WMD's in Iraq. Maybe it is time to shift the focus back onto the actual perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks on America and those who continue to support Al Queda.

[Seven Machos]

1. The actual perpetrators of September 11 are almost all dead or, possibly, imprisoned.

2. "That is a question that should be posed to the White House." So, you can complain about policy and critique policy, but for me to challenge you to suggest policy alternatives, well, Christ! That's well beyond the pale of reason.

3. "The Administration decided to take the pressure off Bin Laden and Al Queda in early 2002." This has been alleged by the Left, certainly not proven. Are you suggesting that we would have been able to capture bin Laden had we not invaded Iraq? This is dubious alterna-history at best.

4. "Maybe it is time to shift the focus back onto the actual perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks..." What does this mean? Do you want to invade Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca, or don't you? Do you want to invade Pakistan, a nation-state specifically and primarily based on Islam, or don't you? Can the U.S. army just march into any old country looking for bin Laden and his cronies, or can't it? What would happen if the Marines started aggressively looking for Al Queda leaders in, say, Peshawar?

You can't just complain without suggesting actual policy and action, Mac. And "it is time to shift the focus" ain't policy or action. That dog don't hunt.

Do you want to invade Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, or don't you?

[R J Matheson]

Seven: I have been reading your comments for a long time and feel that you have a good grasp of security issues. So it worries me that even you don't know what our strategy is to capture Bin Laden and shut down Al Queda. This is not a personal criticism because there doesn't appear to be a clearcut Administration policy, or else it just isn't a high priority. There is the theory that Iraq will be the flypaper that draws in all of the terrorists, but tell that to the victims of bombings in London, Madrid, etc. I wish that I knew what was being done to punish those who planned and financed 9/11 and the other terrorist acts, and to prevent them from doing so again.

[boris]

The Administration decided to take the pressure off Bin Laden and Al Queda in early 2002, just a few months after the beginning of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, and a few weeks after Tora Bora

I doubt anybody was sure if OBL was even alive after Tora Bora. Consolidating Afghanistan and taking Iraq were doable actions. Chasing terrorists down in every possible country was not.

I think your real point is ... do it your way ... or ... sit around and do nothing. I see no evidence that those are even two different choices.

[Syl]

"Nearly 4 years after we were attacked, Bin Laden has still not been captured. We should be investigating the failure since 9/11 to capture Bin Laden and shut down Al Qaeda."

You obviously don't understand what Al Qaeda is. The organization as it was on 9/11 has been destroyed. Not even an entire handful of individuals back then are left. But that didn't help, did it?

Khalid sheik mohammed is in Gitmo. So someone else rises in ranks to take his place. Even without Iraq, Zarqawi would have become a big AQ player. His ricin plots against Europe were foiled, but he wasn't. His concentration now is Iraq but he hasn't discontinued his work against Europe and the West.

The other consequence of destroying AQ's middle-management was the breakdown in top/down instructions. Now individual cells act more autonomously...and thereby make mistakes. Huge mistakes...like bombings inside Britain by British nationals...the consequence of which is the loss of Londonstan as a safe haven.

I think the killing of bin laden and zawahiri are very very important, but unless we can drop a nuke in the territories, it's going to take a long time.

And there will be consequences to their killing or capture. When that happens, the goons aren't going to trash their bombs and wave a white flag, there's going to be a backlash the likes of which we can barely imagine.

The ideology will still be preached by thousands of imams and taught in thousands of madrassas. The ideology of al qaeda will live long after bin laden is gone.

[Mackenzie]

seven
1. Bin Laden and many of those who financed and planned the attacks are still out there planning more attacks when thye aren't making videos.
2. The White House wouldn't be interested in my ideas. They won't even listen to Congress or most of our allies.
3. If you don't believe me about moving assets from Afghanistan into Iraq, read Tommy Frank's book. Unless you think he is too far Left.
4. if you can only think in terms of invading countries or not invading countries, then you are truly a spokesman for the neocons

[boris]

even you don't know what our strategy is to capture Bin Laden and shut down Al Queda.

Terrorism is a bigger issue than just OBL and AL Qaeda. If you want to do it your way then get elected.

[DaveR]

I'm so glad the author of this blog has found an expert to help "spread the dots around" so as to not unfairly single out Gorelick or Clinton.

Did you call on that guy when Condi Rice and George Bush were getting hammered over that memo about AQ intentions?... just asking.

[Seven Machos]

1. MAC: HOW DO YOU "SHUT DOWN AL QUEDA" EXCEPT WITH AN ARMY? This is not a rhetorical question. You can pass things like the Patriot Act. You can use "Special Forces," but those are still boots on the ground and you either have the cooperation of the country where the special forces are operating, or you are invading. Are you operating under the impression that we have no military presence in Afghanistan? Do you think that Special Forces are like an international SWAT team with carte blanche to operate anywhere?

2. You are showing yourself to lack knowledge of American government. The White House has no choice but to listen to Congress because Congress controls all federal government spending. Perhaps you mean the White House "won't even listen to certain members of Congress who Mac wishes it would listen to."

[Mackenzie]

The anniversary of 9/11 is 3 weeks away. I would like to hear President Bush state what his Administration plans to do to capture the leader of Al Queda, as he promised to do. Dead or alive. Maybe after 4 years we are entitled to know that. Maybe President Bush will be able to enlighten us as to why it has taken so long.

[Seven Machos]

R J: Thanks for your kind words. I think the misconception many people have (and that you may have) is that Al Queda is ultimately some kind of crime problem. It's not. Just as it would not have ended WWII had we arrested Hitler or the Japanese emperor (or had Germany arrested Roosevelt), Al Queda won't disappear if its CEO and cabinet are put in jail. Communism would not have become a trivial inanity in the dustbin of history had Lenin been arrested.

Al Queda is not a nation-state. It is a transnational movement based on a radical, strangely fascist interpretation of Islam. It's a set of ideas. It's powerful. You can't defeat it with some international cops.

I do think I know our strategy. It is:

1. To slowly suffocate the funding of Al Queda through the mechanisms of, inter alia, the Patriot Act. Also, to ensure that battles and civilian casulaties happen somewhere besides the USA. It sucks and it is sad, but from a blatant point of view of national interest, it is vital that our soldiers and any civilians are dying in Basra instead of, say, Toledo.

2. To have a military presence in Iraq that will eventually check the freedom of operation of hostile governments in the region, especially Iran.

3. To have a military presence in Iraq that will stabilize the region for oil-producing purposes.

4. To create a stable ally -- Iraq -- that will operate in more of a Western fashion, somewhat like India, Japan, and South Korea.

5. (Outside of Iraq) To appease Al Queda by removing troops from (backstabbing) Saudi Arabia and to try to finally create a Palestine next to Israel, so that the political problem of Palestinian refugees becomes a fight between nation-states.

Also, while it's bad juju and bad political positioning to claim that our adversarial stance toward Al Queda has prevented terrorist attacks, I think it's better to do what we have done (and what Britain is doing) than to do what Spain did, which is to capitulate to terrorist demands, by leaving Iraq.

[Mackenzie]

Thank you for that last posting. Now I understand where you are coming from.

[boris]

I would like to hear President Bush state what his Administration plans to do to capture the leader of Al Queda, as he promised to do.

Unless you voted for him, you can't call out a promise.

Doing what it would take to capture OBL and eliminate Al Qaeda is inconsistent with listening to our allies and respecting international law.

HEY SO IS INVADING IRAQ !!!

Maybe, but I'd rather have Iraq than OBL.

[Seven Machos]

Mac -- If you are a hardcore, nuke-em militarist, your plea to hear President Bush "enlighten us as to why it has taken so long" to capture bin Laden has credence.

I bet, however, that you are not such a person. My hunch is that you are a "sophisticated," Kerry-voting Democrat who sips lattes and sees subtleties everywhere. How can you claim to be upset that we have not "gotten" bin Laden when you could not possibly accept the level of death, violence, maiming, and destruction that it would take to make that happen?

Look, pal, if you want to argue that we aren't prosecuting the war with enough firepower or manpower, I'm right there with you. Go big or go home; fish or cut bait; that's what I say. However, if you are of the political stripe that I think you are of, then it's pretty ridiculous for you to try to argue that we haven't gotten Osama. You don't really care about that. It's just the next non-scandal in a long line of fake turkey-pretzel choking-Plame outing-Mission Accomplished-missed a physical non-scandals.

I can see the campaign in 2006 now:

"It's a disgrace that we haven't gotten Osama yet. Vote for me, [Insert Lefty politician name here], because I'll vote to put an international SWATteam on the case and, with the help of France and Russia and the United Nations, we'll get the bad guys and make the world safe for universal health care."

[Mackenzie]

Seven, I'm not that easy to peg. Having voted Republican for 30 years I have been thinking that 2004 was one time too many. 9/11 affected me deeply; the anniversary coupled with the death of Peter Jennings whose broadcast I watched for most of the 3 days after 9/11 reminds me of how patriotic I felt then and how I would have done anything for President Bush. I am now disillusioned with his foreign policy and disappointed in his leadership. But not ready to vote Democrat unless they can find a leader who is not among the current potential candidates.

[Seven Machos]

I had you pegged terribly wrong. I apologize profusely.

I can see this Why Is Osama Still on the Lamb Meme developing and I want to do my small, small part to combat it.

[boris]

Seminar poster.

There is no concievable Democrat willing to invade Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, and Iran with the help and support of France and Russia.

[Tulsan]

There are bound to be questions raised about Osama as the 9/11 anniversary approaches. Curt Weldon's effort to revisit the 9/11 Commission Report is a reminder that although 2 administrations didn't act on the available Al Queda intelligence before 9/11, they are still surprising us as recently as last month in London.

[boris]

1. But such an Iraqi connection to 9/11, if any, would still be a minor issue.

2. Earlier I was merely pointing out that Iraq had little or nothing to do with 9/11.

Gotcha.

[Seven Machos]

Is anyone actually surprised that transnational terrorists from Londonistan bombed buses and trains in London? "Surprised" is not the correct word here. "Angry" and "saddened" are more accurate.

[Syl]

So, it was the DoD lawyers that said the Able Danger stuff couldn't be given to the FBI. Green cards and all that, even though legally, green cards didn't matter for the sharing.

Man, Gorelick sure got around. I just learned at rightwingnuthouse that before moving to the Justice Dept, she was a lawyer for the DoD. I googled it and sure enough, May 1993 to April 1994 she served as General Counsel of the DoD.

Nice of her to plant the seed at DoD then move on to Justice to make it official policy. Ya think?

Pfeh.

[Tommy V]

I just don't accept the contention that a Democratic administration would be doing a better job of searching Pakistani cave systems. I think it's a meaningless complaint.

I did read Tommy Frank's book and there was never the suggestion that a diversion of resources made it less likely that we would capture Bin Laden.

(Actually there is a long criticism that Tommy Frank's desire to avoid casulties was a strong factor in us missing Bib Laden. I have no opinion on his myself).

The primary factor was really the Afghanistan terrain. There is absolutely the law of diinishing returns when it comes to troop strength. An increase in manpower does not create a correlating increase in effectiveness. You could quadruple your man power and the increase in your search capacity would be neglible.

Seriously, come one. The failure to find Bin Laden is not due to lack of will. It's a ridiculous assertion.

[Tommy V]

Sorry, I did not inlude where that criticism came from and it made it look like it came out of Frank's own book.

The Hunt for Bin Laden by Robin Moore has some great sections on special forces, especially those at Tora Bora (The British came the closest to getting Bin Laden). It's a very good read and is a good reminder just how amazing both SF and CIA were in that war.

[kim]

Bin Laden is functionally imprisoned by the US and Pakistani military. Al Qaeda's communications are sundered. What more do you want?
============================================

[sammy small]

Bin Laden has proven he's a runner. And he will always run to an area where he feels safe. Someday there will be enough intel to nail him. I see it as nothing more than a game of cat and mouse, with a twist of 007 thrown in for good measure. Otherwise, he means little at this stage. And I doubt that a frontal assault on Pakistan (or wherever he's hiding) would yield favorable results.

I agree with Seven. Why keep trotting out the non-capture of Bin Laden for political gain. We've got much bigger fish to fry.

[Walter]

Friday night the successor organization to the 9/11 Commission issued a press release denying that the Commission had received documentary evidence that Mohammad Atta's name was learned from Able Danger. A summary is at www.warandpiece.com, Laura Rozen's blog that Tom was linked to in the past.