White House refuses to release Sept. 11 info

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
White House refuses to release Sept. 11 info
By FRANK DAVIES
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration and the nation's intelligence agencies are blocking the release of sensitive information about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, delaying publication of a 900-page congressional report on how the terrorist assault happened.

Intelligence officials insist the information must be kept secret for national security reasons. But some of the information is already broadly available on the Internet or has been revealed in interim reports on the investigation, leading to charges that the administration is simply trying to avoid enshrining embarrassing details in the report.

Disputed information includes a well publicized warning from an FBI agent that al-Qaida supporters might be training in U.S. flight schools and the names of the president and his national security adviser as people who may have received warnings that a terrorist attack was possible before Sept. 11, one official said.

"We're trying to keep in this report some matters that have been talked about in public, discussed in newspapers, and not to do that, flies in the face of common sense," Rep. Porter Goss, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Monday.

"The White House is continuing a trend of presenting obstacles to us rather than cooperating with us," said Tim Roemer, a former House member who participated in the congressional inquiry and is now a member of the independent commission investigating Sept. 11.

Goss, a Florida Republican, and Sen. Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat who headed the Senate Intelligence Committee last year, co-chaired a joint investigation over 10 months that detailed security lapses, bad communication and missed clues by the CIA and FBI that preceded the Sept. 11 attacks.

In December, the joint inquiry produced a summary of findings and recommendations on how to improve intelligence, but the complete report was withheld so agencies could review and declassify some portions of it.

Graham, who will officially announce his presidential campaign Tuesday, has said he thinks much of the delay is because agencies and the administration want to avoid embarrassment, not for valid national security reasons.

Goss, Graham and staff director Eleanor Hill had hoped to release the final report by February or March. Now they are hoping to release it Memorial Day, Goss said.

"I'm very frustrated this has taken this long," said Goss, a retired CIA officer with close ties to the administration. "There's a tendency for every executive to keep matters closed up, but most of what's in dispute should be made public."

Hill said she could not discuss the specifics of the information in dispute, but said a working group of intelligence officials objected to including some testimony from public hearings last fall and some data in her interim reports.

"Maybe they didn't realize it had already been made public, but we see no reason to keep it out of the report," said Hill, a former Pentagon inspector general.

An intelligence official familiar with the review process said on condition of anonymity Monday that "the process has taken time because many portions of the report need to remain classified to protect sources and methods."

The official would not comment on specific issues in the report, and said "we hope to complete the process by the end of this month."

But an official familiar with the report said one topic of disagreement was the so-called Phoenix memo of July 2001, in which an FBI agent warned his supervisors that Osama bin Laden's followers might be enrolling in U.S. flight schools.

The joint inquiry, in a Sept. 24 staff report, included portions of the memo and summarized how it was handled and ignored by FBI officials. Most of the memo is on several Internet sites. Now intelligence officials want to block releasing excerpts of the memo.

Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate committee during the investigation, said: "The memo should be declassified except for portions that might compromise an ongoing investigation."

The Bush administration also consistently have fought identifying top officials, including the president and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who may have received warnings in 2001 that bin Laden's network planned to hijack commercial aircraft.

As a result, the report includes vague references to "senior administration officials."

"We fought that argument (to name officials) and lost," said Goss. "There's a history in these types of reports, going back many presidencies, that you do not mention the president of the United States, period."

Goss said there was "no cover-up of vital information" and predicted the final report will include some embarrassing details but "no 'gotcha' material about any administration."

Roemer, an Indiana Democrat, said he sees a pattern of "overclassification" by an administration unwilling to disclose information and agencies that reflexively fight disclosure.

When Roemer recently tried to read transcripts of closed-door interviews from last year's probe, the Justice Department blocked him, citing possible executive privilege.

Bush officials relented after Roemer publicly complained the administration was not following its pledge of cooperation with the independent investigation.

"There is a tight definition of what should be classified, and it does not include references to mistakes, missed communications or political embarrassments," he added.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/5792329.htm
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,405
8,580
126
Disputed information includes a well publicized warning from an FBI agent that al-Qaida supporters might be training in U.S. flight schools and the names of the president and his national security adviser as people who may have received warnings that a terrorist attack was possible before Sept. 11, one official said.

might, may have, and possible, don't make for a particularly affirmative statement of whether something will happen or not.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Some of the information is already public... why is it that they're keeping information from the independent counsel? To save face? We've gone beyond Clintonian era of saving face, way into matters of national security.
 

cpumaster

Senior member
Dec 10, 2000
708
0
0
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Some of the information is already public... why is it that they're keeping information from the independent counsel? To save face? We've gone beyond Clintonian era of saving face, way into matters of national security.


Does everyone forget that prior to 9/11, Bush & Rice top priority is to set up the BMDS (Ballistic Missile Defense System) despite of the warning and criticism from experts, the Democrats and allies countries about the changing world politics and the asymmetrical threat posed on US which could render the defense system useless. Yet Bush & Co. keep plowing ahead, ignoring advice and pushing to scrap the ABM treaties in order to allow them to go ahead with their project...until 9/11
now nobody hear about that anymore as if it never happened and erased from the admin. collective memory
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Disputed information includes a well publicized warning from an FBI agent that al-Qaida supporters might be training in U.S. flight schools and the names of the president and his national security adviser as people who may have received warnings that a terrorist attack was possible before Sept. 11, one official said.

might, may have, and possible, don't make for a particularly affirmative statement of whether something will happen or not.

But they do make for grounds to investigate the likelyhood and prepare for the possibilty.
 

bolinger

Member
Apr 16, 2003
132
0
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Disputed information includes a well publicized warning from an FBI agent that al-Qaida supporters might be training in U.S. flight schools and the names of the president and his national security adviser as people who may have received warnings that a terrorist attack was possible before Sept. 11, one official said.

might, may have, and possible, don't make for a particularly affirmative statement of whether something will happen or not.

Really? I think the Bush administration is selective on that view. Selective, in that they'll agree to save their asses from scrutiny about Sept. 11th, but they'll disagree to launch a war on Iraq.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Disputed information includes a well publicized warning from an FBI agent that al-Qaida supporters might be training in U.S. flight schools and the names of the president and his national security adviser as people who may have received warnings that a terrorist attack was possible before Sept. 11, one official said.

might, may have, and possible, don't make for a particularly affirmative statement of whether something will happen or not.

Note that the "may have" in this quote is under Bush's control. It refers to whether Bush was warned in advance.

Since Bush won't allow the release of the report, we don't know what he knew and when he knew it. In normal circumstances, this should raise suspicions of ineptness within the Bush administration; otherwise they would want to release the report to vindicate themselves. With Bush-lite and his merry band of scoundrels, however, they deny that the public has the right to know anything about their activities. In other words, it's just business as usual.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,823
6,369
126
Other than recommendations for improvements to information gathering/interpretaion, there should be no secrecy. This screams of "coverup" and is the type of action that any "Police State" would find acceptable. How does a voter choose what's best in a democratic Republic if the politicians forbid the voter from seeing what the politician has or may have done?
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Originally posted by: Chadder007
OMG OMG Its all a conspiracy!!!... <passes out the tin foil hats>

^--- i like how this man will stop at nothing to trust government.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: Chadder007
OMG OMG Its all a conspiracy!!!... <passes out the tin foil hats>

^--- i like how this man will stop at nothing to trust government.

Politicians are always truthful, what's not to trust?