I imagine this sort of thing happened all the time.<p>Look at it this way: If the CIA had provided the FBI with information on Bayoumi when the FBI requested it, their target might have been arrested/prosecuted/deported and they would lose the lead.<p>Also, back in that era, information sharing between CIA and FBI was not even permitted.<p><a href="https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CRPT-107srpt351-5.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...</a><p><a href="https://irp.fas.org/congress/2004_cr/s042804b.html" rel="nofollow">https://irp.fas.org/congress/2004_cr/s042804b.html</a><p>"On Monday, Senator Lindsey Graham and I asked the Justice Department to produce any documents they may have in their possession relating to Jamie Gorelick's involvement in establishing policies preventing the sharing of critical terrorism-related information between intelligence and law enforcement officials. It is the fact that those have now been made public and, indeed, posted on the Department of Justice's Web site at www.usdoj.gov which brings me back to the Senate floor to briefly mention why I think Ms. Gorelick's testimony is even more important to explaining what she did as a member of the Justice Department under Janet Reno to erect and buttress this wall that has been the subject of so much conversation and why it is so much more important that she do so because the 9/11 Commission's credibility is at stake."
Whenever 9/11 and the followup "War on Terror" comes up, I remember this:<p>"In 1998, Kristol and Kagan advocated regime change in Iraq throughout the Iraq disarmament process through articles that were published in the New York Times.<p>Following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, core members of the PNAC including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliott Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Zoellick, and John Bolton were among the signatories of an open letter initiated by the PNAC to President Bill Clinton calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein.Portraying Saddam Hussein as a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region.<p>Shortly after the September 11 attacks, the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, specifically advocating regime change through "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq."<p>The letter suggested that "any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," even if no evidence surfaced linking Iraq to the September 11 attacks."<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Calls_for_regime_change_in_Iraq" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...</a>
If anyone is curious about 9/11 and wants to learn more, I highly recommend<p>September 11: The New Pearl Harbor: <a href="https://youtu.be/8DOnAn_PX6M?t=655" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/8DOnAn_PX6M?t=655</a><p>It's great because it doesn't attempt to provide explanations on its own, it simply asks questions based on text from the commission report, and news footage and documentaries you find on CNN, NBC, etc.
I think the tone of this article shifted quite a bit when it mentioned the context that CIA was trying to infiltrate Al Qaeda.<p>Before that point, it sounds like some kind of mkultra style conspiracy where they are actively malicious. After that point, it creates the impression that they were trying to do their job in good faith.
Did anyone actually read the article or is everyone just upvoting this because of the title? It says nothing about the CIA covering up an involvement in 9/11, and talks about covering up intelligence blunders.
This piece of the story I do not understand.<p>"People in a position to know have suggested that the CIA concealed information about Hazmi and Mihdhar’s travel because the CIA wanted to recruit them through Saudi intelligence, which would go a long way to support the defense theory that the United States and Al Qaeda are not at war..."<p>I don't grasp how showing the CIA was attempting to recruit these people as operatives proves we are not currently at war with Al Qaeda; intelligence services try to recruit operatives in an opposing force's camp all the time.
I get the idea as a layman from the outside that spies all sort of run in the same circles for obvious reasons, they are getting and exchanging value with eachother and constantly trying to recruit eachother etc. So yesterdays recruit is tomorrows terrorist. And if you’re a spy who is actually connected you’ve likely met with them and used them for info in the past. I assume it’s just how spycraft works.<p>It’s likely a deeply unpleasant and not generally understandable business. I don’t say that as an excuse rather that it’s just who gets attracted to and works in the scene and how they network.
I can't believe it wasn't more explosive at the time, but this whole tale from Ali Soufan of the FBI that he told the New Yorker in 2006 is absolutely harrowing. The CIA explicitly withheld a single piece of intel that he had requested that could have lead them to prevent 9/11.<p><a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/07/10/the-agent" rel="nofollow">https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/07/10/the-agent</a>
don't the FBI and CIA fight all the time? I think the FBI is just jealous they're constrained (or at least suppose to be constrained) by the US constitution where the CIA gets to do whatever they want and play with the best toys.
uff, I had been somewhat (worriedly) expecting another american civil war.<p>what is unexpected about it, that it not going to be California Vs Georgia, or the Virginias Vs Florida (I don't know enough about state-politics within the USA so disregard my specific examples)<p>the surprise for me is that it will (already is but whatever) be things like this, "department of commerce" Vs "securities exchange comission" or things like this...<p>the Federal Bureau of Investigation is FIGHTING the Central Intelligence Agency!<p>wow
"Coverup" seems like "Lab Leak" in that anyone can project as much evil intent onto the phrase as they want.<p>Did they coverup a failure? Did they coverup their own involvement?<p>I realize that I'm only discussing the headline, and that the article goes into detail, but I think the headline is intentionally vague to allow this projection.
Since I just watched <i>Chinatown</i> for the nth time, this is fresh on my mind.<p><i>Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.</i><p>applies here. We don't know what really happened and we can't. These are people who lie and cover up for a living, even to each other. Even under oath.
Tenet declared WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk. I don't know what evidence he presented but my military source in Iraq told me the chemical weapons they found and disposed of had US nomenclature which would make sense since we were helping Iraq deal with Iran in the 80's:<p>"According to Iraqi documents, assistance in the development of chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France. A report stated that Dutch, Australian, Italian, French and both West and East German companies were involved in the export of raw materials to Iraqi chemical weapons factories.."<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against_Iran" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against...</a><p>End of the day the CIA operates way outside the lines on the field. Like not even inside the stadium. Tenet and his counterpart however did end up resigning for a series of screw ups which is about as far as it goes on that level.
Everybody knows that everyone lied, that there were no WMD, that all is an excuse to kill and profit, that the real culprits got await scot free.<p>It all comes down to the US being a failed democracy. It does not matter if it's all lies, the people in power cannot be prosecuted, the secret agencies cannot be shut down. The beast is too big, we just have to live with the tyranny hoping it doesn't turn on us next.