SLC:
"we are proud of our reputation as one of the few places that both sides can post their arguments."http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/05/semi-ban.html
I thought I would see if that was true recently when they seemed to be rather confused about the relationship between the CIA and the FBI in regards to sharing information. This was brought out by the recent Richard Clarke Video where he confirms what is the main point in Kevin Fenton's new book Disconnecting the Dots where he makes the point that elements in the CIA deliberately withheld information from the FBI, among others, that two known Al Qaeda operatives were in the United States and were known associates of the USS Cole bombers that the FBI were actively investigating. In Short the CIA was protecting known Al Qaeda operatives who would later be involved in the 9-11 plot.
I've read this book and highly recommend it. However, the only slight criticism, I had at the time was that I thought it was rather obvious that Tenet himself was aware of this information, and Mr Fenton didn't actually go that far, because he has no actual smoking gun proof, but rather leaves it up to the reader to make these kinds of conclusions. What Richard Clarke has done is gone further than Mr Fenton, and confirms the main point of his book and says that the head of CIA (George Tenet) had to know of this information and the orders keeping it from the FBI and himself had to come from Tenet himself. See the video here.
Based on these facts, Richard Clarke wonders why this was done, and his conclusion, or theory is that the CIA did this in order to try and turn these operatives into informants. This is his theory because there must be a reason and that is the best one he can come up with. Frankly he's being kind because an alternative theory is that these Al Qaeda operatives were being protected in order for a terrorist attack to succeed in order for the U.S. Administration to use it as a means to carry out geopolitical goals and objectives.
Screw Loose Change rather than focusing on the fact that has been confirmed by Mr Clarke that the CIA protected Al Qaeda operatives while in the U.S., instead focus on his theory.
SLC:
"But there is plenty of reason to doubt it. For one thing, Clarke himself admits that it's only a theory:"Yes, and I also have my doubts about this theory. Because "this theory" is actually a "best case" scenario based on the belief that Tenet didn't tell the President about these operatives being in the country. An alternative theory is that Tenet (CIA) was following orders and protecting these hijackers from the FBI. What is SLC's "theory" as to why the CIA kept this information from the FBI, INS, and every other agency including the head of counter terrorism Richard Clarke?
These are facts. These were known Al Qaeda terrorists and they were protected by CIA by not sharing this information. Evidently SLC's theory is it was against the law for the CIA to share information with the FBI which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the SLC gang is either incredibly stupid, or simply dishonest as the following exchange shows.......
At 11 August, 2011 16:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...Posting as URADumbass in order to "fit in" I posted the following...
Again, what part of "the CIA and FBI didn't share intelligence prior to 9/11" don't you understand?
Obviously, at the time, it was against the law for the CIA to contact the FBI and share intelligence.
At 11 August, 2011 17:05, Blogger URADumbass said...The response:
"Obviously, at the time, it was against the law for the CIA to contact the FBI and share intelligence."
You are wrong and this proves it at the very end of this report is the following....
"It is clear therefore,that the information sharing failures in the summer of 2001 were not the result of legal barriers but of the 'failure of individuals to understand that the barriers did not apply to the facts at hand. Simply put,there was no legal reason why the information could not have been shared."
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/wall.pdf
At 11 August, 2011 17:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...
Shit for brains wrote, "...You are wrong and this proves it at the very end of this report is the following..."
No, that doesn't prove anything. And it certainly doesn't prove that the CIA "obstructed the investigation."
Again, the CIA and FBI didn't share intelligence prior to 9/11. That's why the 9/11 Commission Report recommended that the two agencies establish a procedure to share intelligence.
You're grasping at straws, nut bag, and your desperation is palpable.
My Response:
A Dumbass wrote: "Obviously, at the time, it was against the law for the CIA to contact the FBI and share intelligence."You wont see that last post or any others by me on the SLC blog because they immediately delete them, LOL! How come?
Wrong:
At the end of this report we find this....
"It is clear therefore,that the information sharing failures in the summer of 2001 were not the result of legal barriers but of the 'failure of individuals to understand that the barriers did not apply to the facts at hand. Simply put,there was no legal reason why the information could not have been shared."
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/wall.pdf
A Dumbass wrote: "Again, the CIA and FBI didn't share intelligence prior to 9/11."
Proof you are either a liar or a dumbass.....my guess is both.....
"Formal passage of information from the CIA to the FBI
As noted above, the formal method of communicating intelligence information between the CIA and the FBI was an intelligence report called a CIR. CIA records show that between July 1999 and September 10, 2001, the Bin Laden Unit disseminated over 1,000 CIRs, most of which were sent to the FBI."
http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0506/chapter5.htm
Q: If it was against the Law for CIA to share information with the FBI why was the Bin Laden Unit staffed with CIA and FBI personal?
A: Because you are a dumbass that doesn't know what you are talking about, or a liar.
Pat Curley Bans Free Speech
San Diego's 10news Covers SecrecyKills.com - 8/19/2011
Cutting Off Your Nose to Spite Your Face
Did Tenet Hide Key 9/11 Info?
Analysing the CIA Response to Richard Clarke's Allegations: Who Knew What When?
