[We invited Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA/State Dept. intelligence analyst and CEO of Berg Associates, LLC, to write front-page stories. Johnson’s blog is No Quarter — RSS feed.]
Before conspiracy theories get too far down the road a few cautionary notes on the Curt Weldon generated “ABLE DANGER” conspiracy. Let’s start with the source of this information–Congressman Curt Weldon. Congressman Weldon’s track record on issues like this is consistently spotty. Usually he gets a portion of the story correct but screws up the most important parts. That appears to be the case here.
The biggest flaw in Weldon’s scenario appears to be the role of SOCOM aka the Special Operations Command. SOCOM in 2000 was a weak command with no operational role in 2000. Even after 9-11 SOCOM struggled to try to function like the other regional CINCs. Prior to January 2003 SOCOM was barely a “supporting” command and did not function as a “supported” command. A “supporting” command has resources it can give to “supported” commands. In other words, a “supported” command has the authority to call upon and employ military assets from other commands. In the case of SOCOM it was essentially an administrative headquarters command but did not have a battlestaff nor did it control deployable military forces. It was only in early 2003 that Secretary Rumsfeld directed SOCOM to play a more aggressive role in tracking and killing Al Qaeda operatives.
MORE BELOW:
Weldon is probably correct that SOCOM in the summer of 2000 had hired some outside contractors who were developing a database using open source information for tracking possible terrorist targets. However, this is where the story breaks down. It is highly unlikely that Mohammed Atta was identified as an Al Qaeda operative in the summer of 2000. It is possible that Atta was identified as someone with possible ties to a jihadist group. What investigators are likely to discover is that it was only after 9-11, when the contractors looked at their data, that they realized they had the name of Atta and talked to someone in SOCOM about passing the info to the FBI.
In offering these cautions I am not trying to discourage an aggressive investigation of the allegations. Those who lost loved ones on 9-11 deserve answers. The investigation should start by asking questions of General Charlie Holland (ret. USAF), who commanded SOCOM at the time. He will be able to identify who was in charge of contracting at the time. Be sure to ask about the size of the J-2. The J-2 is the intelligence arm of any military general command. SOCOM did not have a large J-2 at the time. Normally the FBI and the CIA have a rep assigned to a major military command. Who were those people and were they aware of ABLE DANGER.
Frankly the media was largely asleep at the switch during the 9-11 Commission investigation. Better late than never. At the end of the day, however, conspiracy theorists who are convinced that the Government knew about the Al Qaeda cell and plans prior to 9-11 will be disappointed.
The real failing, which the 9-11 Commission refuses to embrace, is that the various agencies of the Federal Government had enough pieces of the puzzle that, if assembled into a coherent picture, could have prevented the attacks on 9-11. There was enough public info in 2000 about the need to focus on the threat posed by Bin Laden. Milt Bearden and I called for this in November of 2000. Richard Clarke presented National Security Advisor Condileeza Rice with a memo outling a more comprehensive strategy to find and finish Bin Laden. At the end of the day, the Bush Administration ignored the issue of terrorism until 10 September 2001, when the National Security Council held a meeting to discuss terrorism policy. Regrettably that meeting was too little, too late.
Nice to see you here at the Trib. Your writing is always very straightforward and clear so anyone-like myself-can be made to understand the intricate workings of the governmental agencies or maybe more to the point would be how they don’t work together.
And I’ve been a fan of your blog especially since the ‘Colostomy Bag’ diary.
Thanks.
LJ
have gotten really interesting with Felzenberg’s admission:
NY Times
I think your point about the distinction between a jihadist and an al-qaeda member might still stand.
This unit probably had no more idea about the San Diego guys than the FBI did. So, just because they identified Atta as a threat and linked him to two guys the CIA knew to be in al-Qaeda, doesn’t mean that Able Danger made that inference.
All we know for sure, is that Atta was mentioned to the commission by a military officer in relation to Able Danger, and that this information never appeared in the report, for whatever reason.
The lack of coordination remains a major flaw. I was beginning to think the problem was getting fixed, particularly with the FBI. However, I’ve heard two stories from friends who don’t know each other but who have each been involved intimately with the FBI. Bottomline is that FBI is not sharing information with other agencies and, surprise, other agencies are withholding information. We have learned nothing from 9-11. Sadly I think we’re going to get hit again. Hopefully we’ll have a chance to learn from the next round of mistakes.
Why is it that they do not share info? What is their hang ups and that of other agencies as well?
There are a few reasons why our various agencies don’t share information.
One reason is legal. The CIA and the military intelligence agencies are not allowed to spy on American citizens while we are here at home. Of course, they may occassionally find something out by accident. We might call someone in Rome and implicate ourselves in a crime, and that phone call might get picked up on a wiretap, or some other monitoring device.
But the CIA, for example, isn’t allowed to just turn information like that over to the FBI.
Another reason for lack of sharing is to protect sources and methods. If we have a source that is giving us good information, we don’t want to risk that source’s life by spreading that information around so that everyone in the government with a security pass can learn about that information.
Also, the CIA might want to observe a criminal enterprise for a while, rather than take actions to stop it. Think of a police department that discovers a drug dealing operation. They want to find out who is supplying the drugs to the operation, so they tolerate the sale of drugs for a time while they try to crack the case.
For the CIA, this means withholding the information from the FBI until they feel they have gotten all the information they are going to get.
Another reason: rivalries. Sometimes the different government organizations have tensions that lead them not to feel the urge to cooperate.
Another reason: sometimes information doesn’t seem significant enough to share, but it turns out it was highly significant. In retrospect, it can be embarrassing.
As far as 9/11 goes, each of these factors probably played some role in preventing us from connecting the dots.
I understand this much, but I thought that after the 9/11 commission bru ha ha that the recommendation was to share info. and that the DHS now is the way it is to be shared. Since Mr. Johnson said it still is not being shared.
I think that if John O’Niell could go overseas and do investigation that the cia should have been doing that they should have been sharing info at this point.
He had great leads and information, but even the fbi had him ramrodded and he had to leave cuz of the fbi, it’s self.
I think the head of both agencies are not doing their job. They both are toooooo political and this will keep them from doing their jobs. Just like the DCI before Goss.
I can see the problems before 9/11 but not now….they have their orders to share and they don’t. This is a bad thing to have continunity of things and such. A lot of times they are both working on the same case. Ambution and jelous bones should not take president.
Thanks booman for trying to answer the question. You are doing a terrific job here. HUGS
Welcome to Booman Tribune, Mr. Johnson, glad to have you here. It seems like just when I feel like I may have a grasp on this mystery, you or Booman provide some added material that shakes things up. I hope we as bloggers can help to unravel the pieces, thanks for giving us some further trails to follow, specifically this:
Welcome to Booman, Mr. Johnson. I was blown away by your statement to the Senate committee. I’m glad you will be posting here at Booman. Voices like yours are what need to be heard right now.
Welcome to the site and thank you for posting this diary…Very interesting, and certainly good of you to write here.
Hope you will write more!
what really blows me away is your statement above:
“At the end of the day, the Bush Administration ignored the issue of terrorism until 10 September 2001, when the National Security Council held a meeting to discuss terrorism policy. Regrettably that meeting was too little, too late.”
I cannot fathom how, when so many experts gave warning to this administration they continued to ignore it. These are the people that we have intrusted our very lives with.Since the Supreme Court handed the reigns to these idiots they have done nothing but lost lives and gotten richer because of their actions.
I greatly appreciate your perspective and respect your appearance before the Senate panel. You are a true patriot Larry. Thanks for all that you do.
How thick was/is that wall between intelligence agencies and the FBI? Somehow I don’t feel any safer today than on 9/12.
Just to make you feel as welcome as they did for me when I first posted here a few weeks ago…
Welcome to the Booman Tribune Larry Johnson!
And thank you for your efforts to get some of the truth out!
welcome Conn.man1 just wanted to say hi and let you know that I welcome you to booman. I am sure you will enjoy this site as I have.
I have to say…
That I like the openess and discussion of every aspect here much more than dKos which has it’s merits as well BUT….
I find dKos has become too limited in its discussion of possibilities. I also think that there are too many there that narrowminded in their views there and their ratings of comments show it. I still post there because of their commitment to many of my shared ideals and to truth, and I respect Markos decision to pull the plug on what even I consider “Conspiracy Theories”… It is his servers and his little space on the Web. BUT there is a huge difference between a trolling “freeper” and somone that proposes different (and, yes, sometimes wrong…) ideas.
Needless to say that I was disapointed since I truely believe in FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I don’t like Oxy-Rush, but there are times where he says things that really have to make you think: “That is kindof messed up?”. Unfortunately Rush is using these certain small truths in a spin cycle of stupidity.
I am not trying to relate conspiracies to Rush’s stupidity, but these theorists (Nuts? lol) have a certain skill at creatively putting together many different unrelated things and tying it all together in ways that make you think, and sometimes learn something, even if it may turn out to be totally unrelated to the theme they are discussing. Even learning that some idea is wrong can be an enlightning experience. I would reccommend walking down the wrong path, sometimes, to anyone, there is often a lot to be learned that way.
Booman Tribune, IMHO, seems to be a much better match for what I think still needs to be discussed on so many levels when it comes to politics and culture here in the USA. Leaving stones unturned can only result in removing a possibility of discovering what could be a useful nugget of info.
Long before 911 it was the so called “Conspiracy Nuts” that pointed out the existence and dangers of PNAC. Is there anyone on this site that would dispute the control that PNAC has over the White House now? Those people don’t look so nutty to me as they did, say, 6 or 7 years ago.
I wonder who would have censored those PNAC conspiracy nuts off of their political sites 6 or 7 years ago? Perhaps the same kind of people that would censor thoughts about the failings of the election process?
Like I said before in a Susanhu diary on the last elections a few weeks ago where I commented:
<Getting comfortable in my chair>
I like it here… I think I’ll stay a while!
lol
And thank you for the welcome Brenda!
Welcome to the Tribune! I enjoyed reading about Booman’s interview with you, and am glad to see you posting here.
Do you think the various intelligence agencies are any more capable or better prepared to recognize a similar situation today than they were in 2000/2001?
Welcome and thanks for coming and telling us things that we may not know or understand.
I agree with everyone in their stance. I would like to ask a question, if you would answer for me, please.
Did the director of the commission a certain Mr. Zeliock (sp) have anything to do with the withholding of evidence from the commission? He was friends and on condi’s staff.
I never did trust him any further than I could throw my house….:o)
Did the commission do selective thinking when it came to the publishing of any information? Did the commission tend to stay away from the women who pushed for this commission and what they wanted to personally find out? Did they, if they did, really listen to what they said and what they wanted to find out, as well?
Again, Thanks for bloggin here. Please blog any time and give us some information that we might digest and discover answers to our questions.
PS: also, I remember that Rummy told the head honcho at SOCOM what he wanted and that if he couldn’t deliver he would find someone who would comply with his wishes at the time. This was a very pompous thing to be done too. The commanding person did not have a clue as to what to do for rummy at the time and he really had to go back a few times to have rummy clarify to him if this was right or not….in reference to the plot to make things happen, is what I am referring to.