9/11 Commission Chairman: ‘No Question’ CIA Attempted ‘To Impede Our Investigation’

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In its attempts to uncover all materials related to the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 Commission specifically requested material about the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The New York Times has revealed that the CIA destroyed tapes of the two men’s interrogation without informing the 9/11 Commission about their existence.

On Saturday, former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin told CNN:

I think it’s ludicrous to suggest, in fact, that we withheld anything of consequence from the 9/11 Commission. Anything that was on the tapes that would be relevant to their inquiry was given to them in writing, and the tapes would have simply not advanced their inquiry at all.

In fact, the tapes were highly relevant to the Commission’s inquiry. Philip Zelikow — the former staff director of the 9/11 Commission — explained: “The Commission was not investigating the treatment of captives. But it did seek information not only about the 9/11 plot, but also any intelligence information about the history and evolution of al Qaeda and its connections to other terrorist entities. Therefore, from the start, the Commission sought to obtain all relevant information gleaned from the interrogation of captives.”

This morning on CNN, 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean there is “no question” the CIA was aware that its now-destroyed videotapes depicting severe interrogations were among evidence being sought by 9/11 Commission investigators, and the destruction of the tapes was an attempt to “impede our investigation”:

We asked for every single thing that they had. And then my vice chairman, Lee Hamilton, looked the director of the CIA in the face, and said, Look, even if we haven’t asked for something, if it’s pertinent to our investigation, make it available to us. And our staff asked again and again of their staff and the tapes were not given to us. So, there was no question.[…]

I mean, no question that we again and again and again asked for everything, and we needed it, and we weren’t given it. And so, the only conclusion we can draw is it was withheld from us. And that can only be seen to me as an attempt to impede our investigation.

Watch it:



CIA spokesman Mike Mansfield said recently that the tapes weren’t destroyed until 2005 “because it was thought the commission could ask about the tapes at some point.” So, the CIA withheld the tapes and destroyed the evidence later, ensuring no one could view them to determine whether they were relevant to the Commission’s inquiry.

http://thinkprogress.org/ (Scroll down to story)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...=moreheadlines

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...22/cnr.03.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/...ica/memo22.php

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/911_co...sked_1224.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...ves/14017.html

[Bronco Bob]

.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So now the 9/11 Commission Chairman is a conspiracy nut too?

(Of course, you responded to this new thread so quickly you couldn't have possibly read the article.)

[Spider]

hmmmmmmm .....Interesting

[loborugger]

This sounds like the typical inter-agency infighting that goes on every day in DC. The CIA wouldnt want a little thing like 9/11 get in the way of their ongoing turf battles with other kiddies in the pool. I am reminded of that movie Sneakers when I read stuff like this. The concept of open cooperation in DC is about as foreign as it gets in DC. Afterall, if you cooperate with another agency, they could stab you in the back, take the lead (and the glory), and then go to Congress and the White House and demand additional funding - at your expense, of course.

Its pretty sickening, and I am not sure how it will ever get fixed.

[W*GS]

Since LABF believes 9/11 was an inside job, then the CIA destroying tapes of interrogations of suspected Muslim terrorists is a total red herring. Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11, according to LABF, so whether or not any were interrogated/tortured/whatever is irrelevant.

LABF is trying to have it both ways, as usual. He's bi.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Since LABF believes 9/11 was an inside job, then the CIA destroying tapes of interrogations of suspected Muslim terrorists is a total red herring. Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11, according to LABF, so whether or not any were interrogated/tortured/whatever is irrelevant.

LABF is trying to have it both ways, as usual. He's bi.

I dont know what the truth is anymore W*GS , but here is what I do know , Aug 6th Bush gets a memo in his PDB , saying Bin Laden determined to attack in America , Bush goes on Vacation , then 19 hijackers hijacked planes with box cutters , and fly them into the WTC and pentagon ,and we completely over react with Patriot act , freedom fries , and invading Iraq , and we knew who these scum sucking bastards were , did nothing to stop them , earlier that year we helped in Drills at the G-8 summit on how to stop terrorist from flying planes into buildings .....

[baja]

Mr. Wags Tongue - Since LABF believes 9/11 was an inside job, then the CIA destroying tapes of interrogations of suspected Muslim terrorists is a total red herring. Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11, according to LABF, so whether or not any were interrogated/tortured/whatever is irrelevant.

LABF is trying to have it both ways, as usual. He's bi.

What if the tapes implicated the CIA would that not be a pretty good reason to destroy the tapes? Seems to me Wags you are the one that did not think things though.

[Rohirrim]

On Saturday, former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin told CNN:

I think it’s ludicrous to suggest, in fact, that we withheld anything of consequence from the 9/11 Commission. Anything that was on the tapes that would be relevant to their inquiry was given to them in writing, and the tapes would have simply not advanced their inquiry at all.

That's the same excuse Nixon tried. IMO, the truth is that the CIA had the info to stop 911 and didn't because they refused to share what they knew with the FBI. It's all covered very well in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Looming-Tower-.../dp/037541486X Now, they're trying to cover their asses. I agree with Laborugger that inter-agency rivalry and incompetence allowed 911 to happen, not malevolent intent.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by loborugger

This sounds like the typical inter-agency infighting that goes on every day in DC. The CIA wouldnt want a little thing like 9/11 get in the way of their ongoing turf battles with other kiddies in the pool. I am reminded of that movie Sneakers when I read stuff like this. The concept of open cooperation in DC is about as foreign as it gets in DC. Afterall, if you cooperate with another agency, they could stab you in the back, take the lead (and the glory), and then go to Congress and the White House and demand additional funding - at your expense, of course.

Its pretty sickening, and I am not sure how it will ever get fixed.

It always about the money and the power. It really is a shame since there are good smart folks at all the places, trying to do what they think is best. But I do believe that half the problem is that way the organization culture have developed, and the lack of free flow of individual and idea into and out of the agencies.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by baja

Seems to me Wags you are the one that did not think things though.

Indeed.

But watching him try to spin and deflect is always amusing.

[W*GS]

I don't need to "spin" anything. Like I said years ago, interagency rivalry and stovepiping explains the (lack of) the Bush administration response to the threat pre-9/11.

[BroncoBuff]

I guess I'll just trot out the same pointless, tired, though substantively correct response that I've had to a thousand such stories like this over the last seven years: "Somebody better go to jail over this!"


*YAWN*

\.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

I don't need to "spin" anything. Like I said years ago, interagency rivalry and stovepiping explains the (lack of) the Bush administration response to the threat pre-9/11.

it is always nice to have an excuse when you **** up isnt it

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Spider

it is always nice to have an excuse when you **** up isnt it

Yep.

And what about those forum members who would have us believe that the 9/11 Commission Report is unassailable, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, etc., when the Chairman himself admits that the commission was unable to access all of the information it needed?

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Yep.

And what about those forum members who would have us believe that the 9/11 Commission Report is unassailable, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, etc., when the Chairman himself admits that the commission was unable to access all of the information it needed?

Good point ... and as long as we're going "devil's advocate" some, I must admit that the waterboarding torture and other Geneva convention abuses do seem to be a bit far-flung from the topic of the 9/11 Commission

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

And what about those forum members who would have us believe that the 9/11 Commission Report is unassailable, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, etc., when the Chairman himself admits that the commission was unable to access all of the information it needed?

When you can point out a post in which any one of us says the 9/11 Commission report is perfect, you'll have something other than yet another strawman assassination.

As it is, nothing you've proffered in its stead has been satisfactory, at even the most basic level.

[orinjkrush]

Originally Posted by loborugger

This sounds like the typical inter-agency infighting that goes on every day in DC. The CIA wouldnt want a little thing like 9/11 get in the way of their ongoing turf battles with other kiddies in the pool. I am reminded of that movie Sneakers when I read stuff like this. The concept of open cooperation in DC is about as foreign as it gets in DC. Afterall, if you cooperate with another agency, they could stab you in the back, take the lead (and the glory), and then go to Congress and the White House and demand additional funding - at your expense, of course.

Its pretty sickening, and I am not sure how it will ever get fixed.

rep. that's my experience. they aren't patriots, they are careerists.

[Rigs11]

Originally Posted by W*GS

When you can point out a post in which any one of us says the 9/11 Commission report is perfect, you'll have something other than yet another strawman assassination.

As it is, nothing you've proffered in its stead has been satisfactory, at even the most basic level.

You always use it to back up your opinions, and squash any thread that questions at all any government cover ups of 911. so you must think very highly of it.no?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

You always use it to back up your opinions, and squash any thread that questions at all any government cover ups of 911. so you must think very highly of it.no?

I've not seen anything else that is as well documented and explanatory. Everything the troofers proffer falls apart on even the most rudimentary and zeroth-order examination.

And no, I don't "squash" threads - I merely display the same level of skepticism towards troofer nonsense as they do towards the 9/11 Commission report, NIST's work, and so on. If they can't take the heat, they should do more homework.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

You always use it to back up your opinions, and squash any thread that questions at all any government cover ups of 911. so you must think very highly of it.no?

Such is W*GS' belief in the 9/11 Commission Report's unassailability that he's even on record saying the report is the "only genuinely credible and reputable source" (of evidence on 9/11.)

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Third, are you suggesting that the 9/11 Commission Report is the only source of 9/11 evidence availible?

Originally Posted by W*GS

It's the only genuinely credible and reputable source.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthr...mission+report

The quotes from Kean, et al, show once again that W*GS lives in a world curiously untainted by reality.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable

Head Of Sept. 11 Panel Lays Blame Inside Bush Administration

NEW YORK, Dec. 17, 2003

(CBS) For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston.

"This is a very, very important part of history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas Kean.

"As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen."

Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.

"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said.

To find out who failed and why, the commission has navigated a political landmine, threatening a subpoena to gain access to the president's top-secret daily briefs. Those documents may shed light on one of the most controversial assertions of the Bush administration – that there was never any thought given to the idea that terrorists might fly an airplane into a building.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.

"How is it possible we have a national security advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they could use planes as weapons when we had FBI records from 1991 stating that this is a possibility," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four New Jersey widows who lobbied Congress and the president to appoint the commission.

The widows want to know why various government agencies didn't connect the dots before Sept. 11, such as warnings from FBI offices in Minnesota and Arizona about suspicious student pilots.

"If you were to tell me that two years after the murder of my husband that we wouldn't have one question answered, I wouldn't believe it," Breitweiser said.

Kean admits the commission also has more questions than answers.

Asked whether we should at least know if people sitting in the decision-making spots on that critical day are still in those positions, Kean said, "Yes, the answer is yes. And we will."

Kean promises major revelations in public testimony beginning next month from top officials in the FBI, CIA, Defense Department, National Security Agency and, maybe, President Bush and former President Clinton.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in589137.shtml

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Such is W*GS' belief in the 9/11 Commission Report's unassailability that he's even on record saying the report is the "only genuinely credible and reputable source" (of evidence on 9/11.)

Instead of using an imprecise search result, use the direct link to the article:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...5&postcount=65

I still stand by my remark. You and the other troofers, as I pointed out earlier, have never provided anything even remotely close as the 9/11 Commission's report (have you read it, BTW?) in its factual basis, reason, and credibility. I've yet to see anything from the troofers that doesn't fall apart on the most cursory examination, and isn't chock-full of flights of fancy, unjustifiable extrapolations, and leaps of logic that defy rationality.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

The quotes from Kean, et al, show once again that W*GS lives in a world curiously untainted by reality.

How so? In your view, the 9/11 Commission report is tainted (i.e., the well is poisoned) by the association of some of the 9/11 Commission's staff with the Bush administration. Why would such a taint allow the Commission to note that the Bush administration failed in preventing it? I've never said that that the Bush administration wasn't at least partly to blame for 9/11, so you're killing another strawman by your comments.

Once again, LABF, the style and substance of your argument leaves a lot to be desired.

Oh, and as for living in fantasyland, I ain't the one claiming that no plane hit the Pentagon.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable

Head Of Sept. 11 Panel Lays Blame Inside Bush Administration

NEW YORK, Dec. 17, 2003

(CBS) For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston.

"This is a very, very important part of history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas Kean.

"As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen."

Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.

"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said.

That's a far cry from supporting the claim the 9/11 was an inside job
and that the buildings were brought down with mini-nukes and thermate.

I have agreed all along that it was the Bush team's incompetence that
allowed 9/11 to happen.

Just like their incompetence allowed the Katrina disaster to unfold.
That's a far cry from saying Bushco dynamited the levees.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LMAO @ W*GS backing away from his original claim:

Originally Posted by W*GS

It's the only genuinely credible and reputable source.

In other words, W*GS would have us believe that the 9/11 Commission Report is the only "credible and reputable source" from which we can obtain facts and evidence about 9/11 - in spite of the fact that the chairman of the commission admits that the commission had incomplete information and was denied access to evidence it needed.

Apparently, W*GS is so far gone on the BushCo Kool Aid that he can't see he is contradicting himself.