From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
The 9/11 report that names names

October 20, 2004 9:54 AM

is being squashed by Porter Goss' CIA, according to Robert Scheer's anonymous intelligence source: "What all the other reports on 9/11 did not do is point the finger at individuals, and give the how and what of their responsibility. This report does that. The report found very senior-level officials responsible. The agency directorate is basically sitting on the report until after the election."

More from the archive in Intelligence, Lies and Deceit.

The 9/11 report that names names (10.20.2004)

Next Entry: Bill O'Reilly's "No Skin Zone" (10.20.2004)
Previous Entry: I got bumped! (10.19.2004)

Read the 21 comments.

John Aseff:

So much for Porter Goss' assertion that he would lead the CIA in a non-partisan fashion. Did anyone actually believe him? Didn't think so.

Wed Oct 20 2004 10:45 AM


Paul:

Kind of like when Ashcroft said the same thing. It's a necessary lie in order to secure the reins of power.

Anyway, I guess Goss doesn't want to confuse the American voter with too much information all at once. After we've reelected his boss, he can safely release the report which details the administration's gross negligence in protecting this country from attack. Bush will say "mistakes were made", fire Condi Rice, and replace her with Paul Wolfowitz. Business will go on as usual.

Wed Oct 20 2004 12:08 PM


Right Wing Robby:

It beats putting our soldiers lives at risk under UN directive. Apparently our soldier death isnt worth it unless the paid off and bribed members of the United Nations are calling the shots.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/KerryBalkans01.wmv

Wed Oct 20 2004 12:29 PM


raging red:

What does this have to do with the 9/11 report?

Wed Oct 20 2004 2:04 PM


Right Wing Robby:

All hail the Comment Police! Are you gonna give me a ticket?

Wed Oct 20 2004 2:23 PM


Anonymous:

Get used to seeing Rice's name Paul, she'll probably be vice president in 2008.

Wed Oct 20 2004 2:42 PM


Paul:

I think Rice will probably be out of work in a few months.

Wed Oct 20 2004 3:17 PM


raging red:

Oh Robby, if only I could issue you a ticket.

I just don't understand your daily habit of planting little stories in the comments that you see as negatively portraying Kerry, when the stories are completely irrelevant to what's being discussed.

You're so quick to jump to Bush's defense, so let's hear your defense of the Bush administration's policies toward terrorism BEFORE 9/11. How about that?

Wed Oct 20 2004 3:39 PM


Tom from Madison:

George was busy golfing on September 5, 2001 while Condaleeza met with Gary Hart. Apparently terrorism wasn't important enough for the president to miss any of his valuable vacation time.

http://radio.weblogs.com/0108026/stories/2003/04/22/senatorGaryHartVisitsPhoen.html

The Hart-Rudman commission had already identified the terrorism threat in some detail years before 9/11.

http://www.milnet.com/hart-rudman/

Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and the neo-cons were too busy obsessing about blowing big $ on a missile defense system to care at all about it.

It's absurd to think that this administration is going to keep us safe. They failed miserably on 9/11 after being warned. Remember the PDB of August 6, 2001?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

Wed Oct 20 2004 6:16 PM


Red Ghost:

I hearby nominate Raging Red for the position of Comment Police.

Wed Oct 20 2004 6:19 PM


Red Ghost:

Additional link to "The Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket"

http://www.alternet.org/story/20222

Everybody knows that The 9/11 Commission testimonies, as well as speeches at the DNC and the RNC, are available for free download from iTunes, right?

( At the music store, search "9-11 Hearings" under Song Name )

Wed Oct 20 2004 6:28 PM


raging red:

Thanks Red Ghost, though I'm not sure such a position exists. After all, it's not my blog.

By the way, is there nepotism in this nomination? (Both of us being "Red" and all.)

I just like to point out when RWR goes completely off-topic. I see it as a weakness. "I don't have any really good arguments on this topic, so I'll just throw some anti-Kerry link out there to divert your attention."

I'm just waiting for him to start blaming Bush's deficiencies in fighting terrorism before 9/11 on Clinton. Because of course, for the Bush administration (and its supporters), the signs read:

"The Buck Stops Here"

and then...

"Detour"

Thu Oct 21 2004 8:37 AM


Right Wing Robby:

Officer Red,

Stop with the personal attacks. I am interested in this election and not you at all. If you care so much about staying on topic then try and write something that isnt about me. Perhaps Jim will make a topic about me someday and you can have a field day. I know I am a hell of a guy and all, but this obsession has to stop.

RWR

Thu Oct 21 2004 10:49 AM


Right Wing Robby:

In regardes to blaming Clinton. I dont blame him, I blame the terrorists. I think it is fair to say, for good or bad, that the first 9 months of the Bush administration was a continuation of the 8 years prior.

That doesnt make it ok. But I think, like most Americans except the far left liberals, that 911 changed things. Its changed how we think about Terrorism and for most Americans, except for one I can think of, terrorism became more than just a nuisance.

Thu Oct 21 2004 10:56 AM


raging red:

I'm not attacking you personally Robby, I'm attacking your arguments (or sometimes lack thereof).

There is a difference.

Thu Oct 21 2004 12:33 PM


raging red:

I would love it if Bush supporters and Kerry supporters could have an honest and civil conversation about the way Bush handled terrorism before 9/11. (I'm not blaming Bush supporters.)

As much as I dislike George Bush, I personally would never say outright that I "blame" Bush for 9/11. Of course it is the terrorists who are directly to blame. But from all of the information I have read from all kinds of sources on this subject, I do think the Bush administration's policies on terrorism were greatly flawed.

It's not just a matter of hindsight being 20/20. There are many people who had foresight on this issue, but they were ignored or brushed aside. Unfortunately, it appears that Bush wanted to be the anti-Clinton in every way, so he and others in his administration ignored the advice of outgoing Clinton officials about fighting Al Qaida.

It's also not a matter of Bush-bashing to want to examine all of this very carefully. It is crucial to examine the mistakes of the Bush administration so that they will not be repeated by anyone. Hopefully, when this election is over, an honest examination can take place. Of course, if Bush is re-elected, this surely will not happen.

Probably the biggest problem that I have with the Bush administration is not a disagreement on policy (though I certainly do disagree with Bush's policies), but rather a grave concern about how secretive this administration is. I believe in open and honest government, and clearly Bush does not.

Thu Oct 21 2004 12:47 PM


Right Wing Robby:

An honest discussion has to include the Clinton administrations 8 years leading up to his 9 months. If Clinton had so much information to give Bush, why did he do nothing?

Your trying to block 9 months of time and point the finger at it, that is not an honest discussion, its a partison one.

Thu Oct 21 2004 1:33 PM


raging red:

That's not what I'm saying at all. The fact is, Bush is the one who is currently running for President, not Clinton.

The fact is, the 9/11 terrorist attack happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's. Bush cannot use 9/11 as an excuse for everything ("9/11 changed everything!") while not owning up to his pre-9/11 mistakes.

One of the great ironies of this campaign is that Bush has repeated like a mantra the fact that 9/11 changed everything. The problem is, 9/11 changed everything for HIM, because he was not taking the Al Qaida threat seriously before 9/11, while others were. He acts as if everyone had a "pre-9/11 mindset," when there were many people who already understood the severity of the Al Qaida threat before 9/11, including people in his own administration.

Clinton has the integrity to admit mistakes that were made during his Presidency, while Bush does not and while Bush continues to be incredibly secretive about everything. Clinton did not do nothing. A terrorist attack was averted on his watch. I'm not saying Clinton was perfect or could not have done better. I'm not deluded into thinking that the politicians in my party are infallible.

Thu Oct 21 2004 1:54 PM


Right Wing Robby:

Thats the liberal line. Clinton isnt running for office.

You cant use the vail of non partison information finding, claiming how your intent is to make sure mistakes dont happen again, and then blow off 8 years of terror attacks on the US.

Im not buying it. Its makes all that talk about finding the truth, total non sense. If you cared about that, you would not blow off Clintons 8 years with a line like 'he isnt running for office'. The truth is he had alot to do with it and Ill bet you any amount of money that report has his name all over it.

The terror attack that was stopped under Clinton has to do with the keen eye of an airport employee, it has nothing to do with Clinton. Tell me where Clinton was involved in that in anyway shape or form.

Bush has restructed, re-tooled and reconnected all the damage done under the Clinton administration. Our intelligence and ability to connect to dots is far greater then it ever has been and the Bush administation is the one who got it done.

Thu Oct 21 2004 2:11 PM


raging red:

I'm saying we need to look at what every administration has done or not done with regard to terrorism.

For the purposes of this election, the public should have had more information with regard to Bush's policies on terrorism. He has fought that every step of the way. It's a little too late now, with the election less than 2 weeks away.

Thu Oct 21 2004 2:51 PM


RR Hater:

Raging Red, you wish that Bush and Kerry supporters could have a civil conversation but at the same time, you make rude and condescending remarks. But your lack of character is besides the point…

First, you need to understand many things (which you obviously don’t). The fact of the matter is, is that 9/11 would have happened on anyone’s watch (thanks to Clinton). Radical, islamic terrorism has been targeted towards America since the early 80s; Tehran hostages, Beirut Bombings at US Embassy and Marine barracks, Kuwait US Embassy bombings, and multiple airplane hijackings. Unfortunately, every one of the Presidents turned away from the growing terorrist problem. Whenever confronted with a serious threat, the U.S. turned our backs (result from a Cold War mentality). And this is what the terrosists learned...hit us hard enough and we'll turn around and withdraw. Perhaps the most important attack that could have forewarned us about 9/11 was one that occurred in 1993; the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Here, it was the SAME EXACT people responsible for 9/11 with the SAME EXACT goals...to topple the towers. Now I would like to mention a couple of things. 1) This happened under Clinton’s watch. 2) In 1996, the Sudanese offered the arrest of Bin Laden to Clinton and to hand him over to American authorities. The U.S. declined. To quote Clinton’s political adviser Dick Morris, “terrorism wasn’t in Clinton’s vocabulary.” To be fair, I think Clinton's 8 years of ignorance is slightly worse than Bush's 8 months of ignorance.

So get your stories straight before you start using anti-American propaganda that slanders the President. It’s people like you and the Michael Moore’s of the world, that are the REAL cause of this divided nation.

Sun Nov 7 2004 12:23 AM


Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam

Email:







Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Last.fm Weekly Artists Chart