Asked Aug 22, 2007, 07:05 AM
One of the conventional wisdoms that emerged after 9-11 was the one that said the Clinton Adm ;especially Richard Clarke ,gave the incoming Bush adm. A detailed brief on al-Qaeda and Osama bin-Ladin's activities. Not that this information could've in itself prevented the attack;but President Bush has been raked over the coals based on the supposition that such a detailed dossier existed .
We now learn that no such report was prepared. CIA watchdog faults agency on 9/11 - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com
According to a report from the Inspector General's office from a team led by Inspector General John Helgerson:
U.S. Spy agencies, which were overseen by Tenet, lacked a comprehensive strategic plan to counter Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11. The inspector general concluded that Tenet by virtue of his position, bears ultimate responsibility for the fact that no such strategic plan was ever created. |
The CIAs analysis of al-Qaida before Sept. 2001 was lacking. No comprehensive report focusing on bin Laden was written after 1993, and no comprehensive report laying out the threats of 2001 was assembled. A number of important issues were covered insufficiently or not at all, the report found.
The CIA and the National Security Agency tussled over their responsibilities in dealing with al-Qaida well into 2001. Only Tenets personal involvement could have led to a timely resolution, the report concluded.
The CIA station charged with monitoring bin Laden code-named Alec Station was overworked, lacked operational experience, expertise and training. The report recommended forming accountability boards for the CIA Counterterror Center chiefs from 1998 to 2001, including Black.
Although 50 to 60 people read at least one CIA cable about two of the hijackers, the information wasn't shared with the proper offices and agencies. That so many individuals failed to act in this case reflects a systemic breakdown.... Basically, there was no coherent, functioning watch-listing program, the report said. The report again called for further review of Black and his predecessor.
The executive summary is here : https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/...G%20Report.pdf
So in other words ; even though OBL conducted a number of attacks on the US since 1993 and prior to 9-11 , the CIA under George Tenet never thought it necessary to update the information on OBL or AQ . Since there was no updated report then it has to be a fabrication by the Clintoons to suggest that they left President Bush with a turn key strategy to deal with the threat of AQ.
The 9-11 Commission was critical of Bush for his decision to stop engaging in tit for tat responses [like launching a couple of cruise missiles in response to an attack] and instead to develop a new operational strategy to deal with OBL .
"Hadley said that in the end, the administrations real response to the Cole would be a new, more aggressive strategy against al Qaeda."
What it failed to mention was that the reason that Bush and Condi Rice needed extra time to evaluate options was because none were presented to them when they entered the Presidency.
Now of course a lot of what the Clintons knew was shoved down Sandy Berger's pants .So we unfortunately will never get the full story.