Weapons of Mass Discussion

Monday, April 12, 2004

Fisking Pinkerton of Newsday

If you knew that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had received a memo a month before Pearl Harbor entitled, "Japanese Determined to Attack the United States in the Pacific," and that he had done nothing about that information, would that knowledge change your perception of FDR as a wise war leader?

If you knew that James Pinkerton of Newsday was a political hack who wrote an article called, "Pre-9/11 doings are coming to light" in which Pinkerton claimed to know the contents of a classified memo based on politically motivated questioners in a hearing that has politicized a national tragedy, would that knowledge change your perception about the objectivity of Pinkerton and Newsday?

Roosevelt received no such memo, of course, but President George W. Bush got a blunt warning five weeks before 9/11 and he did little or nothing. He even presided over a stand-down in preparations, concentrating on other concerns.

Bush received no warning in the memo that was declassified and released over the weekend. According to Rice's opening statement under oath, the following actions were taken by the administration:

Throughout the period of heightened threat information, we worked hard on multiple fronts to detect, protect against and disrupt any terrorist plans or operations that might lead to an attack.

For instance, the Department of Defense issued at least five urgent warnings to U.S. military forces that al-Qaida might be planning a near-term attack and placed our military forces in certain regions on heightened alert.

The State Department issued at least four urgent security advisers and public worldwide cautions on terrorist threats, enhanced security measures at certain embassies, and warned the Taliban that they would be held responsible for any al-Qaida attack on U.S. interests.

The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to federal, state and law enforcement agencies and specifically stated that, although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out.

The FBI tasked all 56 of its U.S. field offices to increase surveillance of known suspects of terrorists and to reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities.

The FAA issued at least five civil aviation security information circulars to all U.S. airlines and airport security personnel, including specific warnings about the possibility of hijacking.

The CIA worked around the clock to disrupt threats worldwide. Agency officials launched a wide-ranging disruption effort against al-Qaida in more than 20 countries.

And during this period, the vice president, Director Tenet and members of my staff called senior foreign officials, requesting that they increase their intelligence assistance and report to us any relevant threat information.

This is a brief sample of our intense activity in the high threat period of the summer of 2001. Yet, as your hearings have shown, there was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 9-11 attacks.

Doesn't sound like a "stand-down" to me.

The Washington Post reported in May 2002 that Bush had received a President's Daily Brief on Aug. 6, 2001, entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." But, of course, not everything that's reported becomes widely known, or is necessarily true. And so for most Americans, yesterday's 9/11 hearing provided their first occasion to learn, from the highest sources, just what was in that document.

Newsday reported in April of 2004 in an article entitled "Pre-9/11 doings are coming to light" absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. Of course, not everything that's reported becomes widely known (thankfully) or is neccessarily true (as in the case of the Newsday article). And so for most Americans, Saturday's declassification of the Aug. 6th PDB provided their first occassion to learn the truth: the PDB did not warn the President about 9/11.

Condoleezza Rice began her testimony with a statement in which she minimized the possibility that anyone could have known what was happening. All intelligence prior to 9/11 was "not specific as to time, nor place, nor manner of attack," she said. But then 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste pressed her about that PDB memo, still rated as "classified" by the government. Ben-Veniste was legally prohibited from mentioning even the title of the document.

But none of that prevented the Newsday "journalist" from writing an article before he had the PDB memo, also known as "the facts."

But he wasn't prohibited from asking Rice the title of the PDB. And she obliged: "I believe the title was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'" Ouch. Just moments after she had said intelligence was "not specific" about the place of attack, here's a presidential-level document warning, specifically, that al-Qaida's target wasn't overseas somewhere, but rather the United States itself.

The key word in the title is "Determined" and if the Newsday author weren't a political hack, he'd have realized that there wasn't any bombshells there. Ouch. One wonders if moments after the PDB was released, Pinkerton didn't question his own intelligence because nowhere in the actual presidential-level document was a warning, "specifically, that al-Qaida's target wasn't overseas somewhere, but rather the United States." There was no actionable intelligence in the Aug. 6th PDB.

David Colton, Washington lawyer and veteran of the intelligence world, observes of this exchange: "Ben-Veniste hypnotized her." Colton adds, "She fell into the rhythm of a smart lawyer's questions, and so blurted out the single most damning admission of these hearings."

David Colton, obviously another hack and not a veteren of the political world didn't observe Rice laying the smack down on Ben-Vineste. I add, "She kicked him in the proverbial groin and left him squealin' from the feelin'."

Seeming to realize she had said too much, Rice tried to bury the revelation by piling on words. She insisted that the document, the PDB's title notwithstanding, "did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting." Whereupon Ben-Veniste invited her to seek the declassification of the entire memo. Rice declined.

Realizing that Ben-Veniste was trying to blow over the facts, Rice tried to unbury the truth by piling on the facts. Whereupon Ben-Veniste invited her to declassify a document on live television. Like that is going to happen.

Rice's semi-admission - she was under oath, but that doesn't guarantee that every witness will tell whole truth - stirred up Bob Kerrey, another commissioner.

Rice was under oath. She takes her oaths seriously. But Pinkerton is right: that doesn't guarentee that every witness will tell the truth - stirred up Kenneth Starr awhile back as I recall.

Kerrey was bound by the same strict rules of classification as Ben-Veniste, but he's a free-spirited war hero and so didn't care that he was breaking those rules. "In the spirit of further declassification," he announced, "this is what the August 6th memo said to the president: that the FBI indicates patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking. That's the language of the memo that was briefed to the president on the 6th of August."

Kerrey disregarded the rules for discussing a classified document. Apparently leftists like Pinkerton think this is a good thing. Kerrey highlights what Rice was talking about: there was no actionable intelligence in the memo. There was no silver bullet there to stop 9/11. So the continued exploitation of the memo is nothing more than political manuevering.

Ouch again. "Hijacking" is pretty darn specific - which seems to contradict Rice's assertion that the intelligence was "frustratingly vague" as to the "manner of attack."

Ouch again. "political manuevering" is pretty specific - which seems to contradict Pinkerton's assertion that the PDB was "a blunt warning" about 9/11.

Plenty of people in Washington had their "hair on fire" about the terror threat in the summer of 2001. But not Bush, apparently. On Aug. 4, he went off on a working vacation to his ranch in Texas.

Hey, look kids, we're back on to Democratic talking points! The President of the United States is NEVER in a position where he can not act. Doesn't matter if he is in Crawford, TX or the White House. Nobody seemed to have this problem when Clinton was jet-setting on Air Force One.

According to White House speechwriter turned memoirist David Frum, that summer Bush "did something I had never seen him do: he brooded." Yet the issue wasn't terror; it seems it was stem cell research. On Aug. 9, Bush gave his first primetime policy speech to the nation - on the topic of embryos. After that, according to Frum, Bush launched a "mini-political campaign" that took him out on the stump.

According to anybody who isn't politically motivated, the President has other things he has to accomplish. There was no actionable intelligence from which to focus an effort; naturally, any president would work on other things that he could do something about.

And we all know what happened the following month.

Apparently, Pinkerton comes from the camp that thinks President Bush had a remote control and directed those planes in to the towers. There was no actionable intelligence from which to do something. The intelligence agencies weren't permitted to exchange information. There was no silver bullet. Leftist hero Dick Clarke himself says there was nothing that could have stopped 9/11. Yes, Mr. Pinkerton, we all know what happened a month later. That's why we're looking at how to fix the problems that allowed it to happen and fighting to eliminate terrorism and those who support it.

What we don't know is the precise sequence of events that led to the government's Pearl Harbor-like cluelessness on 9/11. But there's at least a chance now, as documents are revealed and as officials testify under oath, that we'll find out. In the meantime, here's a prediction, based on what we know already: Bush won't dare show more 9/11 images in his campaign ads.

Actually, Mr. Pinkerton, we know exactly what lead to the "Pearl Harbor-like cluelessness on 9/11." There was a severe breakdown in our intelligence community. Now if you care to investigate that and get back to us, we'd love to hear it. Be sure to see who voted for and against funding, regulation and resources though, that's a key part of the puzzle.