Journalists who write about the FBI's pre 9/11 conduct
They always claim they read 400,000,000 documents and submitted a record number (say 4 trillion) of FOIA requests. The research effort was unprecedented. No stone unturned. Sources came out of the woodwork to give them the real story.
Yet anyone who has researched the FBI in regard to 9/11 is inevitably led to the FBI UBLU. The D.C. headquarters based Bin Laden intelligence side unit. Do the journalists have anything to say about the UBLU? Not really. They mention the wall and the frustration of the criminal side NY office agents (i.e. Bongardt and Soufan). They talk about risk aversion which just so happens to be a FOX News sort of bullshit talking point. "We would have loved to stop al Qaeda operatives but ACLU memos prevented us from doing so." The sort of bizarre nonsense that oddly resonates with FOX News viewers.
A recent example:
Tim Weiner just wrote a book about the history of the FBI entitled Enemies: A History of the FBI. He has a mere endnote about FBI agent Bongardt being told to stand down in regard to the search for al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. An endnote? Did Weiner not read Ali Soufan's book? Did he not listen to the Who is Rich Blee podcast? Did he not find it at all strange that Bongardt was told to stand down in regard to finding al Qaeda operatives linked to previous al Qaeda attacks and chatter of a possible massive attack?
The media has mocked 9/11 conspiracy theorists for years. Yet when it comes to getting answers to obvious questions the media simply refuses to do so. Feel free to Google "Dina Corsi + interview" or "Rod Middleton + interview." Nothing. No interviews.
= new reply since forum marked as read
