Mayer, Suskind, Shenon, etc.

[noise]

I thought investigative journalists were known for their CURIOSITY.

Clarke warns Rice but evidently doesn't warn the FBI.

Tenet warns Bush and Rice but evidently doesn't warn the FBI.

No idea what Rice was doing.

No idea what Rumsfeld was doing.

Pickard complains about CT budgeting to Ashcroft but evidently doesn't check in with the ITOS, Clarke, Rice or Tenet.

Alec Station WITHHOLDS intel from the FBI from January 2000 through August 2001.

The FBI RFU and UBLU unit chiefs (Frasca and Middleton) are busy telling Minneapolis FBI "not to get spun up," ignoring Williams' Phoenix memo and keeping crucial intel from the Cole criminal investigators.

How an investigative journalist can conclude incompetence is hard to understand.

[Diane_nyc]

1. Rice and Rumsfeld

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x216707">noise wrote:

No idea what Rice was doing.

No idea what Rumsfeld was doing.

Who had no idea what Rice and Rumsfeld were doing, and when? Could you please elaborate?

[noise]

2. I have no idea what Rice and Rumsfeld

were doing in the months leading up to 9/11 in relation to responding to al Qaeda related warnings and intel. By that I mean their apparent inaction was bizarre.

Cooperative Research's page on Rumsfeld: Link

A couple of themes in the timeline: 1) Rumsfeld keeps mentioning the possibility of surprise attacks 2) Evidently he suspects al Qaeda chatter is disinfo.

Cooperative Research's page on Rice: Link

She receives all sorts of briefings but evidently does nothing in the way of immediate tactical response (ie...calling Pickard at the FBI). Though Bush administration apologists seem to believe otherwise, it was possible for the administration to continue their strategic planning for dismantling al Qaeda's safe haven AND respond tactically as well.

[noise]

3. Incompetence and good faith

Quite the combo. The notion that officials acted in good faith seems to be the new GOP talking point to justify Presidential pardons. Which officials acted in good faith?

Tampa, Fla.: Just how much actionable intelligence has been gathered as a result of torture? I've read that the FBI, which has the most experience in interrogating people of all federal agencies, including the CIA and the military, says it has yielded no actionable intelligence. Indeed, it appears the Administration is using brainwashing techniques, not interrogation techniques.

Given their proven track record of lying, I cannot believe anything Bush, Cheney, Addington et al say. So what evidence do we have that the Administration actually knows what it's doing? If torture doesn't work, the issue of whether it's legal is moot. The issue then becomes one of competence.

Jane Mayer: FBI agents who are expert in Islamic terrorism have told me that the CIA's program of "enhanced" techniques yielded little to nothing - but then - there is some institutional rivalry to consider here. A former top CIA officer who worked closely with George Tenet, however, told me very candidly that, "Ninety percent of what we got was crap."

Link

These counterterrorism programs were sold by way of fearmongering, deceit and propaganda. There is no good faith aspect. That is authoritarian nonsense.

[Diane_nyc]

4. The Jane Mayer Q&A

I would appreciate it very much if you could name your sources, rather than just refer to them as "link."

Anyhow, your source is the above post was a http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/07/10/DI2008071001458.html">transcript of a Washington Post Q&A session with Jane Mayer, author of The Dark Side (described as "The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals"), Tuesday, July 15, 2008. Very worthwhile reading.

[noise]

5. Fair enough

What do you make of these journalists seeming unwillingness to consider anything beyond incompetence? Sure I realize that they could have done a ton of research and concluded that the best explanation is incompetence. I read their books and spent a lot of time reviewing their book tour interviews. I don't get it.

[Diane_nyc]

6. I suspect they're just drawing the most charitable possible conclusions.

The reality is that we can't read the minds of high officials. We don't know enough to know, for sure, what their motives were. And I'm sure there have been a lot of highly-classified goings-on that we still don't know about.

Given the inherent murkiness of the situation, I would expect mainstream journalists to be under pressure to draw the most charitable possible conclusions that seem warranted by the available evidence, to avoid being seen as making false accusations, and to avoid seeming irresponsible and paranoid.

I agree with you that there is reason to suspect worse than mere incompetence. But we don't know.

[noise]

7. You could be right

I still find it strange that these journalists appear very reluctant to challenge the notion that high ranking US officials acted in good faith in the lead up to 9/11.