Is there anything known of if and when the report of the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud, on 9/9/2001, reached the White House? While most evidence points to al-Qaeda, I've wondered if it was synchronized, and al-Qaeda attempt to disrupt the Northern Alliance when US forces came calling.

If known, I'm honestly not sure if it should have been treated as a strategic warning, hindsight always being excellent.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Howard,

Lawrence Wright, in The Looming Tower (the single best book on Al Qaeda's rise), definitively reports that the killing of Massoud was a central part of the 9/11 plot and was designed to weaken the most likely potential ally of the US in case of military retaliation against Afghanistan. Bin Laden wanted us to retaliate against Afghanistan, because he thought we would be defeated there and because it would  rouse the Muslim world in opposition. 

Our many mistakes may turn out to prove him right after all.

 
Ivo Daalder

The pillage & loot party is responding that Clinton did not respond to the USS Cole so Bush can not be faulted for spacing out that it happened. Sure, Clinton's excuse is lame, that the CIA and FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was behind it, but Clinton can not be expected to tell the real reason.

Clinton could not respond. To truthfully admit that he could not respond would be an open admission of a major flaw in our security - the transition period.

The Cole attack was in October. During November it was uncertain who would be the next President. And after the Supreme Court's vote Clinton could not put U.S. boots on the ground in any foreign country and leave them there for George to have to deal with. Old man Bush had done that to Clinton in Somalia and the ditto heads would have screamed foul if Clinton had done it to boy George "just to get even" with the old man. Remember, Republicans back in Jan. 2001 still thought terrorism was a knat on the elephant's ear, CHINA was the real threat. You can easily envision Rush getting so worked up over it that he's spew his intestinal contents up all over the mic.

Keith
Things could be worse, we could still be dying in Vietnam.

What's significant about Rice's July meeting with Tenet and Black is that it was not disclosed, apparently, to the 911 commission nor to the earlier Intelligence Joint Committee review of the lead-up to 911. One would anticipate that Rice had taken some notes in the meeting, and those would have been of interest to the investigators. They were apparently not produced. I wonder if in the Commission interviews with Bush and Cheney they ever asked about conversations in July about Rice reporting any al-Qaeda intelligence discussions to either of them -- in otherwords, did Rice push up to them what Tenet and Black were saying?

As to the death of Massoud, and how the information arrived in DC., the best description is on the last two pages of Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars". Massoud was transported back into Tajikistan by helicopter, and the message went from Northern Alliance there to the CIA Counterterrorism Center (to Rich)-- and it was the Counterterrorism center that notified the White House. The Northern Alliance had not yet announced the death and Amrullah Salah was very distressed that the White House announced the death before the Northern Alliance were prepared to do so. Karzai, for instance, who was in Pakistan, got work from his brother who owned a Baltimore Restaurant, after the brother had been called by someone from the Northern Alliance then in Washington, and who had a CIA contact.

Steve Coll's sources apparently include reporting in The New Yorker and Los Angles Times. Coll also interviewed the Massoud aids then in DC, and he had access to US Government interviews with Massoud conducted in the region. Hope that helps. Apparently the CIA was interested in seeing if they could salvage a Northern Alliance relationship, and the White House immediate position was that this eliminated the plans agreed to at the principles meeting the previous week. Bush was briefed on the implications of Massoud's death on September 10th in the morning by Tenet before he left for Florida.

Well, good old Uncle Walt was a real right-winger as far as I know, so that recent ABC docudrama on 9/11 might not be out of character for Disney.

Tom

There's a line I can't get out of my head. "A government of the corrupt, by the corrupt and for the corrupt." All revelations, explanations, excuses, and reasons from this administration - and even some Dems - for anything, inevitably pass through my "corrupt" filter. Very little ends up passing the smell test

Secondly - qualifications, duties, responsibilities of the three branches of government as stated in the Constitution have been abrogated to favor the Rule of the Party. In other words, what's good for the Party takes precedence over what's good for the people, the nation, the republic, which predictably has put the well-being of all three in serious jeopardy.

It is interesting that the White House sent out Dan Barlett, Director of Communications, to deal with Woodward's book. Barlett tried leaning on the 9/11 Commission Report's failure to mention the meeting to suggest the meeting did not happen. It will be interesting to see all the people involved be asked about this. Especially since the chief spin doctor is the one out there denying the story.

Frank Rich and Richard Clarke separately raise a more telling question. Besides needing to look forward and what to do now and why are so few people focused on that question. Another point is where was Woodward and the rest of the Media since January 20, 2001? Woodward wrote two haigiographies of Bush. When did he wake up?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

The question isn't only "when did Woodward wake up?" but also "when did he stop being a reporter?"

Is he not still on the staff of the Washington Post? Is this information not "news?"

Here we have yet another reporter, saving TONS of news for the BOOK! We all know that timing of news has been synically released by this administration (and others, no doubt, but it is this administration that has caused the most recent series of calamities).

True, this book coming out when the "vote republican if you want to live" juggernaut is ramping up, but still...is there a reason the truth has to be titrated out like this?

Jan Knaus

It seems he stopped being a reporter when he decided he wanted to be famous and rich writing books about Washington insiders. The only way to do that, at least his type of books, is to be an insider yourself.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

...where was Woodward and the rest of the Media since January 20, 2001? Woodward wrote two haigiographies of Bush. When did he wake up?

Probably the same place and time  David Broder was, in thrall to young George.

 Bush was elected twice, over Democrats Al Gore and John Kerry, whose know-it-all arrogance rankled Midwesterners such as myself. The country thought Bush was a pleasant, down-to-earth guy who would not rock the boat. Instead, swayed by some inner impulse or the influence of Dick Cheney, he has proved to be lawless and reckless. He started a war he cannot finish, drove the government into debt and repeatedly defied the Constitution.

Woodward hails from the Midwest, despite having gone to Yale.

According to the 9/11 Commission report there was a rift between al Qaeda leaders and the Taliban over attacking the US. The Taliban wanted al Qaeda to focus on attacking Jews (I'm guessing by that they meant Israel). But the Taliban was dependent on al Qaeda for help against the Northern Alliance. The Massoud assassination was planned for August 2001 and al Qaeda already had operatives posing as journalists "imbedded" with the Northern Alliance. Their meeting with Massoud was delayed until September which is why the assassination was delayed until then (as well as why the renewed Taliban offensive against the Northern Alliance was also delayed). Many top leaders of al Qaeda thought this assassination would help deflect Taliban criticism of the 9/11 attack.

There are a couple of nut cases on the loose on this post. Josh please get rid of them.

Tom

Ok, call me crazy but the Woodward revelations about Tenet warning Bush, et al about an imminent threat by al Qaeda actually supports a theory I've been mulling over for sometime, but have been to afraid to vocalize because it could mean I have devolved into conspiratorial ramblings. The thought boils down to Bush being 'intentionally neglectful' over terrorism threats leading up to 9/11.

Here's my thought: Is it possible (on second thought is it probable) that Bush and his inner circle of neo-cons buried their heads in the sand about terrorism and the middle east peace process intentionally, hoping a terrorist attack would happen so that they would have the political clout to invade Iraq? Now, I do not think that they ever anticipated something as severe as 9/11, they probably were hoping for a repeat of the Cole or the African Embassies. We know they had been planning for Iraq prior to 9/11 and (I think) we also know that they were extremely reluctant to wage war without public support. What better way to wage war than "in defense of the country"?

Doesn't the Tenent revelations when combined with the speed at which Bush shifted focus to Iraq, and the knowledge that Cheney and co. were already planning for Iraq prior to 9/11 tend to support the idea, that they were being intentional neglectful toward any terrorist threat originating in the middle east to enable their war plans.

I know this would be impossible to prove -- but it makes so much sense - or am i just insane?

b

Isn't that one of Murdoch's papers? Yes it is and that is probably why it came out in such a "timely" manner.

No sound. I wonder why.

No, there is nothing wrong with this argument. There are respected national security types like Thomas Powers who feel that Bush consciously decided to do nothing about the threat warnings.

But you would have to waterboard the parties involved to ever get at the truth.

The much simpler (and better) explanation is that Bush, like every single other person in America (with the exception of Richard Clark), didn't think that terrorism was a big deal.

Remember, conservatives had spent the last eight years criticizing Clinton for obsessing about Bin Laden, and Clinton hardly did anything. Bush ran a basically isolationist campaign - the implication was that Clinton was off trying to fix the world, and Bush was going to focus on domestics.

There is no solid evidence to rebut your conspiracy theory, but that is what makes it a conspiracy theory.

No tinfoil required.

The entire Republican leadership failed to take "terrorism" seriously, and the reason is a true obscenity:

Fighting terrorism doesn't require the huge weapons and defensive systems that they wanted to fund for their friends in the defense industry.

The new "assymmetric warfare" that first nailed our military in Viet Nam, and that was perfected by the mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, requires the same or better intelligence, judgment and sophistication. But it doesn't call for 25-gigabuck missile defense systems and advanced tactical fighters.

On September 10, 2001, Dr. Rice was headlining a meeting where she was advocating for the Missile Defense System.

No conspiracy required, but the way I see it, the results are just as deadly and just as obscene:

Our erstwhile leadership was too busy finding ways to build unnecessary, unnecessarily expensive, and brilliantly profitable (for W's friends, anyway) weapons systems to bother with the real problem.

The result is the same, though: Many people died, many families were blown apart losing loved ones, in an incident that may have been preventable if the responsible people had bothered to notice it.

Terrorism was not profitable enough. That is just obscene. There is no language harsh enough to describe the level of contempt these "leaders" show for the American people. This "leadership" was too busy working on oil-based "energy policy" and big-dollar "missile defense" to work on a known problem, for which they were receiving warnings from the intelligence community.

Of course, when the terrorist attack finally did arrive, that was just the excuse they needed, to start another, much greater and more serious obscenity: The attack on Iraq and criminally negligent "management" of the subsequent occupation. That sickness was intended to be a "short victorious war". And prepare for the 2004 elections. There is a special place in Hell reserved for people who start wars to look good in elections.

There are no F-bombs, no language that can express the enormity of that crime.

These "leaders" were too busy funding their friends to deal with a known problem, doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it. Then when that failure resulted in our failure to prevent an attack, the attack was used to mount the most successful assault on basic American values in our history. On September 29, 2006, Osama bin Laden won the war against the American people, using our own politicians against us.

No conspiracy needed. Only run-of-the mill obscene criminality.

There's one thing that sticks with me, that is the footage of Bush being told about the plane hitting the first tower. His response looks just like a response he would give if he had been expecting something like this. I'll never forget that. That was when I first thought OMG, he's in on this somehow. I didn't need any tinfoil hatters to convince me.

Certainly terrorism and bin Laden were not high on the new President Bush's priority list in 2001.  Nothing was.  This Bush administration was searching for what to do after all the tax cuts were accomplished.

Fate handed Bush an opportunity when  the twin towers fell. There could not have been a better match between Cheney, a former SecDef, Rumsfeld (the McNamara of the Republican party) twice SecDef, Karl Rove and W.  Everyone of them could see the writing on the wall.  Declare war and you've got it made.  They could foresee and fully expected reelection after reelection and the longed for dominance of the Republican Party.

That this President remains obstinate in his refusal to acknowledge his administration's errors in Iraq is what will ultimately bring discredit to him.  His erstwhile resoluteness is already being perceived as denial.  As the costs in blood and treasure pile up, President Bush will have to pay the piper.  So will the American people, both those who supported him and those of us who did not.

Any of you remember I.F. Stone?  All administrations lie. But no administration before this one had such a death grip on communications.  Call it media mastery  combined with partisan political tactical analysis, these guys are good.  When you can get 70 percent of the American public to believe that Saddam was involved in the destruction of the twin towers at any time, that is successful propaganda.  To date they have no peer.

As if waterboarding would give truths as result.

Given how many Straussians there are in that bunch, I'd guess that Saddam was going to be their evil icon from the get-go. I bet they ignored terrorist warnings because they were busy refining their mythology of Saddam the "evil-doer"/W as the American Hero.

I think the sheer incompetence that Bush/Rummy/et al display daily pretty much precludes them from being capable of making a strategic play like that. They had their heads so far up Irving Kristol's rear that they probably never saw 9/11 coming.

It seems like Bin Laden was a blessing and a curse to them - they had their boogeyman so W. could play the hero, but they also had to divert resources to Afghanistan.

I lived in NYC then, and as the days went by, I kept wondering where the President was. If they'd been anticipating 9/11 at all, I suspect King George would have been at ground zero much quicker, providing aid to rescue workers and taking as many Katrina-esque photo ops as he could. I think the reason they kept shuffling him around (and put Dick in the bunker) was because they truly had no damn idea what was going on. In a time of crisis, they all revealed themselves as the incompetent cowards they are.

-----
Romani Ite Domum

I'm with you on this. I almost wish they were evil masterminds. Then at least they'd be good at something.