Below is a report regarding the 9/11 Commission report issued by the former commissioners.

The report has not been satisifactorily implemented in any regard.

The Democrats should be screaming bloody murder about this!

I think we all agree that this is a top priority or it should be.

Democrats should be blasting the Republican party for its failure to satisfactorily implement the report recommendations which Bush promised to do!!!

http://www.9-11pdp.org/ua/index.htm


Report on the Status of 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Part I: Homeland Security, Emergency Preparedness and Response
September 14, 2005
Thomas H. Kean, Chair
Lee H. Hamilton, Vice Chair
Richard Ben-Veniste
Fred F. Fielding
Jamie S. Gorelick
Slade Gorton
Bob Kerrey
John F. Lehman
Timothy J. Roemer
James R. Thompson
www.9-11pdp.org
________________________________________
Page 2
September 14, 2005
Report on the Status of 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Part I: Homeland Security, Emergency Preparedness and Response

RE C O M M E N D A T I O N ST A T U S NE X T ST E P S

Emergency Preparedness and Response

PROVIDE ADEQUATE RADIO SPECTRUM FOR FIRST RESPONDERS

“Congress should support pending legislation which provides for the expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum for public safety
purposes. Furthermore, high-risk urban areas such as New York City and Washington, DC, should establish signal corps units to
ensure communications connectivity between and among civilian authorities, local first responders, and the National Guard. Federal
funding of such units should be given high priority by Congress.” (p. 397)

Grade: MINIMAL PROGRESS

What has happened: Legislation to provide radio spectrum for first responders has been introduced in the House and Senate. The National Association of Broadcasters has announced that it will not oppose pending legislation to reallocate a portion of the analog broadcast spectrum to first responders.

Why this is still important: On 9/11, inadequate radio spectrum hindered first responder communications. New spectrum is needed to facilitate interoperable communications between responder agencies; to allow effective radio
communications during large-scale responses to major disasters; and to allow emergency response agencies to deploy next-generation communications technologies.

How to fix it: Pending legislation before Congress would compel the return of the analog broadcast spectrum and its reallocation, including for public safety purposes, on various dates. Congress should use the “reconciliation” process, or another legislative vehicle, to mandate this reallocation by the earliest possible date.

ESTABLISH A UNIFIED INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM

“Emergency response agencies nationwide should adopt the Incident Command System (ICS). When multiple agencies or multiple
jurisdictions are involved, they should adopt a unified command. … In the future, the Department of Homeland Security should consider
making funding contingent on aggressive and realistic training in accordance with ICS and unified command procedures.” (p. 397)

Grade: MINIMAL PROGRESS

What has happened: Many fire and police departments and state and local authorities are already well versed in using the ICS—others are being trained in it. Hurricane Katrina demonstrates a major failure: the absence of
unified command.

Why this is still important: In the event of terrorist attack or natural disaster, clear lines of command and control for responding authorities are essential to minimize civilian and responder casualties.

How to fix it: The Department of Homeland Security set the deadline for full Incident Command System compliance “to the maximum extent possible” as October 1, 2004. The hard deadline for full compliance as a condition for federal preparedness funds is October 1, 2006. This date must not slip. All jurisdictions must train
and exercise the Incident Command System as it applies to them.
________________________________________
Page 4
4
ALLOCATE HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDS BASED ON RISK AND VULNERABILITY

“Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. Washington, D.C., and New
York City are certainly at the top of any such list. We understand the contention that every state and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency response. But federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing.

It should supplement state and local resources based on the risks and vulnerabilities that merit additional support. Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel.” (p. 396)

Grade: MINIMAL PROGRESS

What has happened: Congress has considered, but has not yet sent to the President, legislation to overhaul the homeland security grant program.

Why this is still important: Preventing terrorist attacks is a matter of national security. Federal resources are scarce in proportion to the number of potential targets. Congress and the Administration must set priorities based
on the risk, vulnerability, and consequences of an attack on a given site.

How to fix it: The administration’s FY 2006 budget proposal was a positive step forward. Congress should now act to ensure that all federal homeland security assistance is allocated based on an assessment of risk and vulnerability—not as general revenue sharing. The House has overwhelmingly passed a very good bipartisan bill; the Senate has passed a reform amendment as well. The two bodies should come together and produce a bill for the President’s signature that distributes dollars based on risk. This can and should happen before the end of the
First Session of the 109th Congress.

NATIONAL CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE RISKS AND VULNERABILITIES ASSESSMENT

“The Department of Homeland Security and its oversight committees should regularly assess the types of threats the country faces to determine (a) the adequacy of the government’s plans—and the progress against those plans—to protect America’s critical infrastructure and ( the readiness of the government to respond to the threats that the United States might face.” (p. 428)

Grade: UNSATISFACTORY

What has happened: The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (PL 108-458) required DHS to issue a report by June 15, 2005, assessing the risks and vulnerabilities of the nation’s critical infrastructure. This report has not yet been released.

Why this is still important: Regular national assessments of threat, vulnerability, and preparedness will ensure that government efforts are making measurable progress in reducing the overall terrorist threat.

How to fix it: DHS should produce the report required by PL 108-458 as soon as possible, and demonstrate its capability to regularly review and modify the assessment to reflect the changing threat environment and state of
readiness.
________________________________________
Page 5
5
PRIVATE SECTOR PREPAREDNESS

“We endorse the American National Standards Institute’s recommended standard for private preparedness…and urge the Department of Homeland Security to promote its adoption. We also encourage the insurance and credit-rating industries to look closely at a company’s compliance with the ANSI standard in assessing its insurability and creditworthiness.” (p. 398)

Grade: MINIMAL PROGRESS

What has happened: In a May 2005 speech to private sector representatives, Secretary Chertoff correctly noted that preparedness is not solely a government responsibility. The insurance and credit-rating industries are beginning to incorporate national preparedness standards into their underwriting and risk-analysis criteria. Leaders in the legal profession are beginning to evaluate the National Preparedness Standard as a “legal standard of care.” Still, awareness of the Standard throughout the corporate sector is low.

Why this is still important: The terrorists have repeatedly targeted private sector assets. In another attack and in any natural disaster, private-sector employees will likely again be on the front lines. As the 9/11 Commission Report showed, employees of enterprises that institutionalize a high level of emergency preparedness are far more
likely to survive in a disaster.

How to fix it: Corporate leaders should take the lead in encouraging all American businesses, especially those in high-risk areas, or who own critical national infrastructure, to incorporate National Preparedness Standards into their business practices. DHS should make private-sector preparedness a higher priority. The insurance and credit-
rating industries should incorporate the National Preparedness Standard into their evaluations.
________________________________________
Page 6
6
Transportation Security

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

“The U.S. government should identify and evaluate the transportation assets that need to be protected, set risk-based priorities for defending them, select the most practical and cost-effective ways of doing so, and then develop a plan, budget, and funding to implement the effort. The plan should assign roles and missions to the relevant authorities (federal, state, regional, and local), and to private stakeholders.” (p. 391)

Grade: SOME PROGRESS

What has happened: The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (PL 108-458) required DHS to prepare a National Strategy for Transportation Security, due April 1, 2005. This report has been transmitted to the Congress, yet remains classified.

Why this is still important: The classified report is unavailable to the public, the transportation community, state and local governments, first responders, and other important stakeholders. This report will be of little practical use until it can be distributed to those responsible for its implementation.

How to fix it: DHS should declassify this report as soon as possible. The Department should maintain a capability to review and modify the assessment to reflect the changing threat environment and state of transportation security.

IMPROVE AIRLINE PASSENGER PRE-SCREENING

“Improved use of ‘no-fly’ and ‘automatic selectee’ lists should not be delayed while the argument about a successor to CAPPS continues. This screening function should be performed by the TSA, and it should utilize the larger set of watchlists maintained by the federal government. Air carriers should be required to supply the information needed to test and implement this new system.” (p. 393)

Grade: UNSATISFACTORY

What has happened: Contrary to the Commission recommendation, the TSA test program is combining watchlist screening with the use of commercial databases to verify passenger identities, which has produced controversy over privacy issues. This has delayed completion of the testing phase. TSA now hopes to begin operation of the new system in late 2005 or early 2006.

Why this is still important: With the airlines still responsible for implementing the “no fly” and “automatic selectee” lists, the names of many known or suspected terrorists are still not being included on these lists, making airline passengers less secure than they should be.

How to fix it: As recommended by the Commission and mandated by PL 108-458, TSA should focus its priority
attention on taking over implementation of passenger pre-screening so that all names on the consolidated terrorist
watch list are utilized.
________________________________________
Page 7
7
IMPROVE AIRLINE SCREENING CHECKPOINTS TO DETECT EXPLOSIVES

“The TSA and the Congress must give priority attention to improving the ability of screening checkpoints to detect explosives on passengers. As a start, each individual selected for special screening should be screened for explosives. Further, the TSA should conduct a human factors study, a method often used in the private sector, to understand problems in screener performance and set attainable objectives for individual screeners and for the checkpoints where screening takes place.” (p. 393)

Grade: MINIMAL PROGRESS

What has happened: The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (PL 108-458) required DHS to develop and deploy effective checkpoint explosives and WMD detection equipment, to screen all selectees and their carry-on property for explosives, and to report to Congress within 180 days on the results of any human factors study it has conducted. TSA has deployed explosives trace detection devices at all airports to examine selectees’ carry-on items, and installed explosives detection trace portals (“puffers”) at 17 airports (with seven more airports due for installation in the near future) to scrutinize the persons of selectees. After the suicide bombing of Russian commercial aircraft in August 2004, TSA stepped up the use of “pat-down” searches for explosives, but after privacy-related protests it took steps to reduce the intrusiveness of these searches. While TSA has indicated that human factors analysis is being carried out at a Research & Development facility in Atlantic City and elsewhere, it has not yet submitted to Congress the report required by statute.

Why this is still important: Following improvements in on-board defenses against suicide hijacking, explosives
currently represent the major security threat to passenger aviation.

How to fix it: Congress needs to provide the funding for, and TSA needs to move as expeditiously as possible with, the installation of explosives detection trace portals at more of the nation’s 441 commercial airports, while
both continue to support the development of more advanced screening technology. Furthermore, until such time as the trace portals, or more effective successors, are fully deployed, TSA must utilize other means (including the
canine teams and “pat-down” searches) to insure that selectees are searched for explosives, no matter what airport
they fly from.

CHECKED BAG AND CARGO SCREENING

“More attention and resources should be directed to reducing or mitigating the threat posed by explosives in vessels’ cargo holds. The TSA should expedite the installation of advanced (in-line) baggage screening equipment. Because the aviation industry will derive substantial benefits from this deployment, it should pay a fair share of the costs. The TSA should require that every passenger aircraft carrying cargo must deploy at least one hardened container to carry any suspect cargo. TSA also needs to intensify its efforts to identify,
track, and appropriately screen potentially dangerous cargo in both the aviation and maritime sectors.” (p. 393)

Grade: MINIMAL PROGRESS

What has happened: The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (PL 108-458) incorporated the Commission’s recommendations for deployment of “in-line” screening equipment, converted the hardened
container requirement into a pilot program, and established a detailed program for air cargo security. In response, TSA does not appear to have expedited its plans for in-line installation, with just nine operational systems and eight more under construction as of mid-2005. There has been little progress on the hardened container pilot project. The agency’s air cargo security efforts have centered on a slow-moving regulatory proceeding. Efforts by the Department of Homeland Security’s Custom and Border Protection (CBP) division have improved upon the pre-9/11 state of maritime cargo security, yet these programs have received relatively little funding. The Government Accountability Office, among others, has documented continuing problems in each of them.
________________________________________
Page 8
8

Why this is still important: Deployment of in-line explosives detection equipment has been shown to improve security and to significantly reduce operational costs. Air and maritime cargo continue to be very vulnerable to
terrorist attack.

How to fix it: The main impediment to improved checked bag and cargo security is inadequate funding. If the Congress and the administration believe these to be priorities, they must determine the costs and specify how they
will pay for these improvements.
________________________________________
Page 9
9
Border Security

BETTER TERRORIST TRAVEL INTELLIGENCE

“The United States should combine terrorist travel intelligence, operations, and law enforcement in a strategy to intercept terrorists, find terrorist travel facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility.” (9/11 Report, p. 385)

Grade: SOME PROGRESS

What has happened: The National Counterterrorism Center, the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center, and
representatives of multiple government agencies are jointly developing the first terrorist travel strategy. They are
taking steps to integrate terrorist travel intelligence into border operations.

Why this is still important: As terrorists move across international borders to meet, train, and carry out their
operations, they make themselves vulnerable to detection and interdiction. Targeting terrorist travel can help detect terrorists and help prevent attacks.

How to fix it: The U.S. government must develop and implement a long-term terrorist travel strategy, comparable to the multi-faceted strategies currently directed at terrorist finance and terrorist communications. Completing a terrorist travel strategy (and report) in December 2005 is the first major benchmark. What to look for: Progress in implementing a program to screen travel documents for terrorist indicators.

COMPREHENSIVE SCREENING SYSTEM

“The President should direct the Department of Homeland Security to lead the effort to design a comprehensive screening system, addressing common problems and setting common standards with systemwide goals in mind.” (p. 387)
Grade: MINIMAL PROGRESS

What has happened: Presidential Homeland Security Directive 11 (August 27, 2004), announced a new U.S.
policy to “implement a coordinated and comprehensive approach to terrorist-related screening—in immigration,
law enforcement, intelligence, counterintelligence, and protection of the border, transportation systems, and critical infrastructure -- that supports homeland security, at home and abroad.” A working group developed an
implementation plan, and Secretary Chertoff has announced the establishment of a new Screening Coordination Office at DHS.

Why this is still important: Having too many different biometric standards, travel facilitation systems, credentialing systems, and screening requirements hampers the development of information crucial for stopping terrorists from entering the country. It is also expensive and inefficient. A coordinating body should raise standards, facilitate information-sharing, and survey systems for potential problems.

How to fix it: The Screening Coordination Office should set standards and break down bureaucratic stovepipes that prevent the match-up of information. Goals need to be set and implemented for resolving differences in biometric systems, traveler systems, and credentialing and identification standards.
________________________________________
Page 10
10
B IOMETRIC ENTRY-EXIT SCREENING SYSTEM

“The Department of Homeland Security, properly supported by the Congress, should complete, as quickly as possible, a biometric entry-exit screening system, including a single system for speeding qualified travelers. It should be integrated with the system that provides benefits to foreigners seeking to stay in the United States.” (p. 389)

Grade: SOME PROGRESS

What has happened: The US-VISIT system is running at 115 airports and 15 seaports, and is performing secondary screening at the 50 busiest land borders. A plan exists to equip all land borders by the end of the year, though it is not likely to be completed on time. The exit component of the system has not been widely deployed.

The numerous border screening systems operated by DHS, including US-VISIT, are not yet interoperable.

Why this is still important: It is imperative for national security that the government knows who is coming into our country, can effectively verify identities, establishes how long people are here, and when they leave.

How to fix it: Continuing to build this system, developing and deploying the exit component of US-VISIT, and making entry-exit and immigration benefits systems interoperable, should remain top priorities for DHS.

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION ON BORDERS AND
DOCUMENT SECURITY

“We should do more to exchange terrorist information with trusted allies, and raise U.S. and global border security standards for travel and border crossing over the medium and long-term through extensive international cooperation.” (p. 390)

Grade: UNSATISFACTORY

What has happened: Terrorist watchlists—the most basic tool of border control—need to be shared. More information should be shared with a greater number of allies. The U.S. is not moving to include fingerprints in passports and therefore is not taking a leadership role in passport security.

Why this is still important: The U.S. government does not have complete information on terrorist identities; much information is held by foreign governments. U.S. security will be greatly strengthened by access to this information and the help of other governments in interdicting terrorist travel. If terrorists are to enter, prepare for and carry out operations in the United States, they need travel documents. International collaboration on document standards and security is needed to ensure that foreign travelers’ documents are legitimate and secure, and to keep out suspected terrorists.

How to fix it: Watchlist sharing must be a higher priority, and it needs a systematic diplomatic effort. Congress should make fingerprints in passports a priority.

STANDARDIZE SECURE IDENTIFICATIONS

“The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers licenses.”
(p. 390)
Grade: SOME PROGRESS

What has happened: The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (PL 108-458) started a regulatory process to establish standards for state-issued ID’s acceptable for federal purposes. The REAL ID Act (PL 109-13) superseded this regulatory process and established these standards by statute. The fragmented and insecure system of birth certificate issuance has not yet been addressed. The Intelligence Reform Act requires the administration to issue new standards by December 2005.
________________________________________
Page 11
11

Why this is still important: Birth certificate security is critical to preventing fraud in the acquisition of U.S. passports and other identification, such as drivers’ licenses. Drivers’ license issuance affects terrorist mobility and presents an opportunity to screen terrorists.

How to fix it: Congress will need to monitor states’ compliance with the REAL ID Act. Congress should insist on the issuance of new birth certificate standards by December 2005, as required by PL 108-458.

Democrats --- where are you on this?

9/11 panel faults government: NYT

Staff and agencies
02 November, 2005

http://www.heraldnewsdaily.com/stories/news-0094050.html

Wed Oct 19,10:09 AM ET

WASHINGTON - A new report by members of the former September 11 commission faults the FBI for failing to act on the panel‘s recommendations for preventing terrorist attacks, The New York Times reported on Tuesday.

The privately funded report, scheduled for release on Thursday, will also say the White House is not doing enough to defend civil liberties in the post-September 11 era, the newspaper said, citing commissioners and staff members.

The New York Times cited some commissioners as saying a civil liberties board created by the White House lacked power and funding.

The report also takes aim at Congress for inaction on the panel‘s recommendation to overhaul congressional oversight of intelligence and terrorism issues, Timothy Roemer, a Democratic member of the commission told the newspaper.

The commission wrote the seminal 2004 analysis of what when wrong before and after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

The panel formally disbanded after submitting its final report in July last year, but the members continue their work as the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, which tracks implementation of the 2004 report‘s recommendations.

Last month, the former commissioners urged the Bush administration and Congress to plug gaps in disaster response exposed by Hurricane Katrina.

The panel members said then the executive branch and Congress had made minimal or no progress on 11 of the commission‘s 14 proposals to boost domestic security, emergency preparedness and response.

Panel Criticizes Technology, Other Changes Sought After 9/11

The privately-funded "Report on the Status of 9/11 Commission Recommendations" criticizes the President for making "minimal progress" in leading national security institutions into the information revolution, and the FBI for making minimal progress in its analytic capability.

By K.C. Jones, TechWeb News
Oct. 21, 2005
URL: http://www.informationweek.com/story/showA...cleID=172303279

The federal government has made minimal progress in improving technology in accordance with 9/11 Commission recommendations, according to a new report.

The 9/11 Public Disclosure Project released the second portion of its privately-funded "Report on the Status of 9/11 Commission Recommendations" Thursday. The report, by former 9/11 commissioners, examines government reform. It criticizes efforts to guard civil liberties, account for intelligence spending and share information.

It states that the President has made "minimal progress" in leading national security institutions into the information revolution and the FBI has made minimal progress in its analytic capability. The FBI also received an "unsatisfactory" grade for improving information systems.

In the original 9/11 report recommendations, the President was asked to lead a government-wide effort to bring major national security institutions "into the information revolution." The evaluation released this week said that the President has created a Director of National Intelligence but failed to provide adequate resources, personnel and backing.

"He should coordinate the resolution of the legal, policy and technical issues across agencies to create a trusted information network," the report noted, adding there are few signs that one actually exists.

The report said the FBI has been moving in the right direction, slowly. It states that efforts to improve FBI information technology capabilities have failed and the FBI's analytic capabilities, including information sharing, are "inadequate" It states that high turnover, staff shortages and the agency's culture have also impeded its success.

"The terrorists will not wait. Reforms must be accelerated or they will fail," the report states. "Unless there is improvement in a reasonable time, Congress will have to look at alternatives."

The Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) share radar feeds and coordinate action when protected air space over the nation's Capital is breached, but agency database records documenting such violations are not shared and there's no overarching plan to secure the rest of the nation's air space, according to the report. The commission claims that the administration is responsible for that, and for standardizing security clearances.

After 9/11 the government decided to make one federal agency in charge of hiring so security clearance would be standardized with a single database. The evaluation describes the security clearance process as "Balkanized." It reports that there is an excellent executive statement of policy, but changes haven't actually taken place. There are still obstacles to timely sharing of information within the government, as well as delays in hiring, according to the report.

An FBI spokesman did not immediately return calls for comment, but in April 2004, the agency stated that it had modernized its technology, improved coordination and had made significant strides in analyzing, integrating and sharing information since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. The agency reported that it had installed a high-speed network, purchased new computers, upgraded old computers and consolidated terrorist information into a single, searchable database.

The agency also touted its then newly developed "Virtual Case File," described as a state-of-the-art. However, plans for the case management system software have not yet materialized.

Fighting terrorism starts at home
Editorial
Daytona Beach News

Last update: October 23, 2005
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJour...OPN62102305.htm

A tourism town like Daytona Beach -- especially during Biketoberfest weekend -- seems a world away from terrorism dangers.

But the truth is, any large gathering of tourists is a potential target for terrorists, according to Bernard McCarthy, a criminal justice expert at the University of Central Florida whose specialties include terrorism and tourism.

Let it be said that Daytona Beach visitors should not be alarmed. Police officers in the city have been training since 2001 to survey crowds and territory looking for potential threats, including home-made bombs -- using officers in uniform and in plain clothes. The city is safer but the party is tempered because we are living in a world of unknown risks.

While there is no imminent local threat, political priorities in Washington are misplaced. The responsibility for security rests largely with local law enforcement agencies and the potential dangers are more likely to be homemade bombs and the consequences of out-of-control crowds should an explosion occur. But instead of providing sufficient funds to put more police on the street, which is needed, both Congress and the Department of Homeland Security are spending billions on things like providing bio-warfare training for local police officers, an unlikely threat for most localities.

Further, as McCarthy says, federal agencies still do not share information with local police about potential threats. For instance, Homeland Security officials failed to notify New York about potential bomb threats on the subway and then criticized them for overreacting by alerting passengers. In some cases, McCarthy says, police departments have created their own intelligence offices because they are unable to get adequate information from the federal government.

Moreover, a status report released Friday by former members of the 9/11 Commission sharply criticized the FBI for continued confusion in sharing information with each other and for not trusting local police. The commission also denounced Congress for failing to improve oversight of domestic security issues.

Washington also is ignoring global trends in political violence. The tourism and terrorism issue has not gotten the attention it deserves. In a shift of tactics, as McCarthy points out, terrorists are targeting tourism spots because they likely offer high impact -- they can get instant media attention and quickly undermine an economy -- with low risk and cost.

On Oct. 1, for instance, suicide bombers believed to be connected to Jemaah Islamiyah, a terrorists' group, killed 25 people and wounded 100 in a series of explosions in a restaurant and a tourism center on the resort island of Bali -- almost three years to the date after the same group was accused of killing more than 200 in a nightclub explosion. It is believed that the Bali terrorists aim to bring down the provincial government by ruining the island's economy.

Escalation of such a trend would be devastating for the tourist industry, which must be open and welcoming to prosper. Tourists wanting to relax would find it hard to do if surrounded by security officers and devices.

Meanwhile, Daytona Beach area law-enforcement officers are clearly cooperating to make local communities safer, including a recent mock exercise that mimicked a seaside plane crash. And a year ago, a similar training exercise was staged at Daytona International Speedway. If visitors and residents feel safe in our communities, it is because of good local planning.

As for Washington, little of the billions spent on so-called homeland security is trickling down to help those local efforts. The federal government should review its priorities on making the nation safer, especially in light of the shift of terrorism tactics toward tourism spots.

Why isn't everyone incensed that this report has not been implemented?

Why aren't the Democrats using this to discredit Bush more?

This is addition to the Iraq intelligence issue together demonstrate continued incompetence and lying by the Bush Administration === a one two punch that can knock Bush further into the dirt credibility wise and lead to Democratic domination in 2006!

Debate About Iraq War Intelligence Escalates
By Paula Wolfson
White House
13 November 2005

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-11-13-voa26.cfm


President Bush
The debate over information used by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq is escalating. Supporters and critics of the president's Iraq policy spoke out on the news interview programs that dominate Sunday morning television in the United States.

Two days after President Bush took on his critics in a speech to military veterans, his national security adviser followed up on national television.

Stephen Hadley acknowledged that some of the evidence used by the president to make the case for war in Iraq was flawed. But he stressed Mr. Bush did not manipulate the data to win support for his policies.

"Yes, we were all wrong in the intelligence. But to go back now and to argue that the president somehow manipulated intelligence, somehow misled the American people in a rush to war is flat wrong," Mr. Hadley says.

Appearing on CNN's Late Edition program, Mr. Hadley had harsh words for those who have made such allegations. He noted that neither the Senate Intelligence Committee, nor an independent commission set up to review intelligence community failures, accused the White House of twisting the facts.

"It is unworthy and unfair, and ill-advised when our men and women in combat are putting their lives on the line, to re-litigate an issue, which was looked at by two authoritative sources and has been closed," Mr. Hadley says.

But the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee defends those who want another look at the administration's handling of intelligence prior to the war. Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia spoke on the Fox News Sunday program.

"If it is the fact that they created intelligence, or shaped intelligence, in order to bring American opinion along to support them in going to war, that is a really bad thing, which should not ever be repeated," Mr. Rockefeller says.

Other Senate Democrats have said they want to know if the White House relied too much on faulty information and sources provided by Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi opposition figure prior to the war. Mr. Chalabi, who is now a deputy prime Minister in Iraq's interim government, spoke on CNN Late Edition.

"I deny that we misled the United States. I deny completely that we provided false information. What we did was provide people who knew about the weapons to be interviewed, only three of them," Mr. Chalabi says.

Ahmad Chalabi was also asked about his recent meetings with officials in Tehran. He said he went to Iran to discuss bilateral relations between the two neighboring countries, but he said he stressed during the talks that Iraq has an unbreakable bond with the United States.

Well, I heard DrDean on Russert yesterday.

New Mantra: "Tell the truth, Tell the truth, Tell the truth."

The Dem's plan? "Coming in 06," sez Howard.

I swear. Will Rogers was right.

For a man not interested in how history will judge him...he sure tries to rewrite it enough...

"The true history of my administration will be written 50 years from now, and you and I will not be around to see it. " - George W. Bush

"Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history - revisionist historians is what I like to call them. " - George W. Bush


Bush Rewrites History To Criticize His Anti-war Critics David Corn
43 minutes ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20051114...HE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

The Nation --

In a Veterans Day speech on Friday, delivered to troops and others at the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania, George W. Bush veered from the usual commemoration of sacrifice to strike at critics who have questioned whether he steered the country into war by using false information. This has become a tough and troubling issue for his presidency. A poll taken before his speech found that 57 percent of the respondents now believe that Bush "deliberately misled" the nation into war. That is astounding and, I assume, without precedent in history. Has there been another wartime period during which a majority of Americans believed the president had purposefully bamboozled them about the reasons for that war? Addressing this charge is tough for Bush because it calls more attention to it, and the on-ground-realities in Iraq only cause more popular unease with the war. But Bush and his aides calculated that it was better to punch back than ignore the criticism, and that's a sign that they're worried that Bush is coming to be defined as a president who conned the nation into an ugly war. So Bush tried. Let's break down his effort:

Our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war.

Conservative who claim raising questions about the war does a disservice to the troops and is anti-American might want to keep these words in mind.

When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support.

Actually, Congress did not approve Bush's decision to remove Saddam. In October 2002, the House and Senate approved a resolution that gave Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq if he deemed that appropriate. At the time, Bush and his aides were claiming it was their goal to force Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction and his WMD programs (which, we know now, did not exist). When the resolution passed---and in the weeks after---the White House insisted that Bush was not bent on "regime change" and that he was willing to work within the UN to force Saddam to accept UN inspectors (which Saddam did) in pursuit of the goal of disarming Iraq. Is Bush now saying that he had already resolved to invade Iraq at this point and all his talk about achieving disarmament through the UN process was bunk? Is he rewriting history--or telling us the real truth? In any event, when Bush did order the invasion of Iraq months later in March 2003, he did not ask Congress to vote on his decision to remove Saddam.

I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.

Bush might accept "the responsibilities and criticisms," but has yet to acknowledge the mistakes he and his aides made before and after the invasion about planning for a post-invasion Iraq. He also has not insisted on any accountability for these mistakes. For instance, he gave a spiffy medal to former CIA chief George Tenet, who was responsible for the prewar intelligence failure.

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.

When was the last time Bush talked about how the war began--that is, when did he mention that his primary reason for war (protecting the American public from the supposed WMD threat posed by Saddam Hussein) was discredited by reality? Is ignoring history the same as rewriting it?

Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

This is not the full and accurate explanation of the controversy at hand. The issue of whether the Bush administration misled the nation in the run-up to the war has two components. The first is the production of the intelligence related to WMDs and the supposed al Qaeda-Sadam connection. The second is how the Bush crowd represented the intelligence to the public when trying to make the case for war. As for the first, the Senate intelligence committee report did say the committee had found no evidence of political pressure. But Democratic members of the committee and others challenged this finding. Several committee Democrats pointed to a CIA independent review on the prewar intelligence, conducted by a panel led by Richard Kerr, former deputy director of the CIA, which said,

Requests for reporting and analysis of [Iraq's links to al Qaeda] were steady and heavy in the period leading up to the war, creating significant pressure on the Intelligence Community to find evidence that supported a connection.

More to the point, Kerr told Vanity Fair that intelligence analysts did feel pressured by the go-to-war gang. The magazine in May 2004 reported,

"There was a lot of pressure, no question," says Kerr. "The White House, State, Defense were raising questions, heavily on W.M.D. and the issue of terrorism. Why did you select this information rather than that? Why have you downplayed this particular thing?...Sure, I heard that some of the analysts felt pressure. We heard about it from friends. There are always some people in the agency who will say, 'We've been pushed to hard.' Analysts will say, 'You're trying to politicize it.' There were people who felt there was too much pressure. Not that they were being asked to change their judgments, but there were being asked again and again to restate their judgments--do another paper on this, repetitive pressures. Do it again."

Was it a case, then, of officials repeatedly asking for another paper until they got the answer they wanted? "There may have been some of that," Kerr concedes. The requests came from "primarily people outside asking for the same paper again and again. There was a lot of repetitive tasking. Some of the analysts felt this was unnecessary pressure. The repetitive requests, Kerr made clear, came from the C.I.A.'s "senior customers," including "the White House, the vice president, State, Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Despite Bush's assertion, the question remains whether undue pressure was applied by the White House. And in his Veterans Day speech, Bush ducked the second issue: how he and his aides depicted the intelligence. This is the source of the dispute over the so-called Phase II investigation of the Senate intelligence committee. The allegation is that Bush and administration officials overstated and hyped the flawed intelligence and claimed it was definitive when they had reason to know it was not.

For example, in his final speech to the nation before launching the war, Bush claimed that US intelligence left "no doubt" about Iraq's supposed WMDs. But there was plenty of doubt on critical issues. Intelligence analysts at the Energy Department and State Department disagreed with those at the CIA about the evidence that purportedly showed Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program: its importation of aluminum tubes and the allegation that Iraq had been uranium-shopping in Niger. (In 2002, Dick Cheney said the tubes were "irrefutable evidence," and Condoleezza Rice said they were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." But a year earlier, as The New York Times reported in 2004, "Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear expert seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons.") The CIA believed Iraq had chemical weapons. But the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that there was no evidence such stockpiles existed. Some intelligence analysts concluded that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles that could deliver chemical or biological weapons. The experts on UAVs at the Air Force thought this was not so. Was Bush speaking accurately when he told the public--and the world--there was "no doubt"?

Also, did Bush make specific claims unsupported by the intelligence? The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced in October 2002, maintained that Iraq had an active biological research and development program. Bush publicly said Iraq had "stockpiles" of biological weapons. There is a difference between an R&D program (which Iraq did not have) and warehouses loaded with ready-to-go weapons (which Bush implied existed). How did an R&D program become stockpiles? This is as intriguing a question as how those sixteen words about Iraq's alleged pursuit of uranium in Africa became embedded in the State of the Union speech Bush delivered in early 2003.

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on Ahmad Chalabi's weak defense, the Rove/Libby scandal, the slow Phase II review of prewar intellience, and other in-the-news matters.

******

On the key issue of Saddam Hussein's alleged connection to al Qaeda, Bush also made statements that went beyond the intelligence. This link was crucial to the case for war, for Bush and other hawks were arguing that Saddam Hussein could slip his WMDs to his pal Osama bin Laden. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was "dealing with" al Qaeda. But his intelligence agencies had not reached that conclusion. (And the 9/11 Commission later said there was no evidence of collusion between al Qaeda and Saddam.) So how did Bush come to make such a statement? Recently, Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat, released formerly classified material showing that before the war when Bush, Cheney, Colin Powell and other administration officials cited evidence that Iraq had been training al Qaeda operatives in the use of bombs and other weapons, Bush and these officials were relying on the statements of a captured al Qaeda member whose claims had been discounted by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Once more, how had Bush and his senior aides come to disseminate specific and provocative information deemed unreliable by the intelligence community?

Bush's Veterans Days comments addressed none of this.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.

The people with the most hands-on information regarding WMDs in Iraq did not. The International Atomic Energy Agency, led by recent Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, concluded weeks before the war (after their inspectors had returned to Iraq) that Saddam Hussein had not revived the nuclear weapons program that the IAEA had dismantled in the mid-1990s. And Hans Blix, head of the UN inspectors in Iraq, repeatedly said that his team was not finding evidence of chemical or biological weapons stockpiles.

...And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate--who had access to the same intelligence--voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

As noted above, the Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to use force when he thought he should--but only after Bush had promised to go to the United Nations in an effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, who, it turned out, was telling the truth when he denied his government possessed WMDs. Even the John Kerry quote that Bush cites contains the to-disarm condition. And several Democratic members of Congress have claimed that they did not see all the intelligence that was available to the White House.

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges.

It's hard to argue with that.

These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough.

Who said that "it's perfectly legitimate to criticize" the "decision [to go to war in Iraq] or the conduct of the war"? That was Bush, moments earlier, in the same speech. So which is it? Is it okay to criticize the conduct of the war or not?

By the way, while accusing his critics of falsifying history, Bush never conceded that he launched the war on a false premise--that Saddam Hussein was up to his neck in WMDs--and, thus, as he paid tribute to veterans of this war and others, he did not accept responsibility for sending American troops into battle for a cause that did not exist.

Thanks for the update...

I continue to wonder about 911, why the administration allowed it to happen if they knew about it beforehand. Besides being the lead-up to the war, that is.

So interested parties could make a ton of money by investing when the stock market crashed maybe?

Naaaah. Stock market is peanuts compared to...

WAR!

What is it good for...

Reelecting George W. Bush...Say it again.

WAR!

What is it good for?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! Good God yeah!