By Jeff Stein, CQ National Security Editor
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=hsnews-000002721511&parm1=5&cpage=1

"Eight years later came 9/11, famously labeled a failure to “connect the dots.” Eyewash. The CIA, FBI and others had dots. They hoarded them like marbles."

So, was the "failure to prevent" an intentional act to further an agenda, as well as treason and mass murder by US policy makers- or more like manslaughter, only involving "incompetence", criminal negligence, dereliction of duty and horrendous administrative and policy decisions rooted in ignorance, territoriality, ego, partisanship, spite, suspicion- or just the inevitable, "blameless" result an institutionalized culture of secrecy that "supposedly" has been changed? Instead of pursuing these questions, he continues with secrecy issues, the subject of the film being reviewed (in CQ Politics). Article has a nice summary of the bin Laden satellite phone-1998 NSA leak publication-Bush propaganda. In reference to abuse of secrecy:

"Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? A government of men, as it were, not laws.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19871.htm

The Last Roundup

For decades the federal government has been developing a highly classified plan that would override the Constitution in the event of a terrorist attack. Is it also compiling a secret enemies list of citizens who could face detention under martial law?

By Christopher Ketcham

05/05/08 "Radar Magazine" -- - 28/04/08 --- -In the spring of 2007, a retired senior official in the U.S. Justice Department sat before Congress and told a story so odd and ominous, it could have sprung from the pages of a pulp political thriller. It was about a principled bureaucrat struggling to protect his country from a highly classified program with sinister implications. Rife with high drama, it included a car chase through the streets of Washington, D.C., and a tense meeting at the White House, where the president's henchmen made the bureaucrat so nervous that he demanded a neutral witness be present.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey has admitted that he garbled his claim about the pre-9/11 intercept of a call between an al-Qaeda facility overseas and the 9/11 hijackers in the US last week. Today he told the Senate:

"One thing I got wrong. It didn’t come from Afghanistan. I got the country wrong."
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2...340778#comments

I have been all over this and I know the other end of the call was in Yemen. Here is the timeline we compiled:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&projects_and_programs=complete_911_timeline...

This is a huge issue for us. If people knew that the NSA was intercepting calls between the 9/11 hijackers in the US and a phone registered to a guy (Ahmed al-Hada) who had previously helped bin Laden murder about 240 people (including 29 Americans), but didn't bother to trace the calls, what would they think about 9/11?

The 9/11 Commission knew about this, but included only two cryptic references to it in its report. This reflects very badly on the 9/11 Commission.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3117.shtml

By Larry Chin
Online Journal Associate Editor

Mar 31, 2008, 00:18

Email this article
Printer friendly page
In a recent speech at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club, Attorney General Michael Mukasey defended the Bush-Cheney administration’s illegal domestic spying agenda by proclaiming that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented if the government had been able to monitor overseas phone calls to the United States.

Like every other member of the Bush-Cheney administration, Mukasey is lying. Lying about the fact that the “war on terrorism” is a fabrication. Lying about the pervasive worldwide eavesdropping capabilities of US intelligence agencies. Lying about the fact that 9/11 was a long-planned Anglo-American false flag covert operation.

According to Mukasey’s spin on the now-classic 9/11 fiction, Bush-Cheney “knew there had been a call from some place that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn’t know precisely where it went. We’ve got 3,000 people who went to work that day, and didn’t come home, to show for that.”

Attorney General Michael Mukasey is the latest government official to lie about the Yemen hub calls, which he used as a justification for the NSA's warrantless wiretapping programme. The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

Before the 2001 terrorist attacks, he said, "we knew that there had been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went. You've got 3,000 people who went to work that day, and didn't come home, to show for that."

“A contributor to the History Commons has obtained a 298-page document entitled Hijackers Timeline (Redacted) from the FBI, subsequent to a Freedom of Information Act request. The document was a major source of information for the 9/11 Commission's final report. Though the commission cited the timeline 52 times in its report, it failed to include some of the document's most important material.

The printed document is dated November 14, 2003, but appears to have been compiled in mid-October 2001 (the most recent date mentioned in it is October 22, 2001), when the FBI was just starting to understand the backgrounds of the hijackers, and it contains almost no information from the CIA, NSA, or other agencies. This raises questions as to why the 9/11 Commission relied so heavily on such an early draft for their information about the hijackers.”

More here:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/fbi911timeline
(Local mirror of zip file: 7.8 MB)

Summary of what the FBI document reveals:

I wrote a summary of the Yemen Hub chapter in the 9/11 Timeline. It is about the NSA listening to the hijackers' calls and how their explanation for why they didn't catch the hijackers based on the intercepts doesn't make any sense.

It begins:

Yemen Hub: NSA was listening in on the 9/11 hijackers’ calls for years

And how this became the rationale for the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program

The “Yemen hub” was an al-Qaeda communications hub that fell under US surveillance in the mid-late 1990s and was also home to Khalid Almihdhar, said to have been on the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. There are still many unanswered questions about the surveillance, such as why were the NSA and its fellow agencies unable to roll up the plot based on the intercepts? And how did it come to be used as the justification for the NSA’s current domestic warrantless program?

You can find it here:
http://www.iraqtimeline.com/blog/

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/washington/25nsa.html?ref=us

In Senate, a White House Victory on Eavesdropping

NSA Domestic Surveillance Began 7 Months Before 9/11, Convicted Qwest CEO Claims

By Ryan Singel October 11, 2007 | 6:20:59 PM

Did the NSA's massive call records database program pre-date the terrorist attacks of 9/11?

That startling allegation is in court documents released this week which show that former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio -- the head of the only company known to have turned down the NSA's requests for Americans' phone records -- tried, unsuccessfully, to argue just that in his defense against insider trading charges.

Nacchio was sentenced to 6 years in prison in 2007 after being found guilty of illegally selling shares based on insider information that the company's fortunes were declining. Nacchio unsuccessfully attempted to defend himself by arguing that he actually expected Qwest's 2001 earnings to be higher because of secret NSA contracts, which, he contends, were denied by the NSA after he declined in a February 27, 2001 meeting to give the NSA customer calling records, court documents released this week show.

The FBI performed so bad before 9/11 that it took four and a half years to get an unredacted version of the DOJ inspector general's report. The CIA performed so bad before 9/11 that it took nearly six years to get a redacted summary of its inspector general's report. The NSA performed so bad before 9/11 that it has not even admitted its inspector general wrote a report.

Given that the NSA was tapping the hijackers' phones, it surely has a couple of issues to address and explain to the public (for example: why did you let them do it?), but it has not done so as far as I can see. I have never heard of any NSA inspector general report and, when I had a look just now, I couldn't find anything. The NSA admits at its website that it has an inspector general and he is reputed to have begun work on at least one report (into warrantless wiretapping), so presumably he would write a report into the agency's failings before 9/11. However, I can't find a single trace of it. Can anybody help me out here? Is there at least a mention somewhere, anywhere of the NSA inspector general writing a report on the agency's performance before 9/11?

It doesn't appear to me we, in Portland,are in the clear from a false flag attack until after Operation TOPOFF, in October. The information compiled suggests an agenda for a false flag nuclear attack in Portland actually exists. (1) Thanks to Captain May, the Oregon Truth Alliance and others, there has been publicity about a false flag attack in Portland during the drills. That publicity may have saved the city. We can use the evidence we have to influence the people of Portland to be motivated to help with 9/11 Truth.

The Cheneyites created an agenda to blow up our beautiful city and massacre the people. That should make people angry enough to do something, like the draft did during the Vietnam War.

Senate Votes for Warrantless Surveillance

Bush threatened Senator to prevent their vacation.

16 democrats and one independent (former democrat Lieberman) voted with the republicans.

"We're at war. The enemy wants to attack us," Lieberman said during the Senate debate. "This is not the time to strive for legislative perfection."

The Bush White House tabled its demands thus:

What Is Not Acceptable

Some have proposed that the Government must obtain pre-approval from a court before it conducts critical surveillance of targets located overseas. This is unacceptable. The Government must be able to act immediately, particularly in the case of national security emergencies, to protect the Nation.

Some have suggested that FISA must be reformed, but only to permit collection against certain overseas threats like al Qaeda terrorists. This is unacceptable. There are many threats that confront our Nation, including military, weapons proliferation, and economic, and we must be able to conduct foreign intelligence effectively on all of them.

The story of AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein is a prime example of what 9/11 Truth needs, and what stands in our way. This is from ABC's The Blotter:

Whistle-blower AT&T technician Mark Klein says his effort to reveal alleged government surveillance of domestic Internet traffic was blocked not only by U.S. intelligence officials but also by the top editors of the Los Angeles Times.

In his first broadcast interview, which can be seen tonight on World News and Nightline, Klein describes how he stumbled across "secret NSA rooms" being installed at an AT&T switching center in San Francisco and later heard of similar rooms in at least six other cities, including Atlanta, San Diego, Los Angeles, Palo Alto, San Jose and Seattle.

"You needed an ordinary key and the code to punch into a key pad on the door, and the only person who had both of those things was the one guy cleared by the NSA," Klein says of the "secret room" at the AT&T center in San Francisco.

The NSA is the National Security Agency, the country's most secretive intelligence agency, charged with intercepting communications overseas.

“We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions--by abandoning every value except the will to power--they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.”

— George W. Bush, Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, September 20, 2001

So who is participating in the 911 cover-up.

The entire mainstream media. Literally hundreds of TV stations, and newspapers, weekly news magazines, the wire services, and a few hundred radio stations, not only in the USA, but in Britain, Australia, and much of Western Europe. These people are either totally unreliable, too stupid to see what is right in front of them, or too scared to do their jobs properly. Would you ever again trust any reporter who decided to support the official government conspiracy, even though he/she knew it was a cavalcade of lies, because that person was afraid of losing their income?

The National Journal has a story in today's paper that shows how upset Cheney was that the September 10th NSA intercepts were made public. It also shows that the administration was looking for any possible excuse to shut down the inquiries into 9/11.

Early on the morning of June 20, 2002, then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham, D-Fla., received a telephone call at home from a highly agitated Dick Cheney. Graham, who was in the middle of shaving, held a razor in one hand as he took the phone in the other.

The vice president got right to the point: A story in his morning newspaper reported that telephone calls intercepted by the National Security Agency on September 10, 2001, apparently warned that Al Qaeda was about to launch a major attack against the United States, possibly the next day. But the intercepts were not translated until September 12, 2001, the story said, the day after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Because someone had leaked the highly classified information from the NSA intercepts, Cheney warned Graham, the Bush administration was considering ending all cooperation with the joint inquiry by the Senate and House Intelligence committees on the government's failure to predict and prevent the September 11 attacks. Classified records would no longer be turned over to the Hill, the vice president threatened, and administration witnesses would not be available for interviews or testimony.