BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
- Like Jay-Z + the Beatles, But Worse
- Update: Help for Homeless Children
- Bush Era, Revised -- and with More Barbeque
- The Tax Woman Cometh
- Paging Mr. Stanford: Antigua Called
- Who Are You Calling Partisan?
- Update: IRS Won't Use Private Debt Collectors
- But Is It Art?
- PMA Scandal a Sore Point for Dems in 2010?
- Down in Flames
- A New Mystery for RNC Chief
- PMA Clients Were Big Givers
- Raided Lobby Firm Still a Force on Capitol Hill
- Stanford Update: Another $143 Mil Found
- Cheney, Hooked on Controversy
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- Cheney
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- IRS
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- PMA
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Stanford
- Steele
- Terror
- Troopergate
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
« Previous | Main | Next »
Summer 2007 Is Eerily Similar to Summer 2001
July 12, 2007 11:57 AM
The summer before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Richard Clarke was the White House Director of Counterterrorism. As the Blotter has reported, senior law enforcement officials said this week there are growing signs of a "Summer of '07" terror attack on the U.S. Now an ABC News consultant, Clarke says these latest intelligence reports bear an eerie resemblance to those officials received in the summer of 2001. Yet again, the intelligence is of a high quality, but doesn't point to a specific date or target. So how should the country respond?
In the summer of 2001, we had numerous, high quality intelligence reports that indicated something was going to happen. We did not know where, when, how or specifically who.
The CIA suggested an attack would likely come in Saudi Arabia, but they did not rule out an attack in the U.S. It was of deep concern, and the president and national security principals were repeatedly informed of that concern. I ordered counterterrorism units to cancel leaves and directed FAA, FBI and other domestic agencies to send out warnings.
Overseas, we urged DOD to put its bases on high Defense Condition status and to move ships from vulnerable harbors in the Middle East. State Department embassies were directed to go on heightened security status.
We did not issue a public alert because we had no "actionable intelligence"; we did not have any specific advice for the public.
How can you conclude that you should step things up when you know so little? There are hundreds of "intelligence reports" every week. Many suggest something dire is about to happen. Almost all of the reports are wrong to some degree. Just because an intelligence agency has been told something and dutifully passes it on as "raw intelligence" does not mean it's true.
But a highly experienced analyst with years of sifting through such reports can tell when there is a difference, what we used to call "a disturbance in the force." The quality of some of the reports is better. The quantity is up. What they say is highly plausible. Some tend to confirm each other and are not "circular reporting" (where one source tells many people and that results in you getting the same report from multiple sources). That's how I felt, how George Tenet felt, in June and July of 2001. Its apparently how some analysts feel now.
Senior government officials are sensitive to the "boy who cried wolf" problem. They also know that police chiefs around the country want to be told whether they should put officers on overtime to guard iconic buildings and transportation nodes. In the absence of intelligence that is specific enough to tell security officials what to do, all that senior officials can do is express a general concern, what Secretary Michael Chertoff called (belatedly) "an informed judgment." What that means is stay alert, get ready. It does not mean an attack is necessarily imminent. For intelligence officials, it also means that they should try harder to follow up leads, contact sources and get "actionable intelligence," information that can be used to stop the attack.
July 12, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (76)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
They say that hindsight is 20/20...well, Richard Clarke and the US intelligence community has that hindsight now...I wouldn't be scared to go out or afraid to ride the subway, but I would keep in mind that ignoring these suggestions of being alert and aware are your choice.
I know, I know..."the bushies are trying to scare us and take away our rights"..."this is just a scare tactic to keep the sheeple in line"... blah blah blah...maybe...maybe not...
Posted by: Jazz | Jul 12, 2007 12:16:31 PM
The officials have been warning us for a week now. They say an attack is imminent. Then so is a stock market crash, is it not? The market will crash when this 'imminent' attack happens, won't it? Is it time for everyone to sell all their stocks?
Posted by: Eric | Jul 12, 2007 12:53:46 PM
Eric, read the story..."It does not mean an attack is necessarily imminent."...And you asked the same questions regarding the stock market in another posting, so I'm not sure what your point is, other than being antagonistic or sarcastic.
The market withstood 9/11...and it was covered in 3k dead bodies and and a bunch of debris...I'm sure remote locations are set up in the event that the exchange itself is destroyed...
And who needs "official warnings"? Don't be naive...you're instinct should have been keeping you on your toes since the winter of 1993...
Posted by: Jazz | Jul 12, 2007 1:31:48 PM
If something were to happen I would have no problem with President Bush declaring Marshall Law and cancelling the 2008 presidential election.
Posted by: JuJubee Jones | Jul 12, 2007 1:37:02 PM
The next terror attack is a nice story, but I'm not sure I'm worried about it. It seems to be a toss-up between that and the following; social security running out, health insurance rising too fast, global warming and its destruction of our planet, possible civil war in 30 years between all of the illegals and the minority "white" U.S. population, west nile, triple E, and anything else I forgot to mention. Sleep well.
Posted by: Lillie | Jul 12, 2007 1:42:58 PM
Jazz, your last comment was ludicrous on so many levels....
Posted by: Adam | Jul 12, 2007 2:13:02 PM
Be specific, Adam...make a point...
Posted by: Jazz | Jul 12, 2007 2:18:26 PM
BUSH trying to get his and cheney's poll numbers up...scare scare scare...let's do a background check on the next person who may become our leader to see if he or she is a nut before election time...please please please...no more cheneyees or bushies
Posted by: JOEL TAYLOR | Jul 12, 2007 2:55:06 PM
I don't understand the significance of the 'chatter.' My understanding of how an al Queda cell works is that they are totally independent and can plan and executive pretty much at will, with minimum input from headquarters. So, who would be chattering to whom? And about what? I thought each cell was isolated and no one knew the details of 9/11, except top echelon. Presumably if another attack is in the works, very few al Queda would know.
Posted by: DD | Jul 12, 2007 3:03:02 PM
I don't buy it Jazz. The market is bound to crash when this imminent terror attack hits. You would be a fool to hold stocks in this extremely dangerous environment. Your retirement money would disappear in an instant.
Posted by: Eric | Jul 12, 2007 3:14:07 PM
It's a sad thing when you don't trust your own president. Unfortunately such is the case and skeptism about this type of "leak" about an imminent attack means little to nothing to anyone anymore.
If we do get attacked, it would be the creme de la creme failure of this administration with all their over spending, bloated government, spying and wars of choice, all of which was done to 'keep us safe' and none of which would have worked??? Then we truly have threwn out the baby with the bath water in when we allowed him to make this 'democracy' which was more like pseudo facism at bush's height of scare tactics.
I hope we are as brave and chin-up about terrorism as the English. They are brave sort. I was impressed how they handled their near miss.
Posted by: jenny | Jul 12, 2007 3:50:59 PM
Jenny, were you born after 9/11/01? Questioning whether WE are as brave as the Brits? Did you not see the reaction of the American people, pulling together and getting their game face on. Going back to work, especially in New York City? You are a true nutroot to compare Bush to a fascist. Your ignorance of events is stunning. I bet you think 9/11 was an "inside job" and that we never walked on the moon, right?
Posted by: Jarhead68 | Jul 12, 2007 4:07:27 PM
Jarhead, well said. I'm I'm English to boot!
Posted by: den | Jul 12, 2007 4:39:41 PM
when it happens, and it will, the republicans will blame former president Clinton bet on it
Posted by: mike | Jul 12, 2007 4:44:35 PM
Everyone of you needs to get a grip! HELLO?! When will we get it together? The events of today were foretold 2000 years ago, but nobody seems to believe all the things spoke of by the prophets. We are living in the "times of the end" - Want to be prepared? better catch up on your reading!!!
Posted by: hopey66 | Jul 12, 2007 4:54:36 PM
Bash Jenny all you want, the point still stands. If a similar attack happens what good has all this done. I'll admit that several attacks have been thwarted in no small part because of the increased security, but if the attacks persist then obviously we aren't dealing with the root of the problem. I'm not saying we should lay down our arms and capitulate but this is not a black and white issue, there is a lot of grey area.
Posted by: DoGooder | Jul 12, 2007 5:04:47 PM
Hey jujubean...Are you serious? Bush declaring Marshall Law and cancelling the 2008 presidential election??? HAHA That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while. What will it accomplish? Bush sending us to another ruthless war? I can hear it now...‘Let’s attack Antarctica…’ HA
You should be shipped to the south pole. No offence BTW :)
Posted by: Young Pythons | Jul 12, 2007 5:10:48 PM
"Marshall Law" ??
Maybe you are confusing the Marshall Plan (which involves rebuilding after an attack -- see "Post-WWII Europe") with martial law (see "Peri-WWII Germany")?
Posted by: govtDr | Jul 12, 2007 5:20:13 PM
It's only a matter of when but who cares anymore. The people in charge who need to make leadership type judgements just aren't there. Just live.
Posted by: mary evans | Jul 12, 2007 5:40:58 PM
Clark is no fan of Bush and I trust what he puts out there. Starting to consider this more seriously. Then again, I've figured we would have another one any way so it's hardly surprising.
Posted by: Sandra | Jul 12, 2007 5:48:16 PM
Post a comment
