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.
Mike,
That kind of thinking is extremely weak minded. By that logic we should have just sat around reading the Bible during all past conflicts. If that was the case, we'd all be speaking German right now.
Posted by: Brad | Jul 12, 2007 6:00:17 PM
I must admit, because it is Richard Clarke, I am sitting up and taking notice. Doesn't mean I am going to change my daily activities. It means I will be alert not alarmed. Joe Public are the Security Services eyes and ears. If you see anything suspicious even if you don't think it is important REPORT IT let the professionals decide if it important or not.
Don't sit there moaning about if and why empower yourself, our security services can't be everywhere at once.
Several plots in the UK were stopped because the Public thought 'hang on that doesn't appear right' and reported it. If they are here someone knows where, even if they don't realise it.
I also second Jarhead's comments, running around chasing plotters does not solve the root cause.
Posted by: Chris | Jul 12, 2007 6:03:25 PM
I agree Jujubee. I think if we have another attack, the election could be postponed, not cancelled. The main problem will be if the attack is against a government facility or a "soft" target. Our country can handle an attack as we saw on Sept. 11 but we are not remotely prepared if the terrorists go after soft targets.
Posted by: Cindi | Jul 12, 2007 6:19:54 PM
If there is another al Qaeda terrorist attack, it will largely be a result of Bush ignoring al Qaeda...AGAIN. Bush allowed bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora into Pakistan. From there, bin Laden, Zawahiri et al have been allowed to regain strength. They're now posing a threat to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Europe and the US--AGAIN.
Why is Osama still running around loose? How can Bush tell the American people that he's not important anymore? How can Bush claim that Iraqi insurgents are to blame for 9/11, when they had nothing to do with it. Iraqi insurgents didn't even exist prior to 9/11, nor did al Qaeda in Iraq.
Before anyone tells me that I must've been born before 9/11...I live in NYC and I was here on 9/11. My family knew people who died, and I know people who barely escaped with their lives. New York City remains the #1 al Qaeda target. But the Bush administration keeps sending counter-terrorism funding to Kentucky and Nebraska.
If I sound angry, you're DAMNED RIGHT!
Posted by: Leslie | Jul 12, 2007 6:55:05 PM
1. A suspension of our democratic process is the most counterproductive suggestion on this page. Including the bible study idea. Every intelligence agency under the sun tauts AQ as a very adaptive group, and Jujubee suggests we not only stop the very slow adaptive process of administration change but ignore the the laws our enemy seeks to destroy?
2. BTW a "soft target" is you and me Cindi, civilians. There are endless plans to deal with the loss of government officals, including the loss of entire branches of government.
3. Richard Clarke just happens to have been the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council during the Clinton administration, (Pre 911) back when they tried to kill Osama bin Laden twice with missile strikes. He knew a threat when he saw it then and when he warns us we should think twice before dismissing it.
Posted by: DoGooder | Jul 12, 2007 6:58:26 PM
Bush has the right to postpone or even cancel the 2008 election?? I'm sorry, but one man should not have the power to interrupt an American institution and usurp ultimate power for an undisclosed period of time! It's un-American! IF an attack happens, we WILL go on. Our country will then realize the past eight years under this administration began AND ended with horrible acts against our nation.
The right to elect our officials, regardless of the situation of the world, is on what this nation was founded. It should stay that way.
Posted by: Doug | Jul 12, 2007 7:07:30 PM
Jazz says he would support martial law and suspended elections if we were attacked again... Wake up, this administration has upset the world, our enemies, our allies, everyone. If these attacks do happen, we're brought them on ourselves through the ignorance, stupidity and lack of vision of the Bush administration. They can't see past the first Iraqi oil field let along have a vision for America's future.
Posted by: Benibiker | Jul 12, 2007 8:42:06 PM
Too bad we are wasting time in Iraq, instead of pursuing bin laden.
Posted by: mc | Jul 12, 2007 9:10:27 PM
TO MY AMERICAN FRIENDS:
Please stop with the "President Bush is the root of all evil" ideaology. It makes you sound stupid when you keep repeating it over and over and use it as a response for everything from terrorism to a hangnail. It also means you are uninformed and know very little about the government you so blatantly disrespect. Preserving the security of our freedom and opportunity in this country is at stake. Please come out from the left and the right and realize that we need to be a united as a people who will not let our great nation wind up opressed because we were too tolerant.
Posted by: truthseeker | Jul 12, 2007 9:30:16 PM
NSPD 51 and HSPD 20. That is all you need to know. It's already in place and he may use it if there is another "attack."
Posted by: Brian | Jul 12, 2007 10:46:43 PM
Jazz, who do you work for, really? The Constitution is the the Law of the Land.
Posted by: Patriot | Jul 12, 2007 11:46:14 PM
What this means is be alert and vigilant in your surroundings. Just hope that people who are responsible for security will just shut up, follow the leads, do their job and do whatever is necessary.
Posted by: marc | Jul 12, 2007 11:56:50 PM
my game prediction..terrorists are going to launch rpgs simultaneously at lax and downtown la...then the cia is going to hire southern calif. gangs to take out radical islamists and several mosques in the gruesome manner...via "Greenlight" process...anyone caught will be sent to the nut house and or 4 years in jail with a big payoff when the get out....
Posted by: cuah01 | Jul 12, 2007 11:59:22 PM
Anyone that believes our government is just trying to scare us is living in a closet. You cant deny that something is building. It has been very quiet for quite sometime except for the Europe incident. It has been 6 years since we were hit. We all know that Al Qaeda is patient. This is the time that you need to start paying very close attention to the warning signs. You have intelligence saying that the threats are increasing and more information is pointing to sonething happening this summer. Look at our economy. The jobless rate has gone down and the Stock market hit a record today. This country is booming econmically. There can be no denying the fact that the possibility of an attack is growing every day !
Posted by: Dallas | Jul 13, 2007 12:08:39 AM
If another major terrorist attack happens on Bush's watch, the administration is FINISHED! There will be no martial law. There will be overwhelming calls for impeachment and new leadership. We all pray that an attack does not happen, and the conservatives better pray even harder. Their very political life depends on it.
Posted by: Eric | Jul 13, 2007 1:37:13 AM
Terrorism is a fact of life. What good is there in raising a "security level"? All of the things enacted post 9-11 should have been done pre, when it was equally clear that the threat was there. So let's simply follow other successful examples like Israel and be as secure as we can while going on with our lives. Temporary shows of force do little.
Posted by: Ben Homer | Jul 13, 2007 1:42:37 AM
Maybe all of you should catch up on your politics and this administration. A Presidential Directive has already been issued (in May) that gives George Bush (the man who thinks the Constitution is just a GD piece of paper) the authority as the SOLE care taker of the Constitution to do whatever he deems necessary in the event of another terrorist attack.
Canceling the election and declaring Marshall Law is included. And, I might add, the least of our worries.
Posted by: J.C. | Jul 13, 2007 2:40:47 AM
I saw an evil looking middle-eastern type this morning at the overpriced gas station. Being vigilant, I called the local Air National Guard base to see if we could get an air strike. They laughed at me! Can you imagine that??
Posted by: scaredamerican | Jul 13, 2007 11:02:34 AM
Hunt them down and shut up. Publicity after you clean the mess up.
Posted by: marc | Jul 13, 2007 12:33:55 PM
If we get attacked by Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization, should we consider using our nuclear arsenal along the Pakistan-Afghan border to eliminate the tribal and spiritual leaders within the Taliban and the leaders within Al Qaeda?
Since we armed and provided intelligence to Osama Bin Laden during the Afghan-Russia war in the 1980's should we consider partnering with Russia and seek revenge against Osama Bin Laden who effectively broke up the Russian empire?
Any thoughts?
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 13, 2007 12:46:53 PM
Post a comment
