NSA has a talking points memo that was recently released.  This is what Feinstein, Obama, Clapper et. al. have been parroting to the media to spin the NSA’s crimes against the Constitution.

Ray McGovern discusses the bogus rationales offered:

“We suggest, with all due respect, that you give us an opportunity to brief you, before you find yourself repeating undocumented claims like “lives have been saved,” and demonstrably false claims that no abuses have occurred.”



At a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 2, Senator Feinstein showed her hand when she said: “I will do everything I can to prevent this [NSA’s bulk] program from being canceled.” Declaring that 9/11 “can never be allowed to happen in the United States of America again,” Feinstein claimed that intelligence officials did not have enough information to prevent the terrorist attacks.

Mr. President, we trust you are aware that the lack-of-enough-intelligence argument is dead wrong. Feinstein’s next dubious premise — that bulk collection is needed to prevent another 9/11 — is unproven and highly unlikely (not to mention its implications for the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment).

Given the closed circle surrounding you, we are allowing for the possibility that the smell from these rotting red herrings has not yet reached you — even though your own Review Group has found, for example, that NSA’s bulk collection has thwarted exactly zero terrorist plots.

The sadder reality, Mr. President, is that NSA itself had enough information to prevent 9/11, but chose to sit on it rather than share it with the FBI or CIA. We know; we were there. We were witness to the many bureaucratic indignities that made NSA at least as culpable for pre-9/11 failures [or high treasons] as are other U.S. intelligence agencies.”

McGovern, a CIA veteran insider, insists on calling the September 11th attacks an “intelligence failure.”  He does not acknowledge that those hoping for a “new Pearl Harbor” in the Bush regime might consider it an “intelligence success.”  Failure brings a connotation of innocence, that there was no intentional malfeasance, no one intentionally blocked investigations of the hijacker cells.  This does not conform to the available evidence.   “Failure” is a weasel word like the tired old cliche, “mistakes were made.”  That is not an adequate description of what happened, and it carries unwarranted assumptions.

McGovern “fails” to note that intelligence clampdowns on the hijackers came from the highest levels, top down, at NSA, CIA and FBI!  That’s a pattern, not a “failure.”  That’s a deliberate policy, and how they explain it away doesn’t necessarily reflect why it actually occurred.  We saw John Ashcroft, the Attorney General, cancel terrorism briefings with the acting FBI head prior to 9/11.  We saw Coleen Rowley’s investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui’s laptop obstructed by her own FBI headquarters.  We saw Richard Clarke cut out of the loop and covertly denied access to the CIA memos regarding the San Diego hijacker cell — which more than 50 CIA officers knew about!

That’s not a “failure” Ray.  That is something else entirely, deliberate agency.  People at the top were compromised, duped, fooled, however you want to put it, into cooperating with … I guess with Al Qaeda if you want to take it to the logical conclusion.

Your Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s