Between the fight between differing camps of 9/11 Truthers, the incredulity, if not laziness, of many mainstream bloggers and the MSM press itself, and the apparent disinterest (if not collusion) of Congress, actual evidence of an important government cover-up must struggle to gain notice and credibility.
Such is the case with the story of how top military intelligence officials working at U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) lied to Congressional investigators about the work of one of its top secret intelligence components, which included tracking of Osama bin Laden, and identification of the World Trade Center and Pentagon as top targets of Al Qaeda, including briefings to military and intelligence figures in summer 2002 that such attacks could come from hijacked civilian aircraft.
As reported in a new story at Truthout, by myself and Jason Leopold, these top military officials censored the answers Joint Forces Intelligence Command (JFIC) gave to a questionnaire from the 2002 Joint Intelligence Inquiry of the U.S. Congress, meant to investigate the details behind how the different intelligence agencies performed prior to 9/11, what they knew, what might have went wrong, and what really happened.
The falsification was meant in particular to hide the work of the 9-person unit within JFIC, known as the Asymmetrical Threats Division, or DO5 in military lingo. DO5 had analysts with expertise in all areas of intelligence, including signals intel, humint (human intelligence), and geospatial mapping. They received reports from NSA and CIA, and had access to NSA databases. According to “Iron Man,” the government’s own cover name for the former deputy chief of DO5, his unit had been hunting Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda from late 1999 until early 2001, until it was shut down by higher ups in the months leading up to 9/11. This aspect of the story was reported in earlier articles.
As covered in continuing coverage of the story, particularly at Truthout and at Firedoglake, the former Deputy Chief (and later Acting Chief) of DO5 protested the suppression of his organization’s work, and tried to provide documentary evidence directly to the Defense Intelligence Agency Congressional Affairs Office. It’s not known if it ever reached Congress.
In any case, neither the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11 or the later official 9/11 Commission ever published a word about JFIC/DO5′s work. In general, the entire story relating to military intelligence activities relating to Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, and tracking the 9/11 terrorists has totally been suppressed, with no other reporting on this… until Iron Man’s protest to DoD’s Inspector General (he also complained to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) when the IG started dragging their feet) produced an investigation, and then a report by the Inspector General of Intelligence at DoD, finished in 2008, but not made public until last year.
The news briefly caught the attention of Steven Aftergood at Secrecy News, and Electronic Frontier Foundation, who posted a FOIA-released copy of the DNI letter to DoD’s Inspector General about Iron Man’s complaint. EFF noted that “High-level Pentagon officials gave false information (PDF) to Congress about al-Qa’ida and the 9/11 attacks.”
Interestingly, the story also surfaced in a Charlie Savage, Scott Shane article in the New York Times in December 2009, commenting on the DNI letter released to EFF.
Another memorandum disclosed that a Defense Intelligence Agency employee said that in May 2002, in response to a Congressional inquiry, the Joint Forces Intelligence Command provided false information about its activities related to Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks. The document offered few details.
The NYT never mentioned the subject again.
In the latest installment at Truthout of our investigation, Leopold and I released new documents that directly contradicted the assertions the Inspector General made about DO5′s activities. For instance, the IG report claimed, “The JFIC did not have the mission to track Usama Bin Ladin or predict imminent US targets.”
But a NCIS slide briefing in approximately 2000 stated, “”JFIC routinely supplements national agencies with original intelligence on UBL [Usama Bin Ladin] and Afghanistan.” (Emphasis added.)
The Truthout story continues:
The slide presentation further notes that the Asymmetrical Threats Division has “primary division focus” on both counterterrorism and military “force protection.” Moreover, the briefing slides state that JFIC’s “Primary CT/force protection concerns” as “UBL [Usama Bin Ladin] and associated terrorist groups,” adding that its goal was to determine when Bin Laden and other terrorists would strike, “How they will strike” and “Where they will strike”….
Another document Iron Man turned over to Truthout is a January 2001 confidential “Point Paper” that describes the Asymmetrical Threats Division as having “prepared numerous assessments of those cities most likely to be targeted by international and domestic terrorists,” confirming Iron Man’s claims that part of his unit’s work did consist of producing intelligence on domestic targets by terrorists.
The Inspector General report is probably one of the most ridiculous government documents I’ve ever read. It’s short, as if they didn’t take the investigation seriously. For one thing, it totally misrepresents the point at issue, i.e., withholding of information from Congressional investigators, and keeps referring to the 9/11 Commission, which was not even an entity until about the time the Congressional inquiry was winding up (late 2002).
Doctoring Documents
This negligent, or deliberate, confusion continues in other important aspects, not least in the representation of the documents finally sent to Congress themselves. In the appendices of the report, two scanned copies of the answers from JFIC to Congress about its operations are reproduced. One is the original set of answers, one is the actual copy that was sent to Congress after “review” by the Director for Intelligence at JFCOM. While the IG report never notes there were any differences between the original and the “reviewed” answers, in fact, the “review” copy sent to Congress had 4 of its 13 items deleted, and many other items were cut dramatically.
As the Truthout report describes it:
The missing portions largely relate to aspects of JFIC’s mission that had to do with the breadth and depth of its anti-terrorism work. For instance, in item one, JFCOM deleted the original JFIC reply that it conducted “in depth discussions about potential terrorist attacks since Dec. 00″….
One of the missing items in the version of the JFIC answers sent to Congress concerned the names and positions of JFIC counterterror personnel. This was not redacted for classification purposes, as they appear in the IG report, Appendix B. Instead, back in 2002, the lack of any such names meant there was no one identifiable from JFIC to call as a witness.
At other points in the edited version of the JFIC responses, descriptions of the unit’s analytic work, in particular aspects that seem pertinent to Asymmetrical Threats Division’s work, are left out.
The information that yet another intelligence component was pulled off of the tracking of the 9/11 terrorists in the months leading up to 9/11 — joining the controversies over the Army’s Able Danger program, the refusal of the CIA to notify the FBI of two key terrorists entering the U.S. in early 2002, the failure of the FBI to respond to field office reports about possible hijackers and terrorist pilots — makes it very unlikely that the drawdown of intelligence over Al Qaeda’s activities in the U.S. just at the time 9/11 was being planned was a matter of “luck.”
It is in fact the confluence of four different agencies having higher ups obstruct their investigations, all in these crucial lead-up months to 9/11, and the cover-ups and lies pertaining to these matters, that marks this issue for further investigation.
And we need that investigation more than ever, as both 9/11 and the “war on terror” are prime propaganda points used to fuel one of the greatest attacks on civil liberties this country has ever seen, in addition to militarist and spy program activity that even the mainstream media has begun to realize is out of control.
So like it or not, the drone wars, the assassinations and black-site prisons, the torture and renditions are all the bastard children of 9/11. Yes, U.S. militarist policy and CIA perfidy was plenty evident before 9/11, but the escalation of U.S. activity in this area is now back to Vietnam-era levels, or even higher.
I don’t know the “truth” about 9/11. But I know a lie when I see one. But unless the public speaks out — and that includes the couple dozen political bloggers who see themselves as a counterweight to the Establishment’s near-monopoly on “legitimate” political discourse — then we will all have to live with the bogus narrative around 9/11, and the consequences of these lies. I’d think that the 3,000 or so who died that day deserved a better fate than that.
What follows is an interview I recently did with The Real News’s Paul Jay on the Iron Man story:




17 Comments

I do ask that commenters try to respond to the actual issues raised in the story, and certainly be respectful of other people’s views. I think one reason bloggers hesitate to write about 9/11-related issues is because the threads get so vitriolic.
That said, I hope there’s a good discussion.
I apologize to Kevin for highjacking his thread on a topic which is much more important, but nobody else seemed to have a new post up this early Saturday evening which would be closer to the politics I wanted to highlight.
The Times hed downplays the depth of alarm reported at the very top of tonight’s piece about preznit’s shrinking re-election chances.
The lede graf confirms that insiders are increasingly alarmed, not just “fretting.” Halfway down we get these two lines in neighboring grafs:
Then, I love this at the end from Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR):
Kevin, I read down to the “Doctoring Documents” section. This looks like a hot story (understatement). The earliest date of a “statement” to Congress that could be covered by a “false statement” charge in the criminal code seems to be in 2002. Were there statements made prior to 9/11/2001 that lied about the intelligence DO5 had on UBL or Al Qaeda or his or their targets?
Great Post, but Cass Sunstein is not amused.
Please remind me, where is Sunstein working now?
He’s administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
I completely agree with this:
WaPo is my hometown paper and can be counted on to regurgitate all of the most vile neo-con excuses for invading countries of brown people and military killing of all varieties so it was a real shock to see the awesome coverage they gave to Dana Priest’s and Bill Arkin’s investigation of the hidden national security state.
Jeff, are you saying, or do you think, that this shows that the attack was allowed to happen by US officials?
Jeff, my brain is obviously on auto-pilot. I just assumed Kevin G. put up this post here at Dissenter. Very sorry.
Fractal, just a reminder, the story is by me, not Kevin. As to your question, I doubt there was relevance re false statements prior to March 2002.
That doesn’t mean the story begins there, but really with the beginning of the shutdown of DO5′s tracking of Bin Laden circa late 2000 – early 2001. I am investigating personnel changes in the management hierarchy at JFIC & JFCOM at this time, and which I believe was relevant.
I don’t think we yet know enough to assert that. But I think we know enough to say it is one of a number of viable hypotheses.
Yes. Sorry again. We crossed in the ether.
I should add that I don’t have Flash player on this machine so I couldn’t view The Real News video.
If I am interpreting correctly, you found and are finding substantial evidence that the UBL threat was identified in greater detail and by a wider array of intelligence assets than just the Aug. 6, 2001 CIA warning to Shrub “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”
But I wonder, as I think Elliott does, whether there were lies to Congress before 9/11/2001 that prevented Congress from recognizing the threat.
Even Maureen Dowd, once a reliable lap kitty for preznit, is now showing him up for what he is:
It’s a YouTube video. I hadn’t thought that needed Flash.
As for pre-2002 statements to Congress, again, I don’t think they are relevant, and probably weren’t made. I don’t which committee would ever be briefed on JFCOM’s intelligence unit — the Congressional Intelligence or Armed Services committees? I imagine whoever gets briefed on DIA would have gotten briefed on JFIC, and it probably would have been a classified hearing.
As for questions, I thought it interesting that the IG report at one point would couch their conclusions in this way:
It’s important to remember here that questions from the 9/11 Commission were never in play here. That’s the obfuscation or the ineptitude of the IG.
In the Truthout article, we noted:
Btw, readers may be interested in reading a speech Dianne Feinstein gave recently on the 50th anniversary of the Defense Intelligence Agency, as it serves as a fascinating profile of the place of the DIA in the IC, and the way it interacts with the Senate Intelligence Committee that supposedly provides oversight.
Great post. I would like to see a real investigation into 9/11. We know that fabrication of intelligence was integral to the Bush/Cheney admin after WMD in Iraq. Why assume that 9/11 was free from manipulation?
Ari Fleicher said “People better watch what they say”. IMO, that was the moment it became clear that the administration would not honor American principles and lacked moral integrity. An insidious malevolence infected our government in 2000 and has not yet been purged.
I now it is speculation but IMHO it is a Shock Doctrine moment. Maybe the 3000 who died in the towers were collateral damage. These people in government wouldn’t think twice about killing innocent people. We have done it for 10 years. I read a book on Dick Cheney called “Angler” very deep look into the mind of Dick Cheney. He is evil to the core. My 2 cents.