Tenet: U.S. Lacks Tools to Combat al-Qaida

[Dennis G]

Tenet: U.S. Lacks Tools to Combat al-Qaida

1 hour, 30 minutes ago

Add White House - AP Cabinet & State to My Yahoo!

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - CIA (news - web sites) director George Tenet predicted Wednesday it will take "another five years of work to have the kind of clandestine service our country needs" to combat al-Qaida and other terrorist threats.

"The same can be said for the National Security Agency, our imagery agency and our analytic community," Tenet testified before the commission investigating the worst terror attacks in the nation's history.


He said a series of tight budgets dating to the end of the Cold War meant that by the mid-1990s, intelligence agencies had "lost close to 25 percent of our people and billions of dollars in capital investment."


A needed transformation is under way, he said, and appealed for a long-term commitment in funding. "Our investments in capability must be sustained," he added.


Tenet's appearance was ironic to the core.


Several commissioners lavished praise on him for his foresight and efforts to restructure intelligence-gathering. Yet the panel's staff issued a report as the hearing opened that was sharply critical of the agency and apparatus he has lead for seven years as the nation's director of central intelligence.


"While we now know that al-Qaida was formed in 1988, at the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (news - web sites), the intelligence community did not describe this organization, at least in the documents we have seen, until 1999," the report said.


As late as 1997, it said, the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center "characterized Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) as a financier of terrorism."


At the same time, though, the report said intelligence had recently received information revealing that bin Laden headed his "own terrorist organization" and had been involved in a number of attacks. These included one at a Yemen hotel where U.S. military personnel were quartered in 1992; the shooting down of Army helicopters in Somalia in 1993; and possibly the 1995 bombing of an American training mission to the Saudi Arabian National Guard.


It also noted several that "threat reports" produced by the intelligence apparatus had "mentioned the possibility of using an aircraft laden with explosives," such as the terrorists used on Sept. 11 in attacks that killed nearly 3,000.


"Of these, the most prominent asserted a possible plot to fly an explosives-laden aircraft into a U.S. city," it said. Others included reports of a plan to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower in 1994, and of flying a plane into CIA headquarters.


Yet the counter terrorist center "did not analyze how a hijacked aircraft or other explosives-laden aircraft might be used as a weapon," the report said. If it had "it could have identified that a critical obstacle would be to find a suicide terrorist able to fly a large jet aircraft."


Questioned by former Rep. Tim Roemer, D-Ind., Tenet said he did not speak with President Bush (news - web sites) during August, 2001, a period marked by concern over possible terrorist attacks. "He was on vacation and I was here," Tenet said, although he also added that he could have picked up the phone and called the president at any time if he had felt a need to do so.


Readily acknowledging that intelligence agencies "never penetrated the 9-11 plot," Tenet said, "We all understood (Osama) bin Laden's intent to strike the homeland but were unable to translate this knowledge into an effective defense of the country."


He bristled at some of the criticisms, including one that said intelligence services lacked a strategic plan to gather and examine information collected about al-Qaida or that they had no adequate way to integrate and disseminate it.


"That's flat wrong," he said.


John Lehman, a former Navy secretary and commission member, characterized the commission's document as a "damning report of a system that's broken, that doesn't function."


Noting that Bush has recently signaled an interest in overhauling the nation's intelligence-gathering structure, Lehman said change was coming.

Tenet, who has held his job for seven years across parts of two administrations of different parties, said he would welcome it.

In its report, the commission said the CIA missed the big-picture significance of "tell-tale indicators" of impending terrorist attacks, partly because of its culture of a piecemeal approach to intelligence analysis.

A more strategic analysis could have identified that the plot might require suicide hijackers who would take flight courses, the commission said. Establishing such "tell-tale indicators" could have raised red flags following a July 2001 FBI (news - web sites) report of terrorist interest in aircraft training in Arizona, and the August 2001 arrest of terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui because of suspicious behavior in a Minnesota flight school, it added.

Crediting Tenet, it said he recognized the need for strategic analysis against al-Qaida in late 2000 and appointed a manager in the CIA's Counterterrorist Center to create a new branch.

[Fotch]

Tenet: U.S. Lacks Tools to Combat al-Qaida

1 hour, 30 minutes ago

Add White House - AP Cabinet & State to My Yahoo!

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - CIA (news - web sites) director George Tenet predicted Wednesday it will take "another five years of work to have the kind of clandestine service our country needs" to combat al-Qaida and other terrorist threats.

"The same can be said for the National Security Agency, our imagery agency and our analytic community," Tenet testified before the commission investigating the worst terror attacks in the nation's history.


He said a series of tight budgets dating to the end of the Cold War meant that by the mid-1990s, intelligence agencies had "lost close to 25 percent of our people and billions of dollars in capital investment."


A needed transformation is under way, he said, and appealed for a long-term commitment in funding. "Our investments in capability must be sustained," he added.


Tenet's appearance was ironic to the core.


Several commissioners lavished praise on him for his foresight and efforts to restructure intelligence-gathering. Yet the panel's staff issued a report as the hearing opened that was sharply critical of the agency and apparatus he has lead for seven years as the nation's director of central intelligence.


"While we now know that al-Qaida was formed in 1988, at the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (news - web sites), the intelligence community did not describe this organization, at least in the documents we have seen, until 1999," the report said.


As late as 1997, it said, the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center "characterized Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) as a financier of terrorism."


At the same time, though, the report said intelligence had recently received information revealing that bin Laden headed his "own terrorist organization" and had been involved in a number of attacks. These included one at a Yemen hotel where U.S. military personnel were quartered in 1992; the shooting down of Army helicopters in Somalia in 1993; and possibly the 1995 bombing of an American training mission to the Saudi Arabian National Guard.


It also noted several that "threat reports" produced by the intelligence apparatus had "mentioned the possibility of using an aircraft laden with explosives," such as the terrorists used on Sept. 11 in attacks that killed nearly 3,000.


"Of these, the most prominent asserted a possible plot to fly an explosives-laden aircraft into a U.S. city," it said. Others included reports of a plan to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower in 1994, and of flying a plane into CIA headquarters.


Yet the counter terrorist center "did not analyze how a hijacked aircraft or other explosives-laden aircraft might be used as a weapon," the report said. If it had "it could have identified that a critical obstacle would be to find a suicide terrorist able to fly a large jet aircraft."


Questioned by former Rep. Tim Roemer, D-Ind., Tenet said he did not speak with President Bush (news - web sites) during August, 2001, a period marked by concern over possible terrorist attacks. "He was on vacation and I was here," Tenet said, although he also added that he could have picked up the phone and called the president at any time if he had felt a need to do so.


Readily acknowledging that intelligence agencies "never penetrated the 9-11 plot," Tenet said, "We all understood (Osama) bin Laden's intent to strike the homeland but were unable to translate this knowledge into an effective defense of the country."


He bristled at some of the criticisms, including one that said intelligence services lacked a strategic plan to gather and examine information collected about al-Qaida or that they had no adequate way to integrate and disseminate it.


"That's flat wrong," he said.


John Lehman, a former Navy secretary and commission member, characterized the commission's document as a "damning report of a system that's broken, that doesn't function."


Noting that Bush has recently signaled an interest in overhauling the nation's intelligence-gathering structure, Lehman said change was coming.

Tenet, who has held his job for seven years across parts of two administrations of different parties, said he would welcome it.

In its report, the commission said the CIA missed the big-picture significance of "tell-tale indicators" of impending terrorist attacks, partly because of its culture of a piecemeal approach to intelligence analysis.

A more strategic analysis could have identified that the plot might require suicide hijackers who would take flight courses, the commission said. Establishing such "tell-tale indicators" could have raised red flags following a July 2001 FBI (news - web sites) report of terrorist interest in aircraft training in Arizona, and the August 2001 arrest of terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui because of suspicious behavior in a Minnesota flight school, it added.

Crediting Tenet, it said he recognized the need for strategic analysis against al-Qaida in late 2000 and appointed a manager in the CIA's Counterterrorist Center to create a new branch.

It's funny that the press is trying to come down on the Bush administration, the FBI and the CIA when it was the Clinton administration that gutted those two organizations of their HUMINT capacity and left the current government in the state it is in. Ya...funny :-*$

Take everything the liberal press says with a grain of salt...and everything you read on the Net with two...

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

John Lehman, a former Navy secretary and commission member, characterized the commission's document as a "damning report of a system that's broken, that doesn't function."
So whats the solution, I would hardly think the NRO and NSA needed shaken up.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

It's funny that the press is trying to come down on the Bush administration, the FBI and the CIA when it was the Clinton administration that gutted those two organizations of their HUMINT capacity and left the current government in the state it is in. Ya...funny :-*$
Is there any real evidence that Clinton did gut the CIA and FBI of HUMINT capacity, I thought the FBI really flourished during Clinton there is evidence to suggest that the CIA was slow in redirecting their resources after the Cold War but I never saw anything in public that stated that they were working under manned or funded.

[Fotch]

John Lehman, a former Navy secretary and commission member, characterized the commission's document as a "damning report of a system that's broken, that doesn't function."
So whats the solution, I would hardly think the NRO and NSA needed shaken up.

Huge budgets for the NSA, CIA and FBI...and all of the other security branches of the government. Start aquiring/training suits & spooks for 'a whole new world'. The CIA especially needs to go back to the 1970-80 mentality of us-them. Wet-work needs to become more that a historic term for the agency. They need to get the money they need to provide data and operations on a world wide basis. The gloves need to come off.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

The CIA especially needs to go back to the 1970-80 mentality of us-them. Wet-work needs to become more that a historic term for the agency. They need to get the money they need to provide data and operations on a world wide basis. The gloves need to come off.
I think the CIA has never lost is capability or taste for wet work in fact despite the claims of "we don't do that sort of thing anymore" I would be very surprised if SAD teams were not current with these skills. Bring back the OSS they would get the job done.

[Fotch]

The CIA especially needs to go back to the 1970-80 mentality of us-them. Wet-work needs to become more that a historic term for the agency. They need to get the money they need to provide data and operations on a world wide basis. The gloves need to come off.
I think the CIA has never lost is capability or taste for wet work in fact despite the claims of "we don't do that sort of thing anymore" I would be very surprised if SAD teams were not current with these skills. Bring back the OSS they would get the job done.

Here Here! I'm looking into the budget differences between the Bush/Clinton admins. It's not an easy topic to research...I'm certain a lot of it is 'black' or hidden in other parts of the budget and the comparison will be a b*tch. I'll post the sites when I find them.

[BMF_EOD]

During the reign of 1993-2001 we had four MAJOR wake up calls.

1. The first WTC attacks

2. The USS Cole bombings

3. Khobar Barracks bombing in Saudi Arabia

4. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania

All of these were linked back to AQ and associcates. There are actually many more (see link).

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=887


Todays Global War is the responsibility of those who ignored it during their Presidency.......period. What we face today is a direct reflection of threats ignored.

IMHO these hearings are about Politics and have little to do with National Security Interests. Am I the only one who believes this?

[ronin2172]

John Keegan's book "Intelligence in War"is good for anyone who might be interested in the topic. It provides an interesting portrait of intelligence from Napoleonic times right up to the war on terrorisim. It shows how often luck plays a role in how things work out.

I hate to say it Fotch but u r living in a dream world. This is not Ian Flemming and James Bond. It also seems u r caught up in the whole blame game.

What's the point into looking into the budget during the Clinton years? The problem is in the way the CIA is structured not how well it's funded. The CIA from it's birth was geared to fight the soviet union, it gutted it's HUMINT ability a long time ago to focus on ELINT ( spy satelites, eavesdropping on phone lines etc). They were never able to match the KGB in HUMINT, and they were never terribly effecient in assasination jobs (Castro has survived countless attempts on his life by the CIA, some quite exotic). So how was this Clinton's fault? Another thing the FBI isn't in the Intel game they r in the Counter Intel game, and were never too good at that either! (The KGB had moles in the FBI for years). Fighting terror is nasty dirty work, the CIA and FBI have never been too good at that.

How do u go about "acquiring spooks and suits"? It isn't easy, throwing money at the problem won't help. To counter terrorists u need to get people into their organization. Problem is they r very insular, a tight nit group of people reluctant to trust strangers (good luck putting an american in there). So that means u have to recruit someone already inside the organization, good luck. The israelis were able to do that to the PLO because the PLO was/is full of rivalries and people and who have major weaknesses the mossad could exploit (mainly money and women). The israelis never penetrated Hizbollah, partially because Hizbollah didn't operate in the same manner (the PLO had representatives in every major city in Europe, Hizbollah doesn't) and Hizbollah are radicals, the PLO is moderate. Well AQ are radical, they don't care for personal wealth, they live for blowing up buildings as it reserves their place in paradise and they operate in small well hidden cells. The only time u find them is AFTER they have committed an act of terror. Plus they have limited knowledge (if any) of any other cells or the whereabouts of the leadership of AQ.

Wet work can be effective but it is a double edged sword. Look at the lillehammer debacle, there the mossad was given false info about the whereabouts of the red prince (the man who planned and led the 1972 Munich massacre), this led to the death of an innocent man and the very public arrest of several mossad agents by very pissed off members of Norway's security services. How did it happen? Well the Red Prince knew the Mossad was after him and fed their informants false info which lured them into his trap. All the money in the world ain't gonna help if u r up against a wily opponent. And AQ is as wily as they come.

U need to stop blaming Clinton for everything and look into the history of the CIA and find out their victories and defeats then u might see y they need a serious reorganization to fight this new threat.

[Fotch]

John Keegan's book "Intelligence in War"is good for anyone who might be interested in the topic. It provides an interesting portrait of intelligence from Napoleonic times right up to the war on terrorisim. It shows how often luck plays a role in how things work out.

I hate to say it Fotch but u r living in a dream world. This is not Ian Flemming and James Bond. It also seems u r caught up in the whole blame game.

What's the point into looking into the budget during the Clinton years? The problem is in the way the CIA is structured not how well it's funded. The CIA from it's birth was geared to fight the soviet union, it gutted it's HUMINT ability a long time ago to focus on ELINT ( spy satelites, eavesdropping on phone lines etc). They were never able to match the KGB in HUMINT, and they were never terribly effecient in assasination jobs (Castro has survived countless attempts on his life by the CIA, some quite exotic). So how was this Clinton's fault? Another thing the FBI isn't in the Intel game they r in the Counter Intel game, and were never too good at that either! (The KGB had moles in the FBI for years). Fighting terror is nasty dirty work, the CIA and FBI have never been too good at that.

How do u go about "acquiring spooks and suits"? It isn't easy, throwing money at the problem won't help. To counter terrorists u need to get people into their organization. Problem is they r very insular, a tight nit group of people reluctant to trust strangers (good luck putting an american in there). So that means u have to recruit someone already inside the organization, good luck. The israelis were able to do that to the PLO because the PLO was/is full of rivalries and people and who have major weaknesses the mossad could exploit (mainly money and women). The israelis never penetrated Hizbollah, partially because Hizbollah didn't operate in the same manner (the PLO had representatives in every major city in Europe, Hizbollah doesn't) and Hizbollah are radicals, the PLO is moderate. Well AQ are radical, they don't care for personal wealth, they live for blowing up buildings as it reserves their place in paradise and they operate in small well hidden cells. The only time u find them is AFTER they have committed an act of terror. Plus they have limited knowledge (if any) of any other cells or the whereabouts of the leadership of AQ.

Wet work can be effective but it is a double edged sword. Look at the lillehammer debacle, there the mossad was given false info about the whereabouts of the red prince (the man who planned and led the 1972 Munich massacre), this led to the death of an innocent man and the very public arrest of several mossad agents by very pissed off members of Norway's security services. How did it happen? Well the Red Prince knew the Mossad was after him and fed their informants false info which lured them into his trap. All the money in the world ain't gonna help if u r up against a wily opponent. And AQ is as wily as they come.

U need to stop blaming Clinton for everything and look into the history of the CIA and find out their victories and defeats then u might see y they need a serious reorganization to fight this new threat.

Ronin,
...I've done my research...picking up one new book is not reaserch... . Keegan is a respected historian but he has never (to my knowledge) even set foot in the CIA or the NSA other than on a tour. He is what he is...an academic...with the priveldge of hindsight. He is just another desk-jockey trying to make a buck off of these unstable times by producing a book on a subject that people that feel 'threatened' will want to read up on. It's a good read...but nothing special. Nothing that I haven't read before. If you want a more insightful read try:
"Casey: The Lives and Secrets of William J. Casey-From the Oss to the CIA"
OR
"The Secret History of the CIA" by Trento
OR
"Silent Warfare: Understanding the World of Intelligence"
by Shulsky & Schmitt

Try a look from the inside....instead of the outside. The CIA does not need a restructuring...they need the personelle to do their job. There is nothing wrong with the DO/DI structure but there is something wrong when the DI's group outnumbers the DO's. Especially when it is due to ELINT intel vs HUMINT intel. DO need the money, time to train and people to cover all the positions that are needed to keep track of every last known QA suspect, Islamic militant, or whomever else threatens the West.

Yes, I will admit, I am blaming Clinton's administration but I am also blaming Bush seniors', all the way back to Reagan's. Unfortunately, each new adminstration get to live with the debacles of the previous ones' (even if, at the time, that current admin doesn't know it is a debacle).

I see you've been won over by what you see in the news as to the FBI's and CIA's intellegence gathering capacity and field work quality. For every bad thing on the news how many good things go unreported? We'll never know...but I'm guessing it is a lot. These people are professionals. They know what they are about. They were simply beaten by a group that was even better at keeping secrets than the they were at gaining them. I was trying to say before that the way you gain those secrets is through human intellegence..............ELINT doesn't work when they know you are listening....

[ronin2172]

LOL, just because i mentioned one book doesn't mean that is the basis of my research! And so what if Keegan is an academic, he is a well respected academic and just because he never set foot inside of the CIA or NSA doesn't mean he doesn't know what he is talking about. I never said that Keegan's book was the bible to the intel world i said it was a good read, nothing more nothing less. Yes he has the adavntage of hindsight, but he also has the advantage of non bias.

It also seems like your book the "The Secret History of the CIA " is not the bible u claim it to be....

quote:
A disappointing book, so convoluted even the most devoted conspiracy theorist could not follow all the twists, turns, and double-crosses. This would be fine if this was a novel, but it is portrayed as fact.
In addition to a host of Agency officers that the author accuses of being Soviet spies (all conveniently dead, making a lawsuit for libel unlikely), the author claims that a string of Soviet defectors were all in fact directed and controlled by the Soviets in a plot of such deviousness that even the author does not seem to understand it - and the reader certainly cannot. Oleg Penkovsky, the best Western penetration of the Soviet Union during the entire Cold War, is described (with no proof offered for the claim) as being directed by the Soviets as part of a bizarre effort, never adequately explained, to bring about Khruschevs downfall.
The authors accusations rely primarily on "secret" Russian intelligence files, although he never says how he got them nor provides any proof that they even exist, and the suspicions of James Jesus Angleton, whose information and assessments were, according to the author, so consistently wrong the reader is left wondering how the author can then turn around and rely on Angleton and his disciples so completely. As for the authors own level of "expertise" on the CIA, an indication of the depth of his knowledge can be found on Page 192, when the author, attempting to demonstrate the extraordinary level of secrecy surrounding a newly approved assassination program directed by the famous William Harvey, writes:
"The CIA was never mentioned by name in any ZR/RIFLE documents or oral communications; instead, Harvey mandated that the Agency be referred to as KUBARK."
That sentence alone would be enough to induce hysterical laughter in any Agency veteran. Among the authors credits is employment as an "investigative reporter" for Penthouse *magazine. It shows.
Readers interested in this subject would be better advised to read "Molehunt," "Wilderness of Mirrors," or even "Blonde Ghost."
(*and u sneer at Keegan?)

and if this book is true than it would support what i said about the KGB being able to outfox the CIA , and would imply the CIA was not terribly effective at HUMINT. Methinks u didn't read this book at all!

Let me guess YOU are an insider, to put it in a colorful vernacular...B*tch please.

Let me get this right u want the CIA to move away from ELINT and pay more attention and money)to HUMINT...hmmm that sounds like RESTRUCTURE to me!

Main Entry: re·struc·ture
****unciation: (")rE-'str&k-ch&r
Function: verb
transitive senses : to change the makeup, organization, or pattern of
intransitive senses : to restructure something

Did u think why the DI's outnumber the DO's (as u stated)? Maybe it's because the CIA is STRUCTURED that way? So to redress the balance u need to RESTRUCTURE. The CIA is not a simple organization, and simply hiring more people is not the answer, the CIA already has the largest budget of any Intel org, they have more personel than any other Intel org. The point is they are not organized to fight a combatant like AQ, they need a RESTRUCTURING.

U did not blame Bush or any one in Regan's admin, u singled out Clinton in your post. Then u followed it up by saying you were looking into the budget for the CIA during the clinton years, and comparing that to Bush, along the way implying that Clinton gutted the CIA.

here's a quote:

It's funny that the press is trying to come down on the Bush administration, the FBI and the CIA when it was the Clinton administration that gutted those two organizations of their HUMINT capacity and left the current government in the state it is in. Ya...funny

Take everything the liberal press says with a grain of salt...and everything you read on the Net with two...

Hardly the voice of impartiality huh?

I never said the CIA were imbeccilles, i said HUMINT was never their strong suit and that their main focus has been on ELINT. The fact that the CIA and the FBI were constantly outfoxed in the HUMINT arena is no fabrication of the mass media. I guess Robert Hanssen (the KGB mole in the FBI who wasn't caught till 2000?) never existed or the KGB never successfully blackmailed a US marine embassy guard in the '80's?

Now u r telling me the CIA never botched anything? As i recall no intel agency is foolproof, mossad has had it's share of disasters, it goes with the territory.

i never said ELINT is the way to go, it isn't but u can't just throw money at the situation (like u suggest) and then expect it to get better, people have to change and adapt to new threats and this requires a....say it with me now...RESTRUCTURING.

And yes u r right that ELINT is not completely effective ( i never said it was) if they know u r listening, but HUMINT is just as inneffective if your adversary is working hard to make certain any knowledge you gain is BS. There is no garuntee on anything in the Intel business.

There is no denying that the CIA and the FBI are populated by intelligent, well trained individuals but to fight a terror group u have to get dirty, and the CIA and FBI have never done that.