I haven’t had a chance to read the book yet but based on interviews it appears Soufan is leaving out obstruction by his own agency. Clarke also glossed over the conduct of the FBI. For sure the information was not shared in a timely manner but it was finally shared in late August. Clarke mentioned that if the information was shared at the Principals meeting on Sep. 4 that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar would have been found. The FBI UBLU could have shared this information with Clarke’s team in late August. Why didn’t they do so? The public record shows that IOS Corsi went out of her way (lying about NSLU legal advice) to keep the criminal side agents out of the loop. In doing so she too obstructed the Cole investigation and hindered the search for al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. An IOS wasn’t a powerful position so she was likely acting on orders from Rod Middleton, the chief of the UBLU. He he in turn appeared to be acting on orders from CIA deputy chief Tom Wilshire. What has never been explained to the public is why FBI personnel would risk their careers and possible criminal charges based on orders from a CIA official. Considering the stakes involved it is hard to believe that high level FBI officials (i.e. Michael Rolince, Dale Watson and Thomas Pickard) were not informed about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. Meaning that for reasons of plausible deniability the public was told that some low level FBI officials were confused by the intel/criminal wall.

This isn’t a mystery that cannot be solved. The way to get answers is to interview UBLU and Alec Station agents. It is obvious that everyone involved in the withholding issues is abusing the classification system to conceal what happened. Only a servile media would go along with such garbage. If the media truly cares about the victims as they claimed during all the memorial coverage then they have an obligation to stop being played by the FBI and CIA. One sickening example of this is that both 60 Minutes and the BBC reported that the CIA considers the withholding charges to be baseless. Are you kidding me? Why don’t these news organizations investigate the credibility of the CIA’s claim instead of repeating tired talking points?

I read the book.

For some reason US journalists have failed to get answers to a very important question–What on earth was going on with information about Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi in the intelligence community?

In the book Graff suggests that concern about civil liberties from post Watergate reforms may have contributed to the FBI’s failure to “connect the dots.” This analysis completely glosses over the details of the al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar sharing withholding.

The wall excuse is not credible if one looks at the details. FBI General Counsel Larry Parkinson noted in a 9/11 Commission interview that the wall wasn’t applicable and he would have been very surprised if the NSLU gave such advice. In fact NSLU attorney Sherry Sabol did not give such advice. She told UBLU agent Dina Corsi that the criminal agents could be part of a search. She also told Corsi that she could share NSA information or get a release if she was that worried about it. Corsi did get the NSA release to share the information. The sticking point is that she told criminal side agent Bongardt that the wall was applicable and she couldn’t share the NSA information.

The risk averse excuse makes no sense at all. If anything one would think it would be risky for FBI headquarters to obstruct investigations in a period of high threat with al Qaeda operatives roaming around the US. Especially al Qaeda operatives linked to the ’98 embassy bombings and the USS Cole attack.

One should also note that the FBI refuses to declassify 9/11 Commission interviews with UBLU and RFU agents. The public is expected to give the FBI whatever powers they claim are necessary to prevent terror attacks while the FBI will not explain why the ITOS protected al Qaeda operatives before 9/11. IMO that is very messed up.