Senators Press CIA To Release 9/11 Report

CIA Is Only Counterterrorism Federal Office That Has Not Made Some Version Of Report Available

(AP)  A bipartisan group of senators is pushing legislation that would force the CIA to release an inspector general's report on the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The CIA has spent more than 20 months weighing requests under the Freedom of Information Act for its internal investigation of the attacks but has yet to release any portion of it.

The agency is the only federal office involved in counterterrorism operations that has not made at least a version of its internal 9/11 investigation public.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and two other intelligence committee leaders — chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and senior Republican Kit Bond of Missouri — are pushing legislation that would require the agency to declassify the executive summary of the review within one month and submit a report to Congress explaining why any material was withheld.

The provision has been approved by the Senate twice, but never made into law.

In an interview, Wyden said he is also considering whether to link the report's release to his acceptance of President Bush's nominations for national security positions.

“It's amazing the efforts the administration is going to stonewall this,” Wyden said, seen at left in an April 3, 2007 file photo. “The American people have a right to know what the Central Intelligence Agency was doing in those critical months before 9/11.... I am going to bulldog this until the public gets it.”

Completed in June 2005, the inspector general's report examined the personal responsibility of individuals at the CIA before and after the attacks. Other agencies' reviews examined structural problems within their organizations.

Wyden, who has read the classified report several times, wouldn't offer any details on its findings or the conversations he has had with CIA Director Michael Hayden, former CIA Director Porter Goss and former National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

But he did say that protecting individuals from embarrassment is not a legitimate reason for protecting the report's contents from public review. He also said the decision to classify the report has nothing to do with national security, but rather political security.

Hayden declined to be interviewed about the report. In a statement Thursday, his spokesman Mark Mansfield said the CIA director wants the agency to learn from any past mistakes, but doesn't want to dwell on them.

“Given the formidable national security challenges our nation faces, now and down the road, General Hayden believes it is essential for the Agency to move forward,” Mansfield said. “That's where our emphasis needs to be.”

The agency's actions prior to Sept. 11 have gotten renewed attention with the release of a memoir by former CIA director George Tenet. He has been criticized for not doing more to warn Bush about the al Qaeda threat.

In interviews about his memoir, he has said instead he worked the bureaucracy beneath the president by asking then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others for action.

[ssg_kep]

veteran71,

It is not that I am duped by anyone or anything. I chose what was I felt was best at the time. And I will do so again in 08. I don't know who I will choose, but that choice will be my personal feeling for what is best. As far as what is going on now, whether it is right or wrong, I still have a job to do. I swore that I would support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. If this plan is so wrong...I just wish that someone, anyone, would come up with a better plan. Solve the problem at hand and then worry about things that are in the past.

[cfin5]

My "conspiracy" file box is getting too thick guys! I want to either throw some of it out, or put it in with the "fact" files. I want to know the truth about why this 911 event was not "nipped in the bud".

[grazinggoat]

CBS:'The CIA has spent more than 20 months weighing requests under the Freedom of Information Act for its internal investigation of the attacks but has yet to release any portion of it.'

-incapable to think fast. CIA is Central INTELLIGENCE Agency. That means INTELLIGENT if they they hold The Intelligence Central, aren't they. Seems to all of us here that on day or two are enough to understans that a report is requested by the Senate.

-Too many flagrant lies and difficult and ''skkrewing'' situations can be brought out to public eyes. Embarrassing, not ot say an interior set-up...

-Michael Hayden CIA director's name shoul be spelled this way H I D I N G. So Intelligent...

[realpatriot1]

Pardon me, I meant to say that all Americans supported fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan.

[realpatriot1]

notblue,

All Americans supported fighting the terrorists in Iraq. Your logic is pathetic.

The fact that the terrorists were fighting us before we went into Iraq in no way dispels the fact that Iraq has been the best recruiting tool they could ever dream of. They need fresh bodies all the time to sustain their mayhem and our occupation plays right into their hands.

We had the moral high ground in Afghanistan and the sympathy of the world. Now we are seen by many who should be our allies as the aggressor and the one launching Holy War.

We've managed through the incompetence of our leaders to cast the insurgents as the victims in the eyes of most of the world. That's a travesty that only increases the longer we stay and the longer that we shun diplomacy.

We are not fighting smart. We are helping our enemies and hurting ourselves.

[feelfree1]

comfortmd1,

Re: "The easiest way to gain control of the electoral process of the United States was to allow an attack on our own people, then to exploit the fear it caused. This has been debated for years among philosophical circles, but only recently enacted. even now, an ineffective war is maintained to reap the enduring loyalty and patriotism from Americans that love their country, perverting their sacrifice and loss to socio-political gain. It would be depressing if it weren't so despicable."

Good analysis! Thanks for commenting!

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

[notblue]

veteran71, I don't need to call you a moron your words speak for themselves. If you could take the blinders off for just a moment you would see that terrorists were attacking America and the rest of the free world long before Iraq so your premise that fighting these militants that are in iraq now is causing more terrorism is not valid. If one was to look at your theory then the only way to make these barabaric extremists stop is to just surrender, stop the fighting everywhere since fighting them recruits more. You sir need to re-evaluate your theory. Any where we choose to fight these butchers will cause more like them to join the fight, it seems to me that we retreat or we fight it's that simple. If your not willing to them in Iraq now that they are there then you will never be willing to fight them. Just take comfort in the fact that there are Americans who have volluntered to protect you from those would convert you to 6th century Islam or otherwise just execute you.

[comfortmd1]

The easiest way to gain control of the electoral process of the United States was to allow an attack on our own people, then to exploit the fear it caused. This has been debated for years among philosophical circles, but only recently enacted. even now, an ineffective war is maintained to reap the enduring loyalty and patriotism from Americans that love their country, perverting their sacrifice and loss to socio-political gain. It would be depressing if it weren't so despicable.

[ssg_kep]

(last part, really)...I am over here and doing my part and it would be nice to hear some appreciation from the Dems. If they get their way, which I doubt the bill will ever pass, they want to cut funding for the troops that are over here. They say they won't but I have heard those words before. I think it was about 8 years ago....Oh, I already mentioned that "'White' Lie"!

God Bless every Military person that has served, is serving, and especially those that paid the Ultimate Price for YOUR freedom!

[ssg_kep]

(last part)...How do we do that? I don't have an answer. But neither does the Democratic run Congress either. All they want to do is point fingers and blame. I haven't heard anything come out of their mouths except "Bring the Troops Home!" Should we come home now so that we can assure a stronger insurgent base in 7 - 10 years when we come back? Or do we stay and finish the job? (cont...)