March 15, 2006, - 1:13 am

FBI Love Story: Moussaoui & Mueller’s Excellent Adventure

By Debbie Schlussel
Someone ought to sue the FBI for malpractice. And for violating truth in advertising laws.
FBI stands for Federal Bureau of Investigation. But to listen to testimony at the death penalty phase of the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, “investigation” hardly enters the equation.
The Moussaoui trial is important for so many reasons. But not just because it involves the only person ever tried in connection with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The Moussaoui case is about why profiling is important, but even more so how FBI management is so moronic. The morons running the FBI used absurdly absolutist objections to profiling as an excuse for failing to try to stop the mass-murder of American civilians. Things were so bad that desperate FBI agents had to turn to the French to do the job FBI honchos refused to allow them to do.

zaccariasmoussaoui.jpgrobertmueller.jpg

Gross Negligence:

Bin Laden’s Moussaoui Untouched Pre-9/11 By FBI’s Robert Mueller

Last Thursday’s testimony by FBI Special Agent Harry Samit is elucidating. It paints a very clear picture of dedicated FBI agents at the rank-and-file level who tried very hard, Jack Bauer-style, to save Americans, versus a cold, bureaucratic set of managers and superiors who couldn’t care less about the lives of U.S. citizens.
But unlike the counter-terrorism agent on the fictional “24,” real-life FBI counter-terrorism agents lost out to the suits at the top, and 3,000 people were murdered. I and many others have written about how FBI brass refused to allow a complete investigation of Moussaoui–in the name of not profiling Arab Muslims. But it is even more disturbing as it is conveyed by Agent Samit.
You can feel the pre-9/11 desperation of counter-terrorism agents in Samit’s testimony.
According to USA Today’s Kevin Johnson, Agent Samit testified that “hours into an interrogation, investigators suspected Moussaoui was involved in ‘a plot involving airliners.'” Investigation of Moussaoui became “an obsession” of FBI terrorism investigators.
But it wasn’t an obsession–or even a slight concern–for Robert Mueller and company. The FBI Director and his sachems fought these agents every step of the way.
According to Samit, the effort to investigate Moussaoui intensified

when top bureau officials at FBI headquarters in Washington refused to support requests for warrants to search Moussaoui’s belongings and residences in Minnesota and Oklahoma.
Investigators were desperate for a break and sensed a terrorist action might be moving forward based on Moussaoui’s unusual behavior, Samit said.

So what did the FBI higher-ups do in response? They reluctantly agreed to send a milquetoast bulletin of “a possible hijacking plot” to other federal agencies, almost a month later, on September 5th–just six days before the attack.
Based on Samit’s testimony, it probably read like this . . .

FBI Bulletin–Be on the Lookout For:
1) Suit from dry cleaners missing tags.
2) Clean, working gun.
3) Free Muffin with Venti Chai Latte at Starbucks (beats donuts real cops get).
4) New J-Lo/Puffy gun moll poster [it was 2001; they were still together].
5) Non-existent hijackers reported by prejudiced, paranoid FBI agents obsessed with harassing very charming North African/French gentleman interested in aviation.
6) Nominations for ACLU medal of valor for not profiling Arab Muslims.
7) Auditions for technical consultant on upcoming indie film, “Brokeback J. Edgar Hoover Building.”

But wait, there’s more. USA Today’s Johnson’s report gets even more disturbing. Because OUR FBI and federal government authorities were so intransigent on investigating this VERY suspicious man’s belongings, smart-AND-desperate FBI terrorism agents had to cook up a plot to let the FRENCH do it. The French? The French!

Still lacking authority for a fuller search of Moussaoui’s belongings, federal authorities cut an unusual deal with French officials Sept. 10, Samit said. Under terms of that agreement, Moussaoui would be deported to his native France, and French authorities would conduct a search of his luggage and computer.
Suicide hijackers launched their attacks the next day, and the transfer never occurred.

Ah, now I get it. It’s the FRENCH Bureau of Investigation.
It’s not like FBI terrorism investigators were paranoid or conspiracy theorists. Minnesota flight school instructor Clarence Prevost, a former Northwest Airlines pilot, was concerned. He’s the one who first reported Moussaoui to the FBI. He testified that he repeatedly urged his supervisors to contact the FBI because of Moussaoui’s lack of flight experience and evasiveness about his background.
Prevost said he told his superiors:

We will care when there is a hijacking and they wonder where he learned the (cockpit) switches and lawsuits start rolling in.

Unfortunately, as we all know, there was a hijacking, but the resulting lawsuits were against companies and Saudi princes who gave to United Al-Qaeda Way at the office. One group conspicuously missing from the defendant pool of litigation: Robert Mueller and the countless, nameless FBI managers and top officials in Washington, who forced agents to dream up schemes with the French in their desperation to save Americans.
Not a single one of these FBI superiors–who were so grossly negligent in repeatedly denying searches of Moussaoui’s property–has been dismissed. Not a single one demoted. Robert Mueller remains at the top and clueless about terrorism as ever.
Almost five years later, these same FBI bureaucrats continue to stonewall important terrorism investigations, denying FBI terrorism agents, like Bob Wright and others on the Joint Terrorism Task Force the necessary warrants and leeway to investigate.
After Special Agent Harry Samit’s testimony, Zacarias Moussaoui called out, “God bless Osama bin Laden.”
But given what we know, he’d be more accurate blessing his friends atop the FBI. Robert Mueller Hu Akbar.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

15 Responses

It’s stories like these that makes me wanna go out and buy one of them kickin’ dogs…What is WRONG with these people???

rob on March 15, 2006 at 7:40 am

Rob–
What is wrong with those people is that they are career bureacrats, and their first–and often only–priority is to cover their ass.
That is done, in a political environment, by following the rules, especially the current PC fashion du jour.
I’m sure that the people who died in 9/11 are happy that no profiling was done on their behalf.

Red Ryder on March 15, 2006 at 8:47 am

We need to fire officers when their errors of judgement are revealed. If we can call a soldier to account for killing an enemy, then department heads need to pay for bad guesses.

Walter E. Wallis on March 15, 2006 at 8:49 am

Debra, Great article. The denigration of the FBI and CIA occurred during the 8 years of the Clinton Administration. Bill called former Dir. of the FBI, “F..ing” Freed which sets the tone for the agency. Hillary set up legal obstacles to interagency communication on intelligence. We were forced to rely on data/telephone/electronic correspondence vs. “Sandals on the ground” because of the Clintons philosophical distrust of using agents. Data mining only goes so far and now Democrats want NSA to be deaf and add dumb and blind and you have a bigger 9/11.

Verno on March 15, 2006 at 10:22 am

Hummmm Sounds like we need Jack Bauer. In cases of National Security, I say shoot him in the leg first and then begin questioning. When the ACLU ninnies start whining, the Pres can issue a pardon.
Let’s give Debbie a 9mm and a closed room with the suspect!

Samoyed on March 15, 2006 at 11:16 am

TREASON!

Gaylan on March 15, 2006 at 12:01 pm

“In cases of National Security, I say shoot him in the leg first and then begin questioning. When the ACLU ninnies start whining, the Pres can issue a pardon”
Is that after or before we burn the constitution?

Justice4god on March 15, 2006 at 5:32 pm

Clinton balkanized the FBI … how else do you account for Hillary having free access to FBI files? Ever wonder where those files ended up?
The Clinton’s were too obsessed with crushing the Right at home to give a damn about the terrorists. So, we got 9-11 because the terrorists had a free hand to size up their targets on Clinton’s watch.
I’m not accusing the Clinton’s of treason … I’m accusing them of being stupid, unqualified, and dangerously inept. Just look at their staff … brightest and best? … please God, make the laughter stop before I die.
Every President has a solemn obligation to protect America … Carter and Clinton both screwed the pooch on that one.
We need another Lib President like America needs to drink poison kool-aid.
But, hey, maybe I’m just profiling Libs … and I can really see why they’re against profiling.

Athling on March 15, 2006 at 6:10 pm

Dear Justice(misnomer),
The Constitution does not apply to foreign terrorists who are engaged in war against us. Moussaoui was part of an act of war–even if we do call it terror–not a mere domestic crime. That is what Slick Willie’s and Jaime Gorelick’s view was: to fight the terrorists in American courtrooms where ACLU lawyers could file motion after motion and he would be presumed innocent and have all kinds of other advantages. He could then risk being free to plan and execute other attacks. Where is the justice in that, Justice?
Right on, Athling. Yeah, Carter screwed the pooch in Iran. Remember Reza Pahlavi? The shah?

Loser on March 15, 2006 at 7:59 pm

According to Freeh’s account in “My FBI”. Things went bad with Clinton when Freeh turned down a dinner invitation with the President and Tom Hanks at the White House. Freeh didn’t want to be in the awkward position of dining with someone he could be soon investigating. I figure the conversation problably went like this:
Clinton “What’s new Tom?”
Hanks “Oh, I’m making a new movie where I play an FBI agent.”
Clinton “Hey, why don’t you come have dinner with me at the
the White House, I’ll invite Louis Freeh, the new Director.
And, you can gain some insight into the part.”
Hanks “Wow, that would be great!”
Needless to say how “Wild Bill” would have reacted to Freeh’s declination and his embarassment.

code7 on March 15, 2006 at 11:41 pm

I am not going to name names here …
I will say that one of the guys who trained the team that went into Waco is one of my best friends. We go back a long way in the military.
You can tell what the parameters of a ‘mission’ are by the types of weapons carried.
That mission was clearly not designed to instigate an aggression. Wrong weapons for a showdown, especially when the Dravidians had serious hardware in-house.
So … why was the Media on-site before the team even arrived? Who leaked it? And why?
Janet Reno should have called the mission off because it was compromised by media presence. The ‘targets’ were not only alerted, they were highly aggitated … a formula for violent encounter. And, if she didn’t know it, or understand it, her advisors most certainly did.
Then there’s Ruby Ridge … and a very mysterious set of circumstances where one of the team members clearly violated his mission orders by shooting without provocation.
If you want to know why Freeh hates the Clintons … 1+1=2 … 2+2=4.
Loser … yeah, I remember Reza Pahlavi. I also remember how the Brits wanted their oil fields back and demanded that Carter help them … and all else followed. The guy is a dolt, and the Brits found out, much to their dismay, just how incompetent the idiot really is.

Athling on March 16, 2006 at 12:40 am

Although I and some people close to me have never committed any crimes, I have been subject to, and witnessed how authorities investigate the innocent. The media promulgates the image that the police are effective and usually ‘get their man’. It’s actually the opposite. Crooks know their rights better than the innocent. They manipulate a system managed by a politicized bureaucracy to avoid conviction and incarceration. The innocent mortgage their domiciles to get a lawyer and a trial. The presecutors know how this imposes a profound financial burden and wield their powers with an eye on their political careers. That’s why so many people plead guilty to a lesser charge. The manifest incompetence of our law enforcement only becomes public news when it involves a case of national interest. I’m not surprised in the least by what we are witnessing.

marsh113 on March 16, 2006 at 6:47 pm

marsh113,
I get investigated every day … by the bank, by the DMV, by any and every govt agency that uses my tax dollars to investigate me … polling is very intrusive.
This thing is like a pendulum … the Libs under FDR ushered in the smoothering government presence. This persisted right up to LBJ. Then the new Libs wanted that smoothering presence gone … they protested, rioted, etc … and now they’ve become the same smoothering presence with the political correctness and their thought police (Hate Speech) Cops.
The pendulum swings away from this smoothering effect when the Conservatives are in. But, alas, once a smoothering liberal law is in, it takes the Supreme Court to knock it back out again … so it’s always an uphill battle for conservatives.
It really boils down to just how much smoothering the American People will tolerate before the backlash begins.

Athling on March 20, 2006 at 3:08 am

FBI = FUMBLING, BUMBLING & INEPT, (at least at the level of the rarified atmosphere of the upper echelons.)
Our enemies are well organized, and under no delusions about who is on their side, or how to procede. They have the advantage.

yonason on March 20, 2006 at 11:51 pm

BS:D follow up to last post, regarding assertion that the enemy has the advantage…
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21713
I’ve been following this since the “palestinian”(sick) “intifada” against Israel began nearly a year prior to 9/11, and instead of getting better, it’s gotten much worse. Unless a lot of people get their act together, we are in for some VERY serious trouble, and a whole lot sooner than most people want to believe.

yonason on March 21, 2006 at 12:24 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field