O'Reilly falsely asserted Holder "ordered" wall between CIA and FBI
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Bill O'Reilly advanced the falsehood that a 1995 memo written by then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick prohibited intelligence-sharing between the FBI and the CIA, thereby causing the intelligence failures that led to the 9-11 attacks, and asserted that Eric Holder, along with Janet Reno and Gorelick, "said that the CIA and the FBI couldn't talk to each other on investigative matters." In fact, the Gorelick memo had no impact on communications between the FBI and the CIA, the Department of Defense, or any other agencies.
During the January 13 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly advanced the falsehood that a 1995 memo written by then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick prohibited intelligence-sharing between the FBI and the CIA, thereby causing the intelligence failures that led to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Referring to Eric Holder, President-elect Barack Obama's choice to be attorney general, O'Reilly asserted, "[H]e's the guy that, in conjunction with Janet Reno and Jamie Gorelick, said that the CIA and the FBI couldn't talk to each other on investigative matters." Earlier, O'Reilly stated of Holder: "He was the guy that ordered, along with Janet Reno, his boss under [President] Clinton -- he was assistant attorney general [sic: deputy attorney general] and Reno was the attorney general -- for the CIA not to talk to the FBI, which allowed the 9-11 killers to get in and do what they did, because they wouldn't share information."
In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, the Gorelick memo merely clarified long-unwritten restrictions on the sharing of information between the FBI's intelligence arm and the Justice Department's criminal division, and had no impact on communications between the FBI and the CIA, the Department of Defense, or any other agencies. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft stated in his testimony before the 9-11 Commission that the Gorelick memo provided the "basic architecture" for the 1995 guidelines established by Reno, which formalized rules for intelligence sharing that were already in place. And as the 1995 guidelines clearly state, the Gorelick memo and the guidelines applied only to intelligence sharing "between the FBI and the Criminal Division" within the Justice Department, not between the Justice Department and any other agency such as the CIA:
SUBJECT: Procedures for Contacts Between the FBI and the Criminal Division Concerning Foreign Intelligence and Foreign Counterintelligence Investigations
The procedures contained herein, unless otherwise specified by the Attorney General, apply to foreign intelligence (FI) and foreign counterintelligence (FCI) investigations conducted by the FBI, including investigations related to espionage and foreign and international terrorism. The purpose of these procedures is to ensure that FI and FCI investigations are conducted lawfully, and that the Department's criminal and intelligence/counterintelligence functions are properly coordinated.
From the January 13 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: But now on the national security front, we have almost the same thing going on. I mean, we have this guy, Eric Holder, who's going to be attorney general. And he'll get passed. But Eric Holder -- I got no confidence in this guy, at all -- zero. He was the guy that ordered, along with Janet Reno, his boss under [President] Clinton -- he was assistant attorney general [sic] and Reno was the attorney general -- for the CIA not to talk to the FBI, which allowed the 9-11 killers to get in and do what they did, because they wouldn't share information. That's Eric Holder. And now he's going be the attorney general. Well, now, maybe he learned his lesson. Yeah. OK. Maybe? This is a bad pick.
[...]
O'REILLY: But let's get to Holder. I think he's going to be confirmed. I don't think anybody can stop him. But he's the guy that, in conjunction with Janet Reno and Jamie Gorelick, said that the CIA and the FBI couldn't talk to each other on investigative matters. Therefore, the 9-11 killers slipped through and did their deed. Now that hasn't been well-publicized, but Holder was right in the middle of that.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA): Well, there is no doubt that had there been an exchange of information -- a big part of it came out of [Al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias] Moussaoui and Minneapolis, and we had the FBI agent who wrote a long, 13-page, single-spaced letter -- now had that been conveyed to the CIA, the hijackers might well have been stopped. Hopefully, that has been corrected.
O'REILLY: Are you going to make a big deal out of that when you talk to Holder?
SPECTER: Absolutely.
[...]
O'REILLY: So you're going to get a crack at him on Thursday?
SPECTER: Oh, absolutely.
O'REILLY: Yeah.
SPECTER: Absolutely. The hearing will start and the chairman has the first prerogative. I'm just sorry I'm not the chairman any more. I don't have the gavel. But it's --
O'REILLY: No, but you'll be able to get him the questions about the pardon and the most important thing: the separation that they imposed on the CIA and FBI.
SPECTER: We'll be talking about [Mark] Rich. We'll be talking about the failure of the Department of Justice to have independent counsel for Vice President [Al] Gore on the allegations of fundraising from the White House. On FALN, the terrorist group where Mr. Holder recommended commutation to a group of terrorists who'd killed people and robbed banks, and then you'll have the whole issue of national security.
How much do you want to bet that Bill O'Reilly has never even read the Gorelick memo? If a person is privileged with access to the airwaves to pontificate about national and world events doesn't that person owe it to his listeners to at least be properly informed about which he speaks? Apparently not in the case of Bill O'Reilly. There seems to be a pattern with O'Reilly talking out of his butt. O'Reilly can't even get the smallest of details correct. If O'Reilly worked for the so-called Mainstream Media, which he and his employer condemn, he would have been fired long ago for his his consistent inaccuracies. Only in the realm of the right wing propaganda industry can O'Reilly professionally exist.
His "job," is not to be properly "informed" about what he says, just to make sure he's representing the corporate propaganda that is necessary to keep evil in power. He does it well, according to his lies and money.
i've sort of had a minimum respect for specter, in that he didn't seem to be the rabid right wing type. he is clearly full of it here. he says if only the cia had been informed of the letter from the minneapolis fbi agent, and the infomation about moussaoui, the "twentieth hijacker", then the attack might have been stopped.
fact one: the fbi is not responsible for law enforcement in this country. that would be the fbi and they clearly already had the information.
fact two: the cia did know about it. page 275 of the 9-11 report: "on august 23 [2001], director of central intelligence tenet was briefed about the moussaoui case in a briefing titled 'islamic extremist learns to fly'."
there is one common thread in the history of 9-11. that is the fact that bush, and his national security adviser condi rice, and his attorney general john ashcroft, who also was ultimate head of the fbi, were deliberately dismissive of any concerns about counterterrorism and ignored all the warnings. richard clarke submitted a memo to condi on jan. 25, 2001 which said: "we urgently need a principals level review on the al qaeda network". but as the 9-11 report noted: "no principals committee meeting on al qaeda was held until sept. 4, 2001". [both quotes page 201.] and as the report noted [page 265]: "in sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. they did not have direction and did not have a plan to institute. the borders were not hardened. transportation systems were not fortified. electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat". in other words, the bush administration had the pieces, they refused to put the puzzle together.
fact one should read: the cia is not responsible for law enforcement in this country.
You do know Richard Clarke has done all he can to CYA his history. In his book, while interesting, he did not acknowlege the many chances he had to get Bin Laden.
you know very little. clarke had no authority to "get" anyone. he was an adviser. he requested a meeting and was refused. and your little strawman argument does not change the fact that it was the bush administration that downgraded and ignored the threat.
Comments like leather's make me wonder: Is he:
1) Really that stupid
2) So ultra-partisan that he believes any lie that bashes libs.
3) Just pops on this site to get a rise out of us.
How much do you want to bet that Bill O'Reilly has never even read the Gorelick memo?
O'Reilly only reads garbage that he can use to exploit issues.
He can read????
Those darn facts always seem to get in the way of Bill's reporting. And he is what?.... The number one most popular conservative commentator? It's littler wonder that his party is so discredited. Millions of them suc k up his "facts" like hungry puppies.
It's sickening that this media puke bill o'reilly is still defending George W. Bush with this stupid "wall" excuse... this business of running interference for George W. Bush regarding his criminal liability for failing to protect the American People on September 11 2001, this has always been the lowest of low duties... only scum and dirt volunteered for the job of passing the buck and diverting blame in the murders of those 3,000 Americans... "the wall", "connecting the dots", "actionable intelliegnce", "sure we were told they were planning to hijack planes, but who would have thought they'd use them as weapons and crash them"...
It makes me want to puke, to hear these lame and criminal excuses for not doing the job of protecting the American People that day, and for trying to blame people who were no longer even in the Federal Government (there can only be one administration of our Federal Government at any one time, and it was the Bush administration on September 11 2001, and no one else).
And so this sickening media puke bill o'reilly, he blames and makes excuses and passes the buck and evades Bush's responsibilities right to the end of George W. Bush's criminally negligent administration.
The lowest of low jobs, and the most sickening of duties to perform: what else is bill o'reilly good for though, and how else would he ever earn ten million dollars a year?
Just think... the Talking Head Troglodytes thought this talking point had long expired, and now they get to dust it off and belch it out again. They must be thrilled.
...dust it off and belch it out again.
With a new twist...Eric Holder caused 9/11. That's basically what O'Reilly is saying...
That is exactly Bills point. He blames Gorelick more however.
SPECTER ...we had the FBI agent who wrote a long, 13-page, single-spaced letter -- now had that been conveyed to the CIA, the hijackers might well have been stopped. Hopefully, that has been corrected.
O'REILLY: Are you going to make a big deal out of that when you talk to Holder?
SPECTER: Absolutely.
Am I going to make a big deal out of my ignorant speculation? You betcha, BilldO!
Careful Colonel, Specter concocted one of the most famous pieces of ignorant speculation ever, "the Single Bullet Theory" for the Warren Commission.
They're still making a big deal out of that one.
I didn't know that was his work. He's really making a career out of this one trick, isn't he?
This time it's the "Single Memo" theory...the theory being that one memo killed three thousand people.
He pulls so many "facts" from there. I'm glad Television doesn't broadcast smell as well. Its hard to watch o'liely for more than a few minute without feeling sick to my stomach as it is.
Where is the line drawn between "Free Speech" and "Total Lies"? I guess there is none. Us bad old liberals are guilty of what a few of the more rabid wing-nuts describe as "not being willing to accept a 'different point of view'." According to my personal definition, a statement that is false is NOT a "different point of view', but a lie. That the likes of O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, etc., have a huge fan base not only frightens me but sickens me.
-- the Gorelick memo...had no impact on communications between the FBI and the CIA, the Department of Defense, or any other agencies. -- mmfa
-- "We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation" -- Gorelick 1995
No dice, mmfa...Gorelick clearly raised the bar above legal requirements.
you might want to check my post above and comment.
The 9/11 Commission said that Ashcroft didn't "fairly or accurately reflect the significance of the 1995 documents and their relevance to the 2001 discussions." It went on to say that "The Gorelick memorandum applied to two particular criminal cases, neither of which was involved in the summer 2001 information-sharing discussions." Ashcroft himself conceded after his testimony that Gorelick's memo permitted "interaction and information sharing between prosecutors and intelligence officers"
Ashcroft's own Deputy Attorney General affirmed the guidelines Gorelick referenced and added extra requirements on top of those.
Why did Media Matters only use a line from John Ashcroft instead of his quotes about the wall?
let's see, ashcroft, a guy who actually was in ultimate charge of all the investigations, gives his version of why things went wrong. he's totally impartial, right? here's the 9-11 commission page 275:
"there was substantial disagreement between minneapolis agents and fbi headquarters as to what moussaoui planned to do. in one conversation between a minneapolis supervisor and a headquarters agent, the latter complained that minneapolis's fisa request was couched in a manner intended to get people 'spun up'. the supervisor replied that was exactly his intent. he said he was 'trying to keep someone from taking a plane and crashing it into the world trade center'. the headquarters agent replied that was not going to happen and that they did not know if moussaoui was a terrorist."
page 265: "he [ashcroft] did not ask the fbi what it was doing in response to the threats and did not task it to take any specific actions."
had ashcroft, bush or rice showed an interest in the issue, then the information might have moved to the top.
The 9/11 Commission pretty thoroughly established that Ashcroft's testimony was worthless. If those guidelines he referred to were so restrictive, why did Ashcroft's own deputy reaffirm them and add extra restrictions that had to be followed in August of 2001?
Ashcroft was only trying to deflect his own share of blame and was willing to cherry-pick Gorelick's words out of context to do so.
Here's Gorelick's response to Ashcroft's testimony. An excerpt:
Fifth, nothing in the 1995 guidelines prevented the sharing of information between criminal and intelligence investigators. Indeed, the guidelines require that FBI foreign intelligence agents share information with criminal investigators and prosecutors whenever they uncover facts suggesting that a crime has been or may be committed. The guidelines did set forth procedures, but those procedures implemented court decisions and, as noted, were reaffirmed by the Ashcroft Justice Department.