Was the failure to protect Americans on 9/11 the result of sexism?

I honestly don't know the answer. But I have this awful gnawing feeling in my gut that in some small way, it might have been a factor.

Let's hope I'm wrong.

To recap - an unidentified intelligence officer filed a complaint with the Department of Defense Inspector General for Intelligence alleging that the Joint Forces Intelligence Command withheld information from Congress during its investigation of intelligence failures on 9/11.

In his May 8, 2006, Formal Complaint to DoD Inspector General [1], the unidentified intelligence officer known only as IRON MAN wrote:

(U) Contrary to JFIC's formal report to the JCS staff, JFIC had a direct and assigned purview on international terrorism against the U.S., to include the operations of al-Qa'ida and the 9/11 attackers. JFIC was directly responsible to both Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) and its subordinate, Joint Task Force-Civil Support (JTF-CS) for all-source intelligence analysis of internationai terrorism against the U.S. To ensure the quality of such analysis,  JFlC's commanding officer [redacted] established the Asymmetric Threat Branch (DO5), charged with reporting on asymmetric threats, especially terrorism. [redacted] was subsequently promoted to JFCOM J2. As a RADM and PACOM J2, she established another Asymmetric Threat branch at PACOM.)

It is my belief that the commanding officer described above is Rear Admiral (retired) Rosanne M. LeVitre, US Navy.

Who shut down the Asymmetric Threat Division at JFIC before 9-11?

Cross posted at the Missing Man

Reviewing the two recent articles over at Truth Out about the shut down on an intelligence program within Joint Forces Intelligence Command and withholding information to Congress about 9/11.

Thinking a bit out loud here and feeling my way around it all. I'm trying to figure out where the pressure was coming from.

Review of Joint Forces Intelligence Command Response to 9/11 Commission PDF
Deputy Inspector General for Intelligence
September 23, 2008

(U) JFIC's Asymmetric Threat Division (DO5)


(U) In 1999, the [Joint Forces Intelligence Command]created the Asymmetric Threat Division (DO5) to take a non-traditional approach to analysis. The Director of Operations recruited JFIC personnel from the command based upon their counterintelligence and counterterrorism expertise. The DO5 provided current intelligence briefings and produced the Worldwide Terrorist Threat Summary in support of the USJFCOM Intelligence staff. The DO5 also provided support to the Joint Task Force-Civil Support (JTF-CS). The JTF-CS assisted civil authorities with disaster assistance. The DO5 supported the JTF-CS exercises by establishing fictional terrorist organizations that would mimic real world terrorist groups.


Anyway, what I am trying to understand is this: why were commanding officers so opposed to the Asymmetric Threat Division's intelligence analysis regarding al Qaeda? Just what the heck was going on over there - was it a Navy thing or was there more to it than that?

Truthout - New Documents Claim Intelligence Withheld From Congress' 9/11 Probe

Jeffrey Kaye continues lifting the veil on 9-11 intelligence failures with a new article at Truthout. The Unclassified FOIA Response attached to the article is an absolute must read. The FOIA Response was the result of a 2006 complaint to the DoD Inspector General filed by a former intelligence officer known only as IRONMAN.

EXCLUSIVE: New Documents Claim Intelligence on Bin Laden, al-Qaeda Targets Withheld From Congress' 9/11 Probe
By Jeffrey Kaye and Jason Leopold, Truthout, June 13, 2011
Attachments - Unclassified FOIA Response

The last page of the FOIA Response holds particular interest for me.

(U) [unclassified] My motivation for this complaint is multi-faceted. I do believe that knowledge of the work done by DO5 would add to DoD's understanding of its role in the events leading up to 9/11 and how to avoid future attacks. For this reason, and other more personal reasons, I believe that DO5's work, when I am certain that that information is not and has not been classified since 9/11, and I do want to see myself cleared of that false accusation. In addition, I and the deputy of that team, [redacted] especially carried the burden of knowledge of how close DoD came to bin Laden and perhaps being able to reduce the number of lives lost on 9/11. I do not want that burden any longer. [redacted] [redacted] and I discussed this issue the last time we spoke. He remains the longest missing man in Iraq in this war, and I want, one day, to be able to explain to his children what their father foresaw.

The former deputy of the Asymmetric threat Division and still the longest missing man in Iraq is Kirk von Ackermann. The complicated and contentious history of the company he worked for in Iraq, Ultra Services, was featured in a 2006 article at ePluribus Media.

The Vast Majority of Muslims Condemn The 9-11 Attacks

From the story 'Politics, not piety' dictate radicals in Muslim world: poll (hat tip Lordrag) it appears that over 90% of the Muslim world condemns the attacks of September 11, 2001. Of the 7% who condoned them, it was not due to religious justification -- it was political.


One of the largest-ever opinion polls conducted in the Islamic world found that seven percent of Muslims condoned the Sep 11, 2001, attacks on the US, but none of them gave religious justification for their beliefs, according to the figures released Tuesday.

The Gallup organisation’s poll of some 50,000 people in over 35 predominantly Muslim countries found that what motivated those considered "politically radicalised" was their fear of occupation by the West and the US, though most even admired and hoped for democratic principles.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims - 93 percent - condemned the Sep 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, and most said the biggest obstacle to better relations with the West was the latter’s lack of respect for Islam.

Well, so much for the American Taliban's insistence that the followers of Islam are trying to destroy us and are required by their religion to do so.

Funny thing, the interesting double-standard that is invoked here: it's almost reminiscent of the magnificently hypocritical shell game that evoked the Crusades. Remember them?


The Crusades were a series of military conflicts of a religious character waged by much of Christian Europe against external and internal threats. Crusades were fought against Muslims, pagan Slavs, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, and political enemies of the popes.[1] Crusaders took vows and were granted an indulgence for past sins.[1]

I think I have found, however, a key reason why radical right-wingers and conservatives want to paint all Muslims with the same broad brush: Muslims worldwide apparently admire our liberal democracy.


Substantial majorities in all Muslim countries said they supported bringing democratic principles to their own countries and admired the US primarily for its technological innovation and liberal democracy, but less than 50 percent believed the US was serious about bringing that democracy to the Islamic world.

Emphasis mine.

I guess that explains why Conservatives are scared, too -- there are billions of Muslims in the world, and they like liberals. If I were conservative, I suppose I'd be feeling pretty put-out at being dissed and ignored by billions across the planet too.

Bush's Buddy Bandar Aids Ai Qaeda, Supported Some 9-11 Terrorists

Gee, breaking news from Kossack calipygian about Bush's bestest buddy, Saudi Prince Bandar and family:

...the British Government had launched an investigation into defense contractor BAE for paying bribes to Saudi officials, including Bush family BFF and former Saudi Ambassador to the United States Prince Bandar bin Sultan. As you probably already know,Prince Bandar knew about the Invasion of Iraq before our own State Department.  As it turns out, while Prince Bandar was getting more access to our deepest secrets than our own State Department, he was also getting up to 120 million Pounds a year deposited into a Washington DC Riggs Bank account for facilitating the 43 billion pound Al-Yamanah arms deal between Saudi Arabia and BAE.

The investgation was quashed because Bandar threatened the UK if they didn't stop.


Why is that significant? Because Bandar's wife was paying some of the 9/11 hijackers:

Findings from an inquiry by the House-Senate Joint Intelligence Committee suggest evidence indicates money from the Saudi Arabian government could have made its way to the two hijackers through two Saudi students when they were in California.

There is some evidence that the students received a payment through the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States, according to the inquiry.

Do you get that? Money goes from BAE to bank accounts controlled by Prince Bandar bin Sultan to the 9/11 hijackers in California.

In addition to that, most Republicans probably want folks to overlook other Republican ties to terror. For example, while Reich-wing nuts cry out how liberals are "terrorist-lovers trying to destroy our nation," two Republicans have already been arrested for aiding Al Qaeda and terrorist organizations.1 The true nature of today's Republicans and Conservatives -- and the Beasties in the White House -- is coming to light; they can be easily found by the company they keep.

And that's not all...