From 9/11 to Mass Surveillance, The Man Who Knew Too Much – Thomas Drake on RAI (2/5)

PAUL JAY: Welcome back to Reality Asserts
Itself on The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay. We’re going to continue our interview with
Thomas Drake, whistleblower, former senior executive, I guess you could say, or officer
at the NSA, and also someone who stuck his neck out, very concerned about the role the
NSA played both in not preventing 9/11, which he says they could have, and not revealing
the NSA secretly developing a mass surveillance state, which he then helped to expose, and
other things. He’s a man who stuck his neck out. Thanks for joining us. So in part one we talked about how deliberate
this process is and the question of how much of this is lack of prioritization–and by
this I mean the suppression, withholding of evidence that various intelligence agencies
gathered prior to 9/11 that might have prevented 9/11. And one of the things that is easiest
to focus on, ’cause there’s other examples as well, but one of these guys in San Diego,
two guys that FBI know are there, CIA know are there, NSA know are there. And in a report
or a public memorandum that you and some of your colleagues sent to President Obama in
2014 titled “NSA Insiders Reveal What Went Wrong”, in relating the NSA, you say this–I
should say, the statement says this: “Was it a case of gross ineptitude on NSA’s
part; or was NSA deliberately withholding information linking al-Mihdhar to the known
al-Qaeda base in Yemen?” JAY: I mean, what you’re suggesting: it could
have been deliberate. Why would they do it? THOMAS DRAKE: You have to understand–I want
to come back to this [incompr.] don’t think some of it is fully appreciated, because it’s
easy to say that it was deliberate, it’s easy to say they withheld it on purpose, it’s easy
to say they knew this and didn’t share it. Counterterrorism at NSA was not a priority
at all. It just wasn’t. The office that even dealt with it was a backwater office of about
20 people. I used to work extensively with them, particularly after 9/11. They themselves
complained about all the reports that they had been issuing for years and years and years,
largely in response to the Tenet memo; the systems blinking red, all the way back to
1988, would continuously fall on deaf ears. JAY: But the Clinton presidency took it seriously
enough to appoint Richard Clarke to essentially a cabinet-level position. I mean, that’s taking
terrorism seriously. It’s the Bush presidency that demotes him. DRAKE: Yeah, because Cheney didn’t trust Clarke
at all. JAY: So why not replace him and have someone
else at the cabinet level? DRAKE: Because it gets in the way, and the
potential that he may say something out of turn. They didn’t trust him. So if you can’t
control–if you don’t trust somebody, then obviously you don’t believe you can control
them. JAY: And you suggested–said, not suggested,
in the last segment that Cheney sets up his own back channels to get intelligence directly
to him. DRAKE: Extraordinary. He basically created
his–with all the key leaders, and then some, all the way down into the bowels of each agency. JAY: So if the NSA isn’t prioritizing terrorism,
isn’t that a decision not to prioritize it at a time when you’re getting all this information
saying there’s such real threats that–? DRAKE: Yeah, but you’re also getting a staggering
amounts of information. You’ve got to remember, part of the problem here was the glut of information.
You were just getting flooded. I remember later the FBI even talking about this with
me even prior to 9/11, just staggering amounts of information coming in. How do you sort
through it all? How do you make sense of it all? This was the great challenge that NSA
faced, one of the reasons I was hired. How do you make sense–in a massive stream of
data, basically oceans of data, how do you find the drops that matter? And that was part
of the challenge. JAY: But Tenet says it’s the highest priority
facing the United States. So they’ve sifted through all this stuff and they’ve come to
the conclusion–. DRAKE: Saying it’s a priority doesn’t mean
you’re actually going to find what’s of priority. That’s part of the disconnect here. Saying
it is, by virtue of what we knew at the time, but then actually finding those things to
take action–. Remember, intelligence fundamentally is about indications and warning. You have
to have the indications, but then you have to report it as a warning. Those are tipoffs.
Those are alerting people. But if you don’t do that and the action’s not taken, it doesn’t
matter if Tenet sits there all day hollering the sky is falling when it actually is. I
can keep my head buried in the sand for a long, long time because nothing has happened
yet. JAY: Right, except some stuff had happened. DRAKE: Well, nothing had happened in, quote-unquote,
the homeland. JAY: Well, they’d already attacked the World
Trade Center, as you said in part one. DRAKE: That was sort of forgotten. JAY: I’m going to keep after you here. DRAKE: That’s okay. No, I admit it’s part
of the contradiction. JAY: ‘Cause that’s what I’m hearing from you
is this contradiction that– DRAKE: It’s a fundamental contradiction. JAY: –we can follow one line of conversation
and you’ll say they let it happen, and then another one–. DRAKE: It was convenient to let it happen.
Knowing something would happen, why would you actually want to make an effort to prevent
it? Because by letting it happen you would have your excuse. Cheney had made it clear,
right, crystal clear what he wanted to do was reestablish the authority of the president. JAY: And in Project for the New American Century,
they actually come out and say all the things we should be doing in terms of asserting U.S.
military, then political power in this new post-Soviet era, we need a new Pearl Harbor,
’cause American public opinion has no taste for more war. DRAKE: That’s why I said it was convenient
to allow the course of events there do, and whatever would happen would happen. Knowing
something would happen, why would you want to stop it? JAY: That’s why I’m saying the de-prioritization
is not unconscious. DRAKE: No, I would agree. It’s not. But if
you’re at the NSA, you do have the dynamic of you’re going to culturally not really–’cause
it’s not a priority. And remember, all of this was a super close hold. The vast majority
of NSA is not on the counterterrorism mission. They’re doing all the traditional stuff. JAY: Same thing. Coleen Rowley I’ve interviewed.
And maybe we’ll link to her interview so you can find them as we’re doing this. She said
in the interview, ’cause I asked her a somewhat similar question, she said the FBI was specifically
told, don’t prioritize terrorism, by Cheney. That was actual instructions, that this is
not the priority of our administration, which is part of why she says they couldn’t get
the FBI’s attention, to really pay attention to what they had found in Minneapolis. DRAKE: That still doesn’t matter, though.
I realize that’s a huge factor in terms of saying it isn’t, but you’re obligated under
the Constitution to provide for the common defense. If you have information that rises
to a level that says something is happening and it’s going to be really bad, you’ve got
to share it, you’ve got to bring in the key people, you’ve got to take action to prevent
it. That’s the whole point. Now, if you–I have argued this. I’ve said this before. That
whole process was subverted by Cheney and company. JAY: Okay. DRAKE: So the system–what I’m saying: the
system itself was essentially set aside. The secret channels were the ones that were utilized.
And they knew much better than anybody else that something big was going to happen. They
didn’t actually know exact time or date. There was actually more than just passing evidence
that they’d wanted to do what ultimately happened much earlier. They just weren’t able to make
it all happen. We know about all the test flights. We know about–you have James Woods,
who actually was interviewed, realizing that one of the flights he took, one of the many
flights he took from the East to the West Coast, he remembers certain people, right,
of Middle Eastern descent who were on those airplanes, on those flights. It was clear
that they had spent a long time–. JAY: James Woods. DRAKE: The actor. Yeah. They knew they had
spent a long time working this out, making observations, testing how secure or insecure
our system, our airline in particular, and all the security mechanisms. JAY: Now, one of the things that has come
out of–came out of Bob Graham’s joint congressional investigation is this famous 28 pages of their
report. And essentially Graham has acknowledged–and there’s been press reports–that what are
in these 28 pages is the evidence, they say, of direct Saudi role in financing and facilitating–and,
according to Graham, Saudi government role in financing and facilitating. If this is
true, the NSA must be hearing this stuff. This is part of what the NSA must not be passing
on. It’s not just about the information in San Diego. They’ve got to know about the whole
Saudi connection. DRAKE: Yeah. But that’s political. That’s
geopolitics at the highest level. You’re not going to counter the president when it comes
to that, or the vice president for that matter. This is really serious stuff. You’re talking
kind of the heart of dark government, what I call the double government. This is the
other government in action. You’ve set it up in a way that obviously you’re going to
protect the Saudis. And, yes, clearly the Saudis had a huge–most of the hijackers came
from Saudi Arabia. Remember, I can look this gift horse right
in the mouth and say [what is so (?)]. But that’s what most people don’t want to do,
because it opens up some really disturbing questions about power and who we are and who’s
in charge. JAY: And when did you start asking yourself
these particular kinds of questions? DRAKE: Oh, early on in my life. Early on.
I early on, because of experience I had, never trust anybody in any position of power or
authority, because they’re usually up to no good or there’ll abuse their positions of
power or authority. That’s why I wear a Q. It’s question everything, especially authority. JAY: And why did you then work for so many
years in the state, one form or another, in this dark state? DRAKE: It was serving my country and it was–I’m
in the system. There’s a longer history. I actually blew the whistle when I was in the
Air Force. I blew the whistle when I was a contractor. JAY: On? DRAKE: Oh, on a major program at NSA called
MINSTREL, something the FBI reminded me of–says, yeah, we know about your whistleblowing of
MINSTREL. It was actually–it was supposed to modernize the voice processing, bring it
into the modern era. So, yes, it was serving my country, but you’ve
got to keep the secret government in check, because it tends to abuse itself. We have
too many incidents. I mean, you can go back to the Gulf of Tonkin, where you deliberately
manipulated, actually created and framed the intelligence to make it look like the North
Vietnamese had actually attacked when they hadn’t. And, of course, that was the excuse
that Johnson needed to expand the war. Right? And what a disaster that was. JAY: Nixon torpedoing Johnson’s negotiation
with the North Vietnamese. DRAKE: That’s a whole ‘nother one. JAY: And if you’re interested in that one,
we have an interview about that where we actually play the tapes that the Johnson Library released
where he accused Nixon of acting like a traitor and said 50,000 more American boys’ lives
are going to be on your head. Nixon ignored him. DRAKE: See, this is all history that burdens
me. Okay? This is why I try not to get too cynical about the human condition. I’m well
aware of what happens in history. You know, I’m well aware of secret agreements, you know,
both in World War I and in World War II that were triggered, right, because, hey, or violated,
and then things are unleashed. Right? I mean, this is not pleasant stuff for people to look
at. Most people don’t want to look at the Pandora’s box of history, ’cause it’s not
pleasant. It just isn’t. And so you have enormous power. Power is pathological
when you start using it for other purposes. Power itself–Lord Acton’s right–does tend
to corrupt. That doesn’t mean it always corrupts, but it tends to, because most people cannot
resist the siren call of what it can do for you. JAY: When you talk about disturbing dark questions
at the heart of this dark state, do you think that’s one of the reasons that what the NSA
knew pre-9/11, more wasn’t done on, ’cause it leads to the Saudis if Graham’s commission’s
right? DRAKE: In part it does. But they’re also caught
up at even the higher levels of the government. And it’s not just NSA, but NSA is a secret
military intelligence agency. It was signed into being by virtue of a stroke of a pen
by President Truman. It was never legislated into existence. It was secret. Military intelligence.
You’ve got to be real here about what that agency does. It’s headed by now a four-star
general. You know, that’s a military order. That’s a military rule. It’s not led by a
civilian. It reports up through the Department of Defense historically. Now we’ve got the
DNI. NSA routinely broke U.S. laws, even prior
to the 1970s. That all came out–much of it came out, not all of it, in the Church and
Pike committees, even the Rockefeller Commission. Right? I mean, I could argue that NSA’s broken
the law for most of its history. Remember, it was foreign intelligence. You are designed
to break–didn’t matter what the rules were or the laws of any respective country: you
were going to collect whatever you needed to collect for the purposes of national security.
And national security is the purview of the president. JAY: So, again,– DRAKE: That’s the national security state. JAY: –why do you stay in it? And why then–it
sounds to me like you could have had other opportunities to blow the whistle that might
have put you in the same predicament. You do–. DRAKE: Yeah, but this is different. JAY: Why? DRAKE: The earlier ones were–you know, you’re
talking about just fraud and waste. This is a whole different matter. This is actual violations
of the Constitution, willful, deliberate violations. JAY: Meaning mass surveillance. DRAKE: Mass surveillance. Remember, I was
on the very program in which we were helping the FBI, myself and a colleague. Right after
9/11, we were tasked and all approved to help put together the affidavit information that
would go up before the secret court. That was the secret court called the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed in 1978 under the
Carter administration, which in itself was a compromise. This was the means by which
the secret–you still have to meet Fourth Amendment probable cause thresholds to issue
a warrant, although there were hot pursuit, where you actually could pursue if the threat
was that great, but you’d still go back to the court for the warrant. Completely bypassing
it. We were taken off that effort. When I confronted
Maureen Baginski, she said that they’ve gone with a different program. I knew when she
told me that–this was in the first few weeks after 9/11–that we were way across the Rubicon.
We were in a whole new vehicle. It wasn’t just the wheels came off; we are in a whole
new vehicle I did not recognize. It was an alien form of government. I didn’t take the
oath to defend an alien form of government. JAY: And you think it gets created whole cloth
just after 9/11, there’s no pre-thinking here? DRAKE: No, this goes all the way back to 1947.
I could point to ’47 as the epigenesis of the national security state. JAY: So this is taking advantage of crises
to establish things that have been worked out. DRAKE: Sure it is. Yes. And I’m well aware
of other things that happened in terms of emergency orders in case of national crises. JAY: For example? DRAKE: COG, you know, continuity of government,
right? I’m well aware of mechanisms that have been in place even during the Cold War,– JAY: Continuity of government meaning if–. DRAKE: –which essentially establish martial
law, a virtual martial law, and real martial law if necessary. This was all–all of this
thinking, not just conceptual, but all the planning, the mindset, the view was already
in place. JAY: And isn’t that kind of the whole point
about how these people view the Constitution, that the Constitution can essentially be suspended
whenever it’s pragmatic to do so? DRAKE: That’s–and you just–remember, I’m
witnessing in secret the subversion of the Constitution. So what does that mean? They’re
setting it aside. JAY: So how come–you’re working with all
your colleagues. How come you stick your neck out? At this moment, when it becomes so overt,
it’s been going on for years, and most people are saying to themselves it’s been going on
for years, why should I stick my neck out? This is all kind of going on during the Cold
War; this is kind of just at a new scale. It’s not brand-new. But you stick your neck
out and you say no. Why? DRAKE: I owed it to the people. I took the
oath. I wasn’t going to break the oath that I took. The oath mattered to me. It was the
fourth time I had taken it. It mattered. And here’s the president committing high crimes
and misdemeanors as defined by the Constitution. JAY: And how did it feel? DRAKE: Suspending the Constitution because
we had failed to provide, under the preamble, the common defense, suspending the Constitution,
for all intents and purposes, willfully and deliberately. So the only thing left that
I have is defend it. So I decided to keep defending it from within until I no longer
could. That’s when I went outside the system. And that’s what got me in trouble. JAY: And how did it feel that the president
who got elected next, who’s supposed to be the anti-Bush, is the one, President Obama,
who actually is the one that targets you? DRAKE: Obama knew about my case personally,
okay? I know that for a fact, because he was confronted in the Oval Office when he was
given a transparency award in secret. And everybody who was there–and it was related
to me–his body language said everything, where he actually leaned forward on the edge
of his chair, basically saying, we just can’t have these kind of leaks, you know, can’t
damage the national security of the United States. National security, as I have said,
is the secret religion of the state. You don’t question it. We’ll excommunicate you. JAY: You can’t be president and question it,
not and live. DRAKE: Well, you know, that’s a pretty strong
statement you make. But he was given a silver platter in secret with all the goodies of
presidential power. And if you’re the new president and you look at that platter, you’re
not going to put it back in the drawer. You’re going to keep it, right, out for use if you
need to. Why would you take off the platter, the presidential power platter, why would
you take those items off? You know, you’re the president, after all. JAY: Well, let’s look at the other side of
this. … JAY: Yeah. But essentially–. DRAKE: Defending the national security state.
That’s what’s being defended. JAY: But they’re arguing the reason they’re
doing it is ’cause there’s real threats out there. DRAKE: That’s an end justifies the means.
That’s Machiavelli. We’re doing this for your own good. Stand aside. We’re the authority.
We have the power, you don’t. That’s not a constitutional republic. JAY: Well, I think they would argue, if they
were being honest, that you can’t have a constitutional republic and defend the United States against
its threats. That really is the argument. DRAKE: That means that they consider the Constitution
a suicide pact. JAY: Or a convenient thing to have out there
when you need it. DRAKE: Well, you’ve got to keep the masses–some
would say the sheeple, right–in line. And so, yes, we have the convenient veneer of
a Constitution under which we all, quote-unquote, take an oath to support and defend, including
Michael B. Hayden, when he was a general and when he was director of the CIA as a civilian,
when he retired as a four-star. But all that doesn’t matter. We have an existential
crisis. As I was told, you don’t understand, Mr. Drake. Exigent conditions apply. Emergency
action is necessary to deal with the threat. It doesn’t matter that we failed to protect
people, protect the nation, we did not keep people out of harm’s way. And that whole national
security state apparatus, put into place formally in 1947, in the Cold War, just got transmuted
into the 21st century with a new existential threat. And it was going to be decades, if
not longer, that we would have to deal with it. JAY: And is it possible to have or be the
global hegemon? Is it possible to have the kind of foreign policy where there’s military
bases all over the world? Is it possible to have all the extra economic advantage that
global military power gives you and still have a constitutional republic at home? DRAKE: No, because the chickens always come
home to roost. The same–the very policy mechanism you apply in foreign adventures will come
home to roost. The irony, of course, for me is that the United
States became the Petri dish for mass surveillance. That’s what I became eyewitness to. That was
exported overseas as if mass surveillance was the answer. Remember, mass surveillance
has far less to do with protecting people than it does to drive national security interests
and protect national security interests. JAY: And how do you define–or how do they
define national security interests? DRAKE: National security interests is what
they define based on what needs to be protected for those who are in power and to protect
the policies that they implement. It has far less to do with liberty and real security. JAY: When I asked Larry Wilkerson this–and
a somewhat similar story in many ways; you know, someone who joined the Armed Forces
to fight in Vietnam, was in the Bush administration, and got completely disillusioned by it all–his
answer was, in the final analysis what kind of shook him is how banal the interest is
in the end, ’cause it’s actually about money. It’s really–. DRAKE: Actually, I can make a very powerful
economic argument to the whole–this whole thing is just an enterprise. JAY: Go ahead. DRAKE: It makes people a whole lot of money.
Because that’s partly what I was more than eyewitness to. Look, when I was going around, just to give
you an example, right after 9/11, the workforce knew we had failed the nation. People really
took it hard, ’cause that was our responsibility was to provide for the common defense, and
we hadn’t done that, so almost 3,000 people are murdered. So we’re going around the campus.
I’m with Maureen Baginski. Guess what she–how is she explaining it? JAY: Who is? DRAKE: Maureen Baginski, the signals intelligence
director, the person I reported to–going around, very visible person, because it’s
the largest organization at NSA by far. It’s the offensive side of NSA, not the defensive
side. You know, it’s the core mission of NSA. And her explanation is that 9/11 was a gift
to NSA. And then she said, we will get all the money we want and then some. It was clear
that this was not just–the failure was now going to result in all kinds of money. And
that’s why during the 50th anniversary of NSA, which took place in the fall of 2002–and
I was there–I remember Hayden up on the dais receiving this big check, like the fake check
Publishers Clearing House, right, that they used to have and made a big deal out of it
with the cameras rolling–oh, wow; you won $1 million. Well, let’s just say there was
a number, right, and it was in the billions, and it was one of the then House staff managers–his
name was Tim Sample–who was handing this check over to Hayden. And I clearly remember,
although I could not hear the words, but it was clear just from his–I can sort of lip
read. He was looking down at George Tenet, then pointing to the check, looking back to
George and saying, George, I got my money, George, I got my money. Look, if you’re at NSA and you’re–you’re
going to get all the money you want and then some. You really are. Billions and billions
were poured, not just NSA, but throughout–CIA, FBI, you name it. This became a huge jobs
program. I mean, the quickest way to become a millionaire was to start a small company,
as many of my colleagues did–hire five or six people. You’re an instant millionaire. JAY: ‘Cause you can sell these services to
the NSA. DRAKE: Yeah, and then you can replicate them
with the other agencies. JAY: Okay. In the next segment of our interview,
we’ll talk about the controversy over what kind of program to use. DRAKE: But it’s one of the big elephants in
the room. Look, I mean, this–you say war or crisis profiteers. Why–what the heck.
I’m not going to let this go to waste. And it doesn’t matter that it’s the national treasure
of the United States. It doesn’t matter if it’s American taxpayer money. And, of course,
this is–almost all of this was being deficit funded anyways. It doesn’t matter. This is
for national security. We’re going to get what we want. JAY: And it doesn’t matter this was really
all preparation for the invasion of Iraq that might’ve cost 1 million Iraqis’ lives. DRAKE: The truth be told, they were looking
for an excuse to invade Iraq before 9/11. They had it. That was the real priority in
terms of what we would do militarily overseas. JAY: From day one. DRAKE: Yes, from day one. JAY: Of the Bush administration. DRAKE: Right. Other people forget as well
is that NSA was circulating–during the presidential transition team period, the PTT, Bush is elected,
Clinton is still–well, he’s president-elect, but he’s not the president yet. He has not
taken the oath. There was a memo that was circulated by NSA seeking relief on the probable
cause standard on the Fourth Amendment. They were already looking for ways to erode it
significantly. JAY: So if your highest foreign-policy priority
in reality from the very beginning is the invasion of Iraq, then it’s not a big surprise
you de-prioritize terrorism, because, heck, wouldn’t that be a nice excuse– DRAKE: Yes. JAY: –for what our number-one priority is? DRAKE: And then conveniently link it–which
was, of course, completely framed, that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. It had absolutely
nothing to do with 9/11. JAY: Okay. We’re going to continue this discussion.
Please join us for the continuation of Reality Asserts Itself on The Real News Network.

53 thoughts on “From 9/11 to Mass Surveillance, The Man Who Knew Too Much – Thomas Drake on RAI (2/5)

  1. Very Interesting. Not surprised that any of this is true. But the question is what, we the people, can do to tackle these issue directly? Anyways, great video. Very informative!

  2. very disturbing. although i was  well aware of most of the facts discussed in these segments, somehow, i feel the urge to vomit and take a shower.
    Real News Network, Paul Jay, Thomas Drake, great work. thank you

  3. As a born Iraqi this interview really touched me. I cant even find the right words for these "humans" who kill millions of people just for money.

  4. What a great series of interviews here! Also. No one is saying 911 itself was 'inside job'. Only the 'use' of 911 can be reasonably characterized as 'inside job'. Which is bad enough for sure. Because, even in thumbnail sketch, the truth must always more nuanced and complicated when theories (conspiracy or otherwise) of something that obviously is not transparent happens. The reasonable implication and probability was that the neocons indeed wanted a stepping stone to wholesale attack the mideast to open markets and wipe out the quaint Levittowns 'democracies' of the orient from Versailles Treaty mandates. Of course, global corporations (7 sisters) and US deep Government destroyed and are destroying, most of these. But, what is being said is they, the state, had reason to think 'something' was going to occur and laid in wait for the desired predication of unilateral intervention by US and 'faithful coalitions'. Thus, 2003 and ongoing. But, back when 911 occurred they were astonished at the unexpected magnitude of the attacks and fallout of their miscalculations of their anticipated scale. But while they lost a big bluff, needless to say it still worked in their favor (Iraq 2003, etc). Btw, the 'canard' that the towers were 'demolished' is TRUE. But not for the reasons said. IOW the buildings were engineered that way for public safety and always constructed and slated for demolition in the event of a catastrophic event that (crucial) was deemed uncontrollable in the moment from first responder and fire & safety agencies' standpoint. 911 certainly could be said to fit that circumstance. It could be reasonably imagined the building engineers logically implanted this capacity in those towers. Because think what would be the result if one or both tipped over INTO lower manhattan. 10x the damage and lives lost than during what occurred on 911. But it must remain confidential due to liability. Because in effect you are 'playing god' potentially sacrificing a small number (of lives) to save a large number and this is undeniable but cannot be acknowledged due to what legal fallout would ensue. One states the foregoing as reasonable assumptions. None of which justifies the deep state takeover (since 1949, etc.) Btw the is it going to be Sanders or Biden v. Trump, inc., in 2016. Vote to change this sh-t! Peace.

  5. This was lovely, I was first overly critical of this man. I apologize. This is on point. There's always more to the story, but this much is undeniably true, the gov(prez) works on profits over the life and safty of those it has sworn to protect. Proof provided HERE! in this interview! For more on the money trail, see video "who are the carlyle group and bin Laden"

  6. Who put the stick up Thomas Drake's derriere?!! He comes off as a hardass in these interviews.

    Paul Jay is the nicest guy in the world, and the whole time Drake acts as if he wants to fight him!

  7. Why would the Saudi government do something like that? Most people refuse to ask the most obvious question? What is there to gain compare to the risk of doing something so stupid? Israel(and the neocons) were the big winner on 911.

  8. TRNN | Web: Programs | Reality Asserts Itself – Thomas Drake

    Playlist – From 9/11 to Mass Surveillance, The Man Who Knew Too Much – Thomas Drake on RAI |

    August 3, 2015:
    "On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Drake, a former Senior Executive at the National Security Agency, says he was targeted by the NSA because he exposed that the agency had intel that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks and because he blew the whistle on a massive secret surveillance program aimed at Americans"

    From 9/11 to Mass Surveillance, The Man Who Knew Too Much – Thomas Drake on RAI (2/5) |

  9. Paul hit the Jackpot…senior executive officer of the NSA calling the government dark and alien -Most credible  and thank you Thomas Drake…honestly, a rare (real) Hero

  10. I'm blown away Wow- while I have read most of the wikileaks transcripts, which as well blew me away with mounds of evidence, some of which I'll case to point; some of the many hundreds
    1. the order to turn off the anti-thermal vents at 6am –
    2.  creepy dialogue about the meds – which I googled the names' they were All HIV meds..guess to build their immunity – way fuckin creepy right there.- and transcripts of medic offices all over Hollywood, which I found was disturbingly odd;
    3.  conversation of the pod set ups on orchestrated plot lines that surrounded the WTC cavity; remember, Manhatten almost had flooded the whole city; whatever blew the towers ripped the gtound below…
    4. An electronics weapons Conglomerate, something out of the most horrific sci fi movie; that they were involved was quite seriously mentally hard to read.,
    5. and the mentioning of the 737, 767 20-30 times from midnite early 9/11..

    but this interview was even more compelling through its disclosure from the highest senior exec officer of the NSA- to mention some research I did, I loved Sussan Lindhaur's honest testimony; incredibly powerful and brave- Sabrosky, the candidate general and so so many other decent, credible higher ups -putting it ALL on the line is so f-in absolutely crazy Brave…kudos kuidos kudos…
     as well I thank the fantastic reporting like the Corbett Report; to mention: I really thank Paul Jay; what a ballsy journalist, with crazy cred as well –  most of all To THOMAS DRAKE

  11. I've always wondered why it's so difficult for the public to understand the military industrial complex is set up to perpetuate global war & civil unrest to ensure profit growth for defense contractors…even after the revelations of mr. drake & mr. snowden

  12. I had no idea Dick Cheney was influencing politics as far back as Nixon/Ford. Cheney represents everything that is wrong with America he is a corrupt power hungry evil mother fucker that it's impossible to estimate the deaths of how many people he is responsible for. The audacity of this piece of garbage to crawl out of the rock he lives under and step into the public eye to criticize anyone is stunning. Then to think my father died in Vietnam and my step Father was a combat Marine who served at the Siege of Khe Sahn one of four that survived from his original platoon while this pussy receives 5 deferments yet still becomes White House of Chief of Staff, Served as a United States House of Representative, Secretary of Defense, CEO of Halliburton and Vice President of the United States. Does integrity, empathy, honesty, compassion exist in this country anymore?

  13. What am I doing wrong?  Getting from Part 1 to Part 5 of Man who knew too Much has been a hunt and peck but now, I can't find the 5th at all!

  14. Note how Drake makes absolutely sure that the problem was ineptitude, and not anyone on the inside being actually involved.
    Also note that he never served any time in prison.
    Whistleblower, or Gatekeeper?

  15. I have only been able to see clearly the past three months! And I can't begin to warn others who is, us Americans- citizens/brothers/sisters/soldiers. Greatest threats to our dignity, self respect, and honor? We must begin today and hopefully one day in the future be able to remember the good that was created from the death and suffering innocence who blood is on our hands!

  16. Reality my ass! This guy continues the lies. My God, operation Northwood was in and on the drawing board back in the Kennedy days, no planes hit the WTC, and many of those murdered were working on criminal investigations of large Corps and government officials. Many went to their death obeying their unit chiefs who did not show up, they were told to bring all evidence. We know now funding for this operation came through Saudi Arabia & the Zionist in Israel, but originated through the British Royals. Thomas Drake continues the cover up and TRNN is complicit!

  17. Excuse me the NOT so REALNews, all the financial suspicious transactions, NanoThermite instalations, warning to politicians and Zionist not to go to work or fly… and you vomit in this interview they didn't know when it was going to happen??? RealNews, just be aware that non brainswashed people around the globe watches this. Not only for Americans (North) and Canadians!

  18. This interview if fake there were no hijackers. Plus this guy seems so relaxed like no problem umm they could have you killed if they wanted to.

  19. Watch the "other" video from PBS, called "The Man Who Knew". The story of FBI agent John O'neill, who left the FBI because they moved him out of the job he was doing, because he was "getting to close" to what was really going on. His next job, happened to be taking over as the head of security at the WTC. His first day working there? 9/11. He died that day. This is absolutely no joke – Youtube wont let me post the link to it

  20. This is an outstanding interview series. This helps explain how the Saudi's were set up to take the blame; just changing the name of those blamed to Al-queida. Letting it happen was part of the plot to do 9/11 for internal advantages by key players in government, and their allies.

  21. Such a long story. Why such a long explanation. All he is saying here is government knew 911 it wud happen. But denied protecting the people cause they saw an opportunity for warfare.

  22. The events of September 11 were masterminded by those who were in the best position to manage the consequences – namely, those most able to manage the flow of information, those most able to coordinate all the elements necessary for the perpetration of a successful operation (subverting airport security, guiding the planes to their specific targets), and most significantly, those who stood to reasonably benefit in the aftermath…..the events of September 11 were planned years in advance, with the groundwork being carefully laid by a propaganda campaign orchestrated to convince the public that the United States has a plausibly sophisticated nemesis with the motive, means, and opportunity to perpetrate a devastating act of terror against Americans……It is no small act to intentionally take down such an overarching symbol of financial stability as the Twin Towers, and chance killing thousands in the process. Such a conspiracy, if in fact perpetrated from within, would by its nature necessitate a huge structural, cultural, and demographic change. The very brazenness of the act, the naked aggression, would necessitate a tenacious determination to achieve the ends for which these actions were perpetrated.  There is no going back now. An infrastructure is being laid out – one that will, finally, provide a dissident-proof totalitarian oligarchy composed of like-minded elites served by an under-class kept under constant surveillance…..

  23. I’ve often thought to myself , why don’t all these whistle blowers get together in one room and start a following of 9/11 truthers and get the guilty in jail . ,,,,,in unity there’s strength ! I’ll revolt .

  24. I still don't believe that these hijackers could have flown commercial airliners dead centre into the towers or Pentagon, at claimed speeds or at any speed. These were not Cessna 172s. Something else at play.

  25. Sorry, but I believe this guy is still working for team evil…..all his points dissolve into distracting rhetoric when you watch building #7 implode into its own footprint from several small waining fires….. that simple!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *