Able Danger Unable To Convince 9/11 Commission The FIRST Time
The 9-11 Commission originally stated that they had never dealt with anyone that was a part f Able Danger—the intelligence team that fingered Mohammed Atta over a year prior to the 11 Sept. attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Now, something that must be remembered is that Able Danger was operating during the Clinton Administration, just during the Bush Administration.
Dick Morris admitted in the film "Fahrenhype 9/11"—the conservative answer to Michael Moore’s lie-fest "Fahrenheit 9/11"—that Clinton didn’t take terrorism seriously. He’s admitted this not only in this documentary, but in a number of his more recent columns and books. Clinton took the same approach to terrorism as he did everything else that was serious. He left it for the next guy. And, is appropriately mapped out in "Fahrenhype 9/11," the Clinton administration did more than just turn a blind eye to the problem. In one particular instance, they helped bin-Laden escape a cruise missile because the administration contacted someone close to him in the Pakistani government.
The Sept. 11 commission was warned by a uniformed military officer 10 days before issuing its final report that the account would be incomplete without reference to what he described as a secret military operation that by the summer of 2000 had identified as a potential threat the member of Al Qaeda who would lead the attacks more than a year later, commission officials said on Wednesday.
The officials said that the information had not been included in the report because aspects of the officer's account had sounded inconsistent with what the commission knew about that Qaeda member, Mohammed Atta, the plot's leader. ...
The briefing by the military officer is the second known instance in which people on the commission's staff were told by members of the military team about the secret program, called Able Danger.
The meeting, on July 12, 2004, has not been previously disclosed. That it occurred, and that the officer identified Mr. Atta there, were acknowledged by officials of the commission after the congressman, Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, provided information about it. ...
Al Felzenberg, who served as the commission's chief spokesman, said earlier this week that staff members who were briefed about Able Danger at a first meeting, in October 2003, did not remember hearing anything about Mr. Atta or an American terrorist cell. On Wednesday, however, Mr. Felzenberg said the uniformed officer who briefed two staff members in July 2004 had indeed mentioned Mr. Atta.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/politics/11intel.html?ex=1281412800&en=3c4c0f2346a58391&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
The above comes from the Ol’ Gray Lady this morning. So, initially, the commission denied ever being briefed about Able Danger, and who they were tracking, but now the spokesman has backtracked on that, and suddenly they remember the meeting. And to top it off, yes, Atta was mentioned in the briefing. So, what do we have here, with the commission?
It sounds so much like the fact that Able Danger didn’t fit into their preconceived notions and determinations that they opted to omit it. Of course, part of the problem with Able Danger was that as a military unit, they were prevented from sharing any of their intel with the FBI. That, of course, was thanks to Jamie Gorelick—a Commission member who fashioned the wall of separation between the CIA and the FBI.
There is still much speculation regarding why the wall was even erected. Though not thoroughly proven, many nuts on our side of the spectrum believe it was put in place to prevent any investigation of the president in regard to questionable campaign donations rolling in from known Red Chinese Army assets operating in America. But, as I said, there’s no hard proof to verify that rumor. But the wall was up, and the intel the CIA had on Atta couldn’t be shared with the FBI. As a matter of fact, Able Danger tried three times—directly—to give the information to the FBI, and administration lawyers blocked them at every turn.
Weldon said that in September 2000, the unit recommended on three separate occasions that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI "so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists." However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation, arguing that Atta and the others were in the country legally so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.
"Lawyers within the administration — and we're talking about the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration — said 'you can't do it,'" and put post-its over Atta's face, Weldon said. "They said they were concerned about the political fallout that occurred after Waco ... and the Branch Davidians."
This sure doesn’t sound like the actions of an administration that claims—today—that their primary concern was terrorism. Of course, that excuse doesn’t wash when one looks at the track record the terrorists built up over eight years. The USS Cole, Khobar Towers, Bali, the first WTC attack, etc. Clinton wasn’t concerned with it. It was a real problem that he just didn’t want to deal with. Because of his complacency, his unwillingness to act, and the blatant disregard he had for intel being handed to him about terrorists in the US, three thousand people died on 11 Sept. And he had the gall to go on the TV that day and tell everyone that he knew bin-Laden was behind it.
Then the spin started. Clinton argued that he had left a proper and complete threat assessment report for the incoming administration, yet aides close to the president state that no report was left for him, or any member of his administration. Rumsfeld had no such report. Condi didn’t have the report. Cheney didn’t have it, and neither did the president. So, what was he supposed to do? He had to start from scratch.
But Clinton didn’t have to. He could have acted, and just opted not to. It would have been too hard for him to do anything like order a strike with a spec-ops team into Afghanistan to remove bin-Laden, or to accept him when Sudan offered him up not once, not twice, but three separate times. Again, according to his logic, they couldn’t have held him, legally? Says who? The Justice Department knew exactly who bin-Laden was through the interrogation of the blind sheik responsible for the first WTC attack, and the subsequent bombers discovered in the course of the investigation. That makes him an accessory at best, and the commander, at worst. And it seems that we learned on 11 Sept. that is was the worse we should have been worried about.
What is even more interesting is the fact that the majority of the MSM doesn’t want to touch the Able Danger story. Why? Because they know that no amount of spin is going to save their icon: Pres. Clinton. He was asleep at the switch, and just let these murderers into the country, despite the warnings from a group that had been following them and observing them.
In short, Able Danger might have finally Clinton what he has been searching for: A legacy. My problem with that legacy is that it is the three thousand people who died on 11 Sept. sitting at his feet. There’s Clinton’s legacy. And nothing will change it. The 9-11 Commission needs to reopen this investigation, get Gorelick off the panel, and do this right. They want answers, and so does America, but we don’t want the half-assed answer we were given previously. We want the truth, and yes Ms. Gorelick, we can handle the truth.
Publius II
The 9-11 Commission originally stated that they had never dealt with anyone that was a part f Able Danger—the intelligence team that fingered Mohammed Atta over a year prior to the 11 Sept. attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Now, something that must be remembered is that Able Danger was operating during the Clinton Administration, just during the Bush Administration.
Dick Morris admitted in the film "Fahrenhype 9/11"—the conservative answer to Michael Moore’s lie-fest "Fahrenheit 9/11"—that Clinton didn’t take terrorism seriously. He’s admitted this not only in this documentary, but in a number of his more recent columns and books. Clinton took the same approach to terrorism as he did everything else that was serious. He left it for the next guy. And, is appropriately mapped out in "Fahrenhype 9/11," the Clinton administration did more than just turn a blind eye to the problem. In one particular instance, they helped bin-Laden escape a cruise missile because the administration contacted someone close to him in the Pakistani government.
The Sept. 11 commission was warned by a uniformed military officer 10 days before issuing its final report that the account would be incomplete without reference to what he described as a secret military operation that by the summer of 2000 had identified as a potential threat the member of Al Qaeda who would lead the attacks more than a year later, commission officials said on Wednesday.
The officials said that the information had not been included in the report because aspects of the officer's account had sounded inconsistent with what the commission knew about that Qaeda member, Mohammed Atta, the plot's leader. ...
The briefing by the military officer is the second known instance in which people on the commission's staff were told by members of the military team about the secret program, called Able Danger.
The meeting, on July 12, 2004, has not been previously disclosed. That it occurred, and that the officer identified Mr. Atta there, were acknowledged by officials of the commission after the congressman, Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, provided information about it. ...
Al Felzenberg, who served as the commission's chief spokesman, said earlier this week that staff members who were briefed about Able Danger at a first meeting, in October 2003, did not remember hearing anything about Mr. Atta or an American terrorist cell. On Wednesday, however, Mr. Felzenberg said the uniformed officer who briefed two staff members in July 2004 had indeed mentioned Mr. Atta.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/politics/11intel.html?ex=1281412800&en=3c4c0f2346a58391&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
The above comes from the Ol’ Gray Lady this morning. So, initially, the commission denied ever being briefed about Able Danger, and who they were tracking, but now the spokesman has backtracked on that, and suddenly they remember the meeting. And to top it off, yes, Atta was mentioned in the briefing. So, what do we have here, with the commission?
It sounds so much like the fact that Able Danger didn’t fit into their preconceived notions and determinations that they opted to omit it. Of course, part of the problem with Able Danger was that as a military unit, they were prevented from sharing any of their intel with the FBI. That, of course, was thanks to Jamie Gorelick—a Commission member who fashioned the wall of separation between the CIA and the FBI.
There is still much speculation regarding why the wall was even erected. Though not thoroughly proven, many nuts on our side of the spectrum believe it was put in place to prevent any investigation of the president in regard to questionable campaign donations rolling in from known Red Chinese Army assets operating in America. But, as I said, there’s no hard proof to verify that rumor. But the wall was up, and the intel the CIA had on Atta couldn’t be shared with the FBI. As a matter of fact, Able Danger tried three times—directly—to give the information to the FBI, and administration lawyers blocked them at every turn.
Weldon said that in September 2000, the unit recommended on three separate occasions that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI "so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists." However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation, arguing that Atta and the others were in the country legally so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.
"Lawyers within the administration — and we're talking about the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration — said 'you can't do it,'" and put post-its over Atta's face, Weldon said. "They said they were concerned about the political fallout that occurred after Waco ... and the Branch Davidians."
This sure doesn’t sound like the actions of an administration that claims—today—that their primary concern was terrorism. Of course, that excuse doesn’t wash when one looks at the track record the terrorists built up over eight years. The USS Cole, Khobar Towers, Bali, the first WTC attack, etc. Clinton wasn’t concerned with it. It was a real problem that he just didn’t want to deal with. Because of his complacency, his unwillingness to act, and the blatant disregard he had for intel being handed to him about terrorists in the US, three thousand people died on 11 Sept. And he had the gall to go on the TV that day and tell everyone that he knew bin-Laden was behind it.
Then the spin started. Clinton argued that he had left a proper and complete threat assessment report for the incoming administration, yet aides close to the president state that no report was left for him, or any member of his administration. Rumsfeld had no such report. Condi didn’t have the report. Cheney didn’t have it, and neither did the president. So, what was he supposed to do? He had to start from scratch.
But Clinton didn’t have to. He could have acted, and just opted not to. It would have been too hard for him to do anything like order a strike with a spec-ops team into Afghanistan to remove bin-Laden, or to accept him when Sudan offered him up not once, not twice, but three separate times. Again, according to his logic, they couldn’t have held him, legally? Says who? The Justice Department knew exactly who bin-Laden was through the interrogation of the blind sheik responsible for the first WTC attack, and the subsequent bombers discovered in the course of the investigation. That makes him an accessory at best, and the commander, at worst. And it seems that we learned on 11 Sept. that is was the worse we should have been worried about.
What is even more interesting is the fact that the majority of the MSM doesn’t want to touch the Able Danger story. Why? Because they know that no amount of spin is going to save their icon: Pres. Clinton. He was asleep at the switch, and just let these murderers into the country, despite the warnings from a group that had been following them and observing them.
In short, Able Danger might have finally Clinton what he has been searching for: A legacy. My problem with that legacy is that it is the three thousand people who died on 11 Sept. sitting at his feet. There’s Clinton’s legacy. And nothing will change it. The 9-11 Commission needs to reopen this investigation, get Gorelick off the panel, and do this right. They want answers, and so does America, but we don’t want the half-assed answer we were given previously. We want the truth, and yes Ms. Gorelick, we can handle the truth.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:53 PM
3 Comments:
Very informative. I wonder what other information the commission had they took in private and chose to ignore? I have never been satisfied with the commission. I agree that the commission be called back in public and that Gorelick be removed. Rawriter
I keep forgetting that Clinton was personally responsible for 9/11! Thanks for reminding us!
Kom:
I never said he was directly responsible for it, but his inaction, and constnat dodging of the threat did. It was his mismanagement of this issue that gave us three thousand dead on 11 Sept. It's my personal opinion that 11 Sept. will be his legacy, much like Carter's legacy was writeen the day the US embassy in Iran fell to militant extremists.
Thomas
Post a Comment
<< Home