Posted on 10/12/2005 11:07:20 AM PDT by vadkins
One of the biggest names of the conference never even uttered a word. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer is the military intelligence operative who recently went public with a controversial claim that a year before September 11, his top-secret task force "Able Danger" was able to identify the man who later turned out to be the lead hijacker as being connected to al Qaeda. Shaffer is a veteran of top-secret operations against terrorists, including some in Afghanistan, and several of his DIA colleagues have come out publicly to confirm that they remember Mohamed Atta being identified in 2000 as part of a project that combed through public databases looking for hidden links. But these allegations have been vigorously denied by the Pentagon and the White House, while several members of Congress are investigating. Shaffer was slated to speak but instead sat quietly by as his lawyer, Mark Zaid, spoke for him.
"Tony is not allowed to talk," Zaid said. "He is effectively gagged from talking. He is gagged from talking to Congress."
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
"Follow the Money"...
That used to be the rallying cry...
Now its more like...
"What did they know, and when did they know it?"
Stop and think on this for a second...
Who actually wants him to come in and testify before Congress...
And who does not?
Place the two answers under which particular question...
Your two answers are: Republicans, or, Democrats
Remember also, that if it is a question of national security, the testimony can be held in a closed classified session, without anyone in the media and public knowing what was discussed...
Those kinds of hearings take place all the friggin' time up there...There is nothing different about this, other than the implications of "stupidity" being discovered and acted upon...
Specifically, someones future Presidential candidacy would be in jeopardy, or seriously damaged...
(H.R.C.; a.k.a. "Thunder Thighs")
But you need to protect that over the security of this country.../sarcasm...
I wish I could write a book about what I did in the service...But I signed that non-disclosure document saying I got to take it to the grave...Y'all would like that stuff too, very entertaining...
I suspect the case here in the on going war on terror that this officer and others in his unit are working within that limitation and it'll be up to powers above em vs their own decision.
This is NOT like a presstitute not giving up a source...totally different thing.
Just my opinion based on a few personal experiences of course....
As to your comments...Remember also, that if it is a question of national security, the testimony can be held in a closed classified session, without anyone in the media and public knowing what was discussed...
That is not entirely a true statement in every case. The Executive branch has the authority to keep it from even a closed secure session of all congressional committiees if the president deems such capable of grave damage to national security.
Congresscritters and critics of GW and such will have a sh*tfit but it happens.....
Stay safe !!
Ping
"Mueller has been a total bloody disaster at the FBI. One of Bush's worst appointments."
I'm not surpirsed. At the time he was appointed, some said he had a "nice resume" but was a person known to "not make waves".
And were those who questioned the appointment advised repeatedly to just "trust Bush"? ;-)
"advised repeatedly to just "trust Bush"?"
see what you mean.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.