Posted on 08/11/2005 5:54:43 AM PDT by OESY
...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....
Mr. Felzenberg said the commission's staff remained convinced that the information provided by the military officer in the July 2004 briefing was inaccurate in a significant way....
Mr. Felzenberg said staff investigators had become wary of the officer because he argued that Able Danger had identified Mr. Atta, an Egyptian, as having been in the United States in late 1999 or early 2000. The investigators knew this was impossible, Mr. Felzenberg said, since travel records confirmed that he had not entered the United States until June 2000.
"There was no way that Atta could have been in the United States at that time, which is why the staff didn't give this tremendous weight when they were writing the report," Mr. Felzenberg said. "This information was not meshing with the other information that we had."
But Russell Caso, Mr. Weldon's chief of staff, said that "while the dates may not have meshed" with the commission's information, the central element of the officer's claim was that "Mohammed Atta was identified as being tied to Al Qaeda and a Brooklyn cell more than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, and that should have warranted further investigation by the commission."
Mr. Caso: "If Mohammed Atta was identified by the Able Danger project, why didn't the Department of Defense provide that information to the F.B.I.?"
Mr. Felzenberg confirmed an account by Mr. Weldon's staff that the briefing... had been conducted....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
They'll only lie under oath anyway. The GOP leadership will leave Weldon hanging out to dry to look like a kook. They are truly gutless.
And all it takes is one.
I don't think there are enough voters who would trust this countries national security to a woman. Not even democrats.
Birds of a feather.....It's disgusting. I wonder why I vote sometimes.
Tom Kean's GOP credentials should be withdrawn.
I just love it when the Dem camp goes "silent". There's a big Dem conference going on somewhere. Yeh, I know...they're on vacation which gives the biased media a "shhhhh" option.
The MAIN focus was to blame as much as possible on Bush... and of course, the CIA.
We need a good cartoon of Jamie plugging the Al-Qaida information flow dike since that appear to be the reality of this US disaster.
Thanks a bunch Gorelick, Reno and Sandy (I have a pants load) Burger.
too right. the commission is now proof that it was a set up. How much else was left out because it did not match what one side thought or was willing to tell?
NOTHING at CNN.com. That is a statement in itself.
Thankfully, I don't have TV, so I won't be aware if this story's not covered there either. Grrrr....
The GOP leadership will leave Weldon hanging out to dry to look like a kook. They are truly gutless.
They are more interested in protecting their "phoney baloney jobs" than doing what is right for the People.
A couple of points:
1) How can the 911 commissioners claim that they don't remember meeting with DOD officials? Didn't they keep meeting notes, or did they write the entire 911 Report from memory?
2) Why did they choose to delete any references of Able Danger from the report? Why not mention it, even if it went against their other "facts"?
3) Can I get a refund for my purchased copy of the 911 Report, or will they be issuing an addendum that says, "Oh, yeah--there were some military dudes that said they had some info on the 911 hijackers, but it doesn't matter"?
Hmmmm. Summer of 2000, eh? Let's see, who was Jamie Gorelick working for then? The 9/11 commission report was a coverup for slick Willie's lawyers who cleared the path for the hijackers.
The central question in all this can be this: If Gorelick knowlingly set up rules to obstruct investigations of criminal and national security matters, when is she going to be indicted? (We know the answer to this, but I had to ask anyway.)
It was a Clinton administration cover up!
Jamie Gorlick led the lying brigade!
Hang 'em High ~ Bump!
Your post #26 has been deleted because it contained more material from the same New York Times article which was excerpted by the original poster of this thread.
The New York Times is an excerpt and link only site. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111944/posts
Please do not attempt to bypass copyright restrictions by completing more or all of the story in a response.
Thank you.
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.