Posted on 08/11/2005 5:57:46 PM PDT by TonyInOhio
It behaved disgracefully and in a nakedly partisan fashion, with former officials of the Clinton administration attempting to use the platform to damage the president's reelection chances. Then, after months of ludicrous conduct, out of nowhere came the brilliantly conceived and written report that set a new standard of eloquence and coherence for government documents, became a major bestseller and redeemed the commission's reputation.
Well, that didn't last long.
In a story filed at 7:10 PM, the Associated Press is now confirming all the particulars of what will now forever be called the Able Danger disaster. The 9/11 Commission staff did hear about intelligence-gathering efforts that hit pay dirt on the whereabouts of Mohammed Atta -- in 1999 -- and deliberately chose to omit word of those efforts.
And why? Because to do so might upset the timeline the Commission had established on Atta.
And why is that significant? Because the Mohammed Atta timeline established by the Commission pointedly insisted Atta did not meet with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague.
And why is that significant? Because debunking the Atta-Iraq connection was of vital importance to Democrats, who had become focused almost obsessively on the preposterous notion that there was no relation whatever between Al Qaeda and Iraq -- that Al Qaeda and Iraq might even have been enemies.
I was very skeptical of this Able Danger stuff about Atta, thought it was just sme way Rep. Curt Weldon was trying to sell a book. No longer. This is clearly becoming the biggest story of the summer -- the fact that, as Andy McCarthy alluded to, the "intelligence wall" set up by 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick when she was in the Justice Department did, in fact, cause the linchpin of the 9/11 attacks to evade capture by American law enforcement.
So was the staff a) protecting the Atta timeline or b) Jamie Gorelick or c) the Clinton administration or d) itself, because it got hold of the information relatively late and the staff was lazy?
More important, what will co-chairmen Tom (pound his fist on the table) Kean and Lee (look sorrowful) Hamilton do and say in the next 36 hours about this calamity?
But they wanted to preen about what a great job they did and make serious recommendations about changes in our national security processes based on all of their deep knowledge. Not very reassuring.
In other words... (wink, wink, nod, nod) ...extortion.
9/11 Panel Decided to Omit a Reference to Atta
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
N.Y. Times AP online
August 11, 2005
Filed at 8:55 p.m. ET
http://nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Sept-11-Hijackers.html?ei=5094&en=75c8bf9eafed684c&hp=&ex=1123819200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Sept. 11 commission knew military intelligence officials had identified lead hijacker Mohamed Atta as a member of al-Qaida who might be part of U.S.-based terror cell more than a year before the terror attacks but decided not to include that in its final report, a spokesman acknowledged Thursday.
Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the commission's follow-up project called the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, had said earlier this week that the panel was unaware of intelligence specifically naming Atta. But he said subsequent information provided Wednesday confirmed that the commission had been aware of the intelligence.
snip
Bingo! The pieces to the puzzle are beginning to fit! :)
Right on Txsleuth we need to stay vigilant.
Absolutely. On just continuing to surveille, for example, what would have been the conclussion when Atta and his group all enrolled in flight schools?
I am no longer willing to give anyone involved in this the benefit of the doubt. I think they were liars covering their ass.
Hey, imagine that! Liars in the Clinton Administration!
9/11 committee staffers went to the archive to "review" the notes.
DOES ANYONE BELIEVE THIS?
THEY WERE REMOVING AND INSERTING NOTES!
Whose staffers went there?
Who went there?
This is Sandy Berger part II.
HillaryGate
His plea bargain was never heard in Court -- it was delayed until September. There was a link on another thread about the delay in sentencing until September and it was on a newsbreak here this morning.
You bet this is big! They need to get to the bottom of this fast because we need to know that it was just a domestic politics type thing and not downright collusion with the enemy.
Please see my post #101 on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1461683/posts?q=1&&page=101
We can now see that, in addition to Gorelick's outrageous conflict-of-interest, at least THREE of the most senior staff members of the 9/11 Commission also had blatant conflicts-of-interest, as they had all served in key related roles under the Clinton administration; these backgrounds would not be conducive to helping with embarrassing exposures of Clinton-era malfeasance.....THE FIX WAS IN, from the start.
Oops!
Staff members now are searching documents in the to look for notes from the meeting in Afghanistan and any other possible references to Atta and Able Danger, Felzenberg said.
Yes, those National Archives.
Sandy Bergler's mission was to destroy all references to Able Danger and Muhammed Atta and the reports still made it to the commission. So Jamie Gorelick's job was to keep the information inside the commission.
I was livid at them until Weldon talked about how livid they were when they found out this information and that they had never been briefed. Says a lot about the lack of integrity of the Staff and certain members of the 9/11 Commission.
Thanks to Weldon for not giving up!
hmmmm. Now there's a thought. She reminds me of a puppet and could be easily led.
This is getting more interesting by the hour today as more information comes out. Timing is perfect!
Okay. That clinches it. I will NOT sleep tonight. This is so incestuous.
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.