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?
Great Post....
Scary what they accomplished both before 9/11, and in forming and "molding" the commission's findings, isn't it?
I don't know, but it has the most potential for eventual MSM coverage than anything I've seen since I joined FR.
I certainly hope he follow up on this.
Good tie in to the day's current events being pushed by the MSM (Sheehan). Too bad the Left and the MSM are too stupid and bitterly hateful of Bush to actually see the connections. But as you said a reasonable person would. So this just proves the Left is not reasonable.
Great synopsis AB.
The time for, get out of jail free cards passing go, is up. There needs to be real justice on this one or like you said we are all up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
Richard Clarke was too hell-bent on trashing the Bush Administration. Recall Clarke testifying as to what a great National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was. I wonder how Clarke feels knowing that Berger stole Top Secret documents in which Clarke advocated killing bin Laden - and Berger wrote "No" in the margins.
"I don't know, but it has the most potential for eventual MSM coverage"
Do you really believe that they will cover it fairly. The MSM is a lying dangerous marxist propaganda machine. It has no intellectual honesty. They will put their own lies out there to deflect off of Clinton....
Staff members now are searching documents in the National Archives to look for notes from the meeting in Afghanistan and any other possible references to Atta and Able Danger, Felzenberg said.
I hope they are keeping an eye on these "staff members" and what is being stuffed down their pants and shirts. This info could be as bad as what sandy burgler stole. This info could cost them their stinkin jobs! They are liers and cheats, they need to be dismissed. They have made the Commission look culpable, and have probably not told the whole truth to the American People. Everything about the Commission is now suspect, especially the jaimie gorelic presence on the commission, she should have been testifying, not judging. When the commission realizes that, then they might get some respect. Right now, the commission is totally suspect and not trusted.
Do you remember back only a month or so ago, when the Rove thing was at its peak?
I was reading thread after thread about that...and I was having a hard time keeping up with the time lines, relationships, etc...
Well, a bunch of freepers kept discussing it, and dissecting the "evidence", but they all kept saying that something was missing...like a missing link.. to tie all this up...
I wonder if there is something in THIS story, that could be a link (Miller, Wilson, Plame, Gorelick, Hillary?) ultimately to the Plame case?
That would be delicious, wouldn't it?
PhiKapMom, your posts are always so thoughtful and insightful.
I think you've hit the nail on the head, yet again. I also think that this whole scenario is why we can NEVER allow the Democrats back into power again. We must destroy them!
Hopefully, this will be the first of many nails in Hillary's political coffin.
Who IS Hugh?
remember how looooooong it took the MSM to go onto the national guard domuments are fake?
The fact we even KNOW about this is a tribute to the new media.
This is a nightmare for the MSM because August is a slow month. The MSM wanted to do the SET UP of a mother protesting outside of the Bush Ranch. Instead that is going to be blasted off the radar by the Gorlick/BergerAND/ClintonS effort to conceal the Able report AND briefings.
Daniel Marcus, General Counsel of the Commission, was for many years a partner in the Washington law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, serving on the firm's Management Committee from 1995 to 1998.
During the Carter Administration Mr. Marcus was Deputy General Counsel of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and General Counsel of the Department of Agriculture. He returned to Government service in 1998 as Senior Counsel in the White House Counsel's office. From 1999 to 2001 he held several senior positions at the Department of Justice, including Associate Attorney General. Last year he was a Visiting Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Mr. Marcus is a graduate of Brandeis University and Yale Law School, and was a law clerk for Judge Harold Leventhal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
SEE MORE MARCUS CLIENT CONNECTIONS BELOW.
=================================================
Commission Chairman Thomas Kean
Conflicts of interest abound within the Commission. Yet what perhaps is most disturbing are the links of both the Commission Chairman Thomas Kean as well as the Legal Counsel Daniel Marcus to individuals closely linked to the bin Laden family.
In a cruel irony, the $1 trillion lawsuit filed in August 2002 by the families of the victims of the September 11 attacks, lists two of Thomas Kean's ("former") business partners among the accused: Khalid Bin Mahfouz (Osama's brother in law, according to CIA sources), and Mohammed Hussein al Amoudi. Both individuals have been tagged in the lawsuit as the alleged "financiers" of Al Qaeda.
"According to a 1998 Senate testimony of former CIA director James Woolsey, powerful financier Khalid bin Mahfouz’ younger sister is married to Osama bin Laden,. (US Senate, Senate Judiciary Committee, Federal News Service, 3 Sept. 1998, See also Wayne Madsen, Questionable Ties, In These Times,12 Nov. 2001 )
Bin Mahfouz is suspected to have funneled millions of dollars to the Al Qaeda network.(See Tom Flocco, Scoop.co.nz 28 Aug. 2002)
Now, "by sheer coincidence", former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean, the man chosen by President Bush to lead the 9/11 commission also has business ties with bin Mahfouz and Al-Amoudi.
Thomas Kean is a director (and shareholder) of Amerada Hess Corporation , which is involved in the Hess-Delta joint venture with Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia (owned by the bin Mahfouz and Al-Amoudi clans)...
Now you would think that being a business partner of the brother in law and alleged financier of "Enemy No. 1" would also be considered a bona fide "conflict of interest", particularly when your mandate --as part of the 9/11 Commission's work-- is to investigate "Enemy No. 1".
"(Michel Chossudovsky, New Chairman of 9/11 Commission had business ties with Osama's Brother in Law , Centre for Research on Globalization, December 2002 )
Commission Counsel David Marcus
Daniel Marcus, the Legal Counsel of the Commission, was partner in Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, which counts among its clients Prince Mohammed al Faisal, also identified as one of the top three alleged "financiers" of the 9/11 attacks listed in the 1 trillion dollar lawsuit:
An internal list of other law firms retained in the case, reviewed by NEWSWEEK , reads like a veritable “who’s who” of the U.S. legal community. Among those firms and their Saudi clients are: Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (Prince Mohammed al Faisal); Kellog, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans (Prince Turki al Faisal); Jones, Day (the Binladin Group); Ropes & Grey (Khaled bin Mahfouz); White & Case,(the Al-Rajhi Banking Group); King & Spalding (the Arab Bank and Youssef Nada); Akin Gump (Mohammed Hussein Al-Almoudi); and Fulbright & Jaworski (Nimir Petroleum.) ( See MSNBC at http://www.msnbc.com/news/901320.asp?0cv=CB30&cp1=1#BODY
Kissinger and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
We recall that Henry Kissinger resigned from the Chair of the 9/11 Commission, precisely because he was in "conflict of interest". His firm Kissinger Associates had dubious links to Saudi financiers. Former Senator George Mitchell also resigned, for the same reasons, amid controversy. Ironically, they were replaced by "similar individuals."
However, instead of demanding that Thomas Kean and David (sic)Marcus be removed from the Commission due to "conflict of interest", the organizations representing the 9/11 victims' families pledged their support to the Commission's actitivities. (See also http://www.voicesofsept11.org/)
Needless to say, Kissinger has his own personal Rep. on the Commission: John F. Lehman, a former Secretary of the Navy, who also happens to be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. During the Nixon Administration, he served as special counsel and senior staff member to Kissinger on the National Security Council.
The Council on Foreign Relations is well represented on the Commission: four of its members (out of 8 Commissioners plus the Chair and the Vice Chair) are members of the CFR including Thomas Kean, Lee Hamilton, John F. Lehman and Jamie Gorelick.
It is worth mentioning, in this regard, the behind the scenes role of the CFR in the formulation of US foreign policy. And a central feature of US foreign policy was a program of covert support to the various "Islamic terrorist organisations."
In this regard, one of the CFR's most prominent figures Zbigniew Brzezinski played a key role in creating the Islamic militant network as part of a covert CIA operation , launched during the Carter administration. With four CFR members on the Commission (out of a total of 8 Commissioners, plus the Chair and Vice Chair), it is unlikely that the Commission will shed light on these issues.
Executive Director Philipp D. Zelikow
The media conveys the impression that this "Independent" Commission is at war with the Bush administration. What it fails to mention is that its executive director Philipp Zelikow is part of the president's intelligence team. Two days before the beginning of the war on Afghanistan, Zellikow was appointed (October 5, 2001) to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, chaired by General (ret) Brent Scowcroft.
In other words the man responsible for the day to day operations of the 9/11 Commission, including the recruitment of staff and the coordination of research, is closely linked to Bush's inner cabinet. He has a close professional relationship with Condoleezza Rice, with whom he has collaborated for the last 10 years. He is co-author of a book written with Condoleezza Rice. .
In all likelihood, Zellikow reports back periodically through informal personal channels (e.g.. to Condoleezza Rice and his colleagues on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board).
The CIA also has its "Seat" on the Commission
Another prominent member of this "Independent" Commission is Jamie S. Gorelick, who has a close working relationship with CIA Director George Tenet. She serves on the CIA's National Security Advisory Panel as well as on the President's Review of Intelligence. CIA Director George Tenet is one of the architects of the "war on terrorism". With Gorelick on the Commission, it is highly unlikely that the agency's undercover operations in support of international terrorism will be revealed (see Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, 12 September 2001).Cover-up and Damage Control In other words, while there may be areas of dispute between the White House and the Commission (as well as within the Commission itself), the nature and composition of the Commission foreclose from the outset, the possibility of a meaningful investigation of 9/11. In all likelihood the Commission will be involved in cover-up and damage control. It will mobilize its staff into reviewing piles of classified intelligence documents. It will focus on technical aspects of intelligence including "foreknowledge" and "intelligence failures", while ignoring the historical ties between successive administrations and "Islamic terrorism", including the role of the CIA in creating and sustaining Al Qaeda, from the onset of the Soviet-Afghan war. In all likelihood it will focus the investigation on lower level officials. Key political actors including those with dubious links to 9/11 , will not be the object of a systematic investigation. The Commission may (as occurred in the Iran Contra investigation) identify one or more "fall guys", who will be blamed for these "intelligence failures". These procedures, in the present context, tend to protect the political, intelligence and military actors, not to mention the intellectual architects of the "war on terrorism" in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The PNAC "even foresaw the need for what they called a "Pearl Harbor-type event" to galvanize the American public into supporting their ambitious program" (Chris Floyd, The Moscow Times, 25 April 2003) Moreover, the alleged links of the Saudi financiers to Al Qaeda are likely to serve the Bush clique. They uphold the idea that there is an "outside enemy", supported by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. This in turn serves to obscure the fact that the financial aid (from their Saudi business associates) to the Islamic militant network was from the very outset in 1979, part and parcel of the CIA's covert operation. In other words, the fact that the Saudi financiers are now being targeted in the law suit serves to protect the foreign policy architects of the "war on terrorism". "Preparing for Future Terrorist Attacks" The Commission was given the mandate: "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks." The thrust of this exercise is crystal clear: distort the history of 9/11, churn out phony intelligence which justifies Bush's preemptive "war on terrorism", expose the whistleblowers in the police and intelligence apparatus. Careful Omission Mountains of intelligence material have already been collected (by the Joint Senate House Committee set up in May 2002 as well as by the Commission). Through careful omission, the numerous press and intelligence reports in the public domain (mainstream media, alternative media, etc), which confirm that key members of the Bush Administration were involved in acts of political complicity and camouflage, are more likely to be dismissed by the Commission's research team. - - - - - - - - NOTE: I DO NOT BUY the inferences here alleging that current admin. officials are or were involved in camoflauging the facts .. - - - - - - - - The fact that Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA, a so-called "intelligence asset" (confirmed by official reports and congressional transcripts), is not part of the Commission's terms of reference. While "the elephant is sitting right on top of the stack of hay", the Commission has been instructed "to look for pins rather than elephants". In other words, the Commission is to churn out red herrings: a data bank of unconnected occurrences on "intelligence failures", FBI lapses, etc. Daniel Marcus Daniel Marcus belonged to a law firm which counts among its clients Prince Mohammed al Faisal, identified as one of the top three alleged "financiers" of the 9/11 attacks listed in the 1 trillion dollar lawsuit. Confirmed by CBS "Those listed include Prince Mohammed al-Faisal, former intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan, Khalid bin Salim bin Mahfouz of the National Commercial Bank and the Faisal Islamic Bank. " Bear in mind that at the time Daniel Marcus belonged to the firm, Prince Prince Mohammed al-Faisal was among its most wealthiest clients. --- - - - - - Much more on the other Commission members at this link UQ Wire: Who's Who on the 9/11 Commission- Friday, 18 July 2003 - - - - - - -
I read somewhere that one of the purposes of the wall was to preempt the military by giving the lawyers the power to act on most anything first.Or something to that effect, having read way too much this week.
who was the one that showed up?
' This story is not big enough to trump the Rove or Aruba coverage......."
Unless... we tell the former MSM that:
Karl Rove was responsible for the Able Danger memo and he stashed other incriminating documents on a beach in Aruba where he was coincidentally arranging illegal adoptions for Judge Roberts.
Tom DeLay was the look out , Ken Lay was the wheel man and the whole caper was financed by Halliburton.
On the way home, they stopped off in Gitmo to beat prisoners and flush Korans.
Maybe that might get their interest.
"This guy is wrong. Atta's supposed trip to Prague was in 2001."
I think the author is saying that the Commission's timeline covered Atta's activities up to 9/11/01.
I wonder if any of the Senate Dems think that John Bolton has knowledge, or will FIND OUT stuff re: Oil-for-food, that also ties in somehow?
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.