Skip to comments.Rush Limbaugh: 9/11 Commission Didn't Connect Dots (Should be investigated)
Posted on 08/11/2005 6:13:50 PM PDT by wagglebee
RUSH: The pompous 9/11 Commission, this bunch of brainiacs out there thinking they're saving the world with their work on this commission, and their work basically was to what? They were a commission on "connecting the dots." They were out there trying to find out where the dots weren't detected, right? And now we learn that they missed a huge dot. This is the Able Danger group, the Defense Intelligence Agency unit that was surveilling Mohamed Atta, had him under surveillance, knew he was in Brooklyn with three of the other hijackers one year before 9/11. Ten days before they issued their final report, they were warned the commission was "warned by a uniformed military officer 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, Mohamed Atta, member of Al-Qaeda." Now, there's a guy named Felzenberg out there, and he is the spokesman, the chief spokesman for the 9/11 Commission, and this guy Felzenberg -- by the way, we know all this because of the great work by Curt Weldon, Republican member of Congress from Pennsylvania, who says he has multiple sources on this, not just one guy. And, by the way, Weldon sent a letter yesterday to members of the 9/11 Commission, a scathing letter criticizing them in scathing terms saying that its "refusal to investigate Able Danger after being notified of its existence and its recent efforts to feign ignorance of the project while blaming others for supposedly withholding information on it, brings shame on the commissioners and is evocative of the word tendencies of the federal government and that the commission worked to expose."
So basically what he's saying here is, "You're the connect-the-dot guys and you just missed a huge dot here and you're out here getting all puffed up and accepting all these accolades to the great work that you did, and you've got a bunch of pompous SOBs in the Democratic Party running around talking about how Bush didn't connect the dots and Bush is responsible for this and you've got the Jersey Girls out there going crazy over all of this, and now we find out that the commission itself supposedly connecting the dots missed a huge one." Now, this spokesman, Felzenberg -- what is his first name out there? Is it Larry? Well, I can't find his first name. Anyway, Felzenberg, who served as the commission's chief spokesman, "said earlier this week that staff members who were briefed about Able Danger, first meeting in October of 2003, did not remember hearing anything about Mr. Atta or an American terrorist cell. On Wednesday, however, Felzenberg said that the uniformed officer who briefed two staff members in July of 2004 had indeed mentioned Mr. Atta." So Felzenberg, the spokesman for the commission, is now changing his story. "Yeah, we didn't know about it. Oops, sorry, we did know about it." Al Felzenberg, okay. Al is his first name. "The Pentagon spokesman said Wednesday that the military was working with the commission's unofficial follow-up group, the 9/11 Public Disclosure Project, which was formed by the panel's members when it was disbanded to try to clarify what had happened. Al Felzenberg, the spokesman, said that the commission's staff 'remained convinced the information provided by the military officer July 2004 briefing was inaccurate in a significant way.' Felzenberg said, 'He wasn't brushed off. I'm not aware of anybody being brushed off. The information he provided us didn't mesh with other conclusions that we were drawing from the commission's investigation.'"
Oh! So they admitting now they were already drawing their conclusions, and this late-arriving news didn't mesh with what they were preparing to write. "Felzenberg said that staff instigators," I am sorry, "staff investigators," ahem! A faux pas there, "had become wary of this officer because he argued that Able Danger had identified Atta as having been in the US in late '99 or early 2000. The investigators said Felzenberg knew this was impossible, since travel records confirmed that Atta had not entered the US until June of 2000. 'There was no way that Atta could have been in the US at that time, which is why the staff didn't give the tremendous weight when they were writing the report,' Felzenberg said. 'This information was not meshing with the other information that we had.' Now, Mr. Weldon's chief of staff said that while the dates may not have meshed with the mission's information, the central comment of the officer's claim was that Mohamed Atta was identified as being tied to Al-Qaeda at a Brooklyn cell more than a year before the 9/11 attacks, and that should have warranted further investigation by the commission. Furthermore, if Mohamed Atta was identified by the Able Danger project why didn't the Department of Defense provide that information to the FBI?" Let's not forget that aspect of it. That information was not provided the FBI because it wasn't allowed to be transmitted to the FBI and one of the stories going around was, "Well, we couldn't because he was here for a legal visa." That's not why. There was a wall, folks, there was a wall that had been built up, written by the Clinton justice department. Jamie Gorelick ran that department while Janet Reno was like out there making it look like she was the head of the justice department. She was the face, but Jamie Gorelick was actually could go to work behind the scenes, and that wall for a host of reasons prevented "connecting dots," as we've discussed on countless occasions here.
So lots of stuff was flying around out there. Felzenberg says, "Well, yeah, you know, lots of stuff was coming in over the transom, lots of stuff was flying around. At the end of the day when you're writing a report, you have to take facts presented to you." Well, they ignored this fact and chose not to use it because it didn't mesh with what they already had -- and, you know, folks, I don't know how much of this you remember. This 9/11 Commission thing, this was one of the many assaults in the spring of 2004 that was designed as an attack on the Bush reelection effort. Make no mistake about this. You could remember any time somebody showed up at that committee and rip the Bush administration, some witness, the Jersey Girls in the audience would all stand and applaud. This was clearly a let's-see-if-we-can-pin-this-on-Bush commission, and this information about Atta, somehow even though it was told to commission staff, didn't make it to the commission itself. "Curt Weldon is vowing now to find out who in the Clinton administration ordered a group of military intelligence officers not to tell the FBI about critical information on these hijackers that was obtained two years before they destroyed the World Trade Center." Folks, can I take you back just to remind you of something? The commission can say all wants it that it didn't know what was out there; the commission can say all it wants that the dates didn't mesh. But let me tell you something. If it wasn't 9/11 itself, it was 9-12, we knew everything we could know about Mohamed Atta. One of the things that continually surprised me: I'd turn on the television; I'd read the newspaper, and, lo and behold, we knew where he lived. We knew where he went to school. We knew where he went to flight school.
We knew where he bought the airline tickets that he took to Boston that morning to hijack the plane. We knew how he bought the tickets. We knew he'd paid cash. We knew everything there was to know about this guy, and I'm asking myself, ''If we know this much about this guy this soon after the event, how long have we known it?'' My point is that it is obvious a lot was known about Mohamed Atta before 9/11 happened, because it was too quickly assembled and put together and reported to everybody after 9/11 happened for it to have just been learned in one day. And all this happens, all of this happens, the building of the wall and the -- what would you call it? -- the suppressing, the suppression of the information on the guy, all happened during the Clinton administration. There has to be reasons why. I'm not going to sit here and speculate. You all can do that on your own, but there have to be reasons why this wall was bit. There have to be reasons why the Clinton defense department didn't want it known after the fact that they knew Mohamed Atta was in the country a year before 9/11. Weldon said, "What bothers me is two things: I'm told that they couldn't share this information with the FBI. How far up the chain of command did that go? Did it go to the White House, and if so, who ordered it?"
Asked about reports that restrictions on intelligence-sharing implemented by Jamie Gorelick played a role in the disastrous intelligence breakdown, Weldon said, "I think that needs to be investigated. There's no reason not to share this information with the FBI," he said, "except that the firewalls that existed back then were so severe, they wouldn't let those agencies talk to one another." Well, now, hell's bells here, folks! The 9/11 Commission was a commission to find out about connecting the dots. "Why didn't we connect the dots?" Does anybody remember in their report a whole lot of attention being spent on the inability and the wall? There was some paid to it, but they didn't go very deep because one of the commission members herself was the architect of the wall. I thought all along she should be a witness, and not a member of the commission. But don't forget, the Democrats got to pick the Democratic members of the commission; the Republicans got to pick the Republicans, and I'm telling you: I do not believe it is coincidence at all the Democrats chose Jamie Gorelick to sit on the 9/11 Commission. This is going to bubble up. This is going to effervesce, and there will be more that comes out about this, because Weldon is on the warpath, and he is intent on finding out about it -- and now the commission members, "Ah, well, we're very embarrassed about it."
RUSH: We have here a montage of statements made by the co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, who spoke to the press last night.
HAMILITON: It could be a very crucial incident in terms of the lead-up to 9/11. It could reveal flaws in the intelligence sharing or the lack of intelligence sharing that we have not yet focused on. We have no information that the United States government had under surveillance or had any knowledge of Mohamed Atta prior to the attacks.
RUSH: Yes, you did. Your staff did. Who does the work on these things? You know, this is something that we need to talk about, too. These commissioners out there they get all the face time to TV to ask all the questions, but they didn't sit in on all of these interviews of various witnesses, only the ones on television. And the staff is largely responsible for writing the report. The staff does a lot of interviews. The staff didn't pass this along -- and, you know, the staff is bipartisan too. You've got Democrat staff members. You have Republican staff members out there. But how about this. "Ah, could be a very crucial incident in terms of the lead up. It could reveal flaws in the intelligence sharing, or the lack of intelligence sharing that we've not yet..." You didn't focus on it? They didn't focus on it? That's the whole thing! The whole thing was about connecting the dots, and they didn't focus on it? Well, let's go back. Let's listen to these guys talking about all the great work they were doing. This is an April the 13th, 2004, montage of 9/11 Commission members Timothy Roemer, Richard Ben-Veniste, Slade Gorton, Bob Kerrey and Jamie Gorelick, all reacting to the testimony they got from Bill Clinton of all people.
ROEMER: Pretty typical of President Clinton. We had an excellent time with him. It was more than three hours. It was actually probably three and a half. Former president was very helpful, very effusive. He was very open to some of our tough questions.
KERREY: I think he took the criticism well. He indicated that he didn't feel that he had quite enough proof to take action.
VENISTE: President Clinton was very helpful. He was candid; he was engaging, and he stayed and answered every question.
GORTON: President Clinton was just wonderful. He gave us one hour more than -- than the time was scheduled for, and his advice and the spots will be extremely valuable.
GORELICK: It was a very substantive, very engaged and extremely helpful presentation. Everyone got their questions in with him, and he actually answered questions we hadn't asked, and it was very full and rich.
RUSH: That was, of course, Gorelick herself there -- and remember what else was said this was all over. "He was brilliant! He was alone !He did it all without notes. This man is in total command," blah, blah, blah, blah. Yet when Bush went they made fun of him for taking Cheney along. Well, we came to find out later that Clinton took Bruce Lindsey in there and two other people, and Clinton had an entourage when he was talking to these people yet the media tried to make it out that Clinton was so confident and so competent, he was able to in there and wind these people around his little finger aaaaall by his little self and here they were thinking, "Well, we are doing such great work! Why, this guy told us everything we needed to know, bammo, bammo!" What a sham. What a sham this whole thing was, a bunch of self-inflated, important people from Washington, all inside-the-Beltway people, playing to the cameras, having an effect on the election, they hope. The Jersey Girls in the audience standing up and applauding every time the Bush administration is ripped to shreds, and now we find out that they didn't even look into the primary problem that everybody thought we had, and that was not connecting the dots, not sharing information.
I just hope like hell that this doesn't just "go away" like all of the other Klintoon scandals have.
I know for an absolute fact that nearly 3000 people died 47 months ago today, and now I am finding out that it quite possibly could have been prevented. I don't give a damn if it's a 'Rat or a Republican in office, but what happened with Gorelick's treachery was inexcusable.
I feel there's a betrayal of the public here, because the 9/11 Committee was intended to find out what went wrong and to suggest how to correct it. When it leaves out fundamental facts, such as that Atta and three of his colleagues were identified in 1999, then the whole thing appears to be a farce.
All I remember is that they went out of their way to completely clear Klintoon and tried their best to find a way to blame it all on Bush.
Not only that...but this story is hugh and series.
This story chills me to the bone and angers me at the same time.
We can not let this pass.
This shall not pass.
Now let me get this straight. Gorelik, who was and might still be on the CIA payroll, didn't believe a uniformed military intel officer.
Doesn't the CIA and US MI work together? What kind of CIA official doesn't believe a uniformed MI officer? (HINT HINT NUDGE NUDGE)
This stinks of a cover-up, and the US military is making sure that they don't become part of it. Bravo.
This will all get swept under the rug, blown off, until the NEXT evil terrorist event on US soil.
Let's just watch and see how fast Curt Weldon gets turned into a 'crazy.'
The ratings tell a different story. Your free market at work.
Found this is CNN's web site in a story about this:
Thanks for the post. Execellant. The issue will not go away, Representative Weldon, as steam gathers other responsible republican leaders won't let it fall under the scope, neither will Rush, Hannity and others. Hopefully it will slowly become such a big stink that the L/MSM will not be able to control the outcome by way of not reporting it. Since Janet Reno ran the DoJ, she must be implicated in any irregularities as well as Jamie Gorelick, should things gravitate to a level where the former DoJ should be investigated by the current DoJ. Guess the DIA and FBI will not have anything to worry on this one. They where just following orders. That is: don't communicate, it's against the law. Of course we know this is a bunch of bull in many ways. I wonder how many times in a normal day someone from one agency calls someone from another agency for info on some particular case. If that was not the case, then why would the DIA even have been investigating Atta? I don't mean to generate conversation on this just thought some may find it interesting. Atta had nothing to do with typical concerns the DIA would want to know about. He was an individual, with no military contacts. Other then known ties to people in the Iraq Intel Organization, etc.. Then again, maybe I just answered my own question.
"Gorelik, who was and might still be on the CIA payroll"
Jamie Gorelick was Assistant Attorney General. She reported to Janet Reno during the Clinton years. She had nothing to do with the CIA. She is a lawyer.
"Sadly Fox is focusing on Aruba."
It will not suprise me, after all, "Gorelick wasn't some flunky in the Justice Department. She had been selected for the job by Hillary Clinton and had assumed the role held by Webster Hubbell before he was forced from his position to face Whitewater-related charges that landed him in prison. Gorelick, like Hubbell before her, essentially ran the Justice Department because of the gross incompetence of Attorney General Janet Reno." (from June 2005 WorldNet Daily).
Connect the dots to Hitlary. Would it mean goodbye 2008 for her?
Good "referral", doc. I read the article and it is nice to see the coverage has made it to CNN.
Be great to hear from the actual folks that served on the Able Danger Group.
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.