Posted on 08/13/2005 4:35:41 AM PDT by jimbo123
The 9/11 commission yesterday defended its decision to ignore a Navy officer's report that military spies targeted lead hijacker Mohamed Atta more than a year before the attacks — and claimed the Navy man wasn't "sufficiently credible."
The statement from commission chiefs Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton came after a flip-flop, in which the panel's staff first denied and then admitted it was told Pentagon spies had linked Atta to an al Qaeda cell in New York in 2000.
-snip-
"The commission's staff concluded that the officer's account was not sufficiently reliable to warrant revision of the report or further investigation."
A skeptical Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said the statement does nothing to answer why the Able Danger warning wasn't passed on to the FBI.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Sen. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) told Fox News on Wednesday that commission staffers were briefed at least once on Able Danger, but he does not believe that panel members were told about it.
A Navy officer is not "sufficiently credible," yet Jaime Gorelick and her Wall between Law Enforcement and Intelligence is?? Can you spell "Cover Your A$$"??
Something smells...
Ever wonder how we knew that the 19 hijackers were responsible for 9/11 within hours of the attacks?
It's because of Able Danger and others within the intelligence community. They WERE watching them...they just couldn't talk to each other or actually do anything.
One would think the Commission members would have been at least a LITTLE bit curious as to how we identified the 19 and the mastermind within hours of 9/11.
Obviously, somebody needs to be watching the watchers. This is the whole problem with commissions, they are accountable to nobody. Congress should do what they are paid to do, at least they can be held accountable in the pollng booth.
They thought he just made up Mohammed Atta's name and it just happened to be the same as the 9/11 hijacker?
Are they claiming the Navy officer was lying? What on earth motive would he have to make up such a story and tell it to the Commission? I heard a soundbite where the Commission is supposedly claiming that because the officer did not or could not provide proper documentation of what he told them, that they decided to discount what he said.
HUH?????????
Everyone ought to be hauled up and put under oath. We'll see if they say the same when they're risking a perjury charge.
Weldon is in the House of Rep., Peach. I'm sure you know that, but I think some others might not.
Some staffers are partisan Donks and probably told Able Danger to take a hike since it made Bill Clinton and Jamie Gorelik look culpable. Committee staffers are young and ambitious. They blew it and are covering up.
Thanks for that correction, txrangerette. I took that sentence directly from an article posted on FR this morning. LOL
1) I want to know why Gorelick, the woman responsible for The Wall, was put in charge of looking at all the information coming in to the 9/11 Commission and deciding what got disseminated to the full Commission.
It doesn't make sense that the Commission investigating intelligence failures would put the woman in charge of making sure that intelligence people couldn't talk to each other in charge of disseminating information.
2) I want to know why the Commission has changed their stories 4 times.
3) There is an article on FR now that Commission members say the Able Danger operative who briefed them didn't have back-up. The article states the Able Danger operative briefed the Commission one time.
Weldon clearly says they were briefed 3 times.
4) Did it occur to the Commission to wonder why, within hours of the 9/11 attacks, we were able to so easily identify the 19 hijackers and that Atta was the ringleader?
We now know it's probably because of Able Danger.
5) Since Able Danger culled its information using open sources, surely that same information was available to the 9/11 Commission.
Did they only investigate information that was brought to them (and they didn't even do that appropriately we now understand) or did they do any investigation on their own?
If they did do investigating on their own, why didn't they find out what Able Danger found out using open sources?
6) Why did the Commission in charge of investigating intelligence failures itself have an intelligence failure in terms of not sharing ALL information that was brought to them?
"Committee staffers are young and ambitious. They blew it and are covering up."
Not a chance, check this thread out, this commission paid for the professional wall builders.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1462578/posts
I want the name of the people, Dems and Pubbies, who selected the commissioners. And I want what the Toons' involvment was. This was a crock from the get-go, with pols picking the commissioners.
...want to know what the Toons' involvement was...
It was, surprisingly, CNS news that messed up that Weldon is a Rep., not a Senator. Glad you caught that; thank you.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1461967/posts
You did? Oh my! Well, wish he WERE in Specter's place...
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.