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 ...
To the incurious MSM, tthis is like Holy Writ.
FReepMail for you...
"The commission's staff concluded that the officer's account was not sufficiently reliable to warrant revision of the report or further investigation."
Which tells you, in a nutshell, why you should be skeptical of the Commission's report. I'm not a conspiracy whacko, but we're relying here on the decisions of anonymous staff members to include or exclude bits of information. What criteria did they use?
The CYA continues. Now it's the 9/11 Commission. How about somebody pursue the truth?
They had the lists of passengers on the planes. It couldn't have been too difficult to spot the bad guys on those lists.
You too.
"A Navy officer is not "sufficiently credible," yet Jaime Gorelick and her Wall between Law Enforcement and Intelligence is??"
Gorelick's credibility would be subject to question because she has an interest in the outcome of the proceedings.
"They thought he just made up Mohammed Atta's name and it just happened to be the same as the 9/11 hijacker?"
Yep, just like the "Hamburg student" who met with the Iraqi security agent in Prague in April 2000 "just happened" to look like Mohammed Atta.
Sounds to me like the perfect way to treat a Liberal's statements.
They're blaming Janet Reno, and covering for Jamie Gorelick...
"Too many "fixers" including Gorelick and Richard Ben Veniste."
In my opinion, Gorelick and Ben Veniste would have blown up if this information had been made public by the Commission.
A triple coverup?
Right. sinister as all hell.
The Dems protect the Dem political class while the GOP protects all the political class. If this pointed to a Repub, they would be ridden out of town on a rail. And rightly so.
And to think Congress was targeted, still most don't give a damn. I always wonder what would have happened if the PA plane would have succeeded. I have to think, sadly, that we would have been better off.
M
Obviously. Conflict of interest, anyone?
Because we paid them to do it so we could then attack Islamic countries.
/DUmode
One thing I know for certain: as long as the Commission's findings protect Clinton Administration actions, there will be legions of Democrats and media people to defend the Commission's findings.
Gorelick and Ben Veniste were nothing more than partisan pricks on that Commission.
BTW, heard of any firings yet?
Now, we know that's not going to happen. Unless somebody refuses to hew to the Commission's line.
"What else is the commission covering up?
Why did Bubba feel the need to bring Bruce Lindsey?"
And Jamie Gorelick and Richard Ben Veniste. And Sandy Berger to "scrutinize" the National Archives documents.
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.