Excuse me while I throw up.
Posted on 08/15/2005 4:24:45 AM PDT by rdb3
“For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
” – St. Matthew 10:26
Recent revelations about covert “Able Danger” operations are forcing certain people to deal with subjects that they had thought swept under the rug. Despite apparent attempts to conceal the fact, the 9/11 Commission has had to admit it was informed that government agents knew of Mohammed Atta’s affiliation with al-Qaeda two years before 9/11, that Clinton-era policies prevented intelligence officials from sharing that information with the FBI, that the amended time frame would allow Mohammed Atta to have made contacts with Iraqi intelligence, and – most damningly – that it kept all this out of its final report.
Rep. Curt Weldon, R-PA, has done praiseworthy work in drawing attention to the recently released “Able Danger” report. Former CIA operative and terrorism expert Wayne Simmons has described the “Able Danger” operation as “one of our best covert operations” run by the intelligence community. The operation, he continues, was expert at “using open source intelligence,” including data mining techniques, “to locate and identify Islamic terrorists,” specifically al-Qaeda operatives in the United States. This operation identified 9/11 mastermind Mohammed Atta and three of his fellow hijackers as members of an al-Qaeda cell located in New York City (and codenamed “Brooklyn”) in 1999. We can only surmise that a gold mine of information lies yet unrevealed.
Weldon noted with exasperation that this information had been delivered to the 9/11 Commission in at least two separate briefings, possibly three, proving the incredible ineptitude of the commission. Weldon says staffers of the 9/11 Commission did not share – and Commissioners did not request – information about these “Able Danger” reports. This would have been indispensable to uncovering how 9/11 happened and what could be done to prevent a repeat performance, allegedly the commision's task..
Faced with these revelations, commissioners first claimed Rep. Weldon was not telling the truth, that the 9/11 Commission had never been presented with this vital information. Early last week, commission spokesman Al Felzenberg said, “The name ‘Atta’ or a terrorist cell would have gone to the top of the radar screen if it had been mentioned.” Former Congressman and commissioner Lee Hamilton, D-IN, echoed Felzenberg, saying last Monday: “The September 11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell. Had we learned of it obviously it would’ve been a major focus of our investigation.” The New York Times notes that just a few days later, “Mr. Felzenberg said the uniformed officer who briefed two staff members in July 2004 had indeed mentioned Mr. Atta.” Hamilton, too, quickly “readjusted” his initial comments to admit that, indeed, the commissioners heard of Atta after all. Felzenberg acknowledged the commission had been briefed on this information but rejected the testimony of a uniformed officer on the grounds that his evidence did not match their preconceived timeline; it indicates Atta was active from February-April 2000, whereas the commission believed Atta entered the United States for the first time that June.
There are several factors – none flattering to the Commission – that might explain this appalling lapse. John Podhoretz neatly summaries them: “So was the [9/11 Commission] 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?”
The really upsetting issue is contained in Podhoretz's first note. It requires a deeper reading because understanding it fully opens the entire mindset of the hard Left toward terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Podheretz notes that the Commission was “protecting” its interpretation of Mohammad Atta's international and domestic U.S. travels. Key in this “interpretation” in the minds of Clinton supporters and Bush haters of all stripes is the necessity to deny all ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaeda. After all, in the endless cacophony of criticism against the Iraq War, the two steady drumbeats have been the failure to find WMDs, and the assertion that there were no links between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the September 11 attacks. Until now the Left has issued a series of deliberate misinterpretations of a series of reports – including that of the 9/11 Commission, and WMD reports by David Kay and Charles Dueffler. However the unimpeachable “Able Danger” report was at first denied by 9/11 spokesman Al Felzenberg, then was reluctantly confirmed to be correct. Felzenberg said that “the information that [the “Able Danger” briefing officer] provided us did not mesh with other conclusions that we were drawing.” (Emphasis added.)
And here we get to the crux of the matter. The movements of Atta prior to the terrorist attack as detailed by “Able Danger,” if acknowledged, would support statements by the Czech Republic that link Atta, and hence the al-Qaeda attack on America, irrefutably to Saddam's covert intelligence operatives. This is something that surfaced shortly after 9/11. A former Czech deputy foreign minister, later ambassador to the UN, gave statements that he personally expelled a high raking Iraqi embassy official in Prague for being a covert foreign intelligence agent after the latter was discovered to have met with Mohammed Atta in the international lounge at the Prague airport in August 2001. There the Iraqi transferred a large amount of cash to Atta, sufficient to fund the completion of the September 11 attack. Despite cruel pressure from mainstream media, the hard Left, the U.S. State Department, and the CIA, the Czechs insisted that their report was correct. Former Congressman John LeBoutellier was furious at the Bush administration for bowing to CIA pressure to discount the Czech report because it verified a vital deadly connection within the covert terrorist community. Now it appears as if the Czechs – and those who supported their account – were right.
This Atta-Iraqi meeting did not track well with some of the 9/11 Commission's pre-ordained agenda and had to be firmly discounted. They were able to accomplish this through a lame credit card receipt that could have been signed by any of Atta's cell. But a report with the weight of the Department of Defense and highly credible intelligence operatives behind it would expose the flimsy nature of the evidence that Atta was in the States. Hence, as Flzenberg said, with unflappable arrogance, “if we missed anything we will say so, but we doubt that we did.”
The possible motives of protecting Commissioner Jamie Gorelick and her former employer, President Bill Clinton, are also closely related. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft testified at the 9/11 Commission’s grandstanding hearings that one of its own commissioners, former high-ranking Clinton Justice Department appointee Jamie S. Gorelick, had been the prime architect of one of the problems for which the commissioners regularly denounced the Bush administration: the wall between intelligence agencies. Her infamous 1995 “wall” memo produced much of the harmful lack of intelligence coordination that the Commission then used to criticize the Bush administration. As FrontPage Magazine’s Jean Pearce wrote last May, the intelligence wall Deputy Attorney General Gorelick put in place smothered ongoing investigations into Chinese contributions to Bill Clinton’s presidential campaigns. Specifically the Department of Defense and the CIA were prohibited from exchanging relevant information with the FBI.
Not all were happy at the time with Gorelick's action. Gutsy New York City-based U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White was appalled by the Gorelick directive, sending two of her own memoranda back to Janet Reno and Gorelick protesting, “The most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating.” Her recommendations were ignored. According to the New York Post, White was so incensed by their actions that she wrote a second, scathing memorandum warning that the “wall” hindered law enforcement efforts to combat terrorism. “It will cost lives,” she reportedly warned. This second memo is still kept secret.
Her prophecy proved accurate; in 2000, members of the Department of Defense knew of an al-Qaeda operative in the United States, but the DoD – hands tied by Gorelick’s policy – declined to alert the FBI, a step that might have prevented the 9/11 attacks. At this time, al-Qaeda had already, either directly or through its affiliates, killed American soldiers in Somalia, detonated the Khobar Towers, and bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In the summer of 2000, they attacked the U.S.S. Cole.
This inaction seemed to fall into line with the Clinton administration’s general disregard for terrorism. Although the discredited former National Security Council staffer Richard Clarke presented President Clinton as an anti-terrorism warrior, former intelligence officer Ralph Peters tells a much different story. “Admitting that [terrorist] threats were real.threatened to destroy the belief system the Clintonites had carried into office,” Peters detailed. In regards to the entire terrorist network, methodology, and ideology, the Clintons were “a textbook case of denial.” It was bad enough, as the “Able Danger” reports indicate, that the Clintons were willfully ignorant of the threat but their criminal negligence was compounded by a sleazy attempt to pass the buck on the Bush administration. Bill Clinton never made any serious retaliation for any of these provocations, nor the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, emboldening these terrorists, assuring through his “intelligence wall” that 9/11 terrorists could not be properly identified and apprehended, and passing the blame for the inevitable outcome of his policies to the nascent Bush administration.
If there was, in fact, covert direction from the top of the Commission to key members of its staff to cloak any link between Saddam and the September 11 attacks, to obfuscate evidence tying the Iraqi regime to al-Qaeda and Mohammed Atta, and to paint the most positive possible picture of the Clintons as implacable terror-warriors, then “Able Danger” had to be ignored and covered up. It fits the pattern of revisionist historical interpretations that seems to be the only authentic legacy from the Clinton years. Further, in Washington staffers tell their bosses what the latter want to hear. They are not rewarded for initiative. As Peters says, when told to think outside the box by a superior, a subordinate knows his job is to “come back with fresh reasons why the in-house position was right all along.”
By acknowledging the Iraq/al-Qaeda ties, not only to terrorism in general but to the September 11 attack, the war becomes completely justifiable as exactly what the Bush administration claimed it was: a defensive, if preemptive, war to protect the United States from a regime with cordial ties to anti-American terrorists. This outcome is so repugnant to the hard Left that it will justify even the most extraordinary suppression of evidence or promulgation of an outright lie in order to achieve its ends.
This is a critically important story that demands public attention. It will not be seriously investigated by many reporters, because the mainstream (read: leftist) media is not interested in exposing how its favorite president in decades enabled terrorists to pull off the worse act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history.
This still seems like a weak link at best between the Czech Connection and Able Danger. The only linking I can see is that Able Danger seems to show that Atta was moving in and out of the country without going through official U.S. visa channels. That is hardly shocking in itself despite the denials of it by the 9/11 Commission. But freedom of movement does not automatically equate to being in the Czech Republic and meeting with an Iraqi official.
Am I missing something here?
Excuse me while I throw up.
well, Dubya's love-affair with Vincente Fox and concommitant failure to seal the border DOES chap my a$$
it irks me he did not veto CFR
and I am SO tired of hearing "Islam is a religion of peace"
but, really, other than that I have few quibbles with Dubya.
on a 1-10 approval scale, I'd give him a 7.
I'm with you, although I don't think he uses the "Religion of Peace" line anymore
BTTT!
(And here we get to the crux of the matter. The movements of Atta prior to the terrorist attack as detailed by “Able Danger,” if acknowledged, would support statements by the Czech Republic that link Atta, and hence the al-Qaeda attack on America, irrefutably to Saddam's covert intelligence operatives. This is something that surfaced shortly after 9/11. A former Czech deputy foreign minister, later ambassador to the UN, gave statements that he personally expelled a high raking Iraqi embassy official in Prague for being a covert foreign intelligence agent after the latter was discovered to have met with Mohammed Atta in the international lounge at the Prague airport in August 2001. There the Iraqi transferred a large amount of cash to Atta, sufficient to fund the completion of the September 11 attack. Despite cruel pressure from mainstream media, the hard Left, the U.S. State Department, and the CIA, the Czechs insisted that their report was correct. Former Congressman John LeBoutellier was furious at the Bush administration for bowing to CIA pressure to discount the Czech report because it verified a vital deadly connection within the covert terrorist community. Now it appears as if the Czechs – and those who supported their account – were right)
Now for my question:
The democRATS are yakking all the time we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, Saddam wasn't connected to 9-11, etc....
Do you think President Bush would have gone into a country and captured its leader because he THOUGHT he might be involved???? (Like the RATS want you to believe)
If Bush had this information, which I'm sure he did or he wouldn't have acted in the manner of which he did, then it was out there for all to know about, and Walden found it when he was writing his book, why wouldn't the 9/11 commission have it?????? I think they did, and I think that when it came to Gorelick's attention, she had the staff bury it....
Look how they are spinning the fact now, ie: "It wasn't important, the Military person couldn't prove it" "clinton was misquoted" and you know that is BS, we have heard clinton say he begged the Sudan to take Laden....
on an unrelated tangent: I think I have figured out why my subconscious has seen fit to plague me with an etern-o-looped playlist of Paula Abdul songs (particularly -yeech!- "Opposites Attract")...
1. I have not felt precisely this cruddy since 1994.
2. I have not felt precisely this KIND of cruddy since 1994.
3. IIRC, in 1994 I picked up a VHS compilation of her videos
4. IIRC, I may have watched it more than once while ill in 1994.
hey - the girl used to be a stone hottie, and she COULD dance...
but, I swear, If I hear "Two steps forward...Two steps back" for very much longer, I'm going to go completely mental.
He also met with an Iraqi agent in Chechnya in June 2000. Czech officials have variously confirmed or denied the meeting. I think it is likely there was a meeting although back in 2002 I argued against that in this forum. My logic then was that we didn't know Atta was a bad guy until 9/11 but that premise seems to be shot.
"I never had a sex with that woman."
"It depends on what is is."
Standard m.o. of Klinton and his operatives.
If you start with Lee Hamilton is a liar, and then work backwards, you should think we need Congressional hearings with all 11 members of the Able Danger Team questioned as well as the Clinton Lawyers that directed 3M stickies be placed on Mohamed Atta's face when it appeared on the al-Qaeda terrorist board maintained be Able Danger.
......
Tuesday
Lee Hamilton, co-chairman of the now-disbanded commission, said Tuesday that members of the panel could issue a statement by the end of the week after reviewing claims that officials had identified ringleader Mohamed Atta and three other hijackers.
"The 9/11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohamed Atta or of his cell," said Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. "Had we learned of it, obviously it would've been a major focus of our investigation."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday
AP) The leaders of the 9/11 commission late Friday disputed a congressman's criticism that the panel did not adequately investigate a claim that four hijackers were identified as al Qaeda members more than a year before the attacks.
In a joint statement, former commission chairman Thomas Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton said a military official who made the claim had no documentation to back it up. And they said only 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta was identified to them and not three additional hijackers as claimed by Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Penn., vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees.
Drudge who !
Now that he is rich and famous, he has forgotten us.
And his spyware and pop-ups are bad. I have to give my computer a shower to wash all that stuff off if I go there.
It would be easy for the 9/11 Commission to refute claims made by Able Danger officers that they told commission staffers about their efforts to get info about Atta's Al Qaeda ties to the FBI if there were transcripts of staffers interviews with Able Danger officers. Staffers archived notes can say whatever needs to be said to support the commission report.
An investigation where staff didn't record interviews makes you wonder how they were going to analyze discrepancies in testimony. How does an investigation without transcripts of interviews conduct follow up interviews?
Without a credible investigation providing support, the 9/11 Commission is nothing more than a political event.
All these reports attributed to the FBI were, as it turns out, erroneous. There were no car rental records in Virginia, Florida, or anywhere else in April 2001 for Mohamed Atta, since he had not yet obtained his Florida license.
His international license was at his father's home in Cairo, Egypt (where his roommate Marwan al-Shehhi picked it up in late April).
Nor were there other records in the hands of the FBI that put Atta in the United States at the time. Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in June 2002, "It is possible that Atta traveled under an unknown alias" to "meet with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague." Clearly, it was not beyond the capabilities of the 9/11 hijackers to use aliases.
The only dispute over Atta's whereabouts is whether he was in Prague on April 9, 2001, to meet with Samir al Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer. Czech intelligence insists he was. Able Danger, apparently, had information supporting the Czechs.
Spanish police last February arrested Algerians Khaled Madani, 33, and Moussa Laour, 36, on suspicion of furnishing phony passports to, among others, al Qaeda operatives Ramzi Binalshibh and Mohamed Atta. According to a February 29 Associated Press dispatch, Binalshibh revealed Madani's identity to interrogators at the American military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Also info on Shakir at that link, which is another connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
January 4, 2001: Atta flies from Miami to Madrid, Spain.
January 10, 2001: Return flight from Madrid to Miami.
This was 4 months before he allegedly went to Prague. IMHO, this is when he picked up the fake passports, which he used to go to Prague.
I think we, the American people, are due an investigation. Give Curt Weldon his time on the floor. If he can produce enough evidence to convince congress to assign a special prosecutor or reopen the 9/11 commission - and some people will have to recuse themselves (Jamie, that's you...) - I think we need to hear it.
Don’t rule out Mrs. Clinton’s travel expenses or anything else that woman did at tax payer expense during those years that were perhaps not authorized.
Then this: White was so incensed by their actions that she wrote a second, scathing memorandum warning that the “wall” hindered law enforcement efforts to combat terrorism. “It will cost lives,” she reportedly warned. This second memo is still kept secret. Mary Jo White’s memorandum should be made public at once!
Left out of this article is Sandy Berger’s theft of highly classified papers/files from the National Archives. Take him to court where the world can watch a former high ranking Clintoneista made to tell the truth about what he did, why he did it, for whom he did it, and what was it he was looking for…..perhaps notes on Mohammed Atta?
Forget Cindy, forget Aruba get on with the real horror of the 9/11 commission and their obvious cover up for the Clinton Administration.
Take a minute to call and thank Rep. Curt Weldon
Curt Weldon
Pennsylvania-7th, Republican
2466 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515-3807
Phone: (202) 225-2011
"Bumpkins" we are to these arrogant b@stards.
These phonies -- one and all -- subscribe to damning America, our sovereignty, our culture, and selling out the founders in the name of...POWER.
It isn't exactly a secret that Saddam Hussein has been around for quite a while, and as much as we would love to blame anything and everything on Clinton, it wasn't exactly Slick Willie who failed to take him out at our first, best opportunity, was it?
There's more than enough blame for 9/11 (and the subsequent anthrax attacks) to go around for Republicans, Democrats, and everyone in-between.
Shame to say of an elected official supposedly trying to expose corruption, deceit, and conspiracies of an unknown extent that cover-up the greatest single disaster in American history.
My guess is Weldon folds the tent real soon when no one steps forward to follow his lead -- least of all the President.
bttt for ALL to see & read...
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.