Posted on 08/16/2005 5:11:14 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
Edited on 08/16/2005 6:40:22 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
I've been meaning for the last several days to do a post on the Able Danger story, expressing the view that some conservatives have pushed the story too far, in view of the great uncertainty about whether the key "fact" in the story--that Able Danger operatives identified Mohammed Atta as an al Qaeda member prior to September 11--was true. In the meantime, a number of others have beaten me to it. This morning, Jim Geraghty has more:
Just heard from a guy I trust that the Pentagon will be releasing information regarding Able Danger in the not too distant future. The short version: Don't expect any bombshells.
Thank you, Congressman Weldon, for getting just enough of this story right (the existence of Able Danger and its mission) to get folks like myself and lot of others to take you seriously. Those others weren't just bloggers, by the way - I'm talking about the New York Times, the AP, the Bergen Record...
And thanks a [really bad word] heap for getting more than enough wrong that we look like idiots for trusting you.
You know, like that rather key element that Able Danger had picked out four of the 9/11 hijackers and recommended they be picked up by the FBI. I can see how you could mix up that pesky little detail.
Thank you for making all of these stunning allegations without any supporting evidence. Thank you for not having any documents, memos, or anything beyond allegations from an anonymous former defense intelligence guy who is unwilling to come forward and speak on the record.
Here is the point I really want to emphasize: the Able Danger story was yet another example of the peril of anonymous sources. We have repeatedly attacked the use of anonymous sources by organs like the New York Times and Washington Post; now Congressman Weldon has done the same thing. The whole story came from an anonymous source who claimed to have been part of military intelligence, and of Able Danger.
Importantly, this is not a situation where an anonymous source supplied a tip that journalists and others could then go out and investigate. No: in this instance the anonymous source's alleged memory of having seen Atta's name on an Able Danger list was the whole story. No one could possibly evaluate the credibility of the claim without, as a starting point, knowing who it is who claims to have the memory.
I was also troubled by the source's statement that Pentagon lawyers made a decision not to allow the information on Atta to be passed on to law enforcement. At best, this could only be hearsay. Again, without knowing who the source is, and without the opportunity to question him about how he purports to know what was done by Pentagon lawyers, it was hard to give much--or any--credibility to his claim. Moreover, if the claim was true, a paper trail would exist. Memos would have been written, copied and filed in multiple locations. And, while I suppose it is barely possible that such explosive documents could have remained unknown for the past four years, I think that is extremely unlikely.
In other words, there were good reasons not to trust the source--his unwillingness to go public--and good reasons to think that what he said was most probably false.
The moral, I think, is that we should be extremely skeptical of any news story predicated on the accounts of anonymous sources, no matter how we feel about the implications of the story.
UPDATE
Earlier today, I wrote that the military officer claiming to have identified Mohammed Atta as an al Qaeda agent in advance of September 11 could not be considered credible unless and unless he steps forward and sheds his anonymity. Now he's done just that:
[Lt. Col. Anthony] Shaffer said in an interview that the small, highly classified intelligence program known as Able Danger had identified by name the terrorist ringleader, Mohammed Atta, as well three of the other future hijackers by mid-2000, and had tried to arrange a meeting that summer with agents of the F.B.I.'s Washington field office to share the information.But he said military lawyers forced members of the intelligence program to cancel three scheduled meetings with the F.B.I. at the last minute, which left the bureau without information that Colonel Shaffer said might have led to Mr. Atta and the other terrorists while the Sept. 11 plot was still being planned.
This is great. Now we can begin the process of getting to the bottom of this story. Col. Shaffer is prepared to take on the Sept. 11 commission:
Colonel Shaffer said he had decided to allow his name to be used in news accounts in part because of his frustration with the statement issued last week by the commission leaders, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton.
At this point, we have absolutely no way to know who is right about Able Danger and Mohammed Atta. But initial reactions from the commission are interesting:
A commission spokesman did not return repeated phone calls for comment. A Democratic member of the commission, Richard Ben Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor, said in an interview today that while he could not judge the credibility of the information from Colonel Shaffer and others, the Pentagon needed to "provide a clear and comprehensive explanation regarding what information it had in its possession regarding Mr. Atta.""And if these assertions are credible," he continued, "the Pentagon would need to explain why it was that the 9/11 commissioners were not provided this information despite request for all information regarding to Able Danger."
As the Trunk likes to say: Stay tuned.
I don't think it does.
It is good to be interested and to watch carefully, but not to go off like a firecracker, and most here have taken the first course.
They have to respond to this.
They dont know everything the Lt Col has so lets see what they have to say.
He is very, very credible.
That is gross mischaracterization, IMO. Atta's name was taken to become the wohole story, but Atta's name or not, there is a substantial story here.
There was intelligence of AQ operatives in the US. The knowledge was not passed to the FBI, who may have been able to act on it. Does the 9/11 Commission report discuss this?
This sounds like, "So when 'anonymous' goes public, forget everything I just said."
Isn't 'anonymous' about to go public?
I'm a Savageaholic and listen every day. Doc Savage has been in top form in all of the post Able-Danger shows.
This interview is excellent, you're right.
Bump!
That is right the story won't die yet. It depends on what the
documents say.
There are plenty of reasons for some people not to want the 9/11 can of worms opened again. If you accept the 9/11 Commission's timeline - and it may not be totally accurate -you had a gang of terrorists wandering around the country for over a year, before launching the terribly lethal 9/11 attacks. Who wants a part of the responsibility for that?
"I've been meaning for the last several days to do a post on the Able Danger story,..."
Seems John at Powerline should have waited more one day before he wrote his article.
John, Mr. Anonymous has a name.......Lt Col. Schaefer
the attack begins. the center right would rather be wrong than look like theytook kook bait. thats ok , if the freepers are correct good. if this goes nowhere , no shame. we have a right to react to this kind of story , it crosses party lines. i read where this lt.col sevrved in afgan. he can handle the tough guys in the press. oh no not press guys!
With the flip-flopping the 9/11 commision has been doing this week one thing is for sure...there is a fuse smoldering somewhere.
Now Powerline has walked back--saying that the chnge is due to anon coming forward.Podhoretz has, too.
Thanks.
Earlier today, I wrote that the military officer claiming to have identified Mohammed Atta as an al Qaeda agent in advance of September 11 could not be considered credible unless and unless he steps forward and sheds his anonymity. Now he's done just that:
[Lt. Col. Anthony] Shaffer said in an interview that the small, highly classified intelligence program known as Able Danger had identified by name the terrorist ringleader, Mohammed Atta, as well three of the other future hijackers by mid-2000, and had tried to arrange a meeting that summer with agents of the F.B.I.'s Washington field office to share the information.But he said military lawyers forced members of the intelligence program to cancel three scheduled meetings with the F.B.I. at the last minute, which left the bureau without information that Colonel Shaffer said might have led to Mr. Atta and the other terrorists while the Sept. 11 plot was still being planned.
This is great. Now we can begin the process of getting to the bottom of this story. Col. Shaffer is prepared to take on the Sept. 11 commission:
Colonel Shaffer said he had decided to allow his name to be used in news accounts in part because of his frustration with the statement issued last week by the commission leaders, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton.
At this point, we have absolutely no way to know who is right about Able Danger and Mohammed Atta. But initial reactions from the commission are interesting:
A commission spokesman did not return repeated phone calls for comment. A Democratic member of the commission, Richard Ben Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor, said in an interview today that while he could not judge the credibility of the information from Colonel Shaffer and others, the Pentagon needed to "provide a clear and comprehensive explanation regarding what information it had in its possession regarding Mr. Atta.""And if these assertions are credible," he continued, "the Pentagon would need to explain why it was that the 9/11 commissioners were not provided this information despite request for all information regarding to Able Danger."
As the Trunk likes to say: Stay tuned.
Wheldon is being "McCarthyized".
I highly doubt he would run with this and ruin his career if he didn't have the goods.
The Lt. Col. who just went public risked a great deal, as well.
Are we going to throw them overboard until/unless we have "pumpkin papers"?
You are right.
Rush said today that their behavior alone is the reason he thinks there is something big here. It could be bigger than AD.
We'll see.
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.