Skip to comments.OKAY, HERE IT IS [Re: Lt. Col. Shaffer/Able Danger]
Posted on 08/16/2005 6:25:13 PM PDT by Wheens
If he's telling the truth, then the entire history of the last five years needs to be rewritten. His name is Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, and he's one of the two military intelligence officers alleging that the Defense Department had located Mohammed Atta and other hijackers in America in 2000.
He's now gone public on cable television and in this interview with the New York Times.
What's perfectly credible about what Shaffer says is that his unit, Able Danger, developed information about an Al Qaeda cell in Brooklyn and that Pentagon lawyers thrice blocked meetings between his unit and the FBI because they feared being accused of spying illicitly inside the United States. (He was not an intelligence analyst, but rather Able Danger's liaison with the Defense Intelligence Agency.)
But Shaffer does not have proof that Atta and three others were among those named. To be fair, he should NOT have proof because any such documentation would be classified material that should not be in his possession.
So now we have some manifest contradictions:
He says he told 9/11 commission staffers about this in Afghanistan in 2003. They dispute it. So somebody isn't telling the truth.
The Able Danger papers shown to the 9/11 Commission at the Pentagon after the Afghanistan meeting did not feature anything mentioning Atta. So the 9/11 Commission says. So either the Commission staff is lying. Or no paper mentioned Atta and Shaffer is just wrong. Or the Defense Department misplaced the paperwork mentioning Atta. Or somebody at the Defense Department deliberately didn't give the Commission the material.
In the first case, if the 9/11 commission staff is lying, the hell to be paid is going to be colossal. Among other things, it could shake the current State Department to its foundations, since the 9/11 commission staff director, Philip Zelicow, is one of Condi Rice's most trusted aides.
In the second case, if the Defense Department withheld critical information on this matter, it's almost impossible to imagine the intensity of the bloodletting that will follow.
With nothing more to go on than Shaffer's name and his statement, I think it's appropriate to remain skeptical. Since we have heard that the list Shaffer tried to forward to the FBI contained 60 names, it is legitimate to question whether his memory and the memory perhaps of other Able Danger folks has been enhanced by knowledge learned later on -- whether the otherwise obscure name of "Mohammed Atta" might have become part of their recollections after the fact because it became so famous.
Which is to say, Shaffer isn't lying, and he isn't a scoundrel. He's someone who ran afoul of the hyperlegal mindset that kept the intelligence "wall" growing ever higher until it became a hiding place for Al Qaeda.
What did clinton know and when did he know it?
I just emailed him and told him he needs to get a transcript of the Savage-Schaffer interview.
Start by asking LTC "Buzz" Paterson.
I just went to Curt Weldon's website and donated online (www.curtweldon.org). He deserves a lot of credit for bringing this information to the light of day.
did he specifically mention Atta in the Savage interview?
If this is true, then 9-11 was partly the result of one of the greatest acts of treason in history.
Podhoretz has convinced me in recent days that it is not worth listening to Podhoretz. His hissy fit the other day is all I needed.
"...Philip Zelicow, is one of Condi Rice's most trusted aides."
I mentioned this relationship on another thread. I suspect this could very well be an angle the MSM choses to take if this story breaks open.
Interesting we will know tomorrow who the liberals are pulling for State vs. DoD.
First he believed this...that was one article.
Then he didn't believe it at all...that was the second article.
Now, here believes it and doesn't believe it, all in the same, third article.
Did you read his exchange with McCarthy today? What an arrogant twit!
Yes, I remember the days when Joe Wilson described himself as a Republican.
what exactly was his roll on the 9-11 commission? Condi was grilled by that commission, worse then any other witness. if Zelicow was her "trusted aide", he certainly did her no favors on that commission. the questioning of Condi had the Dems trying to pin 9-11 on her.
I thought that too. But if hearings take place...as they should at this point...it will pass. There is something series and hugh here.
If the liberals start coming out against hearings by demanding a special prosecutor...you will know for sure they are trying to cover for the Zipper and his Hildabeast wife.
With that in mind, I will go with him vs the Commission.
He was the "Director of the 9/11 Commission.
"did he specifically mention Atta in the Savage interview?"
I don't think so
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.