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.
I fear that your post is exactly correct and one reason where is, thus far, inaction by our Republican congresscritters.
I know they're on recess, but typically, such a big story would have generated more than a few interviews as face time on television is apparently more important than gold.
You have nailed exactly what is going on, imo.
Enchante, thanks for documenting the known rat players/subverters on the 911 commission. The behind the scene players like Berger, Albright, the Clintoons and other Clintoon thugs would be a massive list.
"To expound on your excellent points, the very fact that media whores Gorelick, BenVeniste, heck, even Kean..who hace never before NOT availed themselves of any microphone or camera, anywhere, anytime; have virtually disappeared the last two weeks..that alone tells me they are afraid to say anything.."
Besides scared, they are probably gathered with a lot of the Clintoon evil lawyers and PR jerks devising a story to protect them and to blame GW.
Bump
Thanks for posting this.
Pod is a whining apologist, who is linked to the Rats in the Beltway.
However, he has opened the door a little for the truth to come out.
Weldon will be scoffed at for being a dupe and Schaffer will be labeled as a 'disgruntled office-seeker'.
When will the West defend itself?
When will we stop aiding and abetting our enemies?
Terrorists do NOT have the rights and protections of:
Geneva Convention
Our Constitution
Fifth Amendment
U.S. Laws
etc. etc. etc.
International thugs, brutes and goons deserve what they get.
For God's sake, if during an attack one or two are shot dead by an American citizen...are we going to try the citizen for murder now???????????
And we know that the central player responsible for the Clinton era policies that failed to deal with terrorism was also the chief orchestrator of the cover-up by the 9/11 Commission:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1461535/posts?page=233#233
I don't believe that to be the case nor do I believe that you have any information that it is.
Gorelick must have been the legal nuance Kerry loved.
I totally agree with you people. Podohretz thinks very highly of himself, at least that is what I gleaned from Rush the last few days.
It's pretty basic.
You're either a commisioner or on the staff. He wasn't a commissioner.
If you do a Google on "zelikow 911" you'll get as many references to "staff" as "executive." You'll also find that the ones that emphasize his being "executive director" and ascribing large amounts of power to him are leftist anti-war sites claiming that he was personally responsibility for covering up all of the evil deeds of the Bush administration, particularly Condi.
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.