Posted on 08/22/2005 4:13:55 PM PDT by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 - An active-duty Navy captain has become the second military officer to come forward publicly to say that a secret defense intelligence program tagged the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks as a possible terrorist more than a year before the attacks.
The officer, Scott J. Phillpott, said in a statement today that he could not discuss details of the military program, which was called Able Danger, but confirmed that its analysts had identified the Sept. 11 ringleader, Mohamed Atta, by name by early 2000. "My story is consistent," said Captain Phillpott, who managed the program for the Pentagon's Special Operations Command. "Atta was identified by Able Danger by January-February of 2000."
His comments came on the same day that the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, told reporters that the Defense Department had been unable to validate the assertions made by an Army intelligence veteran, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, and now backed up by Captain Phillpott, about the early identification of Mr. Atta.
Colonel Shaffer went public with his assertions last week, saying that analysts in the intelligence project had been overruled by military lawyers when they tried to share the program's findings with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2000 in hope of tracking down terror suspects tied to Al Qaeda.
Mr. Di Rita said in an interview that while the department continued to investigate the assertions, there was no evidence so far that the intelligence unit had come up with such specific information about Mr. Atta and any of the other hijackers.
He said that while Colonel Shaffer and Captain Phillpott were respected military officers whose accounts were taken seriously, "thus far we've not been able to uncover what these people said they saw - memory is a complicated thing."
The statement from Captain...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Gordon's appearance made me ill. His trashing of the Lt. Col. and protectionism of Jamie Gorelick was sickening.
It has been reported that their are no official transcripts of the 9-11 Omission testimony before the Commission. Likewise, reports state that depositions by staffers etc. produced no recorded transcripts.
So, following the lead of the Omission Commission, So What! that Lt. Col. Shaffer and Capt. Phillpott have no documentation. Neither does the Commission beyond the book sold in the fiction section at Border.
You got that right! The Slimes is reporting a story that has not been proven. I am sure they will come back later with another yarn, complaining about DoD/FBI/CIA incompetence, etc., and of course in the end it is all Bush's fault.
"They don't have a choice. It's either report it or be very late to the party. " I agree that they don't have a choice, but I doubt it is for the reason you give. The NY Times is agenda driven and will not break stories that hurt the cause. Hopefully a certain treasonous criminal organization from Arkansas has already been checkmated. While I doubt Slick would feel remorse, he would probably recognize when the gig was up and that might be reflected by the lack of charisma.
I'm laughing, because the makers of "Inside 9/11" came up with corroboration for Shaffer and Phillpott, without ever talking to them.
The Times noted the "Brooklyn cell" about 2 weeks ago, IIRC.
Was he also connected to the Al Farooq Mosque?
I have no idea.
The question that comes to mind is do the two officers claim they put anything in writing, or know someone else did. I have not comes across myself them saying anything about that.
This is all so....scripted.
save
What puzzles me is why di Rita is acting like another clintonoid clone. Here's a capsule bio:
Lawrence Di Rita
From SourceWatch
Lawrence Di Rita is "Acting Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. In addition, he serves as Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense. He joined the Department after serving as Legislative Director, then Chief of Staff, for Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) from 1996-2001.
"A former Naval officer, Mr. Di Rita served in several ships and shore assignments before leaving the service in 1994. His final tour was on the Joint Staff.
"After leaving the Navy, Mr. Di Rita joined the Washington-based Heritage Foundation in 1994 as Deputy Director of Foreign Policy and Defense Studies.
"Originally from Detroit, Michigan, Mr. Di Rita is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and Johns Hopkins University."
Source: Department of Defense: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/asdpa_bio.html).
GOOD. Hopefully still others are willing to buck the CYA-retribution atmosphere and tell the truth about what was known and when.
I read documentation is missing???
Atta data. Just wanted to type that. Atta data. Atta data. Atta data.
I meant since the emergence of the Able Danger material.
I am hoping that this means there will be new leads pursued to cells within the US which I am sure exist.
This will only be possible if the 9/11 Commission, Commissioner Kean, and the Gorelicks, Bergers and the like stop obfuscating, stalling and questioning the authenticity.
Also Weldon's interest was first stirred by pending legislation to limit data mining. I sure hope that assinine idea gets canned.
I agree a good paper weight or lets see....helps to hold up really important books since the commission report is worthless....COVERUP 101
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. There's a lot of stuff happening besides Able Danger. He doesn't want to put his foot in his mouth.
And according to "Inside 9-11", Able Danger did identify Atta as a danger having Al-Qaeda connections
The former contractor, James D. Smith, said that Mr. Atta's name and photograph were obtained through a private researcher in California who was paid to gather the information from contacts in the Middle East. Mr. Smith said that he had retained a copy of the chart for some time and that it had been posted on his office wall at Andrews Air Force Base. He said it had become stuck to the wall and was impossible to remove when he switched jobs.
There are ways to corroborate the Abel Danger claims. Hopefully, there are documents and more people will come forward. We need a commission to investigate the commission.
I have to be careful, but I have a relative in intel, who told me the Army knew of the threat posed by some of the 9-11 people in advance. He's young, so I greeted this with skepticism. He was adamant. This was a year ago.
"That is very heavily qualified denial."
Good spot. They're catching up, or hiding. The leakers could be exaggerating, but there's a kernel there.
Could be a problem - was the program legal/authorized in the first place? Might be some tiptoe-ing due to that concern.
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.