WOW, THE TIMES, WHO'DA THOUGHT!
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 ...
Because they hope to push the timeframe for the responsibility of ignoring these warnings into the early Bush administration.
Booooyaaaah!
"More to the point, in intelligence matters, even the Navy gets short shrift from the civies"
The civies are stupid.Not ignorant, actually stupid.
USN Intel is as just good as its carrier pilots.
Coming from a former USAF NCOIC, that's high praise indeed!
It was like 37 consecutive days... a record, I think. More consecutive days than 9/11!
Wondering how to take care of Sandy, who could become a liability?
They don't have a choice. It's either report it or be very late to the party.
However, I am sure it will be slanted
to the best of their ability.
It looks like the 911 Whitewash Commission has a conflicting story. Documents are missing It will soon be time to investigate DOD laywers (Clintoista's) about where
these documents are.
Slate...what do they have on you?
Does O'Reilly post transcripts?
This isn't a question about what clintoon knew, or what Bush knew. It's a question about how our gov't agencies work under any administration. The people there are the same; the only difference is regulations that get passed down.
The serious point is that if one agency knew about Atta, why couldn't they tell agencies that just might have been able to stop it? Anyone who thinks Atta was a one time event has their head in the sand. There are other dangerous people in this country, and we can't let them operate freely.
If Gorelick's wall was the only problem, fine - it's gone now. But if there are other problems, we need to know what they are, and fix them.
Not often, but on occasion.
Ping if you hadn't seen this.
WOW, THE TIMES, WHO'DA THOUGHT!
Contact Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton and let them know that it is their responsiblity to come clean about the coverups that were orchestrated by Jamie Gorlick, Hillary Clinton and the other Clintonistas on the 9/11 Commission:
Tom Kean
tomkean@drew.edu
973-408-3100
Lee Hamilton
director@wwic.si.edu
202-691-4204
Maybe the NY Crimes have decided that Hitlery won't be their candidate for 2008.
Could be but it is all very weird, and the way the Committee handled the information was weird (I don't believe the Committee was out to whitewash Clinton). Maybe the book on Atta was more in the nature of speculation, but the suggestion that there is no proof these two officers fingered Atta at all, and maybe they just have faulty memories, is very strange. Where is the friggin paper trail, which the Committee denies it never saw? Hopefully there will be committee hearings, and all the players can chat about it under oath.
Especially when the supporting evidence is being archived in Sandy Berger's pants.
So the question, Mr. Speaker, is why did they not want to go down that direction? Where will that lead us? Why do we not want to see the answers to the questions I have raised tonight? Who made the decision to tell our military not to pursue Mohamed Atta? Who made the decision that said that we are fearful of the fallout from Waco politically?Were those decisions made by lawyers? Were they made by policymakers? Who within the administration in 2000 was responsible for those actions? This body and the American people need to know.
Click here -> 109th Congress - House - June 27, 2005
Navigate to: 75 . U.S. INTELLIGENCE -- (House of Representatives - June 27, 2005)
Optionally click on "Printer Friendly"(Pages H5244 - H5250)
Something very strange is amiss amigo. Two career officers telling the same story and no paper trail at all. It spells COVERUP!
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.