Replies

I agree these characters are not telling very convincing stories. However, did you notice the non-denial denial from the Pentagon?

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.

That is very heavily qualified denial.

This new source should not surprise anyone. Saffer said that there were other sources to back up his claims and that the DoD was working to clear them to allow them to tell their story.

Another thing. We can assume that Gorelick's only reason for being on the 9/11 commission was to protect her from testifying. And once again, Ben-Veniste's words basically daring Shaffer to show them the proof seem a little to suspicious to me. A lawyer never asks a question or for evidence to be presented unless they know what the answer is or if that evidence exists or will hurt them.

I also think that these people never expected someone to be able to come forward to bring this issue up. They all thought the issue was dead when the commission finalized its report and patted itself on the back.

On a scale of 1-10 on the Crap Hitting the Wall Splat-O-Meter..........this is a 30.

"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.