Posted on 08/23/2005 8:51:26 AM PDT by Niks
WASHINGTON -- A second military officer has publicly backed claims by a military intelligence officer that a Pentagon unit named "Able Danger" (search) identified lead Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta (search) in early 2000 as a security risk.
Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott (search) told FOX News in a statement Monday evening that the lead hijacker in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks was identified as someone with ties to known terrorists. Phillpott, a 22-year active duty serviceman, would not provide more detail, except to say that he is going through the proper channels at the Department of Defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
BUMP!
Glad to see someone else come forward.
Time to invoke the FOIA.
?...Navy Captain Backs Able Danger Claims
......pictures NOT available....
(in a sleazy office in Harlem:)
WJC/X42: "Get me my contact at DOD! I thought we already had this story *&*^-canned. And conference in the NYT..."
This guy is a career officer. I think I heard 22 years. I can not imagine him having anything to gain and nothing to lose by lying. In fact he has everything to lose.
Off topic, just catching the President on FOX. Is it me or does he not look good. I can't put my finger on it.
Sandy took it.
These guys are going to be in a Catch 22 situation. If they retained documents to show the truth of their claims, they are in violation of some federal law.
Of course if they didn't, everything is going to disappear, and make them look like liars. Remember Gary Aldrich, the FBI Agent who wrote "Unlimited Access" ?
There might be copies at the DOD?
I'm Watching also and he seems nervous.
I'm Watching also and he seems nervous.
There might also be backup computer tapes of the systems used to make the analysis.
I hope, but I have little faith, that this investigation will stop being about who is to blame and (conversely) protection of political position. The Democrats have thrived on idiotic claims like'Bush Knew', and many Republicans want nothing more than an excuse to bury the Clintons. The result has been a particsan political battle that is not properly focused.
This should be about:
(1)An honest assessment of what went wrong, and
(2)how do we avoid those same mistakes in the future?
It seems that all the radio talk shows, and most of the posts here on FR, want to focus on blaming Gorelick and Clinton and Reno. All people whom I think should be properly ashamed of themselves, but finding someone to blame is not going to bring back the lost souls of 9-11.
Identify REAL problems, and FIX them - that is the debt we owe the dead.
Scott Philpot (the article misspells his name) is no liar.
He is telling the truth.
Notice, please, how the attack machine works: two active duty career officers, at least one a USNA grad, corroborate a story. These are not politicians. They have no dog in this fight. The political arm of the Pentagon, serving the political leadership in the Bush Administration, seeks to discredit them.
The attempt to discredit Scott Philpot discredits the Administration's hit man at the Pentagon. Scott says it happened, it happened. Obviously you don't keep a pile of secret documents to substantiate future claims you make in a case like this, not unless you want to go to Leavenworth.
So, why is the political leadership calling these two officers liars? That is the question we should be asking. Why do these sanctimonious political bastards, who have done a piss poor job of running the war, incidentally, just as they did a piss-poor job on terrorism before 9/11 (both parties), get the loyalty of the faithful, while a public servant like Captain Philpot and the LCDR have aspersions cast on their memory, which is merely a subterfuge for calling them dishonest.
Why do we keep on giving these political jerks a pass?
Nervous and worried.
sandy berger haberdashery feint
(the specs, not the pants or the socks)
WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?
Why hillary clinton should never be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office... or any position of power--THE SERIES
REASON 1: MISSUS CLINTON HIRED JAMIE GORELICK
While problems with information/intelligence sharing between FBI, CIA, and military intelligence go way back, to the very founding of each organization in fact, the immediate real problem may lie in policies of the previous administration. Identifying those problems will by necessity associate them with their authors.
Some or all of them may have already been fixed, but knowing that also awaits their identification.
If politics and politicians caused the problem, there is know way to find and fix the problem without also placing blame, but the blame placing will be a side effect of the process not the primary goal.
That said, putting a few policy makers in jail might encourage others to perform better in the future, and merely identifying the miscreants would help the voters to focus on never allowing them, or their ilk, in such positions again.
Politicians and their appointees often do though. The big wigs never think the security rules apply to them. Witness Sandy "Burglar" Burger.
It's because the depth of corruption and soft treason hits both parties very hard. Bush is being very careful about the cards he's playing, but these Able Danger folks are warning shots to the other side that he can pursue a "scorched earth" path if necessary.
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.