Posted on 08/27/2005 4:04:29 AM PDT by johnny7
Did a small intelligence group within the Defense Department identify hijacker Mohamed Atta as a member of a terrorist cell operating in the U.S. almost two years before he and 18 other terrorists killed more than 3,000 people on U.S. soil in 2001? And if so, why didn't this explosive information make it into the September 11 Commission report, which was supposed to be the definitive analysis on the worst terrorist incident in U.S. history? Depending on whom you talk to, this story is either proof the Clinton administration was asleep at the switch while terrorists planned attacks, or it's a case of false memory syndrome. Official statements seem to indicate the Defense Department leans toward the latter explanation.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Weldon presented a third member of Able Danger yesterday named Smith, I think.
Now we have 3 ranking, capable members of the US military who remember Atta's name coming up.
I wonder how likely that they would dream up such a hoax and be willing to carry it through to the scrutiny the media would likely bring to bear on this.
Not very, in my opinion.
Although, according to this article, Gorelick left the Clinton administration in 1997, her influence certainly didn't leave. After all, as DOD general counsel, she appointed a host of Clintonoid lawyers to every DOD legal level. Those lawyers continued to carry out thier mission, whatever it was.
'The Premier Functionary' Gorelick had already done her damage. But, you can bet she was a "controller" on the commission too.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (House of Representatives)
Dan Burton (R-Ind.), May 10, 1996
Mr. BURTON of Indiana.
Mr. Speaker, last week I spoke about the new revelations that Mrs. Clinton's fingerprints were found on the billing records found in the White House. These records had been under subpoena by the special prosecutor for over 2 years, and they could not be found, and they turned up in the private living quarters of the First Lady and the President.
Today I would like to expand on this topic and raise some of the many, many unanswered questions that remain to be resolved. According to the Washington Post, the documents that were found in the Clinton's personal residence were copies and not the originals. The originals disappeared during the campaign for President in 1992. This raises a very serious question: Where are the originals? Who has the originals?
Individuals, I might add, who are intelligent, highly trained, competent professionals. Three of them willing to risk fast paced career tracks to advance the truth in this matter, all of which, are stating the same thing. No Ms. Chavez this isn't some run of the mill crime case where off the street witnesses are trying to recall details of an incident that occurred some five years earlier.
What the hell is the idea of the 3-5 letter column of print? You have to scroll forever to get down to where the printer friendly appears. Why not the whole damn site being USER!! friendly?? Sheer freaking stupidity !!!
Yesterday, the LATimes Terry McDermott came a few steps short of calling Weldon delusional. Thursday, Bill O'Reilly dismissed GORElick as being implicated.
I like Linda Chavez, but this is a lame article. Because she did not know Gorelick's CV, everyone else is probably wrong on some "facts" as well? The Washington Times has reporters who write really inside stuff about the Pentagon. Are they being asked by their sources to dampen this Able Danger story? Did they outsource this negative article to someone not connected to military reporting? If so, it is weird thinking.
And so the cover-up by the msm for Clinton continues.
Right, J.D. Smith the evidence continues to mount.
more here:
http://exposingtheleft.blogspot.com/2005/08/third-source-backs-able-danger-claims.html
why is chavez providing cover. Let the chips fall.
Bimp.
Wishful thinking blaming "memory tricks?"
So because Chavez herself mistated a fact to PBS, she concludes these three guys are confused and suffering from false memory syndromes. I don't think so, Linda babe.
This is such a weak, lame, pitiful attempt to discredit these guys. It amounts to, "I'm an asshole so that proves these guys are wrong."
Linda Chavez and the Washington Times are hardly MSM. Something else is in play. Perhaps just CIA or FBI or Pentagon bureaucrats defending themselves.
I think it's pretty obvious that's exactly what's going on. It will be interesting to see who is dishonest enough and weak enough to go along with it.
Throwing a bucket of water on these allegations so early is actually quite telling... for Chavez anyway. Like... maybe she has a dog in this fight?
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.