Posted on 08/31/2005 8:26:49 AM PDT by johnny7
Curt Weldon continues to flog the 9/11 Commission over its failure to investigate information from the Able Danger military intelligence unit that allegedly identified Mohamed Atta more than a year before the 9/11 attacks.
A third member of the Able Danger team has now come forward to add his name to the growing list of those that say they recall Atta’s name being on a chart of Brooklyn cell terrorists. J.D. Smith, a civilian defense contractor told reporters last week that he is "absolutely positive that he (Atta) was on our chart among other pictures and ties that we were doing mainly based upon (terror) cells in New York City."
(Excerpt) Read more at zwire.com ...
*****************************************
This news report in the Philadelphia Times Herald might shock the average reader, but its subject is surely familiar to longtime readers of Antiwar.com:
"A memorandum sent to the 9/11 Commission, and Senate and House intelligence committees in September 2004, suggests that young Israelis ...
The "Able Danger" data-mining operation that supposedly uncovered the New Jersey cell of the 9/11 plotters was – for some reason yet to be determined – blocked and prevented from apprehending key figures in the plot, according to the testimony of at least three people who have direct knowledge of this matter. Shea's memo opens up a possibility that may relate to (and explain) the "Able Danger" blockage: was surveillance of Arab terrorist groups in the U.S. subcontracted out to the Israelis, with the knowledge and complicity of the CIA, so that "Able Danger" was considered poaching on the Israelis' preserve? Shea cites a piece in The Forward that describes Israeli covert activities in the U.S. as a violation of "a secret gentleman's agreement between the two countries," ...
a message from your Antiwar.com scumbags
Hmmm, maybe it's time to taker a leaf out of Dan Rather's book and "recreate" the memo.
After all, once it is proven to be a forgery, we can still ascert that the content was correct....
We already know exactly what Berglar took and why...pay close attention to the last para on the Clarke/Kerrick memo. From Ashcroft's testimony:
The NSC's Millennium After Action Review declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999 — with luck playing a major role. Among the many vulnerabilities in homeland defenses identified, the Justice Department's surveillance and FISA operations were specifically criticized for their glaring weaknesses. It is clear from the review that actions taken in the Millennium Period should not be the operating model for the U.S. government.
In March 2000, the review warns the prior Administration of a substantial al Qaeda network and affiliated foreign terrorist presence within the U.S., capable of supporting additional terrorist attacks here. [My note: AD info?]
Furthermore, fully seventeen months before the September 11 attacks, the review recommends disrupting the al Qaeda network and terrorist presence here using immigration violations, minor criminal infractions, and tougher visa and border controls.
It falls directly into the AD timeline. In that same post, I note that what Sandy Berger stole was the versions of the after action report:
The missing copies, according to Breuer and their author, Richard A. Clarke, the counterterrorism chief in the Clinton administration and early in President Bush's administration, were versions of after-action reports recommending changes following threats of terrorism as 1999 turned to 2000. Clarke said he prepared about two dozen ideas for countering terrorist threats. The recommendations were circulated among Cabinet agencies, and various versions of the memo contained additions and refinements, Clarke said last night.
Therefore, they were never provided to the Commission, as evidenced by the Commission Report footnotes (#769):
46. NSC email, Clarke to Kerrick,“Timeline,”Aug. 19, 1998; Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004). We did not find documentation on the after-action review mentioned by Berger. On Vice Chairman Joseph Ralston’s mission in Pakistan, see William Cohen interview (Feb. 5, 2004). For speculation on tipping off the Taliban, see, e.g., Richard Clarke interview (Dec. 18, 2003).And to what does footnote (46) refer? On p. 117, Chapter 4, we find this:
Later on August 20, Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles. Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed. Berger told us that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20–30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours. Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan’s army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin. (46)How about that? How many times have we heard Clinton say that he missed Bin Ladin by just a few hours? Yet the after-action report is missing, so the Commission relied on Sandy Berger's testimony.
Then the Clarke/Kerrick memo peaked my interest and I found this (#784):
Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him asylum." Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.Kerry and crew could not afford to have this info come out before the election.
Then why bother to post?
Whatever the problem is... it always comes back to... 'those people'!
What he destroyed was according to him...copies of the same memo. Except, did they have DIFFERENT initials or notes on them...like Bubba's comments?? Clarke's comments??
Two people were "specifically" protected during those hearings. One was Clarke. The other was Bubba.
Who ordered Berger to lift the documents. It HAD to be Bubba, Clarke or Hillary. Sandy had the archivist call Bubba's attorney rather than notify the FBI.
Both Hillary and Bubba were toooo nonchalant when referring to Berger's heist.
Oh they'll find a way to spin this on Bush; that's one thing I never forget about the Bush-bashing left. But the other reason they are blind to this and all conservative-reported news is the Michael Moore and the mainstream media makes sure to make FOX news and the FReepers look like biased news sources to the mainstream audiences. I have talked to many kids in my old middle school, (I was the only self respecting conservative there) and they all think that Bush is really a drunk, stupid, crackhead. See while we won our big victory over Carter, the left took over the media. Excuse me I need to go vent.
OK done venting.
I'm afraid you're right. What with Katrina and gas prices, it ain't goin' nowhere!
Actually it does leave us the truth. I just don't see the MSM or Rats running with the truth.
Your link isn't a spoof is it? http://www.aspenpublishers.com/product.asp?catalog_name=Aspen&category_name=Evidence+16GJ&product_id=0735545499&cookie%5Ftest=1
DU doesn't have time for Able Danger. They are too busy running threads about comments that were pulled from threads on FR and talking about what horrible people we are and using the f-word as much as possible. Real critical thought there on the Left.
Destruction of Evidence
by Jamie S. Gorelick, Stephen Marzen, Esq., Lawrence B. Solum
List Price: $230.00
ISBN: 0735545499
Format: Hardcover
Latest Supplemented Date: 6/6/2005
Holy Sheeet! Hopefully someone from the Congressional committee that subpoenas her, will hold a copy of this text up to the cameras as he starts asking her questions about her participation in the cover-up.
Great find!
No, it's quite real - I remembered seeing that book on her C.V. and looked it up..... it's more about what kinds of records corporations must retain and what kinds they can destroy, but the title is, let us say, PROVOCATIVE and EVOCATIVE......
By the way, don't miss Jamie Gorelick and the FANNIE MAY scandal:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1310839/posts
i know what you mean. however we have all seen what happens to lump intel dumps i. e. the after attack atta info . it's to much for most good folks. i know it looks like water torture but it,s best that he answers each attack as they come up. winning on each point provides new discussion on prior points and creates clarity. each time a point is challenged weldon shoots it down with new info. this should open up after labor day. by then sheehan will be old news and the press can get busy blaming bush for this latest disaster.
No spoof. I remember that her book was discussed when Gorelick's place on the Commmission and the wall was up the first time.
Still a good find. Some of us (eg: I) needed to be reminded.
What an irony, isn't it?
We don't need to stoop to the gutter like the Dan Rather's of the world, to prove we have the real truth.
bttt
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.