9/11 relatives charge cover-up

WASHINGTON -- Sept. 11 family members are protesting a reported Pentagon attempt to close this week's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on a claim that military intelligence had lead hijacker Mohammed Atta in its sights as early as 1999.

"They want to sweep it under the rug," said Joan Molinaro, a former Eltingville resident, whose firefighter son was killed at Ground Zero.

"They have been denying this Atta thing up, down and sideways for weeks," she said. "And now they want to cover it up."

Bruce DeCell of Dongan Hills, who lost a son-in-law and cousin at the World Trade Center, said he has wearied of attempts by government officials to suppress 9/11-related information. "They always plead national security," he said. "But 9/11 was about national security and 3,000 people died because they let it happen."

"It would be a travesty to keep the facts surrounding this operation from the public," said Kristen Breitweiser of New Jersey, who lost her husband at Ground Zero.

Judiciary Committee sources confirmed that the Pentagon was negotiating with panel members on whether the testimony of some witnesses due to appear at tomorrow's hearing could involve classified information and should be taken in private session.

But at this point, the committee intends to conduct an open hearing, the sources said.

Aides to Republican Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, who requested the hearing, said it was "news to us" that the session might be closed. "It's still public as far as we know," said John Tomaszewski, a Weldon spokesman.

Weldon has claimed that a military intelligence program known as Able Danger identified Atta as a member of al-Qaida in late 1999 while he was living in this country.

The claim conflicts with the 9/11 commission's finding last year that Atta did not enter the United States to start taking flight courses until June 2000 and that he did not appear on the radar screen of U.S. intelligence until he flew American Flight 11 into the Trade Center's North Tower.

Members of the now disbanded commission and the Pentagon have dismissed Weldon's claim as bogus, saying that no confirmation could be found despite a massive search of Pentagon files and numerous interviews with military intelligence officials.

"Bluntly, it just did not happen," said commissioner Slade Gorton, a former senator from Washington State, at a press conference here last week.

Weldon has said a Pentagon employee is prepared to testify at the hearing that he was ordered to destroy a large volume of Able Danger documents, including those mentioning Atta.

FYI, I heard that Berger cooperated with the FBI and prosecutors. What he stole was related to AD, that is most likely why his sentencing was delayed right after the AD story broke. They were probably considering extra charges for perjury in front of the 9/11 Commission. From my files:

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.

Post #745

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.

Clinton let Bin Laden go to Afghanistan and from there he planned 9/11. It also shows the Iraq connection. Kerry and crew could not afford to have this info come out before the election, so they sent the Bergler in.

Keep up, will ya? {wink, wink}

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.