Atta files destroyed by Pentagon

The Washington Times ^ | 9-22-25 | Bill Gertz

[STARWISE]

Ping - to #155, Peach.

This CANNOT be allowed to die. Dear Lord, please protect Rep. Curt Weldon .... his ire are fury are being more stoked every day, and I pray he doesn't give up... and that he's not the only "official" who's outraged by this blatant coverup.

Representative Curt Weldon, R-Pa., testifies on 'Able Danger' and intelligence sharing prior to the Sept. 11 attacks before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Sept. 21, 2005. James Smith, second from left, and Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, center, listen in the background, Both men were ordered by the Pentagon not to testify. A staff member holds an Al-Qaeda organizational chart at right.

[RatsDawg]

I remember when this story first broke this summer, and Rummy said he knew nothing about AD, was he being honest when he said that?

And I would like to know more about the training of AQ by the US during the Bosnia "war". I find that interesting.

[RatsDawg]

I remember when this story first broke this summer, and Rummy said he knew nothing about AD, was he being honest when he said that?

And I would like to know more about the training of AQ by the US during the Bosnia "war". I find that interesting.

[Peach]

I join you in that prayers, Starwise. Our soldiers have given their lives to protect us and we have career bureaucrats who won't give up a few hours and risk ANYTHING.

[Dat Mon]

Your AD posts are direct, sincere, and logical.

Our God given brains and common sense will get us through the spin and misdirection.

Its not that complicated to figure out whats what..what we cant determine with certainty RIGHT NOW is the WHY.

Take one aspect of the AD hearings...

Were Posse Comitatus violations involved in any of the decisions to terminate Able Danger or destroy the data...NO

Was Atta a US Person....NO (DOD weenie sure hated to admit that, didnt he!)

Was Able Danger a legitimate counter terrorism operation..OF COURSE...they later gave a briefing to Shelton, logical since his directive set up AD.

So why were AD data and documents destroyed MULTIPLE TIMES (2000,2001,2004)...and the program terminated...did anyone provide a logical explanation...NO! All they offered were vague references to a couple DOD / Armey policies which all have the applicability criteria of US PERSON plainly stated...or so I read it. Obviously, the program was terminated for reasons other than Atta...a NON US person.

Is National Security an issue...NO

Specter, Kyl,Weldon all have high security clearances...its part of their job to deal with intelligence matters, they are not Leahy, and they presumably know what constitutes a security violation. All felt comfortable with the notion of AD open hearings. Kyl stated that the obvious stuff would be discussed in closed door sessions...IF it came to that.

What kind of stuff needs to be kept behind closed doors?

a) Anything related to specifics of the AD computer program(s), the data collection process, the nature of the algorithm(s), the types of open source data and qualifiers used for analysis, and the computer and network configuration. Nobody in the room would have permitted disclosure of such technical data. But why would it even come up? Is that type of technical detail needed to get the basic questions we have identified with AD answered...NO.

b) Discussion of specifics of related ongoing intelligence programs which utilize AD methods or techniques. Again...nobody in that room would go there. We're not interested in other ongoing intelligence programs.

c) Naming of active terrorists identified by AD who are part of ongong investigations..particularly if they are unaware of their surveillance status. Again...its obvious..we dont care about specific named terrorists...OTEHR than those who were identified by AD and are already deceased by virtue of 9-11, or the Cole bombing.

Let me comment on what I find to be a particularly bad argument...the idea that talking about what happened with AD will somehow compromise the ongoing WOT.

Think about it...we had at one time a powerful intelligence tool in the WOT...it was AD...and it was proven (according to those who werent permitted to testify) to be effective in isolating and identifying terrorists. What did we do with this great tool... WE KILLED IT...DESTROYED IT... made it UNAVAILABLE to other agencies including an agency which could really have made use of this technology...the FBI. (Check my post on the Virtual Case File SNAFU)

And apparently to compound the error...we then go all out to make sure AD never sees the public light of day...WHY?

Talking about this WOT SNAFU compromises the WOT?...How so? Perhaps its because we dont want the enemy to know how clueless we really were /are.

So why did we have the 9-11 Commission PUBLIC hearings? Talk about presenting a clueless image to the terrorists!

In closing, note that when we talk about 'supporting the troops'...we should also include in particular, a couple of decorated career military officers, who IMO are the real deal...guys who are putting it all on the line for what they believe in...just as they would if put in harms way.

Dont underestimate the significance of taking a retired career military intelligence officer and REVOKING his clearances...you have just taken away his post military career...his livelihood. For doing something to INCREASE the security of this country...not DIMINISH it.

Lets contrast this with another person...who will have his clearances reinstated in just THREE YEARS for the worst possible in your face violations or security protocols.

Is it fair...is it logical....are y'all buyin' it?

NO WAY.

[T. Buzzard Trueblood]

Especially on a threat concerning Clinton administration actions.

[T. Buzzard Trueblood]

Correction, my bad. Should read "thread concerning Clinton administration actions."

[Peach]

Most of us get it -- what's going on with the AD stuff. I see that you get it too. Good post.

[untrained skeptic]

"Your argument doesn't work for me. It implies that the Bush administration, somehow, does not have the ability to find out what happened. This clearly seems to be false. That is the point. We don't know what happened because the Bush administration does not want us to know."

Or we don't know what happened, because this is currently being investigated. Investigations take time, and it's not wise for the people doing the investigation to leak information while it's being investigated.

At this point, we simply don't know.

[William Terrell]

Perhaps because a certain group knew he would hit something in the country and wanted him to.

[Enchante]

"Dont underestimate the significance of taking a retired career military intelligence officer and REVOKING his clearances...you have just taken away his post military career...his livelihood. For doing something to INCREASE the security of this country...not DIMINISH it. Lets contrast this with another person...who will have his clearances reinstated in just THREE YEARS for the worst possible in your face violations or security protocols."

Yes, the contrast between the shabby treatment of Col. Shaffer for sticking his own neck far out to try to SAVE an important national security initiative vs. the kid-gloves treatment of Sandy Burglar (and many others) who have helped the Clintonistas to OBSTRUCT national security is just too disgusting for words. Say, liberals are supposed to love 'whistleblowers' ..... why aren't they rallying to the cause of the AD folks??? Ah, yes, it's only when a whistleblower is a left-wing bozo like Joe Wilson or Daniel Ellsberg that we can praise and defend them.....

[strategofr]

"Especially on a threat concerning Clinton administration actions."

Sorry, without a lead-in quote (as I have done above) I don't know what you're referring to.