Posted on 09/24/2005 10:55:28 AM PDT by wagglebee
The Washington Post is challenging the credibility of five members of the Army's elite Able Danger intelligence unit, saying there's no evidence they ever produced a chart identifying lead hijacker Mohamed Atta as a terrorist threat.
The paper declined, however, to dispute the authenticity of a videotape showing a copy of the Able Danger chart, which was displayed by Rep. Curt Weldon during a May 2002 speech to the Heritage Foundation.
Launching the attack in Saturday editions, the Post insisted that investigators and counterterrorism experts find it "improbable -- if not impossible -- that an obscure Defense Department program that used open-source records could identify Atta by name and photograph in early 2000 when he was living in Germany under a different name and had yet to obtain a U.S. visa."
The paper sought to portray Rep. Weldon as a crackpot, saying:
"Weldon is a controversial figure who is vice chairman of the House homeland security and armed services committees and is known for carrying a replica of a suitcase nuclear bomb. His book, which devoted one paragraph to the claim about Atta, focused primarily on allegations by an Iranian intelligence source whom the CIA has dismissed as a fabricator."
Without offering any examples, the Post said Able Danger witnesses had changed their stories:
"Weldon and others who have made the charges have contradicted themselves or provided shifting explanations for important details at the heart of the case, according to interviews, news reports, transcripts and hearing testimony."
Most damaging to Weldon's claims, the paper said, was the denial it obtained from National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley on Friday - whose spokesman challenged Weldon's assertion that he had given Hadley a copy of the Atta chart two weeks after the 9/11 attacks.
"Mr. Hadley does not recall any chart bearing the name or photo of Mohamed Atta," Frederick L. Jones II told the paper. "NSC staff reviewed the files of Mr. Hadley as well as of all NSC personnel. That search has turned up no chart."
The Post also quoted former 9/11 Commissioner Slade Gorton, who declared: "No evidence turns up to corroborate what people think they saw."
In fact, the video of Weldon's Heritage Foundation speech offers strong - albeit circumstantial - evidence that the Able Danger chart did indeed exist - and that it identified lead hijacker Atta.
After unveiling the chart during his presentation, Weldon explained: "I went to the White House. I don't mean to embarrass this guy cause he's a good friend of mine. But I took a mini version of this chart in Nov. [2001] and I turned it over to him - Steve Hadley, who works directly for [then-National Security Advisor] Condi Rice."
While the online version of the Heritage video is too blurry to make out details of the chart, Weldon's description of Hadley's reaction suggests it contained shocking new information.
"This is unbelievable," Hadley allegedly said. "Where'd you get this?"
After being told about Able Danger, Weldon said Hadley told him: "I've got to show this to the man" - meaning President Bush.
In an interview last month, Able Danger Defense Department liaison Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer confirmed that the chart Weldon gave to Hadley featured a photo of Mohamed Atta.
Discussing the Atta chart with ABC Radio host Sean Hannity, Shaffer explained:
"Within two weeks of the attack, this colleague of mine ... she took that very poster to Congressman Weldon. And I have to say he took it right to [Stephen] Hadley, I believe, over at the NSC. It's my understanding that he gave him that chart and Hadley had a great deal of interest in it."
Though the online video of Weldon's Heritage speech isn't clear enough to discern the Atta photo, video enhancement techniques applied to the original recording may yield more than just circumstantial evidence that such a chart existed.
To view the online video of Rep. Weldon's May 23, 2002 Heritage Foundation address, go to: http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/2002archive.cfm He displays the Atta chart approximately 34 minutes into his presentation.
not my point....they are saying there was no documentary evidence of Able Danger- I'm looking for a link to see the CoPosts attitude towards the Dwoning Street memo...and the "minutes" were never presented...in fact they accuser said he destroyed them.
"the "minutes" were never presented...in fact they accuser said he destroyed them."
Off topic and slight nitpick, but this seems to be a common mistake. The journalist in question did not destroy any of the original copies of the minutes. They were photocopied and returned immediately. At some point he destroyed his photocopies, having transcribed them (presumably there was something on them which could potentially identify the source).
off topic??
I am comparing the ComPosts reaction to the Downing Street Memo vs. Able Danger...nothing off topic there.
As far as I remember, the reporter who "broke" the story destroyed the so-called memo to protect his source...
We both know damn well if there was any serious evidence of this it would be paraded around by the MSM....
"We both know damn well if there was any serious evidence of this it would be paraded around by the MSM...."
Like I said, there is no debate about the existence or authenticity of the minutes. Tony Blair confirmed in Parliament that the minutes had been submitted to the Butler Enquiry into the use of intelligence, that had occured several months before the leak of the contents.
When the post starts to scream turn the screw a little more.
bttt
Is there anyone that has the CSPAN copy of Weldon showing the chart? Destroyed or not, they cannot deny it existed... You can never destoy info completely... especially when there are so many greedy characters looking for leverage.
They did the same with all the swift boat vets.
Here is the link to when he displayed in a talk at the Heritage Foundation on May 23, 2002, he shows it about 34 minutes into the speech.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/2002archive.cfm
I agree with you totally. It's a given that the media is biased in favor of Democrats and liberals. And the media is also intellectually dishonest.
Polygraph these bozos to get the truth.
1. If Weldon gave the chart to Hadley in 2001, how could Weldon have it at the Heritage Foundation in 2002? Evidently Weldon did not keep a copy because I saw him on C-SPAN the other day displaying a chart that he admitted was a reconstruction.
2. Supposing that Weldon gave Hadley a chart showing Mohammad Atta two weeks after September 11th as he claims, this still would not prove that Atta was identified before September 11th.
bttt
Do you believe Weldon is being dishonest?
The paper declined, however, to dispute the authenticity of a videotape showing a copy of the Able Danger chart, which was displayed by Rep. Curt Weldon during a May 2002 speech to the Heritage Foundation.
the chart in 2002 was a copy of the 2001 chart
If he had a copy in 2002, what happened to it? Why did he need to reconstruct the chart recently? The original chart was supposed to have a picture of Atta that is different from the one we are all familiar with. What happened to that picture?
It's hard to tell what is going on. Weldon appears sincere and the Pentagon definitely appears to be withholding something, but Weldon doesn't seem to have much to back up his claims. When I have heard Lt. Col. Shaffer speaking, he also seemed to also be presenting somewhat vague second-hand information. I think that we will have to wait for more concrete information to come out at which time it will become clear if anyone is dishonest, mistaken, or nutty.
"Weldon is a controversial figure who is vice chairman of the House homeland security and armed services committees and is known for carrying a replica of a suitcase nuclear bomb."
Actually, that sounds cool!
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.