Posted on 09/27/2005 8:39:39 AM PDT by vadkins
First, to debunk the myths:
As best as I can determine, having spent tens of hours talking to military sources involved with the issue, intelligence analysts did not identify anyone prior to 9/11, Mohammed Atta included, as a suspect in any upcoming terrorist attack. It is not even clear that a "Mohammed Atta" was identified, let alone that it is the same Atta who died on 9/11. No military lawyers prevented intelligence sleuths from passing useful information to the FBI. Able Danger itself was not an intelligence program. As a representative of U.S. Special Operations Command said at a special Pentagon briefing arranged on September 1, Able Danger "was merely the name attributed to a 15-month planning effort" to begin building a war on terrorism. This is the real story.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.washingtonpost.com ...
Oops, the Wash Post is in full counterspin mode. Able Danger must be posing a danger to the Clintonistas.
No, Really? Ya Think?
It should read--"...having spent tens of hours figuring out how to continue shilling for the Clintons..."
Name names. Sorry but when the Dinasour Press refuses to name any sources, I smell Rathergate. How do we know this butt monkey is not just making it all up like Rather did?
First, Arkin is a liar.
This is the way it is, pay NO attention to the man behind the curtain.
The first on "Able Danger"? This is a coverup. Arkin is not a credible journalist.
Hillary's chances for being elected to the presidency hangs on this nail.
The media will do all they can to help her.
This guy is a lefty nutcase with a big agenda. He used to have a regular column in the Wash Po which dumped him. It is interesting that they are agin ptinting his garbage.
Clinton Defense League?
Yep, when you read the whole article including his links to the sources you see how clearly Arkin is putting his own spin on the issue NOT reporting what is actually said. He claims "Able Danger" is nothing. His sources are saying "we cannot prove anything about Able Danger at this time" Those are two vastly different interpretations of the facts. Clearly Arkin just wants it to go away becuase he is afraid of what is yet to come out.
He's spinning worse than Linda Blair in the Exorcist, LOL! Love the part where he cites the 9/11 Omission Commission as proof.
Like I'm gonna believe ONE SINGLE WORD that the WaPo publishes? Yeah, right.
10/23/2003:[LGF] Who Is William Arkin?
In a great piece at the Weekly Standard, Hugh Hewitt exposes the agenda of Los Angeles Times military affairs columnist William Arkin, the man who engineered the LA Times hit piece on Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin: Who Is William Arkin?
Arkin is a veteran of four years in the Army (he served from 1974 to 1978) and many of his bylines from the past two decades described him as a "military intelligence analyst" during his service (his rank and units are not readily apparent). He received his BS from the University of Maryland.
His employment since leaving the service is easier to trace. Arkin cut his teeth with the lefty Institute for Policy Studies, and went from there to positions with Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Human Rights Watch. He has been a regular columnist for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. In recent years he has taken more mainstream work as a senior fellow at the School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University (he appears to do most of his writing not from the SAIS campus, but from his home in Vermont).
He is also the regular military affairs columnist for the Los Angeles Times (what a surprise that the Times employs a Greenpeace alum as its military guru) and a commentator for MSNBC.
ARKIN TOLD ME he got his tip on Boykin's faith talks from a Pentagon source, which suggests that the general has an enemy inside the Pentagon. But if, as most of Boykin's critics have argued, the danger presented by the general's private talks about his faith is their effect on the Islamic world, then why did Arkin rush to publicize these private, little-noticed talks that he believes will hurt the U.S. abroad?
The answer is best found in Arkin's own speech to an audience at the U.S. Naval War College on September 25, 2002. In this lengthy and vitriolic attack on the Bush administration, Arkin admitted to feeling "cynical about the fact that we are going to war to enhance the economic interests of the Enron class," and declared that "the war against terrorism is overstated." Arkin believed, in fact, that the war "is not the core United States national security interest today." He rhetorically asked the audience: "Aren't I just another leftist, self-hating American?" and condemned the administration for taking "enormous liberties with American freedoms."
Read it all. Another disgraceful mark against the LA Times; their idea of a credible military analyst is a far left anti-military activist.
This guy is ignoring the facts of the case. He is purposely make crap up now.
I'd already found this thread and was deciding if it was worthy of an MI Ping.
Comments are open at Arkin's blog post at:
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/09/the_secret_hist.html#comment-9790197
I've taken the opportunity to leave a comment there.
Pajama people rule!
I see Sandy Berger had the effort 'compartmentalized'. I wonder if the papers he stole and destroyed have anything to do with 'Able Danger'? Maybe one was the chart produced showing the Brooklyn cell with Atta and his co-horts? The Clinton lagacy lives on.
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.