You should've reminded the audience that you own a Hummer! That really impresses folks. /i>
'Dog was an F-14 pilot, IIRC. Pukin Dog is the name/motto of an F-14 Squadron.
Bottom version is older.
Posted on 09/29/2005 6:37:50 PM PDT by strategofr
The Pentagon has decided to play games with the Able Danger story, virtually confirming the worst suspicions of just about everybody by first acknowledging that five of its team members recall identifying Mohammed Atta as a potential AQ terrorist a year prior to the attacks, and then forbidding these five witnesses from telling the Senate Judiciary Committee about the program.
The only thing that Donald Rumsfeld has accomplished with this strategy is to introduce real bipartisanship to the Judiciary Committee, which broadly scolded the DoD for pulling the witnesses from the hearing at the last minute:
The complaints came after the Pentagon blocked several witnesses from testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee at a public hearing on Wednesday. The only testimony provided by the Defense Department came from a senior official who would say only that he did not know whether the claims were true.
Five men and women in a highly-classified program, a status one only reaches by faithful and excellent service, tell the DoD that the program identified al-Qaeda's lead terrorists over a year prior to the attacks, and they're not sure whether it's true? That may be the most pathetic spin I've heard yet on Able Danger. If almost half the analysts in an intelligence group such as Able Danger cannot be trusted to remember something as significant as that, then the Pentagon has more problems than anyone realizes.
A Pentagon spokesman had said the decision to limit testimony was based on concerns about disclosing classified information, but Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said he believed the reason was a concern "that they'll just have egg on their face."
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, accused the Pentagon of "a cover-up" and said, "I don't get why people aren't coming forward and saying, 'Here's the deal, here's what happened.'"
Biden, as usual, speaks with equal disingeniuty. He understands perfectly well, at least in general, why the DoD won't produce the witnesses. It has little to do with specific intelligence exposure. After all, if the Senators want to discuss how the identifications worked, they would gladly go into closed session for that testimony.
What the Committee and the rest of us want is open testimony about what they found in relation to 9/11 and the known hijackers, who they identified, what they did with that information -- and who insisted on covering it up, both at the Pentagon and on the 9/11 Commission.
None of that comes under the heading of national security -- it falls into the category of covering some high-ranking ass.
Another reason for the sudden bipartisanship is the timeline of events, especially with the sudden stealth mode of Rumsfeld et al. The identification of the AQ operatives came in 2000, and the initial destruction of the data came in April 2000, as Eric Kleinsmith testified.
That would tend to point to the Clinton Administration as an obstructor. However, the program continued, allegedly predicting the USS Cole attack three weeks before it happened. Shaffer kept extensive files until February 2004, when they mysteriously disappeared after a dispute over a cell-phone bill with the DoD. That sequence happened on Bush's watch, and so does this ill-thought brinksmanship with the Senate.
The American people suffered the worst attack on our soil four years ago. We deserve answers about how that attack could have been prevented. The Pentagon has five witnesses that speak directly to that issue who have been prevented from speaking to the representatives of the people. Arlen Specter needs to subpoena those five witnesses, all of the senior officers in the chain of command for Able Danger, and Donald Rumsfeld himself to answer for why the Pentagon will not cooperate. Four years of hiding Able Danger is long enough. Thursday, September 22, 2005
It warms my heart also that someone had the info. All I could think of at the time "And we are paying thousands of people for the security of our country and no one had a clue that this could happen???''
And so what? What if it does? What should be done? Are you suggesting we should damage our national security apparatus, just so that we can go after those bastards?
Look, what I am saying may appear condescending to many on this thread and that is not my intent, but the fact remains that we put people in place to make these decision who are better able to do so than we are. If what we are saying here(and that is what it seems) is that we should not trust Bush or Rumsfeld because they are keeping secrets from us.
That is DU-type thinking, something I hope would be discouraged here.
See a doctor.
But you already know that from the Democratic Party perspective, they believe what you just stated is the truth. You can beat them in one of two ways, you can vote them out of power over time, or you can create the worlds biggest $hitstorm, and damage your own side in the fallout.
Those who operated this program seem not to have this concern and since it was devised, at least in part, by civilians the secrecy is suspect. Since it occured under the Clinton administration you can assume that there was no secrecy at all.
Besides since the data comes from everyday activities it is not likely the terrorists could do anything about it becoming public.
You will find no member here more concerned about National Security or who would compromise it in anyway (not even to hand traitorous RATs) than I and I do not see this as a serious concern here.
Many on 'our side' need to be equally outted, but I agree, it is a whirlwind.
There appears to be no reason why the killing of distant relations to a translator would be part of a Islamic conspiracy. That requires far more of a stretch than I am capable.
Most of the early speculation was that the family was Coptic and speaking out about the religion of Terror.
Are you fearful that some very high-ups have done something so wrong that not only would they have to pay the piper, but W himself?
I am not. We would (and incidently DO) rally around him when he makes mistakes. While they have the MSM, WE have the sites, the blogs, the forums to protect him.
I fear that there are people in this admin who have made very serious mistakes, and will continue to make them BECAUSE they are not called to account by us.
>>>>distant relations
Close community. Distance only in blood removal. Otherwise, very close.
::away from keyboard::
It hasn't even been *alleged* that the ~plans~ for 9/11 were known or even could have possibly come up in Able Danger. Just the players. We already know that information was not being shared with the FBI. That was institutional, and simply finding out that some other tidbit of information was *also* not shared shouldn't surprise anyone.
bttt = Bump To The Top
"Are you fearful that some very high-ups have done something so wrong that not only would they have to pay the piper, but W himself?"
Yes. The media would jump on it, and the attack would be more vicious and relentless than we've ever witnessed before. There wouldn't be enough defense or rallying by the Right to overcome the attack by the Left in order to save him. Just look what they've done to his pole numbers.
So who's worried?
The equal application of the guillotine made France what it is today. Who, me, worry?
I do have an idea, more than an idea in fact. You don't know, or have forgotten where I worked and what sort of people I worked with.
This is not conspiracy stuff, but don't think for a moment that orgs like the CIA and NSA very much appreciate the public perception of them not being very effective
Actually in one way, they are very glad of it.
That said, they can't hide incompetence, or worse, behind a veil of secrecy, not from Congress they can't. At times, more so recently, that's unfortunate, but it's also the way it must be, if we are to remain a Free Republic.
The thought did occur to me. But how does protecting sources and methods apply to methods that are known and sources that are open? Especially when they are so voluminous, no one who doesn't run their own program can every figure out which source provided the information.
Doesn't apply to non open source stuff of course. Like I said, one needs to be careful, but that doesn't mean one has to "trust" without some "verify" to go with it.
They don't need to get into sources and methods, only facts of what info was know such as presence of Atta, who and why data was ordered destroyed, who at FBI or Clinton administration rebuffed handoff to FBI.
These are not security concerns to get those findings.
No it has been alleged, that terrorists were operating in USA to take out high profile targets. Reports that suspected terror operatives were in flight school has been reported several times after 911, with reference to pre-911 suspicions.
We already know info was not shared with FBI? Did you read Weldon's statements that Pentagon tried to handoff to FBI but were told to squelch? This is not security concern, this is accountability concern. Who ordered Pentagon to back off from FBI? Who in FBI were told to back off from Pentagon handoff?
That's why people need the hearings, to assure accountability.
No, they don't need to. But they certainly will.
The first defense will be to attack the messenger, question their motives and sources. They will claim that any information gathered would be inadmissible, in that how it was gathered might violate an individual civil rights.
And, they would likely be right.
Then comes the ACLU and others demanding to know how certain information was gathered. Do you want that? I don't think you do. Unfortunately, this is the world we live in.
'Dog was an F-14 pilot, IIRC. Pukin Dog is the name/motto of an F-14 Squadron.
Bottom version is older.
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.