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
Biden would accuse a sandwich of a cover up if he thought it would get him some TV time.
"And in this case, we need not proble sources and methods. We need only examine the decision process leading to destroying data and to failure to communicate threats to domestic investigative agencies e.g. FBI."
Completely correct.
"See a doctor."
LOL!
"We would (and incidently DO) rally around him when he makes mistakes."
I agree. And the damage to Clinton would be much greater than to Bush. Normally, you could say "Clinton" is in the past, so less important. But we have another Clinton coming up, so dealing with the previous one is vital.
It depends. Did the Clinton enablers help cause 9/11? If so, I don't want Hillary to have the opportunity to have more Clinton enablers in power to help cause another 9/11...
I look at this Able Danger thing as a big circle.
Yep...
Heh, you are the one that wants to restrict their "choice" in electing CongressCritters to folks who are not currently holding that office, or have ever held it (not sure what you meant by limiting to a single term, that is ever or consecutively). Not that I didn't pretty much agree. :)
If most people could usually tell when the Democrats were lying, they wouldn't get away with it, but they too often do.
Even if they don't pay much attention until just before the elections, they still vote on their perceptions of the threats to their wallets, security and a distance last, their freedom. Those perceptions are formed by what they hear, see and read when they aren't necessarily paying much attention, as well as when they are.
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.