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
Weldon is being very short-sighted here. He will do MUCH more harm than good if he is successful.
bump
"It is fascinating how far other posters are willing to let the gov't go in the name of partisan politics, isn't it?"
Indeed. Haven't you ever participated in an illegal immigration thread? The same can be said about some posters there as well.
Interesting to me that just now when the DOD is tryng to put a lid on the investigation of AbleDanger headed by Curt Weldon, they suddenly announce that they are going full-speed into production of the Osprey airplane/helicopter which has a history of crashes, but which has major portions constructed in Morton, Delaware County, Penna., represented by Curt Weldon....I wonder.......
I will cede your points at this time...I just Pray that the Powers-That-Be will do everything they can to win and not do just enough not to lose.
I have to assume, Pukin, that people in the Pentagon are putting out the word to anyone who'll listen that this is a story no one wants made public. I have to assume that's folks like Podhoretz and Krauthammer are saying this is not a story to be looked into. Because sources in the Pentagon are telling them that. Now, if the reason is that the Bush Administration is covering something up, that's not a good enough reason for not letting the story come out. It would have to be something on the order of the downfall of the Republic to justify not letting this information be made public.
It doesn't matter what the Democrats do with the information, because they are flakey to begin with and will simply make up stuff to accuse the Administration with. They've been doing that for five years. So I don't see any justification for not having public hearings. I think Clinton was a complete failure in dealing with terrorism, despite whatever myth he and the Democrats are trying to create now.
Oh Lord, now we're worried about what the Democrats will do? The Democrats got us into this hole in the first place! The exact solution to the problem is to tell the Democrats to shut up, we're going to defend the country whether they like it or not. Dealing with terrorists in this country sometimes require measures we wouldn't ordinarily take.
It can be, but from all we've heard, not in this case. They may have used some classified information, but almost all of what they used was unclassified open source information.
It would expose how well that sort of technique works, but considering that the technique itself is also "open source" and fairly common the world of marking and business research, I can't imagine that being a critical bit of information either.
But if there is something, then there are methods of dealing with it. Closed sessions, and so forth. Or they can just be primed not to ask those questions.
Since the bulk of the data used is open source, and the information itself need not be revealed, just the conclusions from it, and when they were made, the chances of revealing anything to Osama are small to nonexistent.
Yeas it's sources and methods stuff, but the sources are available to anyone, and the methods are pretty much so.
But bad for who? Some politicians, some military brass, or the country?
Heck if it's bad for Osama, or Hillary, that's actually Very Good. If it's bad for George H.W. Bush, well the country will recover from that, although maybe not from the fallout if that results in President Hillary. But I'll wager that if it's bad for Bush, it's horrific for Her Highness.
What do mean again? By all measures we didn't protect ourselves this time. That's a dangerous precedent too you know.
I still think the sources and methods, since they are *generally* known, can have their critical details protected. Heck we revealed stuff we got from satellite intell all the time, while not revealing just how good it was. (i.e. could you count the hairs on a gnat's ass, or only the number of gnats, or only infer the presence of large cloud of gnats, say from it's shadow). We also sanitized a lot of stuff to "collateral clearance" level from compartmented source information, while still protecting those sources and methods.
Not necessarily, Members of Congress don't need clearances. Although in the good old days, there were gentleman's agreements allowing for restriction of access to certain information to only a small group of CongressCritters.
But , as I was shocked learn upon being "read in" to a moderately restrictive compartment for the first time, that is Red Ron Dellums *asked* for a particular piece of classified information, we'd have to give it to him, but he would have to ask and ask in a very specific manner.
bttt
Wolf
Oh sure! I always heed the word of a poster on the Internet, especially one with a catchy monicker like Pukin' Dog.
You should've reminded the audience that you own a Hummer! That really impresses folks.
Now tell us why your post means more than the cost of dirt, if you can be bothered to do so.
Oh, I see. We need to protect the Government's (all bow) secrets regarding how it obtains personal information on people, in order to "Protect Ourselves Against Terrorists".
Pray tell, sir, how we may at the same time, while protecting the Government's ability in this manner, which would of course never be abused while Conservatives are in power, protect ourselves from its eventual abuse by evil Liberals?
Hmmmm?????
Well, Mr. Poindexter?
Well, I have to be careful here, but let me just ask you, do you think that there might be reasons why we have not been attacked again since 9-11? Do you think that the terrorists haven't tried? If so, you would be wrong. You will never be told just how many times, or even more importantly, exactly HOW terrorist attacks on this country have been stopped before they could be carried out. But, I guarantee you that if the Democrats need to let this information become public to protect themselves from blame, they will do so.
You will have to forgive me for assuming that every FReeper by now knows that I used to work in the Pentagon. But, that is just a small unimportant detail. But don't call Pukin Dog a 'moniker', as it happens to be the name of the last squadron I was a member of. I don't post anything here to impress anyone. If you have a disagreement with me, I suggest you keep it on the level. If you want to get personal, I think you would regret that, so we wont go there. You don't have to agree with anything I write, but don't become a jerk over it.
The government would be very happy to know you believe that. If you had any idea of the number and severity of national secrets kept by our government, I promise you, you would not want to get out of bed in the morning. 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.
bttt
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.