9/11 panel to single out FBI

The web site dig here

the ten commissioners have formed a 501(c)(3) organization - the 9-11 Public Discourse Project - aimed at fulfilling the 9-11 Commission's original mandate of guarding against future terrorist attacks, while adhering strictly to the same bipartisan and independent principles that have guided it over the last twenty months. This new organization, intended to remain in effect for one year, consists of the same leadership of the 9-11 Commission, including its commissioners, who now serve as the Board of Directors of the 9-11 Public Discourse Project.

The 9/11 Public Discourse Project wishes to thank those who have contributed funding for the Project.

Contributors

The 9-11 Public Discourse Project wishes to thank the following funders:

The America Prepared Campaign, Inc.

The Carnegie Corporation of New York

Drexel Family Foundation

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

John S. and Lames L. Knight Foundation

Rockefeller Brothers Fund

Smith Richardson Foundation, Inc.

http://www.9-11pdp.org/about/index.htm

A Freeper link to one of the players.

he America Prepared Campaign and the 9/11 Public Discourse Project have partnered to educate the American people about terrorism and preparedness. For more information about personal preparedness, visit www.ready.gov.

Board of Directors

Thomas H. Kean
Lee H. Hamilton
Richard Ben-Veniste
Fred F. Fielding
Jamie S. Gorelick
Slade Gorton
Bob Kerrey
John F. Lehman
Timothy J. Roemer
James R. Thompson

Staff
Christopher Kojm
President

Alexis Albion
Director of Policy

Dianna Campagna
Director of Finance and Operations

Al Felzenberg
Deputy and Senior Director for Communications

Adam Klein
Director of Communications

Michael Hurley
Senior Director of Policy

Erin Smith
Senior Assistant to the President

Thanks for the link. Just copying it over here for safe keeping.

Overview

The ten members of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (known as the 9-11 Commission) have initiated a nationwide public education campaign for the purpose of making America safer and more secure. In so doing, the commissioners will give people throughout America the opportunity to participate in a debate that has been limited largely to those inside the Washington Beltway.

Following the July 22, 2004, release of its official 567-page report, the 9-11 Commission, in accordance with its founding statute, disbanded as a government entity on August 21, 2004. All ten commissioners believe, however, that it is critical to educate the public on the issue of terrorism and what can be done to make the country safer. They would like to do so by reaching out, in bipartisan pairs, to communities around the country, encouraging a national conversation on these critical issues. In the absence of such an effort, they are concerned that there will be insufficient public examination of how the lessons learned from the terrorist attacks can be used to shape public policy. The perils of inaction are far too high-and the strategic value of the Commission's findings too important-for the work of 9-11 Commission not to continue.

For this reason, the ten commissioners have formed a 501(c)(3) organization - the 9-11 Public Discourse Project - aimed at fulfilling the 9-11 Commission's original mandate of guarding against future terrorist attacks, while adhering strictly to the same bipartisan and independent principles that have guided it over the last twenty months. This new organization, intended to remain in effect for one year, consists of the same leadership of the 9-11 Commission, including its commissioners, who now serve as the Board of Directors of the 9-11 Public Discourse Project.

The 9/11 Public Discourse Project wishes to thank those who have contributed funding for the Project.
Rationale for a Public Campaign

It is the consensus view of the 9-11 Commission members that there must be a national debate on how future attacks can be prevented, and that they can make an important contribution to this process. The rationale for this view is as follows:

* This is a critically important debate for the future of this nation, yet a greater percentage of the people need to participate in the consideration of the 9-11 Commission's findings and their implications for public policy. By engaging in a national education campaign, the commissioners hope to use the information and insights they developed to increase broader public understanding of these issues.
* The former Commissioners are independent and bipartisan. None of the commissioners holds public office. There are five Democrats and five Republicans who have worked together to produce a unanimous report, filed without dissent or separate views. Throughout, the commissioners' public appearances have been bipartisan.
* The need is immediate. The Commission has challenged policy-makers to consider its report and to act. Therefore, the moment for public education on these critical issues is now.

The Public Education Campaign

Led by Chair Thomas H. Kean and Vice Chair Lee H. Hamilton, the Board of Directors of the 9/11 Public Discourse Project will undertake a year-long, nationwide public education campaign, beginning in September 2004 in an effort to accomplish the following objectives:

* enhancing the understanding of American citizens of the nature of the terrorist threat;
* examining key policy issues contained in the 9-11 Commission's final report.

The campaign will target a variety of audiences, including the following:

* general public;
* national and local news media;
* think tank scholars;
* academic experts;
* former policymakers with national security interest;
* state and local policymakers;
* relevant trade groups and associations.

The project's small staff will:

* serve as an information clearing house - responding to public and media inquiries regarding the work of the 9-11 Commission;
* organize commissioner representation at town hall meetings - providing a public forum for citizens to evaluate how best to safeguard America;
* organize commissioner response to speaking opportunities - responding to requests for commissioners to speak at venues that will reach into universities, civic organizations and gatherings of opinion leaders;
* arrange editorial board meetings - informing the leadership of news outlets on the issues;
* respond to inquiries from executive and legislative policymakers - enunciating the findings and recommendations of the 9-11 Commission; and
* communicate directly with opinion leaders - conducting informational briefings with think tank scholars, academic leaders and other public policy experts.

The report ... will also criticize the White House for not doing enough to defend civil liberties and privacy rights as it expanded the government's surveillance powers after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Security isn't exactly Job One with these folks, is it?

They should just eliminate the B.S. and call it what it is, "The Leftist Agenda Promotion Commission."

communicate directly with opinion leaders - conducting informational briefings with think tank scholars, academic leaders and other public policy experts.

Report to their international masters.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1461549/posts

Great post Bronc1!

WELDON REJECTS 9/11 COMMISSION CLAIM THEY NEVER HEARD OF "ABLE DANGER"

WASHINGTON, D.C., Aug 10 - Today Congressman Curt Weldon (R-PA), Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees, sent the following letter to the Former 9/11 Commission Members, also known as the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, rejecting the Commission's claim that they were not briefed on "Able Danger".

In the letter, Congressman Weldon calls on the 9/11 Public Discourse Project to answer two fundamental questions:

#1) What lawyers in the Department of Defense made the decision in late 2000 not to pass the information from Able Danger to the FBI?

#2) Why did the 9-11 Commission staff not find it necessary to pass this information to the Commissioners, and why did the 9-11 Commission staff not request full documentation of Able Danger from the team member that volunteered the information?

Below is a copy of a letter sent by Congressman Curt Weldon to the Former 9/11 Commission members.

August 10, 2005

The Honorable Thomas H. Kean, Chairman
The Honorable Lee H. Hamilton, Vice Chairman

9/11 Public Discourse Project
One DuPont Circle, NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton:

I am contacting you to discuss an important issue that concerns the terrible events of September 11, 2001, and our country’s efforts to ensure that such a calamity is never again allowed to occur. Your bipartisan work on The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States shed light on much that was unclear in the minds of the American people regarding what happened that fateful day, however there appears to be more to the story than the public has been told. I bring this before you because of my respect for you both, and for the 9-11 Commission’s service to America.

Almost seven years ago, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 established the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, otherwise known as the Gilmore Commission. The Gilmore Commission reached many of the same conclusions as your panel, and in December of 2000 called for the creation of a “National Office for Combating Terrorism.” I mention this because prior to 9/11, Congress was aware of many of the institutional obstacles to preventing a terrorist attack, and was actively attempting to address them. I know this because I authored the language establishing the Gilmore Commission.

In the 1990’s, as chairman of the congressional subcommittee that oversaw research & development for the Department of Defense, I paid special attention to the activities of the Army’s Land Information Warfare Activity (LIWA) at Ft. Belvoir. During that time, I led a bipartisan delegation of Members of Congress to Vienna, Austria to meet with members of the Russian parliament, or Duma. Before leaving, I received a brief from the CIA on a Serbian individual that would be attending the meeting. The CIA provided me with a single paragraph of information. On the other hand, representatives of LIWA gave me five pages of far more in-depth analysis. This was cause for concern, but my debriefing with the CIA and FBI following the trip was cause for outright alarm: neither had ever heard of LIWA or the data mining capability it possessed.

As a result of experiences such as these, I introduced language into three successive Defense Authorization bills calling for the creation of an intelligence fusion center which I called NOAH, or National Operations and Analysis Hub. The NOAH concept is certainly familiar now, and is one of several recommendations made by your commission that has a basis in earlier acts of Congress. Despite my repeated efforts to establish NOAH, the CIA insisted that it would not be practical. Fortunately, this bureaucratic intransigence was overcome when Congress and President Bush acted in 2003 to create the Terrorism Threat Integration Center (now the National Counterterrorism Center). Unfortunately, it took the deaths of 3,000 people to bring us to the point where we could make this happen. Now, I am confident that under the able leadership of John Negroponte, the days of toleration for intelligence agencies that refuse to share information with each other are behind us.

The 9-11 Commission produced a book-length account of its findings, that the American people might educate themselves on the challenges facing our national effort to resist and defeat terrorism. Though under different circumstances, I eventually decided to do the same. I recently published a book critical of our intelligence agencies because even after 9/11, they were not getting the message. After failing to win the bureaucratic battle inside the Beltway, I decided to take my case to the American people.

In recent years, a reliable source that I refer to as “Ali” began providing me with detailed inside information on Iran’s role in supporting terror and undermining the United States’ global effort to eradicate it. I have forwarded literally hundreds of pages of information from Ali to the CIA, FBI, and DIA, as well as the appropriate congressional oversight committees. The response from our intelligence agencies has been underwhelming, to put it mildly. Worse, I have documented occasions where the CIA has outright lied to me. While the mid-level bureaucrats at Langley may not be interested in what I have to say, their new boss is. Porter Goss has all of the information I have gathered, and I know he is ready to do what it takes to challenge the circle-the-wagons culture of the CIA. And Pete Hoekstra, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is energized as well. Director Goss and Chairman Hoekstra are both outstanding leaders that know each other well from their work together in the House of Representatives, and I will continue to strongly support their efforts at reform.

All of this background leads to the reason I am writing to you today. Yesterday the national news media began in-depth coverage of a story that is not new. In fact, I have been talking about it for some time. From 1998 to 2001, Army Intelligence and Special Operations Command spearheaded an effort called Able Danger that was intended to map out al Qaeda. According to individuals that were part of the project, Able Danger identified Mohammed Atta as a terrorist threat before 9/11. Team members believed that the Atta cell in Brooklyn should be subject to closer scrutiny, but somewhere along the food chain of Administration bureaucrats and lawyers, a decision was made in late 2000 against passing the information to the FBI. These details are understandably of great interest to the American people, thus the recent media frenzy. However I have spoken on this topic for some time, in the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees, on the floor of the House on June 27, 2005, and at various speaking engagements.

The impetus for this letter is my extreme disappointment in the recent, and false, claim of the 9-11 Commission staff that the Commission was never given access to any information on Able Danger. The 9-11 Commission staff received not one but two briefings on Able Danger from former team members, yet did not pursue the matter. Furthermore, commissioners never returned calls from a defense intelligence official that had made contact with them to discuss this issue as a follow on to a previous meeting.

In retrospect, it appears that my own suggestions to the Commission might have directed investigators in the direction of Able Danger, had they been heeded. I personally reached out to members of the Commission several times with information on the need for a national collaborative capability, of which Able Danger was a prototype. In the context of those discussions, I referenced LIWA and the work it had been doing prior to 9/11. My chief of staff physically handed a package containing this information to one of the commissioners at your Commission’s appearance on April 13, 2004 in the Hart Senate Office Building. I have spoken with Governor Kean by phone on this subject, and my office delivered a package with this information to the 9-11 Commission staff via courier. When the Commission briefed Congress with their findings on July 22, 2004, I asked the very first question in exasperation: “Why didn’t you let Members of Congress who were involved in these issues testify before, or meet with, the Commission?”

The 9-11 Commission took a very high-profile role in critiquing intelligence agencies that refused to listen to outside information. The commissioners very publicly expressed their disapproval of agencies and departments that would not entertain ideas that did not originate in-house. Therefore it is no small irony that the Commission would in the end prove to be guilty of the very same offense when information of potentially critical importance was brought to its attention. The Commission’s refusal to investigate Able Danger after being notified of its existence, and its recent efforts to feign ignorance of the project while blaming others for supposedly withholding information on it, brings shame on the commissioners, and is evocative of the worst tendencies in the federal government that the Commission worked to expose.

Questions remain to be answered. The first: What lawyers in the Department of Defense made the decision in late 2000 not to pass the information from Able Danger to the FBI? And second: Why did the 9-11 Commission staff not find it necessary to pass this information to the Commissioners, and why did the 9-11 Commission staff not request full documentation of Able Danger from the team member that volunteered the information?

Answering these questions is the work of the commissioners now, and fear of tarnishing the Commission’s legacy cannot be allowed to override the truth. The American people are counting on you not to “go native” by succumbing to the very temptations your Commission was assembled to indict. In the meantime, I have shared all that I know on this topic with the congressional committee chairmen that have oversight over the Department of Defense, the CIA, the FBI, and the rest of our intelligence gathering and analyzing agencies. You can rest assured that Congress will share your interest in how it is that this critical information is only now seeing the light of day.

Sincerely,

CURT WELDON
Member of Congress

cc:
Richard Ben-Veniste
Fred F. Fielding
Jamie S. Gorelick
Slade Gorton
Bob Kerrey
John F. Lehman
Timothy J. Roemer
James R. Thompson
Dennis Hastert
Peter Hoekstra
Frank Wolf
Pat Roberts
Richard Shelby

The gift that keeps on giving.

The stink emanating from this fish is over-powering.

Transcript here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1505816/posts
Text of Rep. Curt Weldon's 'Able Danger' House Speech, 10-19-05

The ability to kill anyone that gets in the elite's way is alive and well in Washington DC.

So what do *WE* do about this? It keeps getting bigger and BIGGER.

Did you take a look at some of these foundations??

*Many* of these are connected to businesses that carry our personal data.

Carnegie alone listed above. The guy that committed suicide, Arthur Zankel, was chairman of CitiCorp.

So all these foundations were involved in enabling 9/11?

All laundered and assisted in 9/11?

All were involved in stealing from the Oil for food program?

All helped arm Iraq?

All run the BIG businesses here in the US that hold our data?

Is THIS what this is leading too?

Am I off base?

Drexel Family Foundation

This one is underground. Does anyone have any information on this one?

Drexel is cross referencing with Mellon Foundation of Carnegie

Memo to W/Rummy/Mueller: Unleash the Able Danger dogs on these a-holes...

The Emperors on the 9/11 Commission have no clothes.

"Can we single out the 9/11 Commission for ignoring the anthrax attacks?"

Or ignoring Able Danger. Or allowing Gorelick to remain on the Commission. Or doing their damndest to trash the Bush Administration while giving the Clinton Administration a free pass.

Dems are mad at Freeh for trashing Clintoon.

Yep, you broke the code.
I am a little surprised that the laughingstock "9/11 Commission" still shows their faces in public.