09/11 - Operation Able Danger and Intelligence Failure

[LadyEagle]

'Able Danger' Could Rewrite History
Friday, August 12, 2005


WASHINGTON — The federal commission that probed the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks was told twice about "Able Danger," a military intelligence unit that had identified Mohamed Atta and other hijackers a year before the attacks, a congressman close to the investigation said Wednesday.

Rep. Curt Weldon (search), R-Pa., a champion of integrated intelligence-sharing among U.S. agencies, wrote to the former chairman and vice-chairman of the Sept. 11 commission late Wednesday, telling them that their staff had received two briefings on the military intelligence unit — once in October 2003 and again in July 2004.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165414,00.html

 

[elijah_lives]

I smell cover-up here!

 

[carpro]

It will be a tough battle to get this info into the open. It points directly at the Clinton Administration.

Even now, you can see it is not being heavily reported. The COM is in full cover up mode. Allegations like these against the Bush Administration would get 24/7 coverage from all networks and major news outlets.

 

[Johnv]

There's a big difference between knowing abut someone, and having enough to consider them a sufficient danger, especially when considering that there were likely several hundred persons they were keeping an eye on. In order for them to have been some "conspiracy", Atta and company would have to have stuck out like a sore thumb. That doesn't appear to be the case here.

 

[carpro]

The 911 Commission knew about Atta. Seems like any info relative to him, no matter how trivial, would have been of interest.

 

[Enoch]

I agree with Carpo, any information would have been relevent.

"Therefore it is no small irony," Weldon pointed out, "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."

On Thursday, Weldon told FOX News that the military official, who was under cover when he was in Afghanistan for the October 2003 briefing, is certain he told the staffers about Atta at that time.

The military intelligence officer who attended that meeting with staffers "kept notes of that meeting and will testify under oath that he not only told" the staffers about Able Danger's mission, but about Atta.

Sounds like the commission was informed.

Among the most critical facts to be determined, if the information about Atta did exist in 2000, would be who then blocked the intelligence from going to the FBI, which could have tracked down the terror cell.

"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," Weldon wrote.

This is very disturbing but not surprising. The question is Who? And perhaps there is more than one person. And they next question is Why? With the Clinton Administration being the focus (or should I say lack of) I suspect many will try to water this down. There has been much speculation regarding the Clinton Administration’s irresponsibility leading up to 9/11.

 

[prophecynut]

Originally posted by Enoch:
There has been much speculation regarding the Clinton Administration’s irresponsibility leading up to 9/11

And much speculation regarding Bush's involvement in 9-11 and subsequent cover up.

Are these two controlled by the same cabal?

 

[KenH]

No. There is no such cabal.

 

[Johnv]

I'm in agreement with KenH. The only cabal is that of the conspiracy theorists. Seem to be the same ones over and over.

 

[LadyEagle]

Okay, if there is no cabal, then why would the two different parties try to hush this up, unless it is like I've said before, there is very little daylight between them.

Something that is covered up IS a conspiracy, folks.

 

[prophecynut]

http://www.radioliberty.com/nljuly99.htm

Have you ever considered the possibility that it doesn't really matter whether the Republican or the Democrat candidate is elected to the Presidency? Have you been concerned when the leaders of both parties pursue similar policies, justifying their actions by calling them "bipartisan cooperation?" Have you ever wondered why the United States Supreme Court discovered a previously unrecognized "wall of separation between Church and State," and then used that premise to remove God and the Ten Commandments from public schools? Have you ever pondered why we face ever-increasing government control over our lives irrespective of which political party controls the White House? It's widely known that international corporations contribute large sums of money to both political parties, but is it possible that both parties are controlled by essentially the same people? Could George Wallace have been right when he proclaimed:

"... there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats."

 

[rivers1222]

Wish I could cut and paste group, but my mouse is messed up. Anyway, in todays local paper, the Cincinnati Enquirer, attributed to Phillip Shenon of the New York Times, an officer of the Able Danger group claims they tried 3 seperate times to tell the FBI of Atta and 3 future hijackers by mid-2000 but military lawyers forced them to cancel the meetings and the FBI was never informed. This officer, Lt Col. Anthony Shaffer, has put his career on the line by this revelation, and I dont think he is covered by the whistle blowers act. If someone could cut and paste this article I'd appreciate it.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by rivers1222:
attributed to Phillip Shenon of the New York Times

LINK

I heard Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer being interviewed by Michael Savage yesterday for a whole hour of his radio show. I was very impressed weith Lt. Col. Shaffer.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Okay, if there is no cabal, then why would the two different parties try to hush this up,

As Rush Limbaugh has been saying over the past few days - official Washington looks out for each other. That's not a conspiracy, it's just Washington insider politics.

 

[prophecynut]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/politics/17intel.html?ex=1281931200&en=3ee12b1346f0f843&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - A military intelligence team repeatedly contacted the F.B.I. in 2000 to warn about the existence of an American-based terrorist cell that included the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a veteran Army intelligence officer who said he had now decided to risk his career by discussing the information publicly.

 

[ASLANSPAL]

The second story in as many weeks suggesting it's all Clinton's fault for not killing Bin Laden. Here's the analysis Clinton received:
"...[Bin Laden's] prolonged stay in Afghanistan - where hundreds of 'Arab mujahedeen' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate - could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum," in Sudan.
Good, solid analysis.

But when it comes to smoking guns, that doesn't even begin to compare to:

BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Or we could blame Reagan for training and arming Bin Laden in the first place. But keep trying, far right. Maybe we'll all forget the worst terrorist attack in US history happened on Bush's watch and he responded by failing to catch Bin Laden and then invading a country that had nothing to do with it. Then again, maybe we won't forget.

 

[LadyEagle]

As Rush Limbaugh has been saying over the past few days - official Washington looks out for each other. That's not a conspiracy, it's just Washington insider politics.

Excuse it if you want to, but I call it a conspiracy - their jobs that WE PAY THEM FOR by our tax dollars - is to defend and protect this country, as mandated by the United States Constitution!

 

[emeraldctyangel]

Originally posted by carpro:
The 911 Commission knew about Atta. Seems like any info relative to him, no matter how trivial, would have been of interest.

It was of interest. It is just you cant go around arresting people on the whim that they might do something against the law UNTIL they actually do. By the time he hit the broken law radar, he had flipped off the transponder and was on his way to 72 virgins or something stupid like that.

 

[elijah_lives]

There has been obfuscation on this deriliction of duty going all the way back to the Reagan administration. While I was on active duty at that time, I was personally informed of the growing threat of Islamic fundamentalism, and their interest in terrorist tactics. Mamy of us tried to deal with it, but there was a curious lack of interest from the intermediate-to-higher levels of government.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by emeraldctyangel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by carpro:
The 911 Commission knew about Atta. Seems like any info relative to him, no matter how trivial, would have been of interest.

It was of interest. It is just you cant go around arresting people on the whim that they might do something against the law UNTIL they actually do. By the time he hit the broken law radar, he had flipped off the transponder and was on his way to 72 virgins or something stupid like that. </font>[/QUOTE]I believe you missed the essence of what I was commenting on. The 911 Commission was long after 911 and should have been alert to any info containing Atta's name but have denied knowing anything at all about Able Danger.

I believe they are on a cover up mission. They were told.