August 15, 2005
Able Danger could taint Sept. 11 probe, report
Americans might have learned more than a year ago about a secret program dubbed Able Danger. That we only now are hearing about it calls into question the ability -- or perhaps the willingness -- of official Washington to find and fix what went wrong with U.S. intelligence before the 9/11 attacks.
Curt Weldon, a Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, is demanding information about what look like two terrible lapses. First, a secret military operation known as Able Danger might have identified Mohamed Atta and three other hijackers as a threat at least a year before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Atta, an Al-Qaeda operative who spent some time in Palm Beach County, was the plot ringleader. But the military allegedly refused to notify the FBI of what it knew.
Second, a military officer told staff members for the 9/11 Commission about Able Danger, but the panel -- which was supposed to provide a definitive investigation -- did not include any reference to Able Danger in the report it released just over a year ago.
Able Danger has the potential to be the most heartbreaking of the missed opportunities to avert 9/11, topping FBI headquarters' refusal just before 9/11 to grant pleas from field agents to investigate Zacarias Moussaoui's strange behavior at a Minneapolis flight school.
Able Danger also has the potential to be embarrassing. Blame would not fall solely on the Bush administration -- the chronology is confused, and Atta might have been identified during the Clinton administration -- but it is worth noting that the 9/11 Commission's report came in an election year and that the commission's staff director, Philip Zelikow, previously had been an adviser to Condoleezza Rice.
Members of the now-disbanded commission last week downplayed the information's reliability and importance and cited the chronological inconsistencies as an excuse for ignoring Able Danger. Former commission chairman Thomas Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton said that a military official who made the claim had no documentation. But there are questions about possible destruction of documents. The Bush administration opposed the 9/11 Commission and probably won't be inclined to revive anything like it. If official Washington refuses to get to the bottom of Able Danger, the effect could be to enable danger.
Posted by Opinion staff at August 15, 2005 4:15 PMYes, we might have learned about Able Danger more than a year ago. We also would have learned about Mohammed Atta and his buds more than a year before 9/11/01, but for "the wall" erected by the Attorney General's office. Mary Jo White warned Janet Reno and Jamie Gorelick (in writing) in 1995 of the danger of their "wall" keeping information-sharing between agencies from happening. We all know the results.
Why was Gorelick on that commission, instead of in front of it, answering questions?
The 9/11 Commission knew about this prior to issuing their report. Why did they choose to ignore it? Who squashed it? Who was protected?
Why should we have confidence in the rest of the Commissions report?
Posted by: Kathy at August 15, 2005 7:53 AMBut, Kathy, why did the Post choose not to mention Gorelick and Mary Jo White? Instead we get:
"Blame would not fall solely on the Bush administration ... but it is worth noting that the 9/11 Commission's report came in an election year and that the commission's staff director, Philip Zelikow, previously had been an adviser to Condoleezza Rice".
Is the Post so blinded by ideology they are purposely remiss or simply intent on remaining ignorant of the facts.
Rick
Posted by: Rick Caird at August 15, 2005 5:56 PMRick says: "Is the Post so blinded by ideology they are purposely remiss or simply intent on remaining ignorant of the facts."
The correct answer of course is "all of the above".
ex. note that our beloved "Pravda in Paradise" continues to completely embargo the Air America scandal story...I wonder why that is?!?! [snort]
I was truly shocked when the Post apparatchiks deigned to even mention Able Danger story at all - considering they'd ignored it for several days. Of course they spun the editorial hard and didn't mention ANY of the more profound logical conclusions that one must reach if the story is true.
If the AD crew was correct about Atta's presence on certain dates, this shreds the credibility of the 9/11 report's vaunted "time line".
The left's spin on that is "well, he couldn't have been here because of his visa dates". This of course is a crock because there's 10's of million of illegals in this country with no paperwork. Nothing says Atta couldn't have been moving back and forth as an illegal AND under visa as the tactical situation suited him.
If the time line is bogus, then the Prague/Iraqi intel connection suddenly becomes viable. If THAT is viable, then all the left's rhetoric collapses like the towers themselves. Clearly THAT line of thought can't be allowed to be probed!
I don't know what really happened, but I'm fast comming to the conclusion that the 9/11 report is as fictional as the best fairy tale the Brothers Grimm ever offered.
Its pretty clear now that Sandy Berger wasn't just being "scatter brained" either - that SOB was probably sanitizing the official records because the AD revelation points right back to Gorelick, Berger and Clark.
Rick & tony: You are both correct. I chose to limit my remarks BECAUSE the left is closing their eyes and ears to Abale Danger. I hoped to get them interested enough to have a look and so tried not to insult any of their heroes.
But I want to know what was in Sandy's shorts. I want to know who he was protecting (I already have my own answers.)
Most of all, I want to know the whole truth, no matter what reputations and legacies are tainted. It is the only way we can really protect ourselves in the future.
Services »
