Posted on 08/14/2005 10:38:56 AM PDT by george76
Grab yourself a cup of coffee and head on over to TKS for the best summation of Able Danger as things presently stand. Or stay here and I'll summarize it for you.
In very, very brief summation: The 9-11 commission did know about Able Danger; some of its staff were briefed on it twice, and the information got to some but not all of the commissioners
What seems increasingly likely, based on the TKS summary and others, is that the commissioners who knew of Able Danger dismissed it because its Mohammed Atta timeline didn't agree with theirs. That in and of itself is no reason to dismiss evidence unless your outcome is predetermined, which it may well have been to one or more commissioners and staff. Intriguingly, the Able Danger timeline seems to leave room for the Atta meeting in Prague, which to this day Czech intelligence insists happened and to this day is only refuted by US sources because Atta's cell phone was used in the US when he was supposed to be in Prague. Like one of his cellmates couldn't have used it to order pizza or something. That has always struck me as an awfully flimsy data point to use to sink a credible report from an allied intelligence agency.
From Captain's Quarters, we learn that not only was Gorelick's wall relevant to all this, but that it generated complaints from inside the Reno justice department. Mary Jo White, prosecutor of the 1993 WTC bombers, complained in two separate memos--both of which are still secret, and neither of which figured into the 9-11 commission's final report--that the wall would make it next to impossible to prevent terrorist attacks on US soil and would probably result in loss of life.
From FrontPage, we find a most intriguing lead. One Dietrich Snell seems to have a Carmen Sandiego quality--he turns up wherever you look. He was a co-prosecutor on the 1993 WTC case. He appears to have turned down a terrorists' offer to betray Operation Bojinka, which was an aborted al Qaeda op that eerily foreshadowed 9-11.
"...And guess as to who hired Mr. Snell? "
Gorelick is my quess.
Who really ?
As DatMon says,
responsible Republicans in congress should have pressed the issue that the commission could not credibly proceed with Gorelick as a commissioner.
I had not known, until reading it the last few days, that President Bush admonished Ashcroft for mentioning the Wall that Gorelick built.
I wish the president had not done that.
And yes, the Republicans should have stopped the proceedings then and there and demanded that Gorelick resign AND testify.
Cover-up is in place. Those liberal lawyers are going to try to spin this away. If not, the Liberal news stations will bring up other things to overshadow this story which is a tremendous bombshell. Sandy Berger wasn't stuffing things down his pants for fun!
Berger is definitely party of this and yes, the cover-up is working overtime right now.
The Clinton Lawyers are working to hide the truth from coming out. Berger probably destroyed some of the documentation.
Much as I like and respect the president, I would have a hard time believing he'd get snookered by Clinton. And if he did, shame on him.
But I think your scenario makes sense.
I still think that the president admonishing Ashcroft for mentioning The Wall and Gorelick's role in it to the Commission was the wrong thing to do.
If the Commission staff had conducted a legit investigation, they'd just publish a transcript of their 2003 Afganistan interview with Able Danger officers to prove there was no mention of Atta. Maybe Commission staff made their notes Gorelick friendly because Pentagon lawyers referenced Commission member and former general counsel of DoD Gorelick in their denial to the Able Danger request to inform the FBI. For such an important investigation, why weren't interviews recorded?
Without recorded interviews, analyzing discrepancies and doing followup interviews would be impossible. How would a legitimate investigation analyze a discrepancy between what Able Danger officers and Pentagon lawyers said about turning Atta info over to the FBI without a transcript of those interviews?
From the beginning, Commission staff dismissed any information that didn't fit the final report and made sure there was no recorded evidence they were told anything that didn't fit the final report.
The only way this controversy gets resolved is if the Able Danger analysts come out and show the evidence they had concerning Atta and his cell and the minutes of meetings with the Pentagon/Clinton lawyers and the 9/11 Commission staff.
I'd say it's time.
But you never know these days if they have to fear for their life or whatever.
One thing that we don't know, but it would be very helpful to know, is: What data did Able Danger use to finger Atta? And why does their time line not "mesh" with the Commission's?
Obviously, Able Danger claims that Atta entered the U.S. before June, 2001. Why? What information did they "mine" that led them to this conclusion?
My opinion: it will only be the right time when no undercover agent, method or existing operation is endangered. No chance to undue what's been done, but maybe a big chance of keeping it from happening again.
That would be my guess, as well. I've been Googling it and can't seem to find out for sure, though.
ping
And the democraps insisted that Gorelick be on the panel! Yep, the democrap party is a criminal enterprise steeped in cover-up and lying ... oh how well they took degenerate clinton's lessons to heart.
Gorelick did her job keeping the cover-up covered.
The Clintons, the Communist Chinese, the North Koreans, Iran, the Library slush fund... are all fat and happy.
Except for Vince Foster, Ron Brown, the girls, the ...
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.