Posted on 08/15/2005 7:32:31 AM PDT by SueRae
Monday, Aug. 15, 2005 1:21 a.m. EDT 9/11 Panel Dismissed Key Evidence Before
The 9/11 Commission is challenging the credibility of claims by Rep. Curt Weldon that the panel ignored testimony from military intelligence officials that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and been identified as a terrorist threat at least a year before the 9/11 attacks.
But despite their protestations, it wouldn't be the first time the Commission looked the other way on damning evidence that didn't fit the program.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
We need a special prosecutor.
The 9/11 Commission is challenging the credibility of claims by Rep. Curt Weldon that the panel ignored testimony from military intelligence officials that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and been identified as a terrorist threat at least a year before the 9/11 attacks.
But despite their protestations, it wouldn't be the first time the Commission looked the other way on damning evidence that didn't fit the program.
"None of the documents turned over to the commission [by the intelligence officers] mention Mohamed Atta or any of the other future hijackers," the Commission insisted in a statement released late Saturday.
"Nor do any of the staff notes on documents reviewed in the [Defense Department] reading room indicate that Mohamed Atta or any of the other future hijackers were mentioned in any of those documents."
The pointed denials had some critics backtracking on earlier assertions that the Commission had been caught with its pants down. "We may owe them a big apology," announced New York Post columnist John Podhoretz on National Review Online.
But before skeptics pull the plug on further inquiries over what the Commissioners knew about Mohamed Atta and when they knew it, it's worth remembering that the 9/11 Commission has turned its back at least once before on inconvenient evidence.
In March 2004, before many of the key witnesses had been interviewed, the Commission said it had examined claims that the government of Sudan had offered to turn over Osama bin Laden to the Clinton administration five years before the 9/11 attacks.
A staff statement released before the first televised hearing sounded like a conclusion had already been reached:
"Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel bin Laden to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."
The staff statement made no mention of a Feb. 2002 speech by President Clinton recorded exclusively by NewsMax.com, where he admitted receiving just such an offer.
"We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again," he explained. "They released him.
"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." [End of Excerpt]
In April 2004, Clinton testified before the Commission behind closed doors, where he was asked about his bombshell admission. According to 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey in an interview the next day, the ex-president at first tried to claim he'd been misquoted.
"He told us yesterday that that was a misquote," Kerrey told WDAY radio host Scott Hennen.
Hennen shot back: "I have heard it in his own voice! I have heard him say it. I have the tape of him saying just that." "Really?" a stunned Kerrey responded. "Well, ship it to me. Because he said yesterday that he didn't have a recollection of that."
Kerrey's response indicated that 9/11 staffers hadn't shared the Clinton audiotape with the commissioners themselves - even though NewsMax had made the audio available to the panel months before.
When the final 9/11 report was released in July, the Commission revealed specific details of how Sudanese officials corroborated Clinton's taped admission.
"Sudan’s minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Laden over to the United States," the report notes on page 109.
But even after hearing Erwa's testimony about the offer and Clinton's smoking gun audiotape, the 9/11 report declared flatly: "The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so."
Instead, the panel accepted Clinton's revised testimony, where he told the Commissioners he had misspoken during his February speech - based on media reports about the bin Laden offer that he'd only recently realized were untrue. On page 480 the Commission explained:
"President Clinton, in a February 2002 speech to the Long Island Association, said that the United States did not accept a Sudanese offer and take Bin Laden because there was no indictment . . . But the President told us that he had 'misspoken' and was, wrongly, recounting a number of press stories he had read."
Despite Mr. Clinton's obvious dissembling, the Commission simply dropped the matter.
So when the same intrepid investigators claim that witnesses who warned about Mohamed Atta simply aren't credible, it's worth remembering how high they set the bar the last time smoking gun evidence emerged that didn't fit the program.
So what else is new?
And if Podhoretz is wrong, doesn't he owe Weldon a big apology? Remember there is one large chart on Al Qaeda prepared by Able Danger and delivered to the White House. Why wasn't that chart included in the 9/11 Report if the commission did its job?
PRESIDENT Bill Clinton turned down at least three offers involving foreign governments to help to seize Osama Bin Laden after he was identified as a terrorist who was threatening America, according to sources in Washington and the Middle East.
Clinton himself, according to one Washington source, has described the refusal to accept the first of the offers as "the biggest mistake" of his presidency.
You got it. His comment was the push that made me write an oped to ask for the defunding of the 9/11 commission. We had already some of the expose's about Gorelick and tons of political showboating of commissioners and then Keane thinks the "public" should not question the "public's" commissioners? That did it. I never again held any respect for what the commission did or said or produced.
Thank you, that's a keeper that will come in very handy
If you read the first part of this article carefully, using your Clinton-trained "Legal Explanation Parser," what you see is that all incriminating documents have been cleaned out of the archives.
They don't say it never happened, just that there is no evidence that it did.
I'm reminded of Clintons' advice to Genifer Flowers. :-/
Pinz
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.