Posted on 08/22/2005 4:13:55 PM PDT by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 - An active-duty Navy captain has become the second military officer to come forward publicly to say that a secret defense intelligence program tagged the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks as a possible terrorist more than a year before the attacks.
The officer, Scott J. Phillpott, said in a statement today that he could not discuss details of the military program, which was called Able Danger, but confirmed that its analysts had identified the Sept. 11 ringleader, Mohamed Atta, by name by early 2000. "My story is consistent," said Captain Phillpott, who managed the program for the Pentagon's Special Operations Command. "Atta was identified by Able Danger by January-February of 2000."
His comments came on the same day that the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, told reporters that the Defense Department had been unable to validate the assertions made by an Army intelligence veteran, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, and now backed up by Captain Phillpott, about the early identification of Mr. Atta.
Colonel Shaffer went public with his assertions last week, saying that analysts in the intelligence project had been overruled by military lawyers when they tried to share the program's findings with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2000 in hope of tracking down terror suspects tied to Al Qaeda.
Mr. Di Rita said in an interview that while the department continued to investigate the assertions, there was no evidence so far that the intelligence unit had come up with such specific information about Mr. Atta and any of the other hijackers.
He said that while Colonel Shaffer and Captain Phillpott were respected military officers whose accounts were taken seriously, "thus far we've not been able to uncover what these people said they saw - memory is a complicated thing."
The statement from Captain...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Well they found Monica's blue dress so there is always hope.
When you read COVERUP, imagine a TADUMMMMM in the background. :-}
The Pentagon has no vested interest in uncovering the data linking Able Danger and Atta. That's why Lt. Col. Shaffer needs documentation, or additional credible witnesses to step up to the plate ... otherwise this goes nowhere.
You bet Qalinton knew about Atta and he also could have targeted Ohsama several times and would not...But how much of this info was passed to Bush....
MY guess as to why the Republican committee members are so weak is for 2 reasons...they were picked by congresscritters, (who are notoriously chicken, IMHO)...
AND, since none of these Senators LIKE to go out limb, they probable didn't trust Bush enough to think that he would come out unscathed...and maybe thought they were doing Bush a favor by picking INEPT commissioners so the TRUTH could stay hidden , if necessary..
sounds like they had a late night shredding party
It sure does. I can't think of any other rational explanation. While the fact that someone in government knew Atta was already here would cause ripples it wouldn't have caused a tidal wave. If proof emerges that they covered up the fact that Atta had been ID'd, bar the door Katie.
I thought O'Reilly tried, but wasn't sufficiently informed... and he seemed to defer to Gordon. Pulled his punches.
I would have asked Gordon to justify Gorelick's presence on the commission. Gorelick's surreal presence on the 911 commission investigating Gorelick's Justice Department, a maneuver that effectively removes from the universe of witnesses a central witness, Gorelick, even as it uniquely positions a central player, Gorelick, to directly shape the commission's conclusions. (Is there any question which two people are responsible for Gorelick's insertion on the commission?) Conversely, that it never occurred to anyone on the commission that Gorelick's flagrant conflict of interest renders her presence on the commission beyond farce calls into question the commission's judgment if not its integrity. Washington's mutual protection racket writ large, I suspect.... Reverse Gorelick
Why hillary clinton should never be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office... or any position of power--THE SERIES
by Mia T, 4.15.04
QUINN IN THE MORNING (ESSAY DISCUSSED)
(MP3, REAL, WINDOWS MEDIA, WINAMP)
REASON 1: MISSUS CLINTON HIRED JAMIE GORELICK
WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?
Ever notice that when a lefty gets caught in a lie or exposed in a debate, they always revert to the "it's too complicated" statement?
Translation; you are not as smart as me, you don't/can't understand what I understand.
Sheer arrogance, along with the dishonesty.
Thanks for the link.
Thanks for the numbers & email addees.
Who you gonna believe, Washington politicians in full cover mode or Military Officers? I know whom I believe, Anchors Aweigh baby. Get em boys!!
"They aren't going to be able to unscramble an egg soon. I believe it's reached a point to where the genie can't be put back into the bottle. It's growing daily."
Now no one is going to nail you on that statement.
I heard there were a dozen of these guys or so. Seems we will be treated to a parade of them, perhaps one a week, until this story reaches critical mass.
Right now, I suspect the bureaucrats are figuring out how to handle this when it does break.
No..they'll just blame the Pentagon and never mention that it was during Clinton's watch...it will somehow be Bush's fault
"The big question is, why is the New York Times printing stories that may prove immensely damaging to their politics? It's totally out of character."
Good question. Track the MSM on a timeline marked by 11/2004. By 11/2004, everthning they said was a lie. Since then, they have much more truth. They are building credibility so they can lie more effectively in 2006, 2008.
I noticed that too, or do you think they are packing their bags for france?
The Navy Captain knows that the NY Times is the "paper of record", so he gives them the story. If they don't print it, he gets a two-fer, i.e. he gives the story to another media outlet and claims that the NY Times wouldn't print it.
Good move.
As bad as it is, the NY Times isn't that stupid.
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.