Navy Officer Affirms Assertions About Pre-9/11 Data on Atta

NY Times ^ | August 22, 2005 | PHILIP SHENON

[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...

[El Gato]

How was that, by the way?

Pretty decent. They did mention the ID of Atta. Actually Part II is ongoing now, for another 50 minutes. It will replay at 9 PDT (11 CDT, 12 EDT) , IIRC. National Geographic channel.

[gusopol3]

thanks.

[kabar]

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.

They want to damage the Pentagon and the military.

[El Gato]

Oh yeah, the old "sticky wall" excuse. He should have just said he didn't think to take it.

If he taped it to the wall with regular, not "magic" cellophane tape, that does tend to form a pretty strong bond, stronger than the paper, after not all that long. Anyone who's ever been in an office or cube for a goodly period, and taped stuff to the walls, knows this. Double sided tape, or the old trick of making a loop of regular tape with the sticky side out, can be even worse.

[Stajack]

Does no corroborating docs = no story apply to JOE WILSON? He didn't file a written report upon his return from Niger.

[xkaydet65]

The fact that The Times is into this is to be considered excellent news. Liberal they are, but this is a story of potentially huge repercussions. A good newspaper follows the BIG story where it goes. I'm sure most of the editorial staff hopes their investigations lead to nothing substantial. then the Times can say they were impartial , but the story was false. If the investigation leads to the motherlode it will be unfortunate for any politician caught in the web, because the Times will run this on page one above the fold until the bodies are carted away. That's the newspaper business.

Look at the NY Post. A conservative and patriotic tabloid, but if a conservative politician screws up the Post is on them like white's on rice. Remember it was the Times alone among the MSM that gave credence to Whitewater. In the end with a newspaper, it's about the story. Why? that most unliberal trait and value, competition. The MSM TV networks don't compete. They're like Ford, GM, And Chrysler were in the 50s and 60s. happy to divide the market. Newspapers, even in different cities, judge themselves against their peers. The Times considers itself the Casey Stengel Yankees. If there is a story here the Times will go with it.

[baystaterebel]

One more thing...... It puts the tinfoil on its head

Could there be something even more important buried in all this. Maybe Atta is not the only reason some have seemed to not want Able Danger findings to become public.

Imagine if the real concern is how they linked Atta to an Al Quida cell. What would happen if some of the data that got the name Atta to the top of the board was association with Iraqi agents........

[Stajack]

A Navy Captain is an O-6, equivalent to an Army Colonel.

[NathanBookman]

"Does no corroborating docs = no story apply to JOE WILSON?"

No. It only applies to stories that are negative to Dems. Stories negative to GOP never need docs.

[El Gato]

If you can't watch the replay (or first play depending on where you are) check out the website: www.inside911.com and judge for yourself.

[frannie]

I recall when Clinton became President and had appointed Reno Atty.Gen, the first thing they did was to fire all appointed lawyers in the Justice Dept. Reagen nor either Bush did that, which in my opinion, was a real mistake.
Both of these military men that have come forward, state it was the lawyers who advised them they could not pursue Atta because he was here on a legal visa.

This is incorrect, I can't explain why but it had to do with the difference in a visa, a work permit or something like that.

Again it is the "LAWYERS"

[chgomac]

Thanks.

grandma mac

[gpapa]

Other than tweaking the CIA & FBI. Do you think Schaffer cleared it with his superiors before going public with his info on Able Danger?

[dervish]

Aside from all the political ramifications, what is striking is that this Brooklyn connection of Atta's appears to have been unknown before. Was he also connected to the Al Farooq Mosque?

[El Gato]

All this Able Danger stuff adds is a govt. agency that had the name Atta. Maybe

And the names of three others of the hijackers.

[gpapa]

Totally in character for the NY Slimes. When not bashing Bush, return to bashing the FBI, CIA or military, and Clinton gets a pass. News also makes $$.

[mercy]

Oh, THAT little matter. Surely a coincidental confabulation.

[El Gato]

slade gordon on OReilly now trashing Shaffer.

Without even watching I'd bet O'Reilly is egging him on too. His similar treatment of the SwiftVets is the reason I never deliberately watch or listing to him any more.

[xzins]

This stinks to high heaven.

What documents would Sandy Berger take?

Shaeffer, if I heard him right, said that he still has his briefing that he gave to the 9/11 Commission.

[oceanview]

well in this case, Gordon deserved that treatment.