Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Able Danger" & 9/11 Foreknowledge
The New American ^ | October 31, 2005 | William F. Jasper

Posted on 12/03/2005 3:44:27 AM PST by strategofr

The ongoing coverup concerning the secret Able Danger operation provides further evidence that the "war on terror" is a farce.

There was nothing in outward appearance to draw attention to the four-bedroom apartment at 54 Marienstrasse. Nonetheless, the attention of the intelligence services of Germany, the U.S., Israel, and other Middle Eastern and European countries had been drawn to the nondescript flat in Hamburg, Germany, as early as 1998. That was when Mohammed Atta signed the lease and he and Ramzi bin al Shibh moved in. Soon thereafter, it was identified by intelligence agencies as a target of interest. It became known as the hub of al-Qaeda's "Hamburg Cell."

Over the next two and a half years, dozens of al-Qaeda operatives, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the reputed 9/11 "mastermind," passed through the 54 Marienstrasse apartment. Twenty-nine al-Qaeda recruits from the Middle East or Northern Africa listed it as their registered address. Mohammed Atta would later be labeled, after the fact, as the "ringleader" of the 9/11 terrorists who hijacked four jetliners to use as missiles against targets in New York City and Washington, D.C. Atta is believed to have been the suicide pilot who flew American Airlines Flight 11 into the north tower of the World Trade Center. His Hamburg roommate, Ramzi bin al Shibh, captured in Pakistan in 2002, has been described by U.S. officials as the al-Qaeda "coordinator and paymaster" for 9/11. In the months leading up to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terror network were under intense scrutiny by intelligence services worldwide.

Cover Story Wearing Thin

Over the past several years, as more and more evidence has come out, it has grown more and more difficult for U.S. government officials to sustain the cover story that they had no way of anticipating the attacks. As it turns out, U.S. intelligence agencies and their foreign counterparts were almost tripping over each other as they shadowed the al-Qaeda network across the face of the planet. The FBI and CIA were tracking al-Qaeda operatives and their activities in the U.S. and overseas. The National Security Agency (NSA) was intercepting and recording the telephone calls of many al-Qaeda operatives, including Osama bin Laden himself. More recently, it has come to light that a super-secret Pentagon operation, known as "Able Danger," was also tracking and monitoring al-Qaeda. Using advanced computer "data mining" capabilities, the Able Danger team reportedly identified Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Midhar, and Nawaf al-Hazmi as members of an al-Qaeda cell code-named "Brooklyn" because of its connections to New York City.

According to Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), in September 2000 the Able Danger team initiated at least three separate efforts to get its information on the hijackers to the FBI "so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists." That was one year before 9/11. Army Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Schaffer, one of the principal members of Able Danger, has stated in interviews given this past August that Able Danger had identified five al-Qaeda cells, including two of the three cells that ultimately would be used to pull off the 9/11 terror attacks. Lt. Col. Schaffer set up one Able Danger/FBI meeting in the fall of 2000. It was canceled — as were all other efforts to inform the FBI — per orders from higher-ups in the Department of Defense.

Was the intelligence developed by Able Danger of sufficient quality, specificity, and credibility that it could have and should have been used to prevent the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., that claimed almost 3,000 lives? We don't know the answer to that question since the executive branch has been blocking efforts by Congress and the public to gain access to information about Able Danger. This much we do know: first, the Clinton administration in 2000 and then the Bush administration in 2001 failed to heed the Able Danger warnings on al-Qaeda. Moreover, Clinton administration officials ordered the main Able Danger files destroyed in 2000; Bush administration officials ordered Lt. Col. Schaffer's duplicate Able Danger files destroyed in 2004. Both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration have attempted to cover up the existence of Able Danger and its findings. The official, bipartisan 9/11 Commission also covered up the existence of this operation and its findings. In recent months, members of the Able Danger team who have spoken out have been subjected to official harassment and intimidation. Considerable effort is being expended by Donald Rumsfeld's minions in the Defense Department to keep all information about this operation under wraps.

The first major exposure of Able Danger came on June 27 of this year, when Rep. Curt Weldon, who is vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, delivered a 45-minute speech on the House floor outlining the nature of the operation and the data it had developed on al-Qaeda prior to 9/11. Since then, Operation Able Danger has been the subject of growing controversy and intense international interest. Congressional hearings on Able Danger were scheduled, postponed, and rescheduled. Finally, on September 21, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a long-awaited hearing on Able Danger. It was a letdown; the Pentagon blocked the star witnesses from testifying. Able Danger team members James D. Smith and Lt. Col. Schaffer sat mute in the audience, prevented from testifying by the Bush/Rumsfeld Defense Department. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and other committee members, both Republicans and Democrats, angrily accused the Defense Department of obstructing the Senate's investigation.

Stung by the congressional criticism and the unfavorable public and media reaction to its stonewalling and obstruction, the Pentagon suddenly became cooperative — or so it seemed. On September 23, Senator Specter announced that new Able Danger hearings had been rescheduled for October 5 and that now the Pentagon would allow the witnesses to testify. However, Mark Zaid, the attorney for Schaffer and Smith, said the Defense Department had told him that his clients would not be allowed to testify. Mr. Zaid turned out to be correct. The October 5 hearings were canceled. When THE NEW AMERICAN contacted Mr. Zaid on October 5, he expressed the hope that there would still be hearings before the end of the year, but he had no idea when they might be.

Unfettered hearings in which Able Danger members are allowed to testify freely might provide useful information about al-Qaeda as well as about who was responsible — in both the Clinton and Bush administrations — for failing to heed the warnings of the Able Danger staff. However, there are some false assumptions underlying the arguments of Rep. Weldon and other advocates of Able Danger. Chief among these is the assumption that if only the FBI and the CIA had been given Able Danger's data on the al-Qaeda cells, they would have "taken out" the terrorists — either overseas or in the U.S. — prior to 9/11.

This line of argument dovetails with the standard conclusion of virtually every other official "investigation," to wit, 9/11 was an "intelligence failure" that demonstrated "lack of coordination and cooperation" among U.S. agencies. And the solution to this problem, we have been told, is to reward incompetence by giving the agencies involved still larger budgets and more manpower, and to combine them all together in a new gargantuan super-bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security.

However, as we noted above and will detail further below, the failure to "take out" the al-Qaeda cells before the deadly 9/11 attacks was not due to a lack of information. Whatever useful data Able Danger might have been able to offer concerning Mohammed Atta and his associates would have been superfluous. The FBI and CIA had been tracking the al-Qaeda 9/11 conspirators very closely for years — both in the U.S. and overseas, using both technical means and human intelligence. Dedicated FBI and CIA field operatives had warned their superiors repeatedly and had urged them to authorize the arrest of the terrorists. Those sensible pleas by agents in the field were rejected repeatedly by decision makers at the top levels of the federal government. Even worse, as we will show, co-conspirators with the 9/11 terrorists have been allowed to remain free and roaming at large in the United States. Many U.S. decision makers, instead of being penalized for their failures (or worse) in regard to 9/11, have received promotions! The agents who tried to warn and protect the country have been muzzled.

Disturbing Pattern

The continuity of coverup and conspiracy from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration to suppress Able Danger follows a disturbing pattern that is demonstrated in these cases directly related to 9/11:

• Hamburg Cell. Mohammed Atta, Ramzi bin al Shibh, and their roommates in Hamburg came under surveillance by German intelligence and the CIA in 1998 because of their association with al-Qaeda operatives in Hamburg who had been linked to the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Those operatives included Mamoun Darkazanli, Mohammad Haidar Zammar, Said Bahaji, and Mounir al-Motassadek. The CIA station chief in Hamburg, Tom Volz, who posed as a U.S. embassy employee, actually tried to recruit Darkazanli as an informant in late 1999 and 2000. CIA agent David Edger shadowed the Hamburg Cell for several years, before returning to the U.S. in 2001 to take a professorship of political science at Oklahoma University at Norman, coincidentally, just a few blocks from an apartment where an al-Qaeda cell operated that included 9/11 terrorists Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Zacarias Moussaoui.

• San Diego Cell. Even the 9/11 Commission Report, which whitewashed federal government failures, acknowledged that the failure to identify hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar when they entered the U.S. was one of the biggest "lost opportunities." The CIA had tracked both men to the "secret" al-Qaeda planning meeting for 9/11 in Malaysia, where they and other participants were photographed and videotaped by the CIA and Malaysian intelligence. The FBI claims that the CIA didn't inform them about the two men, so they had no way of knowing about them.

That won't wash. Available evidence shows the FBI had multiple tails on the duo in San Diego, where Hazmi and Midhar lived with former San Diego State professor Abdussattar Shaikh, an acknowledged longtime undercover asset of the FBI! What's more, the two terrorists had regular contacts with several other area jihadists who had long been under FBI surveillance, including Omar al-Bayoumi, an agent of the Saudi government whom federal authorities acknowledge as a primary financial conduit for Hazmi and Midhar. Hazmi worked (illegally) at a San Diego convenience store/gas station owned by Osama Mustafa, a militant who had been under FBI surveillance since 1994 because of his violent threats and his membership in the PLO and PFLP terrorist groups.

These and a host of other red flags had caused FBI Agent Stephen Butler to press his superiors to take action against Hazmi and Midhar, but they refused. "He saw a pattern, a trail, and he told his supervisors, but it ended there," said one congressional investigator of Butler's predicament. FBI officials have blocked Butler from testifying before any of the 9/11 investigations.

• Phoenix Cell. FBI informant Aukai Collins, who monitored Middle East terrorist suspects for the FBI for four years in Phoenix, claims to have told the FBI about 9/11 hijacker Hani Hanjour while Hanjour was in flight training in Phoenix. Collins said the FBI knew Hanjour lived in Phoenix, knew his exact address, his phone number, and even what car he drove. "They knew everything about the guy," Collins claims. In July 2001, Phoenix FBI agent Ken Williams sent an electronic memo to FBI headquarters in Washington outlining his investigation into area flight schools that led him to believe al-Qaeda may be using U.S. flight schools to train terrorists as pilots. He recommended that the FBI should conduct an investigation of flight schools nationally to see if this was happening. His memo was never acted on.

• Brooklyn Cell. The official 9/11 Commission Report has this to say about Ali Mohamed and his terrorist cell: "As early as December 1993, a team of al Qaeda operatives had begun casing targets in Nairobi for future attacks. It was led by Ali Mohamed, a former Egyptian army officer who had moved to the United States in the mid-1980s, enlisted in the U.S. Army, and became an instructor at Fort Bragg. He had provided guidance and training to extremists at the Farouq mosque in Brooklyn, including some who were subsequently convicted in the February 1993 attack on the World Trade Center." Known as "Al Qaeda's California connection," Mohamed worked for the FBI's Sacramento office, while training terrorists and escorting top al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri on a fundraising tour of the Golden State in 1995.

Mohamed pleaded guilty to terrorism charges in 2000 and was held in U.S. custody. Incredibly, he has been released and is now again on the streets. He can hardly be anything except a government agent provocateur.

• Minnesota. Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called "20th hijacker," would have gotten away scot-free if FBI officials in Washington had had their way. Thanks to FBI field agents like Coleen Rowley, who tenaciously dug in their heels on the issue, he was not released and was still in custody when the 9/11 attacks occurred.

• Norman Cell. In addition to Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Zacarias Moussaoui, the al-Qaeda cell that operated out of Norman, Oklahoma, included convicted felon Melvin Lattimore, a convert to militant Islam who now goes by the name Majahid Abdulquaadir Menepta.

Mr. Lattimore/Menepta's credit card was used to help finance the 1993 World Trade Center bombing masterminded by Ramzi Yousef. He was identified by an FBI informant as a top suspect in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and was identified by witnesses interviewed by this magazine as being in the company of Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City. Menepta's roommate Hussain al-Attas drove Moussaoui to Minnesota. According to FBI documents, 9/11 hijacker Salem al-Hazmi was also seen at Menepta's apartment, and when FBI agents visited the apartment three weeks before 9/11, they saw several men fleeing through the back door of the apartment. The airline ticket for 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah (United Airlines Flight 93) was purchased from an Oklahoma University computer terminal just a few blocks from Menepta's apartment.

Like Ali Mohamed, Mr. Lattimore/Menepta is almost certainly a federal agent provocateur. As we have reported in a previous article ("Al-Qaeda's OKC-9/11 Ties," July 26, 2004), it is almost impossible rationally to explain his record in any other way. When Menepta was picked up and prosecuted, it was for only a minor weapons violation. He was sentenced to a few months in prison and is now back on the streets. Thus, a man who has been tied to the three most important terrorist attacks in U.S. history — 1993 WTC, 1995 OKC, and 9/11 — has been purposely set loose.

The current coverup of the terrorist bombing in Norman, Oklahoma, outside the stadium during the Oklahoma University-Kansas State football game on October 1 is yet another wake-up call. The 85,000 fans inside the stadium — and a national television audience — were the intended targets. Fortunately, the suicide bomber was unable to get inside the stadium and took only his own life. However, federal authorities have rushed to cover up all evidence that the bombing was a terrorist effort involving foreign nationals.

The official story is that the bomber was a mentally unstable student, Joel Henry Hinrichs III, with no ties to Islamic jihadists. However, news organizations and confidential sources in Oklahoma have challenged that account, producing contradictory evidence showing that Hinrichs was indeed involved with a ring of Pakistanis who were Islamic fanatics. (See article on page 19.)

Time for Truth, Not Partisan Politics

Predictably, Republicans and Democrats are both trying to use the Able Danger revelations for partisan purposes, to portray the opposition as weak and irresponsible on terrorism and national security. But like the Oklahoma football bombing and a number of other incidents, the ongoing Able Danger stonewalling demonstrates a continuity of pernicious policy that transcends party lines.

According to Rep. Weldon, two weeks after 9/11 he was provided with data from Able Danger that included "an extensive analysis chart of Al Qaeda, which I immediately took to the White House and personally delivered to then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Mr. Hadley was extremely interested in the chart and said that he would take it to the President."

During his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 21, Rep. Weldon said: "And I can tell you this — I talked to Mr. Hadley three months ago when I briefed him on another issue, and I said, remember that chart that I gave you? And he said, yes, I remember it." However, Mr. Hadley, who has since been promoted to national security adviser, has been mum on the issue of that meeting.

One of the peripheral issues that has become a main bone of contention in the whole matter is whether or not the chart provided to Hadley actually included a photo of Mohammed Atta. According to Lt. Col. Schaffer and other Able Danger team members, the chart (roughly four-and-a-half feet by five feet) included a photo of Atta and showed his linkage to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the blind sheik Omar Abdul-Rahman, who was convicted and sent to prison on bombing conspiracy charges.

The Pentagon's story on the chart evolved through several stages. Initially, Defense Department officials claimed that there was no evidence that a chart ever existed. Then the chart's existence was acknowledged, but it was alleged that the data on it was non-specific. Then it was asserted that the chart had not included a photo of Atta. But on September 2, Rep. Weldon announced that on the previous day he had been to a Pentagon briefing in which officials "confirmed that five credible witnesses did see the 9/11 ringleader, Mohammad Atta, in data produced by Able Danger prior to the 9/11 attacks."

That "official" line could change again, of course, if an investigation proceeds. But Lt. Col. Schaffer and other Able Danger members are being pressured to drop the matter.

Likely as a penalty for not keeping silent, Schaffer's security clearance has been revoked. In October 2003, while stationed in Afghanistan, Schaffer briefed Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and other Commission staff members on Able Danger. According to Schaffer, Zelikow stated that this was very important information, gave Schaffer his card, and told him to get back in touch when he returned to Washington, D.C. However, Schaffer says that when he called Zelikow's office in January 2004 to set up an appointment, he was given the brush off. When he called again, he was told Dr. Zelikow had all the information he needed on Able Danger and there was no need for a meeting. Shortly thereafter he was hit out of the blue with charges that he had run up unauthorized telephone charges, to the tune of $67. According to Schaffer, the Pentagon spent "in our estimation $400,000 to investigate all these issues simply to drum up this information." That fits a pattern of retaliation against other government whistleblowers who have been faced with similar charges.

Many additional examples could be cited to amplify this pattern. It is a pattern that reflects not incompetence or "lack of coordination" but something much worse. It is a pattern of conscious, purposeful action aimed at thwarting those who are tasked with defending America in the "war on terror." It is a pattern that is being carried out by policymakers at the highest levels of our government, and it is time to ask why.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: abledanger; johnbirchsociety; newamerican; nutjobsonfr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last
"It is a pattern that is being carried out by policymakers at the highest levels of our government, and it is time to ask why."

Time, and past time.

1 posted on 12/03/2005 3:44:29 AM PST by strategofr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: strategofr

so, how did they keep the other countries intel quiet?


2 posted on 12/03/2005 4:06:27 AM PST by sure_fine (*not one to over kill the thought process*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: strategofr
Bush administration officials ordered Lt. Col. Schaffer's duplicate Able Danger files destroyed in 2004

All the reports I've read so far, say the "destruction of Able Dangers Papers" during Bush Admin were procedural (SOP), rather than directly ordered destroyed. Hmm.

3 posted on 12/03/2005 4:29:35 AM PST by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: strategofr

It troubled me to read the above piece. There are so many accounts of the Able Danger matter. Louis Freeh wrote a piece on it in the Wall Street Journal. In the last paragraph he says:

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, has led the way in cleaning up the 9/11 Commission's unfinished business. Amid a very full plate of responsibilities, he conducted a hearing after noting that Col. Shaffer and Capt. Phillpott "appear to have credibility." Himself a former prosecutor, Mr. Specter noted: "If Mr. Atta and other 9/11 terrorists were identified before the attacks, it would be a very serious breach not to have that information passed along . . . we ought to get to the bottom of it." Indeed we should. The 9/11 Commission gets an "I" grade--incomplete--for its dereliction regarding Able Danger. The Joint Intelligence Committees should reconvene and, in addition to Able Danger team members, we should have the 9/11 commissioners appear as witnesses so the families can hear their explanation why this doesn't matter.

The paragraph begs answers. It also tells me Jamie Gorelick was on the wrong side of the table during the hearings.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007559


4 posted on 12/03/2005 4:30:27 AM PST by Stars&StripesNE (My Daughter, My Hero, My Soldier, My Friend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScaniaBoy; Cooter; eyespysomething; B4Ranch; Alamo-Girl; Triple; MJY1288; potlatch; Shermy; ...

OKC-911 CONNECTION ALERT. Please let me know by freepmail if you want to be put on or taken off this list. Thanks.


5 posted on 12/03/2005 4:31:47 AM PST by ovrtaxt (The FAIRTAX. A powerplay for We The People.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt

Thanks for the ping!


6 posted on 12/03/2005 4:44:20 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: strategofr; Cindy; backhoe; Peach

ping


7 posted on 12/03/2005 4:45:20 AM PST by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: strategofr

Makes me a firm believer in conspiracies. Both the Sleeze president and the "Christian" President are stonewalling this huge scandal.


9 posted on 12/03/2005 5:11:04 AM PST by RoadTest (A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver. - Proverbs 25:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt; strategofr

Bookmark Bump.


10 posted on 12/03/2005 6:24:01 AM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: strategofr
This much we do know: first, the Clinton administration in 2000 and then the Bush administration in 2001 failed to heed the Able Danger warnings on al-Qaeda. Moreover, Clinton administration officials ordered the main Able Danger files destroyed in 2000; Bush administration officials ordered Lt. Col. Schaffer's duplicate Able Danger files destroyed in 2004. Both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration have attempted to cover up the existence of Able Danger and its findings. The official, bipartisan 9/11 Commission also covered up the existence of this operation and its findings. In recent months, members of the Able Danger team who have spoken out have been subjected to official harassment and intimidation. Considerable effort is being expended by Donald Rumsfeld's minions in the Defense Department to keep all information about this operation under wraps.

I will be sick if the Bush administration has truly had a hand in ordering documents destroyed. Clinton covered up so many things, and that's something I never thought this president would do. For what purpose?

11 posted on 12/03/2005 6:30:17 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

bttt!


12 posted on 12/03/2005 7:23:42 AM PST by ovrtaxt (The FAIRTAX. A powerplay for We The People.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Peach
I will be sick if the Bush administration has truly had a hand in ordering documents destroyed. Clinton covered up so many things, and that's something I never thought this president would do. For what purpose?

Sorry, Peach...this is a confirmed fact.

Schaffer was ordered in 2004 to destroy his copies of the info, and James Smith had info that had not been picked up in the original Klintonista sweep that was also ordered destroyed!

This is official testimony, and Zaif has confirmed it.

Between the Able Danger stuff, and W's complete refusal to secure the borders and INSISTS on backing Illegal Infiltrators in America with Shamnesty...I now am beginning to believe the cabal theory between the Klinton Mafia and the Bush Clan may be more than "tin-foil" stuff!

If you look at what is coming out of this Administration, it's almost as if they are running GHWB's re-election campaign (tone deaf to the public opinion as to what is important...arrogance in the Miers garbage...refusal to veto/control spending!)...thus ensuring a DemonRAT win in 2008...for another Klinton!

I HATE that I have to now start suspecting this...but there is WAY too much evidence to hide, and now the web allows for the spread of info outside the control of the 2 Parties...it makes it worse!

I'll be the first on my knees with a "Mea Culpa" if I'm wrong, but between ravingnutter, you, and alamo-girl's info, plus others...and my fights with OBL/Administration shills here...I'm, unfortunately, fairly sure these conclusions are correct.

As to what purpose...keeping power controlled closely in 2 concentrated sources/families...blackmail by FBI files...(BOY I hate to say this part!) New World Order stuff (UNNNNGH!)...there are a LOT of theories, and a lot of links/evidence for some of them!

We are ALL in seriously deep doo-doo!

13 posted on 12/03/2005 7:52:22 AM PST by Itzlzha ("The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Itzlzha

I don't get it. Much as I love Rumsfeld and Bush, I see no good reason for this information to be covered up. If Clinton was doing this, we'd be going nuts.


14 posted on 12/03/2005 7:59:39 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

placemarker


15 posted on 12/03/2005 8:45:28 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: strategofr

There is NOTHING about 'Able Danger' which concludes that the "War on Terror" is a farce.

Able Danger may be an incompetence cover-up, but it is NO FACTOR in the validaty of the war on terror.


16 posted on 12/03/2005 8:52:33 AM PST by G Larry (Only strict constructionists on the Supreme Court!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

bttt


17 posted on 12/03/2005 9:02:11 AM PST by shield (The Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God!!!! by Dr. H. Ross, Astrophysicist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Battle Axe
time to ask HOW CAN WE CHANGE THIS?

Who can we elect to the Presidency that will truly protect Americans?

Who ever it is, it must not be someone who sees Government as what should be protected. Bush continues to prioritize Government process over efficiencies; establishment over effectiveness.

Bush has done well with the economy, and tax cuts are the sole reason, so Bush is indirectly cutting government.

Clinton obviously prioritized power and INCOME TRANSFER. So I'll take Big Government Bush over Marxist Clinton progressives any day.

But the respect Bush has for the governing process is the reason some people from the Clinton regime are not sitting in jail now.

18 posted on 12/03/2005 9:29:55 AM PST by alrea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sure_fine; Jen's Mom; ScaniaBoy; Cooter; eyespysomething; B4Ranch; Alamo-Girl; Triple; MJY1288; ...

"so, how did they keep the other countries intel quiet?"


"Who can we elect to the Presidency that will truly protect Americans?"


The Presidency is obviously hugely important. But really, solving this problem is going to require first, the conservative Republicans need to wake up, smell the coffee, and start to realize that we have a real enemy facing us---someone far beyond a bunch of suicidal ragheads. Nor are the co-ordinated, multidirectional attacks on United States a matter of "chance" or "stupidity".

For example, we will have to abandon cultural theories about why our mainstream media functions as a well integrated, well coordinated tool of our enemies.

The multifaceted, worldwide structure of the subversion built by the KGB through most of the 20th century, the American portion of which was described in part by Ann Coulter in her book Treason, has not magically disappeared or evolved into some cultural force.

Vladimir Putin and his KGB colleagues now rule Russia. Although it is true that they have abandoned the folly of state control over the means of production (communism)they have not abandoned the ideals of the KGB by which they were trained and served throughout their lives. I refer to a belief in deception, line, torture, murder, blackmail, subversion, terror, et cetera.

The best way to understand what is going on in the world today that he is to read two books written by Anatoly Golitsyn: New Lies for Old (1984, 1990) and the Perestroika Deception (1990, 1993, 1995, in 1998).

Golitsyn was a ranking member of the KGB until 1961 when he defected to the U. S. with his family from his posting in Finland. He explained that Stalin had done huge damage to communism. Recognizing this, in 1957 to 1960 there were a series of high-level international conferences in Russia to repair this damage and change the direction of communism.

This is not speculation on Golitsyn's part---he was part of these conferences. The Stalinist system---the idea that the Soviets had to completely control all Communist parties in the world---was abandonned in these conferences. It was replaced by a much more flexible concept of Communist Parties acting in a more independent manner based on local conditions.

Most especially, the idea that China was supposed to be subordinate to the government of the Soviet Union was abandoned. This, according to Golitsyn, marked the end of the real sign of Soviet conflict. However, it was decided that a pseudo Sino-Soviet conflict would be begun because it would be useful for manipulating the West.

In addition, in-depth historical studies of Lenin's New Economic Policy (NEP) were begun with the purpose of imitating this strategy. In the last, we knew Lenin's NEP as a genuine attempt at liberalization in the Soviet Union--- an attempt that was short-circuited by Stalin. According to Golitsyn however, this view is false. The NEP was a deception, staged by Lennon to reduce pressure from the West to open up badly needed economic aid and monetary credits at a time when the more sincere, openly revolutionary strategy was leading the Soviet Union toward its own destruction. Although the Communist leadership (in the late 1950s) was aware of this past deception, they were not well familiar with its details. Detailed records had been kept however, and were studied at that time.

The various waves of "liberalization" in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China were the result of these studies (according to Golitsyn). In every case, fake operations by the Communist governments drew many naïve, sincere participants into the protest, liberalization movement. In Eastern Europe this had a tendency to get out of hand, i.e. Czechoslovakia and Poland. Even in China (Tieneman Square), a problem developed. Golitsyn sites and extensive report in the New York Times, June 13, 1989, by Nicholas D. Kristof "asserting that, while troops were shooting and killing victims in the area around the square, there was no firm evidence that students were killed in the middle of the square its self. If Christos version is correct, it would support the suggestion that the crackdown was aimed, not if the original pro-democracy demonstrators, who, by Kristof's account, left the square together singing the internationality and who had been carrying placards supporting the Communist Party, but at the on organized elements, who sought to join them or other allies to take advantage of the demonstration." (The Perestroika Deception, by Golitsyn, page 109.)

At first, Golitsyn had wide success in the West. He worked closely with the French president Pompidou and helped him completely clean up the French intelligence service, which had been compromised from top to bottom by the Soviets. He began a close collaboration with James Angleton, head of counterintelligence in the CIA. They determined that there were multiple Soviet penetrations in the CIA, particularly in the Soviet division.

Then things started to go wrong for Golitsyn. Pompidou left office and Golitsyn was not able to establish a relationship with his successor (as I recall that part of the book, at any rate, his relationship with the French government and in some way.) Angleton was gradually discredited. Golitsyn predicted from the start that there would be a stream of defectors from Soviet intelligence, who would denounce him. This happened, and they were received very positively by the US intelligence establishment.

My own view is that Golitsyn is (or was) an experienced intelligence pro, who obviously could deal well with intelligence people and understood problems from that and from a professional angle. I think his big mistake was initially underestimating the effect of those he called "agents of influence." These were non-intelligence assets of the Soviet Union including journalists, professors, politicians, et cetera.

Anyhow, Golitsyn and Angleton were made the objects of ridicule. Angleton's health failed and he died, possibly this could have been caused in part by the stress of these experiences.

At any rate, this is my view of our current problems. We face a worldwide organized hard left (WOHL) that is the successor to World Communism. As always, the government of Russia, is the head of this organization. Many elements of the WOHL are under strong Russian control, particularly elements that function inside democratic countries. Of course, Russia does not control the government of China, but they are strongly allied with them and coordinate closely with them, albeit in secret.

The WOHL controls many key people in the US and worldwide mainstream media (MSM), the American Hard Left (which increasingly influences the Democratic Party), US academia, the US State Department, and many other places in the US and throughout the world.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the Conservative Republicans of the US have the power to defeat the WOHL inside the US and maintain our democracy, our freedom (including our freedom of religion), our Constitution, our military strength, our economic preeminence, and in short, everything we value. This will not require any of us going out and preempt for early shooting in a one or anything like that. We can win using the electoral process, freedom of press, etc.

However, to defeat an enemy, it is required that one first knows that the enemy exists and understands the nature of the enemy reasonably well. This, conservative Republicans of the US have not yet done. They have a vague understanding that the enemy exists, but a vague understanding will not be enough to give victory.

There is no need to panic. But if we bury our heads in the sand we, and everything we value, will be destroyed by a determined enemy.


19 posted on 12/03/2005 10:34:34 AM PST by strategofr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: harpo11; maine-iac7; outlaw1_2003; coldwar; FearGodNotMen; Mathemagician; Wolverine; RepubRep; ...



FYI. In addition, I made an extensive comment, no. 19




To exit from my Ping list, just send me one request to that effect, public or private.


20 posted on 12/03/2005 10:38:44 AM PST by strategofr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sure_fine

I believe the answer to this question is implied in my response number 19 on this thread.


21 posted on 12/03/2005 10:39:35 AM PST by strategofr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alia

"All the reports I've read so far, say the "destruction of Able Dangers Papers" during Bush Admin were procedural (SOP), rather than directly ordered destroyed. Hmm"

likely story.


22 posted on 12/03/2005 10:40:19 AM PST by strategofr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jen's Mom

" Jamie Gorelick was on the wrong side of the table during the hearings."

true beyond doubt.


23 posted on 12/03/2005 10:41:13 AM PST by strategofr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Peach

"I don't get it. Much as I love Rumsfeld and Bush, I see no good reason for this information to be covered up. If Clinton was doing this, we'd be going nuts."

In my opinion, your love of Rumsfeld and Bush is well- justified. I love them also.

However, you are a little naïve in some ways. The Bush administration made some kind of mistake in regards to Able Danger. I don't know what the mistake was, but they would not be covering up Able Danger if they had not made a mistake.

No doubt, the Clinton administration mistakes on Able Danger (or more likely, their willful aiding of terrorism) were a hundred times or a thousand times more grievious than the mistakes of the Bush administration in regards to Able Danger. however, if the truth about evil danger comes out. This will not matter because 1) Bush is president, Clinton is not and 2) the mainstream media.

The US government is obviously a huge, vastly complex organization. Bush came into power in a disruptive situation caused by the conflict over the vote in Florida that delayed the whole timetable of the power take over. Remember, how bad it was? He had many months of delay in getting his people into place, compared to the normal timetable.

When Bush took over the government, terrorism was considered a low priority. This was more than anything due to Clinton's willful distortion of intelligence over a period of eight years, aided and abetted by the mainstream media. It is true that there were a few individuals, consider to be nutty at the time, who said that terrorism was extremely important. however, Bush, along with most of the other people in the country, could not see that that tiny group of experts was correct.

Bush did not emphasize terrorism as he started his government. Some kind of mistake was made by the Bush administration in regards to the handling of Able Danger (which would haev been seen as a low level priority from a general perspective---someone made the mistake of not elevating the priority.). Bush now feels the need to cover up and Rumsfeld is helping him do it. Personally, I can accept this. They are both great men who have done and will do many great things to protect our country. But running a country is sometimes a messy business. This has nothing to do with the sordid reality of Bill and Hillary who created a mess while doing their best to undermine and destroy our nation.


24 posted on 12/03/2005 10:54:12 AM PST by strategofr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

"There is NOTHING about 'Able Danger' which concludes that the "War on Terror" is a farce.

Able Danger may be an incompetence cover-up, but it is NO FACTOR in the validaty of the war on terror."

I agree 100%. While I find the article very interesting, I join you in completely rejecting the first sentence.


25 posted on 12/03/2005 10:56:09 AM PST by strategofr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: strategofr

BTTT


26 posted on 12/03/2005 2:51:09 PM PST by cibco (Xin Loi... Saddam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

I'll search. But memory serves me that the DOD ordered the docs destroyed, as part and parcel of SOP.


27 posted on 12/03/2005 3:56:19 PM PST by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: strategofr
"likely story".

So, tell me what your theory is? That the DOD "during Bush Term) demanded the docs destroyed.. Why?

28 posted on 12/03/2005 3:57:53 PM PST by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: strategofr; Peach
Disregard my earlier post asking as to your reasons.

Bush did not emphasize terrorism as he started his government. Some kind of mistake was made by the Bush administration in regards to the handling of Able Danger (which would haev been seen as a low level priority from a general perspective---someone made the mistake of not elevating the priority.). Bush now feels the need to cover up and Rumsfeld is helping him do it. Personally, I can accept this. They are both great men who have done and will do many great things to protect our country. But running a country is sometimes a messy business. This has nothing to do with the sordid reality of Bill and Hillary who created a mess while doing their best to undermine and destroy our nation.

Let me understand you, here. Clinton Admin refused to countenance Able Danger. They hand off approved docs (that would be "approved" from NSA, DOD, multi-national intel, Clinton Admin) (so to speak), to the Bush Admin. Within first 9 months of Bush first term, Able Danger docs.. are what? Shown to Bush Admin? Ordered immediately destroyed.. to cover up WHAT? A 9-11 that hadn't happened yet? A 9-11 that had happened?

29 posted on 12/03/2005 4:01:12 PM PST by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Itzlzha; Peach; strategofr
You are throwing lemons in with a whole cart of apples. Able Danger has not the connection to "sealing" the borders as you are jumping to. You are making assumptions not in factual evidence.

Between the Able Danger stuff, and W's complete refusal to secure the borders and INSISTS on backing Illegal Infiltrators in America with Shamnesty...I now am beginning to believe the cabal theory between the Klinton Mafia and the Bush Clan may be more than "tin-foil" stuff!

BWAAAHAAA! And you really believe it, too -- I have no doubts of this. DU peddles this same stuff. Don't ya think you could have more credibility over there?

We are ALL in seriously deep doo-doo!

Maybe, but not for the motivations and reasons YOU are citing.

IMHO, your "analysis" is right up there with possibly WHY Able Danger was ignored in the first place -- fear and more fearmongering. The first questions should be: Why the Gorelick Wall?

Second question should be: How could Military Intel datamine more data than the Clinton Admin could? What the heck was Clinton intel ACTUALLY doing with all that paid-for and budgetted time.

Then, can you cite for me EXACTLY, website, etc., giving evidence that the BUSH administration, specifically, ordered Able Danger docs destroyed? No. You can't.

It was DOD. And it was destroyed, why? Strategofr posits/suggests it was a joint conspiracy of the "Clinton/Bush" cabal.

I don't think The Bush Team had anything to do with something which has to date been reported as "destroyed" due cyclical and mandatory, laid out by the book, classified doc destruction routines.

Why don't you ask the DOD what other Docs were destroyed? You think they'd tell you? Would you then say... THEY KNEW. THEY KNEW IN ADVANCE OF 9-11? And just because they won't give you classified data which has been destroyed? Or even a log of what was in it?

30 posted on 12/03/2005 4:09:37 PM PST by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Alia

"It was DOD. And it was destroyed, why? Strategofr posits/suggests it was a joint conspiracy of the "Clinton/Bush" cabal."

I never said that anywhere I don't believe it. Your statement is a blatant miss reading of what I have said.


31 posted on 12/03/2005 4:17:51 PM PST by strategofr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: strategofr

Okay, I'll stand corrected. Do you think Able Danger was directly destroyed on orders SPECIFICALLY from the Bush Admin?


32 posted on 12/03/2005 4:24:51 PM PST by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alia; Peach; strategofr

Would you like it from Curt Weldon?

Press Conference of Rep Curt Weldon: 9/11 Commission and Operation "Able Danger"

How about some quotes...

__________________________________________________________

"In the course of that briefing -- and there was a Navy admiral in the room, Admiral Wilson, in charge of DIA, and Richard Schiefren (ph) was in the room. Richard Schiefren (ph) was an attorney at DOD.

In the course of that discussion, Richard Schiefren (ph) discussed Able Danger. I did not know that up until I watched the Heritage Foundation speech that I gave in 2002, where I document the meeting, in the briefing that was done for General Shelton. When I asked Tony Shaffer this morning about that, he said, "Yes, I briefed General Shelton. I was also involved in a Door Hop Galley (ph) brief, where Steve Cambone" -- he was not in the position he's in today. He was a special adviser to Don Rumsfeld.

My concern is if there were 2.5 terabytes of data that were destroyed in the summer of 2000, there had to be material in 2001 if you briefed General Shelton. Where is that material? Where is that briefing?

In addition, there is a question about the possibility of additional data that was in Tony Shaffer's office that was removed, not all of which was turned over to the 9/11 Commission.

As most of you know by now, when Tony Shaffer returned in January of 2004, Tony Shaffer -- or 2003, get my dates right, 2003 -- 2004 -- in January 2004 -- right, because it was in October of 2003 when he first briefed the 9/11 Commission's staff over in Baghram.

In January of 2004 when he was twice rebuffed by the 9/11 Commission for a personal follow-up meeting, he was assigned back to Afghanistan to lead a special classified program.

When he returned in March, he was called in and verbally his security clearance was temporarily lifted. By lifting his security clearance, he could not go back into DIA quarters where all the materials he had about Able Danger were, in fact, stored. He could not get access to memos that, in fact, he will tell you discussed the briefings he provided both to the previous administration and this administration.

For the 9/11 Commission to say that this does not exist is just absolutely outrageous."

__________________________________________________________

So, either the Bush Administration is allowing the DOD to LIE to Conmgress that the info that Tony Schaffer had was destroyed...or it WAS destroyed! Because this was January 2004! No Klinton orders, unless it was Klintonistas that did it...in which case hanging is required!

Which do you prefer? Because it has to be ONE or the other...because by now, if the Bush Administration was NOT involved in the cover-up, they would have ordered the documents/data released to the Weldon Hearings...or would they?

Your choice...pick one!

33 posted on 12/03/2005 4:35:56 PM PST by Itzlzha ("The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: strategofr
What's really tough to swallow ... the 911 Commission is still issuing opinions and advice. Today (Saturday) an AP article appeared in our local paper with the heading '911 panel still finds much wrong with security revamp'. This discredited bunch of pompous, arrogant, pontificating assh**** are still taking swipes at Bush; in this article (are you ready?) 'the U.S. is not doing enough to ensure that foreign nations are upgrading security measures to stop proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical materials'.
Give me a break ...
34 posted on 12/03/2005 4:59:54 PM PST by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Itzlzha
I not only read Mr. Weldon's speech and transcript when it was first posted, I sent it out en masse.

What you have posited in earlier posts STILL is not evidence that you can conveniently fit into your alleged scenario of the "Clinton/Bush Cabal". Your words.

Secondly, I think you might need to learn MORE about "intel" and classified data, if you think a President can "merely" override procedures regarding security and intel.

By the way, what do you think NSA does? Do you think NSA has any hand in this?

So, either the Bush Administration is allowing the DOD to LIE to Conmgress

"allowing them to lie"? Or would you prefer to say: "not forcing them to "release" data"? If other branches of the cabinet do NOT concur with the release of this data, what exactly do you suggest the President DO?

Because it has to be ONE or the other...because by now, if the Bush Administration was NOT involved in the cover-up, they would have ordered the documents/data released to the Weldon Hearings...or would they? Your choice...pick one!

Again, you are offering me false choices based on your not very much knowledgeable understanding about how "intel" data is handled.

Keep me amused, and tell me now, that you think the President should EXECUTIVE ORDER release of this data, that no one can find? Or, now tell me that you know the destruction of the docs "goes STRAIGHT TO THE TOP" and tell me you aren't a quasi-democrat? Or just don't understand the process?

Contrariwise, We know DIRECTLY, AFFIRMATIVELY, EVIDENTIALLY -- that the 9-11 Commission REFUSED to countenance the Able Danger data. Do you posit "Bush" ordered them to? If No President, then whom do you think ordered the 9-11 Commission to IGNORE Able Danger?

35 posted on 12/03/2005 5:08:06 PM PST by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Alia

"Okay, I'll stand corrected. Do you think Able Danger was directly destroyed on orders SPECIFICALLY from the Bush Admin?"

I don't know what orders were given or have any special knowledge of events. But I do know this, unless President Bush is living on the moon, he's heard about Able Danger. Unless he is a moron, he knows that this is important issue.

He is the chief executive of the United States and the commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces. He has total power within the DOD and any other branches that may have been involved with Able Danger. If the truth about this situation has not been brought to light it is because he does not want it to be brought to light. I can conceive of no other reason for him wanting this except that his administration has made some mistake with regards to Able Danger.


36 posted on 12/03/2005 7:01:57 PM PST by strategofr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BluH2o

"This discredited bunch of pompous, arrogant, pontificating assh****"

I agree. I am oppossed to excuting them in the normal fashion because these m@#$^*&^^%rs should feel some pain before they go.


37 posted on 12/03/2005 7:05:25 PM PST by strategofr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: strategofr

Thank you so much for your engaging essay-post!


38 posted on 12/03/2005 10:11:20 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jen's Mom

bttt


39 posted on 12/03/2005 10:13:12 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
Lookie here. The continuity of coverup and conspiracy from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration to suppress Able Danger follows a disturbing pattern that is demonstrated in these cases directly related to 9/11
40 posted on 12/03/2005 10:14:33 PM PST by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

I don't believe any of this giant conspiracy stuff. As is true with the other theories (Jewish bankers, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergs, etc.) if there were such a powerful group in control there would be no need to hide it. They could just overtly control rather than do it covertly. And if they do control covertly, there is nothing we can do about it anyway. I think it is all like a child's connect the dots picture where the child has taken shortcuts that seemed correct but weren't. That produces a muddled and different picture than reality. I think our Sherlocks have done that.


41 posted on 12/04/2005 12:22:07 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: strategofr
You are a thoughtful thinker, Strategofr. I'm doing my level best to understand what you refer to as the "mistake in early Bush Admin".

Bush did not emphasize terrorism as he started his government. Some kind of mistake was made by the Bush administration in regards to the handling of Able Danger (which would haev been seen as a low level priority from a general perspective---someone made the mistake of not elevating the priority.). Bush now feels the need to cover up and Rumsfeld is helping him do it. Personally, I can accept this. They are both great men who have done and will do many great things to protect our country. But running a country is sometimes a messy business. This has nothing to do with the sordid reality of Bill and Hillary who created a mess while doing their best to undermine and destroy our nation.

Full concurment with you in re the Clintons. Adamant concurment.

So, let's suppose, the Able Danger data was given to the Bush Team pre-911. On file is that the Clinton Team panned the data, passed on it already. The Gorelick Wall was in place. And what exactly or who was Bush Team to direct the data to? FBI?

Like you, I wish to see the Able Danger data given a bigger spotlight. But I'm unclear on exactly, still, what you might think the Bush Team mistake "was". Or do you think it is a "now" mistake?

Or, is it as simple as the Bush Team saying... let Able Danger go forward: Yes, my admin ignored it and because former Clinton Team said there was "nothing substantive in re Able Danger"? Is this what you mean?

42 posted on 12/04/2005 4:18:51 AM PST by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest
I have always believed there was a connection between OKC and the Al Qaida (sp?) although at the time, we didn't call them Al Qaida. Also, I think Mohammed Atta looked a lot like John Doe #2. The New American is put out by the Birch Society, and time has proven them to be correct in many areas, esp. UN.

Carolyn

43 posted on 12/04/2005 4:33:44 AM PST by CDHart (The world has become a lunatic asylum and the lunatics are in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alia

"You are a thoughtful thinker, Strategofr."

Thanks.


"..But I'm unclear on exactly, still, what you might think the Bush Team mistake "was"."

My presumption is that someone on the Able Danger team---or someone outside the team with a pretty good knowledge of Able Danger---approached a person of significant rank within the Bush administration---and was rebuffed. (I'm talking pre-911, after Bush took office.)

The Able Danger person could not have been Lieutenant Schaefer, or he would've told us about it.

I presume the reason the person was rebuffed was because the information did not seem credible or significant to the member of the Bush administration at that time. A factor in the decision to ignore the information would have been that the entire intelligence establishment had already considered the matter and come to the conclusion that there was nothing of significance there. This is Clinton's fault.

At that time, members of the Bush administration were probably making the assumption that Clinton had functioned as a loyal American trying to protect the country. At that time, the extent of the Clinton betrayal of the American people was very narrowly known.

Remember, no one outside of a few experts (who were considered "nutty") was focused on terrorism.

In short, I presume that a ranking member of the Bush administration made an error in what, at the time looked like a small matter. Obviously, it turned out not to be.


44 posted on 12/04/2005 7:44:22 AM PST by strategofr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Itzlzha

I appreciate your well-thought posts but would request that you not do the blinking thing.

Or if you have to do it, not so extensively.


45 posted on 12/04/2005 7:46:30 AM PST by strategofr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Thank you very much for saying so.


46 posted on 12/04/2005 7:56:06 AM PST by strategofr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: strategofr
Bless you, your reasonable reply.

At that time, members of the Bush administration were probably making the assumption that Clinton had functioned as a loyal American trying to protect the country. At that time, the extent of the Clinton betrayal of the American people was very narrowly known.

This, is exactly, where you and I differ in re the Able Danger material. I don't think the Bush administration thought this. I think they had a very good idea about the Clinton Administration. And didn't then Governor Bush have a fine ole' time via Clinton Admin/Naacp and the Jasper Texas "dragging", ad nauseum.

Furthermore, there are rogue allies of the Clinton Admin within the Military, DOD, CIA, State Department.

Bottomline, this admin, the Bush Admin has had a 100% batting score when it comes to defending this nation, whether the MSM and libbies trash the programs, the President, the policies, or Not. Dealing with the able Danger data would have been a priority, IMHO.

My presumption is that someone on the Able Danger team---or someone outside the team with a pretty good knowledge of Able Danger---approached a person of significant rank within the Bush administration---and was rebuffed. (I'm talking pre-911, after Bush took office.)

Are you maybe thinking of the Bush Team not immediately firing Clinton "pals" in these Departments from the get-go 2000?

Who did we have then? Tenent, and remaining Clintonoids doing some advising. Are you thinking Hadley, Powell?

How about Powell's Aide?

It's just outside the Bush pattern, for anyone within the Able Danger Team (or related) to have given such phenomenal data to anyone in core Bush Team, and have been rebuffed or ignored.

I'm more than open to pursuing that line of thought in re "someone" near the core having blown it.

See, libbies posit that Bush Team "knew" in advance of 9-11 of 9-11 (a la D-Cynthia McKinney sing-song). And of course, this is what underlies the Murtha/Kerry/Pelosi "wrong war, wrong time" -- meaning, the entire WOT was "fabricated" based upon "foreknowledge".

One can factor in Able Danger, or not.

What is MORE than patently obvious? The Democrats KNEW in advance of 9-11. They had the actual Able Danger data to review.

Do you recall offhand when the hearing on Able Danger took place during Bush years? The meeting Mr. Hadley says he vaguely remembers? I could look it up; might have to.

My question still remains: Why didn't Clinton team go after these guys (Atta, etc.)? Could it be, because the plan wouldn't have happened in time for a "Clinton" presidential "legacy" award?

Could it be that the Bush Team had come across so many passive-aggressive "clinton legacy" attacks and insults (bad data, bad records, etc.); that they couldn't be sure to trust anything which even remotely had its start during Clinton Presidential term, without getting international or second-party confirmation?

47 posted on 12/04/2005 1:41:46 PM PST by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Alia

"Bless you, your reasonable reply."

Thank you.

"Bottomline, this admin, the Bush Admin has had a 100% batting score when it comes to defending this nation,"


That is not realistic. No one can score 100% on such a broad front. Of necessity, mistakes happen.

" Dealing with the able Danger data would have been a priority, IMHO."

Nothing Bush said before 911 indicates that terrorism was a priority, in my memory. It was non-existant as a national priority. It is hard to believe things have changed so much so fast.


"Are you maybe thinking of the Bush Team not immediately firing Clinton "pals" in these Departments from the get-go 2000? Who did we have then? Tenent, and remaining Clintonoids doing some advising. Are you thinking Hadley, Powell? How about Powell's Aide?"

No, I have no idea who it could have been.


"It's just outside the Bush pattern, for anyone within the Able Danger Team (or related) to have given such phenomenal data to anyone in core Bush Team, and have been rebuffed or ignored."

You are not thinking about the vast scope of the US government. Many things are overlooked all the time---by any administration.







"What is MORE than patently obvious? The Democrats KNEW in advance of 9-11. They had the actual Able Danger data to review."

Bush, Hillary, Jamie Gorelick, and some others are traitors. There were other traitors in the administration, as well as many "useful idiots" who thought serving Clinton was serving the US. More "useful idiots" than traitors.


"Do you recall offhand when the hearing on Able Danger took place during Bush years? The meeting Mr. Hadley says he vaguely remembers? I could look it up; might have to."

Sorry, can't remember. see the Able Danger thread on FR.


48 posted on 12/04/2005 1:59:08 PM PST by strategofr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: strategofr; Alia

"Bush, Hillary, Jamie Gorelick, and some others are traitors."

Aw oh. Mistake. First word was supposed to be "Clinton" as in Bill.


49 posted on 12/04/2005 2:02:04 PM PST by strategofr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt

Thanks for the ping...


50 posted on 12/04/2005 5:00:37 PM PST by FlashBack (When I grow up I wanna be a coWboy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson