"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.
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?