Why Able Danger Was Scrapped (And Then Ignored by the 9/11 Commission): The China Connection

At yesterday’s House Armed Services Committee hearing on Able Danger, Congressman Curt Weldon (R-PA) repeatedly asked witnesses if a chart produced by the Land Information Warfare Activity (LIWA) / Information Dominance Center (IDC) on Chinese front companies operating within the United States played a role in the dismantlement of Able Danger. The answer was consistently yes.

What exactly was this document that was developed and what were the implications of it for the Clinton Administration? As you will see, the information raised serious questions for the Democratic Party and the Clinton White House in regards to the transfer of sensitive military technologies to China, and how export controls were relaxed in favor of individuals and companies who gave heavily to the election campaigns of Democratic candidates and President Clinton.

In response, the Clinton Administration set about disbanding LIWA and its sister organization, Able Danger, which was investigating Al Qaeda. They wanted to sweep this information under the rug and were, for the most part, successful. But later, when word began to trickle out that Able Danger had actually uncovered some information that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, Democrats loyal to the Clinton Administration were shocked. They could not let the truth come out about Able Danger and its successes, or else they would have to answer for why the group was disbanded. The reason, of course, being that Able Danger and LIWA were dismantled to cover up the Clinton Administration’s complicity in transferring technology to China.

In short, Able Danger was a collateral victim of the successes of the data mining efforts being performed by LIWA. 9/11 could have been prevented if the Clinton Administration had not disbanded Able Danger and LIWA, which it did to cover up very embarrassing information that the data mining efforts of LIWA were uncovering in regards to China.

In mid-1999, Congressman Weldon requested that LIWA develop a chart of Chinese front companies operating within the United States. The results were staggering, showing a complex web of organizations within the United States, including major U.S. defense contractors, who were involved in the transfer of sensitive technologies to Communist China. It also showed how Chinese agents had successfully funneled ten of million of dollars in campaign contributions to the DNC and President Clinton’s reelection campaign.

An accompanying timeline developed by LIWA was equally shocking, showing how the Clinton Administration had liberalized exports rules for a number of extremely sensitive dual use technologies that China could utilize for military purposes. These included very advanced encryption technologies that made it harder for our intelligence community to do its job and rocket technology that allowed China to increase the range of its offensive intercontinental ballistic missiles. China in turn, then transferred these technologies to others nations that included Iran, Syria, Libya and Pakistan. (see page 3 of the timeline

Weldon does an excellent job of outlining the revelation showed by the chart and timeline developed by LIWA showed. Briefly, the cumulative impact of the Clinton Administration’s actions – in exchange for campaign contributions, allowed China to:

o Develop reliable Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles with insights into MIRVing that ICBM force.

o Develop an integrated command, control, communications, computer and intelligence encrypted network to enable better military command and control over vast areas, even beyond China itself.

o Improve power projection for its surface fleets, submarines, and long-range cruise missiles capable of hitting not only Taiwan, but also Japan from mainland China.

o Produce more proficient fighter and bomber aircraft capable of greater distances and speeds.

This was impeachable material and it scared the hell out of the Clinton Administration. But ultimately, Weldon was shouting into the wind, as the mainstream media largely ignored these explosive findings and instead relied on the somewhat whitewashed findings of the Cox Report. Weldon, you may recall, was in fact a member of the Cox Commission, but he was unsuccessful in his efforts to have this data included in the report, and was instead relegated to putting this information out independently.

Why did the Cox Commission ignore this data? Because it could have caused embarrassing questions for Republicans as well as Democrats. In fact, attempts were even made by conservatives – perhaps fed by Clintonites within the Department of Defense -- to discredit Weldon by linking him to campaign contributions that he accepted from defense companies that were involved in the transfer of sensitive technologies. Never mind the fact that it was Weldon who had revealed this information to begin with. Interested parties needed to paint him with a broad brush to discredit him with the mainstream media. Weldon’s decision to go independent also seemed to rankle Republican leadership, as he was passed over for a slot of on the coveted House Intelligence committee, presumably because he was not a team player.

But while the information was largely ignored by the media and the powers that be that put together the Cox Report, the Clinton Administration took notice. They promptly undertook efforts to hamstring and ultimately dismantle LIWA and other data mining operations. That included Able Danger.

I believe that when Able Danger began to uncover Al Qaeda links and cells operating within the United states, they had already become known as a “persona non grata,” both within the intelligence community and among other federal agencies. The Clinton Administration had already begun efforts to slowly and quietly dismantle these programs, and word was filtering through the federal bureaucracy. The poor treatment of these data mining operations and the intelligence they were collecting may have may also have been partially due to the fact that other agencies were threatened by the good work being performed by these data mining operations and saw it as encroaching on “their turf.” I believe it was a confluence of both factors, with the Clinton Administration cronies playing on the jurisdictional and turf issues as a way of ensuring that LIWA and Able Danger were ultimately scrapped.

As a result Able Danger and its work were quietly folded -- until the 9/11 Commission began soliciting information from federal employees on the work they were performing on pre 9/11 intelligence and Al Qaeda. They, in effect, had opened a can of worms when they began talking to people about Able Danger. To include information on Able Danger in the 9/11 Commission report would require an explanation of why their work had been halted.

I suspect some of the connections on the charts developed by LIWA included unsavory links to prominent Republicans, as well as democrats, which was why it was not included in the Cox Commission Report (I have heard that Condoleezza Rice was one such person.) There may very well have been no real, credible connection, but simply the inference that there were connections may have been alarming for Republicans.

Rather than revisit an issue that would reap irreparable harm on both parties, Republican and Democratic members of the 9/11 Commission opted to omit any references to Able Danger. Perhaps they justified it in their own minds as something that could not be fixed in hindsight and “for the good of the country” was best not made public. Once that decision was made, it became imperative for the bureaucracy to continue to stick to the line. Otherwise, it would reveal a cover up of monumental proportions.

Former members of the Clinton Administration and DNC clearly have the most to lose in this information being made public. In fact, Weldon is now facing a tough race this cycle from former Vice Admiral Joseph Sestak, a member of President Clinton’s National Security Council during the time frame in question. He represents the highest ranking "Fighting Dem" seeking a seat in Congress. Governor Edward Rendell, former chair of the DNC, also cleared out two of Sestak's primary opponents in the past two weeks to provide him with a clearer shot at Weldon. In a district that voted for Kerry last Presidential election cycle, former members of the Clinton Administration may defeat Weldon and finally be successful in putting Able Danger to rest once and for all.

Why do you think the "current admin" is trying to bury Able Danger ..??

The fact that he hasn't gone out of his way to order a full cooperation with congressional oversight and Congressman Weldon...a true patriot. The fix is in.

I don't see any evidence to support that conclusion. After all .. it was Rumsfeld who rescued Lt. Shaffer and kept him from being railroaded.

Too little, too late.

Rumsfeld should have become proactive, had a press conference praising the Able Danger findings, and condemning the unnamed obstructionists who violated their oathes to protect national security...and for the benefit of the public inquiry, ordered a complete restoration of the lost work product that the Xlinton's ordered destroyed. This is doable, and for relatively cheap, since we already know the links which popped up...and still have the people who did the work before...and the open sources are still, well, open.

I don't think for a second that Rumsfeld would be dragging his feet of his own inclination...quite the opposite.

I think he is under orders.

Something similar happened when GWB ordered the wholesale unilateral dismantlement of our land-based counterforce capability...our newest and best missiles, the MX missile force. Rumsfeld stalled, and stalled, and finally was called on the carpet by the President. It is costing approximately $4.3 billion a year to do these dismantlements...over and above what it would take just to keep them operational. A complete SQUANDRY of severely over-stretched defense dollars...and strategically very questionable considering that this unilateral "gesture" is totally unreciprocated by the Russians... They are keeping their SS-18s fully functional, and undiminished, until the year 2017. Plus they are now deploying still more new missiles, the Topol-M, which has both FOBS capability, MARV capability and purportedly even has stealth.

Were you aware that we are rebuilding the military.

Building downward you mean.

Take a look at what's going on in the big picture. Start at the key strategic nuclear end of things. Half the B-1B's retired arbitrarily. Now half the Trident Subs will wind up being lost to the strategic force...even though they have been our ace in the hole against massive strategic surprise. More than half the Minuteman force. Still deeper cuts in the Minuteman now in the newest budget. ALL of the MX prematurely and unilaterally retired without reciprocation by the Russians. And that is taking BILLIONS every year to decommision stuff, more expensively than it would be to just keep them in operation. Planning to diminish still further the aircraft carrier fleet...despite increased needs for them because of lost bases.

Retiring the IRREPLACEABLE F-14. Right now. And no, the F-18 is in no way an adequate replacement. Retiring the F-117s, although they would be very welcome ain any conflict with China. Not replacing the Xlinton-decommissioned Fleet Oilers and the underway replenishment ships. Not replacing the attack subs fast enough to maintain the fleet size, despite all studies pointing to an increased fleet size need.

Failing to budget for a restoration of a strong ASW capability, despite consistent analyses that this would be the decisive area of conflict with China. Failing to confront cascading dependency of the military for imports, because we just don't make anything here anymore...and in fact, making it WORSE, by threatening a veto against Duncan Hunter's wonderful bill.

Meanwhile almost no F-22s are getting deployed (about a fourth of what was originally deemed necessary to be deployed), while our aging F-15s are losing practice tests against the new Russian-built Su-30-mkk's. And the signs were there pointing to the program dodging a bullet... escaping program cancellation by a hairs-breadth. The J-35 may not be so lucky.

If you're going to change how the military is structured, you're going to have to CANCEL some programs and some groups - because they no longer exist .. DUH!!

The evidence is in that major wars are not things of the past with China and Iran looming. And your causality is reversed...so, no they no longer will exist...if they get CANCELLED! DUH! A lot of our needs, big or small war, is fundamental infrastructure which needs to be recapitalized, because our stuff is getting really, really old. The KC-135's for example. He should have gone to the mat on this and blowing McCain out of the water on this. Now it will cost $200 billion...and most of it might be made in Europe. Then there is the C-17... For a head's up on some picayune cost-savings idiocy he is inflicting...check out the article appended at the bottom of my post.

And .. Bush has his own agenda he wants to get done in his last 3 years. The last thing he needs is wall-to-wall Clinton in the newspapers and on TV every day.

Exactly wrong. Bush is only there because of the treacheries and untrustworthiness of Xlinton convincing the Republic of the dire need for curative change. He is only in the White House because we conservatives thought he would be an adult and hold no one above the law...and that he would finally clean up the place, which of course implicitly meant holding the perps accountable.

But instead, almost all the henchmen holdovers are still with us, and its been pass after pass, from the FBI files, to Able Danger, to Sandy Hamburglar ham-handed destruction of records...and on, and on, up to the conspicuous 'love-fest' rehabilitation of the Xlintons

And .. because of the President's reverence for the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY - I'm sure he's reluctant to drag THE OFFICE through the mud.

He and his dad's 'love-fest' for Bubba is rather dramatically destroying reverence for the office if they make it appear that there is no difference. RepublicRATs all. If he was so concerned about the OFFICE, then enforcing the OATHE of OFFICE seems to be a tad more important than superficials of congeniality. Furthermore, he should not have been in such a rush to embrace the "intel was wrong" line about going into Iraq. Instead of being a noble self-sacrifice (admitting error) it instead leaves egg on his...and the OFFICE's face... Instead, he should have demanded, "Where did the stuff we know existed, GO?" Failure to find them should have been a 'heads rolling' situation. The Iraqi Survey Group never got out of the Green Zone, and of course didn't find anything... Consequently he has let the "Office" be drug through the most mud thrown up by the RAT crackpots since, oh, Watergate. As a result it was touch and go holding onto the White House despite what should have been a slam dunk against the whack job Kerry.

Here is an info clip you may find edifying:

Stutter step for C-17 could be costly
02/17/06
author: Tim McLaughlin

If the Pentagon ends production of Boeing Co.'s C-17 cargo plane in 2008 and then decides to re-start the program a few years later, it could cost taxpayers up to several billion dollars under a scenario outlined by the U.S. Commerce Department.

The Pentagon's budget for fiscal 2007 envisions modernizing Lockheed Martin Corp.'s fleet of C-5s and ending production of the C-17 after the 180th plane rolls off the production line in early 2008. The C-17 program employs several thousand Boeing workers in California and sustains about 2,100 jobs in Missouri and Illinois.

A study by the Commerce Department's bureau of industry and security says Boeing likely would sell its 424-acre C-17 production site in Long Beach, Calif., for commercial development if the Pentagon shuttered the cargo plane program.

One scenario outlined by the Commerce Department study has the C-17 plant closing, with production resuming a few years later of only 40 or so planes at a new site. Restarting production at a new site would cost about $5.7 billion, the study said, including the expense of later shutting down the new production site after the short production run.

"The U.S. government would sustain much higher charges if more than a few years pass before the decision to resume manufacture C-17s were made," the Commerce Department study says. "The reason: Boeing would likely sell off its 424-acre site at Long Beach for commercial, residential and light residential use."

In another scenario, a decision to permanently shut down C-17 production would result in $500 million in contract close-out charges, nearly $600 million in dismantling costs and $165 million in severance payments - for a total of $1.26 billion, according to the Commerce Department study.

Richard Aboulafia, a defense analyst at the Teal Group, an aerospace and defense research firm, said the C-17 has become a political football between Congress and the Pentagon. By not funding the C-17 beyond 180 planes, the Pentagon has left Congress with the choice of doing nothing for the C-17 or getting more money for the program.

"Killing the C-17 at 180 planes is just plain stupid," Aboulafia said.

At a production rate of 15 planes a year, a C-17 costs about $167 million, excluding engines, the Commerce Department study says. That's about 45 percent less than the first C-17 delivered in 1993.

In contrast, the Pentagon is pushing to modernize 112 C-5s for about $10 billion. That would keep the fleet going through 2040.

The Pentagon's recent top-to-bottom defense review supports C-5 upgrades, rankling C-17 supporters. They point to the C-17's demonstrated reliability, pointing to mission capability rates that have topped 90 percent.

In the mid-1990s, the C-5 fleet had mission capability rates of less than 70 percent, according to a government study. Upgrading the fleet would improve the C-5's performance.

Aboulafia said it's smart to equip the C-5 fleet with modern cockpit electronics and install new engines on 50 "B" model C-5s. He's not sure, though, if it would be wise to put new engines on the older "A" model C-5s.

Lockheed Martin officials did not return calls seeking comment.

The C-17 is a smaller, but more nimble plane than the C-5. For example, it can land on a dirt runway of less than 3,000 feet. That's an important capability when moving cargo to a remote base in Iraq or Afghanistan.

But nothing in the U.S. airlift fleet matches the C-5's maximum payload, which is about 53 percent more than the C-17.

Heavy haulers

A comparison of Boeing's C-17 and Lockheed Martin's C-5.

Plane C-17 C5

Maximum payload (pounds)170,900 261,000

Maximum range (nautical miles) 2,400 2,982

Minimum runway (feet) 1,400 4,900

Fleet size 137 126

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce

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.