9/11 Commission

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

9/11 Commission

Postby Haggis@wk » Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:27 pm

Atta intelligence omitted from report


This is truly unacceptable.


The AP reports that the Commission's spokesperson, Al Felzenberg, now admits that the Commission knew full well that the secret Army program Able Danger had identified Mohammed Atta as an al-Qaeda operative along with three other men in Brooklyn, but left it out of their final report:

”The Sept. 11 commission knew military intelligence officials had identified lead hijacker Mohamed Atta as a member of al-Qaida who might be part of U.S.-based terror cell more than a year before the terror attacks but decided not to include that in its final report, a spokesman acknowledged Thursday.

Al Felzenberg, who had been the commission's chief spokesman, said Tuesday the panel was unaware of intelligence specifically naming Atta. But he said subsequent information provided Wednesday confirmed that the commission had been aware of the intelligence. ...

Felzenberg said an unidentified person working with Weldon came forward Wednesday and described a meeting 10 days before the panel's report was issued last July. During it, a military official urged commission staffers to include a reference to the intelligence on Atta in the final report.
Felzenberg said checks were made and the details of the July 12, 2004, meeting were confirmed. Previous to that, Felzenberg said it was believed commission staffers knew about Able Danger from a meeting with military officials in
Afghanistan during which no mention was made of Atta or the other three hijackers.

Staff members now are searching documents in the National Archives to look for notes from the meeting in Afghanistan and any other possible references to Atta and Able Danger, Felzenberg said.”


And so now we come back to the National Archives -- and October 2003. One of Sandy Berger's last visits to the Archives where he took highly classified material out the door with him was in October 2003, around the time that the Commission first heard about Able Danger. Does this start to sound just a little too convenient and coincidental?

Even without the possible Berger theft as part of the story, this constant shifting of the story underscores the massive credibility deficit that the Commission has now earned.

First they never heard of the Able Data.

Then, maybe a low-level staffer told them about the program but not the Atta identification.

Next, the military met with the Commissioners but didn't specify the Atta identification.

Now, we finally have confirmation that the Commission itself -- not just its low-level staff -- knew that military intelligence had identified Mohammed Atta as an al-Qaeda operative a year before 9/11. Instead of reporting it, the Commission buried it.

This points to some disturbing questions. It looks like the Commission decided early to pin blame on the intelligence community rather than the bureaucracy which stripped it of its ability to act in the interests of our security.

Who benefited from that? Commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick. Who else stood to lose if the real story came out? The answer to that may well be the NSA director who conducted a clumsy raid on the National Archives in the middle of the investigation.

Congress needs to take this up immediately.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: 9/11 Commission

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:54 pm

Hi Haggis,

A penny for your supposition.

"He sought to minimize the significance of the new information."

I have a problem with that line in the article. Even though she may be correct in her assessment, it sounds an awful lot like it ought to be followed by "in this writer's opinion."

That, of course, is just this writer's opinion.

<small>[ 08-11-2005, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Re: 9/11 Commission

Postby haggis » Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:21 pm

Considering the AP is the self-appointed hit agency for the Bush Administration, I'm surprised they even said that much!

There are some serious allegations that the 9/11 Commission hid some critical information.

Gorlick, one of the Commissioners, was responsible for the rule that prevented the DoD from sharing the information with the FBI.


That's pretty serious.

I find it even more incredulous that in spite of the ban someone didn't leak the info to the FBI anyway.

Actually, I'm fairly certain that someone DID leak the info to the FBI. That's a chapter that hasn't been opened yet. I'm equally certain that that someone in the FBI is doing everything he/she can to distance him/herself from that can of worms!!

I'm just concerned that if the 9/11 Commission decided that the Atta info wasn't relevant to the report then what else did the decide might not have been relevant??


i
Haggis

A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing
haggis
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 12:01 am
Location: warm, humid, and wonderfully sticky Dallas, Texas!!

Re: 9/11 Commission

Postby Shapley » Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:30 pm

Haggis,

RE:I'm just concerned that if the 9/11 Commission decided that the Atta info wasn't relevant to the report then what else did the decide might not have been relevant??

Like an Iraqi connection via the Oil For Food Program? :eek:

V/R
Shapley

<small>[ 08-11-2005, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: 9/11 Commission

Postby Haggis@wk » Mon Aug 15, 2005 7:33 am

I was wrong, It’s not all about us

” Islamists have killed thousands of Westerners over the past couple of years -- thousands in New York City alone. But they have killed far more of their own fellow Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, and too many other places to list. The Terror War, or whatever we ought to call it, is not about us. It's a war waged by totalitarian Islamists against the rest of the world. We aren't targets because of what we do or even because of who we are. We are targets because we are not them. They hate everybody and we're part of "everybody."
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: 9/11 Commission

Postby OperaTenor » Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:24 pm

Hi Haggis,

Thanks for the link, and I agree.

What do you think about this guy?

Egypt's top imam calls for Iraqi unity

Al-Azhar's Grand Imam Condemns Killing of Civilians

Can these be signs that mainsteam Muslims are starting to rail against the terrorists?
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Re: 9/11 Commission

Postby haggis » Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:11 pm

This is the biggest story since 9/11 and the citizens of the U.S. need to see what’s going on. I don’t give a damn whose ass gets hammered for this but I want to see that ass hammered.

3,000+ Americans died because of this cluster f**k and I want blood. I suspect when more Americans find out about this (the MSM is noticeably AWOL on this story) they will too.

It’s wrong to try and put any spin on this. Someone was responsible and I want him or her dealt with harshly. We owe it to those people who went to work on 9/11.


The NY Times interviews Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, who has been a key source on the Able Danger disclosures:

”WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - A military intelligence team repeatedly contacted the F.B.I. in 2000 to warn about the existence of an American-based terrorist cell that included the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a veteran Army intelligence officer who said he had now decided to risk his career by discussing the information publicly. The officer, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, said military lawyers later blocked the team from sharing any of its information with the F.B.I.
Colonel Shaffer said in an interview that the small, highly classified intelligence program known as Able Danger had identified by name the terrorist ringleader, Mohammed Atta, as well three of the other future hijackers by mid-2000, and had tried to arrange a meeting that summer with agents of the F.B.I.'s Washington field office to share the information.

But he said military lawyers forced members of the intelligence program to cancel three scheduled meetings with the F.B.I. at the last minute, which left the bureau without information that Colonel Shaffer said might have led to Mr. Atta and the other terrorists while the Sept. 11 plot was still being planned.

...

The Defense Department did not dispute the account from Colonel Shaffer, a 42-year-old native of Kansas City, Mo., who is the first military officer associated with the so-called data-mining program to come forward and acknowledge his role.

At the same time, the department said in a statement that it was "working to gain more clarity on this issue" and that "it's too early to comment on findings related to the program identified as Able Danger." The F.B.I. referred calls about Colonel Shaffer to the Pentagon.”


The Able Danger papers shown to the 9/11 Commission at the Pentagon after the Afghanistan meeting did not feature anything mentioning Atta.

So the 9/11 Commission says. So either the Commission staff is lying. Or no paper mentioned Atta and Shaffer is just wrong.

Or the Defense Department misplaced the paperwork mentioning Atta. Or somebody at the Defense Department deliberately didn't give the Commission the material.

In the first case, if the 9/11 commission staff is lying, the hell to be paid is going to be colossal. Among other things, it could shake the current State Department to its foundations, since the 9/11 commission staff director, Philip Zelicow, is one of Condi Rice's most trusted aides.

In the second case, if the Defense Department withheld critical information on this matter, it's almost impossible to imagine the intensity of the bloodletting that will follow.

Let's end with an easy question - do people think they have seen enough to merit a Congressional investigation?

And do people want the investigation to be in the NYT, or over in the Senate?

My answer - if the Defense Dept. now denies everything, I may not believe them, and if they admit that they sat on Atta's name, I really won't believe it - send it to the Senate, start putting people under oath, and sort this out.
Haggis

A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing
haggis
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 12:01 am
Location: warm, humid, and wonderfully sticky Dallas, Texas!!

Re: 9/11 Commission

Postby OperaTenor » Wed Aug 17, 2005 9:27 pm

Hi Haggis,

I agree with you 100%(of course).

Do you suppose Sandy Berger's little paper pilfering episode had anything to do with this? If so, would that connection tend to discredit the Warren comissi...............uh, I mean, the 9/11 comission?

BTW, thank you very much for sharing this information.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Re: 9/11 Commission

Postby Shapley » Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:31 am

Haggis,

I'm glad the NYT picked this up. I was going to post it when I read it at Fox News, but such that would have drawn a [yawn].

According to the Fox News interview with Shaffer, the commission says they received "two briefcases full of information on Able Baker", Shafer says the information provided would not have fit into two briefcases, which leads him (and me) to believe that information was withheld from the commission.

OT,

I thought you said the Sandy Berger episode was "much ado over nothing".

V/R
Shapley


PS Here's the quote from the article:

Shaffer's briefing with the staffers took place in Bagram, Afghanistan. A Sept. 11 commission spokesman said the commission made two broad requests to the Pentagon for information relating to Able Danger, but received nothing to back up Shaffer's claim.

"None of the documents turned over to the commission mention Mohamed Atta or any of the other future hijackers," the spokesman said. Shaffer said the commission never received the whole story.

"I'm told confidently by the person who moved the material over, that the Sept. 11 commission received two briefcase-sized containers of documents. I can tell you for a fact that would not be one-twentieth of the information that Able Danger consisted of during the time we spent" investigating, Shaffer said.


The article can be read here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165948,00.html

<small>[ 08-18-2005, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: 9/11 Commission

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Aug 18, 2005 9:16 am

Hi Shap,

I searched both "much ado about nothing" and "Sandy Berger" in the Barracks, and this is the only thing I could find where I said anything about Sandy Berger previously.

I guess, especially since you use Fox News as a source of information, you can construe that statement as saying "much ado over nothing". :D

"From what I've learned on it, he destroyed three out of five copies of a set of notes taken regarding antiterrorist activities of the Clinton administration. The 9/11 commission still had access to the other two, and reports they did not lose any information. He pled guilty, and is being punished(lightly, IMO). If Bill Clinton was still his boss, he should have been held accountable as well, but such is not the case.

Even this is hardly on the order of what the GWB/PNAC gang of thugs is doing to this country. (BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to find another "think tank" with the same amount of Bush administration members on its roster.)"


Of course, putting it in the greater context of comparing it with the activities ofthe GWB administration, it does seem to be much ado over nothing..............unless some of what he pilfered is related to the communication blockage Haggis brought to light with the story. Hence my question above.

<small>[ 08-18-2005, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Re: 9/11 Commission

Postby Shapley » Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:10 am

OT,

If you scrolled down a couple of posts, you would have found this:

Funny, I googled "sandy berger" and came up with this list. Most of the first hits are right wing sources, including that stalwart paragon, Ann Coulter.

Doesn't sound to me like the right wing media is very silent about it.

It's not that I found it "unworthy of mention". Like I said earlier, I didn't know about it.

Quite frankly, in the context of everything else that's going on, this is small potatoes. No information was lost.


I equate "small potatoes" with "much ado about nothing".

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: 9/11 Commission

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:21 am

You may make that equation, it's certainly your right, even if it is incorrect. :p I equate "small potatoes" with an importance of a lesser degree.

To me, the bottom line is if no information was lost, then, other than a breach of integrity, no harm done to national security. If he did in fact remove unique information, it's a whole nuther matter, IMO, and the subject goes way up on my serious meter.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Re: 9/11 Commission

Postby Shapley » Thu Aug 18, 2005 12:12 pm

Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: 9/11 Commission

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Aug 18, 2005 12:28 pm

<yawn>, <yawn>, and finally, <yawn>

You keep citing Faux "News" just to give me a laugh?!!

How 'bout if I counter with releases from MoveOn.org?

Faux News......hmm, I like it. I can't have been the first to come up with that one, can I?
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Re: 9/11 Commission

Postby Shapley » Thu Aug 18, 2005 12:32 pm

And I supposed Moveon.org has information that proves Berger's innocence?

I provided Fox News links because they seem to be the only ones with in depth coverage of the matter.

If you can find a left-leaning link that provides information on the content of the purloined letters, feel free to post them.

BTW, All three links contain information from AP, so I'm sure you'll find it all in the MSM. Happy hunting!

<small>[ 08-18-2005, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: 9/11 Commission

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Aug 18, 2005 12:44 pm

Yes, info from AP after it has been duly laundered and spun by Faux News. In-depth coverage = wild editorializing.

I'm not trying to claim Berger's innocent of anything.

I'm just using MoveOn.org to compare levels of perceived credibility............or the lack thereof.

I happen to feel that MoveOn posts only facts, albeit selectively. Faux, on the other hand, has taken creative lying and fact juggling to a whole new level. They must work closely with Herr Rove.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Re: 9/11 Commission

Postby Shapley » Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:08 pm

Please feel free to point out the factual errors in those links. :)

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: 9/11 Commission

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:48 pm

I won't take the time to dissect those articles. It is a well-proven fact (researched by others who make it their job to check things like accuracy in the media) Faux regularly distorts the truth.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Re: 9/11 Commission

Postby Shapley » Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:56 pm

Smooth

Well,

Here's a link from another source:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/01/berger.plea/

I found this particularly interesting:

Clinton had asked Berger to review thousands of pages of documents related to the millennium terror plot and its aftermath for submission to the September 11th commission. While reviewing those documents, his lawyer said, Berger inadvertently took some classified documents and intentionally took handwritten notes he put together while reviewing the documents.

Clinton asked him to look at them. I wonder if he also asked him to "clean them up a little"?

And here's another link:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/21/berger.probe/index.html

In case anyone needs to "brush up" on the case.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: 9/11 Commission

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:06 pm

I'm flattered. :o

"Clinton asked him to look at them. I wonder if he also asked him to 'clean them up a little'?"

Purely speculative, wouldn't you say? Wouldn't it be at least equally as plausible that Clinton wanted him to review the facts of what transpired for future reference? Or to make sure that paperwork was complete and organized?

It's most likely beyond coincidental, but it is possible he simply screwed up while shuffling papers.

All of that should be for the investigators to determine, so maybe we should reserve judgement on that one, eh?

Amazing. All of this from me simply asking Haggis his take on that angle.

:roll:
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Next

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron