There's been a lot of speculation about documentation from Able Danger during the pre 9/11 period. It would appear that the chart showing Atta as involved in a plot against the US was uncovered in a video showing Rep. Curt Weldon giving a speech to the Heritage Foundation in 2002.
"This is the unclassified chart that was done by the Special Forces Command briefing center one year before 9/11," he explains. "It is the complete architecture of al Qaeda and pan-Islamic extremism. It gives all the linkages. It gives all the capabilities. . . ."This, by itself, does not mean that Able Danger produced the chart before 9/11 or that Able Danger identified the plot, but it does add to the intrigue. Weldon does not state that the chart was produced by Able Danger, but that is what is being suggested. He also claims that he gave a copy of the chart shortly after the 9/11 attacks to then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and that this information may have been passed on to President Bush. Also, Weldon suggests that Gen. Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may have been briefed about Able Danger before the end of the Clinton Administration.
Though Weldon never mentions Able Danger or Atta by name - and the video never zooms in on the chart to the point where Atta's photo is identifiable - it's clear from Weldon comments that the chart is the same one currently being sought.
Curious.
The Conservative Voice looks at the reaction Weldon's claims have gotten from the media and even those on the Right. My own take is that we must maintain a critical eye towards all the incoming data, and not make the same mistake that the 9/11 Commission did, which is to only accept data that was part of a preconceived notion about the intel data and timelines, and excluding things that did not fit.
Consider all the data that is known about the intelligence reports for 9/11 and plot them on a chart. The timeline would be a line through the center of the dots. If you exclude points that are outside your preconception, you skew the data, and the timeline would be flawed. That has serious ramifications.
I would argue that the only way to evaluate this data is to look at it critically and from a politically neutral standpoint. The politicians wont like that, but this isn't about them. It's about this nation's national security, which always seems to get the shaft whenever the politicians talk about taking action. If the data suggests that the Pentagon had the information, we need to know why that information was spiked before it could be acted on. Was it solely the result of the Gorelick wall, or were there other factors at play.
Are those factors still present? Has the government fixed/established the communications links between the law enforcement and intel groups?
Of course, The Democratic Underground would like you to think that Able Danger is all a charade, and that it is bogus. They couldn't be further from the truth considering that Weldon's claims have the weight of a growing body of evidence behind them. The 9/11 Commission has no valid excuse for why the White memos weren't included in the report, nor why Able Danger was not mentioned in the report. The Commission at first claimed never to have heard of the program, then that the program did exist and that they were brief, and finally that the program didn't provide any useful data. The mixed signals from the Commission suggests that they botched the handling of Able Danger information and/or failed to obtain all the information necessary to publish a report on the intel leading up to the attacks. The Commission has stated that Able Danger was excluded from the report because its information conflicted with their timeline.
What was more important, the timeline, or getting the facts straight? DUers would like you to think that the Commission got it right. I think the Commission got it wrong, and would at least like this situation investigated fully. DUers think that this is a charade and a witchunt to get Gorelick and Clinton Administration officials. I think that this is real serious business and that if any officials need to be held accountable for their failures that they should be held accountable irrespective of their political affiliation, which is apparently beyond the comprehension of the DUers.
UPDATE:
Mickey Kaus has been following Able Danger and provides some additional commentary and analysis. In an earlier piece over the weekend, there's more work on the two Atta theory, which in this case is the two El-Amir theory (Atta apparently went by this name for a period of time before assuming the Atta name).
Update--the two El-Amirs: Minuteman delivers! J.D. Smith also said that Able Danger had gotten Atta's name by linking him to Omar Abdul Rahman, the blind sheikh implicated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. But how could they have linked Atta to Rahman? Easy! It turns out, as blogger A.J. Strata discovered, that there are links--whether accurate or inaccurate [thanks--lawyer]--in the public domain between Rahman and a doctor, Magdy El-Amir--who may be completely innocent! [ditto]--but who has a brother named Mohamed El-Amir who has apparently been linked by Dateline--again, perhaps erroneously--to some intrigue or other. Mohammed El-Amir ... why is that name familiar? Wasn't that the same name used by Mohammed Atta at the beginning 2000? I think it was! In other words, here is a simple explanation for how Able Danger could have fingered an Egyptian with the name of the 9/11 hijacker, Mohamed El-Amir (whom we now know as Mohamed Atta). It was just a different Mohamed El-Amir. ... Why do I feel that through the power of the blogosphere we are asymptotically approaching the truth?
UPDATE II:
The Weekly Standard has an interesting article about the connection between Iraq and 9/11, the links between them are found in the aftermath of the 1993 WTC bombing.
Why would the 9/11 Commission fail to mention Abdul Rahman Yasin, who admitted his role in the first World Trade Center attack, which killed 6 people, injured more than 1,000, and blew a hole seven stories deep in the North Tower? It's an odd omission, especially since the commission named no fewer than five of his accomplices.
Why would the 9/11 Commission neglect Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, a man who was photographed assisting a 9/11 hijacker and attended perhaps the most important 9/11 planning meeting?
And why would the 9/11 Commission fail to mention the overlap between the two successful plots to attack the World Trade Center?
The answer is simple: The Iraqi link didn't fit the commission's narrative.
No comments:
Post a Comment