Able Danger Update

Captain Ed comments that the WaPo tries to deny what the Pentagon has already admitted. That's a curious development in and of itself. Why would someone (WaPo journalist William Arkin) take the time to spin the story in such a way that it goes opposite what the Pentagon has said.

Arkin makes careful use of language here. No one associated with Able Danger says they deduced that Atta and the other three al-Qaeda operatives had an attack planned. Nor have they specified that "military lawyers" blocked them from sharing the information from the FBI. In fact, the entire thrust of their assertions has been that the military command in conjunction with the civilian legal staff at the DoD blocked the meetings.

Besides, Arkin appears to write this about four weeks too late. On September 1, the same Washington Post at which Arkin writes this reported that the Pentagon itself found three additional witnesses to the identification of not only Mohammed Atta as a potential AQ operative but the other lead 9/11 hijackers as well. It came as a stunning reversal after a week of denials from the Department of Defense [:]

Now, MacsMind would argue that Arkin is closer to the truth than Weldon, Phillipot or Shaffer, but I don't buy it. The facts all appear to be trending in Shaffer's direction, not towards the opposing view.

AJ Strata has more.

Technorati: Able Danger, weldon, and 9/11