The Senate Intelligence Committee has rejected as untrue one of the most disturbing claims about the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes — a congressman's contention that a team of military analysts identified Mohamed Atta or other hijackers before the attacks — according to a summary of the panel's investigation obtained by The Times.
The conclusion contradicts assertions by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) and a few military officers that U.S. national security officials ignored startling intelligence available in early 2001 that might have helped to prevent the attacks.
In particular, Weldon and other officials have repeatedly claimed that the military analysts' effort, known as Able Danger, produced a chart that included a picture of Atta and identified him as being tied to an Al Qaeda cell in Brooklyn, N.Y. Weldon has also said that the chart was shared with White House officials, including Stephen J. Hadley, then deputy national security advisor.
But after a 16-month investigation, the Intelligence Committee has concluded that those assertions are unfounded.
"Able Danger did not identify Mohammed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker at any time prior to Sept. 11, 2001," the committee determined, according to an eight-page letter sent last week to panel members by the top Republican and Democrat on the committee.
Weldon, the focus of an unrelated Justice Department corruption probe, was defeated last month in his campaign for an 11th term in a suburban Philadelphia district that has a large GOP majority in voter registration. Attempts were unsuccessful Sunday to reach a Weldon spokesman and an attorney representing Weldon in the Justice Department investigation.
The Senate panel began investigating Able Danger in August 2005, after Weldon and people close to the program went public with their claims. At the time, Weldon was the vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee.
The recently completed probe also dismissed other assertions that have fueled conspiracy theories surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks.
The panel said it found "no evidence" to support claims by military officers connected to Able Danger that Defense Department lawyers prevented the team's analysts from sharing their findings with FBI counter-terrorism officials before the attacks.
Nor was the alleged chart or any information developed by Able Danger improperly destroyed at the direction of Pentagon lawyers, the panel concluded — a charge that had stoked claims of a cover-up.
Though the committee concluded that claims about Able Danger were unfounded, two of the hijackers were known to the U.S. intelligence community before the Sept. 11 attacks. The two had been observed by the CIA attending a meeting with Al Qaeda operatives in Malaysia, but that information was not shared with other agencies in time to locate them after they had entered the United States and moved to San Diego.
Showing posts with label Able Danger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Able Danger. Show all posts
Monday, December 25, 2006
Senate Investigation Finds Able Danger Claims Lacking
Friday, November 03, 2006
The Rabbit Hole
The New York Times is running a major story today about how the US Defense Department published online hundreds of thousands of documents captured in Iraq that required translation and hoped to utilize the distributed knowledge of Internet users to translate the information.
Well, the Times now claims that the information published online included primers on how to build nuclear weapons - information that could prove useful to the likes of Iran. That is, if the Times reporting itself is correct. If the reporting is indeed correct, that changes everything - and not for the better for Democrats.
That begs quite a few questions. Does this not show that Iraq was indeed working on nuclear weapons programs and reserving the technical know-how to produce the weapons the moment sanctions were lifted? Indeed the Times actually goes further than that:
It also raises yet more questions about the disposition of the program itself - where are the ultimate traces of the program. The papertrail deserves additional examination and it needs to be done swiftly.
Also, the rationale for shutting down the site (which the DoD did overnight) included concerns that Iran might be able to exploit the database for its own purposes. Does this not show that the world's concern about Iran's nuclear program are well-founded if this database could be used by the Iranians to aid in the development of their own nuclear program. If the Iranian program was for peaceful means, how and why would the Iraqi weapons program prove useful?
Why does the New York Times now suddenly realize that this database contains sensitive information that must be shut down, when only weeks and months earlier found no problem highlighting the NSA and SWIFT programs designed to hunt down terrorists around the world via their communications and financial transactions. The sudden shift cannot possibly be because of an election coming up, would it? Allah questions the timing. The sudden interest in national security just days before an election does seem most curious. Michelle Malkin concurs. It is curious alright.
Ed Morrissey, who has been on top of the publication of data from this database of documents notes that the nature of these documents must be legit if the Times is running the story in this fashion. He, among others, wonders now if everyone who has called the Administrations liars will now admit that they themselves were wrong since Bush appears to have been vindicated based on this Times story.
Now, if the Times got its reporting wrong, and tried to claim that the database information wasn't as important as they claim - trying to stress that the Administration's hold on classified information is flawed right before an election based on inaccurate reporting itself becomes the story: The Times itself would be trying to swing the election based on shoddy reporting.
That's why this story should be a win-win for the GOP. Not only would one outcome be that the GOP and Bush are vindicated by the Administration going into Iraq, but the flipside is that the Times pushing a bogus story right before the election would further seal its fate - and that of Democrats who hope this story might hurt the GOP right before an election.
Others blogging: Stop the ACLU (and here), Macranger, AJ Strata, and more to come.
UPDATE:
For a good review on the NYT duplicity at election time, and how they may have completely sabotaged Democrat chances going forward, see this piece by Doug Ross.
UPDATE:
Don Surber makes an interesting observation about the publication of the information from which this Times story was culled. If this information was so valuable, how come no one from the Times bothered to check it out and publish a story on it until the Friday before the midterm elections.
Now, the website repository has been taken down, and the lefty websites are all atwitter over the fact that the Bush Administration provided information that would help Iran with its weapons program (that Iran itself says it doesn't have). What information was provided? And if this information helps provide the Iranian with key details that further its nuclear weapons program (that the Iranians keep saying they don't have), what exactly would it be doing for the Iraqi program? Collecting dust? That's what we're supposed to believe?
Would anyone have known that the Iraqis were as far along on their reconstitution of a nuclear weapons program if this repository wasn't public? Does anyone think that the Iranians need our help more than we're providing simply by giving them time to work out the kinks in their program. The Iranians continue to obtain crucial information and technologies from China and North Korea, and Russia is running interference. Iran's participation in the AQ Khan network is also known.
So, if the documents are supposed to be giving the Iranians the bomb, that would mean that Iraq was already there (since these documents are the ostensible missing links to getting the bomb that Iran so desperately wants but denies having interest therein).
Tom Maguire points out that the Iranians also got a wee bit of assistance from the Clinton Administration, who provided details about the nuclear triggers. That piece of equipment is the part that enables the nuclear weapon to fire off correctly and efficiently (or else you end up with a fizzle).
James Joyner provides a nice capsule summary - along with reaction from both sides of the aisle. He doesn't think the story as significant as others, but is open to being convinced.
For those wanting to see how far down the rabbit hole this goes, check out the following bloggers: Flopping Aces, QandO, Decision 08, and Argghhh!
UPDATE:
Still further down the rabbit hole. Ray Robison, who has been translating these documents and publishing them on his website (and via Ed Morrissey) has more to say about the latest from the Times. He thinks that his contacting the IAEA might have triggered this reporting in the first place. Confederate Yankee has more.
UPDATE:
Still others wandering down the rabbit hole: Jim Geraghty, Hyscience, Coalition of the Swilling, Cold Fury, Fausta, Small Dead Animals, and Kobiyashi Maru.
UPDATE:
Jason Smith notes some of the documents that had been translated in the past, along with some photographic evidence accompanying one of the documents. If you spot Zarqawi, you'd be correct.
Technorati: UNSCAM, Oil for Food, and Kofi Annan, iraq, saddam hussein, and bush lied, united states, atomic bomb, and nuclear weapons, politics.
Well, the Times now claims that the information published online included primers on how to build nuclear weapons - information that could prove useful to the likes of Iran. That is, if the Times reporting itself is correct. If the reporting is indeed correct, that changes everything - and not for the better for Democrats.
That begs quite a few questions. Does this not show that Iraq was indeed working on nuclear weapons programs and reserving the technical know-how to produce the weapons the moment sanctions were lifted? Indeed the Times actually goes further than that:
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.For those that are still slow on the uptake, that would mean not only that Iraq had the garden variety WMDs, but was quite close to having the ultimate WMD - a nuclear weapon at its disposal.
It also raises yet more questions about the disposition of the program itself - where are the ultimate traces of the program. The papertrail deserves additional examination and it needs to be done swiftly.
Also, the rationale for shutting down the site (which the DoD did overnight) included concerns that Iran might be able to exploit the database for its own purposes. Does this not show that the world's concern about Iran's nuclear program are well-founded if this database could be used by the Iranians to aid in the development of their own nuclear program. If the Iranian program was for peaceful means, how and why would the Iraqi weapons program prove useful?
Why does the New York Times now suddenly realize that this database contains sensitive information that must be shut down, when only weeks and months earlier found no problem highlighting the NSA and SWIFT programs designed to hunt down terrorists around the world via their communications and financial transactions. The sudden shift cannot possibly be because of an election coming up, would it? Allah questions the timing. The sudden interest in national security just days before an election does seem most curious. Michelle Malkin concurs. It is curious alright.
Ed Morrissey, who has been on top of the publication of data from this database of documents notes that the nature of these documents must be legit if the Times is running the story in this fashion. He, among others, wonders now if everyone who has called the Administrations liars will now admit that they themselves were wrong since Bush appears to have been vindicated based on this Times story.
Now, if the Times got its reporting wrong, and tried to claim that the database information wasn't as important as they claim - trying to stress that the Administration's hold on classified information is flawed right before an election based on inaccurate reporting itself becomes the story: The Times itself would be trying to swing the election based on shoddy reporting.
That's why this story should be a win-win for the GOP. Not only would one outcome be that the GOP and Bush are vindicated by the Administration going into Iraq, but the flipside is that the Times pushing a bogus story right before the election would further seal its fate - and that of Democrats who hope this story might hurt the GOP right before an election.
Others blogging: Stop the ACLU (and here), Macranger, AJ Strata, and more to come.
UPDATE:
For a good review on the NYT duplicity at election time, and how they may have completely sabotaged Democrat chances going forward, see this piece by Doug Ross.
UPDATE:
Don Surber makes an interesting observation about the publication of the information from which this Times story was culled. If this information was so valuable, how come no one from the Times bothered to check it out and publish a story on it until the Friday before the midterm elections.
Now, the website repository has been taken down, and the lefty websites are all atwitter over the fact that the Bush Administration provided information that would help Iran with its weapons program (that Iran itself says it doesn't have). What information was provided? And if this information helps provide the Iranian with key details that further its nuclear weapons program (that the Iranians keep saying they don't have), what exactly would it be doing for the Iraqi program? Collecting dust? That's what we're supposed to believe?
Would anyone have known that the Iraqis were as far along on their reconstitution of a nuclear weapons program if this repository wasn't public? Does anyone think that the Iranians need our help more than we're providing simply by giving them time to work out the kinks in their program. The Iranians continue to obtain crucial information and technologies from China and North Korea, and Russia is running interference. Iran's participation in the AQ Khan network is also known.
So, if the documents are supposed to be giving the Iranians the bomb, that would mean that Iraq was already there (since these documents are the ostensible missing links to getting the bomb that Iran so desperately wants but denies having interest therein).
Tom Maguire points out that the Iranians also got a wee bit of assistance from the Clinton Administration, who provided details about the nuclear triggers. That piece of equipment is the part that enables the nuclear weapon to fire off correctly and efficiently (or else you end up with a fizzle).
James Joyner provides a nice capsule summary - along with reaction from both sides of the aisle. He doesn't think the story as significant as others, but is open to being convinced.
For those wanting to see how far down the rabbit hole this goes, check out the following bloggers: Flopping Aces, QandO, Decision 08, and Argghhh!
UPDATE:
Still further down the rabbit hole. Ray Robison, who has been translating these documents and publishing them on his website (and via Ed Morrissey) has more to say about the latest from the Times. He thinks that his contacting the IAEA might have triggered this reporting in the first place. Confederate Yankee has more.
UPDATE:
Still others wandering down the rabbit hole: Jim Geraghty, Hyscience, Coalition of the Swilling, Cold Fury, Fausta, Small Dead Animals, and Kobiyashi Maru.
UPDATE:
Jason Smith notes some of the documents that had been translated in the past, along with some photographic evidence accompanying one of the documents. If you spot Zarqawi, you'd be correct.
Technorati: UNSCAM, Oil for Food, and Kofi Annan, iraq, saddam hussein, and bush lied, united states, atomic bomb, and nuclear weapons, politics.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Five Years
NOTE: This post will remain at the top of my blog through September 11, 2006, 11:59PM EDT. For more current postings, scroll below this post.
Five years ago, the largest terrorist attack ever conducted culminated in the murder of nearly 3,000 people, the destruction of the World Trade Center, devastated Lower Manhattan, badly damaged the Pentagon, wreaked havoc on the airline industry, and marked the most audacious and deadly attack by Islamic terrorists against the United States in our history. Since that fateful day, we have been living with the repercussions and the horrors witnessed by millions who saw the attacks in person or live on television.
I happen to be among those who saw the horrific attacks unfolding in person, working in the West Village and I can remember exactly where I was on that day, and those recollections are as vivid today as they were on this day five years ago. I can recall everything from that day, from the sight of the empty sky to the awful smell that persisted in Lower Manhattan for months after the towers collapsed.
I wrote the following last year, and much of it is still relevant today:
Ground Zero largely remains empty of permanent construction, but there is hope. The signature Freedom Tower is finally getting underway, as several insurers have relented to permitting the Port Authority to draw upon insurance proceeds due Larry Silverstein under his insurance policies. Foundation and prepwork has been going on at the site since March. Construction has begun on the foundations for the 9/11 museum and memorial along with the transit hub. Designs for the remaining office towers were released only this past week. The response to the three designs by Sir Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, and Fumihiko Maki, has been largely favorable. Construction at Ground Zero is not expected to be complete until 2012, 11 years after the terrorist attacks, but this is significant progress. The economic outlook downtown looks brighter, as inventory of rental space downtown continues to show strength, which increases the likelyhood that the three office towers will be built.
People are still trying to find ways to memorialize the events of 9/11 and the terrible toll. One such exhibit at the New York Historical Society recreates a storefront that became a shrine after 9/11 as the owner of a store a block from the Twin Towers turned his store window into a monument to those killed in the attacks by preserving the dust and debris that entered his store much as it was on 9/11 after the towers came down.
We find that the 9/11 memorial in Shanksville, PA continues to include significant elements based on Islamic designs and symbology despite an outcry by survivors. Meanwhile, you've got folks who are continuing to deny the heroism of those who died on Flight 93 when the plane crashed into the Pennsylvania countryside. I'm not sure why they think that those who rushed the terrorists to keep them from killing more people on the ground, most likely somewhere in Washington DC - either the Capitol or White House, are not heroes. Their sacrifice meant that others would live. Ace has the details.
We find that the death toll from the 9/11 attacks continues to rise, as several rescue workers have succumbed to illnesses that may have been due to their service at Ground Zero during the relief and recovery efforts. There are ongoing questions over how the federal government responded to the air quality at Ground Zero in the hours, days, and weeks following the collapse. Has the city, state, and federal governments turned the rescue workers and all those who toiled at Ground Zero during the days, weeks, and months following the collapse into the New Liquidators? I fear we have.
Airline security isn't what it should be, even after billions of dollars are spent on new policies and procedures. Security is uneven and presents opportunities to terrorists who might seek to exploit them either here in the US or abroad.
The threat posed by Islamic terrorism still isn't taken seriously by some on the left, who rather think that the current Administration or the US in general is a bigger threat to peace than Islamic terrorists and their sponsors in the Middle East whose goals are reestablishing a caliphate and imposing Islam on the world at the expense of the West and all that it stands for. Submission to Islam or death and destruction are the choices presented by the likes of the Islamists in Iran and the various Islamic terrorist groups including al Qaeda, Hizbullah, and Hamas. All the while, these Islamic terrorists and their spawn seek to destroy whatever is built at Ground Zero, the latest such plot was to flood the bathtub where the Twin Towers once stood, and where the new Freedom Tower, 9/11 Museum and Memorial, plus the other office buildings and transit hub would be located.
The Islamic terrorists have been fascinated with the World Trade Center site since the early 1990s, when the plan to blow up the Twin Towers was set in motion culminating in the 1993 WTC bombing that killed six and wounded more than 1,000 people.
Meanwhile, the far left thinks that the jumpers and other scenes from 9/11 and the collapse of the WTC are images that should be reserved for America's Funniest Home Video consideration. Curt at Flopping Aces has the vile details. Instead of placing blame of the attacks on the Islamic terrorists, they concoct conspiracy theories that put the blame on Bush, Jews, and everyone but those who have claimed responsibility - the Islamic terrorists themselves. Of course, videos showing Osama meeting with various 9/11 hijackers and planning the attacks undermine any such theories, but are treated as nothing more than CIA plants to throw people off from the real story.
Have we gone so far from 2001 that folks can use the events from that day for satire or bad humor? Apparently so, even as the threats posed by Islamic terrorists continue to this day. Yet, we've also seen movies that do not trivialize the events of that day including United 93 and World Trade Center. Also, there are very good documentaries and other media presentations that highlight the horrors of the day, both from the personal and emotional aspects to the science of the collapse of the towers. Ed Morrissey explores that issue more deeply. Meanwhile, CNN will be providing a full replay of its coverage from 9/11/2001 beginning at 8:30am edt and running straight through to midnight.
ABC is running a 2-part miniseries based on the 9/11 Commission Report, The Path to 9/11, which has received quite a bit of news because of its perceived bias against the Clinton Administration. Indeed, some of those officials, along with Democrat members of the Senate, called on ABC to either edit the scenes or can the movie while threatening ABC's broadcast license.
That's just the tip of the iceberg of media programming and other remembrances, as this story notes.
Finally, for those in the New York metro area, here's a guide to various events and memorializations around the area.
I've been continuing to cover the situation in my Battle for Ground Zero series (search).
UPDATE:
On this fifth anniversary, people are recalling the events of this day in ways large and small. Among those posting on this day: James Joyner, Hot Air (and here), Gateway Pundit, Michelle Malkin (whose blog marked the time of the attacks, the time the towers came down and has been blogging a torrent of postings all day - including a statement that she will not submit to Islam), AJ Strata, Old War Dogs, Bizzyblog, Sister Toldjah, Stop the ACLU, Ed Driscoll, Cold Fury, Pajamas Media, Tigerhawk, Joe Katzman at WoC, LaShawn Barber, Lorie Byrd at Wizbang, Jay Tea at Wizbang, Pamela at Atlas Shrugs, Don Surber, Uncooperative Blogger, Kim Priestap at Wizbang, Rick Moran, California Yankee, Ed Morrissey, and Discarded Lies (and here).
And for those who wonder about whether the hijackers ultimate destination, I think The Onion got it just right.
Technorati: World Trade Center, WTC, Pataki, LMDC, urban policy, Freedom Tower, IFC, International Freedom Center, spitzer, silverstein, mount sinai, respiratory ailment, wtc cough, bloomberg, bush, whitman.
Five years ago, the largest terrorist attack ever conducted culminated in the murder of nearly 3,000 people, the destruction of the World Trade Center, devastated Lower Manhattan, badly damaged the Pentagon, wreaked havoc on the airline industry, and marked the most audacious and deadly attack by Islamic terrorists against the United States in our history. Since that fateful day, we have been living with the repercussions and the horrors witnessed by millions who saw the attacks in person or live on television.
I happen to be among those who saw the horrific attacks unfolding in person, working in the West Village and I can remember exactly where I was on that day, and those recollections are as vivid today as they were on this day five years ago. I can recall everything from that day, from the sight of the empty sky to the awful smell that persisted in Lower Manhattan for months after the towers collapsed.
I wrote the following last year, and much of it is still relevant today:
Heroes will still be heroes - rushing into danger to save innocents without regard to their own safety. Politicians are still as inept and vainglorious as they were before the attacks. They play the blame game as they always have. The rebuilding of Ground Zero has been a monumental struggle, in part because PC has inserted its ugly head - we have to build a cultural center that includes anti-American groups like the IFC and The Drawing Center because people can't be allowed to mourn the murder and senseless destruction caused by Islamic terrorists. We have to hear from these anti-Americans that it was our fault.Thankfully, the IFC and Drawing Center were removed from the Ground Zero plans, but the 9/11 museum and memorial are still plagued by troubles including securing money through fundraising for the $500 million project. And yet, this past week we saw the opening of an interim WTC Tribute Center, which will serve as a museum and memorial until the permanent structures are built at Ground Zero. One has to wonder why it took so long to make this happen given the modest cost to produce what many have described as a truly emotional experience. Yet, thousands of artifacts being stored at a hangar at JFK Airport await a final home at Ground Zero, including major structural members, parts of the antenna that capped one of the towers, and personal artifacts large and small.
All this comes back into full view as we witness the response to Hurricane Katrina. The heroes are still the heroes - rushing in to help those who can't help themselves. That hasn't changed. Firefighters and law enforcement rushing in to fill the breach. Politicians who blame bureaucracies that were part of their job description in the first place. Corrupt officials trying to cover up their misdeeds with misdirection and playing blame games.
Calls for investigations and commissions, which will not reveal anything that we didn't already know because they will overlook the real juicy bits for the sake of political expediency (Able Danger anyone?).
Anyone sense a pattern here? I do. Only the names and places have changed.
Ground Zero largely remains empty of permanent construction, but there is hope. The signature Freedom Tower is finally getting underway, as several insurers have relented to permitting the Port Authority to draw upon insurance proceeds due Larry Silverstein under his insurance policies. Foundation and prepwork has been going on at the site since March. Construction has begun on the foundations for the 9/11 museum and memorial along with the transit hub. Designs for the remaining office towers were released only this past week. The response to the three designs by Sir Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, and Fumihiko Maki, has been largely favorable. Construction at Ground Zero is not expected to be complete until 2012, 11 years after the terrorist attacks, but this is significant progress. The economic outlook downtown looks brighter, as inventory of rental space downtown continues to show strength, which increases the likelyhood that the three office towers will be built.
People are still trying to find ways to memorialize the events of 9/11 and the terrible toll. One such exhibit at the New York Historical Society recreates a storefront that became a shrine after 9/11 as the owner of a store a block from the Twin Towers turned his store window into a monument to those killed in the attacks by preserving the dust and debris that entered his store much as it was on 9/11 after the towers came down.
We find that the 9/11 memorial in Shanksville, PA continues to include significant elements based on Islamic designs and symbology despite an outcry by survivors. Meanwhile, you've got folks who are continuing to deny the heroism of those who died on Flight 93 when the plane crashed into the Pennsylvania countryside. I'm not sure why they think that those who rushed the terrorists to keep them from killing more people on the ground, most likely somewhere in Washington DC - either the Capitol or White House, are not heroes. Their sacrifice meant that others would live. Ace has the details.
We find that the death toll from the 9/11 attacks continues to rise, as several rescue workers have succumbed to illnesses that may have been due to their service at Ground Zero during the relief and recovery efforts. There are ongoing questions over how the federal government responded to the air quality at Ground Zero in the hours, days, and weeks following the collapse. Has the city, state, and federal governments turned the rescue workers and all those who toiled at Ground Zero during the days, weeks, and months following the collapse into the New Liquidators? I fear we have.
Airline security isn't what it should be, even after billions of dollars are spent on new policies and procedures. Security is uneven and presents opportunities to terrorists who might seek to exploit them either here in the US or abroad.
The threat posed by Islamic terrorism still isn't taken seriously by some on the left, who rather think that the current Administration or the US in general is a bigger threat to peace than Islamic terrorists and their sponsors in the Middle East whose goals are reestablishing a caliphate and imposing Islam on the world at the expense of the West and all that it stands for. Submission to Islam or death and destruction are the choices presented by the likes of the Islamists in Iran and the various Islamic terrorist groups including al Qaeda, Hizbullah, and Hamas. All the while, these Islamic terrorists and their spawn seek to destroy whatever is built at Ground Zero, the latest such plot was to flood the bathtub where the Twin Towers once stood, and where the new Freedom Tower, 9/11 Museum and Memorial, plus the other office buildings and transit hub would be located.
The Islamic terrorists have been fascinated with the World Trade Center site since the early 1990s, when the plan to blow up the Twin Towers was set in motion culminating in the 1993 WTC bombing that killed six and wounded more than 1,000 people.
Meanwhile, the far left thinks that the jumpers and other scenes from 9/11 and the collapse of the WTC are images that should be reserved for America's Funniest Home Video consideration. Curt at Flopping Aces has the vile details. Instead of placing blame of the attacks on the Islamic terrorists, they concoct conspiracy theories that put the blame on Bush, Jews, and everyone but those who have claimed responsibility - the Islamic terrorists themselves. Of course, videos showing Osama meeting with various 9/11 hijackers and planning the attacks undermine any such theories, but are treated as nothing more than CIA plants to throw people off from the real story.
Have we gone so far from 2001 that folks can use the events from that day for satire or bad humor? Apparently so, even as the threats posed by Islamic terrorists continue to this day. Yet, we've also seen movies that do not trivialize the events of that day including United 93 and World Trade Center. Also, there are very good documentaries and other media presentations that highlight the horrors of the day, both from the personal and emotional aspects to the science of the collapse of the towers. Ed Morrissey explores that issue more deeply. Meanwhile, CNN will be providing a full replay of its coverage from 9/11/2001 beginning at 8:30am edt and running straight through to midnight.
ABC is running a 2-part miniseries based on the 9/11 Commission Report, The Path to 9/11, which has received quite a bit of news because of its perceived bias against the Clinton Administration. Indeed, some of those officials, along with Democrat members of the Senate, called on ABC to either edit the scenes or can the movie while threatening ABC's broadcast license.
That's just the tip of the iceberg of media programming and other remembrances, as this story notes.
Finally, for those in the New York metro area, here's a guide to various events and memorializations around the area.
I've been continuing to cover the situation in my Battle for Ground Zero series (search).
UPDATE:
On this fifth anniversary, people are recalling the events of this day in ways large and small. Among those posting on this day: James Joyner, Hot Air (and here), Gateway Pundit, Michelle Malkin (whose blog marked the time of the attacks, the time the towers came down and has been blogging a torrent of postings all day - including a statement that she will not submit to Islam), AJ Strata, Old War Dogs, Bizzyblog, Sister Toldjah, Stop the ACLU, Ed Driscoll, Cold Fury, Pajamas Media, Tigerhawk, Joe Katzman at WoC, LaShawn Barber, Lorie Byrd at Wizbang, Jay Tea at Wizbang, Pamela at Atlas Shrugs, Don Surber, Uncooperative Blogger, Kim Priestap at Wizbang, Rick Moran, California Yankee, Ed Morrissey, and Discarded Lies (and here).
And for those who wonder about whether the hijackers ultimate destination, I think The Onion got it just right.
Technorati: World Trade Center, WTC, Pataki, LMDC, urban policy, Freedom Tower, IFC, International Freedom Center, spitzer, silverstein, mount sinai, respiratory ailment, wtc cough, bloomberg, bush, whitman.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Dropping the Gauntlet
Michael Scheuer, who was the former chief of the Osama bin Laden Unit at the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center (and the previously “Anonymous” author of “Imperial Hubris”), has dropped the gauntlet against those who want to can the ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11.
If these opponents of the movie think that they were defamed or were inaccurate, sue. Declassify the information that was used in the decision making process, and who knew what and when they knew it.
Macranger relishes the possibility of a lawsuit brought by anyone in the Clinton Administration over this movie's depiction of their actions and ultimately that of the Adminstration as a whole. I'm torn between watching the discovery phase and everyone running to cover themselves, and the effect it has on our First Amendment rights, and those of the press. In the end, the First Amendment argument wins out as it must.
Ann Althouse can't believe that there are folks who are calling on politicians to sue those who have depicted them in a bad light. Specifically, she calls out Americasblog, which states the following:
The problem is not to attack this miniseries, but to improve our intel gathering capabilities and the ability to react swiftly and decisively.
If these opponents of the movie think that they were defamed or were inaccurate, sue. Declassify the information that was used in the decision making process, and who knew what and when they knew it.
“The solution is really quite simple, I think. Declassify the documents and testimony of the men and women who risked their lives to collect the intelligence that Clinton and his lieutenants failed to act on. Present this information to the American people — and perhaps put some of those officers on TV to answer questions — and then let the chips fall where they may. If the critics of the ABC movie are so confident they are right, they would surely welcome this process.”While Albright and others have dropped hints of lawsuits, I don't think they are nearly so confident in actually bringing suit because the information coming out would not be flattering to them, or anyone else for that matter. The fact of the matter is that the US government did not appreciate the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, and that stretches back to the 1970s. The 9/11 Commission report did not delve into all the means and methods used by the government to track terrorists around the world, as evidenced by the kerfuffle over Able Danger. Jaime Gorelick was not subpoenaed to testify before the Commission to give testimony over how and why she pushed for a wall between CIA and stateside law enforcement and disregarded letters written by Mary Jo White's office decrying that move (White being the top terror prosecutor in the country).
Macranger relishes the possibility of a lawsuit brought by anyone in the Clinton Administration over this movie's depiction of their actions and ultimately that of the Adminstration as a whole. I'm torn between watching the discovery phase and everyone running to cover themselves, and the effect it has on our First Amendment rights, and those of the press. In the end, the First Amendment argument wins out as it must.
Ann Althouse can't believe that there are folks who are calling on politicians to sue those who have depicted them in a bad light. Specifically, she calls out Americasblog, which states the following:
Clearly Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright and American Airlines have good cause to sue Disney/ABC, the BBC, Australian and New Zealand television, and any local affiliate that broadcasts the show. How can we further help their lawsuit? I think a first step is paying close attention in each country to how the show is being marketed. Get us copies of ads, promotions, etc. that show local broadcasters and others promoting the show as true and non-fiction. How else can we help their suit?These folks want a chilling of free speech that they would never tolerate if it were a GOPer making the calls. It's hypocritical on their part, and the fact is that US counterterrorism efforts have been uneven over the past 30 years, and our intel community has done an even worse job.
The problem is not to attack this miniseries, but to improve our intel gathering capabilities and the ability to react swiftly and decisively.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Random Musing
Don't you get the feeling that quite a few folks wish that the Clinton Administration attacked the terrorists with such vigor as he and others on the Left are attacking ABC for the upcoming miniseries The Path to 9/11, which appears to portray the Clinton Administration in a negative light.
Memeorandum has the ringside seat.
UPDATE:
ABC relents to the pressure and has apparently made changes to the miniseries as a result of the pressure from politicians and lefties. Nice. Most of those speaking out to pressure for the changes hadn't seen the movie. Still others are intimately involved in the events - whether they are President Clinton, Sandy Berger, or Madeline Albright, whose statement shows that she didn't even see the movie herself, but rather had it explained to her.
We do know that raids were called off on several occasions, and that any of them could have resulted in bagging Osama before 9/11. That's the part that the Clinton officials can't escape. They had opportunities, and let them fall through their fingers because they found excuses not to do what needed to be done.
This isn't about accuracy, but about perceptions. The Clinton Administration did a poor job protecting the United States from 1993 through January 2001. It's a record that is spotty at best, and damning at worst. Indeed, Bill Clinton admitted that he regretted not taking Osama when presented with the opportunity. Mark Levin tracks down two eyewitnesses to Clinton's failures to act at decisive moments when Osama could have been gotten on the cheap.
The Moderate Voice correctly notes that both parties have acted poorly in ideologically driven movies that question their values or interests (see the Ronald Reagan movie for example).
With all the questions swirling around the completeness of the 9/11 Commission in the first place, even attempting to claim that this miniseries is somehow factually accurate is misleading at best. Able Danger was plainly disregarded by the Commission, and the participation of Jaime Gorelick as a Commissioner was unhelpful at best, and torpedoed the accuracy of the Commission's findings at worst. Indeed, she should have been among those hauled in front of the Commission to testify as to her actions in the 1990s. That did not happen, and we therefore have a far less complete picture of what the Clinton Administration did or did not do.
What we do have is a bunch of officials whose involvement in national security affairs during the time period in question trying to play CYA, and attacking the movie despite knowing that they didn't get the job done.
John Miller did see the miniseries, and finds that the Clinton Administration gets lambasted, but the Bush Administration is not without criticism either. He's right, of course. Both Administrations did poor jobs understanding the nature and urgency of the threats. Jonah Goldberg thinks there should be a pox on both Dems and Republicans. For sure.
Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard and Dr. Sanity both notice the difference between the way President Bush handled the criticism heaped upon him in the docufarce Farenheit 9/11, and the way President Clinton is handling the criticism in this movie. The differences go to the measure of the men, and how they want to be viewed.
And frankly, no one should get their history from Hollywood. After all, this is the same bunch that has the Battle of Stirling Bridge take place on an open field (Braveheart), has massive tank battles take place when none occurred (Battle of the Bulge), dallied in conspiracy theories on prominent historical events (JFK), exaggerated or invented details (Born on the Fourth of July, Saving Private Ryan, Good Fellas, Laurence of Arabia, The Great Escape), and those are just off the top of my head. That doesn't even scrape the surface of problems with Michael Moore's supposed documentary Farenheit 9/11, which had a melange of conspiracy theory, exaggerated and invented details, and outright lies and distortion of Bush's failures.
That said, people are going to watch these movies and take from them whatever they want. Caveat emptor. Buyer beware. It's sound advice.
Others blogging: Ed Driscoll notes that ABC officials were stunned at how folks that they counted on being supporters turned on them swiftly and harshly, Don Surber, AJ Strata, Macranger, The Anchoress, Instapundit, Pierre Lagrande, Rick Moran, Sister Toldjah, and Confederate Yankee.
UPDATE:
Allah at Hot Air has a major update. Still others blogging this tempest in a teapot and watching Democrats spinning furiously on how this movie is biased against them: Flopping Aces, Kim at Wizbang, John Hawkins, Jason Smith, Roger L Simon, and Dan Riehl.
Memeorandum has the ringside seat.
UPDATE:
ABC relents to the pressure and has apparently made changes to the miniseries as a result of the pressure from politicians and lefties. Nice. Most of those speaking out to pressure for the changes hadn't seen the movie. Still others are intimately involved in the events - whether they are President Clinton, Sandy Berger, or Madeline Albright, whose statement shows that she didn't even see the movie herself, but rather had it explained to her.
The letters pointed out examples of scenes they had been told were in the miniseries, but which they said never happened. Albright objected to a scene that she was told showed her insisting on warning the Pakistani government before an airstrike on Afghanistan, and that she was the one who made the warning.Let's take this one point at a time. Well, if she didn't see the movie, how would she know whether she was accurately portrayed. She's basing her comments on hearsay. Let's now assume that the miniseries inaccurately portrayed that she wanted to warn Pakistan, and Howard Kurtz appears to have gotten that fact nailed down. So, if Albright didn't make the call, who did - and it was made since the US didn't act. This isn't quite fake, but accurate, but rather an inability to pin down who made the decision since none of the principals are willing to go on the record as being the one who decided not to go after Osama.
"The scene as explained to me is false and defamatory," she said.
We do know that raids were called off on several occasions, and that any of them could have resulted in bagging Osama before 9/11. That's the part that the Clinton officials can't escape. They had opportunities, and let them fall through their fingers because they found excuses not to do what needed to be done.
This isn't about accuracy, but about perceptions. The Clinton Administration did a poor job protecting the United States from 1993 through January 2001. It's a record that is spotty at best, and damning at worst. Indeed, Bill Clinton admitted that he regretted not taking Osama when presented with the opportunity. Mark Levin tracks down two eyewitnesses to Clinton's failures to act at decisive moments when Osama could have been gotten on the cheap.
The Moderate Voice correctly notes that both parties have acted poorly in ideologically driven movies that question their values or interests (see the Ronald Reagan movie for example).
With all the questions swirling around the completeness of the 9/11 Commission in the first place, even attempting to claim that this miniseries is somehow factually accurate is misleading at best. Able Danger was plainly disregarded by the Commission, and the participation of Jaime Gorelick as a Commissioner was unhelpful at best, and torpedoed the accuracy of the Commission's findings at worst. Indeed, she should have been among those hauled in front of the Commission to testify as to her actions in the 1990s. That did not happen, and we therefore have a far less complete picture of what the Clinton Administration did or did not do.
What we do have is a bunch of officials whose involvement in national security affairs during the time period in question trying to play CYA, and attacking the movie despite knowing that they didn't get the job done.
John Miller did see the miniseries, and finds that the Clinton Administration gets lambasted, but the Bush Administration is not without criticism either. He's right, of course. Both Administrations did poor jobs understanding the nature and urgency of the threats. Jonah Goldberg thinks there should be a pox on both Dems and Republicans. For sure.
Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard and Dr. Sanity both notice the difference between the way President Bush handled the criticism heaped upon him in the docufarce Farenheit 9/11, and the way President Clinton is handling the criticism in this movie. The differences go to the measure of the men, and how they want to be viewed.
And frankly, no one should get their history from Hollywood. After all, this is the same bunch that has the Battle of Stirling Bridge take place on an open field (Braveheart), has massive tank battles take place when none occurred (Battle of the Bulge), dallied in conspiracy theories on prominent historical events (JFK), exaggerated or invented details (Born on the Fourth of July, Saving Private Ryan, Good Fellas, Laurence of Arabia, The Great Escape), and those are just off the top of my head. That doesn't even scrape the surface of problems with Michael Moore's supposed documentary Farenheit 9/11, which had a melange of conspiracy theory, exaggerated and invented details, and outright lies and distortion of Bush's failures.
That said, people are going to watch these movies and take from them whatever they want. Caveat emptor. Buyer beware. It's sound advice.
Others blogging: Ed Driscoll notes that ABC officials were stunned at how folks that they counted on being supporters turned on them swiftly and harshly, Don Surber, AJ Strata, Macranger, The Anchoress, Instapundit, Pierre Lagrande, Rick Moran, Sister Toldjah, and Confederate Yankee.
UPDATE:
Allah at Hot Air has a major update. Still others blogging this tempest in a teapot and watching Democrats spinning furiously on how this movie is biased against them: Flopping Aces, Kim at Wizbang, John Hawkins, Jason Smith, Roger L Simon, and Dan Riehl.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Haditha Investigation Findings
Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.No word on what that evidence includes or whether autopsies were conducted to obtain forensic evidence from the bodies of those purported victims. If this story is accurate, and remember that this is information put out by a leaker of one side in the matter at hand, the Marines involved in the incident have a whole mess of legal trouble heading their way.
Agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service have completed their initial work on the incident last November, but may be asked to probe further as Marine Corps and Navy prosecutors review the evidence and determine whether to recommend criminal charges, according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.
The decision on whether to press criminal charges against four Marines ultimately will be made by the commander of the accused Marines’ parent unit, the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton, Calif. That currently is Lt. Gen. John Sattler, but he is scheduled to move to a Pentagon assignment soon; his successor will be Lt. Gen. James Mattis.
Meanwhile, Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, one of the accused Marines, stands by his claims of innoncence and has filed suit in federal court against Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) that Murtha falsely accused Wuterich of murder and war crimes.
UPDATE:
Macranger questions the timing of this report, which really doesn't differ from the news reports about Haditha all along since there is no new news (try saying that 3x fast) in the report.
Meanwhile, it is interesting to note that one of Wuterich's lawyers is Mark Zaid, whose name should be familiar to folks following the Able Danger story. He's Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer's lawyer. Shaffer was one of the whistleblowers who says that Able Danger identified 9/11 hijacker Atta and others before the attacks, and then the 9/11 Commission ignored the program's findings.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Diplomacy and the Hounds of Hell, Part XII
The French are busy complaining that Israel isn't going to take up a 72 hour ceasefire proposed by the diplomats. Why should they? Any ceasefire will only enable Hizbullah time to redeploy and reequip. Right now, Hizbullah is fighting for its life, despite the claims of Walid Jumblatt who says Hizbullah has won this war. Why has Hizbullah won, may you ask? Because they've lasted longer than entire countries did in the Six Day War? Appearances and perceptions count more than facts to these folks. That's why half measures and limited ground campaigns are not going to work. If Israel is going to improve its security position, they must do more than simply eliminate terrorists along its border. It must crush them entirely.
The UN is trying to line up potential contributors to an international peacekeeping force. The EU is confident that the UN will push such a force. No problems there other than the fact that there are so few countries who would send forces, and then there's the question of the mandate and force capability to actually disarm Hizbullah (not that they'd willingly part with their weapons).
And yet, there's word that Hizbullah might agree to a ceasefire that includes the disarming of militias. I'm wary and dubious of such a move, although that shows just how badly Hizbullah has been hit. If they were in a good position strategically and tactically, they would reject such a move out of hand. Another possibility is that they have no intention of doing so, and are simply posturing to put additional international pressure on the Israelis to force them into a ceasefire that Hizbullah has no intention of complying with.
The Israelis have determined that the rockets fired into Afula were of Syrian origin, not Iranian.
Meanwhile, Hizbullah continues to fire rocket barrages into Israel. The battle at Bint Jbeil continues, with Israel exacting heavy casualties on Hizbullah, but taking casualties all the same. The Israelis are also maintaining the pressure on Hamas in Gaza, with continued attacks against weapons caches and other targets. Despite claims that Shalit would be released soon, there's no movement on that front.
Bloggers to check in with for daily updates are Blue Crab Boulevard, Carl in Jerusalem, Israellycool, Dave Bender, Meryl Yourish, Euphoric Reality, Pajamas Media, Hot Air, Jameel at the Muqata, Greetings from the French Hill, R'Lazer, and Live from an Israeli Bunker. Check back with them regularly for updates.
UPDATE:
Salon's Mitch Prothero would like you to believe that Hizbullah hiding among civilian populations is a myth ("almost always false" - note the modifier to provide sufficient wiggle room), and that the terrorist group is fearful of civilian populations. What planet is Prothero living on? Can you tell a Hizbullah terrorist apart from a civilian? No one can, unless the terrorists dying are holding guns, bombs or RPGs in their hands. And that's what the UN itself said. As did locals who have seen the terrorists operating between their homes. And there are repeated reports showing that Hizbullah is operating in and among civilian populations using them as human shields. Mark at USS Neverdock takes Prothero to task. So does Econopundit and Hot Air.
Meanwhile, UN officials are worried that the Israelis might flatten much of Southern Lebanon to root out Hizbullah. Well, that's what you get when the UN fails to do its job and disarm all militias in Lebanon under UN SCR 1559 to maintain and enforce Lebanon's territorial integrity. South Lebanon became Hizbullahland, where they were free to develop bunkers, weapons caches, and prepare for a conflict with Israel at the time and place of their choosing.
Paul at Powerline takes apart the so-called ceasefire deal that Hizbullah would supposedly agree to.
Heck, even Andrew Sullivan sees this conflict for what it is - war imposed on Israel by Iran and Syria.
So, Sullivan has identified the problem, but provides no solution. Engagement and diplomacy are insufficient given that Iran is already at war with us. We must wage war back or else face attack after attack here and abroad.
UPDATE:
Is Abbas trying to distance himself from Nasrallah and Hizbullah. It sure seems that way.
The rockets keep flying towards Israel as the sirens go off. More than 40 were fired today.
Ed Morrissey thinks that the Hizbullah peace offering is legit and that the Israelis should call their bluff - especially due to the inclusion of a call to disarm the militias. I'm not so sure, as I posted above. Rick Moran is also dubious of the deal, which is anything but.
UPDATE:
Anyone else find this troubling? The UN will have an observer in the IDF control room to oversee the humanitarian aid convoys to ensure their safety. No word on whether the UN will do the same with Hizbullah. This comes as two more UN peacekeepers were wounded by Israeli airstrikes. Have no doubt that there will be yet more cries for Israel to cease and desist, all while Hizbullah continues to take advantage of positioning itself adjacent to UN positions as shields.
The Israelis are going after border crossings from Syria into Lebanon, hitting Masnaa today. Israel had been going after scattered convoys entering Lebanon from Syria, but today's attack shut down the border crossing. More of this has to be done if the Hizbullah resupply routes are to be eliminated.
The senior Islamic Jihad leader in Nablus was killed by the IDF today.
Nasrallah, meanwhile, says that Israel is a temporary country. Well, what we've got here is another not so thinly veiled threat of genocide. This is with whom the Israelis are supposed to make a deal to end the fighting?
And those who are outraged over the violence done to Lebanon have continued to remain silent over the death and destruction in Israel due to the Hizbullah rockets and ongoing terrorism. Can you say double standard? I knew you could.
Chirac recognizes the obvious: No peacekeeping force in Lebanon until ceasefire. Well, considering that Hizbullah isn't going to lay down their arms willingly (despite their so-called offer to do so), the peacekeeping force is DOA until further notice.
Here's anouther thought on peacekeeping and disarming Hizbullah. Trust but verify. I wouldn't trust Hizbullah to disarm at all. There's no reason to trust or believe them. So, whoever ends up drawing peacekeeping duties must engage in vigorous inspections to ensure that Hizbullah would indeed be keeping to its word.
Technorati: terrorism, fatah, Gilad, Shalit, Olmert, Eliyahu, Asheri, Ashri, Abbas, Rains, Summer, cavaliers, wrath, PRC, Hamas, Gaza, palestinian, Israel, hizbullah, hezbullah, hezbollah, lebanon, syria.
The UN is trying to line up potential contributors to an international peacekeeping force. The EU is confident that the UN will push such a force. No problems there other than the fact that there are so few countries who would send forces, and then there's the question of the mandate and force capability to actually disarm Hizbullah (not that they'd willingly part with their weapons).
And yet, there's word that Hizbullah might agree to a ceasefire that includes the disarming of militias. I'm wary and dubious of such a move, although that shows just how badly Hizbullah has been hit. If they were in a good position strategically and tactically, they would reject such a move out of hand. Another possibility is that they have no intention of doing so, and are simply posturing to put additional international pressure on the Israelis to force them into a ceasefire that Hizbullah has no intention of complying with.
The Israelis have determined that the rockets fired into Afula were of Syrian origin, not Iranian.
Meanwhile, Hizbullah continues to fire rocket barrages into Israel. The battle at Bint Jbeil continues, with Israel exacting heavy casualties on Hizbullah, but taking casualties all the same. The Israelis are also maintaining the pressure on Hamas in Gaza, with continued attacks against weapons caches and other targets. Despite claims that Shalit would be released soon, there's no movement on that front.
Bloggers to check in with for daily updates are Blue Crab Boulevard, Carl in Jerusalem, Israellycool, Dave Bender, Meryl Yourish, Euphoric Reality, Pajamas Media, Hot Air, Jameel at the Muqata, Greetings from the French Hill, R'Lazer, and Live from an Israeli Bunker. Check back with them regularly for updates.
UPDATE:
Salon's Mitch Prothero would like you to believe that Hizbullah hiding among civilian populations is a myth ("almost always false" - note the modifier to provide sufficient wiggle room), and that the terrorist group is fearful of civilian populations. What planet is Prothero living on? Can you tell a Hizbullah terrorist apart from a civilian? No one can, unless the terrorists dying are holding guns, bombs or RPGs in their hands. And that's what the UN itself said. As did locals who have seen the terrorists operating between their homes. And there are repeated reports showing that Hizbullah is operating in and among civilian populations using them as human shields. Mark at USS Neverdock takes Prothero to task. So does Econopundit and Hot Air.
Meanwhile, UN officials are worried that the Israelis might flatten much of Southern Lebanon to root out Hizbullah. Well, that's what you get when the UN fails to do its job and disarm all militias in Lebanon under UN SCR 1559 to maintain and enforce Lebanon's territorial integrity. South Lebanon became Hizbullahland, where they were free to develop bunkers, weapons caches, and prepare for a conflict with Israel at the time and place of their choosing.
At UN peacekeeping headquarters in Naqaura, barely a stone's throw from Israel, political affairs officer Ryszard Morczynski said Tyre would become a target of intense Israeli attacks because Hizbullah was firing rockets from the city's suburbs into Haifa.Again, we see so much concern for those living in Southern Lebanon, and not so much concern for the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who have fled Northern Israel or the million living in bunkers and bomb shelters because of the incessant rocket attacks. The UN's myopia is extreme and dangerous to Israel's existence. The UN is also estimating a death toll based on, well not much. Pulling figures out of thin air.
"I have no doubt that Israel will flatten Tyre if civilian casualties continue in Haifa. Tyre will be taken off neighborhood by neighborhood," Morczynski warned. "I think Israel is contemplating flattening villages, flattening every single house to deny Hizbullah any advantage of urban fighting in the streets."
He estimated that 80 percent of the roughly half-million people who live in Southern Lebanon, demarcated by the Litani River, have already fled the embattled area. He also said he feared the civilian death toll in Lebanon was more than 600, well more than the official count of 400-plus.
"Hizbullah are still strong" 17 days into the conflict, peacekeeping chief, Maj. Gen. Alain Pellegrini told The Associated Press.
Paul at Powerline takes apart the so-called ceasefire deal that Hizbullah would supposedly agree to.
The key elements are: (1) an immediate cease fire, (2) the release of Lebanese and Israeli prisoners, (3) Israeli withdrawal behind the border, (4) resolution of the status of Chebaa Farms, a small piece of land held by Israel and claimed by Lebanon, in favor of Lebanon, and (5) the "disarming" Hezbollah, and (6) the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south, with the strengthening and increasing of the small, lightly armed U.N. peacekeeping force currently there.There's no way Israel would agree to these terms, and Hizbullah knows it - so this is nothing more than an expansion on the original terms they set forth. In fact, these terms are more extravagent than the original terms.
A cease fire under these terms would represent a clear victory for Hezbollah. They began the hostilities for the stated purpose of obtaining the release of its prisoners. The deal would not only enable them to accomplish this, but Israel would lose territory (Chebaa Farms) in the process.
Heck, even Andrew Sullivan sees this conflict for what it is - war imposed on Israel by Iran and Syria.
This is a war Iran started. I fear it has just begun. Its ultimate end is simple: the eradication of Israel and the murder of every Jew in the Middle East. Hezbollah and Ahmadinejad are very, very clear about this. And they are playing the p.r. game brilliantly. The president's press conference with Blair today struck me as revealing - and not in a good way. Bush is right on the basic issue. He grasps the nature of the enemy. But he is so out of his depth - rhetorically, strategically, politically, intellectually - that it is hard to have much confidence in his leadership.After that, Sullivan veers off into claiming that Bush is out of his league and incapable of leading us through this conflict. Never mind that there's no one on the other side of the aisle capable of leading since they're all invariably waffling or otherwise seeking out the partisan political advantage of any move instead of doing the right thing (aka pandering instead of leading). The Iranians have indeed started this war against the West, and for Sullivan to claim that Bush isn't able to lead, one has to wonder whether all the complaints against the Administration that turned out to be exaggerated or unfounded have kneecapped the Administration's ability to deal with this threat more aggressively. After all, the Administration was correct on the WMD issue, correct about those 16 words, and terrorists were operating in Iraq all along with Saddam's consent and approval. Those three memes have been pushed by the Left and anyone in the Democrat party who believed that the Administration did the right thing is being forced out in an ideological purge (e.g. Joe Lieberman).
So, Sullivan has identified the problem, but provides no solution. Engagement and diplomacy are insufficient given that Iran is already at war with us. We must wage war back or else face attack after attack here and abroad.
UPDATE:
Is Abbas trying to distance himself from Nasrallah and Hizbullah. It sure seems that way.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Saturday his government has no intention of teaming up with Shi'ite Hizboullah on negotiating the release of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners held by Israel.Now why would Abbas do that at a time when other terrorist groups are and public opinion are supposedly flocking to Hizbullah's cause - like al Qaeda and Hamas example? Could it be that Abbas sees the writing on the wall he's trying to play the peacemaker, hoping that he'll come out ahead when all is said and done? Or maybe he realizes that backing Hizbullah is a losing cause and doesn't want to get sucked into a prolonged conflict where Fatah is tremendously disadvantaged against the Israelis, despite the Israeli unwillingness to unleash the full force of its military against the terrorists, instead opting for a piecemeal approach.
Israel launched attacks in Gaza after Palestinian Hamas-linked operatives crossed from Gaza into Israel and snatched Cpl. Gilad Shalit on June 25. As that conflict raged, Hizbullah grabbed two soldiers in a July 12 cross-border raid, sparking the current violent conflict raging in the North of Israel and in Lebanon.
Hamas had raised the possibility this week of teaming up with Hizbullah to negotiate terms to release of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners in Israel in exchange for the three IDF soldiers.
But Abbas said the situations were too different to coordinate a release.
The rockets keep flying towards Israel as the sirens go off. More than 40 were fired today.
Ed Morrissey thinks that the Hizbullah peace offering is legit and that the Israelis should call their bluff - especially due to the inclusion of a call to disarm the militias. I'm not so sure, as I posted above. Rick Moran is also dubious of the deal, which is anything but.
UPDATE:
Anyone else find this troubling? The UN will have an observer in the IDF control room to oversee the humanitarian aid convoys to ensure their safety. No word on whether the UN will do the same with Hizbullah. This comes as two more UN peacekeepers were wounded by Israeli airstrikes. Have no doubt that there will be yet more cries for Israel to cease and desist, all while Hizbullah continues to take advantage of positioning itself adjacent to UN positions as shields.
The Israelis are going after border crossings from Syria into Lebanon, hitting Masnaa today. Israel had been going after scattered convoys entering Lebanon from Syria, but today's attack shut down the border crossing. More of this has to be done if the Hizbullah resupply routes are to be eliminated.
The senior Islamic Jihad leader in Nablus was killed by the IDF today.
Nasrallah, meanwhile, says that Israel is a temporary country. Well, what we've got here is another not so thinly veiled threat of genocide. This is with whom the Israelis are supposed to make a deal to end the fighting?
And those who are outraged over the violence done to Lebanon have continued to remain silent over the death and destruction in Israel due to the Hizbullah rockets and ongoing terrorism. Can you say double standard? I knew you could.
Chirac recognizes the obvious: No peacekeeping force in Lebanon until ceasefire. Well, considering that Hizbullah isn't going to lay down their arms willingly (despite their so-called offer to do so), the peacekeeping force is DOA until further notice.
Here's anouther thought on peacekeeping and disarming Hizbullah. Trust but verify. I wouldn't trust Hizbullah to disarm at all. There's no reason to trust or believe them. So, whoever ends up drawing peacekeeping duties must engage in vigorous inspections to ensure that Hizbullah would indeed be keeping to its word.
Technorati: terrorism, fatah, Gilad, Shalit, Olmert, Eliyahu, Asheri, Ashri, Abbas, Rains, Summer, cavaliers, wrath, PRC, Hamas, Gaza, palestinian, Israel, hizbullah, hezbullah, hezbollah, lebanon, syria.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Not So SWIFT
The SWIFT program is the counterterror program designed to ferret out terrorists from financial data collected on certain kinds of transactions. Press Secretary Tony Snow was asked about this program earlier today:
The President was also asked about the program earlier today:
Don Surber is still trying to figure out why Keller and the Times ran the story despite being asked not to. Reliving the Watergate days doesn't cut it for me. Paul at Wizbang boils down Keller's incomprehensible defense down to 'screw you.'
Of course the interdiction of terror financing was seen as a critical piece of bolstering the US defense against terrorism by the 9/11 Commission. Ed has the details.
Hugh Hewitt and Powerline each offer takedowns of the Keller and NYT defense of the indefensible. Glenn Reynolds, Michael Barone, and Patterico don't think much of Keller's response either.
Others chiming in: Rick Moran, The Anchoress, Blue Crab Boulevard, Ace of Spades,
Liberty and Justice doesn't think that prosecution is the right approach, but neither was publication the right thing either.
Not that Keller and the Times are without defenders. David A posting at In Search of Utopia thinks that those on the right are blowing this whole thing out of proportion - calling the right a bunch of hypocrites all while admitting that he's not a constitutional scholar. He thinks that the media was doing the right thing by informing the people.
That's a try at least. And it's better than the nonsense blathered by Keller himself.
Hume's Ghost, posting at Glenn Greenwald makes the following points:
The left continually claims that the Administration oversteps the bounds and engages in programs of questionable legality. Yet each time, the claims of illegality are not only in the abstract, but safeguards in place are there for a reason - along with regular consultation with Congress. Poliblog thinks that the use of subpoenas are insufficient protections, but I think his concerns are unwarranted (to pardon the pun). Considering that subpoenas are used in all kinds of civil and criminal cases, the fact that we're using them to go after terrorists is neither unusual nor should we require some higher standard of protection on counter-terror related activities.
It is as though the NYT believes that it should be the arbiter of what gets published on national security matters, not the government that now has an increasingly difficult job of protecting the nation from terrorist attacks. That kind of action would never have been tolerated in the past, and there's no reason to tolerate it now, though you can be sure that someone will say that the Pentagon Papers case gives the media carte blanche.
UPDATE:
Still more reax: Sister Toldjah, Stop the ACLU, Austin Bay, and All Things Beautiful.
UPDATE:
Treasury Secretary John Snow issues a rejoinder of his own against the ludricous claims from NYT Editor Bill Keller that the Administration didn't pull out all the stops to try and convince the paper from running the story. In fact, Keller called the steps the Administration took as being half-hearted.
Since when should the Administration have to beg to keep from running a story with serious national security consequences. Snow closes by saying he's deeply disappointed in the Times. Why does the Administration have to beg to do keep the paper from publishing. Is no one at the Times sane enough to realize the potential danger that they're inflicting on the nation, if not the world, by revealing aspects of a successful counter terror program?
I'd like to know if there were dissenters at the Times who thought that the story shouldn't have run.
I think we as a nation deserve to know if there are any adults at the paper where decisions about our personal security is threatened with each and every leak that comes down the pike.
That's seriously understating things. Can you imagine the outrage should terrorists manage to carry off a mass casualty attack somewhere around the world and we later learn that the money used to fund the attack could have been intercepted via the SWIFT program or that law enforcement found out too late that such an attack was imminent and could not act quickly enough to stop the attack?
The Times would be at the forefront of those calling for scalps, and yet their own actions undermine the very national security concerns that have been on minds of experts since 9/11.
Others writing about Snow's comments: Charles at LGF and AJ Strata.
UPDATE:
Speaking of AJ Strata, he has another curious tidbit. There were three people from outside the Administration who paid a visit to the Grey Lady to keep it from running the story. Lee Hamilton, Tom Kean Sr., and Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). That's right folks; even Rep. Murtha realized that the Grey Lady went too far.
Q Vice President Cheney said he was offended by press disclosures about the bank records story, because he said it makes it harder for us to protect ourselves against future attacks. As Press Secretary, are you also offended by that, and do you think that it makes it harder for us to protect ourselves?How hard was it for the media not to reveal details about a program that by all accounts, including the NYT's own reporting, was quite successful? Apparently they had no problem revealing the program despite the entreaties from a bipartisan group of people who sought to keep the program from being publicized on the pages of the NYT and other papers.
MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get into my state of mind about the story. I will have more to say about it in the briefing later today. I'm going to leave it to the people who are actually operating the program. They say it does make it more difficult, I'll take them at their word.
Q What about -- Peter King went further, he was talking about investigating and prosecution. Is that going too far?
MR. SNOW: Well, again, there is a process for doing this. The agency in charge has to make a criminal referral. You may remember that former CIA Director Tenet made a criminal referral. It is highly unusual for somebody to announce that they've done so. But there are very strict processes for doing this. And beyond that, I'm not going to extend the brief.
Q One last thing. How hard did you push to convince the press not to publish this --
MR. SNOW: I was not directly involved. The Department of the Treasury, since it has been operating the SWIFT program, did the work, and they're the ones who made the contacts, primarily to The New York Times, but to others, as well.
The President was also asked about the program earlier today:
Q Sir, several news organizations have reported about a program that allows the administration to look into the bank records of certain suspected terrorists. My questions are twofold: One, why have you not gone to Congress to ask for authorization for this program, five years after it started? And two, with respect, if neither the courts, nor the legislature is allowed to know about these programs, how can you feel confident the checks and balances system works?Video of the President's statement can be found at Hot Air. It appears that the media is truly clueless about the significance of these kinds of programs and that Congress was briefed on a regular basis. I find some comfort in knowing that the members of Congress who were briefed on the program were able to keep their yappers shut, although I know one person who thinks that a certain Senator from West Virginia (Jay Rockefeller) might not have such a capability.
THE PRESIDENT: Congress was briefed. And what we did was fully authorized under the law. And the disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America. What we were doing was the right thing. Congress was aware of it, and we were within the law to do so.
The American people expect this government to protect our constitutional liberties and, at the same time, make sure we understand what the terrorists are trying to do. The 9/11 Commission recommended that the government be robust in tracing money. If you want to figure out what the terrorists are doing, you try to follow their money. And that's exactly what we're doing. And the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror.
Don Surber is still trying to figure out why Keller and the Times ran the story despite being asked not to. Reliving the Watergate days doesn't cut it for me. Paul at Wizbang boils down Keller's incomprehensible defense down to 'screw you.'
Of course the interdiction of terror financing was seen as a critical piece of bolstering the US defense against terrorism by the 9/11 Commission. Ed has the details.
Hugh Hewitt and Powerline each offer takedowns of the Keller and NYT defense of the indefensible. Glenn Reynolds, Michael Barone, and Patterico don't think much of Keller's response either.
Others chiming in: Rick Moran, The Anchoress, Blue Crab Boulevard, Ace of Spades,
Liberty and Justice doesn't think that prosecution is the right approach, but neither was publication the right thing either.
Not that Keller and the Times are without defenders. David A posting at In Search of Utopia thinks that those on the right are blowing this whole thing out of proportion - calling the right a bunch of hypocrites all while admitting that he's not a constitutional scholar. He thinks that the media was doing the right thing by informing the people.
That's a try at least. And it's better than the nonsense blathered by Keller himself.
Hume's Ghost, posting at Glenn Greenwald makes the following points:
What this story seems to do is provide Americans with an idea as to what that entails, and how it might potentially be abused. And given the administration's record of abuse of power, I can see why the NYT's thought that it might be in the public interest to start giving the program some consideration.Again, that's a better argument than anything Keller put together, but it still falls short of why the media should be allowed to publish information that can and will assist terrorists avoid detection. After all, there is considerable bipartisan support for this very kind of program (as per the 9/11 Commission - Lee Hamilton was among those who went to the NYT to request they withhold publication). And, there's the simple fact that it was working and there were no questions about legality of the program.
The left continually claims that the Administration oversteps the bounds and engages in programs of questionable legality. Yet each time, the claims of illegality are not only in the abstract, but safeguards in place are there for a reason - along with regular consultation with Congress. Poliblog thinks that the use of subpoenas are insufficient protections, but I think his concerns are unwarranted (to pardon the pun). Considering that subpoenas are used in all kinds of civil and criminal cases, the fact that we're using them to go after terrorists is neither unusual nor should we require some higher standard of protection on counter-terror related activities.
It is as though the NYT believes that it should be the arbiter of what gets published on national security matters, not the government that now has an increasingly difficult job of protecting the nation from terrorist attacks. That kind of action would never have been tolerated in the past, and there's no reason to tolerate it now, though you can be sure that someone will say that the Pentagon Papers case gives the media carte blanche.
UPDATE:
Still more reax: Sister Toldjah, Stop the ACLU, Austin Bay, and All Things Beautiful.
UPDATE:
Treasury Secretary John Snow issues a rejoinder of his own against the ludricous claims from NYT Editor Bill Keller that the Administration didn't pull out all the stops to try and convince the paper from running the story. In fact, Keller called the steps the Administration took as being half-hearted.
Since when should the Administration have to beg to keep from running a story with serious national security consequences. Snow closes by saying he's deeply disappointed in the Times. Why does the Administration have to beg to do keep the paper from publishing. Is no one at the Times sane enough to realize the potential danger that they're inflicting on the nation, if not the world, by revealing aspects of a successful counter terror program?
I'd like to know if there were dissenters at the Times who thought that the story shouldn't have run.
I think we as a nation deserve to know if there are any adults at the paper where decisions about our personal security is threatened with each and every leak that comes down the pike.
That's seriously understating things. Can you imagine the outrage should terrorists manage to carry off a mass casualty attack somewhere around the world and we later learn that the money used to fund the attack could have been intercepted via the SWIFT program or that law enforcement found out too late that such an attack was imminent and could not act quickly enough to stop the attack?
The Times would be at the forefront of those calling for scalps, and yet their own actions undermine the very national security concerns that have been on minds of experts since 9/11.
Others writing about Snow's comments: Charles at LGF and AJ Strata.
UPDATE:
Speaking of AJ Strata, he has another curious tidbit. There were three people from outside the Administration who paid a visit to the Grey Lady to keep it from running the story. Lee Hamilton, Tom Kean Sr., and Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). That's right folks; even Rep. Murtha realized that the Grey Lady went too far.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
A Katrina Rebuilding Update
So, people affected by Katrina want to be told whether to rebuild or not.
That means they want to hear from folks like Mayor Whiplash Nagin whether they should rebuild the Lower Ninth and other heavily damaged areas. Of course, listening to Nagin may cause the listener grievous bodily harm from the flipflops on such key issues, but he's the guy in charge for the moment.
And the pace of cleanup isn't helped by the fact that there are still lawsuits and other delays to the razing of buildings that are an ongoing danger - from the structural deficiencies, the discovery of additional hurricane dead, and from the toxic hazards that they may harbor.
As can be expected, people are having their fill of FEMA trailer life. And with the 2006 hurricane season around the corner, these folks are staring down the barrel of a gun because those trailers aren't the place to be should another hurricane come ashore. Permanent solutions to housing is still a distant dream for many.
New Orleans' elected leaders need to make tough decisions now about what areas of the flood-ravaged city can be rebuilt, about 150 Hurricane Katrina evacuees from across the city and some of their religious leaders agreed Saturday.People aren't completely stupid. They may want to rebuild their homes but if the municipalities simply aren't willing, prepared, or capable of providing basic municipal services, these people want to be able to get on with their lives and go elsewhere.
Making a statement that directly counters the insistence by residents of many devastated neighborhoods that they should be able to control their own recovery, members of the Jeremiah Group and the Industrial Areas Foundation Katrina Survivors Network said they want the mayor and City Council to "tell the truth" about which neighborhoods may perish because public services, such as trash pickup and basic utilities, probably won't be available there.
That means they want to hear from folks like Mayor Whiplash Nagin whether they should rebuild the Lower Ninth and other heavily damaged areas. Of course, listening to Nagin may cause the listener grievous bodily harm from the flipflops on such key issues, but he's the guy in charge for the moment.
And the pace of cleanup isn't helped by the fact that there are still lawsuits and other delays to the razing of buildings that are an ongoing danger - from the structural deficiencies, the discovery of additional hurricane dead, and from the toxic hazards that they may harbor.
Demolition of many heavily damaged Lower 9th Ward homes, including those barely standing seven months after a levee breach during Hurricane Katrina flooded the neighborhood, must move forward for both financial and moral reasons, some neighborhood residents said Saturday.Meanwhile, Louisiana still hasn't figured out how to deal with nursing home evacuations. Seven months after Katrina killed at least 70 residents at nursing homes (at least 30 in St. Rita's Nursing Home), and the state can't get its act together.
Others disagreed, saying they still aren't ready to let their homes be torn down.
On the minds of the residents was a looming June deadline to ensure that the federal government pays for demolition and the knowledge that human remains -- including those of a girl between age 6 and 10, found Friday -- continue to turn up in debris piles.
"They are finding so many bodies that don't belong to the houses," state Rep. Charmaine Marchand, D-New Orleans, said at Saturday's weekly meeting of Lower 9th Ward homeowners. "They floated in from somewhere else."
Marchand, who lost her house to the flooding, said the Federal Emergency Management Agency won't pay for demolitions past June. Homeowners need to make the difficult decision now to have collapsed, and nearly collapsed, houses razed, she said.
The nursing home industry and its legislative allies want the state to assume much of the burden and cost of evacuations, while Gov. Kathleen Blanco's administration is pushing a plan that would provide new state oversight but ultimately leave nursing homes responsible for carrying out their own emergency plans.As we saw in Katrina, there was little or no state oversight, and some nursing homes were criminally negligent in their care of patients resulting in needless deaths from the storm.
It's a debate that will play out during the 85-day legislative session that begins Monday. Lawmakers will be tackling an issue that drew international attention last fall when 34 people died in a St. Bernard Parish nursing home that didn't evacuate for Hurricane Katrina. That and other tragedies have drawn scrutiny from congressional committees that found the state's emergency procedures sorely lacking.
As can be expected, people are having their fill of FEMA trailer life. And with the 2006 hurricane season around the corner, these folks are staring down the barrel of a gun because those trailers aren't the place to be should another hurricane come ashore. Permanent solutions to housing is still a distant dream for many.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Able Danger Conference Call 2
Vi at QT Monster has a roundup of a conference call between a group of bloggers and Rep. Curt Weldon. Check out the latest info and commentary from the bloggers, who include AJ Strata, Curt of Flopping Aces, and Dreadpundit Bluto.
For the latest blogging on Able Danger, see:
UPDATE:
Papadoc also was involved in the conference call, and you can read about his observations here.
Technorati: war on terror, spying, patriot act, NSA, CIA,
Iraq, politics, Able Danger, Curt Weldon, Bush
For the latest blogging on Able Danger, see:
UPDATE:
Papadoc also was involved in the conference call, and you can read about his observations here.
Technorati: war on terror, spying, patriot act, NSA, CIA,
Iraq, politics, Able Danger, Curt Weldon, Bush
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Moussaoui's Lawyers Seeks Able Danger Info
Moussaoui's lawyers had subpoenaed Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., to testify for Moussaoui's defense, but Weldon asked the court to quash the subpoena. Declaring he didn't want to be used by a "thug" like Moussaoui, Weldon claimed congressional immunity from the subpoena.It's curious that this article makes no mention of the ongoing Able Danger hearings, where some of the principals are being questioned about the program. Par for the course I guess.
Weldon has claimed the government knew more about the Sept. 11 hijackers before the 2001 attack than it has publicly admitted.
Specifically, he claims a secret military intelligence project known as Able Danger identified some of the hijackers well before they flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Weldon wrote in a book that he himself saw one of the unit's charts listing some Sept. 11 hijackers.
In court Tuesday, defense lawyer Edward MacMahon said he will oppose Weldon's efforts to quash the subpoena.
How much the government knew about the hijackers before the Sept. 11 attack will be a key issue at Moussaoui's sentencing. The 37-year-old Frenchman of Moroccan descent pleaded guilty in April to conspiring with al-Qaida to fly planes into U.S. buildings. But he denies any involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks and says he was training to fly a plane into the White House as part of a possible future attack.
To obtain the death penalty, the government must prove Moussaoui's actions directly led to deaths on Sept. 11. The government will argue Moussaoui could have prevented the terrorist attacks if he had not lied to authorities about his terrorist connections when arrested in August 2001.
The defense argues that the government knew more about the hijackers' plans than Moussaoui and was still unable to prevent the attacks.
Moussaoui's lawyers are taking a similar approach to efforts by the lawyers for the Albany duo who were captured in an FBI sting operation. They're trying and obtain information about national security intel gathering programs such as the NSA eavesdropping programs and Able Danger In the Albany case, the lawyers are seeking to obtain information on how their clients were picked by the FBI for the sting operation. Here, the lawyers are trying to get information that may ultimately reduce the sentencing.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Questioning Mark Zaid on Able Danger
Earlier this evening, a number of bloggers participated in a conference call with Mark Zaid, attorney for Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and other Able Danger figures. The call was organized by Mike Kasper of the Able Danger Blog. More questions were apparently raised than answered, which is par for the course. I've been fascinated about the utter disinterest in the media about the story, considering all the ramifications - 9/11, NSA eavesdropping, data mining, government secrecy, national security, and all manner of related issue.
Yet, the networks haven't shown much interest in running with the story and most other major media outlets have taken a pass. That's yet another curiosity that deserves greater attention and investigation. For the latest blogging on Able Danger, see: Technorati: war on terror, spying, patriot act, NSA, CIA,
Iraq, politics, Able Danger, Curt Weldon, Bush
Yet, the networks haven't shown much interest in running with the story and most other major media outlets have taken a pass. That's yet another curiosity that deserves greater attention and investigation. For the latest blogging on Able Danger, see: Technorati: war on terror, spying, patriot act, NSA, CIA,
Iraq, politics, Able Danger, Curt Weldon, Bush
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Able Danger Hearings Week One Roundup
So ends the first week of the hearings. The big media hasn't really addressed the hearings in any meaningful way, as a news.google.com search would indicate. The New York Times is more concerned about the whistleblower status/protections than the actual underlying information brought out in the Able Danger hearings themselves. Given that the paper thrives on leakers to obtain scoops, this isn't all that surprising.
If you want to get the skinny on the hearings, you've got to turn to the smaller media outlets or the bloggers.
Curt at Flopping Aces points out some juicy tidbits about Able Danger first noted by AJ Strata. Most of the tidbits relate to Stephen Cambone, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
AJ thinks Cambone also called Able Danger a success:
Vi had liveblogged the hearings, which can be found here.* [updated to include link]
For the latest blogging on Able Danger, see: Technorati: war on terror, spying, patriot act, NSA, CIA,
Iraq, politics, Able Danger, Curt Weldon, Bush
If you want to get the skinny on the hearings, you've got to turn to the smaller media outlets or the bloggers.
Curt at Flopping Aces points out some juicy tidbits about Able Danger first noted by AJ Strata. Most of the tidbits relate to Stephen Cambone, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
AJ thinks Cambone also called Able Danger a success:
Cambone calls Able Danger a success because it was used in ‘the campaign’ or military planning exercise. I once worked on those planning systems collectively called GCCS. So what this comment tells me is Able Danger did its prime mission - it identified Al Qaeda members and cells so they could be taken out. What Cambone is saying is Able Danger played a role in our rolling up of Al Qaeda world wide, in Afghanistan, in places like Yemen. It means its impact was quite positive in the end. That could explain why so many have tolerated those crude acts in 2000. Able Danger might just of allowed us to quickly find and neutralize many, many Al Qaeda members after 9-11, and may have led us to folks like Shaikh Mohamed Khalid. Inside the intel community, Able Danger’s success could be legend for all we know. All speculation, but Cambone was pretty clear about the respect of this program and where it products were used.
Vi had liveblogged the hearings, which can be found here.* [updated to include link]
For the latest blogging on Able Danger, see: Technorati: war on terror, spying, patriot act, NSA, CIA,
Iraq, politics, Able Danger, Curt Weldon, Bush
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Able Danger Roundup
Top intelligence officers are bashing each other. Are the hearings sanitized for our [lack of] protection? MacRanger thinks so. He's also critical of Rep. Weldon, who is an imperfect messenger for disclosing the Able Danger program as he's too emotional. But you should read Shaffer's testimony.
AJ Strata was liveblogging and has the skinny on Stephen Cambone's testimony. Vi at QT Monster has more.
In a related piece of information, the federal government must release information related to the NSA eavesdropping program. The information release is a result of a lawsuit by EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
For the latest blogging on Able Danger, see: Technorati: war on terror, spying, patriot act, NSA, CIA,
Iraq, politics, Able Danger, Curt Weldon, Bush
AJ Strata was liveblogging and has the skinny on Stephen Cambone's testimony. Vi at QT Monster has more.
In a related piece of information, the federal government must release information related to the NSA eavesdropping program. The information release is a result of a lawsuit by EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
A federal judge Thursday ordered the Justice Department to respond within 20 days to requests by a civil liberties group for documents about President Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program.The media is still mischaracterizing the program, which involves transnational communications, not wholly domestic communications.
The ruling was a victory for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which sued the department under the Freedom of Information Act in seeking the release of the documents.
U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy ruled that the department must finish processing the group’s requests and produce or identify all records within 20 days.
“Given the great public and media attention that the government’s warrantless surveillance program has garnered and the recent hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the public interest is particularly well served by the timely release of the requested documents,” he said.
For the latest blogging on Able Danger, see: Technorati: war on terror, spying, patriot act, NSA, CIA,
Iraq, politics, Able Danger, Curt Weldon, Bush
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Three to Watch: Tracking Congressional Hearings
You'd need a scorecard to keep track of the multitude of Congressional hearings these days. They're checking out a whole boatload of issues. All are highly politicized, but may be revealing nonetheless. The three key hearings are as follows:
China and Internet censorship:US companies testifying about their actions in China's censorship of the Internet.
Able Danger: This is perhaps the most far reaching and important of the hearings. The Able Danger program cuts to the heart of the intelligence community and whether the US could have connected the disparate dots. For the latest, check out any of the following bloggers:
Hurricane Katrina disaster response: Finally, the Senate Homeland Security Committee has been grilling DHS Secretary Chertoff over the response to Hurricane Katrina. It hasn't been pretty. There's been a bunch of CYA, although Chertoff has admitted that there were problems at the federal level. That's probably the sound bite that most media outlets will latch onto, despite the fact that there were numerous failures at the state and local level that made the disaster response all the more difficult. To read the House report on Katrina response, click here.
Technorati: war on terror, spying, patriot act, NSA, CIA,
Iraq, politics, Able Danger, Curt Weldon, Bush, china, censorship, dictatorship, repression, google, microsoft, yahoo, dont be evil, flood aid; hurricane katrina; katrina aid; kanye west; impeach bush; slidell; biloxi; gulfport; pascagoula; nagin; blanco; barbour.
China and Internet censorship:US companies testifying about their actions in China's censorship of the Internet.
U.S. lawmakers lashed out at Google Inc. and other prominent Internet companies on Wednesday, with one Democrat questioning "how your corporate leadership sleeps at night" because of the companies' alleged complicity in human rights abuses by the Chinese government.There's real issues of concern and Rebecca MacKinnon has much more analysis and background. Just keep scrolling.
As representatives from Google, Yahoo Inc., Cisco Systems Inc. and Microsoft Corp. looked on, lawmakers from both political parties delivered withering attacks and called for oversight on dealings with China.
"Your abhorrent activities in China are a disgrace. I simply do not understand how your corporate leadership sleeps at night," said Rep. Tom Lantos, the ranking Democrat on a House International Relations subcommittee on human rights. Lantos' California district includes the high-tech empire of Silicon Valley.
Able Danger: This is perhaps the most far reaching and important of the hearings. The Able Danger program cuts to the heart of the intelligence community and whether the US could have connected the disparate dots. For the latest, check out any of the following bloggers:
Hurricane Katrina disaster response: Finally, the Senate Homeland Security Committee has been grilling DHS Secretary Chertoff over the response to Hurricane Katrina. It hasn't been pretty. There's been a bunch of CYA, although Chertoff has admitted that there were problems at the federal level. That's probably the sound bite that most media outlets will latch onto, despite the fact that there were numerous failures at the state and local level that made the disaster response all the more difficult. To read the House report on Katrina response, click here.
Technorati: war on terror, spying, patriot act, NSA, CIA,
Iraq, politics, Able Danger, Curt Weldon, Bush, china, censorship, dictatorship, repression, google, microsoft, yahoo, dont be evil, flood aid; hurricane katrina; katrina aid; kanye west; impeach bush; slidell; biloxi; gulfport; pascagoula; nagin; blanco; barbour.
Able Danger Hearings Continue
Eliot Spitzer, the Attorney General of New York, needs to explain himself. He's purposefully interjecting himself into the hearings by trying to deflect attention from one of his deputies, Deitrich Snell, who was one of the 9/11 Commission investigators.
Technorati: war on terror, spying, patriot act, NSA, CIA,
Iraq, politics, Able Danger, Curt Weldon, Bush
The House Armed Services Committee had requested testimony of Deputy Attorney General Dietrich Snell — a former top investigator with the 9/11 commission — at a hearing today on "Able Danger," the secret Pentagon cyber intelligence program that allegedly turned up the name of Mohammed Atta, the mastermind of the atrocity.I'm sorry but there's no amount of workload that can't be adjusted to answer these questions of national security and urgency of trying to determine how and why the 9/11 Commission failed to address Able Danger, data mining programs, and related issues in its final report. This is called building political cover for decisions made. There are no pressing issues at the AG's office that are more important than getting to the bottom of the intel failures pre-9/11. After all, the Twin Towers were in NYC - it's New York residents who were affected most by the terrorist attacks, and the AG's office has the nerve to claim that Snell has too much work to be able to attend?
Republicans led by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) had planned to angrily confront Snell, who interviewed members of the Able Danger team during the commission investigation. The commission's report later dismissed the significance of Able Danger and its findings.
Snell, the No. 3 man in the Attorney General's Office in charge of public advocacy, refused to appear before the panel, citing a heavy workload in New York and the fact that he has already answered questions on Able Danger to committee staff and in media interviews.
Darren Dopp, spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, confirmed that Spitzer got personally involved in the discussions — and, after conversations with committee counsel William Ostendorff, backed Snell's decision to stay away.
"Eliot called the staff director to explain that Dieter was needed in New York ," Dopp said. He added Spitzer was told there are no plans to force Snell to testify.
Technorati: war on terror, spying, patriot act, NSA, CIA,
Iraq, politics, Able Danger, Curt Weldon, Bush
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)