"MAKES YOU WONDER WHAT ELSE THEY TOSSED OUT." Betsy Newmark on the 9/11 report, commenting on the news of omissions about Mohammed Atta. Here's the very harsh Investor's Business Daily editorial:[Curt Weldon, R-Pa. said] "They put stickies on the face of Mohammed Atta on the chart that the military intelligence unit had completed, and they said you can't talk to Atta because he's here on a green card."
Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the 9-11 commission, said the commission "did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9-11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell . . . Had we learned of it, obviously it would've been a major focus of our investigation."
But they did learn of it. The New York Times reports that the 9-11 commission staff had the Able Danger data but decided not to share it with the panel members because the information sounded inconsistent with what they thought they knew about Atta.
Commission staffers plan a trip to the National Archives to retrieve their notes on Able Danger's findings. Yes, the same National Archives where Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was caught stuffing classified documents about terrorist threats down his pants, presumably to remove them from public scrutiny.
And this is the same commission that included one Jamie Gorelick, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton Justice Department. She's also architect of the policy that established a wall between intel and law enforcement, making "connecting the dots" before 9-11 a virtual impossibility.
Are these not truly shocking revelations?
Posts
11 comments:
The truth does not matter anymore- a cynic would guess this could involve maintaining that Clinton legacy. If so, the American people are going to get crazy re partisanship in govt- and a 3rd party could find a real opening.
Does the word "treason" sound appropriate? Does this kind of tell us why there was a rush to plead out Sandy Berger on the lost documents from the stocking stuffing story? Earthquake Gerry? This could be like the ancient mega-volcano underneath Yellowstone National Park coming abruptly awake with all its fallout (of ash).
As shocking as having been able to arrest bin laden way back then but not doing so. We need to stay focused on the past and forget about Iran developing nuclear weapons, after all, the UN can put Iran back on the straight and narrow just like they did saddam hussein. Debates for imposing sanctions against Iran are slated for 11/09, and the Security Council will take up the issue in 6/10.
I never understood how the whole Berger incident got swept under the rug so quickly...it had all the makings of a huge national security scandal when it first came out. He was totally given a free pass, at least by the media--especially in comparison to all the Rove/Plame b.s. that's been pounded relentlessly into the ground.
A very small nitpick: Jamie Gorelick did not establish the wall between agencies, but did alter it from a three-foot chicken-wire affair to a twelve-foot concrete edifice topped with razor-wire.
I'm with AJ. Yes, this should be huge. But I have a feeling it will get swept under the rug as partisan theatrics. Which is exactly what the 9/11 commission has been shown to be.
I expect this to get the Swift Boat treatment from the press: ignored as much as possible, then later mentioned as unsubstaniated (without, you know, ever having been done so).
I am waiting for more details becaus the whole incident seems very hard to believe. We can understand the political motivations behind certain actions and ommissions, but the whole point of the commission was to avoid these political issues. That is why you had both republicans and democrats on the committee. Why would members of the commission just blatently ignore these revelations?
After thinking about it, I now have a good argument as to why the commission would hide this fact. I will write later tonight when I have more time.
I think one of the most telling things is that, after the 9/11 Commission finally got around to admitting they did indeed have the Able Danger data, the stated reason for excluding it from the report was that it didn't match the information they had already accepted as fact. That's a pretty sorry way to run an investigation. If you get news facts that challenge the old ones and default to ignoring them, your chances of learning anything are small. I think that one admission tells you everything you need to know (if you didn't already).
The problem with Jamie Gorelick is really what we call the "appearance of impropriety". This is why, for example, judges recuse themselves when there is a chance that they might be seen as biased.
We are left with the (strong on the right) suspicion that the 9/11 investigation did not really investigate the "Wall" because of her presence on the commission. I think that there is also a suspicion now that the Able Baker information was potentially suppressed, or at least not fully investigated, because of her and the "Wall".
In the end, her refusal to recuse herself has, I believe, reduced the credability in the 9/11 commission report.
I should also add that the prosecuturial zeal of both Ben-Veniste and her also put into question the objectivity of the Commission. With the zeal they showed in going after Republicans, we are also left with the feeling that the conclusions of the Report are a political compromise, as opposed to an actual attempt at finding the truth.
Time magazine is casting doubt on Curt Weldon's claim. Weldon himself seems to be hedging, and can't produce evidence to support his claim. Y'all have any problem with that?
Post a Comment