Friday, September 22, 2006

Pentagon Refutes Conservative Myths About "Able Danger"

The crusade by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) to prove that a defunct military intelligence program had identified Sept. 11 hijackers prior to the attacks -- and to promote the myth that the 9/11 Commission was trying to protect the Clinton Administration from embarrassment -- was rejected again yesterday by a Pentagon report that found no evidence to support any of the congressman’s allegations.

The Defense Department inspector general’s report concluded that members of the Able Danger data-mining operation "did not identify Mohammed Atta or any of the 9/11 terrorists as possible threats at any time during its existence."

"In fact, Able Danger produced no actionable intelligence information," Acting Inspector General Thomas Gimble wrote in the 71-page report.

The 9/11 Commission had previously dismissed Weldon’s claims, which led the congressman to ratchet up his accusations that commission members and staffers conspired to exclude the Able Danger findings from their final report to shield the Clinton Administration from embarrassment.

Weldon hit the national media circuit in the summer of 2005. "This is a scandal, I think, bigger than Watergate," he said in December.

Perhaps the conservative mythmakers and radio ranters will finally put this story to rest.

26 Comments:

Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Shortly after the above story of the Pentagon report exits the current news cycle, we can expect Trinity and other Bushie Republicans to continue to persist in Able Danger fairy tales.

10:15 AM  
Anonymous Gen. Patton said...

Looks like Jamie Gorelick got her knees dirty again.

11:12 AM  
Anonymous drm604 said...

Putting the story to rest. Fat chance. They'll keep repeatedly spouting the same nonsense and depend on the fact that no one will be repeatedly stating the truth. This Pentagon report will fly completely under the radar for most people. Sorry if I'm being cynical but it's hard not to be these days.

11:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Patton, WTF?

Is the Pentagon inspector general too liberal for you?

11:18 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
Shortly after the above story of the Pentagon report exits the current news cycle, we can expect Trinity and other Bushie Republicans to continue to persist in Able Danger fairy tales.


Why should I wait until then, twot? I'll state it right now, that I believe the Pentagon report to be a complete CYA effort on their part. I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince you of that however, so not to worry.

Several active duty intelligence officers told Weldon that Able Danger revealed the existence of five al-Qaida cells, including one in Brooklyn, as well as a chart with a photograph of Mohammad al-Atta, the lead hijacker on Sept. 11.

But the Pentagon report said that Able Danger never identified Atta by name. Weldon said that was "absolutely, emphatically wrong," and cited several witnesses who have testified before Congress, including individuals the Pentagon investigators either refused to question or said they were unable to reach.

Weldon also claimed, based on witness testimony, that Able Danger team-members were prevented from sharing information on the al-Qaida cells with the FBI prior to Sept. 11 by Pentagon higher-ups — information sharing that Weldon believes could have helped to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks.

"This is not Curt Weldon's story. This is the story of military officers who have risked their careers" to get their information to decision makers, he said.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/22/90332.shtml?s=br


In any case, I'm proud of Curt Weldon's valiant efforts on behalf of the active duty whistleblowers in intelligence who were brave enough to do the right thing and report what they knew to be the truth. Rather convenient that all the reams of documents related to the case have been destroyed. Oooops! How fortuitous for some.

2:06 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said.. Rather convenient that all the reams of documents related to the case have been destroyed. Oooops! How fortuitous for some.

No one hides documents or keeps public information from our citizens better (or worse) than your un-American, un-patriotic hero, GWB!

3:05 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Great intellectual comeback to the subject at hand, whoop! Now that you've dismissed the Pentagon's shredding of evidence, please feel free to defend Sandy Berger for his shredding of secret documents from our National Archives.

4:47 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

To trinity - Another big difference between you and me is I do not dis-miss any public official for misuse of public trust or public information, whether they be Clinton, Sandy Berger, Nixon, Tom Delay, Ohio Rep Ney, Louisiana Rep Jefferson or Santa Claus. You have no facts that documents were destroyed in the Pentagon situation, only in your mind due to your hate of the truth. You have never read any post where I have Dis-missed any official of the governemnt for being a crook or a liar.

You dis-miss every discretion by any Repuke official of the government as long as it keeps repukes in power. There has never been a President that hides public information from the U. S. citizens and classifies the most mundane things than does your un-lawfull hero, GWB. Talk about being afraid of the simplest truth and you only think of this Administration. And you give them credence by your undying acceptance of their behavior. You are a real patriot, Trinity!!

11:25 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"You have no facts that documents were destroyed in the Pentagon situation, only in your mind due to your hate of the truth."


Honestly, whoop, I don't know why I bother. (sigh) From the article which you apparently failed to read:

"The Pentagon report stated that the Able Danger data was destroyed along with the Chinese procurement information because of "concerns regarding the retention of data on United States persons that was collected" as part of the JCAG demonstration.

As far as your anti-Bush rant goes, whoop, it's not specific enough to respond to. You're against everything he's ever done while in office, and probably even before that. I get it. Bush = Bad IYO. Understood. Many Americans disagree with you.

2:29 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

Trinity said - my rant against GWB about his secrecy policy is not specific enough to respond to.

I do not have the time today to write a book about Bush nor would this post publish it.

I understand you know and love Bush more than I do and have probably read more than the six books that I have about him. So therefore, I do not need to elaborate the specifics about the Bushey secrecy policy to you. For educated people like you it is not necessary to detail the specifics of the Bushey secrecy policy because you know and accept them better than I do. My point was, I am baffled by your ballistic stand on the pentagon "able danger" low level situation, yet you approve of the Bushey Administration classifying his "permission slip" for Condi to go to the bathroom and keeping so much public information from U.S. citizens. If you do not get this, then you are more un-patriotic than I ever thought and the best trained sheep I know.

4:59 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"I understand you know and love Bush more than I do and have probably read more than the six books that I have about him."


My guess would be that no where among the six books on Bush that you claim to have read would I find these two, right?

"Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, Media Bias, and the Bush Haters" by Bill Sammon

"Bush Country: How Dubya Became a Great President While Driving Liberals Insane" by John Podhoretz

Just curious.

10:57 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Also, it occurs to me that for someone who doesn't want to be thought of as unpatriotic, you sure do toss that word around an awful lot when talking to or about conservatives like me, don't you?

10:59 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said...
whoop4467 said...
"I understand you know and love Bush more than I do and have probably read more than the six books that I have about him."

My guess would be that no where among the six books on Bush that you claim to have read would I find these two, right?

"Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, Media Bias, and the Bush Haters" by Bill Sammon

"Bush Country: How Dubya Became a Great President While Driving Liberals Insane" by John Podhoretz

Just curious.

No I have not, but I did read one sanctioned by Bush himself that gives the details of his "Christian Conversion" in an old type of Texas Camp meeting in Midland, Texas and how he met Laura, etc and etc. Yet in the other books that I read, it was the opinion of the authors that his "Christian conversion" was his realization ( which democrats have yet to do)of the political benefit of making that claim. The final judge of his sincere conversion is "Jesus Christ". In my opinion, Jesus Christ is going to judge GWB very harshly.

trinity said...
Also, it occurs to me that for someone who doesn't want to be thought of as unpatriotic, you sure do toss that word around an awful lot when talking to or about conservatives like me, don't you?

I know I am patriotic, proud of it and have no doubt about it contrary to the relentless statements of repukes ( or conservatives)due to my opinions that GWB is by far the worst President that has ever been appointed by the SCOTUS or been elected.

To say again, I think that any sheep that follows this man who thinks our constitution is just an old piece of paper, not to be followed, ignored with signing statements, interpreted his own way, and does everthing he can to stifle our republic with tons and tons of "repuke spin", with tons and tons of statements to exude negativity by constantly using fear to rule, I consider to be un-patriotic and you fit in that category.

Think- GWB said "We do not torture". Then why do we need new laws to make it legal or a clarification of its well established definition. If repukes (Conservatives) are high and mighty "Christians", then why do they not accept God's definition - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"!! Notice I said think- no request for an answer.

2:52 AM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said...
whoop4467 said...
"You have no facts that documents were destroyed in the Pentagon situation, only in your mind due to your hate of the truth."

Honestly, whoop, I don't know why I bother. (sigh) From the article which you apparently failed to read:


I did a Google search about this topic and found several entries including the one you referenced.
What I found there were only two(not several) that had any credence to the beginnig of the false story - Lt COl Anthony Shaffer and Navy Capt Scott Phillpott. The Pentagon I.G Thomas Gimble stated emphatically that there was no proof of their allegations and that several other members of the "Able Danger" group could not remember the same details as Shaffer and Phillpott except that they may have seen a picture of Atta, but there was no connection to his being a "terrorist". The House and Senate Intelligence Oversight committees also agreed with Gimble and both agreed that the 911 Commission did their best to research this matter as well and found nothing to validate Shaffer's and Phillpott's claims.

I saw one sentence about documents being destroyed. It said that if documents were available that could be destroyed, it happened in 2001 ( no month given). There was mention that if the documents did exist, they were lost. There is agreement amongst the 911 commission that they never received any documents.

Trinity - I am not really suprised you went ballistic about this. This shows me you are, contrary to a previous post, really a hater of obvious facts. You want this to be true so bad, you can not even accept the simplist of facts.

3:35 AM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

A thread tangent:

"...please feel free to defend Sandy Berger for his shredding of secret documents from our National Archives."

No one has to. Because Berger didn't. Another FACT lost in your volumes of 'fair and balanced' input such as the books you cite. I encourage everyone interested to seek this truth from credible sources. Please. There was a thorough bipartisan investigation and it's conclusion simply does not jive with the GOPer Trinity statement.

Just like with this Able Danger story. But please keep arguing your points, Trin. This IS America! And you have every right to be wrong. Ain't it sweet?

Besides what does it prove? If our government had this info and Clinton did not act on it, what did King WRove do with it for 9 months? Ooooh, that's right he wouldn't have known and he did not do a thing - 'cause he did not hold a single meeting on the terrorist issue until after the towers had fallen. But he did get some brush cleared! (10 minutes of quiet Pet Goat resolve and contemplation... SHEEEEEIT.)

..............................
Clinton did it! Clinton did it! What a sweet lil one note johnny. You'll be playing the same note 10 years from now. Try reading a book that doesn't re-inforce your skewed and screwed mindset.

Thanks for playing! Try again.

1:11 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"Yet in the other books that I read, it was the opinion of the authors that his "Christian conversion" was his realization ( which democrats have yet to do)of the political benefit of making that claim."


So let me be sure of what it is that you and the other libs who wrote those books are saying here, whoop. You are saying that President Bush's accepting Jesus Christ into his life is all a farce and a political ploy that he is using to further his political ambitions???????????

whoop4467 said...
"The final judge of his sincere conversion is "Jesus Christ". In my opinion, Jesus Christ is going to judge GWB very harshly."


Obviously, that seems to be exactly what you are saying. Wow. I can't even comment on the extent of your presumptiousness, whoop. Words escape me. Keep exposing yourself for what you are deep down inside. It's quite enlightening.

1:19 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"the 911 Commission did their best to research this matter as well and found nothing to validate Shaffer's and Phillpott's claims.

....There is agreement amongst the 911 commission that they never received any documents."


Whoop, this is too involved and too complicated a story for me to even make an attempt for you to understand what went on here. I have no desire to try to convince someone like you of anything, really. It really would be futile.

Here's an excerpt from one source, but there are tons of information out there on the Able Danger coverup for anyone who had an interest in reading it. You can dismiss the whole thing. I could care less.

Weldon noted with exasperation that this information had been delivered to the 9/11 Commission in at least two separate briefings, possibly three, proving the incredible ineptitude of the commission. Weldon says staffers of the 9/11 Commission did not share – and Commissioners did not request – information about these “Able Danger” reports. This would have been indispensable to uncovering how 9/11 happened and what could be done to prevent a repeat performance, allegedly the commission's task..

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19129

Just as an aside, it's even a known fact that it was specifically Dieter Snell, Jamie Gorelick's chief staffer, who took it upon himself (unless, of course, he was acting on the behalf of someone else?) who did not pass along Navy Captain Scott Philpot's testimony to the commission;

Make of that what you will, or choose to ignore it like you do most other facts you dislike.

1:47 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"Trinity - I am not really suprised you went ballistic about this."


Are you delusional? Please indicate where it is exactly that I went ballistic. lol You are such a riot.

Think- GWB said "We do not torture". Then why do we need new laws to make it legal or a clarification of its well established definition.

As with on just about every other topic, whoop, you appear to be totally clueless. Please define "torture" for all of us, as YOU, whoop, understand it.

Then, since the term has such a well-established definition, according to you, please state exactly what that well-established definition might be. Thanks. I appreciate it.

3:26 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

ditto said...
"No one has to. Because Berger didn't. Another FACT lost in your volumes of 'fair and balanced' input such as the books you cite. I encourage everyone interested to seek this truth from credible sources. Please. There was a thorough bipartisan investigation and it's conclusion simply does not jive with the GOPer Trinity statement."


Ditto, please do not try to pass off as FACT a brazen misstatement such as that Sandy Berger did not steal and subsequently destroy top secret documents that he smuggled out of our National Archives, because it just won't fly.

Excerpt from WashingtonPost.com:

Under terms negotiated by Berger's attorneys and the Justice Department, he has agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and accept a three-year suspension of his national security clearance. These terms must be accepted by a judge before they are final, but Berger's associates said yesterday he believes that closure is near on what has been an embarrassing episode during which he repeatedly misled people about what happened during two visits to the National Archives in September and October 2003.

Lanny Breuer, Berger's attorney, said in a statement: "Mr. Berger has cooperated fully with the Department of Justice and is pleased that a resolution appears very near. He accepts complete responsibility for his actions, and regrets the mistakes he made during his review of documents at the National Archives."

The terms of Berger's agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.

The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.

Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are grossly misinformed on the matter, because I'd prefer to say that than to have to call you a bald-faced liar in public. Most probably you are simply grossly ignorant. Whether or not that is by choice, I'm not sure. :P

3:43 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Oh. Ditto, please feel free to source your claim that "There was a thorough bipartisan investigation and it's conclusion simply does not jive with the GOPer Trinity statement." " I'd love to see where you got that from. Thanks. :)

3:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The long and the short of it is that no matter who dismisses the Able Danger myth as being a myth -- including the Pentagon -- the brainwashed Levinites will keep throwing the story up as fact.

They have been told by Mark Levin and Sean Hannity that this is truth. Thus it is truth.

Note the inconsistency. Levinites would have us believe the Pentagon is absolutely right when it comes to say, troop levels in Iraq. But when it comes to Able Danger, suddenly the same Pentagon is absolutely wrong.

3:49 PM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

I want King WRove to hold a press conference and tell US what he is now allowing to be done to people we suspect are bad guys. (Some are, but all aren't!) He wants 6 specific things to now be legal that weren't before. If he had balls and his commitment to national security matched his convictions he would do it. But he won't.

He hates the ambiguity of Article 3. What about Article 5? A number of the 6 things he wants violate Article 5.

If things like Trinity had a child in the war zone it may have a greater desire to maintain the moral upperhand we have always held ourselves up to.

The King should say to the world what "methods" HE wants to be okay.

3:49 PM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

Sorry, Trin, did you say he took copies? No, you said 'documents'. Not exactly the same thing is it? Lovely spin, thing.

Please play again!

3:55 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Ditto said...
"Sorry, Trin, did you say he took copies? No, you said 'documents'. Not exactly the same thing is it? Lovely spin, thing."


Perhaps in your "mush for brains" head you can justify that completely idiotic statement you just made, ditto, but please pardon me if I decline to interact with you again, once I respond to this asinine post of yours. I really don't care to deal with you. Once again, please read this excerpt:

"Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch."

So, did you read that, brightlight? Documents are documents, birdbrain. Whether they are original documents, or copies, they do not change into something else. They remain "documents".

Besides which, as is stated, there were several copies of Richard Clarke's after action report at the National Archives. Although "copies", they were handled by many people, and notations were made on them by individuals in the different agencies in the executive branch. Therefore, some copies had information written on them that other copies did not have, thereby making them unique and different from the other copies.

Berger only destroyed three of the five copies of the report, leaving most rational people to believe that those particular copies had stuff written on them that Berger, working on Clinton's behalf, did not want others to see. Nothing else makes any sense.

And on that note, I am done with you. You're simply not credible.

4:20 PM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

Your done with me? My feelings are so hurt! (LQTM) Of course, that's not the first time you've been done with me! (10 quiet minutes of determined resolve and My Pet Goat! Right. Some people remember and care about the USS Cole and all the American lives lost! Some, like Trin"they-shouldn't-have-been-there-in-the-first-place"ity, could not care less.)

"It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact." Remains unclear... but Trinity has made it's own conclusion! Wow such unbiased insight! You've sold me with your clarity!

I'm not credible... You mean credible credible, right? Like Rove overseeing the rebuilding efforts in the NOLA area? How's that going? Or maybe how Karen Hughes efforts to win the hearts and minds of Muslims? How's that going? Maybe how the Iraqi oil will pay for the re-building of the China Shop W broke? How's that working? Or the idea that America torturing brown people will make us safer at home? Is that working? Or that the WIraq War is part of the GWOT? Huh? Tax cuts for the rich will lift the masses out of poverty? How's that going? You mean credible like that? Thank you.

For a second put 9/11 aside with all it's who-should've-done-what-to-whom arguments. One thing will ring true for all of HISTORY: W & Crew started the war in Iraq based on deliberate lies, misinformation and spin, and thus every negative result is his to OWN - forever - regardless of the next administration.

Just as he cut-and-ran from the Kyoto Treaty, ignored FISA laws and brushed aside those pesky Geneva Conventions, and many other acts of deliberate law-ignoring. The truth is beginning to hurt the GOP and the pain will continue for another generation as more of the truth is exposed.

I feel truely sorry for people like you, Trinity. The GOP is merely utilizing a number of persuasion tactics and pyschological ploys, as studied and finetuned for decades to hoodwink people such as yourself. I don't blame you for succumbing to this mind control, many people do not have sufficient willpower and intellectual curiousity to question some things when they come from on-high. Your are NOT misunderestimated.

W started the Iraq War.

And now the NSA and CIA say it has made the terrorist threat worse. We probably will be attacked again. And the person most responsible for that attack is your AWOL War President. Ironic how so many of his friends and family are in a position to profit, profit, profit from war, war and more war. Ironic serendipity that is.

5:22 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

To Trinity - I read several articles on Google about "Able danger". The main point I got from everthing that I read was the Pentagon I.G. Thomas Gimble, the House and Senate Inteligence Oversight Committees, and the 911 Commission Report all agreed that there was absolutely no truth to the claims by Scott Phillpott and Antonony Shaffer. There were several articles that were written from the total perspective of Curt Weldons' thinking and those are the ones you are hanging your hat. Several news articles said that Rep Curt Weldon was waging a personal effort to discredit Clinton and the democrats and to turn the light out on any questions about GWB's responsiblity. It is not un-common for you to read something with a total slant of disbelieving any facts that prove to be different to your thinking.

Dictionary definition of torture:
1. the inflicting of severe pain to force information or confession,get revenge, etc
2. any method by which such pain is inflicted.
3. any severe physical or mental pain ; agony. anguish
4. a cause of such pain and anguish

Examples: living under the presidency of GWB, living under the policies of the repuke party, reading your inane garbage and your repuke spin on top of repuke spin on top of repuke spin( I might even plead guilty to speeding to have you make sense).

I could not have said it better than your statement about Bush's Christianity.


Have a nice day Trinity.

6:44 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares