home

Obstructionists in the Pentagon

by TChris

The Senate Judiciary Committee wants to learn about "a secret Pentagon unit that some claim identified several of the 9/11 hijackers more than a year before the attacks." (TalkLeft background here.) But Sen. Specter accuses the Pentagon of obstructing the committee's work by ordering "five key witnesses" not to testify.

Remember when the administration kept referring to Democrats as "obstructionists" for daring to oppose the president's initiatives? The true obstructionists are in the administration.

At Wednesday's hearings, attorney Mark Zaid testified that his clients, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and defense contractor James Smith, had been prevented from testifying. Shaffer and Smith contend that Able Danger used data mining techniques to identify four of the September 11 hijackers, including Mohammed Atta, and that at least one chart existed that featured a photograph of Atta.

< Protests in Basra | Condoms to be Named for Clinton, Lewinski >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:09 PM EST
    Good luck. We will have to wait a few years for that and the rest of the secrets to be divulged.

    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    Squeaky - What they are talking about is the AbleBaker group that identified some of the hijackers a year before 9/11, but were shut down because the Pentagon, using the now imfamous Gorelick "Chinese Firewall" memo that said they couldn't talk to the FBI, wouldn't let them meet. So I don't think it is the Repubs who are doing this, but rather some career lawyers who now fear what will be exposed.

    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#3)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    Jeez, I guess he set you straight, Squeaky, straight from the reports he gets in the fillings in his teeth.

    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#4)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    So the WH refuses to provide information requested by (republican) senators; the DoD resuses to provide info requested by (republican) senators. The WH refuses to provide info to an independent 9/11 commission. Anyone else see a pattern!?

    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    No sailor, not the DOD, but some Pentagon lawyers... note the subtle difference.
    S. O'BRIEN: A military intelligence officer says he tried to warn the FBI about an al Qaeda cell a full year before the 9/11 attacks, but was prevented from passing on information.
    From a CNN interview:
    Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer was a member of a unit called Able Danger, and he's just now going public with what he says he told the 9/11 Commission. Colonel Shaffer joins us from our Washington bureau this morning.
    Link NOTE: You will have to go down about halfway before you come to the lead in. The Pentagon will try and claim national security, which will just get the testimony taken in private. Bottom line. Someone screwed the pooch in late 2000, about 3000 died and we wind up in a war. This needs to be thoroughly explored and exposed.

    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    Jim: ...not the DOD, but some Pentagon lawyers... "Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer says those efforts were blocked by military lawyers"... i.e. representing, under command of, and accountable to, superior officers in DOD, whose commmander-in-chief is...? Chain of command, authority, and responsibility.

    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    edger - Catch a clue - the timeframe he is speaking of is 2000.
    S. O'BRIEN: OK. That explains it for me, then, at least. You've claimed that this is information that you had about a terrorist a full year before 9/11. SHAFFER: Right.
    Want some more?
    The script for 9/11 Commission was written before it began. Legitimate and well-founded controversy surrounded the appointment of Jamie Gorelick, former Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno and the Clinton administration. Gorelick was at the center of controversy as a result of her March 4, 1995 controversial memo to U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White and others, erecting “a wall of separation” disallowing the sharing of intelligence between law-enforcement agencies about terrorists in the United States. What a concept. Gorelick, refusing to withdraw from the commission despite actual and perceived conflicts of interest, and Kean, who led the commission, must be held accountable for their failure to address a number of issues and answering some important questions, including: Why didn’t the final 9/11 Commission report address the “Gorelick Wall of Separation” that was described in 1995, after the first World Trade Center bombing and before the Oklahoma City bombing, as "very dangerous," with potentially "deadly results," by then-U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, the prosecutor of the first World Trade Center bombing by Islamic terrorists inside the U.S. Why didn’t the final 9/11 Commission report address a series of important memos from U.S. Attorney May Jo White complaining about the Justice Department, under then President William Jefferson Clinton, was obviously hindering the ability of our own military and intelligence agencies to find terrorists before they struck. Not surprisingly, Gorelick knew about the memos as she sat on the commission, but said absolutely nothing about them. Why did the 9/11 commission ignore the information offered by the Able Danger operation and then lie about it – and continue to minimize it to this day.
    Link Want something that will sizzle your hair?
    However, I think you'll find this is a bright spot, it has just been announced about 20 minutes ago that Mr. Eric Kleinstat (sp?), Eric Kleinstat is the name. He is the major who was the individual who was directed by DoD authorities to destroy the 2.5 terabytes of data back in 2000, he is now a civilian contractor, and his civilian contractor, God bless them, even though if you're a defense contractor, has given him permission to testify. Therefore, he will indeed testify tomorrow of the fact that he was directed to destroy the data.
    Link So let's don't try and avoid the fact that this happened in 2000 by worrying that the DOD/Pentagon is doing their typical duck and cover. There's enough information out there to squeeze someone's balls. And they should be turned into applesauce. Slowly. Very slowly.

    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    Chain of command, authority, and responsibility was different "in the timeframe he is speaking of"?

    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#9)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    Jim, I agree. This should be investigated. And yes, it happened on Clinton's watch. But your conclusion is not yet proven. Maybe Matt Druge will photoshop some "memos" for you.

    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    ppj-Setting straight your horse puckey statements is a bit like trying to clear away the flies before cleaning up a pile of steamy dog sh*t baking on the hot pavement during the dead of summer. My inital comment still stands. Your friend Weldon has lost credibility so many times it is amazing that they still use him to spread lies. Your BS on Gorelick is also a non issue as "the wall" had nothing to do with the type of info involves here.
    according to German police records, Atta was nowhere near the U.S. then. He was in Hamburg. And it wasn't until March 22, 2000, that Atta, an Egyptian national, began contacting flight schools here to see about taking lessons. He emailed 31 different schools. In one email, he wrote: "We are a small group of young man [sic] (2-3 persons) from several different Arab countries. We would like to start a course for professional airplane-pilots." He then applied for his visa, got it May 18, and arrived here June 3—several months after the Able Danger team allegedly placed the future hijacker in Brooklyn. By July, Atta had settled in Florida, far from his alleged Brooklyn base. But isn't it still possible the Able Danger team could have identified Atta as a member of an American cell before he got here, perhaps from records of his foreign travels? ...... they more than likely would not have found Atta in them for the simple reason that he didn't use that last name (nor did anyone in his family). He went by Mohamed el-Amir, not Atta. That's the way he was listed on flight manifests and travel documents—until, that is, he got his U.S. visa in May 2000. It was issued using his first and last names (his full name was Mohamed Mohamed el-Amir Awad el-Sayed Atta). So when Atta arrived in America in June 2000, he in effect had a brand new identity as Mohamed Atta, making it highly unlikely Able Danger would be able to identify him by that name six months earlier as claimed.
    More if you are interested: link
    Add in Weldon's goofball embrace of every absurd lie peddled by Iranian con man Manucher Gorbanifar, his ties to the Rev. Moon (a.k.a. God's vice regent on earth) and his taste for whacky stunts -- like pinning an American flag pin on Moammar Kadafi's lapel -- and you can see that Curt reached the level of his own incompetence when he became a volunteer firefighter in Marcus Hook, PA.
    billmon has plenty more on your "smoking gun" Able Danger but I am sure you are too busy to read it.

    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    the 9/11 commission dismissed the assertions that ms. gorlick's memo somehow impeded the transfer of data from one dept. to the other as nonsense. their conclusion was, if anything, that poor interpretive skills on the part of the military resulted in the failed transfer of data, not any overt act on the part of ms. gorlick. geez ppj, this is part of the record, in spite of weldon's fantasies. doesn't the judiciary committee have subpoena authority?

    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#12)
    by SeeEmDee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    What I want to know is: Why have things like Operation Bojinka not been investigated? Google Search String for "Operation Bojinka" This was discovered by the Manila police in 1995 and the connections to Muslim Fundamentalist groups was well documented. The intent was to use airliners as flying incendiary bombs, years before the actual event. And a drawing discovered amongst the plans seemed to include a crude picture of such an airliner hurtling towards the Twin Towers. Why has this not received much air time in the States?

    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:11 PM EST
    SED-perhaps this is the answer (from the google link) and Matthew Brzezinski's WAPO article dec '01. I had not ever heard of it until your post.
    wiredog: "Why didn't they pay attention?" It wasn't just the FBI and CIA who ignored it. How many in depth stories on the Year 2000 bombing plot were there? Last summer a former administration official (Sec. Def. Cohen, IIRC) had an op-ed about the threat of terrorism. I don't recall any letters to the editor about it. Or any follow up to testimony to that effect to the House and Senate. Matthew Brzezinski: Because no one was paying attention. I don't want to sound flip, but we were all too busy watching Who Wants to be a Millionaire and gov't agencies often reflect the priorities of the prevailing culture.
    link
    To be fair, it's a big leap from stealing a Cessna to commandeering a Boeing 767. "It's the imagination that failed us," says a former senior CIA agent, "not the system." He dismissed the connection to Bojinka as a "hindsight is cheap" theory..... One reason U.S counterterrorism officials may not have been able to outwit the terrorists, critics charged, is because the entire intelligence community has become too reliant on technology rather than human resources. "Where the system breaks down," says a former staff member of President Clinton's National Security Council who regularly attended briefings on bin Laden at Langley, "is not at the hunting and gathering stage" -- the ability to electronically intercept information. "We are probably tapped into every hotel room in Pakistan. We can listen in to just about every phone call in Afghanistan," explains the former NSC staffer. "Where the rubber hits the pavement is with the analysts. They are a bunch of 24-year-old recent grads from Middlebury or Dartmouth who have never been to Pakistan or Afghanistan, don't speak any of the relevant languages, and seem more knowledgeable about the bar scene in Georgetown. They just don't compare to the Soviet specialists we used to have. I'm not surprised they missed it."
    WAPO

    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:12 PM EST
    Edger... representing, under command of, and accountable to, superior officers in DOD, whose commmander-in-chief is...? Did it ever occur to you that these guys in the pentagon now, were there under Clinton (there isn't a wholesale change-out with every president) and are trying to cover their asses? Squeaky... So when Atta arrived in America in June 2000, he in effect had a brand new identity as Mohamed Atta, You might be right here and the dates might be a little off... but the fact is... they still knew about him at least a year before 9/11. Don't you agree more investigation is needed?

    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:12 PM EST
    Squeak writes:
    He then applied for his visa, got it May 18, and arrived here June 3—several months after the Able Danger team allegedly placed the future hijacker in Brooklyn. By July, Atta had settled in Florida, far from his alleged Brooklyn base.
    Actually Squeak, neither you nor I know how many times he had came and gone using other names, etc. Plus he could have been in Brooklyn and in Florida with no difficulty. I know people who work in NY and live in LA. So leave us place that old excuse over in the "makes no difference" corner. Because we do know several things: Irrespective of everything else, the AbleDanger information was blocked from the FBI. At the very least it might have heightened awareness to the point that later reports from the field - you do remember the female agent in MN - would have been investigated more thoroughly. We also know that the information was not included in the 911 Commission Report. Obviously it was withheld because it was an embarrassment to the power structure, and to Jamie Gorelick, a commission member, in particular. Either of the above is worthy of giving some people a very thorough career change directive. cpinva writes:
    their conclusion was, if anything, that poor interpretive skills on the part of the military resulted in the failed transfer of data, not any overt act on the part of ms. gorlick.
    The fact that Mack protects Muff is hardly a new thing, now is it? I also love the fact that they don't blame the author, but the reader. i.e. They blame the victim. You would think experienced politicians could have done better. The real truth is that if the memo had not existed the meeting have taken place. Ask a bartender about contributing to a fatal accident by a bar patron and see what the answer is. Squeak writes:
    and you can see that Curt reached the level of his own incompetence when he
    And you have a better resume???? Et al - Someone noted that the problem was too much reliance on electronics and not enough people on the ground. I agree. Now, if you would like to see the source for that problem, Google up some info on The Church Committee, ran by Democratic Senator Frank Church, and you can see the silver dagger through the CIA's heart.

    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:12 PM EST
    and my resume doesn't indicate I am strong on proof reading: T
    he real truth is that if the memo had not existed the meeting would not have taken place.


    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:12 PM EST
    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:12 PM EST
    PPJ-your world is measured by your resume...and how impressive is is to others. How sad, I wouldn't trade my life for a milli-second for that of Weldon, or anyone for that matter.

    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    PPJ-Able Danger is looking more and more like a scandal involving Condi Rice and William Perry, and some illegal weapons deals w/China.
    ....Able Danger whistleblower Anthony Shaffer on MSNBC's "The Big Idea" on Aug. 23rd, and he speculated that the reason Able Danger was shut down was because it had accidentally brought up ties between prominent Americans and overseas criminal activity. He didn't get any more specific except to say it wasn't connected to al-Qaeda. So this is undoubtedly another reference to Condi Rice and William Perry. ... I hope the DUers who have seen Able Danger as merely some kind of Curt Weldon smear campaign against Clinton can see now that there's much more to it.....No wonder, for instance, when Weldon says he gave the Able Danger chart showing Atta's photograph to Condi Rice's assistant Steve Hadley just after 9/11, the chart was "lost" and the whole story was buried. Hadley and Rice are very close, and Hadley has since taken over Rice's job as National Security Advisor. When Able Danger was shut down there still was seven months to follow up its leads connecting Mohamed Atta to al-Qaeda, but instead the program was shut down to protect Condi Rice?!
    link link And a moonie link for you PPJ: washington times via robot wisdom

    Re: Obstructionists in the Pentagon (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    Squeak - A resume is only a way to describe what someone has done. Your unwarranted attack merely reminded me to ask you what basis you had for your judgment. Evidently nothing but that cheapest of commodities, opinion. And please. The Left's strawmen isn't going to work. AbleDanger demonstrated how the Left's concern for non-US citizens damaged America. Sooner or later you have to take sides.