posted on August 11, 2005 09:49:58 AM new
Doesn't suprise me in the least.
9/11 panel hammered for ignoring Atta intel
Staff apparently dismissed info about ID'ing of hijackers, ex-Clinton aide Gorelick fingered.
Online commentators are taking aim at the 9/11 commission for its failure to include in its report that intelligence officials reportedly ID'd hijack ringleader Mohamed Atta as part of an al-Qaida cell in the U.S. over a year before the September 11 tragedy but no action was taken against him, saying the panel was acting politically instead of factually.
One commentator specifically points his finger at former Clinton staffer Jamie Gorelick, a member of the panel who has been accused in the past of acting to protect her ex-boss from any political fallout of the commission's work.
Members of the commission now are calling for a review of the matter, saying they knew nothing about a classified military intelligence unit known as "Able Danger" identifying Atta and three of his accomplices in 1999. The information was shared publicly this week by Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa. vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees.
While Weldon says Able Danger personnel recommended Atta and the others be deported, the information apparently was not shared with federal law enforcement agencies, another symptom of the Clinton-era wall of separation that had been erected between intelligence and law enforcement personnel.
The New York Times reports the 9/11 commission staff decided not to share the Able Danger information with the panel members because some of the information sounded inconsistent with what they thought they knew about Atta.
"… [W]hy did [the commission] ignore the Able Danger operation in their deliberations?" asked Captain's Quarters blogger Ed Morrissey, as highlighted by columnist Michelle Malkin. "It would emphasize that the problem was not primarily operational, as the commission made it seem, but primarily political – and that the biggest problem was the enforced separation between law enforcement and intelligence operations upon which the Clinton Department of Justice insisted. The hatchet person for that policy sat on the Commission itself: Jamie S. Gorelick."
It was Gorelick who, as deputy attorney general in the Clinton Justice Department, established the wall of silence between intel and law enforcement.
"We believe it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations," Gorelick wrote in 1995. "These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."
Gorelick rejected calls for her resignation from the commission last year when conflict-of-interest charges were raised.
Morrissey further discusses the apparent failure of commission staff to address the Able Danger data:
First we hear that no such [briefing on the info] occurred. After that, the commission says one might have occurred in October 2003 but that no one remembered it. Now we find out that the commission had two meetings where [they] heard about Able Danger and its identification of Mohamed Atta, including one just before they completed their report. Instead of saying to themselves, "Hey, wait a minute – this changes the picture substantially," and postponing the report until they could look further into Able Danger, they simply shrugged their shoulders and published what they had.
Why? Able Danger proved that at least some of the intelligence work done by the U.S. provided the information that could have helped prevent or at least reduce the attacks on 9/11. They had identified the ringleader of the conspiracy as a terrorist agent, even if they didn't know what mission he had at the time.
What does that mean for the commission's findings? It meant that the cornerstone of their conclusions no longer fit the facts. Able Danger showed that the U.S. had enough intelligence to take action – if the government had allowed law enforcement and intelligence operations to cooperate with each other. It also showed that data mining could effectively identify terrorist agents.
Morrissey says [b]Gorelick's "wall of separation" between intelligence and law enforcement agencies "specifically contributed to Atta's ability to come and go as he pleased, building the teams that would kill almost 3,000
Americans." [/b]
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper." --Robert E. Lee
posted on August 11, 2005 10:14:39 AM new
OH BEAR!!! You've posted an article from WND...a site that kiara calls a RAG....shame on you. ;-D
Doesn't matter one bit that this exact SAME story is in many online news yesterday and today.
Seriously though, I did read about this yesterday, I believe on FoxNews onine, and the first thing that popped into my mind was 'maybe this is why sandy berger was stuffing his pants with papers that discussed these relivant issues.'
It will be VERY interesting to watch this story play out.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 11, 2005 11:21:46 AM new
Linda, I don't really expect to see it reported by the MSM, do you? That would be against their anti Bush mantra.
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper." --Robert E. Lee
posted on August 11, 2005 11:40:41 AM new
My observations have always been that when it's something negative to the democratic party....the first we hear about it is through the online right leaning news sources. The NEW media. Then...if it makes it to the Fox News channel....the leftist MSM ususally will wait it out, anywhere from one day to a week before they EVEN mention it - hoping it will go away. And, of course, give it their slant when and if they do mention it. But they hold back as long as they can....before sites like the WSJ or TimesWatch start mentioning how the NYT or the WA Post is NOT reporting on it at all.
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper." --Robert E. Lee
[ edited by Bear1949 on Aug 11, 2005 11:48 AM ]
posted on August 11, 2005 11:54:19 AM new
Yep...the clinton administration and all their 'lawyering' about everything. Find a reason not to take action...use any excuse even though we knew about them during his administration.
Great!!
And again....the part of the PA that was changed under the Bush administration so that information SHARING between the different agencies would be ALLOWED NOW.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
Then...if it makes it to the Fox News channel....the leftist MSM ususally will wait it out, anywhere from one day to a week before they EVEN mention it - hoping it will go away.