Curt Weldon's House floor speech on ABLE DANGER

[seemslikeadream]

ABLE DANGER FAILURE -- (House of Representatives - October 19, 2005)
GPO's PDF
---
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Reichert). Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is recognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk to our colleagues and through our colleagues to the American people about an issue that troubles me greatly.

I have been in this institution 19 years, and during those 19 years I have been on the Committee on Armed Services. Currently, I am the vice chairman of that committee and chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the purchase of our weapons systems. In the past I have chaired the research subcommittee. I have chaired the readiness subcommittee, and I have spent every available hour of my time working to make sure that our military troops were properly protected and have the proper equipment and training.

I am a strong supporter of our military. Whether it was in the last 2 years of the Reagan administration, the four years of the Bush administration, the 8 years of the Clinton administration, or the current administration of President George W. Bush, I have been a strong supporter of our military. I am a strong supporter of President Bush. I campaigned for him. I am a strong supporter of Secretary Rumsfeld. I say all of that, Mr. Speaker, because tonight I rise to express my absolute outrage and disgust with what is happening in our defense intelligence agencies.

Mr. Speaker, back in 1999 when I was Chair of the defense research subcommittee, the Army was doing cutting-edge work on a new type of technology to allow us to understand and predict emerging transnational terrorist threats. That technology was being done at several locations, but was being led by our Special Forces Command. The work that they were doing was unprecedented. And because of what I saw there, I supported the development of a national capability of a collaborative center that the CIA would just not accept.

In fact, in November 4 of 1999, 2 years before 9/11, in a meeting in my office with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Deputy Director of the CIA, Deputy Director of the FBI, we presented a nine-page proposal to create a national collaborative center. When we finished the brief, the CIA said we did not need that capability, and so before 9/11 we did not have it.

When President Bush came in after a year of research, he announced the formation of the Terrorism Threat Integration Center, exactly what I had proposed in 1999. Today it is known as the NCTC, the National Counterterrorism Center. But, Mr. Speaker, what troubles me is not the fact that we did not take those steps.

What troubles me is that I now have learned in the last 4 months that one of the tasks that was being done in 1999 and 2000 was a top-secret program organized at the request of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, carried out by the general in charge of our Special Forces Command, a very elite unit focusing on information regarding al Qaeda. It was a military language effort to allow us to identify the key cells of al Qaeda around the world and to give the military the capability to plan actions against those cells so they could not attack us as they did in 1993 at the Trade Center, at the Khobar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole attack, and the African embassy bombings.

What I did not know, Mr. Speaker, up until June of this year, was that that secret program called Able Danger actually identified the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda in January and February of 2000, over 1 year before 9/11 every happened. In addition, I learned that not only did we identify the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda, but we identified Mohamed Atta as one of the members of that Brooklyn cell along with three other terrorists who were the leadership of the 9/11 attack.

I have also learned, Mr. Speaker, that in September of 2000, again, over 1 year before 9/11, that Able Danger team attempted on three separate occasions to provide information to the FBI about the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda, and on three separate occasions they were denied by lawyers in the previous administration to transfer that information.

Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday on ``Meet the Press,'' Louis Freeh, FBI Director at the time, was interviewed by Tim Russert. The first question to Louis Freeh was in regard to the FBI's ability to ferret out the terrorists. Louis Freeh's response, which can be obtained by anyone in this country as a part of the official record, was, Well, Tim, we are now finding out that a top-secret program of the military called Able Danger actually identified the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda and Mohammed Atta over a year before 9/11.

And what Louis Freeh said, Mr. Speaker, is that that kind of actionable data could have allowed us to prevent the hijackings that occurred on September 11.

So now we know, Mr. Speaker, that military intelligence officers working in a program authorized by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the general in charge of Special Forces Command, identified Mohammed Atta and three terrorists a year before 9/11, tried to transfer that information to the FBI were denied; and the FBI Director has now said publicly if he would have had that information, the FBI could have used it to perhaps prevent the hijackings that struck the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the plane that landed in Pennsylvania and perhaps saved 3,000 lives and changed the course of world history.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight because we have been trying to get the story out about Able Danger and what really happened. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have to rise tonight to tell you that as bad as this story is, and as bad as it is that the data was not transferred to the FBI, and as bad as it is that the 9/11 Commission totally ignored this entire story and referred to it as historically insignificant even though it was authorized by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, even though Louis Freeh has now said it could have provided information to prevent the attack against us, the 9/11 Commission ignored it. Not because the commissioners ignored it, but because someone at the staff level on the

9/11 Commission staff decided for whatever reason that they did not want to pursue the Abel Danger story.

Mr. Speaker, in August and September I met with the military officials involved with Abel Danger and one by one they told their story, until, Mr. Speaker, leaders in the Defense Intelligence Agency, including the deputy director, decided they do not want the story told. I think because they perhaps are fearful of being embarrassed and humiliated.

So what direction had they taken, Mr. Speaker?

They have gagged the military officers. They have prevented them from talking to any Member of Congress. They have prevented them from talking to the media. And the Defense Intelligence Agency has began a process to destroy the career and the life of Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer.

Now, it might be easy for us to ignore this, Mr. Speaker. We all have busy careers and worry about reelections every 2 years and worry about our own families and our jobs. But I cannot do that in this case and neither can this body, and neither can the other body. You see, Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer took an oath to defend our Constitution. He took the words ``duty, honor, country'' seriously and devoted 23 years of his life in four deployed intelligence operations of our military to protect America.

During the time he served our country, he has received the Bronze Star, an award that does not come easily, for showing acts of courage, leadership, and bravery in the course of his activities.




He has received public commendations from previous directors of the Defense Intelligence Agency, including General Patrick Hughes, including generals at Special Forces Command, and including Admiral Wilson of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He has received dozens of letters and commendations for his work. The laudatory comments I reviewed in his files are unbelievable.

But, you see, Mr. Speaker, there is a problem. The Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency was in a meeting with Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer almost a year before 9/11, and Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer showed him a disk in his office with information about al Qaeda and Mohammed Atta, and the Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency stopped the briefing and said, you cannot show me that. I do not want to see it. It might contain information I cannot look at.

Now, Tony Shaffer was not in the room alone, Mr. Speaker. There were other people, and we know their names. So we have witnesses. Now, the Deputy Director has denied that meeting and denied he was there and denied this particular story, but the fact is he knows that we are going to pursue it.

So what has happened to Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer, Mr. Speaker? The Defense Intelligence Agency has lifted his security clearance. One day before he was to testify before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, in uniform, they permanently removed his security clearance. And now our Defense Intelligence Agency has told Colonel Shaffer's lawyer that they plan to seek a permanent removal of his pay and his health care benefits for him and his two children. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer, like Commander Scott Philpot of the Navy, like J. D. Smith, and like a host of other Able Danger employees, has told the truth.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I sat here in the 1990s and I sat here during the 9/11 investigation and watched a ridiculous situation develop with Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser under President Clinton. He walked into the National Archives before he was to testify before the 9/11 Commission looking through documents. He took documents out of the archives and stuffed them in his socks and pants so that no one would see them as he left the National Archives. Now, that is a felony, tampering with Federal documents and removing classified information regarding our security and information that the 9/11 commission needed to see.

Sandy Berger initially lied about it. He said he did not do it. Then he admitted it, and he was given a punishment. And, oh, by the way, his security clearance was temporarily lifted, but he will get it back again, for lying, for stealing, and for committing an act of outrage against our country's security. Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer, a Bronze Star 23-year military veteran, simply told the truth and now his life is being ruined.

His career is ended. He is no longer in military intelligence. They have taken his security clearance, and they are about to destroy him as a person. They are about to deny him the basic health care and the salary that he has earned, and they are doing it in this way. This is outrageous. It is evil. They do not want to fire Tony because they also do not want him to talk to the media. So by suspending him and removing his pay and his health care, they hurt him bad, but he cannot talk because he is under suspension and his lawyer has advised him that to talk to the media, to talk to Members of Congress, even when he is not being paid, would cause him further problems and totally prevent him from ever having this gross problem reversed. Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. Mr. Speaker, this is not America.

Over my 19 years in Congress, I have led 40 delegations to the former Soviet Union. I have sat in the face of the Soviet Communists and confronted them on full transparency. I sat at the table with President Lukashenko of Belarus, who has been called by our Secretary of State the last dictator in Europe. I took both delegations to North Korea, Mr. Speaker, and sat across the table from Kim Gye Gwan and I told him we abhor the way they treat their people, the way they lie about what is happening, and the way they distort information.

Mr. Speaker, I took three delegations to Libya to meet with Qadhafi, and I told him that we are absolutely outraged at what Libya did in helping complete the Lockerbie bombing and the bombing of the Berlin nightclub.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would have to take the floor of this Chamber and make the same statements about the Defense Intelligence Agency. As a supporter of the President, as a supporter of the military, Mr. Speaker, if we allow this to go forward, then we send the signal to every man and woman wearing a uniform that if you tell the truth, you will be destroyed if a career bureaucrat above you does not like what you are saying. If you tell the truth, we will take your health care benefits away from your kids. If you tell

the truth, we will ruin you.

Mr. Speaker, this is not America. Mr. Speaker, this is not what I have been told by Secretary Rumsfeld that we are doing with our troops in protecting them, in giving them the best equipment and the best training. This is not what I spend hours in committee hearings on. This sends the wrong signal to America's troops. It tells them, do not be honest. Do not respect the fact that you have to be truthful. If there is somebody that the truth offends, then you better be silent.

Mr. Speaker, I have today asked for an independent investigation of the Defense Intelligence Agency and their efforts at destroying Tony Shaffer's life. This is outrageous, Mr. Speaker. They trumped up charges against him. They said while he was overseas in Afghanistan, forward deployed, that he forwarded cell phone calls from his official phone to his personal phone; and when they checked that out, it ran up a cost to the taxpayers of about $60. The second verbal charge they gave him was that he went to a course at the Army War College and he got reimbursed for his travel, his mileage and tolls, 100-some dollars. And they said he received a commendation for which he was not entitled, even though it was signed by his commanding officer and the acting Secretary of the Army.

But they went beyond that, Mr. Speaker. They went beyond that with this man. They said he had $2,000 of debt, personal debt. Well, I would like to have every Pentagon employee tomorrow, I would like to have the senior leadership show us what debt they have in the Defense Intelligence Agency so we can make that public.

They even went to this length, Mr. Speaker: the Defense Intelligence Agency wrote in an official document that Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer stole public property. A serious charge. Well, when you check what that public property was, it was an assortment of pens, government pens. But what they did not say in the Defense Intelligence report was that he took those pens when he was 15 years of age and was with his father when he was on assignment at one of our embassy outposts. He took the pens to give to other students at the school when he was 15 years of age. And by the way, Mr. Speaker, it was Tony Shaffer himself who admitted to that thievery when he applied for his security clearance. So the Defense Intelligence Agency knew that during his entire career of 23 years, but they put that in the document against him.

This is a scandal, Mr. Speaker. It is an outrage. It is a travesty. Everyone that worked with Tony Shaffer, the Navy officers, the private citizens have all said the same thing. This is a scandal to get Tony Shaffer because he has told the truth.

Now, this Defense Intelligence Agency and this Deputy Director had the audacity to have their legal counsel send Tony Shaffer's lawyer a letter on September 23. I cannot put that letter in the RECORD because it is privileged information, but it will eventually come out. But in that letter, in the second to last paragraph, the legal counsel for the Defense Intelligence Agency says to Mr. Shaffer's lawyer, he cannot receive any more classified information from the Defense Intelligence Agency because I checked and his security clearances have all been removed. Therefore, he is not allowed to look at anything that is secret or confidential.

Now, that is a letter sent by the general counsel of the DIA on September 23 of this year. Two weeks later, Mr. Speaker, to show the stupidity of the Defense Intelligence Agency, they send seven packages to Mr. Shaffer's lawyer

GPO's PDF
of his personal belongings, which the Deputy Director of the DIA told my staff 3 months ago did not exist any more. And in those seven boxes, Mr. Speaker, were five classified memos. The Defense Intelligence Agency sent five classified memos to Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer, which they told him on September 23 he was not allowed to have access to.
Mr. Speaker, that is a felony; and I have asked the Inspector General and the legal officials to investigate and prosecute the Defense Intelligence officials who sent five classified documents through the mail or by hand delivery to Tony Shaffer.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Defense Intelligence Agency, in its absolute total stupidity, included in those boxes $500 worth of Federal property, including a multi-hundred dollar GPS system owned by the Federal Government, which they sent to Tony Shaffer, I guess to keep. They also sent, Mr. Speaker, 25 pens, brand new, and marked on them is ``Property of the U.S. Government.'' The Defense Intelligence Agency, in its absolute utter stupidity, sent Tony Shaffer Federal property which they accused him of taking when he was 15 years of age.

Mr. Speaker, there is something desperately wrong here. There is a bureaucracy in the Defense Intelligence Agency that is out of control. They want to destroy the reputation of a 23-year military officer, Bronze Star recipient, hero of our country, with two kids because people in defense intelligence are embarrassed at what is going to come out.

And what is going to come out, Mr. Speaker? Well, we are going to find out, Mr. Speaker, that that unit, Able Danger , not only identified Mohammed Atta before 9/11, not only did they try to pass that information to the FBI, not only was that large data destroyed in the summer of 2000, but now, Mr. Speaker, I can add a new dimension to this whole story. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I met with another Able Danger official. I was not aware of this official's knowledge because he does not live within the Beltway.

This official, Mr. Speaker, has impeccable credentials. I cannot reveal his name today. I will to any Member of this body, any of our colleagues that want to come to me, I will tell you privately who this official is, and you will agree with me when I tell you his name that he has impeccable credentials. This official yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in a meeting in my office, told me that he has never been talked to by the Pentagon. He has never been talked to by the Defense Intelligence Agency in their supposed investigation. He has never been talked to by the 9/11 Commission staff in their investigation; yet this official had a leadership position in Able Danger .

This official told me that there is a separate cache of information collected from over 20 Federal agencies in 1999 and 2000 on Able Danger that still may exist. Now, the Pentagon has told us all this material was destroyed, and now I have a senior official telling me there is a second pot of information that may well still exist.

[riderinthestorm]

1. Rush actually played bits of Welden's speech.

I got in a rental car this afternoon and the car was tuned to his show which I usually can't stand, and never listen to.

I heard Welden's voice which was why I didn't immediately turn the channel and when Rush came on afterwards praising the speech, I was floored. He even said that there is a whole lot of disinformation/misinformation about 9/11 out there that's been purposefully buried.

WTF?? What is the right wing spin on Able Danger? How can it be anything but an enormous clusterfuck for the Repubs? Why the hell would Rush even intimate that there is much more than the official spin on 9/11?

[seemslikeadream]

3. Because they think it will lead to Clinton but it won't

Clinton was never told


BUDDY BUDDY
http://www.gsnmagazine.com.nyud.net:8090/images/aug_05/atta.jpg
DO THE MATH

24 MINUTES

THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A MILITARY ORDER WATCH THIS VIDEO

http://www.bushflash.com/buddy.html


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/24/124834/678


DIA Agents were ordered to put yellow Post-its over Atta's face and the face's of 3 other 9/11 terrorists

"We were directed to take those 3M yellow stickers and place them over the faces of Atta and the other terrorists and pretend they didn't exist," the intelligence officer told GSN."

Intel agents Michael Shaffer and Scott Philpott have confirmed Rep. Weldon's claims that a chart with Atta's face, soon the photos of 3 other members of the 9-11 terror team, were known to DIA team Able Danger by early 2000.

This diary will show that Pete Schoomaker and Philip Zelikow are two of the main Perpetraitors in this scandal, that they deliberately withheld information from the President of the United States that would have prevented 9/11, that they and their neo-con rulers Let It Happen On Purpose.

Of this there can no longer be any doubt.



MUST READ - RE: ABLE DANGER INFO
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4447706

Hopsicker: Able Danger Intel Exposed "Protected" Heroin Trafficking
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x149481


Able Danger: Short Time-line
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4441903

Was Able Danger Shut Down After It Detected Condi-PRC Spy Ring?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4494524



Senate May Hold Hearings on Able Danger, Info Sharing
Thursday, August 25, 2005


Able Danger (search) is the code name for a military-intelligence unit that apparently learned a year before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta (search) and other terrorists were already in the United States.

One of the central Able Danger claims — that military lawyers blocked the sharing of the Atta information from the FBI in the late summer and early fall of 2000 — will be a focus of the committee's if a hearing takes place, FOX News has confirmed.

Some analysts involved with Able Danger have recently gone public with their findings, saying they were discouraged from looking further into Atta, and their attempts to share their information with the FBI were thwarted, because Atta was a legal foreign visitor at the time.

"This story needs to be told. The American people need to be told what could have been done to prevent 3,000 people from losing their lives," said Rep. Curt Weldon (search), R-Pa.

Weldon drew attention to Able Danger by speaking about it on the House floor and publicly calling for the Sept. 11 commission to explain why the intelligence information wasn't detailed in its final report.

Some Able Danger analysts, including Army Reserve Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer (search) and Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott (search), claim that in October 2003, they told commission staffers of the presence of Al Qaeda operatives in the United States in 2000.


more
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166800,00.html


Senate May Hold Hearings on Able Danger, Info Sharing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1727804&mesg_id=1727804




Condi in Middle of Able Danger ‘Cover Up’"

Weldon is now saying that the Pentagon cover up of able danger “will shake the country to its roots."

...

If the claims made by the Able Danger participants and Rep. Weldon are confirmed, former National Security Adviser Rice and other Bush Administration officials will face a barrage of questions. First would likely be an inquiry into why the administration unceremoniously axed the Able Danger project in May of 2001.

During an August 20th interview on C-Span’s Washington Journal, Able Danger member Lt. Col. Schaffer posed a question of his own:

"The American public should ask themselves: Why would the leadership of DoD shut down, terminate, a project which was aimed at targeting al-Qaeda offensively? ...

"Why would they shut that down, four months before 9/11? That’s the big question right now, we have to ask that. I don’t know the answer to that question because I know my side of the story, I know that when a 2 star general got in my face and said, “I’m a 2 star general and you are not. You are to stop your support of Able Danger.” That’s what I know personally. But the question has to be: Who told him to do that? ...

"And why did the rest of the project, I’m talking about Special Operations Command and the Army portion of this, why was that terminated?

"Those are the questions that need to be asked."


more...

http://www.theinternationalpost.com/z30082005.html

Congressman Weldon -- Why now? Why ever?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4500623

Three more assert Pentagon knew of 9/11 ringleader By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Three more people associated with a secret U.S. military intelligence team have asserted that the program identified September 11 ringleader Mohammed Atta as an Al Qaeda suspect inside the United States more than a year before the 2001 attacks, the Pentagon said on Thursday.

The Pentagon said a three-week review had turned up no documents to back up the assertion, but did not rule out that such documents relating to the classified operation had been destroyed.

Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott and Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer last month came forward with statements that a secret intelligence program code-named "Able Danger" had identified Atta, the lead hijacker in the attacks that killed 3,000 people, in early 2000. Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record), vice chairman of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, also went public with the allegations.

Pat Downs, a senior policy analyst in the office of the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, told reporters that as part of the review, the Pentagon interviewed 80 people.

Downs said that three more people, as well as Phillpott and Shaffer, recalled the existence of an intelligence chart identifying Atta by name. Four of the five recalled a photo of Atta accompanying the chart, Downs said.

Pentagon officials declined to identify the three by name, but said they were an analyst with the military's Special Operations Command, an analyst with the Land Information Warfare Assessment Center and a contractor who supported the center.

Downs said all five were considered "credible people."

But officials said an exhaustive search of tens of thousands of documents and electronic files related to Able Danger failed to find the chart or other documents corroborating the identification of Atta. Phillpott has said Atta was identified by Able Danger by January or February of 2000.

"We have not discovered that chart," Downs said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050901/pl_nm/security_attacks_pentagon_dc


Three more assert Pentagon knew of 9/11 ringleader
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1744982&mesg_id=1744982

Specter Wants Answers About 'Able Danger'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1796658&mesg_id=1796658


NYT/Reuters: Pentagon Blocks Testimony at Senate Hearing on Terrorist
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1795221&mesg_id=1795221

NOW - ON CAPITOL HILL - Able Danger Inquiry CSPAN3 9:30am et
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4836496

Able Danger ties Condi Rice to Chinese espionage! (really!)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4846388&mesg_id=4846388

VIDEO-the Senate Judicial Committee ABLE DANGER saga
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?

[riderinthestorm]

6. Great links! Thanks.

I see I have my homework assignment for the night, getting caught up on all of this.

And of course (smacks head), I forgot, it's ALWAYS Clinton's fault.

(It's been a long day, shoulda seen that one coming....)

[spuddonna]

7. And wasn't Zelikow on the 9-11 Commission?

How conveeeeenient!

I'm sure that Weldon started this investigation to blame 9-11 on Clinton. I wonder if even he is starting to wonder why this administration is pushing so hard to cover-up this story?

[Just Me]

15. Could he really be unaware of the coup?

:shrug:

The neoconsters' planning was certainly in anticipation of taking power.

Why are so many people missing the big picture here?

:shrug:

Why is it so many people have trouble putting two and two together?

:shrug:

[spuddonna]

24. I tend to think the GOP considers Weldon a 'small potatoes' politician...

... in other words, he wasn't an insider on the 9-11 intelligence cover-up.

I mean, if he was, would he start an investigation like this? The information that he'd want would be pre-orchestrated and produced in a minute for him. There would be no 'digging for answers', stonewalling from the DoD, that he's running into. If this was a real smear campaign on Clinton, we'd have seen a 'super-swiftboating' that would have made KKKarl wet himself with happiness.

Instead, we have Weldon standing alone, screaming on the floor of the House on this, facing the same frustration on answers that the Dems have experienced for 5 years...

I think Weldon's a schmuck that decided he'd make a name for himself by fixing blame for 9-11 on Clinton. But now he's tripped and fallen into a GOP 'black hole information pit', and is wondering why his pals in the GOP are just watching him yelling from the hole. If he's a smart boy, he'll realize why they aren't rushing to his aid. I'm not holding my breath on that...

As for Rush and RW radio, they'll take any distraction they can get to redirect focus off Treasongate. But this doesn't smell like a 'professional' swiftboat op to me... at least, not yet...

[robertpaulsen]

38. Here, here!

I'm waiting for the phrase "Post-It Note Cover-Up" to be entered into the Congressional record.

:hi:

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

5. right wing spin = Clinton knew

[RebelOne]

17. Yup, that's all that asshat Hannity harps on

regarding this issue. Clinton knew and Clinton didn't do anything about it.

[seemslikeadream]

18. Able Danger is a Pandora's Box that will blow up in the RW's face.

Re-open the 9/11 investigation? BRING IT ON! Here's why:

So the responsibility for stopping DIA program Able Danger, which had Identified Atta and 3 other hijackers and linked them to 56 other al-Queda terrorists overseas, has been laid at the feet of Bill Clinton--except he and Richard Clarke were never told about it at all.

That's right. Bill Clinton was never told about Able Danger and the ID of Atta because Richard Clarke was never told about AD. How do I know? He never wrote about it in his book, nor did he testify about it's existence before the 9-11 Commission!

You see Richard Clarke was known for being obsessed with Osama Bin Laden and HE was the guy the neo-con moles did not want to find out about Atta and the gang. Schoomaker and the neo-cons knew telling the FBI would inform Clarke and then Mr. Laser Beam himself, President of the United State William Jefferson Clinton, would have gotten involved--and the Pearl Harbor-type attack would never take place (the neo-cons talked about the need for a Pearl Harbor-type attack before the PNAC Plan would be accepted by the American people--so when one presented itself, they let it happen).

General Pete Schoomaker, who were later heavily rewarded by the neo-cons in the Bush Administration, blocked the upward motion of the DIA information by having Shaffer and Philpott meet with Pentagon lawyers opinions--lawyers who were rubberstamping ridiculous legal opinions to carry out the neo-con plan. These certain people were neo-cons in the Clinton Administration, covertly carrying out the PNAC plan to let a Pearl Harbor-type attack occur so Iraq and 6 other countries could be invaded.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/24/124834/678

[reprehensor]

21. It's hard to believe...

That this would come from a Republican, a tendril of truth that could expose a very nasty structure tucked within the DIA, the DoD and elsewhere.

I can't say I blame the Dems here for being skeptical, especially with the tsunami of corruption that is pouring out of the contemporary Republican party.

Weldon is not letting this story go away, and the more I hear about it, the more I want to hear about it.

Everyone should remember, the 9/11 Commission was 'bi-partisan' and it was a goddam whitewash.

It shouldn't suprise anyone if the protection of Intel assets overlaps admins.

What may come out is the true nature of 'Able Danger'; babysitters for foreign 'assets'.

[tanyev]

8. There is a very long Freeper thread on Weldon's speech

which I plowed through earlier. They do think it will all point to Clinton, and many referred to the fact that it was shut down in late 2000. I went googling and found many articles that say it was shut down in Feb 2001, by the Bush administration. I don't think uncovering the truth about Able Danger will reveal what they want it to reveal.

[pauldp]

12. Able Danger was shut down in early 2001.

http://www.gsnmagazine.com/sep_05/shaffer_interview.html

In this Government Security News article
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer explains how the incoming leadership withdrew support for Able Danger.

If anything about able Danger actually pointed to Clinton the Repukes would be all over it.
When the truth is told the demise of Able Danger will point to more corruption on the part of BushCo and possible complicity in 911.

[bloom]

23. - I noticed that he also was blaming the CIA -

- which I heard that FOX was trying to do in relation to the Plame, thing.

It seems like bad news for the Republicans to me, also. :shrug:

Though I guess they would rather have people focused on this than Rove/Libby->treason or Delay and all his stuff.

[slor]

2. Thanks for posting n/t

[pauldp]

4. Thanks for posting. A second pot of Able Danger Info? Hmmmm.

The plot thickens.
:popcorn:

[stop the bleeding]

9. Thank you for posting this! I have been following this story as much

as I can. Weldon sure knows something with this "official" I wonder who it is. I am going to read your second post right now. Thank you again, on a day when we needed some different news.:yourock:

Also I wonder where the other places that this information on AD is. Due to the fact that all of the documents were shredded, can't remember what the amount was but it was something like 1/4 of the literature in the Library of Congress

[Faygo Kid]

10. Incoherent. Rambling. Swift boat.

Let whatever information come out that comes out, and let Hannity, Rush, O'Lielly express shock, this is all timed to defer attention from Plamegate, Miers and the war. Swift boat crap, but let's hear this incoherent poop out.

[Octafish]

11. Soon, the BFEE cockroaches won't have a place to hide.

This shows that there's a secret government within the government who act with impunity. They care not for the Constitution, the nation or the American people. Who does that sound like? Clinton or Bush?

[tanyev]

13. Well, yeah. And do they really think Clinton has the power

and resources to maintain a cover-up 5 years after his departure from the WH? The freepers in the thread I read through would refer to "Clinton hold-overs" still in the Pentagon, DOD. I doubt that there was ever anyone in those departments who had enough personal loyalty to Clinton to still be supposedly covering something up 5 years later.

No, if Able Danger really pinned all the blame on Clinton you can bet the Bush team would have been crowing about it within 36 hours after 9/11.

[Just Me]

19. Precisely. Freepers refuse to acknowledge the obvious:

Those who are attempting to reveal the Able Danger operation are being crushed BY THE CURRENT REGIME!!!

The last thing that the neoconster shadow government wants the public to know is the existence of that shadow which engaged in a coup well in advance of taking over power.

Let's hope the truth comes out.

[converted_democrat]

14. I don't know much about Weldon, but this speech is great. k&r..n/t..

[reprehensor]

16. bump for consideration

I say tear it all wide open. Let the sunlight in.

[JNelson6563]

20. Great stuff!!

And a kick for those who forget what GD is for to see this shining example.

Julie

[PATRICK]

22. All the RW talk radio

is full of THIS and nothing about Plame. So the purpose, including a wide detour around Bush to get at Clinton is obvious and will stop short, as usual, of having anything bad to say about their main guys except "Bill got us into this mess" and "everybody does it". It is the usual dark threat to take everyone down if they get indicted which used to work better when it was not a daily routine anyway WITHOUT Democratic opposition or scandals to cover up.

The reason it is hard to fathom is simply because they no longer have any shock value and the best they do is keep their beleaguered minds full of distractions against the Democrats as if THEY are the ones under the gun.
However they do succeed when they intrigue others away from the slippery issue of holding Bush accountable for anything at all.

Interesting, go for it, but who cares? The intent at the end of the days and a host of pardons is to hide behind Clinton hate whatever the evidence. The rest is ballsy hypocrisy. The few reps who are allowed to go for this serious issue will be drawn up short and silenced long before
any new fingers of blame point back at the GOP.

Then you will wonder why the issue suddenly vanished into a simple new "conspiracy theory" word blip that makes everyone assume it was all Clinton all the time.

The pattern I see is that Clinton simply trusted them too much by trusting them at all and the Intel and military groups were infested with Bush sympathizers(to put it mildly) already doing the agenda. Anytime things looked strange it was because Clinton did not match their real agenda and steered in more responsible directions. To try to take charge or install Carter-like reforms he likely thought he would have been courting disaster. Some traps, some insufficiencies he avoided. Some bridal paths he went down briefly. Some long term policies he did not examine closely enough. That appears the pattern more than him being a sign-off on PNAC or any other co-conspirator policy. No doubt he went along with traditional policies now being shredded and exposed by the massive daring and incompetence of the Bush team. If any Intel was being suppressed besides the routine shielding of anything Saudi, no doubt the real shapers and beneficiaries are the team for whom this groundwork was well laid.

[eek]

25. "If you tell the truth, we will ruin you."

What a long list that must be by now, eh?

FWIW, Joe Wilson said nearly the same thing in that interview with Will Pitt he posted a day or so ago.

Amazing how many people have the same take on these fiends.

[sadiesworld]

28. What's really frightening about Weldon's Able Danger tale

is the level of Bushco/TBTB message control it illustrates. I would really like to believe that Weldon is unwittingly tap-dancing on the edge of a razor blade, but the approval for this little number surely goes to the top. The idea that this maladministration KNOWS that no one in "mainstream" media will actually pick this up and do any focused investigative journalism on it leaves me a bit breathless.

I truly don't know WHAT to say about the bushbots who can't see through the careful parsing employed here.

(Oh, and Weldon said Sandy Berger...BOO! :eyes:)

[Pachamama]

26. My thoughts on Able Danger, Weldon, the right wing spin, etc. and what

it all means:

I remember the first time I heard about Able Danger and read up on it through the DU. I had questions, mixed feelings, but my gut told me that this may be real and to stay tuned. At the same time, I would put nothing past this administration to put false info out in order to distract from other issues and also another opportunity to blame something on Clinton.

But I will confess I saw this speech by Weldon on TV and I believe he is sincere....Since it seems that most of the GOP politicians are in the pocket of the Bush Neocons and Corporations, the assumption is easily made that its another mouthpiece. But I listened to what he said and read the transcipt of his speech and I seriously believe this man is outraged and is speaking out. He may have an (R) behind his name, but maybe he's got a bit of a conscience and is an example of someone in the GOP who remembers what it means to be an "American" and what the GOP used to stand for. It's possible he has seen too much and this was the straw that broke the camel's back. I will admit that my jaw dropped when I heard what was being done to this guy who is exposing Able Danger. The fact that they would cut off his benefits? The fact that he had his security clearance taken away and had a box including Gov't property and classified docs sent to him in a clear and deliberate attempt to set him up and destroy him? This follows a clear pattern of destruction of anyone who dares to challenge this administration. Maybe Weldon has had enough. Maybe Weldon cares more about his country and the dead Americans that died on 9/11 and since then for an illegal war on Iraq. Maybe he took this issue so seriously that when he found out that one of the members of the 9/11 commission was the very same person who withheld this info from the commission and was part of the DIA group that did this has him convinced that this needs to be exposed.

My take on the right wing pundits like Limpballs talking about this on their talk shows is because it does serve as a "distraction" (and they always love anything that can be talked about related to 9/11) but that yes, it could be "blamed on Clinton". But I really don't think that will fly and I think its only going to serve as a temporary distraction. The truth that may come out in this "re-opening the 9/11 commission investigation" may end up revealing far more than the Bush Cabal wants revealed.

I say "Bring it On"....I think that the house of cards is starting to crumble on the Bush Cabal and they can't control the fallout coming from all directions....I believe this particular story may once again actually show that some of the very same "players" from the Reagan/Bush era that are Neo-cons, left some loyalists in the Pentagon who made sure certain things got taken care of and not taken care of.

:hi:

[paulthompson]

27. More info on Able Danger here

I've made a timeline page just on Able Danger, which you can see here:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=ableDanger

The reason the right wing gets their panties in a bunch over this is because they perceive it as a Clinton failure. But it wasn't. Clinton and his top people never knew about it, and it was shut down at the start of the Bush administration (not to mention the cover up lasting until now). It's a failure that transcends parties.

As for Curt Weldon, many people think he's a bit wacko, and I understand on many issues he is extreme. But I think he's sincere on this one. He was deeply involved in data mining efforts before 9/11, knew a lot of the players involved before 9/11, and put forth some sensible information sharing and data mining proposals before 9/11. So he's very emotionally invested in this. He seems willing to follow the evidence wherever it may go, regardless of party. Note for instance this comment from him which I have sourced in the above link:

In mid-September 2005, Weldon will say, “I knew that the Clinton administration clearly knew about this. Now I know of at least two briefings in the Bush administration.” He calls these two briefings “very troubling.” He wants to know what became of the information presented in these briefings, suggesting it shouldn't have been destroyed as part of the other Able Danger data purges.

[PATRICK]

29. The pattern fits into

the IMMEDIATE shielding of information on the Clinton presidency- that Clinton never sought and on occasion tried to break into himself to clear his administration of such murky charges. The pattern protects the connection to the Bush administration on several serious issues. It further leads to a dead end that the RW can mythologize to its heart's content with the the outrageous cover of its own obstruction of justice.

It's crazy. It's control. It's working to protect the Bushes from open crimes and real revelations of evidence and truth. It is the same old double play, using a "credible" false accusation that hurts their opposition to cover their own cover up and crime. It's nutty, but it works with stupid media presentation and purposeful propaganda AND they can't stop doing this- ever. It's a real vice of their current power position.

The Weldons, whatever their intention or connection serve only as limited pawns who can go this far and no farther as long as this strategy is working. Does he seriously think he will open a real investigation into the full facts or even earn another risky attempt at a rigged Clinton show trial? They expect the Dems to be naturally reluctant and thus blame them for no hearings too.

Need we make a list of "honest" Repugs who started a crusade and were dumped or silenced after they served the strictly limited usefulness to the GOP? They merely have to stop mentioning them on the radio or news for the whole issue to disappear.

Of course in the case of Dems speaking out it is "partisan conspiracy theories" on their part, all the time, whenever.

[Mandate My Ass]

30. His story is significantly changed from prior story

More Here:

Yet those who’d followed the saga closely seemed unable to get a handle on it either. Initially, right wingers gleefully anticipated another round of pin-the-blame-on-the-donkey. Weldon, they assumed, would establish beyond a doubt that Clinton was at fault for September 11th. Later, those on the left predicted vindication for Richard Clarke, who testified that the Cheney Terrorism Task Force never met once prior to 9/11 despite significant threats. It was all over the place.

An unrelated event began to bring the big picture into focus. This was the conspicuously low-key announcement on September 28th that the Pentagon would fund full production of the V-22 Osprey. It coincidentally came down the same day the second Able Danger public hearing was to convene, yet was inexplicably cancelled, never to be rescheduled again.

Was the whole affair a daring game of brinksmanship in which the Pentagon blinked first?

One day after the announcement was made, during a celebratory press conference at the Boeing plant in Ridley Township, the Delaware County Daily Times quoted Weldon as saying, “I get criticized sometimes for being outrageous, but…I’m a street fighter and I’ll do whatever it takes to win."

From the outset, the Bush Jr. administration had been every bit as opposed the Osprey as his father’s had been. Before he was inaugurated in 2001, a member of Bush’s transition team, speaking strictly on condition of anonymity, said the Osprey was one of five programs slated for significant scaling down or axing altogether.

If the Weldon-Specter duo was formerly engaged in a game of chicken with the Pentagon, as Rumsfeld’s defensive maneuvers strongly indicate, they are now engaged in a game of suicide chess. The object of the game, as the name indicates, is to be left without a move. A stalemate is a win.

During the Able Danger hearing, former prosecutor Specter grilled William Dugan, Acting Assistant for Intelligence Oversight regarding Mohammed Atta’s status as a U.S. person while raising the possibility of amending Posse Comitatus as a remedy for the DoD's former predicament. Specter’s questions, irrelevant and misleading, accomplished the amazing feat of promoting the Pentagon’s fictions, while simultaneously striking an adversarial pose. The implication is that Atta, a foreigner with an expired tourist visa, slipped through an ultra-liberal loophole enacted to protect Vietnam-era hippie war protestors from government harassment.


http://www.allspinzone.com/blog/index.php?itemid=1531

[For PaisAn]

31. Weldon's appearance on Lou Dobbs

Here's the video

http://www.wakahiru-me.com/media/vid/cnn/cnn_ldt_weldon_able_danger_coverup_051020a.wmv

http://www.wakahiru-me.com/media/vid/cnn/cnn_ldt_weldon_able_danger_coverup_051020a.mov

They not only took away Lt. Col. Shaffer's security clearance but now the DIA now wants to take away his health care benefits and his salary.

[drummo]

32. What Weldon always forgets to mention is that two of those hijackers

who were supposedly indentified as suspected al Qaeda terrorists inside the US back in 2000 were identified by at least two FBI analysts as suspected al Qaeda terrorists inside the US WITHOUT any help from Able Danger.

According to Weldon&Co. four future hijackers were identified by Able Danger:
Mohammed Atta
Marwan al-Shehhi
Nawaq Al-Hazmi
Khalid Al-Midhar

And hell if you can't read this in the 9/11 Commmission Report:

August 2001:The Search for Mihdhar and Hazmi Begins and Fails

During the summer of 2001 “John,” following a good instinct but not as part of any formal assignment, asked “Mary,” an FBI analyst detailed to the CIA’s Bin Ladin unit, to review all the Kuala Lumpur materials one more time. She had been at the New York meeting with “Jane” and “Dave” but had not “Mary” began her work on July 24.That day, she found the cable reporting that Mihdhar had a visa to the United States.A week later, she found the cable reporting that Mihdhar’s visa application—what was later discovered to be his first application—listed New York as his destination. On August 21, she located the March 2000 cable that “noted with interest” that Hazmi had flown
to Los Angeles in January 2000. She immediately grasped the significance of this information.
“Mary” and “Jane” promptly met with an INS representative at FBI headquarters. On August 22, the INS told them that Mihdhar had entered the United States on January 15, 2000, and again on July 4, 2001. “Jane” and “Mary” also learned that there was no record that Hazmi had left the country since January 2000, and they assumed he had left with Mihdhar in June 2000. They decided that if Mihdhar was in the United States, he should be found.


So what is Weldon's point? This info about these two guys was inside the FBI in the summer of 2001 no matter what Able Danger was doing.
They were even put on the TIPOFF list in Aug, 2001. They bought their tickets using their own real names.
Nawaq Alhazmi used the same address as Salem Al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Midhar used the same address as Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi.
Majed Moqed used the same frequent flier number as Al-Midhar.
By checking Mohamed Atta’s phone numbers they would have identified five other hijackers: Fayez Ahmed, Mohand Alshehri,Wail Alshehri,Waleed Alshehri, and Abdulaziz Alomari.

Closer to September 11, a further check of passenger lists against a more innocuous INS watch list (for expired visas) would have identified Ahmed Alghamdi. Through him, the same sort of relatively simple correlations could have led to identifying the remaining hijackers.

See:Illustration No. 2: “Watch-Out Lists” and “Gates”: A Hypothetical Application to the 9/11 Attacks
in PROTECTING AMERICA’S FREEDOM IN THE INFORMATION AGE
A REPORT OF THE MARKLE FOUNDATION TASK FORCE, October 2002
http://www.markle.org/downloadable_assets/nstf_part_1.pdf

BTW the executive director of this task force was the same Philip Zelikow who was the executive director of the 9/11 Commission staff.
He knows that 9/11 was not only preventable but could have been prevented fairly easily thanks to the idiocy of the hijackers to use their own real names to buy their tickets.

By merely checking for common addresses -- widely available info, including on the Internet -- the FBI could have identified Atta and Al-Shehhi on their own regardless of whether Able Danger existed or not. And a fucking simple analysis could have identified all the 19 hijackers before 9/11 without any info Able Danger supposedly had.

So the real question Weldon should ask that why didn't Mary and Jane
did that obvious analysis in Aug of 2001 while they were searching for Midhar and Hazmi inside the US? For example if they made sure their names were put on the TIPOFF list why didn't they make sure that their names were also put on the FAA no-fly list? If they really wanted to find them inside the US why didn't they check out whether they had some address inside the US?
Or why didn't they tell Dick Clarke in Aug, 2001 that they had info about two suspected al Qaeda terrorists inside the US?

BEN-VENISTE: Did you know that the two individuals who had been identified as Al Qaida had entered the United States and were presently thought to be in the country?

CLARKE: I was not informed of that, nor were senior levels of the FBI.

BEN-VENISTE: Had you known that these individuals were in the country, what steps, with the benefit of hindsight, but informed hindsight, would you have taken, given the level of threat?

CLARKE: To put the answer in context, I had been saying to the FBI and to the other federal law enforcement agencies and to the CIA that because of this intelligence that something was about to happen that they should lower their threshold of reporting, that they should tell us anything that looked the slightest bit unusual.

In retrospect, having said that over and over again to them, for them to have had this information somewhere in the FBI and not told to me, I still find absolutely incomprehensible.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20349-2004Mar24.html

The FBI's info about Hazmi and Midhar could have been the key to prevent 9/11, according to Clarke:

ROEMER:
...
What could you have done with some of that information, with the spiked alerts, with the spectacular attack on the horizon in the summer of 2001?

CLARKE: Congressman, it is very easy in retrospect to say that I would have done this or I would have done that. And we'll never know. I would like to think that had I been informed by the FBI that two senior Al Qaida operatives who had been in a planning meeting earlier in Kuala Lumpur were now in the United States and we knew that and we knew their names. And I think we even had their pictures.

I would like to think that I would have released, or would have had the FBI release, a press release with their names, with their descriptions, held a press conference, tried to get their names and pictures on the front page of every paper, "America's Most Wanted," the evening news, and caused a successful nationwide manhunt for those two of the 19 hijackers, but I don't know because you're asking me a hypothetical and I have the benefit now of 20/20 hindsight.



So once again Weldon cries that ABLE DANGER IDENTIFIED ATTA BEFORE 9/11 someone should wake him up and tell him to stop believing that he has a smoking gun.

[stop the bleeding]

33. Very good point, but also I think Weldon is focusing on the

cover up of the intel, and that is worth investigating and is a possible smoking gun.

[drummo]

34. I don't know now about you but I don't trust this screamer.

He looks like and talks like a usual Rep thug.

And apparently he is ignorant about pre-9/11 intel within the FBI, even though it's in the 9/11 report.

[stop the bleeding]

35. I am waiting to see what he kind of results he can produce before

passing judgment. I do find it curious that he has spent so much time and energy investigating so many different possible sources???? I mean he must think something is worth looking into.

[drummo]

36. I'm afraid he is looking for some way to blame 9/11 on the

Clinton administration, and therefore on Democrats in general.

He even made reference to Jamie Gorelick in his interview with Lou Dobbs. That was not accident. It was an intentional effort to suggest that Gorelick's "wall" was the reason why the info didn't reach the FBI -- which is of course nonsense, under close inspection, since Gorelick did not have authority over the DIA in any shape or form.

And you know when Louis Freeh says that if we had had the Able Danger info we could have prevented 9/11 and then Weldon quotes Freeh as a short of proof that he has the mother of all smoking guns then I can't help but think something is rotting in Denmark.

[stop the bleeding]

37. I have often thought that Clinton Admin may be have acted the

behest of other people. It is hard to say how intertwined the politics and politicians are in DC. I know it sounds crazy and I am as liberal as they come, but there is something rotten in DC and don't think its just regulated to the neocons in office. Regardless of what Weldon's motives are, I think when there has been evidence that people are trying to keep this story under raps then I think it should be told. Regardless of who is responsible and who is investigating for whatever reasons.

Bottom line like you said, something is rotten and something stinks and I like a lot of people want to find out what it is.:tinfoilhat:

[Catherine Vincent]

39. I don't trust him either and you're right, he just wants to blame it all

on Clinton!