Did we really have no idea 9/11 was coming? Did the commision hide the truth?

The US military, in the course of a covert operation, determined that Mohammed Atta was attempting to engage in terrorist activities against domestic American targets in the summer of 2000. This operation, code named Able Danger, attempted to forward it's findings to the FBI. This attempt was blocked by the Clinton administration, because it violated their policy of 'keeping a wall between intelligence agencies". When this information about Able Danger was forwarded to the 9/11 commission, they refused to enter it into record or review it. Why? Because the architect of the 'wall policy', Jamie Gorelick, serving on the commission in a clear conflict of interest, blocked it.

Scorecard: Clinton's people knew in 2000 that Atta was on the loose and up to no good. To be politically correct, they forced their intelligence agencies to keep quiet about it. When this was going to be brought to the attention of the 9/11 commission, commissioner and former Clinton administration official Jamie Gorelick covered it up.

Oh yeah, but no matter what happened, we all know 9/11 was all Bush's fault...

Oh, by the way, anyone care to guess now what was on those documents Sandy Berger stuffed down his pants and snuck out of the National Archives?

Links:
FoxNews
The Diplomatic Times
The Washington Post

I think they knew somtheing was going to happen evnetually but did not know when or where.

The point is they knew that Atta would most likely be involved, but Jamie Gorelick, in an effort to be PC, refused to allow the FBI to receive the covert group's warnings. She then worked to have it covered up when it came before the 9/11 Commission. Three of the commissioners are on record as stating that they had never heard of Able Danger until after their report had been written.

Funny how info on this keeps coming out in dribs-and-drabs. First news reports said SpecOpsCmd didn't pass on the intel because Atta had a valid visa.

How would you like to be an operative at spin central right now and stuck with the job of reaching into Sandy's pants to see what incriminating documents he was able to ferret away so you could set your story....

There's an allegation by an unidentified former official that he tried to present the info to the Commission, but was rebuffed. The Commission is looking into whether or not teh info was ever offered.

Seems like a huge leap at this time to go from an anonymous allegation to the conclusion that Clinton knew, and that Sandy Berger was attempting to conceal that fact.

The data mining operation Able Danger may have had info that Atta was involved in a cell, but there's no solid proof that they did anything with that info, or that it would have prevented 9/11.

Most interesting to me is why those involved did nothing once they were allegedly rebuffed by civilian law enforcement, and again when they say they tried to provide the Commission with the info (why didn't they make a big noise then, why now?).

Let's let this play out for a week or two and see what facts develop before jumping to conclusions.

ichi :bow:

Can't really blame Clinton for something another person did. In all fairness to the man he did approve every snatch operation that was proposed by the CIA, Justice and DoD during his presidency according to Richard Clark.

Well, you make a good point about waiting to see where this takes us. As Kurki pointed out, each day it becomes 'curiouser and curiouser'.

You do have to admit that Gorelick's membership on the committe (as the author of the 'dividing wall policy), Berger's actions at the National Archives and now these allegations being made my Rep. Weldon do seem to all be heading in a certain direction.

But again, you are right that we're a long way from over on this one.

Is it just me, or is anybody else wondering what's going on in Washington that this story is coming to light right now (as opposed to 6, 9 12 or more months ago?) What's happening in plain view that we're not supposed to see?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Scorecard: Clinton's people knew in 2000 that Atta was on the loose and up to no good. To be politically correct, they forced their intelligence agencies to keep quiet about it.

---

That's not the impression I get from the links you provided. Remarks on the contents of Mr Berger's underwear seem premature.

I nominate you my friend to reach down and see just what's in there....

Quote:

---

Is it just me, or is anybody else wondering what's going on in Washington that this story is coming to light right now (as opposed to 6, 9 12 or more months ago?) What's happening in plain view that we're not supposed to see?

---

Its not just you. I think that you're on to something here. Sandy Berger did embarass a lot of people getting caught with documents up his drawers.

and the whole issue of our failure to piece together the warning signs of 9/11, especially when we had good intel but it wasn't being shared or followed up.

But Weldon is not an objective guy, very much a partisan.

The interesting question is was anyone in the intel community aware that 9/11 was about to happen.

The real question is are we any better off today, 'cause the talk of suitcase nukes makes it imperative that we prevent the next attack.

it is mo curioser each day.

ichi :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Is it just me, or is anybody else wondering what's going on in Washington that this story is coming to light right now (as opposed to 6, 9 12 or more months ago?) What's happening in plain view that we're not supposed to see?

---

Judging from what I can see atop my building 20 miles out, looks like the Nationals are fading fast, Mr. Palmeiro has some explaining to do, and the Redskins again have no decent aerial attack. There is a large whirlpool near the Capitol, but I can't tell if that's our tax dollars going down the drain, or turbulence caused by the massive spinning going on. Nothing to see here, more at 11. ~D

Um, what's the radius of those suitcase nukes?

You watch - in a week the dems will have spun this into an attack on Bush. It may seem inconcievable now, but they do it all the time. ~;)

How in blue Hell did Gorelick get on the commission? This is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Judging from what I can see atop my building 20 miles out, looks like the Nationals are fading fast, Mr. Palmeiro has some explaining to do, and the Redskins again have no decent aerial attack. There is a large whirlpool near the Capitol, but I can't tell if that's our tax dollars going down the drain, or turbulence caused by the massive spinning going on. Nothing to see here, more at 11. ~D

Um, what's the radius of those suitcase nukes?

---

You think that's all it is? Boredom in DC so 'something' has to be a story? Just trying to sell copy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

How in blue Hell did Gorelick get on the commission? This is ridiculous.

---

I don't know how she got on, but I will say it was the Republicans on the committee that went ballistic on the press, on the Republicans in Congress & anybody else who dared question her appointment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

You think that's all it is? Boredom in DC so 'something' has to be a story? Just trying to sell copy?

---

Well, Congress is in recess right now, maybe reporters are digging through their backlog. But think of the time wasted on the baseball steroid scandal this winter. I remember people around here being mildly enraged about the Berger incident. But people don't want to hear (or reporters/editors don't think that people want to hear) about the policies and pissing matches of national intelligence agencies. They want a simple cut-n-dry case of one or two people messing up. Placing the blame on bureacracy is always a good cop-out, because it's boring. News has to be sexy and easy to comprehend these days, or else our ADHD MTV-generation minds lose interest. ~;)

This story is growing already , well according to the Washington Post anyway ~;)
BTW the Fox link doesn't seem to work for me (but no real loss there I suppose) .
Anyway I thought one of the commisions findings was that though intelligence was available , due to lack of interaction and the conflicting remits and seperation of the intelligence agencies plus the National/International aspects , it was never put together as a whole to be properly assessed .

'curiouser and curiouser'.
Welcome to Wonderland , turn back now , chasing rabbits through the strange tunnels of politics can be damaging to you brain .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I don't know how she got on, but I will say it was the Republicans on the committee that went ballistic on the press, on the Republicans in Congress & anybody else who dared question her appointment.

---

Yeah, if I remember, Rummy blew the lid off her involvement during his testimony when he revealed a memo by her about "the Wall", but the other comissioners rallied around her instead of doing the proper thing and letting her step down.

Isnt this a really old story. I remember something about her blocking the FBI from looking at his computer years ago and that if they had they would have known about 911.

And it only took 4 years for the Repubs to again try to find away to blame 9/11 on Bill. Versus that W, Condi, Rummy, Cheney and all were ignoring reports - refused to hear out Clinton's security advisors on AlQuada, and dismissed a paper entitled "Terrorist attack by AlQuada imminent" (or some such thing) as being out of date.

There is no way to direct blame at anyone, or conclude that 9/11 was more one administrations fault than anothers. It is bad taste to even hint that one of them would ignore information vital to national security, or hide information uncomplimentary to their President (....er).

The concern should be - can the new provisions put inplace since 9/11 (and approved by the commission) resolve the communication problems of the agencies given the task of protecting us against such attacks? From what I keep hearing, the answer is no. In other words, we can probably expect another mass murder in the future.

Also, I read where there are those in government (at the moment) concerned more about "left wing" terrorist groups - Animal Rights groups and environmentalists - as opposed to the 300+ right wing gun toting nut job organizations in the U.S.. You know, like the one Timothy McVey was involved with.

Go figure.

I think that 9/11 made a real difference. Before, NOBODY would EVER dare attacking US on US soil. After, EVERYONE is trying to trying to attack US on US soil DAILY......... It's all about perception.... ~;)

Bmosloarel;feopgrzoji'g what ever it is. You seem almost giddy in some of your post about 911 and when ever something bad happens to the USA; why do you hates us so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Welcome to Wonderland, turn back now, chasing rabbits through the strange tunnels of politics can be damaging to you brain.

---

Well said. ~:cool:

Yet we do that all the time, Mr President. My own country tragically resembles Watership Down from time to time, with half the population dressing up in rabbit suits and the other half chasing them. You'll forgive me for sparing you the details; one's national customs do not bear close scrutiny. But a recent case in point from the U.S. was the arrest of a man charged with an old racist murder. I seem to remember that particular rabbit rather caught your fancy, Sir.

And after being subject to a terrorist attack in which three thousand people died, any nation would be prepared to chase rabbits down any hole anywhere in the world in order to find out the truth about the act, the circumstances and the individuals responsible. I am not surprised at all that this issue comes up again and again, notwithstanding the facts that there are Congressional elections around the corner and that there is a Mr Rove who wants to see his Plamer case 'neutralised' at all costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

And after being subject to a terrorist attack in which three thousand people died, any nation would be prepared to chase rabbits down any hole anywhere in the world in order to find out the truth about the act, the circumstances and the individuals responsible. I am not surprised at all that this issue comes up again and again, notwithstanding the facts that there are Congressional elections around the corner and that there is a Mr Rove who wants to see his Plamer case 'neutralised' at all costs.

---

Now that is an interesting perspective about why this news is coming around again. Haven't thought about it in the prespective of the upcoming elections - but yep I think you are right. This will make good sound bites for re-election campaigns for some, and provide material to attempt to unseat in others.

Yet we do that all the time, Mr President.
I know Adrian , which is why I felt compelled to issue the warning .
Further to which , go easy on the mushrooms . Some of those things you discover in the world of Wonderland really can screw with your mind ~D ~D ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Yeah, if I remember, Rummy blew the lid off her involvement during his testimony when he revealed a memo by her about "the Wall", but the other comissioners rallied around her instead of doing the proper thing and letting her step down.

---

Oops, I was wrong- it was Ashcroft.

then again it don't f*****g matter, and exageration diminishes the message

Clinton Didn't Want to Deal with Terror

Quote:

---

It's starting to look as if the 9/11 Commission turned a blind eye to key questions that could embarrass one of its own members, Jamie Gorelick. This week brought the stunning revelation that elite military spies pinpointed Mohamed Atta and three other hijackers as a terror cell more than one year before 9/11. But they were barred from alerting lawmen to try to lock 'em up. A prime reason why that warning never came is that Gorelick issued a 1995 order creating a wall that blocked intelligence on terrorists from being shared with law enforcement. Commission staffers had first denied knowing that the elite military unit known as Able Danger even existed, but later admitted that they were briefed twice that Atta was specifically named." Still it was conveniently left out of the 9/11 report.

---

How the hell did she get on this commision. This was asked way back when this was first started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

How the hell did she get on this commision. This was asked way back when this was first started.

---

Yeah, that's the truly inexplicable part to me. How was the commission supposed to make an unbiased report when its members was neck deep in the issues they're investigating. She should've been testifying before the commission- not sitting on it.