|
|
August 10, 2005Able Danger/Sandy Berger Connection?I suspect Dr. Sanity may have something here, and IF she does - please note, I am saying IF - I hope the blogs pick it up and run with it, because I have no reason to believe - anymore - that the MSM will do its job and thoroughly investigate her ideas. If she is, in fact, correct, it is a story that demands bi-partisan, invective-free telling. Dr. Sanity is talking about the revelation recently come to light that the CIA knew (and named) 9/11 terrorists in 2000, but due to the policies put into effect under the Clinton administration (a policy conceived and written by eventual 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick), that information was not shared with the FBI or other law-enforcement agencies. “The Sept. 11 commission (search) did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell,” said Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. “Had we learned of it obviously it would’ve been a major focus of our investigation.” Hamilton’s remarks Tuesday followed findings by Rep. Curt Weldon (search), R-Pa., vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, that made front-page news. In June, Weldon displayed charts on the floor of the U.S. Senate showing that Able Danger identified the suspected terrorists in 1999. The unit repeatedly asked for the information to be forwarded to the FBI but apparently to no avail. Various news outlets picked up on the story this week. Weldon told FOX News on Wednesday that staff members of the Sept. 11 commission were briefed at least once by officials on Able Danger, but that he does not believe the message was sent to the panel members themselves. He also said some phone calls made by military officials with Able Danger to the commission staff went unreturned. “Why weren’t they briefed? Was there some deliberate attempt at the staff level of the 9/11 commission to steer the commissioners away from Able Danger because of where it might lead?” Weldon asked. “Why was there no mention of Able Danger?” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Sept. 11 commission looked into the matter during its investigation of government missteps leading to the attacks and chose not to include it in the final report. American security…quite possibly sacrificed upon the altar of political expediency? I hope not. Sanity takes this story and wonders if the disinterest and lack of information regarding Able Danger had anything to do with Sandy Berger taking top-secret documents out of the National Archives and ummm…”losing” them. (A story that lasted, what, three days in the press? Not like that giant national security issue involving the “outing” of CIA desk employee Valerie Plame! Do I sound bitter? I’m getting there!) Sanity writes: Maybe I’m just paranoid, but I would really like to know what Berger knew about Able Danger; and if he wrote a memo, or signed off on one, that specifically related to Able Danger; and that prevented the dissemination of information that might have led to the arrest of the 9/11 hijackers before they could carry out their plans. And, could that memo–or copies–have been in the National Archives? It is, of course, unlikely in the extreme that it still exists after his foray into the archives. She has put together an interesting timeline regarding Berger, the 9/11 Commission and Able Danger, which you will want to ponder. Sanity points out that Jamie Gorelick, who as I say, eventually sat on the 9/11 Commission, questioning everyone but herself, “was not only deputy attorney general of the United States under Clinton, a position she assumed in March 1994 and held until 1997; but from May 1993 until she joined the Justice Department, Gorelick also served as general counsel of the Department of Defense. These dates are not relevant except possibly to point out that Gorelick was familiar with and worked in the DoD. She is someone else that I have wished the press were more curious about.” Indeed! Can we say “conflict of interest?” But yes…as I recall, many of us were saying “conflict of interest” during the Commission hearings, to no avail. The press certainly wasn’t saying it. Once again, we find ourselves wondering how the press - so quick to call President Bush “incurious” can be so routinely incurious about matters concerning folks on the left, like Sandy Berger (ho-ho, he put top-secret papers in his pants! That Sandy!), John Kerry (he’s a hero! Those 250 guys are NOT heros!), Air America (…the rest is silence) or even Bill and Hillary Clinton (Juanita Brodderick? Stale story! Cattle futures? That’s a stale story…) Strata-Sphere has also been working on an interesting timeline, and more here and Jawa Report has this: I do not blame the Clinton Administration for 9/11, nor do I think it was preventable in any meaningful way, but the so-called Able Danger revelations do raise some interesting issues. The first is the most obvious, and that is the silliness of ever erecting a barrier between law-enforcement and intelligence agencies. In hindsight this was stupid. Some things are so stupid, though, that to need hindsight to see their stupidity one must first find a group of morons, take out the brightest of the bunch, and then find the dullest bulb in the pack. That it was enacted by Democratic Congress intent on reeling in the perceived excesses of the CIA is no excuse for this piece of legislation. Just. Plain. Dumb. But it also raises another important question: Who was it that refused to turn over the Able Danger documents to the FBI? According to the AP, the information was passed up the line, but that somewhere between the Army and the FBI the information was blocked. An individual, some actual person with a name and a face, had to look at this and say, “Nope. Can’t pass this along. It’s against policy.” He links to a NEIN post also wondering whether Sandy Berger’s Archival Adventure has ABLE DANGER written all over it. Jawa is cautious enough, and smart enough. to remind everyone that this is - at this point - nothing more than bloggy speculation, and he is absolutely right. But it is speculation that raises questions which do demand some answers. He also has lots of links. Lawhawk wonders how this information suddenly came to light. That’s another good question, one of many good questions which deserve asking, and real answers. I have no hopes at all that the MSM will look into Dr. Sanity’s timelines, or ask Jamie Gorelick a single question, but I really hope they will - I hope they will because once upon a time journalists were my heroes and I would like to see them regain some credibility. But more importantly, I hope they ask the questions because justice demands it. 3000 citizen, 1835 soldier and thousands of Iraqi souls demand it. UPDATE: Well, this is pretty interesting! Ed Morrissey is first up with the NY Times report that the 9/11 Commission has reversed itself from its contention that it never heard of Able Danger, that in fact, they were briefed on it. A Commission spokesman said - get this - staff members who were briefed about Able Danger at a first meeting, in October 2003, did not remember hearing anything about Mr. Atta or an American terrorist cell. Excuse me for being skeptical, but a Commission investigating 9/11 hears a report with the words ATTA and CELL and no one remembers it? I’m sorry, ding,ding,ding…I think that’s not quite believable. Writes Ed: First we hear that no such meeting 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 the heard about Able Danger and its identification of Mohammed 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 US 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. Someone needs to answer questions, in front of Congress this time and not some pass-the-buck commission that tried to bury Able Danger the first time. Who made the decision to bury Able Danger? Why? If you read the report, first the spokesman says they forgot, then he says the commission discounted the testimony because it didn’t jive with travel records, which it turns out is inconsequestial when the fact that information of the cell was still not passed on…then the spokesman says, welllll, there was a lot of information coming at the commission…they didn’t deliberately omit it, it just got lost in the cracks. (Paraphrase). At best, incredibly sloppy. At worst, purposely omitted in order to protect a commission member who should have recused herself from sitting on the panel and instead been compelled to testify. I think Rusty Shackleford is correct - all of this probably would NOT have prevented 9/11. But I also think Ed Morrissey is right, and that perhaps a Congressional Investigation should be mounted. I wonder if the GOP has the spine to call for one. And errr…yes…I do commend the Times for publishing the story. Can anyone tell me what page it was on, though? UPDATE: Jim Geraghty has some thoughts here. He notes that “clear-thinking” people will agree that there are questions needing answers, here. But I note, sadly, that some of the left-winged blogs are already dismissing the whole thing out of hand because - and this is so childish, but it’s the way it is - in their world, no negative questions or concerns can ever, ever, ever be directed toward the Clinton administration, and no positives can ever, ever, ever be attributed to the Bush administration. They have become so knee-jerk that they seem unable to treat as a legitimate issue the fact that the writer of the policy forbidding contact between the CIA and the FBI sat on the 9/11 Commission, and not before it. Michelle Malkin has more. Bloggers following the story, Tom McQuire, Hyscience, Betsy’s Page (she has a nice bit about Commission chair Hamilton’s feelings on this new revelation), Villainous Company, SCA, and Jimmie Bise, who couldn’t stay away from politics any better than I could! WELCOME: Villainous Company readers! While you are here, please look around. Today we’re also talking about Cake and the Divine Spark, the idea that maybe Sandy Berger’s Pants hold the key to a mystery, Attorney General Eliot Spitzers seeming reluctance to talk to Air America, and a new book that takes on the Myth of Hitler’s Pope. http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/08/10/able-dangersandy-berger-connection/trackback/ 21 Responses to “Able Danger/Sandy Berger Connection?” |
Maxed Out Mama 
August 10th, 2005 at 11:21 pm
We are expecting too much from the MSM. As long as the agendistas rule the newsroom, the questions won’t be asked.
On the other hand, there is such a thing as critical mass. Bloggers proved that with Dan Rather and Mary Mapes.
If there was that kind of pressure on the MSM re Air America, I suspect they would forced to respond. The problem is that Air America is a more complicated story, and less sexy. The same can be said of the Berger affair.
If the story can be reduced to it’s basic elements and bloggers take it, the MSM will have to respond.
August 10th, 2005 at 11:43 pm
Can’t we please just leave this to the historians? Can’t we FINALLY move on from these constant, never-ending reviews of 9/11? How many times must we go over this same ground? Must we really give the 9/11 Commission blowhards and Kristin Breitweiser yet another opportunity to spout their nonsense?
—Let’s just let it go and get about the business of putting the cold dead bodies of Zarquoui, Osama, et al., in nice pork-lined graves.
August 11th, 2005 at 1:03 am
Bender I’ll let Ed Morrissey answer you from his post at Captains Quarters:
Until we have officials with some accountability look into the evidence instead of a panel comprised of people like Gorelick who have axes to grind and actions to minimize, we will never get a clear, factual look at the performance of our intelligence services and the constraints put on them by bureaucrats more interested in political correctness than in national security.
August 11th, 2005 at 1:24 am
Chinese Walls Equals Able Danger
No, that’s not secret code from a 1960s spy thriller. But it does involve the FBI and the Defense Department. Ed Morrissey, Jim Geraghty and other bloggers have some thoughts on what Geraghty says could be “one of the biggest…
August 11th, 2005 at 3:40 am
Anchoress, I think they are on to something, but when I read the Fox News report earlier and again on your post my only question was why would a US representative display anything on the Senate floor? An error in the typing of the Fox report? That’s the only question I have but I don’t doubt for a minute something is fishy in the state of Denmark.
August 11th, 2005 at 7:45 am
9/11 COMMISSION IGNORED KEY FACTS ON HIJACKERS
The 9/11 Commission was supposed to give the America people a complete, unbiased story of the government failures that led up to the September 11 terrorist attacks. But the Commission now admits its acclaimed Final Report ignored key information provid…
August 11th, 2005 at 8:19 am
I’ll admit to some initial feelings of sympathy with Bender’s comment. I.e., one wishes that we could look forward instead of back. But Anchoress and others are right: this is not really about 9-11 (almost anything can *seem* preventable in hindsight). It’s about the very foundations of the republic - the accountability of government institutions and government employees to the people who trust them with our safety.
These are the same issues that the MSM *said* were at stake around Watergate and that the left *says* (or rather, screams) are at stake today with this administration.
What amazes me about the MSM is not the usual line about their being blind and absent and biased. I accept that as I accept the weather - often bad, but it is what it is. No, what amazes me is that here’s a story of potentially Watergate-like proportions, (or maybe more) - a great big juicy plum of a story that could set up the professional reputation, (and very comfortable livelihood as a best-selling author) of this generation’s Bob Woodward if s/he found his/her new Mark Felt to act as jungle guide.
And yet to date, it seems, the social fabric of the MSM is so tight and insular that no reporter is willing to break ranks and try to chase this. Recall that Woodward and Bernstein were almost cut off at the knees by Ben Bradlee before Watergate ever got going. (OK, that one flowed parallel to the partisan grain, but still…)
There’s this stellar journalistic career, just waiting to be be made in this story… by someone. Will it be a blogger? How big does the story have to be before a rogue MSM reporter or formerly partisan news outlet decides: “The heck with those bloggers. I’m going to cash in! I never liked those liberal Upper-West-Side / Georgetown dinner parties anyway.”
Anyway, it was a nice dream. And then the alarm went off.
August 11th, 2005 at 8:59 am
You know, in my little world of cows and rogues, I was/am seriously frustrated for the lack of Truth being represented. People lie and people (to put it rudely) *pork* you. Now, you’ve put it all into perspective and all I want to do is cry.
I’m sure many people KNOW what the facts are, if only they would work together for the good of our US of A, instead of putting prestiege and $$$$ ahead of all that is right. Do you think it will ever get better? I mean, the Republicans are in power and the place is a mess, what would ever happen if the Dems got the power?
I don’t understand how President Bush can be so calm. He never lashes out and throws a fit about being called heartless and stupid, etc. He just waits until the hand plays itself out. I think that is amazing.
August 11th, 2005 at 9:03 am
I did have a thought… I wonder if Sandy Berger will make it out of this affair alive?
August 11th, 2005 at 9:38 am
The 9/11 Commission, What Did They Know And When Did They Know It?
In this case, it’s clearly a Democratic administration, and of course the JAG Corps and the DoD’s civilian lawyers, that shelved information that could have possibly prevented 9/11 from happening, all ignored by the 9/11 commission.
August 11th, 2005 at 9:52 am
[...] The Anchoress on August 10, 2005 @ 10:51 pm “Able Danger/Sandy Berger Connection?” [...]
August 11th, 2005 at 10:19 am
[...] The Anchoress has a pretty comprehensive roundup on the story, including some very interesting conjecture about Sandy Berger (including this post from AJStrata, that ties together some very disparate facts) and Jamie Gorelick. Also of interest should be this post from Dr. Sanity, who put together a very helpful timeline of events. [...]
August 11th, 2005 at 11:45 am
Hi Karen!
Don’t lose Faith!
The place is a mess because the Left controls the MSM, education, and the entertainment media. And they’re framing it as a mess. Hollywood has spent five years making the world hate America, and they wonder why the world doesn’t want to see American films. Smart folks, definitely the kind I want making all my decisions! Now they are readying even more anti-American US imperialistic fantasy fare because they think there is an untapped market for such that was exposed by “Fahrenheit 911.”
What would happen if the Dems regained control? They’d get to put their New World Order fantasies into practice. Bail out the EuroLeft at the expense of the US.
August 11th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Very Interesting
I was listening to the news before work this morning, and they were talking about “Able Danger”. From what I…
August 11th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
[...] The loony Anchorpress: “But yes…as I recall, many of us were saying “conflict of interest” during the Commission hearings, to no avail. The press certainly wasn’t saying it. Once again, we find ourselves wondering how the press - so quick to call President Bush “incurious” can be so routinely incurious about matters concerning folks on the left, like Sandy Berger (ho-ho, he put top-secret papers in his pants! That Sandy!), John Kerry (he’s a hero! Those 250 guys are NOT heros!), Air America (…the rest is silence) or even Bill and Hillary Clinton (Juanita Brodderick? Stale story! Cattle futures? That’s a stale story…)” [...]
August 11th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Anchoress, I believe that you are so wrong about Bill Clinton, and I might as well include Hillary in my comments because, outside of Bill’s sexual exploits (and I’m not too sure of that), I believe that Hillary was in on everything that went on during Clintons presidency. During Clintons terms, I believe that nothing went on in any of the Federal agencies without the Clintons direct involvement and orchestration. All of their employees were merely tools and henchmen used to carry out the Clintons will. Jamie Gorelick and Sandy Berger were simply people that carried out Clinton policy and apparently they are still preforming a Clinton desired plan to keep the 9/11 event from reflecting badly on the Clinton administration. My specific charges are as follows. If Jamie Gorelick wrote memos setting up a information wall between Federal agencies it was at the Clintons behest. If Jamie Gorelick was put on the 9/11 commission to keep it from discovering or revealing data damaging to the Clintons, somehow the Clintons were influencial. If Sandy Berger stole documents that were damaging to the Clintons (and I believe that those would be the ONLY documents that he would risk stealing) it was to the benefit and suggestion of the Clintons. Do I have proof of these allegations? Not yet, but truth cannot hidden for long and if my charges are true, the ingenuity and perseverence of the blogshere will soon reveal it.
August 11th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
Darrell: There you are, I’ve been missing you these days. Thanks for the words of kindness, I have been a bit low as of late. I asked a friend of mine today, who is more of a conservative, but not a Republican, if he thought the media was slanted one way or the other, or if it was spot straight on. He figures that the Left may even pay the media to make Bush out to be a villian and the Left itself to be so good. I consider him an unbiased opinion that minces no words. If he says it’s there, it’s definitely there!! So there!!
Teflon at MoltenThought says the Left wants us to lose the war in Iraq… I don’t want to believe.
August 11th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
[...] The Anchoress has a long thoughtful piece with loads of links. [...]
August 11th, 2005 at 11:02 pm
[...] Able Danger / Sandy Berger Connection Atta Intel Omitted Dr. Sanity On Sandy Berger - Part II [...]
August 12th, 2005 at 1:14 am
Sure the Left wants us to lose. They blame the US for the collapse of their Socialist paradise that was the USSR. Heck, I keep telling everybody about the joint letters of cooperation on Euro Socialist and Islamoterrorist websites right before and right after 9/11. They talked about their mutual enemy(the US), pledged cooperation, talked about the financial resources that would come in handy(the Socialists), and talked about media resources/savy(the Islamoterrorist). They also took a few shots at each other. LGF had them(those webpages) up for quite a while. Anything that hurts the US, helps the Left(in their opinion. Helps them to gain a bigger foothold here too(as the opposition party). The Left doesn’t “pay” the media–they are the media! Most(12/13 …) of it. They control education too(read the manifesto from the recent NEA convention..the first dozen or so items are things like get out of Iraq), and popular entertainment. They have a pretty good foothold in the judiciary, but not a stranglehold. Still working on that.
But keep the Faith. America woke up sometime in the past few years. They don’t have a monopoly anymore in the media. More and more people I meet seem to be aware of good information sources and use them. They laugh when the MSM claims to be unbiased or neutral. They have their own examples!
The Left peaked too soon. Before we couldn’t do anything about it. There’s hope…just look at you!
August 17th, 2005 at 10:02 am
Missing the Big Rowback
Credit the New York Times for getting the biggest Able Danger interview to date.The August 16th edition of the paper reveals allegations from one of Congressman Weldon’s primary sources, a man now identified as Lt. Col. Anthony Shaff