Watch this, and consider that we’re not talking about beating up a Marine, but getting rough with the people who planned and executed the 911 attacks, who tried to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, who SUCCESSFULLY MURDERED 3000 civilians.

Chris,

YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Poor Ford. He knows torture’s an issue that-in the end-causes more damage to Democrats than to Republicans. He knows the reality that in 2001, 2002, and 2003 the US intel community was freaking out, dazed, and confused (as every 911 and Iraq investigation shows), and he just can’t tell the Bush haters to stop, let it go, MOVEON.

Why?

Because torture, 911, BUSHLIED, etc are all distortions of the truth that come out if there’s an investigation.

Good luck Harold. I’m with CHEEENY-Show the docs. Show em all!

By DEBRA BURLINGAME
In February I was among a group of USS Cole and 9/11 victims’ families who met with the president at the White House to discuss his policies regarding Guantanamo detainees. Although many of us strongly opposed Barack Obama’s decision to close the detention center and suspend all military commissions, the families of the 17 sailors killed in the 2000 attack in Yemen were particularly outraged.

Over the years, the Cole families have seen justice abandoned by the Clinton administration and overshadowed by the need of the Bush administration to gather intelligence after 9/11. They have watched in frustration as the president of Yemen refused extradition for the Cole bombers.

Now, after more than eight years of waiting, Mr. Obama was stopping the trial of Abu Rahim al-Nashiri, the only individual to be held accountable for the bombing in a U.S. court.

Ms. Burlingame, a former attorney and a director of the National September 11 Memorial Foundation, is the sister of Charles F. “Chic” Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

More here.

I attempted to contact Jonathan Landay to nicely and politely inform him that the issue of regime ties had never been closed. He responded nicely, pointed me in the direction of a few reports, then categorically declared that no ties existed and that the intelligence community had known this all along, but the Bush Administration “cherry-picked” intelligence to make its case for war.

After that initial email, Jonathon refused to respond to further attempts at educating him. SO, here we go…

• Khalid Sheik Mohammed (mastermind of the 911 attacks) was captured in 2003 on the eve of the invasion of Iraq (literally 19 days before the invasion, and half a year since the military, diplomatic, and rhetorical run-up to invasion began). We now know from the “torture” documents released by President Obama that “coercive interrogation”/”torture” was NOT the first method or the of choice. It’s not like someone captured Khalid Sheik Mohammed and then cried out, “WOO HOO! Get out the pliers so we can start pullin’ fingernails!!! Yeeee hawwwww!!” We also know that it was only used after traditional interrogation means had failed, AND after multiple leaders had agreed to it from higher in the chain of command. However, it’s impossible and incorrect to say that KSM was tortured to force him to create a false story that could be used to justify the invasion of Iraq….when he was captured just days before the invasion. Still, propagandists made that false and misleading claim (’cause they can’t look at a calender?).
• The claim that raw intelligence was cherry-picked and then used to make the case for war/to mislead elected officials is completely false and debunked by a simple calender. The cherry-picking claim stems from the idea that Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans picked out raw intel reports, arranged them in a condemning manner, then used that to trick elected officials into thinking there was a certain relationship between the regime and Al Queda, BUT (here’s the problem) Feith’s group gave it’s last presentation to the Bush Admin on Monday, Sept 16, 2002 (4 days after Pres. Bush began his rhetoric-run-up to war with his address to the UN). 48hours later-one Wednesday, Sept 18, 2002, the CIA met with the Administration and with elected officials (including the Democrat-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee). Any ambiguities, concerns, misleading, etc done by Feith’s group would have been cleared up and resolved and made irrelevant 48hrs after the Feith presentation. Jonathon would know this because the dates are presented in the report that he directed me to read.
• The issue of ties between Saddam’s regime and the Al Queda network of terrorist groups was never fully investigated, resolved, or closed as is often deliberately and falsely claimed. Entire bookstore shelves are filled with volumes of books that have been written on the subject of regime ties to Al Queda (including some by me), and there’s some great websites out there listing individuals in the regime and in Al Queda groups who were actually caught working together, but let’s step aside from those for the moment and see what the US government has “concluded” about regime ties…

I have read the various reports from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (Sen Intel Com) regarding the issue of regime ties to Al Queda. From what I could gather, there were several pre-invasion reports from the CIA regarding the issue of regime ties:

• The Sept 21, 2001 PDB (I’ve never seen a Sept 12, 2001 PDB regarding regime ties)President’s Daily Brief (PDB)
  -Sept, 21, 2001
  -Just 10 days after the 911 attacks this summary assessment clearly suffered from lack of intelligence gathering and analysis since at the time it still wasn’t 100% clear that Al Queda was behind the 911 attacks.
• NESA Report on Iraq’s Ties to Terrorism (terrorism in general/not specific to Al Queda). This was basically a preliminary draft of the CIA’s “Iraqi Support for Terrorism 2002” and “Iraqi Support for Terrorism 2003” reports
  -October 2001
  -Formed no conclusions (per Sen Intel Com rpt on pre-war intel regarding Iraq)
  -cited a lack of evidence and a lack of investigations into the matter as no formal investigation and analysis had ever been conducted (per Sen Intel Com rpt on pre-war intel regarding Iraq)
• “Iraq and al-Qa’ida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship”
  -6/12/02
  -Formed no conclusions (per Sen Intel Com rpt on pre-war intel regarding Iraq)
  -specifically cited a lack of evidence gathered (per Sen Intel Com rpt on pre-war intel regarding Iraq)
• “Iraqi Support for Terrorism 2002”
  -9/18/02
  -Formed no conclusions (per Sen Intel Com rpt on pre-war intel regarding Iraq)
  -specifically cited a lack of evidence gathered (per Sen Intel Com rpt on pre-war intel regarding Iraq)
• Letter from DCI Tenet, head of the CIA, to Sen. Bob Graham, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee
  -10/7/02
  -Formed no conclusions, simply reiterated closed door testimony from CIA officials to the Senate Intelligence Committee that the more time passes, the more likely it is that Saddam would make WMD and use Al Queda to covertly and deniably attack the United States
  -Lists several examples of Saddam’s support for terrorism, Al Queda, and its proxy terror affiliates.
• “Report of the Joint Inquiry Into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001-By the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence”
  -December 2002
  -Reiterated the comments from the 9/21/01 PDB and the 10/7/02 Tenet Letter
  -Added more reports of possible Iraqi involvement in the 911 attacks, but added caveats that the reports hadn’t been fully investigated by Dec 2002
  -cited a lack of evidence gathered as a problem that prevented forming any conclusions (per Sen Intel Com rpt on pre-war intel regarding Iraq)
• “Iraqi Support for Terrorism 2003”
  -January 2003
  -This was basically a rehash of the 2002 version with a little new info since the CIA finally got a spy back into Iraq just a few weeks prior to its release (per Sen Intel Com rpt on pre-war intel regarding Iraq)
  -Formed no conclusions (per Sen Intel Com rpt on pre-war intel regarding Iraq)
  -specifically cited a lack of evidence gathered (per Sen Intel Com rpt on pre-war intel regarding Iraq)
• “Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Investigation Into Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq (Phase I report)”
  -July 7, 2004
  -confirmed the various reports of ties between Saddam’s regime and Al Queda as presented in other reports (including confirmation of most of the comments made by Feith and his office), and repeatedly stated that the Bush Administration’s claims were “reasonable” as well as often accurate reflections of the intelligence reporting at the time.
  -“Due to the limited amount and questionable quality of reporting on the leadership intentions of Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Ladin, the CIA was unable to make conclusive assessments in Iraqi Support for Terrorism regarding Iraq’s relationship with al-Qaida. The CIA stated in the Scope Note: ‘Our knowledge of Iraq’s ties to terrorism is evolving DELETED. . . . ‘”
  -at the rollout of the report, several of the senators-including Sen. Rockefeller (D), addressed the press and made it clear that the issue of regime ties to Al Queda was not looked at:
  “…the committee concluded there was a failure by intelligence community managers to adequately encourage analysts to challenge their assumptions, to fully consider alternative arguments, to accurately characterize intelligence reporting and to counsel analysts who had lost their objectivity.”
• Senator Pat Roberts 070904 SIC Release of WMD investigation report Press Conference transcript
  -”Most alarmingly, after 1998 and the exit of the U.N. inspectors, the CIA had no human intelligence sources inside Iraq who were collecting against the WMD target.”
  -”But with respect to Saddam Hussein’s regime and his link to terrorists, the committee did find that the CIA judgments were reasonable, based on the available intelligence. The agency was also more careful to inform policy-makers about uncertainties with their analysis.”
  -”Finally, the committee found no evidence that the intelligence community’s mischaracterization or exaggeration of intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities was the result of politics or pressure.”
  -”Our human intelligence collection, as Pat Roberts has pointed out, was inadequate. Not only did we not have people on the ground after 1998 when the inspectors left, but we relied when they had left too much on the fragmentary reporting from years before, from the early ’90s, from the post-Iran/Iraq War situation and were never able to pin anything down.”
• “911 Commission Final Report”
  -July 22, 2004
  -Formed no conclusions regarding regime ties to Al Queda
  -members later specifically cited a lack of evidence gathered and asked that the question of regime ties to Al Queda be examined further-not dismissed or otherwise closed.
  -John Lehman (a 911 Commissioner) said, “There may well be–and probably will be–additional intelligence coming in from interrogations and from analysis of captured records and so forth which will fill out the intelligence picture. This is not phrased as–nor meant to be–the definitive word on Iraqi Intelligence activities.”
  -“This is a very significant set of facts,” former 9/11 commissioner, Mr. Kerry said yesterday. “I personally and strongly believe you don’t have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm. This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States.” (I believe he even went on Jon Stewart’s, The Daily Show, and reiterated that the issue of regime ties was never fully investigated, analyzed, or concluded, and he said that he thought it needed to be re-opened.
  -Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton also said: there was a lack of intelligence gathered which led to problems, that the matter was never concluded (or even started), and that it should be re-examined.
• “Iraqi Perspective Project Report” (DoD)
  -March 2006
  -Confirmed many of the previously reported ties between the regime and Al Queda
  -Found many more examples of ties and further demonstrated that there was in fact a relationship between the two, that it was dangerous, and that it was growing faster than expected
  -Cited a lack of intelligence gathered before the war, and an even larger, more deliberate, and more unexplained refusal to investigate the relationship after the invasion given the wealth of captured intelligence and detained regime members.
• “REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ON POSTWAR FINDINGS ABOUT IRAQ’S WMD PROGRAMS AND LINKS TO TERRORISM AND HOW THEY COMPARE WITH PREWAR ASSESSMENTS (Phase II report)”
  -September 9, 2006
  -Cited the post-war refusal of any and all intelligence agencies to investigate the depth and threat of the relationship between Saddam’s regime and Al Queda
  -Used the refusal of intelligence agencies to investigate pre-war intelligence and the causes for the lack thereof, the Senate Intelligence Committee openly, freely, and admittedly took it upon itself to act as an intelligence agency and form an intelligence assessment on its own.
  -(U) The CIA has not published a “fully researched, coordinated and approved position” on the postwar reporting on the former regime’s links to al-Qa’ida, but has published such a paper on the postwar reporting on Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi and the former Iraqi regime. The CIA told the Committee that regarding Iraq’s links to terrorism, “the research the Counterterrorist Center has done on this issue has called into question some of the reports of contacts and training . . . revealed other contacts of which we were unaware, and shed new light on some contacts that appeared in prewar reporting. On balance, this research suggests that the prewar judgment remains valid.“l54 (Recall that previous investigations had determined that pre-war judgments as presented by the Bush Administration were “accurate” and “reasonable.”)

There are some consistencies in all these investigations and their reports:

They all refuse to form a conclusion
They all say there was a relationship, but the depth of it is debated inside the intelligence community
They all say the matter should be looked into rather than dismissed, closed, or perpetuated as a resolved point of discussion.

People can also point to 1990’s, pre-Bush Administration, open-source, mass media reports from: Newsweek, TIME, US News, NYT, LAT, ABC, and CBS; all of which claimed in 1998 and 1999 that there was a relationship between the two. Still, I bow to the reports and the bi-partisan claims from at least (4) 911 Commission members and both the chair and vice-chair of the Senate Intel Committee all of whom I’ve cited above as saying there was a lack of evidence gathering, a lack of analysis, and that the matter was never closed.

There are also MILLIONS of captured and authenticated documents, videos, tapes etc. brought back from Afghanistan and Iraq, and in these documents-many made public, some even listed by the FBI-individual terror groups that are in the Al Queda network of terrorist groups and were taking orders and working with Iraqi Intelligence (lest we forget “Al Queda” translates as “the Base” or the start of jihad, and is really a network of groups rather than a single club type entity).

Oh….there were definitely ties between Saddam Hussein’s regime and the Al Queda terrorist network, but the question was about closeness. Were they just entities with a common mission, were they occasional allies, were they close allies like Roosevelt and Stalin, were there operational ties, cooperational ties, did Saddam want Osama to have his baby, did they share wives, were they snuggle-buggle-huggy lovers, or did they use each other. That ties existed was claimed and proven from 1996 onward, but the depth and detail of those ties was never fully investigated or concluded despite high-ranking calls from Democrats and Republicans to look into it.

Still some people-even after being informed-prefer to maintain the idea that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with Al Queda. It’s an ironic claim for if it were true, then their ire would be equally directed towards the Obama Administration’s war there: one aimed at-Barack Obama’s words-fighting Al Queda.

I invite anyone and everyone to send Jonathan ( jlanday@mcclatchydc.com… ) and McClatchy newspapers a link to this post which categorically proves they were wrong in their assertions that there were never any ties between Saddam’s regime and the Al Queda terrorist network.

Let’s support President Obama’s war in Iraq-and his fight against Al Queda there-by halting the lie that the war has nothing to do with Al Queda.

However, the myth that a ticking bomb scenario doesn’t exist is a lie. It DID exist, and it does exist today. Before 911, the US new for months that a big attack was coming. George Tenet told the Joint House/Senate inquiry (as also reported in the 911 Commission and Richard Clarke’s book, Against All Enemies) that he was running around DC like he was on fire. Then, the FBI grabbed Zacarias Moussaoui, and his laptop computer. The investigative process blocked American investigators from looking at the laptop which would have revealed the 911 plot and likely prevented it. Equally, he was not allowed to be tortured. America could have prevented 911 if the investigative process wasn’t hindered, OR if he was tortured.

Months later, Zubaydah and KSM are captured. Intel agencies know another 911 attack is coming, but the process can’t figure it out (again). This time, harsh interrogations were used, and then torture (not all harsh interrogation is torture and vice versa), and a 911 attack was prevented (according to multiple CIA directors, the Vice President, the President, and the new Director of National Intelligence.

Sick and sad as it is to say, torture worked. It was a last resort, and it worked.

SO, we can look at it simply. When intel says there’s an attack coming, and the investigative process is stumped, America can either:
A) stoop to torture and hope that it reveals the attack like it would have with Moussoui, and did with KSM
or
B) refuse to stoop so low, and know that lives could have been saved.

I say the lesson here is do like the Navy does in a sinking ship. When you’re told to close the hatch and let people die so that the ship may survive, close the hatch. Let the people in NYC, DC, Los Angeles, San Fran, etc., let them get attacked & then tell their families that we had people in custody who knew of the attack, but we didn’t want to torture em. We CHOSE to let the people die. That’s the decision.

Do like they do in the military and cut your losses. Close the hatch. Let the attack happen (still understanding that the investigative process is blocked like before and after 911).

The families won’t understand, and politically it’s equally suicidal, but the honor of the flag is protected. Besides, maybe then Richard Clarke’s testimony to the 911 Commission will be remembered, ‘America needs more body bags before people will get it.’

WASHINGTON (AP) – The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is proposing a “truth commission” to investigate abuses of detainees, politically inspired moves at the Justice Department, and whole range of decisions made during the Bush administration. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the primary goal of the commission would be to learn the truth rather than prosecute former officials, but said the inquiry should reach far beyond misdeeds at the Justice Department under Bush to include matters of Iraq prewar intelligence and the Defense Department. Leahy outlined his suggestion for a “truth and reconciliation” commission during a speech at Georgetown University Monday.

“I’m doing this not to humiliate people or punish people but to get the truth out,” he said.

The panel he envisions would be modeled after one that investigated the apartheid regime in South Africa. It would have subpoena power but would not bring criminal charges, he said. Among the matters Leahy wants investigated by such a commission are: the firings of U.S. attorneys, treatment and torture of terror suspect detainees, and the authorization of warrantless wiretapping.

“Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened” during the Bush administration, Leahy said.

Some Democrats have called for criminal investigations of those who authorized certain controversial tactics in the war on terror. Republicans have countered that such decisions made in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks should not be second-guessed.

“We need to be able to read the page before we turn the page,” Leahy said. “We need to come to a shared understanding of the failures of the recent past.”

No, seriously….c’mon, stop laughing. This could be really good. I mean, Battlestar Galactica finishes up this season, after that…there’s a vacancy in the schedule. I’m free. I’ll take em all on by myself and do so for free. PLEASE, just call me Sen. Leahy, I’ll be happy to clear anything up for you regarding allegations of abuse in the Bush Admin, AND-if you act now-I’ll even toss in precedents of identical, equal, or greater “abuse” done by the Clinton Admin (not sure our Sec of State will appreciate it, but I make the offer for free). I’ll also toss in examples from THIS administration just to make your faux hearings more pertinent.

PLEASE, CALL ME!

Cronyism? You say Brown and FEMA, I say Les Aspin from Clinton/DoD and Panetta/CIA for Obama

Political appointees? You say 8 Attorney General firings by Gonzolez, I say over 100 in the same dept by Clinton and point to the DoD where most of the Undersecs are to be replaced by Obama

You say Bush Lied re Iraq Intel, and I point to Clinton’s UBL indictment from 1998, sec 4 that stated Saddam had a working relationship w AQ, AND I point to Clinton’s 1998 Desert Strike claims. (just for fun, I’d toss in some of Leahy’s own comments and discussion w Dr David Kay where it’s made perfectly clear to Leahy that the WMD intel was too little and too vague pre-war. As to Obama…I’ll point to last night’s press conference where he claimed Iran had pursuits of a nuclear bomb-not peaceful nuclear power, and his campaign rhetoric where he claimed Iran was supplying arms to kill American forces, AND Obama’s claim last night that Iran has ties to terrorist groups.

How ’bout…911? You say Bush knew, and I’ll say Clinton knew MORE on 12/4/98 (oooo, and Able Danger too!), and he didn’t tell Bush during uber-short transition. Then re Obama, I’ll point out that he specifically said Bush didn’t know (he made that statement in response to a claim Howard Dean made on NPR).

You say Haliburton, I say SES International and Clinton ties to Oil For Food recipient list. Then I’ll talk about the head of the IRS failing to pay his taxes under Obama.

C’mon Leahy, I’m available. You wanna waste some time instead of working on the budget, helping protect from AQ, and overseeing two wars…yeah, that’s fine. I’ve got time. I’m not employed, and there’s nothing on TV on Fridays after Galactica ends. You’re the one w the job.

The attack on the USS Cole demonstrates absolutely EVERY single one of America’s systemic failures in dealing with Al Queda.

• The attack was detected by multiple US intelligence agencies-including naval intelligence, but no one connected the dots.
• The ship was warned, but didn’t protect itself well enough. The response was limited to law enforcement/FBI efforts that were thwarted by diplomatic nuances.
• There was no military response.
• It was and IS NOW AGAIN an al Queda recruiting tool/demonstration of their success
• There was no demonstration of American resolve, revenge, or justice.
• Most of the USS Cole bombers were arrested by our “allies” in Yemen, then they escaped (sometimes several times).

The US did get the mastermind, but now Barack Obama’s dropped the charges against him. He dropped the charges AND HAD THE AUDACITY and ARROGANCE to ask the families of terror victims to come to the White House for a photo op. That gesture (genuine or not is irrelevant) rang hollow as demonstrated in this letter from the father of one of the USS Cole victims to our President.

Dear Mr. President Obama,

Our son’s name was Gary G. Swenchonis, Jr. He was a Fireman in the US Navy. He was killed in the attack on the USS Cole on 10/12/00. This letter is an appeal to you to take some long overdue action on the behalf of the 17 sailors murdered in that attack. It is an appeal for justice for their families as well.

We have been fighting against the Yemeni government and our own government for eight long years to obtain a modicum of justice for our son and his 16 mates. It’s our sincere hope that you, President Obama, and your administration will help us.
President Clinton promised the nation action in the wake of the attack, but never followed through. President Bush wrote to me, and he promised action as well. However for eight years not one of the killers was held accountable by our government or the Yemeni government.

It was not until just these past few months of the Bush administration that we finally saw some concrete measures when we witnessed the case of Ali Hamza al Bahlul. It was the first time my family and I received any comfort through this long ordeal. We attended the trial at Guantanamo Bay Prison, and I was fortunate enough to testify. The Military Commission staff conducted themselves with the utmost professionalism in all their duties, and we are proud to have them representing us in court as our lawyers. The nation can be proud of the conduct of the Military Commissions.

Bahlul was Bin Laden’s media secretary and propagandist. He produced a video that glorified the murders of our son and sixteen other sailors and the wounding 39 more sailors. The video’s purpose was to incite others to murder. Our family believes he received an appropriate sentence.

But besides that one instance of justice, we have had to listen and watch with broken hearts as the Yemeni government coddled our son’s killers. The guilty were pardoned, given light sentences that were later reduced, or not even tried for the attack. We understand that all the members of the terror cell that attacked the United States that day are walking around free in Yemen.

Yet our government still supports President Saleh and his corrupt regime even though he blatantly aids and abets Al Qaeda, Hamas and terrorism. Our government supports Saleh and his duplicitous regime even though he did everything possible to hamper with the US investigation into the Cole attack. And he was successful. Our government supports Saleh and he has used US military assistance to engage in a near genocide of his own citizens in the Sa’ada region, called “Yemen’s Darfur”.

President Obama, now I fear these sailors who died in the service of the United States will be abandoned again. It will be one more tragedy in a long list of tragedies in the Cole attack. With the suspension of the trials at Guantanamo Prison, we are deeply and painfully concerned that Abd al Rahim al Nashiri and Tawfiq bin Attash will evade justice like all their terrorists friends did in Yemen. These men had a significant role in the terrorist attack that killed my son and 16 other sailors. They are in US custody. We have a right to expect a just outcome. However, our fear is if the terrorists are tried here in our federal courts, they will go free. The bias in favor of the defendant built into our system of criminal justice becomes magnified and disproportionate in terrorism cases which are in fact not crimes but national assaults.

Regardless of one’s view on the definition of torture, there is evidence they murdered American citizens in cold blood. I don’t see how that fact can be ignored and justify their release. The debates revolving around the use of torture does not lessen the severity of the heinous crimes that they are charged with. We have had to watch helplessly as the killers of our son and his mates were tried and then one by one released by the Yemeni regime. I begged our leaders to stop that parody of a trial at the time. They did not. We implore you not to put the families through that nightmare again.

Our Representative and Senator Cornyn along with some other senators are actively working on other issues for us in regards to the attack on the USS Cole. His office has informed us that there will be a Judicial Hearing this year on those issues. It’s my heartfelt hope that you President Obama will stand with us and support that hearing.
We the families of these forgotten heroes have been denied answers for years to the most basic questions. My wife and I were so happy to read in the paper that the goal of your administration is to make our government as honest and transparent as it could be. It was a breath of fresh air. Your words gave us hope that we may actually get answers to our questions after eight long years.

I would also like to ask you if you could personally look into the issue of why the Cole Families have not been able to collect the monies awarded to us in a Federal Court under the Death on the High Seas Act. It’s been two years since our lawyers won that case. And we are still waiting. The monies awarded were only for our loved one’s future wages. How can our own government ignore a Federal Court’s verdict?

The Justice Department has taken issue with releasing the funds from the Sudan which provided assistance for the attack on the Cole. Our own government is fighting us again. And how ironic is it that we were told that the Justice Department is there to help victims of terrorist attacks. We are not asking for taxpayer monies. I never have and never will. We want the nations that supported Al Qaeda such as the Sudan and Yemen to be held responsible, not the American taxpayer. I think that if the 9/11 families had been treated this way, that there would have been a national outcry against such callous treatment from their government. But they were a much larger group of victims than us and they had the press focused on their plight.

Your assistance on these matters would be greatly appreciated. I know that we the Cole families are a small group and that is one of the reasons that we have been ignored by two administrations. Yet unfortunately, I think that small groups of victims of terrorist attacks may continue to grow here in America. And victims like those of the Cole and Embassy attacks will see more of their fellow Americans join our group. It’s my hope that you as the President will see to it that these small groups will be treated equally, with the same rights and dignity as a large group of victims that has suffered the loss of loved ones murdered by terrorists. As Judge Doumar stated in his ruling “It’s a further tragedy that the laws of the United States, in this instance provide no remedy for the psychological and emotional losses suffered by the survivors.”

Small groups of victims of terrorism have no high profile advocates like the terrorist do. All we can do is to beseech our elected politicians so the real victims are not forgotten. Sometimes partisanship rears it insidious head, and justice for the true victims is lost in the process. I think its way past time that Congress passed a Bill that will ensure that American Victims of Terrorist Attacks will have legal and financial recourse at obtaining justice, regardless if it’s just one family and or thousands of families. And not have their own government as their greatest and most formidable opponent to obtaining justice. The laws, passed to help victims, have been watered down to where it is practically of no use to the victims and/or their families.

I know that the press and the Human Rights groups only normally speak for the accused such as the terrorists who helped to murder our son and his mates. But even though they are dead, they still have rights too. We their families do as well. We have no pro bono lawyers. We have no press to champion our cause on the TV, in the newspapers and or the internet like the terrorists do. We have only our elected leaders, the lawyers that we pay if we can afford them and other citizens sympathetic to our plight and our cause.
We hope and pray that you will be willing to help us change that, Mr. President. We hold out hope that with you as our new President that the plight of small groups of victims of terrorism such as the Cole Families and their murdered loved ones will no longer be ignored by their government. We hope and we pray that you will even go so far as to ensure that future groups of Americans will never have to endure what we have had to endure, at least in regards to the problems I have stated.
Thank you for your time in these most important issues.

Respectfully,
Gary G and Deborah Swenchonis
Remember the Cole! 01/24/09

There are two simple questions: If the NSA was listening in on the bombers putting everything together before the Cole attack, why was it not prevented? Second, why was the hub not shut down after the Cole attack?

I’ll go one further and ask, “How far up the intelligence chain of command did this information go? Did it stop at the CIA in Malaysia, or did it go all the way to Sandy “Sticky socks” Berger?

disgrace

President Saleh [Yemen],

It’s that time of year again; yet another anniversary of the attack on the USS Cole in Port Aden, Yemen on October 12th, 2000. In that attack, our son and sixteen of his mates were brutally murdered, and 39 other sailors were wounded.

Since the last time I wrote you a year ago, many changes, some positive and some not, have occurred in relation to the attack on the Cole and the status of your corrupt regime.

First and foremost, we wrote our Texas representative and members of Congress asking for a Congressional Hearing into why our government still supports your dictatorship after you gave the plotters and planners of the Cole attack reduced sentences and pardons for the murders of 17 American Sailors. The rest of the convicted killers conveniently escaped from your prisons. And some remain free to this day, eight years after the attack.

Our Senators have kept us informed as to our requests. We received word recently from them that next year Congress will hold Judiciary Committee hearings. We are extremely grateful to the politicians who have decided that its way past the time to review and hopefully take action against you and your regime. And to put an end to all your worthless and broken promises that you made to two American presidents and our government.

It can now be stated as fact, President Saleh, that FBI Agent John O’Neil and his team were correct in their suspicion that you and your government knew much more about the pending attack on the Cole than you admitted after the attack. Unfortunately, Ambassador Bodine and President Clinton refused to let the FBI follow up on their leads and question members of your government and family after the attack. Instead FBI agent O’Neil was kicked out of your country for wanting to conduct a proper investigation. How ironic that he would be killed in the 9/11 attack less than one year later; an attack that-if Presidents Clinton and Bush had heeded his requests-would not have happened in all probability. You Sir could have allowed a thorough investigation after the Cole attack, so all of the clues and evidence and even some of the terrorists who would participate in 9/11 could have been found. But instead you and government not only interfered with the investigation but threw up hurdles to impede and effectively stop the investigation. So really, sir, you and your government are not only guilty in the Cole attack, but just as guilty in withholding evidence and protecting suspects that would later take part in the attack on 9/11.

We all know now, as many did then, that you were and still are covering up for your Al-Qaeda friends. You and your government did an excellent job at it too. All of the clues and leads that were just waiting to be pieced together after the Cole attack were concealed so well until it was too late to stop the next attack on our country less than a year later on September 11th.

There is a bright side for us in all of this for us, however. It is the fact that more and more people are now seeing how you have used and manipulated Al-Qaeda and two American administrations to achieve your own sick and twisted goals. More major US newspapers in the past year are now reporting how common it is for you to use Al-Qaeda as a friend one day (to fight for you to help quell rebellions in your country and to keep your people oppressed), and then on the next day use Al-Qaeda as a tool to get more money, arms and other assistance from America.

This past year we have watched as you imprisoned Yemeni journalists and activists who dared to question your regime’s brutal tactics. My family and I were proud to sign the petition along with thousands of others to have those journalists freed.

And just as important, if not more so, is all the dedication of the men and women at the Military Commission who are working extremely hard and effectively at bringing more of your Al-Qaeda friends to Justice for the murder of our son and his mates. Even in a democracy such as ours we have faults and obstacles to overcome. We actually have Americans in this country that would rather see terrorists who have murdered their fellow Americans set free than to receive their punishment for their crimes. It’s called partisan politics, or putting politics before the truth. But at least your terrorist friends stand to receive a more impartial trial here than they would from you. We all know how you treat killers. You free them to kill again.

My wife and I look forward to watching that trial in person and seeing the first real justice ever served on the killers since the Cole attack. It is my sincerest hope that I will be able to bear witness in person regarding the misery that those terrorists have brought, not only to us but to others as well. It’s also my hope that the killers you set free will be caught in the future, and that they too will stand trial in a real courtroom, one that adheres to the laws of truth and justice rather than some dictator’s personal whims such as yourself.

My wife and I will go to visit our son’s gravesite this Sunday. I am going to read to him the letters from our congress people who are going to finally convene the long overdue Judiciary Hearings. I am also going to read to him how the American people are slowly beginning to realize how you and your regime have been allowed to get away with not only the murder of 17 sailors, but how your refusal to let the FBI conduct a proper Investigations led to one of the worst attacks on American soil, an attack that killed so many of my fellow Americans. Our son’s murder could have meant something at the time of the attack. But it was ignored by our government, because they were concerned about offending you, and because they were in the middle of a presidential election in the country. Historically major decisions are never made at such a time (be it by the Democrats’ or Republicans’) because they are concerned about negative fallout that might prevent them from keeping their jobs. The attack on the Cole could have been a wakeup call for our leaders to take action before it was too late.

Now our leaders have a second chance at correcting their first mistakes in dealing with you, your regime, and how they mishandled the aftermath of the Cole attack. They can all agree to stop the flow of money and arms to your regime. I hope they finally realize that its time put a stop to your policy of releasing known terrorists to kill other innocent people again, and your use of Al-Qaeda as a political tool to keep your regime in power in Yemen, and to squeeze more assistance from my government. The insanity has to be stopped sometime. I think that you are now watching and living the end of your ruthless reign over your people and Yemen. And the end is coming to your continued manipulation of my government for your own personal power and wealth.

We are also going to share with him about all of our fellow Americans who are helping us in setting right the terrible wrongs committed after the Forgotten Cole attack, and the free Yemenis who are working with us too. We know that he would be proud and happy to know that so many people want see him and his mates obtain the Justice that has been denied them for so many years now. All the help and support we have had from Americans and Yemenis makes me proud and still amazes me. It’s one of my wife’s greatest comforts to know that so many people care, while our government ignored her pleas for years.

In closing Sir, I would like to add that we still have not received a letter of condolence from your government for our son’s murder in your country at your request. We like to think that with a new President in office next year and other new politicians as well that they will finally stop supporting your regime.

At least that action would give some meaning to our son’s murder. So would knowing that he and his mates played a part in having one of the world’s most devious, conniving, and murderous dictators removed from the position of power where you have caused so much death, destruction, and misery. It’s my hope that I will not be writing you this time next year, unless you are in prison, but instead to a new leader of Yemen, a leader who will abide by freedom of the press and speech, freedom of religion, and all the other norms of a free society.

Remember the USS Cole, Mr. President. Because we the families of the murdered sailors and wounded sailors and Americans and free Yemenis will not rest until we achieve our goal of ridding Yemen of your presence.

Sincerely,
Parents of Murdered Fireman, Gary G. Swenchonis, Jr.,
Gary G. Swenchonis, Sr. and Deborah Swenchonis

The Cole is a sad story of American leaders’ incredible reluctance to even be seen recognizing the hardest of decisions unless compelled by outside forces.  Remember, within days of the attack, CNN reported that the Clinton Administration was almost certain it was an Al Queda attack.  Within 2 weeks of the attack, this was confirmed.  Rather than start a war on the eve of an election, and rather than toss Al Gore’s campaign to the trash heap, President Clinton chose to push off reaction to the Cole attack for the next President to deal with.  President Bush failed to take action.  Now, almost all of the Cole plotters are free (except for the two bombers and a handful of those in US custody).  While several investigations into who to blame for not preventing the attack were conducted, the 8year old investigation into the attack is collapsing. 

 LINK 

This is disgraceful.  Apparently he tired of dealing with the Cole before he even started.  He faltered in pursuing the attackers, and he failed to even complete the investigation.

(footnote: While the FBI had bomb residue analysis test done on the USS Cole within 100hrs of the attack they continue to refuse to reveal where the massive amounts of Russian RDX came from, or how the bombmakers could manage to build a sophisticated “wafer’/shaped charge but couldn’t manage to build a boat to carry it to the target.)

The Senate Intelligence Committee has rejected as untrue one of the most disturbing claims about the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes — a congressman’s contention that a team of military analysts identified Mohamed Atta or other hijackers before the attacks — according to a summary of the panel’s investigation obtained by The Times.

The conclusion contradicts assertions by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) and a few military officers that U.S. national security officials ignored startling intelligence available in early 2001 that might have helped to prevent the attacks.

[...]"Able Danger did not identify Mohammed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker at any time prior to Sept. 11, 2001," the committee determined, according to an eight-page letter sent last week to panel members by the top Republican and Democrat on the committee.

[...]The panel said it found "no evidence" to support claims by military officers connected to Able Danger that Defense Department lawyers prevented the team’s analysts from sharing their findings with FBI counter-terrorism officials before the attacks.

Nor was the alleged chart or any information developed by Able Danger improperly destroyed at the direction of Pentagon lawyers, the panel concluded — a charge that had stoked claims of a cover-up.

Question to the Senate Intelligence Committee….why then was Atta on one of the charts produced by Able Danger?

"One of these individuals depicted on the chart arguably looked like Mohammed Atta," the committee concluded. "In addition, the chart contained names of Al Qaeda associates that sound like Atta, as well as numerous variations of the common Arab name Mohammed."

The committee also suggested that officials’ memories may have been clouded by the flurry of charts and photographs of Atta that surfaced after the attacks. The panel noted that a defense contractor that produced the chart at the center of the controversy subsequently created a follow-up chart, after the attacks, that did include Atta.

Yeah.  Simple case of mistaken identity right?  Too many Mohammed’s to go around.

Nevermind that there is a Colonel in the intelligence community who has testified that they did indeed identify the right Atta, along with 3 of his buddies:

A military intelligence team repeatedly contacted the F.B.I. in 2000 to warn about the existence of an American-based terrorist cell that included the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a veteran Army intelligence officer who said he had now decided to risk his career by discussing the information publicly. The officer, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, said military lawyers later blocked the team from sharing any of its information with the F.B.I.

Colonel Shaffer said in an interview that the small, highly classified intelligence program known as Able Danger had identified by name the terrorist ringleader, Mohammed Atta, as well three of the other future hijackers by mid-2000, and had tried to arrange a meeting that summer with agents of the F.B.I.’s Washington field office to share the information.

But he said military lawyers forced members of the intelligence program to cancel three scheduled meetings with the F.B.I. at the last minute, which left the bureau without information that Colonel Shaffer said might have led to Mr. Atta and the other terrorists while the Sept. 11 plot was still being planned.

"I was at the point of near insubordination over the fact that this was something important, that this was something that should have been pursued," Colonel Shaffer said of his efforts to get the evidence from the intelligence program to the F.B.I. in 2000 and early 2001.

He said he learned later that lawyers associated with the Defense Department’s Special Operations Command had canceled the F.B.I. meetings because they feared controversy if Able Danger was portrayed as a military operation that had violated the privacy of civilians who were legally in the United States. "It was because of the chain of command saying we’re not going to pass on information – if something goes wrong, we’ll get blamed," he said.

Now the Intelligence Committee’s assertions have been that there was no way a visa picture of Atta was available to put on this chart since he didn’t arrive into the US until June 3rd, 2000. 

Here is the 9/11 Commissions response to this whole thing when the dust-up first occurred in August of 2005:

According to this record (record of the meeting between Shafer and the 9/11 commission representatives in 2004) , the officer recalled seeing the name and photo of Mohamed Atta on an “analyst notebook chart” assembled by another officer (who he said had retired and was now working as a DOD contractor).

The officer being interviewed said he saw this material only briefly, that the relevant material dated from February through April 2000, and that it showed Mohamed Atta to be a member of an al Qaeda cell located in Brooklyn. The officer complained that this information and information about other alleged members of a Brooklyn cell had been soon afterward deleted from the document (“redacted”) because DOD lawyers were concerned about the propriety of DOD intelligence efforts that might be focused inside the United States.

They hang their hat on this whole "dated from Feb through Apr" bit here.  Since the Colonel could not produce the chart as evidence, along with the fact that the dates don’t jive, they come to the conclusion that this whole thing is a fraud. 

But the Colonel is not saying that the chart was made from Feb – Apr, 2000. Just that the material was dated on those dates. He could of seen this chart months later after it had been updated with photo’s.  In fact Colonel Shaffer stated the chart was delivered during the summer of 2000.  Look how the NYT’s first wrote about this story:

In the summer of 2000, the military team, known as Able Danger, prepared a chart that included visa photographs of the four men…

…He said that he delivered the chart in summer 2000 to the Special Operations Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla., and said that it had been based on information from unclassified sources and government records, including those of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

…Mr. Atta arrived in Newark from Prague on June 3 that year [2000].

So the chart is dated up to April of 2000 but not delivered until that summer.  Is it not plausible that the visa photo’s were added as they came up on the radar?

Additionally, Scott Philpott has testified that Atta’s name was identified as belonging to AQ sometime in Jan/Feb of 2000.  By name only, I’m sure they would be looking to get a photo by then.

Also, the contractor who made the chart, James Smith, stated that:

The former contractor, James D. Smith, said that Mr. Atta’s name and photograph were obtained through a private researcher in California who was paid to gather the information from contacts in the Middle East. Mr. Smith said that he had retained a copy of the chart for some time and that it had been posted on his office wall at Andrews Air Force Base. He said it had become stuck to the wall and was impossible to remove when he switched jobs.

Andy McCarthy wrote a great piece about the 9/11 Commissions refusal to accept the second witness from Able Danger, Scott Phillpott, as legitimate based completely on the date they believe Atta entered the US:

The commission staff interviewed Phillpott right before its report was issued in July 2004. His version of events was rejected and deemed unworthy of mention even in a footnote. This seems to have been done in the absence of much follow-up investigation, such as speaking to other Able Danger members who could have corroborated Phillpott (at least one of whom now has). The rationale for the peremptory dismissal of Phillpott was that his version did not jive with the Atta timeline the commission had already settled on. That is, because the commission was certain Atta did not enter the U.S. until June 2000, it rejected a version that would have put him here five or six months earlier.

This calls to mind the commission’s rejection of the possibility that Atta left the U.S. to meet with an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ahmed al-Ani, in Prague on or about April 8, 2001. I’ve previously addressed this, here. The commission confidently concluded that Atta could not have been in Prague at the time because the FBI had placed him in Virginia as of April 4 when he was captured by a surveillance camera as he withdrew $8,000 from his bank account. The FBI has no eyewitness account for Atta’s whereabouts in the U.S. for a week,  i.e., until April 11 when he was seen in Florida.

But a Czech witness claims to have seen Atta meeting with al-Ani in Prague on or about April 8. The commission, which never interviewed the witness, rejected this possibility, largely based on cell phone records showing that Atta’s phone was used in Florida on April 6, 9, 10, and 11. Those records, though, only establish that someone, not necessarily Atta, used the phone (like, say, his roommate and fellow hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi). Meanwhile, though al-Ani, the Iraqi, evidently denies meeting Atta, it has been reported that the Czechs have al-Ani’s appointment calendar and it says al-Ani was scheduled to meet on the critical day with a "Hamburg student" ? which is exactly how Atta identified himself when he applied for a visa.

And we also know that Atta had traveled to Prague before choosing on June 2, 2000 to stop there on the way to the U.S. rather than flying directly here from Hamburg. (It must be noted that reports of an earlier trip by Atta to Prague on May 31, 2000, which I relied on as more corroboration for the alleged April 2001 trip, were later discounted by the commission, convincingly, as based on mistaken identity. See Final Report, pp. 228 & 522 n.69.)

Significantly for present purposes, the commission also contended that Atta?s practice was to travel under his own name (Final Report at 229), and there is no indication of that in April 2001. But, of course, that Atta traveled under his own name at times (which he may have had good operational reasons for doing such as being able to back up his cover story of who he was), does not prove that he did not travel under aliases at times when he wanted his movements to be secret (which might well have been the case in April 2001 given the big cash withdrawal, which suggests a reluctance to pay expenses in a traceable way). You can only prove travel by an alias if you know what the alias is. And there is evidence that Atta used aliases ? both he and fellow plotter Ramzi bin al-Shibh, for example, acquired false passports from a pair of Algerians, Khaled Madani and Moussa Laour.

The commission could, of course, be right. It’s quite possible Atta never went to Prague in April 2001. But the commission could also be dead wrong. And for present purposes, the point is: how sure can we be of its Atta timeline? The timeline based on which the commission insists Atta was not in the U.S. before June 2000, and based on which it rejected Phillpott, whose account has now been seconded.

Last February, during the Congressional Hearings on Able Danger, these same witnesses all testified that Atta was indeed identified prior to 9/11:

The Pentagon’s top intelligence official clashed repeatedly Wednesday with former operatives of the clandestine Able Danger program over how much the government knew about al-Qaeda before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Much of the testimony focused on whether hijacking mastermind Mohammed Atta had been identified long before the tragedy.

In a rare public display of bitter disputes within the close-knit military intelligence community, three members of a computer data-mining initiative code-named "Able Danger" told Congress that the Sept. 11 attacks might have been prevented if law-enforcement agencies had acted on the information about al-Qaeda they unearthed.

"It shocked us how entrenched of a presence al-Qaeda had in the United States," former Army Maj. Erik Kleinsmith told two subcommittees of the House Armed Services Committee.

J.D. Smith, a defense contractor who also worked on the Able Danger team, said he used Arab intermediaries in the Los Angeles area to buy a photograph of Atta. Smith said Atta’s photo was among about 40 photos of al-Qaeda members on a large chart that he personally delivered to Pentagon officials in 2000, more than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Asked by Rep. Curt Weldon, a Republican from Pennsylvania, how certain he was that the chart contained Atta’s photograph, Smith responded that he kept a copy of the chart on the office wall.

"I’m absolutely certain," Smith said. "I looked at it every day."

You can read the whole transcript of the hearings here.

But instead of highlighting all these facts we have the Los Angeles Times bringing up facts like:

Weldon, the focus of an unrelated Justice Department corruption probe, was defeated last month in his campaign for an 11th term in a suburban Philadelphia district that has a large GOP majority in voter registration.

[....]Weldon has relished the role of calling attention to national security threats he believes are being ignored by others in government. At times he has carried around a replica of a suitcase-size nuclear bomb to highlight terrorist nuclear dangers. He has also accused Iran of hiding Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Weldon’s rising legal troubles played a role in his reelection loss last month. It was disclosed last week that a federal grand jury had subpoenaed congressional records from Weldon’s office as part of an FBI probe aimed at determining whether he traded his influence to get lobbying business for his daughter Karen and others.

The House seat was won by Democrat Joe Sestak, a retired Navy vice admiral.

Yup, it’s all crazy because Weldon is a nut right?

But what do we really get out of this whole investigation?  Do any of the eyewitnesses recant their stories?  Were any holes poked in their stories?  The answer to both of these questions is no.  But because no original chart can be produced the DoD and the Senate both attempt to sweep this under the rug.  Multiple people have come forward, some have done great damage to their careers, all to tell the truth about a program called Able Danger. 

But no one wants to listen anymore.  They want to ignore this and move on.

Especially Sandy Berger.

He stole and destroyed documents pertaining to the Clinton administration’s response to terrorism in 1999 and 2000.  Kinda funny how that works out huh?

Other’s Blogging:

• Able Danger Blog
• Ace of Spades HQ
• Political Animal
• A Blog For All
• Captain’s Quarters
• The Volokh Conspiracy

A little background refresher.

So here’s the latest update:

[*snipped, trimmed, & slimfasted*] when Berger was confronted by Archives officials about the missing documents, he lied by saying he did not take them, the report said.

 Brachfeld’s report included an investigator’s notes, taken during an interview with Berger. The notes dramatically described Berger’s removal of documents during an Oct. 2, 2003, visit to the Archives.

Berger took a break to go outside without an escort while it was dark. He had taken four documents in his pockets.

 "He headed toward a construction area. … Mr. Berger looked up and down the street, up into the windows of the Archives and the DOJ (Department of Justice), and did not see anyone," the interview notes said.

He then slid the documents under a construction trailer, according to the inspector general. Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.

"He was aware of the risk he was taking," the inspector general’s notes said. Berger then returned to the Archives building without fearing the documents would slip out of his pockets or that staff would notice that his pockets were bulging.

The notes said Berger had not been aware that Archives staff had been tracking the documents he was provided because of earlier suspicions from previous visits that he was removing materials. Also, the employees had made copies of some documents.

 In October 2003, the report said, an Archives official called Berger to discuss missing documents from his visit two days earlier. The investigator’s notes said, "Mr. Berger panicked because he realized he was caught."

The notes said that Berger had "destroyed, cut into small pieces, three of the four documents. These were put in the trash."

What was Sandy Berger’s motive in stealing and destroying these documents?   What was so important in them, that he felt the need to commit such a crime?  I feel like he’s gotten away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist;  by stealing and shredding classified records from the National Archives, he’s basically rewritten history.  And without so much as an explanation given.

Able Danger is mentioned throughout the book, but some other chapters which focus on it include Chapter 31, “Operation Able Danger”, Chapter 32, “Obliterating the Dots”, and Chapter 33, “Able Danger Part Two”. Over the past nine months, I was beginning to doubt if anyone would ever give the Able Danger story the treatment it deserves. Peter Lance has gone above and beyond my expectations in “Triple Cross” and anyone who is interested in getting to the bottom of the Able Danger story should read it.

Among other things, he points out flaws in the IG Report on Able Danger:

It’s also clear that, in attempting to impeach Capt. Phillpott, the IG relied heavily on the word of Dietrich Snell, the 9/11 Commission senior counsel, who found Phillpott’s account of the Able Danger findings “not sufficiently reliable to warrant revision of the [Commission] report or further investigation.” That was Snell’s conclusion following a July 12, 2004, meeting with Phillpott ten days before the Commission’s “final report” was to go to press:

“We considered Mr. Snell’s negative assessment of Capt. Phillpott’s claims particularly persuasive given Mr. Snell’s knowledge and background in antiterrorist efforts involving al Qaeda. Mr. Snell considered Capt. Phillpott’s recollection with respect to Able Danger identification of Mohammed Atta inaccurate because it was ‘one hundred per cent inconsistent with everything we knew about Mohammed Atta and his collegues at the time.’ Mr. Snell went on to describe his knowledge of Mohammed Atta’s overseas travel and associations before 9/11 noting the “utter absense of any information suggesting any kind of a tie between Atta and anyone located in this country during the first half of the year 2000,” when Able Danger had allegedly identified him.”

But in this book we’ve demonstrated that there was massive evidence on the high visibility of 9/11 hijackers al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi, who were living openly in San Diego as early as January 2000. We showed how Atta himself entered the United States on June 3 and rented a room in Brooklyn near the Al Farooq Mosque, using his own name. Just how difficult would it have been for the Able Danger analysts to track his movements via airline reservations and immigration sources, since, according to the IG’s report, the Able Danger data harvest was “collecting data from 10,000 websites each day”?

In an interview following release of the report, one operative close to the data-mining operation told me that “we also accessed INS databases in the data harvest, so picking up Atta who had to get airline tickers and a visa prior to his arrival in early June was no big deal.”

Mike also has the press release announcing the book:

In TRIPLE CROSS, five-time Emmy-award winning investigative reporter Peter Lance reveals how U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and the FBI’s elite bin Laden squad failed to stop Ali Mohamed, al-Qaeda’s master spy, in the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks. Recruited as an FBI informant as early as 1992, Mohamed — an intimate of Osama bin Laden — was allowed to remain free for years, planning and executing multiple acts of terror, including the 1998 African embassy bombings that killed 224 and injured 4000 — while Fitzgerald and key FBI agents did little to stop him.

Mohamed had been on the FBI’s radar since 1989, when the FBI’s Special Operations Group photographed a cell of his trainees firing AK-47s at a Long Island shooting range. Yet despite their prior knowledge of this New York cell, the Bureau ended its investigation, paving the way for multiple acts of terror in the years that followed.

Of the Islamic radicals trained by Ali Mohamed and photographed by the FBI: one went on to kill Rabbi Meier Kahane in 1990, three were convicted in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and another American Muslim was convicted by Patrick Fitzgerald in 1995 in a plot to blow up the bridge and tunnels into Manhattan. Mohamed himself was opened as a Bureau informant on the West Coast in 1992-a year before the WTC bombing. Worse, he continued to snooker Fitzgerald and other FBI and Justice Department officials for years as he learned the FBI’s playbook on al-Qaeda.

After a five-year investigation into FBI negligence on the road to 9/11, Lance reveals:

How Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who was directing the FBI’s elite bin Laden squad (I-49), allowed Ali Mohamed to remain an active al-Qaeda agent despite the fact that the FBI knew he had sworn allegiance to bin Laden as early as 1993. Mohamed moved the Saudi billionaire from Afghanistan to Sudan, trained his personal bodyguard, set up al-Qaeda terror camps in Khartoum, and trained the terrorists responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing and Day of Terror plots.

How Fitzgerald and other top officials buried a treasure trove of al-Qaeda-related evidence in 1996 — including proof of a liquid-based airliner bomb plot that was a precursor to the August 2006 plot revealed by U.K. authorities. The evidence included proof of an active al-Qaeda cell operating in NYC five years before
9/11.

How Mohamed twice smuggled al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, into the U.S. in the 1990s to raise half a million dollars for the Jihad — and left his post at Fort Bragg, against orders, to hunt down Soviet Spetsnaz commandos in Afghanistan in the midst of America’s covert war.

How Mohamed stole TOP SECRET memos and other classified intelligence from Fort Bragg and passed it onto the al-Qaeda leadership, including memos to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the positions of all Special Forces units worldwide. Copies of that intelligence, with Mohamed’s notes in Arabic, are part of more than 30 pages of declassified or formerly SECRET documents included as appendices to the book.

How, after meeting Mohamed face-to-face in 1997, Fitzgerald called him “the most dangerous man I have ever met” and vowed, “We cannot let this man out on the street.” Yet for another ten months he allowed Mohamed to remain free, while the al-Qaeda spy continued to support the African embassy bombing plot he had set in motion in 1993-after being freed from custody on the word of his FBI control agent.

How Mohamed had told Fitzgerald that he had “hundreds” of al-Qaeda sleepers ready to go “operational” at any time — and yet to this day the FBI has failed to detect them. Mohamed, who wasn’t even arrested until a month after the 1998 embassy bombings, remained in U.S. custody for three full years before 9/11. But even after cutting a deal that allowed him to escape the death penalty and enter witness protection, Fitzgerald failed to extract the 9/11 planes-as-missiles plot from Mohamed.

How as early as 1991 the FBI was aware of a New Jersey mail box store directly linked to al-Qaeda, but failed to monitor the location. Fitzgerald himself had named the store owner as an unindicted coconspirator in the 1995 Day of Terror case. Six years later, in July 2001 , the FBI blew an extraordinary chance to interdict the 9/11 plot when two of the 9/11 hijackers got their fake IDS at the very same store. “All the FBI had to do was monitor that location, the way they sat on John Gotti’s Ravenite Social Club,” says Lance, “and they would have been in the middle of the 9/11 plot.”

Just when I thought Able Danger was going to be filed away and forgotten comes a book that will once again show how close we came to stopping Atta.

I’ve already pre-ordered my copy of the book, don’t miss out.

We were not disappointed:

A Pentagon report rejects the idea that intelligence gathered by a secret military unit could have been used to stop the Sept. 11 hijackings.

The Pentagon inspector general’s office said Thursday that a review of records from the unit, known as Able Danger, found no evidence it had identified ringleader Mohamed Atta or any other terrorist who participated in the 2001 attacks.

[...]Weldon questioned the “motives and the content” of the report and rejected its conclusions. “Acting in a sickening bureaucratic manner, the DOD IG cherry-picked testimony from witnesses in an effort to minimize the historical importance of the Able Danger effort,” Weldon said in a statement.

“The report trashes the reputations of military officers who had the courage to step forward and put their necks on the line to describe important work they were doing to track al-Qaida prior to 9/11,” Weldon said. He said the investigation did little to answer the questions it was supposed to examine.

The report acknowledged that one Able Danger member alleged he was prohibited from providing a chart to the FBI in 2000 by a senior Special Operations commander. But, the report said, “the senior official did not recall the incident and we are persuaded that the chart would have been of minimal value to the FBI.”

The Pentagon had said some employees recall seeing an intelligence chart identifying Atta as a terrorist before the attacks. The report said those accounts “varied significantly” and witnesses were inconsistent at times in their statements.

You can view the report here.

No one can really say they would be surprised by this new report. The DoD has been covering their backside since this whole scandal started. It isn’t even surprising that they release this so close to election day, not that it was done on purpose…./sarcasm.

As you can imagine, Weldon is a bit miffed:

U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees, today released the following statement about the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) report on “Alleged Misconduct by Senior DoD Officials Concerning the Able Danger Program and Lieutenant Colonel Anthony A. Shaffer, U.S. Army Reserve.”

“The purpose of the DOD IG investigation was to shed light on the pressures and harassment placed on LTC Shaffer and other Able Danger team members. It was also supposed to investigate why Able Danger was glossed over by the Pentagon and why there was such a fight to get information out of the Department of Defense about Able Danger, its findings and the reasoning behind destroying crucial data about linkages and relationship of al-Qaeda prior to 9/11. The IG’s report did little to answer these questions.

“The DOD IG failed to brief LTC Shaffer’s lawyer before releasing the report. The contents and overall tone and scope of the report were leaked to the media before Congress was even briefed of its findings. The DOD IG failed to explain in their briefing to me and my staff how such information got out to the media. They said they would investigate, but I have very little confidence that anything will come of that. Also, the timeliness of this report, just weeks before Congressional elections, also raises serious questions about the IG’s motivations.

“Acting in a sickening bureaucratic manner, the DOD IG cherry picked testimony from witnesses in an effort to minimize the historical importance of the Able Danger effort. The IG narrowly focused their investigation on the witnesses recollections of the 9/11 hijackers and a chart. The report trashes the reputations of military officers who had the courage to step forward and put their necks on the line to describe important work they were doing to track al-Qaeda prior to 9/11.

“To further substantiate the Able Danger effort, within the last three months of the DOD IG investigation, another person who recently retired from the military has come forward and corroborated the work of the Able Danger program. Additionally, another official within DOD has conducted data runs of stored pre-9/11 data that has yielded information about the Brooklyn cell.

“They do not explain why LTC Shaffer and other Able Danger principles were harassed by their superiors. Specifically, the report did not address why the Defense Intelligence Agency trumped up phony charges against LTC Shaffer in an effort to revoke his clearance. When the DOD IG briefed me, they could not account for why they failed to interview key witnesses connected to this harassment, except for claiming that these witnesses ‘did not come to us’ – evidence that this was not a proactive investigation.

“The FBI agent that was tasked with setting up meetings between Able Danger and FBI officials – meetings that were block by DOD lawyers – was not interviewed in this report, yet it concluded that ‘Able Danger members were not prohibited from sharing intelligence information with law enforcement authorities.’

“I am appalled that the DOD IG would expect the American people to actually consider this a full and thorough investigation. I question their motives and the content of this report, and I reject the conclusions they have drawn.

While reading the report you cannot help but notice how much credibility they put on commanding officers while reduing the credibility of lower level officers. They basically call Shaffer a liar and cast his whole testimony in a bad light by suggesting he stole a GPS unit. They spend quite a bit of time on this incident, one in which it could easily have been a mix-up, either Shaffer forgot it was in his deployment bag (this one has happened to me personally while I was in the Marines) or some other kind of mix-up. But the time they spend on this incident smells to me. They cast all his testimony and memories away because of it.

How convenient.

This is a whitewash from top to bottom. Please check my other Able Danger posts, and there are many of them, for much of the evidence that this group did indeed identify Atta prior to 9/11….but no one listened to them.

UPDATE

TopDog notices some more wordplay in this report.

From page six of the IG report:

GEN Shelton testified that he had no specific recollection of term “Able Danger” or the Able Danger program, but did recall that while Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff he was concerned about al Qaeda and the need to develop a holistic view of al Qaeda. GEN Shelton stated,

the genesis of starting to try to collect on a worldwide basis against terrorists, came about as a result of me looking at all the information that was coming into the Chairman’s office, and seeing that we would get — we were just being inundated with information, and it wasn’t really intelligence, but little snippets.

From James Rosen at McClatchy News Service, December 7, 2005:

While Shelton said he never heard the program referred to as “Able Danger” until news reports on it first emerged in the summer, the retired general said he authorized a computer data-mining effort to target bin Laden and his associates.

“I dealt with a million damn acronyms and different kinds of code names for operations,” Shelton said. “Able Danger was not one that jumped out at me when it first surfaced” in news reports.

But under his direction, Shelton said, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, now Army chief of staff, set up a team of five to seven intelligence officers after Shelton was promoted to chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1997 and Schoomaker succeeded him as Special Operations commander.

The program began at Special Operations headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida, Shelton said, but it was expanded later and moved to Fort Belvoir, Va., outside Washington. Schoomaker briefed Shelton on the program’s progress in late 1997 when Shelton made a return visit to his old command post in Florida.

In Washington, sometime between 1999 and 2001, Shelton received a more extensive briefing from Defense Intelligence Agency officers involved in the program.

So a year ago he states he didn’t remember the AD name but does recall the program. In this report they state he now had no recollection of even the program.

No whitewash here.

Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz has said that it is “absolutely relevant information” that fired CIA officer Mary O. McCarthy was a major financial contributor to Democratic Party causes. He made the statement because of criticism of a Post profile of McCarthy, which curiously omitted that information.

[...]If politics motivated McCarthy, could politics have motivated Dana Priest? Priest is the Post reporter who wrote the Pulitzer Prize-winning story on “secret CIA prisons” in Europe but refuses to say whether McCarthy was one of her sources. The Priest story, based completely on anonymous sources, has not been confirmed.

We do know that Priest authored a vicious attack on Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), a major critic of the intelligence community who supported CIA director Porter Goss’s effort to reform the agency and fire leakers to the press.

As we noted in our August-B, 2005 AIM Report, Priest authored the attack on Weldon without contacting the congressman and the paper refused to print a letter to the editor from Weldon rebutting the Priest article.

Weldon has called on his congressional opponent, Joe Sestak, to return campaign contributions from McCarthy, the fired CIA officer ($350); Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, who pleaded guilty to illegally taking and destroying classified documents ($1,000); and Clinton CIA Director John Deutch, who admitted mishandling classified documents ($500). Berger also hosted a fundraiser for Sestak in the offices of Harold Ickes, a close associate of Hillary Clinton and billionaire George Soros.

Sestak, who is also backed by John Kerry, replies he won’t give the money back to his “friends.” Weldon counters that accepting money from “criminals and convicted felons” raises character and security issues.

Other contributions to Sestak came from Hill PAC, Hillary Clinton’s political action committee; Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick; and Clinton chief of staff John Podesta.

One thing is certain: don’t look for any investigative stories from the Post into the intervention of the intelligence community into the media and politics.

While the media have played a nefarious role, officials of the Bush and Clinton administrations are scrambling to silence those, led by Weldon, who are asking tough questions about the performance of the intelligence community. Weldon, for example, wonders how it could happen that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta was not arrested even though he had been identified as a dangerous terrorist by the Able Danger military intelligence unit well before the terrorist attacks. He and at least three other members of an al-Qaeda cell in Brooklyn, NY were known as dangerous terrorists more than a year before the planes crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field.

With notable exceptions (see below), powerful media outlets are ignoring or ridiculing those who are trying to expose the scandal of what at best can be categorized as incredible incompetence. At the moment, their target is Congressman Weldon, Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

Weldon and 248 of his colleagues in both parties are demanding a no-holds-barred investigation. There was one congressional hearing in February–followed by minimal news coverage–with other Capitol Hill investigations possibly in the offing. Congressman Todd Tiahrt, a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, said he could not comment when AIM asked if that panel planned hearings on Able Danger. Most of the Intel committee’s hearings are behind closed doors.

[...]At the February 15 House hearing, the Pennsylvania congressman announced that Able Danger records had been found showing hundreds of references to Mohammed Atta prior to the 9/11 attacks. Mondics and Goldstein either were unaware of or ignored the fact that Weldon was working to get the documents declassified. The Inquirer reporters write as if they had been on another planet when all this happened.

In fact most of the media in this country acts as if they are from another planet when it comes to the Able Danger story. One interesting note is the next paragraph which tells us there is an upcoming book by Peter Lance that investigates the disgraceful job done by the 9/11 Commission, all to cover up their favorite boss…President Clinton:

Weldon notes that the top 9/11 staffer who steered away from his investigators the information offered by Shaffer and Philpott was Dietrich Snell–identified on the commission’s website as its chief counsel. The congressman tells AIM that an upcoming “blockbuster” book by ABC investigative reporter Peter Lance identifies Snell as “the key link in getting the 9/11 commission to ignore certain information that would have embarrassed the Justice Department during the Clinton administration in the early 1990s.”

Snell was closely allied with 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick. She was a top official in the Justice Department in the Clinton/Reno regime. In that position she took the lead in preventing intelligence-sharing among different agencies over and above what were already restrictive requirements in the law. The commission rejected outraged demands that she walk over to the other side of the witness table and answer (rather than ask) some tough questions under oath.

Congressman Weldon asks “How can they (the 9/11 commission) justify hiring 70 people and spending $15 million and not interview one analyst or any of the people who were doing the work of Able Danger? How could they do that? Unless [they] deliberately did not want to pursue the story?”

The commission staff told the congressman they “looked at it [Able Danger]” and “we decided not to go down that route.” He suspects a bipartisan cover-up to avoid “embarrassment to both sides.”

All this comes on the heels of the recent revelation that up to 10,000 additional pages of Able Danger documents still exist. Even though the DoD has said over and over that they were ALL destroyed: (via Able Danger Blog)

Scott Malone of NavySeals.com and Christopher Law of PublicEdCenter.org have been following the Able Danger story from the beginning. Back in November, Chris submitted a FOIA request for all documents and emails that could be located related to Able Danger. He was routed from the Pentagon to SOCOM, back to the Pentagon, asked to resubmit his request, then told he had submitted duplicate requests. Last week, his request was finally denied. DOD refused to turn over a single document, but admitted there were at least 9,500 pages of data responsive to his request! Considering that DOD has maintained all along they have not been able to find much material on Able Danger, and has been slow to respond to requests for documents on Able Danger from both the Congress and the 9/11 Commission, this is quite a surprise.

This news is actually quite stunning if you have followed this scandal. How in the world was 10,000 documents misplaced?