Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

The Anchoress

Home
Catholic
Able Danger/Sandy Berger Connection?

Able Danger/Sandy Berger Connection?

Last updated on: March 16, 2017 at 5:13 pm by Elizabeth Scalia

Able Danger/Sandy Berger Connection? 2017-03-16T17:13:32+00:00 Elizabeth Scalia

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

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.
{….]
According to Weldon, Able Danger identified [Mohammed] Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi (search), Khalid al-Mihdar (search) and Nawaf al-Hazmi (search) as members of a cell Able Danger code-named “Brooklyn” because of some loose connections to New York City.
Weldon said that in September 2000, the unit recommended on three separate occasions that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI “so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists.” However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation, arguing that Atta and the others were in the country legally so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.

“Lawyers within the administration — and we’re talking about the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration — said ‘you can’t do it,'” and put post-its over Atta’s face, Weldon said. “They said they were concerned about the political fallout that occurred after Waco … and the Branch Davidians.”

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.
…
The Commission spent yesterday claiming that the Pentagon never briefed them again on anything about Able Danger after the October 2003 meeting, saying in the Fox report that they pursued the documents from the Pentagon on the program — and that they received them, which the Pentagon confirms. Oddly, the words “Able Danger” appears nowhere in their final report despite the documents being in their hands. And now we have the Pentagon practically begging them on July 12, 2004, to put the Able Danger and the Atta information into the report, and the Commission refusing to do so.

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, Baldilocks, 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! :-) Maxed Out Mama has a tremendous roundup.

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.

The Fourth Estate

War on Terror

Previous Post

August 10, 2005

Featured Blog of the Week: Bogus Gold

Next Post

August 11, 2005 Spitzers office has not contacted Air America?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category "Remaking" Ourselves 'Remaking' America 9/10 Mindset 9/11 trials Abortion ACORN Adoration Advent Advent 2008 Advent 2009 Advent 2010 Alternative Energy Alternative Media America American Catholic Church American Church American Genius Ameridolatry ANCHORESS BOOKSHELF Anglican-Roman Reconciliation Answers & Questions Anti_Semitism Archbishop Hilarion Ayn Rand Bad Mass Barack Obama Baseball Benedict Benedict & Islam Benedict in UK Benedict XVI Benedictine Bill Whittle Birth Control Blogs and Blogging Blogs and Blogging Bloodless Coup Bobby Jindal Bookchat Breitbart Bride at every wedding... Bride at every wedding... Buckley Bullies Bush Bad? Bush Good Buster Capitalism Catholic Fiction Catholic Vocations Catholicism Celibacy Chaput Charitable Stuff Chesterton Chile Chris Christie Christians in Exile Christine O' Donnell Christmas Christmas Gift Ideas Church Hates Science? Church hates women Communion of Saints Compline Conclave 2013 Confession Constitutional Stuff Conversion Crisis & Opportunity Critical Thinking Crooks and Liars Crucible of Faith Cuba Culture of Life Culture of Life/Death Culture of Treason? Dancing Death Dialogue re Islam Dick Meyer Divorce and Remarriage DOJ Domestic Terrorism Dominican Order Don't try me too high Dowd Dumb Democrat moves Dumb GOP moves Economic woe Education Egregious Harry Reid Elder Son Elder Son's Sweet Girlfriend Elderly Election '10 Election '12 Election '16 Election 2004 Election 2006 Election 2008 Election 2010 Election 2016 Elena Kagan Elitism Embryonic Stem Cell Research End Times? English language Enhanced Interrogation Erosion of Rights Eucharist Euthanasia Exorcism Extraordinary Synod Facebook Faith Faith and Reason Faith Friday Faith Perspective Faithful Friday Fascism Again Fascism in America Fatima FCC Feminism Film First Things Forgiveness Fr. James Martin Francis and Islam Francis in America Frassati Fred Thompson Free Speech? Freedom of Worship FutureChurch Global Pandemic GOP Congress Haiti Head Covering Health Care Here and Queer Hermits Heroes Hitchens Holy Spirit Holy Week '09 Holy Week '10 Hoo-Hah & BS Hoo-Hah & BS Icons Illegal Immigration In The Arena Interviews Interwebz Iran Uprising Iraqi Christians ISIL ISIS Islamic State Islamification/Islamofascism Islamification/Islamofascism Isra-El It's all about me! Me! ME! James Burke Jerry Lewis Jesus Christ Joblessness John Boehner John McCain John Paul II John XXIII Juan Williams Just Words Katrina/Rita King is a Fink Latin Mass Leadership Lectio Divina Lent Lent '08 Lent '09 Lent 2010 Lent 2011 Limbaugh Listen to Lizzie Litigious Society Liturgy Liturgy of the Hours Mainstream Media Manliness Marriage Mary Media Excess Medical Merton Michelle Obama Mighty John O' Connor Misc. Miss Ella Missionaries Mitt Romney Monasticism My brother S My Irish Aunties Mystic Monks Nanny Statism Nature NEA Neri New Media Newman Noonan Notre Dame NPR Stuff Nun News Obama Bad? Obama Good? Obama White House Oil Spill Online Retreat '08 Online Retreat Days Oratory Orthodoxy Our Hillary! Parenting Passionists Patheos Patheos Book Club Patrons Paul Ryan Penance Penn Jillette Philosophy PJTV Podcasts Poetry Politics-free zone Pop Culture Pope Emeritus Pope Francis Prayer Predictions Priesthood Pro-Life Public Sector Unions Purgatory Questions about Catholicism Quotes of the Day Quoting the News Race in America rants Recipes Remarried Catholics Reposts by request Retreat thoughts Rome Rudy Giuliani Russia Saints Sarah Palin Scandal Scott Brown SCOTUS Scriptural stuff Secularism Send in the clowns Serving up hot links Sexuality Sherrod Shroud of Turin Sisters and Nuns Social Entrepreneurship Social Media Social Security Socialism doesn't work Sports and Faith Stem Cells Strange Gods Suffering Synod Tea Parties Tea Party Terri Schiavo The 9/11 Commission The Catholic Answer The Constitution The Desert The Fourth Estate The Pelosi The Perpetual Adolescents The Rosary Third Party? Timothy Dolan Touch of evil TSA Tsunami TV/Pop Culture/Music TV/Pop Culture/Music Twitter Uncategorized Unemployment Unintended Consequences US Military Vaginal Musings Vatican Vespers video faves Vile Joe Biden Voter Fraud War by Litigation War on Terror War, What it good for? Why can't weeee be ... World Youth Days Year of Faith Year of the Priest

Select a Month August 2016 July 2016 April 2016 March 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who is called the "brother of the Lord" and wrote a New Testament letter?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Bartholomew John James Titus