in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. :)
| Daily Beast | Update: FBI Looks for Leaks at Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court |
0 |
| NJ Online | Fail: Groups claim to have found ‘smoking gun’ to force Christie to move U.S. Senate election to November |
0 |
| The Hill | Sigh: McCaskill becomes first lawmaker to endorse Ready for Hillary PAC |
0 |
| CNN | 0 | |
| Rep. Blackburn | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Move Along:
""The whole issue of this - of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. The whole thing defies logic. And the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations."
Pres. Obama on GOP demands for Benghazi answers, 5/13/2013
Able Danger story not going away
The Pentagon is “unable to validate” any claims about Able Danger but another source has stepped forward to back up Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer’s claims:
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 – An active-duty Navy captain has become the second military officer to come forward publicly to say that a secret defense intelligence program tagged the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks as a possible terrorist more than a year before the attacks.
The officer, Scott J. Phillpott, said in a statement today that he could not discuss details of the military program, which was called Able Danger, but confirmed that its analysts had identified the Sept. 11 ringleader, Mohamed Atta, by name by early 2000. “My story is consistent,” said Captain Phillpott, who managed the program for the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command. “Atta was identified by Able Danger by January-February of 2000.”
His comments came on the same day that the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, told reporters that the Defense Department had been unable to validate the assertions made by an Army intelligence veteran, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, and now backed up by Captain Phillpott, about the early identification of Mr. Atta.
Colonel Shaffer went public with his assertions last week, saying that analysts in the intelligence project had been overruled by military lawyers when they tried to share the program’s findings with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2000 in hope of tracking down terror suspects tied to Al Qaeda.
Mr. Di Rita said in an interview that while the department continued to investigate the assertions, there was no evidence so far that the intelligence unit had come up with such specific information about Mr. Atta and any of the other hijackers.
He said that while Colonel Shaffer and Captain Phillpott were respected military officers whose accounts were taken seriously, “thus far we’ve not been able to uncover what these people said they saw – memory is a complicated thing.”
I should note that in National Geographic’s 2 part documentary Inside 9-11, a brief mention was given regarding US Special Operations Command identifying Mohammed Atta, as a Kerry Spot emailer noted (all caps his, not mine):
“AT THIS AIR FORCE BASE IN TAMPA (Picture of Entrance Gate to MacDill Air Force Base), MEMBERS OF THE U.S. ARMY SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND ARE REVIEWING AN UNUSUAL CHART THAT REPORTEDLY IDENTIFIES BOTH ATTA (picture ID of Atta shown) AND AL-SHEHHI (picture ID of Al-Shehhi shown) AS LIKELY MEMBERS OF AN AL-QAEDA TERROR CELL OPERATING WITHIN THE U.S. THE OFFICIALS DECIDE THEY CANNOT PASS THIS INFORMATION ALONG TO THE FBI, IN PART BECAUSE THE MEN ARE HOLDING VALID U.S. VISAS AND MAY BE OFF LIMITS FROM INTELLIGENCE GATHERING BY THE MILITARY.” The next segment discussed terrorist training camps in Kandahar, Afghanistan.
Captain Ed is all over this story. Chris Regan at Junkyard Blog has lots of links and commentary. John at Powerline comments:
[...] let’s start with this: if Mohammed Atta really was in the United States in early 2000, he was traveling under another name–big shock, right?–and the September 11 commission’s carefully constructed timetable under which, among other things, he couldn’t possibly have traveled to Prague to meet with an Iraqi intelligence agent in 2001, is shot to hell.
Stay tuned.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
There apperas to be more and more confusion on this war. We have only 10K troops in Afgan. Wonder why???? That is where the Taliban are….
>That is where the Taliban are….
So suddenly it’s a war against the Taliban? Heck, they didn’t attack us. (Isn’t that the Liberal complaint about Iraq?) The more Liberals try to sound like they know what they’re talking about, the funnier they get.
Not a liberal. But OBL was in Afgan. Went in to get the Taliban. They appear to still be there and growing. Just questions I wonder about. I think the highjackers were from Saudi. Wonder who the war is actually against. It does appear to change. I support the war and Bush, but there seems to not have been much planning.
You think we should have attacked Saudi Arabia, Gary?
ST- No.. But it all seems un-nerving when you look at the big picture. I am glad Bush made a stance and went after the terrorist. However, no one over there is our friend and I really do not see an end to Iraq. When and if we pull out, war will break out again. I think there will eventually be three small countries in Iraq. I give thanks daily that there are men and women willing to put on the unifrom and try to protect our way of life. I do think Saudi Arabia will eventually be our front enemy. Depends on what we do in Iran, IMO…….
Gary, I’ve heard about the three country theory some people are talking about. I wouldn’t rule it out either, myself. Re: Iraq, just remember Rome wasn’t built in a day. These things take time. Keep your chin up, ok?
And please say a prayer for our men and women serving, and their families too.