Over at the Corner, John Podheretz looks at the latest [the 911 Commission’s statement, pdf] on Able Danger. See also, Tom Maguire and Jim Geraghty, who writes:
From the way these guys describe it, there was only one person who told the Commission that Able Danger had identified Atta, and they couldn’t find anything on paper at the Department of Defense to confirm that.
Of course, everything they’re saying completely contradicts what Rep. Curt Weldon and the unnamed military intelligence officer said. As for the Navy officer who told them about Able Danger finding Atta in 2000, the commission’s statement kind of makes him sound like a fruitcake.
We’re in an ugly spot. We’ve got Curt Weldon and bunch of anonymous sources making one of the biggest, most shocking allegations ever, and we’ve got the 9/11 Commission saying, ‘nope, not true, and no evidence to back it up.’
The worst scenario would be for the public to not get any further information out of this. One could see “Able Danger†reaching the phenomenon of urban legend quickly. Those who would be inclined to believe it would believe it; those who would not be inclined would not, and it would just be one more divisive prism through which to view the worst day of our lives. Either Weldon and his sources have run around spreading lies and crazy stories (and managed to get them on the front page of the New York Times) or the 9/11 Commission completely dropped the ball on this, and is attempting to cover up a glaring omission.
Clearly, the Commission feels that their statement is the last word on this subject.
Weldon said he had discussed this with four people involved with the program. Unless we hear from one of these anonymous sources, and/or the unnamed Naval officer, or Weldon can show us some sort of paper trail, then I think we’re stuck with this “he said, they said†situation. And this entire controversy – which once loomed as huge news, fundamentally altering the way we saw the 9/11 commission and the attacks themselves, will fade from the public consciousness. “Hey, isn’t that a missing blonde on a Caribbean island?â€Â
Speaking of which, Bob Graham was on FOXNews Weekend a few moments ago insisting that the Senate Intelligence Committee knew nothing about Able Danger.
Quite conspicuously, however, he did not deny knowing where Natalee is—though in Graham’s defense, Brian Williams neglected to ask the question.
Greta, I feel certain, would not have made that same mistake.
Developing…
****
update: Geraghty links to a story by the Bergen Record’s Mike Kelly, who interviewed a member of the Able Danger team. Notes Geraghty:
In my previous post, I had stated that the accounts of Weldon’s guy and the 9/11 Commission were so different that this can’t be a simple misunderstanding – somebody’s lying. And an account with a lot of details (like the Commission’s Friday release) tends to seem more plausible than a vague one. Well, this account offers a lot of details. Anybody in North Jersey want to contact the Wayne Inn? They remember anybody who looked like Atta staying a year? Do they still have their pre-2001 guest records?
It still would be helpful if any one of these eleven guys in Able Danger could come forward and answer these questions publicly, not just with print reporters. I realize they have careers to think of, but as the tag line for “Patriot Games†said, “Truth needs a soldier.â€Â
And the beat goes on.
(h/t ray abacus, via email)
This seems to be typical of what happens when focus gets lost in favor of the “more obvious” kill. I beleive the real problem was/is the now-infamous “wall” that was put up by the Clinton team (via Gorelick?). I do not see anything so far that would place that focus in question. After all, aren’t we really incensed by what that might have allowed to happen, rather than the commission’s culpability? I will always have my doubts about the commission, but I am incensed that a political policy may have blocked information that might have stopped the 9/11 butchery.
Tom
At first, I thought Weldon was a bit of blow heart. As the days passed the commission came up with so many different version of the truth, from no one told us too Atta name not mention, too Atta named but the other three weren’t mention too now the sources didn’t bring any top secert documents, in their pants, to prove what they were saying.
So now do we believe the commission was
a) ignoring evidence that contradicted their timeline.
b) to lazy to even do basic investigation in the allegations. Which would help the comission credibility now. After all you don’t expect them to lift a finger to Investigate. At this pay get real !
c) All of the above.
Side note : Greta going to inverview tonight a seagull that may or may not of seen what happen to Natalee.
Apologize? They can suck their apology out of my man-sized cock!
Is Podhoretz fucking kidding? Apologize for what? Reading the same allegations that we all read? For being concerned and interested enough in national security to ask the people who were in charge of uncovering all of these facts whether they ever heard of any of this before?
And, lo and behold, they DID hear of it, but they thought it was not “significant.”
Well, ladies and gentlemen, let me explain what the RIGHT way is to handle that. You disclose the evidence, even if it makes you uncomfortable, and you EXPLAIN exactly how and why you discount it, using footnotes and document references, and get it all out on the table for everyone to see.
I know this, and I’m not even a professional!
Here’s what you DON’T do: hide it all.
Besides, when are people going to get a clue? This story is NOT about Curt Weldon. It is NOT about the 9/11 Commission. That’s all political smoke.
It’s about the ABLE DANGER team, what they learned, when they learned it, who they told, and why it did not get passed to the FBI.
So far, no real evidence has been disclosed on these central questions.