And the Clinton Legacy circles the drain...

[fossten]

Senate May Hold Hearings on Able Danger, Info-Sharing

Thursday, August 25, 2005

WASHINGTON —
Aides to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (search), R-Pa., are actively discussing scheduling a hearing on "Able Danger" and the larger issue of information-sharing between the Pentagon and the FBI, FOX News has confirmed.
Able Danger (search) is the code name for a military-intelligence unit that apparently learned a year before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta (search) and other terrorists were already in the United States.

One of the central Able Danger claims — that military lawyers blocked the sharing of the Atta information from the FBI in the late summer and early fall of 2000 — will be a focus of the committee if a hearing takes place, FOX News has confirmed.

Though no date has been set for any hearings, Specter sent a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday asking the agency to provide to the committee "all information and documents it has in connection with Able Danger, Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer, Captain Scott Philpott or any other persons having any connections with Project Able Danger, including, but not limited to, e-mail communication, notes, phone message slips, memos or any other supporting documentation."

Specter also asked Mueller to make available FBI agent Xanthig Mangum to meet with his staff. Mangum is reported to have corresponded in 2000 with Shaffer, who helped run Able Danger's mission and has offered to testify on its findings, about scheduling a meeting between Able Danger and FBI staffs. No meeting ever took place.

Shaffer, Philpott and another analyst involved with Able Danger have recently gone public with their findings, saying they were discouraged from looking further into Atta, and their attempts to share their information with the FBI were thwarted because Atta was a legal foreign visitor at the time.

"This story needs to be told. The American people need to be told what could have been done to prevent 3,000 people from losing their lives," said Rep. Curt Weldon (search), R-Pa.

Weldon drew attention to Able Danger by speaking about it on the House floor and publicly calling for the Sept. 11 commission to explain why the intelligence information wasn't detailed in its final report.

Shaffer and Philpott claim that in October 2003 they told commission staffers of the presence of Al Qaeda operatives in the United States in 2000.

The Pentagon has been looking into what it knew and when it knew it, but spokesman Larry DiRita on Monday said defense officials have not been able to verify the Able Danger claims so far.

"There appear to be more memories than there is information to substantiate those memories. We're reviewing the matter carefully, but thus far have not found what it is these handful of individuals seem to remember. At a certain point, we'll decide we have looked long enough and welcome anyone else coming forward with additional information," the Pentagon said in a statement.

A Pentagon spokesman confirmed Thursday that the department has interviewed both Shaffer and Philpott as part of its investigation.

But Weldon on Thursday urged the Pentagon not to issue any more statements on Able Danger until its findings are complete.

Weldon said in a statement that doing so "might give the unfortunate impression that its results are predetermined."

The congressman said he spoke to DiRita on Wednesday and that "he was backpedaling left and right," claiming he was misquoted about the status of the search.

"There's something very sinister going on here that really troubles me," Weldon told FOX News on Thursday, blasting the Sept. 11 commission (search) for not taking the claims more seriously. He said some panel members were trying to smear Shaffer and Able Danger.

"What's the Sept. 11 commission got to hide?" Weldon asked. "The commission is trying to spin this because they're embarrassed about what's coming out. In two weeks with two staffers, I've uncovered more in this regard than they did with 80 staffers and $15 million of taxpayer money."

Sept. 11 commission Chairman Thomas Kean recently told FOX News that the panel is waiting for a response from the Pentagon. Until then, the commission has stood by its work, maintaining that no documents they received from the military backed up the Atta claims.

Weldon added that at least five people on the federal payroll will testify under oath about the validity of the Able Danger intelligence.

According to Weldon, the FBI in September 2000 set up meetings with special operations officers on three separate occasions to transfer the Atta and Al Qaeda (search) information, but the transfers never took place.

Weldon said not only was Specter planning hearings on Able Danger, but that he also spoke with House Speaker Dennis Hastert about focusing more attention on the matter.

"When this is over, the Sept. 11 commission is going to have egg all over their face," he said.

FOX News' Catherine Herridge, Molly Hooper and Liza Porteus contributed to this report.

 

[MonsterMark]

The cream (truth) always rises to the top.

 

[raVeneyes]

Don't quite understand how a republican lead military and 'intelligence' community's f-ups can be blamed on Clinton, but ... ok

Not to mention the fact that several Clinton era White house aides and advisors have testified under oath that they gave Al Quieda and Mohamed Atta as top things on their radar to their incoming replacements....like Condo-lezbo Rice, and Don Bumblesfeld.

You know what though? F-it...it brought us to war faster right?

\o/

 

[MonsterMark]

Don't quite understand how a republican lead military and 'intelligence' community's f-ups can be blamed on Clinton, but ... ok

Once the 9/11 commission gets its pants pulled down and their butts spanked you'll understand. Just like Clinton and gang knew about the Millennium attack, they knew more than they told Bushy.

 

[pepperman]

It's a firm belief that Bubba and the boys knew more than they told bushy.

 

[raVeneyes]

and you guys figure that the Bush crew actually *listened* to everything that the Clinton crew told them?

Seriously guys... it doesn't matter who didn't listen or tell what to who, because even if Clinton had told all or if Bush had listened to everything, something would have happened on 9-11-1 anyway.

But...assuming Clinton told all, I don't think Bush would have listened...I know I wouldn't have if I were the winner of such a hard fought battle over the white house.

 

[LincolnPark]

It's a firm belief that Bubba and the boys knew more than they told bushy.

And the basis of this belief is?

Things like he's a democrat, he's from Arkansas or Rush told me don't count.

Seriously, 4 years on and you guys are still trying to blame the democrats? This isn't going to shore up support for the war guys.

Even he said he wanted to be a uniter, little did I realize that he meant unite the right wing against the rest of the country.

 

[fossten]

and you guys figure that the Bush crew actually *listened* to everything that the Clinton crew told them?

Seriously guys... it doesn't matter who didn't listen or tell what to who, because even if Clinton had told all or if Bush had listened to everything, something would have happened on 9-11-1 anyway.

But...assuming Clinton told all, I don't think Bush would have listened...I know I wouldn't have if I were the winner of such a hard fought battle over the white house.

What this thread is about is that FACTS are soon to come out that show that there were deliberate attempts to stonewall the intelligence community, preventing important agencies from having correct information and thus being able to act upon it.

YOUR statements are "I don't think" and "even if".

Lincolnpark, the truth will come out. We don't need a basis for belief. The truth is on its way.

Total conjecture.

That's the difference between Fiberals and Truth.

 

[LincolnPark]

You may not need a basis for belief but you do for accusations.

I just hope that the "truth" isn't being fabricated.

 

[raVeneyes]

What this thread is about is that FACTS are soon to come out that show that there were deliberate attempts to stonewall the intelligence community, preventing important agencies from having correct information and thus being able to act upon it.

YOUR statements are "I don't think" and "even if".

Lincolnpark, the truth will come out. We don't need a basis for belief. The truth is on its way.

Total conjecture.

That's the difference between Fiberals and Truth.

Sooooo....you're privy to some 'advanced copy' of these findings? Oh, wait...these hearings haven't even begun yet. Sooooo....you majically divined the outcome and testimony of a whole Senate Judiciary hearing? DAY-UM dude! I want your crystal ball! What are gas prices going to be in the next week? OH OH and what am I going to name my daughter?

Because if not then this whole thread is an 'I think' thread.

The object of the hearings, by the way, is hopefully not going to be to place blame, but to see how we can avoid this information sharing gap in the future. Also! Don't forget...all the agencies involved, not led by Democrats...or even DNC party members.

Don't start pounding *FACT* until you have it...*DEE DEE DEE*

 

[fossten]

The object of the hearings, by the way, is hopefully not going to be to place blame, but to see how we can avoid this information sharing gap in the future. Also! Don't forget...all the agencies involved, not led by Democrats...or even DNC party members.

YOUR RESPONSE IS FASCINATING!!!

I see...so the only purpose of the 9/11 commission was to avoid terrorism problems in the future, and NOT to place blame? Why, then, has everyone on the Fiberal side of things tried to hang the blame of 9/11 on Bush? And I suppose you've never placed blame on Bush for anything? Anything that's happened in his administration you Fibs blame on him. But when it's your guy, "Oh, just look at the agencies involved."

Furthermore, there have ALREADY been some FACTS about the obstruction that have already come out. We already know what happened: There was a wall blocking intelligence gathering. What will happen is that MORE facts will come out that will back up Mary Jo White's memo. Ohhhh, you hadn't heard about the MEMO???? Guess you forgot to read the previous threads, since you OBVIOUSLY don't keep up with the news. But then again, your Fiberal news sources try to hide this kind of stuff. So, yes, I am privy to information that you're not privy to, because I already read about it!!!

It's interesting how you Fibs run for the hills anytime your people might be in a little trouble. It's okay to blame our guy, but when it's your guy/gal's turn it should be only about looking toward the future?

Pure cowardice. Doesn't matter. The truth will come out, and Gorelick and Janet Reno will be shown to be the chief obstructors. And YES, that IS MY PREDICTION! :F

 

[raVeneyes]

YOUR RESPONSE IS FASCINATING!!!

I see...so the only purpose of the 9/11 commission was to avoid terrorism problems in the future, and NOT to place blame? Why, then, has everyone on the Fiberal side of things tried to hang the blame of 9/11 on Bush?

The 9/11 Commission's goal was to find out *how* a terrorist attack was allowed to occur on US soil. It's conclusion was that information given to President Bush was not acted on in a timely manner...and to be honest, I personally understand why. They hand me a two page memo that says 'Bin Laden to Attack US', after saying Bin Laden is going to attack the US to me every day verbally since I entered office, and I'd probably say the same thing they did, "There is no new information to act on." Loosely that translates to "You guys sound like a broken record".

Some people have a vendetta. They feel personally insulted that Bush was re-elected. And if I had been one of the people campaigning my guts out to make sure he didn't get re-elected, I'd probably feel the same. Those people have latched on to the idea that Bush dropped the ball in this instance, and that's why 9/11's blame is on him for those people. I don't happen to be one of those people...I blame partizan politics, but hey...I'm ok with the generalization.

And I suppose you've never placed blame on Bush for anything? Anything that's happened in his administration you Fibs blame on him.

Actually, if you'll read all the comments I've made in the short time I've been on the board, you'll see I generally don't place blame squarely on anyone's name. Bush has advisors...and councilors...and aides. There was an overall lack of action in the matter, and that comes from the leadership. I however wouldn't be surprised if Rumsfeld had the point on this particular issue as it's his department...

Bush has dozens of things to worry about every day from both inside and outside the US. I know that *I* couldn't handle that much on my plate at once, so I wouldn't expect him to either. It was someone's bad mistake though, and it was a bad mistake inside the White House staff. The reason the facts show it was a White House error is that regardless of lack of information sharing, the CIA was ready to go...a Bin Laden task force was ready to take him down...an anti-terrorism task force was ready to break down doors on it's investigation of a possible terrorist attack involving commercial jet liners...and the White House said "There is no new information to act on."

But when it's your guy, "Oh, just look at the agencies involved."

But read man...please read...it's not my 'guy'. The investigation is of "'Able Danger' and the larger issue of information-sharing between the Pentagon and the FBI"...I don't see anywhere in that statement anything that says "and the Clinton White House's road blocks to information sharing"

You know why I don't see that statement? Because it isn't part of the problem. The Clinton White House didn't set up the roadblocks to inter-departmental information sharing...the Justice department did back during the cold war.

Furthermore, there have ALREADY been some FACTS about the obstruction that have already come out. We already know what happened: There was a wall blocking intelligence gathering.

Man, you're so hungry for some piece of propaganda to pop out of the FOX 'news' network that you'll latch on to anything and just repeat it over and over won't you? Look in to what that wall blocking the intelligence gathering was. Seriously...not just what the spin doctors on FOX 'news' have had to say about it, but read the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act.

If you'd like a summation the act basically says that agencies that are set up to spy on foreign countries, can not operate inside US borders to spy on US citizens.

When the State department f-ed up and let terrorists in to the US with valid visas, they became temporary US citizens.

Maybe White was right, and Gorelick was wrong in this particular situation, but again I prefer having my freedoms protected, and if you're going to protect *my* freedoms, you have to protect every US citizen's freedoms.

What will happen is that MORE facts will come out that will back up Mary Jo White's memo. Ohhhh, you hadn't heard about the MEMO???? Guess you forgot to read the previous threads, since you OBVIOUSLY don't keep up with the news. But then again, your Fiberal news sources try to hide this kind of stuff. So, yes, I am privy to information that you're not privy to, because I already read about it!!!

Firstly, I've heard of Mary Jo White...I've heard of her memo...and I heard of it from CNN.

Secondly...a search of FOX 'news' results in three returns for "Mary Jo White", one of which has nothing to do with the woman from New York. A search of CNN returns 9 PAGES of results.

It's interesting how you Fibs run for the hills anytime your people might be in a little trouble. It's okay to blame our guy, but when it's your guy/gal's turn it should be only about looking toward the future?

It's always about the future to me...I hate blame searching and finger pointing. I personally could care less who made the mistake...I just want to know how the mistake happened, and if it can be avoided in the future. Everyone f-s up sometimes. Some people are in positions where their F-ups count for a lot more than others...and those people just have to be more careful. I however am not in the blame game. I figure if you're the one that f-ed up, you fix it.

Pure cowardice. Doesn't matter. The truth will come out, and Gorelick and Janet Reno will be shown to be the chief obstructors. And YES, that IS MY PREDICTION! :F

Dude, I don't know if you didn't realize it, but the *DEE DEE DEE* award isn't on a point system...though if it were you'd be far in the lead.

You accuse me of being snobbish and accuse me of improperly categorizing and generalizing you in other threads, and then you come on here and thrash me and my politics in general without even taking in to consideration everything I've said. You constantly try to one up me, and you just can't do it because you're getting all mad and not reading before you respond. I'm not mad at you man...I'm not mad at Bush or Clinton even though they've both F-ed up BIG TIME...only time I get mad in fact is when people do moronic stuff. The way I see it is everyone makes mistakes. In general my personal politics are more liberal than most, but I'll call a spade a spade. So I'd personally appreciate if from now on you read all my words before you respond out of habit and regurgitation of information.

Gorelick and Reno were most definitely responsible for information on international investigations not being shared with domestic investigative units, and vica versa. It was their job...they were enforcing a law passed in 1978. They may have been too zealous in doing their job, but they did what they thought was right at the time. Hindsight is 20/20, but since the rest of us don't have your crystal ball skills, we'll all just have to make do with what we think is right.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Dude, I don't know if you didn't realize it, but the *DEE DEE DEE* award isn't on a point system...though if it were you'd be far in the lead.

:bowrofl: "Mind of Mancia", right? LOL

You accuse me of being snobbish and accuse me of improperly categorizing and generalizing you in other threads, and then you come on here and thrash me and my politics in general without even taking in to consideration everything I've said. You constantly try to one up me, and you just can't do it because you're getting all mad and not reading before you respond. I'm not mad at you man...I'm not mad at Bush or Clinton even though they've both F-ed up BIG TIME...only time I get mad in fact is when people do moronic stuff. The way I see it is everyone makes mistakes. In general my personal politics are more liberal than most, but I'll call a spade a spade. So I'd personally appreciate if from now on you read all my words before you respond out of habit and regurgitation of information.

Hang in there raVeneyes. Keep hitting the nails on the heads like you have w/o loosing your composure. Take the high road, they'll take the low. :Beer

 

[fossten]

Gorelick and Reno were most definitely responsible for information on international investigations not being shared with domestic investigative units, and vica versa. It was their job...they were enforcing a law passed in 1978. They may have been too zealous in doing their job, but they did what they thought was right at the time. Hindsight is 20/20, but since the rest of us don't have your crystal ball skills, we'll all just have to make do with what we think is right.

There you go again. When it's your guy, he/she did what he/she thought was right at the time. But when it's Bush, he made a mistake or F'ed up.

So when the Abu Ghraib stuff happened, everybody on the left was shouting that the buck stops at the Presidency, but when 9/11 can be traced back to the Clinton administration, it's Reno's fault?

Oh, and Johnny, weren't you one of the ones who got so mad when I interjected a post while you were conversing with someone else? What a hypocrite.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Oh, and Johnny, weren't you one of the ones who got so mad when I interjected a post while you were conversing with someone else? What a hypocrite.

Interject? Hardly. Only commented on a joke and provided moral support. I didn't even attempt to touch the topic of the thread, or "interject" into your conversation. But you did prove you are quick to stoop to personal insults without narry a reason.

*owned*

 

[fossten]

Interject? Hardly. Only commented on a joke and provided moral support. I didn't even attempt to touch the topic of the thread, or "interject" into your conversation. But you did prove you are quick to stoop to personal insults without narry a reason.

*owned*

:bowrofl: Did you get your wittle feewings hurt? Go back to your playpen, Johnny. (Phil's bogus threads)