Skip to main content

On Wednesday, February 15th, 2006, LTC Anthony Shaffer  submitted an amazing written statement detailing his involvement with ABLE DANGER to Congress. You can download a PDF of the statement here, and I have made an HTML version here. For those people who are new to the ABLE DANGER (AD), story, I can't think of a better starting point.

The idea was to take the 'best and brightest' military operators, intelligence officers, technicians and planners from the Special Operations Command (SOCOM), the U.S. Army and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), in an entrepreneurial endeavor, much like bringing the best minds and capabilities from Ford Motor Company, General Motors and Daimler-Chrysler to focus on a single challenge. In the case of ABLE DANGER, the challenge was to discover the global 'body' of Al Qaeda - then, with this knowledge, prepare military and intelligence "options" that would be supported by the "actionable information" that was being produced by the project. - Prepared Statement Of LTC Shaffer, 2/15/06.

That was the idea.

And they had successes. Most notoriously identifying a threat in Yemen that may have saved lives in the USS Cole bombing, and identifying Mohammed Atta prior to 9/11; this once again reiterated in the February 15th Congressional hearing by a contractor, James D. Smith, who worked at Orion Scientific Systems in Viginia;

During the Orion support (on or about 25 October 1999 to 04 August 2000), James Smith delivered multiple open-source task order visual charts and printed support documentation that identified "linkages" or "associations" of people of interest and events including timeline charts, and historical events visual charts, as defined by the U.S. Army INSCOM interests. James Smith was the Task Lead/Program Manager/Business Developer for this support effort during the identified timeframe. Detailed analytical support was supplied by a variety of experienced analysts on a, "per task/availability" schedule. Produced within James Smith's support timeframe (to the best of his recollection) was a visual chart that identified associates of known terrorists (Omar Abdul Rahman) within the New York City geographical area (name of the visual chart is not documented within current notes); Mohamed Atta's picture and association with Rahman was on the chart. Several of these visual charts were printed and due to the size of the charts (approximately 41/2' X 5') in size, printing irregularities would result. Several of these charts addressing multiple topics were retained by JD Smith and turned over to Representative Curt Weldon. James Smith's copy of the chart containing the picture of Mohamed Atta was destroyed in an office move in 2004. - Prepared Statement Of James D. Smith, 2/15/06

I think it's time to accept this fact, they did ID Atta. Smith went on to say that there are two other Intelligence contractors willing to sign affadavits saying that yes, that was Atta, not some "other Atta".

Shaffer's prepared statement is packed with explosive details...

My veteran ABLE DANGER colleagues and I share the common fear that the seeds of the next 9-11 attack have already been sewn - and that much of the critical data that was harvested for the ABLE DANGER project, that could be used again now in the search for sleeper cells and others that matched the "Atta" profile is now gone - destroyed at the direction of DoD officials in the 2000 timeframe. You have heard from Eric Kleinsmith of his work on ABLE DANGER, and his receiving direction to "destroy the data and background documents or go to jail" - which he did. However, it must be noted that despite citing AR 380-10 as the "authority" for this action, the DoD lawyer is wrong and, worse, deceptive. There are two exceptions that allow the retention of U.S. person information - both of those were met by then MAJ Kleinsmith - yet lawyers directed that he destroy the data anyway. Those exceptions are:

2. Publicly available information. Information may be collected about a United States person if it is publicly available.

3( c ) Persons or organizations reasonably believed to be engaged or about to engage, in international terrorist or international narcotics

Therefore, there was no "legal" reason for the directive that the ABLE DANGER information and charts be destroyed then. So then, what was the real reason? What is the real justification for these documents - this critical data - to have been destroyed? Embarrassment and political CYA to protect themselves from accountability for their bad, and in this case, fatal decisions, made in 2001 regarding ABLE DANGER. - Prepared Statement Of LTC Shaffer, 2/15/06.

In his testimony, Shaffer relates that the CIA was uncooperative with AD because if AD was successful, it would "steal CIA's thunder".

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Shaffer has been perpetually harrassed by the DIA ever since he went to the 9/11 Commission and gave a briefing to Zelikow and other 9/11 staffers at Bagram AFB in Afghanistan in late 2003;

There is no incentive for the bureaucrats to change - and instead of embracing change, and being accountable to their actions, they obfuscate and inveigle and hide their own failures. In my specific instance, DIA has been allowed by DoD to make an "example" of me to try and intimidate the others from coming forward by spending what we now estimate $2 million in an effort to discredit and malign me by creating false allegations, and using these false allegations to justify revocation of my Top Secret security clearance. How can it be that we, as a country at war, have such officers in the government who are more concerned about suppressing the truth than winning the war? How many sets of body armor, or enhanced protection for military vehicles in Iraq or Afghanistan would $2 million buy? - Prepared Statement Of LTC Shaffer, 2/15/06.

This goes way beyond partisan politics. This about a defense establishment that will not come clean about what happened on 9/11, from the history of the "Afghan Arabs" to overlapping Intelligence operations that shared different agendas.

It's time to accept the fact that the 9/11 Commission crafted a political document in the "Final Report". It is clearly not a reference volume for serious research regarding the events of 9/11.

The omission of AD from the Final Report is but one in a long list of items that didn't fit the narrative the Commission sought to cobble together;

What happened to those reports that surfaced within months of September 11th stating that 7 or more of the alleged hijackers had come forward and claimed that they were victims of stolen identities, they were alive and well, living in Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Tunisia? Why did the Commission choose not even to address this?

What about the terrorist Said Sheikh? Now sitting in a Pakistani prison on charges of participating in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal's Daniel Pearl. According to Indian intelligence, this man received orders from a Pakistani General to transfer $100,000 to Mohammed Atta. People all over the world are talking about this story. But not a word about it in the Report.

What about Osama bin Laden and his role in the Mujahadin backed by the CIA in the 1980's to fight the Soviets? The Commission didn't go there. - Rep. Cynthia McKinney, 7/22/2005

McKinney has been an invaluable asset regarding the pursuit of the truth regarding the events of 9/11. She is deeply entrenched with Weldon on this issue, and is sure to keep the normally rabidly partisan Weldon on the straight and narrow.

As to Zelikow and his whitewash, McKinney and Shaffer are hardly alone in their assessment, but Shaffer's testimony bears special scrutiny;

During my first meeting with Congressman Weldon I was asked some questions about what became of the overall ABLE DANGER effort - he had heard some details from Capt Phillpott in their first meeting (that preceded my meeting with the Congressman by several days) - he asked me to provide my details - which I did. I gave him the same basic SECRET level briefing I had given the 9/11 Commission on Oct of 2003 at Bagram, AFG. During the briefing, Congressman Weldon asked Russ Caso, his chief of staff, to call the 9/11 commission and find out if they (the 9/11 commission) had ever heard of ABLE DANGER. Mr. Caso left the room and called Chris Cojm at the 9/11 Discourse Project and asked him if they had ever "heard of something called ABLE DANGER". Chris quickly checked and told Russ "Yes - we had heard of it" - Russ then asked him why they had not put it in their final report - Cojm's answer was this "it did not fit with the story we wanted to tell". Russ came back in and told Congressman Weldon and me of the comment. Both Congressman Weldon and I could not hide our astonished looks at hearing the news. This was the beginning of the investigation as to why ABLE DANGER information was not examined or included in the 9/11 report that has brought us to where we are today. - Prepared Statement Of LTC Shaffer, 2/15/06.

If you have a copy of the 9/11 Commission's Final Report, I strongly recommend that you consider it's alternative use; many months' worth of bird-cage liner. If it's the Truth that you seek, you may be better off purchasing this volume.

But I digress...

Former CIA analyst Mel Goodman has been very critical of the "balanced partisanship" of the 9/11 Commission, and offered his testimony for the Congressional record last summer;

Let me briefly look at the Commission itself... what this country needed was an independent, non-partisan commission. The Commission wasn't non-partisan, it was presented to us as bi-partisan; but when you appoint a group of people, 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans, that is certainly not non-partisan, and I would argue that it's not even bi-partisan, it's balanced partisanship. And you look at the Commission's report, time and time again, to see where the Democrats on the Commission checked the views of the Republicans checked the views of the Democrats, so forget this notion that this was some sort of bi-partisan commission, it wasn't, it was balanced partisanship, and it did a great deal of harm to the final product.

Also if you look at the makeup of the Commission here you have an insufficiency in the kinds of people who were picked to be on the Commission, and I'm not going to look at the Commission members one by one, but the fact of the matter is this is a group of people without any intelligence experience at all. This is not a group of people -- not one individual on this Commission had ever received a President's Daily Briefing report, had never been involved as a consumer of intelligence, had very little understanding, and that was particularly true of one of the chairmen, the Governor from New Jersey, who admitted he had no understanding of the intelligence community whatsoever.

So there was insufficient stature, insufficient experience, insufficient knowledge of intelligence, and this was totally relevant to what needed to be done. It would have been very easy to get a Blue Ribbon commission. Where were people such as Sam Nunn, William Perry, George Schultz, General Brent Scowcroft, Bill Bradley, David Boren, Gary Hart, even Warren Rudman. People who had served on the intelligence committees, who had studied the problem of intelligence and policy very closely and may have had a contribution to make on the importance of change on the intelligence community. - Mel Goodman, 7/22/2005.

Major omissions and factual errors abound in the Final Report. In her testimony last year, "Jersey Girl" Lorie Van Auken whittled the Final Report from a fencepost to a matchstick: here she names some names;

The 9/11 Commission summarily blames the failure to connect the two dots of the Phoenix Memo and Zacarias Moussaoui's file on the FBI's institutional misunderstanding of the Reno wall, and the agency's inherent inability to share information across and throughout its ranks.

What is missing from this analysis and rather facile conclusion was that it was two individuals, who worked together, and not a `misunderstanding of the Reno wall', that is to blame for the failure of the FBI to receive a FISA warrant in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui. It is likewise those same individuals who are responsible for the Phoenix Memo being downplayed and all but ignored.

FBI supervisor David Frasca and his underling, Michael Maltbie failed to permit FBI agents to request a FISA warrant for Moussaoui but also altered the agent's initial request for it. Specifically, on August 28th, 2001, Maltbie edited the Minnesota FBI's request for a FISA warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's possessions. The Minnesota FBI's field office wanted to prove that Moussaoui was connected to Al Qaeda through a rebel group in Chechnya. But the RFU agent Maltbie removed the information connecting the Chechen rebels to Al Qaeda.

Subsequently, the FBI General Counsel who received the edited request, scrubbed clean of any international terrorist ties, decided that there wasn't enough of a connection between Moussaoui and Al Qaeda to allow for an application for a search warrant through FISA.

Thus, a FISA warrant was never even applied for. - Lorie Van Auken, 7/22/2005.

Shaffer, with literally nothing left to lose career-wise, is also naming names;

As one of the reports in the press commented last year regarding the story, there are "bad guys" who were not held accountable for their failures. There were those who were fearful of what we were doing who played politics and shortchanged the nation in both their duty and loyalty to the country, and in the end they put their career ahead of doing the right thing.

Mr. William Huntington, who was just promoted to serve as the Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who after becoming the Deputy Director of HUMINT in the early 2001 timeframe passed the buck. When I attempted to brief him on the DORHAWK GALLEY project, to include information on the ABLE DANGER project that was specific portions of the ABLE DANGER methodology to sort through and separate U.S. Person information from Foreign Intelligence information, refused to hear the briefing, announcing that "I can't be here, I can't see this" as he left his office and refused to hear the information. By doing this, he could later feign ignorance of the project should it have been compromised to the public. It is my belief that he is an example of the cultural problem - senior bureaucrats who are more focused on their own career and having "plausible deniability" to never allow anything "controversial or risky" to "touch them". It is of grave concern that Mr. Huntington is the one who is behind the troubling coincidence regarding my security clearance being suspended in March of 2004, just after reporting to my DIA chain of command (to include Mr. Huntington) of my contact with the 9-11 commission, and my offer to share the ABLE DANGER information to the 9-11 commission. I would question the judgment of DIA's leadership to offer Mr. Huntington up as its "expert" on ABLE DANGER based on his earlier refusal to deal with this issue in 2001. Further, I have direct knowledge of two officers - one a senior DoD civilian, the other a senior active duty military officer - both former members of Defense HUMINT - that Mr. Huntington directed them to lie to congress to conceal the true scope and nature of problems within Defense HUMINT. Both refused his directive to lie and are no longer members of Defense HUMINT. Mr. Huntington's conduct speaks for itself. - Prepared Statement Of LTC Shaffer, 2/15/06.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are way beyond the looking glass here.

I urge you join Danny Schecter's call to demand Press Coverage of ABLE DANGER

This is bad.

Recommended reading:

The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later; Did the Commission Get it Right?

CORRECTION:The call for media coverage is by mediachannel.org

http://www.mediachannel.org/mv21.shtml

(Through the Media for Democracy project.)

Wikipedia's list of the 9/11 Commissioners: 5 Republicans, 5 Democrats

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission

Originally posted to reprehensor on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 04:46 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  MInimal coverage last week..... (none)
    reading this makes me ill....
    Give yourself a tip jar- recommneded
  •  Where have you been (4.00)
    I know not from whence your informations came and actually I care not.  For more than a solid year I have been in hiding, not willing to disclose what I had long accepted as fact.  This current administration planned, carried out and then covered up the events of 911.  Speaking out on such matters only lablels the speaker as a tin foil hat conspiracy nutcase.
    Well, enlightened person that I am.
    Knight of the Fifth Veil will do.
    •  Me too. (none)
      When I first came to dkos election night of 2004 for solace and understanding I started posting about this. I quickly lost my staus to post on dkos. It happened a second time too,but now there are steady posts on this topic.

      The Maine
      The Lusitania
      Pearl Harbor
      9-11

      Why change the model when it works so well. If it's not broke,don't fix it.

      9-11 saved the Bush presidency which was down in the toilet in 8 months. the China airplane fiasco had already happened and he was on his way out. BUT! He was saved,was he not? By that old song of nationalism and war.

      Some references:
      Harper's Magazine November 2004 (just before the election) it reported devestatingly on the 9-11 Commission. I can't find the magazine to give you the important author's name. He said that when the president lied in the oval office,they knew it and also knew if they acted on it it would bring the US government down. So they didn't.

      The War on Freedom by Afeez Ahmed an Arab working in the civil governemnt in the UK. A blasting factual account of the planning of 9-11.

      You're Not Stupid! Get the Truth by William John Cox on the Bush presidency published by Tree of Life Publications,PO Box 126,Joshua Tree,CA 92252 http://www.progressivepress.com  This small publishing company has quite a number of books on this topic. They have been ahead of the curve all along.

      •  this isn't about what you think it is (none)
        Able Danger didn't bring WTC7 down.

        -7.00,-7.74 "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him."

        by subtropolis on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 12:47:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't think AD did (none)
          But I think ignoring AD did. But maybe just maybe that's why AD was ignored. Eh?
          •  WTC 7: the little known giant "disaster" (none)
            A few days after 9/11, I read in our national daily (I live in Finland) that a third skyscraper, WTC 7, was also totally destroyed on Manhattan. This was mentioned in passing in one sentence, and I'm not sure if the newspaper ever dealt more with this third-worst building disaster in human history.

            I did wonder why it collapsed while looking at the map of the Ground Zero, printed in the newspaper. After all, the building seemed to be quite far from the Twin Towers, which fell straight down. But my questions soon subsided, as the media never returned to the subject.

            It was only at the beginning of last year when I learned about the widespead 9/11 skepticism, and have since been doing what I think journalists should have done all along: investigating what can have happened and what cannot, and what is plausible and what is not.

            Below is a link to my blog, summarising my views and research on WTC-7. It contains, among other things, a few quite detailed measurements of the building's collapse speed (to summarize, the skyscraper fell the first 100 meters of its symmetrical collapse, starting from the state of rest, at virtually free fall speed):

            http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/...

            All comments would be welcome.

            One can only hope that enough people wake up and act before it's too late. There is more than enough evidence to prove that the official story cannot be true.

            •  I read your blog (none)
              and I can only say to keep on digging. I think it was more than allowed to happen by this administration. It was the instrument for the introduction of the modern fascist state.

              In <You're Not Stupid! Get the Facts</b> there is a report of people working in these buildings having undergone very frequent fire drills before 9-11. That would have given them the time to plant the explosives.

              Tree of Life publications in California is active in publishing books on this topic. You might want to do one of your own. Sooner or later it will come out,but I hope sooner.

  •  Mel Goodman makes a sigificant error. (none)
    He states that the 9-11 Commission was made up of equal parts Democrats and Republican. In point of fact, it was made up of six Republicans and four Democrats. So it seems to me this is a not so subtle attempt to burden Democrats with Republican failure. I'd be careful of anything else this guy says. He seems to have an agenda that has little to do with sorting out what happened.
    •  I disagree. (none)
      His factual error aside, his overall premise is correct. And he does, in fact, narrow down his views on the real cuprits behind the way in which information was trickled down to the Commissioners, via Zelikow's staffers;

      "But the most important individual to me other than a commissioner, was the Staff Director, Philip Zelikow. And his conflicts of interest were so great that you do have to wonder why this individual was appointed to head this important staff of over 80 people. He had very strong ties to the George Herbert Walker Bush Administration, very strong personal and political policy ties to Condoleeza Rice. But more importantly, Philip Zelikow was running the case study program at Harvard which took millions of dollars from the CIA over a 10 year period to write case studies on the CIA, to establish a record that was essentially untrue with the facts about the work of the CIA, and of course the classic case study that Philip Zelikow chaired along with Ernest May at the Harvard-Kennedy School was the case on the Soviet Union, how the CIA got it right, you know, the politics of getting it right.

      And of course as we all know, one of the greatest disasters of the politicization of intelligence that occurred even before the Iraq war, was over the politicization of intelligence on the Soviet Union. And who did Philip Zelikow bring in to the staff structure as the team leader on his staff but Douglas McKaken, who was serving a tour up at the Harvard-Kennedy School.

      And who was Douglas McKaken?

      Douglas McKaken was the head of the Soviet analysis shop during the 1980s who was responsible for most of the politicization of intelligence. So here you have Philip Zelikow from Harvard and the case study program and Douglas McKaken as a team leader on Zelikow's staff making serious decisions about the need for change within the intelligence community."

      He has consistently been a serious critic of the Neoconservatives and "Team B", their first crack at Intel politicization, under Reagan and Bush I.

      In the documentary, "Uncovered", Goodman joined McGovern as one of the first serious, experienced critics of the manipulation of intelligence that conned America into the invasion of Iraq.

      In Adam Curtis' "The Power of Nightmares" Goodman details his previous bad experiences with Team B.

      He's on our team, but he'll have no truck with the politicization of Intel, Democrat or Republican spin cycle.

      •  I think you need to think long and hard (none)
        about the mistake he makes here - it's a very, very odd ode one for someone who is testifying in front of Congress to make.

        I'm a total agnostic on Able Danger - which is why I read your diary. But when I hear someone who claims to be former CIA agent engaging in what seems to me to be disinformation, I wind up questioning everything he says.  

        One of the sources of contention was that the commission was not genuinely bi-partisan and that the Republicans insisted on providing themselves with the upper hand. He cannot possibly believe what he says there.

        •  I think... (none)
          you have your shields set too high on ABLE DANGER and Goodman.

          Here is McGovern with a little background on Goodman;

          "Mel would not abide the prostitution of intelligence, he failed to see Russians under every rock, as Bill Casey did, and he wouldn't recognize Russians under every rock, he said they were Libyans, he said they were Vietnamese, they were not all Russians.

          And for that he paid a heavy price, and he quit. Not only that, but he testified very manfully, very courageously against Robert Gates, the arch-Deacon of institutional politicization, to try to prevent him from becoming the DCIA. And 31 senators voted against Gates, which is unprecedented in this town."

          http://www.gnn.tv/...

          Disinformation is Phillip Zelikow saying that he never met with Tony Shaffer, when he did, in front of witnesses, in Afghanistan. Zelikow gave him a business card and told him to get in touch when he was stateside.

          Disinformation is the 9/11 Commission omitting ABLE DANGER not because it was historically insignificant, but in a staffer's words, "it did not fit with the story we wanted to tell".

          Disinformation is the 9/11 Commission letting Condi tell the world that the Aug. 6th PDB was "historical in nature".

          Disinformation is Curt Weldon dropping Sandy Berger's name into the mix a couple of months ago, for no good reason. He's not doing that anymore, he's got too many people watching.

          Here's another reason why he is right about the nullifying effect of the Commission; a complete omission of any investigation into the relationship between Western Intel shops, U.S. Oil Companies, and "International Terrorism";

          Here, researcher Peter Dale Scott elucidates;

          "Al Qaeda and the U.S. Establishment"
          http://tinyurl.com/...

          Here, researcher Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed dissertates;

          Subverting "Terrorism"
          http://www.gnn.tv/...

  •  Good work! (none)
    I have read 3 reports, Harpers, Vanity Fair, New York Review of Books all calling the 9/11 report a whitewash.

    I'm bookmarking your report to read slowly, hoping to find something new and different from the other reports.

    This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

    by Agathena on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 05:27:35 PM PST

  •  Keep up the good work (none)
    There's so much about 911 that just wreaks.

    Common sense isn't that common - Voltaire

    by obgynlover on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 06:02:41 PM PST

  •  ABLE DANGER NEEDS MORE ATTENTION! (none)
    The fact that this has been pushed back and pushed back every time it comes around convinces me that there's something white-hot at the core. I keep waiting but I never see anything, despite Rep. Curt Weldon (R-OH) being a major proponent of finding the truth.

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will watch the watchers?)

    by The Crusty Bunker on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 07:08:31 PM PST

  •  because the repugs (none)
    are so inept at performing the oversight function, ABLE danger and other necessary investigations never took place. vote the repugs out and lets hear the good and bad.
  •  Wasn't Able Danger during Clinton's term (none)
    I'm confused. How can the release of Able Danger be a threat to the Bush Administration when it occurred during Clinton's term. As I understand it, the supposed shredding that occurred of information related to Able Danger would have occurred in 2000 before Bush took office. So wouldn't that put the fault on the Clinton Administration for not passing this information on?
    •  CIA crimes are not administration specific. (none)
      If there is a rogue CIA, a cadre of traitors running interference for the merchants of death, the Saudi terrorist machine, big oil, and the military industrial complex, such a shadow crew has been around for a long time. They are not working in the interests of the United States. They are working for their clients.

      Good people in the CIA, FBI, and the Treasury Dept. have been working against the rogue element for a long time. But all presidential administrations protect the criminal element as far as we can see, including Clinton's. The Bush administration is just more blatant in its support of the rogue state.

      For example, Cofer Black, the high level CIA supervisor who allowed the 2 San Diego hijackers to enter the country illegally and supposedly lost track of them, has been in the CIA through several administrations. For his accomplishments in allowing Alhazmi and Almihdhar into the United States, for losing them although their phone number in San Diego was in the phone book in one of their names, for ignoring that their phone was in contact with an Al Qaeda safe house in Yemen, and for ignoring that they were living with an FBI informant, Cofer Black was promoted by president Bush.

      •  Pentagon, not CIA (none)
        The idea was to take the 'best and brightest' military operators, intelligence officers, technicians and planners from the Special Operations Command (SOCOM), the U.S. Army and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), in an entrepreneurial endeavor, much like bringing the best minds and capabilities from Ford Motor Company, General Motors and Daimler-Chrysler to focus on a single challenge. In the case of ABLE DANGER, the challenge was to discover the global 'body' of Al Qaeda - then, with this knowledge, prepare military and intelligence "options" that would be supported by the "actionable information" that was being produced by the project. - Prepared Statement Of LTC Shaffer, 2/15/06.

        -7.00,-7.74 "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him."

        by subtropolis on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 12:55:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  What seems to be emerging... (none)
      is that SOCOM lawyers under Clinton's administration blocked the flow of information. However, it looks like they did this unilaterally, citing erroneous reasons, as Shaffer points out.

      If they were not acting unilaterally, then we need to know who was controlling them. The thing is, Weldon has received virtually no support from R's or D's on this issue. It steps on too many toes. It assigns blame, which this administration is loathe to do.

      Worse, it shows the true nature of the 9/11 Commission's "Final Report" or, more properly, the Kean/Zelikow Report. It's not common knowledge, for example, that Zelikow's staffers filtered what the Commissioners actually crafted into the "Final Report". Ergo, no WTC7 collapse, no CIA/Muj relationships, no Omar Said Sheikh, no serious examination of Ali Mohamed, even though he deserves far more scrutiny; http://tinyurl.com/...

      --------------------------

      That's where the hits come for Administration. Here's how McKinney describes the process and product of the Commission;

      "For the families who suffered so much loss this surely feels like adding insult to injury. They deserve to know everything that there is to be known about how their loved ones died. They fought for an investigation that would be non-partisan, independent, and that would get to the bottom of things. But, as work got underway, not only did the Commission run up against obstruction by the administration and non-cooperation from government agencies, many, if not most of the commissioners themselves had conflicts of interest.

      And several commissioners spoke out about problems in the process; the lack of investigative rigor and heavy reliance on previous work the Joint-Commission Report, the drafting of recommendations before the investigative process got rolling, the failure to take testimony under oath or in many cases to even take transcripts.

      As the original deadline approached, the Commission's work was half done and only after the families fought for it was the deadline extended.

      Then last year, we got the final report. An extensive, prosaically impressive report. But as some of us sat down to read it, the errors and omissions immediately jumped out at us."

      ----------------------------

      Beyond that, Shaffer is clear that this is not an "administration-specific" problem, but extends into career protection behind the walls of the Pentagon. Entrenched power playing CYA, and the CIA protecting... what exactly?

      Shaffer is not on a Clinton-jihad. Weldon must be kept in check (McKinney and Kucinich are watching) or given an opportunity he will make it one. That's why I and a few other on KOS, DU, etc. have been calling out for Democratic support on this issue. It's not about Clenis, it's much worse.

  •  Keep it in our vision. (none)
    As sick as it makes me every time I review it.
    Keep it out front.
    Maybe each exposure brings it to one new person.

    It's out "There" just OPEN your eyes.

    by Clzwld on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 11:02:14 PM PST

  •  Maltbie (none)
    It's possible that he removed the references of a Chechen connection to Moussaoui because the evidence was tainted or the methods by which it was discovered were classified and/or illegal.

    They are trying very hard to hold onto him.

    -7.00,-7.74 "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him."

    by subtropolis on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 12:44:33 AM PST

  •  The agenda for the newly initiated (none)
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

    http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...

    Fake Bin Laden takes responsibility for 9/11:
    http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...
    (Take a quick look at the images)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site