Article

2005-08-11 Home Front: WoT

9/11 Commission's Staff Rejected Report on Early Identification of Chief Hijacker

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Captain America 2005-08-11 08:16|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The articles on this subject focus on the blame game, but what I find amazing is that someone was actually able to ID Atta as a potential threat. I hope we haven't given away too much about how we did this. One article I read gave some details that I think were a little too explicit.

Posted by jolly roger 2005-08-11 08:59|| 2005-08-11 08:59|| Front Page Top

#2 Here's another interesting connection ...

Schlumberger has been linked to UNSCAM. Notice who's on the Board of Directors?

http://www.oilfield.slb.com/content/about/board.asp

Posted by Jereger Uloling8494 2005-08-11 09:50|| 2005-08-11 09:50|| Front Page Top

#3 Jolly: The blame game is what the 9/11 Commissionn was all about. In the end, it appears it fell victim to the same problems it accused the intelligence agencies of having: only utilizing information that supported their preconceptions.

Ironic isn't it?

Posted by Captain America 2005-08-11 10:30|| 2005-08-11 10:30|| Front Page Top

#4 Wow, JU. So Gorelick not only put up walls between FBI and CIA/DIA, but also serves on Schlumburger's board (since 2002)? So much for the evil Cheney/Halliburton connection. Nice find!

Posted by BA 2005-08-11 11:16|| 2005-08-11 11:16|| Front Page Top

#5 the 9/11 commission report was a whitewash from the start.putting Jamie gorelick on that Commission was liking hiring a goat to be your gardener.if you watched gorelick during the hearings, you could see her physically schmoozing the chairmen at every hearing.she puts up the wall on the able danger and other reports while she was in the AG office and then on the commission deflects anything which will point to her and the other left wing lamebrains under Clinton.The Commission pointed out,correctly,that we had no Humint capabilities prior to 9/11,butdid not point to the people who actively prevented the development of that capability starting w/ Frank Church and Walter Mondale in the mid seventies,and up to the Asst Sec at State, I think,Steve Smith,who ordered the CIA not to associate with nasty people in their effort to infiltrate terorist organizations.AFTER 9/11 Smith was unrepentant and announced that he was comfortable with hisa actions "because the CIA got to associate with a better quality informant"

Posted by john e morrissey">john e morrissey 2005-08-11 11:42|| 2005-08-11 11:42|| Front Page Top

#6 Additional speculation over at Captain's Quarters:

Staff members now are searching documents in the National Archives to look for notes from the meeting in Afghanistan and any other possible references to Atta and Able Danger, Felzenberg said.

And so now we come back to the National Archives -- and October 2003. One of Sandy Berger's last visits to the Archives where he took highly classified material out the door with him was in October 2003, around the time that the Commission first heard about Able Danger. Does this start to sound just a little too convenient and coincidental?

Even without the possible Berger theft as part of the story, this constant shifting of the story underscores the massive credibility deficit that the Commission has now earned. First they never heard of Able Data. Then, maybe a low-level staffer told them about the program but not the Atta identification. Next, the military met with the Commissioners but didn't specify the Atta identification. Now, we finally have confirmation that the Commission itself -- not just its low-level staff -- knew that military intelligence had identified Mohammed Atta as an al-Qaeda operative a year before 9/11. Instead of reporting it, the Commission buried it.

This points to some disturbing questions. It looks like the Commission decided early to pin blame on the intelligence community rather than the bureaucracy which stripped it of its ability to act in the interests of our security. Who benefited from that? Commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick. Who else stood to lose if the real story came out? The answer to that may well be the NSA director who conducted a clumsy raid on the National Archives in the middle of the investigation.

Posted by Steve">Steve 2005-08-11 14:35|| 2005-08-11 14:35|| Front Page Top

#7 Read Gorelicks bio paragraph at Schlumberger. Notice anything missing?

No mention of the Justice Department. Her other past occupations are listed, her foundations, yadda-yadda, but the fact that she was big heat at DoJ isn't there. Isn't that usually something you want everyone to know?

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2005-08-11 15:40|| 2005-08-11 15:40|| Front Page Top

23:55 Frank G
23:46 DMFD
23:43 Ajackson
23:41 3dc
23:34 Cromoth Ebbosh6643
23:32 trailing wife
23:28 trailing wife
23:23 trailing wife
23:22 Poison Reverse
23:20 3dc
23:16 trailing wife
23:16 Jan
23:14 borgboy
23:09 Jan
23:05 trailing wife
23:02 Phil Fraering
22:58 SC88
22:50 Frank G
22:50 Robert Crawford
22:49 Frank G
22:48 Frank G
22:48 Jan
22:48 Robert Crawford
22:41 Steve White