9/11 Panel's Leader Requests Quick Assessment of Officers
By PHILIP SHENON
Shenon follows up his yesterday's ABLE DANGER article on Shaffer with Kean's retalitory statement, attempting to dodge responsibility for the Commission's failures to fully investigate the operation. Following in Ben Veniste's footsteps yesterday, Kean lays full blame on the Pentagon.
"If they identified Atta and any of the other terrorists, of course it was an important program," Mr. Kean said, referring to Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian ringleader of the attacks. "Obviously, if there were materials that weren't given to us, information that wasn't given to us, we're disappointed. It's up to the Pentagon to clear up any misunderstanding."
With the change of administrations, combined with Shaffer's belief that the current administration and Pentagon officials appear genuine in their intents to uncover the truth, I see little reason for watching the back of former officials and their actions. Point is, if documents were destroyed and stolen, and the operation shut down prior to the current admin's watch, they not only were in the dark for what to look for, but they also have little motivation to cover up for prior official actions. In fact, quite the opposite.
So I don't buy into the transfer of blame Kean and Ben Veniste currently weave. And I'm not alone. 9:11 families aren't giving the Commission a pass either.
Sept. 11 Advocates, a group led by five women from New Jersey and Connecticut whose husbands died in the attacks, said Colonel Shaffer's account was evidence that panel members "failed in their obligation to the American public and to those who lost their lives on 9/11."
Rather than link to some pertinent articles, there are many bloggers doing an outstanding job on covering this. Which brings me to an aside... why more and more of us are turning to bloggers for news and op-ed instead of the MSM.
The inherent difference between MSM reporters and bloggers and their success with readers can be attributed to team work - individuals who find a way to work in harmony, each picking and exploring an angle that results in a more complete picture.
Unlike journalists, tripping all over themselves to scoop the next guy in a vicious competition, the blog world drops the "me me me" attitude and finds a comfortable niche of cooperation. It's refreshing to see interlinks with other bloggers, and watch how one's train of thought leads contributes to the quality of another's.
One can't help but think that perhaps this is the way news media *should* work. Their task of educating the public should take priority over personal acclaim. However their very existance is dependent upon advertising and sponsors, combined with provable readership. To keep their numbers high, the integrity of their work suffers as they sensationalize their content to stay ahead of the Jones.
Since I don't see away around this, nor care to put much thought into it at the moment, I'll put it to rest and just say an "amen for bloggers" in my life.
Now... back to the cyber-pros.
AJ Strata at the Strata-Sphere just his usual bang up job of linking to the daily doin's in the MSM, as well as his fellow bloggers. Today's fare including the NYT's article posted above, and Deborah Orin's latest from the NY Post. Ms. Orin's to be commended on her findings of late, and today she doesn't disappoint again. That nuance that bothered so many for Shaffer's credibility often centered around how he could possibly remember Atta's name out of so many.
Ms. Orin got the answer:
“My first reaction was, ‘We had him.’ It was a sinking feeling in my stomach,” Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer told The Post in an interview yesterday, describing how he felt after learning that Atta was one of the hijackers.
snip
Shaffer said Atta’s name didn’t ring a bell when he learned the hijackers’ names after 9/11. But he got “a sinking feeling in my stomach” when the woman Ph.D. in charge of Able Danger’s data analysis told him Atta was one of those who had been identified as a likely al Qaeda terrorist by Able Danger.
“My friend the doctor [Ph.D.] who did all the charts and ran the technology showed me the chart and said, ‘Look, we had this, we knew them, we knew this.’ And it was a sinking feeling, it was like, ‘Oh my God, you know. We could have done something.’ “
So much for that attempt to discredit Shaffer. Moving on, NewsMax is reporting the Bush Admin was briefed on ABLE DANGER two weeks after the attack.
"Within two weeks of the attack, this colleague of mine ... she took that very poster [with Mohamed Atta] to Congressman [Curt] Weldon," Shaffer said. "And I have to say he took it right to Michael Hadley, I believe, over at the NSC."
"It's my understanding that he gave him that chart and Hadley had a great deal of interest in it," he added.
Per the NewsMax report, commenting on Shaffer's interview with Sean Hannity on his radio show, Shaffer felt the information would then be handled properly. He was
quick to point out that he wasn't accusing the Bush Admin.
"I'm not criticizing the Bush administration here. They're doing everything in their power to prevent this now. I think they're fully behind what we're doing. I think the Pentagon right now is fully behind me trying to get the word out and trying to get to the bottom of this."
I've been turning over the fact the current WH admin had some knowledge of the AD operation post-9:11. Of what significance is this? Prevention never entered the equation for timing. And because the operation was defunct when he took office, I have doubts someone dredged up it's existance prior to Shaffer's contact with Weldon.
Personally I would have hoped that if he saw an operation that was successful at uncovering actions of potential cells, that he would reinstate AD at first opportunity.
But should revival of AD be openly provided to the public? Afterall, stealth is the word in intel. And if AD was dancing on the edge of what seem to consider a violation of privacy, despite it's success, it inevitably faced quashing by Congressional members and the ACLU.
Moreover, Bush knowing of AD after the attacks has no bearing on the Commission. Bush was not charged with the task of finding the holes in our intel info channel - that belonged to the Commission.
All in all, I fail to see the relevance of Bush's awareness post 9:11. Unless, perhaps, there he stepped in and prohibited the Pentagon from providing full documentation to the Commission. This brings us full circle to "why"? To what advantage is it for one admin to cover up for another's failings?
This is an angle to be explored as well. So many questions yet. And the answers are vital to our national security for the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment