The Able Danger team identified five al Qaeda cells around the world in 2000; in the United States, Kenya, Tanzania, Yemen and Germany. As we know now, the German cell moved to the US and, of course, those members perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. But the 9/11 Commission didn’t see fit to put the fruit of AD's labor in its final report and now admits that it didn’t. Mind-boggling.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Sept. 11 commission knew military intelligence officials had identified lead hijacker Mohamed Atta as a member of al-Qaida who might be part of U.S.-based terror cell more than a year before the terror attacks but decided not to include that in its final report, a spokesman acknowledged Thursday.The 9/11 Public Discourse Project? Sounds like yet another waste of time and money.
Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the commission's follow-up project called the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, had said earlier this week that the panel was unaware of intelligence specifically naming Atta. But he said subsequent information provided Wednesday confirmed that the commission had been aware of the intelligence.
Anyhow, I was going to leave it alone and merely be an observer, but I’d like to try to flesh out the logic of why the commission might have left this important—possibly critical—information out of its report.
They wanted to keep it secret to keep yet another stain off of the Clinton Administration (which, again, is mentioned nowhere in this article), and keep the heat on the present administration. They figured that the Able Danger team members would keep their mouths shut also, albeit for different reasons. However, since the information that Able Danger uncovered came from open sources, it’s not the info that AD needed keep secret, but merely their own identities.
Then, as Representative Curt Weldon narrates in his June 27, 2005 statement before the House, a seemingly random set of events brings AD and its purpose into the light of day. The commission gambled that this would not happen and lost.
According to FoxNews, members of the commission are supposed to make some sort of statement today on the subject. This should be interesting. It would be refreshing to hear the spokesman merely give a straight-out mea culpa without any ‘buts.’ And, no, I’m not betting on it.
Captain Ed has most of the goods on the whole story.
UPDATE: Oh yes, and let's not forget that Sandy Berger likely tried to ensure that *something* didn't come to light. Could it be AD's findings and the Clinton Administration's proactive inaction?