This will certainly fan the flames for the next few days:
military intelligence team repeatedly contacted the F.B.I. in 2000 to warn about the existence of an American-based terrorist cell that included the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a veteran Army intelligence officer who said he had now decided to risk his career by discussing the information publicly. The officer, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, said military lawyers later blocked the team from sharing any of its information with the F.B.I.
Colonel Shaffer said in an interview that the small, highly classified intelligence program known as Able Danger had identified by name the terrorist ringleader, Mohammed Atta, as well three of the other future hijackers by mid-2000, and had tried to arrange a meeting that summer with agents of the F.B.I.’s Washington field office to share the information.
But he said military lawyers forced members of the intelligence program to cancel three scheduled meetings with the F.B.I. at the last minute, which left the bureau without information that Colonel Shaffer said might have led to Mr. Atta and the other terrorists while the Sept. 11 plot was still being planned.
“I was at the point of near insubordination over the fact that this was something important, that this was something that should have been pursued,” Colonel Shaffer said of his efforts to get the evidence from the intelligence program to the F.B.I. in 2000 and early 2001.
He said he learned later that lawyers associated with the Defense Department’s Special Operations Command had canceled the F.B.I. meetings because they feared controversy if Able Danger was portrayed as a military operation that had violated the privacy of civilians who were legally in the United States. “It was because of the chain of command saying we’re not going to pass on information – if something goes wrong, we’ll get blamed,” he said.
Read the whole thing, but what is noticable absent is any mention of Jamie Gorelick, who had other conflicts of interest that should have kept her off the 9/11 Commission.
At any rate, as with everything, there isthe story, and then there is the story pushing the story. Why is this coming out now? It will be interesting to see what happens next.
aaronpacy
Media Matters has a good and cogent piece on the lines of attack from the right on this issue. They do a good job of showing that the “wall” that Gorelick created was in fact there since the 80’s. I don’t wish to defend screw ups by our government…but the way Rush and Hannity and Weldon are pushing this is basically..”Democrats and Clinton are to blame for 9/11″ You ask why this is coming out now….have you seen the President’s poll numbers..or how about the polls for the war? People are starting to realize that the way Bush has fought the war on terror has not made us safer….so…the “noise-machine” rides in to remind us that it’s the LIBERALS fault for 9/11 in the first place. There is plenty of “blame” to go around. But it wasn’t Bush’s fault for 9/11..nor was it Clinton’s. It was Osama’s…..
Steve
The idea that Jamie Gorelick bears total responsibility for the “wall” is just a red herring raised by John Ashcroft as a political stunt at the hearings, and it doesn’t amount to much. In August 2001, in fact, Ashcroft’s own Justice Department looked at the wall and decided to keep it in place. Rather than playing the childish game of trying to blame either Clinton or Bush for 9/11, let’s just acknowledge the truth: the “wall” was just one of many areas that, with the benefit of hindsight, we decided to revisit after 9/11.
However, the other issue noted by John, that Gorelick’s law firm represented the Saudis in the lawsuit brought by 9/11 victims, is pretty significant as a legal matter. Fact is, issues like that get ignored because it’s hard to find anyone in the corridors of power in Washington who doesn’t have their snout in the Saudi trough.
Even assuming Ms. Gorelick is a person of utmost integrity, and that she didn’t personally have anything to do with working on the Saudi case (which is probably true), the conflict of interest is still serious. Imagine if the 9/11 Commission had ended up issuing a report that blamed the Saudis for everything. And then the Saudi government goes to Gorelick’s firm and says, “Do you realize one of your lawyers was responsible for this report smearing our good name? We’re taking our business elsewhere!” And let’s just say Ms. Gorelick probably wouldn’t get much of a Christmas bonus after losing that account.
So the result of this conflict, then, is that Ms. Gorelick had an economic incentive not to make the Saudis look bad publicly. But as I said, it’s worth remembering that almost everyone in Washington has that same incentive.
Bob
Bush family. Saudi family. Billions of dollars. I seem to remember something.
The Gorelick thing is fascinating. With all the corruption (I guess we can use that word) around the government, I have no problem with throwing Gorelick under the bus. It’ll get mighty crowded there.
DougJ
Someone has been watching too many Michael Moore movies ;)
As for Gorelick, let’s not forget that she was the ARCHITECT of the wall the prevented the CIA and FBI from communicating. Thus, 9/11 was more her fault than anyone else’s, perhaps even more than Clinton and Louis Freeh. IMHO, all three should have been tried for treason.
Bob
By the way, Philip Shenen, author of the Times story, was investigated by Fitzgerald for leaking an FBI raid to an Arab charity allegedly funding terrorism. Also investigated for that leak? Judy Miller.
ppGaz
Right. Why, the Bushes themselves have patiently and firmly explained why their decades-long intimate relationship with the thieving oligarchy in Saudi Arabia, and their business ventures with them, as pointed out in Moore’s movie, are all just a fabrication of those who hate America.
Oh wait …. they haven’t explained it. In fact, they haven’t said a word about it. Have they?
Jim
Boy I really wish the military (particularly under Clinton) would have gotten more involved with domestic activities.
Either the Commission staff hid this from the Commissioners, the Commissioners are lying (by saying they neverknew Atta and other were specifically identified) or the military hid the specifics of their findings. I have no clue which one it is.
Interestingly, this makes the money we spend (spent?) on the FBI and CIA look like more of a waste. Here is the military using public records, the internet and LEXIS/NEXIS and they were able to identify some of the bad guys. Though I would be interested in knowing how many names were on the list, were there any “false positives” and, specifically, were there any “false positives” who were citizens.
Mike
ppGaz Says:
“Someone has been watching too many Michael Moore movies
Right. Why, the Bushes themselves have patiently and firmly explained why their decades-long intimate relationship with the thieving oligarchy in Saudi Arabia, and their business ventures with them, as pointed out in Moore’s movie, are all just a fabrication of those who hate America.”
No, the fabrication of those that hate America (like Michael Moore for example) is trying to show that somehow the relationship makes Bush to blame for 9/11.
ppGaz
No, first of all, there was no fabrication. Moore simply stated publicly known facts, and displayed off-the-shelf newsreel footage.
People drew their own conclusions.
It isn’t rocket science.
The assertions of a relationship between the Bush family and the thieving oligarchy of Saudi Arabia are unrefuted, for the simple reason that they are entirely true.
What those facts mean, people can figure out for themselves.
ppGaz
Oh, I forgot to mention, Freedom is On the March, and is also God’s Gift to Mankind.
Just not in Saudi Arabia.
Mike
“ppGaz Says:
No, the fabrication of those that hate America (like Michael Moore for example)
No, first of all, there was no fabrication. Moore simply stated publicly known facts, and displayed off-the-shelf newsreel footage.
People drew their own conclusions.
It isn’t rocket science.
The assertions of a relationship between the Bush family and the thieving oligarchy of Saudi Arabia are unrefuted, for the simple reason that they are entirely true.
What those facts mean, people can figure out for themselves.”
Interesting how you took my remark out of context. Interesting, but hardly surprising.
What I said was:
“No, the fabrication of those that hate America (like Michael Moore for example) is trying to show that somehow the relationship makes Bush to blame for 9/11.”
You sorta, kinda chose to leave that important last part off for some reason. I don’t deny there’s a relationship between the Bush family and the Saudis. But to then imply from this that someone this made Bush more liable for 9/11 is just silly partisan stupidity.