Rich in Ohio Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 Story It clearly looks like this was white washed by the 9-11 commission. The question is why. Who or what were they protecting? I understand that the case can be made that we were not able to share intel the way we are now, that is a given. We smartly corrected most of that with the patriot act. The poit is, why did the 9-11 commission seemingly ignore such information when they were clearly looking for someone, or some administration to pin the deaths of 3,000 plus people on. This seems like as good a tool to do that as any others we have seen. The report clearly mentions ata....how much more of a connection is needed? Please explain why this was omitted from the final report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted August 17, 2005 Author Share Posted August 17, 2005 Hmmm, I guess that this information was just not interesting enough to be included in the 9-11 report. Again, I wonder who or what was being protected. I think that more then a few asses are feeling the heat right now in and around washington, and harlem NY. Now I really wonder what those documents that sandi berger had in his socks were? NY Times story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 StoryIt clearly looks like this was white washed by the 9-11 commission. The question is why. Who or what were they protecting? I understand that the case can be made that we were not able to share intel the way we are now, that is a given. We smartly corrected most of that with the patriot act. The poit is, why did the 9-11 commission seemingly ignore such information when they were clearly looking for someone, or some administration to pin the deaths of 3,000 plus people on. This seems like as good a tool to do that as any others we have seen. The report clearly mentions ata....how much more of a connection is needed? Please explain why this was omitted from the final report. 409697[/snapback] Actually, it isn't clear at all. The chart Weldon is showing now isn't the original chart, it is a "reconstruction" from his memory of the original. When he had the original and used it during a presentation 2002, Atta wasn't on the list. The commission itself says Atta's name wasn't in the papers released to them by the Department of Defense when they asked for the Able Danger information. Weldon never mentioned Able Danger and Atta in a number of prior communications with the Commission. I have no idea what the real story is, I am just advising caution. I think this would be a good story to wait out and see what information surfaces rather than jumping in taking this or that side, it might save some embarassment later such as all those posts of yours during the war to the effect that "Eureka, WMD's found in Iraq", every one of which proved to be BS within days of your post. You may end up regretting moving too early on this one, without knowing if the story is true and if it is, who effed up. Patience is a virtue. Here are some links for more info on this story: 911 Comm Statement on Able Danger This document sets out the history of the Comm. and the Able Danger information. Even if it is true, I think the people in trouble are the DOD who apparently withheld this information from the commission, that is of course, if Weldon and/or the commission are to be believed. There are ample reasons to suspect his story. Excellent story tracking what the no longer anonymous Col. Shaffer has to say complete with additional links. Weldon Interview Rozen on Weldon and his chart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted August 17, 2005 Author Share Posted August 17, 2005 Actually, it isn't clear at all. The chart Weldon is showing now isn't the original chart, it is a "reconstruction" from his memory of the original. When he had the original and used it during a presentation 2002, Atta wasn't on the list. The commission itself says Atta's name wasn't in the papers released to them by the Department of Defense when they asked for the Able Danger information. Weldon never mentioned Able Danger and Atta in a number of prior communications with the Commission. I have no idea what the real story is, I am just advising caution. I think this would be a good story to wait out and see what information surfaces rather than jumping in taking this or that side, it might save some embarassment later such as all those posts of yours during the war to the effect that "Eureka, WMD's found in Iraq", every one of which proved to be BS within days of your post. You may end up regretting moving too early on this one, without knowing if the story is true and if it is, who effed up. Patience is a virtue. Here are some links for more info on this story: 911 Comm Statement on Able Danger This document sets out the history of the Comm. and the Able Danger information. Even if it is true, I think the people in trouble are the DOD who apparently withheld this information from the commission, that is of course, if Weldon and/or the commission are to be believed. There are ample reasons to suspect his story. Excellent story tracking what the no longer anonymous Col. Shaffer has to say complete with additional links. Weldon Interview Rozen on Weldon and his chart 409766[/snapback] I do not see how you can think I am moving too fast on this one mickster, I am just asking a question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 Actually, it isn't clear at all. The chart Weldon is showing now isn't the original chart, it is a "reconstruction" from his memory of the original. When he had the original and used it during a presentation 2002, Atta wasn't on the list. The commission itself says Atta's name wasn't in the papers released to them by the Department of Defense when they asked for the Able Danger information. Weldon never mentioned Able Danger and Atta in a number of prior communications with the Commission. I have no idea what the real story is, I am just advising caution. I think this would be a good story to wait out and see what information surfaces rather than jumping in taking this or that side, it might save some embarassment later such as all those posts of yours during the war to the effect that "Eureka, WMD's found in Iraq", every one of which proved to be BS within days of your post. You may end up regretting moving too early on this one, without knowing if the story is true and if it is, who effed up. Patience is a virtue. Here are some links for more info on this story: 911 Comm Statement on Able Danger This document sets out the history of the Comm. and the Able Danger information. Even if it is true, I think the people in trouble are the DOD who apparently withheld this information from the commission, that is of course, if Weldon and/or the commission are to be believed. There are ample reasons to suspect his story. Excellent story tracking what the no longer anonymous Col. Shaffer has to say complete with additional links. Weldon Interview Rozen on Weldon and his chart 409766[/snapback] Why are you even trying to discuss it with him? You know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 Why are you even trying to discuss it with him? You know better. 409916[/snapback] I don't know what came over me. Some sort of inexplicable wave of optimism that perhaps a reasonable discussion could be had with him. It has passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 I don't know what came over me. Some sort of inexplicable wave of optimism that perhaps a reasonable discussion could be had with him. It has passed. 409946[/snapback] You know, I'd expected someone to get stupid on this topic, but I was certain it was going to come from the Posse Comitatus angle. Rich's little conspiracy theory musing is a real surprise, with entertainment value marred only by the fact that he's actually serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 You know, I'd expected someone to get stupid on this topic, but I was certain it was going to come from the Posse Comitatus angle. Rich's little conspiracy theory musing is a real surprise, with entertainment value marred only by the fact that he's actually serious. 409977[/snapback] In a more humane era, he would be hospitalized and well cared for but alas, those days are gone. Think how much more productive he would be knitting socks and making decorative corn cobb holders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 In a more humane era, he would be hospitalized and well cared for but alas, those days are gone. Think how much more productive he would be knitting socks and making decorative corn cobb holders. 410054[/snapback] Ironically, it's the Republican funding cuts in social programs that's keeping him from getting the help he so badly needs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 You know, I'd expected someone to get stupid on this topic, but I was certain it was going to come from the Posse Comitatus angle. Rich's little conspiracy theory musing is a real surprise, with entertainment value marred only by the fact that he's actually serious. 409977[/snapback] Mickey, I think he just called you a kitty commie. I wouldn't put up with that crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 Actually, it isn't clear at all. The chart Weldon is showing now isn't the original chart, it is a "reconstruction" from his memory of the original. 409766[/snapback] They found the original at Sandy Berger's dry cleaners and will compare it to Weldon's reconstruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 They found the original at Sandy Berger's dry cleaners and will compare it to Weldon's reconstruction. 410404[/snapback] Very nice! (CM still sucks) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 They found the original at Sandy Berger's dry cleaners and will compare it to Weldon's reconstruction. 410404[/snapback] Damn he can afford to have his socks and underwear drycleaned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Mickey, I think he just called you a kitty commie. I wouldn't put up with that crap. 410401[/snapback] In response, I just flipped a bird at my monitor screen. That'll show 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 My dog ate my surveillance report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted August 18, 2005 Author Share Posted August 18, 2005 You know, I'd expected someone to get stupid on this topic, but I was certain it was going to come from the Posse Comitatus angle. Rich's little conspiracy theory musing is a real surprise, with entertainment value marred only by the fact that he's actually serious. 409977[/snapback] excuse me, but what is stupid about asking a few questions? This is a rather interesting story. Again my question is, who or what iss being protected here. If you feel dirty for responding then go take a figgin shower. If ypu got a little bit of the monkey sh-- that you are throwing around on you...then I suggest a shower for you as well. Otherwise please feel free to opine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 excuse me, but what is stupid about asking a few questions? This is a rather interesting story. Again my question is, who or what iss being protected here. 410903[/snapback] Fine, I'll play. Bill Clinton's being protected, so as not to jeopardize Hillary's 2008 presidential campaign. It's all a great big liberal conspiracy against you, Rich. There, you have your attention. Happy now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Rich is right. He asked a legitimate question and wanted to see what the left's answers were. All you did was make fun of him. More "tolerance" by the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Rich is right. He asked a legitimate question and wanted to see what the left's answers were. All you did was make fun of him. More "tolerance" by the left. 410925[/snapback] I claim neither to be on the left nor tolerant of Rich's nonsense. He asked a bull sh-- question: "who's being protected?" Implicit in which is that someone IS being protected, which has not been demonstrated. Ergo, he's not asking a simple legitimate question, he's asking a leading one designed to promote his insane partisanship. And that deserves serious consideration? Sure, whatever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Actually if you research it a little more Rich, the military is the one being prtected. Seems they were spying on US citizens both here and abroad which is a major no-no for the military. Lot's of mid-level and senior level brass will have their ass handed to them when all is said and done. As far as Billy boy and his in action on the knowledge, it was determined legally since the data was illegally gotten that they could not act. I don't agree with the decision, but understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Actually if you research it a little more Rich, the military is the one being prtected. Seems they were spying on US citizens both here and abroad which is a major no-no for the military. Lot's of mid-level and senior level brass will have their ass handed to them when all is said and done. As far as Billy boy and his in action on the knowledge, it was determined legally since the data was illegally gotten that they could not act. I don't agree with the decision, but understand it. 410963[/snapback] There's actually a gray area here. I've heard posse commitatus mentioned, but PC prohibits "a direct role" in domestic law enforcement. Is the gathering and passing of intelligence info related to "National Security" issues, under a Defense venue a direct role? Guess the lawyers couldn't figure it out either. Then, well after the fact and after the horse is out of the barn, we get the Patriot Act that so many seem to loathe. (MY GOD! They can find out my library books! I have no freedom!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 There's actually a gray area here. I've heard posse commitatus mentioned, but PC prohibits "a direct role" in domestic law enforcement. Is the gathering and passing of intelligence info related to "National Security" issues, under a Defense venue a direct role? Guess the lawyers couldn't figure it out either. Then, well after the fact and after the horse is out of the barn, we get the Patriot Act that so many seem to loathe. (MY GOD! They can find out my library books! I have no freedom!) 410974[/snapback] That gray area still existed even after 9/11. I remember suggestions of military recon assets being used to catch the DC snipers, and the potential violation of posse comitatus being brought up then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Rich is right. He asked a legitimate question and wanted to see what the left's answers were. All you did was make fun of him. More "tolerance" by the left. 410925[/snapback] Re-read his initial post, especially the first line where he declares that the 911 Comm. clearly white-washed this and the only question is why? So you see, he already declared a conspiracy and the "legitimate question" he was asking was to invite speculation as to the motivation. He has already determined that a "crime" was committed now he just wants to hunt up some suspects. Surprise, it's all Bill Clinton's fault. That was about as legitimate a question as me asking him, "So Richio, how long has your mother been a whore and why do you keep denying it? You simply declare a fact that is not a fact and then use it justify your "inquiry". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 That gray area still existed even after 9/11. I remember suggestions of military recon assets being used to catch the DC snipers, and the potential violation of posse comitatus being brought up then. 411082[/snapback] That IS a direct law enforcement role, as there was no evidence to support a terrorist organization with an agenda (depending on what you mean by "recon assets"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 That IS a direct law enforcement role, as there was no evidence to support a terrorist organization with an agenda (depending on what you mean by "recon assets"). 411088[/snapback] "Overhead imagery". I want to say "U-2", but I don't really recall exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Here's my opinion. Jamie Gerelich (sp?) who was on the 9/11 comission was protecting her own butt. She was the one who put the wall between the intelligence orgs and the FBI. That is a big reason we didn't get Atta and other terrorists during Clinton's term. She was put on the committee to cover the Clinton's and her own incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Well, hopefully we won't have these kinds of problems again. I really wish they would have kept their mouths shut instead starting more controversy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted August 18, 2005 Author Share Posted August 18, 2005 I claim neither to be on the left nor tolerant of Rich's nonsense. He asked a bull sh-- question: "who's being protected?" Implicit in which is that someone IS being protected, which has not been demonstrated. Ergo, he's not asking a simple legitimate question, he's asking a leading one designed to promote his insane partisanship. And that deserves serious consideration? Sure, whatever... 410947[/snapback] So just because you claim to be nuetral you somehow get to pass judgement on others. Kiss my ass. It was a question, and jokers would rather have your little fun then simply engage in disucssion. That is always the way it has been here, and I guess it always will be. I asked the question the way i did because it appears that there is something being glossed over there. What the hell is so wrong with that? Friggin grow up and if you don't want to respond like a normal person then just shut the F#@k up. Your kind of ignorance and better then everyone else attitude is what is totally wrong with this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 It was a question, and jokers would rather have your little fun then simply engage in disucssion. . 411274[/snapback] No it wasn't, here are your exact words: "It clearly looks like this was white washed by the 9-11 commission. The question is why. Who or what were they protecting?" You first declared the commission to be guilty and only then did you ask a question looking for villains. You weren't looking to "simply engage in discussion" you were just launching another one of your patented partisan attacks at the first sign of an opening from some news story you read somewhere. You didn't even bother to research the story enough to see the ample evidence that in fact, it was the Pentagon in 2000 and 2001 (gee, who was Prez in 2001?) that really has some trouble here. The story is far too undeveloped to be throwing around declarations that "clearly" anybody did anything. If you want a "simple discussion", then why don't you leave out the kangaroo trial and verdict you conducted in your head declaring the 911 Comm. guilty of a cover-up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 There are no gray areas in using US Military Signals Intelligence collection assets to target US citizens. None. Data mining open source information on people who are not US citizens is quite different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 There are no gray areas in using US Military Signals Intelligence collection assets to target US citizens. None. Data mining open source information on people who are not US citizens is quite different. 411563[/snapback] And a discerning viewer might be able to glean info as to methods, from this latest 15 minutes of fame. Emphasis both on 15 minutes and discerning viewers. It may not be a SPECAT program now, but I bet it was then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 And a discerning viewer might be able to glean info as to methods, from this latest 15 minutes of fame. Emphasis both on 15 minutes and discerning viewers. It may not be a SPECAT program now, but I bet it was then. I can neither confirm nor deny anything else on the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 I can neither confirm nor deny anything else on the topic. 411604[/snapback] You might not have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts