Condi in Middle of Able Danger ‘Cover Up’

[amerfayed]

Weldon is now saying that the Pentagon cover up of able danger “will shake the country to its roots."

...

If the claims made by the Able Danger participants and Rep. Weldon are confirmed, former National Security Adviser Rice and other Bush Administration officials will face a barrage of questions. First would likely be an inquiry into why the administration unceremoniously axed the Able Danger project in May of 2001.

During an August 20th interview on C-Span’s Washington Journal, Able Danger member Lt. Col. Schaffer posed a question of his own:

"The American public should ask themselves: Why would the leadership of DoD shut down, terminate, a project which was aimed at targeting al-Qaeda offensively? ...

"Why would they shut that down, four months before 9/11? That’s the big question right now, we have to ask that. I don’t know the answer to that question because I know my side of the story, I know that when a 2 star general got in my face and said, “I’m a 2 star general and you are not. You are to stop your support of Able Danger.” That’s what I know personally. But the question has to be: Who told him to do that? ...

"And why did the rest of the project, I’m talking about Special Operations Command and the Army portion of this, why was that terminated?

"Those are the questions that need to be asked."


more...

http://www.theinternationalpost.com/z30082005.html

[babylonsister]

1. Couldn't happen to a nicer witch. I hope this does

get blown wide open!

[opihimoimoi]

3. Some kinda SECURITY ADVISOR she turned out to be....

"We had no idea they were going to use planes as bombs"......

[Boredtodeath]

2. The freepers are pushing this story

Because they believe it will put the blame for 9/11 on the Clinton Administration.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha, let's let them push it to the mainstream.

Wouldn't it be more than ironic if FAUX news broke the story which caused the Bush Administration to be impeached?

[rodeodance]

5. that was the initial reason. but seems to be backfiring if this story is

true.

[seemslikeadream]

8. Yes it would Able Danger IS Pandora's Box

Able Danger is Pandora's Box
http://www.utexas.edu.nyud.net:8090/courses/larrymyth/images/19-PandoraBox.jpg


Able Danger is a Pandora's Box that will blow up in the RW's face.
Re-open the 9/11 investigation? BRING IT ON! Here's why:

So the responsibility for stopping DIA program Able Danger, which had Identified Atta and 3 other hijackers and linked them to 56 other al-Queda terrorists overseas, has been laid at the feet of Bill Clinton--except he and Richard Clarke were never told about it at all.

That's right. Bill Clinton was never told about Able Danger and the ID of Atta because Richard Clarke was never told about AD. How do I know? He never wrote about it in his book, nor did he testify about it's existence before the 9-11 Commission!

You see Richard Clarke was known for being obsessed with Osama Bin Laden and HE was the guy the neo-con moles did not want to find out about Atta and the gang. Schoomaker and the neo-cons knew telling the FBI would inform Clarke and then Mr. Laser Beam himself, President of the United State William Jefferson Clinton, would have gotten involved--and the Pearl Harbor-type attack would never take place (the neo-cons talked about the need for a Pearl Harbor-type attack before the PNAC Plan would be accepted by the American people--so when one presented itself, they let it happen).

General Pete Schoomaker, who were later heavily rewarded by the neo-cons in the Bush Administration, blocked the upward motion of the DIA information by having Shaffer and Philpott meet with Pentagon lawyers opinions--lawyers who were rubberstamping ridiculous legal opinions to carry out the neo-con plan. These certain people were neo-cons in the Clinton Administration, covertly carrying out the PNAC plan to let a Pearl Harbor-type attack occur so Iraq and 6 other countries could be invaded.

more
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...




BUDDY BUDDY
http://www.gsnmagazine.com.nyud.net:8090/images/aug_05/atta.jpg
DO THE MATH

24 MINUTES

THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A MILITARY ORDER

http://www.bushflash.com/buddy.html

[electropop]

4. Another day, another horrifying scandal

that will barely get covered.

But it adds up. Bushitler will be impeached and out by August 2006.

[blm]

6. And why did they reject the HartRudman Report on Global Terror that was

handed to them on Jan 30, 2001?

The report was the result of an intense 2 1/2 year study that travelled around the globe and throughout this country, assessing the threat and proposing urgent measures for our homeland security.

What president and advisors would reject such an important study?

They should be jailed for criminal neglect.

[Felix Mala]

7. The NC's have been ginning up accusations against Clinton

in recent weeks. I suspect it's to deflect any bad news for the administration that might leak out of the "Able Danger" fiasco. Notice how there was two weeks of innuendo about Mohamed Atta, then someone else comes forward with more rumors.

In May of 2001, Cheney was directing an effort to make kissy face with the Taliban because his owners were quite anxious to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. It's well known that Afghanistan doesn't have such treasure beneath its dust, but few people realize that, just to the north, are thousands of square miles of Russian oil fields and all they needed was a way to get it to a port.

The Taliban was playing hard to get because they claimed the full weight of CIA and military intelligence was being put upon them and the FBI was hassling Muslim's in the US. In an effort to show their "good faith" in negotiations, the White House ordered the CIA, FBI and military to STAND DOWN. Gee, wouldn't Bush & Co. look bad if more people knew about that? Funny, that's just the sort of situation you get when you have people like Enron executives dictating your policies.

[The White Tree]

14. Interesting - See my post as well

They also received a warning (April 2001) just before they ordered the stand down from a former ally who was an enemy of the Taliban about an impending attack on US soil worse then the embassey bombings.

That's a chain of events that warrants a congressional investigation I would think. They should at least have to provide an explanation.

[NV Whino]

9. Fuck the questions

Throw her into the slammer.

[mod mom]

10. Question: Is Weldon (R-PA) pursuing this story as a patriot or because he

thinks it implicates the Clinton Administration (even though Richard Clark and others did not know of it, and it is assumed neither did Clinton Admin)?

[The White Tree]

11. Why they shut down Able Danger

I posted this on another thread in a response to someone this morning and I am starting to wonder more and more about it's relevance. it has to do with the assassination of the leader of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan - Ahmed Shah Masood, who was murdered by al-Queda suicide bombers on the Sunday before 9/11.

This is a CNN article from 2003 relating how the Pentagon released a cable at that time that showed that Shah Massoud had warned the US through a European conference about an impending attack on US soil.

<http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/11/06/massoud.cable/ >

It was based on an interview with a classified source and reads:

"Through Northern Alliance intelligence efforts, the late commander Massoud gained limited knowledge regarding the intentions of the Saudi millionaire, Usama bin Laden and his terrorist organization, al-Qaida, to perform a terrorist act against the U.S., on a scale larger than the 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania."

The heavily edited DIA document does not specify what it meant by "limited knowledge," and the portion that follows the reference is blacked out.

It continues by referring to a speech Massoud gave to the European Parliament in April 2001 in which the cable says he "warned the US government" about bin Laden. Massoud was on a diplomatic trip to Europe seeking financial support for his cause from the EU and individual countries.

These comments were in my original post:

Massoud was our ally against the Soviet Union when they invaded Afghanistan (Bin Laden was as well). Had he lived he would have likely been the ruler of Afghanistan today. However, when he warned the US in April we refused to listen to him because the Bush administration likely did not want to get involved in Afghanistan. At the same time Bush Administration officials from what I've read were essentially at work on PNAC plans for regime-change in Iraq.

So to sum up: in April we were warned by a former ally, who we apparently didn't trust, about an attack being planned in the US by Bin Laden. Our action at that time was to shut down the military program that was trying to track al-queda terrorists entering the US. Are they related? I don't know but it certainly seems to be a strange coincidence.


:hide:

[jsamuel]

12. bam!

[Imagevision]

13. Able Danger was designed to take light off Cindy period.

Notice the coverage it's had....lately?? If Cartrina was happening at the time, it never would have gotten off the ground.

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

[jsamuel]

15. I don't think so, I think this could lead us to understand how 9/11 happen

ed