From the New York Times:
An active-duty Navy captain has become the second military officer to come forward publicly to say that a secret intelligence program tagged the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks as a possible terrorist more than a year before the attacks.
The officer, Scott J. Phillpott, said in a statement on Monday that he could not discuss details of the military program, which was called Able Danger, but confirmed that its analysts had identified the Sept. 11 ringleader, Mohamed Atta, by name by early 2000. "My story is consistent," said Captain Phillpott, who managed the program for the Pentagon's Special Operations Command. "Atta was identified by Able Danger by January-February of 2000."
His comments came on the same day that the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, told reporters that the Defense Department had been unable to validate the assertions made by an Army intelligence veteran, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, and now backed up by Captain Phillpott, about the early identification of Mr. Atta.
Colonel Shaffer went public with his assertions last week, saying that analysts in the intelligence project were overruled by military lawyers when they tried to share the program's findings with the F.B.I. in 2000 in hopes of tracking down terrorist suspects tied to Al Qaeda.
Mr. Di Rita said in an interview that while the department continued to investigate the assertions, there was no evidence so far that the intelligence unit came up with such specific information about Mr. Atta and any of the other hijackers.
The Defense Department has found no evidence SO FAR.
He said that while Colonel Shaffer and Captain Phillpott were respected military officers whose accounts were taken seriously, "thus far we've not been able to uncover what these people said they saw - memory is a complicated thing."
Sure, memory can be complicated. Cover-ups can be complicated, too.
The statement from Captain Phillpott , a 1983 Naval Academy graduate who has served in the Navy for 22 years, was provided to The New York Times and Fox News through the office of Representative Curt Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican who is vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a longtime proponent of so-called data-mining programs like Able Danger.
Asked if the Defense Department had questioned Captain Phillpott in its two-week-old investigation of Able Danger, another Pentagon spokesman, Maj. Paul Swiergosz, said he did not know.
"I don't know."
Swiergosz should find out and so should the New York Times.
Representative Weldon also arranged an interview on Monday with a former employee of a defense contractor who said he had helped create a chart in 2000 for the intelligence program that included Mr. Atta's photograph and name.
The former contractor, James D. Smith, said that Mr. Atta's name and photograph were obtained through a private researcher in California who was paid to gather the information from contacts in the Middle East. Mr. Smith said that he had retained a copy of the chart until last year and that it had been posted on his office wall at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. He said it had become stuck to the wall and was impossible to remove when he switched jobs.
In its final report last year, the Sept. 11 commission said that American intelligence agencies were unaware of Mr. Atta until the day of the attacks.
The leaders of the Sept. 11 commission acknowledged on Aug. 12 that their staff had met with a Navy officer last July, 10 days before releasing the panel's final report, who asserted that a highly classified intelligence operation, Able Danger, had identified "Mohamed Atta to be a member of an Al Qaeda cell located in Brooklyn."
But the statement, which did not identify the officer, said the staff determined that "the officer's account was not sufficiently reliable to warrant revision of the report or further investigation" and that the intelligence operation "did not turn out to be historically significant."
With his comments on Monday, Captain Phillpott acknowledged that he was the officer who had briefed the commission last year. "I will not discuss the issues outside of my chain of command and the Department of Defense," he said. "But my story is consistent. Atta was identified by Able Danger by January-February of 2000. I have nothing else to say."
An ACTIVE-DUTY officer has come forward to corroborate the claims made earlier by Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer.
Able Danger identified Mohamed Atta in early 2000.
If it was revealed that an intelligence operation had cited Atta as an al Qaeda member while Bush was in office, the mainstream media would be in full drool mode right now.
The headlines would scream, "HE KNEW."
Instead, because Clinton was in the White House at the time, there's barely a whimper about Able Danger from the liberal media.
Shaffer, Phillpott, and also former contractor James D. Smith are all making the same claims. Atta had been identified as an enemy of the U.S. well over a year before the 9/11 attacks and nothing was done about it.
Able Danger is not going away. The only question now is how long the liberal media will continue to relegate the story to the back pages, with its "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" act.
As more members of Able Danger go on the record, it will be harder for the Left to ignore them.
Has anyone in the press asked Hillary Clinton to comment on Able Danger?
4 comments:
I have no love for Bill Clintonm but really, even if he did know that there was an al-Qaida cell in America on his watch, could he have known what they were planning?
And if he could, could he have stopped it?
And if he had directed Atta and the other known operatives to be arrested or deported etc. couldn't al-Qaida simply installed replacements easily?
What I am saying is that there is little or no likelihood of preventing the attack on America on 9/11.
Besides, Clinton was too busy trying to extricate himself from several scandals during his administration. It is a wonder he got anything done in his capacity as president with all the distractions.
I agree Mark.....And we all know I'm no Bubba apologist.
We need to move forward, and we need to never turn back to the bad ol' days --> 9/10/01!!!!
There's plenty of blame to go around.........Unfortunately, I'm not sure we've completely learned this lesson yet, and will have to take another hit before we pull our heads out.
I think it's impossible to know what would have happened if the findings of Able Danger had been given attention.
Al Qaeda was going to hit us. If not Atta, it would have been someone else.
However, these revelations should silence those seeking to place ALL of the blame for 9/11 on the Bush administration.
They knew far before 2000. The FBI already knew thats why they didnt listen to Able Danger.
Post a Comment