Updated and bumped to top:
Awright, awright…there’s just too much going on here, and it somehow all feels connected, but as you folks know, I am a tad dyslexic and when lots of similar things present themselves, I tend to get confused and lose track. I once taught religion to a class of 22 kids, which included two blonde girls, one Stacey, one Tracy. The whole year I never could keep them straight, poor things.
SO – I’m going to just throw these things at you, because they seem to all be of a similar nature, enough so that they’re screwing me up. It’s kind of like playing that “six degrees of Kevin Bacon” game, at which I also stank. I know you guys are smarter than me, anyway, so have at them!
1) State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996, somehow links in my mind to this statement by Bill Clinton in this article. My own recollection is that in the days following 9/11 President Clinton remarked that the minute he saw the WTC hit he said, “bin Laden has done this.” I am at a loss to understand why he did not seem to “know” this about the attack on the USS Cole and needed the “absolute” confirmation on that issue, before he could address it, but there it is.
2) All of THAT somehow brings me to thinking about all of this Able Danger stuff which, speaking of absolutes, we still can’t get a full and clear, absolute read on. BUT…if this fellow, Colonel Shaffer, is correct, then it really brings one’s attention to this Ed Morrissey post: Germans Uncovered Iraqi Spy Ring During 9/11 Planning, and his article here.
Why? Because Able Danger is related to Atta, is related to Atta w/ Iraqi sightings in Prague, is related to Iraqis in Germany, where Atta studied? See?
The common thread in all of this appears to be that none of it appeared in the 9/11 Commission’s report – not the Able Danger information (not even as a footnote), not the warning to the Clinton administration in 1996, not the arrests of two Iraqi spies in Heidelberg in February 2001. Or maybe the common thread is that in each case the CIA and FBI were not able to share information? Wouldn’t the State Dept. have conferred with the CIA on bin Laden’s whereabouts, even if the CIA could not then talk to the FBI?
It’s all very confusing. I’m getting a headache. And the one question I keep asking myself is – why are these stories suddenly breaking now? I mean, I’m glad they are – but the NY Times waited two weeks to write a word about Air America, and when it finally did, the piece was a half-baked rehash that still had inaccuracies. These are big stories that demand coverage…but I keep thinking – why now? To get the stories out there now, so they are “old news” in two or so years?
In the meantime, this is slightly off-topic, or maybe not if the Ed Morrissey piece is on to something and there is a stronger Iraq/AlQ connection than has been revealed, but someone sent it to me and it’s simply fascinating – a round-up by John Hawkins of all the folks who, between 1998 and 2003 thought Saddam needed taking out because of his WMD.
I know, I know, that last part is not fitting into the rest. But it’s there. Might as well read it!
The Corner (9/11 Commissions report mentions White’s memo thusly: In addition, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York [i.e., Mary Jo White] was given an opportunity to comment on the procedures. Yes. That’s all they wrote.
Ace of Spades HQ
Captains Quarters Blog
Mark in Mexico