Able Danger/Sandy Berger Connection?

I suspect Dr. Sanity may have something here, and IF she does – please note, I am saying IF – I hope the blogs pick it up and run with it, because I have no reason to believe – anymore – that the MSM will do its job and thoroughly investigate her ideas. If she is, in fact, correct, it is a story that demands bi-partisan, invective-free telling.

Dr. Sanity is talking about the revelation recently come to light that the CIA knew (and named) 9/11 terrorists in 2000, but due to the policies put into effect under the Clinton administration (a policy conceived and written by eventual 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick), that information was not shared with the FBI or other law-enforcement agencies.

“The Sept. 11 commission (search) did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell,” said Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. “Had we learned of it obviously it would’ve been a major focus of our investigation.”

Hamilton’s remarks Tuesday followed findings by Rep. Curt Weldon (search), R-Pa., vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, that made front-page news.

In June, Weldon displayed charts on the floor of the U.S. Senate showing that Able Danger identified the suspected terrorists in 1999. The unit repeatedly asked for the information to be forwarded to the FBI but apparently to no avail. Various news outlets picked up on the story this week.

Weldon told FOX News on Wednesday that staff members of the Sept. 11 commission were briefed at least once by officials on Able Danger, but that he does not believe the message was sent to the panel members themselves. He also said some phone calls made by military officials with Able Danger to the commission staff went unreturned.

“Why weren’t they briefed? Was there some deliberate attempt at the staff level of the 9/11 commission to steer the commissioners away from Able Danger because of where it might lead?” Weldon asked. “Why was there no mention of Able Danger?”

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Sept. 11 commission looked into the matter during its investigation of government missteps leading to the attacks and chose not to include it in the final report.
{….]
According to Weldon, Able Danger identified [Mohammed] Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi (search), Khalid al-Mihdar (search) and Nawaf al-Hazmi (search) as members of a cell Able Danger code-named “Brooklyn” because of some loose connections to New York City.
Weldon said that in September 2000, the unit recommended on three separate occasions that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI “so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists.” However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation, arguing that Atta and the others were in the country legally so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.

“Lawyers within the administration — and we’re talking about the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration — said ‘you can’t do it,'” and put post-its over Atta’s face, Weldon said. “They said they were concerned about the political fallout that occurred after Waco … and the Branch Davidians.”

American security…quite possibly sacrificed upon the altar of political expediency? I hope not.

Sanity takes this story and wonders if the disinterest and lack of information regarding Able Danger had anything to do with Sandy Berger taking top-secret documents out of the National Archives and ummm…”losing” them. (A story that lasted, what, three days in the press? Not like that giant national security issue involving the “outing” of CIA desk employee Valerie Plame! Do I sound bitter? I’m getting there!) Sanity writes:

Maybe I’m just paranoid, but I would really like to know what Berger knew about Able Danger; and if he wrote a memo, or signed off on one, that specifically related to Able Danger; and that prevented the dissemination of information that might have led to the arrest of the 9/11 hijackers before they could carry out their plans. And, could that memo–or copies–have been in the National Archives?

It is, of course, unlikely in the extreme that it still exists after his foray into the archives.

She has put together an interesting timeline regarding Berger, the 9/11 Commission and Able Danger, which you will want to ponder.

Sanity points out that Jamie Gorelick, who as I say, eventually sat on the 9/11 Commission, questioning everyone but herself, “was not only deputy attorney general of the United States under Clinton, a position she assumed in March 1994 and held until 1997; but from May 1993 until she joined the Justice Department, Gorelick also served as general counsel of the Department of Defense. These dates are not relevant except possibly to point out that Gorelick was familiar with and worked in the DoD. She is someone else that I have wished the press were more curious about.”

Indeed! Can we say “conflict of interest?” But yes…as I recall, many of us were saying “conflict of interest” during the Commission hearings, to no avail. The press certainly wasn’t saying it. Once again, we find ourselves wondering how the press – so quick to call President Bush “incurious” can be so routinely incurious about matters concerning folks on the left, like Sandy Berger (ho-ho, he put top-secret papers in his pants! That Sandy!), John Kerry (he’s a hero! Those 250 guys are NOT heros!), Air America (…the rest is silence) or even Bill and Hillary Clinton (Juanita Brodderick? Stale story! Cattle futures? That’s a stale story…)

Strata-Sphere has also been working on an interesting timeline, and more here and Jawa Report has this:

I do not blame the Clinton Administration for 9/11, nor do I think it was preventable in any meaningful way, but the so-called Able Danger revelations do raise some interesting issues.

The first is the most obvious, and that is the silliness of ever erecting a barrier between law-enforcement and intelligence agencies. In hindsight this was stupid. Some things are so stupid, though, that to need hindsight to see their stupidity one must first find a group of morons, take out the brightest of the bunch, and then find the dullest bulb in the pack. That it was enacted by Democratic Congress intent on reeling in the perceived excesses of the CIA is no excuse for this piece of legislation. Just. Plain. Dumb.

But it also raises another important question: Who was it that refused to turn over the Able Danger documents to the FBI?

According to the AP, the information was passed up the line, but that somewhere between the Army and the FBI the information was blocked. An individual, some actual person with a name and a face, had to look at this and say, “Nope. Can’t pass this along. It’s against policy.”

He links to a NEIN post also wondering whether Sandy Berger’s Archival Adventure has ABLE DANGER written all over it.

Jawa is cautious enough, and smart enough. to remind everyone that this is – at this point – nothing more than bloggy speculation, and he is absolutely right. But it is speculation that raises questions which do demand some answers. He also has lots of links.

Lawhawk wonders how this information suddenly came to light. That’s another good question, one of many good questions which deserve asking, and real answers.

I have no hopes at all that the MSM will look into Dr. Sanity’s timelines, or ask Jamie Gorelick a single question, but I really hope they will – I hope they will because once upon a time journalists were my heroes and I would like to see them regain some credibility. But more importantly, I hope they ask the questions because justice demands it. 3000 citizen, 1835 soldier and thousands of Iraqi souls demand it.

UPDATE: Well, this is pretty interesting! Ed Morrissey is first up with the NY Times report that the 9/11 Commission has reversed itself from its contention that it never heard of Able Danger, that in fact, they were briefed on it. A Commission spokesman said – get this – staff members who were briefed about Able Danger at a first meeting, in October 2003, did not remember hearing anything about Mr. Atta or an American terrorist cell.

Excuse me for being skeptical, but a Commission investigating 9/11 hears a report with the words ATTA and CELL and no one remembers it? I’m sorry, ding,ding,ding…I think that’s not quite believable.

Writes Ed: First we hear that no such meeting occurred. After that, the Commission says one might have occurred in October 2003 but that no one remembered it. Now we find out that the Commission had two meetings where the heard about Able Danger and its identification of Mohammed Atta, including one just before they completed their report. Instead of saying to themselves, “Hey, wait a minute — this changes the picture substantially,” and postponing the report until they could look further into Able Danger, they simply shrugged their shoulders and published what they had.

Why? Able Danger proved that at least some of the intelligence work done by the US provided the information that could have helped prevent or at least reduce the attacks on 9/11. They had identified the ringleader of the conspiracy as a terrorist agent, even if they didn’t know what mission he had at the time.

What does that mean for the Commission’s findings? It meant that the cornerstone of their conclusions no longer fit the facts.
…
The Commission spent yesterday claiming that the Pentagon never briefed them again on anything about Able Danger after the October 2003 meeting, saying in the Fox report that they pursued the documents from the Pentagon on the program — and that they received them, which the Pentagon confirms. Oddly, the words “Able Danger” appears nowhere in their final report despite the documents being in their hands. And now we have the Pentagon practically begging them on July 12, 2004, to put the Able Danger and the Atta information into the report, and the Commission refusing to do so.

Someone needs to answer questions, in front of Congress this time and not some pass-the-buck commission that tried to bury Able Danger the first time. Who made the decision to bury Able Danger? Why?

If you read the report, first the spokesman says they forgot, then he says the commission discounted the testimony because it didn’t jive with travel records, which it turns out is inconsequestial when the fact that information of the cell was still not passed on…then the spokesman says, welllll, there was a lot of information coming at the commission…they didn’t deliberately omit it, it just got lost in the cracks. (Paraphrase).

At best, incredibly sloppy. At worst, purposely omitted in order to protect a commission member who should have recused herself from sitting on the panel and instead been compelled to testify.

I think Rusty Shackleford is correct – all of this probably would NOT have prevented 9/11. But I also think Ed Morrissey is right, and that perhaps a Congressional Investigation should be mounted. I wonder if the GOP has the spine to call for one.

And errr…yes…I do commend the Times for publishing the story. Can anyone tell me what page it was on, though?

UPDATE: Jim Geraghty has some thoughts here. He notes that “clear-thinking” people will agree that there are questions needing answers, here. But I note, sadly, that some of the left-winged blogs are already dismissing the whole thing out of hand because – and this is so childish, but it’s the way it is – in their world, no negative questions or concerns can ever, ever, ever be directed toward the Clinton administration, and no positives can ever, ever, ever be attributed to the Bush administration. They have become so knee-jerk that they seem unable to treat as a legitimate issue the fact that the writer of the policy forbidding contact between the CIA and the FBI sat on the 9/11 Commission, and not before it. Michelle Malkin has more.

Bloggers following the story, Baldilocks, Tom McQuire, Hyscience, Betsy’s Page (she has a nice bit about Commission chair Hamilton’s feelings on this new revelation), Villainous Company, SCA, and Jimmie Bise, who couldn’t stay away from politics any better than I could! :-) Maxed Out Mama has a tremendous roundup.

WELCOME: Villainous Company readers! While you are here, please look around. Today we’re also talking about Cake and the Divine Spark, the idea that maybe Sandy Berger’s Pants hold the key to a mystery, Attorney General Eliot Spitzers seeming reluctance to talk to Air America, and a new book that takes on the Myth of Hitler’s Pope.