From the following link http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/abledanger.asp



Questions for debate:

1. Given these new revelations, do you believe that the 9/11 attacks were preventable? Why or why not?

2. Do you agree with the insinuation that the Atta terrorist cell was not investigated by the FBI for "political reasons" related to the 2000 presidential election?

2. Is there an ongoing cover up relating to the incompetence/inaction of former high ranking Clinton administration officials (to include Sandy Berger, Janet Reno and their subordinates ) with regards to the 9/11 attacks and Able Danger's recommendations?

1. The 9/11 attacks were preventable from a number of perspectives. If the previous president would have taken Bin Laden seriously after the Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings, and the attempted sinking of the USS Cole, and would have eliminated Bin Laden when he had multiple chances, rather than refuse to act because a golf tourney was on TV was occupying his focus.... and if his attorney general, and her assistant would not have been so insistent on creating the intelligence "wall" between the FBI and other agencies.... and if 8 years of Clinton "cut and run when confronted" had been reversed... There were many ways that 9/11 could have been prevented.

2. No question about it. The FBI dropped the ball and the Clinton administration set them up for failure through "the wall".

3. There is an ongoing cover-up that the press has been largely ignoring. What exactly do you think Sandy Berger was shoving in his pants and socks with respect to classified "notes"? Why was he so intent on destroying notes related to 9/11? This is a huge scandal that the press has been disinterested in since it doesn't play into their hate Bush agenda or warrant bumping Sheehan or Holloway off the front pages. The Clinton administration was incompetent for 8 years when it came to our national security. Yet, they continue to spin their record and the press, who are largely pro-democrat, just play along.

Sorry for the short post here, but I thought people would like a link to more info on the subject.

I am trying to remain neutral with this one as I look into it more. There is a lot of information on this all of the sudden, so it will likely be late this weekend before I get back to this topic.

However, I found that Michelle Malkin has I nice round-up on this issue that people interested in it might like to review. There she links several news paper stories, blog stories, and other link round-ups. It's worth a look.

1. Given these new revelations, do you believe that the 9/11 attacks were preventable? Why or why not?

Hindsight is 20/20. Before 9/11 Terrorism was not the number one priority of the government. This is not Clinton, Bush, or Reagan’s fault in particular. It was the entire government’s fault.

2. Do you agree with the insinuation that the Atta terrorist cell was not investigated by the FBI for "political reasons" related to the 2000 presidential election?

Again, I am very conservative, but trying to blame Clinton for 9/11 is just ridiculous. The chief priority of the US government is to protect us from what happened that day. Our government is FAR too large to pin 20 years of policy on one man.


3. Is there an ongoing cover up relating to the incompetence/inaction of former high ranking Clinton administration officials (to include Sandy Berger, Janet Reno and their subordinates ) with regards to the 9/11 attacks and Able Danger's recommendations?

I think what is being exposed now is the bad timing of the 9/11 commission. There is no way it should have taken place in an election year. There is one thing Republicans and Democrats agree on… protecting their jobs at all cost. During an election year neither side was particularly interested at getting to the bottom of what happened because they are BOTH responsible.

Anyone that what's to turn this into a finger pointing session is no better than the bureaucrats that helped 9/11 happen.

1.) Was the incident at Roswell, New Mexico actually a crashed weather ballon? Like Roswell, I do not think we will ever know for certain if September the Eleventh was or was not preventable.

2.) I do not, I think Clinton was simply holding to his guns and abiding by his Justice Department's policy.

3.) Well, I certainly think they know something the general public does not. And I most certainly agree that the attacks may have been prevented or put off for some time if the administration had taken the reigns and broken policy and investigated the supposed (later proven) terrorist.

1. Given these new revelations, do you believe that the 9/11 attacks were preventable? Why or why not?

I don't believe there are any new revelations. The story originated with Rep. Curt Weldon. Recently, Weldon told Time magazine that he is no longer certain Atta’s name was on that original document.

Furthermore, the oft-mentioned "wall" was created during the Reagan administration, and renewed in 2001.

And, according to a 1995 DOJ memo, Gorelick intended to enable sharing between the agencies.

The revelation we ought to be discussing is whether or not Weldon is a liar. It appears that he is.

2. Do you agree with the insinuation that the Atta terrorist cell was not investigated by the FBI for "political reasons" related to the 2000 presidential election?

Don't know. I haven't seen any evidence that it might be true.

3. Is there an ongoing cover up relating to the incompetence/inaction of former high ranking Clinton administration officials (to include Sandy Berger, Janet Reno and their subordinates ) with regards to the 9/11 attacks and Able Danger's recommendations?

No, what we're experiencing is an attempt to smear Clinton, and to divert attention away from the current administration, which is equally at fault. It's just astounding to me that according to so many, only members of one party are always at fault.

This is my first post on the forums, though I've read them for a long time.
----

1. Given these new revelations, do you believe that the 9/11 attacks were preventable? Why or why not?

I don't think these revelations prove that 9/11 could have been prevented. Someone would still have to make some leaps in judgement and actually know what was being planned. The sheer scale of the attack leads me to believe that even if one or two of the terrorists were detained prior to the attack, the chances are the attack would have still happened.

The holes between the intelligence agencies had been widening for decades, and our abilities to act/react were eroding, imo, which made it easier for people out to do us harm to accomplish their goals. The simple fact that such an attack took place proves this.

2. Do you agree with the insinuation that the Atta terrorist cell was not investigated by the FBI for "political reasons" related to the 2000 presidential election?

Everything that goes on in DC is political and is effected by politics. I would not venture to guess that the reasons are directly related to the election, but I have no doubts that if the DoD/CIA/FBI/etc did not share this information and follow up on leads that it was directly politically related.

3. Is there an ongoing cover up relating to the incompetence/inaction of former high ranking Clinton administration officials (to include Sandy Berger, Janet Reno and their subordinates ) with regards to the 9/11 attacks and Able Danger's recommendations?

No, I don't believe that for one second. The risks of running coverups is greater that the risks of making poor decisions. I try to go by Ockums Razor.

According to this article in the Washington Times, there appears to be a contradiction. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040429-122228-6538r.htm





Think what you will about smear tactics, but the vast right wing conspiracy wasn't the entity that was "literally" caught with his pants down trying to smuggle out classified documents from the National Archive. I am curious as to how you explain away this strange and criminal behavior on the part of a former National Security Advisor? Just what WAS he doing if not trying to cover up his (and possibly others) incompetence/inaction related to the 9/11 attacks?

Niftydrifty, you mistake the motivation (or are guilty of the same thing yourself...you make the call). There has been a concerted attempt from the left to solely blame the current administration. Any object examination of the time frame of events concerning Al Queda and the speed with which a new administation can make sweeping changes in governmental policy would indicate that the onus of responsibility for 9-11 came before Bush was ever in office. That is simply a fact. It is those on the left that consistently place the blame in only one place...this is simply an attempt to correct that false impression. I am curious though...exactly what response you might have to the act Ringwraith refers to:



If you want to be amazed at something....why not direct a little indignation towards a former National Security Advisor so blatantly mistreating and destroying classified documents relating to 9-11? Why do something so blatant if what was destroyed didn't require such drastic actions? I notice an amazing absence of postings here from those on the other side of the fence...that silence says a lot, I think. It seems that further investigation into 9-11 is only called for if it places blame on the current administration....facts that point any place else are either disregarded or minimized. Which ignores the time frame involved, as I said above. I say that not to bash Clinton, but because it is fact. If it were a conservative in office during that time..the same facts would hold. Nor do I claim that a conservative President might not have made the same decisions, and similarly been at fault in preventing 9-11 from happening. But there's only one reason to try to minimize Clinton's role in events...and that reason is pure partisanship. Funny...isn't partisanship what they keep saying needs to be taken out of the investigations? Apparently only when it benefits them....

As was discussed here when this originally broke, this was - and remains - a non-story. On Sept. 2, 2003, Berger took a copy - not an original, a copy - of the Clarke report from the National Archive to study it in preparation for his testimony. He put it in his suit jacket pocket, not his underwear or socks (this lie has been floated by wingnut bloggers since the day this "story" broke). A month later, he returned to the National Archive and brought home another four copies - not originals, copies - and brought them home for study. On finding that these four versions of the report were virtually identical, he cut three of them up and threw them away. The remaining copy and the copy from September 2 were returned. The originals never left the National Archives and are presumably still there and always have been.

I stated in the original thread:
Berger has plead guilty to misdemeanor charges of mishandling government documents - and there's still no story.

Given these new revelations, do you believe that the 9/11 attacks were preventable? Why or why not?

I have always believed that the September 11 attack was preventable. Yes, there were intelligence failures during the Clinton administration - such as the Able Danger information about the "Brooklyn Cell" not being passed from the Pentagon to the White House. But the Clinton administration still did more than the Reagan administration and both Bush administrations combined in an effort to stop al-Qaeda - with a large measure of success, despite the fact that Congress was far more interested in Monica Lewinski than Osama bin Laden. The fact remains that the Clinton strategy - and the recommendations of people like Berger and Clarke - were utterly ignored by the second Bush administration - until after September 11, 2001, when they were fully implemented. Had it not been for the groundwork laid by Clinton and his advisors, the current administration would have been totally helpless after the attack. Had they acted on strategies that had already been formulated and in place when they took office and the intelligence that had been accumulated (even as late as August, 2001), the attack could easily have been prevented.

In any event, the 9/11 Commission had been aware of the Able Danger program and requested and obtained information about it from the Department of Defense, but felt that the information didn't warrant further investigation. This is not, apparently, a "new revelation" at all - and had nothing to do with Berger.

Do you agree with the insinuation that the Atta terrorist cell was not investigated by the FBI for "political reasons" related to the 2000 presidential election?

I have seen no foundation for this. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer claims that meetings he tried to set up with the FBI were blocked by military lawyers. It would be difficult for the FBI to investigate something they didn't know about.

Is there an ongoing cover up relating to the incompetence/inaction of former high ranking Clinton administration officials (to include Sandy Berger, Janet Reno and their subordinates) with regards to the 9/11 attacks and Able Danger's recommendations?

The "ongoing cover-up" in relation to the September 11 attack is the amount that the Clinton administration had done over the course of eight years to thwart and weaken al-Qaeda, the number of other attacks they did stop, the number of cells they successfully broke up in over twenty countries, and the amount of intelligence gathered and groundwork laid that could have prevented the attack had it been acted on in 2001 - but that, presumably, is the stuff of another thread. Sure, blame can be laid - but credit should also be given. And a bit of objectivity would be refreshing.

Let's see - he STOLE classified documents, then went back 3 or 4 weeks later and STOLE more copies, but it's no big deal because he put them in his suit jacket, not his socks like "wingnut bloggers" said. Your idea of national security is a little different from mine. Why do you suppose he was removing this memo? To hide Clarke's and his own role in 1997, turning down Sudan's offer to turn over Bin Laden perhaps?
Washington Times Link




As you stated in the original thread - move on, nothing to see here
...which is a little different from "Sandy Berger has plead guilty to charges, is paying a fine and losing his security clearance for 3 years." Just sayin'

And yes, the documents he took home were "virtually identical." As a former NSA, he knew (and confessed) that removing them (and destroying them) was a crime. What are the odds that these memos as printed were identical, but they had margin notes or highlighting made by their readers (Clinton? Clarke?) which could have been very interesting for the 9/11 commission to see. Of course, we'll never know. link



Somehow I suspect that you'd not be so quick to dismiss Condi Rice borrowing and shredding multiple copies of a classified document. As far as Berger, I'd have to agree with lordhelmet - A former NSA stealing and destroying documents from an archive sounds mighty conspiratorial to me, no matter which administration he / she works for.

1. Given these new revelations, do you believe that the 9/11 attacks were preventable? Why or why not?No I don't. Something would still have happened - maybe not the towers on 9/11 but something bad. As much blame as lies at the feet of mssrs Clinton and Bush, I do not believe that they could have prevented this. Yes, "the wall" was an impediment, but not insurmountable. It's more a confluence of factors - attitudes, structures, laws, human nature, etc. Maybe (huge maybe) getting Bin Laden in 1997 would have helped, but we'll never know.

Even if we prevented this specific act, it would have taken another huge wake-up to prompt more serious action like the PATRIOT Act. Forget Atta, even if we captured / killed Bin Laden, as we see his organization evolves to meet their needs. All we can do is 'better' but I doubt it will ever be perfect.

Wertz, you can't reasonably give Clinton all this credit without also pointing out the failings. I would think you would appreciate that giving Clinton credit for laying groundwork but failing to actually implement any of it would be a particularly tenuous limb to climb out on. The timeframe clearly delineates where responsibility could lie, if placing blame is the object (for me, it's not....that goes for both Bush and Clinton). The WTC was a known target in 1993, and Al Queda came into prominence even earlier and conducted several attacks during the 90's, so Clinton had most of his two terms to deal with this issue. Bush had only been in office a few months. Further, consider that the planning for the 911 attacks had been going on for several years. Personally, I don't hold either one of them responsible...but if blame is to be placed, it seems pretty apparent where logic would dictate that most of it should go.

You can dramatize and spin all you like, but you will never make a mountain out of this molehill. On one of the rare occasions that I've agreed with Aquilla, he explained, quite fairly , in that same thread that, when virtually everything one handles is "classified" on some level, it becomes part of the background noise:
I agreed with him then and I agree with him now. Sure, Berger "intended" to take copies with him - but he did not intend to breach national security for some nefarious end.


I suppose he was removing the memo for the reasons he stated. He wanted to go over it and make notes before testifying. Sounds like what just about anyone who wanted to provide clear, accurate testimony would do. For what it's worth, "Sudan's offer" was nonexistent and the offer made by a Sudanese businessman (now working for Fox News) on behalf of the country was spurious. That's all been thoroughly addressed elsewhere - and is the stuff of another thread anyway, if you really feel like beating a decomposing horse.

As to your asking whether I'd be "so quick to dismiss Condi Rice borrowing and shredding multiple copies of a classified document", I would think so, yes. If it were a matter of Dr. Rice shredding copies of documents rather than the documents themselves - as was the case here - I doubt it would ever become newsworthy in the first place. No one on the left could be bothered so contorting such a relatively innocent act to try to drum up a non-existent horror story. But if she did shred some copies and left the originals in the National Archives where anyone with the appropriate clearance could still go in and take a look, I would hope that I'd have the same level of objectivity in relation to her that Aquilla demonstrated in relation to Berger. I don't have to ask what your reaction would be if someone who was not a full-time Bush sycophant shredded a few copies of extant documents - you've made that abundantly clear.


You are quoting a news headline that I cited in that thread, you are not quoting me. If you would like to take issue with the coverage of the resolution at that time, feel free. But don't try to distort what I've actually posted. It is neither becoming nor worthy.


Please cite a source for Sandy Berger "confessing" that destroying the copies was a crime. All I've seen is an admission that removing copies (and leaving originals behind) was a misdemeanor. Nice try.


Of course we'll know - the originals of the documents were untouched and are still sitting there in the National Archives. If there was anything significant in the various versions of the memos, we'd already know - the "blame America's ex-President first" crowd would have made sure of that ages ago. Instead, all they can do is conjure up cloak and dagger images of some guy stuffing pages with TOP SECRET stamped all over them into his jockeys. I suppose it makes up for not having a real story. But the article that you cited by way of demonstrating that - of course - "we'll never know" states (in pretty plain English, I might add) "Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost." One more time: NO ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WERE LOST. Statements don't come much more unequivocal than that. Ready to run those socks and shorts through the spin cycle one more time? Good luck.



Um... that's what I meant by "Yes, there were intelligence failures during the Clinton administration" and - in the paragraph you quoted - "Sure, blame can be laid."


If that were the case, yeah. But he did implement it. He thwarted plots to kill the Pope, to blow up twelve US passenger planes simultaneously, to attack the United Nations Headquarters, the FBI building, the Israeli Embassy in Washington, the Boston and LA airports, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, and the George Washington Bridge. He helped break up al-Qaeda cells in twenty countries, he created a national stockpile of vaccines against biological weapons, he created a top level national security post to coordinate counter-terrorist activity among various federal departments, he doubled the counter-terrorism budget overall, and tripled the counter-terrorism budget for the FBI. And, I might add, he captured, tried, convicted, and imprisoned those responsible for the 1993 WTC attack.

Unfortunately, the strategy that would have completely dismantled al-Qaeda and ensured that the September 11 attack would have been prevented was not completed until December of 2000 - which didn't leave Clinton much time to "implement" it. But you can be sure that Al Gore would have. For that matter, Clinton organized ten briefing sessions between Sandy Berger, Condoleezza Rice, and Stephen Hadley (which were presumably forgotten immediately) and had Richard Clarke present his strategy to both Rice and Cheney within their first ten days in office (which was, again, ignored). But you can be damned sure that if Clinton had still been in office (or had Gore been in office) that the August 6, 2001, PDB would not have been utterly disregarded in order to clear more brush in Crawford. On the contrary, a responsible administration would have acted - just as Clinton did, to cite but a single example, in December of 1999 when he put national security forces on high alert and prevented Ahmed Ressam's conspiracy to bomb the Los Angeles Airport.

You are too right: the timeframe does delineate where responsibility lies. It lies with the failure to implement the strategy completed in December 2000. It lies with those who totally ignored their terrorism czars, their briefings, the warnings of their allies, and the successful strategies that were already in place. it does not lie with those who have a demonstrable history of acting to prevent terrorist attacks.

Could Clinton have done even more than he managed to do despite the constant distractions from a Congress with a vendetta? Sure. But did he do thousands of times more during his time in office than Bush has done during his time in office? You bet your life. Literally.

I've been willing to entertain the notion that there was partial responsibility for the failure to competently address potential terrorist attacks against the US spread over the last several administrations, but you know what? I just don't believe it. And I have yet to see any convincing evidence that I should believe it.

And all of this ongoing nonsense about Berger and Able Danger and photocopies stuffed in socks is so much smoke and mirrors to cover up the FACT that George W Bush and his ace team of advisors did nothing - nothing - that they should have done to prevent the September 11 attack and ignored those like Clinton, Berger, Clarke, and the Hart-Rudman Committee who had done something and wanted even more done. It's sickening. And sick.

Yes, I've made my point abundantly clear. The freaking National Security Advisor should not take classified terrorism memos out of the freaking National Archive and sneak them past security in his coat pocket. At the least, it looks really really bad and at worst, it's evidence that he was covering up for something. Which we'll never know because he shredded them with scissors.

If / when Condi Rice steal and destroys, um, "copies" of classified documents and shreds them with scissors, I'll of course hold you to your offer and expect you to "move on" - thanks.

As to "He's not a spy or a criminal" - when you confess to a crime, it makes you a criminal. Again, just sayin'.
Your original, undistorted post is below. It readds as all your posts tended to read - it's a non-story, manufactured scandal, etc. Feel free to quibble, but you said then and you are saying now that the NSA stealing classified documents and destroying them is a "manufactured" scandal. Which leaves me speechless.


Again, tell me why a National Security Advisor stealing and lying is a non-story again?
ap link


But why would someone steal multiple copies of the SAME DOCUMENT? That makes no sense. That makes my friend Wertz say "no story here." Well, as I said:


And you reply "stop looking for conspiracies - these are identical copies!"


While I appreciate your confidence that the "blame Clinton" crowd would have informed me of significant changes, The Washington Post tells me that there are "versions" and "variations," and it gets me thinking.

Why did he destroy with scissors 3 versions (not "copies") of a document that he removed from the archives? Because as the document "moved around different agencies of the executive branch" it was either changed or it was annotated. My bet is that it was annotated, like a memo that has a routing on it and different officials made comments in the margins. Or, one could reasonably guess that it contained some embarassing wording that Berger didn't want to see the light of day. Again, we'll never know, because Berger shredded them. In any case, I'm believing the Post story over your snipped version - these were different versions, NOT "copies."

Why do I care about this? Because it's the only logical explanation for the NSA knowingly committing a crime - to protect himself or his boss. Laziness or carelessness may explain removing them, but it sure as hell doesn't explain destroying them. And, if they were all "identical" copies, why would he have gone back a month later to get the rest of them? Committing what he knew to be a second crime?


It was a nice try indeed. Thanks.


So, it's illegal to take them, it's illegal to keep them, but you are saying that destroying them is OK? Maybe it's something in the water this morning, but I'm channeling Vincent Vega talking about hash bars again. By the way, even the handwritten notes in his pockets were illegal. Which he certainly knew.

Whether there were significant, incriminating or otherwise interesting changes to these versions of a memo, it's not Sandy Berger's job to destroy them for me. I'd rather have my 9/11 commission find out themselves and decide it its relevant.

And here we partially agree, since you've kindly agreed that the prior administration shares the blame. Ignoring Hart / Rudman was criminal in hindsight, but we all have 20/20 hindsight. Another reason we shouldn't be stealing documents from the National Archive.

Wertz,

You are still performed a very biased analysis of the situation. I am not discounting the things Clinton did...but there is a glaring omission in your post of the things he didn't do. He had a chance to take custody of UBL from Sudan...but didn't. The attacks on the US embassies and the U.S.S. Cole should have escalated Al Queda out of the ranks of a police matter, but they did not. Further, I find it difficult for any objective analysis to excuse the actions taken by Sandy Berger. You claim above that a little objectivity would be refreshing, and I agree. But it is missing from your own posts.

However, I don't want this thread to turn into a he-said, she-said discussion of events. All of these things have been discussed elsewhere. As I said in my initial post, I am not seeking to blame Clinton. I think he took actions he truly believed to be in the best interest of the country on these matters. Hindsight might indicate otherwise, but that is really irrelevant to the discussion. I fail to see, though, why that same concept only applies to administrations in line with one's particular party affiliation. Al Queda grew into the force it did during Clinton's administration. That is undeniable. There really isn't anything to debate about it.

Point of information for carlitoswhey: For the third time (fourth, if you include the article you cited), Berger removed no originals from the National Archives. All five "versions" of the memo that he took with him - including whatever potentially revealing "variations" they may have contained - still exist. Every single one of them. You are quite wrong to characterize them as "3 variations (not 'copies')". They were copies - COPIES of the five versions, COPIES of the memos with whatever variations they may include. Not originals, copies. Not originals, copies. Not originals, COPIES.



No, he didn't. That story is a myth. A proffer was made by Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani investment banker with a stake in Sudanese oil, who had nothing to do with the Sudanese government. Even if Sudan had backed up the offer (which it didn't), this was 1996 - and the US would have had no grounds for detaining bin Laden. Sean Hannity can repeat this story until he's blue in the face. That doesn't make it true.


Yes, they did. That was the whole purpose of the strategy completed on December 20, 2000. It included breaking up al-Qaeda cells around the world (including the US) and arresting their personnel, attacking financial support for terrorist organizations and freezing al-Qaeda's assets, bulking up support for the Afghan Northern Alliance, putting Special Forces troops on the ground in Afghanistan, eliminating the training camps, and reaching Osama bin Laden himself (Clinton had already signed an assassination order for bin Laden following the embassy bombings in 1998 - at the same time he was ordering missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan). Now maybe you consider all of that "policing". I don't. For the record, I would have questioned some of the tenets of that strategy (as I did some of Clinton's other "police" actions), but it could well have prevented the September 11 attack, had it been implemented (as it would have been by Al Gore) rather than ignored (as it was by Rice, Hadley, Cheney, and Bush).

Now, maybe Gore wouldn't have had enough of it implemented by early September, 2001 - we'll never know - but definitely wouldn't have been accused of doing zilch. And he would certainly have responded to the PDB of August 10 (not to mention the dozens of other warnings) with more than hedge clippers on a Texas ranch.


I'm not excusing it. Perhaps I should have reiterated my position from the original thread. Removing copies of documents from the National Archive is illegal and he shouldn't have done it. I do not, however, believe he did so with any criminal intent - and certainly not to destroy evidence or whatever the hell some people here are trying to allege. Indeed, the allegation is absurd: the originals of the documents are intact, along with anything in them that might possibly be "incriminating".


I have no party affiliation - and no particular fondness for the Clinton administration. To me, it has nothing to do with partisanship. It has to do with action and inaction. Period.


Actually, it started "growing" even earlier - and I am certainly not denying that al-Qaeda has a long history. However, the fact that Clinton did take action, as you say, is also undeniable. The same goes for the fact that the Bush administration did not - even though many were trying to get them to do so as a matter of urgency. One administration acted, the next didn't. If it had, the September 11 attack could have been prevented. That's all I'm saying.

Your own article indicates that there was no confirmation Berger knew that they were copies. In my office, if I send a memo to 5 people, I tend to make make 7 copies, send it to them with their names highlighted. I often get hand-written notes back from them "you're an idiot carlito - great idea carlito - let's bomb syria carlito" which in hindsight would be interesting reading. Sometimes I keep my copy and write on that with people's feedback from voice mail or whatever "boss called re: this - says delete line 3." I have an idea the White House is similar. Whatever. The former national security advisor stealing COPIES of classified documents and shredding them with scissors is not news, and a manufactured scandal. Great. Got it. Good thing his clearance was only revoked for 3 years, he'll be able to serve in Hillary's cabinet.


The Clinton sycofants at mediamatters.org make the same point you do. Myth is a pretty strong word do use for what Clinton actually said and doesn't deny saying. After the tape came out, Bill Clinton (in full spin damage control mode) went on CNN and said that he misspoke.

If an impeached philandering liar saying so is enough for you to denouce something as a 'myth,' OK. Some of us are a little more skeptical. Perhaps Clinton was only talking smack in the tape, which seems true to form, but it's a bizarre statement to make in the days of the 9/11 commission.

No one is denying that there might have been marginal notes, additions, deletions or whatever on the various versions of the memo. What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that the National Archives keeps two sets of documents (at least). The originals, replete with marginal notes, additions, deletions, whatever, and copies of those originals replete with copies of those marginal notes, additions, deletions, whatever.

Let's use your office example, carlito. You make seven copies. Fine. Someone writes "great idea carlito" on one of them and you write "boss called re: this - says delete line 3" on another. Fine. Eventually, the National Archives gathers all seven copies with the "great idea" and "boss called" notes already on them. Still with me? Later, someone goes to the Archives and requests the memo. He or she is given copies. One copy may have the "great idea" note - another may have the "boss called" note. I doesn't matter a damn what you do with those copies because the originals - including the "great idea" and "boss called" notes - STILL EXIST in the Archives. Nothing - nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing - was destroyed except dispensable copies. Most likely, had Berger simply returned the copies, the Archives personnel would have destroyed them themselves. The next time someone requested them they would have made new copies - with the "great idea" and or "boss called" notes on them.

All that the Archives spokespeople said was that they didn't know whether Berger was aware of the fact that he was looking at copies. Someone who can't tell the difference between, say, ball-point pen ink and toner in a marginal note is chronically stupid. Sandy Berger is not. It also indicates that such a person would be totally unfamiliar with standard operating procedure at the National Archives. I suspect that Sandy Berger is not.


Clinton was not my source. I have no idea what mediamatters.org's' source was. Maybe it was me. In any event, this is all detailed in Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. His sources are Sandy Berger and Daniel Benjamin, both of whom confirm that the source was Mansoor Ijaz. What Clinton said was "Mr. Bin Laden used to live in Sudan ... And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again." Quite right: "we'd been hearing" - but not from the Sudanese government, from a Pakistani-American businessman with an interest in Sudanese oil and no authority whatsoever to speak on behalf of the Sudanese government. Sean Hannity's claim that the Clinton administration was "offered Osama bin Laden by the Sudanese government" isn't a myth, it's a LIE.

As I've said in both threads relating to the top secret underwear scandal, yes, Berger removing the documents was illegal - and it is more than just that he is being penalized for it. Like Clinton and the non-existent Sudan offer, though, Berger's illegal removal of the memo copies is totally irrelevant to the Able Danger story. I'm not even sure why Ringwraith's original link even included it - except as a gratuitous smear against someone who once worked for Bill Clinton. If you are upset by the fact that Berger walked away from this hideous felony with a fine and a three-year suspension of his security clearance, take it up with George W Bush's Justice Department - they're the ones who accepted the deal.


This story is still developing, but we now know that Bill Clinton and Richard Clarke were never told about Able Danger and the fact that Atta had been identified. This information was withheld from them by the Pentagon. Some have been trying to blame this on Janet Reno or Jamie Gorelick, which is nonsense. There has been much talk in the right-wing blogoshpere about "Gorelick's Wall". Sorry, guys, that "wall" was between the Department of Justice and the FBI, not the Department of Defense and the FBI (and Gorelick was merely reaffirming a policy that had been in place since the seventies). That attempt at blame-laying just doesn't hold water.

Able Danger was a DIA special operation - and their findings were never passed on to the NSA, the FBI, or the White House. Indeed, it now looks as though it was deliberately withheld - possibly because picking up Atta might've given Gore a boost in the election. When Bush took power, Able Danger was for some reason disbanded (February, 2002) and apparently the Army destroyed all documents and notes regarding the early identification of Atta. Are we to assume this done by the Bush administration to protect Bill Clinton?? Come on, guys - someone is covering up something. And that is happening on Bush's watch.

Wertz stated....



As a review of my original post.....



(Emphasis mine)

I would imagine this is why it was alluded to in the original post.




Except that she went BEYOND what the original policy stated in seperating law enforcement and intelligence agencies as stated in THIS post further up in the thread....



(Emphasis mine)

I don't see what you are getting at Wertz. Whether you want to characterize the wall as between DOD and the FBI or Justice and the FBI doesn't change facts. The facts are that the folks at Justice (Vatis, Gorelick and by proxy Reno) in supporting an ammendment to the original policy which kept intelligence agencies from communicating to law enforcement probably kept Mohammed Atta and his terrorist cell from being investigated and quite probably stopped from carrying out further terrorist activities. This after being practically BEGGED 6 years earlier by U.S Attorney Mary Jo White (apparently among others) to ease the restrictions the Reno justice department put in place.

What Wertz has been saying is very quite accurate about the Able Danger claims as seen here in this article.

Pentagon can't verify ‘Able Danger’ claim - No proof that Mohamed Atta was a known terrorist before attacks



Even though a private defense contractor and another person is trying to confirm Shaffer's story they have no evidence to back up their claims just as Shaffer doesn't and the Pentagon can't seem to find any either, except for generalizations to terrorist cells.

Since nobody spouting the Rush and Hannity rhetoric doesn't seem to be backing these claims up, allow me to provide a few facts:

Regarding Clinton's inaction regarding terrorism here.

Regarding all the democratic support for invading Iraq. The quotes are true, but the context is misleading here.

And Sandy Berger "stuffing classified documents in his socks". As stated, they were copies of one document which still safely exists National Archives and Records Administration here.

Thanks for the emphasis - it reaffirms my assertion that Berger is totally irrelevant to this story and was only inserted in a contorted effort to further blame the Clinton administration. The only pertinent sentence is the last one: "Those documents reportedly included an assessment of America's terror vulnerabilities at airports, something very relevant to Able Danger’s findings and key to the 9/11 attacks." In other words, a) the Berger memo concerned airport security, b) the Able Danger findings might have mentioned Atta who eventually used an airport, therefore c) Berger was attempting to cover up revelations in relation to the September 11 attack. This (to give it more credit than it is worth) is what is known in professional debating circles as quaternio terminorum - the "fallacy of four terms", a class of syllogistic error that is blatantly illogical. In layman's terms, I believe it is simply referred to as "nonsense".

Were that not enough, it has already been pointed out that the Berger memo did not involve anyone at the Pentagon - and Able Danger's findings never made it past the Pentagon. It is impossible to invent any kind of link between the two - not, of course, that logical fallacies and physical impossibilities have ever prevented the Washington Times from printing whatever they like. Had the Washington Times posted the paragraph quoted above to America's Debate, it would have been deleted for being off topic.


I don't know what you - or the Washington Times article you quote - are getting at. The June 13, 1995, memo from Mary Jo White (the Washington Times, unsurprisingly, got the date wrong) has nothing whatsoever to do with the Department of Defense. You can read it in its entirety here (as well as Gorelick's original memo). It is solely and exclusively concerned with communication between the Criminal Division of the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and the FBI - between local prosecutors and law enforcement. There is nothing in that memo - or anywhere else - that would prevent the Department of Defense or the Pentagon from passing information to the FBI. And, even if there were, there is nothing anywhere - even in the original policy that Gorelick reaffirmed (which was also reaffirmed by Ashcroft's Department of Justice in August of 2001, by the way) - that would prevent the Pentagon from communicating with the NSA, with Richard Clarke, or with President Clinton. The Able Danger findings, whatever they were, were never forwarded to anyone.

I did make one error in my previous post. I mentioned that "Gorelick's Wall" had been around since the seventies. It hadn't. It had only been around since the mid-eighties, erected during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.


carlitoswhey: Please take note of the fact that the Department of Justice release to which DaytonRocker refers above includes the following statement in reference to the various versions of the copied memo Berger removed from the National Archives:
Compare that to this:
And this:
I trust that we've now had the last of Sandy Berger being dragged into a debate about Able Danger. (Thanks, DR.)

Do you agree with the insinuation that the Atta terrorist cell was not investigated by the FBI for "political reasons" related to the 2000 presidential election?

I actually have a slightly different take than the question on the reasons that the Able Danger information wasn't passed on to the FBI, that being a mix of political/bureaucratic reasons. During the Waco siege, Army Special Ops advisors were on hand, and due to Posse Comitatus restrictions, took a great deal of heat for that participation. That led to an understandable skittishness of using US military assets to be perceived as doing anything remotely close to spying on US citizens.
Somehow, it appears that Mohammed Atta, Marwan al Shehhi, Khalid al Midhar, and Nawaf al Hamzi were all awarded the status 'US Person', shielding them from even the most cursory second look. As far as the military is concerned, only US citizens and permanent resident aliens get protections from intelligence collections.
Department of Defense and Department of the Army lawyers, fearful of violating Posse Comitatus, and possibly unsure if Able Danger was authorized under Executive Order 12333, the unit was not allowed to make direct contact with the FBI.

The appropriate statute seems clear enough. The EO, dated 1981, states:

Link

In addition, though I'm still working my way through legalese, there are provisions for the military to coordinate and share intelligence as outlined in the 1949 Delimitations Agreement:

Link

There seems to be no clear reason why legal teams would block Able Danger findings from any and all analysts in the intelligence community. I'm leaning towards senior judge advocates in the SOCOM community. Whoever is specifically was, won't be found out until a more thorough investigation is carried out, especially into the Army's Information Dominance Center (IDC), which may be the successor to the initial Able Danger project.

I'm not sure if this sheds any light or not, DTOM, but Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer said on C-SPAN's Sunday Morning Journal last week that "lawyers in Special Operations Command" prevented Able Danger from looking at US citizens - and seemed to imply that this was why no information was passed along (though Atta was hardly a "citizen"). Could this have been at the direction of Gen. Schoomaker, then in charge of Special Ops and the DIA? I wouldn't think that those assessing the findings of Able Danger and determining what to do with them would take orders directly from some Pentagon lawyer.

Other questions worth pursuing are "Why was Able Danger disbanded in February of 2001 - and who gave the order?" and "Why did the Army (according to Shaffer's lawyer, Mark Zaid, on Thursday's O'Reilly Factor) order the Able Danger documents destroyed?"

That may appear to become the million dollar question. Schoomaker, who is now Army Chief of Staff, must be included in the investigation, and must be precluded from any authority over investigation findings. The other day Schaffer said it plainly:

Link

My gut feeling is that JAG advisors played a key role, but Schoomaker held ultimate responsibility for not only not pursuing the Atta and company leads, but denying Able Danger access to the FBI. The only plausible reasons I can see for that happening are unclear legal restrictions.
Navy Captain Scott Phillpott ( AD Program Manager) has echoed Schaffer's assertions, saying "Atta was identified by Able Danger by January-February of 2000." NYT

Two things are crystal clear as of now. Somebody in the Department of Defense clearly screwed up; and the DoD is now going to be in full tilt damage control. The investigation must move swiftly, be headed by an entity independent of the DoD, and carry the full weight of the Senate Oversight Committee behind it.

The other burning question, is why was even the mere mention of Able Danger excluded from the 9/11 Commission Report, when according to Schaffer, he had personally informed Philip Zelikow?

For anyone interested, Lt Col Shaffer apparently (allegedly) posted on The Intel Dump, under the name Anon. It led to an interesting discussion.

Based on everything I've been reading, the decisions were political, but not political from Washington...military politics with its underlying layer of bureaucracy and the fear of potential liability.

Another question raised by the last two posts is "Who determined that Atta was a 'US Person'?" Since the Able Danger findings never made it past the Pentagon (including the names of those in any of the suspected cells), this assessment must have emerged from within the Pentagon. Who made that determination - and on what grounds? Forgive me for sounding like a political paranoid, but it's starting to look as though someone in the Pentagon (Schoomaker?) didn't want the Able Danger intelligence passed on...

Clinton (disbarred, impeached liar) says that he had conversations about getting a hold of Bin Laden. He later says that he "mis-spoke." Your source for refuting the premise of the Sudan deal is proven (in this thread!) liar and thief Sandy Berger, as quoted by Al Franken. Wow, talk about unimpeachable sources. Er, impeached sources. As you said earlier, someone is covering up something.



Just a further quibble on sourcing. The very premise of this thread is that the government is covering up something it knew about 9/11. Yet, I am to be assured that originals of the stolen documents are OK because the Department of Justice tells me so. No thanks.

How about the OIPR? The have the same general counsel as the DOJ and they also liaise between the FISA court and the FBI and / or DOJ. Accuracy in Media posted a complaint from an FBI special agent to director Mueller regarding the OIPR blocking their access to a warrant to search (would-be hijacker) Zacharias Moussaoui's laptop. Their analysis is that "the wall" was partially being built by the OIPR to keep investigators from getting too much scoop in investigating Chinese spying, notably in the Wen Ho Lee case. They denied lots of warrants, applying a pretty strict set of rules to gaining a FISA warrant.

No I'm not posting the above in any way shape or form to try and pin a single thing on Clinton. I just think that it's logical if a "wall" was built, it took some time to build. Somehow, we couldn't get info from intel sources to the FBI.

The strange just got stranger......LTC Anthony Shaffer who has publicly detailed how the unit Able Danger had identified Mohammed Atta and others prior to 9/11, has had his security clearance revoked, and has been charged with (what I deem) bogus and trumped up charges.


Link

Not only am a I suspicious of any crime of improperly flashing military identification while drunk (I've been guilty numerous times then....), but in 19 years on active duty, nobody and I mean nobody to my knowledge has been charged with stealing anything as innocuous as pens.

Something is starting to stink at the pentagon.

Here's another person thrown on the Rovepile.

But even though stealing pens is a serious offense, I heard a rumor that a special independent counsel is awaiting an indictment at the grand Jury. Apparently, he's been found to have torn off mattress tags.

This crap isn't even funny anymore. The republican party is more loyal to their party than their country.