Yup, the next blogswarm is forming. This is a big story.

When the "who got briefed" story turned this morning, the temps went from lukewarm to boil.

Item D is the killer. It buries the commission in a pile of "what they really were about".

What is the source for the bit about the Administration being worried about "fallout after Waco"? If that is true then, well I can't adequately describe how monumentally assinine that Administration was. Let's see, at Waco they incinerated 80 US citizens, so therefore we cant detain/arrest some Middle Eastern terroists. I don't follow the logic, not that there was much in the way of logic on display throughout our feckless response to terrorists throughout the 90's. I'd really like to know the source, as I've been following this closely on my site as well. Thanks.

I meant to add, regarding Waco, that the event had occurred 5 or 6 years prior to the Able Danger intel coming to light. What could one possibly have to do with the other? Were they that blind to reality? Wait, no need to answer.

Going off on a long rambling tangent here...

Waco was a collossal blunder, but it was not a deliberate Clintonian conspiracy to enslave us all and murder any dissenters. There were a few voices on the right who talked about it like that, and I think it's a terrible mistake. Some people describe the Branch Davidians as if they were just another harmless religion minding their own business doing nothing wrong; this is a disservice to the truth.

And while I'm defending Clinton against outlandish charges from a minority of extreme voices on the right, let me also remind people that a few right-wingers beat up Clinton for shooting missiles at Iraq and at an al-Qaeda factory in Sudan. The phrase "wag the dog" comes to mind. For that matter, there were some folks on the right sticking up for Milosivec (or however it's spelled). This partisan point-scoring by some folks on the right was detrimental to our national security. It is important to remember this. Our side needs to police itself and be honest.

Having said all that, none of the above was a mainstream opinion. None of it took on the intensity or cravenness of the left's current treatment of Bush and disregard for American security. Given what I've seen in the past 5 years, the Republicans could run a mannequin for president in 2008 and I probably still wouldn't pick the Democrat candidate.

I want to know the truth about what led up to 9/11. Not to score points. Not to point fingers. But to actually make us safer. We need to learn from our mistakes. The democrats cannot be allowed to bury the truth when it's a matter of life and death.

By the way, isn't the Sandy Berger case coming up next month? Maybe that'll help move things along.

Obviously, Kos's archives hold The Truth.

The article itself didn't make the jump to the new design. This is from the google cache:

--- Kos Kommentor Sept. 8th, 2004 ------
Clinton's war on terrorism (none / 0)

In 1993, terrorists put a truck bomb in the basement parking lot of the World Trade Center.

Through law enforcement and diplomacy, Clinton's Department of Justice apprehended and convicted a good number of the people involved in the plot. Instrumental to this is avoiding judicial voiding of evidence because it came from intelligence sources.

Jamie Gorelick wrote a memo that isolated intelligence evidence from law enforcement evidence until the intelligence evidence was sufficient to be used in court.

These terrorists still are in jail.

Contrast this with the non-conviction of Moussaui, which is dragging on because the Bush administration is not willing to let a prisoner from Guantanamo testify for Moussaui. Unless the Bush administration gets law enforcement smarts, Moussaui is going to walk.

Where are the results, George?

-----------------------------------

Ironically, this comment is in a thread titled:

The Kerry surge
by kos
Wed Sep 8th, 2004 at 13:05:15 PDT

He's on the comeback, baby.

First on the list, check out the latest Gallup poll. Yup, the very same one that supposedly gave Bush the keys to a second term. Ruy explains:

Prior to the Republican convention, Kerry had a one point lead among RVs (47-46) in the battleground states. After the Republican convention, now that battleground voters have had a chance to take a closer look at what Bush and his party really stand for, Kerry leads by 5 in these same states (50-45)! Note that Kerry gained three points among battleground voters, while Bush actually got a negative one point bounce.

And wait--there's more! The Gallup poll's internals also show that Kerry continues to lead among independents (49-46) and that both parties' partisans are equally polarized for their respective candidates (90-7)

Hmmm, that looks nothing like the headlines we saw the past couple of days, does it? So what if Bush solidified his lead in Texas and Alabama? But whatever. Moving on...

The next two months cannot look like Bush's one-week convention, and as I said before, reality would be hard to escape.

Headlines blare the news that the death toll in Iraq has crossed the 1,000 milestone.

There are also big headlines about Bush's record $422 billion budget deficit and the multi-trillion-dollar deficit projections for the future.

Then there are all the stories about Vice President Cheney's jaw-dropping statement yesterday that a Kerry victory would result in more terrorist attacks. Even his own staff is qualifying it.

Bush's spotty National Guard record during the Vietnam War is turning into a full-fledged media conflagration, with more stories out today and "60 Minutes" weighing in tonight.

Plus, Sen .Bob Graham (D-Fla.) is all over the media charging Bush with covering up evidence that might have linked Saudi Arabia to the Sept. 11 hijackers.

And while the mainstream press is not putting stock in unauthorized biographer Kitty Kelley's hazily sourced allegations of past drug use by Bush, everybody -- at least everybody on the Internet -- seems to be talking about it.

Ouch, ouch and triple ouch. Reality sucks if you're a Republican. [ed note: indeed! heh]

And it's clear the Bushes are running scared. Cheney's claims that a vote for Kerry was a vote for terrorist attacks didn't come from a position of confidence and strength. And Bush is now running from the Missouri debate.

I'll let Atrios take this one:

So, Bush is scared to face questions by regular folks because some of them may come from "partisan" people. What does this tell us?

First, it reaffirms what we know - that his audiences and their questions are pre-screened.

Second, it reaffirms that Chicken George is indeed a chicken, frightened of the people he's supposed to govern.

And, finally, it tells us that Chicken George is scared the people will ask him tougher questions than the press corps will.

Yup. And perhaps, most refreshing of all, the cluck cluck of the Chicken Littles amongst us seems to have waned.

We all sense the coming Kerry surge.
--------------------------------
link

There are some other refs on Kos to Ms. Gorelick's bona fides regarding the commission.

The woman certainly has some friggin' chutzpah. From a speech to Duke University students shortly after the commission released its report:

"What the Commissioners found was “a high level of dysfunctionality, almost across government,” said Gorelick, who fired off a list of failures. “We found that the FBI did not know what it itself had, the CIA and FBI did not communicate with each other as well as they should have, the CIA did not communicate with itself as well as it should have, neither one communicated with the State Department, that our military was still looking out, rather than thinking about the mission to protect us internally, that the Federal Aviation Administration—the FAA—which is supposed to protect civil aviation from attack was almost entirely clueless as to what the intelligence community knew, that it’s policy prescriptions and procedures did not match up therefore against the threat.”

Calling her a scumbag would be a vile insult to actual bags of scum. If the commission had any integrity (which it doesn't), she would be removed from it and called to testify in front of it.

Slublog wrote:

If the commission had any integrity (which it doesn't)

a.) That is not a comment "BumperStickerist " and it surely ain't no bumper sticker. Try getting a blog and tossing a link to that, you fuckin up the koolaid with your 10 inch comment.

b.) Judging from a quick look at technorati, this Able Danger story will prolly get buried. Too much hoopla in the blogosphere about this some bs story that W (and pretty much every other republican in the administration) is being indicted.

c.) This should have been a story way back when the fuss was first raised about Gorelick even being on the committee.

d.) I am fresh out of whiskey.

Kevin,
Hopefully you weren't including me in the Waco/Clinton conspiracy camp. It was simply a blunder, IMO. My question regarding Waco was simply what in the @#$% does it have to do with Atta/al Qaeda. It happened 6 years prior to Able Danger allegedly fingering the AQ cell. I just wanted to know the source for the claim in this post that they couldn't take out a Qaeda cell because they were worried about how it would play in light of Waco.

Well it took quite some time, if I recall correctly, for the Waco thing to become a real black eye for the justice department. There were several years of investigations before the full ineptitude of the Reno JD was obvious. Beyond that, I agree with you. I doubt the people who were the most rabid about Waco (militia groups, etc...) would give a rats ass about a couple of middle easterners being burned down.

Sir,

Ace, Ace, all this right- wing paranoia. Sure, mistakes were made. But it's not as if Miss Gorelick is some anti-American Lefty who, as liberals are wont to do, is so distrustful of American power that she affected the dissemination of intelligence to the point that over three thousand Americans had to die a horrible, violent deaths in service to her political agenda.

And what if she did? The important thing is that she had good intentions. America is on the wrong path (sole super power spreading democracy and the free market). It has to be stopped. Just ask George Soros or a Kossack Kid.

Regarding the kerfuffle with the 9/11 Commission. It will work itself out. With the same fervency that OJ scours run-down municipal golf courses in Florida for Nicole's killer, Sandy Berger is searching his socks and underwear for documentation of exactly what the Clinton Administration did (and didn't do).

After all, the Clinton Administration strove to be the most ethical administration history. Because Bill Clinton said so (disregard that lying to America- sexual imbroglio thing, or the impeachment... and, you know, all the other stuff that that...well, made it the most corrupt administration in history).

Sincerely,

rcl

Chris:

Ack! No, I wasn't trying to imply anything about you at all. The mention of Waco here reminded me of a conversation I just had with my brother about the Clinton years, that's all, so I rambled on a bit about it.

I don't see a connection between any of this and Waco, but you can now find a connection between Saddam and the Ok. City bombing, along with the major F---up of the Slick Willie administration in it's failure to pass the Atta information to the FBI. But you have to remember that the Weasel (Hellary) pushed Gorlick into the job at the Justice department. Evidently she wouldn't get under the desk for Willie, so he didn't push for her, but maybe she did for the Weasel and got the job. She then proceeded to write the rules that prevented the Mil. intel guys from talking to the FBI. Do I not smell a screwup here that resulted in the death of almost 3,000 people on 9-11? I think I smell a screwup, and 3,000 deaths, that involves the Weasel up to her scrawny neck. Add those numbers to the ones we know about from their criminal activity in Ak. and all the way to DC, and you have a very impressive number of deaths.

re: point C

Someone should do a photoshopped photo of the New York skyline with a yellow Post-It note stuck where the Trade Center towers used to be.

And once again people learn the hard way that the coverup only makes things worse when the truth finally comes out.

Amen, Raoul.

SJkevin beat us all to it. What did Sandy Berger have down his pants"

As Raoul requested.
Post-it

Yep, 4 years later we are hearing that Atta had been ID'd. What a surprise! I would be interested to know if this informant will say who else he talked to after 9/11 besides the 911 Commission. Was the Bush Administration informed? Undoubtedly. But no one lost their job.

Similarly, coming up on 4 years after the anthrax attacks I think the Bush crowd knows who did it, and have kept it quiet..

I am not sure why I am even wasting keystrokes to point this out to you, because it's obvious you have lost your tin foil hat, but If the bush administration found out after the fact that would not rise to the level of incompetence as someone who actually made the bad decision to protect Atta's cell.

I've got the complete Waco reports from both the FBI and ATF (a stack of books about 3" thick).

If anyone takes the time to read them completely a number of inconsistencies in the govt story reveal themselves. There was more than just a "mistake" here.

This was the Reno crowd sending a message. I don't think the torch job was intentional per se, but neither do I think the FBI took any special care to prevent a disaster either.

The mysteriously missing front door and expedited laying of a concrete slab over any remaining evidence makes one wonder too....

The reports also leave you questioning exactly who was shooting who. The Davidian fatality injury descriptions are very detailed, the ATF fatality descriptions completely lack in any detail. In this regard the reports created more questiones than they answered.

Yeah, Tony, I was tempted to take the bait on the Waco thing, too. I'm proud to wear the reynold's wrap chapeau on that one -- it was a very seriously bad thing. Yes, yes...mistakes on both sides...but who do you expect good judgement from, bible-thumping nutjobs or agents of your government?

But, to the topic. I missed the very beginning -- why is this only coming out now?

I think this has much less to do with Waco than it does with TWA Flight 800, and yes, I'm being serious.

To keep it short, I'll do this in the style of an S.A.T. analogy question:

TWA 800 is to Clinton's 1996 reelection

as

9 - 11 attacks is to Clinton's legacy.

The problem with these bipartisan blue ribbon commissions is that they appoint big shots who have long ago learned to protect power and privilege. To go along and get along, then get back to back-slapping each other.

I think each party knew every administration involved made it's share of mistakes, even though they didn't know to what degree. So they massaged the known facts into a readable narrative and dismissed anything that might open doors for conspiracy kooks.

I haven't read the report yet, but I suspect the difficulty of knowing the real names and backgrounds of the 19 will be glossed over. It just opens too many doors. But if it's true that these guys swap names like they swap camels it would explain how Atta can be in two places at once.

blancob, good work with the post-its.

OT, are you a UT student?

The Waco reference is the least significant aspect of the story. It is a distraction, and probably best set aside.

The failings of the 9/11 Commission is important, of course, but it's more of a purely political issue. As far as I'm concerned, all politicians are whores, parasites and bullies, so I had very low expectations that the Commission would do a respectable job in the first place. The fact that it did a demonstrably poor job is a political scandal, of course, and since the whole affair was a pet project of the Democrats, it embarasses them. All good. but the fact that they have been caught ignoring (i.e., covering up) a whole line of bombshell evidence only confirms what we already knew about them.

But the part that really gets under my skin is the part we know the least about -- the idea that military intelligence RECOMMENDED that the FBI arrest the ringleaders' cell, and they made the conscious decision to block that action.

They did so on the grounds that military intelligence was not supposed to share information with law enforcement.

The reason that Atta's supposedly legal immigration status is mentioned is that it would have been one of the only non-military, purely civilian justifications for arresting him at that time. Arresting him on suspicion of plotting a terror attack would have required the charging evidence to be supplied by the military SOCOM unit. But arresting him on an immigration violation would have only required civilian law enforcement information. Since he was legal (?), there was no civilian basis for his arrest.

But there was an ENORMOUS military basis for his arrest. The fact that they declared this information off-limits is insane.

The idea that the exchange of extremely valuable information, which was gathered by our military, was blocked by lawyers is the real story here.

It's all about the Post It notes.

Good job, Blanco.

(Oh, and BTW, Hook 'em!)

Phinn
UT, 1992

It was never illegal for the FBI to surveil Attah et al following a tip from Able Danger. Gorelick's wall didn't apply to visa holders, and the DOD lawyers who gummed up the works screwed up, they were just wrong.

Who are these lawyers? What are their names? Have they been fired yet ?

This is the problem with treating a war like a crime.
"Yes, there ae 300 Japanese airplanes hading toward Pearl Harbor, but they are still in international air space and an alert would seem unfriendly."
We are to credit Jamie Garlic for good intentions but not Bush?

JAMIE GORELICK LIED!!!!!! PEOPLE DIED!!!!!!!!

We are to credit Jamie Garlic for good intentions but not Bush?

/font size=SCREED, face=DU/KOS/ATRIOS

Well of course. Becuase for Gorelick, it was all about serving humanity and saving puppies.

With Chimpy McBushitler Hallienron, it's all about the oooooiiiilll. Listen to Cindy Sheehan, she speaks the truth - this war is all about enriching the multinational corporations that want to sell your organs to executives at Tyco, or something like that.

Momentum is on our side, though! The non-election of Paul Hackett in Ohio proves that people are listening to our message and really want to almost-vote Democrats into office!

The revolution is coming!

/font

This is a DC based scandal, and yet the WaPo only sees fit to run a story days after it first broke on page A09!

This is a huge story for anyone who thinks that national security, intelligence failures, and 9/11 (and preventing future 9/11s) are an important story worth reporting, researching, and covering.

But that's not all, the lede is:

Staff members of the Sept. 11 commission are investigating allegations by a Republican congressman that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta had been identified as a potential threat by a highly classified Defense Department program a year or more before the attacks occurred.

Hey, that's much closer to the front page than the coverage in the New York Times.

"If Atta met with Iraqi Intelligence, there's no innocent explanation, no benefit of the doubt. Saddam was operationally involved in 9/11."

You folks want SOOOO much for there to be some connection between Saddam and 9-11, despite all the facts that bin Laden called for his over throw. It has already been established that Al Queda members approached Saddam for Chemical weapons and Saddam found it too risky. I thought the mantra was that it made no difference, yet the WEAKEST of possible connections, doesn't even have to have happened as long as it is possible that it happened, and you freaks are pissing yourself in excitement. Face reality, No WMD's, no terror link. Saudi Arabia wanted the US military out of Iraq and the US was not going to leave with Saddam still in power. paul Wolfowitz SAID as much. Christ you people are thick.

LOL, LOL, LOL

I just read a note from a friend that the lefties are starting to run with the story- but they're saying that it was Bushitler McChimpyburton who repressed the intel !!

In order to assist the hijackers and therefore encourage an escalation of militarism and suspension of democratic rights.

*smacks forehead* Why of course! It all makes total sense now.
Thanks Mr. Insane Hippy Nutbag. You're a lifesaver.

This is too F'n funny.

lol...

There doesn't have to be a connection between Saddam and 9/11. There only needs to be a connection between terrorists and Iraq, and there is too much evidence of that to ignore.

Prior to March 2003, Iraq = terrorism. That's the only thing necessary to prove Bush was right. And he was.

if it wasn't for the internets this would be a fascist state now

Also a Hook 'em from Steve, '91 UT grad

Careful there, people. You might make thomas's head explode if you keep talking in this way. Ace has already said he doesn't like hosing Lefty brains off the walls, so have some compassion, willya?

For some good pointers, refer to Dr. Cornelius Pinkwaffle's book The Care And Feeding of Angry Liberals.

thomas, unlike the unsupported blatherings that I unfortunately run across every time I read a libby column, this article is beautifully researched and explains many of the links between Saddam's regime and terrorism.

Ah...how delicious is this part:

The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Steve:

Goodness, Longhorns everywhere.

I'm not one, but they get a lot of my money (oldest kid is a sophomore there).

I think this story took them by surprise. The troll on my site had this to say in response to a post on the Able Danger story:

Hey ACE, maybe Jamie Gorelick should testify in front of the commission as bush did....sitting on uncle cheney's knee getting a belly rub.

I guess ace is glad they even had a commission - you know, the one bush didn't want.

I know, clinton's penis did it.

let me know when you guys get pissed at a CIA agent being exposed to promote/protect bush/cheney lies (you know, niger uranium, armed drone planes, mobile weapons labs et all). That's right, only some lies are bad. The ones from dead vets moms.

see ya at the recruitment center.....maybe next week

B

Dumbass thinks I'm Ace, since I quoted from this site. Note the desperate attempt to bring the conversation back to the Plame story.

DNC - get these people some new talking points, STAT!

is it because I'm a lesbian?

Not exactly, thomas. The problem facing those of us in support of the war is that the real justification can't be expressed in the language of diplomacy. I would describe it as: the Middle East is a festering shit-hole, and after 9/11 we realize it's dangerous to leave shit-holes to fester. We're not sure the right thing to do about it, but diplomacy sure hasn't worked. So let's go in and make a clean spot and see what happens. How about Iraq? We messed up by not finishing Saddam the first time, and we know he's a sincerely bad dude.

Though I'll admit, I was very surprised we didn't find WMD's stacked like cordwood all over Iraq. I surely thought they were there. But they weren't my main concern. As a matter of public policy, I think WMDs just polled better than "let's knock over Saddam and see what happens."

At least some of the news organizations are paying attention to the bloggers now. They are beginning to get the big picture and even mentioned the meeting between Atta and the Iraqi intel. people where a lot of people think Saddam provided the funding for the 9-11 attack and gave the final order. Keep digging and you'll find this is true. The Government knows this is true but for some reason won't release the evidence they have on hand. Maybe it would get their sources killed.

I see some crap weasels trying to cloud the issue. This one is simple and does not require delving into foreign policy. Who decided not to share this information and why? and Has the policy that disallowed this sharing been fixed? You could look into whether there is a coverup and who is leading that (which would seem obvious), but that still doesn't involve Iraq, or Valeria Plame or anyone like that.

Slublog made a very important point way up in the thread (not that many important points weren't made subsequently): Gorelick should have testified before the Commission, not have been a part of it. Many lawyers, including (I think) the guys at Power Line, asked why she wasn't called to testify at the hearings. I can't help but think her being let off the hook is of a piece, if not directly related to, the Able Danger intel.

Of course, I could be way off. Later, it will be determined that I have an IQ of 48 and am what some doctors call "mentally retarded."

The Waco part is weak. Some blogger (forgot who) said the inside word was that the Gorelick "wall" memo was issued to prevent the CIA from telling domestic law enforcement what they knew about Clinton selling nuclear missile secrets to the Chinese in exchange for illegal campaign contributions. Anyone here know the skinny on that?

Oops, the Gorelick wall was erected in Summer 1995 and the TWA 800 incident was in Summer 1996. Sorry about the loose shit.

Andrew McCarthy wrote an excellent article about Gorelick's shenanigans here.

As to why it was erected, CYA on Chinagate is as good a reason as any.

LOL, good timing quiggs!

Sue: Holy synchronicity! Beat ya by ten seconds (cuz you wasted time doing, you know, actual reasearch).

Sue: OK, this is getting weird . . . I'm outta here.

But....the New York Times has not mentioned any of this. Therefore it does not exist.

/plugs ears

La la la la la la la

Sayyy
Where's thomas?
Funny how that guy jumps in here, craps on the carpet then doesn't stick around for the correction.