It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Congressman: Classified Intelligence Unit Knew Of 9/11 Terrorists In 1999

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by 39 drops of solder
Republican (Pennsylvania) Congressman Curt Weldon exposed the information concerning the Able Danger chart.
.................
Bush should be placed in an open field and with one swinging 180 degree swoosh, his head should roll into the gutter with the rest of the traitors: Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon, Woodrow Wilson, Delano Roosevelt, William Clinton, Ronald Reagan, et al.

Again, the American people stand with mouths aghast, and Bush and his cohorts wait out another storm, shift the blame, play the shell game and/or kick the American people (again) in the groin.

Thanks Pissident Bush, I salute you and your staff with one finger.



You are speaking too early without any evidence to back your claim. Of course, some people...in the left have try to use this against president Bush...but you know what? it was not the present administration who made this information dissapear.

It was Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security adviser, who removed the documents from the National Archives, meanwhile the 9/11 commission was investigating the events leading up to the September 11 attacks.

Maybe some of the older members would remember this.

It was this man the one to remove this evidence because Clinton, and his administration decided not to do anything with the information.

The U.S. Army military intelligence operatives who discovered the existance of this cell, adviced to their superiors that this information should be given to the FBI, but the idea was rejected by the Clinton administration and in fact they were told to place 3M yellow stickers in the photographs of Atta and the other terrorists.

The reason why president Clinton, and his administration decided to do nothing with this information was because under the rule of the Clinton justice department, anyone holding a green card was to be given the same rights and legal protections as any US citizen.

Later on Sandy Berger confessed that he had taken classified documents from the National archives which dealt with terrorism and were collected under Clinton's administration.

Here is Curt Weldon’s June 27, 2005 Testimony
www.fas.org...

Here is the link to the site where I found this information.
www.homelandsecurityus.com...

Now we know why Berger stole those classified documents. He was trying to cover his butt and the rear of Clinton's administration.

President Bush and his administration had nothing to do with this.



[edit on 11-8-2005 by Muaddib]




posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by 39 drops of solder
Republican (Pennsylvania) Congressman Curt Weldon exposed the information concerning the Able Danger chart.
.................
Bush should be placed in an open field and with one swinging 180 degree swoosh, his head should roll into the gutter with the rest of the traitors: Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon, Woodrow Wilson, Delano Roosevelt, William Clinton, Ronald Reagan, et al.

Again, the American people stand with mouths aghast, and Bush and his cohorts wait out another storm, shift the blame, play the shell game and/or kick the American people (again) in the groin.

Thanks Pissident Bush, I salute you and your staff with one finger.



You are speaking too early without any evidence to back your claim. Of course, some people...in the left have try to use this against president Bush...but you know what? it was not the present administration who made this information dissapear.

It was Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security adviser, who removed the documents from the National Archives, meanwhile the 9/11 commission was investigating the events leading up to the September 11 attacks.

Maybe some of the older members would remember this.

It was this man the one to remove this evidence because Clinton, and his administration decided not to do anything with the information.

The U.S. Army military intelligence operatives who discovered the existance of this cell, adviced to their superiors that this information should be given to the FBI, but the idea was rejected by the Clinton administration and in fact they were told to place 3M yellow stickers in the photographs of Atta and the other terrorists.

The reason why president Clinton, and his administration decided to do nothing with this information was because under the rule of the Clinton justice department, anyone holding a green card was to be given the same rights and legal protections as any US citizen.

Later on Sandy Berger confessed that he had taken classified documents from the National archives which dealt with terrorism and were collected under Clinton's administration.

Here is Curt Weldon’s June 27, 2005 Testimony
www.fas.org...

Here is the link to the site where I found this information.
www.homelandsecurityus.com...

Now we know why Berger stole those classified documents. He was trying to cover his butt and the rear of Clinton's administration.

President Bush and his administration had nothing to do with this.



[edit on 11-8-2005 by Muaddib]


Congressman: Classified Intelligence Unit Knew Of 9/11 Terrorists in 1999

By the way, I am a registered Republican. But what concerns me is the truth. I do not care who and which party is in office, if you're a liar I am going to call you on it. Why doesn't the 9/11 Commission Report even mention Sandy Berger and his past misdeeds?

After all the time and correspondance, Thomas Kean did not include any mention of Able Danger in his report under Bush's watch, draws me (and I can only hope, others) to the conclusion, that, regardless if it is Clinton or Bush, it smells like a cover-up. And, especially in government, where there is a cover-up, there is a conspiracy. This conerns me (as it should you and others).

Anyway, thanks for your time, Edward



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by 39 drops of solder

Congressman: Classified Intelligence Unit Knew Of 9/11 Terrorists in 1999

By the way, I am a registered Republican. But what concerns me is the truth. I do not care who and which party is in office, if you're a liar I am going to call you on it. Why doesn't the 9/11 Commission Report even mention Sandy Berger and his past misdeeds?

After all the time and correspondance, Thomas Kean did not include any mention of Able Danger in his report under Bush's watch, draws me (and I can only hope, others) to the conclusion, that, regardless if it is Clinton or Bush, it smells like a cover-up. And, especially in government, where there is a cover-up, there is a conspiracy. This conerns me (as it should you and others).

Anyway, thanks for your time, Edward



You sounded like a typical leftie who jumps at the bandwagon side of "let's Bash president Bush and his administration" without even knowing all the facts.

The current administration had nothing to do with this cover up.... It was the Clinton administration who decided to trash this report and later cover it up, as the 9/11 commission was looking for all evidence up to September 11.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 06:06 AM
link   
The NY Times is to have a story out today saying the Able Danger information was testified about by a uniformed officer 10 days before the 9/11 report was issued.

If true,

Clinton and his people such as Gorlick and Berger may have wanted to protect his oh so important legacy.

The Bush people surely would want no indirect evidence of prior knowledge at the time to stain its claims.

I'm seeing two diametrically opposed partisan camps sharing a fleeting common goal that appears to have resulted in a now suspect report on 9/11's events.

Conspiracy - yes, to what end - unknown

At a minimum congress needs to do a full public investigation sans any other business instead of a commission not presenting evidence that conflicted with its foregone conclusions.

Partisans on both sides are going to have a field day with this result, hopefully regardless political ramifications the result will now be truthful and complete.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
And its the partisans on both sides that will see to it that the perpetrators of any misdoings will get away scot free. Dont let them get away due to your political point scorings. Who ever covered this up knows that "left" and "right" will put the priority on 'slagging each other off' over the fact that criminal negligence (at the very least) was a contributing factor to the 9/11 attacks.

Give the damn "right" "left" dead horse a rest and stop watching the partisan puppet show!

[edit on 11/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Yes, this is just another example of the Clinton administration dropping the ball by being too soft on terrorists. However, I think a military group with this this kind of knowledge just doesn't give up trying after one attempt. When the new Bush administration came into office, it seems reasonable to me that the military people might have tried to pass on the info again - only to have it rejected again - this time by Condi Rice's group. Yes, Republicans can be idiots too.

This needs to be fully investigated and all people involved publicly exposed.

Then the nice way of handling the situation would be for criminal and civil charges (by the families that lost people in the attacks) to be filed against all of them.

A more appropriate response - just in this case - might be to have them all (whoever they are) taken to a public place for a public lynching.



[edit on 8/11/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by 39 drops of solder

The 9/11 Commission created by Congress on November 27, 2002 under Public Law 107-306, after months of investigation, never breathed word of Operation Able Danger. Who told the 9/11 Commission to not include this in the final 9/11 Commission Report?

Bush should be placed in an open field and with one swinging 180 degree swoosh, his head should roll into the gutter with the rest of the traitors: Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon, Woodrow Wilson, Delano Roosevelt, William Clinton, Ronald Reagan, et al.

What proof did you have that Bush et al told the commission not to include anything regarding Able Danger?

Weldon himself has said that the commission was informed not once, but twice, about Able Danger's findings.

It is ridiculous to think that the commission would not run with that info, especially with commission members like Ben-Veniste, no great fan of Bush.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   


the 9/11 commission was looking for all evidence up to September 11.


PULLEAZZE!!!! Spare us the transparent propaganda neatly salted within the text of your posts. You must be be joking! Looking for all evidence? Only if you don't acknowledge all the evidence two inches in front of their collectve noses that they expediently chose to ignore.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I live in Tampa Fla, and i saw a man on the local news that had friends that died in the twin towers...he escaped. When he found out this information, he became angry and wanted to know who was accountable. I think that at the back of his mind, he was asking himself,"Did they let this happen,did they make this happen perhaps?" I think that a lot of Americans are starting to ask themselves this question. Are we afraid of the truth? Are we in denial? Or are we just being parinoid? I personally have gotten used to the possiblity that our gov. was behind this sinister act. Its easier to see it now in hind sight, given how quickly the world had changed after 911. It makes me sad sometimes. could you imagine how this would change our country, how much unrest there would be if this possibilty were true?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by 39 drops of solder
Republican (Pennsylvania) Congressman Curt Weldon exposed the information concerning the Able Danger chart.

Able Danger team was created in 1999 under a directive signed by General Henry H. Sheldon, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to assemble information about Al Qaeda networks around the world. By the middle of 2000 the operation had identified Mr. Atta and 3 of the other future hijackers as a member of an American-based cell and that the information was presented that summer in a chart to the Pentagon's Special Operations Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida. The chart included the names and photographs of Mr. Atta and the others, Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawar al-Hamzi. Able Danger members recommended that the information be shared with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (and the Central Intelligence Agency), an idea that was rejected.

The 9/11 Commission created by Congress on November 27, 2002 under Public Law 107-306, after months of investigation, never breathed word of Operation Able Danger. Who told the 9/11 Commission to not include this in the final 9/11 Commission Report?

Bush should be placed in an open field and with one swinging 180 degree swoosh, his head should roll into the gutter with the rest of the traitors: Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon, Woodrow Wilson, Delano Roosevelt, William Clinton, Ronald Reagan, et al.

Again, the American people stand with mouths aghast, and Bush and his cohorts wait out another storm, shift the blame, play the shell game and/or kick the American people (again) in the groin.

Thanks Pissident Bush, I salute you and your staff with one finger.



So you blame President Bush for not releasing Able Danger information to the 911 Commission???

What do you think SANDY BURGER stole from the archives, the Able Danger report that when directly to President Clinton in 1999 !!

“Able Danger”: The American People Should Demand Answers
Questions of Legal Issues, Intelligence Oversight and Sharing of Collected Intelligence from US SOCOM that ARE NOT being asked.

www.homelandsecurityus.com...

10 August 2005: Hey America… do you remember the strange actions of President Clinton’s national security adviser Sandy Berger during the 9/11 Commission investigation when he removed highly classified terrorism documents that should have been turned over to that independent commission? Did you ever wonder what Berger was attempting to hide and even more importantly, why? Did you also wonder why, even though he committed a felony, he received nothing more than a slap on the wrist while various political and intelligence officials played down his actions, wanting them to disappear as quickly as possible? It appears that we just might have discovered the answers to these and other troubling questions: Able Danger.

Lets see Slick and the Senator get out of this one.

This was released to kill any re-election attemp by Hillary Clinton, she will lose the New York Election and then in affect this will eliminate any chance of her getting the Democratic nomination for President.

I would look at the DNC leadership on just who released the ABLE DANGER REPORT.

This is a Clinton ending report!!!



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
This is just like US election fraud. No one cares who did it, just as long as it's the other side. People will bicker about who is to blame, and nothing will be done. Why can't some Americans do what is actually right for the US? Instead of wasting time trying to blame everyone else. People's allegiance should be to what is best for this country, not what is best for their political party.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
The link cited in the first post states:



Weldon said that in September 2000 Able Danger recommended 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 because they said Atta and the others were in the country legally, so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.


You can hang Clinton if you want to.....but when he was out of office, why didn't the Bush admistration do something? And don't say Sandy Berger had hidden all traces of the Able Danger info.....The Pentagon people still knew this! They certainly didn't leave their posts when Clinton left office.....and I doubt that they are many lefties over there....the Pentagon has a history of being at odds with the White House!



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
~~

i'm not sure if both these story links work...
www.sptimes.com...

www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2005/08/11/MNGM4E667T1.DTL
(they seem to work...off & on...)

about all i see is Al Felzenberg, 911 Commission spokesperson
doing the fuzzy and murky thing again!
even though the 'Able Danger' operation findings were given to the 911Commission, the mention of 'Able Danger' was excluded from the final report because it did not fit the criteria of being "Reliable"!!

Al Felzenberg is attempting to pigeon-hole the 'Able Danger' into the
category of "interagency non-communication", and therefore of no consequence because it has already been found to be a shortcoming.

For whatever reason, both the 'Able Danger' information
and the 'Phoenix Memo' information were allowed to fizzle in obscurity,
be stonewalled, or whatever mechanism was found useful to dead-end
these and other threads/dots, which (if connected) might thwart terrorist attacks on the 'safe & impregnable' USofA.

...........

think about the portly & elegant domesticated cat,
who has snagged a mouse and toys & plays with it, with a seeming smug supremacy...

at 1st the tiny mouse scrambles and runs, in time the tiny mouse regains its senses-
and to the astonishment of the large & aloof cat
- the mouse Roars!
(thats how i see the Mujahadeen, AQ-> Embassy bombings->...then 911
a 'BlackSeptemberTuesday'- or 'another Pearl Harbor'- depending on which side your on)



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   

as posted by subz
Please do not let this story die. This is proof positive of a cover-up.


Hmm, your basing your assumption off of what exactly, subz, cause what you assert is just that, an assumption.

IMHO, what this indicates is what some of us neocons and warhawks have been saying all along: that the Clinton administration had so castrated the intelligence and military apparatus' to such a degree, that neither the military and intelligence services or intelligence to intelligences services had the full abilities or willingness to listen or communicate with the other. What this Congressman is proving is that the failures of the Clinton administration in fully informing the incoming Bush administration are self-evident. That the Clinton administration lacked the balls to deal with terrorism and thus passed the buck off to the incoming administration: Bush. That because of their mishandling of Wacko, this was allowed to happen, and all knowing to Clinton upon exiting the White House.

Thank you Bill.



seekerof

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Hmm, your basing your assumption off of what exactly, subz, cause what you assert is just that, an assumption.

IMHO, what this indicates is what some of us neocons and warhawks have been saying all along: that the Clinton administration had so castrated the intelligence and military apparatus' to such a degree, that neither the military and intelligence services or intelligence to intelligences services had the full abilities or willingness to listen or communicate with the other. What this Congressman is proving is that the failures of the Clinton administration in fully informing the incoming Bush administration are self-evident. That the Clinton administration lacked the balls to deal with terrorism and thus passed the buck off to the incoming administration: Bush. That because of their mishandling of Wacko, this was allowed to happen, and all knowing to Clinton upon exiting the White House.

Thank you Bill.

Im sorry Seeker, but your anti-Clinton rant disproves what you quoted from my post how exactly? You assume that because this implicates a major intelligence failure on Clinton's watch that I must of implied this has something to do with Bush? Think again my partisan friend, im not a Democrat. I have no vested interest in maintaining Clinton's reputation. I couldnt care less if he is dragged into court tomorrow to answer for this blunder.

I find it interesting that out of this entire thread you chose to highlight that one remark of mine. Got a hidden agenda or beef against me have you?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I have a "beef" with no one. I make observations, such as you do, as any other member does, subz.

At any rate, and again, this Congressman is affirming and vindicating what some of us have been saying and indicating all along. You can call it "anti-Clinton" if you so like. The fact of the matter is that the Clinton administration castrated the military and intelligences apparatus' of this country prior to exiting office, period, just ask Gorelick. Culpability and incompetence comes to mind when referencing the Clinton administration's failures to deal with this and terrorism.

Anyhow, apparently the cover-up to which you may or may not have been referring to would be the 9/11 Commission's not mentioning this or having this in their reports? Yeah, there's a cover-up indeed. Furthermore, maybe this leaked information is what Mr. Sandy Burger was trying to thieve away from prying eyes?
“Able Danger”: The American People Should Demand Answers






seekerof

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
I have a "beef" with no one. I make observations, such as you do, as any other member does, subz.

Out of the whole thread you chose to pick up on that one sentence would indicate otherwise. I wasnt wrong in what I said but you launched into an anti-Clinton rant anyway. As if I was pro-Clinton in some way because im anti-Bush. I'll accept you have no beef, just seems like it some times



Originally posted by Seekerof
At any rate, and again, this Congressman is affirming and vindicating what some of us have been saying and indicating all along. You can call it "anti-Clinton" if you so like.

Well your post was hardly pro-Clinton now was it?


Originally posted by Seekerof
The fact of the matter is that the Clinton administration castrated the military and intelligences apparatus' of this country prior to exiting office, period, just ask Gorelick. Culpability and incompetence comes to mind when referencing the Clinton administration's failures to deal with this and terrorism.

How does that have any bearing on this story? The military did just fine in spotting and monitoring Atta and his fellow terrorists. Thats not the issue here, their actions here do not show a "castrated military" by any stretch of the imagination. The fault lies in the Pentagon's alleged interpretation of U.S law. They inaccurately stated that the Pentagon is not allowed to share its intelligence on suspected foreign terrorists with the FBI. That is not the result of budget cuts or any castration carried out by Clinton.


Originally posted by Seekerof
Anyhow, apparently the cover-up to which you may or may not have been referring to would be the 9/11 Commission's not mentioning this or having this in their reports? Yeah, there's a cover-up indeed.

So your quarrel with my initial post is what exactly? You've just said you agree with it. Was it merely because you assumed that because im anti-Bush I must be heaping all the blame towards the Bush administration, and not your pal Clinton?

[edit on 11/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   
The story is alive and well.




Fox News

[edit on 11-8-2005 by JIMC5499]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   

as posted by subz
So your quarrel with my initial post is what exactly? You've just said you agree with it. Was it merely because you assumed that because im anti-Bush I must be heaping all the blame towards the Bush administration, and not your pal Clinton?


How about you answer those questions to which your above quoted mention addresses? Your idea of a "cover-up" is quite different from mine given. I have indicated and asked you twice for specifics as to what you were refering to when you asserted cover-up.


As for this:


How does that have any bearing on this story? The military did just fine in spotting and monitoring Atta and his fellow terrorists. Thats not the issue here, their actions here do not show a "castrated military" by any stretch of the imagination. The fault lies in the Pentagon's alleged interpretation of U.S law. They inaccurately stated that the Pentagon is not allowed to share its intelligence on suspected foreign terrorists with the FBI. That is not the result of budget cuts or any castration carried out by Clinton.

Anyone with an ounce of research credibility would have picked up on my mention of Gorelick and how it pertains exclusively to what I was talking about, subz.

Maybe this will cause you to dig deeper than you apparently are not?


Why didn't the Commission press harder for military intelligence, and if the Times' source has told the truth, why did they ignore the Able Danger operation in their deliberations? It would emphasize that the problem was not primarily operational, as the Commission made it seem, but primarily political -- and that the biggest problem was the enforced separation between law enforcement and intelligence operations upon which the Clinton Department of Justice insisted. The hatchet person for that policy sat on the Commission itself: Jamie S. Gorelick.

Confirmation Of Able Danger Raises Even More Questions
Gorelick's Wall: The Commissioner belongs in the witness chair.





seekerof

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   
I've been having computer problems and as such haven't had a chance to see this until now........and all I have to say is for cryin out loud.....

For the past two years or so years, we have seen a deluge of reports that insinuate and implicate and provide a collection of circumstantial evidence that suggests somethingt very wrong with the governments incessant insistence thatthey did everything they could to protect the american public in the face of a 'brand new' threat in the form of terrorism......

From the very in-depth analysis' on ATS regarding various aspects of the 9/11 conspiracy to the farce of a war in Iraq where the american public was introduced to a new threat in the form of insurgents....who, by the way, were fighting on their turf an enemy who invaded their land plain and simple despite the credence you give to the nationalistic pride that we spew out to justify an obvious oil interest....to the downing street memo that suggests that the war was a foregone conclusion, to torture at Gitmo where the biggest tragedy for some is the fact that they had to encounter consciously the crumbling of an illusosry facade and admit that America as a superpower and world leader is still capable of backstabbing tactics and human degradation......to the various other stories that were lost in the light of a mass dissociative state that is the media circus....

Time and time again our billionaire president is portrayed in a light that is unfavorable....he is associated time and time again as having lied, plotted, and disregarded traits that many people worldwide assume as a given......

And yet we still argue about whether or not he is guilty. We still scrutinize every piece of crumb that gets thrown our way by the media......who here has yet to step back from the current story and look at the big picture....

I'll agree with even Mauddib....my friend I truly do respect your online personality...and state that each of these instances by itself can be discarded as insufficient. Each story to stand alone will fail my inscrupulous logic as undeniable..despite my fairly obvious stance. Because of spin....and political adjuncts who are experts far and above my humble talents who make it their life to understand how best to intone a specific word in a specific patternm, etc.....

But together, all these stories are accumulating to stand above the need for 'undeniable evidence.'......at least as far as opinion and awareness are concerned. Indeed, our mindsets should in fact be to go out of our way to find the damnable evidence, rather than further excusing and rationalizing what has become a mockery of a society.

Yet, I find in this thread that people are still skeptical.....

HOW????


Originally posted by subz
Dont let them get away due to your political point scorings.

Give the damn "right" "left" dead horse a rest and stop watching the partisan puppet show!


Well put, sub........this is the first and immediate hurdle we as a society face. Day in and day out we are being strung along by the next story......political damage control that seems to stress every other breath that all the evidence is yet to be sorted through and despite the latest indication that Bush may in fact care more about his personal interests over the american public, it's possible that he in reality still represents whatever it is we want to believe.....

There should no longer be any arguement.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join