Exposure of 'Able Danger' likely has conservative motive

[Informed Citizen]

Here's a hypothesis that is well supported by its precedents. You see, its not really a "theory" yet. Its just a hypothesis. If enough people agree that the hypothesis is valid, then it might be viewed as a thoery. But for now its just a hypothesis. There. Now, do we all feel safe and receptive?

The story comes to us from Rep. Curt Weldon, "a longtime Republican congressman from Pennsylvania who is currently vice chairman of both the House Homeland Security and House Armed Services Committees", by way of Government Security News.

http://www.gsnmagazine.com/aug_05/dod_lawyers.html

The release of the 'Able Danger' story was meant to provide a number of promotional opportunities for those maintaining the official view of 9/11. Here are some possibilities.

The first priority would probably be to re-assert the offical theory of 9/11. Recent promotional successes of the 9/11 truth movement, in conjunction with growing negative sentiment among the public toward the war in Iraq, have lead the authors to re-assert their myth of Al-qaida's primary responsibility. Be mindful of the fact that the government still has offered no substantial evidence linking Al-qaida to the attacks. A brief look that the hijackers, and we find that many, if not all of those who have been correctly identified are intelligence assets, in some cases having received military training by our government, in others having listed their residence as a U.S. miliary base, and finally others living at a motel across the street from the NSA. All of them were very careful to drop an obvious trail of crumbs behind them. And then there's always Hani Hanjour.

The second priority might be to deflect the looming charge of incompetence by feeding the right-wing press a story that allows them to suggest that Clinton really had presided over the failures that allowed 9/11 to occur. The certainty that this will be viewed as partly true will ensure the silence and complicity of the mainstream Left.

The third priority might be to make the responsibility for this specific failure appear to be nullified in bureaucratic function. Knowledge of these 'terrorists' was held by the DoD, but not passed on to the FBI, or domestic law enforcement due to the assertion by DoD lawyers working for Special Ops, "that anyone holding a green card had to be granted essentially the same legal protections as any U.S. citizen". So now we can't blame anyone, because they were only listening to their lawyers.

The fourth priority might be to ensure that blame is deflected, even if no one buys the DoD lawyer story, by blaming the 9/11 commission itself. An unidentified intelligence agent, working for the DIA, indicated that he personally shared this info with Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and that the information was subsequently ignored. This makes the failure again look like a bureaucratic snafu, and not an intentional act.

I'm sure there are other priorities at work here. But these seemed to be likely, and are generally supported by the press coverage.

Most importantly I want to suggest that no one among the 9/11 truth community be too enthusiatic about this story representing a big media 'break' for the 9/11 truth movement. However, it is good news. What it represents instead is a response to our success in convincing people that the Commission Report is full of omissions and errors, and that someone might be getting nervous that the official story may soon unravel. What do you think?

- I.C.

[spooked911]

1. A good assessment of the situation.

But the big question (for me) still seems to be hanging out there-- who the fuck said Atta had a green card?

Was this an unintentional slip-up or was there something more sinister here? I of course suspect the latter.

Your points are all well taken but this story puts more fuel on the MIHOP fire-- and may help some people come to MIHOP. The fact is, after a while, there are just TOO MANY "bureaucratic slip-ups" regarding 9/11 to be believable. Anyone with half a brain has to eventually realize the slips ALL fit into a pattern where the government made the attacks happen to serve their own geopolitical agenda.

Come on, we're are talking about TERRORISTS here, and we are expected to believe EVERYBODY dealing with terrorists in the government is incompetent or doesn't take their job seriously?

It is ridiculous and people need to wake up!!!!

[petgoat]

3. "Anyone with half a brain"

Well, to Bush supporters who prefer their news spun into cotton candy,
the Able Danger story means three things:

1. 9/11 was clearly "Clintoon"'s fault since the warnings came on his
watch

2. 9/11 was the fault of civil liberties

3. What's the use of commissions since they all lie anyway

What "anyone with half a brain can see" is unfortunately mostly
disconnected from political reality.

If I remember correctly, 911truth.org sent questionairres to the NY
legislators and found that most of them, including Sen. Clinton, had
never even heard of WTC7.

[RedSock]

4. so lets fully investigate 9/11

so let's fully investigate 9/11 and "get" clinton -- surely the bushbots would like that.

let's look at **everything** -- and if clinton is to blame, fine.

all we want to do is find the truth and punish the guilty.

so let's go, right-wingers!! join us in a search for 9/11 truth.

[spooked911]

5. My sentiments exactly!! Let's go! Let the cards fall where they may.

[StrafingMoose]

8. About incompetence...

"Incompetence" would result in a pool of probabilities (this guy f*cks up, this one doesn't, the other tries to fix the f*ck ups, etc all in a pyramidal scheme) if it's REALLY incompetence, then the end results has to be random at some point

Why did incompetence on 9/11 had for end result a totally open door compiling many 'needed' mistakes? That's what bugs me about people relying on cynical positions like "incompetence".

[Rich Hunt]

2. interesting

Gonna have to read more about this 'Able Danger' stuff.

[stickdog]

6. I don't think so because the press is clearly ignoring this report.

If Neocons wanted to spead their memes through this story, the press wouldn't be completely burying it.

[Informed Citizen]

7. Buried?

Stickdog,

Front page of the New York Times isn't what I'd call buried. And Google News came up with 6060 hits for 'Able Danger', while 'Cindy Sheehan' only got 3970. There's a bit of a buzz, and as I suspected, much of it is from the conservative press highlighting some the interpretations I suggesting in my post. We'll see how long this hangs on.

- I.C.

[JackRiddler]

9. disagree.

Able Danger happened. But Atta was under US surveillance from 1999 forward, as we have already known for three years thanks to the German press who reported on CIA surveillance of Atta & Co. while they were still in Hamburg.

The release of a fragment by Weldon with an anti-Clinton spin doesn't change its significance.

It's a limited hangout, since it's pretending that there was no continuity of the surveillance.

Besides the German revelations - their authorities told the CIA about the Hamburg cell and the CIA put them under surveillance without telling the Germans - there's also this:

a) Israeli intelligence provided the US with names of the same four "ringleaders" mentioned in Able Danger in advance of 9/11 and this info probably dervies from the activities of the Israeli "Art Students" spy ring rounded up in the States before and after 9/11.

b) The FBI doesn't have Atta ever arriving to the US before June 2000, so their timeline is now shot.

c) The Commission was told about "Able Danger" and Atta, according to a military intelligence source. They left it out of the report, and just issued an unbelievable denial that they knew anything about it. For the first time, they have been discredited in the eyes of mainstream reporters who have given them a free pass.

f) The maniac who caused this tip-of-the-iceberg to surface, Cong. Curt "Bomb Iraq Now" Weldon, wants to reduce it to a truly moronic anti-Clinton spin. Democrats are reacting reflexively by attempting to dismiss the revelation altogether. Bad idea.

g) We could go on to point z.

Back of it all, the real question: Who is Mohamed Atta? Was the quiet student in Germany until June 2000 the same as the psycho in Florida starting in April 2000 or the "Brooklyn Cell" member of 1999?!

[Informed Citizen]

10. Maybe not...

JackRiddler,

You are correct that this release of information does contain certain threads that bear examination as it appears to imply further wrongdoing. While we should not dismiss the significance of the release, I was trying to imply that it may serve primarily as fodder for the conservative media, and that this will have a wide impact that our counter-publicity would struggle to achieve. I was suggesting that when we talk about this issue, we consider not only the information, but why it was released, and how it is being widely and effectively used and spun toward interests opposing ours. I was suggesting that we not get overly excited. Is this really a break for the 9/11 truth movement, if what it mostly achieves is hand wringing, passing the blame around, and greater confusion about whether the truth of the matter can be determined? For you and me this is intersting new data. For most everyone else it may have a very different reception. Wouldn't you agree?

- I.C.

P.S. It would be really helpful if you did complete that summary of the important points that arrise from this story.