So that Clinton/911 story was all just Republican BS?

[TomPainesBones]

The Internet has been going crazy with this story.
I'm a little confused. This all was started by some Republican citing an unnamed "uniformed military officer" that the 9/11 Commission didn't even agree with?

What is going on here?
Is Weldon just flat out lying about the facts?
What's this about information being withheld from the FBI?


9/11 Commission's Staff Rejected Report on Early Identification of Chief Hijacker

<SNIP>
Mr. Felzenberg said staff investigators had become wary of the officer because he argued that Able Danger had identified Mr. Atta, an Egyptian, as having been in the United States in late 1999 or early 2000. The investigators knew this was impossible, Mr. Felzenberg said, since travel records confirmed that he had not entered the United States until June 2000.

"There was no way that Atta could have been in the United States at that time, which is why the staff didn't give this tremendous weight when they were writing the report," Mr. Felzenberg said. "This information was not meshing with the other information that we had."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/politics/11intel.html?oref=login

[rateyes]

1. If it comes from a republican..

there's a 99% chance that it's bullshit. But, there's always that 1%. Just don't know.

[blm]

2. Weldon is a water carrier for RevMoon. He and Bill Gertz are 2 propaganda

pushers who are always looking to blame anything that is going to hurt Bush on Clinton first before the real story comes out.

Remember when Bill Gertz blamed the CIA pre-emptively for 9-11 long before the 9-11 commission convened? Or when he said Russia looted the Iraqi arsenal?

Everything they do for Bush seems to be pre-emptive.

[TomPainesBones]

3. So the Pentagon

didn't keep information from the FBI?


Cong. Weldon's Preemptive Strike Against the CIA
<SNIP>
Weldon claims that course of action was rejected in large part because the four al-Qaeda operatives were in the US on valid entry visas.

He asserts Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation because they said Atta and the others were in the country legally.

That claim is simply inconsistent with the law as it existed at the time. That was not and is not government policy. For one thing, the Pentagon's lawyers whom Weldon claims made the decision to withhold information from FBI knew full well that the four suspects were not "U.S. persons" (citizens or lawful permanent residents, aka "green card" holders.)

The matrix the Army Able Danger unit had compiled was based on data from entry records provided by INS, which clearly showed the four al-Qaeda operatives had all entered the U.S. as non-immigrants with visas.

Warrant requirements under the Foreign Intelligence Survellance Act (FISA) and information-sharing restrictions simply did not apply to the 9/11 hijackers. This is basic national security and immigration law. Anyone who's familiar with FISA warrant and information sharing guidelines in place at that time knows Weldon's version is a most implausible cover story.

In fact, CIA, DOD and other intelligence agencies could do all the electronic monitoring they wanted on the al-Qaeda suspects, AND SHARE IT WITH THE FBI, because the subjects of wiretaps were all non-resident aliens, exempt from FISA warrant requirements.

Certainly, DoD lawyers didn't get that one wrong. Not for the reason being offered by Weldon and other GOP operatives.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/08/con05285.html

[blm]

4. I only know ONE thing for certain, if Weldon said it it's a lie.

And his reason for saying it is almost certainly a set up to cast doubt on something we are about to learn.

[papau]

5. It was Reagan/Bush WALL - not Clinton - that stopped ATTA info in 2000

The policy, often referred to as a "wall," was established well before Clinton took office and was retained by the Bush administration; it is unclear whether the "wall" played any role in the decision to withhold information about Atta.

The joint House and Senate intelligence committees' report of pre-September 11 intelligence failures did not find that the "wall" originated in the Clinton administration; the report http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24jul20031400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf#page=415 states: "The 'wall' is not a single barrier, but a series of restrictions between and within agencies constructed over 60 years as a result of legal, policy, institutional and personal factors." Similarly, a ruling by the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review -- when it met for the first time in 2002 -- traces the origin of the "wall" to "some point during the 1980s."

Nor did enforcement of the "wall" end with the Clinton administration. In his April 12, 2004, testimony before the 9-11 Commission, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft conceded that his own deputy attorney general, Larry Thompson, reauthorized the "wall" in August 2001.

It is unclear whether the "wall" prevented intelligence sharing about Atta during the Able Danger operation; the 9-11 Commission plans to soon investigate why information identifying Atta was withheld from law enforcement agencies.

In the summer of 2000, the military team "Able Danger", prepared a chart that included visa photographs of the four men and recommended to the military's Special Operations Command that the information be shared with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but the The recommendation was rejected and the information was not shared,at least in part because Mr. Atta, and the others were in the United States on valid entry visas, even though the American law that says United States citizens and green-card holders may not be singled out in intelligence-collection operations by the military or intelligence agencies does not apply to visa holders.

So despite Rush's assertions, it was not a wall erected by Clinton and Jamie Gorelick that was the problem - and indeed the wall that did exist was erected by Reagan/Bush and reauthorized by George W Bush before 9/11.

[Emit]

7. Thanks for that info--I've been looking for that n/t

[underpants]

8. Page 210 of the 9/11 Commission Report says the same

Nor did enforcement of the "wall" end with the Clinton administration. In his April 12, 2004, testimony before the 9-11 Commission, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft conceded that his own deputy attorney general, Larry Thompson, reauthorized the "wall" in August 2001.

First full paragraph on page 210 says the same

[wli]

6. the only "wall" was smashing investigations into false flag attacks n/t