Pentagon says it has found no evidence Atta identified before 2001 attacks

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A Pentagon review has so far found no evidence that a secret intelligence operation identified Mohammad Atta as a member of a US-based Al-Qaeda cell before the September 11, 2001 attacks, a spokesman said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Representative Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record) and Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer have charged that Atta and three other September 11 hijackers were identified as early as mid-2000 through a data-mining program codenamed "Able Danger."

But Lawrence DiRita, a Pentagon spokesman, said a review of materials related to Able Danger has so far turned up no evidence that it identified Atta, the reputed leader of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

The spokesman said he did not know whether the material reviewed contained the names of any of the other three hijackers.

"What we have found are mostly sort of general reference to terrorist cells that people were generally aware of," DiRita told reporters.


more:http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050822/pl_afp/usattacksatta_050822164138

The Pentagon is hiding something.

He will probably denounce weldon and zoom in on bush's lies like a lazer beam.

My version of counter-bizarro world.

or some other Clinton admin official. He'll "entertain" the dittoheads with, "Maybe they should check Hillary Clinton's coffee table." Anything to keep pointing the finger at Clinton on this one.

Personally, I think they should check Richard Perle's pockets and socks.

"Pentagon says it has found no <additional and/or new> evidence <that it has failed to destroy> that Atta identified <himself personally and clearly with no room for doubt as to who he was> before 2001 attacks"

On one hand we have someone who says "I worked in a secret counter-terrorist group that tried to identify Mohammed Atta to the FBI in early 2001" and on the other we have a "Pentagon spokeperson" spouting the same lies that have been handed out by the echo chamber for nearly 4 years. Who do YOU believe?

he knows that none of the evidence was turned over, because it was destroyed by bushco. :shrug:

Where's the coordination? Weldon must be freelancing here and Rummy needs to explain the facts of 9/11 life to him.

NOw. They are both telling the truth after all this time
and the American People need to hear it.

May God Bless them both.

BRING THEM HOME NOW

WE ALL NEED THAT ON OUR CARS, TRUCKS, HOMES

I wouldn't believe that shmuck if he told me today was Monday.

a libel suit thrown at Weldon & Shaffer, I'll say that the Pentagon is full of S and trying to find it's way out. If they don't sue them for libel, IMO it means the Pentagon is scared to get some documents subpenaoed.

"What we have found are mostly sort of general reference to terrorist cells that people were generally aware of," DiRita told reporters.

Hmmm. I don't recall this administration being generally aware of any terror. As I recall, Ashcroft was covering up statues and trying to overturn Oregon's Death with Dignity law, the CIC was on vacation, and the National Security Adviser was waiting for historical information to trickle up into her circles.

But, perhaps DiRita should go for the simple "I don't remember" gambit. After all, it's worked so far.

'The Terror Timeline' references multiple links.

From Scott Horton's latest interview with Sibel Edmonds:

SE: No, but as I said, the reason I went to the Congress and to the 9/11 Commission had to do with criminal activities and the criminal activities I provided information on had a lot to do with 9/11. And it's very interesting for example this latest development with the 9/11 Commission and this information from the Department of Defense that had to do with Atta, right?

SH: Able Danger.

SE: And the main media is treating it as if "here's one piece of information the 9/11 Commission didn't include." I had this press conference last summer and together with 25 national security experts. These sort of people from NSA, CIA, FBI. And we provided the public during this press conference with a list of witnesses that had provided direct information, direct information. Some had to do with finance of al-Qaeda. These are people from NSA, CIA, and FBI to the 9/11 Commission, and the 9/11 Commission omitted all of this information, even though some of this information had been established as fact. One of them had to do with certain informants in April 2001. This informant provided very specific information about the attacks. The other had to do with certain information the FBI had in July and August 2001, where blueprints and building composites of certain skyscrapers were being sent to certain Middle Eastern countries, and many more information was just omitted. With my case they just said, "Refer to the inspector general's report," even though I had provided the commissioners with the documents and names of witnesses. So now today you're seeing the press talk about "Oh, one piece of information," which right now the Commission is denying: "We don't recall seeing that information." Well, I can put out 20 other cases. These are agents who worked for agencies such as FBI, CIA, some of them for 20 years, some for 18 years. I have their list, I have their affidavits that provided documents, and they were all omitted. But the media is treating it as if "oh, look, this one piece of information was omitted" from the 9/11 Commission report.

SH: And as you pointed , some of this information has been confirmed in the public. I know when you speak about the Iranian informant…

SE: Correct.

SH: …who warned in April of 2001 – that was even confirmed by Mueller, the director of the FBI.

SE: Absolutely there was actually an article in the Chicago Tribune in July 2004 saying that even Mueller expressed surprise that during the hearings, the commissioners didn't ask about this. And guess what, nobody reported all these omissions. What would happen if you hit them with 20 cases? And I'm talking about 20 affidavits from experts and veteran agents

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=7032

Just not one particular terrorist.

Not really the smartest defense to go with, IMHO.

Kinda like telling a judge
that you can't possibly have committed a burglary...
because you were across town robbing a gas station at the time.

Weldon a loose cannon as well. I don't believe either Weldon or DiRita!

Mohamed Atta was protected from official scrutiny as part of an officially-protected criminal narcotics trafficking enterprise with ties to top Republican officials including Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, and it was this fact—and not the “terrible lapses” of “weak on terror” Clinton Administration officials cited by Republican Congressman Curt Weldon—which shielded him from apprehension before the 9.11 attack.

The “terrible lapses” cited by Weldon do not stem from his nonsensical assertion that Atta had a green card (he did not) which rendered him immune from military investigation, but were instead resulted from his participation in an officially-protected heroin trafficking operation, conducted on planes like those of Wally Hilliard, whose Lear jet flew "milk runs" down and back to Venezuela every week for 39 weeks in a row before finally running afoul of local DEA agents not clued-in to the protected nature of the enterprise.

Moreover the secret military intelligence operation which identified Mohamed Atta and three other hijackers as a threat a year before the 9.11 attack, called Able Danger, was by no means the first military intelligence investigation into the activities of the Hamburg cadre.

As far back as 1991, military investigators had been detailed to Hamburg Germany, tracking what one military investigator who was there told us were “Al Qaeda heroin flows” from Afghanistan to the West.

http://www.madcowprod.com/

How did they get those photos of the hijackers up on our TV screens a couple days after 9/11?

..."Blame Clinton for 9/11" ploy, but if the Pentagon denies a mistake, then it MUST be the Truth.

It sort of reminds me of the ending of the "I Mudd" episode of the original "Star Trek.":banghead: :crazy: