Sep 24 2005

Able Danger, Hadley Speaks, 09/24/05

Published by at 11:24 am under Able Danger/9-11,All General Discussions

I don’t have a whole lot of time for blogging since today is the twin’s birthday (everything in twos). But I can say I am glad to see Hadley has come out and spoken on the subject finally:

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley yesterday denied receiving a Defense Department chart that allegedly identified lead terrorist Mohamed Atta before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, dealing a blow to claims by a Republican congressman that have caused a political uproar in recent weeks.

Fortunately, or not depending on your postion, this event was supposedly witnessed by Dan Burton. Of course if the fix is, in as MacRanger has suggested, it doesn’t really mean anything. This is the classic DC ‘bow out gracefully’ phase when things have been patched up. Notice how sweet and easy everyone is:

Hadley does recall seeing a chart used as an example of “link analysis” — the technique used by the Able Danger program — as a counterterrorism tool, but is not sure whether it happened during a Sept. 25, 2001, meeting with Weldon or at another session, Jones said.

Weldon’s chief of staff, Russ Caso, said that “the congressman sticks by his account” of the meeting, adding that it was understandable Hadley may have forgotten or misplaced the chart, given the demands of his job.

“This case is not closed,” Caso said. “We are still aggressively trying to track down charts and/or documents. We haven’t turned over every rock yet.”

But of course the MSM could not help but display either total ignorance or a pathetic attempt to cover tracks:

Investigators and counterterrorism experts also find it improbable — if not impossible — that an obscure Defense Department program that used open-source records could identify Atta by name and photograph in early 2000, when he was living in Germany under a different name and had yet to obtain a U.S. visa.

Actually, most people find it completely reasonable. The chart is a fixation. The tracking of Mohamed el-Amir (Atta) is not hard to fathom since the initial points of linkage were the WTC 1 bombers. These people ran in the same radical mosques that Atta found his connections to Al Qaeda through. The same evidence that was used in hindsight could have been gleened ahead of time as well. Finally, if the post had listened during the Senate hearings these two glaring facts came out:

(1) Atta was never identified as being in the US, but he was identified and with numerous names under his picture (meaning he was tagged in Germany – most likely)
(2) SOCOM asked to meet the FBI about Al Qaeda in the US

Put two and two together and SOCOM had a different set of individuals of concern in the US they were worried about. Able Danger was tracking 5 ‘cells’. Supposedly two of which had some connection (a member or two) to 9-11. My bet is the news about the SOCOM terrorists is what people would like to keep under wraps because those connections would really disclose our intelligence capabilities.

Recall the Able Danger process:

Open Data -> Orion -> LIWA -> DIA -> SOCOM

To the left of LIWA was all unclassified, while SOCOM was the head of the compartmentalized Able Danger. I have no clue how security levels progressed through LIWA and DIA – but someplace in there it became classified. Everything we have been told and leaked about is unclassified. That is why the story is so incomplete and disjointed. The real connections would have been made when the unclassified data from Orion was analyzed against the classified intel. We will not see this in open hearings, and I don’t think we should see it.

I think MacRanger is right. If Weldon is going to get funding this issue could just fade into history. Of course, the Pentagon could keep this in the news with their back and forth with Specter on the hearings.

15 responses so far

15 Responses to “Able Danger, Hadley Speaks, 09/24/05”

  1. granitroc says:

    I read the Washington Post article and came away with two alternative ways to view it. First, the article makes perfectly logical sense, case closed. Alternatively, its a hatchet job on Welden et al.

    I’m disposed to believe the latter for a variety of reasons, but chiefly because the writer “doth protest too much”. By that I mean, the repeated character assination, twisting of facts, and omissions in the article. If the reader only had this article to rely on, it would be case closed. In fact too much has been written elsewhere, with very little contradiction, except from the 9-11 Commission.

    Since the 9-11 Commission has a vested interest in protecting its findings and because they repeatedly had to revise their story, I cannot believe their view.

    I did find the Post article very well written (ghost written?). I especially liked the “suitcase bomb” touch. But over all, it is too much to be believed.

    Others have said the fix is in. Welden will get his pet project funding and all will go away. I could live with this if I knew that the lessons of Able Danger were learned and applied. I could live with the “CYA” thats occurring, if it leads to catching the bad guys. I could even live with the Berger / Clinton coverup if it lead to the capture of Bin Laden. But I’m not confident that any of this is happening.

    No one is asking for vital national secrets to be revealed. What is being asked for is information on how our combined intelligence system either failed to detect these Islamic-fascist cells or, conversely, if detected, how the government leadership failed to use this intelligence. How Able Danger did its work is less important to me (although I would love to know) than knowing whether it suceded and who (I mean names) dropped the ball and why.

    The why is important because it will give us the opportunity to learn from our mistakes.

  2. Able Danger – Great Summer Story – 6 “Hadley Speak

    Holy Crap – Hadley Speaks!

    Ah…then again, NOT exactly….

  3. Snapple says:

    I have a question about these Able Danger charts. Weldon once claimed he gave his only copy of these charts to Hadley, right? And that’s why he doesn’t have any more to show us, right?

    But in another article, Weldon claims he reconstructed the chart from original data. Why can’t he just reconstruct another chart? He claims that he still has the information used to make this chart and has offered to share this information. So why doesn’t he share it? He keeps saying this stuff is “open sources.” (Still, it seems to me he should not reveal what the government was looking at to the enemy.)

    One source I have seen that talks about a reconstructed chart is the Weldon Press Conference of 9-17-05 that is linked at Global Research.

    According to Global Research, Weldon says that he and his staff reconstructed a chart but that this was done from original data that “people had available”: “we reconstructed the original Mohammed Atta chart, which I’ve showed many times, with the linkages — from the original data, I might add, that people had available…….
    WELDON: I offered to go in and give them a briefing while they were doing their investigation. They could have seen the Heritage tape that’s on the Heritage Commission’s Web site of the speech I gave in May of 2002. It’s a public document. If they would have talked to me, I would have given them that link. I would have given them every piece of information that I had to reconstruct…”

    I have not seen that Global Research press conference on Weldon’s site. Global Research is a leftist/terrorist-supporting site.

    Global Research say that they got this press conference from the Congressional Quarterly. Maybe, but I can’t find any references to it except on supposedly conservative blogs. No MSM mention this press conference as far as I can tell.

    I wrote the Congressional Quarterly and to Congressman Weldon’s office and asked for that Global Research press conference to be authenticated. Neither has responded.

    Here are Shaffer’s own words in a long article. He doesn’t really address the issue of a reconstructed chart. He says that one of his colleagues kept an original chart and showed it to him after 9-11. Why would Weldon need to reconstruct a chart if Shafer’s colleagues had a real chart?

  4. Snapple says:

    Below are Shaffer’s own words in a long article. He doesn’t address the issue of a reconstructed chart. He says that one of his colleagues actually kept an original chart. And he says that “information on Able Danger’s findings was passed by Weldon to Hadley.” He doesn’t actually say a chart. He says information on Able Danger’s findings.

    It was within two weeks of 9/11, when one of my colleagues, who had kept one of the charts, called me and said, “You’re not going to believe this. He’s on one of our charts — Atta.” I just felt this sinking in the pit of my stomach like, “You’ve got to be kidding me.”

    “Nope, you want to come see?”

    This [colleague] and I get together for coffee.

    “Here it is,” [said the colleague.]

    I’m just sitting there shocked, like I can’t believe we have this, and I asked, “What are we going to do about this?” and [the colleague] said, “I don’t know yet.”

    I was told later that the information [on Able Danger’s findings] was passed by Congressman [Curt] Weldon over to Stephen Hadley [then the deputy national security advisor in the Bush White House].

  5. Snapple says:

    Now read again what the Washington Post article says. Hadley denies getting “a chart.” And Shaffer says that he “learned” that “information” was turned over to Hadley by Weldon. But in his book, Weldon claims he gave Hadley a chart.

    “National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley yesterday denied receiving a Defense Department chart that allegedly identified lead terrorist Mohamed Atta before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, dealing a blow to claims by a Republican congressman that have caused a political uproar in recent weeks.

    Rep. Curt Weldon (Pa.) wrote in his book, “Countdown to Terror,” earlier this year that he provided a chart to Hadley produced in 1999 by the Pentagon’s “Able Danger” program…

  6. Snapple says:

    So did Weldon reconstruct a chart, or did he give “information” to Hadley? Or something else, of course.

    I haven’t go a copy of Weldon’s book, but according to the Washington Post, Weldon claimed in his book that he provided a “chart” to Hadley “produced in 1999.” That doesn’t sound like a reconstruction or information. That sounds like an actual Pentagon chart “produced in 1999.”

    If the Washington Post is quoting Weldon’s book correctly, then Weldon claims he gave an original Able Danger chart produced in 1999 to Hadley. Not a reconstructed chart and not information.

    All of this is very confusing and inconsistent.

    Again, I think that the 9-17-05 Curt Weldon Press Conference posted on the Global Research site and attributed to the “Congressional Quarterly” may not, in fact, be authentic.

    I don’t see that press conference on Weldon’s site. Why wouldn’t he post his own press conference where he described in detail how he reconstructed the “original Mohammad Atta chart….from the original data…that people had available.”

    It is so incredibly cool that a congressman can reconstruct the “original Mohammad Atta chart….from the original data…that people had available.”

    Wouldn’t we all like to be able to do that? Wow!

    And why, if he has this original data, can’t he make another original Mohammad Atta chart?

    Don’t tell me Curt Weldon threw away this original data from the Pentagon!

    But I thought it was the Pentagon that threw away Able Danger stuff? During Clinton. And Gorelick. So how did Weldon have the original data to make an original Mohammad Atta chart?

    I am so confused. I just don’t get this at all.

  7. Snapple says:

    Here is what Weldon said on September 21, 2005:

    “in the weeks following 9/11, I was provided an extensive analysis CHART of Al Qaeda, which I immediately took to the White House and PERSONALLY delivered to then-Deputy National Security Advisor Steven Hadley.”

    “In the spring of 2005, I attempted to re-create the chart that I had presented to Hadley in 2001”

    “I received a brief to create a new expanded data mining and analysis capability known as Able Providence (which I would like to submit for the record). Able Providence was an initiative that would be supported through the Office of Naval Intelligence. The Navy was so enamored with getting Able Providence up and running that they even provided my Chief of Staff with the appropriate budget line number to direct any additional congressional funds.”

  8. Snapple says:

    Weldon is always claiming that we need open hearings on Able Danger so the people get a truthful accounting. But every time Weldon talks about this he seems to tell a different story.

    He seems like he is just lying and covering up, not giving a truthful accounting at all. And Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld aren’t exactly backing him up. Are they covering up, too? I think they are protecting very sensitive secrets.

    My own position is that Weldon should NEVER have told a word about the existence of Able Danger, even if material was thrown away that the FBI should have had. Just because the Pentagon may have made a mistake it doesn’t follow that Weldon should tell everything to the terrorists in the guise of telling the truth about 9-11.

    And anyway, he is not telling the American people the truth. He is telling a million different stories.

    If the program is as described, Double-0 Weldon has now tipped off M. Atta’s American collaborators that the Pentagon may have gathered evidence about them well prior to 9-11-01.

    Weldon often accuses the CIA of leaking, but who told Weldon he could leak?

    I am one of the people, and I don’t want a public accounting; I want Weldon to be quiet.

    Weldon exposed this classified program in order to blame the Democrats for 9-11.

    Even if this were true, he should not have publicized the existence of this classified program.

    In any case, it is all the communist and terrorist sites that are using Weldon’s revelations to claim that Bush and the Neocons orchestrated 9-11. So how is this helping the Republicans?

  9. Snapple says:

    Weldon exposed this classified program in order to blame the Democrats for 9-11. This was “just politics” but it may cost lives when classified programs are revealed.

    Even if it were were true that the Democrats are “at fault” for 9-11, he should not have publicized the existence of this classified program. We have to think of the future, not play the blame game.
    In any case, it is all the communist and terrorist sites that are using
    Weldon’s revelations to claim that Bush and the Neocons orchestrated 9-11. So how is this helping the Republicans?

    I didn’t vote for Clinton, but it was in 1999 that the Clinton government published a report that predicted that Al Qaeda might use airplanes to bomb the Pentagon, CIA, and White House. So the Democrats were not so dumb. And they had Able Danger. And I notice that Gorelick wasn’t blabbing about it to Osama like Curt Weldon does.

    “Al-Qaida’s expected retaliation for the U.S. cruise missile attack against al-Qaida’s training facilities in Afghanistan on August 20, 1998, could take several forms of terrorist attack in the nation’s capital. Al-Qaida could detonate a Chechen-type building-buster bomb at a federal building. Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida’s Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an
    aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House. Ramzi Yousef had planned to do this against the CIA headquarters.”

    Weldon thinks like many Congressmen–in terms of Red State and Blue States. This is called the United States.

    I voted twice for Bush, but I don’t blame Clinton for 9-11.

    All of this stupid political operative s*** is just damaging the country, turning people against each other and giving secrets to our enemies. All these party operatives who are spying and influencing against Republicans or Democrats should try fighting the real enemy for a change.

    I think Weldon is a really selfish, petty, arrogant, ridiculous man.

  10. Snapple says:

    Curt Weldon carries on about how the American people need the truth about 9-11.

    This is totally hypocritical, because he won’t even tell me if he gave a press conference on 9-17 as reported in Global Research or not.

    I have written his office many times and asked if he gave this press conference or if it is a fabrication, because it has Weldon saying things that are at odds with what he has said at other times.

    Why can’t he tell me if he said this or if he didn’t?

    The “press conference” of 9-17-05 is reported on a leftist, terrorist supporting, anti-American site called Global Research.

    The site claims this Weldon press conference came from the Congressional Quarterly, but they don’t give a link. I didn’t see this press conference on the Congressional quarterly site, but it is a big site and you have to pay for some things.

    If Weldon wants the American people to have the truth about 9-11, how come he won’t even answer this little question about the authenticity of a press conference attributed to him??

    It’s not like I asked him if he smokes crack. I just asked him if he gave a speech attributed to him or not. And he won’t even tell that.

  11. Snapple says:

    Here is an article on Weldon’s site

    There is a link at the top of the article to Weldon’s aid John Tomaszewski.

    Try asking him about the 9-17-05 press conference attributed by Global Research to Curt Weldon and the Congressional Quarterly.

    Weldon claims to have the truth about 9-11. I would settle for the truth about 9-17.

    For all I know, some fabricator like Ward Churchill may have written that press conference, published it on Global Research, and falsely attributed it to Curt Weldon.

    For one thing, the 9-17 Global Research press conference provides a very different account of this Able Danger chart business than Weldon has written on other occasions.

    So I wanted to know if Weldon is being victimized by fabricators who are trying to discredit him.

  12. topdog08 says:

    Snapple, here is the proof right here. If you don’t hear back from his spokesperson, you can always just order a copy, too.

  13. topdog08 says:

    It was actually 9/15 not 9/17 but was carried on C-SPAN. Notice how he refers to votes going on, but 9/17 would be a Saturday….

  14. Snapple says:

    Thank you for the link to the C-Span store. I don’t want to spend that kind of money, so am hoping to hear from the CQ or Weldon’s office.

    If he really gave that speech, then he seems really dishonest.

    It is totally different than what he wrote in his book or said other places, as you can see from the quotes above. I mainly used materials that were clearly his own words. And the left and the terrorist-supporters of Global Research are using him to promote the line that “Bush knew.” It’s disgusting.

    Weldon has leaked information and embarrassed the President, I think.

    Some media accounts say that Weldon did not give Hadley the chart himself, but someone else did. Other accounts he says that he personally gave the chart to Hadley.

    One account has Weldon saying that he “doesn’t remember” if Atta’s picture was on the chart, but his aid remembers that it was.

    How could Weldon “not remember if he saw Atta’s picture on the chart two weeks after 9-11??

    I posted those articles on an earlier thread about Able Danger on this forum.

    Shaffer says he “learned” that Hadley had been given Able Danger material.

    It’s not even clear what was provided to Weldon, by whom, and how it got to Hadley, yet Weldon is accusing the 9-11 Commission of lying.

    Weldon wrote all that stuff about Gorelick to embarrass the Democrats for 9-11. It’s disgusting. Republicans shouldn’t lower themselves to those kind of tactics.

    Gorelick wasn’t even in the government during Able Danger. Her memo is based on rules that go back to Reagan.

    If indeed material was destroyed instead of being sent to the FBI, that is really unfortunate. I guess people didn’t want to break the law.

    If mistakes were made, they should be investigated quietly and corrected. Why didn’t Weldon go to Rumsfeld instead of the media?

    I think we should not be fighting Democrats; we should be fighting the terrorists. And that is why I think that whatever mistakes were made should be corrected without telling the terrorists all our secrets.

    I bet that this data mining can be used to go back and retrace Atta’s steps. Probably much can be reconstructed and already has been. And there is no big “wall” now. So they should do it, catch the terrorists, and not broadcast our goof-ups and secret activities to the terrorists under the guise of “informing the people about what happened on 9-11.”

    I would expect the 9-11 Commission not to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We are in a war. I think they told what they could afford to tell.

    And if they lied a little on some points, they were lying to the terrorists. The police plant lies to catch criminals; they don’t tell the victims exactly what their investigation shows.

    Why should we tell the terrorists where our investigation of 9-11 is leading? Let them be surprised.

    I think maybe Winston (not Ward) Churchill said that in war the truth is so precious that it has to be protected by a bodyguard of lies.

    Let me tell you, I think if Rumsfeld is lying, he is lying to the terrorists to protect me. I trust him, not Weldon.

  15. […] OK, I am not buying Weldon’s claims right off, but I couldn’t help but notice how weak the Hadley statements were in the Washington Post story. We shall see, Hadley I am sure will speak out if there were inaccuracies. […]