[justaposter]

We all know that they cant find the ABLE DANGER reports thats been in the news lately.

Rice aide hid disbandment of Atta's trackers from 9/11 report

Now since we dont know what any documents said but can only speculate. This can be added to the right wingers answers why the documents if there is any are missing. Add to it that it was GW Bush that disbanded Able Danger in Feb. 01.

Tue Aug 23rd, 2005 at 17:20:00 PDT
The story is not the sharing of intelligence, it's the fact that Bush cancelled the program!

Wonder why Philip Zelikow might not have wanted the 9/11 Commission Report to include the fact that Able Danger, a program shut down in February 2001 just after Bush took office, had been actively tracking the movements of Mohammed Atta at the time? Think it might have jeopardized his promotion to the State Department after Bush's re-election?

Counselor of the Department



Term of Appointment: 02/01/2005 to present

Dr. Philip D. Zelikow was appointed Counselor of the U.S. Department of State in February 2005, where he serves as a senior policy advisor on a wide range of issues to the Secretary of State.



From the Times Herald on 08/17/2005:



Shaffer, however, claims he mentioned Atta by name to the 9/11 Commission's executive director, Philip Zelikow, when the two met in Afghanistan in October 2003.

"I kept my talking points (from the meeting)," Shaffer said. "And I'm confident about what I said."



Still think Able Danger is just a right wing plot to blame Bill Clinton? More details below.

topdog08's diary :: ::



From Wikipedia:



Philip Zelikow served on President Bush's transition team in 2000-2001. After George W. Bush took office, Zelikow was named to a position on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and worked on other task forces and commissions as well, including the National Commission on Federal Election Reform.

In Rise of the Vulcans (Viking, 2004), James Mann reports that when Richard Haass, a senior aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell and the director of policy planning at the State Department, drafted for the administration an overview of America's national security strategy following September 11, Dr. Rice, the national security advisor, "ordered that the document be completely rewritten. She thought the Bush administration needed something bolder, something that would represent a more dramatic break with the ideas of the past. Rice turned the writing over to her old colleague, University of Virginia Professor Philip Zelikow." This document, issued on September 17, 2002, is generally recognized as a watershed document in the War on Terrorism.

Because Philip Zelikow's significant involvement with the administration of George W. Bush, many have questioned the propriety of his position as executive director of the 9/11 Commission, which examined the conduct of George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice. Both the 9/11 Family Steering Committee and 9-11 Citizens Watch demanded his resignation, without success.

[justaposter]

Zelikow is a professor of history at the University of Virginia, where he also directs the Miller Center of Public Affairs. His qualifications to run the 9/11 commission are more than academic, however. During the first Bush administration he served on the National Security Council staff, and at the beginning of the second Bush administration he was appointed to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB). He also happens to be a longtime confidant, collaborator and friend of Rice, with whom he authored a book on German reunification in 1995 -- and whom he advised on the restructuring of the National Security Council during the Bush transition in late 2000.

Former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke revealed that Zelikow, as a member of the Bush transition team, had been extensively briefed on al-Qaida terrorism by the outgoing Clinton national security officials. When the widows learned first of Zelikow's close relationship with Rice and then of his presence at the terrorism briefings, they were outraged.

"As executive director, he has pretty much the most important job on the commission," said Mindy Kleinberg. "He hires the staff, he sets the direction and focus, he chooses witnesses at the hearings." She and her friends fear that even with the best of intentions, Zelikow's connections to the Bush White House will "taint the validity" of the commission's final report. Their demand that he resign or be fired has been rejected by the commission's co-chairmen, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean and former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton....

"If he was there during the transition, making recommendations about restructuring the NSC, on prioritizing issues, on handling terrorism, on Iraq -- then how can he oversee the report on those issues?" Kleinberg asked.



Hmm, I wonder if Zelikow advised Rice about this?

http://www.dailykos....8/23/20200/6070

[tnt4philly]

You crack me up. You people ingnored the "able danger" story every since it came out, and dismissed it as BS when it was mentioned. Now you bring it up when there is the slightest hint that someone on Bush's admin had something to do with it. Bush might have cancelled the program, but it was the Clinton administration that ignored the warnings about Atta. It was the Clinton admin that told the members of able danger that they copuld not do anything about Atta becasue he was in the country legally. And what a lovely biased web site you get your info from. You have nothing to say to those that listen to people like Rush, because that website is as bad as anything Rush comes up with. The only thing different is the direction.

[justaposter]

You crack me up. You people ingnored the "able danger" story every since it came out, and dismissed it as BS when it was mentioned. Now you bring it up when there is the slightest hint that someone on Bush's admin had something to do with it. Bush might have cancelled the program, but it was the Clinton administration that ignored the warnings about Atta. It was the Clinton admin that told the members of able danger that they copuld not do anything about Atta becasue he was in the country legally. And what a lovely biased web site you get your info from. You have nothing to say to those that listen to people like Rush, because that website is as bad as anything Rush comes up with. The only thing different is the direction.

Now since we dont know what any documents said but can only speculate.

Do you get FOX over there tnt ? If you do that is where i first heard of this(Brian Wilson). Now which part of that quote up there are you haveing problems with? And once again if you have been following the story it was the military lawyers that didnt want to pass this along. Now do you really want to go there?

Now since this was to have happened 1 yr or so before Bush that would mean this same information was there BEFORE Bush closed down the shop on Able Danger in FEB 01. 7 MONTHS later 9/11 yet you ONLY want to talk Clinton. Im sure there is more to come on this and it would be most helpful if we hold everyone involved Clinton and Bush administrations accountable. Or does that scare you? . We can assume since there is no proof yet that both are and should be held accountable to the people.

This post has been edited by justaposter: 27 August 2005 - 03:26 PM

[usedmeat]

Former President Bill Clinton went before the 911 commission and testified under oath. The same cannot be said of Bush, what does he have to hide?

[justaposter]

Former President Bill Clinton went before the 911 commission and testified under oath. The same cannot be said of Bush, what does he have to hide?

Not only that but he fought like hell not to have the 9/11 panel in the first place , plus he classified many doucuments they asked for. Those that fail to see the pattern will fall for anything. I dont care if its Clinton or Bush or both but it sure seems like there is something fishy going on here . All this talk and not a shred of evidence to be found under this administration. You would think if they had something that can point away from them they would have rolled it out long ago.

And tnt says i crack him up.

[tnt4philly]

Former President Bill Clinton went before the 911 commission and testified under oath. The same cannot be said of Bush, what does he have to hide?

The key to this statement is that Clinton was the former president. There are very few, if any, cases of sitting presidents testifying under oath before a commision such as the 9/11 commision.

I never said that Bush was innocent about this issue at all. What I was pointing out is that prior to this article you people ignored the able danger story. Now that it looks like the Bush admin had something to do with it, you jump all over it.

[justaposter]

The key to this statement is that Clinton was the former president. There are very few, if any, cases of sitting presidents testifying under oath before a commision such as the 9/11 commision.

I never said that Bush was innocent about this issue at all. What I was pointing out is that prior to this article you people ignored the able danger story. Now that it looks like the Bush admin had something to do with it, you jump all over it.

You do know that even if Clinton was involved there isnt a whole lot that can be done to his administrsation. But if the Bush administration knew and did nothing but hide it we as a country CAN do something to the current administration. Its to easy to jump on the last administration and you guys do that well. But this isnt junping on Bush this is just pointing out that if this current administration has yet done more wrong we can do something about it.

Now that it looks like the Bush admin had something to do with it, you jump all over it.

Are you saying no one should ask questions anyway?

What i posted goes way past the he said she said claims that we have been hearing before this, so their wasnt anything to talk about. This piece just might be showing us something a pattern if you will. What was being said before had nothing to back up the claims it was and still is all talk. What i posted is recorded history not speculation .

[usedmeat]

We might have had one commission like the 911 commission, only one. That was back in the 1940's. You have a short memory about sitting presidents being compelled to testify under oath.

[justaposter]

We might have had one commission like the 911 commission, only one. That was back in the 1940's. You have a short memory about sitting presidents being compelled to testify under oath.

They asked Bush , Rice, Cheney to testify under oath they refused . So it was the president that made that choice not any thing in history. Thats a cop out.

[usedmeat]

Who's idea was it to have dick Cheney hold Bush's hand when he went in front of the 911 commission? Was it Bush or was it Rove? My bet is Rove had Cheney there to keep George on a short leash lest he blurt out anything incriminating.

[justaposter]

Who's idea was it to have dick Cheney hold Bush's hand when he went in front of the 911 commission? Was it Bush or was it Rove? My bet is Rove had Cheney there to keep George on a short leash lest he blurt out anything incriminating.

That could very well could be true we all blurt out things at times we shouldnt have said. Bush is no exception .

[barrosam]

[quote=justaposter,Aug 29 2005, 09:43 AM]
That could very well could be true we all blurt out things at times we shouldnt have said. Bush is no exception .

True but generally our decisions don't result in the billions of dollars lost and worse....thousands of deaths.

[justaposter]

You crack me up. You people ingnored the "able danger" story every since it came out, and dismissed it as BS when it was mentioned. Now you bring it up when there is the slightest hint that someone on Bush's admin had something to do with it. Bush might have cancelled the program, but it was the Clinton administration that ignored the warnings about Atta. It was the Clinton admin that told the members of able danger that they copuld not do anything about Atta becasue he was in the country legally. And what a lovely biased web site you get your info from. You have nothing to say to those that listen to people like Rush, because that website is as bad as anything Rush comes up with. The only thing different is the direction.

And what a lovely biased web site you get your info from.

I first heard it on Fox News(you must have missed that in my other post) but when i went looking there it was not on their site. So i looked elsewhere. If you would google you will see its getting more coverage on the net. You can dislike the site but you havent offered nothing to dispute the message. Something is fishy like it or not and when things are added together it does show a trend with the administration that in power today.

Funny the so called MSM(LIBERAL) isnt even looking into it but if you want to know whos missing in Aruba they have it covered.