🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁

Pelosi Demands Private Jet For Travel

what did they know about him? did they know he was planning to fly an airplane into the WTC? what did they know? They knew he was in the country? big deal. He was here on a valid visa. end of story. He had done nothing illegal.

President Bush was cutting brush and golfing and grilling steaks and did NOTHING when told in August that Osama was determined to strike within our borders.

Source: 9/11 Panel Staffers Probing Documents on 'Able Danger'

WASHINGTON — Staff assistants to the Sept. 11 commission are planning a trip to the National Archives to retrieve their notes on a U.S. military unit's information that four of the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackers were inside the United States a year before the attacks, FOX News has learned.

Defense Department documents show that the information, developed by a classified defense intelligence unit dubbed "Able Danger," wasn't handed over to the FBI because of concerns about pursuing information on foreigners admitted to the country for permanent residence.

A source familiar with the Sept. 11 commission told FOX News on Wednesday that the aides who still have security clearances are looking for a memo about a briefing given to four staff members by defense intelligence officials during an overseas trip to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in Fall 2003.

The date of the archives expedition is not yet known. The National Archives are located just outside of Washington, D.C.

The activity comes after Lee Hamilton (search), co-chairman of the now-disbanded commission, said he wanted to know whether defense intelligence officials knew of the Al Qaeda-linked attackers' activity but failed to tell law enforcement.

In an interview with FOX News, Hamilton said there should be a comprehensive review by Congress and the Pentagon into the claims. He said this potentially cruicial information could change the way history sees Sept. 11, 2001.

Members of the commission are reviewing claims that more than a year before the 2001 attacks defense intelligence officials had identified ringleader Mohammed Atta (search) and three other hijackers, and that they were already inside the United States. A statement could come by the end of the week

"The Sept. 11 commission (search) did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell," said Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. "Had we learned of it obviously it would've been a major focus of our investigation."

Hamilton's remarks Tuesday followed findings by Rep. Curt Weldon (search), R-Pa., vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, that made front-page news.

In June, Weldon displayed charts on the floor of the U.S. Senate showing that Able Danger identified the suspected terrorists in 1999. The unit repeatedly asked for the information to be forwarded to the FBI but apparently to no avail. Various news outlets picked up on the story this week.

Weldon told FOX News on Wednesday that staff members of the Sept. 11 commission were briefed at least once by officials on Able Danger, but that he does not believe the message was sent to the panel members themselves. He also said some phone calls made by military officials with Able Danger to the commission staff went unreturned.

"Why weren't they briefed? Was there some deliberate attempt at the staff level of the 9/11 commission to steer the commissioners away from Able Danger because of where it might lead?" Weldon asked. "Why was there no mention of Able Danger?"

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Sept. 11 commission looked into the matter during its investigation of government missteps leading to the attacks and chose not to include it in the final report.

A group of Sept. 11 widows called the September 11th Advocates issued a statement Wednesday saying they were "horrified" to learn that further possible evidence exists, and they are disappointed the Sept. 11 commission report is "incomplete and illusory."

"The revelation of this information demands answers that are forthcoming, clear and concise," the statement said. "The Sept. 11 attacks could have and should have been prevented."

Sept. 11 Staffers Investigate

Hamilton confirmed that commission staff members learned of Able Danger during a meeting with military personnel in October 2003 in Afghanistan, but that the staff members do not recall learning of a connection between Able Danger and any of the four terrorists now mentioned. He also said no mention made of Atta.

It was "inconceivable" that staffers would have missed such a reference, Hamilton told FOX News.

According to the source who spoke with FOX News, none of the staffers believe they were ever told specifically about Atta having been identified by defense intelligence before the 2001 attacks.

But after the October 2003 trip, the commission staff members pursued Able Danger further and asked the Pentagon to produce documents related to the unit, which they were, FOX News has also learned.

Still, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said this week that he was unaware of the intelligence until the latest reports surfaced.

The source said three key questions need to be answered: Did defense intelligence identify Atta before the attacks? If so, was this information ever passed onto the commission? Was Rumsfeld ever briefed by his predecessor, Bill Cohen, on the unit and its findings?

"If the Sept. 11 commission staff made a mistake and missed this information, we will be the first to admit it. That is why we are going back to the archives to check our work, but at this time, staff do not believe this information was ever made available to them," the source said.

The commission's report on the terrorist attacks, released last year, traced government mistakes that allowed the hijackers to succeed. Among the problems the commission cited was a lack of coordination between intelligence agencies.

With the Sept. 11 commission disbanded for a year under provisions of the legislation that created it, some of the panel's members have said congressional committees should investigate Weldon's assertions.

"I can tell you right now, there are investigations going on right now… trying to get answers," Weldon told FOX News on Wednesday.

A 'Series of Mysteries'

According to Weldon, Able Danger identified Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi (search), Khalid al-Mihdar (search) and Nawaf al-Hazmi (search) as members of a cell Able Danger code-named "Brooklyn" because of some loose connections to New York City.

Weldon said that in September 2000, the unit recommended on three separate occasions that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI "so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists." However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation, arguing that Atta and the others were in the country legally so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.

"Lawyers within the administration — and we're talking about the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration — said 'you can't do it,'" and put post-its over Atta's face, Weldon said. "They said they were concerned about the political fallout that occurred after Waco ... and the Branch Davidians."

Defense Department documents show that the Able Danger team was set up in 1999 to identify potential Al Qaeda operatives for U.S. Special Operations Command. Information provided to the team by the Army's Information Dominance Center (search) pointed to a possible Al Qaeda cell in Brooklyn.

However, because of concerns about pursuing information on "U.S. persons" — a legal term that includes U.S. citizens as well as foreigners admitted to the country for permanent residence — Special Operations Command didn't give the Army information to the FBI. It is unclear whether the Army provided the information to anyone else.

The command instead turned its focus to overseas threats.

The documents provided no information on whether the team identified anyone connected to the Sept. 11 attacks on New York City and Washington that killed nearly 3,000 people.

The prohibition against sharing intelligence on "U.S. persons" should not have applied since they were in the country on visas and did not have permanent resident status, said Weldon.

Able Danger was largely using open-source information that was available on the Internet and in other public media, he added.

Click here for FOXNews.com's story on open-source information and the War on Terror.

Bob Graham, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told FOX News on Wednesday that Congress not only needs to investigate the Able Danger claims but also needs to investigate other related issues, such as how German intelligence agencies alerted the United States that members of the Hamburg Al Qaeda cell were coming to America.

What also needs to be investigated further, Graham said, is how two Sept. 11 terrorists were living in a building in San Diego where their landlord was actually an FBI informant. The FBI is not saying what the informant told the agency about those terrorists, he said.

"I anticipate [Congress] will be getting on to their job with a great deal of commitment and expertise in this area. I hope it doesn't end with this one instance of why we didn't know about Atta," said Graham, author of "Intelligence Matters."

"There's not just one mystery here — there's a series of mysteries about why we didn't learn about this plot early enough to break it up," he added.

FOXNews' Catherine Herridge and Liza Porteus and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
 
another rd stats rul cut and paste which does NOT answer the question:

what did they know about him? did they know he was planning to fly an airplane into the WTC? what did they know? They knew he was in the country? big deal. He was here on a valid visa. end of story. He had done nothing illegal.
 
and after the first WTC attack, which happened a mere three weeks after his inauguration, Clinton kept terrorist attacks away from our shores.

Bush went on vacation and didn't give a shit when told Osama was going to strike.... he was worried about star wars and not terrorism....and Ashcroft was worried about pornography and not about terrorism .

Those are really stupid comments. It's well known that world-wide terrorism was on the upswing during the entire Clinton Presidency, and that he was complacent in fighting it.
 
Those are really stupid comments. It's well known that world-wide terrorism was on the upswing during the entire Clinton Presidency, and that he was complacent in fighting it.

terrorism on the upswing? no doubt. Clinton complacent about it? your opinion which I do not share. were there any other attacks on our shores during his watch, yes or no?
 
Those are really stupid comments. It's well known that world-wide terrorism was on the upswing during the entire Clinton Presidency, and that he was complacent in fighting it.

He is now using liberal debate tactic number 3. Get as personal and vicious as you can, maybe it will distract your opponent from his train of thought.
 
Those are really stupid comments. It's well known that world-wide terrorism was on the upswing during the entire Clinton Presidency, and that he was complacent in fighting it.


and are you denying the focus of the justice department was pornography and not terrorism? ar eyou denying that Asscroft took $52M from antiterrorism task force the day before 9/11? are you denying that the national security advisor, after being told in AUgust that Osama was determined to attack us inside our own borders, still was focused on star wars and that her speech for 9/11 was all about that and had NOTHING to do with terrorism?
 
and are you denying the focus of the justice department was pornography and not terrorism? ar eyou denying that Asscroft took $52M from antiterrorism task force the day before 9/11? are you denying that the national security advisor, after being told in AUgust that Osama was determined to attack us inside our own borders, still was focused on star wars and that her speech for 9/11 was all about that and had NOTHING to do with terrorism?

During the Clinton years, the sole purpose of the Justice Dept was to protect Clinton from his acts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and trhe Chinese campaign donations
 
and are you denying the focus of the justice department was pornography and not terrorism? ar eyou denying that Asscroft took $52M from antiterrorism task force the day before 9/11? are you denying that the national security advisor, after being told in AUgust that Osama was determined to attack us inside our own borders, still was focused on star wars and that her speech for 9/11 was all about that and had NOTHING to do with terrorism?
Tactic #5.
 
Air Pelosi vs. Air Sununu: Not Even Close In The Post
Posted by Tim Graham on February 17, 2007 - 14:44.
When the Air Pelosi brouhaha arose in the last few weeks, the first story that came to my bias-obsessed brain was the Air Sununu scandal in 1991, a crusade led by The Washington Post. The White House chief of staff John Sununu (father of the current senator) drew great controversy for his use of government jets and then, a government limo trip to a stamp auction. Comparison to other scandals, including congressional travel, came in our newsletter MediaWatch. Consider the comparison of the Post's investigative vigor:

Air Pelosi, 2007: One story on A-15, headlined "Pelosi Catches Nonstop Flights Home," a header designed for yawns, 272 words.

Air Sununu, 1991: 25 stories in 68 days (April 21-June 27), eleven on Page 1.

From an old file of mine, the raw data:



June 27: "Sununu Reportedly Used Federal Guards on Trips," Page A11.




June 26: "Sununu Sees Vendetta As Source of Troubles: GOP Insiders, Liberal News Media Blamed," Page A5.




June 25: front page center photo with headline: "Intends to Remain in Job." News story on A7.




June 24: "Sununu Stays, Bush Indicates: President Gives Aide Thumbs Up." Small column on page A5.




June 23: "Sununu Concedes Travel Mistakes: Aide Regrets 'Appearance of Impropriety.'" Top right on page 1, continues to page A6.




June 22: "Sununu Travel Rules Tightened: Probe Finds Counsel Was Misinformed." Top right on page 1, continues to pages A6 and A7.




June 21: No news story. (Haynes Johnson column on A2).




June 20: "President Chides Sununu: Job Safe Despite Ethical 'Appearance Problem'." Bottom half left, page 1. Continues to A6.




June 19: "Sununu Trip Said to Anger Bush: President Reportedly Sought Advice on Flap Over Use of Limousine." Top right, page 1. Continues to A4.




June 18: "Sununu's Trip Lawful, White House Aides Say: 'Doing Official Business' When in the Car." Page A4.




June 17: "Chief of Staff Defends N.Y. Limousine Trip: Phone Link Said to Serve 'National Interest'." Page A4.




June 16: "Sununu Uses Official Car To Attend Stamp Auction." Page A11.




May 31: "Sununu Took Eight Months To Repay Some Travel Costs: Bills Sent Promptly, White House Aides Say." Page A1, bottom left. Continues to A16.




May 16: "A Sununu Sing-Along: A Sampling of Lampoons Directed at White House Chief of Staff." Federal Page, A17.




May 11: "Figures Show Sununus on Tight Budget: Military Jets May Have Made Some Trips Affordable for Bush Aide." Front page, exact middle. Continues to half-page on A12.




May 10: "White House Strips Sununu of Travel Authority." Entire top of front page. Continues to more than half a page with two sidebars, A14.




May 3: "Review of Sununu's Travel Widens: White House Lawyer to Assess Propriety of 70 Trips on Military Jets." Page A4.




May 2: "White House Shunning Questions On Subsidized Jet Trips by Sununu: Unresolved Issues Include Who Reimbursed Government for Expenses." Page A12. (Accompanied by A12 story on Dan Quayle flying to Georgia to play golf.)




April 28: "Appointees Fire Barbs at Sununu: Chief of Staff Acted to Curb Others' Trips." Page A1, continues on A19.




April 27: "White House Scours Sununu Travel Records for Improprieties." Page A4.




April 26: "Sununu Charts Different Course As Chief of Staff: Former New Hampshire Governor Does Not Confine His Influence to the White House." Page A4.




April 25: "Bush Says Counsel Will Review Policy Covering Military Flights by Sununu." Page A1, top center. Continues to page A12.




April 24: "Sununu Deems Only 4 Plane Trips 'Personal'." Entire width of front page. Continues with almost entire page on A6.




April 22: "Administration Officials Defend Sununu's Use of Military Jets." AP dispatch on Page A4.




April 21: Post begins the whole story by revealing its investigation of travel records. "Sununu: Frequent Flier on Military Aircraft: Trips to Ski Resorts, Home, Fund-Raisers." Top Left Page 1. Continues to almost entire page with chart, A18.

MRC Chairman Brent Bozell held a press conference, which the Post dutifully covered. Howard Kurtz began his story on June 28:

The Washington Post, which has been riding high on the Air Sununu story, came under groundfire yesterday from a conservative media critic, who accused the paper of "a shameless double standard in a deliberate effort to get rid of the president's chief of staff."


L. Brent Bozell III, chairman of the Alexandria-based Media Research Center, told a news conference that while The Post has run 25 stories on travel abuses by John Sununu -- more than 25,000 words -- in the past 68 days, the paper has been "whitewashing" similar abuses by Democratic members of Congress. He said The Post was pushing the Sununu story to further its "ideological agenda."

Leonard Downie Jr., The Post's managing editor, said the paper has done "scores of stories" on congressional abuses of power.

"We have gone through how congressmen spend money on the franking privilege, on office accounts and on junkets we discovered... . In my mind, the Sununu coverage fits in with this very aggressive attack we've been on," Downie said. "A year or so ago, it was the Democrats who were complaining to us, Democratic congressmen who said we were blowing [stories] up.

"We have no ideological agenda... . We're not out to get anybody," Downie said. "We don't favor one party over another."

http://newsbusters.org/node/10891
 
are you a real person or just a cut and paste news bot?

you really ARE incapable of expressing your own thoughts, aren't you?

what a sad sad man you must be....if you aren't a bot, that is.
 
are you a real person or just a cut and paste news bot?

you really ARE incapable of expressing your own thoughts, aren't you?

what a sad sad man you must be....if you aren't a bot, that is.

Libs always get pissy when someone posts examples of the liberal media circling the wagons around the Dems while at the same time, showing their bias and slanted reporting toward conservatives
 
Libs always get pissy when someone posts examples of the liberal media circling the wagons around the Dems while at the same time, showing their bias and slanted reporting toward conservatives


this lib hardly ever cuts and pastes anything...I am confident in my ability to express myself using my own words.

you, obviously, do not share that confidence.

pity
 
this lib hardly ever cuts and pastes anything...I am confident in my ability to express myslef using my own words.

you, obviously, do not share that confidence.

pity

You do a great job of showing what a liberal asshole you are and how little regard you have for America and for the US military
 
You do a great job of showing what a liberal asshole you are and how little regard you have for America and for the US military

you can not find one word of disrespect for our military in anything I have written. So besides being apparently illiterate, you are also a LIAR. Why am I not surprised?
 
you can not find one word of disrespect for our military in anything I have written. So besides being apparently illiterate, you are also a LIAR. Why am I not surprised?

again, you kiss the asses of the Dems who have smeared our troops - so you are disrespecting and smearing the troops
 
again, you kiss the asses of the Dems who have smeared our troops - so you are disrespecting and smearing the troops

I don't think that pointing out the idiocy of our proposed mission in Iraq is, in any way, disrespecting the poor guys on the line who have to try and accomplish it. I have been there, done that. Face it: the missions that the civilians in DC send our military to do are often times not "do-able"....but our armed forces are such professionals that they will die trying to accomplish those missions anyway. Good for them. Shame on the suits in DC who send them to die.
 
I don't think that pointing out the idiocy of our proposed mission in Iraq is, in any way, disrespecting the poor guys on the line who have to try and accomplish it. I have been there, done that. Face it: the missions that the civilians in DC send our military to do are often times not "do-able"....but our armed forces are such professionals that they will die trying to accomplish those missions anyway. Good for them. Shame on the suits in DC who send them to die.

Dems approve the new Commander (without a single no vote) then tell him they refuse to go along with his request for more troops - that he feels he needs to get the job done
 

Forum List

Back
Top