I doubt I will have much chance to do any round ups over the weekend, need to get my oldest back to college (with some family fun on the side). Will see how things go.

For today let’s start with the media outlets – as usual.

The Washington Post is running an article on Shaffer’s statements that his sources for the claims are actually his colleagues (which might explain some of his vagueness in interviews).

The NY Post has what could be a blockbuster article claiming the Pentagon is disavowing the statements on Able Danger by Lt. Col. Shaffer:

The military brass hit back at an Army intelligence officer yesterday, saying a probe has found nothing to back up his claims that an intelligence unit had discovered the presence of 9/11 mastermind Mohamed Atta in the United States before the attacks.

The reason I hesitate on this claim is this statement

“We are continuing to dig into this information that the lieutenant colonel has provided. But we are not finding information that substantiates his allegations,” a military official briefed on the preliminary findings of the probe told The Post.

One thing that could muddy the waters is the role of Gen Schoomaker. From some digging by Mac at Mac’s Mind we have this:

On my own end, I have found some basic confirmation (via landline) to my original theory that General Schoomaker was running a “after school” program under Shelton’s nose (with Weldon’s “plussed up funding”, which explains why General Shelton (retired now) says, “Able What?”, and why Schoomaker has no comment.

And this as well:

Could it be that once these guys/gals got more than they bargined for that because General Schoomaker was running a “rogue” operation, he “shut ’em down” and quick? It would seem some are beginning to “break cover”…..heh..

That at this point is a very plausible explaination why Able Danger fell off the map and the paper trail with them.

Of course we are talking this General Schoomaker, Army Chief of Staff. Maybe that is why the NY Post article refers to ‘military brass’. Sadly, this is the last line in the article:

Other sources familiar with the investigation told The Post that the probe so far has confirmed that Able Danger did produce a chart of terror suspects in the United States, and military lawyers blocked efforts to notify the FBI.

This better not turn into a battle inside the Pentagon. We do not need another scandal while we are at war.

Mickey Kaus discusses the ‘two Atta theory’ in Slate, which is actually easily debunked (maybe someone should tell him). Debunked by: the Able Danger ‘Atta’ was connected to Al-Shehhi in a AQ cell in the US, and they both were in the Hamburg cell with another 9-11 terrorist. So it is impossible to confuse these other Atta’s with the one associated with Al-Shehhi and Hamburg. Besides, an AQ cell in the US? That is more than enought to pass to the FBI, since that is what Bergler and Clarke claim they were searching high and low for in 2000.

NewsMax is claiming the Pentagon is probing the lawyers involved with Able Danger, another good reason this is taking some time. The lawyers probably have lawyers of their own by now.

Debbie Shlussel explores how the FBI would have possibly responded to Able Danger if they had been contacted at Front Page.

I really don’t think the FBI would have acted on the information. Instead, today, we’d be sweeping under the rug yet more ineptitude by the, unfortunately, “lead agency” in the War on Terror.

She has some good arguments to back this up.

On to the Bloggers

Dafydd at Captain’s Quarters addresses the Gorelick connection (previous career stint) at the DoD as a lawyer and speculates on what it all means. I tend to agree with something Rush Limbaugh hinted at yesterday. I doubt the ‘walls’ were there because of some grand policy idea. I think they were put in place because the clintonistas were feeling they were under seige and things were out of control Well, WTC bombings, Waco, Somalia, OKC, Ruby Ridge…they were out of control. Add in the White Water and other investigations and it seems more likely these policy barriers were established by the clintonistas to try and gain back some control on a government that was pulling back from these nophytes. My two cents.

Redstate has a good post by Streiff on Able Danger and what it means to the reputation of the 9-11 commission. Of course one feels compelled to ask ‘what reputation?”.

Intel Dump, where Shaffer was first suspected of posting in a comment anonymously – and that turned out to be the case – has a round up of the status from their perspective.

And Laura Rozen, who also has broken much of the story, has a ‘where are we’ post up with some interesting pictures of Weldon and one of the remakes (we now know) of the infamous Able Danger Chart – one version supposedly given to the Bush administration two weeks after 9-11.

Not much else out there today with new information.