Boy, you take one weekend off to get the kid to college (and have a day at the nearby amusement park and half a day at the beach – it wasn’t all work) and the Able Danger story shifts mightily. Or did it? Reviewing the news and blogs it would seem we are on a major down swing for this story right now, but we have seen this story go up and down as people hesitate (rightly) to give it credit before credit is due. Interestingly, the right side of the political spectrum still hates to be seen as not being accurate and fair while the leftside of the spectrum is lauding the lunacy of Sheehan’s enablers who want to cut and run from Iraq before we actually succeed there.

Anyway, I will probably be providing a lot of commentary on this round up.

From the news outlets (and yes I know news came out over the weekend, but those links can be found in the blog sites below):

The AP has a another report out (they had one on Friday) that the Pentagon cannot substantiate the Able Danger claims, though they are still investigating. In my opinion this means nothing until they give the final word. Who knows whether these ‘updates’ are accurate one way or the other. But what is important is why terrorist cells in the US were not pursued?

The Pentagon has been unable to validate claims that a secret intelligence unit identified Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta as a terrorist more than a year before the attacks, a Defense Department spokesman said Monday.

Larry Di Rita said that some research into the matter continues, but thus far there has been no evidence that the intelligence unit, called “Able Danger,” came up with information as specific as an officer associated with the program has asserted.

“What we found are mostly general references to terrorist cells,” Di Rita said, without providing detail.

This story should not die until many things are refuted with regard to Able Danger:

(1) There were no terrorists named by A]ble Danger related to 9-11. Everyone focuses on Atta, but Al-shehhi and others were supposedly identified and all of these need to be refuted. I still think Shaffer’s recollection of the response to 9-11 from the scientist he worked with, and who still may step forward, was honest. I can see them being stunned that the work they had done might was on to the 9-11 highjackers and that is what drove them to contact the 9-11 commission and drives them today. That part has held up.

(2) There were no AQ cells identified in the US in the summer of 2000. Even if the names fall apart this has to be refuted as well. There is no reason for Able Danger members to be trying so hard to contact the FBI if they did not feel it was urgent? And no one refutes they did not have a report in 200o or that they tried to pass on information to the FBI. This is critical as well and should not be lost on marginal details of the Able Danger story.

(3) There needs to be a complete resolution to why there was resistance to contact the FBI. If the other parts of the story fall apart then there is no reason not to inform the FBI. If the terrorists were not in the US there is no reason to block information from Able Danger? They are not US citizens or under US jurisdiction. This logic is inescapable, which is why the Able Danger story is stronger than most people think. If there were no AQ terrorists in the US then the entire issue related to the FBI is really confusing!

OK, with these requirements in mind to completely destroy the Able Danger claims, lets reveiw more stories.

Why else do I think something is there? The DC finger pointing game. People in a bad spot start lashing out, while those who are not stay calm and basically quiet. Well the 9-11 commission has been lashing out, as this CNN story highlights. And more holes are appearing in their ‘definitive’ report on 9-11.

Meanwhile, another possible gap in the 9/11 report has emerged.

The panel found that hijacker Khalid Almihdhar had left the U.S. from the summer of 2000 until two months before the attacks. But USAID Systems, a Florida ID firm, confirmed last week that he was issued a card–reproduced in a book last year–in New York or New Jersey exactly six years before its expiration date of December 30, 2006.

Kean says there was solid evidence that Almihdhar was out of the U.S. at that time but any indication to the contrary “would be important to follow up.”

The Chicago Sun Times runs a great commentary by Mary Laney on the entire issue and what it has meant to the destroyed reputation of the 9-11 commission

The Washington Times Insider runs a story (you need to register) on how Shaffer recieved the nod from congressional leaders and people in the pentagon to go with this story. I doubt he would have received that much support if there had not been efforts to check out his claims.

Front Page has a good, in depth synopsis of what we know (we think) about Able Danger. What is good about this is the details and time line on the Czech angle:

Also monitoring terrorist activities at this time, including the movements of Atta, was the Czech Republic. It has been reported that Czech officials had observed Atta traveling to Prague on three separate occasions. On his first visit, on May 30 of 2000, Atta flew to Prague but, upon arrival, was not permitted to leave the airport because he had failed to secure a visa. On his second trip, on June 2, 2000, Atta arrived in Prague by bus, and was monitored and photographed by the Czech intelligence agency – the Security Information Service (BIS). Three days later, a large but undisclosed sum of money was transferred into Atta’s personal bank accounts.

Atta’s third visit to Prague, according to Czech officials, occurred on April 9, 2001. During this visit, Atta is believed to have met with Ahmed al-Ani, an Iraqi counsel, later revealed to be an Iraqi intelligence officer. Al-Ani was scheduled to meet with a “distinguished Arab student” on that date, and the BIS observed the meeting, which took place in a Prague restaurant. There is a dispute between U.S. and Czech officials as to whether or not that Arab student was indeed Atta (conflicting information from U.S. sources places Atta in Florida that day); however, three days later, an additional $100,000 was deposited into Atta’s bank account (enough to help finance the planned attacks on New York and Washington), providing credible evidence of another visit to Prague.

The fact there are monies being placed in Atta’s accounts coincident with these meetings is very convincing ancillary evidence the meetings took place. And it appears two of the meetings are collaberated with photos and other records.

Jack Kelley writes about the Able Danger issue and other items out of the 9-11 commission report, like Ed Morrissey’s catch on the German arrests of iraqis trying to find Bin Laden sympathizers in Germany.

Here is a Newsweek item on Able Danger and efforts to address ‘legal myths’ that may be a barrier to coordination among US agencies (one good result of this story).

Now to the Bloggers:

The MinuteMan has been doing his monitoring of this subject in a post here and here (I believe the second post came out after I started my weekend trek).

Jim Geraghty has a few posts out since I last checked in. One on some readers recalling references to something like Able Danger in a National Geographic special, here, and a discussion of the multiple Atta theory, here. OK, so he got my email on the multiple Atta theory (and my doubts about it) and posted another update here that discusses comments on this theory. But his conclusion is dead on correct regarding my three conditions listed above to totally knock down this subject.

Mac at Mac’s Mind has another death notice on the story that won’t die. Can’t wait to see his next resurrection post.

Mac did link to this Rich Lowry post at NRO on the entire mess and where is that Chart that Hadly was given by Weldon post 9-11.

Ed Morrissey has been really breaking gr0und on this, so it is no surprise he has posts on the subject. The first one is on ‘the wall’ and how it extended beyond the FBI and CIA. Doug was kind enought to post a comment from Captain’s Quarters here regarding the expansion of ‘the wall’. I am sure more people will be coming forward with similar experiences. Again, referring to the three things that must happen to debunk this issue I listed above, there is not reason for a barrier if the terrorists Able Danger detected were not here in the US. If there was a barrier even under that situation, then ‘the wall’ was higher and deeper and more dangerous than we were led to believe. And that could mean a commission trying to cover for a commission member.

Ed Morrissey, in another post, detected something in an articles I mentioned previously that I missed, and that is multiple Able Danger members met with the press, but have yet to come forward.