AJ Strata has done excellent work dissecting the 9-11/Able Danger timeline:

But Able Danger had identified the four key highjackers at the most critical juncture of their planning! So I agree with former FBI Director Freeh: had Able Danger been pa…

I just saw something huge on the news. Probably I didn’t hear everything right, so listen yourself. This was just on FOX NEWS and my coffee is still percolating.

These are going to expand the power of the Pentagon to to criminal investigations on American citizens in the US if it is related to terrorism. These are not intelligence investigations–these will lead to criminal prosecutions.

I think this is Able Danger. I say go for it. Arrest their butts.
Try them. Throw them in the penitentary. But make sure it is fair and just.

The radicals are really going to flip out now.

AJ–please find out about this and perhaps start a thread. Watch. Probably this is the Able Danger submarine surfacing. I don’t know. This is just speculation. I have nothing to do with government matters. I just read a lot.

And I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last nite!

If Able Danger was destroyed, it’s probably been reconstituted by now, but I am not too knowlegable about computers and databases.

But if they did it before they can repeat it.

This is so great! Makes my day!! Woo Hoo!

I also had read this non-denial denial which you mention.
If true, that quote is really telling.

“Even if such an incident had taken place, it doesn’t mean anything. Any diplomat in any mission might meet people in a restaurant here or there and talk to them, which is meaningless. If that person turned out to be something else, that doesn’t mean he had a connection with what that person did later.”
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/2002question/prague.htm

I’m chilled. Just thought you were coming on a bit strong and putting some words in my mouth. Keep posting!

They only address Churchill’s dishonesty as a scholar, however.

They have not speculated on the implications of Churchill’s interest in Able Danger.

There is another site that sounds a lot like Churchill snarling, flipping-off America, and threatening mayhem; but the person writes under hats, so it is difficult to be positive. I think it probably is Churchill, but can be certain because the site’s owner posts under two pseudonyms.
http://www.tryworks.blogspot.com

This is a very scary, spitefilled person. He hates the Rocky Mountain News for exposing his academic dishonesty. He is often threatening their writers.

Ward Churchill popped up at a conference Cynthia McKinney organized on Able Danger. (link)

Why would he be snooping around on that? This guy is always really big trouble. And he doesn’t want us to have better intelligence analysis. He wants America “off the planet.”

All these leftists who are so eager to find out about this Pentagon program–gives me the creeps.

I think Churchill is going to try to make trouble about Able Danger.
I even wonder if he is concerned that Able Danger may have picked up his activities. He was very opposed to the sanctions on Iraq, said how it was killing children, etc. Basically, he seems like he was a Saddam shill.

And he was jubilant about 9-11. It made his day.

Mylroie wrote a book on Saddam with Judith Miller, too, by the way.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/104-7538556-6626337?url=index%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=mylroie&Go.x=9&Go.y=6

Her book about the two WTC attacks and about Atta in Prague is called The War Against America. You need a new edition because the old edition was about the first WTC attack. She updated it after 9-11.

Her book that blames the CIA and State Department is called Bush Versus the Beltway, and her book with Miller is called Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf.

In Bush Versus the Beltway, she blames bureaucratic obstruction for the fact that her theory wasn’t accepted. I said what I think above.

But again, I have no special expertise. I am only speculating.

In fact, try and think of any times the Bush Administration specifically tried to pass the buck to a previous administration. I can only think of one occasion. Ashcroft, when testifying in public before the 9/11 Commission, made public the memo from Jamie Gorelick about “the wall”.

The Bush Administration has actually done a lot of things specifically to cover for the Clinton Administration. The White House told congressional leaders to ease off on the Marc Rich pardon. The WH basically let Sandy Berger walk away with a slap on the wrist for comprimising national security.
/end

The Atta timeline is still open in my opinion. You cannot insist that Atta was in Hamburg meeting with al-Ani. And you cannot insist Atta was in the United States making phone calls. However, the Malaysia meeting, the Iraqis that facilitated travel for the Bojinka plot planners, and the Abdul Yasin issue is enough information to raise serious doubts about those that WANT to rule out Iraqi involvement in 9/11.

First off, realize everything I refer to is in the media! So don’t think I am exposing anything here.

Second, there is very little that is secret in this. It just talks about how there is little evidence to back up the 9-11 commissions version of events and lots to think otherwise.

Yes, we have to be careful about sources, methods and what we know. But we can discuss what went wrong in the process that allowed all this information not to come together and help stop 9-11.

You ask why Bush doesn’t play gotcha with Clinton era mistakes. I have said many times Bush is not interested in that game because it doesn’t help us in the war on terrorism. He refuses to get sidetracked with the finger pointing.

With that said, I think he left too much unanswered. But we will find out. Remember, I am just a simple citizen too. And I would like some answers on what happened to destroy intelligence data on terrorists.

On May 1st, 2002, the status of the case changed radically when first Newsweek and then the Washington Post declared the meeting a fictoid. Walter Pincus in the Washington Post (based on a story a few days earlier by Michael Isikoff in Newsweek) stated “There is no evidence that the alleged leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Mohamed Atta, met in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague… and Pincus writes “the Czechs said they were no longer certain that Atta was the person who met al-Ani.”

This is total disinformation and falsehoods by the same writers involved with Joe Wilson! Also I find Aziz’s comments to be very curious:
“Even if such an incident had taken place, it doesn’t mean anything. Any diplomat in any mission might meet people in a restaurant here or there and talk to them, which is meaningless. If that person turned out to be something else, that doesn’t mean he had a connection with what that person did later.”
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/2002question/prague.htm

These same reporters are quoting “senior admin officials” who do not want to connect AD, Iraq, Plame-Gate, and 911? Why?

Gorelick is not in power now. We may expose her, but we may also expose our secrets.

I have read and reread all of this stuff you are posting from Mylroie and Epstein, and it sounds plausable to me; but the big question I have at the end of the day is, why doesn’t Bush come on TV and explain this.

I am pretty sure that Clinton’s Pentagon lawyers have not chained him to the wall in Abu Graib and stuffed a gag in his mouth. I am pretty sure J. Gorelic is not sitting on his head or twisting his arm.

If your scenario is true, why doesn’t Bush hold a press conference and explain to the American people that “Iraq did it”? He’s the President of the United States. I am sure it would really help his ratings.

So either this information is not true, or there is a really good reason why Bush is not admitting it.

Cheney looked like he wanted to implicate Iraq but he backed off.

Assuming your (Mylroie’s) account is true, perhaps Bush hesitates to explain Iraq’s involvement because it would compromise sensitive ongoing criminal and intelligence investigations.

Perhaps Bush would not be able to prove to his skeptics that Iraq was involved without going into sensitive sources and methods.
Not wanting to reveal the existence of Able Danger would be one possibility, but I don’t work for the government or in a security-related field.

This administration is often criticized for its extreme secrecy, but maybe there is a reason.

I personally think that there are people–even Americans–who may have collaborated in 9-11. The government is trying to smoke them out, do sting operations on them, arrest them, without compromising sensitive sources and methods.

It is difficult to take intelligence information into court. It exposes secrets that tip off other bad guys. I think it is better to keep that information secret, but use it to mount sting operations on the bad guys.

It may not appear that some of these guys who are being taken down by stings are being locked up for much, but they may be getting locked up for something the FBI can take into court, and that’s what matters.

But I am no expert. This is just what I would do.

For example, look at those guys named Shah and Sabir. The FBI tricked them into swearing loyalty to Al Qaeda. They claim they were “framed.” But why did the FBI frame them?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006447.php

Sabir was a doctor who lived in Boca Raton where the first anthrax attack was planned.

Shah was the son of a former lieutenant of Malcolm X who was arrested with a note in his car about Ward Churchill, the Colorado radical who called American killed on 9-11 “Little Eichmanns” and who suggests that soldiers should fragg their officers.
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16043

Not only that, Churchill justified the 9-11 attacks in his screed called “Some People Push Back.” You know where that phrase comes from? It comes from Malcolm X. He said this when Kennedy was shot. Malcolm X attributed Kennedy’s death to his anti-Castro policies.

Intelligence is not about getting the Democrats. It is about rounding up or neutralizing the terrorists and their support networks. And I think this is happening. We just don’t hear what these people really did that made the FBI decide to set them up.

I think the terrorists want to know about Able Danger. They may want to know if we can place these terrorists in America well prior to 9-11 and if we have taken note of their American confederates. I’m against telling them. And if a few Democrats have their sins of omission covered up, so what.

But, I am no expert at all. Just an ordinary citizen.