08-12-2005, 04:12 PM #1
Below is a copy of a letter sent by Congressman Curt Weldon to the Former 9/11 Commis
Below is a copy of a letter sent by Congressman Curt Weldon to the Former 9/11 Commission members.
Below is a copy of a letter sent by Congressman Curt Weldon to the Former 9/11 Commission members.
August 10, 2005
The Honorable Thomas H. Kean, Chairman
The Honorable Lee H. Hamilton, Vice Chairman
9/11 Public Discourse Project
One DuPont Circle, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton:
I am contacting you to discuss an important issue that concerns the terrible events of September 11, 2001, and our country’s efforts to ensure that such a calamity is never again allowed to occur. Your bipartisan work on The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States shed light on much that was unclear in the minds of the American people regarding what happened that fateful day, however there appears to be more to the story than the public has been told. I bring this before you because of my respect for you both, and for the 9-11 Commission’s service to America.
Mr. Weldon is a Member of Congress representing Pennsylvania. [go to Guest index]
Almost seven years ago, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 established the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, otherwise known as the Gilmore Commission. The Gilmore Commission reached many of the same conclusions as your panel, and in December of 2000 called for the creation of a “National Office for Combating Terrorism.” I mention this because prior to 9/11, Congress was aware of many of the institutional obstacles to preventing a terrorist attack, and was actively attempting to address them. I know this because I authored the language establishing the Gilmore Commission.
In the 1990’s, as chairman of the congressional subcommittee that oversaw research & development for the Department of Defense, I paid special attention to the activities of the Army’s Land Information Warfare Activity (LIWA) at Ft. Belvoir. During that time, I led a bipartisan delegation of Members of Congress to Vienna, Austria to meet with members of the Russian parliament, or Duma. Before leaving, I received a brief from the CIA on a Serbian individual that would be attending the meeting. The CIA provided me with a single paragraph of information. On the other hand, representatives of LIWA gave me five pages of far more in-depth analysis. This was cause for concern, but my debriefing with the CIA and FBI following the trip was cause for outright alarm: neither had ever heard of LIWA or the data mining capability it possessed.
As a result of experiences such as these, I introduced language into three successive Defense Authorization bills calling for the creation of an intelligence fusion center which I called NOAH, or National Operations and Analysis Hub. The NOAH concept is certainly familiar now, and is one of several recommendations made by your commission that has a basis in earlier acts of Congress. Despite my repeated efforts to establish NOAH, the CIA insisted that it would not be practical. Fortunately, this bureaucratic intransigence was overcome when Congress and President Bush acted in 2003 to create the Terrorism Threat Integration Center (now the National Counterterrorism Center). Unfortunately, it took the deaths of 3,000 people to bring us to the point where we could make this happen. Now, I am confident that under the able leadership of John Negroponte, the days of toleration for intelligence agencies that refuse to share information with each other are behind us.
The 9-11 Commission produced a book-length account of its findings, that the American people might educate themselves on the challenges facing our national effort to resist and defeat terrorism. Though under different circumstances, I eventually decided to do the same. I recently published a book critical of our intelligence agencies because even after 9/11, they were not getting the message. After failing to win the bureaucratic battle inside the Beltway, I decided to take my case to the American people.
In recent years, a reliable source that I refer to as “Ali” began providing me with detailed inside information on Iran’s role in supporting terror and undermining the United States’ global effort to eradicate it. I have forwarded literally hundreds of pages of information from Ali to the CIA, FBI, and DIA, as well as the appropriate congressional oversight committees. The response from our intelligence agencies has been underwhelming, to put it mildly. Worse, I have documented occasions where the CIA has outright lied to me. While the mid-level bureaucrats at Langley may not be interested in what I have to say, their new boss is. Porter Goss has all of the information I have gathered, and I know he is ready to do what it takes to challenge the circle-the-wagons culture of the CIA. And Pete Hoekstra, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is energized as well. Director Goss and Chairman Hoekstra are both outstanding leaders that know each other well from their work together in the House of Representatives, and I will continue to strongly support their efforts at reform.
All of this background leads to the reason I am writing to you today. Yesterday the national news media began in-depth coverage of a story that is not new. In fact, I have been talking about it for some time. From 1998 to 2001, Army Intelligence and Special Operations Command spearheaded an effort called Able Danger that was intended to map out al Qaeda. According to individuals that were part of the project, Able Danger identified Mohammed Atta as a terrorist threat before 9/11. Team members believed that the Atta cell in Brooklyn should be subject to closer scrutiny, but somewhere along the food chain of Administration bureaucrats and lawyers, a decision was made in late 2000 against passing the information to the FBI. These details are understandably of great interest to the American people, thus the recent media frenzy. However I have spoken on this topic for some time, in the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees, on the floor of the House on June 27, 2005, and at various speaking engagements.
The impetus for this letter is my extreme disappointment in the recent, and false, claim of the 9-11 Commission staff that the Commission was never given access to any information on Able Danger. The 9-11 Commission staff received not one but two briefings on Able Danger from former team members, yet did not pursue the matter. Furthermore, commissioners never returned calls from a defense intelligence official that had made contact with them to discuss this issue as a follow on to a previous meeting.
In retrospect, it appears that my own suggestions to the Commission might have directed investigators in the direction of Able Danger, had they been heeded. I personally reached out to members of the Commission several times with information on the need for a national collaborative capability, of which Able Danger was a prototype. In the context of those discussions, I referenced LIWA and the work it had been doing prior to 9/11. My chief of staff physically handed a package containing this information to one of the commissioners at your Commission’s appearance on April 13, 2004 in the Hart Senate Office Building. I have spoken with Governor Kean by phone on this subject, and my office delivered a package with this information to the 9-11 Commission staff via courier. When the Commission briefed Congress with their findings on July 22, 2004, I asked the very first question in exasperation: “Why didn’t you let Members of Congress who were involved in these issues testify before, or meet with, the Commission?”
The 9-11 Commission took a very high-profile role in critiquing intelligence agencies that refused to listen to outside information. The commissioners very publicly expressed their disapproval of agencies and departments that would not entertain ideas that did not originate in-house. Therefore it is no small irony that the Commission would in the end prove to be guilty of the very same offense when information of potentially critical importance was brought to its attention. The Commission’s refusal to investigate Able Danger after being notified of its existence, and its recent efforts to feign ignorance of the project while blaming others for supposedly withholding information on it, brings shame on the commissioners, and is evocative of the worst tendencies in the federal government that the Commission worked to expose.
Questions remain to be answered. The first: What lawyers in the Department of Defense made the decision in late 2000 not to pass the information from Able Danger to the FBI? And second: Why did the 9-11 Commission staff not find it necessary to pass this information to the Commissioners, and why did the 9-11 Commission staff not request full documentation of Able Danger from the team member that volunteered the information?
Answering these questions is the work of the commissioners now, and fear of tarnishing the Commission’s legacy cannot be allowed to override the truth. The American people are counting on you not to “go native” by succumbing to the very temptations your Commission was assembled to indict. In the meantime, I have shared all that I know on this topic with the congressional committee chairmen that have oversight over the Department of Defense, the CIA, the FBI, and the rest of our intelligence gathering and analyzing agencies. You can rest assured that Congress will share your interest in how it is that this critical information is only now seeing the light of day.
Member of Congress
Fred F. Fielding
Jamie S. Gorelick
John F. Lehman
Timothy J. Roemer
James R. Thompson
08-12-2005, 06:13 PM #2
Alot of 911 has to do if you want a free and open society like we can maintain.
When you have freedom you are going to have breaches of sanity.......you can not stomp everyones freedom into the ground to catch the loonies. The loonies will ALWAYS be able to do something wierd.
911 was tragic.......what would be more tragic is to worry ourselves silly trying to catch loonies........spending inordinate amounts of money......creating more and more layers of government........more and more government intrusion........why ruin our lives over the few crazies which are always going to be around and are going to be successful every once in awhile at creating chaos? Any moron could realize long that aircraft cockpits needed to have a secure door......that would have prevented 911.......more intelligence gathering which is always late anyway will never replace just a little common sense.
Terrorism is a small issue compared to highway safety........how about we focus on areas where we can have success.
08-12-2005, 10:05 PM #3
It seems to me that you missed the point here. The 9-11 commission basically gave the Clinton administation a pass, and now it turns out that the guy that Hillary appointed is trying to cover up a few things... IE that they had Atta and the did not allow them to share that info with the FBI and other agencies.... That is not a good thing. Highway saftey.... I have a solution for us, lets lower the speed limit across the nation to 20 mph... if it would only save one life.....
By DEBORAH ORIN
August 12, 2005 -- IT'S starting to look as if the 9/11 Commission turned a blind eye to key questions that could embarrass one of its own members — Clinton-era Justice Department honcho Jamie Gorelick.
This week brought the stunning revelation that elite military spies pinpointed Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers as a terror cell more than a year before 9/11 — but were barred from alerting lawmen to try to lock them up.
A prime reason why that warning never came is that Gorelick — as top deputy to then-Attorney General Janet Reno — issued a 1995 order creating a "wall" that blocked intelligence on terrorists from being shared with law enforcement.
Commission staffers at first denied knowing about the elite military unit known as Able Danger, but later admitted they were briefed — twice — and Atta was specifically named. Still, it was conveniently left out of the 9/11 report.
It gets worse. Gorelick's defenders might argue that hindsight is 20-20. But that excuse doesn't work in this case, because she was warned way back then — when the see-no-evil wall was created.
That warning came right from the front line in the War on Terror — from Manhattan U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, who headed up key terror probes like the prosecutions for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.
White — herself a Clinton appointee — wrote directly to Reno that the wall was a big mistake.
"It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required," White wrote on June 13, 1995.
"The most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating."
That memo surfaced during the 9/11 hearings. But The Post has learned that White was so upset that she bitterly protested with another memo — a scathing one — after Reno and Gorelick refused to tear down the wall.
With eerie foresight, White warned that the Reno-Gorelick wall hindered law enforcement and could cost lives, according to sources familiar with the memo — which is still secret.
The 9/11 Commission got that White memo, The Post was told — but omitted any mention of it from its much-publicized report. Nor does the report include the transcript of its staff interview with White.
White yesterday declined comment via spokesman Marvin Smilon. The 9/11 Commission spokesman, Al Felzenberg, didn't respond to repeated phone calls.
At the time that the first White memo surfaced, it was a hypothetical question — the wall could have prevented intelligence from getting through to stop 9/11 if there had been any intelligence.
But now that the 9/11 staff acknowledges there was intelligence about an Atta cell more than a year before the terror attacks, it's fair to ask if the attacks might have been stopped were it not for the Reno-Gorelick wall.
The CIA may have failed to detect the hijackers, but it appears that military intelligence did better. Maybe the real problem wasn't an intelligence failure — as the 9/11 Commission concluded — but, rather, the Reno-Gorelick wall.
The latest revelations show that skeptics like Sens. Jon Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) were right to demand that Gorelick testify publicly about the wall — a demand that the 9/11 Commission flatly rejected last year.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) — who revealed how the Able Danger military spies tried to sound the alarm — yesterday accused the commission of ignoring inconvenient facts.
"The commission's refusal to investigate Able Danger after being notified of its existence, and its recent efforts to feign ignorance of the project while blaming others for supposedly withholding information on it, brings shame on the commissioners," he wrote.
Or, as a frustrated Cornyn said in 2004: "[Gorelick] is a person with knowledge of relevant facts. Either the commission wants the whole truth or it does not."
It's about time that the 9/11 Commission faced that question.
Deborah Orin is The Post's Washington bureau chief.
08-12-2005, 10:11 PM #4
Terrorism is a small issue until a nuke goes off in NYCOriginally Posted by Badgerman
Terrorism is a small issue???? OMG are you seriously saying that bro??????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????
Please say it one more time and clearify what you just said. Your comparing terrorism to highway safety? and your serious?????
WOW you credibility if you ever had any is totally gone now. HHHMMMMMM lets see if a nuke goes off in NYC..... compare that to the total amount of highway traffic accidents that happen annually..... Wow I bet that's even in the same ballpark..... Earth to Badgerman.... HELLOOOOO
COMON BRO YOUR SMARTER THAN THAT
08-12-2005, 11:49 PM #5Originally Posted by Jdawg50
Highways kill 50000 a year........we plunged into war over 2,500 or so........millions starve every year........terrorism is basically a non-issue unless your wanting to live your life afraid........as far as a nuke.......quit making them and destroy the rest they can not fall into terrorists hands....
The US is too afraid to do that though
08-12-2005, 11:50 PM #6
Ever think we have terrorist acts on our shores because of the way we do things???
08-13-2005, 08:49 AM #7Originally Posted by Badgerman
I gave you a solution for the highways. lower the speed limit to 20 mph...duhhhhh if it would only save one life? Comon?
So you want me to jump into the liberal trap of could we stop making them huh? Oh, yea its our fault that the terrorist crashed planes into buildings on 9-11, its our fault that they have bombed all these places around the world... Please I like the way america runs and I beleive in a free market economy. Go ahead and blame us for thier murderous ways. I know you would love to throw them out there, so be my guest on this thread. Give me some specific examples of reasons we should have been attacked on 9-11. This is your oportunity:
08-13-2005, 09:23 AM #8
J-DAWG - good info on the letter, well done
In my beliefs, the masons have developed strageties to continue the financial success of America, ceasing assets in the middle east, would, for the most part give America a continuing stranglehold on world economy
As a soldier, I have a (limited) oppurtunity to serve in Afghanistan this comming february, and in my individual expression. It's not the protection of my soverignty, it's people, or Allied countries against Terrorism that I am concerned with. It's liberating the people under tyranny and uniting the middle-east, ending bloodshed in the region and more importantly providing an enslaved people with freedom. That I believe, should be the highest goal of the free governments, that is, the expansion of freedom to the rest of the world.
In the end, buckets of oil & gold would be well worth the price of freedom, that is, the blood of our youth which will die protecting a culture & people they dont even know.
08-13-2005, 09:53 AM #9
Well said bro. Oh yea another thing for BADGERMAN.... Do you own a car? Do you own a house? I just want to know so I can explain to you how those things work, and what is required to run them.
08-13-2005, 11:16 AM #10Originally Posted by Jdawg50
If you didn't have a TV you wouldn't even know terrorism existed......when in the world has it affected YOUR life??
For 99.9999999% of the people in the world it is a non-issue.......if the relatives of the 911 attack want to avenge the peoples deaths......give them
an airline tickets and a weapon.......it's not like a COUNTRY attacked US......
leave the US military out of it and save US a boatload of money.
JDAWG........you just like to fight........you were probably
1. A bully at school......
2. A pussy backstabber.......mental bully
08-13-2005, 11:23 AM #11Originally Posted by GQ-Bouncer
And where in the world to you get that is the goal of the allies......uniting the mideast????????.........that's why we supplied arms to Iran and Iraq both....for unity right?????
You are one brainwashed sucker.......liberating the people for what???......so the west can pick their government????.......YOU are the exact reason they hate the west.......let them solve their own problems......
08-13-2005, 11:52 AM #12Originally Posted by Badgerman
peace in the middle-east has been a goal for about the last 60 years, look at the geographical position of Iran, Iraq & Afghanistan, once these "rebel" states have been stabalized, the rest of the middle-east will be settled.
The invasion of Iran is inevitable, its only a matter of timing and resources
Also, don't insult JDAWG, he's a pretty intelligent guy
YOU - should make an argument point and then support it, instead of flailing out mindless propaganda BS
08-13-2005, 12:00 PM #13Originally Posted by Badgerman
Your second point amazes me, you realize it's for this exact reasons that tax money goes to the military right? The Military is designed to protect it's citizens and their way of life. The 9/11 attack was a rather brilliant military attack on the U.S. which was supported and backed directly by the Taliban, openly confessed to fully supporting the Al-Quada terrorist network, which in turn, (Osama) openly took credit for the attack. In turn, the Allies collapsed the Afghan gov't and replaced it with a puppet democratic gov't so as to protect Allied citizens.
... and that's pretty much common sense in a nutshell
08-13-2005, 12:05 PM #14Originally Posted by Badgerman
HE HE HE a metal bully... what because I fed you your lunch? Is that why I'm a metal bully?
Do I like to fight? I sure do? I love it! Especially when its people like you who have know idea what they are talking about. You still didnt answer my question? Do you own a car? Do you own a house? Or is just me who Owns you?
If I didnt own a TV I wouldnt know terrorist existed? Well I get the paper every day, and I have a computer. Do you think i may have found out about it that way. Or maybe the telephone, or a magazine, maybe a friend could have told me about it. You are in fantasy land man. OMG do you take yourself seriously? I know, its kinda like we never landed on the moon right?
Terrorism does effect all of us, we are talking about it right now arnt we? Didnt 3K people die 4 years ago? What about the london bombings 3 weeks ago? did you miss that? When that nuke goes off downtown LA or NYC you will be eating your words son. That is why we have to take it to them, and thank god we have a man in office willing to do that. The only thing I am scared of now is not terrorism.... its Hillary. Now that is a scary thought.
Sometimes man you better just keeping you mouth shut bro.
Oh so that was you I beat up in high school... guess what? I still have the hot GF, and I still look better than you too.
Last edited by Jdawg50; 08-13-2005 at 12:08 PM.
08-13-2005, 12:55 PM #15Originally Posted by GQ-Bouncer
911 was a result of our own stupidity.......secure flight deck doors should have been installed A LONG TIME AGO.......any moron could see that.
And if you want to fix a government......how about you go war against China??? talk about control freaks.
At least the taliban kept the poppy crop under control.......that's better than we're doing.......of course check deep and you will see a history of powerful government people involved in the drug trade......start with the Kennedys and alcohol.
Why not let Iran be a stabilizing force against Israel with all their nukes??.......Arabs need a powerful state to feel secure......and then they will reign in terrorism if they feel they are on equal footing with the regional powers.......Iraq had no terrorists before......now look at it....
08-13-2005, 12:59 PM #16
OK mr GQ........how you gonna unite the mideast with Israel around???.....brute force I suppose????.......
08-14-2005, 03:29 PM #17Originally Posted by Badgerman
08-14-2005, 06:48 PM #18
And what JDAWG......should I get a bumper sticker for you??.......GIVE STUPIDY A CHANCE
(The misspell is intentional)
08-14-2005, 08:59 PM #19
Nope war, you can do your sit ins, while the marines take shit by force.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)