Thursday, November 17, 2005

Is the lid about to be blown off Able Danger?

Those who have been wishing for a full blown Able Danger investigation are about to get their wish. The "gate" has been unlocked.

9/11 Iraqi Connection

With Democrats calling for yet more investigations into pre-war intelligence, and Republicans like myself pushing back to help their 'sudden amnesia”, the growing stories of Able Danger and even China Gate, are beginning to make news.

The three main theories about why Able Danger hasn't gotten out of the "blog stage", are 1) To hide Clinton era responsibility for stopping the 9/11 attacks, and/or 2) To hide the truth behind China-Gate, or 3) The facts show that there in fact was a direct link between Iraq and 9/11.

Taking either one you can see why the Clinton worshipping MSM for the most part hasn't touched the story. Of the later point, Democrats, the MSM and even some of our investigations state that there was no 'direct' link between Iraq and 9/11. Say otherwise and the MSM will slice and dice you and spread you to the four winds.

The fact of the matter is that while Iraq might not have had direct involvement in 9/11, they were involved in some way to terrorist attacks in the US and our interest abroad throughout the 90’s and you don't have to be directly involved to be directly reponsible.

Yet there are very strong arguments for the Iraq/9/11 link. But to find it we have to go back in time.

Case in example, the first World Trade Center attack. Laurie Mylroie, co-author with Judy Miller of "Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf (Random House 1990), in 1995, wrote the essay contained in the link at the top of this post. Looking back at what she wrote then and what we know now is in a word "chilling", for it was not six years later that it all came true. In this essay she primarily outlined the work of Ramzi Yousef, the man convicted for the first WTC attack.

Her essay makes a very good argument that Yosef had Iraqi ties – although, again, that is disputed by some. Yet she writes towards the end of her article:

“YET IF RAMZI YOUSEF is in fact an Iraqi intelligence agent, there obviously is a danger. Even if we cannot yet be absolutely certain of this, so many American and allied lives are potentially at stake that it seems the least a responsible government can do is to make every reasonable effort to find out. As Saddam Hussein senses his ever-increasing isolation and sees the prospects for lifting sanctions receding, his desperation may lead him to order other, and even more ghastly, deeds.

If Saddam Hussein still hungers for revenge, the question of Ramzi Yousef's terrorism is much too important to be left solely to the Justice Department, while the FBI continues to withhold critical information from the national security bureaucracies."

One of the things we are finding out about the Able Danger Program is that the Jamie Gorelick inforced wall was a key to critical intelligence information not being shared. Yet the problem the culminated in "missing Atta", had begun years before as a developing link between WTC-93 perp Ramzi Yousef and Iraq was beginning to emerge.

Again, Laurie writes in 1995:

“THE SUGGESTION THAT Iraq might well have been behind Ramzi Yousef's exploits may initially strike many as implausible. Wouldn't the U.S. government investigation of the World Trade Center bombing have uncovered evidence to that effect, evidence that the press, in turn, would have broadcast far and wide? Wouldn't America's robust anti-terrorist intelligence capacities have focused on such suspicions long ago?

While these are reasonable questions, they reveal a lack of understanding about how the U.S. government works when legal and national security issues of this special sort overlap. A high wall, in fact, stands between the Justice Department, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, on the one hand, and the national security agencies on the other. Once arrests are made, the trials of individual perpetrators take bureaucratic precedence over everything else. The Justice Department inherits primary investigatory jurisdiction, and the business of the Justice Department is above all the prosecution and conviction of individual criminals. Once that process is underway, the Justice Department typically denies information to the national security bureaucracies, taking the position that passing on information might "taint the evidence" and affect prospects for obtaining convictions.

In effect, the Justice Department puts the prosecution of individual perpetrators--with all the rights to a fair trial guaranteed by the U.S. judicial system--above America's national security interest in determining who may be behind terrorist attacks. Questions of state sponsorship that are of pressing interest to national security agencies are typically relegated to a distant second place, or never properly addressed at all, because the national security agencies are denied critical information. In particular, whenever early arrests are made regarding a terrorist incident on American soil, the U.S. government cannot properly address both the national security question of state sponsorship and the criminal question of the guilt or innocence of individual perpetrators at the same time.”

Of course now ten years later we read this with chills. For 9/11 did happen, yet curiously despite a mountain of evidence to support an Iraqi connection, from the beginning it had been discounted. The 9/11 Commission found no direct connection, but then they didn't find "a lot" of connections.

Again, the conventional belief, "There are no direct connections", I've found to be patently absurd. We are all familiar with the gangster that orders a hit and says, “make sure it looks like an accident and it doesn’t come back to me!”

In crime and in terrorism ‘links” can be varied and unless the perp is an amature, the links are not always direct.

Establishing a direct link between Saddam and the September 11th attacks would blow the doors off the current Democratic/MSM opposition to the war and unveil a terrible fraud they committed on the American people.

As Ben Johnson and Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu said in their article "The 9/11 Coverup Commission":

"Recent revelations about covert “Able Danger” operations are forcing certain people to deal with subjects that they had thought swept under the rug. Despite apparent attempts to conceal the fact, the 9/11 Commission has had to admit it was informed that government agents knew of Mohammed Atta’s affiliation with al-Qaeda two years before 9/11, that Clinton-era policies prevented intelligence officials from sharing that information with the FBI, that the amended time frame would allow Mohammed Atta to have made contacts with Iraqi intelligence, and – most damningly – that it kept all this out of its final report.".....

If there was, in fact, covert direction from the top of the Commission to key members of its staff to cloak any link between Saddam and the September 11 attacks, to obfuscate evidence tying the Iraqi regime to al-Qaeda and Mohammed Atta, and to paint the most positive possible picture of the Clintons as implacable terror-warriors, then “Able Danger” had to be ignored and covered up. It fits the pattern of revisionist historical interpretations that seems to be the only authentic legacy from the Clinton years. Further, in Washington staffers tell their bosses what the latter want to hear. They are not rewarded for initiative. As Peters says, when told to think outside the box by a superior, a subordinate knows his job is to “come back with fresh reasons why the in-house position was right all along.”

By acknowledging the Iraq/al-Qaeda ties, not only to terrorism in general but to the September 11 attack, the war becomes completely justifiable as exactly what the Bush administration claimed it was: a defensive, if preemptive, war to protect the United States from a regime with cordial ties to anti-American terrorists. This outcome is so repugnant to the hard Left that it will justify even the most extraordinary suppression of evidence or promulgation of an outright lie in order to achieve its ends."

In the beginning of the Able Danger story I was skeptical - I am no longer and the more I look into this the more unskeptical I become. In the past I have predicted that this story would "die" and so far - outside of some starts and stops - it appeared it had. Yet according to what I was told today, it's about to get some real life.

More on Iraq WTC93 links can be found here. Also previous read this post.
posted by MacRanger @ 11:00 PM   Comments (7) | Trackback (1)    << Home

Reply via email to