"It is now highly possible 9/11 happened because the Clinton administration was afraid of bad PR," writes AJStrata of The Strata-Sphere, citing "a major article on [the Clinton-era data-mining project] Able Danger out from GovExec.com, which has many fascinating details I want to discuss":
This goes back to my theory that Able Danger had its initial data set purged when results of the China study, being done in parallel to the Al Qaeda study that had ID'd the four 9/11 terrorists/pilots Atta, Shehhei, Hazmi and Mihdar, came up with results that implicated people in the Clinton administration . . .
By the spring of 2000, Kleinsmith said, the IDC had the list of 20 individuals whom Special Operations wanted investigated further under Able Danger. But in March, Kleinsmith was ordered to cease all work on the project. He believes the order came from outside the IDC’s command. From May to June, Kleinsmith and his team destroyed the information, and possibly the linkages between Mohamed Atta, Al Qaeda, and convicted terrorists already sitting in U.S. prisons.
Able Danger was working to identify Al Qaeda and had struck gold with the Hamburg cell. But the same technology and group, working on a completely independent study implicates the Clinton administration so all the data, China and Al Qaeda targets, is destroyed in a moment of political panic.
"Let’s jump ahead to determine when the China study caused the Al Qaeda data to be destroyed," he continues:
In early 2000, in the midst of Able Danger, a lawyer with the Army’s general counsel visited Kleinsmith. As Kleinsmith testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September, the lawyer reminded him that under Army regulations, any data the IDC collected on U.S. persons -- even inadvertently -- had to be destroyed within 90 days. If analysts could establish a legitimate reason to investigate a person further, they could keep the corresponding data.
We suppose it depends upon what your definition of legitimate is.
"Unsafe under their leadership" is the warning to the people who would elect arrogant, fuzzy-minded liberals to public office.
Posted by: goomp | December 08, 2005 at 06:46 AM
You're saying that crack 9/11 Commission didn't get to the bottom of this? Is that what you're saying, Sis?
Posted by: beautifulatrocities | December 08, 2005 at 10:28 AM
PS Did Peggy Noonan really call you a doll?
Posted by: beautifulatrocities | December 08, 2005 at 10:28 AM
Yes, but she was off her meds. :)
Posted by: Sissy Willis | December 08, 2005 at 10:34 AM
The things that go on behind the scenes that we know nothing about. ... Even if you make absolutely zero assumptions on who the players are in the background... it's still amazingly alarming that they were willing to dump all this information.
PFFFTTTT!!! Gone!
Posted by: Teresa | December 08, 2005 at 03:43 PM
"We suppose it depends upon what your definition of legitimate is."
Not those who were minding the store in '01...
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/index.htm
Posted by: Wheeeeee | December 08, 2005 at 04:26 PM
You all should check out The Center for Cooperative Research's web site. It has an extensive Able Danger timeline, based on mostly MSM sources.
Posted by: BlogSlog5 | December 12, 2005 at 08:15 PM