sgtmac_46
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 4,753
- Reaction score
- 189
Well it seems there has arisen some controversy recently involving some allegations made by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer (I'm assuming currently retired given the storm he's voluntarily unleashed).
Mr. Shaffer alleges, and has some support to back this up, that Mohammad Atta and other 9/11 hijackers, as well as other folks with al-Qaeda connections, were discovered and identified by his intelligence unit in this country as early as June or July of 2000, a full year before 9/11.
So what happened to this information? According to Lt. Col. Shaffer, he was told not to pursue the issue any further as these men were in the country illegally, despite clear al-Qaeda connections. Lt. Col. Shaffer says that he and his unit were told to ignore the fact that these men even exist. Allegedly this decision was made by Special Operations Command lawyers and the Clinton Administration.
Why this is the first we've heard of this, I do not know. Mr. Shaffer alleges that he told the 9/11 Commission this in 2003. What makes this even more interesting is part 9/11 Commission head Jamie Gorelick may have played in all of this. Jamie Gorelick, then Deputy Attorney General of Clinton's White House, was responsible for putting policies in to place effectively preventing this type of intelligence sharing.
It seems ironic that now that evidence of the failure of this policy, and how it may have been partially responsible for allowing 9/11 to happen, the 9/11 Commission, which she chaired, has swept this under the rug. Questions remain. It seems the 9/11 Commission dismissed the information as "Historically Irrelavent". Historically irrelavent that three of the 9/11 hijackers were named as having clear cut significant al-Queda connections and being in the US a full year before 9/11? How is that insignificant.
All assuming that what the good Lt. Col. is telling us turns out to be true. If this does turn out to be true, it could blast what we think we know about what happened on 9/11 and who screwed up out of the water, especially if one of the people largely responsible was given the job chairing the commission charged with finding out what went wrong.
To be fair, Congressman Weldon, who has been talking about this for some time, may be exaggerating. Irregardless of whether or not what is being alleged is accurate, however, the situation should have been investigated by the 9/11 Commission, if for no other reason than to conclude, based on the evidence, that there is nothing to it. The fact that it was not even looked at does not bode well for the Commissions credibility.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/politics/09intel.html?ei=5090&en=bc4d02afa0a46012&ex=1281240000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/10/politics/10intel.html?ei=5090&en=538a3fc27494f7be&ex=1281326400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002358.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1464755/posts
Mr. Shaffer alleges, and has some support to back this up, that Mohammad Atta and other 9/11 hijackers, as well as other folks with al-Qaeda connections, were discovered and identified by his intelligence unit in this country as early as June or July of 2000, a full year before 9/11.
So what happened to this information? According to Lt. Col. Shaffer, he was told not to pursue the issue any further as these men were in the country illegally, despite clear al-Qaeda connections. Lt. Col. Shaffer says that he and his unit were told to ignore the fact that these men even exist. Allegedly this decision was made by Special Operations Command lawyers and the Clinton Administration.
Why this is the first we've heard of this, I do not know. Mr. Shaffer alleges that he told the 9/11 Commission this in 2003. What makes this even more interesting is part 9/11 Commission head Jamie Gorelick may have played in all of this. Jamie Gorelick, then Deputy Attorney General of Clinton's White House, was responsible for putting policies in to place effectively preventing this type of intelligence sharing.
It seems ironic that now that evidence of the failure of this policy, and how it may have been partially responsible for allowing 9/11 to happen, the 9/11 Commission, which she chaired, has swept this under the rug. Questions remain. It seems the 9/11 Commission dismissed the information as "Historically Irrelavent". Historically irrelavent that three of the 9/11 hijackers were named as having clear cut significant al-Queda connections and being in the US a full year before 9/11? How is that insignificant.
All assuming that what the good Lt. Col. is telling us turns out to be true. If this does turn out to be true, it could blast what we think we know about what happened on 9/11 and who screwed up out of the water, especially if one of the people largely responsible was given the job chairing the commission charged with finding out what went wrong.
To be fair, Congressman Weldon, who has been talking about this for some time, may be exaggerating. Irregardless of whether or not what is being alleged is accurate, however, the situation should have been investigated by the 9/11 Commission, if for no other reason than to conclude, based on the evidence, that there is nothing to it. The fact that it was not even looked at does not bode well for the Commissions credibility.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/politics/09intel.html?ei=5090&en=bc4d02afa0a46012&ex=1281240000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/10/politics/10intel.html?ei=5090&en=538a3fc27494f7be&ex=1281326400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002358.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1464755/posts
