• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

Today’s GOP: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

Let us savor the impending downfall of lawless scoundrels who richly deserve the trouble barreling their way.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

… pundit janitors mopping up after the GOP

Balloon Juice has never been a refuge for the linguistically delicate.

Fuck the extremist election deniers. What’s money for if not for keeping them out of office?

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

You can’t love your country only when you win.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

“Squeaker” McCarthy

Seems like a complicated subject, have you tried yelling at it?

Second rate reporter says what?

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

Peak wingnut was a lie.

Republicans do not pay their debts.

I’m pretty sure there’s only one Jack Smith.

Not all heroes wear capes.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / War on Terror / War on Terror aka GSAVE® / The Commission Knew…

The Commission Knew…

by John Cole|  August 11, 200510:15 am| 39 Comments

This post is in: War on Terror aka GSAVE®

FacebookTweetEmail

It appears the 9/11 Commission knew about the claims raised yesterday by Curt Weldon, and chose to dismiss them:

The Sept. 11 commission was warned by a uniformed military officer 10 days before issuing its final report that the account would be incomplete without reference to what he described as a secret military operation that by the summer of 2000 had identified as a potential threat the member of Al Qaeda who would lead the attacks more than a year later, commission officials said on Wednesday.

The officials said that the information had not been included in the report because aspects of the officer’s account had sounded inconsistent with what the commission knew about that Qaeda member, Mohammed Atta, the plot’s leader.

But aides to the Republican congressman who has sought to call attention to the military unit that conducted the secret operation said such a conclusion relied too much on specific dates involving Mr. Atta’s travels and not nearly enough on the operation’s broader determination that he was a threat.

The briefing by the military officer is the second known instance in which people on the commission’s staff were told by members of the military team about the secret program, called Able Danger.

The meeting, on July 12, 2004, has not been previously disclosed. That it occurred, and that the officer identified Mr. Atta there, were acknowledged by officials of the commission after the congressman, Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, provided information about it.

Something else for us to keep our eyes on…

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Why Does Drug Reporting Suck?
Next Post: Election Hijinks »

Reader Interactions

39Comments

  1. 1.

    tzs

    August 11, 2005 at 10:40 am

    Also, as has been pointed out time and time again, even if data mining does bring up candidates, the question is what percentage are false positives.

    Given my own experience with the (in)accuracy of data in databases, I’m very skeptical of data mining.

  2. 2.

    Slartibartfast

    August 11, 2005 at 10:45 am

    Well, of course you wouldn’t just do data mining. The data mining would simply be a filter; you’d then do a bit more research. Some information, even if some of it’s bad, is better than none.

  3. 3.

    Geek, Esq.

    August 11, 2005 at 10:58 am

    Apparently, this source of Weldon’s claimed they knew Atta was in the US in late 1999/early 2000.

    Since Atta didn’t enter the US until June 2000, he didn’t strike them as credible.

  4. 4.

    Don Surber

    August 11, 2005 at 11:00 am

    “It appears the 9/11 Commission knew about the claims raised yesterday by Curt Weldon, and chose to dismiss them”
    Hmm. Why would they do that? 1. The 9/11 Commission is in cahoots with the devil. 2. The 9/11 Commission is a pack of incompetents. 3. The 9/11 Commission checked it out and the story was not credible.
    I’d place my money on No. 2 but No. 3 sounds plausible as well. You keep your eye on it.

  5. 5.

    ppGaz

    August 11, 2005 at 11:07 am

    Apparently enough information got through the wires to make it to Bush’s briefing on August 6 2001.

    His response:

    Bush Speaks

    I appreciate you giving me a few minutes of your time tonight so I can discuss with you a complex and difficult issue, an issue that is one of the most profound of our time.

    Uh, yeah.

  6. 6.

    db

    August 11, 2005 at 11:19 am

    I said this yesterday about the yesterday’s Times article:

    The NY Times article indicates that one of Able Danger’s members told the 9/11 commission members directly about Atta’s name. The 9/11 commissioners who were asked about this say they never remember this. My gut tells me I got to believe the commissioners. C’mon. Everyone was well aware of Atta’s name at the time. So you’re telling me that a 9/11 commissioner is told by an intelligence official the word “Atta” and they are not going to remember that or make note of it?

    Well, today’s story is making me eat my words. Actually, I am too proud to do that, so I am going to take my words and jam them up the commissioners’ asses. I hate when I “trust” a public official and they are pulling b.s. like this. Sort of reminds back in March 2003 and I was defending the administration’s claims about WMD to a class of cynical college students. I said something to the effect of, “We should have faith on our public officials or else what sort of democract do we live in?” And mumbled under my breath, “God, I hope they find those WMDs.”

    Nevertheless, I will still stand by my assertion yesterday:

    We don’t know anything about the effectiveness of Able Danger and the list that it had compiled.

    In fact, today’s NY Times piece points out:

    The officials said that the information had not been included in the report becasue aspects of the officer’s account had sounded inconsistent with what the commission knew about that Qaeda member, Mohammed Atta, the plot’s leader.

    And what they knew was that Atta was not in the U.S. at the time the intelligence official was saying he was. Either way, I am smelling b.s. on both sides. And for the commissioners to say “sounded inconsistent” is the pot calling the kettle black. I mean seriously, look at there statements from yesterday to today. And they have the audactiy to say somebody else sounds inconsistent?

  7. 7.

    db

    August 11, 2005 at 11:21 am

    Lots of misspellings in my previous quote… too early and too pissed off at those 9/11 commissioners right now to even care about speling corecttly.

  8. 8.

    tzs

    August 11, 2005 at 11:27 am

    Considering how things have been carried out so far, I’m sceptical that whatever group of people that had been sorted out by data mining would be treated as innocent-until-proven-guilty. Immediate placement on no-fly lists, tax audits, etc., etc., etc. And no way to get themselves off the list.

  9. 9.

    Jimmy Jazz

    August 11, 2005 at 11:40 am

    Bush Speaks

    The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths, even many of the same faith coming to different conclusions.

    Heh. How’d that happen?

  10. 10.

    Gadzooks

    August 11, 2005 at 11:50 am

    So how does this tie into the responsibility the Zionists have for causing 9/11?

  11. 11.

    Anderson

    August 11, 2005 at 11:54 am

    Via Kevin Drum:

    So who’s the culprit? Why didn’t the 9/11 Commission investigate this? Weldon’s source for his story is a “former defense intelligence officer” who worked closely with the Able Danger program, and he told GSN exactly where he thought the fault [lay]:

    “I personally talked with [Philip] Zelikow [executive director of the 9/11 Commission] about this,” recalled the intelligence officer. “For whatever bizarre reasons, he didn’t pass on the information.”

    The State Department, where Zelikow now works as a counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said he was traveling and unavailable for comment.

    So let’s not talk about what “the Commission” should’ve done; let’s talk about what Zelikow should’ve done.

  12. 12.

    neil

    August 11, 2005 at 12:41 pm

    Sounds like the college students were just being critical thinkers, not cynics.

  13. 13.

    db

    August 11, 2005 at 1:05 pm

    Sounds like the college students were just being critical thinkers, not cynics.

    There is a difference between being critical and cynical. If you want me to recall the whole damned interaction with those students to convince you they were being cynical, I’d be happy to. Or you can just trust me that I know the difference between being cynical (e.g., relying on what other people say with no evidence) vs critical (e.g., coming to an informed judgement with factual evidence) and believe me that these students were being cynical (as most college students are, unfortunately; and lately and unfortunately, I don’t blame them for being so).

  14. 14.

    db

    August 11, 2005 at 1:16 pm

    So let’s not talk about what “the Commission” should’ve done; let’s talk about what Zelikow should’ve done.

    I’ll keep talking about the commissioners. The article is about the commissioners actions with respect to Able Danger (i.e., the drafting of the commission report in post 9/11 days).

    Discussions of Zelikow and Able Danger in pre-9/11 days is an entirely different conversation. I am not saying it’s not a conversation worth having. It’s just different from these reports on hand right now.

    Once JC posts something about Zelikow, I’d be more than happy to read your thoughts about the nut-fuck. But that is NOT what we are talking about here. Nor was it the subject of the article that JC posted yesterday; and how quickly that discussion devolved into: “It’s the right’s fault” vs “It’s the left’s fault.”

    Now, what the article does talk about (and I am assuming that everyone here reads the articles posted by JC before discussing them here) that might be an interesting line of inquiry tangential to your bitching about Zelikow is that the administration required the commission to have one of its own people at every interview the commission had with an executive branch official. The article talks about that and it is something that seems really fishy to me (something that could very well explain why there was “miscommunication” between executive branch officials and the commissioners drafting the 9/11 report).

    And just to talk in terms that all the flamers here can understand, IT’S EVERYONE’S FRICKIN’ FAULT, EXCEPT FOR ME!

  15. 15.

    jg

    August 11, 2005 at 1:25 pm

    that the administration required the commission to have one of its own people at every interview the commission had with an executive branch official.

    Bush wouldn’t be interviewed unless Cheney was at his side. They also did everything they could to prevent the committee from forming and didn’t cooperate much. Whateer happened to the second inquiry? The one that was going to look into the WH role. It was put off until after the election (what a shocker that was), where is it now?

  16. 16.

    db

    August 11, 2005 at 1:30 pm

    My apologies Anderson.

    I didn’t read the Drumm post carefully enough. This was post 9/11. It is relevant. But to say, “Let’s not talk about the ‘commission’.” C’mon. That takes away from the relevancy of Drumm’s post. What the commissioners did or did not do is just as relevant to what Zelikow did or did not do.

    And again, the article’s reference to the administration requiring one of its own people present at every interview. Unfrickin’ believable. I don’t know why I still get shocked at stories like that. I guess I still hold on to the belief that deep down our elected officials will do the right thing as often as possible.

  17. 17.

    Yet another Jeff

    August 11, 2005 at 1:43 pm

    Bush wouldn’t be interviewed unless Cheney was at his side. They also did everything they could to prevent the committee from forming and didn’t cooperate much. Whateer happened to the second inquiry? The one that was going to look into the WH role. It was put off until after the election (what a shocker that was), where is it now?

    You’re confusing the 9-11 commission with the Senate bi-partisan panel that looked into pre-war Iraqi WMD intel. The first panel covered looked at the intelligence agencies. There was supposed to be another panel that was going to look at how policy makers used that intelligence, but of course that’s not going to happen while Bush is in office. Too bad. I thought the Senate report did a fantastic job covering the data, and I’d like to see them analyze how intel was used to sell the war.

  18. 18.

    jg

    August 11, 2005 at 1:52 pm

    Bush wouldn’t be interviewed unless Cheney was at his side. They also did everything they could to prevent the committee from forming and didn’t cooperate much.

    This part of my post had to do with the 911 commission.

  19. 19.

    Tim F

    August 11, 2005 at 2:00 pm

    Before I decide to care about this I need to know how many arab-looking furriners were not flagged by AD as potential threats. If this data-mining exercise flagged fourteen people and one of them was Atta, then I care a lot. If it flagged fourteen thousand, please. Don’t praise me if I pick up an entire haystack and claim that I found the needle.

    Of course if Geek is right then who cares, squared.

  20. 20.

    db

    August 11, 2005 at 2:19 pm

    Before I decide to care about this I need to know how many arab-looking furriners were not flagged by AD as potential threats. If this data-mining exercise flagged fourteen people and one of them was Atta, then I care a lot. If it flagged fourteen thousand, please. Don’t praise me if I pick up an entire haystack and claim that I found the needle.

    Exactly!!

    I think this needs to be sent to all those journalists working on this. This is such an obvious question. Why the [email protected]$% are they not asking this?!??!?!

  21. 21.

    Don

    August 11, 2005 at 2:25 pm

    For the same reason they never talk about false positives in facial recognition systems and the fact that too much noise means the signal is lost? Because they’re lazy and know as little math and statistics as most of their audience.

  22. 22.

    Brian

    August 11, 2005 at 3:03 pm

    What was Jamie Gorelick’s role on the Commission? We now know. To cover-up the mistakes she, Janet Reno, and the Clinton Administration in general made.

  23. 23.

    Tim F

    August 11, 2005 at 3:39 pm

    It’s spooky. Just an hour ago I shook my magic rightwing eight-ball and it came up ‘blame Clinton.’

  24. 24.

    db

    August 11, 2005 at 3:50 pm

    What was Jamie Gorelick’s role on the Commission? We now know. To cover-up the mistakes she, Janet Reno, and the Clinton Administration in general made.

    How does it smell up there? Really. How does it smell? Can you figure out what you had for breakfast this morning?

    Once you figure out how to get your head out of your ass and the shit wiped out of your eyes, can you please answer me this question since you seemed so well-informed about the commission’s work:

    Why did the administration require that they be present at every interview with executive branch officials?

    Oh yeah, I am sorry. I know. To be sure that there was accurate reporting about Clinton’s failures, right?

  25. 25.

    Defense Guy

    August 11, 2005 at 3:52 pm

    It’s spooky. Just an hour ago I shook my magic rightwing eight-ball and it came up ‘blame Clinton.’

    Mine does too, but considering mine is issued from the source it’s not surprising. A bit of nostalgia caused me to dig up my democrat one, which is still stuck on ‘start war’. To be fair that one tends to oscilate between ‘bomb something’ and ‘define is’.

  26. 26.

    Rocky Smith

    August 11, 2005 at 4:49 pm

    Jamie Gorelich set up “the wall” between intel agencies so it must be Bush’s fault. Right? Jamie surely wouldn’t be participating in any CYA, would she?

  27. 27.

    Tim F

    August 11, 2005 at 5:20 pm

    Defense guy,

    inane.

    Rocky,

    That would be no. The ‘wall’ came from various intelligence laws enacted in the 1970s and formally put into practice under Reagan and the first Bush administration. Next we’ll hear that Clinton invented El Nino because, you know, El Ninos happened while Clinton was in office.

  28. 28.

    John S.

    August 11, 2005 at 6:17 pm

    A bit of nostalgia caused me to dig up my democrat one, which is still stuck on ‘start war’. To be fair that one tends to oscilate between ‘bomb something’ and ‘define is’.

    We’ve secretly replaced Defense Guy’s ‘Democratic’ magic 8-ball with a ‘Republican’ magic 8-ball…

    And nobody could tell the difference.

  29. 29.

    Defense Guy

    August 11, 2005 at 6:28 pm

    Tim F & John S

    We mostly are using ouji boards these days anyway. You know to try and contact Reagan. We had FDR on the line, but he just kept saying ‘dont talk to the press’ over and over.

  30. 30.

    John S.

    August 11, 2005 at 7:24 pm

    We had FDR on the line, but he just kept saying ‘dont talk to the press’ over and over.

    I’m surprised you even got through to FDR…Scotty McClellan has been channeling him for quite some time now.

  31. 31.

    ppGaz

    August 11, 2005 at 8:45 pm

    Jamie Gorelich set up “the wall” between intel agencies so it must be Bush’s fault.

    That’s right, your country is bogged down in a war it can’t win, got into for reasons that turned out to be bogus, for which there is no apparent strategy for bringing to a close, administered by a bunch of potatoheads who can’t find their asses with both hands and a GPS device and a guide dog ….

    … but let’s talk about Jamie Gorelick.

    And Republicans wonder why public support for this president and his foolish war are in the tank.

    Note to self: The phrase “out of touch” is going to be heard during next year’s news cycle quite a bit. Get used to it.

  32. 32.

    Stormy70

    August 11, 2005 at 9:45 pm

    Isn’t this the fifth August in a row the press has claimed this is it for the Bush Presidency?

    Wonder what old Sandy Berger stuffed down his pants?

  33. 33.

    ppGaz

    August 11, 2005 at 10:30 pm

    Isn’t this the fifth August in a row the press has claimed this is it for the Bush Presidency?

    Isn’t this the 500th post in a row in which you just make stuff up and sling it out there?

  34. 34.

    Slartibartfast

    August 11, 2005 at 11:09 pm

    Crap. Can we perhaps all agree that the various government agencies and their interfaces with each other were devised so as to almost preclude any effective dealings with Islamic terrorist? I don’t think the Clinton administration did a stellar job in this regard (Juan Cole’s erroneous Millenium Plot claims to the contrary), but neither did any other administrations, including this one.

    I’m going to predict that, as Moe said in an earlier thread, reason will continue to be thrown aside in favor of the escalation of sneering.

  35. 35.

    jg

    August 12, 2005 at 12:46 am

    My beef with the Bush administration pre-9/11 is that they were more concerned with building a missile sheild than anything to do with terrorism. They were caught completely by surprise by 9/11. Completely! Thats inexcusable.

  36. 36.

    Slartibartfast

    August 12, 2005 at 8:45 am

    Thats inexcusable.

    Yes, particularly since the Clinton administration was hot on the tail of Mohammed Atta.

    Next silly argument, please. Even if Clinton had another term left and had been reelected in 2000, the WTC attacks would have gone on unimpeded, I say. Unless you’ve got some compelling evidence to the contrary, that is. We’re only now looking for the sort of activity that preceded 9/11 because we’ve got the benefit of hindsight.

  37. 37.

    DougJ

    August 12, 2005 at 10:54 am

    Why doesn’t Tobin deserve legal representation? If he were a crackhead or a murderer, you’d be all for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to help defend him, maybe even get him off on a technicality. But since he committed the most horrible crime in your eyes, the crime of being a loyal republican, you want him thrown in jail without a trial, in effect. Typical liberal hypocrisy.

  38. 38.

    DougJ

    August 12, 2005 at 10:55 am

    Whoops, put that in the wrong thread!

  39. 39.

    Rick

    August 12, 2005 at 3:24 pm

    Sound advice from one of those scary, neo-con Joos.

    Cordially…

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • Old School on Monday Afternoon Open Thread (Mar 20, 2023 @ 3:13pm)
  • patrick II on Monday Afternoon Open Thread (Mar 20, 2023 @ 3:12pm)
  • Citizen Alan on Incentives and information — revisiting Iraq invasion decision-making (Mar 20, 2023 @ 3:11pm)
  • Citizen Alan on Incentives and information — revisiting Iraq invasion decision-making (Mar 20, 2023 @ 3:10pm)
  • Matt McIrvin on Their Own Private Idaho (Mar 20, 2023 @ 3:09pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!