Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Able Danger- the big story that wasnt!

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like

    Able Danger- the big story that wasnt!

    [url]http://www.dodig.osd.mil/fo/Foia/ERR/r_H05L97905217-PWH.pdf[/url]

    I remember when CBNY and the other right wingers on here who pushed this nonsense. There were all these bold statements and hearings by Weldon about how shaffer claimed to have this mountain of evidence, and just you wait, anyday it's coming out.

    Oh , i guess there was nothing to this story after all. Surprised the criminal right wing media was so silent about this report. And what? No posting about this from CBNY???


    Conclusions:

    1. Able Danger did not identify Mohammed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker before 9/11.

    2. AD members were NOT prohibited from sharing intel info with law enforcement agencies or other agencies that could have acted on that info. Infact AD produced NO actionable intelligence info

    3. LTC Shaffer was Full of ****

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7][url]http://www.dodig.osd.mil/fo/Foia/ERR/r_H05L97905217-PWH.pdf[/url]

    I remember when CBNY and the other right wingers on here who pushed this nonsense. There were all these bold statements and hearings by Weldon about how shaffer claimed to have this mountain of evidence, and just you wait, anyday it's coming out.

    Oh , i guess there was nothing to this story after all. Surprised the criminal right wing media was so silent about this report. And what? No posting about this from CBNY???


    Conclusions:

    1. Able Danger did not identify Mohammed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker before 9/11.

    2. AD members were NOT prohibited from sharing intel info with law enforcement agencies or other agencies that could have acted on that info. Infact AD produced NO actionable intelligence info

    3. LTC Shaffer was Full of ****[/QUOTE]

    the evolution of this story has been amazing...

    Sandy Burglar and the rest of the CA originally said Able Danger never existed....now the conclusions are it did exsist but produced nothing...

    chapter three should be along in another year....

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]the evolution of this story has been amazing...

    Sandy Burglar and the rest of the CA originally said Able Danger never existed....now the conclusions are it did exsist but produced nothing...

    chapter three should be along in another year....[/QUOTE]

    Dont hold your breath! Im willing to bet this story has been put to bed. Especially as long as the BushCo. is in power. With Rumsfeld not allowing anyone connected to able danger to testify before congress, I bet they have some info Bush does not want out.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Dont hold your breath! Im willing to bet this story has been put to bed. Especially as long as the BushCo. is in power. With Rumsfeld not allowing anyone connected to able danger to testify before congress, I bet they have some info Bush does not want out.[/QUOTE]
    Speaking about info people don't want out...why do you think Sandy Berger stole and then destroyed original classified documents? Weird, huh?

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Speaking about info people don't want out...why do you think Sandy Berger stole and then destroyed original classified documents? Weird, huh?[/QUOTE]

    Yes, It is wierd. But until/if the matter is investigated and some answer based on facts (as opposed to speculation) is reached my answer is "I dont Know". And guess what??? Neither do you!

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Yes, It is wierd. But until/if the matter is investigated and some answer based on facts (as opposed to speculation) is reached my answer is "I dont Know". And guess what??? Neither do you![/QUOTE]

    Exactly the attitude you've taken with any number of things regarding Bush, right? Hey, we don't know so you'll reserve judgment. Oh wait, that's not true.

    Berger probably has nothing to hide...that's why he stuffed documents down his pants and later destroyed them (facts). But hey, we don't know what was in those documents...but the content wasn't important, probably. People normally steal unimportant documents and destroy them. Not suspicious at all. But hey, what do I know? Clinton rules.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Exactly the attitude you've taken with any number of things regarding Bush, right? Hey, we don't know so you'll reserve judgment. Oh wait, that's not true.

    Berger probably has nothing to hide...that's why he stuffed documents down his pants and later destroyed them (facts). But hey, we don't know what was in those documents...but the content wasn't important, probably. People normally steal unimportant documents and destroy them. Not suspicious at all. But hey, what do I know? Clinton rules.[/QUOTE]


    With Bush's illegal actions, lives are put in harms way.

    With Sandy Berger, an investigation was actually held (iunlike Bush who stone walls everything in the name of national security). According to the Justice Department's public integrity section, Berger only removed classified copies of data stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that [B]no original material was destroyed[/B]. The records he took they claim were related to internal assessments of the Clinton administration's handling of the failed 2000 millennium attack plots.

    Again, i did not read what was destroyed, but ill take the Justice Dept's word for it. The point though is that there was an investigation into this whether you buy into it or not. Your allegations are based purely on speculation. The allegations on Bush are NOT. Unlike in Bush's case where there hasent been. But hey, what do I know? Bush rules

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us