The history of the purported 911 hijackers is steeped in secrecy and obfuscation. What is the government hiding? Just what are their ties to covert Pentagon activities? You can add these to the many unanswered question surrounding the 911 atrocity.
If I were a congressman, I would be concerned that if I made too much noise about it, I might be the subect of another anthrax letter. What ever happened to that "investigation" anyway? After the attempted frame up of Hatfield fell apart, the trail grows suspiciously cold. The last I heard, the highly weaponized anthrax used in the Capital Hill Attack was traced to a Fort Dix bio-weapons facility.
But then again, only conspiracies that the news media gives any credibility to are those put forward by "official government sources".
Posted by brisa at September 21, 2005 11:44 AMthere can be only one reasonable explanation as to why the Bush Administration has, at every turn, sought to blur, obsfucate, hide, obstruct, deny, deflect, confuse and impede any and all investigations into the events leading up to the 9/11 tragedy: Because they know something they don't want us to know. It must be serious.
Posted by T2 at September 21, 2005 01:25 PMI don't know if I even want to resurrect this theory, but it is looking more credible with each leak, and more ominously, the blatant suppression of information. Could BushCo$ and the Pentagon have not only known about Osama, Atta and their plans, but let them carry them out, simply to enrage Americans and light the fuse of Iraq war? Could they be that f*cking insane?
Why do I bother asking myself this? The Army had no qualms about exposing their own troops to biological warfare agents and fallout from nuclear tests, so nothing should come as a shock anymore. Whenever the armed forces, and more insidiously the arms manufacturers, feel a little pinched economically, well, there is nothing like a nice little war to perk things up. Works every time. For funding and profits that is. The actual wars aren't turning out so well these days.
I hope there is absolutely no truth of the deliberate suppression of pre-9/11 information to incite a war. That would be the highest of conceivable treason, and I cannot grasp the full extent of the crimes committed if it were true.
Posted by tempus at September 21, 2005 02:41 PMTechnically, SOCOM is Special Operations Command which is based in Tampa with CENTCOM, Central Command. Interestingly enough, General Schoomaker who was in charge of SOCOM and thus Able Danger told the 9/11 Commission that he "deferred" to Tommy Franks on "the Al Qaeda mission" so you are right it goes back to Franks:
General Pete Schoomaker, the chief of staff of the U.S. Army and former Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command, said that if the Special Operations Command had been a supported command before 9/11, he would have had the al Qaeda mission rather than deferring to CENTCOM’s lead.
I think it is more likely that The Bush Administration is covering up for The Clinton Administration. This sort of covering for the last administration has been going on since the beginning of this nation.
Think about it: All of "Able Danger" work was done while Clinton was President. 9/11 took place 9 months after Bush took office. Had The Clinton Intelligence Team informed Bush's team about "Able Danger"? Bush would not want the people's trust in government to fall as much as it will once the entire story is revealed.
I noticed that all reporting on this subject by The Leftosphere has been sorely lacking. You offer your readers almost know details other than to suggest that Rummy's cover-up must mean Bush is guilty of something.
Even if you are right and Bush is to blame here, we on the right want to know the entire truth. That should tell you something about the credibility of the right-side bloggers reporting on this matter.
If your readers would like REAL reporting on "Able Danger" they should check out Captain's Quarters and my blog SoCalPundit.
I think it is more likely that The Bush Administration is covering up for The Clinton Administration. Posted by Kevin D. Korenthal
The Bush regime has blamed the previous administration every time it could in every way it can, so you supposition is most likely baseless.
thank you mike. bush covering for clinton is likely the stupidest theory i've ever heard.
other than the one about osama and saddam being in cahoots. that was pretty fucking stupid, as well.
Posted by benjoya at September 21, 2005 05:12 PM"... what is Rummy hiding?"
Intelligence sources?
Posted by Bagley at September 21, 2005 05:32 PMI am beginning to wonder if Osama isn't performing the 1984 Goldstein act by design.
With all of the long-term business deals between Bu$hCo and the bin Ladens over the years, who is to say that we don't have a huge conspiracy on our hands? The news has come out recently that Al Qaeda is taking credit for the London bombings, and Osama created Al Qaeda. Osama's family is still doing business with Bu$hCo, and it is reasonable to assume that at least some of Osama's family members are still in contact with him.
Just how hard would it be to send word through Bu$hCo channels that, say, a terror attack is needed to 'remind' an ally that they can't abandon Bu$hCo in their hour of need, or due to slipping polling numbers right before an important (s)election, a videotape terror threat needed to be issued?
We won't even yet get into the ease of setting up the WTC as a sacrificial victim - along with about 3,000 Americans.
Power and greed keep the people in need, and fear will keep them in line.
Heil!
Posted by pessimist at September 21, 2005 05:41 PM"thank you mike. bush covering for clinton is likely the stupidest theory i've ever heard."
Consistent with most of the threads in left-wing blogs.
Conspiracy theories, that is.
Posted by Bagley at September 21, 2005 05:52 PMTempus, some of us believe that what you posted is absolutely correct, and have believed it for a very long time.
Posted by Judith at September 21, 2005 07:48 PMWe need another Deep Throat.
Posted by at September 21, 2005 07:59 PMSince the Able Danger unit went on from 1999 to January of 2001, how could Bush have anything to do with this?
Posted by NA at September 22, 2005 11:36 AMNA, the people in Southern Command who stopped the Able Danger information from going to the NSA, FBI, and White House were Bush and PNAC supporters who managed to get promoted when the new team came into town. And Bush then canned the whole program right after he came aboard.
Posted by Steve Soto at September 22, 2005 12:41 PM