corner.nationalreview.com
Anthony Shaffer explicitly said that th e Pentagon did not give the 9/11 Commission all the documents relating t o Able Danger, though he doesn't have first-hand knowledge of that.
Associated Press story, "'I'm told confidently by the p erson who did move the material over that the 9/11 commission received t wo briefcase-size containers of documents,' Shaffer said in the intervie w, part of which was aired by Fox News Tuesday night. Thus, according to Shaffer, everybody he re was either incompetent or up to no good: He told the 9/11 Commission about this in 2003 and its staff is lying, bu t its staff still looked into it in January at the Pentagon and the Pent agon didn't give the staff all the documents that would have proved Atta 's name had been surfaced as an Al Qaeda agent in 2000. So the 9/11 staf f is corrupt, but was also kept in the dark.
John Podhoretz If he's telling the truth, then the entire history of the last five years needs to be rewritten. Anthony Shaffer, and he's o ne of the two military intelligence officers alleging that the Defense D epartment had located Mohammed Atta and other hijackers in America in 20 00.
What's perfectly credible about what Shaffer says is that his unit, Able Danger, developed information about an Al Qaeda cell in Brooklyn and tha t Pentagon lawyers thrice blocked meetings between his unit and the FBI because they feared being accused of spying illicitly inside the United States. To be fair, he should NOT have proof because any such document ation would be classified material that should not be in his possession. So now we have some manifest contradictions: He says he told 9/11 commission staffers about this in Afghanistan in 200 3 They dispute it. The Able Danger papers shown to the 9/11 Commission at the Pentagon after the Afghanistan meeting did not feature anything mentioning Atta. Or the Defense Department misplaced the paperwork mentioning Atta. Or somebody at the Defense Dep artment deliberately didn't give the Commission the material. In the first case, if the 9/11 commission staff is lying, the hell to be paid is going to be colossal. Among other things, it could shake the cur rent State Department to its foundations, since the 9/11 commission staf f director, Philip Zelicow, is one of Condi Rice's most trusted aides. In the second case, if the Defense Department withheld critical informati on on this matter, it's almost impossible to imagine the intensity of th e bloodletting that will follow. With nothing more to go on than Shaffer's name and his statement, I think it's appropriate to remain skeptical. Since we have heard that the list Shaffer tried to forward to the FBI contained 60 names, it is legitimat e to question whether his memory and the memory perhaps of other Able Da nger folks has been enhanced by knowledge learned later on -- whether th e otherwise obscure name of "Mohammed Atta" might have become part of th eir recollections after the fact because it became so famous. Which is to say, Shaffer isn't lying, and he isn't a scoundrel. He's some one who ran afoul of the hyperlegal mindset that kept the intelligence " wall" growing ever higher until it became a hiding place for Al Qaeda. And the architect of the growing "wall" -- the same "wall" that the 9/11 Commission all but ignored, surely in deference to its walking-conf lict-of-interest commissioner Gorelick.
The failure to agree to a constitution, if the Ira qis do fail to agree on a constitution, will be a grievous blow. It will be seen as an invalidation of the triumphant January elections, since t heir purpose was the creation of a body to write the constitution. It wi ll depress the Iraqis, be seen as a major policy defeat for Bush and cau se panic on Capitol Hill. The argument that you can't impose democracy o n a nation that isn't ready for it will be in the ascendant, and the "pe ople yearn to be free" camp will be on the defensive in a big way. The r ealists will smirk, the anti-war folks will cackle, the administration w ill be bereft. Speaking as someone who has always looked on the optimist ic side, this one will hurt.
I was talking to o ne insider (who happens to think they will) about that possibility. It w ould necessitate the election of another temporary government at the end of the year that would have to take another shot at writing a constitut ion. We think the political process is t he key to defeating the insurgency. To have a lengthy period of time, mo nths and months, before there is action again on the political side woul d hurt.
do if he had to rule on Roe versu s Wade, but at least he has a shot, I think, at becoming the kind of ju stice that is not in the hip pocket of the right wing. I am more sympathetic on the abortion issue than I am on most right wing sociall y conservative issues, because you know, you don't have to be religious to be against abortion. I f you've ever seen a sonogram, you know, you could see something that's emerging as a human being in there.
It 's despicable the way we treat animals in this country. And it's part a nd parcel to our general lack of compassion for things that don't affec t us directly.
From a very serious military guy friend: Jonah, Your point 3 might lead some to think there was mass bombings of civilia ns in Vietnam. Some have argued that the B-52 rai ds of the latter part of the war favored civilian-casualty-avoiding pre cision over the safest tactics for our pilots, who were more vulnerable to SAM fire as a result. From a USAF article: In light of the 20,000 tons of bombs that were dropped on the citizens o f Hanoi and Haiphong, there were relatively few casualties. Only 1,318 people were killed in Hanoi and 306 in Haiphong, a truly remarkable num ber. By comparison, during nine days of bombing on Hamburg, Germany, in 1944, less than 10,000 tons were dropped and 30,000 people died.
S everal NR writers are mentioned including Ramesh, Kathryn and yours trul y It's an interesting piece, but I take particular delight in that some one writes that I made a stronger argument than Ramesh has.
people who think human life is precious to pay for its destruction." The sincerity of this argument cannot be doubted, but its logic certainl y can: by the same token, opponents of the Iraq war, who believed that their taxes were funding the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians, could contend with equal justification that they are forced to collude in an immoral act (devout pacifists would have an even stronger claim). For t hat matter, animal rights activists could well assert that their taxpay er dollars unjustly finance the killing of animals for research purpose s In all three cases, state action violates the core beliefs of some of th e very people who underwrite that action with their own checkbooks. But those who are opposed to the government action have several means at t heir disposal of escaping this conundrum. They may band together at the ballot box and support politicians who share their views. They may lob by their representatives or loudly (but peacefully) protest their actio ns. Or they may refuse to pay taxes and bear the consequences. Me: I throw a big flag on the animal rights thing and small one on the wa r thing. The moral objection by some citizens wi ll always be part of the equation. Medical experimentation and research is not central to the state's existence. It may be nice and worthwhile b ut it is something different, I think, than the state's obligation to pr otect us from enemies. One may dissent about whether the Iraq war was ne cessary, but again, only really silly people say that war is never a leg itimate function of the state. And the loss of innocent life is always a hazard of war. I think Rosen's point is still worth making in general, but it's less powerful than he suggests.
ME: My point only was that she has said a lot of other out-there things, things comparable in their vitriol to the ABC letter. So her credibility doesn't rise or fall on that particular letter because she has already damaged it with so many of her other comments. But if the letter's fake, it's fake and I'll be happy to leave it at that.
You seem to suggest th...
|
http://csua.com/feed/