Talk:Able Danger

Protected

Linuxbeak - If you lock the LW extremist vandalized and incorrect version of this article what motivation do LW extremists have to work out a compromise? Your action is a betrayal of Wikipedia's neutrality assertion.

Gorgon and other left wing extremists - Even the Pentagon reversed itself tonite and admitted Able Danger had data on Muhammed Atta at least a year before 9/11. If you continue to vandalize the neutral version without comment I will continue to restore it.

No, you won't. I protected it. You're not credible; you say "left wing extremists", which is POV. I'm letting you two hash this one out, because I'm sick of seeing this page on my RC patrol list. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

A "betrayal of Wikipedia's neutrality assertion"?! Oh please. Stop wasting my time arguing with me and talk to the guys on this talk page. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:35, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

that is a very POV statement in itself. Your assertion that the Clinton administration is responsible has not been endorsed by any non-partisan media source, or even for that matter the mainstream Republican party. It is a REPUBLICAN who is warning people not to 'hyperventilate' over this, it is a REPUBLICAN administration that is DENYING ALL THE ABLE DANGER THEORIES YOU ARE PEDDLING. As it happens, I am only repeating the Bush administration line here. --Gorgonzilla 01:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC) Gorgon and other left wing extremists - If you continue to vandalize the neutral version of this article I will continue to revert to the neutral version. - Honest Abe

You have not substantiated any of your POV vandalism to the article. in particular how do you claim that a guy who was put on administrative leave for fiddling expenses 18 months ago is 'credible'?

corroberation by 2 other eye witnesses makes him credible. Two witnesses are accepted in any court in the country as legal proof. in this case there are three eye-witnesses. You deny the legal proof because of your LW extremist POV. - Honest Abe

Name them. Shaffer has stated that he was told about the Able Danger identification of Atta by Philpott, Weldon by Shaffer. So you only have one independent witness. --Gorgonzilla 01:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

They were in my neutral revision along with links. If you had read it instead of acting out of LW knee-jerk extremism you would have seen them. Can you count to 3? From the revision:

Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer

After Weldon's assertions were disputed by the media Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a member of the Able Danger team identified himself as Weldon's source. Shaffer claimed that he alerted the FBI in September 2000 about the information uncovered by the secret military unit "Able Danger," but he alleges three meetings he set up with bureau officials were blocked by military lawyers. Shaffer, who currently works for the Defense Intelligence Agency, claims that the information was communicated to members of the 9/11 Commission, who chose not to include it in their final report.

Shaffer's lawyer, Mark Zaid, has revealed that Shaffer had been placed on administrative leave and had his security clearance suspended in March 2004 following a dispute over expenses. [7]

Navy Captain Scott Philpott

The Associated Press has reported that a member of the Able Danger team, Capt. Scott Philpott, an expert in futuristic naval warfare has also confirmed Shaffer's claims.

The group appears to be leaking additional information on Able Danger through the blog 'Voice of the taciturn' [8]

Mr. JD Smith

FoxNews has reported JD Smith, a contractor working for the Able Danger team, helped gather open-source information, reported on government spending and helped generate charts associated with the unit's work. [9]

According to Smith:

"I am absolutely positive that he [Atta] was on our chart among other pictures and ties that we were doing mainly based upon [terror] cells in New York City."

Smith also said data was gathered from a variety of sources, including about 30 or 40 individuals. He said they all had strong Middle Eastern connections and were paid for their information and said Able Danger's photo of Atta was obtained from overseas.

Well here is the problem I am having with the claims made by Smith. 'Able Danger' was originally purported to have been a data mining project, and a research project rather than a 'production' one at that. Now we have Smith popping up claiming that he was responsible for a HUMINT component of the project with 30-40 agents active. And this is all meant to be taking place under SOCOM without the participation of army intelligence or the CIA? And a project funded to that extent does not have procedures in place for handing over the information gathered? --Gorgonzilla 02:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Smith is also continuing to claim that Atta was identified by that name in 1999. None of the other sources shows Atta either in the US or using that name until applying for the Visa in 2000. --Gorgonzilla 02:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

You have no proof of this beside your BuzzFlash Cut & Paste.

Direct quotes don't need to be neutral but balanced. I have made no such statement about the Clinton Administration "responsibility" as you claim. The terrorists are responsible for their terrorism. The Clinton Administration's actions were irresponsible - not responsible. Your claim is not only yet another lie but a betrayal of Wikipedia's NPOV requirement. The fact that I left the Republican Gorton's statement in my neutral version is a clear indication of my neutrality and balance. I am a Libertarian not a Republican, BTW. You are a blind partisan LW extremist. "Bush Administration line?" What are you talking about? - Honest Abe

I think that it is premature based on reports limited to Fox News, the Washington Times and NewsMax to start hyperventilating here. I am aware that there is a story floating around that the Able Danger project was canned after it identified Condi Rice as a terrorist, I don't think it should go in the article yet though.--Gorgonzilla 02:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla, There is no justification for suppressing news reports from Fox News, the Washington Times and NewsMax. (NewsMax cited NYT re Smith, BTW.) Please stop making inappropriate reverts. Anonip 03:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

AnonIP, If you think that describing a guy accused of THEFT as 'Credible' in the opening paragraph is NPOV then you are likely a sockpupet for honest Abe. I reverted because the editorial slant was clearly endorsing Shaffer/Philpott/Smith as telling the truth and by implication describing the Pentagon and the Bush Administration as liars. The story is currently being spun by a number of partisan news sources that do too have their Jayson Blair scandals, starting with Ailes giving political advice to Jeb Bush during the 2000 count. Reputable news organizations are not run by partisan political advisers. I don't care if the POV you are inserting is Republican or Libertarian. At this point nobody has produced documentary evidence that of the identification claim let alone evidence that it was suppressed by any party whatsoever. It is premature to integrate this into the unified right wing Clinton conspiracy theory. --Gorgonzilla 03:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla, I do not object to your removing the word "credible" from the opening paragraph. I do object to your removing factual information regarding Smith's claims as reported by major media. There is no justification for that. It appears to be your POV that the allegations concerning Able Danger are simply part of a "unified right wing Clinton conspiracy theory". You are entitled to your opinion, of course. You are not entitled to impose it on this Wikipedia article, as you have attempted to do from the beginning. Please stop. Anonip 04:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite FoxNews' Jayson Blair or Operation Tailwind-like scandal?

Sure Ailes giving partisan political advice, numerous silly statements by O'Reilly. Of course they are not major journalism scandals because Fox News is not held to that standard.

FoxNews has proven more credible than either the NYT or CNN who hosted those scandals, respectively. I haven't linked anything to NewsMax or the Washington Times. Your claim I did gives a clear view toward your lunatic LW partisan extremism.

More personal attacks noted.

No one and nothing identified Condi Rice as a "terrorist." Able Danger did identify her contacts with the Chinese through Stanford University, where she was Dean, as suspicious. Nothing surprising there Stanford had an academic agreement with China.

Look at what I wrote, what is interesting here is that someone is interested enough in Smith to slime them.

But it's an indication why the FBI needed to be the man in the loop. The man in the loop not only on Rice but on Muhammed Atta as well. It was a section of the loop the Clinton Administration denied the American public with the wall against passing data on terrorism the Jamie Gorlick fortified. - Honest Abe

Yet another repeat of a wingnut conspiracy. The partition of FBI data goes back to Chuch, the same rules were re-confirmed by Ashcroft himself when he took office. Stop obsessing about a cheap stunt that Ashcroft pulled when he was about to face a series of tough questions from the 9/11 commission. Ashcroft knew he was likely to be criticized by the commission report so he got his people to dredg up some dirt to throw.

Well first off you have accused me of being a left wing extreemist repeatedly and of telling lies. Those are personal attacks and actionable ones to boot.

You clearly did tell a lie claiming there were 2 witnesses when my linked post made t clear there were 3. I was a demonstrated, proved and obvious lie. If you don't like that label - Stop lying.

Secondly, is the Jayson Blair you refer to the one sacked by the NY Times for making up stories? I was not aware that Fox News employed him, I would not regard him as a reliable source regardless of where he works.

Right. Your trying to discredit FoxNews when they've experienced no such sJayson Blair scandal as has many of your favority LW sources was a crystal ball into your LW extremism.

Thirdly, what I was saying was that the information that has so far come to light on Smith comes from three partisan right wing sources and what appears to be a Pentagon source alleging that Smith screwed up big on another project. At this point I think it is too soon to form any opinion on whether the allegations against Smith are even reliably sourced let alone interpret them.

Nothing ties FoxNews to the right wing. Your claim, however, ties you to the extreme left wing.

Fourthly, there is a big difference between the facts that have been established and the spin that Weldon and other have been trying to place on it. Shaffer's original statements appear to suggest that the SOCOM lawyers were concerned that if they handed over the info that the result would be another WACO style FBI screw-up. Having dealt with Freeh myself I can sympathize with that view. At the time the Freeh's direct involvement in the scapegoating of Richard Jewel for the Olympic park bombing had many people in the federal government thinking he was an incompetent grandstander.

Where's your link on the Waco thing?

• The stories of Shaffer and co are incompatible with the Pentagon story, at least one group is lying.

You missed the Pentagon's latest statement saying they no longer doubt the story. Tune into FoxNews to get the latest. CNN wont cover it till later. It runs counter to their editorial policy.

• If the pentagon is putting out a smear campaign against Smith that is rather interesting, it certainly suggests that the Pentagon has something to hide.

I won't argue but I haven't heard the Pentagon try to smear him. To the contrary tonite they admitted his credibility.

• If there is a coverup it beggars beleif that the Bush administration would be attempting to protect Clinton, or for that matter the 9/11 Commission.

Not surprising. That was done before when the Bush Administration refused to release Clinton Administration documents.

• The inconsistency in the timeline has yet to be explained.

The inconsistancy in the 9/11 commissions claim they were never briefed on Able Danger and them their reversal saying they were briefed but didn't finf the witness needs to be explained as well. Both inconsistancies were left in my neutral version.

Your accusations about the denial of Able Danger being LW extreemism are entirely off base. At this point the one thing we are sure about is that Bill Clinton is never going to run for President of the United States again. If Able Danger could be substantiated then it would argue for convening a second 9/11 commission with a wider scope, the LW is hardly opposed to that. It would mean that there was a coverup in the Pentagon under the Bush admin, hardly something the LW is opposed to discovering.

I'm not saying the denials represent LW extremism. I'm saying your supression of relevant facts represents LW extremism. I left the assertion and counter assertions to the Able Danger intelligence in place in my version. You deleted relevant facts. If Able Danger were substantiated it would lead to the questions:

1) Why did Clinton officials use "the Wall" to keep Able Danger staff from warning the FBI about intelligence on Mohammed Atta's intentions, despite the unit's charter to prevent terrorism? Why did Gorlick's interpretation of the wall go far beyond constitutional and legislative requirements?

2) Why was the 9/11 Commission *staff* briefed on the Able Danger intelligence yet the 9/11 commission members were either not briefed by the staff or the information was severely downplayed?

3) Why did Jamie Gorlick increase the effect of "the Wall" against sharing intelligence data on terrorists yet refuse to recuse herself from that portion of the 9/11 investigation?

Say!! This looks alot like the elements of scandal I cited.

The fact is that at the moment there really is not enough substance to the allegations being made to make this anything more than a conspiracy theory. Inserting POV edits such as describing the three project members as credible when one is on enforced leave for alleged dishonesty and another is allegedly incompetent does not improve the article or make it in any way 'Neutral'.--Gorgonzilla 03:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact is there are 3 corroberting witnesses. That's more than what is required as legal proof in any court in the US. The fact that those facts are inconvenient to your POV is obvious and immaterial. The facts in my neutral version should not be suppressed. We need to investigate the failures of the Clinton Administration w/o intimidation of staff by Gorlick and 1st 9/11 commission and let the chips fall where they may.

If you make major changes to the article without making any substantive explanation in talk expect your edits to be reverted

• In particular do not cut and paste material straight from CNN or any other news source, over half the article was a copyvio, thats why it was deleted.--Gorgonzilla 16:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Discussion

This left wing spin of this article is a disgrace. It's present form is a complete whitewash of 3 brewing scandals obviously for political spin. Example, 2nd paragraph a denial is presented without source or link before the charge is presented. WTF? Even the far left leaning New York Times has given the charges credence in todays paper yet Michael Savage is given top billing. Again WTF? This is why it has earned a NPOV warning. Honest Abe - 17 Aug 05

This article is a disgrace, first off the 9/11 commission flat out denies that it was told about Able Danger, the only information that there is on the Top Secret project is that it existed.

Weldon has a partisan motive here. The remainder of the article consits of exceptionaly POV speculation from the fringe wing-nut blogosphere. --Gorgonzilla 12:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to leave the false claims in with the information that refutes them. It is pertinent that such claims have been made but they have been refuted. However, I must also add that the 9/11 Commission has since acknowledged that they recieved information regarding Able Danger and didn't include it in the final report because it conflicted with other info they had concerning the timeline of Atta. Trilemma 15:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla's pro-left revision was a disgrace and a violation of NPOV. Clear facts such as direct 9/11 testimony was deleted along with the 9/11 commission's confirmation staff was briefed on the Able Danger intelligence. Reverted to the previous and correct version. - Honest Abe

I think you both are skating on thin ice with NPOV, honestly. Trilemma 17:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The facts contained in this article were balanced in an NPOV by Gorlick's verbatim full exlanation of why she erected the "wall" protecting terrorists from US agencies sharing intelligence on them. Just as you wouldn't attack Jews as you were describing the Holocaust to present a neutral POV on Hitler, you don't suppress and disguise facts wrt the Clinton Administration's response on terror, or lack thereof, to present a NPOV on past action/inaction. Facts must be aired nomatter how inconvenient for one side or other. Opinions should be balanced by critical opinion as long as there is a critical mass who share the opposing opinion. The article does with Ashcroft's opinion countering Gorlick's - point/counterpoint. - Honest Abe 17:38 13 Aug 2005(UTC)

I've added a paragraph on rebuttals to the claims of the role the 'wall' played in Able Danger. Trilemma 18:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

+++ This kind of stuff is precisely why things like Wikipedia -- and amateur online media in general -- will never work.

Well, if you take that stance, then all history books are suspect and we shouldn't study them. Max Entropy

The Gorelick text

The Gorelick issue is a claim that the 9/11 commission was biased. It has not yet been established that the 9/11 commission even saw the material from Able Danger. The 9/11 commission has issued a denial (I will post is soon).

The Gorelick issue is thus two removes from the article, yet took up over a third of the text.

If the Ashcroft accusation is relevant it should be paraphrased here, not given verbatim. Posting four paragraphs before you get to the point is known as burying the lede. The reader should first be told the allegation then the evidence, it sounds as if the actual allegation here is that the FBI and intel did not exchange information. But the presentation makes it look like it is a bias/coverup allegation. The commission was appointed by Bush, not Clinton. --Gorgonzilla 18:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

According to the 9/11 Commission article Ashcroft has withdrawn his accusation:

Jamie Gorelick's firm has agreed to represent Prince Mohammed al Faisal in the suit by the 9/11 families. The families contend that al Faisal has legal responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. According to Attorney General John Ashcroft in his testimony before the commission, Gorelick wrote a procedural memo that would have prevented communication between various government agencies (the wall memo[2]). Ashcroft later recanted this claim when it was pointed out that 'the wall' predated Gorelick's tenure by many years and his own Justice department had reaffirmed and strengthened the positions taken in her memo.

Able Danger Is TOP SECRET

Nobody here knows anything about Able Danger beyond the limited statement made by Weldon--Gorgonzilla 18:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no confirmed evidence from any source that Able Danger did report anything to anyone. This needs alleged.

Description of Weldon's Investigation

I am pretty sure that Weldon would not describe his investigation as an attempt to prove that the material was supressed. Members of congress don't announce the conclusion of their investigations when they start like that.--Gorgonzilla 18:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixing NPOV

RV'ing does not fix the NPOV problem here, it just fills the page up with unsubstantiated and incomprehensible blog theories. --Gorgonzilla 18:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I propose that the best way to fix the POV problem here is to redirect to a new article on 9/11 intelligence failures and look at all the intelligence failures at the SAME time. The 'Wall' claim is really separate if you know the details. There is also the daily presidential briefing issue, the richard Clarke claims etc.

• The wall claim was fundamental to the whole entire contraversy because it was the claim of Rush Limbaugh, etc. that the Clinton administration set up a figurative wall between intelligence agencies, born of legalise, that prevented information from being shared.

• I don't like the reverting here; while I agree that there is little truth in what the conservative pundits have been spreading, I feel their case still deserves to be made here, as does the case against what they're claiming.Trilemma 20:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think it woulod be more appropriate to discuss all the allegations about 9/11 intel failures in the same article. Then the Wall comment is put in context of other failures during the Clinton admin that are admitted. for example the total lack of analysis capability at the FBI. The 'Bin Laden to Attack' memo is also relevant. Unfortunately the article was VfD by a known VfD troll minutes after the first draft was put there. --Gorgonzilla 22:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

For the time being I put a link to the main 9/11 article. but there really needs to be one page. It is clear that the failures here did not start and end under Clinton.--Gorgonzilla 20:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Time just debunked this, Weldon has almost withdrawn claim

Read this before editing further. The source for the claim is clearly Weldon's book. And Weldon himself does not remember if he mentioned Atta any more. And he claims he handed over the only copy of the chart. The dog ate my list of terror suspects! The dog ate my list of terror suspects! [1] --Gorgonzilla 02:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Your derision appears to be premature. Anonip 18:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Time lied. Weldon debunked Time's assertion last night in an interview on FoxNews.

No, Weldon has changed his version of events. At this point however the actual staffers have spoken and they are rather more reliable than Weldon. --Gorgonzilla 20:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore reverting to a version of the story three days old does not help matters. You have not provided any link to spport your claim that Weldon has called Time magazine liars. Furthermore most people would consider Time a bit more reliable than Fox. --Gorgonzilla 20:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate reverts

Gorgonzilla, Please stop deleting appropriate material from this article. Thanks. Anonip 15:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I explained the reverts, the edits were never commented in talk whatsoever. Plus the cnn piece was a massive copyvio.--Gorgonzilla 16:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not the place to rehash the Gorelick argument, that should be considered in the separate 9/11 intel failures article, particularly since Ashcroft himself has withdrawn the claim and admitted that Gorelick was not the author of the policy as he had asserted but the policy actually dates back to the first Bush admin and before. If you want to explain why you think it is relevant here then argue the case in talk. Cutting and pasting large labs of text from conspiracy web sites does not make for a good article. --Gorgonzilla 16:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You deleted the external link to the NYT article that broke the story in the major media. There is no justification for that. I presume it was due to laziness or carelessness on your part, but that is no excuse. You should take care to make no reverts you can't justify. Anonip 16:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If that's the case just re-add the link instead of whining about it. If your claim is correct the change will probably not be reverted. --csloat 16:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If someone copies and pastes an entire CNN article into the story then they should expect it to be reverted. I looked over the article to see what substantive claims it seemed to make and provided a summary. If you think the link is important add it back in. --Gorgonzilla 17:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The NYT link I cited was only one of the things that were inappropriately reverted. Unfortunately, this is a constant problem with partisan editors who view Wikipedia as an ideological battleground and have no respect for other editors. There is no reason why I should have to waste my time correcting your inappropriate reverts. You have an obligation to take the time to execise due diligence on your reverts. If you're not willing to do that, don't do the revert. Anonip 17:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You have still failed to state a single reason why any of the material is relevant and not highly POV. --Gorgonzilla 18:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

How is a link to a NYT article concerning the Able Danger allegations irrelevant or highly POV? How is a link to a CNN transcript of an interview with Shaffer irrelevant or highly POV? How is a "See also:" section with a link to a related Wikipedia article irrelevant or highly POV? Anonip 19:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

When was Able Danger created?

What is the history of this group "Able Danger"? I think that is relevant to the entry.

-:QuestioningAuthority 17:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed relevant. Unfortunately, because the project was highly classified and its existence was only recently disclosed, little reliable information is currently available. I think I read that the group was created in 1999, but I can't confirm this. Anonip 17:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It was started in 1999 which is one of the reasons why the claim that they identified Atta in 2000 is a teensy weensy bit unbelievable. It was a relatively small operation with a staff of about 10 and it was an exploratory project to look into techniques rather than as an actual 'production' operation. If they really did have the goods they could easily have gone to Clarke who was running round with his hair on fire at the time. --Gorgonzilla 22:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks :QuestioningAuthority 18:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Useful Info Site

Most credible theory so far, SOCOM lawyers misapplied the law: [[2]] --Gorgonzilla 19:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Alleged Discrepancy in Shaffer's Story

[3]

First, from GSN two weeks ago:

[Shaffer] recalled carrying documents to the offices of Able Danger, which was being run by the Special Operations Command, headquartered in Tampa, FL. The documents included a photo of Mohammed Atta supplied by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and described Atta’s relationship with Osama bin Laden.

Second, from the New York Post on Thursday:

Shaffer said Atta's name didn't ring a bell when he learned the hijackers' names after 9/11. But he got "a sinking feeling in my stomach" when the woman Ph.D. in charge of Able Danger's data analysis told him Atta was one of those who had been identified as a likely al Qaeda terrorist by Able Danger.

"My friend the doctor [Ph.D.] who did all the charts and ran the technology showed me the chart and said, 'Look, we had this, we knew them, we knew this.' And it was a sinking feeling, it was like, 'Oh my God, you know. We could have done something.'"

Oh and according to Fox news Shaffer had his security clearance pulled for fiddling his expenses and is on administrative leave. [4]

What?? No Gorelick?

How do you have an article about Able Danger without a reference to Gorelick? Oh, wait, is that you Gorgonzilla? No wonder. This article has been Gorgonized.

LOL!! How did I know that you would be here? Homoneutralis 14:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually there is an entire article on Gorelick and the 'wall' under 9/11 Inteligence Failures. You are a week behind the story at this point. Plus Ashcroft himself withdrew the claim over the wall long ago. The time at which the Able Danger people are claiming to have identified Atta has varied, today it is April/May of 2000. --Gorgonzilla 19:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not quite understand quite why the right wing blogosphere is quite so keen to promote a conspiracy theory that essentially accuses the Bush administration of failing to act on prior knowledge of 9/11 and orchestrating a coverup. --Gorgonzilla 20:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Atta boy Gorgie. That's the way to show 'em your neutrality. LOL! Homoneutralis 20:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla, I don't see your logic on that. The Bush admin only officially entered office in January 2001 (followed by a few months of handing over time), and as such would have been in office only after the Able Danger information was allegedly quashed. In fact, so far as I can tell the criticism over the Able Danger story is being directed at those, specifically Gorelick, who essentially helped create the "wall" and therefore contributed to groups like Able Danger being unable to share their data with the FBI. Whether all this is true or not is the question, but the issue in essence has nothing to do with the Bush admin. Furthermore, if the Able Danger allegations are found to be true it doesn't incriminate the Bush admin in any wrongdoing at all. Impi 21:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The Bush Administration would have 100% responsibility for the coverup. At this point the denials out of the Pentagon are categorical. The attempt to spin the story into a uniquely anti-Clinton issue is an entirely partisan view. Moreover Ashcroft himself has admitted that the 'Wall' was actually created under Bush mkI and was not introduced by Gorelick as he claimed when he was trying to cover his own butt in front of the 9/11 commission. Bush appointed all the members of the commission in any case. If there is a scandal there it is a bipartisan one. It is just somewhat amusing to see conspiracy theorists out on planet wingnut who are so blinded by their ideology they cannot see that their accusations if true affect both sides. --Gorgonzilla 22:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

(from an earlier version of the article) "Jamie Gorelick's firm has agreed to represent Prince Mohammed al Faisal in the suit by the 9/11 families. The families contend that al Faisal has legal responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. According to Attorney General John Ashcroft in his testimony before the commission, Gorelick wrote a procedural memo that would have prevented communication between various government agencies (the wall memo[2]). Ashcroft later recanted this claim when it was pointed out that 'the wall' predated Gorelick's tenure by many years and his own Justice department had reaffirmed and strengthened the positions taken in her memo."

Most of the right wing blogs seemed to have abandonded this line of argument. If you think that it is worth re-establishing it despite Ashcroft's retraction then go ahead. Just make sure that the retraction is equaly prominent.--Gorgonzilla 22:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you folk out in right field now claiming that former Senator Gorton is also part of the conspiracy? I noticed that Bill O'Reilly has returned to the Gorelick claims which I guess is why you folk returned here. --Gorgonzilla 03:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh Gorgie, I'm just here to monitor the edits of a card-carrying member of Moveon.org, that's all. Homoneutralis 13:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

138.162.0.45 has a history of vandalism including inserting the word "fagtastic" into the Clinton article. I suggest that if he wants to debate the content of the article he do so here before reverting to a version that is a week out of date. Moreover describing edits by other editors as 'lies' does not assume good faith.--Gorgonzilla 22:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The Media Matters Take

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508230009

Claims that Shaffer identified Philpott as his original source. That would mean that we have one source, not two. Have not added it to the story, anyone got any confirmation? Philpott is still more credible than Shaffer given the expenses fiddling investigation. --Gorgonzilla 02:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

chickenhawk equivocators?

Warren P. Strobel, Lawmakers met with Iranian exile scrutinized over intelligence, Knight Ridder Washington DC Bureau, July 20, 2005

describes Weldon and Hoekstra secretly meeting in Paris with

"a longtime associate of Iranian arms merchant Manucher Ghorbanifar, the officials say. Ghorbanifar, a key figure in the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal, has had two CIA "burn notices" issued on him, meaning agency officers are not to deal with him."

Schaffer got greenlighted from Hastert and Hoekstra:

"I spoke personally to Denny Hastert and to Pete Hoekstra," Col. Shaffer said. Mr. Hastert, Illinois Republican, is speaker of the House, and Mr. Hoekstra, Michigan Republican, is chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

"I was given assurances by [them] that this was the right thing to do. ... I was given assurances we would not suffer any adverse consequences for bringing this to the attention of the public," Col. Shaffer said.

Shaun Waterman, Colonel got permission to disclose pre-9/11 data, United Press International(Washington Times), August 22, 2005

Ah, it's nothing more than the familiar call of the chickenhawk equivocators:

billydidit billydidit billydidit billydidit billydidit

Covering up their bare fat posteriors...

Some MMfA refs (not complete)

• Sen. Gorton's O'Reilly smackdown: "Nothing Jamie Gorelick wrote had the slightest impact on the Department of Defense or its willingness or ability to share intelligence"
• NY Times, Fox News falsely reported that second military official backed up Shaffer's Able Danger claim
• Memo to NY Post, et al: So-called Gorelick "wall" could not have been responsible for military failure to share alleged Atta intel
• NY Post editorial advanced Weldon's unsubstantiated claims on Able Danger, Atta, 9-11 Commission
• Conservatives baselessly linked Sandy Berger to Atta investigation
• Conservatives again misrepresented "wall" that purportedly inhibited intelligence sharing prior to 9-11
• Limbaugh falsely blamed Clinton administration for "wall" that purportedly prevented intelligence sharing about 9-11 hijackers

Don't be too sure there is nothing here, there might turn out to be something after all the blamestorming blows over. At this point I can't see how there is anything there that indicates incompetence by any party beyond the Pentagon. The 'wall' that people have been squawking over stops the intel agencies getting material from prosecutors. There is no prohibition on intel giving information to prosecutors.--Gorgonzilla 02:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Information flow

Gorgonzilla, You recently added the following: Gorton also asserted that 'the wall' was a longstanding policy that had resulted from the Church committee in the 1970s and that the policy only prohibits transfer of certain information from prosecutors to the intelligence services and never prohibited information flowing in the opposite direction.

What's your basis for this statement? Anonip 15:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It was in the Gorton interview. I will try to find a transcript, should be one online by now. The Wall was DoJ policy dating back to the Ford administration to implement a Church commission reform to prevent the FBI being used to spy on US citizens. The SOCOM lawyers might have a similar policy but it would be a Pentagon policy, not a DoJ policy. --Gorgonzilla 20:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you may have misinterpreted what Gorton said. Please verify or remove. Thanks. Anonip 21:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla, When I asked you to "verify or remove" I meant that you should remove your misinformation from the article, not this discussion of the issue from the talk page. Anonip 02:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Aw c@#&$*! Looks like I reverted the discussion page, not the article. Sorry, I had meant to revert the article. Tabbed browsing gets confusing sometimes. --Gorgonzilla 02:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Explanation accepted. Now please remove your misinformation from the article. Anonip 03:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

List of POV edits by "Honest" Abe:

• from which three credible former members or their contractors admit the program ha

As a matter of fact Shaffer is on 'administrative leave' for allegedly fiddling expenses for over 18 months. This is hardly a source that can be described as being 'credible' without qualification.

• yet Clinton Administration officials refused to allow the intelligence data to be passed to the FBI for further investigation

Cite a source for this, there is absolutely no evidence that the material was handed over to any Clinton administration appointee. The pentagon has denied that Able Danger produced any data to hand over. This is at best an unsupported claim.

• The existence of Able Danger and its identification of the 9/11 terrorists one year prior to 9/11 is confirmed by 3 credible witnesses

Again, a blatant POV edit, first there is only actually one witness since Shaffer says he got the info from Philpott and Weldon says he got it from first Shaffer then Philpott. so there is only actually one first hand witness. Second the claims made by the witness are disputed by the Bush administration. So your phrase is a blatant POV

• A belief among some liberals that there should be a "wall" of separation between domestic

Another blatant POV edit, Ashcroft himself has admitted that 'The Wall' was created by the FORD administration, a REPUBLICAN, not a liberal. It was part of the implementation of the Church report.

• Clinton Administration apparachik Jamie Gorlick

Ridiculous POV partisan terminology here.

• The fact that Ashcroft has recanted his accusation and has accepted the fact that the Wall predates Gorelick has been deleted in another deliberate POV edit.
• Able Danger had identified the 9/11 terrorist one year prior to 9/11 was picked up by national media in August 2005 because of three elements of scandal.

First it is alleged, secondly GSN is hardly the national media. The treatment of Able Danger in the real national media is considerably more skeptical. Time in particular were very dismissive but no major newspaper has yet called Able Danger a 'scandal'. This is a POV edit.

• The 9/11 Commission staff was briefed on the Able Danger intelligence yet the 9/11 commission members were either not briefed by the staff or the information was severely downplayed.

Actually the 9/11 commission has stated that they saw the Able Danger claim and dismissed it because 1) Atta did not apply for his visa to come to the states until after the alleged identification, 2) Atta did not begin using that name until after the alleged identification.

Ford administration?

Gorgonzilla, You wrote above:

Ashcroft himself has admitted that 'The Wall' was created by the FORD administration, a REPUBLICAN, not a liberal. It was part of the implementation of the Church report.

What is your source for this statement? Anonip 02:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The 9/11 Commission article in Wikipedia:

Jamie Gorelick's firm has agreed to represent Prince Mohammed al Faisal in the suit by the 9/11 families. The families contend that al Faisal has legal responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. According to Attorney General John Ashcroft in his testimony before the commission, Gorelick wrote a procedural memo that would have prevented communication between various government agencies (the wall memo[2]). Ashcroft later recanted this claim when it was pointed out that 'the wall' predated Gorelick's tenure by many years and his own Justice department had reaffirmed and strengthened the positions taken in her memo.

Gorgonzilla, Someone (not I) recently removed the statement you quoted concerning Ashcroft recanting his claim from the 9/11 commission article. But regardless, the quote you provided makes no mention of the Ford administration. And in any case, Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. You'll have to do better than this. Anonip 03:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Condi Story

I think that this article has it right: [5]

I do not think that it is likely that Able Danger would have been shut down for identifying Condi Rice as a potential terrorist. The group probably would have been shut down if they were reporting a long list of people like Rice as potential terrorists but we don't at this point have a statement to that effect. I don't think it is very likely that a group would be shut down because their computer program spat out some apparently anomalous results. Politicians end up meeting a lot of unsavory charaters, it goes with the job. The purpose of something like Able Danger would be to identify possible leads.

At this point the Condi Story has not been widely reported enough to be notable reporting and it does not appear to be sufficiently credible by itself. If it turns up widely cited to a Pentagon source then it should go in as the off-the-record Pentagon line.--Gorgonzilla 02:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)