The Omission Commission

[gilliam]

The Omission Commission
The 9/11 Commission Report failed to make any mention of Iraqi operations in Germany that might have been connected to al Qaeda.
by Edward Morrissey
08/17/2005

REPRESENTATIVE CURT WELDON dropped a delayed political bombshell with a special-orders speech last June in which he revealed the existence of a data-mining program at the Pentagon named Able Danger, which he claimed had identified Mohammed Atta and three of the other 9/11 hijackers as al Qaeda operatives over a year before the attacks. Almost two months later, an intelligence-community periodical, Government Security News, noted the speech. This caught the attention of New York Times reporter Douglas Jehl, who informed the nation that far from missing the terrorist cell before the 9/11 attacks, military intelligence had identified them with plenty of time to act.

Questions immediately arose about why no law-enforcement agency took action with the information, and why the 9/11 Commission made no mention of Able Danger or the identification of Atta’s cell in its final report. The sources for Weldon’s revelations insist that the political atmosphere and the attorneys at the Pentagon would not allow the military to share the information with the FBI, believing (1) the existence of the data-mining project would create a political backlash against the Defense Department, and (2) it would violate the policies of the Department of Justice to have coordination between military intelligence and the FBI involving a legal resident in the United States, as they believed Atta to be.

As for why the 9/11 Commission made no mention of Able Danger, the Commission itself seemed completely unable to provide an answer. Weldon’s sources claimed that they had briefed the Commission on two separate occasions, in October 2003 and July 2004, just before the release of their final report.

The Commission’s spokesman, Al Felzenberg, initially scoffed at that claim. He acknowledged that the Commission had learned of the Able Danger program during the October 2003 briefing, but that Atta’s name had not come up at all. “They all say that they were not told anything about a Brooklyn cell,” Felzenberg said. “They were told about the Pentagon operation. They were not told about the Brooklyn cell. They said that if the briefers had mentioned anything that startling, it would have gotten their attention.”

A competing series of revelations–from Time magazine, Curt Weldon’s book, the Bergen Record, and even from the Commission itself (just four days after stating that they had no recollection at all of the July 2004 briefing)–has cast a shroud of doubt over everyone’s credibility, including Weldon. Moreover, it has given momentum for those who felt that the Commission’s final report left a significant part of the story untold. Noting that Able Danger, or any other data-mining program, gets no mention at all but that the Commission recommendations include *expanding *existing data-mining efforts and providing better coordination among them (pages 388-389), critics have begun searching for other data points left out of the Commission’s analysis.

THEY MIGHT START with a few cryptic media reports from March 2001 regarding two arrests made in Germany. The BBC and Reuters both noted the capture of Iraqi intelligence agents in Heidelberg. Both reports gave essentially the same minimal data on March 1:

(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com …

 

[gilliam]

Germans Uncovered Iraqi Spy Ring During 9/11 Planning

The Daily Standard has just published my latest column, which reveals to those who missed my earlier post on the arrests of two Iraqi spies in Heidelberg during February 2001. The discovery of these agents, especially given the time frame, should set off warning bells about potentially devastating connections to the 9/11 plot:

In the years following the 9/11 attacks, there has been much argument about the nature of Saddam Hussein’s connections to terror. How could the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission fail to consider this, given the other activity occurring in Germany during this period: * Mohammed Atta and Ramzi Binalshibh meet in Berlin in January 2001 for a progress meeting, around the same time German counterintelligence claimed that they picked up the Iraqi trail.

• Ziad Jarrah, another of the crucial al Qaeda pilots, transits between Beirut and Florida through Germany twice during the 2000-2001 holiday season, flying back to the United States at the end of February.
• Marwan al-Shehhi disappears in Casablanca, then constructs a cover story about living in Hamburg.

In fact, the Commission report notes that three of the four al Qaeda team leaders (excepting Hani Hanjour, who had at that time just begun his pilot training) interrupted their planning to take foreign trips (page 244). Why would these men interrupt their preparations in this manner? Traveling in and out of the United States presented a risk–a manageable risk, as events proved–but having three of the four team leaders outside of their established cells at the same time looks unnecessarily foolhardy from al Qaeda’s point of view. It also appears to be the only time after their first entry into the United States that this travel occurred. All three had some German connection to their trips. In fact, Jarrah left Germany the same week that the Germans captured the Iraqi agents.

The 9/11 Commission never mentions these arrests, nor the discovery of an Iraqi espionage operation involving several German cities during the same weeks that most of the 9/11 plotters traveled into or through Germany. In fact, no one has followed up on the arrests at all.

For a commission that chided two administrations about failing to connect dots, the Omission Commission appears to have left more than a few dots off the map. We need to find out whether the CIA and/or the FBI knew about this, as reported by al-Watan al-Arabi later in March, whether they gave that information to the Commission – and if they did, why they never mention it once in their report. At best, it leaves the final report with yet another crippling gap in its credibility. At worst, it looks like someone has something to hide.

captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005238.php

 

[gilliam]

also see:

- September 2, 2002CNN.com - RussiawarnsIraq****attack

 

[walstan]

President Bush Addresses the Nation
March 19, 2003

The Oval Office

10:16 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein’s ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support – from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.

To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.

The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military – a final atrocity against his people.

I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.

We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly – yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.

My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail. May God bless our country and all who defend her. END 10:20 P.M. EST

Now why didn’t he mention Al Qaeda, 9/11, WTC Bombing, oh… and would you like to explain the reference to WMD’s in the streets of America?

Finally here’s a cracking little site for you, it seems to be one that simply applies the facts as poros and cons to the Iraq war and leaves the reader to make up their own mind, its importance is that it can be used to find EXACTLY what X or Y said and not some bloggers or posters interpretation. Have fun.

usiraqprocon.org/

 

[gilliam]

walstan:

Now why didn’t he mention Al Qaeda, 9/11, WTC Bombing, oh… and would you like to explain the reference to WMD’s in the streets of America?

Finally here’s a cracking little site for you, it seems to be one that simply applies the facts as poros and cons to the Iraq war and leaves the reader to make up their own mind, its importance is that it can be used to find EXACTLY what X or Y said and not some bloggers or posters interpretation. Have fun.

The UN was being bribed by Saddam, if we waited for the UN, Saddam would still be racking in billions of dollars each year and funneling the money to terrorists, as he was doing. But this thread is about a possible Iraq / al-Qaeda connection. Please don’t try to change the subject. If you want to talk about the UN, please start another thread.

 

[David_Paul]

walstan:

Now why didn’t he mention Al Qaeda, 9/11, WTC Bombing, oh… and would you like to explain the reference to WMD’s in the streets of America?

October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton:

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

She wasn’t alone. Democrats–Berger, Dashcle, Pelosi, Byrd, Gore, Rockerfeller etc–had been making similiar statements since 1998 when Democrats in both Houses passed, with only 5 or 6 nays in the House, the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 (which called for and funded regime change).

Only in Januray of 2003, after they had voted for the war, did Democrats begin to claim Bush “lied to the America people.”

I really don’t get it. Do liberals think no one remembers what they said a few years ago? Do they think people are unaware their switch is position was done for no other reason than they had nothing positive to run on in 2004 and thought the only way they stood a chance was to tear down Bush?

 

[buffalo]

Much of this is covered in the book - The Secret History of the Iraq War - I recommend this book to any War naysayers.

Bodansky, ex-director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare and author of Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America, offers many bold and contentious claims in this sprawling history of the Iraqi conflict up to Saddam’s capture. Saddam, he asserts, was deeply involved with al-Qaeda, and indeed dispatched a (never “activated”) 500-man terrorist battalion to North America in 2002. Iraqi forces were awash in WMDs, which they planned to (but never did) launch at American soldiers, and which were finally spirited away to Syria or buried in the sand. And Syria and especially Iran, which now allegedly hosts al-Qaeda’s headquarters, have been busily fomenting turmoil in Iraq and terror throughout the region. Bodansky affirms the Bush Administration’s case for regime change and its larger “axis-of-evil” worldview. But he deplores the invasion itself-Saddam could have been toppled by a coup instigated by Russia or the Arab states, he says-and despairs of the American nation-building project in Iraq, which he feels faces an unstoppable jihad by a coalition of Islamists, Baathists, Sunnis, Shiites, al-Qaeda and even many Kurds, supported by an increasingly anti-American populace. Bodansky offers a microscopically detailed portrait of the byzantine politics of the various Iraqi factions and their regional sponsors, along with a vigorous critique of the chaos, intelligence failures, political ignorance and military overkill that characterize the American occupation. Unfortunately, the book’s jumbled narrative, reliance on unnamable insiders and unverifiable intelligence reports make it difficult to assess its more controversial claims-especially those about Iraqi WMDs, which are typically made off-handedly with few evidentiary citations. The result is an intriguing, but less than compelling, analysis of the Iraqi quagmire.

 

[walstan]

gilliam:

The UN was being bribed by Saddam, if we waited for the UN, Saddam would still be racking in billions of dollars each year and funneling the money to terrorists, as he was doing. But this thread is about a possible Iraq / al-Qaeda connection. Please don’t try to change the subject. If you want to talk about the UN, please start another thread.

gilliam you’re losing it!!! Who mentioned the UN, not me!

 

[walstan]

buffalo:

Much of this is covered in the book - The Secret History of the Iraq War - I recommend this book to any War naysayers.

Bodansky, ex-director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare and author of Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America, offers many bold and contentious claims in this sprawling history of the Iraqi conflict up to Saddam’s capture. Saddam, he asserts, was deeply involved with al-Qaeda, and indeed dispatched a (never “activated”) 500-man terrorist battalion to North America in 2002. Iraqi forces were awash in WMDs, which they planned to (but never did) launch at American soldiers, and which were finally spirited away to Syria or buried in the sand. And Syria and especially Iran, which now allegedly hosts al-Qaeda’s headquarters, have been busily fomenting turmoil in Iraq and terror throughout the region. Bodansky affirms the Bush Administration’s case for regime change and its larger “axis-of-evil” worldview. But he deplores the invasion itself-Saddam could have been toppled by a coup instigated by Russia or the Arab states, he says-and despairs of the American nation-building project in Iraq, which he feels faces an unstoppable jihad by a coalition of Islamists, Baathists, Sunnis, Shiites, al-Qaeda and even many Kurds, supported by an increasingly anti-American populace. Bodansky offers a microscopically detailed portrait of the byzantine politics of the various Iraqi factions and their regional sponsors, along with a vigorous critique of the chaos, intelligence failures, political ignorance and military overkill that characterize the American occupation. Unfortunately, the book’s jumbled narrative, reliance on unnamable insiders and unverifiable intelligence reports make it difficult to assess its more controversial claims-especially those about Iraqi WMDs, which are typically made off-handedly with few evidentiary citations. The result is an intriguing, but less than compelling, analysis of the Iraqi quagmire.

This guy sounds further of the wall than Humpty Dumpty.

 

[buffalo]

walstan:

This guy sounds further of the wall than Humpty Dumpty.

I will go back to reading Dan Brown novels - a guy with real credibility.

 

[space_ghost]

…our minds tend to muddle when we narrow our vision despite the facts…

to continue to spew pro-war propaganda is the same tactic used by other countries in other wars…

…a people were fianlly able to roast their brothers in ovens because of the constant barage of hate jews propaganda…

…bottom line… the Pope said do not do this war, it’s wrong, the dali-lama said do not do this war, the archbishop of canterbury said do not do this war, archbishop tutu said do not do this war… every competent moral authority out there said do not do this war…

i’m amazed in a catholic forum where most would agree that JPII was a man with the history, knowledge, and judgement best qualified to make this judgement… that his opinion would be ignored … at least by catholics…

IMHO
http://mediasoftware.free.fr/index.1.jpg

 

[David_Paul]

walstan:

This guy sounds further of the wall than Humpty Dumpty.

The Freud Card.

Standard Liberal Operating Procedure (S.L.O.P.)

Three of us have posted facts on this thread. You and others have posted none. We get cutesy graphics and attacks on the intregrity of a writer.

Noticed you don’t want to touch Hillary Clinton’s statement that Saddam harbored Al Qaeda membersand was working on nukes. Easier to go after a book you never read in the hope nobody else read it either.

These tactics used to work when the left had a lock on information. Those days are over.

 

[walstan]

For all the statements for and against try the following link.

usiraqprocon.org/bin/procon/procon.cgi?database=5-M-Subs2.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=2&rnd=340.00821740239365

What I find interesting is that, in the main, those saying there was a connection are nearly all politicians, (I said mainly, not all) and those who say no connection have links to the intellegence community.

Are the politicians following the premise that if you say something often enough and loud enough eventually everyone will believe it?

 

[wabrams]

gilliam:

The UN was being bribed by Saddam, if we waited for the UN, Saddam would still be racking in billions of dollars each year and funneling the money to terrorists, as he was doing. But this thread is about a possible Iraq / al-Qaeda connection. Please don’t try to change the subject. If you want to talk about the UN, please start another thread.

When did we start caring about the UN or what they do?

 

[thestickman]

David_Paul:

The Freud Card.

Standard Liberal Operating Procedure (S.L.O.P.)

Three of us have posted facts on this thread. You and others have posted none. We get cutesy graphics and attacks on the intregrity of a writer.

Noticed you don’t want to touch Hillary Clinton’s statement that Saddam harbored Al Qaeda membersand was working on nukes. Easier to go after a book you never read in the hope nobody else read it either.

These tactics used to work when the left had a lock on information. Those days are over.

AMEN!!!:clapping:

 

[buffalo]

Spend some time here:

CIA Site


** Saddam Hussein offered asylum**
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities. However, in recent weeks, both the United States and Britain have renewed their pressure on the Taliban to expel bin Laden. Pakistan, a strong ally of the Taliban and one of only three countries to recognize the movement’s control over Afghanistan, also has been asked by the United States to use its influence to have bin Laden expelled from Afghanistan. http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

** Saddam’s Files New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda**
One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam’s son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime’s dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda “summit” in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133

 

[buffalo]

Case Closed Weekly Standard
From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government’s secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. by Stephen F. Hayes 11/24/2003, Volume 009, Issue 11 OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda–perhaps even for Mohamed Atta–according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD. The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America’s most determined and dangerous enemies. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

** The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden By Inigo Gilmore (Filed: 27/04/2003)
Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden’s al-Qa’eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein’s regime**. Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq’s intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa’eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa’eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad. The papers will be seized on by Washington as the first proof of what the United States has long alleged - that, despite denials by both sides, Saddam’s regime had a close relationship with al-Qa’eda. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml

 

[buffalo]

Need any more?

 

[Benedictus]

space ghost:

…bottom line… the Pope said do not do this war, it’s wrong, the dali-lama said do not do this war, the archbishop of canterbury said do not do this war, archbishop tutu said do not do this war… every competent moral authority out there said do not do this war…

 

[MikeWM]

buffalo:

Need any more?

Anything not based on intelligence? Why should we believe they got this right when they got the WMDs so badly wrong?

Mike