Rep. Curt Weldon's source has come forward to give interviews with CNN and the New York Times. He is Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer. The above links are via Jim Geraghty, who has valuable posts on Able Danger and the emergence of Lt. Col. Shaffer. Just go to TKS and keep on scrolling. It's good to see the New York Times involved. Geraghty adds:
"If you didn't know better, you would almost think that the New York Times has decided to really scrutinize the Clinton administration's record on fighting terror.I certainly don't mind any of this. But it seems... odd."
and then he sums up just how big the story could turn out to be
"The reason I’ve been writing about this – and so many readers have been reading about it, and clamoring for more information – is because it’s so darn big.* It would completely change the way we view our intelligence agencies. They weren’t bumbling before 9/11 – at least, Able Danger wasn’t.
* It would be a useful lesson for fighting terror from now on: Listen to the data-mining guys.
* This would be a smoking gun, proving that the single most significant impediment to effective counterterrorism before 9/11 was “the wall.”
* It would prove that the wall was worse than we ever imagined, rendering military intelligence’s tracking al-Qaeda moot, because they were forbidden by law from passing their findings on to anyone who take action on it.
* It would utterly destroy the 9/11 Commission’s reputation. A report that ignored a revelation like this is worthless.
* Everyone who said Jamie Gorelick belong testifying before the Commission instead of on it would be platinum-level vindicated.
* The Clinton administration Justice Department’s rejection of Mary Jo White’s objections to the wall would look unforgiveable.
* Everyone would have intense questions about what role, if any, Hillary Clinton played in recommending Jamie Gorelick for her Justice Department job. This is the sort of thing that can ruin a party’s reputation and derail a 2008 campaign.And don’t even get me started on how much worse this makes Sandy Berger look.
John Podhoretz says we're still looking to the answers for these questions:
Are 9/11 Commission staffers lying when they say Shaffer didn't mention Atta during his discussion with them in Afghanistan in 2003?Did the Pentagon withhold critical Able Danger files from the 9/11 Commission in February 2004?
Ed Morrissey just needs to be read daily anyway, but here's his post on the Mary Jo White memos to the Justice Dept.
Posted by dan at August 17, 2005 12:20 PM