My, What A Big Backpedal You Have There

You know by now that the Times reported a few days ago that Rep. Curt Weldon is claiming that a secret military intelligence unit had the existence of Mohammed Atta and several others as an active al Queda cell in the United States by 2000, that they wanted to give that information to the FBI but were blocked from doing so by Clinton-era lawyers on at least three occasions, and that the 9/11 Commission is saying that they were not briefed on this, as former members of this unit are telling Weldon. The name Atta would have thrown up such alarm bells that surely they'd remember this, the commission is saying. (Hmmm. Suddenly they seem a bit scarce on television.) Yet the military intelligence folks involved, says Weldon (and media people they're speaking with independently) are adament that they spoke with Commission staff.

Well, what do you know, today's Times has a bit of a backpedal on the whole, "we were never briefed" story.

Al Felzenberg, who served as the commission's chief spokesman, said earlier this week that staff members who were briefed about Able Danger at a first meeting, in October 2003, did not remember hearing anything about Mr. Atta or an American terrorist cell. On Wednesday, however, Mr. Felzenberg said the uniformed officer who briefed two staff members in July 2004 had indeed mentioned Mr. Atta.

Now the story is that the briefing came right at the end, just before the report went to the printer, but there was no need seen to include the information in the report, or to suddenly stop and rip things up based on the information, because it was inconsistent with key details already confirmed: namely Atta's travel schedule:

Mr. Felzenberg said the commission's staff remained convinced that the information provided by the military officer in the July 2004 briefing was inaccurate in a significant way.

"He wasn't brushed off," Mr. Felzenberg said of the officer. "I'm not aware of anybody being brushed off. The information that he provided us did not mesh with other conclusions that we were drawing" from the commission's investigation.

In other words, he was brushed off, but for what the commission staff believed to be substantive reasons.

In response to a reader's comment, no, no there is no effort made at all to make it clear that this happened during the Clinton administration, but more damning, there is no effort made to explain that this happened (if we take as a given, for the sake of argument, that it happened exactly as the military sources describe) as a result of "the Wall."

Update: If I were the Times, I'd bury any suggestion that it was data mining that found Atta 'n the boys too. (Scroll down.)

Comments

[Lurking Observer]

If this is what "reality-based" thinking gets us, I'm kinda curious about the color of the sky in the Commission's particular "reality."

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I thought it was a rhetorical question.

[Leon]

"information ... did not mesh with other conclusions that we were drawing" Or in other words, our minds were made up and we did not want to be confused with facts.

[hhhhh]

出会い出会いデリヘル