Senators nix pre-9/11 hijacker ID theory By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A lengthy Senate investigation has debunked charges by a Republican congressman that military analysts identified Mohamed Atta and other Sept. 11 hijackers before the attacks, according to a committee aide familiar with the report.
In a letter to members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sens. Pat Roberts and John D. Rockefeller dismissed suggestions by Rep. Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., that defense analysts ignored analysis that could have prevented the attacks. Roberts, R-Kan., is outgoing chairman and Rockefeller, of West Virginia, is the senior Democrat who will assume the chairmanship next month.
Damn, at what point do you 32%'ers realize that your neoclown gods are lying to you. You love being on the receiving end don't you?
2006-12-26 14:58:40 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
no post, but 3 thumbs down.
coward neocons.
2006-12-26 15:04:05 · update #1
The L.A. Times also has an article regarding this; their writer has additional information:
"Though the committee concluded that claims about Able Danger were unfounded, two of the hijackers were known to the U.S. intelligence community before the Sept. 11 attacks. The two had been observed by the CIA attending a meeting with Al Qaeda operatives in Malaysia, but that information was not shared with other agencies in time to locate them after they had entered the United States and moved to San Diego."
So, it looks like Weldon wasn't entirely wrong.
Source(s):
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/...
so the us government did nothing about 9/1?
2006-12-26 15:16:27 · update #2
They've found 7 of the supposed hijackers alive. The FBI even admits the IDs they found were stolen, so they don't even know who really did 9/11, just who was supposed to take the fall for it. Go look it up on FOXnews or CNN, they're the sources.
2006-12-26 15:06:47 · answer #1 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Without listing numerous "counter punches" concerning liberal lies - which would serve no real purpose - I think we should all just agree that lying politicians seem to be a non-partisan issue.
In this particular case, I have no doubt that the hijackers were well known by both the FBI and the CIA - given the time frame between the attacks and the front page spread containing all of their pictures and profiles. This is old news and I don't understand why it is being rehashed - hopefully, the mistakes made prior to 9/11 will not be repeated.
I find it hard to believe that all of the finger pointing and back stabbing is still ongoing - get over it, people - the blame game gets us nowhere - and fix the problems that failed to prevent the events of 9/11 - and see that it doesn't happen again!
2006-12-26 16:29:42 · answer #2 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The L.A. Times also has an article regarding this; their writer has additional information:
"Though the committee concluded that claims about Able Danger were unfounded, two of the hijackers were known to the U.S. intelligence community before the Sept. 11 attacks. The two had been observed by the CIA attending a meeting with Al Qaeda operatives in Malaysia, but that information was not shared with other agencies in time to locate them after they had entered the United States and moved to San Diego."
So, it looks like Weldon wasn't entirely wrong.
2006-12-26 15:12:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Just because two senators say it didn't happen, does not mean it didn't happen.
The fact that analyst ignored or didn't ignore data that pointed to Atta, does not mean that Atta didn't do it.
It just means that the intelligence gathering may or may not have been as thorough as it could have been.
And that fact, is proof that George Bush is right in trying to upgrade the capabilities of intelligence services.
He is trying to prevent a repeat of the carnage of 9-11.
2006-12-26 15:09:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
i don't think the full article is as conclusive as you are portraying here. In addition, I would say that being wrong, and being a liar are two different things. Why do liberals like to call people liars so much? lol It's like their favorite word these days. At least on YA it is.
2006-12-26 15:21:35 · answer #5 · answered by FrederickS 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The truth hurts so bad that they have to attack the messenger instead of replying. Don't worry, someone will be along to post some lies.
2006-12-26 15:07:43 · answer #6 · answered by Al Dave Ismail 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050827&articleId=867
2006-12-26 15:22:37 · answer #7 · answered by dstr 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why do you assume that all Republicans are Neocons?
2006-12-26 15:07:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Why are you slanting the facts or are you misinformed?
2006-12-26 15:09:35 · answer #9 · answered by josh m 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I GUESS YOU SCARED ALL THE MINDLESS,LOSER REPUBLICANS AWAY?????
2006-12-26 15:10:38 · answer #10 · answered by STOP CORRUPTION NOW 2 · 1⤊ 6⤋