Informed Speculation

I’m going to say something again that I’ve said several times lately: Able Danger needs to be investigated, thoroughly, probably through congressional hearings. The story is simply too important, and the details too shifty, for us to ignore. There may be nothing there; good, let’s find out.

AJStrata has been all over this one from day one, and he gives the latest here on Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer (see also Power Line), a (the?) Able Danger source who, by coming forward, has restored at least part of Rep. Weldon’s credibility.

Let’s take a moment to remind ourselves of why this isn’t just your typical insider Washington stuff:

A military intelligence team repeatedly contacted the F.B.I. in 2000 to warn about the existence of an American-based terrorist cell that included the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a veteran Army intelligence officer who said he had now decided to risk his career by discussing the information publicly. The officer, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, said military lawyers later blocked the team from sharing any of its information with the F.B.I.

Colonel Shaffer said in an interview that the small, highly classified intelligence program known as Able Danger had identified by name the terrorist ringleader, Mohammed Atta, as well three of the other future hijackers by mid-2000, and had tried to arrange a meeting that summer with agents of the F.B.I.’s Washington field office to share the information.

Jim Geraghty gets the last word:

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 [sic] 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.

We haven’t heard the last of this one…