Informed Speculation

I’ve mentioned many times, and in fact, just today, that I support Senate hearings into the Able Danger story. Of course, if there’s nothing to it, the participants can save us a lot of trouble by just admitting so. In fact, that may be what’s happening. Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer appears to have backed out of a key allegation:

Shaffer conceded that during his own personal briefing of Sept. 11 commission staffers in Afghanistan in Oct. 2003, he didn’t specifically name the terrorists.

Is that the end of Able Danger, then?

No, it is not. There are two things at play here: one, did ‘the wall’ between the military and law enforcement prevent the apprehension of the 9/11 conspirators, and two, was the 9/11 Commission negligent in not pursuing an Atta-related lead? Question two is increasingly leaning towards a favorable outcome for the Commission, but question one, I believe, remains an open book.

Still, given the credibility problems of Weldon and Shaffer, though my call for hearings still stands, it’s on shakier ground. Perhaps just the thought of being placed under oath might scare the truth out of these two…

UPDATE 1:34 p.m. central: Though I quibble with how a post such is this with equivocations all over the place can be considered “all wrong”, I give you the Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill for a more complete discussion of why Able Danger might still be a story.

More to the point, I specifically said that Shaffer and Weldon’s credibility was an issue, not that nothing was amiss. Some have wondered how Able Danger could have come up with Atta’s name in the first place; Edward Jay Epstein has an answer for you there (hat tip to Mickey Kaus)…