Atta Boys


From the Wash Times:

A Pentagon investigation has found no evidence that Able Danger, a secret military intelligence operation, identified September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta as a terror cell member more than a year before the attacks.

From AP via Fox News:

On Monday, Navy Capt. Scott Philpott told FOX News that he had also told the Sept. 11 commission about Atta and Able Danger. In a statement sent to FOX News, Philpott wrote: "My story has remained consistent. Atta was identified by Able Danger in early 2000."

Wash Times story here. Fox News here.

NEXT: Bad Boys, Bad Boys

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is good, but I’m holding out for the Pat Robertson post.

  2. Mickey Kaus has a specula-tastic theory: back in the 1980s, an American citizen named Mohammed Atta was involved on a terror attack on a bus in Israel, and was later arrested and extradited to stand trial for the attack.

    He writes about this on Slate.

  3. I’ve been trying to follow this but jeez. You got Curt Weldon, who has sub-Lyndon Larouche credibility, and his magical Iranian email friends. You got wingers trying to turn this into a blame Clinton for 9/11 thing. You got 27 different bureaucracies all covering their butts. So it fades, like so many stories, into a cloud of unknowing.

    When you do that Pat Robertson story, be sure to include “radical cleric” or something like that. Always cracks me up.

  4. Kevin Drum has been the go-to guy on this, and the conclusion seems to be that somebody, if not several somebodies, are full of lying, lying shit.

  5. From the FoxNews story:

    Di Rita said Pentagon researchers have found no evidence that Able Danger had Mohamed Atta’s name. He said he was unsure whether the unit came up with the identities of the other three hijackers but then said that none of Shaffer’s specific claims had been validated.

    What was the purpose of linking the Washington Times piece? You got both sides in the FoxNews piece.

  6. JF,

    I read the Wash Times piece first, which didn’t mention Philpott at all (who does get mentioned in other coverage). No purpose, just more sources and more info.

  7. Since this was just a desperate Republican attempt to discredit the 9/11 Commission and the Clinton administration by attacking Jamie Gorelick, it’s no surprise that the stories don’t stand up to scrutiny.

  8. Got it. Thanks, Mr. Gillespie.

  9. Considering you have two previously anonymous sources who have now publically identfied themselves, and have backed one another’s stories, how can you say this is losing steam? Isn’t two sources, especially on-the-record sources, the standard for reputable journalists going ahead with the story? This isn’t being driven by the freaking Free Republic – it’s the NY Times. I would say this story is a long way from dead, now that there is supposedly a civilian contractor who will shortly identify himself.

    Weldon certainly seems like a nutjob at times, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

  10. Phil,

    Calling the lying liars on their lying lies is discourteous. Didn’t you get the memo? I’ll make sure you get another copy of that memo.

  11. Dman that Fox news! How are we ever supposed to get to the truth with them so far in Chimpler’s pocket!

  12. This latest attempt to pin 9/11 on Clinton seems really, really stupid even assuming it’s true. Even if Clinton’s security apparatus failed to act promptly on the information, there’s still nearly nine intervening months of Bush administration inaction on the same intelligence. That would seem to put the situation within something analogous to the “last clear chance” doctrine in tort law.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.