On Fox news this AM, Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, said the program was unexplainably terminated in spring '01, four months before 9/11.

He also said his documents were missing, implying they were stolen.

Is this why DOD bad-mouthed him???

Prior to 9-11, despite AQ's seven (7) year campaign against the US, the focus of US Gov't counter-terrorism investigations and operations was "domestic terrorism".

The Bush administration did not mark an immediate change in focus.  It is not the President, Attorney General or Secretary of Defense that create the focus.  It is career civil servants in the various Government agencies and departments.  Their agendas transcend administrations and create a low-level energy that influences political appointees which is why agendas continue despite changes in administrations.

These career civil servants are also tied into congressional staffs and so-called public policy "think tanks" like the Southern Poverty Law Center which support and reinforces these agendas in a web of grants, studies, etc.  The SPLC creates the FBI's list of terrorist organizations.  The SPLC is a known "liberal-Progressive" front established to support Communist infiltration of the Civil Rights movement and was so identified by the Bureau, so why is it the group that decides who the Bureau considers terrorists?

Yes, a Communist "liberal-Progressive" organization that never met an enemy of America it didn't like decides who the FBI considers terrorists.  Makes sense doesn't it...

No matter what the world situation or what reality is, these agendas are what drives how the 'action agencies' of the Federal government see the world and what they do.  Anyone that bucks the 'agency weltanschaung' is marginalized, their views suppressed or ignored, and their operations shut down.

And if they are right and, God forbid, it comes out publicly, then every resource of that agency (and the Federal government, if possible) is focused on discrediting them.

So when it turns out that Able Danger was right... well, let their discrediting and personal destruction begin!  The bureaucracy must be saved!  The bureaucracy is more important than America's safety! The bureaucrats jobs, agendas, empire building and turf wars are far more important than some silly little war for the very survival of America.

ODA, you put it well.

I get a kick out of those who put all the blame on Clinton.

The Bushies who cheered Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer when he stepped forward, may well change their tune, and demonize him as they did Scott Ritter.

Now it turns out the program was terminated by the Bush administration.

Fascinating.........

Quoted: ODA, you put it well. I get a kick out of those who put all the blame on Clinton. The Bushies who cheered Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer when he stepped forward, may well change their tune, and demonize him as they did Scott Ritter. Now it turns out the program was terminated by the Bush administration. Fascinating.........

The only thing facsinating is watching you try to turn every piece of news into a slam of the president.  You have absolutely no proof that Rumsfeld had anything to do with this and you have absolutely no details of what happened, yet as always you are willing to ignore the fact that Clinton's AAG made the rules that prevented Able Danger from reporting their suspicions to the FBI and instead somehow blame President Bush for what happened.  The snake is swallowing its tail, the far right becomes the far left.

Quoted: ODA, you put it well. I get a kick out of those who put all the blame on Clinton. The Bushies who cheered Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer when he stepped forward, may well change their tune, and demonize him as they did Scott Ritter. Now it turns out the program was terminated by the Bush administration. Fascinating.........

Michael Scheurer former CIA officer that led the hunt for Binladen and AQ types says Clinton Adm. had between 8-10 chances to kill or capture UBL.He was on Fox about an hor ago.

Clinton Sucked as a Commander in chief!

Quoted: Quoted: ODA, you put it well. I get a kick out of those who put all the blame on Clinton. The Bushies who cheered Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer when he stepped forward, may well change their tune, and demonize him as they did Scott Ritter. Now it turns out the program was terminated by the Bush administration. Fascinating......... Michael Scheurer former CIA officer that led the hunt for Binladen and AQ types says Clinton Adm. had between 8-10 chances to kill or capture UBL.He was on Fox about an hor ago. Clinton Sucked as a Commander in chief!

I'll not argue with that.......

Have you read Scheurer's book??

Good read.

Quoted: Quoted: ODA, you put it well. I get a kick out of those who put all the blame on Clinton. The Bushies who cheered Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer when he stepped forward, may well change their tune, and demonize him as they did Scott Ritter. Now it turns out the program was terminated by the Bush administration. Fascinating......... The only thing facsinating is watching you try to turn every piece of news into a slam of the president.  You have absolutely no proof that Rumsfeld had anything to do with this and you have absolutely no details of what happened,

I didn't say there were "details", rik. The Bush administration had the watch when Able Danger was terminated, 4 months before the 9/11 attacks. Was Rumsfeld SECDEF then rik??

Do you think a competent SECDEF would know of a special operations unit targeting Al Queada??

Do you think a competent SECDEF would know of a special operations unit targeting Al Queada being TERMINATED???

yet as always you are willing to ignore the fact that Clinton's AAG made the rules that prevented Able Danger from reporting their suspicions to the FBI

Actually rik I pointed that out when the AUTHOR of those rules was appointed to the 9/11 comission.

and instead somehow blame President Bush for what happened.  The snake is swallowing its tail, the far right becomes the far left.

And the "Middle", will always have dead skunks, and yellow stripes......



We have plenty of documentation to show some folks in the field, as well as this Able Danger outfit, were hot on the trail.......

Yet always seemed to be stymied.........

BTW rik, I believe they were DOD lawyers working for SOG, NOT justice dept.

It's my understanding DOD was not covered by the Gorelick memo, which addressed CIA/FBI......

In other words, it was a DOD policy decision.        

Quoted: BTW rik, I believe they were DOD lawyers working for SOG, NOT justice dept. It's my understanding DOD was not covered by the Gorelick memo, which addressed CIA/FBI...... In other words, it was a DOD policy decision.

Based on policy created by the Clinton administration, and those appointed by that administration.

Quoted: And the "Middle", will always have dead skunks, and yellow stripes......

You don't have to be the middle to not be the far right.  You're so far right, you're left.  And you're also so far right, you're always wrong.

Quoted: Quoted: And the "Middle", will always have dead skunks, and yellow stripes...... You don't have to be the middle to not be the far right.  You're so far right, you're left.  And you're also so far right, you're always wrong.

Like I was wrong about WMD's in Iraq rik???

Or was I wrong about Fallujah rik?? See how they flow around us, like water??  We leave, they're right back in.            

Like I've been wrong about our "Nation-building"??   (We ain't even got the power on yet.)

Or, was I wrong when I said if we invade, put a Christian Army in Islamic land, every swinging dick in the middle east will come running??

NOW the DOD is talking about keeping current trop levels up for 4 more years.

This after announcing the deployment 700 more airborne troops this week to the shithole.

Fact, is, rik, if it had gone my way, we'd still have 2000 odd Americans alive, and BILLIONS in the treasury............

NOW, it looks like the Iraqis are gonna "kick the can down the road", on the Constitution.

While Americans are bring killed and maimed, ALL at tax-payer expense.


If I'm wrong, rik, the country sure as hell wouldn't be better off with you advising it.

It doesn't matter if Able Danger was terminated by a bureaucrat at DOD or a bureaucrat-in-uniform at USSOCOM during the Clinton Administration or the Bush Administration.

Bureaucrats make the rules.  Regardless of the 'command philosphy' of one President or another, the bureaucrats take the long view - its all about them, their jobs with the power and perks, the preservation of their funding, their agendas, turf wars and empire building.  Even when the Administration that is temporarily in charge has a different perspective, the faceless functionaries that take no blame will slowly adjust the implementation degree by degree until its back on their course (silly President, to think he's in charge!).

And first and foremost, the guiding principal of bureaucracy is "take no risk".  Risk is bad, because it creates the potential for the bureaucrat to be blamed for failure.  Therefore, it is better to take risk-avoident courses - like focusing on "domestic terror" when there is, for all practical purposes, none or (even better) doing nothing.

The bureaucracy ran the show during pre-9/11.  If we were attacked on our own soil (1993 WTC bombing) we rounded up as few suspects as possible and had a show trial - we didn't follow all the leads because that leads to risk!  When the USS Cole was attacked, we shot cruise missles at empty huts - again, avoiding risk.

After 9/11 the bureaucracy was temporarily unable to contain things.  Now, its all contained again.  We have a bureaucratic war on 'terror' that is managed by bureaucrats like Vietnam was.  Powerpoint presentations are more important than defeating the enemy.  The bureaucrats work extra hard to prevent the American people from even naming the enemy.  New bureaucracies have sprung up, like the TSA ("Thosands Standing Around" is perhaps the greatest bureaucratic achievement in American history - billions spent and NOTHING accomplished!) and DHS, where protecting the agenda and securing the funding are raised to a new apex, as is bureaucratic inertia.

And this President has, even more than Clinton, surrounded himself with first-class bureaucrats, many of whom are his political appointees - however, he is not a creature of the bureaucracy like Gore is.

Wow This is going to get real deep in the coming weeks/months.

Bush kicked mah dog `n ran offen mah wife.

So, Able Danger was created by a Bureaucrat and terminated by a Bureaucrat with NO RETURN on OUR MONEY

Having worked for two federal agency's, it is the mid-level bureaucy which guides policy.  In the middle of most agencies are the long established civil servants who would stand to lose the most if major chnges are made in the organization.  Above them are the "Peter Principle" bosses who are there because they have risen to the top irregardless of competance.  This goes for the two I worked in and the ten or more that I had to deal with in 32 years of service.

Quoted: Having worked for two federal agency's, it is the mid-level bureaucy which guides policy.  In the middle of most agencies are the long established civil servants who would stand to lose the most if major chnges are made in the organization.  Above them are the "Peter Principle" bosses who are there because they have risen to the top irregardless of competance.  This goes for the two I worked in and the ten or more that I had to deal with in 32 years of service.

Quick someone call the apostrophe police!

Quoted: If I'm wrong, rik, the country sure as hell wouldn't be better off with you advising it.

It sure as hell would be better off listening to almost anyone but you.  Yes, if we'd listened to your incoherent rantings, 2000 GIs wouldn't have died in Iraq---instead, American civilians would have died in much greater numbers than 2000.  You are an incredibly obstinate advocate of the idiotic policy of sitting back on your heels, trying to build a wall around our borders and hoping no one gets through.  The French tried that in the 1930s, but it didn't work so well.  That you have much in common with the French is no surprise to me.

Quoted: Quoted: If I'm wrong, rik, the country sure as hell wouldn't be better off with you advising it. It sure as hell would be better off listening to almost anyone but you.  Yes, if we'd listened to your incoherent rantings, 2000 GIs wouldn't have died in Iraq---instead, American civilians would have died in much greater numbers than 2000.  You are an incredibly obstinate advocate of the idiotic policy of sitting back on your heels, trying to build a wall around our borders and hoping no one gets through.  The French tried that in the 1930s, but it didn't work so well.  That you have much in common with the French is no surprise to me.

Well, at least the Frenchies made an ATTEMPT to close their border, unlike the neo-cons running our country today.....        

They'd rather search little old ladies, and Medal of Honor winners.

So, now you're making up things that would have happened, if we HAD NOT invaded Iraq???!!!!  

You REALLY should stick to sci-fi rik..........That's where YOUR war is...  

I was going to post "Able Rumsfeld Terminated by Dangerfield??" but did not want to see the thread locked (oh mods of little humour)

Quoted: It doesn't matter if Able Danger was terminated by a bureaucrat at DOD or a bureaucrat-in-uniform at USSOCOM during the Clinton Administration or the Bush Administration. Bureaucrats make the rules.  Regardless of the 'command philosphy' of one President or another, the bureaucrats take the long view - its all about them, their jobs with the power and perks, the preservation of their funding, their agendas, turf wars and empire building.  Even when the Administration that is temporarily in charge has a different perspective, the faceless functionaries that take no blame will slowly adjust the implementation degree by degree until its back on their course (silly President, to think he's in charge!). And first and foremost, the guiding principal of bureaucracy is "take no risk".  Risk is bad, because it creates the potential for the bureaucrat to be blamed for failure.  Therefore, it is better to take risk-avoident courses - like focusing on "domestic terror" when there is, for all practical purposes, none or (even better) doing nothing. The bureaucracy ran the show during pre-9/11.  If we were attacked on our own soil (1993 WTC bombing) we rounded up as few suspects as possible and had a show trial - we didn't follow all the leads because that leads to risk!  When the USS Cole was attacked, we shot cruise missles at empty huts - again, avoiding risk. After 9/11 the bureaucracy was temporarily unable to contain things.  Now, its all contained again.  We have a bureaucratic war on 'terror' that is managed by bureaucrats like Vietnam was.  Powerpoint presentations are more important than defeating the enemy.  The bureaucrats work extra hard to prevent the American people from even naming the enemy.  New bureaucracies have sprung up, like the TSA ("Thosands Standing Around" is perhaps the greatest bureaucratic achievement in American history - billions spent and NOTHING accomplished!) and DHS, where protecting the agenda and securing the funding are raised to a new apex, as is bureaucratic inertia. And this President has, even more than Clinton, surrounded himself with first-class bureaucrats, many of whom are his political appointees - however, he is not a creature of the bureaucracy like Gore is.

Good post, and true enough.

Kinda makes my point about "Tweedely-dum", and "Tweedely-dee".

Wouldn't you think an operation like this would be authorized/terminated, at higher policy levels??

BTW: I know the name of the "enemy".........



it's US....we the people.                        

Hey liberty86, suppose Rumsfeld did cancel Able Danger 4 months before 9/11.  So what?

The political significance of Able Danger was twofold:

1. in that it gave a concrete example of the Gorelick firewall stopping any investigation of foreign terrorists operating in the US

2. It demonstrated the self-interested and CYA selectivity of the 9/11 Commission's evidence and conclusions about how the US government failed to stop 9/11. It also demonstrates the Commission's greater interest in blaming the 8 month old administration in charge at the time of 9/11, much less interest in the culpability of the administration charged with anti-terrorism and national security in the previous 8 years.

None of that changes by the fact Rumsfeld cancelled it 4 months before 9/11. The worst you can say is that Rumsfeld showed bad judgement regarding the value of Able Danger in detecting terrorist operations.  But that is NOTHING compared to the willful hear-no-evil, see-no-evil attitude the Clinton administration took when presented with evidence terrorists were on our soil, which rendered Able Danger's most momentous and important find utterly useless. God knows what else they ignored in the name of preserving their precious firewall, which remained in place until the Patriot Act (which you probably hate, right?) did away with it.

Rik is right.  You have a lot of contempt for the Bush administration, and it irritates you how popular and supported he is here on arfkom.  So you try to take the damning case of Able Danger that is clear-cut case of why Clinton and the Democrats should never be trusted with national defense, and try feebly to somehow impugn the Bush administration with it.

Quoted: Well, at least the Frenchies made an ATTEMPT to close their border, unlike the neo-cons running our country today.....

I love it!  Duncan is defending the fucking MAGINOT LINE!  Doesn't the sand tickle your neck-feathers, ostrich boy?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And the "Middle", will always have dead skunks, and yellow stripes...... You don't have to be the middle to not be the far right.  You're so far right, you're left.  And you're also so far right, you're always wrong. Like I was wrong about WMD's in Iraq rik??? Or was I wrong about Fallujah rik?? See how they flow around us, like water??  We leave, they're right back in.             Like I've been wrong about our "Nation-building"??   (We ain't even got the power on yet.) Or, was I wrong when I said if we invade, put a Christian Army in Islamic land, every swinging dick in the middle east will come running?? NOW the DOD is talking about keeping current trop levels up for 4 more years. This after announcing the deployment 700 more airborne troops this week to the shithole. Fact, is, rik, if it had gone my way, we'd still have 2000 odd Americans alive, and BILLIONS in the treasury............ NOW, it looks like the Iraqis are gonna "kick the can down the road", on the Constitution. While Americans are bring killed and maimed, ALL at tax-payer expense. If I'm wrong, rik, the country sure as hell wouldn't be better off with you advising it.

Good Points you bring up

Quoted: Good Points you bring up

No, actually they aren't.  He's distorting the truth on half of them and wrong on the other half.

Quoted: ODA, you put it well. I get a kick out of those who put all the blame on Clinton. The Bushies who cheered Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer when he stepped forward, may well change their tune, and demonize him as they did Scott Ritter. Now it turns out the program was terminated by the Bush administration. Fascinating.........

Is this POS defending Scott Ritter?  The creep that railed about the Iraqi threat for years, then suddenly completely reversed himself after receiving $400,000 from an Iraqi "businessman"? Who after being busted and indicted for pedophilia suddenly started screaming against the current administration?

Unreal.

Quoted: Quoted: ODA, you put it well. I get a kick out of those who put all the blame on Clinton. The Bushies who cheered Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer when he stepped forward, may well change their tune, and demonize him as they did Scott Ritter. Now it turns out the program was terminated by the Bush administration. Fascinating......... Is this POS defending Scott Ritter?  The creep that railed about the Iraqi threat for years, then suddenly completely reversed himself after receiving $400,000 from an Iraqi "businessman"? Who after being busted and indicted for pedophilia suddenly started screaming against the current administration? Unreal.

As opposed to OUR "Intel" sources, (Iraqi expatriots), who gave us lies as excuse's to invade???

Who now have power/lucrative business's in Iraq???

On American blood, and debt???


Unreal, indeed..........

Quoted: Unreal, indeed..........

Yes, everything you say is unreal, in the sense that it's untrue.

A little update, on the missing documents.... (in an effort to get the topic on track)

Lt. Col. Shaffer: Able Danger Docs Disappeared

Documents detailing the work of a top secret military intelligence unit that identified lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta before the 9/11 attacks have disappeared, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency's liaison for the group, code named Able Danger.

"There's some troubling things that have happened both to me and the way the [Able Danger] information [was handled]," Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer told C-Span's "Sunday Morning Journal."

"Shortly after I talked to the 9/11 Commission, there was some issues going on about the documentation. Right now as it stands this minute, to my knowledge, the documentation I had . . . we don't know where it is."
"It's not where I left it back in March of 2003," Shaffer said, which was "in a Department intelligence facility in the Northern Virginia area."

Shaffer told C-Span he had "one full set of Able Danger documents in my holdings from the DIA."

The Able Danger whistleblower had said previously that a member of the team had delivered two briefcases full of documents to the 9/11 Commission - but Commission spokesman have said they have found nothing that mentioned Atta by name.


I wonder just who could have messed with documents in a secure facility???

Quoted: I wonder just who could have messed with documents in a secure facility???

I am sure Donald Rumsfeld slipped into his ninja outfit and snuck into the room in the dark of night to secret them out...  

Quoted: A little update, on the missing documents.... (in an effort to get the topic on track) Lt. Col. Shaffer: Able Danger Docs Disappeared Documents detailing the work of a top secret military intelligence unit that identified lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta before the 9/11 attacks have disappeared, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency's liaison for the group, code named Able Danger. "There's some troubling things that have happened both to me and the way the [Able Danger] information [was handled]," Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer told C-Span's "Sunday Morning Journal." "Shortly after I talked to the 9/11 Commission, there was some issues going on about the documentation. Right now as it stands this minute, to my knowledge, the documentation I had . . . we don't know where it is." "It's not where I left it back in March of 2003," Shaffer said, which was "in a Department intelligence facility in the Northern Virginia area." Shaffer told C-Span he had "one full set of Able Danger documents in my holdings from the DIA." The Able Danger whistleblower had said previously that a member of the team had delivered two briefcases full of documents to the 9/11 Commission - but Commission spokesman have said they have found nothing that mentioned Atta by name. I wonder just who could have messed with documents in a secure facility???

Sandy Berger? He's done it before.

Another question is, whose ass would be covered by tampering with these documents?  As Mr. Berger showed, former officials of the Clinton administration are not above doing stuff like that in order to revise and obfuscate what they did while they were in power.

Quoted: Quoted: A little update, on the missing documents.... (in an effort to get the topic on track) (edit for code) Lt. Col. Shaffer: Able Danger Docs Disappeared Documents detailing the work of a top secret military intelligence unit that identified lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta before the 9/11 attacks have disappeared, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency's liaison for the group, code named Able Danger. "There's some troubling things that have happened both to me and the way the [Able Danger] information [was handled]," Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer told C-Span's "Sunday Morning Journal." "Shortly after I talked to the 9/11 Commission, there was some issues going on about the documentation. Right now as it stands this minute, to my knowledge, the documentation I had . . . we don't know where it is." "It's not where I left it back in March of 2003," Shaffer said, which was "in a Department intelligence facility in the Northern Virginia area." Shaffer told C-Span he had "one full set of Able Danger documents in my holdings from the DIA." The Able Danger whistleblower had said previously that a member of the team had delivered two briefcases full of documents to the 9/11 Commission - but Commission spokesman have said they have found nothing that mentioned Atta by name. I wonder just who could have messed with documents in a secure facility??? Sandy Berger? He's done it before. Another question is, whose ass would be covered by tampering with these documents?  As Mr. Berger showed, former officials of the Clinton administration are not above doing stuff like that in order to revise and obfuscate what they did while they were in power.

Would Berger have had access 2 years into a new administration???  [shrug]

At least Lt. Col. Shaffer won't be hanging out there swing in the breeze alone.

Looks like a Navy Captain, and a contractor have stepped up to the plate...

That's 3 witness's saying the same thing.

This story is gonna get legs.........


Monday, Aug. 22, 2005 9:27 p.m. EDT
New Witness Backs Able Danger Claims

A second member of an elite military intelligence team has come forward to corroborate claims that the group, code named Able Danger, identified lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta more than a year before the 9/11 attacks.

"Atta was identified by Able Danger in January-February of 2000," Navy Capt. Scott J. Phillpott told Fox News and the New York Times.

"I will not discuss the issues outside of my chain of command and the Department of Defense," he insisted. "But my story is consistent . . . I have nothing else to say."
Phillpott's brief but emphatic comments back the statements of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, who came forward last week to confirm claims by Rep. Curt Weldon that the Able Danger group had identified Atta.

Updating reporters on the Pentagon's own investigation of Able Danger, spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said that material turned over by Phillpott contained no evidence to support the Atta claim.

But additional corroboration for Shaffer and Phillpott's accounts was provided by James D. Smith, a former Defense Department contractor who said he worked on a chart for Able Danger before the 9/11 attacks.

Smith told the New York Times that he kept a copy of the chart, including a photo of Mohamed Atta, on his office wall at Andrews Air Force Base.


Looks to me, like SOMEBODY, had a "ninja suit".....        

Quoted: Looks to me, like SOMEBODY, had a "ninja suit".....

I am sure you believe that.  But it's been established that you believe a lot of very nutty things with no basis in reality.

rikky, I already have that topic waiting for you in the pit.....

Let's keep this on topic.

If you wanna refute my statements, do so.

Put up, or shut up, A call for Pit Justice

OR, are you just trolling THIS thread???

Quoted: Let's keep this on topic. If you wanna refute my statements, do so.

It's very much on topic to point out that your "statements" (rantings would be a more descriptive term) are pulled out of thin air.  The officer in question is making assertions very damning to the Clinton administration.  No one in the Bush administration would have any reason to shut him up...just the opposite.  So if the documents were actually "disappeared" it was likely done by either a Clinton appointee or a lifelong beaurocrat who didn't want to get blamed for what happened.
You, of course (and as usual) want to create some idiotic fantasy about President Bush or Don Rumsfeld getting rid of the documents...yet you have presented no coherent reason why they might want to do so.
And the only thing you have waiting in the pit is an ass-kicking.

Quoted: Quoted: Looks to me, like SOMEBODY, had a "ninja suit".....     I am sure you believe that.  But it's been established that you believe a lot of very nutty things with no basis in reality.

who said anything about Bush supporters?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Looks to me, like SOMEBODY, had a "ninja suit".....     I am sure you believe that.  But it's been established that you believe a lot of very nutty things with no basis in reality. who said anything about Bush supporters?

Duncan did...it's just one of the many rantings he spews here repeatedly with no basis in reality.  Only thing more pitiful than his paranoid conspiracy theories are the idiots who buy into them.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Looks to me, like SOMEBODY, had a "ninja suit".....     I am sure you believe that.  But it's been established that you believe a lot of very nutty things with no basis in reality. who said anything about Bush supporters? Duncan did...it's just one of the many rantings he spews here repeatedly with no basis in reality.  Only thing more pitiful than his paranoid conspiracy theories are the idiots who buy into them.

I watched as the President who promised  "NO Nation building" used Sept 11th as an excuse to become a Crusader, I waited as did alot of us did for the WMD's to be found , I watched as alot of us did as the Pentagon mismanaged the operation in so many ways including but not limited to miscalculating the Iraq peoples "non" welcome to our troops, too small of a force in the initial operation, major equipment snafus,  not  securing the borders of Syria and Iran, the debacle of the first  "non"operation on  Fallujah ect ect. I do not always agree with Duncan but I find alot of his points very well taken. I never supported invading Iraq as I did not believe this shithole 6th century cesspool of a  Country and Society is worth one American life. I believe we could have brought Saddam to his knees with an all out bombing war and then left him and his sorry people to their own designs while we "Really" cleaned out Afganistan. As to the Able Danger group it does appear that it was disbanded on the Presidents watch, Clinton IMO deserves all the blame and responsibility for Sept 11th attack that we can give him, he is and was a sorry excuse for a President and a Man but that does not excuse the fuck ups that have occured on President Bush's and Sec Def Rumy's watch. I believe Our President is a good man who has been captured by idealism and a new world order mentality. We nor anyone else will ever Westernize these Arab MFers and giving up even one life of our Brave Magnificent young Americans in this endeavor is a tragedy. One more point for you Rik, 40 years ago Duncan and I as well as many many others watched as our best friends and Brothers in Arms gave it their all in a lost political cause, I just got the courage to visit the moving Wall after all these years, I sure the hell hate the idea of the current generation having to visit their Wall..  

Quoted: I watched as the President who promised  "NO Nation building" used Sept 11th as an excuse to become a Crusader

Ludicrous statement.  President Bush wasn't waiting for some excuse to come along, he was reacting correctly to a declaration of war on this country by Muslim extremists.  It's a shame people such as you are so blind and ignorant of both history and current events to not understand that.

Well, it appears, we have some news on Able Danger.....

Intrigue Over Able Danger Grows
Updated: Friday, Aug. 26, 2005 - 5:43 AM

J.J. Green talks with Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer.
J.J. Green, federalnewsradio.com

WASHINGTON - The primary whistleblower who says a secret military intelligence unit identified Mohamed Atta as a terrorist a year before the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks is coming forward to say the the Pentagon and Sept. 11 commission have tried to discredit him.

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer is one of the military officers who contends a unit code-named Able Danger identified Atta in 2000. He says three other Sept. 11 hijackers also were identified.

Shaffer, a member of the elite military intelligence team, is the first of a dozen people who are expected to verify the Able Danger story.

"Some folks in DoD I don't think are too happy with this information coming forward for whatever reason, and lot of folks who have this information are considering very carefully how they bring themselves forward," Shaffer tells federalnewsradio.com and WFED, which are part of the WTOP Radio Network.

Shaffer says the problem is not coming from military brass.

I wonder if it's Rummy, in his ninja suit.. He's IN CHARGE, ain't he???    

"Every time I've talked to the Army they've said tell the truth. There have been other conversations that I have had with other elements of DoD, and I think you all have seen some of this in the press where there was a whisper campaign and some other not so subtle means of dissuasion -- kind of put out there to wave people off this."

Schaffer says he's bothered by the continuing relationship between Pentagon and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the Sept. 11 Commission.

"Why would the Pentagon be providing information to a commission that no longer exists? The 9-11 commission does not exist."

Neither does Rummy's "ninja suit".....

U.S. Sen. Slade Gordon, R-Wash., came out and said the Pentagon was leaking information to him and others on the commission, Shaffer said, raising the question of whether the defense department is trying to cover up something.

Anyone taking bets????      

The Pentagon has said there is no evidence of intelligence information on the hijackers a year before the attacks, but did not respond to requests for comment on this story.

Shaffer and Capt. Scott Philpott say they've commented about Able Danger to the Sept. 11 commission, but weren't taken seriously.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, does want to know more about the Able Danger unit. He has asked the FBI to hand over all information related to it.



Interesting, DOD says there was no evidence, yet up to a dozen witness's are preparing to come forward. Yet once again, the guys in the field do their jobs, only to be cut off by those with an agenda. We need more field agents to come forward, from ALL departments, before we get the truth..



And, now,........

Quoted: Quoted: I watched as the President who promised  "NO Nation building" used Sept 11th as an excuse to become a Crusader   Ludicrous statement.  President Bush wasn't waiting for some excuse to come along, he was reacting correctly to a declaration of war on this country by Muslim extremists.

"This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while." George Bush Sept. 17, 2001

First off, crowboy said NOTHING, about Bush "waiting". YOU put those words into his mouth, (as usual). Crowboy even calls Bush "a good man". Second, the "Muslim extremists" in Iraq, were NOTHING compared to those in our "allies" countries, who  WERE attacking us!!!    

It's a shame people such as you are so blind and ignorant of both history and current events to not understand that.

Here's a little something about the history, of the MAN you call "blind and ignorant", and whose post you ignored....


Crowboys first "office", after he volunteered for Airborne at age 17, was here....




Gene went in with the first group in May '65, (same month I enlisted), taking a "bus" to 'nam.

He participated in Operation "Hump", and was the first company in on hill 65. They lost 51 guys in a day long firefight. One of the first real engagements of the war. Roughly the same number the USMC lost in 3 WEEKS taking Fallujah.
Around the time you were pooping green, Gene was watching as NVA Heavy Machine gunners made the wounded/corpses of his friends dance, to draw the others out.........

We don't know history???

Do you???

The troopers of the 173d Airborne Brigade wear their combat badges and decorations with pride. During more than six years of continuous combat, the brigade earned 14 campaign streamers and four unit citations. Sky Soldiers serving in Vietnam received 13 Medals of Honor, 32 Distinguished Service Crosses, 1736 Silver Stars and over 6,000
Purple Hearts. There are over 1,790 Sky Soldiers' names on the Vietnam Memorial Wall in Washington D.C.




Another example of putting words in someone else's mouth........

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Looks to me, like SOMEBODY, had a "ninja suit".....     I am sure you believe that.  But it's been established that you believe a lot of very nutty things with no basis in reality. who said anything about Bush supporters? Duncan did...it's just one of the many rantings he spews here repeatedly with no basis in reality.  Only thing more pitiful than his paranoid conspiracy theories are the idiots who buy into them.

Maybe you can point out where I said that rik....

Quoted: And the only thing you have waiting in the pit is an ass-kicking.

I've had a thread down there since Aug 18th, that's over a week.    Here

Three days since you made the above threat, and no sign of you in the pit.

Afraid of a jury???


I will reiterate.......


Like I was wrong about WMD's in Iraq rik???

Or was I wrong about Fallujah rik?? See how they flow around us, like water?? We leave, they're right back in.

Like I've been wrong about our "Nation-building"?? (We ain't even got the power on yet.)

Or, was I wrong when I said if we invade, put a Christian Army in Islamic land, every swinging dick in the middle east will come running??

NOW the DOD is talking about keeping current trop levels up for 4 more years.

This after announcing the deployment 700 1500 more airborne troops this week to the shithole.

Fact, is, rik, if it had gone my way, we'd still have 2000 odd Americans alive, and BILLIONS in the treasury............

NOW, it looks like the Iraqis are gonna "kick the can down the road", on the Constitution.

While Americans are bring killed and maimed, ALL at tax-payer expense.

I said over 2 1/2 years ago, what we see today in Iraq, would be happening.

ALL of it...........

I've seen it ALL before rik, so has Gene..

Quoted: First of all, from what I have gleaned from reading his posts and other posts to him, he has suffered some sort of PTSD from Vietnam

Yes, rik, I and others are still picking up the broken pieces from Vietnam, in addition to dealing with our own issues. I have assisted over 100 Vietnam veterans, since 1990, by helping them to get treatment. I started a treatment group that is still truckin' after 15 years. I have assisted about 30 Vietnam vets directly with claims relating to PTSD.

Ask the 9/11 cops and firefighters at 9/11 about PTSD rik.

Ask the guys home from Iraq, with 1 leg, and 1 arm, why he screams at night...

That's ONE reason I was against the war,rik. Do you remember, I said "blood and treasure"?? Guys like those you put down, KNOW history, rik, we lived it!!!


And some Died in it!!




To you guys in Iraq, allow me to point out, American veterans are now going to 'Nam as tourists, hugging their former enemies in tears.

I wonder if the dead/maimed/families think it was worth it!!!      


You have been running around for several years putting words into my mouth, calling me a traitor, a liar, and Unamerican.

I ain't gonna put up with it. Not from a REMF'er,,,,,,,,,,,,

I have exhausted the informal remedies.

And it don't look like the weak-kneed are gonna speak up.........



If you don't have the intestinal fortitude to face me, perhaps mods/staff, will enforce the COC...

6.) Repeatedly attacking or insulting a person in an effort to elicit a negative response. You have a right to disagree, but please do so in a respectful manner.


To mods/staff... I cannot get rik to solve this. He made his allegations in GD, and I'd like this thread to stay there, for all to see. They saw what HE said, let 'em see what I say........please.

If anyone on this site would like to take up rik's charges, being as how he can't find the pit, Start a thread, state your case, and name the stakes......


Oh, just one more word for the Iraq vets..........don't worry, it ain't like "Nam.....


They'll never hate you like they do us!!!          
If the thread survives, I'll continue with able danger updates.

If you think I am going to bother reading your dissertation on paranoia, you're mistaken.  You aren't worth the time.

Quoted: I was going to post "Able Rumsfeld Terminated by Dangerfield??" but did not want to see the thread

locked (oh mods of little humour)

us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/columbia_pictures/50_first_dates/rodney_dangerfield/datespre6.jpg


holy shit, that chicks really hot! Rodney certainly was the man.

Well, a little "Able Danger" update!!                  

Recently, there has been revealing news about the U.S. Army's Project "Able Danger," which was established in September 1999 by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, then head of the Special Operations Command. Schoomaker had previously advised Texas Governor Ann Richards and the FBI regarding what military equipment could be used in the attack upon the Branch Davidians at Waco (a mock-up of the Davidians' compound was at Fort Hood, Texas, where Schoomaker was an assistant to Gen. Wesley Clark, a Rhodes Scholar named by fellow Rhodes Scholar President Bill Clinton to be military head of NATO). Schoomaker has also advocated joint military training exercises with the Communist Chinese, and on August 1, 2003 President George W. Bush named him Army Chief of Staff.

Able Danger used advanced technology and data analysis to identify and target Al-Qaeda members around the world. Long before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Able Danger identified 9-11 ringleader Mohammed Atta in September 2000 as part of an Al-Qaeda cell in Brooklyn, and eventually 60 members of Al-Qaeda were identified.

Concerning Atta's background, in November 1998 he and several other terrorists moved into a 4-bedroom apartment in Hamburg, Germany. On February 17 of the next year, German intelligence began tapping suspected Al-Qaeda terrorist Mohammed Haydar Zammar's phone, and they heard Zammar was at a meeting with Atta. By December 1999, the CIA began to recruit German businessman Mamoun Darkazanli for information because he knew Atta and others of the Hamburg Al-Qaeda terrorist cell.

The next month (January 2000), according to the German intelligence magazine FOCUS (September 24, 2001), the CIA began surveillance of Atta which lasted to May 2000. Christian Elflein and others wrote in the FOCUS article that "U.S. agents followed him (Atta) mainly in the area around Frankfurt am Main and noted that Atta bought large quantities of chemicals for the possible production of explosives....On May 18, 2000 the U.S. Embassy in Berlin gave (Atta) a visa....Strange that the visa application and granting it happened in the period when the (CIA) was still observing the suspicious buying of chemicals by the person (Atta) concerned....Someone from the (German) intelligence service (told) FOCUS: 'We can no longer exclude the possibility that the Americans wanted to keep an eye on Atta after his entry in the USA.'...German security experts are still stunned about the speed with which the FBI could present the conspirative ties of Atta and his presumed Hamburg accomplices. 'As (if all it needed was) a push on a button,' an insider says, 'As if the Americans for a long time already had loads of info on their computers about the culprits.'"



So, CIA was watching this guy in Germany, (Operation prolly run out of the embassy), under suspecion of terrorism,.....

We certainly DID know the hijackers names, and other details awfully fast........

And State issued him a visa??  Out of the same embassy???            



To whom it may concern.
I figger the news updates for this thread will stop Monday afternoon

One today.
One tomorrow.
One Monday...........

I would like folks to see the truth of....................."Able Danger"......


(Anyone out there play Three Dimensional Chess????)

I'll explain, Monday, in my last post update......

Originally posted by Liberty zero: blah blah blah blah blah. I am gonna post one more time, and you will all have to bow down to me, and my infinite wisdom. I know it all, and you know nothing. I am big and you are small. I am smart and you are dumb. Bush did it. Bush did it. Bush did it. blah blah blah blah blah

Well, this needs to be finished........

First off, my condolences, and prayers go out to those suffering the effects of Katrina. New Orleans' good fortune at the near miss is overshadowed by the misfortune of others. New Orleans, is bad too. Part of the reason I didn't finish when I said I would, is the bad news yesterday, and a bomb, (figuratively speaking) went off very close to me. Never rains, but it pours.

I reckon folks have figured out this thread was never really about able danger.
It's about me and rik.
I take no real pleasure in this, now that I'm here.

Rik, I made up my mind I was gonna nail you, last September. It took me until October to get a thread on the "Fallujah", topic. The original thread was gone, but I knew there was an eyewitness. That eyewitness, is a man of impeccable reputation, on this board. He and I have butted heads, but I knew he had honor, (what you lack rik). That was the First time I tried to get you into the pit, FOR STAKES. You wouldn't get in the pit with me, but I proved my words were what I had said they were.......

Did you forget????  THAT thread, IS in archives.

Did you stop calling me a  "traitor, a liar, and Unamerican"???????

Nope.... so the "game", had to continue.

I decided, that I had to do what I had to do, in the GD, for two reasons rik
1) It's where the offenses occurred.
2) You refused to get into a REAL Bear Pit, for stakes. (In my FIRST pit challenge, the stakes were "loser change username to "Pussy", for 30 days)

I got NO Justice.

The issue, is not who has been right or wrong.

It's ALWAYS been about you calling me a traitor. My people have fought in every major engagement, (and some minor ones),  for this country since the 1630's... I volunteered to serve, before I was old enough to register for the draft.  And, it's been about YOU putting words into peoples mouth, as I demonstrated, in This thread.

Is that your kind of "Honor", rik??

Anyhow, I thought I had you a couple of weeks ago, when Bee tossed the thread into the "pit", (read "romper room")  

So, I tried a pit challenge, again, KNOWING you would not do it.

Then, after a few days, I started this thread.... I knew you'd come, and, you played your role beautifully......... Until the ambush.    

Which, brings me to my Airborne friend.......

Rik, I had to go get another old gray-beard off his rocker, and YOU, call him blind and ignorant, and cherry pick, (as usual), his post, not bothering to address the substance of his post, but to elicit a reaction. (You got one). It was a thoughtful post from a guy who was among the first twenty or so to register at ARFCOM, when it went to "Team members".

THAT, pissed me off.

I got Gene's permission to post a little bit about him. He had NO idea WHAT I would post, but he trusted me.

I know a LOT about Gene, of which I posted only a little bit.........

You won't understand this rik, but guys like Gene will... We were talking the next day, and Gene says, in a quiet gravelly voice, out of the blue, "Dunc, I'm embarrassed"..... I started to say "why would yo..." and I knew.....

I embarrassed my friend, rik, and I can't undo that, and now that it's done, I'll say this.

YOU, ain't worth it.

But maybe, this BOARD, is.......

Remember, what you said when I asked for justice rik???

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Call your mommy...it's just as likely to do you any good, liar. No need for mommy rik. ARFCOM Justice will do...... "ARFCOM justice..."  I am tempted to but unfortunately I know you're serious.  You need help, Duncan.  See a psychiatrist.  You need therapy more than you need "ARFCOM justice."

THAT pissed me off, too rik....

You think there's no justice here???  Is THAT really your opinion of the Owners/mods/staff on this site??? You, don't know the gun culture, rik.

The fact that this thread exists in GD is testament to that fact, rik.

Someone made the decision to allow me to continue. They took a risk, on me. I've kept within the COC, and I know who is reading this. (I will not embarrass this board), There's a lot of guys I respect, here, and it IS a good site. We can't always cry to them, (mods/staff) thus this post. (And besides, I think they elected to let us handle it.....  )

So this is it, rik, you standing there, half naked, and me with your pants in my hand.........

I know what I'd do rik, if I were in your shoes... I ain't gonna hold my breath............

Now, rik, you can post here.........or not.

(If you do post, maybe you can tell me how you dialog with someone when you lie about what they said, all the time!!)

We can call for a vote, after you post, right here.....or not.

I'm done, just putting this post in front of the members, is justice for me. How individual members react to you and I, after this, will be up to them.


In closing. Someone/sombodies, made the decision to let this go on. My thanks, to you(s)........
(I knew I'd be allowed my say)





Oh, and rik?? Two things....

1) PTSD, while a debilitating illness, Does Not cause stupidity......

2) Don't make the graybeards come down outta the hills.......


[lets just pretend there's a "snoopy" here ok???]




(This HAD to be done today. Again, condolences to the victims of Katrina)

Quoted: Well, this needs to be finished........

It needed to be finished before you started it.
As usual.

Quoted: Quoted: If I'm wrong, rik, the country sure as hell wouldn't be better off with you advising it. .  Yes, if we'd listened to your incoherent rantings, 2000 GIs wouldn't have died in Iraq---instead, American civilians would have died in much greater numbers than 2000.   .

You have absolutely no proof of that.  It's an anecdotal comparison drawn by the administration to salvage something, anything out of how bad the current situation looks... "We haven't been hit here, yet".

Ask yourself, can Al Qaeda hit us here?  Would it be hard for them to start blowing up people and things here with a porous mexican border, and plenty of chemicals/know how here in the U.S.  Clearly the answer is yes.  Our war making in Iraq doesn't change that, nor does it give your incredulous statement, in the face of the many concrete disasters the Iraq adventure has cost us, much credibility.

Quoted: Quoted: Well, at least the Frenchies made an ATTEMPT to close their border, unlike the neo-cons running our country today.....         I love it!  Duncan is defending the fucking MAGINOT LINE!  Doesn't the sand tickle your neck-feathers, ostrich boy?

As if you, and dozens of others here WOULDN'T support a wall along our border with mexico.  Quit using weak straw men to attack this guy and argue to his points... if you can.  This is one instance where a wall would work.  It's not the wehrmact over there... just mexicans.

And, of course, he didn't defend 'the Maginot Line'.  He defended the principle of securing ones borders.  Did you really not catch that?

Quoted: Is it just me or is GD is getting to be a bit like DU except that the conservative posters don't get insta-banned?

Like DU?  I don't see any vitriolic anti-American garbage over here.  Just rational people with serious questions about our administration and its policies.   The day this place becomes 'like DU', only with a different radical focus, will be the day the mods start banning anyone who isn't posting things exactly like what most of the others are.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If I'm wrong, rik, the country sure as hell wouldn't be better off with you advising it. .  Yes, if we'd listened to your incoherent rantings, 2000 GIs wouldn't have died in Iraq---instead, American civilians would have died in much greater numbers than 2000.   . You have absolutely no proof of that.

Only common sense.  And you've shown that means little to you.