Comments on: Able Danger and Poor Logic http://www.3nailsministries.org/2005/08/19/able-danger-and-poor-logic/ Walking the walk, sometimes crawling, often falling Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:22:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: UNCoRRELATED http://www.3nailsministries.org/2005/08/19/able-danger-and-poor-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-8472 UNCoRRELATED Fri, 26 Aug 2005 22:05:47 +0000 http://3nailsministries.org/?p=182#comment-8472 <strong>Two Attas</strong> JustOneMinute proposes an interesting theory on the Able Danger controversy--the contradiction of having Mohammed Atta in two places at one time is explained by the fact that there are two terrorists with the name Mohammed Atta. The al Qaeda Mohammed... Two Attas

JustOneMinute proposes an interesting theory on the Able Danger controversy–the contradiction of having Mohammed Atta in two places at one time is explained by the fact that there are two terrorists with the name Mohammed Atta. The al Qaeda Mohammed…

]]> By: SingleMind http://www.3nailsministries.org/2005/08/19/able-danger-and-poor-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-7883 SingleMind Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:23:30 +0000 http://3nailsministries.org/?p=182#comment-7883 One more thing: I also agree that Shaffer is telling the truth. There is a logical reason he is blowing a whistle here. Isn't it amazing how the left is selective when it comes to supporting whistle blowers? When FBI agent Colleen Rowley--now a Democrat candidate for Congress and a big-time Bush critic--blew the whistle, the media elevated her to "walking on water" status. On the other hand, Lt Col Shaffer provides an even more ominous smoking gun than anything Rowley had--his group had specifically identified ringleaders of the 9/11 attacks--and the media are ready to shoot the messenger. All because this destroys the credibility of key people in the CLINTON administration. One more thing: I also agree that Shaffer is telling the truth. There is a logical reason he is blowing a whistle here.

Isn’t it amazing how the left is selective when it comes to supporting whistle blowers? When FBI agent Colleen Rowley–now a Democrat candidate for Congress and a big-time Bush critic–blew the whistle, the media elevated her to “walking on water” status.

On the other hand, Lt Col Shaffer provides an even more ominous smoking gun than anything Rowley had–his group had specifically identified ringleaders of the 9/11 attacks–and the media are ready to shoot the messenger. All because this destroys the credibility of key people in the CLINTON administration.

]]> By: SingleMind http://www.3nailsministries.org/2005/08/19/able-danger-and-poor-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-7882 SingleMind Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:17:57 +0000 http://3nailsministries.org/?p=182#comment-7882 Any way you look at this, we have both a very positive thing and a very serious matter that needs to be resolved immediately. On the positive side, our intel was a hell of a lot better than the critics alleged: a very elite military intel group did exactly the job it was supposed to do. We have very capable people--such as Lt. Col Shaffer--in very important roles, and they are delivering. On the other hand, we are falling victim to policy wonks. The FUBAR of 9/11 had less to do with our intel gathering, but rather with the butt-brains who filter that information to the appropriate channels. At this point, I don't fault either President Clinton or Bush on this one. There is no way in hell that Clinton could have known the micro-level of policymaking that was going on at DoJ and DoD. However, you had a fundamental cultural problem: the CIA, DoD and DoJ did not work together; in fact, they tended to have adversarial relationships. You had a 3-way pissing contest, and at the end of the day we all got screwed. If the Department for Homeland Security helps solve the cultural problem, then great. Otherwise, it too will be a bust. When we get good intel, we need to ensure that the people who CAN do something about the intel actually GET that intel in a timely manner. Any way you look at this, we have both a very positive thing and a very serious matter that needs to be resolved immediately.

On the positive side, our intel was a hell of a lot better than the critics alleged: a very elite military intel group did exactly the job it was supposed to do. We have very capable people–such as Lt. Col Shaffer–in very important roles, and they are delivering.

On the other hand, we are falling victim to policy wonks. The FUBAR of 9/11 had less to do with our intel gathering, but rather with the butt-brains who filter that information to the appropriate channels.

At this point, I don’t fault either President Clinton or Bush on this one. There is no way in hell that Clinton could have known the micro-level of policymaking that was going on at DoJ and DoD.

However, you had a fundamental cultural problem: the CIA, DoD and DoJ did not work together; in fact, they tended to have adversarial relationships. You had a 3-way pissing contest, and at the end of the day we all got screwed.

If the Department for Homeland Security helps solve the cultural problem, then great. Otherwise, it too will be a bust.

When we get good intel, we need to ensure that the people who CAN do something about the intel actually GET that intel in a timely manner.

]]>