9/11 Outrage

According to this AP report:

"The Sept. 11 commission knew military intelligence officials had identified lead hijacker Mohamed Atta as a member of al-Qaida who might be part of U.S.-based terror cell more than a year before the terror attacks but decided not to include that in its final report."

This is beyond outrageous. Here's why the information troublesome to the Commission:

"[I]t was not consistent with what the commission knew about Atta's whereabouts before the attacks."

This matters because the Commission made a big point of saying that Atta was not in Prague -- significant, because credible allegations have been made that Atta was indeed in Prague, meeting with an Iraqi intelligence agency. (The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes has been particularly convincing on that point).

So let's "connect the dots", as the Commission itself might exhort: If the established timeline on Atta was wrong, that might have meant that Atta was indeed in Prague, meeting with an Iraqi intelligence agent. That, in turn, would have raised the possibility that there were, indeed, ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda -- thereby undercutting the Democratic article of faith that there was "no link" between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

And what a terrible thing that would have been -- 2004 being an election year, and all. Because if there were links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, then deposing Saddam Hussein was entirely justifiable . . WMD or no WMD.

Also, note this:

"According to [Rep. Curt] Weldon [vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees], a classified military intelligence unit called 'Able Danger' identified Atta and three other hijackers in 1999 as potential members of a terrorist cell in New York City. Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the unit's recommendation that the information be turned over to the FBI in 2000."

In other words, the military intelligence people wanted the FBI to look into Atta back in 2000, but Bill Clinton's Pentagon declined because of concerns about pursuing information on those in the U.S. -- even if they're known to be potential terrorists. That's pretty damaging political information.

To sum it up, this is a scandal on two levels:

(1) Policy: The Clinton Administration declined to look into the activities even of suspected known to be living in New York City;

and

(2) Politics: The 9/11 Commission knowingly omitted information that might have damaged the Democrats' political strategy by casting serious doubts on its determination that there were no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.