Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (133473)	8/20/2005 2:03:08 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 793760

I am still trying to figure out why that name of Atta means anything at all. If terror cells had been identified for anything and information on them had not been passed along in a reasonable fashion, what the hell was the 911 commission about. The fact it may be the 911 cells makes it more interesting. But the real question is how the the 911 commission missed such topic critical details at all. The fact it may be the 911 cells may mean coverup. But to understanding the faults of the process to fix and minimize future danger, the why of original process failure is what is important.

To: LindyBill who wrote (133473)	8/20/2005 7:47:06 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793760

Nope, Drum says, and let's just forget whether the quotes are left or right wing quotes, people from all political points of view are quite capable of not quoting correctly. Drum says that he has read Shaffer's comments carefully and he finds them vague. Now take your quote: In my October discussion with him, I did not discuss the names of the terrorists. I'm not saying that. I never said that. I did talk about the fact that we found three cells through the use of some advanced technology, two to three cells which conducted 9/11 attacks, to include Atta. That comment says very clearly he thinks the two or three cells included Atta but does not say, unequivocally, that he told him (whoever him is, perhaps it's Zelikow since his name is now being used in the open on this) about Atta. I simply think now that Shaffer has far too many versions of these stories out there to be a credible source and the Pentagon seems unwilling to say one way or the other. Unless you now know something I don't. I saw something from Podhoretz earlier today, a link from some blog, washing his hands of this once again.