The Republicans have attempted to put a favorable spin on the Curt Weldon charges. Weldon claims that a DIA "data mining" operation named ABLE DANGER had identified Mohammed Atta and other 9/11 terrorists at least a year before the September 11 attacks.

Originally, we were told that an unnamed DIA lawyer directed the team not to notify the FBI and not to pursue Atta further. We were even told that the data miners literally placed tape over Atta's picture in their organizational charts of the terror cell within the United States.

After the initial account made the news, rightist pundits used Weldon's story as a cudgel against the Clinton administration. The revised version of the story (as gleaned from Hannity, NewsMax, and similarly "trusty" sources) maintains that the White House was the ultimate power behind the DIA's decision to keep mum about the extraordinary find. According to the egregious NewsMax, the Clinton administration caused the problem by erecting a "wall" between the FBI and the rest of the intelligence community.

So far, the public has seen no documentary evidence proving the existence of ABLE DANGER. In my view, the Weldon account nevertheless rests on a credible foundation --- not least because it inconveniences the official version of Atta's doings.

According to the standard version, Atta did not enter the United States until June of 2000 --- a chronology which conflicted with strong eyewitness testimony, such as the story told here of Johnelle Bryant, the loan officer for the Department of Agriculture who swore that she had encountered Atta earlier.

The spokesman for the independent 9/11 commission, Al Felzenberg, now claims that the commission did learn about ABLE DANGER and did know that the DIA team had identified Atta, but did not include this information in the final report because the data conflicted with the Authorized Standard Version of his pre-attack whereabouts. (Previously, commission members said: 1. They knew nothing about ABLE DANGER, and 2. They did know that such an operation existed but were never told of the Atta connection.) According to Felzenberg, the DIA team had told them that Atta entered the country in 1999.

Despite the frustrating contradictions, it now seems fairly safe to stipulate that ABLE DANGER did exist and did uncover Atta's ring. Even so, the right-wing spin on this matter amounts to pure bullshit...

Guest blogged by Winter Patriot

Here's an important message from our ever-faithful behind-the-scenes news-gatherer, radio-show-producer, and all-around great-big-help, Kat L'Estrange:

Thanks, Kat. We'll be watching.

UPDATE:
Things are happening ... but we are still not sure what. We've changed the headline, which formerly said "Troops Coming To Crawford", and we're trying to find out now what happened. Did someone deliberately mislead us? [probably not] Were we informed about plans which subsequently changed? [could be] Were our sources misled? [maybe] And if so was it done intentionally? [who knows?] ... We'll get answers to zero or more of these questions along with some other good Texas dirt, and I will post the best of it, starting soon.

You can click on this photo to read a report on the events of the day, from The Lone Star Iconoclast.

SECOND UPDATE:
Here's the newest from Kat, who has been on the phone with Leon Smith of The Lone Star Iconoclast.

THIRD UPDATE:
The Waco Tribune Herald, which is probably the closest large newspaper, has a story online now: Bush supporters arrive in Crawford as anti-war protestors continue vigil. Here's a quick sample:

Yeah, right. Sure, Mike. You may be saying what you're saying because of what you believe, but you're standing where you're standing because of Cindy Sheehan.

Ha ha! Another right-wing liar caught in the act. And you read it first right here, at The BRAD BLOG.

Guest blogged by David Edwards

Last night on MSNBC's Countdown, Keith Olbermann interviewed Cindy Sheehan. He asked her about all of the attacks from the right-wingers like Bill O'Reilly, Drudge and numerous other chicken-hawk conservative blogs.

Cindy explained why each of the attacks are baseless. She also reiterated why she continues to hold a vigil outside Bush's 1600 acre palatial estate ranch in Crawford, Texas.

We encourage you to take a few minutes to watch the video over at CrooksandLiars. For those that have problems with the Windows Media format posted at CrooksandLiars, we have provided a lower quality version of the video in QuickTime format here.

After watching Cindy's responses to the right-wing attacks, leave a comment and let us know what you think!

Guest blogged by Winter Patriot

The very lovely and extremely talented Larisa Alexandrovna has a blockbuster at The Raw Story and you should read it right away, sez me!

Here's the link: Senate Intelligence chairman quietly 'fixed' intelligence, and diverted blame from White House over Iraq and here's the introduction:

Please read the whole thing. Don't forget to click on this link: Timeline: How Roberts helped fix pre-war intelligence.

And please leave a comment for Larisa if you feel so inclined.

Then come back here and tell us all: What do you think now?

Thanks to Jen for the tip!

Guest blogged by David Edwards

In an article published at the Huffington Post this afternoon, Cindy Sheehan reiterated her position and clearly stated the purpose for her vigil in Crawford.

President Bush held a press conference this afternoon. As he denied "rumors" about possible troop withdrawals, a reporter asked if he was referring to Cindy Sheehan. Bush refused to respond to Mrs. Sheehan's concerns directly and did not indicate if he intended to meet with her during his 5 week vacation.

Sheehan has been camping outside of the Bush palatial estate ranch hoping for an explanation for why he sent her son, Casey, to die in Iraq. She has been very clear in statements that she no longer wants Bush to use her son's death as an excuse for continuing the war.

In responding to a direct question about Sheehan, Bush, once again, said that to "honor the fallen" he would continue sending troops to Iraq to "lay the foundation for peace"...

We have a short video clip of the Bush press conference (in Windows Media format).

Even as we are only four days away from the deadline for the Iraqi constitution, Bush refuses to even consider a plan for withdrawing troops. He considers comments about possible troop withdrawal from the pentagon "speculation and rumors".

Guest blogged by Winter Patriot

The Bulldog Manifesto has posted the full text of an article from the August 6th edition of Britain's The Daily Mail. It appeared in the print edition but not on their website, and it raises some very interesting questions about the events of 9/11. According to the Bulldog, this is the first time a mainstream paper has questioned the "official story" of 9/11 in such a way. I'm not in a position to confirm or deny that. Nor shall I be any time soon. And it may not be the best article ever written about 9/11, but it is very interesting nonetheless, and I could easily be charged with blogger negligence if I failed to bring it to your attention. Especially since the Bulldog has done such a good job annotating it. And you'll have to pardon a few spelling mistakes, but it's still worth a read.

It begins like this:

Click here to read the rest. Then come back and tell me what you think.

And if you're so inclined, leave a comment for the Bulldog while you're there. He's a good hound.

Woof! Woof! Woof!

Guest blogged by Winter Patriot

It's happening! Slowly, belatedly, gradually and sometimes seemingly reluctantly, but nonetheless it really is happening.

There's a stirring in the land, the likes of which we haven't seen in a very long time. Maybe ever. And The Whispering Campaign is such a small part of it that I'm tempted to apologize for flogging it so relentlessly here. Really. I'd much rather buy you a drink and tell you a few jokes.

But instead I'm here to talk about the eight very powerful articles we've posted since last night. Three are excerpts from an interview with an Iraq Vet. Talk about Truth To Power!! Wow!

Two more are from Mark Morford's latest column. You have to read it. You just have to. And that's an order

Then there's one about the court case concerning Maher Arar and extraordinary rendition, and another about the Siberian permafrost melting and its inevitable effects on global climate change. Very newsworthy, most unlikely to appear at McPaper or FauxTV, and therefore well worth posting, we thought.

But there's one item in particular that we really want you to read, print, copy, and distribute. Our edited version is called Do Not F*ck With Cindy Sheehan!.

Yes, the original title was a bit more explicit. But we run a family site. And either way, we think it's fantastic. We found it at The Bulldog Manifesto. And at the moment, it's the featured item at The Whispering Campaign.

So: Please, please, please! Visit our site, print some pages, make some copies, spread these powerful articles around --- and bring some needed bursts of truth to the streets, in your part of town.

Being The Media has never been easier, nor has it been more fun. And it's a damned good thing, too. Because it has never been more necessary.

The Whispering Campaign
psstpsstpsst.blogspot.com
Visit. Print. Copy. Distribute. Repeat.
Knowledge Is Power! Pass It On!!

Guest-blogged by Joseph Cannon

UPDATE: As you read the piece below, keep in mind the report by Laura Rozen here. Weldon was peddling claims about the Iranian "threat," using information derived from a poor source. I do not think that this fact necessarily discredits what Weldon has to say about ABLE DANGER, since that story has a different source --- one which the New York Times interviewed directly, and apparently found credible.

Two separate sources have revealed startling new information about Mohammed Atta. Taken separately, these
revelations are disturbing. Taken together, they could prove explosive.

As I write, the mainstream media is paying much attention to the first of these revelations, but seems chary of the second. Let's start with the big news:

Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA), Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has revealed that a specialized unit of the DIA, code-named ABLE DANGER (which was being run by the Special Operations Command in Tampa, Florida) had identified Mohammed Atta and other terrorist associates weeks before the presidential election of 2000. Atta was photographed and named as a member of al Qaida.

Although the unit had recommended action against Atta and the cell, a DOD lawyer allegedly nixed the idea, arguing that green card holders deserved the same privacy rights as American citizens. This argument strikes me as highly questionable.

Representative Weldon learned about his operation earlier this year. (I've called his office to find out exactly when, but have yet to hear back from his communications director.) Weldon's source was a former intelligence officer who has requested anonymity in news accounts. He has met with journalists for Government Security News and the New York Times. (See also here and here.)

According to the NYT, the office requested anonymity because "he did not want to jeopardize political support and the possible financing for future data-mining operations by speaking publicly."

His reasoning indicates that Washington has become a very bizarre place indeed. The successful identification of Atta proved the value of "data mining;" the problem was the refusal by DIA higher-ups to act upon the information. Why would discussion of a success story jeopardize future funding for similar operations?

Which brings us back to the more fundamental question: Why did higher-ups at the DOD refuse to share the information with the FBI?

This explanation seems particularly dubious when we recall the publicity given to pre-9/11 al Qaida attacks.

Partisans may suspect that presidential politics might have played a role. The 2000 campaign was underway; conceivably, Bush supporters within the DOD may have felt uneasy at the prospect of handing the outgoing Clinton administration a last-minute "win" against Osama bin Laden. Of course, this theory does not explain why the Bush administration took no action against Atta between inauguration and 9/11.

Another key question: Why was this information kept secret from the independent commission looking into the 9/11 tragedy? Although committee members were made aware that ABLE DANGER existed, they were not told about the identification of Atta. Why the secrecy?

Answers to these posers might lurk within the folds of the second story about Atta to come out in recent days...

(NOTE: This entry guest blogged by Joseph Cannon)

Two separate sources have revealed startling new information about Mohammed Atta. Taken separately, these revelations are disturbing. Taken together, they could prove explosive.
Two separate sources have revealed startling new information about Mohammed Atta. Taken separately, these revelations are disturbing. Taken together, they could prove explosive.

As I write, the mainstream media is paying much attention to the first of these revelations, but seems chary of the second. Let's start with the big news:

Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA), Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has revealed that a specialized unit of the DIA, code-named ABLE DANGER (which was being run by the Special Operations Command in Tampa, Florida) had identified Mohammed Atta and other terrorist associates weeks before the presidential election of 2000. Atta was photographed and named as a member of al Qaida.

Although the unit had recommended action against Atta and the cell, a DOD lawyer allegedly nixed the idea, arguing that green card holders deserved the same privacy rights as American citizens. Almost needless to say, this argument is highly questionable.

Representative Weldon learned about his operation earlier this year. (I've called his office to find out exactly when, but have yet to hear back from his communications director.) Weldon's source was a former intelligence officer who has requested anonymity in news accounts. He has met with journalists for Government Security News and the New York Times. (See also here and here.)

According to the NYT, the office requested anonymity because "he did not want to jeopardize political support and the possible financing for future data-mining operations by speaking publicly."

If true, his reasoning indicates that Washington has become a very bizarre place indeed. The successful identification of Atta proved the value of "data mining;" the problem was the refusal by DIA higher-ups to act upon the information. Why would discussion of a success story jeopardize future funding for similar operations?

Which brings us back to the fundamental question: Why did higher-ups at the DOD refuse to share the information with the FBI?

"We were directed to take those 3M yellow stickers and place them over the faces of Atta and the other terrorists and pretend they didn't exist," the intelligence officer told GSN.

DoD lawyers may also have been reluctant to suggest a bold action by FBI agents after the bureau's disastrous 1993 strike against the Branch Davidian religious cult in Waco, TX, said Weldon and the intelligence officer.

This explanation seems particularly dubious when we recall the publicity given to pre-9/11 al Qaida attacks.

Partisans may suspect that presidential politics might have played a role. The 2000 campaign was underway; conceivably, Bush supporters within the DOD may have felt uneasy at the prospect of handing the outgoing Clinton administration a last-minute "win" against Osama bin Laden. Of course, this theory does not explain why the Bush administration took no action against Atta between inauguration and 9/11.

Another key question: Why was this information kept secret from the independent commission looking into the 9/11 tragedy? Although committee members were made aware that ABLE DANGER existed, they were not told about the identification of Atta.

Answers to these posers might lurk within the folds of the second story about Atta to come out in recent days....

i>(NOTE: This entry guest blogged by Joseph Cannon)Two separate sources have revealed startling new information about Mohammed Atta. Taken separately, these revelations are disturbing. Taken together, they could prove explosive.

As I write, the mainstream media is starting to carry the first of these revelations, but seems chary of the second. Let's start with the big news:

Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA), Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has revealed that a specialized unit of the DIA, code-named ABLE DANGER (which was being run by the Special Operations Command in Tampa, Florida) had identified Mohammed Atta and other terrorist associates weeks before the presidential election of 2000. Atta was photographed and named as a member of al Qaida.

Although the unit had recommended action against Atta and the cell, a DOD lawyer allegedly nixed the idea, arguing that green card holders deserved the same privacy rights as American citizens. Almost needless to say, this argument is highly questionable.

Representative Weldon learned about his operation earlier this year. (I've called his office to find out exactly when, but have yet to hear back from his communications director.) Weldon's source was a former intelligence officer who has requested anonymity in news accounts. This story was first covered by Government Security News and was later carried by the New York Times. (See also here and here.)

According to the NYT, the office requested anonymity because "he did not want to jeopardize political support and the possible financing for future data-mining operations by speaking publicly."

If true, his reasoning indicates that Washington has become a very bizarre place indeed. The successful identification of Atta proved the value of "data mining;" the problem was the refusal by DIA higher-ups to act upon the information. Why would discussion of a success story jeopardize future funding for similar operations?

Which brings us back to the fundamental question: Why did higher-ups at the DOD refuse to share the information with the FBI?

This explanation seems particularly dubious when we recall the publicity given to pre-9/11 al Qaida attacks.

Partisans, such as yours truly, may suspect that presidential politics might have played a role. The 2000 campaign was underway; conceivably, Bush supporters within the DOD may have felt uneasy at the prospect of handing the outgoing Clinton administration a last-minute "win" against Osama bin Laden. Of course, this theory does not explain why the Bush administration took no action against Atta between inauguration and 9/11.

Another key question: Why was this information kept secret from the independent commission looking into the 9/11 tragedy? Although committee members were made aware that ABLE DANGER existed, they were not told about the identification of Atta.

Answers to these posers might lurk within the folds of the second story about Atta to come out in recent days....

Guest blogged by David Edwards

The BRAD BLOG has learned that Cindy Sheehan has refused to do an interview tonight on Fox's O'Reilley Factor. On a conference call with bloggers this afternoon, Sheehan responded to a question from CrooksandLiars...

Right-wing media and blogs have put considerable effort into swift-boating Cindy Sheehan over the last few days. Check out what ThinkProgress has to say about O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin's attempt to smear Sheehan. Atrios comments on Drudge's baseless attack.

We wonder if the president's odd behavior, speech and appearance at yesterday's so-called press conference may have been caused by his fear of dealing with the situation developing outside his Crawford palatial estate ranch. (CrooksandLiars has a video clip.)

Skinner at DemocraticUnderground has quickly put together a transcript of this afternoons blogcall with Cindy Sheehan.

UPDATE: Media Matters has begun tracking lies about Sheehan through the conservative media. Joe Trippi has provided audio of today's BlogCall which we have happily reposted here.

Guest Blogged by Winter Patriot

Valley Girl has suggested an Open Thread, and we haven't had one in a while, so:

Hey VG! This Open Thread's for you! It's also for 6 or 7 other loyal BRAD BLOG readers, of course.

Please join me in extending a warm welcome to the other members of the powerful triumvirate: Joseph Cannon and David Edwards. Hi, guys! Welcome aboard!!

The archives from last Saturday's Special Edition of The BRAD SHOW commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act are now available at www.BradShow.com --- I hope you'll try to give the entire show a listen. We're very proud of that one. And you can find out whether the rumors are true about an impending marriage between myself and Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Also, interviews with Rev. Jesse Jackson (who I will not be marrying), Sam Walker of the National Voting Rights Museum in Selma, Keenan Keller of the House Judiciary Committee, Leon Smith of Lone Star Iconoclast as Cindy Sheehan was just taking up camp in Crawford and words from Rep. John Lewis, the recently passed Rev. Bill Moss and even Dr. Martin Luther King.

Other than that, I'm outta here for a bit. For some too much needed R&R for as long as I can get it! (Either that, or I'm now on the run since my CIA cover has been blown!)

In my stead here at BRAD BLOG will be much fine Guest Blogging from the estimable Joseph Cannon of CANNONFIRE, The BRAD SHOW's not-so-secret-weapon David Edwards (making his blogging debut!), and of course, the tireless and faithful BRAD BLOG Concierge, Winter Patriot, will be on duty as well! A powerful triumvirate of trouble-makers, muckrakers, and truth tellers!

All in all, with that line-up, I just hope you'll want me back when I return. Be nice while I'm gone! Or I will turn this car right around! Do you understand me?!

Peace...

We were informed last Friday that BradBlog.com is one of many "CIA Internet Fakes" as BreakForNews.com's Editor (and theoretically, a "reporter") Fintan Dunne has reported it.

While we learned of our covert CIA operative status late last Friday, as we were deep in the throes of preparing our radio show, we haven't had time to share the shocking news with you until now. As well, we thought we'd give Dunne a chance to reply to our emailed inquiry on how he came to his ingenious discovery before we posted an item that might result in his looking like a completely clueless boob. (Psst.... That's what actual reporters do before running with an item, Fintan. They attempt to get comment from those they are reporting on ... we're just sayin'.)

Sadly, Dunne failed to reply to our inquiry as he has done in several past instances when he even more egregiously misrepresented/misreported on our work in his "EXCLUSIVE" article on our Clint Curtis reporting.

Even as Fintan Dunne's credibility dies once and for all (did he ever actually have any?) with his silly and wholly unintelligible report, we scratch our head in wonder as we see our good friends at RawStory.com and BuzzFlash.com and scores of others also on the list of CIA Operatives! Who knew?!

And to make things even more confusing, apparently our CIA paycheck is earned for our clever disinfo-filled reporting on 9/11 ... About which we don't believe we've actually ever reported, beyond one or two minor items linking to someone or something else. But why pick nits?

Joseph Cannon, who actually deserves to be on Dunne's list, has a few thoughts on it all. His are actually intelligent. As opposed to either Dunne's or ours on this matter. But Cannon is probably just jealous since he was not included on the list.

Of course, if we were on the CIA payroll, we'd probably respond to Dunne's silly contentless article shocking expose by writing an article precisely such as this one ... to make light of it all in order to distract from Dunne's having unearthed the whole clever scheme, wouldn't we?

So now, you, dear reader, don't really know what to believe any more, do you? Is The BRAD BLOG really a CIA operative or not? You'll never know, because even if we were, we'd never be able to admit it, would we?

And with all of that said, if we actually are in the pay of the CIA, we'd really appreciate it if they'd fork it over! We're frickin' starving over here for chrissakes! Or are we?! --- Either way, we'd love it if they finally paid us (and we'd love your help as well, just in case we're not actually on their payroll) via our double super-secret covert P.O. Box:

Brad Friedman
7095 Hollywood Blvd., #594
Los Angeles, CA 90028

The CIA --- or "The Firm" as NOCs like us call our place of employment --- may also feel free to pay us online with PayPal!

We'll take it! And we'd much appreciate it! And Fintan? ... Get some help, friend. Seriously....

David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet.org says Sheehan told him the Secret Service told her (through a complicated grapevine) that she'd be arrested on Thursday as a "threat to National Security." According to Swanson via DailyKos, Sheehan told him as they unravelled the rumors...

Benjamin T. Greenberg at Hungry Blues has some more thoughts and analysis and tales of speeding Secret Service vehicles whizzing by.

While Bob Harris wonders if --- unlike Dubya, apparently --- you might be able to spot the real threat to National Security.

And Cindy gets her own website.

It's all clearly having an impact, since Drudge and the Rightwing Slime Machine slithered back out from under their rocks today to give Sheehan the Paul O'Neil/Richard Clarke/Joe Wilson/ScottRitter/Et Al Treatment. As this report on Drudge's attempted Swiftboating of Sheehan correctly points out, Drudge didn't bother to give the actual context for the quotes he used from Sheehan. But no matter, it was enough to call them to arms to try and destroy the character and reputation of a mother who mad the ultimate sacrific for her country.

And, of course, the Wingnuts also don't bother to point out that Sheehan's original comments were made prior to Bush's own Dulfer Report, showing there were no WMD's in Iraq, and the Downing Street Memos, showing Bush lied us into this War, having come to light.

How many lives, of how many great Americans has this bunch of criminals in the White House now destroyed via their loathesome, selfish, personal quest to avoid taking any responsibility for their own horrific failures and utter inability to govern with even the slightest shred of competence, effectiveness or compassion?

George W. Bush: Worst "President" Ever, indeed. It's no longer a contest.