On June 27th, 2005 Rep. Weldon, spoke on the House floor detailing his version of the Able Danger story:

You can read the transcript here.

The story he tells is about how he first discovered the amazing wonders of data mining back in 1999, when he and a ten member delagation were off to Vienna to work towards ending the war in Kosovo. They were going to meet with five senior leaders of the Russian Political parties who wanted to bring along a Serb along with them.

Weldon tries to get background on the Serb (making sure he wasn't a Milosevic groupie) by calling CIA Director George Tenant to get some background on him. Director Tenant calls the next day and tells Weldon "He's alright...don't worry".

However..... Rep. Weldon stays worried.

Yet he remembers that he is the chairman of the Defense Research Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, where he says his job was "to oversea the funding, approximately 40 billion of defense research money on new systems and new technologies."

He then references the "striking technology" Army's Information Dominance Center. So, what to do? Of course! He calls them up!

"Could you do me a favor 'off the record'?" To which he says the AIDC agreed.

Note he states before making the call he "plussed up" the funding for the program.

Heh, "Hey guys, Can you do me a favor for a few million?".....

So they run his Serb and come back with ten pages of information about the Serb and his ties. Weldon is satisfied with the info and then uses the information to basically become a "star" at the Vienna conference.

On coming back to the US, he is contacted by the FBI who has no doubt heard he news from Vienna and want to know what he knows about the Serb too. He abliges and agrees to meet then on a Monday afternoon.

Then according to Weldon he gets a "911 cell phone page" on the Friday before from CIA Congressional Affairs, where he is told they are 'sending two agents to meet him anywhere he chooses'. He tells them, it's the weekend and he is booked a little,.. so like, "What's the urgency"

He is told the Serb's background is needed by an Ambassador in negotiations to end the war in Kososvo. He tells them he is already meeting with the FBI on Monday and why not they all meet together. After what Weldon calls "pushing back and forth" the CIA agrees.

(Right now I'm thinking, "Cripes! You telling me the State Department/CIA has to "page 911" to a Congressman to get background on this Serb".....wtf??)....

Continuing....

So on that Monday in the spring of 1999, he meets in his office with "two FBI and two CIA agents". There he was questioned by both the CIA and FBI on the Serb. (Personally I think they were grilling him - no doubt trying to find out how he got so smart).

When he's done answering their questions he inquires, "Do you know where I got this info?" He says, that they guessed the Russians or the Serb himself.

Weldon tells them neither and then lets them in on the AIDC, and according to Weldon, neither the CIA or FBI reps knew what he was talking about. (I am somewhat incredulous about this statement of Weldon)....

The rest of the document details his account of his "crusade" to get the NOAH project pushed through 'legislation, newspapers, magazines" only to have the CIA in May of 2001 tell him the whole central process facility idea isn't "practical"

He goes on to talk about much of what we've heard in the last week about how that a few weeks after 9/11 he was visited by "his friends" from the AIDC where they brough him the "chart" we've all referenced.

Now admittedly even though this is "his account", it sheds light on a few things I find interesting. First and glaring it seems from the outset Mr. Weldon was on a mission to "push" his data mining project. Whether he was simply impressed by their work on the Serb, or the possibility he used the occurrence in itself was a designed ploy to bring attention to the program it isn't clear.

I really don't want to bring discredit on Rep. Weldon, or question his motives, but quite frankly, even though my "BS" antenna has been on overdrive throughout this whole story, it's red-buzzing now.

But when you allocate funds before "asking for a favor" and you play twenty questions with the FBI/CIA,....all this reads too neat - too complete....

I don't know - smells.....fishy.....

Noted this is just based on a perusal of the speech,...maybe others can do the same. It's now on to cross checking. Got some info out of some people (Tampa) today, yet I have to parse it a little and check it further.


More tomorrow.....

UPDATE: Tom Mcguire "The Commission is pushing back"

....heh, heh....I was waiting for this.....

UPDATE 1: Man I'm ripping now! Via the AP story Tom references, here's the Jelly Donut as far as I'm concerned:

"In a joint statement, former commission chairman Thomas Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton said a military official who made the claim had no documentation to back it up. And they said only 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta was identified to them and not three additional hijackers as claimed by Rep. Curt Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees.

"He could not describe what information had led to this supposed Atta identification," the statement said of the military official.

They also said no else could place the other three hijackers with Atta in a purported terror cell code-named "Brooklyn" during the time period cited by Weldon."


Like I've been saying all along ...Where is the COMPLETE paper trail? The Devil is in the details ya know?

Noting the lack of a trail, Tom writes:

So, no documentation from the July 12 2004 briefer, and no documentation from the Special Operation Center in response to a follow-up request after the Oct 2003 briefing.

And the briefer "recalled seeing Atta's name and photo on an analyst's chart". That's just great - did he recall when the analyst *made* the chart? Would he have a copy of the chart for the appropriate people to peruse? Did the chart shown to Gen. Shelton at his Jan 2001 briefing also show Atta's name, or was that name added later?"


Exactly!....

Weldon has a big story, but evidently the commission felt he couldn't back it up. Now the "holes" are showing. Fishy, man this is fishy...

Again, If Rep. Weldon wants to really clear this up he's going to have to produce the "witnesses". To much "he said, they said, going on. Time to let the main "playas" speak for themselves.

Capt Ed. isn't impressed. I doubt many of those who have been waiting for a day like this where the commission came under fire, will be convinced otherwise. Even though quite frankly, it's like the old Saturday Night Live saying, "Sure he's crazy, but what if he's right?"

Yet you have to ask the question which this article eludes to. "What if"?" What IF this whole "connect the dots" story is just that - a story. In the link above, by his own testimony Weldon seems to have a LOT invested in this - from the get go. In fact, you almost a detect a "Father mad because his child's project was ignored" type of demeanor.

But like it or not, the AP story - shines more light on the holes in the Weldon take than the other way around. It's going to be an interesting weekend.

0 comments

Support our Vets!



Macsmind - Official Blog of The MacRanger Show on Blog Talk Radio