The Dog Ate the Chart, Part III

You would think this Able Danger stuff would be pretty easy to establish  as fact. All Shaffer, Weldon,  and the naval officer would have to do is produce the chart they've talked so much about.

So where is it? According to the 9/11 commission, the naval officer charges that evil lawyers scrubbed the chart clean, and he only saw it in pasing anyway.   Meanwhile, Weldon has said he took his only copy and gave it to the White House, which hasn't said anything about a chart. (Weldon also has offered conflicting statements about whether the chart even has Atta's name on it. But whatever.) And now, Shaffer joins the dog-ate-my-proof crew:

From Newsmax:

Documents detailing the work of a top secret military intelligence unit that identified lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta before the 9/11 attacks have disappeared, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency's liaison for the group, code named Able Danger.

"There's some troubling things that have happened both to me and the way the [Able Danger] information [was handled]," Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer told C-Span's "Sunday Morning Journal." "Shortly after I talked to the 9/11 Commission, there was some issues going on about the documentation. Right now as it stands this minute, to my knowledge, the documentation I had . . . we don't know where it is."

"It's not where I left it back in March of 2003," Shaffer said, which was "in a Department intelligence facility in the Northern Virginia area."

(HT: Laura Rozen)

Comments

[Zathras]

Am I wrong to want to withhold judgment on (that is, to ignore) this story until someone is indicted or the book comes out? O don't mean a book by "Tilt-Rotor" Weldon either.

[Anodyne]

You’ve made a pretty good case for being skeptical about the Weldon/Shaffer/Philpott side of this story at this point. What I’m wondering is why this thing won’t seem to die. Jehl’s reporting on this story so far may not be his brightest moment but on balance the guy is usually pretty solid; and he knows Weldon’s reputation. Was he duped or is there something else to this story we’re missing. Why now? Is it to push Weldon’s book or to increase his chances of becoming a committee chairman? Are Shaffer and Phillpott along for the ride, or are they using Weldon to push their own agenda, or both? Why is Fox News playing ball on this story?

Early on, Captain V characterized the AD guys as patriots, risking careers for the good of the intelligence community. Others have thrown out the suggestion that they were disgruntled at being ignored or upset that their pet project was axed. No tinfoil on my head, but it sure would help to know a little more about what’s behind the timing of this story and the motivations of the players.

Also, you said in an earlier post on the subject of WH passivity “Could it be--and I'm just guessing here--that not pissing off a sympatico congressman was deemed to be more important than giving citizens a glimpse of the truth?”

I could imagine hearing an argument like that one delivered in a mocking “off the record” tone by a WH source and being satisfied for the moment. But if the “let’s wait for the pentagon report” public stonewall didn’t stop these reports from cropping up, I would start to think that 1) either the WH is being quiet to avoid being clipped on a tangential but potentially more serious issue or 2) they’re looking to set Weldon up for a fall while appearing to be handling him with kid gloves. Is there any scuttlebutt out there among the press that you could pass on to your devoted readers?

[Eric Umansky]

Anodyne - I agree Doug Jehl is a good reporter. I don't know why he and the NYT in general have been so uncritical. I could guess, but that's all it'd be so, I'll skip that.

As for Weldon, Shaffer and the others' motivation and timing, I really don't know. I do vaguely recall reading somewhere that Weldon has recently been pushing a data-mining bill and that Shaffer is somehow involved. (I wish i could recall where I saw that.) Also, Laura Rozen has pointed out that a contractor that does data-mining happens to be HQ'd in Weldon's district--but I wouldn't put much in that. I think Weldon is really just a true believer, the kind who believes so deeply he doesn't let facts get in the way.

As for the WH, again I could be wrong here but the impression I got and still have is that the WH just did a political calculation and realized it wouldn't be to their benefit--again in political terms--to come out doubting Weldon.

[Anonymouse]

The motivation of Shaffer is pretty clear - he had been burned already. His clearance was suspended in Mar 2004 allegedly for misuse of a cellphone and/or filing an improper travel claim, and without a clearance his career is over.

Since both of those offenses are incredibly common in government, and almost never lead to the loss of a security clearance, it seems obvious that someone was out to get Shaffer for some other reason.

So Shaffer had essentially nothing to lose - he was backed into a corner. Someone who wanted to protect their career (like everyone else associated with Able Danger) would likely go out of their way to keep their head down and out of the public spotlight - because they see what happened to Shaffer.