The Times, Playing Questionable Assertion As Fact

Take another look at the latest installment of the NYT's Able Danger Watch:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 - The Sept. 11 commission was warned by a uniformed military officer 10 days before issuing its final report that the account would be incomplete without reference to what he described as a secret military operation that by the summer of 2000 had identified as a potential threat the member of Al Qaeda who would lead the attacks more than a year later, commission officials said on Wednesday....

The briefing by the military officer is the second known instance in which people on the commission's staff were told by members of the military team about the secret program, called Able Danger.

Sounds like the NYT has nailed the 9/11 commission staffers--except it's not really true. As the top of the piece says,  the commission has  acknowleged that some military officer did last year (days before the report was published)  assert to  commision staffers that Able Danger  pegged Atta as AQ.  But contrary to what the Times says, it's  not "known"  that he did  so  at a much earlier  meeting. He's insisting that he did and committee staffers are still saying that he's full of it.

Now the Times' Doug Jehl wouldn't be trying to pawn off assertions as fact just to beef up his story...would he?

Comments

[Brad]

Specious, at best.

It seems it pegged four members of AQ, whether or not they were known as members of AQ. That it picked up ~20% of the Al Qaeda operators is significant.

The problem is not whether it delivered a de facto conviction out of thin air, (Atta=Al Qaeda=Eviiiiil) but that potential evidence was completely ignored, for political reasons not legally required.

[Jerrold]

The ex-New York Jets employee involved in the allegation against Brett Favre has hired a lawyer.
http://iu4.majoritycost.com/4.html