IF IT WALKS LIKE A COVERUP, AND TALKS LIKE ONE ...

We may have a scandal on our hands that makes WATERGATE look like a bunch of kids stealing M&M’s from the local 7-11.

The information that a military intelligence operation -- ABLE DANGER -- identified Mohammed Atta, and others, as a terrorist threat in our country one year before the 9/11 attacks is bad enough. The fact that somehow the 9/11 commission omitted the information on ABLE DANGER in their final report is horrendous.

The American people need to DEMAND answers to the following questions …

1. Who made the ultimate decision NOT to share military information on ABLE DANGER with the FBI?

Current news reports say that the decision was made by the Pentagon. However, I highly doubt this. My instincts and knowledge of how the Pentagon works tells me that they wouldn’t make a decision like this – they’d throw it to the Justice Department for a call. If they did this – then there is an individual somewhere in the Clinton Administration who saw this information and then made a call to kill any FBI notification. How high did this decision go? Make no mistake – that call, that extremely BAD call – resulted in the attacks of 9/11. We need the name of the person who made the decision not to share this ABLE DANGER information with the FBI. Tell us who it was.

2. When the 9/11 commission was briefed on ABLE DANGER – who made the decision to keep the information OUT of the final report? Was Jamie Gorelick, ex-Clinton administration employee – part of the decision to keep this information out of the report?

Make no mistake – ABLE DANGER is explosive information and ANY low-level flunky on the 9/11 commission staff would have easily known to push this information up the chain in an attempt to include it in the report. You can’t blame this error on administrative bungling. Someone on the commission staff, or the commissioners themselves – deliberately made a decision to keep this information out of the 9/11 final report. Who was it? How high did that decision go and was the person ultimately responsible a member of the former Clinton administration?

3. We now want to KNOW – what documents did Sandy Berger, another ex-Clinton flunkie – what documents did he STEAL from the National Archives? Did any of those documents pertain to ABLE DANGER and did he steal these documents in an effort to keep the 9/11 commission in the dark on ABLE DANGER?

There are more questions, many more questions – but these, in my opinion, are the top three. There are too many dots that can be connected here that point at a coverup – and probably a concerted one on the part of some former Clinton administration officials. We need answers to dispute this.

I smell a coverup folks. The 9/11 commission changed their story on “if “ and “how” they were informed of ABLE DANGER more times than Joran Van Der Sloot has changed his story down in Aruba. First it was – “we didn’t get the information”. Then it was – “only our staff got the information”. Then it was – “ we didn’t think the information was credible”. And then there are varying other declarations such as “we got it too late to put it in the final report” – to “Mohammed Atta’s name wasn’t mentioned” – to “his name wasn’t in any of the documents turned over to us”. These are all classic coverup lines folks and ALL of these stories came out of the 9/11 commission this week alone. It looks to me like they are stuttering – they may be caught be here red handed.

We need to demand answers!

And here is another very articulate opinion on this problematic situation.

And another here ...