Someone Dropped The Ball About Mohammed Atta

[GotZoom]

WASHINGTON — Staff assistants to the Sept. 11 commission are planning a trip to the National Archives to retrieve their notes on a U.S. military unit's information that four of the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackers were inside the United States a year before the attacks, FOX News has learned.

Defense Department documents show that the information, developed by a classified defense intelligence unit dubbed "Able Danger," wasn't handed over to the FBI because of concerns about pursuing information on foreigners admitted to the country for permanent residence.

A source familiar with the Sept. 11 commission told FOX News on Wednesday that the aides who still have security clearances are looking for a memo about a briefing given to four staff members by defense intelligence officials during an overseas trip to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in Fall 2003.

The date of the archives expedition is not yet known. The National Archives are located just outside of Washington, D.C.

The activity comes after Lee Hamilton, co-chairman of the now-disbanded commission, said he wanted to know whether defense intelligence officials knew of the Al Qaeda-linked attackers' activity but failed to tell law enforcement.

In an interview with FOX News, Hamilton said there should be a comprehensive review by Congress and the Pentagon into the claims. He said this potentially cruicial information could change the way history sees Sept. 11, 2001.

Members of the commission are reviewing claims that more than a year before the 2001 attacks defense intelligence officials had identified ringleader Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers, and that they were already inside the United States. A statement could come by the end of the week

"The Sept. 11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell," said Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. "Had we learned of it obviously it would've been a major focus of our investigation."

Hamilton's remarks Tuesday followed findings by Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, that made front-page news.

In June, Weldon displayed charts on the floor of the U.S. Senate showing that Able Danger identified the suspected terrorists in 1999. The unit repeatedly asked for the information to be forwarded to the FBI but apparently to no avail. Various news outlets picked up on the story this week.

Weldon told FOX News on Wednesday that staff members of the Sept. 11 commission were briefed at least once by officials on Able Danger, but that he does not believe the message was sent to the panel members themselves. He also said some phone calls made by military officials with Able Danger to the commission staff went unreturned.

"Why weren't they briefed? Was there some deliberate attempt at the staff level of the 9/11 commission to steer the commissioners away from Able Danger because of where it might lead?" Weldon asked. "Why was there no mention of Able Danger?"

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Sept. 11 commission looked into the matter during its investigation of government missteps leading to the attacks and chose not to include it in the final report.

A group of Sept. 11 widows called the September 11th Advocates issued a statement Wednesday saying they were "horrified" to learn that further possible evidence exists, and they are disappointed the Sept. 11 commission report is "incomplete and illusory."

"The revelation of this information demands answers that are forthcoming, clear and concise," the statement said. "The Sept. 11 attacks could have and should have been prevented."

Sept. 11 Staffers Investigate

Hamilton confirmed that commission staff members learned of Able Danger during a meeting with military personnel in October 2003 in Afghanistan, but that the staff members do not recall learning of a connection between Able Danger and any of the four terrorists now mentioned. He also said no mention made of Atta.

It was "inconceivable" that staffers would have missed such a reference, Hamilton told FOX News.

According to the source who spoke with FOX News, none of the staffers believe they were ever told specifically about Atta having been identified by defense intelligence before the 2001 attacks.

But after the October 2003 trip, the commission staff members pursued Able Danger further and asked the Pentagon to produce documents related to the unit, which they were, FOX News has also learned.

Still, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said this week that he was unaware of the intelligence until the latest reports surfaced.

The source said three key questions need to be answered: Did defense intelligence identify Atta before the attacks? If so, was this information ever passed onto the commission? Was Rumsfeld ever briefed by his predecessor, Bill Cohen, on the unit and its findings?

"If the Sept. 11 commission staff made a mistake and missed this information, we will be the first to admit it. That is why we are going back to the archives to check our work, but at this time, staff do not believe this information was ever made available to them," the source said.

The commission's report on the terrorist attacks, released last year, traced government mistakes that allowed the hijackers to succeed. Among the problems the commission cited was a lack of coordination between intelligence agencies.

With the Sept. 11 commission disbanded for a year under provisions of the legislation that created it, some of the panel's members have said congressional committees should investigate Weldon's assertions.

"I can tell you right now, there are investigations going on right now… trying to get answers," Weldon told FOX News on Wednesday.

A 'Series of Mysteries'

According to Weldon, Able Danger identified Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaf al-Hazmi as members of a cell Able Danger code-named "Brooklyn" because of some loose connections to New York City.

Weldon said that in September 2000, the unit recommended on three separate occasions that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI "so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists." However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation, arguing that Atta and the others were in the country legally so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.

"Lawyers within the administration — and we're talking about the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration — said 'you can't do it,'" and put post-its over Atta's face, Weldon said. "They said they were concerned about the political fallout that occurred after Waco ... and the Branch Davidians."

Defense Department documents show that the Able Danger team was set up in 1999 to identify potential Al Qaeda operatives for U.S. Special Operations Command. Information provided to the team by the Army's Information Dominance Center (search) pointed to a possible Al Qaeda cell in Brooklyn.

However, because of concerns about pursuing information on "U.S. persons" — a legal term that includes U.S. citizens as well as foreigners admitted to the country for permanent residence — Special Operations Command didn't give the Army information to the FBI. It is unclear whether the Army provided the information to anyone else.

The command instead turned its focus to overseas threats.

The documents provided no information on whether the team identified anyone connected to the Sept. 11 attacks on New York City and Washington that killed nearly 3,000 people.

The prohibition against sharing intelligence on "U.S. persons" should not have applied since they were in the country on visas and did not have permanent resident status, said Weldon.

Able Danger was largely using open-source information that was available on the Internet and in other public media, he added.

Click here for FOXNews.com's story on open-source information and the War on Terror.

Bob Graham, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told FOX News on Wednesday that Congress not only needs to investigate the Able Danger claims but also needs to investigate other related issues, such as how German intelligence agencies alerted the United States that members of the Hamburg Al Qaeda cell were coming to America.

What also needs to be investigated further, Graham said, is how two Sept. 11 terrorists were living in a building in San Diego where their landlord was actually an FBI informant. The FBI is not saying what the informant told the agency about those terrorists, he said.

"I anticipate [Congress] will be getting on to their job with a great deal of commitment and expertise in this area. I hope it doesn't end with this one instance of why we didn't know about Atta," said Graham, author of "Intelligence Matters."

"There's not just one mystery here — there's a series of mysteries about why we didn't learn about this plot early enough to break it up," he added.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165268,00.html

 

[Mr. P]

I had a link over a year ago, a time line, sort of thing that will blow yer socks off...
I'll look for it. The bottom line is, Much more WAS known than anyone seems to want to admit.

 

[Annie]

Just run a google: Gorelick intelligence wall.

I wonder why she was on the commission rather than testifying before the commission?

 

[Mr. P]

This could be the average wacko, donno..
but the whole paper is interesting.

CIA Allowed Known Al Qaeda Members to Buy 9/11 Flight Tickets

When viewed as a whole, a large troubling question emerges from the following brief set of facts:

1. In his June 2002 testimony before Congress, CIA boss George Tenet admitted that the agency had been tracking Al Qaeda members Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar since January 2000, when an Al Qaeda meeting was held in Malaysia.

http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/sting.html

 

[ScreamingEagle]

According to Weldon, Able Danger identified Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaf al-Hazmi as members of a cell Able Danger code-named "Brooklyn" because of some loose connections to New York City.

Weldon said that in September 2000, the unit recommended on three separate occasions that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI "so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists." However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation, arguing that Atta and the others were in the country legally so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.

"Lawyers within the administration — and we're talking about the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration — said 'you can't do it,'" and put post-its over Atta's face, Weldon said. "They said they were concerned about the political fallout that occurred after Waco ... and the Branch Davidians."

Damn anti-American commie scum PC liberal lawyers who put STICKIES over the face of Atta and his terrorist group and refused to let the FBI be notified because he carried a green card?

A source familiar with the Sept. 11 commission told FOX News on Wednesday that the aides who still have security clearances are looking for a memo about a briefing given to four staff members by defense intelligence officials during an overseas trip to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in Fall 2003.

Perhaps the same memo that Sandy Burgler stuffed in his socks?

 

[Annie]

The Clinton administration had made it a policy to treat 'terrorists' as criminals-thus they had to tread very, very lightly. That is the reason for the wall, erected by Gorelick. IF DOD had information, they couldn't have done anything with it, certainly not shared it with CIA or FBI. Same with the other two.

It was policy, by Presidential directive. It was a mistake, understatement.

 

[Stephanie]

On this report. And I do believe Burger stole the document's about this for Clinton.. Let's see all the screeching the lib's make over this B.S.

 

[dilloduck]

As K has pointed out all this crap was pretty apparent a long time ago--I don't know what all the fuss is about now--the 9/11 Commission new full well the ball was not passed on to who needed to know. Now we have some names and pictures. So what?

 

[GotZoom]

Damn anti-American commie scum PC liberal lawyers who put STICKIES over the face of Atta and his terrorist group and refused to let the FBI be notified because he carried a green card?



Perhaps the same memo that Sandy Burgler stuffed in his socks?

I wondered the same thing. I dealt with classified for many years and to think that someone would be careless and bold enough to sneak something out in their sock...no doubt it was something pretty damning.

 

[dilloduck]

I wondered the same thing. I dealt with classified for many years and to think that someone would be careless and bold enough to sneak something out in their sock...no doubt it was something pretty damning.

And for some reason this old news is important now--political trash is all I can see soming out of it. And a bunch of time wasted investigating it all over again.

 

[GotZoom]

And for some reason this old news is important now--political trash is all I can see soming out of it. And a bunch of time wasted investigating it all over again.

Not necessarily important as in news-shattering. But, again, if Billy authorized the theft of classified material in order to cover his ass.....that I want to know.

Especially if this is the subject of that classified material.

 

[dilloduck]

Not necessarily important as in news-shattering. But, again, if Billy authorized the theft of classified material in order to cover his ass.....that I want to know.

Especially if this is the subject of that classified material.

Hell --with all that he gave to the Chinese I guess it wouldn't make much difference. Wonder where ole Burgler is hanging out these days anyway?

 

[Gunny]

And for some reason this old news is important now--political trash is all I can see soming out of it. And a bunch of time wasted investigating it all over again.

I have to agree with Dillo here. It's said and done. No matter what evidence is produced to the contrary, the left isn't going to believe anything but "Bush should've known/done something." Hell, if TONS of WMDs were found in Iraq this minute, the left would have a "the Bush administration planted the WMDs" conspiracy theory in print in 72 hours.

WE do not need to stoop to the Abu Ghraib revisited again and again and again level. It's what's cost the left a lot of seats in government.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I have to agree with Dillo here. It's said and done. No matter what evidence is produced to the contrary, the left isn't going to believe anything but "Bush should've known/done something." Hell, if TONS of WMDs were found in Iraq this minute, the left would have a "the Bush administration planted the WMDs" conspiracy theory in print in 72 hours.

WE do not need to stoop to the Abu Ghraib revisited again and again and again level. It's what's cost the left a lot of seats in government.

I disagree. By treating this matter as "ho-hum" we let the enemy get away with their anti-American behavior. The left did not let up for a minute about the Abu Garib matter and would bring it back up in a minute if they think it would work for the most minor reason. Why shouldn't we do the same -especially since 3,000 Americans lost their lives? I don't care if the left believes the Atta matta or not - they have their own agenda that we need to confront. Don't you get what the anti-American left is doing right here within the legal framework of our own country?

This Atta matter was not addressed in any meaningful way by the 9-11 committee. For some reason the information never made it to the committee. To think that we have lawyers who will protect terrorism and anti-American killers living right here in this country is unthinkable. These liberal lawyer scums need to be prosecuted and sent to jail for the rest of their lives for aiding and abetting terrorist activity. And if they somehow weasel out of that, then the 9-11 survivors need to sue them out of business forever.

As far as Sandy Burglar goes, it just amazes me that the matter was dropped by evidently everybody that matters. Why? What he did was flagrant espionage. He should be prosecuted to within an inch of his life.

And too bad if that ruins Clinton as well. It's time that we go on the offensive and clean out the anti-American activity right here in America.

 

[Gunny]

I disagree. By treating this matter as "ho-hum" we let the enemy get away with their anti-American behavior. The left did not let up for a minute about the Abu Garib matter and would bring it back up in a minute if they think it would work for the most minor reason. Why shouldn't we do the same -especially since 3,000 Americans lost their lives? I don't care if the left believes the Atta matta or not - they have their own agenda that we need to confront. Don't you get what the anti-American left is doing right here within the legal framework of our own country?

This Atta matter was not addressed in any meaningful way by the 9-11 committee. For some reason the information never made it to the committee. To think that we have lawyers who will protect terrorism and anti-American killers living right here in this country is unthinkable. These liberal lawyer scums need to be prosecuted and sent to jail for the rest of their lives for aiding and abetting terrorist activity. And if they somehow weasel out of that, then the 9-11 survivors need to sue them out of business forever.

As far as Sandy Burglar goes, it just amazes me that the matter was dropped by evidently everybody that matters. Why? What he did was flagrant espionage. He should be prosecuted to within an inch of his life.

And too bad if that ruins Clinton as well. It's time that we go on the offensive and clean out the anti-American activity right here in America.

No problem. I can see where you're coming from. I look at it like this: The DNC has destroyed itself in the eyes of most normal-thinking people. The left ran off their moderates and handed the keys over to extremism. They've lost their majority in Congress and occupied the White House a total of twelve years out of thirty seven. They MUST BE doing something wrong.

Emulating their behavior doesn't appear to be good business to me.

And nothing is going to ruin Clinton in the eyes of the left. I'm surprised they aren't ALREADY whining conspiracy.

 

[Annie]

What I said, lots of links. This has been known since the beginning. My guess, the media was hoping to blame the administration, though it clearly was a Clinton problem. With that said, few in the country, citizens or pols were really demanding terrorism be dealt with:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005188.php

August 11, 2005
9/11 Commission Changes Its Story -- Again

Another day, another story seems to be the containment strategy for the defunct and now discredited 9/11 Commission. The AP reports that the Commission's spokesperson, Al Felzenberg, now admits that the Commission knew full well that the secret Army program Able Baker had identified Mohammed Atta as an al-Qaeda operative along with three other men in Brooklyn, but left it out of their final report:

The Sept. 11 commission knew military intelligence officials had identified lead hijacker Mohamed Atta as a member of al-Qaida who might be part of U.S.-based terror cell more than a year before the terror attacks but decided not to include that in its final report, a spokesman acknowledged Thursday.

Al Felzenberg, who had been the commission's chief spokesman, said Tuesday the panel was unaware of intelligence specifically naming Atta. But he said subsequent information provided Wednesday confirmed that the commission had been aware of the intelligence. ...

Felzenberg said an unidentified person working with Weldon came forward Wednesday and described a meeting 10 days before the panel's report was issued last July. During it, a military official urged commission staffers to include a reference to the intelligence on Atta in the final report.

Felzenberg said checks were made and the details of the July 12, 2004, meeting were confirmed. Previous to that, Felzenberg said it was believed commission staffers knew about Able Danger from a meeting with military officials in
Afghanistan during which no mention was made of Atta or the other three hijackers.

Staff members now are searching documents in the National Archives to look for notes from the meeting in Afghanistan and any other possible references to Atta and Able Danger, Felzenberg said.

And so now we come back to the National Archives -- and October 2003. One of Sandy Berger's last visits to the Archives where he took highly classified material out the door with him was in October 2003, around the time that the Commission first heard about Able Danger. Does this start to sound just a little too convenient and coincidental?

Even without the possible Berger theft as part of the story, this constant shifting of the story underscores the massive credibility deficit that the Commission has now earned. First they never heard of Able Data. Then, maybe a low-level staffer told them about the program but not the Atta identification. Next, the military met with the Commissioners but didn't specify the Atta identification. Now, we finally have confirmation that the Commission itself -- not just its low-level staff -- knew that military intelligence had identified Mohammed Atta as an al-Qaeda operative a year before 9/11. Instead of reporting it, the Commission buried it.

This points to some disturbing questions. It looks like the Commission decided early to pin blame on the intelligence community rather than the bureaucracy which stripped it of its ability to act in the interests of our security. Who benefited from that? Commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick. Who else stood to lose if the real story came out? The answer to that may well be the NSA director who conducted a clumsy raid on the National Archives in the middle of the investigation.

Congress needs to take this up immediately.
Posted by Captain Ed at August 11, 2005 12:25 PM

 

[Zhukov]

They didn't drop the ball. They punted it.

 

[Annie]

Speaking of Berger, Gorelick, and Clinton:

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/08/motive-for-bergers-bizarre-behavior.html

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

A Motive For Berger's Bizarre Behavior?
This is a stunning revelation about the Clinton administration's role in preventing intelligence from passing from the military to law enforcement concerning the 9/11 hijackers:

"The Sept. 11 commission (search) did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell," said Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. "Had we learned of it obviously it would've been a major focus of our investigation."

Hamilton's remarks Tuesday followed findings by Rep. Curt Weldon (search), R-Pa., vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, that made front-page news.

In June, Weldon displayed charts on the floor of the U.S. Senate showing that Able Danger identified the suspected terrorists in 1999. The unit repeatedly asked for the information to be forwarded to the FBI but apparently to no avail. Various news outlets picked up on the story this week.

Weldon told FOX News on Wednesday that staff members of the Sept. 11 commission were briefed at least once by officials on Able Danger, but that he does not believe the message was sent to the panel members themselves. He also said some phone calls made by military officials with Able Danger to the commission staff went unreturned.

"Why weren't they briefed? Was there some deliberate attempt at the staff level of the 9/11 commission to steer the commissioners away from Able Danger because of where it might lead?" Weldon asked. "Why was there no mention of Able Danger?"

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Sept. 11 commission looked into the matter during its investigation of government missteps leading to the attacks and chose not to include it in the final report.
{....]
According to Weldon, Able Danger identified Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi (search), Khalid al-Mihdar (search) and Nawaf al-Hazmi (search) as members of a cell Able Danger code-named "Brooklyn" because of some loose connections to New York City.
Weldon said that in September 2000, the unit recommended on three separate occasions that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI "so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists." However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation, arguing that Atta and the others were in the country legally so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.

"Lawyers within the administration — and we're talking about the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration — said 'you can't do it,'" and put post-its over Atta's face, Weldon said. "They said they were concerned about the political fallout that occurred after Waco ... and the Branch Davidians."


Of course, the first thing that lept to my mind was that, if true, this could possibly have been the motive behind former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy "docs in his socks" Berger's inexplicable actions in removing classified documents at the National Archives at about the same time as the 9/11 Commission was reviewing documents associated with terrorism.

I know this is a loose association on my part, but it seems to me that if anyone in the Clinton adminsitration knew about Able Danger, it would have been Mr. Berger as National Security Advisor. A revelation that he was behind the decision not to allow military intelligence to pass on information to law enforcement officials about a terror cell that included Atta and other 9/11 murderers provides the first, possibly significant motive for Berger's bizarre behavior in spring of 2004. It would have to be something sensational like this to have made the Clinton official do something that egregiously antithetical to his professional reputation. His actions in stuffing documents into his clothing were those of a person in a state of panic, or high emotion (e.g. fear).

One other point. Berger's sentencing after he pleaded guilty was postponed from this July to September. Isn't it interesting that this new information is coming out in August?

I, for one, would like a lot more information about precisely what Berger was up to when he was caught removing documents from the Archive, particularly in light of this new information.

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I would really like to know what Berger knew about Able Danger; and if he wrote a memo, or signed off on one, that specifically related to Able Danger; and that prevented the dissemination of information that might have led to the arrest of the 9/11 hijackers before they could carry out their plans. And, could that memo--or copies--have been in the National Archives?

It is, of course, unlikely in the extreme that it still exists after his foray into the archives.

UPDATE: Here is a timeline that I have quickly put together:

2002 - 9/11 Commission set up by Congress

March, 2003 - 9/11 Commission begins first hearings. One of its members is Jamie Gorelick, the person most responsible for the legal firewall between FBI/CIA and sharing intelligence information

Fall, 2003 - Briefing given to four 9/11 staff members by defense intelligence officials during an overseas trip to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia

Oct, 2003 - Sandy Berger observed by Archives staff removing documents

March, 2004 -Madeleine Albright testifies before 9/11 Commission, and defends the Clinton administration's handling of Al-Qaeda and terrorism

April, 2004 - Condi Rice testifies before 9/11 Commission; states that there was serious problem in sharing intelligence information prior to 9/11

May, 2004 - Berger testifies before the 9/11 Commission; completely overshadowed by the fact that Richard Clark and George Tenet also testified on the same day (testimony is here)

July, 2004 - Berger steps down as an advisor to the Kerry campaign after it is revealed that he was being investigated for removing classified documents from the National Archive

July, 2004 - 9/11 Commission report issued without any mention of the Able Danger information

April, 2005 - Berger pleads guilty to removing classified documents

July, 2005 - Berger's sentencing is delayed to September, 2005.

August, 2005 -News breaks about the existence of Able Danger and its ID of 9/11 hijackers in 1999 and attempts to pass this information to law enforcement

UPDATE II: The Strata-Sphere has a good post about Able Danger, Jamie Gorelick and 9/11

UPDATE III: I was interested to discover that Jamie Gorelick was not only deputy attorney general of the United States under Clinton, a position she assumed in March 1994 and held until 1997; but from May 1993 until she joined the Justice Department, Gorelick also served as general counsel of the Department of Defense. These dates are not relevant except possibly to point out that Gorelick was familiar with and worked in the DoD. She is someone else that I have wished the press were more curious about.

UPDATE IV: The Jawa Report has more information to consider. Also, a commentor at Roger Simon's blog asks, what's the point if Berger has destroyed all evidence? Well, we don't know that is the case. There may be evidence to disprove my theory; and there may still be documentation out there to prove it--if anyone is willing to look. (10:30 pm)

UPDATE V: I notice that the first report I cited from Fox states that DoD personnel briefed 9/11 staffers in the "fall of 2003" on Able Danger. However, in the NY Times this AM (here) there was a second briefing given to 9/11 staffers on July 12, 2004. That should be added to the timeline.(9:59 am, 8/11/05)

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:14 PM

 

[dilloduck]

OK--So the question is if someone pressured the 9/11 Commision into coverering up some details about evidence and if Burglers' sox-capades were related. This could give folks some more trash to throw on Clintons' adminstration and Whorelick too.
Am I getting all this straight here?

 

[Annie]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165414,00.html#top

I'm not holding my breath waiting for their response:

'Able Danger' Intel Could Rewrite 9/11 History

Thursday, August 11, 2005

WASHINGTON — The federal commission that probed the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks was told twice about "Able Danger," a military intelligence unit that had identified Mohamed Atta and other hijackers a year before the attacks, a congressman close to the investigation said Wednesday.

Rep. Curt Weldon (search), R-Pa., a champion of integrated intelligence-sharing among U.S. agencies, wrote to the former chairman and vice-chairman of the Sept. 11 commission late Wednesday, telling them that their staff had received two briefings on the military intelligence unit — once in October 2003 and again in July 2004.

Weldon said he was upset by suggestions earlier Wednesday by 9/11 panel members that it had been not been given critical information on Able Danger's capabilities and findings.

"The impetus for this letter is my extreme disappointment in the recent, and false, claim of the 9/11 commission staff that the commission was never given access to any information on Able Danger," Weldon wrote to former Chairman Gov. Thomas Kean (search) and Vice-Chairman Rep. Lee Hamilton (search). "The 9/11 commission staff received not one but two briefings on Able Danger from former team members, yet did not pursue the matter.

"The commission's refusal to investigate Able Danger after being notified of its existence, and its recent efforts to feign ignorance of the project while blaming others for supposedly withholding information on it, brings shame on the commissioners, and is evocative of the worst tendencies in the federal government that the commission worked to expose," Weldon added.

On Wednesday, a source familiar with the Sept. 11 commission — formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (search) — told FOX News that aides who still had security clearances had gone back to the National Archives outside Washington, D.C., to review notes on Atta and any information the U.S. government had on him and his terror cell before the Sept. 11 attacks.

The source acknowledged that the aides were looking for a memo about a briefing given to four staff members by defense intelligence officials during an overseas trip to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in the fall of 2003.

Staffers apparently did not recall being told of the Able Danger information at that meeting and wanted to double-check their records.

Former commission spokesman Al Felzenberg told The New York Times in Thursday editions that Atta was mentioned to panel investigators during at least one meeting with a military officer. That briefing came in July 2004, less than two weeks before the commission's final report was issued to the public.

Felzenberg said the information about Atta was considered suspect because it didn't jibe with many other findings. For example, the intelligence officer said Atta was in the United States in late 1999, but travel records confirmed that he did not enter the country until late 2000.

"He wasn't brushed off," Felzenberg told The Times about the military officer's briefing. "I'm not aware of anybody being brushed off. The information that he provided us did not mesh with other conclusions that we were drawing."

But Weldon said that argument was not good enough.

"The 9/11 commission took a very high-profile role in critiquing intelligence agencies that refused to listen to outside information. The commissioners very publicly expressed their disapproval of agencies and departments that would not entertain ideas that did not originate in-house," Weldon wrote in his letter Wednesday night.

"Therefore it is no small irony," Weldon pointed out, "that the commission would in the end prove to be guilty of the very same offense when information of potentially critical importance was brought to its attention."

On Thursday, Weldon told FOX News that the military official, who was under cover when he was in Afghanistan for the October 2003 briefing, is certain he told the staffers about Atta at that time.

The military intelligence officer who attended that meeting with staffers "kept notes of that meeting and will testify under oath that he not only told" the staffers about Able Danger's mission, but about Atta.

Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, told FOX News on Wednesday that if Atta's name had been mentioned in the October 2003 briefing, it would have jumped out at staffers.

He said that the commission did not include the claims by Able Danger in the definitive report of the events leading up to Sept. 11 because it had no "information that the United States government had under surveillance or had any knowledge of Mohamed Atta prior to the attacks.

"It could be a very crucial incident in terms of the lead-up to 9/11. It could reveal flaws in the intelligence sharing or the lack of intelligence that we have not yet focused on," Hamilton said of the military's tracking of Atta and its inability to get domestic intelligence agencies to follow up.

Hamilton told FOX News that the commission team would get to the bottom of the confusion over what the United States knew about Atta and whether it played into the commission's investigation.

"I think the 9/11 commission's obligation at this point is to review our records very, very carefully and make very soon — we hope within the next few days — a complete statement about what happened during our investigation," Hamilton said.

Weldon said that he personally knows five members of the commission and is not attacking the integrity of any of them. He said he discussed the matter with two commissioners who told him they were never briefed about Able Danger.

"I have to ask why. I would hope there was not a deliberate attempt by someone on the 9/11 commission staff to keep this information" from the commissioners, Weldon said, adding "I find no fault right now with the commissioners."

A commission spokesman told FOX News that the panel expected to issue a statement before the end of the week.

Among the most critical facts to be determined, if the information about Atta did exist in 2000, would be who then blocked the intelligence from going to the FBI, which could have tracked down the terror cell.

"Team members believed that the Atta cell in Brooklyn should be subject to closer scrutiny, but somewhere along the food chain of administration bureaucrats and lawyers, a decision was made in late 2000 against passing the information to the FBI," Weldon wrote.

"Fear of tarnishing the commission's legacy cannot be allowed to override the truth. The American people are counting on you not to 'go native' by succumbing to the very temptations your commission was assembled to indict," he added.