If the decision not to include Able Danger in the final report was a staff decision, with commissioners unbriefed about it, consider that in light of former Chairman Kean and Hamilton's August 2005 statement that the Able Danger project proved 'historically insignificant.' When did they make that determination? Did they say that in response to questions why it wasn't in the report? Did they mean that they had come to that determination (for whatever it was worth) prior to the final report? If so, that would be an interesting inconsistency. I'll go back and look at the context.
I think the statement you reference was probably written by Chris Kojm.
Here's what Hamilton said in response to a question from Tim Russert; "MR. HAMILTON: Well, that's a big "if" on the end there. Look, we looked at Able Danger very, very carefully. We do not think there was anything there of great significance. Now, something could come out in the future. I don't know. But in Mr. Freeh's article he did not present any new evidence at all. Our investigators were informed about Able Danger. We requested all of the documents relating to Able Danger. We reviewed these documents. We had investigators meet with some of these people in Afghanistan and other places. The bottom line is that they can furnish no documentary evidence to support their charges that they had a chart, for example, with Mohamed Atta's name on it. It is... "
By "we" he means Zelikow et. al.
Yes, looking closely at the Kean/Hamilton statement re: Able Danger, they do not say or imply the Commissioners directly were informed about it before the final report.
Bluto rings true, as well
Commenting by HaloScan
