Curiously incurious

Hearings on the data mining project known as Able Danger were held by the House Armed Services Committee last Wednesday at 2:30 in the afternoon.  Since then the internet has been abuzz, but our leading national newspapers are curiously incurious.  Since Wednesday The New York Times has one story that mentions Able Danger, but it wasn't really about Able Danger.  Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer was mentioned in the article because he testified before another committee on National Security Whistlblowers.

Representative Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut, is leading the defense of whistle-blowers who have spoken out about abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, illicit federal wiretapping and other matters. "It's absolutely essential that we have a system that allows people to speak out about abuses, especially in the national security realm," Mr. Shays said in an interview.

He said his conviction that current protections were inadequate was strengthened by testimony on Tuesday at a hearing of his House subcommittee on national security by five self-described whistle-blowers who described retaliation for their disclosures. Mr. Shays's concerns are shared by numerous Democrats and some other Republicans, including Representative Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, who has denounced what he calls the mistreatment of a military intelligence officer, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, who disclosed the Pentagon's Able Danger data-mining program. Mr. Weldon says he believes that the program identified Mohammed Atta before he became the lead hijacker in the 2001 terrorist attacks, though a Pentagon review found no evidence to support that conclusion.

Notice that the Times referred to NSA terrorist surveillance of international phone calls as "illicit federal wiretapping".  Could it be they've found no evidence because it's been destroyed?

The Washington Post also has one story on the Able Danger hearings, but it's more of an editorial explaining that there's really no story.

Cambone is not to be completely believed because he is the mouthpiece for a damaged administration and a Pentagon that is not above lying when it suits it. Shaffer can not be relied upon because he is a nut.

Yet Cambone and Shaffer share the same agenda. For these secret warriors, it is the lawyers and the bureaucrats and the strait-laced military officers and the human rights activists and the media who are the real problem: They should all just get out of the way and let the patriots do their job. Cambone, Shaffer, Weldon all tug on the heartstrings of those who want to believe that the government could have done something to prevent the attack. It is their ticket.

In his column William M. Arkin argues that all anybody wants out of these hearings is confirmation that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented.  I'm not sure I could be convinced of that no matter what they find out.  I'm still curious about why Jamie Gorelick got a seat on the 9/11 commission.  That's one thing I'd like to know.  According to Newsmax, a Gorelick aid Dieter Snell, prevented Able Danger testimony from reaching the 9/11 commission.

Recollections can be faulty.  Tony Shaffer may be absolutely certain he saw the name Mohammed Atta on an Able Danger chart.  That doesn't mean he really saw it.  Our memories are not as good as we think they are, and it's not unusual to believe with a certainty to remember something that never happened.  But even if he's wrong about it, it's still worth pursuing what happened to that program. 

Is there a China connection? 

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, the veteran Army officer who was the Defense Intelligence Agency liaison to Able Danger, told The Post China "had something to do" with the decision to restructure Able Danger.

Sources said the private contractors, using sophisticated computer software that sifts through massive amounts of raw data to establish patterns, came up with a chart of Chinese strategic and business connections in the U.S.

The program wrongly tagged Rice, who at the time was an adviser to then-candidate George W. Bush, and former Defense Secretary William Perry by linking their associations at Stanford, along with their contacts with Chinese leaders, sources said...

The China chart was put together by James Smith, who confirmed yesterday that his contract with the military was canceled and he was fired from his company because the military brass became concerned about the focus on U.S. citizens.

"It was shut down in a matter of hours. The colonel said our service was no longer needed and told me: 'You just ended my career.' "

Smith also claims his team came up with 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta's name and photo in 2000.

Why don't the New York Times and the Washington Post find anything interesting in the Able Danger story?  Doesn't it fit the script?