JPod writes (italics mine): “Andy keeps having to use the word ‘assume’ about every allegation made in the course of that [Washington Times] story because there is no evidence other than his word.”

My word doesn’t have anything to do with this. I don’t have any personal knowledge of the facts of this dispute. Naturally I have to say “assume”; I am discussing allegations that have been made–just like you have been doing. Until something is proved or debunked conclusively, we have to assume the truth of allegations to discuss them intelligently (even if it is to cast doubt on them).

Even though I found unhelpfully hyperbolic your dismissal as “blather and palaver” of the version of events offered by a United States naval intelligence officer (i.e., a guy the country deems stable enough to trust with its most sensitive information), I opted not to argue with you about that. This is a troublesome story, we don’t know all the facts, and I happen to know and be fond of Dieter Snell–the Commission staffer who did the interview of the naval intel officer–so if Snell found him unpersuasive, that carries a lot of weight with me. I happen to disagree with you about whether the incident rated a footnote, but if that’s all there is to it, that’s something reasonable minds can differ on. But please don’t lash out at me because you’re grumpy over your mail. It’s got nothing to do with me.

I’m not vouching for the Washington Times story. I said it is interesting, which it is. I don’t know if it’s all true–just like you don’t know.

I do know this, though. 9/11 happened nearly four years ago. There have since been several mega-investigations that lasted years. All of the relevant agencies of government, including the Defense Department, were made to scrub and re-scrub their files and data bases and provide investigators–including the 9/11 Commission–with whatever they had in the way of information germane to the issues of what we knew about al Qaeda prior to 9/11 and why we weren’t able to stop the attacks. After all this scrutiny and all this effort, there is now a very simple, straightforward question on the table: “Defense Department, did you have ANY information prior to the 9/11 attacks that pointed to Mohammed Atta or one of the other hijackers as a potential terrorist?”

At this point, I don’t understand how that question can take more than ten seconds to answer.

A simple, to-the-point denial, several days ago, could have put this to rest. Such a denial should long ago have been set in stone if there is a factual basis for it. Maybe we’ll get it, but so far we haven’t–and I am puzzled about why not. Every hour that goes by without a straight, comprehensive denial makes me wonder what’s going on here.

Moreover, when a Pentagon official is cited in the Washington Times as saying there may be “a few [pre-9/11] intelligence analyses that mention [Atta’s] name,” I find that remarkable. Remember, this is not a comment from one of the Able Danger people you have been characterizing as uncorroborated and unreliable. The comment is instead attributed to a Pentagon official who was clearly trying to throw cold water on the story. I don’t think you have to have a horse in this race to think that’s pretty damn interesting.