Skip to comments.Rep. Weldon Eyeing Clinton White House in 9/11 Blunder
Posted on 08/11/2005 6:57:35 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax
Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Penn., is vowing to find out who in the Clinton administration ordered a group of military intelligence officers not to tell the FBI about critical information on two 9/11 hijackers that was obtained two years before they destroyed the World Trade Center.
"What bothers me is two things," Weldon told WABC Radio's Mark Levin late Wednesday. "I'm told that that they couldn't share this information with the FBI? How far up the chain [of command] did it go? Did it go to the White House? And if so, who ordered it?"
Asked about reports that restrictions on intelligence sharing implemented by Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick played a role in the disastrous intelligence breakdown, Weldon said: "I think that needs to be investigated."
"There was no reason not to share this information with the FBI," he complained, "except that the firewalls that existed back then were so severe that they wouldn't let these agencies talk to one another."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I hope they get Gorelick on this and give her some time in the lockup. She sits on my companies' board-of-directors and I'd love to see her removed from that post as well.
I think Welden's ignorant pea-brain need some "investigation."
What planet has he been living on??
It was obvious from the beginning that the people most responsible for allowing 911 to happen were the people on the 911 commision.
Nothing will happen, the fix has been in for a long time.
It wasn't a blunder. It was deliberate.
The Justice Department is investigating the accounting shenanigans at Fannie Mae in the late 1990s. Its shady accounting enabled the company to exactly hit its earnings per share target to trigger the maximum bonuses for its top executives. Fannie Mae just announced yesterday that it may take another year to complete its restatement of earnings, that's how bad the accounting irregularites were. Jamie Gorelick was Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Fannie Mae at the time and received almost a million dollars in bonus. If any indictments are handed down out of the DOJ investigation, Gorelick is certain to get one of them.
Did Weldon have any role in the heroic attempt to wipe Willie from the White House?
"The Pennsylvania Republican told Levin that three current members of the Able Danger team have already come forward to talk to him, and eleven more are willing to testify."
Hope these guys aren't planning to visit Marcy Park this fall!
Hey Curt is the one leading the charge in this. He might be a RINO but he is hardcore when it comes to national defense.
...and where was Sandy Burglar?
You know if there was a legitimate investigative media in this country this information would already be known.
Where are the so called "Mainstream journalists" and why haven't they asked the question. How did the totally conflicted Jamie Gorelick end up setting on the 9-11 commission and what does that say about the democrats and their lack of concern for America and Americans security?
If any media people read this you should be ashamed that your petty partisan agenda has destroyed your credibility. I haven't always considered myself a conservative but I have always been an American and I will never stab my country in the back for a political agenda.
Hehehe...thanks for that bit of good news. I hadn't been following that, but will now. She really made me angry during the 9/11 panel hearings, badgering any/all conservatives who testified.
You mean, for once, it won't be Bush's fault? LOL!
I hope they get Gorelick on this and give her some time in the lockup.
This b@tch is criminal, and deserves to be thrown in the slammer. I hope America is getting a real snout-ful of the scum that is supposedly running this country. Wake up America!!!
Where then was he during the 9/11 Hearings when Gorelick was making a mockery out of the proceedings?
But to be fair to Weldon, everyone has known Clinton and Gorelick have been responsible for the unshared Intelligence policy, NO ONE HAS SAID A PEEP...till now. WHY??
The Bush Administration doesn't want to touch Bubba no matter WHAT he and his henchmen/women did or didn't do to screw the country.
Do we yet know if Sandy Berger has received his slap on the wrist?
Not sure if the New York Slimes are covering this but I bet if they are, its a 1 paragraph story on page 15. If Gorelick were a Republican, it would be front page, bold print!!
"How far up the chain [of command] did it go? "
All the way, all the way
And it sure wasn't a blunder. Or a boo-boo. Or an ooops. Or an accident.
...The Bush Administration doesn't want to touch Bubba no matter WHAT he and his henchmen/women did or didn't do to screw the country...
The members of the club protect their own.
What company has Jamie Gorelick on it's board??
Do you know what they sre saying on DU about this?
Insert cricket chirps here.
Check your FReepmail.
9/11 Commission Acknowledges Briefing On Able Danger Tomorrow's New York Times reports that members of the 9/11 Commission reversed themselves and now acknowledge being briefed on the Army's data mining project, Able Danger, prior to the publication of their report to the American people. After over 24 hours of denying that anyone had told the Commission about the secret project, their spokesman now says that commission officials met with a uniformed officer who told them about the identification of Mohammed Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers in 2000, over a year prior to the attacks:
The Sept. 11 commission was warned by a uniformed military officer 10 days before issuing its final report that the account would be incomplete without reference to what he described as a secret military operation that by the summer of 2000 had identified as a potential threat the member of Al Qaeda who would lead the attacks more than a year later, commission officials said on Wednesday. The officials said that the information had not been included in the report because aspects of the officer's account had sounded inconsistent with what the commission knew about that Qaeda member, Mohammed Atta, the plot's leader. ...
The briefing by the military officer is the second known instance in which people on the commission's staff were told by members of the military team about the secret program, called Able Danger.
The meeting, on July 12, 2004, has not been previously disclosed. That it occurred, and that the officer identified Mr. Atta there, were acknowledged by officials of the commission after the congressman, Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, provided information about it. ...
Al Felzenberg, who served as the commission's chief spokesman, said earlier this week that staff members who were briefed about Able Danger at a first meeting, in October 2003, did not remember hearing anything about Mr. Atta or an American terrorist cell. On Wednesday, however, Mr. Felzenberg said the uniformed officer who briefed two staff members in July 2004 had indeed mentioned Mr. Atta.
First we hear that no such meeting occurred. After that, the Commission says one might have occurred in October 2003 but that no one remembered it. Now we find out that the Commission had two meetings where the heard about Able Danger and its identification of Mohammed Atta, including one just before they completed their report. Instead of saying to themselves, "Hey, wait a minute -- this changes the picture substantially," and postponing the report until they could look further into Able Danger, they simply shrugged their shoulders and published what they had.
Go here for rest of article.
Gore-lick's going down....either for this or Fannie Mae, but she's going down. The only thing that will save her is a Hillary Clinton Presidenial win and a pardon.
His name sounds like Sandy Burglar!
The Second Half Of 9/11
Now that the New York Times has printed its confirmation of the Able Danger story and shown that the 9/11 Commission ignored its existence and later lied about being briefed about it, we can turn our attention to another piece of the 9/11 puzzle that the Commission also conveniently overlooked. Over two weeks ago, I posted about the curious case of Mohammed Afroze, the al-Qaeda conspirator who confessed to masterminding a series of attacks on international targets for September 11, 2001, which intended to turn the AQ attack into global warfare. In my Daily Standard column today, I go into more depth about Afroze and his plans:
On the day after the failed July 21 bombings in London, an Indian court in Delhi sentenced Mohammed Afroze to seven years in prison for his participation in a wider plot which had been planned for September 11, 2001. Afroze led another al Qaeda cell which planned to use commercial airlines as missiles to destroy several international targets. The Islamist terrorists intended to send a global message through coordination with the attacks on America. Their plan failed when the terrorists lost their nerve and fled Heathrow.
Afroze and his compatriots from Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan had planned on flying their Manchester-bound flights into the House of Commons and the Tower Bridge in London. Attacking Parliament would have sent a message to the British government about the continued sanctions on Iraq. Blowing up the Tower Bridge would kill a slew of British civilians, with the intent of terrorizing them into demanding a withdrawal of British troops from the Middle East and a halt to support of American actions in the region.
But Afroze had other targets as part of his plan--and these reveal something much deeper and broader than Galloway and the media wish to contemplate.
The other targets? Australia and India. The latter especially destroys the oft-repeated meme that al-Qaeda's primary motivation comes from Anglo-American occupation in Iraq, or their actions in the first Gulf War. Instead, the aborted attack plans of Afroze show that Osama bin Laden and his gang of terrorists intend on establishing a new Caliphate in Southwest Asia and North Africa, regaining the lands that once fell under Muslim control, and using control of oil to push for global domination.
Interestingly, especially in light of the Able Danger revelations this week, the 9/11 Commission never mentions Mohammed Afroze even a single time, despite his key role in attempting to provide the international half of the attacks on 9/11. The nature of these targets shows that AQ didn't target America exclusively and should have provided at least some context for their consideration. Like Able Danger, however, they either ignored it or deliberately omitted it as not fitting within the predetermined conclusions they desperately wanted to reach.
Go here for rest of article:
I like all the press coverage, few state that the "blunder" occured during the Clinton term. Most have headlines like " 9/11 hijackers id early" Which just gives fuel to the 'Bush missed the warning signs' crowd.
The lefties are good at interlocking directorships. No wonder a lot of corporations are selling this country down the drain (outsourcing, moving plants to Mexico and overseas, publishing anti-American rags, making anti-American films, etc.). There are probably Gore-lick types moled into all these boards.
We've got to break this and other death grips (courts and campuses, for example).
Why can't GWB connect the dots and see all this as clearly as we do? Does he expect us to do ALL the work? He's GOT to do his part of the gig from the top, also.
Go after these treasonous criminals aggressively, Mr. President!
...The only thing that will save her is a Hillary Clinton Presidenial win and a pardon....
That's on the way.
i'll bet hillary and jamie are really grumpy today
The CLINTON's refusing of 3 Free Offers from the Sudan during the 1990's to bring to American Custody our No. 1 Terrorist Enemy OSAMA bin LADEN ...before he could hit us real hard here at home =
911 Lifesaving Hero RICK RESCORLA, R.I.P.
Signed:.."ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer
Veteran-"WE WERE SOLDIERS" Battle of IA DRANG-1965, Landing Zone Falcon
(Where Lifetime Lifesaving Hero RICK RESCORLA walked in Vietnam 40 years ago, exactly-See 1st Photo)
"i'll bet hillary and jamie are really grumpy today"
You'd be to if you used burlap for a maxi-pad.
The malevolent Karl Rove under the instruction of his handler Dick Chaney secretly planted subliminal messages in Gorelick's New York Times so that she would devise the CIA/FBI firewall that George Bush wanted to cover for his Saudi/Haliburton/Texas oil conspiracies. It was Bush's fault.
Reading between the lines it says, "hey Madame Tarantula, catch"
At least somebody is willing to steup up to the plate. I can't imagine anyone coming from that house of peacocks (senate) doing so. And the Bush administration has seen fit to cover up Clinton's crimes in the interest of all "getting along".
Nope, it was a slick move by the Slick One. Making the war on terror a criminal matter rather than a political and military one allowed them to hide the evidence of what they were doing. If this information had been turned over to the FBI and a criminal trial ensued, against the Muslims not the Democrats, the classified information would have been subject to discovery by the Muslims' defense attorneys. We could not afford to be sharing our intelligence with the enemy, thus "the wall".
The true purpose was to shield the Democrats lack of response to the terror attacks on us. In fact, with the war in the Balkins and the suck up to Arafat we seemed to be doing all we could to help the Islamists. Probably all in Slick's effort to get the discredited Nobel Peace Prize and, therefore, a legacy of more than a blue dress, a sink, multiple rapes and incidences of adultery.
Yes, I read an article posted there yesteday that was trying to pin the blame on Tommy Franks because he was the commander of Able Danger - like he was the one to block Able Danger's data on Atta. I tried to find that post today but couldn't.
And with Bubba there was a lot to "protect," wasn't there?
I guess the puppet-meisters of NWO will let us all know eventually whether Gorelick takes the fall for their policy.
"I hope they get Gorelick on this and give her some time in the lockup. She sits on my companies' board-of-directors and I'd love to see her removed from that post as well."
She deserves to be pilloried not only for her original idiocy but also her sanctimonious hypocritical BS while on the Commission. She was put there solely to cover up her own, and the Dems' administration's culpability.
It's just window dressing, Tommy.
IMO, Weldon has be "assigned" the "job" of piping up about this -- afterall, somebody from the GOP has to do so in light of the recent explosive (no pun intended) revelations that can't just be shoved under the rug.
The Bush Administration will hand down NO indictment, launch NO investigation, NOR make political hay by embarrassing the Clintons OR Democrats. Yep, for the sake of all "getting along" (as per NWO edict.)
"Gorelick may be going down soon on an unrelated matter.
The Justice Department is investigating the accounting shenanigans at Fannie Mae in the late 1990s. Its shady accounting enabled the company to exactly hit its earnings per share target to trigger the maximum bonuses for its top executives. Fannie Mae just announced yesterday that it may take another year to complete its restatement of earnings, that's how bad the accounting irregularites were. Jamie Gorelick was Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Fannie Mae at the time and received almost a million dollars in bonus. If any indictments are handed down out of the DOJ investigation, Gorelick is certain to get one of them."
Exactly. Where is Howdy Doody (David Gregory) and why isn't he in there asking those tough questions?
Go after these treasonous criminals aggressively, Mr. President!"
Not gonna happen, MG. Ever. Neither will securing the border.
He's got his orders from the NWO not to touch IT, or the other treasonous high crimes of Bubba Clinton and his coterie of co-conspirators (Scott Livingstone, Berger, Gorlick, Hitlery, and a cast of thousands.)
You see, as to "connecting the dots," some of us are doing our own...
Let me throw this in as well:
Written July 22, 2004 10:50 AM @ http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/archives/001490.html
The Berger Follies: The NYT Has No Shame
Rarely have I seen a major newspaper play a story in such brazenly partisan fashion.
It truly beggars belief.
Check out today's lead NYT story on the unfolding Sandy Berger scandal by Eric Lichtblau and Dave Sanger.
Boy, is it a whopper...
Let's take a closer look, graf by graf, because it is well worth the time.
Here's the lede:
The White House said Wednesday that senior officials in its counsel's office were told by the Justice Department months ago that a criminal investigation was under way to determine if Samuel R. Berger, the national security adviser under President Bill Clinton, removed classified documents about Al Qaeda from the National Archives.
Talk about a disingenuous lede!
You see, the main story here isn't mostly about whether/why Berger surrepetitiously stole away with classified documents from 9/11 committee chambers.
No, it's about whether the Justice Department should have clued in the White House regarding the investigation.
The White House declined to say who beyond the counsel's office knew about the investigation, but some administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they believed that several top aides to Mr. Bush were informed of the investigation. President Bush himself declined to answer a question Wednesday about whether he had been told, saying: "I'm not going to comment on this matter. This is a serious matter, and it will be fully investigated by the Justice Department."
Bush, not Berger, is not answering Qs right now!
I mean, you couldn't make this stuff up folks.
Howell Raines himself would blush.
The disclosure of the investigation forced Mr. Berger to step down as an informal, unpaid adviser to Senator John Kerry's campaign on Tuesday, and on Wednesday the campaign accused the White House of deliberately leaking news of the investigation and said that Vice President Dick Cheney was involved in strategies to divert attention from the Sept. 11 report to be issued Thursday.
Certainly not one of three finalists for the job of chief diplomat in a prospective Kerry administration!
Just some random campaign flak...
Sandy, er, who???
And, of course, evil Dick Cheney might be trying to divert attention away from the 9/11 inquiry--the NYT helpfully showcases as well.
It wouldn't fit the W. 43rd St. narrative, of course, if Cheney didn't have some hand in the Washington scandal du jour (energy, Halliburton, 'Kenny Boy,' Iraq intel, and so on)...
"The timing of this leak suggests that the White House is more concerned about protecting its political hide than hearing what the commission has to say about strengthening our security," a statement issued by Mr. Kerry's campaign said.
Scott McClellan, the president's press secretary, denied Wednesday that the White House had anything to do with the leak, or was seeking a diversion from the report.
Your baffled NYT readers might be excused, at this juncture, for thinking George Bush himself was stuffing docs down his socks and trousers....
The report is expected to criticize the Bush administration's handling of intelligence about terrorism, but it will also contain significant criticisms of the Clinton administration and the National Security Council that Mr. Berger ran, in the pursuit of Osama bin Laden.
Gee, ya think?
The chief mystery surrounding the mishandling of the documents is the motive. Republican leaders and the Bush-Cheney campaign have suggested that Mr. Berger sought to pass classified information to Mr. Kerry. Ken Mehlman, the president's campaign manager, called on the Kerry campaign to provide "clear assurance to the American people that the Kerry campaign did not benefit from classified documents that were removed from the National Archives by one of their advisers, Sandy Berger, now subject to a criminal investigation."
But that's just a red herring.
The White House hasn't been going heavy on the theme that Berger did this to help Kerry.
Here's Scott McClellan yesterday:
Q The other partisan charges being leveled is that Berger, as an informal advisor to Senator Kerry, may have been using documents that would ultimately inform Senator Kerry's thinking on developing policy. That view has been expressed by the reelection campaign. Does the White House share that concern?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sure that all those matters will be looked into by the people overseeing the investigation.
Q As part of the investigation?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sure that they will look into all those issues that would be related to this investigation.
Q You just don't want to have a piece of this story, do you?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think it's -- Bill, you've asked me about other criminal investigations, and I've always said that, because it's an ongoing investigation, it's best that we let the investigation proceed, and that those questions be directed to the Department of Justice. I understand your desire for information, but this is a serious -- this is serious matter.
This is hardly mega-cheerleading that Berger did this on Kerry's behalf, no?
It's simply the standard, when someone is self-destructing, step aside and let the meltdown occur as the "investigations proceed(s)"...
But by making it look like the Republicans are going all helter-skelter on that front (Berger did it for Kerry!), the NYT adeptly defines the scandal up--allowing this next:
But Mr. Kerry himself, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, would probably have access to any such documents, and the clearances to read them. On Wednesday evening, Mr. Berger's spokesman, Joe Lockhart, said: "Mr. Berger never passed any classified information to the Kerry campaign. Any suggestion to the contrary cannot be supported by any facts."
At the Kerry campaign, officials say they were taken by surprise by the accusation. It appears that Mr. Berger did not disclose the investigation to Mr. Kerry's aides. Mr. Lockhart said that was because "we were dealing in good faith with the Department of Justice on this matter for many months, and part of our agreement was that this was not to be discussed beyond Sandy's legal team."
"Taken by surprise"!
Is it just me, or are you more "surprised" that a former NSC Advisor stands accused, at least by some, of stuffing hugely sensitive documents down his socks?
That, at least, is what's got me all curious over here in London.
But the Times relentlessly churns on regarding, not what Berger did or didn't do, but the ginned up "who in the White House knew?!?" meme:
On Tuesday, after the information about Mr. Berger emerged, Mr. McClellan referred questions to the Justice Department and said, "What we know is what has been reported in the news media." That seemed to suggest no early knowledge of the investigation inside the White House.
On Wednesday, however, Mr. McClellan corrected himself, saying that the office of Alberto Gonzalez Jr., the White House counsel, had been informed about the case.
"The counsel's office is the one that is coordinating with the Sept. 11 commission the production of documents," Mr. McClellan said. "And since this relates to some documents, the counsel's office was contacted as part of that investigation."
Mr. McClellan did not specifically cite the Justice Department as the source of the information, but administration officials said it was the department that had informed the White House of the investigation.
The Justice Department declined to comment.
Ashcroft is stone-walling again....
Finally, towards the end of the article, we come to this:
The department is investigating whether Mr. Berger broke federal law on the handling of classified material by removing from a secure government reading room a handful of documents related to an after-action report on the 1999 millennium plots, as well as notes he took during his review.
In preparing for testimony before the Sept. 11 commission, Mr. Berger viewed thousands of pages of intelligence documents. He said he removed the documents by mistake, but Republicans accused him of stashing the material in his clothes on purpose. They have offered theories about what that purpose may have been, like an effort to withhold information that reflected badly on the Clinton administration.
Note the vivid language re: "stashing the material in his clothes on purpose."
That's, er, not a judicious portrayal of what Berger stands accused of by many.
There's the treatment of his notes, for instance, rather than the documents themselves.
Or he might have stashed them in his clothes, er, not on purpose (that credulity-straining careless thang).
What's my point?
That the NYT wants to make the Republican accusations look as dramatic as possible--so, in case Berger was merely careless, the GOP looks bad for all that slanderous talk about Berger doing it on "on purpose", "stashing" the docs, etc. etc.
The larger point?
The big issue in all of this, what did Berger do or not do, is just worth this slight, passing mention.
And this in the lead (at least on the web) NYT article on the matter today.
Moving on, we swiftly return to the Bushies role in all this, and end the article, thus:
Traditionally, law enforcement officials have sought to maintain a firewall of sorts between criminal investigators and political appointees on politically sensitive cases.
Several legal analysts said it would not be unusual or necessarily improper for the political appointees at the Justice Department to have let the White House know of the investigation's existence. But they emphasized that such communications should be closely held at the White House, should not involve criminal investigators and should not be allowed to influence the outcome.
"There may be a legitimate explanation here because the White House counsel had responsibility for handling these documents," said Beth Nolan, White House counsel under President Clinton.
"But the better path might have been not to provide the information to the White House at all,'' she said, "because of this exact situation - if you have information that was shared and was then leaked, it creates a whole set of political problems."
Talk about diverting attention away from the main show.
But, of course, not suprising is it?
Compare all this with the Washington Post's handling of the story.
The contrasts are, shall we say, vivid.
It's like they are covering two different scandals--which, in a way, they are--one real, one fictive.
Posted by Gregory Djerejian at July 22, 2004 10:50 AM
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.