Exactly. Where is Howdy Doody (David Gregory) and why isn't he in there asking those tough questions?
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 ...
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."
Excellent.
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...
Leni
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.
Next:
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.
"Informal." "Unpaid."
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)...
More:
"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?
More:
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.
Ominous, huh?
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.
Breathtaking, really.
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
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.)
NS you know him well,for whatever it's worth it all falls back on the three stooges,,, Benedict Clark, Burgler and not-Althatbright,,,
Perhaps the ultimate punishment for her would be to have to share the cell with her boss. (Isn't treason a capital offense?)
Once the clintons' own U.S. attorneys were in place, once the opposition was disemboweled by the knowledge that their raw FBI files had been in the possession of the clintons, once domestic law enforcement was effectively blinded to foreign data by Gorelick's Wall, the clintons were free to methodically and seditiously and with impunity auction off America's security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder. e would have it backwards and miss the point entirely if we were to attribute The Gorelick Wall and the attendant metastasis of al Qaeda during the clintons' watch, (which, incidentally, was then in its incipient stage and stoppable), to the '60s liberal mindset. Rampant '60s liberalism was not the underlying rationale for The Gorelick Wall. Rather, The Gorelick Wall was the underlying rationale for--The Gorelick Wall was (insofar as '60s liberalism was the Wall's apparent impetus) a cynical cover for --the willful, methodical malpractice and malfeasance that was the product of the virulent clinton strain of rampant '60s liberalism. While it is true that The Gorelick Wall was the convenient device of a cowardly self-serving president, The Wall's aiding and abetting of al Qaeda was largely incidental, (the pervasiveness of the clintons' Nobel-Peace-Prize calculus notwithstanding). The Wall was engineered primarily to protect a corrupt self-serving president. The metastasis of al Qaeda and 9/11 were simply the cost of doing business, clinton-style. Further confirmation of the Wall-as-cover-for-clinton-corruption thesis: Conversely, that it never occurred to anyone on the commission that Gorelick's flagrant conflict of interest renders her presence on the commission beyond farce calls into question the commission's judgment if not its integrity. Washington's mutual protection racket writ large, I suspect. The Gorelick Wall is consistent with, and an international extension of, two essential acts committed in tandem, Filegate, the simultaneous empowering of the clintons and disemboweling of clinton adversaries, and the clinton Putsch, the firing and replacement of every U.S. attorney extant. Filegate and the clinton Putsch, The Common Man Allegations of international clinton crimes swirling around the White House in 1995 and beyond support The-Wall-as-cover-for-international-clinton-crimes thesis. Once the clintons' own U.S. attorneys were in place, once the opposition was disemboweled by the knowledge that their raw FBI files had been in the possession of the clintons, once domestic law enforcement was effectively blinded to foreign data by Gorelick's Wall, the clintons were free to methodically and seditiously and with impunity auction off America's security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder. COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005
QUINN IN THE MORNING (ESSAY DISCUSSED)
(MP3, REAL, WINDOWS MEDIA, WINAMP)
thanx to Fixit for the audio
committed in tandem,
the product of a careful criminal calculus,
at once empowered clinton
and disemboweled his opponents.
clinton was now free to betray with abandon
not only our trust,
but the Constitution as well.
Mia T
February, 1998
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
Also:
HILLARY'S TRIPLE PLAY
the clinton putsch + filegate + the gorelick wall
And it wasn't the only slick move Willie made, was it, that let al Qaeda get away with murder.
My bookmarks are adding up quickly on this story.
Whomever in Arkansas gave him that moniker must have known him well. It fits every aspect of his life.
You put in a lot of work to provide such good sources. Thanks.
I saw Curt on TV yesterday saying that he just recently (days ago) received pertinent information on this case.
Wonder what he meant.
Thanks for the well-presented info. I agree...I'd love to see she and The Butcher of Waco share a cell (or did you mean the Slick One?).
missus clinton was Jamie Gorelick's boss. She hired Ms. Gorelick to facilitate and manage the clinton criminal enterprise. But hey, let's dump the three of them together in that cell. Surely additional punishment for both clintons. ;)
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.