Posted on 08/29/2005 3:53:39 AM PDT by johnny7
Below is PART of Condi's testimony in regards to this memo (I assume).
Clarke mentions sleeper cells. There is no recommendation or anything that needs to be done about them. And the FBI is pursuing them. And usually when things come to me it's because I'm supposed to do something about it, and there is no indication that the FBI was not adequately pursuing the sleeper cells.
Since this is only part of the testimony, interpretation is a bit difficult. Was Clarke referring to Sleeper cells within the US? Was he more specific? This says FBI. Did the Able Danger info get to the FBI despite the Pentagon saying it never got there? Or did they BOTH have the cell(S) under scrutiny in separate undertakings?...
One hand doesn't know what the other is doing?????? Damn, this is confusing.
Hm. I don't see that, but if it's happening, it should be prosecuted.
Here is a link to the web site. http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/2002archive.cfm
The title of the speech is "Breaking the Stovepipes: Improving Intelligence Sharing for Homeland Security" and was given May 23, 2002. The chart is displayed about 33 minutes into the speech.
It sure prompts a lot of questions.
Gorelick said MANY TIMES: "We have the documents that we want".
According to Weldon, staff members of the 9/11 Commission were briefed on the capabilities of the Able Danger intelligence unit within the Special Operations Command, which had been set up by General Pete Schoomaker, who headed Special Ops at the time, on the orders of General Hugh Shelton, then the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Staffers at the 9/11 Commission staffers were also told about the specific recommendation to break up the Mohammed Atta cell. However, those commission staff members apparently did not choose to brief the commissions members on these sensitive matters.
Prosecuted? by whom?
But I give him kudos for speaking out against weasley clark.
If someone covers for a crime, would there not be an obstruction of justice? Or am I in need of more caffeine to gain greater clarity on your point? :-)
I sent Enchante's excellent find to NewsMax as a news tip. They replied with a hearty thank you and the subsequent article.
Maybe it was because Chelsea Clinton was attending Stanford at the time and you couldn't point the finger at the college where the First Kid was studying.
Thank you for for doing that; wish they'd give Enchante credit.
Chelsea Clinton was there at the same time. Maybe the Toon's were afraid their daughter would be fingered as a Chinese spy.
Data mining just brings up names for further investigation. It doesn't name someone as a "potential agent." It just depends on what parameters you establish to gather the pertinent information. I seriously doubt that Condi Rice was ever identified as a potential agent. She had clear reasons to be involved with the Chinese with no further investigation being necessary.
Check out the link and view the presentation for yourself. I did not see any photos on the chart.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/2002archive.cfm
Relook the video at about ~30min +. Check post #56 above.
I always wondered "WHO DIED" when the Chinese Embassy was bombed "ACCIDENTLY".
OK. Is this the "reconstructed" chart or a copy of the original? Did Weldon mention Atta's name at this speech? Certainly Atta was known at the time and pointing him out on the chart would be a coup.
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.