Skip to comments.BREAKING!!! - Weldon says records were ordered destroyed!! (Able Danger)
Posted on 08/29/2005 6:23:38 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
click here to read article
She's really quite ignorant because of her ideal of "Pure Socialism". She can't get past it.
Or a hobo on a ham sandwich
IIRC, Hillary's brothers made a ton of money in the settlements with Big Tobacco.
I agree and I hope Weldon is smart enough to not tell anyone on the 911 Committee who his next witness is. Weldon cannot afford to trust anyone connected to the 911 Committee on this.
It's likely got something to do with getting it into the Public Record when Congress reconvenes.
Kinda like saying....Kill me and you'll have to kill a few others.
Kinda like Monica and Linda Tripp. Once they were both out in the Public....It was too late for a hit on Monica.
Weldon for President 2008
I want another pit bull and someone who will clamp onto something and not let go. Plus he supports the military so he's got my vote.
Here is another reference that is a lot less cryptic, and might easily prompt many follow-up questions about documents, after-action reports, and Sandy Berger. From the footnotes on p. 482:
46. NSC email, Clarke to Kerrick,Timeline,Aug. 19, 1998; Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004). We did not find documentation on the after-action review mentioned by Berger. On Vice Chairman Joseph Ralstons mission in Pakistan, see William Cohen interview (Feb. 5, 2004). For speculation on tipping off the Taliban, see, e.g., Richard Clarke interview (Dec. 18, 2003).And to what does footnote (46) refer? On p. 117, Chapter 4, we find this:
Later on August 20, Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles. Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed. Berger told us that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 2030 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours. Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistans army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin. (46)How about that? How many times have we heard Clinton say that he missed Bin Ladin by just a few hours? Yet the after-action report is missing, so the Commission relied on Sandy Berger's testimony.
Tony Snow hinted on one of this shows that "someone" "somewhere" had some proof (documents?) so I think Weldon is letting the Commission and others make comments until they hang themselves...then the proof will come out and prove the Able Danger guys right and the 9/11 Commission and Jamie Gorelick wrong.
I love that -- "like a pit bull on a steak"
Looks like that's what's needed here. Someone who will NOT give up on this until the steak is properly digested.
The Clinton Clan was a part of that ideological movement. Upon becoming President, Clinton was bound and determined to impose his socialist ideology upon the fabric of America and appointed fellow travelers in key positions (most importantly DoS, DoJ & DoD) The SOLE mission of these people was the reformation of these departments to resemble what the Children of the 60's imagined they should be. This Gorelick used the intial restrictions of the FISA Act (Carter Era) and EO 12333 and made them even MORE restrictive ("beyond what the law requires" IIRC). The plain and simple fact is, that the Clinton's Clan of Cronies wanted to WEAKEN the US and make it beholden to the UN etc... Had the GOP not assumed majority status during his tenure, I shudder to think of where the US would be now....
The Clinton "walk" and the Clinton "talk" were often opposites. He talked women's rights, then harassed women who stood up to being used and threatened. The examples of his opposites are as numerous as his speeches.
Almost always, as Dick Morris would say, Saturday night Clinton was the doer and Sunday morning Clinton was the talker.
On power Clinton did the opposite of the talk. And the wall? It was to keep folks out for a reason. And the reason was power. Not 60's idealism. The wall was to keep people from seeing what he was doing with the VRWC issue. It protected the war room antics, the spying on everyday citizens under the VRWC rubric, and the totalitarian tactics. It was to keep people out. It wasn't a 60's love-in philosophy he was protecting. It was power -- pure Machiavellian power.
Good job - I did want to give credit where due. :-)
Actually, we quite agree on this!
When I refer to the Children of the 60's, I am refering to the radical socialist student movements - not the Make love not War hippies who, in the end, were mostly harmless (just deluded useful idiots). No I mean the ones who KNEW what they were doing and who they were doing it for!!
As for being too kind, well, lets just say that what I wrote is a summary. My real thoughts on this would fill severaly hundred pages and probably earn me the Free Republic Golden Tin Foil Hat Award ;)
From that post, I quote:
It is clear that, contrary to the FISCRs assertion, Troung was a non-factor at the Justice Department (and particularly within the OIPR) during the 1980s. The FISCR was wrong. Neither Kenneth Bass III nor Mary Lawtonthe only people in charge of OIPR from its creation in 1979 until 1993ever considered Troung relevant to FISA nor did they ever advocate any kind of wall. Communication between the DOJs law enforcement and intelligence agencies was routine on their watch. The wall came lateralong with the incorrect analysis of the importance of Troung to the FISA processfor one simple reason. Mary Lawton died.
Remember Lawrence McDanald. Weldon needs to stay safe.
Remember Lawrence McDonald. Weldon needs to stay safe.
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.