Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Able Danger: Pentagon Spikes Witnesses While Shaffer Reveals New Source
Captains Quarters ^ | September 20, 2005 | Captain Ed

Posted on 09/20/2005 9:08:30 PM PDT by bobsunshine

Able Danger: Pentagon Spikes Witnesses While Shaffer Reveals New Source

The New York Times reports this evening that the Pentagon has blocked its military witnesses from testifying on Able Danger at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings tomorrow. Senator Arlen Specter registered his surprise but plans on holding the hearings anyway (h/t: AJ Strata):

The Pentagon said today that it had blocked a group of military officers and intelligence analysts from testifying at an open Congressional hearing about a highly classified military intelligence program that, the officers have said, identified a ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks as a potential terrorist more than a year before the attacks.

The announcement came a day before the officers and intelligence analysts had been scheduled to testify about the program, known as Able Danger, at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. ...

Mr. Specter said his staff had talked to all five of the potential witnesses and found that "credibility has been established" for all of them.

"There are quite a few credible people who are prepared to testify that Mohamed Atta was identified long before 9/11," he said. "Now maybe there's more than one Mohamed Atta. Or maybe there's some mistake. But that's what we're trying to find out."

The Pentagon might think that withdrawing its witnesses will keep Able Danger from breaking wide open, but they will find themselves sorely mistaken. This only demonstrates that the program found something that the Pentagon still wants hidden. If that includes a finding that their program not only found Atta and other AQ terrorists over a year before the attacks, but also predicted the USS Cole attack three weeks before it happened, and that the Pentagon shut down the program anyway, eighteen Senators will want to know why.

In fact, the withdrawal of the witnesses clearly shows that the story has substance and isn't a case of mistaken identity. Had this just been an identification of a second Mohammed Atta, as Specter postulates, the Pentagon should have no problem putting its witnesses on the stand. Nothing about a mistaken identity would create a classification problem for the hearing tomorrow.

QT Monster has a transcript from tonight's interview of LTC Tony Shaffer on the Jerry Doyle radio show. Shaffer says Donald Rumsfeld himself gave the order to stop the witnesses from appearing at the Judiciary Committee hearing:

JD: Well, when you say DoD, where's this coming from at DoD? Is this instructions to DoD from higher ups? Is this people in DoD who are afraid of what information gets out? I mean who is the person who's making this happen? AS: What I will tell you is I was told by 2 DoD officials today directly that it is their understanding that the Secretary of Defense directed that we not testify tomorrow. That is my understanding.

However, Shaffer says that former Major Eric Kleinstadt, now a civilian contractor, will still testify at the panel. Kleinstadt received the orders to destroy the Able Danger database. Specter's insistence that the hearings go forward probably hinges on Kleinstadt's ability to testify to the information that got destroyed, who ordered its destruction, and why. From that point, the committee could unravel an entire command sequence that will uncover how Able Danger got missed by the 9/11 Commission.

Another interesting fact got mentioned in Shaffer's interview. He spoke about a Dr. Eileen Pricer. One of the more mysterious potential sources of the Able Danger story involved a female PhD that could corroborate Shaffer and Phillpott, the woman who actually developed the Atta identification in the first place. I Googled Eileen Pricer and got just one hit -- but it's a doozy.

It turns out that Dr. Pricer testified before a closed session of Congressional subcommittee on national security exactly one month after 9/11. That testimony isn't available, but Rep. Christopher Shays mentions her on the record in the next day's public testimony:

Mr. Shays. In a briefing we had yesterday, we had Eileen Pricer, who argues that we don't have the data we need because we don't take all the public data that is available and mix it with the security data. And just taking public data, using, you know, computer systems that are high-speed and able to digest, you know, literally floors' worth of material, she can take relationships that are seven times removed, seven units removed, and when she does that, she ends up with relationships to the bin Laden group where she sees the purchase of chemicals, the sending of students to universities. You wouldn't see it if you isolated it there, but if that unit is connected to that unit, which is connected to that unit, which is connected to that unit, you then see the relationship. So we don't know ultimately the authenticity of how she does it, but when she does it, she comes up with the kind of answer that you have just asked, which is a little unsettling. Unsettling? Christopher Shays described Able Danger thirty-one days after the 9/11 attacks. What else did Eileen Pricer tell the Congressional subcommittee on national security on October 11, 2001? Did Pricer tell Shays that the information no longer existed but did at one time?

Senator Specter should invite Christopher Shays to have a seat on the witness bench, and he should also start issuing subpoenas for the witnesses that the Pentagon wants to silence. We need answers, and we need to know that our country will fight terrorism with every tool at its disposal.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 911; 911commission; abledanger; atta; coverup; eileenpricer; gorelickwall; pricer; sept11; shays; whitewash
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-629 next last
New Source and new congressman
1 posted on 09/20/2005 9:08:32 PM PDT by bobsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine
Let the sunshine,
Let the sunshine in.
The sun, shine in!
2 posted on 09/20/2005 9:19:07 PM PDT by philman_36 (Remember Alberto Sepulveda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine
YIKES!! Dr. Eileen sounds very interesting!!

I couldn't be more disappointed than I am at Rumsfeld....I can't figure this out.

3 posted on 09/20/2005 9:19:12 PM PDT by Suzy Quzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine
I beginning this could get w's good billy boob in serious trouble if everybody is trying to piss on it.
4 posted on 09/20/2005 9:19:51 PM PDT by dts32041 ( Robin Hood, stealing from the government and giving back to tax payer. Where is he today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Suzy Quzy

He is trying to get a handle on it before it blows up, but it may have already done so?


5 posted on 09/20/2005 9:22:44 PM PDT by dts32041 ( Robin Hood, stealing from the government and giving back to tax payer. Where is he today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine
I've covered this in more detail on another thread. It is both a criminal act and a civil wrong for anyone to interfere with a government employee's honest testimony before a congressional committee. The only exception is that the President is immune from the civil suit.

I know this for sure, because I represented Earnest Fitzgerald against Richard Nixon in the US Supreme Court on this precise issue.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Kathleen Blanco: Beyond Gross Public Dumb"

6 posted on 09/20/2005 9:45:50 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (This Freeper was linked for the 2nd time by Rush Limbaugh today (9/13/05). Hoohah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

Everyone up to Rumsfeld himself must be dragged in to answer for this. If Rummy won't permit their testimony, he should be removed from office.


7 posted on 09/20/2005 9:48:24 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

How far will Bush go to protect the Clintons? We are about to find out.


8 posted on 09/20/2005 9:50:51 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

I don't know... I really have mixed feelings about this.

It is very difficult for me to believe that Rumsfeld would do this capriciously or just to cover someone's POLITICAL posterior.

The only way I could see it is that it is to protect some intellegence asset(s) currently "in place" and producing high value intel... So high a value that keeping them in place is more important for the future than pulling them out so that we can further discredit the previous administration and the joke of a 9-11 Commission.

As much as I'd like to see the evil and / or incompetent people in the previous (and current) administrations and the bureaupaths in the Defense and Intel agencies brought down, if there is a good source at risk I'd rather wait a couple of years than lose someone that might be able to give us information that will prevent a major terror attack or even worse.

You certainly can't tell a Senate Committee oe even a Congressional investigation any sensitive, much less critical, life or death secret.... It will be leaked within minutes. There aren't three Senators or more than a dozen Representatives that can be trusted with national security secrets.

Other than that though, if this is just political posterior covering.... Then Sec. Rumsfeld (Who I have always admired and always thought was the best SecDef we ever had) deserves to hang with whoever is responsible for this debacle in the first place.


9 posted on 09/20/2005 10:26:27 PM PDT by LegendHasIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: montag813
How far will Bush go to protect the Clintons?

How does this protect Clinton?

10 posted on 09/20/2005 10:56:36 PM PDT by fooblier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Suzy Quzy

Rummy may be concerned that the Democrats on the Committee will ask questions regarding OTHER classified information and/or operations.


11 posted on 09/20/2005 10:57:34 PM PDT by singfreedom ("Victory at all costs,.......for without victory there is no survival."--Churchill--that's "Winston")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fooblier

If I recall correctly, the assumption is that Able Danger reported its findings during the Clinton adminstration and were squelched by the wall built between the CIA and FBI. The Bush administration likely would have had little knowledge of the Able Danger findings since the CIA under Clinton dismissed the info.

I'm sure we will find out more.


12 posted on 09/20/2005 11:03:59 PM PDT by BigYellowDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

After all the things Bill Clinton said about the President this past week, Bush's administration STILL is going to incredible lengths to protect Clinton's administration. Unbelievable. The worst part is that this is at the sacrifice of our national security.


13 posted on 09/20/2005 11:10:16 PM PDT by SunnyD1182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LegendHasIt

This may not be Rummy's fault. Although staffed my military personnel, DoD's legal department is mainly semi-autonomous and not always answerable to either the military or civilian chain of command.


14 posted on 09/20/2005 11:19:36 PM PDT by tanuki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

More information is great, but Hurricane Rita will dominate the news. If all of this drips out in a quieter time it is more likely to get the attention in deserves.


15 posted on 09/21/2005 12:31:32 AM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine
My read of this is that Rumsfield is moving to force Specter to issue subpoenas and go behind closed doors. This is top secret stuff and needs to stay that way. More important than hanging Clintoon and Gore lick. Maybe there will surface a way to do all.
16 posted on 09/21/2005 12:39:45 AM PDT by mercy (THY Kingdom come. THY will be done. On earth .... as it is in heaven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine
Members of the now disbanded commission and the Pentagon have dismissed Weldon's claim as bogus, saying that no confirmation could be found despite a massive search of Pentagon files and numerous interviews with military intelligence officials.

"Bluntly, it just did not happen," said commissioner Slade Gorton, a former senator from Washington State, at a press conference here last week.

Well then.... the 9/11 Commission says there's nothing to all this silly "Able Danger" stuff, nothing at all.
And after all, they should know. They investigated the terror attacks thoroughly and in an objective, non-partisan manner.
Jamie Gorelick and Company left no stone unturned.

17 posted on 09/21/2005 12:56:24 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Kleinstadt received the orders to destroy the Able Danger database. Specter's insistence that the hearings go forward probably hinges on Kleinstadt's ability to testify to the information that got destroyed, who ordered its destruction, and why. From that point, the committee could unravel an entire command sequence that will uncover how Able Danger got missed by the 9/11 Commission.

Let the butt-covering begin!

18 posted on 09/21/2005 2:42:53 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (Stop the looting! The IRS hates competition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine
Mr. Specter said ... ....

"There are quite a few credible people who are prepared to testify that Mohamed Atta was identified long before 9/11," he said. "Now maybe there's more than one Mohamed Atta. Or maybe there's some mistake. But that's what we're trying to find out."

What a very curious thing to say "... more than one ..." -- by someone who always chooses his words and phrases so very carefully, especially when he lies. And no, I don't trust Domocrat/Republican Specter as far as I could throw him.

19 posted on 09/21/2005 4:02:15 AM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brityank

That's a laughable statement. Specter knows it was THE Atta. They also identified others in his Brooklyn cell, IIRC.
I think this was said more for a diplomatic purpose than nay other.

But I don't trust him either.


20 posted on 09/21/2005 4:10:39 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (Stop the looting! The IRS hates competition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: oceanview; Peach; Shermy

New layers have been peeled back.


21 posted on 09/21/2005 4:43:22 AM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: brityank
"What a very curious thing to say '... more than one ...' -- by someone who always chooses his words and phrases so very carefully, especially when he lies."

This leaps out at me too. I don't read it as, "Maybe there was more than one person with that name and the famous chart was about someone else." I read it as, "Maybe something similar to Able Danger has been activated under Rumsfeld, and we have found other cells led by other Attas that we don't want to alert or educate about our capabilities."
22 posted on 09/21/2005 4:51:31 AM PDT by RightOnTheLeftCoast (You're it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dog

This story just got 100 times more interesting.

It turns out that Dr. Pricer testified before a closed session of Congressional subcommittee on national security exactly one month after 9/11. That testimony isn't available, but Rep. Christopher Shays mentions her on the record in the next day's public testimony.

And I'm VERY, VERY disappointed in Rumsfeld for trying to shut down testimony. And I'm disappointed in the extreme at the president as he must surely be giving the orders to Rumsfeld.

I'm tired of our government covering crap up.


23 posted on 09/21/2005 4:55:44 AM PDT by Peach (South Carolina is praying for our Gulf coast citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: montag813
Everyone up to Rumsfeld himself must be dragged in to answer for this. If Rummy won't permit their testimony, he should be removed from office.

Methinks this goes above Rumsfeld all the way to Clinton's buddy/protector George W. Bush.

24 posted on 09/21/2005 4:59:06 AM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Peach...here is something to mull over.

How do you think they had photos of all 19 hijackers only days after the attack?

25 posted on 09/21/2005 4:59:34 AM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint; montag813

26 posted on 09/21/2005 5:04:06 AM PDT by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dog

I've asked that very question before!

When AD first came to light, I asked if media reports ID'd Atta on 9/11 or 9/12. That that time, some freepers gave me sources that show Atta was ID'd on 9/11.

So then I started asking how we knew, on the very day of the worst attacks in American history, just WHO did it!

It's because of Able Danger and Clinton cronies in the Pentagon and State Department, CIA, etc., ALL knew that he was here and up to no good.

Remember, the FBI had been concerned about the Middle Eastern men taking flight lessons, but no one would listen to them.

And now Rumsfeld and the president are giving Clinton cronies and corruption cover. I'm ready to fly off the handle about that, let me tell you.


27 posted on 09/21/2005 5:06:57 AM PDT by Peach (South Carolina is praying for our Gulf coast citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dog

Google?


28 posted on 09/21/2005 5:09:38 AM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast

I don't know which way to come down on this. I enjoy a good Clinton bashing as much as the next guy (Lord knows he deserves it), but if there is any reasonable chance that a public (and even closed door meetings with politicians involved may as well be public) investigation would compromise our terror defense efforts, it would probably be better left not done.

I believe that there have likely been numerous terror attack attempts since 9-11 that have been thwarted with no public information let out. That is a good thing. We should keep our methods as hidden from the terrorists as possible.

On the political side, President Bush is being very far-sighted in not attacking back at Clinton and others. History, I believe, will prove that he was a very good, perhaps even great, president. This is not satisfying for many of us amateur pundits, who want our pound of flesh NOW, but I think he is doing the right thing, which includes his practical application of the Christian teachings that guide his life. He has not played the blame game during his presidency, except with regard to terrorists and the Axis of Evil. He has tried to tone down the rhetoric in his administration, while the dems have ratcheted up. This will continue to hurt them, as we shall see in 2006 and 2008. Patience, my friends, and (to borrow a phrase from the other side), Courage.


By the way, has the "wall" been knocked down yet? Just wondering.


29 posted on 09/21/2005 5:11:56 AM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Could it be that to discuss Able Danger publicly might give insight on programs similar in usage now? Could well be the legal department at DOD is still run under the same mindset as established in the 1990's.

I am more interested right now about how Congress critters, especially the libs react to supposedly Rummy saying "no" to something. Why didn't old Spector send a subpoena to these people?
30 posted on 09/21/2005 5:12:10 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

All we need to know is three things:

1) Did Able Danger identify Atta and/or the Brooklyn Cell.

2) Who did they warn about Atta or the Brooklyn Cell.

3) Who shut them down.

That's it. That doesn't compromise any current program. Or anyone.


31 posted on 09/21/2005 5:15:36 AM PDT by Peach (South Carolina is praying for our Gulf coast citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: montag813
How far will Bush go to protect the Clintons?

Does Sandy Buglar's sentence tell you anything?

32 posted on 09/21/2005 5:17:44 AM PDT by McGruff (Aarrgh!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
Methinks this goes above Rumsfeld all the way to Clinton's buddy/protector George W. Bush.

I just can't go there in my mind just yet.

33 posted on 09/21/2005 5:20:11 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Peach, think about it. IF there is a YES to any of those question, alll .ell will erupt. This is more about keeping a calm and protecting a mindset then seeking truth.

Those Clintons KNEW everything that went on, we know that much by the need for FBI files, they sure have never admitted to the taking or their purpose.

What we just witnessed out of NO should tell every thinking American just how far these leftist are willing to go to get what they want and destroy whomever gets in their path.

Spector has no more interest in uncovering truth than any one of the craze liberals.
34 posted on 09/21/2005 5:25:56 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: LegendHasIt

.....It is very difficult for me to believe that Rumsfeld would do this capriciously ............

You have made a good analysis. There is a good reason for Rummy's action.


35 posted on 09/21/2005 5:26:52 AM PDT by bert (K.E. ; N.P . I smell a dead rat in Baton Rouge!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Peach

.....And now Rumsfeld and the president are giving Clinton cronies and corruption cover......

Perhaps you have misinterpreted events. Perhaps the cover is to something other than Clinton.

"At a time and place of my choosing" says W.


36 posted on 09/21/2005 5:32:23 AM PDT by bert (K.E. ; N.P . I smell a dead rat in Baton Rouge!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: brityank

I can see it now... Specter offers up the 'multiple Atta' theory.


37 posted on 09/21/2005 5:35:22 AM PDT by sargunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine
Just speculation here, but if Rummy ordered them not to testify, I have to think he knew the media would be all over this story now, demanding answers.

Could this be the way he is getting the media to jump on the story???

38 posted on 09/21/2005 5:38:19 AM PDT by mware (Keeper of the I's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813
Methinks this goes above Rumsfeld all the way to Clinton's buddy/protector George W. Bush.

I just can't go there in my mind just yet.

I suggest you get over whatever is preventing you from applying the same critical reasoning we all used against X-42 Krintong, and apply it against GWB.

"New Tone" is one thing...but we've all seen the cracks in the veneer before (can you say Clymer? How about Cheney and Leaky Leahy's famous expletive exchange?). Why is it that we can't EVER drop the hammer of responsibility on X-42 where it belongs?

Can you say 900+ Republicans compromised by Hillary's FBI Files that are STILL in positions of authority, and are STILL being blackmailed?!?!

Sorry, until the compromised and compromisable have been purged, the DemonRATs and Hillary ARE running the show!

39 posted on 09/21/2005 5:58:13 AM PDT by Itzlzha ("The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: LegendHasIt

While I agree with a lot of your analysis, I have to mention that Curt Weldon, who has written a book about national security, is certainly in a position to know, through all his research about this matter, whether a hearing will compromise assets currently in place.

And there are work arounds for dealing with that.

What we really need to know, and what our committee should be able to control, are three things:

1) Was Atta and the Brooklyn cell identified pre 9/11.

2) Who was told about Atta and the Brooklyn cell.

3) Who shut down Able Danger and ordered information destroyed.

If those questions can't be answered without hurting national security, then how is it that the 9/11 Commission was able to hold months of hearings which asked questions of our intelligence agencies?


40 posted on 09/21/2005 6:03:03 AM PDT by Peach (South Carolina is praying for our Gulf coast citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Hearing starting now...


41 posted on 09/21/2005 6:35:57 AM PDT by Txsleuth (Arlington, Texas--future home of the Dallas Cowboys!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

Where can we listen to the hearing. I can't find it anywhere.


42 posted on 09/21/2005 6:37:08 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

bttt


43 posted on 09/21/2005 6:40:09 AM PDT by Guenevere (God bless our military!...and God bless the President of the United States!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

Shays ain't worth a pitcher of warm pee... he was one of the few Congressmen who went to the Ford Building to see the Broaddrick rape testimony on Bubba. After reading it, he cried... and promptly voted NOT to impeach.


44 posted on 09/21/2005 6:43:34 AM PDT by johnny7 (I'm American, honey. Our names don't mean sh_t.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere

Biden up right now. You can see it here.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/webcast/live.ram


45 posted on 09/21/2005 6:43:43 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
Here is the link to the Able Danger Senate Hearings on C-SPAN3

Start time is 9:30 AM ET on Wednesday 21 September.

46 posted on 09/21/2005 6:46:06 AM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine
Maybe it's stategery on Rumsfeld's part.

If the Bush Administration stops a witness then the media will be interested. Sucker them in, get plenty of coverage on the evil Bush plot and then have the Pentagon backtrack allowing the witness to testify.

I can dream. lol
47 posted on 09/21/2005 6:46:24 AM PDT by Republican Red (''Van der Sloot" is Dutch for ''Kennedy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red

weldon - either its classified or its not. the DOD can't have it both ways.


48 posted on 09/21/2005 6:49:59 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

General Lambert was never consulted about the destruction of the information.


49 posted on 09/21/2005 6:51:42 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: backhoe

ping

Are you listening to the hearing?


50 posted on 09/21/2005 6:56:21 AM PDT by Txsleuth (Arlington, Texas--future home of the Dallas Cowboys!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-629 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson