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

Skip to comments.

Where are answers to the 9/11 commission hoax?
TheReporter.com ^ | 10/14/2005 | Sally Chaney, Fairfield

Posted on 10/14/2005 9:28:01 PM PDT by infocats

Americans were told the 9/11 Commission looking into the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was to recommend changes in policy and law to protect us from future terrorist attacks. So why was the commission used as a partisan attack vehicle? And why did they ignore, hide and not print a single word of possibly the most important information released to them by the small, highly classified Pentagon intelligence unit called Able Danger?

Did President Bill Clinton's deputy attorney, Jaime Gorelick, really think the U.S. military would allow this information to be ignored again? Was Gorelick too busy yelling insults at Condoleezza Rice to sway public opinion rather than allow the citizens of the United States access to the truth?

On at least three separate occasions, officers in the Able Danger unit attempted to pass information on the Atta al-Qaida cell to the FBI, only to be blocked by attorneys attempting to follow Clinton policies and guidance. None other than Gorelick promulgated the policy, and later served on the 9/11 Commission.

Did anyone really buy the line that Able Danger identifying the Atta al-Qaida cell as terrorists is "historically insignificant," as the commission just stated, after it denied three times even knowing of Able Danger. Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said the Able Danger unit identified an al-Qaida cell led by 9/11 terrorist-pilot Mohamed Atta. He also said that in 2003, he told the commission staff member about efforts to pass the information to the FBI. He offered to brief the 9/11 Commission fully in January 2004, but they declined.

This is not the only damning information the 9/11 Commission is hiding. Documents released via the Freedom of Information Act indicate that in the summer of 1996 the U.S. State Department warned the Clinton administration that Osama bin Laden's "prolonged stay in Afghanistan - where hundreds of 'Arab mujahedeen' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders congregate - could prove dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run. ..."

Why were we not made aware of this by the 9/11 Commission? Why did Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, who plead guilty this year to destroying classified documents from the National Archives pertaining to terror threats on U.S. soil, commit this crime just before testifying before the 9/11 commission? Were copies of the documents shredded by Berger ever placed before the commission? Did the commission choose not to hear from Able Danger officers because of Jamie Gorelick? Where the commissioners aware of the State Department's 1996 warnings to Clinton about bin Laden and his lack of action?

Now we know the 9/11 Commission was a political whitewash and we still need real answers. We need to have these questions addressed and we need to know if the Bush administration has corrected the policy errors of the Clinton administration.

The 9/11 Commission Report needs to be moved to the fiction section of the library. Clinton and Bush need to address the troubling issues of omission.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: 1996; 911commission; abledanger; afghanistan; atta; berger; fbi; gorelick; gorelickwall; jamiegorelick; jaredkushner; kushner; omissioncommission; sandyberger; shaffer; tonyshaffer

1 posted on 10/14/2005 9:28:03 PM PDT by infocats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: infocats
"Clinton and Bush need to address the troubling issues of omission."

What??

And break up their playing patty-cake?

2 posted on 10/14/2005 9:31:16 PM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
Look for Bush to put a seal on any further findings that implicate Clinton. Like he did on all of Clinton's eleventh hour pardons. Trust Bush to sell us out on this one too.
3 posted on 10/14/2005 10:01:47 PM PDT by PositiveCogins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: infocats

I am so sure that Rino and former senator Slade Gorton from Washington State must have been paid very well by the Democrats.


4 posted on 10/14/2005 10:04:00 PM PDT by Robert357 (D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infocats

"Every morning is the dawn of a new error"


5 posted on 10/14/2005 10:06:53 PM PDT by HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath (My Homeland Security: Isaiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infocats

"If things get any worse, I'll have to ask you to stop helping me."


6 posted on 10/14/2005 10:08:29 PM PDT by HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath (My Homeland Security: Isaiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PositiveCogins

You keep asking the same questions jumping all around but the answer is obvious, in fact, there's only ONE solution.

Look for Bush to put a seal on any further findings that implicate Clinton.

George Bush HAS to put a seal on it. Otherwise, you'd figure it all out. You simply can't know the truth. IT's too dirty (If Clinton is involved, should that surprise you?).


7 posted on 10/14/2005 10:39:37 PM PDT by BILL_C (Those who don't understand the lessons of History are bound to repeat them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BILL_C
Well, then lay it all out for us, man.

Speak your piece.

8 posted on 10/14/2005 10:50:30 PM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: infocats

"Hoax" is right.
Another waste of time and money.
Another useless coverup.


9 posted on 10/14/2005 11:00:24 PM PDT by henderson field
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infocats

The rich and powerful will protect the rich and powerful......always


10 posted on 10/14/2005 11:13:38 PM PDT by kublia khan (Absolute war brings total victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infocats

When a commission goes off the rails, it's members should be forced to foot the bill for the fraud committed against the taxpayers.

Not only in this instance, but in Bush's commission to simplify the tax code.


11 posted on 10/15/2005 1:05:13 AM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txflake

"Well, then lay it all out for us, man."

Did you ever wonder WHY hundreds of witnesses who saw a missle hit a plane in 1996 took out a full page ad in a major American newspaper asking the question WHY is the government lying?

http://www.twa800.com/eyewitnesses.htm

Did you ever wonder why Jayna Davis' book, "The Third Terrorist", documents eight Iraqi degectors from Gulf War I who were involved with McVeigh and Nichols? She goes on to say that the man who got out of the truck with McVeigh was identified, but the interesting part is that on 9/11/01, he was working at Boston Logan Int'l Airport, where the two planes that destroyed the WTC took off from.

And in both cases, people are going "we KNOW the Government is lying but WHY?"

The answer is pretty simple, actually. Remember who the President was. Clinton never saw a lie he wouldn't tell. And to do nothing was his first instinct.

A bombing in OKC- blame two white Rush Limbaugh inspired nuts.

An airliner shot down? Blame a center fuel tank explosion with the scenario dreamed up by non other than Richard Clark himself

A few reasons why Clinton put the investigations into the lying mode: Clinton didn't want to go to war, he didn't want to explain hundreds of Americans killed by terrorists, and he really wasn't going to let you know that these "terrorists" were Iraqi's.

How did he pull it off? Remember Jamie Gorelick, the 9/11 commissioner? Ms. Gorelic was Ass't Attorney General.

The first hours after OKC bombing they were looking for a pickup with two middle eastern men..... BUT when Jamie Gorelick showed up, the investigation immediately shifted exclusively to McVeigh.

Hundreds of people see TWA800 shot down with a missle. The NY SLIMES does NOT interview a single witness. Jamie Gorelick herself sets the NTSB straight.

And Clinton would have gotten away with this "political lie" if 9/11 hadn't of happened.

By not telling you about terrorism, it didn't happen. It was just a political decision that got Bill Clinton re-elected.

Flash ahead to the 9/11 Commission. Jamie Gorelick HAD to be on the Commission. IT started out very quickly trying to blame Bush, starring Richard Clark (the author of the TWA center fuel tank explosion). It ignored Able Danger/Atta.

And then we find out Clinton's National Security Advisor was stuffing Code Word TOP SECRET documents into his underwear while preparing for the 9/11 hearings.

Are you still wondering WHY we attacked Iraq?

Bush CANNOT let you know that Clinton with his political lies directly caused 9/11 because he didn't take care of bussiness in the early 90's when the WTC bombing occurred.

Think of the problems, the investigations, John Q. Public wanting Clinton hung.

No, George Bush will continue the lie. It is the "cleanest" solution.

The "idiots" on FreeRepublic are "trained" to yell about tin foil hats.

The Ann Coulters, the George Wills, FOX, CNN: Somebody will have to tell them too.


12 posted on 10/15/2005 1:32:19 AM PDT by BILL_C (Those who don't understand the lessons of History are bound to repeat them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: infocats

I hate it when our side distorts the issue to make a point - ANYONE with a bit of interest can easily check and verify that the policies "preventing" (read making it VERY hard) the Pentagon to share info with the FBI have been in place for a VERY long time.

Now, Gorelick's "policy" definately worsened the situation to the point that pentagon lawyers most likely would not even consider passing information to the FBI. But, to blatantly put this issue of cooperation between the military and civilian departments at the feet of the Clinton Administration is wrong.

Worse, following this course will only lead to the issue blowing up in our face! Once the dems realize we're committed to this line, they will rightfully point out that:
1. Posse Commitatus was the basis for the prohibition
2. President Reagan's EO (12333?) strenthenged the prohibitions.

We have enough reasons to attack Gorelick & the Clinton Administration - let's not use false ones!!


13 posted on 10/15/2005 1:46:32 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infocats

Anything to do with the Clintons gets whitewashed.


14 posted on 10/15/2005 5:50:01 AM PDT by RoadTest (The Clintons have no sense of shame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BILL_C
Look dog, you are barking up the wrong tree.

It's the INSURERS who (and the Fed has a comely insurance racket, remember that) will not admit liability when it comes to terrorism.

Wanna shoot somebody, start with the lawyers.

15 posted on 10/15/2005 9:20:53 PM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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