Click the picture...
Posted on 11/24/2005 1:06:01 PM PST by johnny7
"....why Able Danger did not reach the FBI in 2001...."
thats a no-brainer!
because of Hillary's buddy Jamie Gorelick
In the political atmosphere at the time, considering the rot that seems to exist at CIA, and at least did exist at Justice and even the White House, I believe that had word got out about Able Danger it would have been shut down.
We may have a situation where the military must have its own intelligence sources that it dare not share with the civilians. They may share information, but they may not want to share how and where they got the information.
Exactly. This is of course all related Gorelick, stealing papers from the archieves and Able Danger.
Now I view this more as Clinton protection than anything else. The rules at the time were probably consistent with what the American public wanted, ie no domestic watching except by the FBI, the CIA and other agencies only looking overseas, etc. But by doing what they have done the Clintonites are looking very very suspicious and may well have historians come down very hard on them.
Click the picture...
I always thought that Freeh was a fairly decent guy in an impossible position. He more or less had to follow orders or quit, and he couldn't quit because he knew that if he did clinton would have put in a really corrupt director.
That's what happens when you have a drug smuggling, murdering, draft-dodging, treasonous rapist in the White House. Everyone else gets tainted.
Sure sounds to me like 'The Wall' was still in operation during the 9/11 Commission. In fact, some 'refinements' may have been added.
Able Danger is like a dead body at a party... and everyone just walks around it.
You said it perfectly, and I agree. The Commission did make every attempt to add new twists and dimension to entrenching "The Wall". Seemed like it was Veniste's job to plant those seeds...
We may have a situation where the military must have its own intelligence sources that it dare not share with the civilians. They may share information, but they may not want to share how and where they got the information.
This hypothesis is similar and related to one posted by FReeper Pukin Dog several weeks back, that DOD does not want this to go public because it would jeopardize current ongoing operations that are vital to national security.
For myself, while I would like nothing more than to see the Jamie Gorelicks et al. cleaned out of government and punished, if I believed that effort would truly compromise our ongoing efforts I would be willing to let it lie sleeping.
The crucial puzzle-piece in all this is Congressman Curt Weldon, and more specifically, his honesty, his character and his real reason for pushing this. Is he really doing it to serve and protect his country, or is it just to promote his book and political career? If Weldon is an honorable man, and if there is a genuine national security reason to keep the lid on Able Danger, I'm finding it difficult to understand why Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, or even President Bush, could not simply meet with him privately, explain the situation and request that he back-off for the good of the country. I have no way of determining who to trust about this.
I wonder how many government employees have uttered those words over the past 200 years.
An old bureaucrat once said... Never put on paper what you can say. Never say when you can nod. Never nod when you can wink.
save for later
I have lost all respect for Gorton ever since he left the Senate. It is as if his whole ideology has changed and he might as well have a (D) after his name because he sure has been acting like one.
But Hillary's alter ego Bill was pulling the strings.
You cant mean the same Jamie Gorelick that headed the 911 commission, I cant understand why she wouldnt want anyone to find out she wouldnt let any of our security agencies work together.
Thats sarcasm folks.
She is partially to blame for 911.
That ISNT sarcasm folks.
"We may have a situation where the military must have its own intelligence sources that it dare not share with the civilians. They may share information, but they may not want to share how and where they got the information."
That's been going on for some time now.
I just finished reading Freeh's book and I agree that he is a decent guy. He had and has zero respect for Clinton but I was disappointed in his positive regard for Reno.
I also found his comments about Richard Clark interesting. According to Freeh, the guy wasn't really in the loop. You would never know it by the media adoration lavished on the guy.
What about this
". . . John O’Neill, [had] taken over as the FBI anti-terrorism chief. O’Neill immerses himself in the study of Islamist terrorism, and eventually becomes one of the first Americans to begin to understand how al-Qaeda functions and to grasp the danger it represents. But he alienates Director Freeh and the FBI establishment and becomes increasingly frustrated by the Bureau’s internal politics."
This was 1995, I believe. O'Neill left the FBI in 2001 to head security at the WTC. He was killed on 9/11/01. The left screams loudest and many believe O'Neill left because of President Bush. (Excellent example of Leninist/Stalinist B.S)
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.