Clintonistas on 9/11 Commission Hunt for Bush Cover-up

newsmax ^ | May 24, 2003 | Carl Limbacher

[TLBSHOW]

Clintonistas on 9/11 Commission Hunt for Bush Cover-up

Two members of the independent commission investigating the 9/11 attacks who excoriated the Bush administration for its handling of the disaster during public hearings this week are said to be aggressive Democratic partisans with close ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Complaining that the presence on the commission of high powered Washington lawyer Richard Ben-Veniste and former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick all but guaranteed that the investigation would target the Republican White House, the Wall Street Journal observed last December that the two 9/11 probers were "Democratic partisans [who are] one or two steps removed from James Carville."

"Ms. Gorelick was Hillary Clinton's eyes and ears at Janet Reno's Justice Department," the Journal noted. "Mr. Ben-Veniste was the party's designated sandbag man on the Senate's Whitewater probe."

During Thursday's session, Ben-Veniste grilled former Federal Aviation Administration head Jane Garvey on why her agency failed to notify the North American Aerospace Defense Command that America was under attack until 22 minutes after the World Trade Center's second tower was struck.

Garvey said her recollection was that she made the notification significantly earlier, according to New York Newsday's account of the exchange. But Garvey added that she'd have to check her own records to be sure.

On Friday Ben-Veniste revisited the topic again, complaining to NORAD chief Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, "Given the awareness of the terrorist use of planes as weapons, how was it that NORAD was ... not better prepared to protect against the hijacking of commercial jets?"

Ben-Veniste managed to elicit the response he was looking for, with the NORAD chief replying, "In retrospect, I would agree with your comment."

Relatives of 9/11 victims who have voiced suspicion of the Bush White House were delighted with Ben-Veniste's prosecutorial style.

Kristen Breitweiser, who became a leading advocate for creating the commission after her husband, Ronald, was killed in the World Trade Center, broke into a smile as she watched Ben-Veniste press Garvey repeatedly, Newsday said.

"They asked the exact questions we want answered," a beaming Breitweiser told the paper. "To hear someone put on the spot and possibly be held accountable is so gratifying."

Apart from Ben-Vensite's stint running interference for the former first couple in the Whitewater investigation, he also represented the Clintons' handpicked Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe when McAuliffe came under suspicion in the campaign finance probe five years ago.

Another one of Ben-Veniste's more intriguing clients was Alder Berriman "Barry" Seal, who was assassinated in 1986 after he began cooperating with a federal probe into an Arkansas drug ring that flourished while Clinton was governor of the state.

For her part, Ms. Gorelick used Friday's hearing to put the Bush administration in the crosshairs for not making airline security a priority before the 9/11 attacks.

According to the Associated Press, Gorelick grilled Bush Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta on what she described as "frantic warnings in the months before the attacks that a major act of terror was in the works."

"Did this higher level of chatter ... result in any action across the government?" she asked. Before the Bush official could reply, Gorelick snapped, "I take it your answer is no."

"That's correct," Mineta answered sheepishly.

In a related development, the Hudson Institute's Bill Whelan noted Friday that Sen. Hillary Clinton had suddenly joined presidential candidates Sen. Bob Graham and Sen. Joseph Lieberman in complaints that the Bush administration was dragging its feet on the 9/11 commission requests for information, with Graham going so far as to allege a Bush 9/11 cover-up.

"It's a win-win for her," Whelan told WABC Radio's John Batchelor and Paul Alexander. "If this thing fizzles, then watch how fast she gets away from it - it's Bob Graham's idea, she gets the heck away from it."

But if the 9/11 commission turns up damaging information, "then Hillary runs [for president] in 2008 and she's got that as a talking point," Whelan said.

The Congressional Quarterly's Craig Crawford said that Democrats on the commission are looking for evidence that Bush officials ignored warnings that might have predicted a 9/11-syle attack.

"Right after 9/11 Condi Rice said several times that they had no warning of airliners being used as weapons," he told the radio duo. "If Graham's right and there's something in there that shows they did get that warning, Rice is in the hotseat."

[freekitty]

All Hitlery and Billy Boy have to do is look in the mirror and they will see who is responsible for 9/11.

[Intolerant in NJ]

#73. One of those strip alerts previously cut back prior to that day (under Clinton) was Atlantic City, N.J...not to quibble, since I'm obviously not as up on this as you are, but there is still a very active Air National Guard squadron in Pomona, N.J., right outside of Atlantic City. Local news reports after 911 said that fighters from that base were among the first into the air and arriving in D.C. the morning of the attack - maybe this is not the operation to which you're referring, or maybe it was reinstituted by Bush?.......

[Defender2]

the unit there I am very familiar with. Unfortunately for budgetary cutbacks previously, they were not on official status that fateful morning as they had been for years. Later that morning(post attack) along with all the other sites around the country(19) along with the 7 which were on status which had been previously cut were restored to official alert status.

[Intolerant in NJ]

Thank you - that helps clear it up - I knew those jets flying over my house periodically day and night weren't purely a figment of my imagination.....

[Defender2]

If you would like to read about how our Air Defense evolved, and subsequent questions will arise about what happened to it over the years after reading it, I suggest
strongly this book, "the Emerging Shield, the air force and the Evolution of Continental Air Defence, 1945-1960", by the author, Kenneth Schaffel, published by the Office of Air Force History, ISBN 0-912799-60-9. -ISBN 0-912799-61-7 (pbk.)

[Defender2]

Please see my post#85 above

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the information! Hugs!

[Defender2]

You're Welcome, Alamo-Girl!!!!:-) Hugs!!!!:-)

[Defender2]

Also, Alamo-Girl, piasa put an awful lot of information on this thread that I believe should be included in your DSL.
A very comprehensive timeline. When you have the time, please read piasa's posts. some of them were addressed to
me. However this is definitely DSL material. Mansoor stored
a lot of this information. So here's a heads up for you!:-)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the heads up! It is a wonderful timeline! The information is timely and valuable on its own right (more than just a subtopic to Clinton) and I hope it will have its own webpage.

[Defender2]

I knew you would know it's important info, you're welcome,
Alamo-Girl!!!!:-)

[stevem99]

First, what is your source for the claim that NORAD used to have radar looking at US airspace and that Clinton was responsible for cutting it?

NORAD's own website clearly says - "Until the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD's focus was almost exclusively fixed on threats coming toward the Canadian and American borders, not terrorism in our domestic airspace. Because of that day, NORAD's focus has increased to include domestic airspace. NORAD's mission is truly global."

Second, if NORAD did have inward looking radar that would have cut out the delay in getting info from the FAA, but they still did not have authorization to shoot those planes down.

Here's what Gen. Arnold said in the recent hearings - "To my knowledge, I did not have the authority to shoot it down at that time," he said. Of Flight 77, he said, "Even if we were there, I don't think we would have shot it down."

Maybe you know more about NORAD than he does?

[stevem99]

Military base closures have been going on for a long time now under both Bush I and Clinton. The bases were selected by the DoD and a bipartisan Congressional committee. In fact, Clinton was criticized for trying to get some AF bases taken off the list (i.e., kept open) in states where he wanted to score points.

The fact that bases were closed doesn't mean that it had any effect on NORAD. Prior to 9/11 there were only 7 bases with combat-ready jets, each with 2 F15/16s. The number of jets on the runway ready to intercept has been steadily falling for the past 30 years under a variety of Presidents, Democratic and Republican. In the case of DC there already were at least two open AF bases closer than Langley, where the intercepts were launched. Did Clinton make the decision to have those jets in Langley rather than Andrews?

Show me any reliable source that indicates that Clinton closed AF bases that were part of NORAD's mission and that were close to 9/11 targets.

Personally I think you're blowing hot air.

[piasa]

Actually, Alamo-Girl, I think a lot of the material- the Clinton era Korea/China items) came from you in the first place!

[Alamo-Girl]

That is very encouraging to know! Thank you so much!!! And it drives home the point that data gathered here and there has meaning in context - kind of like pixels v the image you see on the screen. Hugs!

[Defender2]

#93,94 see my post #85 above.

[piasa]

See the timeline up above for some more fun quotes from the rats.

1998 : (TOM DASCHLE, DICK GEPHARDT SUPPORT IMMEDIATE ACTION AGAINST IRAQ - BUT HAVE DUAL "SENIOR MOMENTS" LATER ON IN 2003 AND FORGET HWAT THEY ORIGINALLY SUPPORTED) The two Democratic congressional leaders, Sen. Tom Daschle and Rep. Dick Gephardt, issued a joint statement hailing Clinton's "correct decision to undertake military action against Iraq at this time." Indeed, they added, "Any delay would have given Saddam Hussein time to recontitute his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction." - "DEM DOUBLE-TAKE (or...Hypocrites On Parade), " by ERIC FETTMANN, New York Post October 10, 2002

[CedarDave]

BTTT for an early true prediction of current events. (However, the Clintonistas make it pretty easy. Leopards don't change spots, after all.)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Regardless of these 2 bozos - who the dems think will insulate them from any accountability for 9/11 - I believe this will end up backfiring on the dems.

Has it ever:

See this:

Documents regarding Gorelick ---as keyword

[CyberAnt]

That's a great link - Thanks so much.