Posted on 08/11/2005 12:43:23 PM PDT by Pikamax
Why Gorelick created that wall for Clinton:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1461567/posts?page=2#2
With the help of Richard Clarke and Sandy Berger, to name a few.
So the Bush haters on the 911 Whitewash Committee are now caught up in a web of lies? They should have taken lessons at the knees of Bill Clinton, an unusually accomplished liar and traitor.
From the first reports I read, they first noticed him in 1999, is that right?
That would have put the blame right on Clinton; as it is, with the late 2000 date, they can claim they passed it to Bush and he did nothing, right?
First noticed Atta in 1999? Yes, that's right.
But who would have passed the info to Bush? They weren't passing the info to each other inter-agency because of the Wall; my bet is it got dropped and there was nothing in any memos to Bush when he took office.
''Even if it were valid, it would've joined the lists of dozens of other instances where information was not shared,'' Felzenberg said. ''There was a major problem with intelligence sharing.''
Yeah. I saw that.
Even IF it was valid. They never even investigated further so they had NO idea if it was valid.
And it didn't fit with their preconceived idea of where they wanted the Commission to end up.
And you saw Weldon's memo to the Commission? That paragraph I highlighted on that thread had the most PERFECT paragraph I've ever read.
To the effect that the Commission was designed to find out why the intelligence agencies didn't share information or investigate intelligence. Then the Commission itself turns around and doesn't share or investigate intelligence.
In a story filed at 7:10 PM, the Associated Press is now confirming all the particulars of what will now forever be called the Able Danger disaster. The 9/11 Commission staff did hear about intelligence-gathering efforts that hit pay dirt on the whereabouts of Mohammed Atta -- in 1999 -- and deliberately chose to omit word of those efforts.The dots are getting connected after all. Every one who watched any of the hearings, the Jersey Girls clapping everytime the testimony implicated President Bush, the circus atmosphere of the whole proceedings, you knew something wasn't right.And why? Because to do so might upset the timeline the Commission had established on Atta.
And why is that significant? Because the Mohammed Atta timeline established by the Commission pointedly insisted Atta did not meet with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague.
And why is that significant? Because debunking the Atta-Iraq connection was of vital importance to Democrats, who had become focused almost obsessively on the preposterous notion that there was no relation whatever between Al Qaeda and Iraq -- that Al Qaeda and Iraq might even have been enemies.
So was the staff a) protecting the Atta timeline or b) Jamie Gorelick or c) the Clinton administration or d) itself, because it got hold of the information relatively late and the staff was lazy?How are they going to spin this -- Iraq was connected to Atta, We did know about Atta before the attacks, we did know he was planning something bad, we did nothing about any of it.
Anything there was to see left in Sandy Burlar's pants!
Anything there was to see,(pause) left in Sandy Burlar's pants!
It did not make it into the final report because it didn't fit the Democrat agenda to trash the President and blame him for 9/11 and to protect the Clinton administration. And the Republicans didn't have the balls to tell them to sit down and shut up.
It is obvious who took over the committee. People merely pushing for the truth, Republicans, were just caught in this whirlwind of a coverup.
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.