.
Posted on 02/15/2006 7:14:18 AM PST by americaprd
he will get my help - a true American hero. Able Danger story must get out.
bttt
Weldon, PING!!
I didn't know that. Very interesting.
WHAT WAS IN SANDY BERGLERS PANTS AND SOCKS?
WHAT WAS IN SANDY BERGLERS PANTS AND SOCKS?
WHAT WAS IN SANDY BERGLERS PANTS AND SOCKS?
WHAT WAS IN SANDY BERGLERS PANTS AND SOCKS?
WHAT WAS IN SANDY BERGLERS PANTS AND SOCKS?
WHAT WAS IN SANDY BERGLERS PANTS AND SOCKS?
WHAT WAS IN SANDY BERGLERS PANTS AND SOCKS?
WHAT WAS IN SANDY BERGLERS PANTS AND SOCKS?
WHAT WAS IN SANDY BERGLERS PANTS AND SOCKS?
Yeah, it really is interesting. Especially in light of Spitzer's involvement in preventing Snell's testimony. This really is a full court press cover-up attempt by the Dems. They've got every angle covered.
I didn't know this either (from another freeper):
"If you have any doubts that Weldon is under pressure, consider who his opponent is this election cycle -- former vice Admiral Joseph Sestak, a former member of Clinton's National Security Council. The Clintonites do not want this pursued and are organizing to defeat Weldon."
Weldon campaign web site:
http://www.curtweldon.org
"When was your first contact with the Able Danger group and why did you suppress Able Danger information from the 911 Commission?"
I have been behind Congressman Weldon from the beginning. He is right - we need to find out who is behind the coverup - the Watergate of this century - and who wants to bring this country to it's knees. Who is being paid and financed to destroy our country??
You can listen to live audio feed of the House Armed Services Committee hearings at the link below.
Right now, its budget testimony. Able Danger hearing begins at 2:30 pm, although I believe they may be going into closed session at some point...
http://hasc3.house.gov/hascradio
The dems succeeded in redacting the Barret report, so why not try to coverup the Able Danger hearings. These reports and hearings are critical of Bill and Hillary. It would not do for them to go public. I think every repot on illegal actions of any politician should be read by Americans.
The NSC's Millennium After Action Review declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999 — with luck playing a major role. Among the many vulnerabilities in homeland defenses identified, the Justice Department's surveillance and FISA operations were specifically criticized for their glaring weaknesses. It is clear from the review that actions taken in the Millennium Period should not be the operating model for the U.S. government.
In March 2000, the review warns the prior Administration of a substantial al Qaeda network and affiliated foreign terrorist presence within the U.S., capable of supporting additional terrorist attacks here. [My note: AD info?]
Furthermore, fully seventeen months before the September 11 attacks, the review recommends disrupting the al Qaeda network and terrorist presence here using immigration violations, minor criminal infractions, and tougher visa and border controls.
It falls directly into the AD timeline. In that same post, I note that what Sandy Berger stole was the versions of the after action report:
The missing copies, according to Breuer and their author, Richard A. Clarke, the counterterrorism chief in the Clinton administration and early in President Bush's administration, were versions of after-action reports recommending changes following threats of terrorism as 1999 turned to 2000. Clarke said he prepared about two dozen ideas for countering terrorist threats. The recommendations were circulated among Cabinet agencies, and various versions of the memo contained additions and refinements, Clarke said last night.
Therefore, they were never provided to the Commission, as evidenced by the Commission Report footnotes (#769):
46. NSC email, Clarke to Kerrick,“Timeline,”Aug. 19, 1998; Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004). We did not find documentation on the after-action review mentioned by Berger. On Vice Chairman Joseph Ralston’s mission in Pakistan, see William Cohen interview (Feb. 5, 2004). For speculation on tipping off the Taliban, see, e.g., Richard Clarke interview (Dec. 18, 2003).And to what does footnote (46) refer? On p. 117, Chapter 4, we find this:
Later on August 20, Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles. Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed. Berger told us that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20–30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours. Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan’s army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin. (46)How about that? How many times have we heard Clinton say that he missed Bin Ladin by just a few hours? Yet the after-action report is missing, so the Commission relied on Sandy Berger's testimony.
Then the Clarke/Kerrick memo peaked my interest and I found this (#784):
Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him asylum." Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.They could not afford for this info to come out before the election.
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.