Skip to comments.
Live 9/11 Commission Thread [testifying today Freeh, Reno, Ashcroft]
April 13, 2004
| Vanity
Posted on 04/13/2004 6:04:07 AM PDT by Peach
9/11 Commission. Now on C-Span.
Chairman Thomas Kean has asked the audience to refrain from clapping.
Louie Freeh, former FBI director, up at 9:30.
Business matters being taken care of now by the Commission.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911; 911commission; aschcrofttestimony; ashroft; commission; freeh; janetreno; kerreylies; renotime
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,861-1,880, 1,881-1,900, 1,901-1,920 ... 2,061-2,067 next last
To: mewzilla
Some of the most sensitive language concerned the specific authorization to use deadly force. Clinton's national security aides said they wanted to encourage the CIA to carry out an effective operation against bin Laden, not to burden the agency with constraints or doubts. Yet
Clinton's aides did not want authorizations that could be interpreted by Afghan agents as an unrestricted license to kill. For one thing,
the Justice Department signaled that it would oppose such language if it was proposed for Clinton's signature.
The compromise wording, in a succession of bin Laden-focused memos, always expressed some ambiguity about how and when deadly force could be used in an operation designed to take bin Laden into custody. Typical language, recalled one official involved, instructed the CIA to "apprehend with lethal force as authorized."
1,881
posted on
04/13/2004 2:44:49 PM PDT
by
kcvl
To: mewzilla
Good point.
To: redlipstick
"The attorney general sounded almost contemptuous as he spoke of a 'legal wall' put into effect in 1995 to separate criminal investigators from intelligence agents in an effort to safeguard individual rights." From the NY Times? How excellent! Don't even mind the word "contemptuous." Thanks for the post.
To: crushkerry
would be nice if the damn thing had a date on it
1,884
posted on
04/13/2004 2:46:31 PM PDT
by
mwl1
To: Cosmo
If the tables were turned, the media would be demanding that Gorelick recuse herself from the commission. Headlines tomorrow would scream: "Commission member authored regulations that hindered anti-terror effort". But that would only be the headline if the commission member were a Reublican.
1,885
posted on
04/13/2004 2:46:33 PM PDT
by
Steve_Seattle
("Above all, shake your bum at Burton.")
To: Steve_Seattle
They're also sowing a lot of disgust and distrust. Look at the poll numbers after Dr. Rice's testimony and the lamestream's trying its darndest to spin and twist it. All I'm saying is that when it comes to the lamestream, the shine has worn off the apple. Let'em do their worst. They'll only put themselves outta business faster. More and more people are getting their news elsewhere.
To: NYC Republican
Well, Chrissie may have looked wan and pale after today's hearings, but he'll be in fine spirits with the "lovely" widders (as Mo Dowd described the chief widder).
To: krunkygirl
I "dropped in" to hear some callers remarks--COULDN'T TAKE IT!
I was running C-Span in my browser. It kindly decided to put me out of my misery and crash. Which stopped C-Span.
Some of the Democrat C-Span callers border on insanity. Or are clearly nuts. I think their brains are just wired wrong which explains why some of them find things like killing unborn children and/or two guys sucking fudgecicles natural.
1,888
posted on
04/13/2004 2:48:18 PM PDT
by
isthisnickcool
(I'm isthisnickcool, and I approved this post!)
To: Pukin Dog
Either that, or the entire panel runs the risk of becoming an unserious side show."Runs the risk..." It became an "unserious" side show the moment Gorelick and Ben-Veniste were named as commissioners. Both have massive conflicts of interest because they worked for the Clinton administration. If that wasn't enough to make them "unserious," then scheduling a series of public hearings in the middle of a campaign year sure did. So did the act of allowing the publishing of some disgruntled, partisan hack bureaucrat's book to dictate their opening schedule and subject matter. So did allowing clapping from the "audience." Need I say more?!
1,889
posted on
04/13/2004 2:48:23 PM PDT
by
Wolfstar
(John F. Kerry is a true Leftist idealogue — a true Leftist believer.)
To: Howlin
If he left a MON, why doesn't THIS administration know about it? In fact, remember the Bush administration had to approve the commission getting these papers even though they were created during the Clinton era and were retrieved from his archives.
Let's see, the story went that Bruce Lindsey created a fuss that these papers were being withheld. Then the Bush people authorized their release and I heard out of about 10,000 documents (or pages), the commission kept 12.
So, putting two and two together, I'll deduce that Clinton directed Lindsey to get a particular paper to the commission and they had a spin ready that the likes of BV was ready and eager to put forth.
Notice no other commissioners went at that angle or buttressed BV, and surely he can't be the only member who saw it.
And those idiots at MSNBC, from what freepers are saying, are swallowing it hook line and sinker.
And please, whoever is watching Matthews tonight with "The Wives", PLEASE tell us if that Kristen dares to bring up Ashcroft flying on private planes again.
To: kcvl
Dana Milbank of WP on MSNBC right now. Just took off the mute button. Previewing GW's presser. Not saying much of note.
To: MasonGal
I notice Matthews is going to have the "non-political" (snort) widows on again tonight. I guess he got lots of possitive feedback on that last disgraceful performance (his included when he recommended sodium pentathol for the president).
To: Petronski
Disappointed gnashing of teeth in DUmmyland. Did you notice they titled the thread something obscene, as a way of expressing hatred and revulsion against Ashcroft, but that thing is also where they like to stick things?
To: mewzilla
I wrote a letter to all 4. 2 of them wrote back, actually civil, trying to explain their case, stating that they were NOT partial, nor were they trying to politicize this. Right...
To: Bob
Actually, I believe the ban could be construed to cover just about anyone. Click
here for a pretty good discussion of EO 12333.
To: mewzilla
BTW, the above link is in PDF.
To: misunderestimated
Again I ask, does Ted Olson rate being called a 9/11 "widower?"
To: redlipstick
Report on Matthews please...I'm boycotting. I'm boycotting, too. I don't even care enough for the report.
To: LisaFab
Republicans on planes dont count
1,899
posted on
04/13/2004 2:53:34 PM PDT
by
woofie
( 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.)
To: TexasCajun; mewzilla
from another freeper:
There are a number of players in this affair. Wolfstar recently posted a vanity that explored the possible involvement of several media figures including Walter Pincus, Washington Post. Here's something I ran across last evening while reading Notra Trulock's book "Kindred Spirit" (page 297):
"I (Trulock) can't say that I hadn't been warned about the Washington Post, ironically, by a senior official of the Washington Post Company itself. Earlier that spring, this official warned me to "watch out for Walter Pincus". I was surprised and asked what he meant. He said that Pincus' wife was close friends with Mrs. Clinton and had received a high appointment to the intelligence section of the State Department - the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Further, Pincus and his wife had been frequent guests of the Clintons at Camp David."
Congressman King has good reason to question the motives here. Wilson is going to get tangled in his underwear before this is all over. 31 posted on 10/07/2003 8:41 AM PDT by Ben Hecks
1,900
posted on
04/13/2004 2:53:46 PM PDT
by
piasa
(Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,861-1,880, 1,881-1,900, 1,901-1,920 ... 2,061-2,067 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson