Jamie Gorelick must be compelled to resign and testify

Richard Tavor

[Arthur McGowan]

"Judgement" is the correct spelling in British regions. "Judgment" is correct in the U.S.

[Howlin]

You might include this quote from Kean in your emails:

Kean told the press conference, “I think the commission feels unanimously that it’s some intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you all the time who you either work for or works for your agency. You might get less testimony than you would. We would rather interview these people without minders or without agency people there.”

He, of course, was referring to the White House counsel that they sent along with some of those people who testified! Didn't seem to bother them during the impeachment, did it?

BTW, Kerry is on TV right now, promising a FULL FOUR YEAR college education to anybody who does ANY KIND ofnational service.

[ravingnutter]

Commissioner Gorelick should resign her seat on the commission and take a seat at the witness table

And while they are at it...they should ask her about this:

On Aug. 22, 1996, just a few days before the start of the Democratic National Convention, Ms. Gorelick oversaw a critical Justice Department meeting with the FBI. Immediately after this meeting, as it happened, all serious inquiry into the fate of TWA 800 came to an end.

On the next day, for instance, the FAA began to inquire whether any dog-training exercises had ever taken place on the plane that would become TWA 800. On the same day, as CNN reported, the FBI now claimed publicly for the first time that the explosive residue found along the right wing "could have been brought on the plane by a passenger and was not part of a bomb." Likewise, after the meeting, the FBI would do no more eyewitness interviews, at least not for the next two months. The Bureau only did a handful after that – and all of those for the wrong reasons.

WND

[syriacus]

Eighth Annual Wharton Leadership Conference
LEADING IN AN ERA OF UNCERTAINTY AND CHANGE --- June 2, 2004  

Wharton's Huntsman Hall, Room 6, Walnut St. and 38th St., Philadelphia

CONFIRMED CONFERENCE PRESENTERS include

Jamie S. Gorelick is a member of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.  She previously served as Deputy Attorney General of the United States, General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Defense, and Vice Chair of Fannie Mae.  She serves on the Central Intelligence Agency's National Security Advisory Panel and on the board of directors of United Technologies Corporation and Schlumberger, Ltd. 

[NotQuiteCricket]

Jamie Gorelick should resign or be removed from the 9/11 Commission. If the Commission's stated purpose is to discover exactly what went wrong, and what can be done going forward, to fix the issues found by the Commission, Ms. Gorelick's continued presence on the Commission is a hindrance to that goal.

I ask that a statement be provided to the public advising if she had advised the Commission of her authoring and distributing the memo from 1995 before the existence of that memo was revealed by AG Ashcroft. If she did not mention the memo, she should be removed for concealing evidence.

Please advise her to remove herself from the 9/11 Commission to maintain at least the appearance of the 9/11 Commission's ability to conduct an impartial investigation.

[NeoCaveman]

YOU COULD FREEP the Commission and DEMAND THAT GORELICK BE REMOVED!:

I called and told the nice lady that answered the phone that Gorelick needed to be removed and questioned by the panel or else the Comission would have no credibilty (not that the Commision has any credibitlity, but I didn't mention the last part.)

[gov_bean_ counter]

Apparently the memo was directed toward Mary Jo White. Was not her office investigating Hillary's relationship to various seedy characters of foreign extraction? I'm am wondering what other dots were not connected due to this "wall".

[Grig]

[Wolfstar]

We need to blanket this info on FR and every last Freeper take action.

Did you all see/hear what Kean said?! Paraphrasing, that we should all bug off and leave the commissioners alone to their own business?!

Unbelievable!!! I'm just flabbergasted, and trust me, it's darned hard to flummox this pretty hardened cynic.

I was born and raised in New Jersey, spending my late teens in NYC before moving out here in 1976. So I didn't live in NJ when Kean was governor. Where the heck did the people of my native state dig this braying jackass up? And which idiotic excuse for a Republican recommended Kean to the President to replace Kissinger as chair? (Forgive me for insulting jackasses.)

As to the point of getting Gore-lick off the commission, I called the commission office in Washington early last week to complain about the massive conflicts of interest both Gore-lick and Ben-Veniste have vis a vis their having worked in the Clinton administration. The staff twit (a young-sounding male) I spoke with was very defensive and whiny. His response was to ask — in a "nahnah nahnah naAHna" voice — "Well, what about director Zelikow (Philip D., executive director), he worked for Condoleeza Rice?" Hopeless talking to him. I thought he must have been one of the Dem-appointed staffers, but seeing Kean in action, now I'm not so sure.

This is the execuse they are using to keep Gore-lick: that others on the commission could be considered to have conflicts on both sides of the isle. And they use Zelikow as the prima facie example of a Republican conflict. To which I shout a very wholehearted horse puckey!!!!!

The commissioners, themselves, are in a role comparable to judges. The commission executive director is essentially a chief of staff, and his role is far different from that of a sitting judge/commissioner. If those elite commissioners, with all their presumed qualifications for the job, claim not to see any difference in magnitude between a blazing conflict of interest on any of their part vs. one on the part of their employees, then they are either lying, corrupt crooks or dumber than a box of 10 rocks.

Congressional or executive-branch commissions of one sort or another come and go in Washington all the time. Of the handful of truly significant ones in my adult lifetime, this is potentially the most important. Yet it appears to me to be THE most corrupt, ineffective, shoddy, poorly run, partisan hack jobs ever. I am beyond livid at what we all have seen from them, so far, and I'm targeting my fury and both sides. There isn't one of them whose comported him- or herself appropriately to the critical task at hand, in my opinion.

[Wolfstar]

Re my #29, sorry for not catching a couple of typos:
In the 5th paragraph, "execuse" = excuse. (A subtle Freudian slip on my part, perhaps?!)
In the last paragraph, "...targeting my fury and both sides..." = AT both sides.

[onyx]

I am penning (composing) variations of the same letter
I am fixing to send to the commission, to Kean, the WH,
VP Cheney and to Tom DeLay.

Kean is their useful idiot.
He is NOT on our side.
He walks in the squishy middle.

The entire 9-11 commission is a sham,
albeit a successful sham that has thus far
managed to smear President Bush.
Their smear is akin to unringing the proverbial bell.
It has rung, and now we have to try to unring it.

I am livid that former OK Governor Frank Keating
was not asked or appointed to chair this damn commission.

He would have been my selection.

Damn, this is infuriating.
I can't recall the last time I felt so inadequate.

What the hell shall we do?

Rush isn't even giving Gorelick any attention.

[My2Cents]

Points all well-taken. Your comments raise a question: Why focus only on Gorelick? Kean needs to go; Ben-Vicious needs to go; Kerrey needs to go; every Commission member who has been running wild and unchained on the talking head shows need to go. The entire Commission is a fraud, and considering the importance of its stated mission, the manner in which its members have functioned make it a scandal. Kean said yesterday that the Commission membership has been operating in a bipartisan manner. I emailed both the Commission, and a few newspapers, suggesting that a Commission this important needs to be NON-partisan, not simply bipartisan. I think we all now understand the White House's hesitancy at establishing this commission.

As far as I'm concerned, the entire Commission's work has been corrupted and therefore discredited. I will not believe anything it releases. It needs to go.

[Wolfstar]

Damn, this is infuriating. I can't recall the last time I felt so inadequate. What the hell shall we do?

The only way enough heat would build to get Gore-lick off the commission is for one of those white-hot "mainstream" media feeding frenzies to get going. But, of course, that's not going to happen, because Gore-lick is a Democrat. And, of course, it's increasingly clear that the "mainstream" media's vast tilt to the Left will excuse any ethical lapse, any corruption, any crime on the part of any Left/Democrat politican. (Unless you're a Gary Condit type, who's not seen as Left-wing enough.)

The only thing indiviudals like you and I can do, short of running for office ourselves, is what we already do. Participate on a forum like this; actively support candidates with whom we agree; write or call our congress-critters, etc. (Oh, and pay our taxes like the good serfs we are, grrrrr.)

[Wolfstar]

...a Commission this important needs to be NON-partisan, not simply bipartisan.

Although it's too late, I could not agree with you more. No one who served in Congress or the executive branch during either the Clinton or GWB administrations, or who had any professional affiliation with them, should have been on the commission. The commissioners should have been well-respected business and professional leaders, members of legitimate minority parties, etc. The Republican and Democrat members could still have been former governors, mayors, state attornies general, or others with similar elective or appointive experience.

As for the chair, the only appropriate chairman would be Rudy Guiliani, in my opinion. I don't mind Hamilton as co-chair.

But, of course, this is all moot, because we're stuck with the committee we have. No amount of pressure from our quarter is going to change things, because the so-called mainstream media is absolutely stone-cold closed to our concerns. (This isn't to say we shouldn't keep trying, if for no other reason than to bug the crap out of them, and let 'em know we aren't going away.)

As for any work product put out by this hopelessly corrupt commission, there isn't a word I'd believe or trust. Not even "is," since it would depend on how Gore-lick and Ben-Veniste learned from Bubba to define it.

An aside on the "is" thing: When I witnessed, live on my TV, a president of the United States say in all seriousness, "It depends on what the meaning of the word IS, is," I thought surely it was all over for him. Yet when he not only remained in office, but his media shills were able to even gin up a moderate public backlash against Republicans (!) in the 1998 elections, that's when my faith in the American voter hit rock bottom. It has not risen from the bottom since. Hopefully, my deep cynicism about the American voter will have cause to change for the better this November.

[jmstein7]

Write a Letter to the Editor DEMANDING Jamie Gorelick's Resignation from the 9/11 Commission

[AuntB]

Have you heard any of this mentioned anywhere except Fox? I haven't and I've been looking.

[My2Cents]

because the so-called mainstream media is absolutely stone-cold closed to our concerns.

The "9-11 Omission" has raised what I think is the greatest threat of our times -- the complete corruption of the Imperial News Media. Joseph Goebbels would be proud of the job the news media is currently doing. I've been reading how the lamestream press has been biased for years. They probably have always been biased, but at least until this year, they tried to put up a facade of objectivity. Now, from Tim Russert to Katie Couric, from Chris Matthews to David Gregory, from Howard Fineman to "Hair-Blown Boy" with CBS (can't remember his name), the news media has dropped all pretense of being "objective."

Maybe this is viewed by some as a positive -- for once in their existence, they're actually being truthful in their craven bias -- but the frustrating thing is that we can do nothing about it. They parade the 9-11 Professional Victim Wives out every time they want to discuss 9-11; the purpose of this isn't to imform, but to shill. All the while, the other 99.9% of the 9-11 families are ignored. They pack their panels such that conservatives are outnumbered about 4-to-1, guaranteeing that "in fairness," the conservative only gets 25% of the airtime, if that.

I'm more than sick of it; I'm furious. But what can I do? The news media is beyond accountability. They can spin, lie, and twist to their hearts' connect, and other than to scream from the sidelines, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Because they are the "media," they can effectively screen out any dissent about what they do, and how they do it. There is no effective defense or weapon against the Imperial News Media, and they know it.

[My2Cents]

...And I wouldn't be as upset as I am about the Imperial News Media (unchecked, and unaccountable to anyone) if it weren't for the fact that most Americans seem to be completely susceptible to being manipulated by them.

[Wolfstar]

Have you heard any of this mentioned anywhere except Fox?

No, and even not that much on Fox. As I just wrote in another post, the biggest issue of the day among the chat-for-hire types seems to be their common judgement that President Bush didn't do a "good job" answering the questions about whether or not he made any mistakes. If I told you what I really think about the so-called mainstream media, FR would turn bluer than cobalt.

[Dante3]

BUMP