The Truth about 'the Wall'

The Washington Post ^ | April 18, 2004 | Jamie S. Gorelick

[Pietro]

I beleive the only way to get to the bottom of this is to put Ms. Gorelick in the docket where she can answer specific information. Her continued presence on the committee is no longer acceptable.

[Nix 2]

Hillary Rodham (defense of radical left wing whackjobs, Chicago dirty, communists, partner of Bill)
Extremist Left Wing entities (Muslim terrorists, black panthers, communist lawyers, wealthy elitists)
William Jefferson Clinton (womanizer, pedophile, rapist, drugs, hit squads, secret police, mafia, Larry Flynt, Playboy Mansion parties, hillary rodham, first US President to be invited and go to the Socialist World Leaders meeting)
The Mafia, (American, Russian, Chinese)
Carlos, the Jackal, (communist, assassin, drugs, in jail in France now, still giving interviews to newspapers, still with amazing influence)
John Kennedy,(womanizer, drugs, mafia, murdered by Russian trained agent/s? mafia?)
Robert Kennedy (womanizer, mafia, murdered by an Egyptian terrorist commanded by KGB trained terrorists)
Ted Kennedy (murderer, never charged, never lost a second doing time, son of mafia boss, womanizer, drunk)
Jimmy Carter (left wing con-man, greedy, cruel, crook, handed Iran to Kholmeini who had been exiled in France, Panama to the Chinese, catered to the French, was Bill Clinton's mentor in the Southern Mafia, won the presidency because he appeared in the pages of Playboy)
John Kerry, (spent most of his life with either communists or socialists, womanizer, became wildly famous for HIS Playboy appearance as an anti-war hero, straight into politics as a communist sympathizer, married a wealthy leftist heiress who once worked for the UN after her husband, a wealthy businessman, was *killed* in a plane crash, Ted Kennedy, mafia)
The KGB (trained arafat, abu nidal, most of the PLO hierarchy, billy jeff)
AFL-CIO, Teamsters
Terry McCauliffe
Mafia, (hillary, bill,Terry,all the Kennedys, Carter, drugs, porn, guns, gambling, espionage, Russian Mafia, Chinese Triad, bank fraud, stock fraud, etc.)
For inquiring minds. Connect the dots here. What do all of these people have in common?

WHO IS RICHARD BEN VENISTE?

[ScaniaBoy]

I tend to agree with An.American.Expatriate; unless there are any solid evidence that Gorlick wrote the memo for other reasons than she stated then one should take her on her words. In a way that's interesting and damning enough.

However, I noted in post #106 on this thread what the Clintons were doing at about the same time as this memo was written:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1119113/posts

(Same info is available on FR in several other posts.)

[WhiteyAppleseed]

One last time to announce my admiration for the speed with which you have exhibited in your perusal of the information I provided. I am a slow learner and while I like to pretend I'm learned, all experience argues to the contrary.

Howsomever, you will recall, since it was relatively recent, that there are redacted copies in the 47-page file, as well as files that either 1) were not provided to Mr. Dresech, either or 2) were not provided to the inmate in question. Those 302s, that are from a sequence in time immediately following the downing of Flight 800 should be enough to keep some reporters curious. I suspect they will do nothing of the kind.

You post, "I am not so much questioning the existence of the SCARPA 302's as I am the probability that a convict with ties to Yousef would have recieved unredacted copies! " therefore, is in error, as pages 3,8,9,10,14, 19, 21, & 23 contain blacked-out edits. Compare those edits with the Gorelick memo, specificaly, page 3, and the edits blackedout contained on that page.

[TomGuy]

Gorelick was put on the Committee for one reason: To protect the Clintons.

That per a Clinton staffer quote that appeared in the American Standard (IIRC).

It is doubtful that she will be forced off the Committee. Even the Pubbie appointees and Orrin Hatch are on record defending her.

The Committee has lost any credibility and integrity, but so what. The Committee will issue its decision, BJ did his best, Bush could have done more, but the CIA and FBI are the major culprits. End of report.

[RobFromGa]

April 18, 2004

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Washington Office: Tel: (202) 331-4060 Fax: (202) 296-5545
New York Office: Tel: (212) 264-1505 Fax: (212) 264-1595

To: The Commission Leadership
CC: Ms. Jamie Gorelick, Commission Member (also high-ranking member of previous Administration)

Dear Commissioners:

I have been disturbed by the revelations of this past week that Ms. Gorelick deliberately withheld specific information about her past responsibilities from the people that appointed the people to this commission.

Her job title alone should have been enough to disqualify her, it is apparent that she was in a position of very high power within the Administration just previous to the present one. It is also readily apparent that she is tightly related to many members of the previous Administration—many of whom were held over by the Bush Administration to maintain a level of continuity on these important tasks.

Her letter in the Washington Post this morning raises more questions than it resolves, making it obvious why Ms. Gorelick must not remain on this Commission and must be a Witness. It is readily apparent that:

Ms. Gorelick is unable to impartially judge people that she knew closely and worked with.

Ms. Gorelick will be unable to impartially judge people she worked for.

Ms. Gorelick never belonged on this Commission and does not belong on this commission now.

The fact that she had to write her letter for the Washington Post to defend herself is proof that the Commission is tainted beyond repair by her continued presence. It is also proof that she is under great pressure to do the right thing.

This is not a witch-hunt that is bringing her demise even though that is what will be reported by the partisan press. This is a basic question of fairness and conflict of interest. When she is removed, I hope that Commission leaders will keep this in mind as they announce this to the world. To suggest that this was in any way partisan or a political witch hunt or McCarthyism will only serve to further taint the Commission.

Did Ms. Gorelick disclose to any of you that she was so tightly involved in the “Wall” or that she prepared and signed the memo adding to it, or did you find that out from Mr. Ashcroft like the rest of us? Was she forthcoming that she might be an important witness before the Commission? Did she ever object to being named and have to be talked into it?

It is past time for Ms. Gorelick to do the right thing and resign. She should have refused service when asked but she didn’t so now it up to her to fix the situation or have it fixed for her.

Ms. Gorelick is knowledgeable about Conflicts of Interest. It is my understanding that she wrote a book on this very subject. Her continued presence can only mean that she is trying to make sure that the previous Administration is not examined fairly. Or she is afraid of being a witness and this is her best defense.

With her biased perspective removed, maybe the Commission can continue your work to help prevent the next 9-11. That is the important reason to be doing this now (while we are still fighting this War)—isn’t it?

If your purpose is instead to provide political ammunition for campaigning, then I can see why multiple TV appearances on cable and network news and opinion shows by all the members of the Commission would be a wise strategy. But, if you are trying to prevent the next 9-11, as charged, then you should stay away from the TV cameras and the easy sound-bites.

Once Ms. Gorelick resigns, or is forcibly removed from this Commission if she refuses to do the honorable thing, then she needs to be called as a Witness. I would also like to see her explain why she hid her previous activities from the people who appointed her.

All across America, people have seen what a partisan circus many aspects of this Commission have become. In this one area, you need to take steps to reduce this perception—remove Ms. Gorelick and call her to testify.

Sincerely,
A concerned American


RobFromGa

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Isn't it interesting that the Washington Post gives Gorelick this "prime spot" in its Sunday "Outlook" section to give her side of the story -- without any questioning, without any follow-up, without any challenges, without putting her under oath. Not exactly "fair and balanced" now, is it?

[CGVet58]

Thank you, sir, for providing the historical perspective on this and other intelligence issues affecting this commission. It is important that we accept the possibility we are "not seeing the forest for the trees".

The commission has already slipped far below that horizon... to the point where Kean goes so far as to "kerry-ize" any questions We the People have about Gorelick's conflict of interest, but that is something which frankly surprises no-one who knew this commission held at this time (in an election year) would likely succumb to the temptation offered by partisan sniping and the continuous "Blame Bush" agenda the left hang their collective hat on. All the more reason we on the Right must take care to keep a leavened eye on the goings-on. Your comments assist in that perspective.

Your description of the legal ramifications in both the creation of the wall and the reasons why are exactly on the money! More to the point, your comments offer a clear answer to any who would counter Dr. Rice's initial comments in her commission appearance from last week ("...the terrorists were at war with us; we were not at war with them..."). One could reasonably ask, "why were we not at war with them?" and receive a variety of responses, most of them general in nature, and inherently unsatisfactory.

If I may put your points in my own words, I would say that because we are a free society, it was according to our system that we first sought to ensure that the aegis of "terrorist threat" could not then be used in a criminal investigation (where the litmus of evidence and rights of the accused are stricter) and processed as such. To do so prior to 9-11 would have been politically unstabilizing.

In hindsight, it is easy to see that in our efforts to serve "Justice and the American Way", we had a system that could only be changed by a change in our world-view. We had to realize that we were at war. We could not undertake this changes before we understood we were at war. 9-11 has done this.

We now know that our enemies not only will strike us, but can do so... especially if we remain in our past mindset and try to "fit" the terrorist paradigm into the rules of a criminal proceeding. This is what Clinton did, what the UN & Annan want to do, what Spain was cowered into returning to, and what Kerry would re-establish if elected.

Gorelick must not only resign from the commission, she should quit, walk around the table, turn left and proceed another 15 steps to take a seat at the testimony booth. Because she doesn't, only serves to underline the partisanship that has infected elements of this commission, and further erodes the integrity of any conclusions this commission might come to, or suggestions for change.

The 9-11 commission is - if not already rapidly becoming - a white elephant... and the irony of it: this very erosion serves as the strongest testimony to the truth of the words, "they were at war with us; we were not at war with them". It is not looking forward to see how better we can fight this war, instead searching to place the blame (not all the members; for example Lehman has conducted himself with integrity... but the entire commission suffers from Gorelick's conflict of interest, Ben Veniste's partisanship, and the ineffectual counters of most of the rest of them). I believe you give Gorelick a bit too much credit, though (in defending her actions in pre-911 context) - and the surest action she could take to prove to me that she is trying to be (and capable of being...) objective would be to resign and offer herself as a witness before the commission.

CGVet58

[jocon307]

Bump to call on Monday. Dame's a loser and it's time for her to go.

[thoughtomator]

The truth of the "wall" is that the Left is STILL complaining about the US PATRIOT Act taking it down.

[Gritty]

Gorelick shouldn't be writing windy and one-sided explanations in The Washington Post. She should be testifying these explanations under oath in front of the Committee in public hearings.

...and she should resign from the Commission.

[Maigrey]

< puttin' on the tinfoil hat >

Well, let's see. There was a report that came out a couple of days ago, showing that a Swiss business man was on the hook from Saddam for oil vouchers to the tune of tens of millions of dollars (can we say, bribe?), and he was a close business partner of Marc Rich (the FOB financier who was pardoned at the last minute by Bill himself.)

Could it be that Rich was funnelling oil funds (from the O-F-F program to the former president, in exchange for a containment policy, rather than a policy of action?

< /taking off tinfoil hat >

[1rudeboy]

Anybody have a password and e-mail addy so I can read the whole thing?

[leprechaun9]

My e-mail to the commisars:

Stop the desecration of all those who who were murdered on 9/11. The broadcast of the "Kean Follies" is bringing hours of entertainment to the terrorists who are watching via satellite broadcast.

This panel of political pimps of the election industry shows as a filthy livid white scar on the United States.

By the way, Mr. Kean I don't see any racial diversity (since you are such a champion of it) on the commission and I don't hear any protests of this shortcoming from the Revs Jessie and Al and their queen from California, Maxine!

[mathluv]

LOL!!!

[mathluv]

That is an excellent question.

[MeekOneGOP]

I STILL want to pronounce her name GORE-LICK ! ...

Thanks for the ping.

LINK to the WP article.

Thomas Kean says I am the most non-partisan, bi-partisan member of the 911 Commission. Well, ain't I SPECIAL !?

[spoiler2]

bttt

[Spunky]

"...the memo I wrote in March 1995 ..."

LOL! Didn't I read on a thread the other day where she denied writing the memo and that the signature wasn't hers?

What a bunch of liars.

[mabelkitty]

Which Freeper is going to rebut her lies using all the threads of investigation we have?