9/11 Commission Wants Atta Claims Pursued

Associated Press/AP Online ^ | Wednesday, 10 August 2005, 18:00 CDT | John J. Lumpkin

[mewzilla]

And according to one of the news nets this monring, after denying that the Commission saw anything on it, one commission staffer is now admitting that he/she may have seen something on it. Guess Weldon's threat to have everyone hauled up and put under oath is starting to loosen some tongues.

Hope they're put under oath, anyway.

[Brilliant]

From what I heard, there's a question whether they gave the specific info that Atta had been ID'd as an al Qaeda operative. The Commission obviously denies it.

Very convenient, though, that this info that is so embarrassing to the Clinton Admin was not investigated or made public until now.

[mewzilla]

Backhoe, have you seen Southack's info?

[Brilliant]

I don't know if it's so easy for them to say "we did not know." They were the investigators, right? Why did they not know? It's their business to know. We were counting on them to find out. They failed.

[Real Cynic No More]

We were counting on them to find out. They failed.

What is symptomatic is that they never even pursued an inquiry. That goes to demonstrate that political considerations overrode fact-finding.

[meema]

bttt

[Publius6961]

"The 9/11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohamed Atta or of his cell," said Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. "Had we learned of it, obviously it would've been a major focus of our investigation."

Is Sandy Burger in Jail Yet?

[Publius6961]

However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation because they said Atta and the others were in the country legally, so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.

Is there anyone else out there who thinks this paragraph makes no sense? Literally?

One further point. Are these (or is this) the same lawyers who refused to sanction the taking out of Osam when he and his retinue we being followed by (?) reconnaissance drones?

I think it's time to name names, and to have these incompetent legal clowns explain themselves in as much detail as necessary.

[NeoCaveman]

That's a good start.

Well if we squeeze them hard enough, they'll give up the big fish, or is that big creep.

[KosmicKitty]

However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation because they said Atta and the others were in the country legally, so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.

Can anyone explain to me why having a policy like this which prevents sharing of information could, in any way at all, be a good idea??

Seriously, why did we have this kind of stupidity??

[Brilliant]

Exactly. They were not really looking to investigate. They were looking to pontificate and finger point.

[Publius6961]

If I find out the guy next door is a mass murderer from Lower Slobovia, I'm not going to keep the information to myself just because he's in the country on a "valid" visa.

IF you're an incompetent working for the CIA, that, apparently is exactly what you 'd do.

The ultimate refuge of the incompetent: it's the law.

Which brings us back to the question obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than 12: What kind of a law was that? who pushed it?

Why?

"Good intentions" will not excuse this enormous national security blunder. I suspect that Jabba "the Swimmer" the Hutt had a hand in all this also...

[MinuteGal]

I don't see the words "Clinton administration" in the entire Associated Presstitutes newswire article.

This crappioli is being pulled on TV, also, including our own pundits who are forgetting to mention it when commenting.

Freepers, we have to keep hammering away at this.....much of the public thinks this is all the fault of the Bush administration. This can be fatal.

We can't allow ANYONE to get by with this omission. It gives the Bill & Hill Crime Family a pass every time.

Leni

[Publius6961]

BUMP!

[mewzilla]

I don't see the words "Clinton administration" in the entire Associated Presstitutes newswire article.

This crappioli is being pulled on TV, also, including our own pundits who are forgetting to mention it when commenting.

The New Media has the bit between its teeth now. The Old Media is screwed.

[maica]

They were sitting there with their fingers in their ears saying, "La,la,la,la..."


######


LOL! It really is no laughing matter - you are exactly right!

[maica]

Seriously, why did we have this kind of stupidity??


#####

Because the ACLU would have gotten upset if the Clinton admin had accused someone of treachorous activity, before they had legal proof of criminal behavior?

[NautiNurse]

Elian Gonzalez should testify. He can provide plenty of info about the Clintoon administration's national security focus during that time.

[mainepatsfan]

The more this story shows the Clinton administration in a bad light the less coverage the MSM will give it.

[eyespysomething]

Kristen Breitweiser on FNC's Neil Cavuto show coming up in a couple of minutes BTT.

What did she have to say?