"First we hear that no such meeting occurred. After that, the Commission says one might have occurred in October 2003 but that no one remembered it. Now we find out that the Commission had two meetings where the heard about Able Danger and its identification of Mohammed Atta, including one just before they completed their report. Instead of saying to themselves, "Hey, wait a minute -- this changes the picture substantially," and postponing the report until they could look further into Able Danger, they simply shrugged their shoulders and published what they had."
Think of it: Members of the 9-ll Commission were lying YESTERDAY about what they knew and when they knew it.
Will the MSM ask "why" ?
1 posted on
08/11/2005 6:13:05 AM PDT by
YaYa123
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
To: YaYa123
Gorelick needs to be held accountable for her cover up. What's the next step?
45 posted on
08/11/2005 6:49:40 AM PDT by
BayouCoyote
(The 1st victim of islam is the person who practices the lie.)
To: YaYa123
Just after reading this report this morning, but before bringing up Google News, which collects headlines from hundreds of MSM sources, I said to myself, "This is
major news -- and Google will have no mention of it."
I was right on both counts.
47 posted on
08/11/2005 6:50:00 AM PDT by
beckett
To: YaYa123
62 posted on
08/11/2005 7:09:57 AM PDT by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: YaYa123
I just hope the Commission doesn't circle the wagons to protect Ms. Garlic. Not that they love her, but after all, she was Janet Reno's Justice Dept. right-hand man....and also a confidant of the Billarys.
She's got to know a lot of hard-core info on where the Clinton Mafia barfed in the buckwheat.....and possibly she has something on some Commission members also.
Remember, serving on commissions together creates strange bedfellows. Many times, a type of creepy bonding ensues. I hope the members didn't bond with Jaime too much.
BTW, as a native Illinoisan, have we heard anything yet from that morbidly limp Commission member, RINO Big Jim Thompson?
Leni
To: YaYa123
I knew there would be no worthwhile public assessment of the 9/11 attacks as soon as the government named a "commission" to investigate the issue. And appointing a pair of abject mediocrities like Tom Kean and Bob Kerrey to head the stupid commission was a blatant acknowledgement that the entire thing was nothing more than window-dressing.
64 posted on
08/11/2005 7:10:48 AM PDT by
Alberta's Child
(I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
To: YaYa123
The 9/11 Commission knew that lawyers in the Clinton administration prevented the FBI from taking down Atta's cell. Yet they didn't mention a peep about that in their report because they wanted to cover for slick Willie. Pathetic.
67 posted on
08/11/2005 7:18:48 AM PDT by
advance_copy
(Stand for life, or nothing at all)
To: YaYa123
The first question is, "Were they lying when they said that they'd never heard of it or are they lying when they said they did?"
Remember, the PRIME objective od the 9/11 Commission was to prove that Willie was not involve and divert any effort to prove that he was. Today's change in story might just be some Hillie-ites following on their swords to take blame ane keep it away from Gorelick and the other traitors/thieves that were in our goverment.
Had Willie been a good guy, the NYT would already be examining the Berger thefts, what Richardson was doing while at the UN and the background of every Clintonista on the 9/11 Commission.
This is not just trying to sink a former President, this all demonstrates Hillie's lack of integrity/ethcs/honesty to sewrve as Senator, much less any other federal office.
68 posted on
08/11/2005 7:25:21 AM PDT by
Tacis
("Democrats - The Party of Traitors, Treachery and Treason!")
To: YaYa123
Looks like they let Gorelick do the final draft of the report. What idiots we have for public servants.
To: YaYa123
UPDATE, 5:43 AM: Interestingly, the New York Times changed its headline overnight from "9/11 Commission's Staff Ignored Military's Early Identification of Chief Hijacker" to "9/11 Commission's Staff Rejected Report on Early Identification of Chief Hijacker". Nothing else changed in the story except the headline. Did the Times feel uncomfortable with the clearly accurate first headline and want to attract less attention in the blogosphere?
To: YaYa123
So Lee Hamilton is just another lying Democrat. So much for his supposed "integrity." And where is Mr. Milquetoast, the thoroughly forgetable Republican co-chair? The only thing I remember about this intellectual pigmy is his mole.
To: YaYa123
I dont believe it was in the report...I read the whole thing.
When will Gorelick be arrested and tried for high crimes?
To: YaYa123
Will the MSM ask "why" ? Don't hold your breath.
124 posted on
08/11/2005 10:18:38 AM PDT by
El Gato
To: YaYa123
Will the MSM ask "why" ? If it's breaking in the NYT, it will at least get a little bit of MSM airplay. I'd sure be interested in the "who" part of that "why," though.
131 posted on
08/11/2005 10:35:38 AM PDT by
r9etb
To: YaYa123
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson