Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 08/21/2005 2:52:23 PM PDT by wagglebee
If you read the other things I wrote on this thread, you will see that I agree with you. The Clintonistas had to figure that Able Danger would come out sooner or later. Berger's job was to try to remove any memos, notes or meeting minutes that could establish a direct link between Clinton and Able Danger. IIRC, Berger took the documents AFTER Ashcroft revealed the existence of the Gorelick memo; if this is correct, the Clintonistas knew it was only a matter of time until it was discovered what the full ramifications of Gorelick's wall was.
The Dems are thinking right now....in case they have to counter this but as long as Shaffer is just "saying" things, they don't have to do a thing. It remains a Pentagon Project...and says the FBI, the CIA or the President knew nothing. I believe they all knew. There really arene't many "secret" secrets in Washington.
You can bet your booties that when Gorelick reviewed the Able Danger documents, she called Bubba.
We need to know EXACTLY when the documents went to the commission and to whom they were delivered.
There must have been something in the archives that said Able Danger info was at the Pentagon.
In the end, this isn't about Bubba, it's about Hillary running on Bubba's legacy. Pretty tough to run on the legacy of a man who had the power to prevent 9-11 by taking out one stinking terrorist cell AND USAMA.
Read the last paragraph of thew article. I don't know if I can post just the last paragraph without violating the copyright.
It looks like the Dems NEVER wanted Berger's escapade to make the news.
Complete horse crap. The story will do nothing but grow despite the RATmedia during the next couple of months. Nor has the Bush administration covered any of this up contrary to the LIE you spread.
I hope so. But I doubt it.
Nor has the Bush administration covered any of this up contrary to the LIE you spread.
I was speculating. But I have seen little to no evidence that the Bush Administration has ever done anything about Clinton's nefarious (and, treasonous) transgressions. Sandy Burger was sure treated harshly, wasn't he? And Dear old Dad is hobnobbing around the country with Old Bill, helping him to rehabilitate his image just in time for Hillary's campaign. No, Bush has apparently been busy sweeping Clinton crimes under the carpet, and he apparently still does so. Can you provide any evidence to the contrary?
"For sure; the response was genuinely assinine or worse; the only thing these security people did not do; was to tell Berger to fix his pants before leaving. . . or maybe they did."
Apparently Bergler was allowed over a period of time, to remove things from the archive, while being observed, best I can make of it was it was a sting operation, he was video taped a number of times removing things. Knowing what he signed for on a given day, verse video, and perhaps human observations that keep notes, the finally grabbed em.
That is my understanding on how the deal went down.
But just to briefly itereate. The Sandy Burger crime and the DoD/DIA Able Danger deal or two seperate incidence.
We only guess at what the National Security Advisor may have removed and destroyed.
The other event is:
Department of Defense major Schaffer is a liason officer between the DoD and the Defense Intellegience Agency (DIA)
Able Danger group.
As we all are aware, the AD group where mining raw data on what they believed where Al Queda operators, e.g. Atta.
Major Schaffer, now a Lieutenant Colonel, came forth after most likely meeting with R-Rep Curt Weldon, to break the story that the 9/11 Commission did not pay proper attention to the information both verbal and writen the Major and representatives of the Able Danger unit provided the 9/11 Staff members. The Major during the during the data gathering process period, and most probably the AD members where told more then once not to make contact with the FBI.
It would only appear a resonable thing to assume both the DoD and DIA lawyers told the Major and the AD people respectiely not to say anything on their findings. Keep it quiet, in a spirit to adhere to the memos produced by the DoJ, Assistant Attorney General, Jamie Gorelick.
So the issues brought out in this thread concerning Sandy Burger are somewhat misplaced in we are dealing with two seperate issues. Whether what Burger was looking for has any bearings on the case is almost inmaterial. He probably was looking for many things. And whatever he many have discoverd at the NA regarding mention to an DIA operation surely would not contain much of what then Major Schaffer and a few DIA personel had tried to present to the 9/11 Staffers. We must remember, only a part of the data was shown to the Staffers, then the DIA/DoD people where dismissed. Most probably much of the stuff that was never shown (amoung those claimed 15 boxes) represents the whole story that would prove that Atta and the rest of the Broklyn cell where indeed inside the country prior to the GWB taking office. That is a quick summary of what I believe should be considered in this thread. No response required, unless something further is to be discussed/rebutted.
"Not one word was spoken of A.D. on the three morning shows that I saw yesterday. That is criminal, but just a hint of things to come!."
Perhaps not criminal. There are few facts anyone can discuss at present. It would appear things happening behind the curtain are not ripe to prepare an indicment against the Clintoon Admin.. The issue is if things the wall preventing AD from disclosing info to the FBI can be proven by investigative process, will the L/MSM be forced to turn a blind eye. Let us do remember, that eventually Blather gate was brought out to the public, all the alphabet networks finally admitted due to pressures that the documents where forged. We realize what is stake in this deal of course. But surely it is not going to take two years for Able Danger Gate to leak out as Blather Gate did. So the Beast will have to deal with this coverup later down the pike.
Bush has swept nothing under the rug and will not do so. It is only the fringe who believe such things. How could I prove he is not involved in a coverup? Such a thing is logically impossible. It is incumbent upon you to prove that he has and travels with GB senior is not proof.
However, Clinton will never face justice in this world for many reasons the most significant of which is the Media protection which W can do nothing about.
MULTIPLE SOURCES AVAILABLE
From Captains Quarters Blog
The Washington Times reports that although Col. Tony Shaffer remains the only person connected to Able Danger to willingly part with anonymity, several other sources met with the press on August 8 when the story went public, including members of the AD team. The meetings with reporters came with the explicit blessings of key Congressmen and the "tacit" approval of the Pentagon, Shaffer says:
House Republican leaders approved in advance plans by a military intelligence official to go public with details of a top-secret Pentagon project code-named Able Danger. ...
"I spoke personally to Denny Hastert and to Pete Hoekstra," Col. Shaffer said. Mr. Hastert, Illinois Republican, is speaker of the House, and Mr. Hoekstra, Michigan Republican, is chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
"I was given assurances by [them] that this was the right thing to do. ... I was given assurances we would not suffer any adverse consequences for bringing this to the attention of the public," Col. Shaffer said.
Col. Shaffer said his conversations with Mr. Hastert and Mr. Hoekstra took place before he and members of the Able Danger team spoke as anonymous sources to reporters in the offices of Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican, on Aug. 8.
This last paragraph gets repeated by Shaun Waterman as fact later in the article, saying that "members of the Able Danger team" joined Shaffer on at least one occasion on August 8. This should change some evaluations of this story. Now we have multiple sources, including people who had their hands on the data, telling reporters what they know about the identification of Mohammed Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers over a year before the attacks. Up to now, the assumption has been that only two sources came forward, one of which (Shaffer) only worked in a liaison capacity.
This explains why the New York Times and other media ran the story despite the anonymous sourcing. It also explains some of the inconsistencies between the first reporting on the story and Shaffer's interviews later. We had all assumed that Shaffer and the Navy captain were the only two original sources for the story. However, the original articles on Able Danger just mention "sources" as a generic term, and if the team members took part in this press conference on August 8th as the Washington Times says, then the information gleaned would have had more detail than Shaffer knew from first-hand experience.
We need to have these witnesses come forward publicly. At the least, we need the Times and other media outlets that participated in this August 8 meeting to confirm the number and nature of these sources, even without their names
OK, then where did it come from? a story like that just isn't going to pop up someplace in a national geographic television show, and not get any wider attention.
This will drag on for months as Congressional hearings start. Already the media has found it impossible to completely ignore and it will become even more so.
Naysayers are going to have to eat their words.
Two more witnesses to corroborate a key part of Schaffer's story:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1468528/posts
The story is progressing if the NY Times feels they can't ignore it, but we really need computer files and/or documentary evidence to move it into a bigger story. Recollections of a few individuals will never move most of the MSM without irrefutable evidence.... of course, if the media saw this as an embarrassment to Bush then they would have jumped on it with both feet already. Since they can see the threat to the Clintonlites and the 9/11 O-missioners, the story will have to be dragged out of them..... I'm cautiously hopeful but NOT optimistic. [Hope is possible without confidence, but optimism requires that you actually believe something is likely to happen.....]
As to covering for the transgressions of the prior regime, I submit the complete lack of support for any investigations whatsoever. Even the Rathergate memo (which probably originated from the Kerry campaign or the DNC) has not been investigated. If Bush wanted to do so, he could oversee the utter destruction of the Democrat Party (which would be justice served). That would seem to speak for itself.
All that would happen is that Bush would be painted as a political witchhunter by the RATmedia. No proof would ever be enough to get indictments and convictions since the RATmedia will paint it as an attempt to shift blame, distract the people from Iraq or be carrying out a mean-spirited attack on Hillary.
As to the NG memo the is not Bush's call either but the US Attorney and/or the State authorities. Bush cannot be seen to have a hand in any of this.
As I have mentioned the RAT party has committed far greater treason than even this and it did not lead to its well justified destruction. The party can give Freddy Krueger lessons on longevity.
For that I would help you!
I hope so.
No argument vis your points. See ya around. :O)
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Over and out.
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.