Posted on 08/22/2005 9:16:10 PM PDT by bobsunshine
WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?
Why hillary clinton should never be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office... or any position of power--THE SERIES
REASON 1: MISSUS CLINTON HIRED JAMIE GORELICK
While it is true that The Gorelick Wall was the convenient device of a cowardly self-serving president, The Wall's aiding and abetting of al Qaeda was largely incidental, (the pervasiveness of the clintons' Nobel-Peace-Prize calculus notwithstanding). The Wall was engineered primarily to protect a corrupt self-serving president. The metastasis of al Qaeda and 9/11 were simply the cost of doing business, clinton-style. Further confirmation that the Wall was cover for clinton corruption:
Conversely, that it never occurred to anyone on the commission that Gorelick's flagrant conflict of interest renders her presence on the commission beyond farce calls into question the commission's judgment if not its integrity. Washington's mutual protection racket writ large, I suspect.... The Gorelick Wall is consistent with, and an international extension of, two essential acts committed in tandem, Filegate, the simultaneous empowering of the clintons and disemboweling of clinton adversaries, and the clinton Putsch, the firing and replacement of every U.S. attorney extant. ... Once the clintons' own U.S. attorneys were in place, once the opposition was disemboweled by the knowledge that their raw FBI files had been in the possession of the clintons, once domestic law enforcement was effectively blinded to foreign data by Gorelick's Wall, the clintons were free to methodically and seditiously and with impunity auction off America's security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder.
Reverse Gorelick
|
WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?
Why hillary clinton should never be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office... or any position of power--THE SERIES
REASON 1: MISSUS CLINTON HIRED JAMIE GORELICK
While it is true that The Gorelick Wall was the convenient device of a cowardly self-serving president, The Wall's aiding and abetting of al Qaeda was largely incidental, (the pervasiveness of the clintons' Nobel-Peace-Prize calculus notwithstanding). The Wall was engineered primarily to protect a corrupt self-serving president. The metastasis of al Qaeda and 9/11 were simply the cost of doing business, clinton-style. Further confirmation that the Wall was cover for clinton corruption:
Conversely, that it never occurred to anyone on the commission that Gorelick's flagrant conflict of interest renders her presence on the commission beyond farce calls into question the commission's judgment if not its integrity. Washington's mutual protection racket writ large, I suspect.... The Gorelick Wall is consistent with, and an international extension of, two essential acts committed in tandem, Filegate, the simultaneous empowering of the clintons and disemboweling of clinton adversaries, and the clinton Putsch, the firing and replacement of every U.S. attorney extant. ... Once the clintons' own U.S. attorneys were in place, once the opposition was disemboweled by the knowledge that their raw FBI files had been in the possession of the clintons, once domestic law enforcement was effectively blinded to foreign data by Gorelick's Wall, the clintons were free to methodically and seditiously and with impunity auction off America's security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder.
Reverse Gorelick
|
Atta's 2 roommates from Hamburg, also 9/11 terrorists, entered the US on January 15, 2000 (Los Angelos) after attending a meeting with Kalid Shiek Muhammad in Kuala Lampour.
This is from the 9/11 Commission and was reported long before the Commission started its work.
No doubt, DOD was looking for KSM at the time and it wouldn't have been hard to connect the dots to Atta from this information if you had access to it and were actually looking for terrorists (unlike the FBI and the Clintons.)
That's the difference between the TRUTH and THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH". Those last eight words weren't added to an oath by accident or to make it sing-songy.
Nice analysis, but still flawed.
Able Danger may well have "identified" Atta & Co as early as Jan/Feb 2000 but only later "confirmed" suspicions and attempted to take the info to the FBI (raw intelligence vs. final product). Thus, Able Danger's initial mining lead them to believe that Atta & Co were "suspicious", but at the time they wanted to approach the FBI, Atta & Co were already here and "Gorelick's Wall" prevented any further investigation.
When you think about it - if this really was "data mining", information regarding Atta & Co was already available in 1999 (and earlier) for it to even be included in the database!! It wasn't until early 2000 that the links started making a picture, and mabe until mid to late 2000 before that picture was coherent enough to warrent action.
Atta sending an email is proof of his being in Hamburg in March of 2000?
Isn't it possible Able Danger tracked Atta from Germany to Canada where he was picked up and driven to NY and used someone's computer there? Then went back to Canada and flew back Germany just prior to his "official" entry into the U.S. in June. Just like Atta's bus trip from Hamburg to Prague, Atta would have practiced a secret trip if he really did make the unobserved trip to Prague between April 4 2001 and April 11 2001.
The Secret Service is part of the Treasury Dept., not Dept of Justice. Their responsibilities are the protection of the president and investigating the counterfeiting of US currency. Had info from Able Danger been presented to the "SS", they would have just shrugged the info off and replied: "It's not our job, Man!"
Perhaps. Your point is well taken.
I think that the so-called 9/11 Commission actually recognizes and admits that Atta took two known trips to Prague, but then makes the rather preposterous argument that he couldn't possibly have made that one extra trip to Prague because his cell phone was used in America during that time, even though his cell phone wouldn't have worked in Prague, he would have no reason to take it there with him, and nobody has any way of knowing that it was actually him using the cell phone.
If Prague to Newark flight is in the 911 commission report, doesn't that verify the Czech gov's assertion that Atta met with Iraqi's in prague.?
That's easy.
Now there's two sources that puts Atta in Prague, the Czech gov which says he met with Iraqi agents, and now the 911 commission. It would seem very likely he was there and the czech's story is correct.
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.