Posted on 08/27/2005 6:13:35 AM PDT by jimbo123
William Perry WAS on the list....think Dr. SUSAN Rice...not Condi.
Great CATCH!!
This article mentions Ijaz...is that Mansour Ijaz that used to be on Fox all the time?? Where is he now? Haven't seen him lately.
I also think it's Dr. SUSAN Rice they nailed....not Condi!!
Frist or Lott? .... Delay? ..... Bush?
OMG! The dates do coincide with what Lt. Col. Shaffer said, and Jamie Gorelick was Reno's ASST. so Gorelick would be Reno's ASST i the new Defense Job that Clinton gave Reno! I'll bet that it WAS Gorelick in the Defense (Pentagon) Dept. that shut Able Danger down!!
Check the link provided in my post #162.
BUMP!
Barely or not even in office but still in relationship, such that it isn't entirely suspicious (as in, not reasonable) that she'd be included in a communications study, links, relationships, etc.
However, not to be an apologist for the barebones information this article provides, the study itself, just saying, I can understand why Condoleezza Rice, even at that past time, was a subject of consideration/mention as to this issue of intelligence/information (access to such).
She wasn't an unknown at that time, nor not uninvolved, even then, almost certainly, what with, also almost certainly, everyone who was/is involved with the Hoover Institute being someone who'd be reviewed as to their communications with anyone else.
Perhaps read my just previous comments, this thread, because I don't find it, at all, unrealistic that Condoleezza Rice would have been on the radar as to intelligence at that time, or even earlier (certainly later).
The Hoover Institute, at Stanford, related/not related...just saying that anyone affiliated with the Institute is going to be known to intelligence as are the relationships they have with (most) others relative to defense, strategy, etc.
Cameron (Susan Rice's husband) is affiliated with ABC, or used to be if he isn't at this time (I haven't checked into that, just saying, I don't know, but I do know he was an exec. with ABC network).
The "Wall" also prevented the FBI from assigning an agent or agents to Able Danger, thereby allowing the work that was identifying US Citizens as security risks to legally continue.
"That the program was terminated because Ms Rice's name turned up is something I think belongs among the fairy tales."
EXACTLY...at least, exactly my perspective on this issue, too.
Since our press corp did NOT investigate the WALL when we knew about it last year....since they DID not DEMAND that jamie be thrown off the commission and put IN FRONT OF IT as a primary witness and architect of policy that opened the WELCOME MAT for TERRORISTS; NOW is the time for this investigation to begin.... RIGHT NOW!
And if her name pops up as one who SHUT DOWN Able Danger................then it is TIME TO BRING out the big guns and bring these horrible, stupid people that bill and hitlery klinton surrounded himself with into the LIGHT.
Jamie gorelick, as far as I am concerned, and this horror of a human being is questioned openly...along with her staffers..... is the first American I know of who actually helped 9/11 happen. EVERYTHING we know about the WALL points to this...EVERYTHING.
She should have NEVER been on the commission....but it was SLICK and KLINTONIAN that she got placed onto it...it made her IMMUNE from having to testify, gave her an opportunity to keep certain info from reaching the commission by stopping in staffer review (would love to know WHICH STAFFERS she worked with closely....that would be VERY REVEALING) and was ABLE TO CONTINUE to protect bill and hitlery klinton.....the two who BETRAYED our NATIONAL SECURITY for money.
It was apparently good enough to correctly identify and link Atta and others, in and out of the U.S., as part of the Al Queda network and linked with each other, before anyone else did.
The "whole political" class includes those who gave us people like Tom Kean on the 9/11 commission and who simultaneouosly allowed the author and expander of the intelligence "wall" to serve on that commission. Other than Ashcroft and a few conservatives outside of the Wahington insiders, from the GOP as well, who seriously challenged Gorelich's position on the commission?
Since Tianmen square, both parties have spoken "with forked tongue" on the subject of mainland China and both have adopted the fantasy that "engagement" is going modify the behavior of China, including it's behavior toward the U.S., strategically. Clinton even campaigned in '92, often saying that we needed to take a harder line with China - only to reverse course once in office. I would suspect that the glue that holds the policy of engagement with China runs equally through both parties and includes very powerful special interests. I have no other explanation for the persistance of the fantasy about China, in the face of no evidence anywhere that there is any moderation of China either politically inside China or strategically in terms of it's contest with the U.S.
That does not surprise me with GWB, in as much as it was his father's envoy, Scowcroft that let the Chinese know that Tianmen would not derail continued progress in the U.S.-China rapproachmont.
And, we have dropped withholding of most-favored-nation trade status to China and let China in the WTO, in spite of the fact that not one of the political, human rights or stategic conditions, for which we always denied those benefits to China, have changed one iota. What the fantasy with China ignores is that nothing of the current "economic freedoms" permitted in China today are anything more than priveleges that the party has granted to the population; they have no permanent legal or political foundation that can prevent those priveleges from being denied at the whim of the party. In fact, in spite of the silence of most economic journals, those priveleges require either direct or indirect approval or connection with party, at almost every level of the economy. The first person any foreign company wanting to do business in China must do is to find and build their network with the party - or they won't do any business in China. The Chinese communist party is building an economic system I would describe as "state capitalism" and in many ways, both economic and political, it most closely matches the type of militant nationalism and racism of Nazi Germany.
Yet, both U.S. parties proceed as if this militant nationalistic racicst Communist regime is going to make political and strategic accomodation with the U.S., if only we let (and help) their economy grow.
Yes, I think the entire political class in the U.S. is afraid of the China-U.S.-technology-theft issues that Able-Danger found. Because, whether or not each one in that class benefits or is aware of those issues, the information would destroy the fantasy of the entire project of rapproachment with China; a project that both parties maintain and which both parties have major political investments in.
Anybody from the "gang of 14" perhaps.
Let me see if I understand this. One bright late1990s morning the Able Danger prospectors went data mining. They found not only the Muhammad Atta terror nugget, but a vein of Chicom technology-transfer ore in Clinton administration bedrock. This latter discovery so upset Washington political operatives that they confiscated all the maps and ore samples, closed the mine, and kicked the prospectors off the land.
Color me SICKENED! Is there anyone who is clean and patriotic?
Whooa, easy there Ann. It wasn't my intention to disrupt your Sunday, but remember a trace does not guilty make.
Let us look carefully at CR Smith's piece. What does he say about Ms Rice?
1) She was a colleague with William Perry, former Sec of Defence and professor John Lewis at Stanford.
2) Ms Rice met Hua Di at Stanford.
3) Hua Di used his contacts at Stanford to obtain a fibre-optic system for PAC. Do those contacts include Ms Rice? We don't know because Mr Smith does not say. However, he had met both Perry and Lewis there.
4) In fact Mr Smith does not present any indications that Ms Rice was connected to Galaxy Technology or any of the other firms involved.
5) In 1997 Stanford Provost Condoleezza Rice announced that Lewis faced an investigation because he had used iniversity stationery and his office to run the joint U.S-Chinese business.
6) No formal charges were filed, and the investigation against Lewis and Hua Di was dropped.
7) In 1999, according to the official Chinese news service, Chinese defector and missile scientist Hua Di was sentenced in a people's court to 15 years for passing state secrets to the United States.
8) Stanford officials, including Rice and Lewis, openly appealed to the Chinese government for Hua's release. Rice also continues to defend Hua.
Why did Ms Rice drop the charges against prof Lewis? Well, we don't know, but it may be that Lewis could satisfactorily show that he did not mix up his university position and his business dealings, which was the only thing that would have been of interest to Stanford.
Why does she not want to talk about Hua Di? Again there may be perfectly valid reasons for her not to say anything.
Hua is a former colleague incarcerated in a Chinese prison. She may chose not to say anything in public, except the fact that the data he presented were already in the public domain, to avoid causing further trouble for him, so as not to hinder the chances of his early release.
However, the Able Danger program would have picked up on Ms Rice's contacts with Perry, Lewis and Hua Di, together with her connection to the Bush campaign.
From anything presented in this article the only thing that Ms Rice possibly can be accused of is bowing to pressure to scrap the internal investigation re prof Lewis, but that is only a guess, We have no data to support that.
That Perrry like so many other Clintonians have been involved in technology transfer to China we here at FR knew already.
I hope this will cheer you up - at least until we find more information.
Because of what Able Danger found out about Chinagate, the Clintonites killed all their work (including their findings on Atta). They hid the Al Qaeda findings to protect Clinton's China treason. Now 3,000 people are dead because of it.
That sounds logical. I think the Condi Rice mention is a red herring. I'd love to know what they really dug up.
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.