Posted on 09/01/2005 10:22:30 PM PDT by neverdem
I still think Sandy Berger is in on this Able danger thing up to his belt buckle. (pun intended)
Who was surprised with Waiting for a leader from the NY Times Editorial Board? It was so typical that it really wasn't worth posting just to mock it. At least the supposedly "paper of record" had the story visible on its homepage when I saw it. Now it's the first story "below the fold" of its Washington section's webpage.
Now is the time to be on alert for other stories being covered below the radar of Katrina's aftermath like F.B.I. Abandons Disputed Test for Bullets From Crime Scenes, which is "above the fold" of the Washington section webpage. BTW, just how can the FBI lose the front door from its Mount Carmel, Waco assault?
"a year before the hijackings and terrorist strikes"? Gosh, I thought the Clinton administration was too busy creating a list of criminals to pardon on the way out the door, and opening up the Strategic Reserve to reduce the $2 a gallon gas price to notice anything irrelevant like terrorist team leaders. I wonder, what *was* down in Sandy Berger's pants?
FLIGHT 77 - More 9/11 Revisionists at Work!
08/31/05 | vanity
Posted on 08/31/2005 9:05:18 AM PDT by genefromjersey
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1474111/posts
Was the evidence ever found on Sandy Burglar? No! Was he convicted? Yes! Word of mouth from the librarians worked for that scenario! The chart was probably one of the items Burglar took and it has now been destroyed!
Anyone look in Sandy Burger's pants? Or in Joe Wilson's wife's purse?
Bump!
Oh gee, more authoritative witnesses to the able-danger note. Has John Podhoretz (who I like and respect as a usually excellent journalist) issued his apology yet to Congressman whats-his-name ?
Eyewitness accounts are not "word of mouth". "Word of mouth" that is second hand reports, would be called hearsay evidence, but eyewitness accounts, while often wrong, are admissible in court. The that that we have multiple eyewitnesses is very good corroboration. In intelligence circles we would say the information was confirmed by multiple sources (as long as they either had no direct connection with each other, or each were providing first hand evidence).
What you are asking for, I presume, is *physical evidence". The problem with physical evidence is that it can destroyed, often deliberately.
They wish. Five people see you throw someone into the sea and then shoot them, I guarantee that you will be convicted of murder.
IIRC, Congressman Weldon.
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.