Posted on 09/20/2005 8:09:20 PM PDT by vadkins
Or replaced by something even better.....Don't you throw away the older item at home when you buy a new better one. DOD would NOT want the enemy to know what they have in place.
It is a federal FELONY to interfere with the testimony of any witness before a congressional committee. That applied then, and it applies here. Fitzgerald won his case for damages against everyone except President Nixon. (Court ruled that the President, only, was immune from civil suit in the matter.)
I hope this message reaches these military witnesses, or at least their attorneys, asap.
Congressman Billybob
Easy enough to prove... the DOD should inform Congress that no such "orders" were given...
Contact the congressman's office immediately with this information.
WTF????
Why does the Bush Administration CONTINUE to cover for the Clintons?
John / Billybob
So how do you draw the line between matters of national security and those the pretend to be matters of national security to keep things covered-up? How do we, the public, find out the truth in this matter when it involves sensitive information?
Bingo
I think the man said he had not been subpoenaed yet.
Now I really wish Bush would go. Get rid of the goof. Let Dick C do it. At least he's not a Clinton Patsy.
Can't connect the dots here and wouldn't if I could, but aren't we missing some pretty obvious dots? How likely is it that Rumsfeld would leave something as important as security--not to mention military intelligence--to chance ("chance" as in CIA, FBI, Congressional overisight committees, et al)? Would you?
That one person was given and then followed an order to erase/delete/destroy certain "database" (a person who, oddly, IS able to testify to that fact) doesn't mean that that certain database was actually destroyed or that the information it contained no longer exists.
While the whistle-blowers here are obviously concerned patriots, there may be smarter concerned patriots pulling the strings.
They can order him not to voluntarily give testimony but if the Committee subpoenas him then he can't be ordered not to give it? So all the committee has to do is subpoena him.
And if they don't....
Then you know it is a cover-up.
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,62390,00.html
The fix has been in since George Herbert Bush appointed liberal Davis Souter to the Supreme Court...
He THEN sabotaged his own campaign in 1992, enabling an unknown Bill Clinton to ransack the office of the Presidency, AND besmirch the honor of the Country...
Today, his son continues to cover-up and obstruct the truth about Bill Clinton.
Oh yeah -- your question was "WHY??"
Because the New World Order elites run the world, and thus own our pols.
Now unless someone has a better explanation, I'm ALL ears.
Clinton is making a mockery out of the Bushes. He parades them around like trick monkeys on a leash, then he comes out and trashes them.
Now, it looks like he has them covering for the activities of his administration. This is sick. At some point, the Bushes need to come out and put everything on the table. Our national security is at stake.
I want to support our president. I believe in the war against terror. However, this cover-up is nauseating.
That's also how I would interpret that chain of events.
FBI files?
I dont follow your reasoning.
You said:
"was given and then followed an order "
And then you said:
"doesn't mean that that certain database was actually destroyed "
What does this mean. He followed the order but someone kept a backup copy?
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.