Posted on 09/24/2005 10:29:28 PM PDT by vadkins
That’s why troubling questions keep coming to mind: How stupid do they think we are? Don’t they realize they are creating more suspicion, not less? Why do Bush people keep protecting Clinton people from public scrutiny?
For a life-long conservative Republican and Bush voter in 2000 and 2004 like yours truly, that last question is especially galling. It was bad enough early in Bush’s first term when he signed an executive order keeping the truth about Bill Clinton’s midnight pardon spree behind closed doors. I swallowed hard and accepted the White House’s executive privilege claim on that one.
But the Able Danger hearing capped a long series of troubling decisions that tortured credulity such as Bush increasing federal spending twice as fast as Clinton, expanding entitlements at a pace only Lyndon Johnson could match, signing a campaign finance law that limits political speech and refusing to veto even the most outrageous examples of congressional pork barreling.
The last straw came the day before William Dugan, an assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said to the Senate panel “I don’t know” when asked if Able Danger had identified Atta. That’s when the Pentagon barred testimony by the five officials who have said they worked on the program and recall seeing the terrorist’s name on a chart during the Clinton administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
You've both probably already seen this but, just in case...
That's nonsense. Weldon isn't looking for a payoff. You're more cynical than even I am.
The Clinton Administration apparently accepted incompetence on the part of the FBI and the CIA, as long as no one's "civil rights" were endangered. This is totally unacceptable in the face of a concrete threat such as that presented by international terrorism, particularly when that terrorism attacks Americans in the United States. Now, it doesn't really matter what the political calculations are here, if there are Iraqi connections with the Oklahoma City bombing and with September 11th, the American public should know about it.
As for the ability of the Washington, D.C. establishment to deal with things like this, that establishment is totally caught up in personal careers and personal egos. A perfect example of this is the farcical 9/11 Commission, which is much more concerned about its own reputation, than in finding out the truth.
"worrisome"??? ......... it's pathetic and apparent proof that Bush is just more of the same.
The Medicare Drug Expansion? Well, there are more old people; can't help it.
The Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska?
Well, you never know when a moose will need to evacuate.
There is NOT some great mind out there that knows precisely what Able-Danger found or did not find, just as there was no one - not Nixon, not Haldeman etc - who knew precisely what Watergate really meant, where it would head, and how it would be interpred in print. Right now, no one knows for sure - including EVERYONE who contributed to A-D - how Able-Danger will be played irrespective of whatever it found. Stop with the conspiracies already. Rummy is doing what any adminstrator in any administration does in the face of uncertainty - not because he or Bush or anyone else is trying to protect the Clintons. As the contours of A-D become clearer, and as hungry journalists begin to come to some consensus about what it means or might mean, then EVERYTHING will come out in one form or another. The idea of a permanent cover-up to protect the Clintons or anyone else is ridiculous.
I know, I know. What about the 9/11 Commission, documented Clinton scandals that didn't get pursued, etc? The Clinton scandals have since been documented ad infinitum by all kinds of books, and we all know what they are. The fact that the MSM plays them down is a story in itself, but hardly a conspiracy. As regards the 9/11 Commission, who among us Freepers really believes that a year or two from now a powerful journalistic book or two will be published - maybe by Woodward - that explores at length the inside workings of the commission, and what they were up to, one way or the other.
Again, I just recoil whenever I hear suggestions that there some great Hegelian mind out there that sees what is unfolding in totality and knows what it means and where it is headed. Ain't so, and never has been.
Able Danger: Witnesses now allowed to testify (DOD changes mind)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1490022/posts
Posting this link to a comment I made the other day.
Weldon had 2 friends, both of whom died on 9-11 -- one was a neighbor who was a pilot of one of the planes, the other was a friend who was one of the FDNY.
Weldon is keeping a promise to the wives, children, and grandchildren of those 2 men:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1488396/posts?page=599#599
Good question.
save to read carefully tomorrow
Able Danger should be a gang buster news story; but is not. Savage was complaining about the lack of coverage as well. Tony Snow tried keeping it alive. How difficult is it to find those (2?)Clinton appointed attorneys who directed Able Danger was worthy of no importance. Why did the Clinton administration's agent, Jamie Gorelick, drop from public view after her stint on the (cover-up your a$$)" Commission. Ever hear one word from her?
But she got an email from me, saying EXACTLY what I think of her role, carrying out or writing policies that put our security as a nation at risk.
ROTFLMAO!
(Secret handshake)
Oh please, this is ridiculous. You can't really believe this kind of nonsense.
"Again, I just recoil whenever I hear suggestions that there some great Hegelian mind out there that sees what is unfolding in totality and knows what it means and where it is headed. Ain't so, and never has been."
What about Karl?
You need to re-read my post. I was not suggesting that the right hand of the Tri-Lateral Commission (aka Republicans) was protecting the left hand of the Commission (aka Democrats). I was simply suggesting that there may have gentlemen's agreements about potential items of dirty laundry (some of them potentially "classified", some not) whicn would not be made part of the 9/11 Commission public hearings. For example, one could say that the Clinton Administration's refusal to destroy Osama Bin Laden when he was dead in the sight of our surveillance drones (a fact well known to everyone) could have put a stop to the plans for 9/11 and prevented the tragedy altogether. Certainly it is more "incriminating" of the Clinton Administration than the notorious National Security briefing titled "Al Qaeda Still Seeks to attack the US" is/was of the Bush Administration. Yet Clinton's repeated missed opportunities to bag/kill Bin Laden were not considered "germane" to the work of the flawed 9/11 Commission, while the afore-mentioned briefing was considered (by Democrats and the MSM) as prima facie evidence that the Bush Administration should have known that 9/11 was on the way.
Is it too early to talk impeachment?
Secretly?
I see your point and, you're right, it is not that conspiratorial. Still, I think it would be hard to establish, let alone to perpetuate, any such gentleman's agreement. Who would negotiate it, and then who would oversee compliance or point out infringements around the edges - if not more centrally, for instance by Clinton in his public statements? I suppose you could say that a "culture" of government predisposes incumbents in this direction, but I'm skeptical about this, too. Can you imagine what would happen if it were ever revealed that succeeding Administrations "negotiated" a deal not to reveal to the 9/11 Commission certain info on a tit-for-tat basis? That would be an impeachable offense, and in both directions!
No, I think that what is happening is that no one at all knows what's in the Able-Danger activity, including, as I said, the people centrally involved in these activities, and including Weldon as well. Right now, I think, we are in the early stages of what looks like a story that can break in any one of several directions, just as Watergate looked when Woodstein were revealing (wrongly) the results of Grand Jury proceedings - that, presumably, are confidential. It took months longer to figure out what Watergate was about. Even Deep Throat did not directly and specifically know where it would lead; he knew only what seemed to be wrong tracks. This is why he only told Woodward where he was likely going wrong, not where positively to head. Deep Throat didn't do the latter because he himself didn't know what the "right track" was. Able-Danger is another one of these case, but one that will break badly for Clinton irrespective of what turns out.
This is why this story is so important, as many on this site have been saying for weeks. But my point remains: there is no need to turn conspiratorial, the Able-Danger case is intriguing enough on its own merits. Plus conspiracy always sounds stupid (as DU illustrates perfectly not just weekly but literally daily).
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.