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.
"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.