Posted on 12/03/2005 3:44:27 AM PST by strategofr
I believe the answer to this question is implied in my response number 19 on this thread.
"All the reports I've read so far, say the "destruction of Able Dangers Papers" during Bush Admin were procedural (SOP), rather than directly ordered destroyed. Hmm"
likely story.
" Jamie Gorelick was on the wrong side of the table during the hearings."
true beyond doubt.
"I don't get it. Much as I love Rumsfeld and Bush, I see no good reason for this information to be covered up. If Clinton was doing this, we'd be going nuts."
In my opinion, your love of Rumsfeld and Bush is well- justified. I love them also.
However, you are a little naïve in some ways. The Bush administration made some kind of mistake in regards to Able Danger. I don't know what the mistake was, but they would not be covering up Able Danger if they had not made a mistake.
No doubt, the Clinton administration mistakes on Able Danger (or more likely, their willful aiding of terrorism) were a hundred times or a thousand times more grievious than the mistakes of the Bush administration in regards to Able Danger. however, if the truth about evil danger comes out. This will not matter because 1) Bush is president, Clinton is not and 2) the mainstream media.
The US government is obviously a huge, vastly complex organization. Bush came into power in a disruptive situation caused by the conflict over the vote in Florida that delayed the whole timetable of the power take over. Remember, how bad it was? He had many months of delay in getting his people into place, compared to the normal timetable.
When Bush took over the government, terrorism was considered a low priority. This was more than anything due to Clinton's willful distortion of intelligence over a period of eight years, aided and abetted by the mainstream media. It is true that there were a few individuals, consider to be nutty at the time, who said that terrorism was extremely important. however, Bush, along with most of the other people in the country, could not see that that tiny group of experts was correct.
Bush did not emphasize terrorism as he started his government. Some kind of mistake was made by the Bush administration in regards to the handling of Able Danger (which would haev been seen as a low level priority from a general perspective---someone made the mistake of not elevating the priority.). Bush now feels the need to cover up and Rumsfeld is helping him do it. Personally, I can accept this. They are both great men who have done and will do many great things to protect our country. But running a country is sometimes a messy business. This has nothing to do with the sordid reality of Bill and Hillary who created a mess while doing their best to undermine and destroy our nation.
"There is NOTHING about 'Able Danger' which concludes that the "War on Terror" is a farce.
Able Danger may be an incompetence cover-up, but it is NO FACTOR in the validaty of the war on terror."
I agree 100%. While I find the article very interesting, I join you in completely rejecting the first sentence.
BTTT
I'll search. But memory serves me that the DOD ordered the docs destroyed, as part and parcel of SOP.
So, tell me what your theory is? That the DOD "during Bush Term) demanded the docs destroyed.. Why?
Bush did not emphasize terrorism as he started his government. Some kind of mistake was made by the Bush administration in regards to the handling of Able Danger (which would haev been seen as a low level priority from a general perspective---someone made the mistake of not elevating the priority.). Bush now feels the need to cover up and Rumsfeld is helping him do it. Personally, I can accept this. They are both great men who have done and will do many great things to protect our country. But running a country is sometimes a messy business. This has nothing to do with the sordid reality of Bill and Hillary who created a mess while doing their best to undermine and destroy our nation.
Let me understand you, here. Clinton Admin refused to countenance Able Danger. They hand off approved docs (that would be "approved" from NSA, DOD, multi-national intel, Clinton Admin) (so to speak), to the Bush Admin. Within first 9 months of Bush first term, Able Danger docs.. are what? Shown to Bush Admin? Ordered immediately destroyed.. to cover up WHAT? A 9-11 that hadn't happened yet? A 9-11 that had happened?
Between the Able Danger stuff, and W's complete refusal to secure the borders and INSISTS on backing Illegal Infiltrators in America with Shamnesty...I now am beginning to believe the cabal theory between the Klinton Mafia and the Bush Clan may be more than "tin-foil" stuff!
BWAAAHAAA! And you really believe it, too -- I have no doubts of this. DU peddles this same stuff. Don't ya think you could have more credibility over there?
We are ALL in seriously deep doo-doo!
Maybe, but not for the motivations and reasons YOU are citing.
IMHO, your "analysis" is right up there with possibly WHY Able Danger was ignored in the first place -- fear and more fearmongering. The first questions should be: Why the Gorelick Wall?
Second question should be: How could Military Intel datamine more data than the Clinton Admin could? What the heck was Clinton intel ACTUALLY doing with all that paid-for and budgetted time.
Then, can you cite for me EXACTLY, website, etc., giving evidence that the BUSH administration, specifically, ordered Able Danger docs destroyed? No. You can't.
It was DOD. And it was destroyed, why? Strategofr posits/suggests it was a joint conspiracy of the "Clinton/Bush" cabal.
I don't think The Bush Team had anything to do with something which has to date been reported as "destroyed" due cyclical and mandatory, laid out by the book, classified doc destruction routines.
Why don't you ask the DOD what other Docs were destroyed? You think they'd tell you? Would you then say... THEY KNEW. THEY KNEW IN ADVANCE OF 9-11? And just because they won't give you classified data which has been destroyed? Or even a log of what was in it?
"It was DOD. And it was destroyed, why? Strategofr posits/suggests it was a joint conspiracy of the "Clinton/Bush" cabal."
I never said that anywhere I don't believe it. Your statement is a blatant miss reading of what I have said.
Okay, I'll stand corrected. Do you think Able Danger was directly destroyed on orders SPECIFICALLY from the Bush Admin?
Would you like it from Curt Weldon?
Press Conference of Rep Curt Weldon: 9/11 Commission and Operation "Able Danger"
How about some quotes...
__________________________________________________________
"In the course of that briefing -- and there was a Navy admiral in the room, Admiral Wilson, in charge of DIA, and Richard Schiefren (ph) was in the room. Richard Schiefren (ph) was an attorney at DOD.
In the course of that discussion, Richard Schiefren (ph) discussed Able Danger. I did not know that up until I watched the Heritage Foundation speech that I gave in 2002, where I document the meeting, in the briefing that was done for General Shelton. When I asked Tony Shaffer this morning about that, he said, "Yes, I briefed General Shelton. I was also involved in a Door Hop Galley (ph) brief, where Steve Cambone" -- he was not in the position he's in today. He was a special adviser to Don Rumsfeld.
My concern is if there were 2.5 terabytes of data that were destroyed in the summer of 2000,
As most of you know by now, when Tony Shaffer returned in January of 2004, Tony Shaffer -- or 2003, get my dates right, 2003 -- 2004 --
When he returned in March, he was called in and verbally his security clearance was temporarily lifted. By lifting his security clearance, he could not go back into DIA quarters
For the 9/11 Commission to say that this does not exist is just absolutely outrageous."
__________________________________________________________
So, either the Bush Administration is allowing the DOD to LIE to Conmgress that the info that Tony Schaffer had was destroyed...or it WAS destroyed! Because this was January 2004! No Klinton orders, unless it was Klintonistas that did it...in which case hanging is required!
Which do you prefer? Because it has to be ONE or the other...because by now, if the Bush Administration was NOT involved in the cover-up, they would have ordered the documents/data released to the Weldon Hearings...or would they?
Your choice...pick one!
What you have posited in earlier posts STILL is not evidence that you can conveniently fit into your alleged scenario of the "Clinton/Bush Cabal". Your words.
Secondly, I think you might need to learn MORE about "intel" and classified data, if you think a President can "merely" override procedures regarding security and intel.
By the way, what do you think NSA does? Do you think NSA has any hand in this?
So, either the Bush Administration is allowing the DOD to LIE to Conmgress
"allowing them to lie"? Or would you prefer to say: "not forcing them to "release" data"? If other branches of the cabinet do NOT concur with the release of this data, what exactly do you suggest the President DO?
Because it has to be ONE or the other...because by now, if the Bush Administration was NOT involved in the cover-up, they would have ordered the documents/data released to the Weldon Hearings...or would they? Your choice...pick one!
Again, you are offering me false choices based on your not very much knowledgeable understanding about how "intel" data is handled.
Keep me amused, and tell me now, that you think the President should EXECUTIVE ORDER release of this data, that no one can find? Or, now tell me that you know the destruction of the docs "goes STRAIGHT TO THE TOP" and tell me you aren't a quasi-democrat? Or just don't understand the process?
Contrariwise, We know DIRECTLY, AFFIRMATIVELY, EVIDENTIALLY -- that the 9-11 Commission REFUSED to countenance the Able Danger data. Do you posit "Bush" ordered them to? If No President, then whom do you think ordered the 9-11 Commission to IGNORE Able Danger?
"Okay, I'll stand corrected. Do you think Able Danger was directly destroyed on orders SPECIFICALLY from the Bush Admin?"
I don't know what orders were given or have any special knowledge of events. But I do know this, unless President Bush is living on the moon, he's heard about Able Danger. Unless he is a moron, he knows that this is important issue.
He is the chief executive of the United States and the commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces. He has total power within the DOD and any other branches that may have been involved with Able Danger. If the truth about this situation has not been brought to light it is because he does not want it to be brought to light. I can conceive of no other reason for him wanting this except that his administration has made some mistake with regards to Able Danger.
"This discredited bunch of pompous, arrogant, pontificating assh****"
I agree. I am oppossed to excuting them in the normal fashion because these m@#$^*&^^%rs should feel some pain before they go.
Thank you so much for your engaging essay-post!
bttt
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.