Posted on 12/03/2005 3:44:27 AM PST by strategofr
I don't believe any of this giant conspiracy stuff. As is true with the other theories (Jewish bankers, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergs, etc.) if there were such a powerful group in control there would be no need to hide it. They could just overtly control rather than do it covertly. And if they do control covertly, there is nothing we can do about it anyway. I think it is all like a child's connect the dots picture where the child has taken shortcuts that seemed correct but weren't. That produces a muddled and different picture than reality. I think our Sherlocks have done that.
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.
Full concurment with you in re the Clintons. Adamant concurment.
So, let's suppose, the Able Danger data was given to the Bush Team pre-911. On file is that the Clinton Team panned the data, passed on it already. The Gorelick Wall was in place. And what exactly or who was Bush Team to direct the data to? FBI?
Like you, I wish to see the Able Danger data given a bigger spotlight. But I'm unclear on exactly, still, what you might think the Bush Team mistake "was". Or do you think it is a "now" mistake?
Or, is it as simple as the Bush Team saying... let Able Danger go forward: Yes, my admin ignored it and because former Clinton Team said there was "nothing substantive in re Able Danger"? Is this what you mean?
Carolyn
"You are a thoughtful thinker, Strategofr."
Thanks.
"..But I'm unclear on exactly, still, what you might think the Bush Team mistake "was"."
My presumption is that someone on the Able Danger team---or someone outside the team with a pretty good knowledge of Able Danger---approached a person of significant rank within the Bush administration---and was rebuffed. (I'm talking pre-911, after Bush took office.)
The Able Danger person could not have been Lieutenant Schaefer, or he would've told us about it.
I presume the reason the person was rebuffed was because the information did not seem credible or significant to the member of the Bush administration at that time. A factor in the decision to ignore the information would have been that the entire intelligence establishment had already considered the matter and come to the conclusion that there was nothing of significance there. This is Clinton's fault.
At that time, members of the Bush administration were probably making the assumption that Clinton had functioned as a loyal American trying to protect the country. At that time, the extent of the Clinton betrayal of the American people was very narrowly known.
Remember, no one outside of a few experts (who were considered "nutty") was focused on terrorism.
In short, I presume that a ranking member of the Bush administration made an error in what, at the time looked like a small matter. Obviously, it turned out not to be.
I appreciate your well-thought posts but would request that you not do the blinking thing.
Or if you have to do it, not so extensively.
Thank you very much for saying so.
At that time, members of the Bush administration were probably making the assumption that Clinton had functioned as a loyal American trying to protect the country. At that time, the extent of the Clinton betrayal of the American people was very narrowly known.
This, is exactly, where you and I differ in re the Able Danger material. I don't think the Bush administration thought this. I think they had a very good idea about the Clinton Administration. And didn't then Governor Bush have a fine ole' time via Clinton Admin/Naacp and the Jasper Texas "dragging", ad nauseum.
Furthermore, there are rogue allies of the Clinton Admin within the Military, DOD, CIA, State Department.
Bottomline, this admin, the Bush Admin has had a 100% batting score when it comes to defending this nation, whether the MSM and libbies trash the programs, the President, the policies, or Not. Dealing with the able Danger data would have been a priority, IMHO.
My presumption is that someone on the Able Danger team---or someone outside the team with a pretty good knowledge of Able Danger---approached a person of significant rank within the Bush administration---and was rebuffed. (I'm talking pre-911, after Bush took office.)
Are you maybe thinking of the Bush Team not immediately firing Clinton "pals" in these Departments from the get-go 2000?
Who did we have then? Tenent, and remaining Clintonoids doing some advising. Are you thinking Hadley, Powell?
How about Powell's Aide?
It's just outside the Bush pattern, for anyone within the Able Danger Team (or related) to have given such phenomenal data to anyone in core Bush Team, and have been rebuffed or ignored.
I'm more than open to pursuing that line of thought in re "someone" near the core having blown it.
See, libbies posit that Bush Team "knew" in advance of 9-11 of 9-11 (a la D-Cynthia McKinney sing-song). And of course, this is what underlies the Murtha/Kerry/Pelosi "wrong war, wrong time" -- meaning, the entire WOT was "fabricated" based upon "foreknowledge".
One can factor in Able Danger, or not.
What is MORE than patently obvious? The Democrats KNEW in advance of 9-11. They had the actual Able Danger data to review.
Do you recall offhand when the hearing on Able Danger took place during Bush years? The meeting Mr. Hadley says he vaguely remembers? I could look it up; might have to.
My question still remains: Why didn't Clinton team go after these guys (Atta, etc.)? Could it be, because the plan wouldn't have happened in time for a "Clinton" presidential "legacy" award?
Could it be that the Bush Team had come across so many passive-aggressive "clinton legacy" attacks and insults (bad data, bad records, etc.); that they couldn't be sure to trust anything which even remotely had its start during Clinton Presidential term, without getting international or second-party confirmation?
"Bless you, your reasonable reply."
Thank you.
"Bottomline, this admin, the Bush Admin has had a 100% batting score when it comes to defending this nation,"
That is not realistic. No one can score 100% on such a broad front. Of necessity, mistakes happen.
" Dealing with the able Danger data would have been a priority, IMHO."
Nothing Bush said before 911 indicates that terrorism was a priority, in my memory. It was non-existant as a national priority. It is hard to believe things have changed so much so fast.
"Are you maybe thinking of the Bush Team not immediately firing Clinton "pals" in these Departments from the get-go 2000? Who did we have then? Tenent, and remaining Clintonoids doing some advising. Are you thinking Hadley, Powell? How about Powell's Aide?"
No, I have no idea who it could have been.
"It's just outside the Bush pattern, for anyone within the Able Danger Team (or related) to have given such phenomenal data to anyone in core Bush Team, and have been rebuffed or ignored."
You are not thinking about the vast scope of the US government. Many things are overlooked all the time---by any administration.
"What is MORE than patently obvious? The Democrats KNEW in advance of 9-11. They had the actual Able Danger data to review."
Bush, Hillary, Jamie Gorelick, and some others are traitors. There were other traitors in the administration, as well as many "useful idiots" who thought serving Clinton was serving the US. More "useful idiots" than traitors.
"Do you recall offhand when the hearing on Able Danger took place during Bush years? The meeting Mr. Hadley says he vaguely remembers? I could look it up; might have to."
Sorry, can't remember. see the Able Danger thread on FR.
"Bush, Hillary, Jamie Gorelick, and some others are traitors."
Aw oh. Mistake. First word was supposed to be "Clinton" as in Bill.
Thanks for the ping...
It was treated as a major "non-priority, a "law enforcement matter" before President Bush was elected in 2000.
In the days of yore, admins regardless of "party lines" actually did do some work together. Clinton team handed off a smelly football filled with offal to the Bush Team.
Not only did the Clinton WH steal WH items (Oop! Caught!); but they messed with the office machinery, left graffiti on the walls, screwed up keyboards, screwed up the phones.
Bush Team downplayed this.
To me, it symbolizes EXACTLY the types of policies and priorities left by the Clinton WH to the Bush Presidencies. Sandbag after sandbag.
And with laws, bureacracies, policies, torn to shreds. Bureacracies involved with national security were left a MESS due partisan politics.
In order for ANY INCOMING TEAM to have made reasonable sense, there would have had to have been any "sense" as a platform hand-off. There wasn't one.
Furthermore, the Clinton WH refused to leave the WH when they were supposed to. Ergo, Bush Team, instead of having the multi-months lead into "inauguration" to get acclimated, which has been the procedure in all past presidential transitions, had to hit the pavement running.
Meaning, the slobby, deceptive, sneaky, low-down team members of the Clinton admin, basically left dog poop on the doorstep of the WH, in all senses of the "operational" office.
In order to have addressed pressing "national securty concerns" one must have SOLID INTEL AND SOLID DATA.
Bush Team walked into a snake-pit of some false, some true data.
To my mind, Ramsey Clark is the titular symbolic head of the Clinton Team.
Bush Team did not choose to toss the baby out with the bathwater as concerns employment in WH, State, DOD, etc.
I thought, actually this made sense. In order to make sense of "chaos" one has to hear the "history" of what took place in order to make solid decisions. So, interviewing current employees, and ipso, laws and intel, etc., had to take place.
Running a Presidential office is not entirely like running a private business. I think this is what people forget. Business have PRODUCT upon which they focus.
If the product, in this case is National Security; and the product is so flawed as to risk a nation's security, one has to go meticulously through the product lines and departments in order to correct the flaws.
This is what the Bush Team "inherited".
The security of this nation was put in grave harm during the Clinton years, in a huge ways, in many, many ways.
The event, 9-11, resulting from the incompetency and malicious intent of the Clinton Admin, happened 9 months after President Bush took office.
The "9-11" baby was birthed on President Bush's watch. The only things existing as proof that a "baby" was forthcoming, were articles and documents and words by former Clinton Admin officials: equated to saying "nope, no one pregnant here".
There is a connection between OKC and Al Qaida. You need to read "The Third Terrorist" by Jayna Davis. John Doe #2 has been identified by many people and it is not Atta. But there are still many interesting connections. Read the updated paperback and the chapter that was added to update the investigation.
bttt.
The dirty little secret NEVER mentioned by the MSM is that dozens of criminals went to jail and/or recvd 6 figure fines in the Clintonista investigations.
Not to mention those indictees that fled the contry to avoid prosecution.
its about money and power
When Bush appointed Mueller of BCCI cover-up fame was appointed to FBI. It was telling to me. There were many better qualified candidates.
BOTH the dems and repubs were involved in the crimes, as were the Saudis.
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.