"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.
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?