Posted on 10/02/2006 6:26:51 PM PDT by Roscoe Karns
Edited on 10/02/2006 7:05:39 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON TIMES ON TUESDAY WILL CALL FOR SPEAKER HASTERT'S RESIGNATION, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE... DEVELOPING... Editorial titled: 'Resign, Mr. Speaker': 'House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once... Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance'... -- Washington Times, October 3, 2006...
VERY interesting...
That gets the little "conspiracy theory" antennae wiggling a bit...doesn't it??
I was responding to a poster that said he thought Hastert had decided to resign BEFORE this ever came up...and he had not.
What happens from here on out is different that what I was posting about.
IF he does retire, it should ONLY be if he has been totally lying since Friday when this story broke.
While it is sad that this happened to her...once again, they use someone that has "victim status" so no one can say a word about the actions they are taking. Typical MO for Dems.
We already know exactly what Berglar took and why...pay close attention to the last para on the Clarke/Kerrick memo. From Ashcroft's testimony:
The NSC's Millennium After Action Review declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999 — with luck playing a major role. Among the many vulnerabilities in homeland defenses identified, the Justice Department's surveillance and FISA operations were specifically criticized for their glaring weaknesses. It is clear from the review that actions taken in the Millennium Period should not be the operating model for the U.S. government.
In March 2000, the review warns the prior Administration of a substantial al Qaeda network and affiliated foreign terrorist presence within the U.S., capable of supporting additional terrorist attacks here. [My note: Able Danger info?]
Furthermore, fully seventeen months before the September 11 attacks, the review recommends disrupting the al Qaeda network and terrorist presence here using immigration violations, minor criminal infractions, and tougher visa and border controls.
It falls directly into the AD timeline. In that same post, I note that what Sandy Berger stole was the versions of the after action report:
The missing copies, according to Breuer and their author, Richard A. Clarke, the counterterrorism chief in the Clinton administration and early in President Bush's administration, were versions of after-action reports recommending changes following threats of terrorism as 1999 turned to 2000. Clarke said he prepared about two dozen ideas for countering terrorist threats. The recommendations were circulated among Cabinet agencies, and various versions of the memo contained additions and refinements, Clarke said last night.
Therefore, they were never provided to the Commission, as evidenced by the Commission Report footnotes (#769):
46. NSC email, Clarke to Kerrick,“Timeline,”Aug. 19, 1998; Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004). We did not find documentation on the after-action review mentioned by Berger. On Vice Chairman Joseph Ralston’s mission in Pakistan, see William Cohen interview (Feb. 5, 2004). For speculation on tipping off the Taliban, see, e.g., Richard Clarke interview (Dec. 18, 2003).And to what does footnote (46) refer? On p. 117, Chapter 4, we find this:
Later on August 20, Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles. Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed. Berger told us that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20–30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours. Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan’s army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin. (46)How about that? How many times have we heard Clinton say that he missed Bin Ladin by just a few hours? Yet the after-action report is missing, so the Commission relied on Sandy Berger's testimony.
Then the Clarke/Kerrick memo peaked my interest and I found this (#784):
Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him asylum." Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.More on Able Danger:
“The Sept. 11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell,” said Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. “Had we learned of it obviously it would’ve been a major focus of our investigation.”
Hamilton’s remarks Tuesday followed findings by Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, that made front-page news.
In June, Weldon displayed charts on the floor of the U.S. Senate showing that Able Danger identified the suspected terrorists in 1999. The unit repeatedly asked for the information to be forwarded to the FBI but apparently to no avail. Various news outlets picked up on the story this week.
Weldon said that in September 2000, the unit recommended on three separate occasions that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI “so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists.” However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation, arguing that Atta and the others were in the country legally so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.
“Lawyers within the administration — and we’re talking about the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration — said ‘you can’t do it,’” and put post-its over Atta’s face, Weldon said. “They said they were concerned about the political fallout that occurred after Waco … and the Branch Davidians.”
This is one reason the Dems are working so hard to take out Weldon in the upcoming elections. Weldon is still pursuing this trail and the Dems cannot afford to have the info out there that they could have prevented 9/11.
bttt
good work, I recall you posting this before.
only because I don't see a denial from Foley.
if Foley were out there screaming that these IM logs were fabricated, I'd give it serious consideration - because authenticating them is near impossible.
Wow-I read your post 99 and the first thing that came to mind was - where are the adults? No one is talking about the issues Americans care about. It's disgusting (not your post)all this mudslinging. My dad's bigger than your dad stuff makes both parties look ridiculous.
Did you see the student from Bailey on all the shows talking about how he wanted to stay in the classroom and protect the girls but the killer put a gun to his head and told him to leave?
Read this morning that this was not dealt with by someone in the media (not sure who) because they were busy with Katrina and 9/11 anniversary coverage.
And whose HR director was engaged in his own internet pedophile scandal.
I think you may have read past what I was saying in my post based on your response - surely you don't think "drive-by media" is an endearing term?
I agree, and I think he has been lying from the get-go.I think he should, and will, resign. Just my $.02. BTW, is "partially lying" that more palatable than "totally lying"?
The Wash Times and Tony Blankley have lost an AWFUL lot (to me, anyway) with this crapola.
We do it by hitting the RINO-controlled GOP where it hurts- the wallet- until we get our party back. Notice I did not say "withhold votes." Dumb tactic, and totally wasteful. But money drives campaigns, and if we get them by their pocketbooks, their hearts and minds will follow.
That said, and speaking only for myself, I take great umbrage at being accused of everything from being everything from a dumbsh*t troll to a DNC operative. I am neither. In fact, I am a devoted Republican, and always have been. And the fact that so many so many of these otherwise sane and temperate people have become so viciously insulting toward conservative Republicans for the sake of "Party Unity" is both disappointing and telling.
The fact that so many "Republicans" in this forum have come out openly bashing conservatives speaks volumes about their disdain for the core values upon which the Republican party was founded. How dare we conservatives upset the apple cart by demanding ethical accountability from our elected officials!
I challenge the folks who have so venomously slammed dissenting conservatives to re-read the values that made the Republican Party great. That's all that we are trying to uphold here. Then I challenge those people to justify the vitriolic, expletive-laden insults that they have hurled at fellow party members and how that fits in with their vision of "Party Unity." These RINOs accuse conservatives of pissing on "good Republicans?" Well, allow me to accuse these defenders of "Party Unity" (to the exclusion of conservatives) of pissing on the foundational values of the Republican Party.
I want party unity, too. But it's not just your party, dammit. It's our party. And I will be damned before I abandon the Party's core values for the sake of your sacrosanct "Unity." Neither will I support unethical jackasses in elephant suits. And I will not be silent while such people attempt to hijack the Republican party any more. Party unity? You bet. I'm all for it. Do I entertain diverging ideas on the theme? Absolutely. Do you?
I will not stand by and watch while others promote the idea of winning this election and keeping our Republican majority at the expense of leadership integrity. We are supposed to be different from the Democrats- remember? What's wrong with demanding as much from our leaders? And what's wrong with expressing- God forbid!- an idea that runs contrary to yours?
Great fancy Moses! If these Reaganite-bashers spent less time smacking conservatives with their oars and more time listening to our ideas, this boat will get a lot farther, the Republican majority will be preserved, and the ethical integrity and defense of justice that has been the hallmark of our party for 150 years will continue to be what draws people to our Party in the future.
But if those people would rather sacrifice ethics on the altar of political expedience, then piss on them.
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.
