Dan
Posted on 09/12/2001 6:21:45 PM PDT by bayourod
GOVERNMENT INCOMPETENCE, LACK OF HONESTY WITH AMERICAN PEOPLE LEAD TO TERRORIST DISASTERS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
(Washington, DC, September 12, 2001) Larry Klayman, Chairman and General Counsel of Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today issued the following statement concerning the horrific terrorist attack on the United States, on a day – September 11, 2001 – that, even more than Pearl Harbor, will live in infamy.
“It is now apparent – given the near total lack of security at U.S. airports and elsewhere – that the U.S. government has not been forthright with the American people. During the last eight years of scandal during the Clinton administration, and the first eight months of the Bush Administration, reports this morning confirm that little to nothing was done to secure our nation’s airports and transportation systems as a whole – despite warnings.”
“Instead, cosmetic reform of education, social security, taxes, and other less important issues were given precedence. In addition, the American people were lead to believe that appropriate anti-terrorist counter measures were being taken. Instead of telling the truth so the problems could be addressed, politicians painted a rosy picture in order to be elected and re-elected.”
“Judicial Watch will use its investigative powers to look into the obvious breach of the people’s trust by a government which should not only have been candid, but also have taken steps to defend them.”
“Judicial Watch offers it condolences and sympathy to the dead and wounded, and their families, and prays that the nation will overcome this tragedy,” Klayman added.
Larry is trying to tell us that all this federal money, spent on things that Congress has no authority to spend it on, should no longer be spent on these things. The federal government has diverted itself, in a very selfish way, from it's primary function.
Again, I think this is the wrong time to talk about it. We should be rebuilding and planning how we will kill off these crazy death-cultist Jihadists. But he does have a point.
I think what Klayman has done is TOTALLY DESPICABLE. You'll not see me defending him here, nor have I defended any of his actions of late AND YOU KNOW IT. But I WILL continue to defend the facts he uncovered about Clinton and the DNC which you CHOOSE to ignore. I WILL continue to maintain that people like YOU are deliberately allowing MASS MURDER and TREASON by Clinton and his gang to go uninvestigated and "unpunished". And if that's true, what does that make YOU, Rokke?
And for your information, I've been too angry about this to even post. The reason is simple. My solution to the terrorist attack is not to blindly bomb, creating whole new generations of people seeking revenge on this country, but to coldly KILL every last family member of EVERY single human being involved in this attack and other terrorist attacks in recent memory. The hijackers, the people that trained them, the people that planned it, the people that funded them, ANYONE who aided them or continues to aid them, anyone who knew what they planned or should have known ... EVERYONE. I mean great grandmothers, grandfathers, wives, sisters, brothers, cousins and ALL their children ... EVERYONE. Remove them from the gene pool.
Are you looking for someone to blame for the fact that a crime was committed or someone to hold responsible for identifying, apprehending and prosecuting the people who committed the crimes?
Are you suggesting that the federal government has no constitutional authority to outlaw flying planes into buildings?
Are you complaining that federal government jet fighters are being used to prevent domestic violence?
What did your third party candidate promise during the campaign about planes flying into buildings? I seem to have forgotten.
"Facts" require no defense. Opinions, conclusions, deductions, and judgments based upon those "facts" are a different matter.
When a person demonstrates that his judgment is not trustworthy, it is reasonable to re-evaluate prior judgments made by that person.
For example, if you find out that a person has lied to you today, it is not unreasonable to suspect that he has lied to you in the past. If you discover that your wife cheated on you last night, you would be justified in suspecting that she has cheated on you in the past.
Even if we accept your premise that the primary function of government is to prevent airplanes from being hijacked and flown into buildings, it does not necessarily follow that the existence of Social Security prevented the government from stopping these hijackings.
There is no relationship between education vouchers and airport security policies.
Dan
As I recall, he went live on national TV in Florida, Louisiana and Nebraska.
Do you think he should have stayed in front of the TV camaras all day like Peter Jennings and Dan Rather?
Air Force One is a high tech communications and command center. The headquarters of the 2nd Air Force in Bossier City and SAC headquarters in Nebraska are secure high tech communications and command centers.
It's beginning to look like you simply don't like the United States and will use any excuse to criticize her President.
Do you understand what President Bush meant when he said that "freedom has been attacked"? He didn't say that America has been attacked, or that democracy has been attacked; he said "freedom" has been attacked, and that "freedom" will prevail .
Freedom to travel. Freedom from government surveilance. freedom from government searches. Freedom from random government checkpoints and mandatory identification papers. Freedom from armed troops patroling our streets.
Our government did not fail. These hijackings were made possible because we want and have the freedoms that permit people to do good as well as bad things.
If you want the type of government that protects you from terrorists you should try Cuba or Iran or North Korea, or Iraq.
That's not true when the mainstream media won't even publish the facts ... like those, for example, in the Ron Brown case. That's not true when certain individuals, like Rokke, refuse to even discuss facts such as the statements of the Brown pathologists. That's not true when certain individuals, like Rokke, mislead people about matters such as Air Force Safety Boards.
When a person demonstrates that his judgment is not trustworthy, it is reasonable to re-evaluate prior judgments made by that person.
Fine ... apply that to people on this forum who claim Brown wasn't murdered but won't say why and who won't discuss the FACTS.
For example, if you find out that a person has lied to you today, it is not unreasonable to suspect that he has lied to you in the past.
Fine. I can list lies by posters such as Rokke regarding the Brown case. Do YOU care?
And, tell me, by saying this are you trying to suggest that the depositions Klayman took from people such as Linda Tripp in matters such as Filegate should now be suspect? Don't be so mysterious, Bayourod. Just say what you mean.
Furthermore, Rokke pinged me about Klayman's statement. Why? ... to diminish the facts Klayman discovered about Brown? ... to perhaps to make himself feel better after our last debate on the Brown topic? Tell me ... is his using this tragedy in this way any different than what Klayman just did?
I'll stand behind Bush in what he decides to do to those who committed this act. I just hope he is as thorough as I would be in his circumstances.
I'm not trying to be coy, I just probably didn't expres myself very well.
What I am saying is that the cases you are talking about have been throughly investigated by the FBI, federal prosecutors, state prosecutors, special counsels, Congressional committees, and hundreds of private individuals. They involve tens of thousands of pages of documents, notes, affidavits, reports, depositions, pictures, videos, tapes, transcripts, etc...
The government officials have spent tens of millions of dollars, employed the brightest staffs with the latest technology and leading authorities.
It is impossible for you or me to study all of the material, interview all of the witnesses, and research all of the scientific studies.
We have to rely upon the judgements of others. When the investigative bodies, with all of their resources all reach the same conclusion; and Klayman reaches an opposite conclusion, the credibility, judgment, and motives of Klayman have to be considered. It comes down to a question of who do we trust. In deciding who we trust in an old case like "Brown", it is appropriate to consider Klayman's current actions.
That's all I'm saying. And it is entirely reasonable for someone to say today that he used to trust Klayman but now doesn't believe anything that Klayman ever said in the past. You should not be offended by that or feel that you have to start posting reams of material about old cases.
Check your thorazine drip.
Then go to the devil.
NOTHING was investigated in the Brown case. NOTHING. And you are being dishonest to suggest Filegate (or Chinagate for that matter) have been thoroughly investigated. Sure ... by the administration that COMMITTED the crimes. Give us a break Bayourod. You know that Filegate was NOT thoroughly investigated. If it was then tell us how many files were taken and where they are now? Tell us whether the material that was being loaded on DNC computers was ever removed. Tell us why Starr, the FBI and Clinton Whitehouse LIED when they publically stated that the files had been returned to the FBI. Stop being dishonest.
The government officials have spent tens of millions of dollars, employed the brightest staffs with the latest technology and leading authorities.
Over a hundred people fled the country or pled the 5th in Chinagate ... and NOTHING was done about it by the DOJ or FBI or any other of those "leading authorities". We have tapes of Chinese agents talking about how Clinton and the Chinese premier discussed covering up Chinagate. Yet NOTHING has been done. The criminals are still free and not even forced to spill their guts in exchange for that freedom. You are being DISHONEST Bayourod and we should ask why in light of your previous statement about trusting people that are caught being dishonest.
It is impossible for you or me to study all of the material, interview all of the witnesses, and research all of the scientific studies.
SPIN SPIN SPIN. I can study enough material to know that CRIMES, serious ones, were committed in Filegate, Chinagate and probably the death of Brown. Stop SPINNING, democRAT.
We have to rely upon the judgements of others.
Who ... Reno? Who ... Clinton? Who ... ?
When the investigative bodies, with all of their resources all reach the same conclusion; and Klayman reaches an opposite conclusion, the credibility, judgment, and motives of Klayman have to be considered.
So are you saying that no crimes were committed in Filegate and Chinagate? YES or NO? Put your cards on the table Bayourod and tell us where you stand. Tell us ... YES OR NO ... do the facts in the Brown case warrant an investigation? If not, then you need to explain the pathologists, the x-rays and the photos, why there was no Safety Board and why the government demonstrably LIED about the evidence? NO EXCUSES Bayourod. Stop hiding.
It comes down to a question of who do we trust. In deciding who we trust in an old case like "Brown", it is appropriate to consider Klayman's current actions.
Klayman only played a minor role in the Brown case and what we have from him is verifiable. He found a timeline that suggests there were 2 survivors, not just the one admitted to by the CLINTON government. Are you denying this? He has depositions from several individuals, like Gormley, that point to Whitehouse involvement in the decision not to autopsy ... not to investigate. The rest of the facts come from others ... specifically the MILITARY OFFICERS that were present at the crash site and examination of the body. You are being DISHONEST to suggest that we can dismiss the Brown case because Klayman got involved. You are calling those military officers LIARS and I find that as offensive as ANYTHING that Klayman has EVER done.
And it is entirely reasonable for someone to say today that he used to trust Klayman but now doesn't believe anything that Klayman ever said in the past.
No that is NOT reasonable. Those are depositions UNDER OATH by 3rd parties. You are calling THEM liars and without ANY basis. You are just trying to keep these matters from being investigated and you'll use ANY excuse to do so. And for that you should be chastised just as severely as you are trying to chastise Klayman.
You would think that he would have at least waited until Barbara Olson's memorial service had been held.
America has experienced an incredible tragedy today, with the cowardly terrorist attacks on New York City and the nation's capital. Our thoughts and prayers go out to each of the friends and families of those killed and injured in this outrageous act of aggression.
Please join me in taking time today to pray for the victims and their families, as well as for our nation's leaders. In the days ahead, as our nation struggles to sort out this disaster and authorities investigate these horrifying crimes, we will most urgently need the hand of God upon our land.
As we face the future, let us remember Psalm 27:1-3: "The Lord is my light and my salvation - whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life - of whom shall I be afraid? When evil men advance against me to devour my flesh, when my enemies and my foes attack me, they will stumble and fall. Though an army besiege me, my heart will not fear; though war break out against me, even then will I be confident."
May God bless and keep the land we love.
Sincerely,
Jay Alan Sekulow
Chief Counsel
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.