Skip to comments.
Rowley Faced More Than FBI Bureaucracy
Minneapolis Star-Tribune ^
| 6/6/02
| Greg Gordon
Posted on 06/06/2002 2:02:00 PM PDT by Paul Ross
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:36:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Minneapolis FBI agent Coleen Rowley, who testifies before Congress today, faced more than bureaucratic obstacles in August while she pressed FBI headquarters for a warrant to search the belongings of suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui.
Minnesota's federal law enforcement leadership was in flux during the weeks that crucial decisions were being made.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: colleenrowley; coverup; fbi; whistleblower
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-110 next last
To: Howlin;rohry
There was a post a few days ago where someone parsed Rowley's memo and it was very informative. It could have been from NewsMax or Mark Levin.
To: tubebender
Why all the hostility to Ms Rowley on this thread? Has anybody ever actually read the memo? She does explain why she wrote it now rather than in September. She says she was fed up with all the mendacious statements from Washington FBI about how nobody had any clue about 9/11. Since authority in Washington has caved on that point, she has been vindicated. Had she not written the letter, the FBI would still be in clueless mode. So, I repeat, why the hostility?
To: calico joe
I hate to disapoint you but in fact I did read the memo and she now has her minute of fame. I will allow you to have you own opinion...
To: miamimark
You know, it's that kind of thinking that allows the Peter Principle to flourish.
Rowley isn't the typical polished show horse that Congress likes to invite to listen to themselves pontificate on how great they are to give their "guest" the time of day. But she is bright, has an innate common sense and has good instincts. She knows her job, knows the law and knows the ropes of her job.
She also is not impressed with peoples' positions, and she isn't afraid to rock the boat. I'll take that over the pompous bs Tenet and Mueller pitch out left and right, thank you.
84
posted on
06/06/2002 7:48:43 PM PDT
by
Endeavor
To: Endeavor
She also is not impressed with peoples' positions, and she isn't afraid to rock the boat. Then why didn't she rock it on 9-12?
85
posted on
06/06/2002 7:50:05 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: Howlin
"There is NOTHING that she has said today that I couldn't have said."Howlin, I disagree. You might could have said it better, but I suspect there's a lot more substance to Ms. Rowley than you're giving her credit for.
86
posted on
06/06/2002 7:53:45 PM PDT
by
Endeavor
To: Endeavor
I'll have to guess you didn't hear her. She had absolutely NOTHING to offer except that it took her an hour to type 60 names.
87
posted on
06/06/2002 7:57:28 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: Howlin
Perhaps because it wasn't apparent the boat, ie, the composite of all of our nation's security agencies, was named "Titanic" on 9/12? I really can't say. It should be obvious to all at this point that our national security is bound by inept imbeciles who care more about their own butts instead of ours. It will take whistleblowers and the pressure of you, me and the rest of our "fellow Americans" to apply the appropriate heat to the appropriate butts to effect a positive change. I certainly am not comfortable leaving that responsibility to the "preeners" we saw today, known by any other name as "senators."
88
posted on
06/06/2002 8:04:38 PM PDT
by
Endeavor
To: Endeavor
Exactly, she is not television savvy personality trained in the nuances of appearing on tv. She's an agent in front of preening senators who have spend more time looking in the mirror than anything else.
To: Howlin
Well guess again, honey, I heard her. I heard her say that Mueller was disingenous in calling for better leadership and managerial skills among those promoted up the FBI chain of command, in his recent remarks. I heard her say that was particularly surprising since the exact opposite has been emphasized in the past 12 mos. I heard her lay out critical issues that bind the hands of FBI agents - FISA issues, which Congress can effectively modify w/o endangering Miranda. I heard someone stand up very publicly and describe the Emporer's bloated body which many folks seem content in overlooking, while admiring the clothes the Emporer isn't wearing. That takes guts. Her career is likely toast regardless of everyone bending over backwards today to tell her that they'd personally see to it that she is protected. These same senators will comfortably forget Ms. Rowley as soon as she no longer gets them the tv mileage they crave. It is up to us to continue to apply pressure to our charming elected officials if we expect any positive change to occur in our "security" agencies.
She's a quirky personality, which may likely make her good at her job - a lot of people who don't fit the typical "professional attorney/agent" mode can nonetheless be good at what they do. I admire her courage and believe me, it takes a ton of courage to rock the boat in a bureaucracy as strong as the FBI. Would it have been easier to hear these things from someone as polished and telegenic as Candace DeLong? Sure. But I think there's a lot substance to Ms. Rowley and she's welcome in my foxhole anytime.
90
posted on
06/06/2002 8:20:57 PM PDT
by
Endeavor
To: Endeavor
We must not have heard the same woman then.
And again I say, why not 9-11 instead of 5-17?
91
posted on
06/06/2002 8:28:52 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: Howlin
As you like it.
92
posted on
06/06/2002 8:37:33 PM PDT
by
Endeavor
To: Endeavor
Judging her on her hair, hesitant delivery does her a dis service. She could have kept her mouth shut and then the names of Maltbie and Frasca would never be out here. As it is, her career is over. I do expect to see some negative stories about her past mistakes, etc., as if no agent who truly does her job wouldn't have made a few. In the meantime, I do not see anyone calling Maltbie and Frasca to testify. Again, the central question, who or why were all these investigations spiked or ignored?
To: Endeavor
Given that her memo is very well written, either she or someone working with her knows how to think things out in a very cogent manner. Very few people who are not practiced at it do well at Congressional hearings, and I doubt many of her detractors here would come off any better.
To: calico joe
why the hostility?You're surprised? She's criticizing the government, and that might somehow make the President look bad, so she needs to be defamed (sort of like what the left did with Linda Tripp).
95
posted on
06/06/2002 9:15:16 PM PDT
by
Sandy
To: Howlin
"There is NOTHING that she has said today that I couldn't have said."Doesn't she remind you of the Enron "whistleblower" Ms. Watkins, who had in fact written nothing more than a CYA memo to file?
96
posted on
06/06/2002 9:24:29 PM PDT
by
Redbob
To: Redbob
Yes, plus she couldn't even seem to remember what she had written....she had to keep looking at her notes!
97
posted on
06/06/2002 9:41:46 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: Endeavor
Well said.
To: nutmeg
bump
99
posted on
06/06/2002 9:55:27 PM PDT
by
nutmeg
To: Sandy
You're surprised?
I am. I haven't seen a more digusting thread on FR in a long time. The Tripp analogy is dead on, although she was taking on a greater power at greater risk. Clearly, though, the majority of the criticism here is that she wasn't entertaining enough, or overtly polical enough. Part of the blame belongs to the press, though. The blew the memo WAY out of proportion. It appears some people here actually believed the press and expected shocking (and entertaining) revelations by her.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-110 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson