[Havisham]

I hoped others more adept than I would post on this subject but here I go.

Sept. 11 constitutes a catastrophic moral failure of America's intelligence bosses. Clintonism? Multiculturalism? Cultural Marxism? I say all of the above, the last being the most destructive to the thinking process of average Americans.

[Marysecretary]

This all sounds like a bunch of keystone cops were on duty -- or NOT on duty. Hope things improve soon!

[swarthyguy]

Except this incident took place when the Bush administration was in power. This was days before 9/11 and someone in HQ spiked it.

[boomop1]

The new administration is contaminated with clinton holdovers and still is having to deal with these morons. Fire them all and jail them if they were complicit.

[Grut]

Clintonism? Multiculturalism? Cultural Marxism?

Nah. Just the bureaucracy eating its mission.

Incidentally, all the stuff about "it's Clinton's FBI"? Wrong. It was GWB's FBI from about noon on 20 Jan '01.

[Destro]

In Accuracy in Media's investigative article BIN LADEN GATE they show that al-Qaida and Clinton's foreign policy intersected in the Balkans (among other places). The Clinton's it seems were al-Qaida (remember al-Qaida is a loose organization of like minded Muslim groups) operatives in the Balkans, Chechnya and Central Asia to do their dirty work and these contacts made us vulnerable to 9/11. That is why we knew these agents were in this nation when Clinton ruled, but they were just shadowed but not interfered with.

AIM's BIN LADEN GATE article and the links to back up AIM's thesis provided by dedicated Freepers to the subject help illuminate a dark subject. It is a lot of reading but well worth the effort.

[OldFriend]

TREASON

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I hope There is a blue ribbon commission appointed to investigate this entire mess. I personally think the problem can be traced to the Clintons' personal ambitions. When the Muslims moved aggressively into the Balkans a media campaign was mounted to portray the Serbians as conducting genecide in their efforts to defeat the Islamistmilitants. NATO sent troops to protect the Muslims. When they moved into the Russian border states, like Chechnya, we condemned the Russians for resisting them. We supported the Palistinians in their efforts to eliminate Israel via a trojan Horse Peace treaty. We downplayed and buried the efforts and successes of the militant Palistians around the world, other than some superficial but expensive military responses on camel tents and an aspirin factory. Clinton didn't want to face this thorny issue because he didn't want to have to oppose the Arabs.

Why? Clinton was building support for himself in the Muslim world. He wanted a legacy and fame as a stateman by getting another phoney aggreement from the Palistians and he wanted to have the support of the Muslim world when he later campaigned to be Secretary General of the U.N. He and Hillary were already the darlings of the left, so their support was secure. At the same time Hillary was to be President of the U.S., giving them dominant world power and power was always their goal.

Am I a right wing nut? Perhaps, but the dots certainly connect into a conherent picture.

[KSCITYBOY]

later read.

[Lion's Cub]

Here's another interesting piece about the etiology of some of the intelligence failure, too.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/755554/posts

Earlier, Eleanor Hill, the staff director of the congressional panel, testified that numerous intelligence signs were missed.

You also might want to review Ms. Hill's previous job performance.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/753887/posts

Grassley, a staunch critic of the IG's office under Hill's leadership, tells Insight: "My three-year oversight investigations of the Inspector General's Office has uncovered a number of serious problems, including high-level misconduct and the falsification of investigative and audit reports."

Interesting reading.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

One morning at the nub end of Bill Clinton's presidency, Clinton chief of staff John Podesta walked into a senior staff meeting in the Roosevelt Room waving a copy of USA Today. Holding the paper aloft, Podesta read the headline out loud, "Clinton actions annoy Bush." The article detailed the new rules and Executive Orders the outgoing President was issuing in his final days, actions aimed in equal measure at locking in Clinton's legacy (in areas like environmental protection) and bedeviling his successor. "What's Bush so annoyed about?" Podesta asked with a devilish smile. "He's got four years to try to undo all the stuff we've done."
Link.

"We laid a few traps," chirps a happy Clinton aide.....

[aristeides]

The NSA failed to share the information with the CIA, she said.

Can somebody explain this failure? The limitations on the release of grand-jury information would not be a factor here.

By the way, according to the excerpts from Gertz's new book that appeared in the Washington Times a few weeks ago, these two guys, during their trip to the capital of Malaysia, stayed in the official residence of the Iranian ambassador. I wonder who was allowed to learn that little tidbit.

[Paulus Invictus]

My daughter was interviewed by the CIA during the Klintoon adm. She asked if her political views, that were then somewhat left of center at that time, would compromise her admittance as a CIA employee. The interviewer laughed and told her, "No way. Most of us are liberals now and we like new blood." She did not get the job and I was pleased.

[piasa]

bttt