Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Some 9/11 families angered by no apology from Rice (YAWN!!!!)
Reuters ^ | 4/8/04

Posted on 04/08/2004 1:06:36 PM PDT by areafiftyone

WASHINGTON, April 8 (Reuters) - Some relatives of Sept. 11 victims responded in anger on Thursday to what they described as the White House's failure to accept responsibility for the 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.

Family members were among those in the crowded hearing room to listen to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice tell the 9-11 commission that bureaucratic structure was to blame for the administration's inability to counter the attacks.

"No one wants to take any responsibility. Three thousand people died, and all they want to talk about is structural problems," Bob McIlvaine of Oreland, Pennsylvania, whose son died in New York's World Trade Center.

"They should be ashamed of themselves," he said.

Many 9/11 relatives said the general public should have been warned about the potential for attack during the summer of 2001, when intelligence officials were said to have detected a surge in communications between suspicious operatives.

But during three hours of testimony before the bipartisan commission, Rice denied the Bush administration was negligent, countering testimony of former White House anti-terror czar Richard Clarke. Clarke told the commission on March 24 that the Bush White House ignored the urgent threat from al Qaeda.

"I am angry at the lack of accepting accountability -- that's what the president should have done, accepted responsibility," said Beverly Eckert of Stamford, Connecticut, whose husband Sean died at the World Trade Center.

"Instead, it's been outwardly directed, not just at the terrorists but at previous administrations."

Added New Jersey widow Patty Casazza: "I think it made her look incompetent in her position."

Clarke began his testimony by apologizing to victims and their families for government failings that allowed the attacks to occur.

Carie Lemack, whose mother also died in the attack on New York's World Trade Center towers, told CNN Rice should have admitted errors were made.

"We did not hear that today. I'm hoping we are going to hear that because it is clear that 3,000 people don't just get murdered. There were mistakes made and we need to fix them to make sure Americans are safer."

"... We're glad that she came forward and spoke. We're glad that it was in public, under oath, and we were able to get that information. But there is a lot more truth to be told," she added.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 911commission; 911families; condoleezzarice; kristinbreitweiser; kristinbreitwieser; phonyoutrage; propaganda; ricetestimony; september11advocates
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-125 next last
To: areafiftyone
Those 9/11 victims were nothing more than plants for this partisan committee of democrats.They are from that organization which is funded by Teresa Kerry and this whole damn hearing was just a trap to try and trash Bush!
81 posted on 04/08/2004 1:54:19 PM PDT by INSENSITIVE GUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
I wish that someone would tell them that their 15 minutes has long passed.
82 posted on 04/08/2004 1:55:50 PM PDT by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"When was the last time you ever heard anyone in government accept responsibility for something?"


Umm didn't Clarke say he failed us and apologize.
83 posted on 04/08/2004 1:56:14 PM PDT by Ignatius J Reilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Published in the August 25, 2003 edition of The New York Observer
Four 9/11 Moms Battle Bush
by Gail Sheehy

In mid-June, F.B.I. director Robert Mueller III and several senior agents in the bureau received a group of about 20 visitors in a briefing room of the J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington, D.C. The director himself narrated a PowerPoint presentation that summarized the numbers of agents and leads and evidence he and his people had collected in the 18-month course of their ongoing investigation of Penttbom, the clever neologism the bureau had invented to reduce the sites of devastation on 9/11 to one word: Pent for Pentagon, Pen for Pennsylvania, tt for the Twin Towers and bom for the four planes that the government had been forewarned could be used as weapons—even bombs—but chose to ignore.

After the formal meeting, senior agents in the room faced a grilling by Kristen Breitweiser, a 9/11 widow whose cohorts are three other widowed moms from New Jersey.

"I don’t understand, with all the warnings about the possibilities of Al Qaeda using planes as weapons, and the Phoenix Memo from one of your own agents warning that Osama bin Laden was sending operatives to this country for flight-school training, why didn’t you check out flight schools before Sept. 11?"

"Do you know how many flight schools there are in the U.S.? Thousands," a senior agent protested. "We couldn’t have investigated them all and found these few guys."

"Wait, you just told me there were too many flight schools and that prohibited you from investigating them before 9/11," Kristen persisted. "How is it that a few hours after the attacks, the nation is brought to its knees, and miraculously F.B.I. agents showed up at Embry-Riddle flight school in Florida where some of the terrorists trained?"

"We got lucky," was the reply.

Kristen then asked the agent how the F.B.I. had known exactly which A.T.M. in Portland, Me., would yield a videotape of Mohammed Atta, the leader of the attacks. The agent got some facts confused, then changed his story. When Kristen wouldn’t be pacified by evasive answers, the senior agent parried, "What are you getting at?"

"I think you had open investigations before Sept. 11 on some of the people responsible for the terrorist attacks," she said.

"We did not," the agent said unequivocally.

A month later, on the morning of July 24, before the scathing Congressional report on intelligence failures was released, Kristen and the three other moms from New Jersey with whom she’d been in league sat impassively at a briefing by staff director Eleanor Hill: In fact, they learned, the F.B.I. had open investigations on 14 individuals who had contact with the hijackers while they were in the United States. The flush of pride in their own research passed quickly. This was just another confirmation that the federal government continued to obscure the facts about its handling of suspected terrorists leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

So afraid is the Bush administration of what could be revealed by inquiries into its failures to protect Americans from terrorist attack, it is unabashedly using Kremlin tactics to muzzle members of Congress and thwart the current federal commission investigating the failures of Sept. 11. But there is at least one force that the administration cannot scare off or shut up. They call themselves "Just Four Moms from New Jersey," or simply "the girls."

Kristen and the three other housewives who also lost their husbands in the attack on the World Trade Center started out knowing virtually nothing about how their government worked. For the last 20 months they have clipped and Googled, rallied and lobbied, charmed and intimidated top officials all the way to the White House. In the process, they have made themselves arguably the most effective force in dancing around the obstacle course by which the administration continues to block a transparent investigation of what went wrong with the country’s defenses on Sept. 11 and what we should be doing about it. They have no political clout, no money, no powerful husbands—no husbands at all since Sept. 11—and they are up against a White House, an Attorney General, a Defense Secretary, a National Security Advisor and an F.B.I. director who have worked out an ingenious bait-and-switch game to thwart their efforts and those of any investigative body.

The Mom Cell

The four moms—Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie van Auken—use tactics more like those of a leaderless cell. They have learned how to deposit their assorted seven children with select grandmothers before dawn and rocket down the Garden State Parkway to Washington. They have become experts at changing out of pedal-pushers and into proper pantsuits while their S.U.V. is stopped in traffic, so they can hit the Capitol rotunda running. They have talked strategy with Senator John McCain and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. They once caught Congressman Porter Goss hiding behind his office door to avoid them. And they maintain an open line of communication with the White House.

But after the razzle-dazzle of their every trip to D.C., the four moms dissolve on the hot seats of Kristen’s S.U.V., balance take-out food containers on their laps and grow quiet. Each then retreats into a private chamber of longing for the men whose lifeless images they wear on tags around their necks. After their first big rally, Patty’s soft voice floated a wish that might have been in the minds of all four moms:

"O.K., we did the rally, now can our husbands come home?"

Last September, Kristen was singled out by the families of 9/11 to testify in the first televised public hearing before the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry (JICI) in Washington. She drew high praise from the leadership, made up of members from both the House and Senate. But the JICI, as the moms called it, was mandated to go out of business at the end of 2003, and their questions for the intelligence agencies were consistently blocked: The Justice Department has forbidden intelligence officials to be interviewed without "minders" among their bosses being present, a tactic clearly meant to intimidate witnesses. When the White House and the intelligence agencies held up the Congressional report month after month by demanding that much of it remain classified, the moms’ rallying cry became "Free the JICI!"

They believed the only hope for getting at the truth would be with an independent federal commission with a mandate to build on the findings of the Congressional inquiry and broaden it to include testimony from all the other relevant agencies. Their fight finally overcame the directive by Vice President Dick Cheney to Congressman Goss to "keep negotiating" and, in January 2003, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States—known as the 9/11 Commission—met for the first time. It is not only for their peace of mind that the four moms continue to fight to reveal the truth, but because they firmly believe that, nearly two years after the attacks, the country is no safer now than it was on Sept. 11.

"O.K., there’s the House and the Senate—which one has the most members?"

Lorie laughed at herself. It was April 2002, seven months after she had lost her husband, Kenneth. "I must have slept through that civics class." Her friend Mindy couldn’t help her; Mindy hadn’t read The New York Times since she stopped commuting to Manhattan, where she’d worked as a C.P.A. until her husband, Alan, took over the family support. Both women’s husbands had worked as securities traders for Cantor Fitzgerald until they were incinerated in the World Trade Center.

Mindy and Lorie had thought themselves exempt from politics, by virtue of the constant emergency of motherhood. Before Sept. 11, Mindy could have been described as a stand-in for Samantha on Sex and the City. But these days she felt more like one of the Golden Girls. Lorie, who was 46 and beautiful when her husband, Kenneth van Auken, was murdered, has acquired a fierceness in her demeanor. The two mothers were driving home to East Brunswick after attending a support group for widows of 9/11. They had been fired up by a veteran survivor of a previous terrorist attack against Americans, Bob Monetti, president of Families of Pan Am 103/Lockerbie. "You can’t sit back and let the government treat you like shit," he had challenged them. That very night they called up Patty Casazza, another Cantor Fitzgerald widow, in Colt’s Neck. "We have to have a rally in Washington."

Patty, a sensitive woman who was struggling to find the right balance of prescriptions to fight off anxiety attacks, groaned, "Oh God, this is huge, and it’s going to be painful." Patty said she would only go along if Kristen was up for it.

Kristen Breitweiser was only 30 years old when her husband, Ron, a vice president at Fiduciary Trust, called her one morning to say he was fine, not to worry. He had seen a huge fireball out his window, but it wasn’t his building. She tuned into the Today show just in time to see the South Tower explode right where she knew he was sitting—on the 94th floor. For months thereafter, finding it impossible to sleep, Kristen went back to the nightly ritual of her married life: She took out her husband’s toothbrush and slowly, lovingly squeezed the toothpaste onto it. Then she would sit down on the toilet and wait for him to come home.

The Investigation

Kristen was somewhat better-informed than the others. The tall, blond former surfer girl had graduated from Seton Hall law school, practiced all of three days, hated it and elected to be a full-time mom. Her first line of defense against despair at the shattering of her life dreams was to revert to thinking like a lawyer.

Lorie was the network’s designated researcher, since she had in her basement what looked like a NASA command module; her husband had been an amateur designer. Kristen had told her to focus on the timeline: Who knew what, when did they know it, and what did they do about it?

Once Lorie began surfing the Web, she couldn’t stop. She found a video of President Bush’s reaction on the morning of Sept. 11. According to the official timeline provided by his press secretary, the President arrived at an elementary school in Sarasota, Fla., at 9 a.m. and was told in the hallway of the school that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. This was 14 minutes after the first attack. The President went into a private room and spoke by phone with his National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, and glanced at a TV in the room. "That’s some bad pilot," the President said. Bush then proceeded to a classroom, where he drew up a little stool to listen to second graders read. At 9:04 a.m., his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered in his ear that a second plane had struck the towers. "We are under attack," Mr. Card informed the President.

"Bush’s sunny countenance went grim," said the White House account. "After Card’s whisper, Bush looked distracted and somber but continued to listen to the second graders read and soon was smiling again. He joked that they read so well, they must be sixth graders."

Lorie checked the Web site of the Federal Aviation Authority. The F.A.A. and the Secret Service, which had an open phone connection, both knew at 8:20 a.m. that two planes had been hijacked in the New York area and had their transponders turned off. How could they have thought it was an accident when the first plane slammed into the first tower 26 minutes later? How could the President have dismissed this as merely an accident by a "bad pilot"? And how, after he had been specifically told by his chief of staff that "We are under attack," could the Commander in Chief continue sitting with second graders and make a joke? Lorie ran the video over and over.

"I couldn’t stop watching the President sitting there, listening to second graders, while my husband was burning in a building," she said.

Mindy pieced together the actions of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He had been in his Washington office engaged in his "usual intelligence briefing." After being informed of the two attacks on the World Trade Center, he proceeded with his briefing until the third hijacked plane struck the Pentagon. Mindy relayed the information to Kristen:

"Can you believe this? Two planes hitting the Twin Towers in New York City did not rise to the level of Rumsfeld’s leaving his office and going to the war room to check out just what the hell went wrong." Mindy sounded scared. "This is my President. This is my Secretary of Defense. You mean to tell me Rumsfeld had to get up from his desk and look out his window at the burning Pentagon before he knew anything was wrong? How can that be?"

"It can’t be," said Kristen ominously. Their network being a continuous loop, Kristen immediately passed on the news to Lorie, who became even more agitated.

Lorie checked out the North American Aerospace Defense Command, whose specific mission includes a response to any form of an air attack on America. It was created to provide a defense of critical command-and-control targets. At 8:40 a.m. on 9/11, the F.A.A. notified NORAD that Flight No. 11 had been hijacked. Three minutes later, the F.A.A. notified NORAD that Flight No. 175 was also hijacked. By 9:02 a.m., both planes had crashed into the World Trade Center, but there had been no action by NORAD. Both agencies also knew there were two other hijacked planes in the air that had been violently diverted from their flight pattern. All other air traffic had been ordered grounded. NORAD operates out of Andrews Air Force Base, which is within sight of the Pentagon. Why didn’t NORAD scramble planes in time to intercept the two other hijacked jetliners headed for command-and-control centers in Washington? Lorie wanted to know. Where was the leadership?

"I can’t look at these timelines anymore," Lorie confessed to Kristen. "When you pull it apart, it just doesn’t reconcile with the official storyline." She hunched down in her husband’s swivel chair and began to tremble, thinking, There’s no way this could be. Somebody is not telling us the whole story.

The Commission

The 9/11 Commission wouldn’t have happened without the four moms. At the end of its first open hearing, held last spring at the U.S. Customs House close to the construction pit of Ground Zero, former Democratic Congressman Tim Roemer said as much and praised them and other activist 9/11 families.

"At a time when many Americans don’t even take the opportunity to cast a ballot, you folks went out and made the legislative system work," he said.

Jamie Gorelick, former Deputy Attorney General of the United States, said at the same hearing, "I’m enormously impressed that laypeople with no powers of subpoena, with no access to insider information of any sort, could put together a very powerful set of questions and set of facts that are a road map for this commission. It is really quite striking. Now, what’s your secret?"

Mindy, who had given a blistering testimony at that day’s hearing, tossed her long corkscrew curls and replied in a voice more Tallulah than termagant, "Eighteen months of doing nothing but grieving and connecting the dots."

Eleanor Hill, the universally respected staff director of the JICI investigation, shares the moms’ point of view.

"One of our biggest concerns is our finding that there were people in this country assisting these hijackers," she said later in an interview with this writer. "Since the F.B.I. was in fact investigating all these people as part of their counterterroism effort, and they knew some of them had ties to Al Qaeda, then how good was their investigation if they didn’t come across the hijackers?"

President Bush, who was notified in the President’s daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, that "a group of [Osama] bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives," insisted after the Congressional report was made public: "My administration has transformed our government to pursue terrorists and prevent terrorist attacks."

Kristen, Mindy, Patty and Lorie are not impressed.

"We were told that, prior to 9/11, the F.B.I. was only responsible for going in after the fact to solve a crime and prepare a criminal case," Kristen said. "Here we are, 22 months after the fact, the F.B.I. has received some 500,000 leads, they have thousands of people in custody, they’re seeking the death penalty for one terrorist, [Zacarias] Moussaoui, but they still haven’t solved the crime and they don’t have any of the other people who supported the hijackers." Ms. Hill echoes their frustration. "Is this support network for Al Qaeda still in the United States? Are they still operating, planning the next attack?"

Civil Defense

The hopes of the four moms that the current 9/11 Commission could broaden the inquiry beyond the intelligence agencies are beginning to fade. As they see it, the administration is using a streamlined version of the tactics they successfully employed to stall and suppress much of the startling information in the JICI report. The gaping hole of 28 pages concerning the Saudi royal family’s financial support for the terrorists of 9/11 was only the tip of the 900-page iceberg.

"We can’t get any information about the Port Authority’s evacuation procedures or the response of the City of New York," complains Kristen. "We’re always told we can’t get answers or documents because the F.B.I. is holding them back as part of an ongoing investigation. But when Director Mueller invited us back for a follow-up meeting—on the very morning before that damning report was released—we were told the F.B.I. isn’t pursuing any investigations based on the information we are blocked from getting. The only thing they are looking at is the hijackers. And they’re all dead."

It’s more than a clever Catch-22. Members of the 9/11 Commission are being denied access even to some of the testimony given to the JICI—on which at least two of its members sat!

This is a stonewalling job of far greater importance than Watergate. This concerns the refusal of the country’s leadership to be held accountable for the failure to execute its most fundamental responsibility: to protect its citizens against foreign attack.

Critical information about two of the hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, lay dormant within the intelligence community for as long as 18 months, at the very time when plans for the Sept. 11 attacks were being hatched. The JICI confirmed that these same two hijackers had numerous contacts with a longtime F.B.I. counterterrorism informant in California. As the four moms pointed out a year ago, their names were in the San Diego phone book.

What’s more, the F.B.I.’s Minneapolis field office had in custody in August 2001 one Zacarias Moussaoui, a French national who had enrolled in flight training in Minnesota and who F.B.I. agents suspected was involved in a hijacking plot. But nobody at the F.B.I. apparently connected the Moussaoui investigation with intelligence information on the immediacy of the threat level in the spring and summer of 2001, or the illegal entry of al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi into the United States.

How have these lapses been corrected 24 months later? The F.B.I. is seeking the death penalty for Mr. Moussaoui, and uses the need to protect their case against him as the rationale for refusing to share any of the information they have obtained from him. In fact, when Director Mueller tried to use the same excuse to duck out of testifying before the Joint Committee, the federal judge in the Moussaoui trial dismissed his argument, and he and his agents were compelled to testify.

"At some point, you have to do a cost-benefit analysis," says Kristen. "Which is more important—one fried terrorist, or the safety of the nation?" Patty was even more blunt in their second meeting with the F.B.I. brass. "I don’t give a rat’s ass about Moussaoui," she said. "Why don’t you throw him into Guantánamo and squeeze him for all he’s worth, and get on with finding his cohorts?"

The four moms are demanding that the independent commission hold a completely transparent investigation, with open hearings and cross-examination. What it looks like they’ll get is an incomplete and sanitized report, if it’s released in time for the commission’s deadline next May. Or perhaps another fight over declassification of the most potent revelations, which will serve to hold up the report until after the 2004 Presidential election. Some believe that this is the administration’s end game.

Kristen sees the handwriting on the wall: "If we have an executive branch that holds sole discretion over what information is released to the public and what is hidden, the public will never get the full story of why there was an utter failure to protect them that day, and who should be held accountable."

84 posted on 04/08/2004 1:58:18 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Original FR posting of "Four 9/11 Moms Battle Bush" w/ 91 comments

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/967196/posts
85 posted on 04/08/2004 2:00:13 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Why do these people deserve an apology?These greedy jerks have already been given more money then they could ever earn in honest fashion.
86 posted on 04/08/2004 2:01:45 PM PDT by INSENSITIVE GUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
>"Instead, it's been outwardly directed, not just at the terrorists but at previous administrations."

No duh, you opportunistic parasite.
87 posted on 04/08/2004 2:06:13 PM PDT by Darnright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ignatius J Reilly
Umm didn't Clarke say he failed us and apologize.

Exactly.

He didn't apologize on 9/11.
He didn't apologize the day after 9/11.
He didn't apologize on September 11, 2002.
He didn't apologize on September 11, 2003.

He retired after he got his @ss out of government, and was collecting his government pension, and was standing center-stage selling his damn book.

In a case like this, an apology that doesn't expose the "apologizer" to the risk of criminal prosecution is nothing more than window dressing.

88 posted on 04/08/2004 2:06:22 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
I just sent an e-mail to all 4. Thanks!
89 posted on 04/08/2004 2:06:46 PM PDT by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Let me guess, these same people took the money and ran, right?????
90 posted on 04/08/2004 2:08:49 PM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
"I am angry at the lack of accepting accountability -- that's what the president should have done, accepted responsibility," said Beverly Eckert of Stamford, Connecticut, whose husband Sean died at the World Trade Center.

Here’s Beverly shaking hands with one of the men who three times let Osama bin Laden escape when the Clinton Administration had him in their gunsites. Two additional times they turned down Sudanese offers to turn him offer to the U.S.

But he disingenously muttered “I’m sorry” and soothed her dumbass soul.

91 posted on 04/08/2004 2:08:49 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
I just don't understand why anyone should apologize for something they had no control over. It's as though I should apologize for mistreating Indians in the 1870s or for enslaving people in the 1600s and 1700s. I had nothing to do with that stuff and any apology I would offer would be meaningless and shallow.
92 posted on 04/08/2004 2:09:31 PM PDT by irish guard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
" Many 9/11 relatives said the general public should have been warned about the potential for attack during the summer of 2001."

The general public was warned. They saw the jihadis in action on the tube for years. Their response was to vote for democrats, the 'toon and support the liberals. How many of these whinning nitwits showed up at the one eyed mullah's tent to complain?

93 posted on 04/08/2004 2:10:35 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
Let me guess, these same people took the money and ran, right?????

No, not Beverly. She's still suing everybody.

Reuters just ignores how her pending court cases could affect her utterances.

94 posted on 04/08/2004 2:11:38 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
"No one wants to take any responsibility. Three thousand people died, and all they want to talk about is structural problems," Bob McIlvaine of Oreland, Pennsylvania, whose son died in New York's World Trade Center. "They should be ashamed of themselves," he said.

I take this opportunity to express my utter contempt for this complainer and his ilk considering the Bush administration working with Congress set up a $2.6 billion program that was unprecedented in recognizing the victims of a foreign attack on American soil and in deciding awards based on economic damages. The average payout per victim was $1.4 million which compares favorably, if I may indulge in understatement, to the $6,000 "death gratuity" paid to the grieving families of our soldiers who died serving their country.

What do these greedy complainers want? Dick Clarke, the senior ex-counterterrorism chief who had 20 years to deal with the problem, grovelled at their feet (wrongly in my view since it was 19 al-Qaeda thugs who had attacked) by taking responsibility for 9/11, apologized to victim's families, and admitted (melodramatically) that he was a failure. Must Clarke also oil their feet? Where does it end with this crowd?

My comments do not apply to those families that lost loved ones but are not represented by Mr. McIlvaine. They have my deepest sympathies; however, those who think the government should have exercised -- before 9/11 -- the powers it gained under the Patriot Act after 9/11, and then have the gall to scream privacy rights are being violated when those powers are exercised to allow a greater sharing of intelligence are in my opinion a major part of the problem, be it structural, cultural or political.

I have some advice for the complainers: You might show some gratitude by supporting the renewal of the Patriot Act to help prevent future 9/11s, and stop playing politics now!

95 posted on 04/08/2004 2:13:37 PM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Honcho Bongs
I did a quick internet search on Beverly Eckert and it turns out she's one who has refused the 9/11 settlement and is instead suing the government.

Many of the more vocal 9/11 widows did not accept the goverment payout and are suing over 9/11. This commission is serving as a form of discovery for a future lawsuit. These widows were not satisfied with the multimillion dollar payout offered by the government and are looking to hit the jackpot in court.

96 posted on 04/08/2004 2:15:24 PM PDT by double_down
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
I have a new term for these leftist activists who dance on the graves of their supposed loved-ones: terror whores.
97 posted on 04/08/2004 2:16:33 PM PDT by Sloth (We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool
Wow, that snapshot from that angle almost looks like she just slapped the bald guy upside the face.
98 posted on 04/08/2004 2:23:18 PM PDT by Geritol (Lord willing, there will be a later...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Thanks for posting the picture of those vile widder dingos. I suppose they are the ones that made fools out of themselves and their dem. co-whorets today. From the sound of the clapping going on in the gallery, it would not surprise me if they turned over cars at the Capitol Bldg., ala UConn.
99 posted on 04/08/2004 2:26:33 PM PDT by small voice in the wilderness (Quick, act casual. If they sense scorn and ridicule, they'll flee..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: hobson
with all the time they've spent at these hearings ... I guess they can afford it because of the money everyone's tax dollars and Tides Foundation paid them. How many of us could afford to spend days on end traveling to Capitol Hill for these hearings?

There are no other instances of hearings on Capitol Hill where the audience can applaud or in any way show a reaction to testimony without being escorted from the room by Capitol Police. Kean/Hamilton should have set that up as a rule for being in the room from the very beginning.
100 posted on 04/08/2004 2:28:14 PM PDT by EDINVA (reporters aren't stupid .. they just think YOU are)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-125 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson