Freeh: Gorelick Ignored Terror Warnings

NewsMax.com ^ | 4/12/04 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[Fedora]

Thanks for the links. On that second one, I notice if you scroll down to Post #13, Bodine and Clarke's names come up.

[cricket]

". . .will any of the Republican committee members go here during Freeh's testimony? I won't hold my breath."

Please don't; unless 'blue' is your favorite color. Was really hoping at least Condi, might redirect a question or two, to Gorelick; offering she might have a more in depth answer to say; one of Kerry's or Benpeniste's antagonistic and self-indulgent questions.

But no reason to hold one's breath; waiting for a Dem to be brought up short by a Repub.

And after watching the Dems grandstand; thought it would have been fair-play, if even an honest panel member had turned and asked Gorelick for some 'clarification'. Or better; just suggest that she should recuse herself. . .

[cricket]

"I'm telling you, If I were Freeh I would go out guns blazing"

Under a 'don't go there' directive; maybe these Dems have already discussed Freeh's choice of legacy with him. Fall on a small sword; and be spared their many; already drawn.

I hope, as you do, that Freeh will take them all out; where they belong.

[faithincowboys]

Tom Daschle is living high off of blood money. The Dems have a lot to answer for. And the 9-11 Commission is an absolute joke.

[faithincowboys]

Yeah, apparently, the Commission is only concerned with going after Bush. What a joke!

[ladyinred]

Hillary's horrible hoards are out in full force to discredit Louie Freeh. He is going to find out that you do not try to tell the truth about the Clinton regime.

[syriacus]

Gorelick's no good for anything but repelling vampires.

She'd probably fail at that, too.

[syriacus]

THE 9/11 HEARINGS ARMITAGE TO THE RESCUE, By: Barbara Stanley [excerpt]

Jamie Gorelick was on C-SPAN yesterday morning and a caller asked why Monsoor Ijaz, the man who made the deal happen with Sudan to give up bin Laden, asked why Ijaz wasn't being called to testify and Ms. Gorelick blew it off as just another "conspiracy" that she was unfamiliar with and didn’t believe anyway (and during the horrible reign of the co-presidents’ Clinton, this woman was in a position of power and actually drew a sizable salary -- boggles the mind). They are the masters of screaming right wing conspiracy, all the way back to the Vince Foster murder and onward for eight, long years; yet now, every valid question to come down the pike about the real felonious behaviour of the Clintons is turned and spun to look like Bush was really at fault and it's all his doing the terrible mess we are in today.

You may remember Gorelick (she of ugly mug and downturned mouth -- looking like a prison matron ready to screw with the inmates at every turn, just for the sheer amusement of it)--she was at DOJ when all those FBI files (on Republicans, of whom Dick Clarke was one) wound up in Hitlery's Little Black Book of blackmail.

[Texasforever]

She has the most unfortunate name imaginable for politics.

[Lancey Howard]

According to Schippers's 1999 book, "Sell Out," Jamie Gorelick was tasked with expediting the new rules under which criminal background checks were suspended for new immigrants.

Certainly, this pig Gorelick is your typical, corrupt, scumbag Democrat - - that's old news - - but refreshing the memory with this information about her role in the Clinton Administration's scheme helps to clarify why it was that the Democrats wanted her on this political witch-hunt, aka "The 9-11 Commission".

Kudos again to NewsMax.

[syriacus]

Looks like Gorelick made the same mistake as Clarke did...assuming the Big Terror Attack would be in Cyberspace

Sabotage in Cyberspace: The Coming Electronic Pearl Harbor by Mark Ward

Convinced that an electronic Pearl Harbor is imminent, the US is already taking steps to protect itself. Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general, has called for an effort similar to the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb, to harden federal computer systems against electronic attack. In a speech in June about information warfare, Gorelick warned: "As we become more interconnected, we are also more vulnerable to attack." /font>

[syriacus]

Clarke and Gorelick tweaked America's security to make sure no terrorists entered our country illegally via the internet.

The survivors of 911 can sleep better at night, knowing the Dynamic Duo was obsessed about Cyberspace.

[CyberAnt]

I'm sorry .. demographics don't support your claim that 100 email are counted as 100 emails.

Every email received by media represents THOUSANDS of emails. Even if each email was worth only 1000 emails, that would mean 100 emails represents ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND EMAILS.

I know how demographics work and maybe the newspaper only prints 1 letter - but that means they receieved thousands of letters saying almost the same thing.

I've been in the Congressional offices in Wash DC as recently as 3 years ago .. and I can tell you that each and every email is looked at for content and the information is catagorized according to yea or nay on any given issue. At least that's what I saw when I was there.

As a "Communications Coordinator" you have a very negative attitude. At least that's what I'm getting from you when you say things like: "limited effectiveness; not meant to be effective". If it wasn't "meant to be effective" then why on earth would you do it.

I don't know why, but I am very suspicious that you are not who you say you are. But .. nevertheless .. with your negative attitude, I would never hire you to do anything.

[philman_36]

On that second one, I notice if you scroll down to Post #13, Bodine and Clarke's names come up.
Yeah, I read that.

[Rocket1968]

Bump

[Solson]

As a "Communications Coordinator" you have a very negative attitude. At least that's what I'm getting from you when you say things like: "limited effectiveness; not meant to be effective". If it wasn't "meant to be effective" then why on earth would you do it.

Hardly. I'm not negative at all. I'm practical and logical which may be hard for you to understand. Phone calls have a much higher rate of effectiveness than do e-mails. E-mails, when compared to other means of communication, have limited effectiveness. Personal contact is ALWAYS regarded as higher value. A meeting is tops, a phone call second, a personal letter third, and then an e-mail.

In terms of blitzing the media on issues important to readers, phone calls to the editorial department, the reader rep, or the editor's office will have a greater effect than e-mails. E-mails and letters to the editor are very important as to what gets published. However, other means are more effective at driving IMPACT.

I don't know why, but I am very suspicious that you are not who you say you are. But .. nevertheless .. with your negative attitude, I would never hire you to do anything.

First, you couldn't afford me. Secondly, be suspicious all you want, it won't matter. Third, I'm sure you regard ANYONE who dare contradict you as a person with a "negative attitude." Finally, your condescension comes through loud and clear. I'm sure lecturing your volunteers on the correct way to do literature drops, work the phone banks, and initiate e-mail campaigns will do wonders for your precinct.

[Bigg Red]

I feel like we're definitely losing the media wars. :-(
&&&

Yes, we are David against the Big Media Goliath. I pray we reach the original David's same level of success.

[CyberAnt]

Thank you for your response. We don't agree! Fine with me. However, I think your over reaction in trying to defend your position speaks for itself.

[zeaal]

Gorelick should be on the schedule to testify before the 9/11 Commission. Oh, wait ... she is on it!