Posted on 05/30/2002 3:44:32 PM PDT by VaBthang4
So, how the hell were our intellegence agencies supposed to know if the terrorists didn't even know???!!!
It's easy to sit around & point fingers at the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, but most finger-pointers tend to forget we're on the outside looking in. We can sit here and speculate and place blame all we want (like I did in the previous paragraph), but that doesn't make it so.
Sorry, I really wasn't directing my comments at you or your post. Just venting after weeks of media and politicians comments.
Weenies or Moles? Did the FBI bungle the Moussaoui investigation--or worse?
VaBthang4, if you read the comments on the article, many who commented raised the same objection -- no names -- to Noonan's article.
Let me ask you what you meant by this: "VaBthang4, if you read the comments on the article, many who commented raised the same objection -- no names -- to Noonan's article."
What article?
The NewsMax piece is almost verbatim from the The Deseret News article that I linked up there in #5. The Deseret News piece originally came from The New York Times; they are one and the same. I'm linking this other thread because there's a very interesting discussion on it between browardchad and someone else.
browardchad, that's an excellent observation you made on the other thread. The NYTimes did a complete "redo" of their original Sept. 19, 2001 article, didn't they?
And about that Peggy Noonan article you linked here earlier... Ms Noonan, referring to the Rowley memo, writes:
This is no laughing matter. When an FBI field operative who is the chief legal counsel of her office tells the head of the FBI in Washington that they've been wondering, out in the field, if spies or moles made the fateful decisions, she is saying something huge. She is saying she thinks it is possible that spies within the FBI thwarted attempts to stop or diminish the attacks of Sept. 11. And she wants the FBI director to know this. She uses the word joke, but she knows what she's doing. She's saying: This may be true. When she put this information in a memo that she knows she herself will soon hand-deliver to the Senate Intelligence Committee, she is telling Congress, the press and the people to consider the possibility that spies or moles had some part in the attack on America.
Ms Noonan sounds rather sure of herself in this paragraph, doesn't she? It's almost as if she has some insider whispering in her ear, giving her some information that motivated her to write the "Weenies or Moles?" article.
In other words, this is no laughing matter. When an essayist who has worked in the U.S. government tells the people that she's been wondering if spies or moles made the fateful decisions, she may be saying something huge.
Ya think?
This thing is like a snowball. I think it's time the people in FBIHQ who know something about this speak up. <P>This is no laughing matter. When a well-known and credible essayist who has worked in the U.S. government tells the reading public that Colleen Rowley has been wondering if spies or moles made the fateful decisions, she may be saying something huge. She is saying she thinks it is possible that spies within the FBI thwarted attempts to stop or diminish the attacks of Sept. 11. And she wants the reading public to know this. Ms. Noonan uses the words "The depth and extent of the system failure, at least within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was greater than citizens knew," and she knows what she's doing. She's saying: This may be true. When she puts this Mole hypothesis on the Editorial Page of the Wall Street Journal that she knows will be read by many people, she is telling those people to consider the possibility that spies or moles had some part in the attack on America.
By the way, where was Eric Holder during all this? And where is he now?
I know the feeling. It makes it difficult when you can't figure out who the guilty parties are, if there are any. It's like getting mad at ghosts. :-)
Follow the Saudi money.
There have been reports
that there is a lot of it
floating around the FBI, CIA
and State Department.
Pipelines and oil money
may also have a role to play
in this story.
(Unfortunately, we may never learn the details)
From NewsMax a few days ago.
Sorry, I just got back -- I meant the reader comments on Noonan's article (linked at the bottom of the page).
According to this 5/8/02 “60 Minutes II” story: Could It Have Been Stopped? Holder was in the thick of things::
Until last year Eric Holder was deputy attorney general in the Justice Department. One of his responsibilities was reviewing hundreds of FISA applications. “Under FISA you have the ability, over a specified period of time, to not only do one search, but to do a number of searches, and then to take that from that person anything that's of foreign intelligence value,” he says.
Holder joined the D.C. office of law firm Covington & Burling on 5/3/01.
The Saudis are the chief backers of Hamas, which is what Michael Resnick was investigating, and Judge Lamberth raised a fuss about, for some unknown reason.
Shocked, shocked, simply shocked.
Agenda.Agenda.Agenda.The real question is whose?
While we are looking at this, I hope "we" take a look in the mirror. Unfortuneatly,we on this forum preach to a choir. The "we" who needs to work on it think there are no consequences for not paying attention to which power hungry politician attains public office.
At least there's a choir.
Has the Saudi largesse to radical, deviant Islam been less than complete?
Priority targets:#1.Saudi Arabia.Iran and Iraq next, but only if needed.India will deal with Pakistan.Russia will deal with the other various-istans.Israel will deal with the rest.China will stay out of it.Africa will self destruct no matter who tries to save them.
Is there an official pool yet?
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.