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]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-110 next last
To: Paul Ross
LOL. I did offer a clue to those who know my approach. It should be noted that I never refer to someone as "highly respected" unless they are "highly respected" HERE on FreeRepublic.
To: Paul Ross
"But Maltbie appears to be a Clintonoid, and one of theirs."
would you please expand on this point? I wanted to know who the supervisor was who did not pass on this information?
If truly a Clintonoid - as you say - WE HAVE A SMOKING GUN.
Please respond - and if not you - others. Where did Maltbie come from????? How did he get that position? This is the person that needs to be reviewed. And any others who stonewalled reports that could have led to stopping the terrorists. LET'S GET THESE NAMES OUT THERE!
To: Alberta's Child
"if she had any credibility she would have written it on September 12th"
I agree completely. Her sending the memo (and leaking it to the press) eight months after the fact struck me as self-serving from the get-go. I think she has visions of being portrayed by Jodie Foster in the film "September 11th," coming soon [probably] to a theatre near you.
To: Howlin
That's right -- the memo was clearly written to cover her own @ss. Maybe she had a good reason to do it (in the event she was going to ge the "fall-gal" for the FBIs ineptness), but that memo never even should have made page 38 of the New York Times.
To: Alberta's Child
She didn't release it to the Press. It was leaked by the usual suspects in the Congressional oversight committee it was delivered to. Have you read it? Taken at face value, she was hoping for an honest review of the internal screw-up at FBI HQ, and when it looked like it was all going to be swept under the rug, and the Al-Quaeda FBI mole (well, at least that is what FBI Mpls thought of Maltbie) get away with his running interference and get promoted to boot...all the while denigrating the field agents for 'screwing things up.' Yeah, like maybe screwing up his shot at an undeserved pension. Too freaking bad.
To: Steve_Seattle
I wish you could have seen her. Whew. Took her an hour who type 60 names and Schumer paid 1400 for a computer for his 7th grade daughter. That's the SUM total of what we learned from this hearing.
26
posted on
06/06/2002 2:38:43 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: miamimark;Paul Ross
After watching her testimony, God help us if she is one of the top agents. Surely not, since she was in charge of FOIA requests?
27
posted on
06/06/2002 2:38:43 PM PDT
by
callisto
To: Paul Ross
Why did she wait from 9-11, 2001, to 5-17, 2002 to write it then????
28
posted on
06/06/2002 2:39:48 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: Alberta's Child
in the event she was going to ge the "fall-gal" for the FBIs ineptness)No way. She's not that important. She said today, "I've never worked at headquarters." An alarm bell went off with me.
She is nothing more than an unhappy agent.
29
posted on
06/06/2002 2:41:23 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: Howlin
I listened to Coleen Riley from 3:15 on and she doesn't seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. In fact, I kept waiting for her to end a sentence with the standard 'Valley Girl" remark of "For sure" or "Ok Dude"
30
posted on
06/06/2002 2:41:57 PM PDT
by
MJY1288
To: Paul Ross
and the Al-Quaeda FBI mole (well, at least that is what FBI Mpls thought of Maltbie) get away with his running interference and get promoted to bootYou're actually accusing someone in the FBI of being in Al Qaeda?
31
posted on
06/06/2002 2:42:26 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: Paul Ross
She didn't release it to the Press. I beg to differ on that one. Cloak & Dagger 101: To determine who probably leaked something to the media, find out who had everything to gain and nothing to lose by leaking said information. To determine who couldn't have possibly leaked it, find out who had everything to lose and nothing to gain.
To: callisto
What does that mean? Is that a "big" job?
33
posted on
06/06/2002 2:43:05 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: miamimark
Agreed; and where was she during the 8 yrs of the Clinton investigations?
34
posted on
06/06/2002 2:46:17 PM PDT
by
katze
To: Howlin
FOIA=Freedom Of Information Act
She apparently processed FOIA requests from the public, which, I believe, consists of pulling the appropriate papers to fill the request and redacting any classified, top-secret, etc. info. In other words she gets to black out all the stuff we'd love to have seen during the Clinton years. But I think I heard her say that she deals with FBI files going back to the '50s.
35
posted on
06/06/2002 2:46:58 PM PDT
by
callisto
To: katze
Clinton didn't have a mistress in Minneapolis, and Minnasota doesn't have any need for Nuclear Secrets of any high tech missile guidence systems
36
posted on
06/06/2002 2:48:15 PM PDT
by
MJY1288
To: Freedom'sWorthIt
To: MJY1288
Clinton didn't have a mistress in Minneapolis, and Minnasota doesn't have any need for Nuclear Secrets OR any high tech missile guidence systems
38
posted on
06/06/2002 2:49:49 PM PDT
by
MJY1288
To: MJY1288
Oh, coulda surprised me, since she seems to have all the answers.
39
posted on
06/06/2002 2:50:15 PM PDT
by
katze
To: callisto
And the Minneapolis warrant requests, for which she had a sterling record. And she had more hats than that.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 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