Author Topic: Jamie Gorelick  (Read 8834 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline thepatriot

  • Posts: 570
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Jamie Gorelick
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2004, 03:54:00 PM »
She said it never spelled out a specific attack on the US so no and like I said if she lied in front of that panel she would ahave been crucified. we just see it differently.[ This Message was edited by: thepatriot on 2004-04-14 12:54 ]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
arasota Straight Escapee

Offline kaydeejaded

  • Posts: 719
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Jamie Gorelick
« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2004, 04:05:00 PM »
The newly revealed content of President Bush's Aug. 6, 2001, daily briefing is a prime example. In a vaguely worded warning that contradicts national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's contention that the memo was only a historical summary, the briefing referenced older work but added that "FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

More important, the memo was a clear reminder that al-Qaida terrorists were in the United States, had a support structure here that could assist anyone planning an attack and that such an attack was an al-Qaida goal. Most of that, however, was old information. And some of the newer information turned out to be wrong. The New York targets, for example, weren't federal buildings. The alleged surveillance turned out to be picture-taking by Yemeni tourists.

What is most troubling, however, is the fact that the briefing's warning about suspicious activity consistent with preparations for hijackings didn't cause more concern. And the reason it did not, apparently, was because intelligence that would have put that information in a more dangerous context never made it to the president.

For example, the briefing did not include information that FBI agents had reported suspicions of terrorist flight training in Arizona, and had been alerted to a suspect in Minnesota who wanted to learn how to steer jetliners but not how to land them. The CIA also had identified two of the hijackers as dangerous al-Qaida operatives, but had not asked the FBI to block them at the borders until August, when both already were in the country.

If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit  people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good?  Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race?

--Frederic Bastiat -- 1801-1850

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
or those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who don\'t, none will do

Offline kaydeejaded

  • Posts: 719
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Jamie Gorelick
« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2004, 04:10:00 PM »
Full text of president's Aug. 6, 2001, briefing
 
 
 
According to the memo, Bush was told more than a month before the Sept. 11 attacks that al-Qaida had reached America?s shores, had a support system in place for its operatives and that the FBI had detected suspicious activity that might involve a hijacking plot.

Since 1998, the FBI had observed ?patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks,? according to a memo prepared for Bush and declassified Saturday.

White House aides and outside experts said they could not recall a sitting president ever publicly releasing the highly sensitive document, known as a PDB, for presidential daily briefing.

The Aug. 6, 2001 PDB referred to evidence of buildings in New York possibly being cased by terrorists.

The document also said the CIA and FBI were investigating a call to the U.S. embassy in the United Arab Emirates in May 2001 ?saying that a group of (Osama) bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.?

Pressure from commission
The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people in New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania, asked the White House to declassify the document at its meeting Thursday. It is significant because Bush read it, so it offers a window on what Bush and his top aides knew about the threat of a terrorist strike.

The PDB made plain that bin Laden had been scheming to strike the United States for at least six years. It warned of indications from a broad array of sources, spanning several years.

Democratic and Republican members of the 9-11 commission saw the document differently.

Democratic commissioner Bob Kerrey, a former senator from Nebraska, said the memo?s details should have given Bush enough warning to push for more intelligence information about possible domestic hijackings.

  RELATED STORY
WashPost: Bush seemed unworried in Aug. 2001
 
 
 


?The whole argument the government used that we were focusing overseas, that we thought the attack was coming from outside the United States ? this memo said an attack could come in the United States. And we didn?t scramble our agencies to that,? he said.

Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic commissioner and former Watergate prosecutor, said the memo calls into question national security adviser Condoleezza Rice?s assertion Thursday that the memo was purely a ?historical? document.

 

?This is a provocative piece of information and warrants further exploration as to what was done following the receipt of this information to enhance our domestic security,? he said.

Senior administration officials said Bush saw more than 40 mentions of al-Qaida in his daily intelligence updates during the first eight months of his presidency. The CIA prepared the document ?in response to questions asked by the president about the possibility of attacks by al-Qaida inside the U.S,? one said.

But the senior officials refused to say what Bush?s response to the memo was.

Republican commissioner James R. Thompson, a former Illinois governor, said the memo ?didn?t call for anything to be done" by Bush.

No specific information about imminent attack
The memo?s details confirm that the Bush administration had no specific information regarding an imminent attack involving airplanes as missiles, Thompson said.

?The PDB backs up what Dr. Rice testified to. There is no smoking gun, not even a cold gun,? he said.

?Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S.,? the memo to Bush stated. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and ?bring the fighting to America.?

After President Clinton launched missile strikes on bin Laden?s base in Afghanistan in 1998, ?bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington,? the memo said.

The memo cited intelligence from other countries in three instances, but the White House blacked out the names of the nations.

Insight into failed ?99 attack
Efforts to launch an attack from Canada around the time of millennium celebrations in 2000 ?may have been part of bin Laden?s first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.,? the document stated.

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam, who was caught trying to cross the Canadian border with explosives about 60 miles north of Seattle in late 1999, told the FBI that he alone conceived an attack on Los Angeles International Airport, but that bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah ?encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation,? the document said. Ressam is still awaiting sentencing after agreeing to testify in other terrorism cases.

Zubaydah was a senior al-Qaida planner who was captured in Pakistan in March 2002.

Al-Qaida members, some of them American citizens, had lived in or traveled to the United States for years, the memo said.

?The group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks,? it warned.

The document said that ?some of the more sensational threat reporting? ? such as an intelligence tip in 1998 that bin Laden wanted to hijack aircraft to win the release of fellow extremists ? could not be corroborated.

One item in the memo referred to ?recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.? A White House official speaking to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity said that was a reference to two Yemeni men the FBI interviewed and concluded were simply tourists taking photographs.

On May 15, 2001, a caller to the U.S. embassy in the United Arab Emirates warned of planned bin Laden attacks with explosives in the United States, but did not say where or when.

The CIA reported the incident to other government officials the next day, and a dozen or more steps were taken by the CIA and other agencies ?to run down? the information from the phone call, senior administration officials said Saturday evening.

One official said references to al-Qaida in prior presidential briefings ?would indicate ?they are here, they are there? in various countries and the CIA director would tell the president what was being done to address ?these different operations.?

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.
--Thomas Jefferson

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
or those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who don\'t, none will do

Offline kaydeejaded

  • Posts: 719
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Jamie Gorelick
« Reply #18 on: April 14, 2004, 04:12:00 PM »
What did he want the time date and place down to the minute?

Come to the woods, for here is rest. There is no repose like that of the green deep woods. Here grow the wallflower and the violet. The squirrel will come and sit upon your knee, the logcock will wake you in the morning. Sleep in forgetfulness of all ill. Of all the upness accessible to mortals, there is no upness comparable to the mountains.
-- John Muir

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
or those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who don\'t, none will do

Offline thepatriot

  • Posts: 570
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Jamie Gorelick
« Reply #19 on: April 14, 2004, 04:14:00 PM »
911 prevention in TWO WORDS "Airport Security"
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
arasota Straight Escapee

Offline thepatriot

  • Posts: 570
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Jamie Gorelick
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2004, 04:14:00 PM »
Again..FBI and CIA info was not pooled, if the need to blaim , shit start with the justice department
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
arasota Straight Escapee

Offline kaydeejaded

  • Posts: 719
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Jamie Gorelick
« Reply #21 on: April 14, 2004, 04:19:00 PM »
the information is there if the president wants to try and blame the FBI or the CIA then whatever but it's there

John Ashcroft reportedly did not want to hear about terror threats.

It's not that I know it isn't not the FBI or the CIA the millennium threat was stopped on Clintions watch with the same airport security in place so it is not that either...

you will never see it my way to me it just is so obvious I guess it isn't to you.

How can you not see it???? ARGH!

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.  
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0136374069/circlofmiamithem' target='_new'> Andrew Tannenbaum

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
or those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who don\'t, none will do

Offline thepatriot

  • Posts: 570
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Jamie Gorelick
« Reply #22 on: April 14, 2004, 04:20:00 PM »
Sorry Kaydee we just differ in opinion on this.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
arasota Straight Escapee

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Jamie Gorelick
« Reply #23 on: April 14, 2004, 10:16:00 PM »
#1 person responsible for 9-11 is Jamie.  The separation policy could not have been more deadly (3000+ lives).  #2  Airport Security (There Was None!) #3  Clinton for having his balls in some interns mouth instead of playing hard ball with Osama Bin Laden.

 :evil:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Jamie Gorelick
« Reply #24 on: April 14, 2004, 10:20:00 PM »
Quote
On 2004-04-14 05:48:00, thepatriot wrote:

"For those of us who were in the trenches of the struggle against militant Islam beginning in the early 1990s, it is jarring to hear, of all people, Jamie Gorelick ? now a member of the 9/11 Commission ? hectoring government officials about their asserted failure to perceive how essential it is that the right pieces of intelligence get into the right hands. Equally bracing is to read the account of Gorelick's star witness, former counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke ? that hero of the last 15 minutes ? who bemoans how, even though he "had asked to know if a sparrow fell from a tree" during the summer 2001, the FBI and CIA nonetheless failed to stitch together disconnected bits of information about al Qaeda operatives and flight schools.



No one in his right mind could say that intelligence breakdowns related to 9/11 are not worth exploring. At issue, though, is the proper explorer. One would have hoped the appearance of objectivity, never mind the reality, would be the 9/11 Commission's guiding compass. Instead, the panel is beset by a gargantuan conflict of interest ? and it's starting to show.



THE ARCHITECT AS JUDGE

Commissioner Gorelick, as deputy attorney general ? the number two official in the Department of Justice ? for three years beginning in 1994, was an architect of the government's self-imposed procedural wall, intentionally erected to prevent intelligence agents from pooling information with their law-enforcement counterparts. That is not partisan carping. That is a matter of objective fact. That wall was not only a deliberate and unnecessary impediment to information sharing; it bred a culture of intelligence dysfunction. It told national-security agents in the field that there were other values, higher interests, that transcended connecting the dots and getting it right. It set them up to fail. To hear Gorelick lecture witnesses about intelligence lapses is breathtaking.



Jamie Gorelick also served as Asst. attorney General under Janet Reno which explains alot, she sits on this panel and not once has mentioned she authored the memo that put a wall up between the FBI and CIA to share info, should she not have recused herself from the 911 panel ? I think so, shit what a conflict of intrest."


Jamie should be put under oath and made to testify in front of the commission.  Dumb ass that she is, she is still accountable for 9-11 and all the BUSH BASHERS should take a lesson from the carnage (not the legacy) this lady left behind.  

 :flame:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline kaydeejaded

  • Posts: 719
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Jamie Gorelick
« Reply #25 on: April 14, 2004, 11:24:00 PM »
I cannot believe people are in denial about Bush, Cheney the people who made money off 9/11 and they really think that it is people like Jaime and Dick Clark who wanted to meet with the president but the president could not be bothered

I am not in denial about clinton why the denial about Bush

the facts are there, the damn comission even happened..trust me I am shocked, the money trail and the audit are there for Cheney

he was even chastised for selling oil to the Army and making a profit

Why defend these people??

what about them is defendable, them making money off hailburtion so much so that Cheney had to be audited?

Cheney the Vice president making money off the Army

these are facts it is not Bush bashing and if it sounds like it is all the more reason to take a real close look at those actions because I didn't event them to bash him.

Everything I posted on here was fact, not my opinion, re-stating Bush's own actions look and sound like bashing because they are that horrible

He that lives upon hope will die fasting
--Benjamin Franklin 1758

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
or those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who don\'t, none will do

Offline kaydeejaded

  • Posts: 719
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Jamie Gorelick
« Reply #26 on: April 14, 2004, 11:28:00 PM »
In December 2001, Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, secured a 10-year deal known as the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), from the Pentagon. The contract is a "cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity service" which basically means that the federal government has an open-ended mandate and budget to send Brown and Root anywhere in the world to run military operations for a profit.

Linda Theis, a public affairs officer for the U.S. Army Field Support Command in Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, confirmed for Corpwatch that Brown and Root is also supporting operations in Afghanistan, Djibouti, Georgia, Jordan and Uzbekistan.

"Specific locations along with military units, number of personnel assigned, and dates of duration are considered classified," she said. "The overall anticipated cost of task orders awarded since contract award in December 2001 is approximately $830 million
Future Contracts in Iraq
Halliburton is also one of five large US corporations invited to bid for contracts in what may turn out to be the biggest reconstruction project since the Second World War. The others are the Bechtel Group, Fluor Corp, Parsons Corp, and the Louis Berger Group.

The Iraq reconstruction plan will require contractors to fulfill various tasks, including reopening at least half of the "economically important roads and bridges" -- about 1,500 miles of roadway within 18 months, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The contractors will also be asked to repair 15% of high-voltage electricity grid, renovate several thousand schools and deliver 550 emergency generators within two months. The contract is estimated to be worth up to $900 million for the preliminary work alone.

The Pentagon has also awarded a contract to Brown and Root to control oil fires if Saddam Hussein sets the well heads ablaze. Iraq has oil reserves second only to those of Saudi Arabia. This makes Brown and Root a leading candidate to win the role of top contractor in any petroleum field rehabilitation effort in Iraq that industry analysts say could be as much as $1.5 billion in contracts to jump start Iraq's petroleum sector following a war.

Wartime Profiteering

No laws, however stringent, can make the idle industrious, the thriftless provident, or the drunken sober
--Samuel Stiles

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
or those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who don\'t, none will do

Offline kaydeejaded

  • Posts: 719
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Jamie Gorelick
« Reply #27 on: April 14, 2004, 11:29:00 PM »
Critics say that the apparent conflict of interest is deplorable. "The Bush-Cheney team have turned the United States into a family business," says Harvey Wasserman, author of The Last Energy War (Seven Stories Press, 2000). "That's why we haven't seen Cheney - he's cutting deals with his old buddies who gave him a multimillion-dollar golden handshake. Have they no grace, no shame, no common sense? Why don't they just have Enron run America? Or have Zapata Petroleum (George W. Bush's failed oil-exploration venture) build a pipeline across Afghanistan?"

Save our planet; it's the only one with chocolate!

--Andi, domestic goddess

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
or those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who don\'t, none will do

Offline kaydeejaded

  • Posts: 719
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Jamie Gorelick
« Reply #28 on: April 14, 2004, 11:31:00 PM »
The Pentagon and State Department criminal fraud investigations of Halliburton concerning their handling of a fuel contract in Iraq are an important first step - but point to the need for bold action on the part of the President and Congress to ensure accountability of military contractors, according to the Campaign to Stop the War Profiteers.

"The Pentagon's decision to investigate criminal wrong-doing by Halliburton is commendable and an important first step," said Chris Kromm, co-director of the Campaign. "However, the scope of the scandals surrounding Halliburton and other military contractors demands a full Congressional inquiry into the politics surrounding contract decisions, and the performance of corporations that have been given billions of taxpayer dollars."

"Halliburton has overcharged by at least $61 million for gasoline brought in from Kuwait to Iraq; Halliburton employees took at least $6.3 million in kickbacks for steering a subcontract for Iraq rebuilding to a Kuwaiti firm; and Halliburton was charging the government for three times as many meals as it was actually serving to U.S. soldiers in Kuwait over a nine month period," said William Hartung, senior fellow at the World Policy Institute at the New School and author of a forthcoming book on war profiteering.

"In short, Halliburton is a desperate firm with a history of shaky ethical practices that is being allowed to take U.S. taxpayers for a ride in large part because of its cozy relationship with the Army and its powerful friend in the White House, Vice President Cheney," Hartung concluded.


He that lives upon hope will die fasting
--Benjamin Franklin 1758

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
or those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who don\'t, none will do

Offline Troubled Turd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 270
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Jamie Gorelick
« Reply #29 on: April 14, 2004, 11:37:00 PM »
Wow, you think that this may have something to do with why gas prices are close to $2 dollars per gallon now?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »