Fornits
General Interest => Tacitus' Realm => Topic started by: thepatriot on April 14, 2004, 08:48:00 AM
-
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.
-
everyone keeps going on and on about the comission being bi-partisan
ok that will never really be 100% but ok
but there's Janet reno who is probably going to try and save her as
how bout a commission free of people who are going to try and save their own asses
And why can't they inforce purjury rules like for a regular court case *turns and looks blatently at Condeleeza Rice....
Now children What is the 1st and most important rule!
Hell now, all these mistakes make my jaded little brain think that "they" ie: Cheney and Haliburtion and co. really did ugh I won't even say it.
I will say this though Condeleeza Rice blamed everyone for 9/11 but the people of the US themselves everyone but herself and her puppetteers.
God we needed some people from Straight on that fucking panal. anyone agree. She probably would of confessed to everything and a whole bunch of shit that didn't happen too. May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house.
-- George Carlin
-
How could you expect Condie Rice to take full blame for 911, The Clinton administration boffled 3 attempts to get Bin Laden, I think Condie handled herself far better than any one of those self rightous panel members could have even wihsed. Fact of the matter is 911 happened and Al Cadea is relishing the fact that we are doing nothing but pointing fingers at eachother.
-
but you have to admit condi was aware of the time and tended to talk around in circles wasting time so that questions could not be asked
I do not place the blame on this administration I think the Clintion administration was also responsible. But I think the ball was most definately dropped
and Condeleeza lied, Call it Straight hangover syndrome but she lied! she said "no meniton of attacks on US soil in the memo" the memo is released and boom there it is the US menitoned.
A lie a lie! I wonder if it is just a "straight thing" like brushing your teeth in the shower...but shit like that bothers me to no end.
It is like "she lied she lied!!!!!!" that should not be acceptable if you will lie about one thing what else will you lie about? Freedom has a thousand charms to show, That slaves, howe'er contented, never know.
William Cowper, a British Christian poet & hymn writer (18th century)
-
If your going to throw her in jail for lying (if she infact did) ya gotta throw Fat Uncle teddy K and the rest of capitol hill in jail for it to.
-
Kadee, I don't think that's just a Straight thing. It's not asif she were lying about something private, like a tryst w/ a subordinate in the office. She lied about whether or not the admin had info to prevent an attack that wound up killing a bunch of people on American soil. The rest of the hearing was all about what the admin was up to during that time. It seems to me that they were then and remain today totally wrapped up in a Pinkey and the Brain scheme to rule the world from Babalon. This AFTER the great big lie about WMD has been played out. They simply don't want to address it.
If you want to draw a parallel to the Program, I think they view these kinds of lies in the same light as telling a kid they're going to Disney World to get them into the intake room. In the end, in their view, it's for their own good. So what if you have to tell a few white lies, right? And so what if the damned kid never smartens up enough to appreciate it. They must be on drugs if they can't see the obvious benefit that justifies these little lies.
Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.
Anonymity Anonymous (http://fornits.com/anonanon)
It is wrong to leave a stumbling block in the road once it has tripped you.
-
yes indeed like we the proletariat..simply are far to ignorant to make any rational decisions anyway so might as well lie to us because we the common can't handle the truth
Is uniformity [of opinion] attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.
Thomas Jefferson
-
and patriot it is not a question of if she did or didn't anymore
it is a fact
Those who control the past, control the future; and those who control the present, control the past.
--George Orwell
-
I must say I am not familiar with the part of her testimony where she lied, was she called on it? or did you hear it on CNN ? which has a problem reporting partisn to the demmies. really shoot me a link I would be interested in reading that part of her testimony, not saying it isnt true just havent read any reports on it.
-
Ok Kaydee, I have been digging through articles from the BBC,CNN,ABC,NBC, FOX nothing talks about Condi lying under oath, in fact I have read more praise in the way she handlee herself more so than anyrthing. I als wayched clips of her testimony and thought she did pretty dam good. Where are you drawing your conclusion from ?
-
prior to the recent release of the memo that outlines terrorist intentions on US soil she said in the her testimony that the memo never mentioned an attack on US soil that it only spoke about threats overseas and that it was a history outlining Osama bib ladens something with the US
the memo then under opressure from the 9/11 comission was released and made public and it states the US and NY specifically.
another interesting part of her testimony was when she said the FBI and CIA were fully briefed on possible threats and were supposed to be on full alert and the female panal member said there was no record and that she had asked
CIA and FBI officals if the had be "tasked" on this matter and they said no that there had been absolutely nothing said to them.
another lie Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth.
--Mohandas K. Gandhi
-
Like I said that doesnt spell out lie to me, if she lied under oath our wonderful liberal media would still be raking her over the coals and she came out smelling like a rose. Now remember prior to 911 the FBI and CIA thanks to UJamie Gorlick were not aloud to pool information which resulted in a lot of mis communications. Your sniffin pretty far down on the food chain on this one.
-
Like I said earlier, Bin Laden and company are relishing in all this hoopla. To put the president and vice president and cbinet under oath is a waste of time and money , its not a matter of cover their ass. There is a lot we will never know due to reasons of national security, and that is a fact.
This is a witch hunt and a waste of time, it could not have been prevented. The whole slick willy impeachment had more relavance than this.
-
I don't agree
we will have to agree to disagree
and the slick willy thing should have been left behind closed doors in the closet with monicas dress.The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
-- John Adams, (1772)
-
alright one last time before I stop beating this poor dead horse
She said the memo never mentioned the US
they release the memo
it mentions the US
that is a lie
you don't agree?
If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs,
you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors,
shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general
nature, in spite of individual exceptions.
Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787
-
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 ]
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
911 prevention in TWO WORDS "Airport Security"
-
Again..FBI and CIA info was not pooled, if the need to blaim , shit start with the justice department
-
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.
Andrew Tannenbaum
-
Sorry Kaydee we just differ in opinion on this.
-
#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:
-
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:
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Wow, you think that this may have something to do with why gas prices are close to $2 dollars per gallon now?
-
show me something some fact some detail anything that shows Bush as trustworthy, being a
"Straightling" I don't trust easy but give me something anything......
and Zapata was the code name for the Bay of Pigs invasion.
To much Bush for too long! The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism.
--William Osler
-
Forget Bush, tell me why Kerry is qualified to be Commander in Chief? Also, please explain why his voting record should not be used to judge him?
-
I never said his voting record should not be used against him.
I believe firmly that people should stand by their convictions. I also believe people have the right to change the minds. Not that I am saying that is why he flip flopped.
Kerry is a decorated vietnam veteran, he is a war hero he has a silver star and he is not George Bush. those are my reasons
right now just about anyone could run and get my vote, as long as they had a political backround and were at least a senator.
He is as qualified as any other president has been in the past, the only and I emphazise this only thing making Bush appear more qualified is his daddy before him
This is not England, the presidency is not a throne. Being senator was sufficent enough for many presidents prior, Bush is not even a decorated war hero like Kerry is
What makes Bush qualified? Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.
Andrew Tannenbaum
-
I don't think being a senator makes anyone qualified to be president, does it Qualify Hillary ? (NO)
Ted Kennedy (God Help Us NOT) All being a senator means is that you are a member of the Millionaires club, and you had idiots stupid enough to put you in office, ie;Carpet bagger Hillary Clinton, what was New York thinking
-
And lets remember only two senators have moved directly from the senate to the oval office, Warren Harding and JFK, there have only been a total of 15 senators to eventually end up as president. I don't
think Kerry has the Moxy to accomplish this , not with what our country is involved in right now any way.[ This Message was edited by: thepatriot on 2004-04-15 06:50 ]