Day by Day

Friday, August 12, 2005

Hang the Traitors

Wasn’t it Kissinger who recused himself from the 9/11 Commission early on due to supposition that he had a conflict of interest because he was a prior secretary of state – thirty years ago? But Jamie GoreLick was ok though she was the #2 person in Clinton’s Department of Justice rather than Nixon’s National Security Advisor or Ford’s Secretary of State. Makes sense to me. Not! To any rational mind, Jamie GoreLick had a much, much bigger conflict of interest than did Henry Kissinger. Seems to me, Jamie GoreLick was put on the 9/11 Commission for a very specific reason – to deflect blame from the Clinton administration. Well, mission accomplished Jamie! Well done! Except for one thing – despite your rush to publish your best-selling novel and cement the history books in a tightly wrapped package, it ain’t over.

Apparently the 9/11 Commission decided early on to blame our failure as a nation to stop 9/11 from happening on the intelligence community rather than the Clinton administration which stripped both the intelligence community and law enforcement community of their ability to act. Why you ask? Just look to see who stood to lose if the Department of Justice and the “Wall” that separated international from domestic intelligence was implicated. Jamie S. GoreLick, creator of the “Wall,” 9/11 Commissioner, and #2 person in Clinton’s Department of Justice.

GoreLick never had to take the witness stand and explain why her "Wall" was enacted in the first place. That is the most relevant question the 9/11 Commission could have asked, and it is the one that it could not ask thanks to the fact that the one person who had had more to do with enacting the wall than anyone else was on the Commission itself.

The worst part about all of this is that the 9/11 Commission staff is going into the National Archive, tomorrow(!), to cover their tracks and make sure there is no remaining evidence that could implicate the Commission itself, and they are doing it right under our noses and going “Nyah! Nyah!” as they’re doing it. What’s their official reason for camping out at the National Archives tomorrow? Are they planning on revising their report? The 9/11 Commission is investigating itself now? Investigating their own cover-up? Isn’t that like sending an accused murderer to investigate the crime scene? No way! They just graduated from investigators to suspects. Their credibility is shot! We’ve got the motive (to save their careers, and a sweet book deal), the murder weapon (socks, a la Sandy Bergler), the body (the truth, as mangled as it may be), and they’ve been caught red-handed (by Congressman Curt Weldon). The 9/11 Commission must be really desperate at this point. Wouldn’t you be? If they’re going to raid the National Archives, again, then there’d better be cavity searches before they’re allowed to leave. I’m not joking! If it’s good enough for Martha Stewart, it’s good enough for the 9/11 Commission. They already had their chance when Sandy Bergler raided our tippity-top-secret archives in October 2003, just after the 9/11 Commission was alerted to Able Danger the first time – you know, that time they conveniently forgot about when writing up their report/novel but just now suddenly remembered when someone publicly rubbed their nose in it. The second time they were alerted to Able Danger, which they also said they forgot about, was ten days before their report was released (July 2004), too late to do anything about (yeah right) though it blows a hole in their report so big you could fly a Boeing 747 through it.

UPDATE (Tim): DANEgerus pulls a lot of stuff together here.

UPDATE 2: Poof! Down the memory hole it goes, and with the collaboration of the NY Times to boot. They've already hit the National Archives. According to Dr. Sanity's website:
Staff members now are searching documents in the National Archives to look for notes from the meeting in Afghanistan and any other possible references to Atta and Able Danger, [9/11 Commission spokesman] Felzenberg said.
That is a direct quote from a NY Times article that no longer exists, because the article has disappeared - what is left in its place is this article which has the same URL but a different title than the earlier one and makes no reference to the National Archives. The new article says:
''He could not describe what information had led to this supposed Atta identification,'' the [9/11 Commission's] statement said of the military [intelligence] official.
The relevant data discussed by the officer showed Atta to be a member of an al-Qaida cell in New York City from February to April 2000, the [9/11 Commission's] statement said.
Like I said before, the 9/11 Commission's credibility is shot. I hate to be the first to say it, but we're gonna have to start all over again with a new 9/11 Commission. Most of the data is already there except for the stuff they and Sandy Bergler destroyed - much of it needs to be looked at again and reevaluated, starting with the Prague Connection. You see, the reason that the 9/11 Commission discounted the Able Danger report on Mohammed Atta being in the U.S. prior to June, 2000 was because they needed to discount the Prague connection for political reasons.
"There was no way that Atta could have been in the United States at that time, which is why the staff didn't give this tremendous weight when they were writing the report," Mr. Felzenberg said. "This information was not meshing with the other information that we had."
This is what happens when you have politicians acting as investigators. So if one data point doesn't jive with the data coming from the immigration office, you just toss it? If Atta was not in the country then how could Able Danger, in 2000 more than a year prior to 9/11, identify him as an al Qaeda terrorist in the "Brooklyn cell" and ask to share information with the FBI?

No comments: