For SuperFlyingLiberal... [message #107103] |
Wed, 11 August 2004 10:39 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429 Registered: February 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
You left IRC before I could dig this up:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1116962/posts
This is the memo issued by Jamie Gorelick that put up a wall between the FBI and CIA and was a huge part of the reason we couldn't connect the dots for 9/11... the FBI had information about the flight schools and such, and the CIA had information from abroad... but since they couldn't collaborate effectively, we were never able to connect the pieces and prevent 9/11.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
For SuperFlyingLiberal... [message #107110] |
Wed, 11 August 2004 11:15 |
|
Demonicpieceofcrapts versus Repubiclydisgustingcans, CHOSE YOUR SIDE!
I suck cock and love it... absolutely love it. And I just got banned for being too immature to be allowed to post here.
|
|
|
For SuperFlyingLiberal... [message #107114] |
Wed, 11 August 2004 12:30 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756 Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Jamie Gorelick didn't stop the intelligence agencies from talking to each other. Here's the real story:
It all started with John Ashcroft going in front of the 9/11 Commision. Here's what Salon has to say:
Salon.com | Blustering denials might not be sufficient to suppress such bad publicity. So while the attorney general pompously assured the commissioners that their work "can serve a noble purpose," he sought to intimidate them by launching a broadside against the Clinton administration, in the form of a bitter personal attack on former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick. His tool was a hastily declassified 1995 Justice Department memorandum, written by Gorelick, that limited communications between intelligence agents and criminal investigators. According to Ashcroft, that memo stopped the FBI and the CIA from apprehending the al-Qaida agents lurking in the U.S. during the "summer of threat" as they prepared for the Sept. 11 hijackings. He didn't explain why his own deputy attorney general, Larry Thompson, endorsed precisely the same 1995 guidelines on Aug. 6, 2001. Neither did the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which swiftly seconded Ashcroft's attack on Gorelick, whom it accused of a conflict of interest.
|
So, according, Ashcroft, the memo stopped the two agencies from talking to each other, but fails to say why his own deputy endorsed the same guidelines in 2001. There's a good reason for this memo, by the way... Back in the Nixon years, Nixon was using the CIA to spy on U.S. citizens, like having agents infiltrate anti-war protest groups and such. That was very ugly. Thus, new rules were set down where the CIA wouldn't operate in the U.S. and the FBI wouldn't operate outside of the United States, for the most part. This got pretty nasty, since the agencies stopped sharing information with each other and became very territorial. So, Jamie Gorelick wrote a memo laying down the law of what the agencies can and cannot do, where they CAN share information with each other. That was never against the rules. This memo was helping to get information spread around. And during the Clinton administration, The head of the FBI and the head of the CIA, along with some other people, Sandy Berger included, I believe, sat around a table every week and discussed things, mainly terrorism. This never happened during the Bush administration. Trying to pin this on Jamie Gorelick is just an attempted smear by Ashcroft that some people caught on to.
If the Clintons had been in office for 4 more years, 9/11 would probably have been prevented, seeing how in the Bush administration the head of the CIA and FBI didn't meet with the President every single week to discuss mostly terrorism.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
For SuperFlyingLiberal... [message #107127] |
Wed, 11 August 2004 13:54 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756 Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Well, yeah, Osama is the root of this evil, but there will always be people like him in this world, and we must be able to defend against them. And to be able to defend against such threats, we need to always be on alert. It's not President Bush's fault for 9/11, but it is his fault for not accurately dealing with the threat.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
For SuperFlyingLiberal... [message #107159] |
Wed, 11 August 2004 15:41 |
|
Nodbugger: Make us happy, CUT YOUR FINGERS!
I suck cock and love it... absolutely love it. And I just got banned for being too immature to be allowed to post here.
|
|
|
|
For SuperFlyingLiberal... [message #107180] |
Wed, 11 August 2004 16:10 |
|
Because beavers are wise and they don't sign you up to child porn newsletters?
(I ALMOST FORGOT! Beavers are smarter than you.)
I suck cock and love it... absolutely love it. And I just got banned for being too immature to be allowed to post here.
|
|
|
|
For SuperFlyingLiberal... [message #107194] |
Wed, 11 August 2004 18:02 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429 Registered: February 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I think if Nixon were abusing the power of the CIA, it would be more prudent to punish Nixon rather than the agency carrying out his wishes.
Heck, Chuck Colson looked at one FBI file and spent 7 months in prison under Nixon, and yet "someone" looked at thousands of these files under Clinton and yet no one is punished.
You can watch whether there was a wall or not by watching detective movies and seeing them argue about jurisdiction.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For SuperFlyingLiberal... [message #107359] |
Thu, 12 August 2004 10:36 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429 Registered: February 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Sorry, I forgot you hate to be labeled for what you are... it's an insult. I'm happy to be CrimServative.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
For SuperFlyingLiberal... [message #107529] |
Thu, 12 August 2004 19:17 |
|
Pak
Messages: 19 Registered: February 2003 Location: Vancouver B.C. Canada
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
SUPERFLYINGENGI YOU GOD FORSAKEN LIBERAL!
VOTE BUSH AND VOTE FOR YOUR REPUBLICAN SENATOR, REP, OR GOVERNOR COMING NOV 2
Chairman and CEO of Pak Incorporated.
Member of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Member of the Liberal Party of British Columbia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For SuperFlyingLiberal... [message #107655] |
Fri, 13 August 2004 10:23 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943 Registered: February 2003 Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I wonder if that explains Cheney's uptightness. I'd bet he hasn't gotten Liberal in a long time, eh?
Oh, and this is just a joke. Nothing more.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|