USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[walker 0]

Hi billybob2002

No one but a member of the communist wingnuts of the Republican party believes Clinton caused 9/11 whether you wear your tin foil hat or not.

We all know it was TBA's watch and no one elses that 9/11 happened on.

We all watched George Bush Junior freeze in fear reading a book about goats rather command the nations defense. It is there indelably on the record in videos recording nothing done in the nations defense till after the third plane had slammed in to the Pentagan in the nations Capitol.

Now the evidense from Able Danger points out clearly that warnings were there but TBA ignored them. They wanted their war with Iraq and that was all they were concerned about. TBA did not care about the defence of the nation and Able Danger proves it.

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Now the evidense from Able Danger points out clearly that warnings were there but TBA ignored them. They wanted their war with Iraq and that was all they were concerned about. TBA did not care about the defence of the nation and Able Danger proves it.

How did TBA ignore "Able Danger"? We do not know even if TBA knew about "Able Danger" before 9/11. What we know is that they, members within the unit, supposedly identify Atta and members of an al Qaeda cell in 2000 and they were prevented from passing this information to the FBI because of the legality of doing so. Also, that they were shut down in Feb. of 2001 by Congress and not Bush. We don't know what happened to the intelligence after the meeting and whether, or not Clinton or Bush saw this info. Able Danger does not prove that TBA did not care about the defence of the nation but proves that the law trumped national security at that time (majority of the time, it still does)... if true...

[Homefry 0]

We all know it was TBA's watch and no one elses that 9/11 happened on.

I'm not sure if you quite realize the situation before 9/11 or not. The intel agencies did not work together, and the way information was gathered and analyzed was slow, inefficent, and caused more problems than it solved. To say that the Bush administration was entirely responsible for the shortcomings of the intelligence agencies that were inherited when he gained office is absurd. Especially since the administration before Bush didn't do much as far as reform for the intelligence agencies. Do you honestly think 9/11 would have happened if Clinton and his administration had gotten its shit together after the terrorist attacks during his presidency?

Quote[/b] ]We all watched George Bush Junior freeze in fear reading a book about goats rather command the nations defense. It is there indelably on the record in videos recording nothing done in the nations defense till after the third plane had slammed in to the Pentagan in the nations Capitol.

I'm kind of missing the point your making here... was he not decisive enough for you? Just clarify a bit.

Quote[/b] ]Now the evidense from Able Danger points out clearly that warnings were there but TBA ignored them. They wanted their war with Iraq and that was all they were concerned about. TBA did not care about the defence of the nation and Able Danger proves it.

If you read the article you posted, you would realize the policites in place, from administrations prior to Bush, prevented the intelligence gathered by Able Danger from being shared. AND... I'll quote the article:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">"The officer being interviewed said he saw this material only briefly, that the relevant material dated from February through April 2000, and that it showed Mohamed Atta to be a member of an al Qaeda cell located in Brooklyn," the statement said.

Walker... it seems to be that sometimes your a bit hellbent on blaming the Bush Administration for everything.... perhaps thats just me though.

[walker 0]

Hi all

George Bush Junior's national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley was shown the Able Danger report naming the Brooklyn Cell that included Atta before 9/11. TBA are now refusing to comment!

Quote[/b] ]...The furor over Atta began earlier this summer with a little-noticed paragraph in Weldon's book, "Countdown to Terror," which focuses on the claims of an Iranian informant that the CIA has deemed a fabricator. Weldon writes that during a meeting with Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, he presented a chart "developed in 1999" by the Able Danger program that "diagrammed the affiliations of al Qaeda and showed Mohammed [sic] Atta and the infamous Brooklyn Cell."

Time magazine reported last week that Weldon said he is no longer sure that Atta was included on the chart he gave Hadley. But Weldon's chief of staff said yesterday that Atta was on the chart and that it was produced in 1999. Representatives for Hadley, who is now President Bush's national security adviser, have declined to comment on Weldon's claims.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....51.html

GOTCHA!

TBA new about the Al Qaeda members who commited 9/11 but ignored them!

The GOP talking points have all been about them desperatley trying to blame it on Clinton. The latest GOP talking point even tries to make out Clinton was in power in 2001 I sh*t you not

Quote[/b] ]ROEMER (to Clarke): I want to know, first of all: Was fighting al Qaeda a top priority for the Clinton administration from 1998 to the year 2001? How high a priority was it in that Clinton administration during that time period?

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/onorth/2005/on_08181.shtml

They now want to say it was Clinton reading about Goats.

But the sober facts remain:

1. It was TBA's watch

2. TBA was informed of the threat by Al Qaeda in briefings from the Clinton administration before TBA took office but TBA ingnored them and could not even be bothered to attend the briefings.

3. Able Danger informed George Bush Junior's national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley of the Brooklyn Cell and Atta before 9/11

4. In the 11 months before Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11 TBA did nothing.

Kind Regards Walker

[chops 111]

Very interesting reading for a computer game website!

[billybob2002 0]

Hi all

George Bush Junior's national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley was shown the Able Danger report naming the Brooklyn Cell that included Atta before 9/11. TBA are now refusing to comment!

Quote[/b] ]...The furor over Atta began earlier this summer with a little-noticed paragraph in Weldon's book, "Countdown to Terror," which focuses on the claims of an Iranian informant that the CIA has deemed a fabricator. Weldon writes that during a meeting with Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, he presented a chart "developed in 1999" by the Able Danger program that "diagrammed the affiliations of al Qaeda and showed Mohammed [sic] Atta and the infamous Brooklyn Cell."

Time magazine reported last week that Weldon said he is no longer sure that Atta was included on the chart he gave Hadley. But Weldon's chief of staff said yesterday that Atta was on the chart and that it was produced in 1999. Representatives for Hadley, who is now President Bush's national security adviser, have declined to comment on Weldon's claims.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....51.html

GOTCHA!

TBA new about the Al Qaeda members who commited 9/11 but ignored them!

The GOP talking points have all been about them desperatley trying to blame it on Clinton. The latest GOP talking point even tries to make out Clinton was in power in 2001 I sh*t you not

Quote[/b] ]ROEMER (to Clarke): I want to know, first of all: Was fighting al Qaeda a top priority for the Clinton administration from 1998 to the year 2001? How high a priority was it in that Clinton administration during that time period?

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/onorth/2005/on_08181.shtml

They now want to say it was Clinton reading about Goats.

But the sober facts remain:

1. It was TBA's watch

2. TBA was informed of the threat by Al Qaeda in briefings from the Clinton administration before TBA took office but TBA ingnored them and could not even be bothered to attend the briefings.

3. Able Danger informed George Bush Junior's national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley of the Brooklyn Cell and Atta before 9/11

4. In the 11 months before Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11 TBA did nothing.

Kind Regards Walker

Did you even try to look up when this meeting happened? Should I do it for you? I'm an nice guy so okay....

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/12337293.htm

Quote[/b] ]

Weldon said that he had discussed the Able Danger episode with Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R., Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and that at least two congressional committees were now looking into the episode.

In the interview yesterday, Weldon said he had been aware of the episode since shortly after the Sept. 11 attack, when members of the team first brought it to his attention. He said he had told Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, about it in a conversation in September or October of 2001 and had been surprised when the Sept. 11 commission report made no mention of the operation.

Dig harder, next time. Bush wasn't eleven months in to office when 9/11 happened but closer to almost nine months. Clinton was a lame duck president until Bush took office in late Jan. of 2001.

Edit:

Quote[/b] ]Mr. Weldon is an outspoken figure who is a vice chairman of both the House Armed Services Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee. He said he had recognized the significance of the episode only recently, when he contacted members of the military intelligence team as part of research for his book, "Countdown to Terror: The Top-Secret Information That Could Prevent the Next Terrorist Attack on America and How the C.I.A. Has Ignored It."

Mr. Weldon's book prompted one veteran C.I.A. case officer to strongly dispute the reliability of one Iranian source cited in the book, saying the Iranian "was a waste of my time and resources."

Mr. Weldon said that he had discussed the Able Danger episode with Representative Peter Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and that at least two Congressional committees were looking into the episode.

In the interview on Monday, Mr. Weldon said he had been aware of the episode since shortly after the Sept. 11 attack, when members of the team first brought it to his attention. He said he had told Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, about it in a conversation in September or October 2001, and had been surprised when the Sept. 11 commission report made no mention of the operation.

You need a login for that philly site.

Edit #2:

Even better source.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1093694,00.html

Quote[/b] ]

In a particularly dramatic scene in Weldon’s book, Countdown to Terror, the Pennsylvania Republican described personally handing to then-Deputy National Security Adviser Steve Hadley, just after Sept. 11, an Able Danger chart produced in 1999 identifying Atta. But Weldon told TIME he’s no longer certain Atta’s name was on that original document. The congressman says he handed Hadley his only copy. Still, last week he referred reporters to a recently reconstructed version of the chart in his office where, among dozens of names and photos of terrorists from around the world, there was a color mug shot of Mohammad Atta, circled in black marker.

[ralphwiggum 6]

speaking of intelligence failure,

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/index.html

Quote[/b] ](CNN) -- A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.

"I wish I had not been involved in it," says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."

Wilkerson is one of several insiders interviewed for the CNN Presents documentary "Dead Wrong -- Inside an Intelligence Meltdown." The program, which airs Sunday at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET, pieces together the events leading up to the mistaken WMD intelligence that was presented to the public. A presidential commission that investigated the pre-war WMD intelligence found much of it to be "dead wrong."

Powell's speech, delivered on February 5, 2003, made the case for the war by presenting U.S. intelligence that purported to prove that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Wilkerson says the information in Powell's presentation initially came from a document he described as "sort of a Chinese menu" that was provided by the White House.

"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'" Wilkerson says in the program. "It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."

Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says.

"There was no way the Secretary of State was going to read off a script about serious matters of intelligence that could lead to war when the script was basically un-sourced," Wilkerson says.

In one dramatic accusation in his speech, Powell showed slides alleging that Saddam had bioweapons labs mounted on trucks that would be almost impossible to find.

"In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector who had never been debriefed by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball."

After searching Iraq for several months across the summer of 2003, Kay began e-mailing Tenet to tell him the WMD evidence was falling apart. At one point, Wilkerson says, Tenet called Powell to tell him the claims about mobile bioweapons labs were apparently not true.

"George actually did call the Secretary, and said, 'I'm really sorry to have to tell you. We don't believe there were any mobile labs for making biological weapons,'" Wilkerson says in the documentary. "This was the third or fourth telephone call. And I think it's fair to say the Secretary and Mr. Tenet, at that point, ceased being close. I mean, you can be sincere and you can be honest and you can believe what you're telling the Secretary. But three or four times on substantive issues like that? It's difficult to maintain any warm feelings."

Of course, many here already suspected of this, and this adds to the argument that the evidence was fit to the argument, not the other way around.

[walker 0]

Hi all

August is turning into hot month for The Bush Administration (TBA)

Traitorgate looks set to wipe TBA off the face of the earth.

Able Danger proved that TBA knew about Atta and the Brooklyn Cell long before 9/11. GOP talking points have attempted to argue it is something to do with Clinton but that does not wash and everyone keeps comming back to the simple truth and asking the same question:

"So The Bush Administration was informed about Atta and the Brooklyn Cell long before 9/11 was it not?"

They are also attempting to blame Iraq on inteligence community but the recent CNN special on WMD pointed out that it was TBA who demanded the dodgy intel as part of The Office of Special Plans.

Dozens of the disillusioned Americans remain outside George Bush Jubiors Texas ranch, inspired by Cindy Sheehan, a California mother who had been camping there while seeking a meeting with the president to ask why her soldier son, Casey, had to die in what she calls a senseless war.

Republican approval ratings are sagging with Geoge Bush Juniors ratings on Iraq dropping into the 30s. Most American's now think they were lied to by TBA on WMD and Al Qaeda.

Republicans fear the backlash in the 2006 elections with some in the party openly talking of it being a Republican who will push the impeachment button when the Traitorgate trial starts in an effort to keep the party from being tainted with the traitor label.

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Able Danger proved that TBA knew about Atta and the Brooklyn Cell long before 9/11. GOP talking points have attempted to argue it is something to do with Clinton but that does not wash and everyone keeps comming back to the simple truth and asking the same question:

"So The Bush Administration was informed about Atta and the Brooklyn Cell long before 9/11 was it not?"

Prove that TBA knew about Atta and the Brooklyn Cell. Do not bring up the chart being shown to Hadley because it was given to him, allegedly, after 9/11 (source: Time). All we know is that Atta was allegedly id in 2000 (TBA was not in control) and Able Danger was shut down in Feb. of 2001 by Congress.

Quote[/b] ]Republicans fear the backlash in the 2006 elections with some in the party openly talking of it being a Republican who will push the impeachment button when the Traitorgate trial starts in an effort to keep the party from being tainted with the traitor label.

Sure, Walker... in your dreams

[walker 0]

Hi all

Able Danger proves that TBA knew about Atta and the Brooklyn Cell long before 9/11.

Any GOP talking points of it being briefed to the outgoing Clinton administration at the same time as the incomming Bush adminsitration are red herrings. The Clinton administration prioritised Al Qaeda and it is on the record that they told TBA it was the priority. Just as it is on the record that TBA did not prioritise Al Qaeda.

Any GOP talking points about the wall act are completly bogus because the wall act does not apply to the administration as they sit at the apex of the intel tree it only applies to the branches below. It stops the Army from telling FBI to spy on people. The army is suposed to refer that up the chain of command. It is called seperation of powers. It prevents dictatorships and coups.

There is no wall act to stop the admistration telling the FBI to do something. Nothing, Nada, Nowt. Yet the Republican TBA told the FBI nothing quite the reverse the Republican congress shut down Able Danger.

It all comes back to the simple inescapable fact The Bush Administration was informed about Atta and the Brooklyn Cell long before 9/11 but did nothing.

The question must there for be asked:

As TBA new about Atta and the Brooklyn Cell long before 9/11 why did they not tell the FBI to mount an operation against them?

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Able Danger proves that TBA knew about Atta and the Brooklyn Cell long before 9/11.

Prove it, walker. You have no way of knowing that TBA knew about Atta.

Quote[/b] ]Any GOP talking points of it being briefed to the outgoing Clinton administration at the same time as the incomming Bush adminsitration are red herrings. The Clinton administration prioritised Al Qaeda and it is on the record that they told TBA it was the priority. Just as it is on the record that TBA did not prioritise Al Qaeda.

Nice try but Clinton and co. said they tracked Al-Q. to very last monent. Furthermore, Shaffer said he tried to alert the FBI about it in September of 2000 (source: wiki) and Bush did not win the White House until months later. You think Gore and Bush were told everything about national security? This is turning very sad.

Quote[/b] ]Any GOP talking points about the wall act are completly bogus because the wall act does not apply to the administration as they sit at the apex of the intel tree it only applies to the branches below. It stops the Army from telling FBI to spy on people. The army is suposed to refer that up the chain of command. It is called seperation of powers. It prevents dictatorships and coups.

So, TCA knew about Atta and he still had months in office. blah blah not right blah blah

Quote[/b] ]There is no wall act to stop the admistration telling the FBI to do something. Nothing, Nada, Nowt. Yet the Republican TBA told the FBI nothing quite the reverse the Republican congress shut down Able Danger.

The FBI was prevented from getting this information in Sept. of 2000. BUSH WAS NOT IN OFFICE but CLINTON WAS. Again, do you have proof that TBA had this information and where did it go?

Quote[/b] ]It all comes back to the simple inescapable fact The Bush Administration was informed about Atta and the Brooklyn Cell long before 9/11 but did nothing.

The question must there for be asked:

As TBA new about Atta and the Brooklyn Cell long before 9/11 why did they not tell the FBI to mount an operation against them?

You talk about right-wing nuts but you are starting to post like an nut about this whole Able Danger story.

[Scrub 0]

Wow, so much bullshit for such simple things.

1- 20-20 hindsight has proven the tapestry of fibs and oughtright lies to get us into the war.

2- TBA is still one of the most, if not THE most, secretive administrations after FDR's, and that was about his image only. 'W' shifted funds and got caught, gave his speech about expecting loyalty before Asst. Tres Sec. Paul resigned.. The closed door energy kingpin meeting.. WMD scam.. and just to add foundation, our VP, who I might add, is supposed to uphold the laws and constitution -both in action and in principle- of this land, was CEO of a company that loopholed a deal with Iran through the canary islands while Iran was on the restricted list.  Blown character and principle there.. So to all republican and democrat zombies that will not think for the improvement of the people as a whole I say - Truth In Politics, let the responsibility lay with the originators, regardless of party.

 Long live the Independants!

[walker 0]

Hi all

Quote[/b] ]Prove it, walker. You have no way of knowing that TBA knew about Atta.

George Bush Junior's national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley was shown the Able Danger report naming the Brooklyn Cell that included Atta before 9/11. TBA are now refusing to comment!

Quote[/b] ]...The furor over Atta began earlier this summer with a little-noticed paragraph in Weldon's book, "Countdown to Terror," which focuses on the claims of an Iranian informant that the CIA has deemed a fabricator. Weldon writes that during a meeting with Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, he presented a chart "developed in 1999" by the Able Danger program that "diagrammed the affiliations of al Qaeda and showed Mohammed [sic] Atta and the infamous Brooklyn Cell."

Time magazine reported last week that Weldon said he is no longer sure that Atta was included on the chart he gave Hadley. But Weldon's chief of staff said yesterday that Atta was on the chart and that it was produced in 1999. Representatives for Hadley, who is now President Bush's national security adviser, have declined to comment on Weldon's claims.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....51.html

As I said when I first posted it Gotcha!

As to the Clinton administration it is matter of public record the Clinton administration informed TBA that Al Qaeda was top of the threat list and that the Clinton administration were activley pursuing them.

It is matter of public record and in sworn testimony to the 9/11 commision that Richard Clarke and others made repeated attempts to get Bush National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and TBA to take action against Al Qaeda and that TBA ignored him. TBA's usual moan was that there was no intel; yet that is exactly what Able Danger was.

It is also a matter of public record that TBA and the Republican Congress shut anti Al Qaeda intel operations like Able Danger. I guess that helped them say there was no intel

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]George Bush Junior's national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley was shown the Able Danger report naming the Brooklyn Cell that included Atta before 9/11. TBA are now refusing to comment!

You skipped my post. Let me...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1093694,00.html

Quote[/b] ]

In a particularly dramatic scene in Weldon’s book, Countdown to Terror, the Pennsylvania Republican described personally handing to then-Deputy National Security Adviser Steve Hadley, just after Sept. 11, an Able Danger chart produced in 1999 identifying Atta. But Weldon told TIME he’s no longer certain Atta’s name was on that original document.

Your link

Quote[/b] ]Weldon writes that during a meeting with Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, he presented a chart "developed in 1999" by the Able Danger program that "diagrammed the affiliations of al Qaeda and showed Mohammed [sic] Atta and the infamous Brooklyn Cell."

Quote[/b] ]As I said when I first posted it Gotcha!

Nope.    

FYI, from your link

Quote[/b] ]

Time magazine reported last week that Weldon said he is no longer sure that Atta was included on the chart he gave Hadley. But Weldon's chief of staff said yesterday that Atta was on the chart and that it was produced in 1999. Representatives for Hadley, who is now President Bush's national security adviser, have declined to comment on Weldon's claims.

He does not remember now...

Quote[/b] ]It is also a matter of public record that TBA and the Republican Congress shut anti Al Qaeda intel operations like Able Danger. I guess that helped them say there was no intel

It is not a matter of public record that TBA shut down Able Danger because they were not ones that did it.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Steve Hadley along with Rice were subjects of the 9/11 Commission’s investigation of the intelligence failures that led to the attacks. Even though he and Rice were shown a counterterrorism report in August 2001 warning that al-Qaida was planning an attack on the U.S. homeland, Hadley told the commission that he and Rice did not feel they had the job of coordinating domestic agencies before the attacks.

God knows what job they thought they were suposed to be doing. Directing Traffic outside the White House probably; it is about all they were good for.

But something does not jell here. Hadley and Rice did not feel they had the job of coordinating domestic agencies before the attacks yet they go arround saying they thought they should have a unified command for years in fact again it is a matter of public record that they have been long term advocates of a CINC for the purpose. They had the job yet did nothing.

The White House is refusing to comment

What accounts for this silence? A US congressman and a former intelligence official have alleged that at least a section of the American military knew the identity and whereabouts of several of the September 11 hijackers over a year before the attacks, and that they were prevented from acting on this knowledge.

At a press briefing on Tuesday 9th of August, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared he had no knowledge of Able Danger. “I have no idea,†he said. “I’ve never heard of it until this morning. I understand our folks are trying to look into it.†This depite it being under U.S. Army Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in other words Rumsfelds Jurisdiction and Request by the Able Danger staff to inform the FBI of Atta and the Brooklyn Cell would have to have come through his office.

Steve Hadley joined the administration in January 2001

He came from Analytic Services Incorporated Anser Inc where he was on the board. Guess what they do?

http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/Articles/Goldberg.htm

Yes they produce data mining technology that scans open source materials such as IRC, the Web and Usenet Groups for intel. Any of this ringing a bell? Sound like anything we have been talking about?

They have been conducting this research sinmce at least 1997

http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~croft/research/internet/cyberspace/

A rather large proportion of the ANSER budget comes from this area and has for over half a decade.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns....7815736

A hunt through some of the more obscure recesses of the US military budget will find funding for a SOCOM project linked to you guessed it; Analytic Services Incorporated. SOCOM for those who do not know ran Able Danger.

Kind Regards Walker

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ] “I have no idea,â€

A phrase you can hear quite often from him lately.

Is he getting senile ? Or is he already ?

[EiZei 0]

Well, he did not know what XM-8 was when asked in one press briefing.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]At a press briefing on Tuesday 9th of August, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared he had no knowledge of Able Danger. “I have no idea,†he said. “I’ve never heard of it until this morning. I understand our folks are trying to look into it.†This depite it being under U.S. Army Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in other words Rumsfelds Jurisdiction and Request by the Able Danger staff to inform the FBI of Atta and the Brooklyn Cell would have to have come through his office.

Okay, this is the last time, Able Danger allegedly wanted to pass the info. to the FBI but some military lawyers in Sept. of 2000, TBA was not in control, blocked the decision citing legal reasons. We have no idea where the information went after the block. fdmnfdsfaalk;fj;las;lj computer failure jksfj;asldfj;as

[walker 0]

Hi all

The proof that TBA had intel about Atta and the Brooklyn Cell before 9/11 highlighted in the Able Danger reports continues to dog TBA.

The documentation including the charts naming Atta were given into the safe keeping national security advisor Steven Hadley where they disapeared off the face of the earth.

Now TBA refuse to comment on the matter despite it being their own Republican party members who highlighted the TBA failures relating to Danger Able.

Quote[/b] ]Shaffer said that the Tampa, Fla.-based Special Operations Command owned the project and had the ultimate say in what happened to the data. "It was their responsibility to be the steward of this information."

He said that the issue did go "up the chain of command" in Tampa "to the J-3, the director of operations," but that "he said we'd go with what the lawyers recommended."

Military records show that Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Lambert held that post at the time, but no one at Special Operations Command responded to a request for comment over the weekend.

Shaffer says that he himself did not remember the names of Atta and the others immediately after the Sept. 11 attack, until a colleague showed him one of the charts the team had produced in mid-2000.

"I asked her what she was going to do," he recalled, "and she said 'I don't know.'"

Shaffer said she later told him that she had gone with Weldon to the White House, where the congressman gave the chart to deputy national security advisor Steven Hadley.

The White House said it had no comment.

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050822-011832-6872r

The chart which was produced in 1999 proves that TBA new about Atta and the Brooklyn Cell before 9/11 The fact that it was given to then deputy national security advisor Steven Hadley now National Security Advisor Steven Hadley and the fact that he never presented it to the 9/11 commitee adds massivley to the accusations of a White House cover up.

The 9/11 commitee is said to be furious that they have been accused by members of GOP and GOP media of ignoring the evidense. The Chairman of the pannle has said quite catagoricly they never recieved it.

Quote[/b] ]9/11 panel 'never given info'

21/08/2005 21:25 - (SA)

Washington - The panel investigating the September 11 attacks in the United States was not given details of a Pentagon programme that allegedly marked suspected ringleader Mohammed Atta as an al-Qaeda member a year before the attacks, the commission's ex-chairperson has told Time magazine.

The top secret Pentagon monitoring programme, codenamed "Able Danger", allegedly tagged Atta, an Egyptian citizen, and three other future September 11 hijackers in mid-2000 as al-Qaeda members.

Time on Sunday quoted former September 11 commission chairperson Thomas Kean as saying the Pentagon's information was never given to the panel during its deliberations.

"I'm offended because people say, Well, why didn't you do anything?" Kean told Time, adding: "This information was not given to us." ...

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1757444,00.html

Yet we know that National Security Advisor Steven Hadley had the intel and never furnished the 9/11 commitee with the information.

I think a special prosecutor needs to be brought in to look into which TBA officials with held the vital 9/11 intel that could even now be saving lives.

Kind Regards Walker

[red oct 2]

Well, he did not know what XM-8 was when asked in one press briefing.

the concept rifle? i don't think the President would really need to know anything about that. i think that would be a topic to ask the Secretary of Defense about.

[Balschoiw 0]

The question was asked to Donald Rumsfeld and I DO think he has to know anything about it.

Quote[/b] ]The Army announced today that it's putting the introduction of its new XM-8 assault rifle on hold because

troops testing it in the field have been unable to properly target journalists with it.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was "disappointed" by the performance of the new weapon, which had been otherwise performing well. "The eXterminate the Media v.8.0 rifle was designed specifically for slaughtering reporters in Iraq. We'd been having problems with journalists pointing out the exact locations of American forces to terrorists so that they could get Pulitzer-caliber photos, and the preferred technique of strangling them wasn't taking the bastards out fast enough. The hope was that we could put into each soldier's hands the ability to kill these traitorous newsmonkeys at will."

Unfortunately, the poorly-designed targeting system of the XM-8 let far too many journalists escape unharmed. "According to that stupid tw... uh... twit... Linda Foley," continued Rumsfeld, "American Forces have only been able to eliminate 63 journalists, despite being trained from boot camp to double-tap anyone carrying a notepad or a video camera. Somehow the shots from the XM-8 always seem to hit to the left of the target. I suspect the DNC in general and Howard Dean in particular are behind this."

When asked about the future of the XM-8, Secretary Rumsfeld was non-committal, yet optimistic. "I'm pretty sure we can fix this problem," said Rumsfeld, donning a pair of black leather gloves, "by strangling Howard Dean. Now get the hell out of my way! This interview is over!"

DNC Chair Howard Dean was quick to deny allegations. In a recent press conference, he was quoted as saying, "They're killing journalists in Fallujah! and Baghdad! and Mosul! and the Sunni Triangle!...YEEEEEAAAAAARR... *GAK!*... *GRK!*... *ACK!*... HELP!... *gurgle*... *THUD!*

In other news... in Washington D.C. today, the hunt for the Rumsfeld Strangler continues. The latest victim was journalist Linda Foley, who was found mysteriously murdered next to a note reading, "I, Donald Rumsfeld, strangled this twit."

D.C. Police Detective Ian Competent reported that police are currently baffled, yet hopeful of getting a break in the case at any moment.

[Daddl 10]

Where's that from? Vegetable news aka The Onion?

Oh wait, no, they just had a different article on Rumsy...

[EiZei 0]

Well, he did not know what XM-8 was when asked in one press briefing.

the concept rifle? i don't think the President would really need to know anything about that. i think that would be a topic to ask the Secretary of Defense about.

Who said anything about king george?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Where's that from?

Looky, looky:

IMAO

They have some funny stuff there

[The Frenchman 0]

Oh boy.

Robertson: U.S. should 'take out' Venezuela's Chavez

Quote[/b] ](CNN) -- Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson has called for the United States to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him "a terrific danger" bent on exporting Communism and Islamic extremism across the Americas.

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson told viewers on his "The 700 Club" show Monday. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war." Watch video of Robertson's comments

Robertson, a contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988, called Chavez "a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us badly."

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said. "We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Robertson accused Chavez, a left-wing populist with close ties to Cuban President Fidel Castro, of trying to make Venezuela "a launching pad for Communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent."

"This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen," he said.

Chavez has said he believes the United States is trying to assassinate him, vowing that Venezuela, which accounts for more than 10 percent of U.S. oil imports, would shut off the flow of oil if that happens.

The Unites States has denied such allegations in the past.

Executive orders issued by Presidents Ford and Reagan banned political assassinations.

Robertson's comments Monday were the latest in a string of controversial remarks in recent years by the religious broadcaster and founder of the Christian Coalition.

Last October, during the heat of the presidential race, Robertson told CNN that during a meeting with President Bush before the invasion of Iraq, the president told him he did not believe there would be casualties. The White House strongly denied the claim.

In May, during an ABC interview, Robertson ignited a firestorm with his response to a question about whether activist judges were more of a threat to America than terrorists.

"If they look over the course of 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," he said.

Defending his remarks in a letter to Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Robertson insisted he was not being cavalier about the 9/11 attacks. But he also refused to apologize, saying Supreme Court rulings on abortion, religious expression in the public square, pornography and same-sex marriage "are all of themselves graver dangers in the decades to come than the terrorists which our great nation has defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq."

How could you stay angry at that face.