Right-Wing Smear of Gorelick Rooted In Ignorance
Right-Wing Smear of Gorelick Rooted In Ignorance
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer claims a “highly classified intelligence program, known as Able Danger, had identified the terrorist ringleader, Mohamed Atta, and three other future hijackers by name by mid-2000, and tried to arrange a meeting that summer with agents of the Washington field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to share its information.” Shaffer says those efforts were blocked by military lawyers.
It’s uncertain whether any of this actually happened. But the right-wing has used it as an excuse to smear former Deputy Attorney General (and 9/11 Commissioner) Jamie Gorelick. People like Rush Limbaugh and columnist Deborah Orin of the New York Post claim that the information on Atta couldn’t be shared with the FBI because of a 1995 memo written by Gorelick.
As Media Matters notes, this is totally false. Shaffer’s story, if it’s true, involved communications between the Department of Defense and the FBI. Gorelick’s 1995 memo was only about communications between the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department. (It also didn’t create a wall between the FBI and the Justice Department but that’s another story.) Whatever problems Shaffer had trying to communicate with the FBI it had absolutely nothing to do with Gorelick.
That hasn’t stopped virtually every major right-wing blogger from repeating the lie. Contact them and demand they correct the record. (Contact info in the expanded post.)
Michelle Malkin: malkin@comcast.net
Captain’s Quarters: captain@captainsquartersblog.com
National Review, John Podhoretz: jpod@sprynet.com
Instapundit: pundit@instapundit.com
UPDATE: The post smearing Gorelick which was posted on Instapundit.com was written by a woman named Ann Althouse, who was substitute blogging that week. The email address above reaches Glenn Reynolds, who reguarly posts to the site. Glenn should get the emails too, because he needs to issue a correction to his readers. But some of Glenn’s fans think you should contact Ann directly. If you’d like to do so, she can be reached at althouse@wisc.edu.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
217 Responses to “Right-Wing Smear of Gorelick Rooted In Ignorance”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Judd - then, if you are right, why did Mary Jo White write that the Clinton's Admin's barrier could have disastrous consequences when dealing with terror suspects?
Why does Warren Christopher refuse to speak on the subject? What are these people hiding.
To be honest, I am not that interested. The 9/11 commission was a joke and most people know that. It was just another pathetic and failed attempt to damage the President. lol! Losers.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:23 amND, you are confusing two issues. The first is whether the able danger memo has anything to do with this memo. The answer to that is a clear no and that's the point of the post.
The second point is whether the Gorelick memo created a "wall." This is also false. I explain why here:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=63020
August 19th, 2005 at 10:25 amGood going Judd. I'll e-mail them, but if only they pay attention to truth instead of marching orders, we'd be in a better world
August 19th, 2005 at 10:35 amUpdated lexicon (Word Up!) for debate with NED, FBA et al. Compliments of the Editors at the Poorman. Links to actual examples demonstrating the factual basis for this update. Word up to your mama!
http://www.thepoorman.net/2005/08/19/educating-the-editors/
rac·ism n.
Disagreeing with or disliking Michelle Malkin
sex·ism n.
Disagreeing with or disliking Michelle Malkin
ho·mo·pho·bi·a n.
1. Making fun of Jeff Gannon
2. Making fun of The Claremont Institute’s John Hindraker’s gay-porny nom de keyboard
3. Disagreeing with Andrew Sullivan when Andrew Sullivan is agreeing with Bush
an·ti-Sem·i·tism n.
1. Disagreeing with Dick Cheney.
2. Believing that there is a such thing as a neoconservative.
3. Being a Democrat.
the troops in the field n. My belief that I am much more intelligent and credible than available evidence would suggest: your criticism of my ever-shifting, impossible-to-pin-down rationale for invading Iraq is undermining the troops in the field.
The Left n.
1. You.
2. Jane Fonda and Noam Chomsky.
3. Everybody less conservative than me and all Democrats except Zell Miller.
4. Everybody less conservative than me and all Democrats except Zell Miller and present company.
5. Nobody, really.
6. Everybody I hate.
7. A quantum superposition of the above definitions.
ter·ror·ists n.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:42 am1. Those that engage in acts or an act of terrorism.
2. The Left
NeD, I also heard Clinton got a memo titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Us" and he ignored it. I think you and the right wing attack blogs should immediately call for an investigation, or better yet just call everyone names.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:43 amOK - republiconfusions claim to represent personal responsibility. It's one of their "hallmark" defining points (along with honesty & integrity (ROTFLOL)).
So why do these hitler youth continually try to blame stuff on Clinton? Why do these haters of personal responsibility and freedom continually lie about their leaders lies and complete lack of integrity and credibility? Then they use these same lies to imply only they can save us from the evil.
Hello....I don't believe in the antichrist, but if I did, this administration & it's all too willing minions fit the story to a T.
Note to bushies- whine, moan, beat your chest all you want. You only impress other bushies who together with you form the circle jerk of the minions to which I speak. Get A ROOM! We don't want to watch you all do the nasty.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:49 amNED cried like a little girl to the mods because people were "impersonating" him. he shows his true pussy colors.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:52 amNDs thrill of being the first to post on a subject has left him a bit vulnerable. This is a typical theme with repubs - they shoot off their mouth before THINKING rationally about a topic. If they could just analyze and let the thoughts roll around the brain for a minute instead of immediately trying to find a way to spin it for themselves, maybe, just maybe, you may change your tune. Sometimes, after a second thought, we actually view things more clearly and logically. Repubs already know the answer before the question is posed.
Just think before you post. T H I N K
August 19th, 2005 at 10:55 am"Judd - then, if you are right, why did Mary Jo White write that the Clinton’s Admin’s barrier could have disastrous consequences when dealing with terror suspects?"
Oh my God are you an idiot. Mary Jo White was talking about PROSECUTING terrorist suspects. Not preventing terrorist attacks.
Have you even read the memo you lying loon?
August 19th, 2005 at 11:00 amOnce again, Judd fails to tell the whole story.
Debra Orin's reporting on the Mary Jo White memos, and on her interview of Lt. Col. Shaffer, suggests a couple of things. One is that Ms. White, who predicted deadly results if information sharing on suspected terrorists was restricted, may have been the most prescient U.S. Attorney ever appointed by Bill Clinton. Another is that the vigorous debate within the Clinton administration about the sharing of such information resulted in decisions by Janet Reno and Jamie Gorelick to restrict the sharing of such information between the intelligence and law enforcement communities. That raises a fair question about what we might have known or discovered if those policies had not been in place.
Rush Limbaugh's comment is that the restrictive policy decisions made by Reno and Gorelick were part of the reason that no one "connected the dots" on Mohammed Atta and others before 9/11. That is not a smear. It is another way of stating the same very fair question.
The 9/11 Commission was formed to answer such qustions. However, Lt. Col. Shaffer's statements suggest that important information about the Able Danger program may have been kept from the Commission members. Given the controversy at the time about Ms. Gorelick and her failure to testify before the commission, it is fair to ask whether Commission staffers may have deep-sixed the Able Danger information to protect Gorelick.
I don't know what the outcome of this story will be. I'm content to let it play out. But these are not smears. They are fair and serious questions about the security of our nation, and we deserve to know the answers.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:06 amGo over to the article from today. It says that Shaffer (who is on paid administrative leave since his security clearance was suspended in March 2004) doesn't recall Atta at all but 2 "other" unnamed people told him about Atta being identified in charts. Oh yea, all those "charts & files" have MYSTERIOUSLY GONE MISSING and can't be located. Hmmm, imagine that.
Curt Weldon is an elephants turd.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:07 amDamn I did that wrong. Sorry.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:08 amHere is what Limbaugh said:
They [Able Danger] didn't forward the information to law enforcement is not the correct way to say it. They couldn't forward the information to law enforcement because there was a wall which prevented them from doing so, erected by Jamie Gorelick, who ran the Justice Department while Janet Reno was the face of that department.
That is not a question. It's a flatly false statement. Let's stop pretending there is anything defensible there.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:13 amBlue State Red cried like a little girl to the mods because people were “impersonating†him. he shows his true pussy colors.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:16 amyou know what, let the right try and smear Clinton and blame 9/11 on him. it will bite them in the ass. they dont really want any truth to be spoken about 9/11.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:17 amBut these are not smears. They are fair and serious questions about the security of our nation, and we deserve to know the answers.
It's only a smear when someone loses an eye but you don't get caught.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:18 amIf Bush had taken the "Bin Laden determined to strike..." PDB seriously (or even read it), he could have requested that Rumsfeld scour the Department of Defense's immense intelligence resouces from top to bottom for clues. If this chart existed and was found during the investigation, the authorities could have found a way to arrest Atta. But Bush did nothing...just cleared some more brush, took a bike ride, relaxed.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:26 amLimbaugh also said that the DoJ policies under Reno and Gorelick were one of the reasons we didn't "connect the dots." That is, indeed, a statement of his opinion. It also raises a fair question about those policies and their effect. If they prevented the discovery of Atta and others, we should know that. And if the 9/11 Commission memebers were shielded from information about Able Danger that would help answer those questions, we should know that too.
Look, you can defend Jamie Gorelick all you want, but you are doing so without all the facts. Fair questions have been asked, and demanding answers does not constitute a "smear" (your word), Judd. Let's see how the story plays out. Curt Weldon may be a nut case, but even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:27 amHow can anyone who cites Rush Limbaugh as a credible source on any subject not be banned for impersonating a sentient being? That's what I'd like to know, Judd.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:28 amhe just admitted to getting his views from Rush Limbaugh. game over for you BSR.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:29 amBSR - I think you make a fair comment overall, but please bear this in mind from someone who used to be in the law enforcement game. Of the many things that you worry about, the tainting of evidence is a MAJOR, MAJOR concern you have to deal with - if crucial evidence is inadmissable, prosecutions fail.
The Gorelick memo is in my opinion a very seriously and brilliantly argued paper to help DoJ officers do their jobs. I believe the accusations being levelled at Gorelick are way off target. They are Monday-morning quarterbacking in the most ignorant and insidious manner, particularly as the critics have failed to make any distinction between info-sharing between intel agencies; and between intel and law enforcement agencies, where the rules are COMPLETELY different. The reason memos of this type exist is because we have deep and complex laws over evidence, which have evolved over time, and in writing the memo, Gorelick was advising staff on how to comply with the law, as I would hope a person in her position would do.
This topic, as is often the case, is far to complex for partisan shills and does not lend itself to easy soundbites, and for that reason I would not blame any person from refusing to appear on a facile talk-show. On this topic for certain, there are no easy answers.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:30 ammeander,
August 19th, 2005 at 11:33 amYou are just not being fair to President Bush. He was on vacation at the time, a vital part of his being, and could not be expected to halt his vacation just because of a daily brief (he gets those things every day!).
blue state red thinks that deborah orrin does reporting and rush limbaugh is a respected purveyor of intelligent, well-founded opinion.
he can't process information to the contrary.
and so, we gain an insight into how the 40% of america that is not reality-based works its brains.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:34 amAnd Dumb Fox explains how the "con elite" con the dumb proles who troll this site. Rush Limbaugh is no idiot, just a liar and a shill who laughs at the fools who actually listen to him and take him seriously. A guy who bashes the ACLU and yet turns to them when "his rights" are being violated.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:35 amTrue Howard, but Rush is intelligent. The people who listen to him are not.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:37 amDumb Fox, thanks for the reasoned comment. Your insight was needed. Unfortunately the partisanship is rampant in this country will keep your sound and inoffensive comment from being heard. Yeah, the "left" participates in this partisanship, but when confronted with cold hard facts we tend to defer to those with knowledge on a subject. Unlike our countrymen on the "right"side of an issue.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:39 am"[...] But Bush did nothing…just cleared some more brush, took a bike ride, relaxed."
Hey, the man was trying to live his life. You know, down time. Lotsa brush to be cleared, horses to be ridden...oh wait, GW is afraid of horses, isn't he?
August 19th, 2005 at 11:40 amBSR, Bush said you shouldn't monday night quarterback Presidential decisions. Don't you want to take his advice?
August 19th, 2005 at 11:43 amgroundhog day!
Let's go see what Puksatawnee Phill is up to? Will he see his shadow?
August 19th, 2005 at 11:47 amThe "Wall" was "erected" during the Reagan administration and Bush renewed it in 2001. Stop blaming Clinton and take some responsibilty already.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:52 amYeah, the “left†participates in this partisanship, but when confronted with cold hard facts we tend to defer to those with knowledge on a subject. Unlike our countrymen on the “rightâ€side of an issue.
Sherman,
I wonder if you realize what a herd of cats "the left" really is? This notion of a monolithic, extremely partisan left is a construct of the right, which is a far more monolithic and partisan group than the left will ever be.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:58 amThe Able Danger story has nothng to do with Gorelick's so-called "wall". However, the Able Danger story is important and points to a much larger question of why the defense department was shielding these terrorists from the FBI. Previous stories right after 9/11 said that Mohamed Atta and other 9/11 hijackers were trained at US military bases. These findings are consistent and are yet more evidence that the US government was complicit in 9/11.
August 19th, 2005 at 12:05 pmMy letter:
Dear Ms. Malkin:
You and I -- and your husband -- have a school in common. I attended Oberlin College briefly long ago. Though the invasion of Cambodia and the killing of four students at Kent State cut short my sojourn there, I have maintained a fondness for the place.
And so I feel compelled to ask that, as an alumna of Oberlin acting in the public sphere, you correct your inaccurate claim that Jamie Gorelick's 1995 memo may in any way be responsible for preventing Able Danger liaison Anthony Shaffer from passing important pre-9/11 information about Mohamed Atta and others on to the FBI.
For futher information on this matter, please refer to the following links:
http://inteldump.powerblogs.com/posts/1124340108.shtml
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/19/gorelick-ignorance/
Regarding a separate issue, I was disturbed to read today that, in spite of what you've written in your book, In Defense of Internment, in 2000 you wrote that "[t]here is no denying that what happened to Japanese-American internees was abhorrent and wrong." (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm000524.shtml)
Though I have consistently expressed my assessment that your book was far from a solo performance, I have never before doubted the sincerity of your virulent views.
And, finally, on another matter. We are both mothers. It saddens me that you seem to have so willingly accepted the assignment to attack Cindy Sheehan, a bereaved mother who has chosen to exercise her first amendment right to elicit the president and the public's attention to her views on the war in which her son died.
I am well aware of the networks of financial support behind your husband and others' neoconservative college publications and post baccalaureate careers. That you, your husband, Alex Novak, Dinesh D'Souza and others have prostituted the special gifts for pursuing happiness that were your natural inheritance grieves me; for paid thought is enslaved thought, the antithesis of liberty.
With sincere concern for the world our children will inherit,
XXXX
August 19th, 2005 at 12:20 pmThe right-wing goal is to be able to blame Clinton for 911 -- "Aha! Able Danger proves just what we always suspected! Who cares what Richard Clark said -- it was actually Clinton's fault, not George's, that the hijackers were not stopped!" Anything that advances that goal will be used to support the case, however inaccurate it may actually be.
August 19th, 2005 at 12:23 pmAlso notice how they think the Syrian pullout from Lebanon is entirely due to our invasion of Iraq.
August 19th, 2005 at 12:43 pmThe Karl Rove strategy is take credit for everything, take blame for nothing.
August 19th, 2005 at 12:44 pmSome of this is from memory so feel free to correct my facts.
I believe the so-called "wall" was first erected under carter or Reagan as a result of the Church committee. It basically was a policy response to FBI abuses of intelligence under J. Edgar Hoover.
Gorelick didn't erect the "wall" itself, but she issued a memo setting forth highly restrictive guidelines for sharing information on suspected terrorists. The debate over that memo is what prompted Mary Jo White to write her memos objecting to those guidelines. Reno and Gorelick overruled White's objections.
Whether this would have made a difference or not is debatable. But it was a question raised during the 9/11 Commission, and now it appears that the Commission members may have been shielded from information about Able Danger that might have helped provide an answer.
If we are ever going to understand the connection between this policy and its unintended results, that is worth looking into, don't you think?
August 19th, 2005 at 12:44 pmAnd not that Dumb Fox and Spooked, inter alia, have weighed in, suddenly BSR is . . . not here. Chirp . . . chirp . . . chirp.
One of the things about Limbaugh and his ilk that simply makes me sad is that they believe that if they shout their lies and distortions long enough, these lies will become real. Well, old Adolph certainly believed that too.
August 19th, 2005 at 12:44 pmBSR, you're a shill for the right. The goal-post moving, the ducking and weaving, the changing of content and direction in your arguments is simply disingenuous.
Admit it: you want to be able to blame the Clinton admin for 9-11 and give Georgie a pass. If not, then respond please to the issue of why the GOP has buried the second half of the 9-11 comission's mandate. Why are you not clamoring for Roberts to get going?
Why did the administration try to thwart the 9-11 comission? Why has it not cooperated? Why are you only interested now when Rush has anti-Reno talking-points?
August 19th, 2005 at 12:49 pmIt's obvious the Far Right is discombolulating completely. From the moment Karl Rove issed his "That's all that needs to be said about the motives of liberals" slam, it's been open season on anyone and everyone who doesn't toe the Bush line. It's almost amazing (but not at all surprising to watch as they try to navigate attacks on Ms. Sheehan, Ms. Gorelick, the entire spectrum of liberalism, and "activist judges", all at the same time. If nothing else, it should give folks a clear picture of what it means to be a Republican these days.
August 19th, 2005 at 12:51 pmI don’t know what the outcome of this story will be. I’m content to let it play out. But these are not smears. They are fair and serious questions about the security of our nation, and we deserve to know the answers.
Comment by Blue State Red — August 19, 2005 @ 11:06 am
LOL. Even our CONSERVATIVES are better than what the red states have to offer.
August 19th, 2005 at 12:54 pm---"But these are not smears. They are fair and serious questions about the security of our nation, and we deserve to know the answers."---
Isn't that what Michelle Maglalang (or whatever) said about her comments to Chris Matthews that Kerry's wounds were self-inflicted?
These fuckheads have no sense of perspective, no sense of decency, and no common sense.
August 19th, 2005 at 1:10 pmBSR - if you ask me what problem Able Danger may have highlighted, it is that intel agencies were disparate and not co-ordinating. And to give the 9/11 Commission its due, a key recommendation was to fix this dysfunctionality (still not fixed by the way).
And here's another reason why the Gorelick memo is totally irrelevant - even if the information had been passed on to the DoJ... So what? They almost certainly would not have been able to act upon it, which arguably then SETS THEM BACK if they later establish grounds to prosecute Atta in future. So how anyone can argue that by not sharing this info with the DoJ actually undermined national security is patently absurd.
I guess my main issue is that this wingnut assault is a f*cking insult to the people on the ground who dedicate their lives to underpaid jobs doing the kind of painstaking law enforcement work that actually does make this country safer. Media shills and blogging buttheads have no damn clue what it means to work a real law enforcement job, and their only contribution to national security is to demoralize a critical group of Americans who serve their country with the kind of diligence Rush and friends can't even dream of.
August 19th, 2005 at 1:21 pmGeesh, you liberal whacks are all defensive aren't you because a Clinton crony got caught with her pants down and then you turn around and try to pin it on Bush.
Typical of a party and philosophy that has NO direction.
There's a reason your party is not in control in Washington: LACK OF IDEAS AND A PROMOTION OF WHY YOUR BETTER THAN THE REPUBS.
Get some new ideas and run campaigns based ON something, as opposed to this crazed idea of running simply against Bush, and you'll win every time.
Alas, your party is not smart enough to figure it out and wants to spend its time crying and whining and blaming Bush for everything evil in this country. Bush is not a good President by any stretch, but how does attacking someone -- when you don't stand for anything nor do you promote what you stand for -- qualify you to run the country?
August 19th, 2005 at 1:21 pmTo the tune of On The Road Again:
---------------------------------
Clearing brush again,
I just can't wait to be clearing brush again.
Although the tow'rs are falling down
I'll be out of town,
Clearing brush again.
On my bike again,
I just can't wait to get on my bike again.
Things are real bad in Iraq,
But if we get attacked I'll be
On my bike again.
Cindy Sheehan's mean.
Imagine wanting to be heard and seen!
Why can't she just get up and go
Oh man I hate her so!
Cindy Sheehan's mean.
Bein' Preznit's hard!
August 19th, 2005 at 1:36 pmWhy I get pushed around by Andy Card!
Folks tell me what I have to say,
I'm President, so pray!
Bein' Preznit's hard!
Blue State Red is absolutely correct that answers should be provided to important questions of who knew what when. With our knowledge that the Bush Administration fought the creation of the 9/11 Commissions and fought the Patriot Act--created in 2000-01 by a committee appointed under Clinton-- refuses to release relevant CIA, FBI, DoD and DoJ documents from the time of the Clinton administration, and continues to fight any and all Congressional inquiry, isn't it clear to Blue State Red who's feeling guilty? Does he support a Senate Select Committee investigation? Why hasn't Sen. Coleman taken this up in his Special Investigations Committee? Why isn't Sen. Roberts even slightly interested in using his committee's subpoena powers to get at the truth? Why hasn't a special prosecutor been appointed? If there's all this hidden proof that Clintonites destroyed our national security during the 90's, then why are Republicans covering up the evidence? Bring on the hearings! Let's go! I think Red knows what it would show--Richard Clarke couldn't even get a meeting with Cheney, Condi deleted terrorism from the official list of security, Bush-era FBI refused to seek warrants to search al-Qaida safe houses, and the bin-Laden and Saud families were permitted unsearched through customs during the 48 hours after 9/11. The facts are in plain sight.
August 19th, 2005 at 1:37 pmI don't know why you fools believe that the Government has your best intrests at heart. You think they return your love for them? You're just fools.
August 19th, 2005 at 1:37 pmplease disreguard the comment from #42. he just got loose from the asylum and we finally found him in an internet cafe.
August 19th, 2005 at 1:37 pmWe don't know that the Gorelick memo is irrelevant. The analysis of how intellignce on suspected terrorists was gathered and processed, pre-9/11, was entirely within the scope of the 9/11 Commission's inquiry. All we know is that Jamie Gorelick was a 9/11 Commission member, and the 9/11 Commission may have given short shrift to the effects of the policy reflected in the Gorelick memo. As many people suggested at the time, that creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.
If the information about Able Danger never was communicated to 9/11 Commission staffers, any conflict of interest may indeed be irrelevant. On theother hand, if information about Able Danger was communicated to 9/11 Commission staffers, and then buried, it may be that teh potential appearance of a conflict of interest may have evolved into outright corruption. In either event, don't you agree that there ought o be an investigation into this matter?
August 19th, 2005 at 1:37 pmThe wall for the retards here prevents sharing info obtained by CIA being used against U.S. citizens and Green Card holders. Atta had a visa, therefore no wall.
August 19th, 2005 at 1:46 pmMary Jo was refering to the wall between Prosecutors and intelligence sources. DUUUUUUUUHHHHH!
Oliver North is still repeating this crap in his current Clownhall column.
August 19th, 2005 at 2:00 pmBSR,
Ashcroft made this SAME assertion at the 911 hearings!
Try reading this(WaPo).http://tinyurl.com/buyo8
August 19th, 2005 at 2:03 pmOn the other hand, if Atta and his cell were identified in September 2000, via Able Danger, but that information was withheld from the FBI because of the Gorelick memo policy, or because of a DoD interpretation of that policy, the 9/11 Commission should have addressed that issue in its report. The fact that they didn't, and that Jamie Gorelick was a Comission member, is one of the factors that raises further questions. There is nothing wrong, and certainly nothing in the nature of a "smear," about seeking further answers.
August 19th, 2005 at 2:06 pmFolks, don't just write letters to these clowns.
Write letters to the folks running the newsrooms of your hometown newspapers. Include the link to this post.
That way, the righties can lie like rugs all they want, but the smear won't make it into actual legitimate media.
August 19th, 2005 at 2:07 pmBSR, you know Bush and the Congressional Republicans specifically forbade the 9/11 commission from touching issues of personal responsibility.
If you think the issue should be addressed, help us elect a majority Democrat Congress in '06.
August 19th, 2005 at 2:20 pmUM. That "wall" was put up during the Reagan admin. Renewed during the GWB admin.
August 19th, 2005 at 2:26 pmIf the 9/11 overlooked the intell that Able Danger was trying to provide, then it was a total sham. That Gorelick was on the commission, leads me to believe that this was not unintented. She knows that what happened was wrong and now we are finding the real truth. If Atta and others could have been arrested or deported, its obvious that 9/11 would not have happened and we wouldn't be in Iraq right now.
August 19th, 2005 at 2:29 pmOh, yes, I well remember how diligent the left was in trying to avoid casting any blame on the Bush administration during the 9/11 Commission hearings. Richard Clarke never testified, and there never was any attention paid to the August 2001 PDB, right? Now it is just quite possible that the shoe is on the other foot.
Look, there are at least two issues here:
Issue #1: The 9/11 Commission was charged with determining, among other things, the nature and cause of any intelligence failures, and information sharing on suspected terrorists, or the lack thereof, was an issue the Commission specifically addressed in its report. If the report gave short shrift to this particular policy, and this particular instance of prohibited information sharing, then the report may need to be amended - with or without any assignment of blame.
Issue #2: If any deficiencies in the report on this issue developed at a time when Jamie Gorelick was on the Commission, and when her former policy role at DoJ was a matter of controversy, then any cover-up of Able Danger information is an entirely separate issue.
Both of these issues are worthy of investigation. As the work of the 9/11 Commission demonstrates, doing so does not constitute a "smear." Regardless of how this turns out, the worst consequence personally for Jamie Gorelick, or anyone else, will be some embarrassment and regret. In the meantime, our understanding of how best to deal with the terrorist threats against us, and to protect the American people, will be vastly improved. Can we all agree that would be a good thing?
August 19th, 2005 at 3:13 pm"Shaffer’s story, if it’s true, involved communications between the Department of Defense and the FBI. Gorelick’s 1995 memo was only about communications between the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department. (It also didn’t create a wall between the FBI and the Justice Department but that’s another story.) Whatever problems Shaffer had trying to communicate with the FBI it had absolutely nothing to do with Gorelick." HUH?? Jamie Gorelick was so busy deflecting - she had NO business being on the 9/11 Commission. How many hairs can a Dem split? Is is???
August 19th, 2005 at 3:17 pmInstapundit has not written anything about Gorelick. Your information in faulty.
August 19th, 2005 at 3:32 pmI have a basic question. Obviously Jamie Gorelick had some relevant part in this debate, if nothing else this thread is proof enough of that.
Why was Jamie Gorelick a member of the 911 commission?
August 19th, 2005 at 3:35 pm"Richard Clarke couldn’t even get a meeting with Cheney, Condi deleted terrorism from the official list of security, Bush-era FBI refused to seek warrants to search al-Qaida safe houses, and the bin-Laden and Saud families were permitted unsearched through customs during the 48 hours after 9/11"
Blah blah blah...and Sandy Burglar stuffed classified docs in his sweaty underwear and socks, thne cut some of them up with scissors.
The actions of an honest man...yolp you deranged wackos.
August 19th, 2005 at 3:39 pmGood golly miss Molly, let’s count the clichés from the right-wing brain injured in this post:
1. Always mention Clinton.
“Geesh, you liberal whacks are all defensive aren’t you because a Clinton crony got caught with her pants down and then you turn around and try to pin it on Bush.â€
2. The old no-direction slam. It’s just devastating.
“Typical of a party and philosophy that has NO direction.â€
3. We may not rule worth a damn, but we are still in power (at least for now). “There’s a reason your party is not in control in Washington: LACK OF IDEAS AND A PROMOTION OF WHY YOUR BETTER THAN THE REPUBS.â€
4. Pleease stop bashing Dear Leader.
“Get some new ideas and run campaigns based ON something, as opposed to this crazed idea of running simply against Bush, and you’ll win every time.â€
5. Look, we know Bush is an incompetent moron, but he’s one of ours, and that’s all that matters.
August 19th, 2005 at 3:39 pm“Alas, your party is not smart enough to figure it out and wants to spend its time crying and whining and blaming Bush for everything evil in this country. Bush is not a good President by any stretch, but how does attacking someone — when you don’t stand for anything nor do you promote what you stand for — qualify you to run the country?â€
Shelia:
There is a link right in this post. He wrote about it.
August 19th, 2005 at 3:40 pmBUSTED. I doubt your astroturf emails will have any more effect than astroturf letters to the editor. The 9/11 Commission was a transparent attempt to shift the blame for 9/11 from a Democrat President who had 8 years to deal with Al Quaeda and was too busy playing with his cigars to be bothered, to President Bush, who had 8 months to deal with the situation. As the 2004 election showed, the effort was a failure. All the recent info on Able Danger does is demonstrate what a sham the 9/11 Commission really was.
August 19th, 2005 at 3:41 pmJudd... you mean, the post written by ANN ALTHOUSE?
August 19th, 2005 at 3:42 pmJudd, that post was by Ann Althouse, who was guest blogging while Glenn was on vacation. She's not there anymore, and she's not the Instapundit. So emails to Glenn are pointless. He doesn't usually jump on bandwagons like this one, so it's unlikely he'll post anything about the Gorelick memo.
August 19th, 2005 at 3:43 pmAnd the Ann Althouse post was just a link and quote form an Invester's Business Daily article. Why don't you send your emails to them?
August 19th, 2005 at 3:45 pmAnd she called the IBD article "harsh". Sounds to me like she wasn't exactly beating the anti-Gorelick drum.
August 19th, 2005 at 3:47 pmoops, make that "very harsh" That's all. I'm going to lunch.
August 19th, 2005 at 3:47 pmSupporting the Gorelick Commission
Apparently there are some people who appear to be just fine with Jamie Gorelick investigating Jamie Gorelick:It’s uncertain whether any of this actually happened. But the right-wing has used it as an excuse to smear former Deputy Attorney General (and
August 19th, 2005 at 3:51 pmI searched Instapundit's site, but couldn't find anything that Reynolds wrote about Gorelick in either 2004 or 2005.
I suggest you remove the instapundit link before some rw blogger picks up on the error.
Peace.
August 19th, 2005 at 3:53 pm[...] Earlier today, we noted that several right wing bloggers – including the National Review’s John Podhertz – were lying about the impact of a 1995 memo written by Jamie Gorelick. Podhertz and others claimed the memo prevented the Department of Defense from sharing information about Mohammed Atta and other terrorists with the FBI. In fact, the Gorelick memo dealt exclusively with the sharing of information between the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department. [...]
August 19th, 2005 at 3:55 pmShould Jamie Gorelick have been on the 911 commission?
August 19th, 2005 at 3:57 pmGosh. I wish I had legions of followers who would slavishly write e-mails on command.
What, exactly, is the practical purpose of this? Is it a demonstration of some kind of New Media power? Or some form of the "mobilization" so popular among Progressives?
Power to the people!
August 19th, 2005 at 3:59 pmWell I demand that you stop smearing "right-wing" blogs that have not actually posting anything like what you are talking about. Or are you simply above making corrections yourself and just enjoy spamming people for no reason? Perhaps you should check the blogs you listed for instances of the messages you accuse them of posting.
August 19th, 2005 at 4:04 pmI read Instapundit every day, and I don't remember him mentioning anything about this topic. I also wouldn't call him rightwing. He's a libertarian.
August 19th, 2005 at 4:06 pm"[. . .]now we are finding the real truth. If Atta and others could have been arrested or deported, its obvious that 9/11 would not have happened and we wouldn’t be in Iraq right now."
Bullshit. Bush was determined to invade before 9/11 and you know it. Putting up such weak spin is an insult to your masters. Go back and study more, grasshopper.
August 19th, 2005 at 4:08 pmJudd: "Contact them and demand they correct the record."
Darth F., 18 minutes later: "I’ll e-mail them, but if only they pay attention to truth instead of marching orders ..."
BWAHAHA! Sorry, but there's nothing funnier than someone following marching orders to tell other people not to follow marching orders.
August 19th, 2005 at 4:17 pmre: instapundit and Ann Althouse, who was guest blogging while Glenn was on vacation.
the owner of his website is, or should be, responsible for what others write in his place...imo
August 19th, 2005 at 4:18 pm>> Good going Judd. I’ll e-mail them, but if only they
>> pay attention to truth instead of marching orders,
>> we’d be in a better world
Do you not see the irony in your statement?
August 19th, 2005 at 4:19 pmRegarding this comment:
"Good going Judd. I’ll e-mail them, but if only they pay attention to truth instead of marching orders, we’d be in a better world
Comment by Darth Filibustrous — August 19, 2005 @ 10:35 am "
Ummm....so you're saying "Okay, I'll follow your orders to blindly mass email prefab complaints to websites I never read, but it won't do any good because THEY ONLY FOLLOW THEIR MASTERS' MARCHING ORDERS."
Heh.
August 19th, 2005 at 4:21 pmWhy are you leftists afraid to see where this leads? How about this: Able Danger/Gorelick only gets as much fact finding as Rove/Plame.
That's fair, right?. 3000 possibly preventable deaths should get at least the same attention as a ruined former career of a CIA employee.
August 19th, 2005 at 4:21 pmRe: Instapundit/Althouse: All Ann did was reprint an Investor's Business Daily editorial that mentioned Gorlick, neither Glenn nor Ann have actually commented on it. So yeah, I'd second the idea of taking down the Instapundit link.
August 19th, 2005 at 4:27 pmI've learned to live with Clinton being President, after the fact. I even say nice things about him. Complimenting his Foreign Policy won't be on the list.
Someday you guys will like Bush, respect his achievements, and more importantly the achievements of the military. Don't waste your time trying to convince the Amercian people about your crazy lefwing rants,- try and convince a few of you Senators, at least enough, to make sure that your 2008 nominee won't be pro-war, against withdrawal timetable(see HRC). Maybe if you withhold money? Nobody would even notice.
History will point to the resolution for War, which detailed WMD's, along with 20 other reasons. If those other reasons weren't good enough, we'd have left in the winter or 2003. Somehow, I doubt editorials will withstand history.
Are you going to let your child go to GW Bush High School? We'll have one in about 10 years.
August 19th, 2005 at 4:28 pmRE: the owner of his website is, or should be, responsible for what others write in his place…imo
Unless it's Kos and hotlinked files, right?
August 19th, 2005 at 4:28 pmSo the lefties lunatics are now saying that 9/11 hijackers were trained at US military bases? Do you realize that Americans think you guys are absolutely nuts! Most of the country thinks Bill Clinton would have stopped Bin Laden if he could have, and most think Bush is a nice guy who does not want soldiers to die. But when the left-wing goes nutty with these out of control Michael Moore theories of The Army training hijackers, they give a big gift to the republicans, and will only assure that the republicans win again in 2008, and add seats in the House and Senate in 2006 and 2008.
August 19th, 2005 at 4:30 pm#84: i'm not talking about "comments"; i'm talking about blog entries.
August 19th, 2005 at 4:32 pmBut the Progresseve 'Thinker', Judd, here feels like Gorelick was smeared by Instapundit so it must be true. Screw any of these facts.
August 19th, 2005 at 4:32 pm#85 This was a diary on the front page. Not a comment.
August 19th, 2005 at 4:34 pmDid Jamie Gorelick belong on the commitee?
August 19th, 2005 at 4:35 pmComments about Ms Gorelick aside, she did have a clear and transparent conflict of interest and should not have served on that committee.
The bi-partisan nature of the committee suggests that there was horse trading going on...I'll allow this comment, if you allow that one.
That the Bush administration, nine months into office, should have had border and other safeguards in place, other than those that ought to have been put in place by the previous administration, is ludicrous on its face.
Anyway, it was a disservice to have a member of the previous administration on the committee because it is/was/always will be a conflict of interest.
Thank you. JM
August 19th, 2005 at 4:36 pmHey Judd, we're still waiting for you to retract your smear of Glenn Reynolds. Do we have to start a letter writing campaign to get you to own up to your mistake?
August 19th, 2005 at 4:36 pmpeggy, do you honestly think Glenn/Ann have the ability to change what Investor's Business Daily wrote? The only thing they can do is add their own slant, which is obviously a bad idea because it would justify the mass e-mailing campaign, or depublish it, which is a cardinal sin of the blogging world. There's no third option; instapundit hasn't commented, and shouldn't be a target.
I'm also concerned now with the integrity of this site, if they just post links without doing their research first. One suspects that all Judd did was do a site search and post the first link that showed up. That's just sloppy.
August 19th, 2005 at 4:38 pm"History will point to the resolution for War, which detailed WMD’s, along with 20 other reasons."
That is not true. 23 whereas clauses, not all of which are explicit reasons, nine explicitly say WMD, the rest deal with terrorism and Saddam's ties to 9/11. Exactly one deals with Saddams treatment of Iraqis, along with POWs and stolen Kuwaiti property.
WMDs were the primary reason by any measure. More of the 23 whereas clauses were about WMD than any other reason. You can't honestly say there were 20 other reasons if you read the resolution.
August 19th, 2005 at 4:41 pmThat hasn’t stopped virtually every major right-wing blogger from repeating the lie. Contact them and demand they correct the record. (Contact info in the expanded post.)
And that Dave character from Garfield Ridge. He's a minor player in the VRWC but he's evil. Just bad. Email him and tell him so, post haste at garfieldridge-AT-lycos.com
http://garfieldridge.typepad.com/garfieldridge/
STOP the Garfield Ridge agitprop machine.
August 19th, 2005 at 4:47 pmYou really should leave Glenn alone. It is not liked he compared Jamie Gorelick to Dolores Umbridge or something like that. Seriously, though, I ceased to take the 9/11 Commission seriously the moment I learned about her background. She should have been a witness, not a member.
August 19th, 2005 at 4:53 pmInstapundit has only had one comment regarding Gorelick in the past year and that was by a guest blogger. Who's leading smear campaigns? If you can't get this fact correct, why should anyone believe anything you say?
August 19th, 2005 at 4:53 pmre: instapundit... this entry?
"MAKES YOU WONDER WHAT ELSE THEY TOSSED OUT." Betsy Newmark on the 9/11 report, commenting on the news of omissions about Mohammed Atta. Here's the very harsh Investor's Business Daily editorial:
August 19th, 2005 at 4:54 pmlol, so when will the apology be issued to Glenn for your smear campaign?
August 19th, 2005 at 4:57 pmI hadn't heard much about this until I saw Glenn Reynolds' post saying Instapundit hadn't been pushing this issue. I'm fascinated by the internal dynamics of the blogs. I guess the take home message this time is, "If you're going to instruct people to go attack one of the biggest blogs on the Net, make sure you know what you're talking about." (It's a reprise of the old refrain: "If you shoot at a king, make sure you kill him.")
Now I must go tell my minions to swarm Kos...
August 19th, 2005 at 5:00 pmWhy isn't there an email address listed for the freeper blog that you link to in the virtually every right wing blogger bit? Is freep even a blog? And Malkin, JPod, and the Cap'n don't constitute virtually every right wing blogger. Crikey, Judd.
August 19th, 2005 at 5:00 pmDavid. I'm not sure if I would hold my breath waiting for an apology to Glenn if I were you.
August 19th, 2005 at 5:07 pmRe #85. Dear Peggy. There was no blog entry except one by a guest referring to an article somewhere else as has been mentioned here several times. Your information about Glenn Reynolds and Instapundit is incorrect. Neither Glenn nor Ann "repeated the lie".
If those words aren't small enough please let me know.
August 19th, 2005 at 5:09 pmYou all sure seem to be a bunch of uneducated retards. . . And not very smart either.
August 19th, 2005 at 5:11 pmYou almost understand why Kos goes off every couple weeks on a rant no one cares about about how his critics can't tell the difference between him and his diarists. It really must be too hard to actually read the blog you're smearing.
August 19th, 2005 at 5:36 pmDavid, et al
you know, all i want is everyone in our government (and their enablers) both from the Right AND the Left to stop hiding/concealing/lying/distorting/smearing....
why are there so many questions out there FROM ALL OF US and no one wants to do an HONEST investigation on all the crap that has been flung?
there are lives on the line
our kids deserve a safe, wonderful world in which to live. i'm truly sorry if i have offended anyone. :-)
August 19th, 2005 at 5:41 pmIt's amazing, and disheartening, the vile hatred that many, not all, liberals have with anyone who disagrees with them. I'm conservative,not registered with any party, but I believe what I believe with all my heart. I vehemently disagree with practically everyone of you but I would never resort to the vileness that you guys spew. I read conservative sites and usually, the worst words used to describe you guys are ,"loony" and"moonbats". That's not to say there aren't quite a few people on the right who spew venom towards the left, but not anywhere near the degree that is exhibited here, or on any of the other left wing sites.
August 19th, 2005 at 5:46 pmI used to proudly call myself a democrat many years ago but when the party was taken completely over by the left I left. If I was still a liberal, though, I would be ashamed of all the hate that has consumed the democratic party. You guys can disagree with people all you want, but you only do yourselves a disservice by your blinding hatred and name calling for anyone who opposes you. That is fascism. I hope you guys have a great day and hope we can agree that we are blessed to live in a country where we can have opposing views and live in peace with each other as Americans.
Jason I am in total agreement with you. Democrats are very good at getting their Hate-America, Hate-Bush message out there, and that's the only message they seem to have.
August 19th, 2005 at 5:54 pmTypical moonbat BS. The left has done more to cripple and destroy this nation than men with weapons ever could.
August 19th, 2005 at 5:56 pmIm just a pretty impressed that in a thread devoted to ending the bashing of Jamie Gorelick no-one is willing to even take a stab at defending her presence on the 911 committee. Yet to question it is a 'smear'. Fascinating.
August 19th, 2005 at 5:56 pmLet's not fool ourselves here. Ann Althouse's post smeared Gorelick. It falsely implies that Gorelick's memo prevented the DoD from sharing information with the FBI. That's false and Glenn should correct the record for his readers. Ann should also correct the record and I've added her email to the list.
It's amazing that a bunch of blogs make highly incindiary, false claims about someone. But somehow we are the problem for emailing them and asking them to correct the record.
August 19th, 2005 at 5:58 pmThis is a simple post. We can have debates about whether Gorelick should have been on the commission, our approach to combating terrorism.
This post is about being factually accurate about the impact of the 1995 memo.
Why is it so hard for these conservative bloggers (and their readers) to admit they were wrong?
August 19th, 2005 at 6:00 pmI don't know, Judd. Because we aren't wrong?
But that's fine. You've got the traffic spike you wanted.
First time visitor. And last.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:05 pmFor #84, who said:
So the lefties lunatics are now saying that 9/11 hijackers were trained at US military bases? Do you realize that Americans think you guys are absolutely nuts! Most of the country thinks Bill Clinton would have stopped Bin Laden if he could have, and most think Bush is a nice guy who does not want soldiers to die. But when the left-wing goes nutty with these out of control Michael Moore theories of The Army training hijackers, they give a big gift to the republicans, and will only assure that the republicans win again in 2008, and add seats in the House and Senate in 2006 and 2008.
Well, friend, it's public record that 4 or 5 Arabs with the same names as the hijackers did in fact train at US military bases, as published by the WaPost or others. The approximately four of them who weren't at army bases, but naval aviation bases, Pensacola Naval Air Base to be specific, not only trained there, but they also LIVED there, according to public domain post office records and drivers license records. The documentation on this is not thin, but rather quite definitive. They were on record with both the USPS and the Florida state DMV as to their living at the Pensacola Naval Air Base.
The Pentagon's supposed 'answer' to this is what is thin. They acknowledge people with the same names as the hijackers did train there, but they CLAIM they were OTHER Arabs with the same names, not the alleged hijackers, based on supposed differences in dates of birth and the like. They've not proven their alibi, nor commented at all to my knowledge, after this first attempt at denying these facts.
Another alleged hijacker (or his namesake?) trained at the Monterrey School of Language, a defense department run school. An officer at that school got himself fired when he claimed the entire hijacker incident and the War on Terror were politically motivated frauds to empower Bush.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:05 pmgood point Jason. Thanks. Clearly you can find venom on both sides. But the left has become much more venomous than the right. It didn't used to be that way: during the Civil Rights movement, the segregrationists were far more venomous. If you have any doubts, try googling "Bush Satan" or "Republicans evil" or "right-wing racist" versus any similar insult you can come up with for Democrats or the left, and count the huge disparity in hits.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:08 pmSofia - How dare you present facts here! :P
For future reference - facts tend to shut the RePugnican software down - especially about 9/11
August 19th, 2005 at 6:08 pm" An officer at that school got himself fired when he claimed the entire hijacker incident and the War on Terror were politically motivated frauds to empower Bush. "
You say that like its a bad thing? This is why you guys cant win elections.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:14 pmIf you have a point - make it. However, you back up assertions with lies. Sending bloggers email like this:
"I am disturbed by your continual smears of honorable Americans like Jamie Gorelick. If you disagree with the opinions of Ms. Gorelick, then please voice that at your discretion, but engaging in personal smears campaigns at the behest of Karl Rove and Grover Norquist really do a disservice to your readers. Jamie Gorelick’s memo did not disallow sharing of information between the military and the FBI. Please issue a correction in your next blog." - especially to those who haven't even mentioned this woman makes you a liar.
So go ahead and keep telling your lies. Really helps your position. And keeps us apprised of how morally bankrupt you all are.
Cheers,
August 19th, 2005 at 6:14 pmKent,
Republican segregationists? Wasn't it democrats who filibustered civil rights legislation?
August 19th, 2005 at 6:16 pmWhere do you moonbats get your news? Jamie Gorelick was the Clinton administration's third or fourth-biggest affirmative action mistake. The very idea of putting her on that commission, instead of subpoenaing her to testify under oath before it, was absurd. It came, of course, from the Democrats in Congress, but that's a whole nother branch of the moonbat tree...
August 19th, 2005 at 6:18 pmYou all sure seem to be a bunch of uneducated retards. . . And not very smart either.
Comment by Chrissy — August 19, 2005 @ 5:11 pm
That's funny. I guess Chrissy is used to hanging out with the smart retards.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:22 pmThe sad thing is, Glenn never posted anything about Gorelick, and you're advocating spamming him for something he never did.
Way to go for the cause, guys.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:29 pm[...] Glenn Reynolds – the guy who runs Instapundit, the most popular conservative blog – has responded to your emails demanding he correct the record about Jamie Gorelick’s 1995 memo. [...]
August 19th, 2005 at 6:30 pmWow.
It is fun to look in on romper room every once in a while, and see what the left is doing. I hope the gang here keep talking and spreading their gospel and we may never see another dem in the white house again.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:31 pmThat said, I don't understand why lefties don't want to revisist the 9-11 commission if they got this wrong. There was clearly a conflict of interest with Gorelick. Saying this doesn't mean I think she is evil, or bad, or wasn't doing what she thought was in the best interest of our country. But, it is evidence of a possible flaw in the commission report though. Why wouldn't everyone what this investigated and either clear it or correct it? But I am sure that you will go ahead and call me evil-bush-hitler-minion or something to that effect for thinking that someone partially responsible for the hindering of intellegence sharring between agencies maybe shouldn't have been on the 9-11 commission.
The stench of Wingnuts is heavy in here.
you really shouldn't mix Acids and Bases together. The result is always explosive.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:32 pmJudd, help me out here, here's Ann's post:
"MAKES YOU WONDER WHAT ELSE THEY TOSSED OUT." Betsy Newmark on the 9/11 report, commenting on the news of omissions about Mohammed Atta. Here's the very harsh Investor's Business Daily editorial:{...and then there's a long quote from the IBD editorial]
The "makes you wonder what else they tossed out" is a quote from Betsy Newmar, and then Ann says that there is a "very harsh" editorial about Gorelick in the IBD.
Could you explain to me exactly which part of that is a smear against Gorelick? Calling the IBD editorial "very harsh" is a comment on the editorial, not on Gorelick. And Betsy Newmark's quote is in reference to the 9-11 report. I don't see that wondering what was left out of it constitutes a smear on Gorelick.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:35 pmI'm unclear why everyone insists making this an issue about the value of the 9/11 commission or Gorelick's alleged conflicts of interest or email manners.
This is about setting the record straight about the impact of the 1995 memo. It's not hard. And as soon as these bloggers do that, all of this will stop.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:35 pm"if crucial evidence is inadmissable, prosecutions fail."
Perfect evidence of the utterly failed "terrorism as a law enforcement" issue.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:38 pmThe part of Ann's post that was an attack on Gorelick was the quote from IBD which falsely links the assertion that the Able Danger info wasn't shared to the Gorelick. It doesn't matter if Ann wrote it or Ann quoted it, Glenn should let his readers know the truth.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:39 pm"Glenn should get the emails too..."
Sir, yes sir!
Should our e-mails to Ann say, as they did to Glenn, "I am disturbed by your CONTINUAL SMEARS," even though only one link about this was posted?
Please advise, as I cannot march without my orders.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:40 pmIn a way, by pointing the way here, Glenn has let his readers know the truth. I just don't think it's the truth you intended for them to know.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:41 pmShriek....shriekkkkkkk!!!!!
August 19th, 2005 at 6:44 pmThis is horrible, all of the Wingnuts beating up the Moonbats. "it's not fair" Call off the dawgs!!
August 19th, 2005 at 6:45 pmFrom the WASHINGTON TIMES:
a 1995 directive she wrote that made it more difficult for the FBI to locate two of the September 11 hijackers who had already entered the country by the summer of 2001.
Attorney General John Ashcroft declassified a four-page directive sent by Ms. Gorelick (the No. 2 official in the Clinton Justice Department) on March 4, 1995, to FBI Director Louis Freeh and Mary Jo White, the New York-based U.S. attorney investigating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In the memo, Ms. Gorelick ordered Mr. Freeh and Ms. White to follow information-sharing procedures that "go beyond what is legally required," in order to avoid "any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance" that the Justice Department was using Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, instead of ordinary criminal investigative procedures, in an effort to undermine the civil liberties of terrorism suspects
At issue was the oft-noted wall of separation that prevented counterterrorism agents and federal prosecutors from communicating with one another prior to September 11. Information collected under special FISA warrants, which do not require a probable cause, was generally not to be shared with personnel responsible for enforcing federal criminal laws — where probable cause must be demonstrated for a warrant to be issued.
Ms. Gorelick's memo clearly indicated that the Clinton administration had decided as a matter of policy to go even beyond the law's already stringent requirements in order to further choke off information sharing.
As Mr. Ashcroft noted during his testimony before the September 11 commission, all of this had a devastating effect into the investigation of al Qaeda operations in this country in the summer of 2001. For example, in late August, when the CIA told the FBI that Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi had entered the country, FBI investigators refused to permit criminal investigators with considerable knowledge about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the manhunt. Also, a criminal search warrant to examine the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, whose interest in flying aircraft had attracted attention, was rejected because FBI officials were afraid of breaching the wall.
Ms. Gorelick has been among the most partisan and aggressive Democratic panel members in questioning the anti-terror efforts of the Bush administration. The nation deserves a full accounting from Ms. Gorelick of why the Clinton administration felt it necessary to go the extra mile in order to hamper the capability of law enforcement and intelligence agents to talk to one another. If Ms. Gorelick fails to provide this, her actions would bring into serious doubt the credibility of the commission. Wash. Times
THE REVELATION OF ABLE DANGER ONLY STRENGTHENS THE ARGUMENT THAT JAMIE GORELICK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ON THE 9/11 COMMISION. She wasn't responsible for 9/11 nor was the Clinton Administration but she should not have been on the commission investigating the "why" of 9/11. The terrorists themselves are the only ones responsible for what happened on 9/11 but the actions of Gorelick and the inaction of the Clinton administration made the terrorists attack harder to prevent. It's a shame that the Bush administration did not have the foresight to tackle the problem from day one,but remember,Bush did not even has his whole cabinet yet, following the Florida debacle. Not an excuse just a fact. So in 9 months, without a full cabinet, you cannot equate Bush with Clinton's 8 years. Bush should have come out swinging, (yeah you guys would have loved that) but after we were hit he took action. Clinton did nothing of substance after the numerous attacks against us during his administration.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:45 pmJudd writes, Ann Althouse’s post smeared Gorelick. It falsely implies that Gorelick’s memo prevented the DoD from sharing information with the FBI.
Well no, it doesn't to a fair reader. Here's the part of the post in Instapundit (which again is a quote from Investor Business Daily):
And this is the same commission that included one Jamie Gorelick, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton Justice Department. She's also architect of the policy that established a wall between intel and law enforcement, making "connecting the dots" before 9-11 a virtual impossibility.
That references an inability to share information between 'intel' and 'law enforcement.' Now from Judd's original post, he notes:
Gorelick’s 1995 memo was only about communications between the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department.
Okay, a fair reading of this is that the FBI is the 'intel' (doing the investigative work) and the criminal division of the Justice Department is the 'law enforcement' (deciding whom to prosecute). Assuming that Judd is correct in his assessment of the Gorelick memo, the IBD, Althouse, Reynolds, et al. are being fair to characterize it as a wall between intel and law enforcement.
I'll be interested to see how Judd responds.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:46 pmJason - Do you really think anyone here has an attention span that long? lol
August 19th, 2005 at 6:52 pmI love it when the wing-nuts get their tighty whiteys in a twist. This string is hilarious. Jamie Gorelick wrote a memo? Priceless. Donny Rumsfeld recalled armed predators from Afghanitsan to take inventory. Democrats voted against Civil Rights? Too Precious Yeah, 50 years ago, then 99% of them became Repugnicans thanks to Nixon's Southern(adopt a bigot)Strategy. The Liberals all hate America, hate Bush. Bush isn't America, We love our Country. We just don't like what Commander Koo-Koo Bananas is doing to our military, our air, our water, our budget, our civil rights, our freedoms, our reputation, our jobs, our currency, and our courts. And if you want to wrap yourself in a flag and salute the worst President in history, please, please learn how to spell. 8)
August 19th, 2005 at 6:56 pmInstapundit link still there. It seems only OTHER blogs are able to make timley corrections to postings, while yours is fixed in concrete regardless of reality. Indeed how am I to be sure that ANY of the people at the email addresses you posted wrote anything at all about what you said, instead of being there because you dislike the people and wish to spam them? I could follow all the links and carefully read through weeks of backstories but then what is the point of your aggragation if incorrectly done?
Why should anyone read a blog if they can't trust what it says will be corrected when wrong? Then it's not a blog but instead propaganda.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:59 pmRegarding entries 96 & 109:
Ann Althouse did not smear anyone.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:00 pmShe posted a quote from another blogger named Betsy Newmark and then linked to Betsy's sources and copied the Investor’s Business Daily text. None of that was her own commentary. You owe both Ann and Glenn an apology.
Nice email spam idea, I guess that is how progressives get their message out. Enjoy oblivion.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:02 pmSteve:
I don't think a fair reading can be anything but that Ann was pushing information that smeared Gorelick. Here is more from IBD:
"And this is the same commission that included one Jamie Gorelick, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton Justice Department. She's also architect of the policy that established a wall between intel and law enforcement, making 'connecting the dots' before 9-11 a virtual impossibility.
[snip]
Maybe Oliver Stone can fit all this into his new movie on 9-11. Maybe the focus will shift from how George Bush could have prevented 9-11 in his eight months in office to what Bill Clinton failed to do in eight years. All this happened on his watch."
This was part of a cordinated campaign to smear Gorelick. Instapundit.com played a part. He should set the record straight.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:07 pmJudd, why can't you admit that you are wrong? Instapundit/Althouse did not "continually smear" Gorelick, and your overly-emotional reaction to the IBD quote, which Althouse characterizes as "very harsh" is typical of your over-the-top Fortian reaction to anybody you disagree with. I mean, look at your main page, scan down it and look at the florid prose: JPod is a compulsive liar! Clarity is in its last throes! Moral vacuum! I'd hit the archives and look for more, but I have a life to get back to. G'nite.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:07 pmInstead of calling Ed Morrissey at Captain Quarters a liar and trying to stifle his free speech, why not challenge him to a public debate on the issue?
He and Daffyd posted a very good analyst on the subject of Gorelick, her past position as general counsel at the DoD before moving onto her position as deputy attorney general of the United States, and the wall: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005258.php#comments
Prove him wrong. He's part of a weekly radio show every Saturday from noon 'til 3:00 CST. Maybe you could debate him on the air. We could decide who to believe.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:08 pmNo, not really. My point was information overload to shut them up. I thought about sprinkling the words, "Hitler, Chimp, War-monger, Hate, gay marriage, Mother Sheehan, Liar, Buck Fush, Halliburton, Enron, Rove, and The O.C." throughout to trick them into reading the whole thing. Sorry.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:10 pmGorelick imperiled America. She needs to stand up and take responsibility. She was also in major conflict of interest to serve on the now discredited 9/11 commission.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:14 pmDid anybody actually read the Instapundit post? It was a pointer to an Investor's Business Daily editorial with an excerpt from the editorial. Since when is quoting an editorial out of bounds? If you have a problem with the opinion, you should take it up with the IBD.
...and a single remark in an editorial is not the same as a "continual smear"...hmm, come to think of it, the continual smear seems to be emanating from these pages...
Physician, heal thyself.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:21 pmJeez, Judd, give it up already. You blew it by including Reynolds in your snitfit. You didn't do your homework, got called on it, and should admit your mistake and correct it.
Trying to insist Reynolds is vicariously part of this "smear" campaign you charge is being perpetrated, through Althouse's bringing notice to an editorial in Investors Business Daily and calling it harsh, while guestblogging at Instapundit, is an absolute textbook example of what people mean when they use the term "moonbat."
Simple logic just bounces off you knuckleheads.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:24 pmI must say: it's quite fascinating to see the right wing robots on display here (i don't normally check the think progress comments, to tell ya the truth).
From the clown who thinks that the left is much nastier than the right to the morons who think the 9/11 commission is "discredited" to the idiots who don't understand what jamie gorelick was doing on the 9/11 commission to the jerks who think that clinton should have prevented 9/11 but bush shouldn't have, every version of current propaganda is on display.
Think Progress is to be congratulated for attracting such a full expression of the contemporary right-wing.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:29 pm"From the clown.."
August 19th, 2005 at 7:37 pm"the morons .."
"the idiots .."
"to the jerks .."
Please refer to my post earlier. I'm "the clown" who says the left is nastier than the right. Thank you howard (he likes the lower case I assume) for proving my point. Have a great one.
Judd responds to me: This was part of a cordinated campaign to smear Gorelick. Instapundit.com played a part. He should set the record straight.
I think several people are trying to tell you, gently, that you blew it on Instapundit. It was a one-time mention of Ms. Gorelick, with reference to a quote from a newspaper.
That hardly seems like a smear, let alone a 'coordinated campaign'. While I have no doubt that the VRWC can coordinate an effective smear campaign when it chooses to do so, I've never seen Instapundit participate in such a thing. Prof. Reynolds seems to be a generally reasonable, honest fellow who, when he makes a mistake, owns up to it.
I'd like to suggest that last point as an example to you. When you take an accidental tumble on stage, it's better just to own up to it and move on rather than try to convince the audience that the fall was in the script.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:43 pmin response to comment #3
You state:
Good going Judd. I’ll e-mail them, but if only they pay attention to truth instead of marching orders, we’d be in a better world
Ironic that you try and pin "marching orders" directly after agreeing to do something someone else instructed you to do. I know a lot of liberals love to accuse everyone else of being "sheeple" but jesus christ (sorry if that name offends you) in the same "breath" you willingly follow orders yourself.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:53 pmOh my S Squirrel, you must be one of the many who fell for the Nixon "Southern Strategy" myth in regard to why the south turned republican. Who made affirmative action a federal mandate? The Nixon administration. And Nixon ran against a Dixiecrat (Wallace) so why didn't Wallace win the southern vote? The truth is that the Democrats in the south were split at that time.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:03 pm"We love our Country. We just don’t like what Commander Koo-Koo Bananas is doing to our military, our air, our water, our budget, our civil rights, our freedoms, our reputation, our jobs, our currency, and our courts."
You forgot to mention our precious bodily fluids.
http://eddriscoll.com/archives/006137.php
August 19th, 2005 at 8:05 pmThis is typical. Instapundit.com pushes outrageous allegations about Gorelick and I'M the one who is unethical because I recommended someone send emails about it.
I want one of the right-wingers to address the substance of the claim that the Gorelick memo prevented able danger info from being shared. If not maybe you should join us in calling for the record to be corrected.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:20 pmit so revealing when Rethugs are called out on their lies. They're always like: "Uh, so?" It's like when Bush and McClellan were called out on their previous pronouncement that Rove and Libby had nothing to do with the outing of Plame, which we now know is patantly false. Their response belies a complete disregard for the moral significance of their words and actions. Everything is political, end justifies means and the end is maintaining political power. Rethuglican motto: Party before Country. Moral vacuum indeed.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:30 pmThat hasn’t stopped virtually every major right-wing blogger from repeating the lie. Contact them and demand they correct the record. (Contact info in the expanded post.)
Another blogger to harrass is bdunbar at Space4Commerce - http://space4commerce.blogspot.com/
He's truly a wing nut who can't come up with a truly good blog name so he had to steal Bruce Gagnon's excellent theme, the wanker.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:36 pmThis story is little more than an attempt to divert the public's attention away from the disastrous war in Iraq and Bush's falling poll numbers.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:36 pmThe article that Ann Althouse posted did not say that "the Gorelick memo prevented able danger info from being shared."
You didn't "recommend" that "someone" send emails about it. You directed that everyone send emails about it. ("Contact them and demand they correct the record.")
I call for you to correct the record!
August 19th, 2005 at 8:46 pmAble Danger has nothing to it.
The wall was maintained by John Ahscroft in the months leading to 9-11.
He also cut funding to end counterterror funding in the United States, on 9-10.
Did able danger tell him to quit flying commercial planes? That is what you should focus on.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:57 pmThis is a hilarious thread. I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative, and did not vote for Bush...
... but I gotta say, I never see stuff like 'Rethuglicans' on right-wing sites. Maybe I just don't read the truly nutcase rightwingers, but bizarro namecalling seems to be mostly the province of the lefty sites I read.
I'm hoping one of the kind, gentle, intelligent, coherent lefty posters here will reply to me and call me a 'Karl Rove Republican Android' now. I can start a collection of freakish ad hominem attacks. I promise to treasure it forever.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:58 pmFor what it's worth unimpeachable sources say able danger is a false flag, a smokescreen, a distraction. They want to create immunity for a nonitem like Ollie North got for Iran-Contra.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:58 pmWondering how Ms. Gorelick was connected with the Defense Department and possibly influence their policies? Well...
"Prior to joining Fannie Mae in May 1997, Gorelick was deputy attorney general of the United States, a position she assumed in March 1994. From May 1993 until she joined the Justice Department, Gorelick served as general counsel of the Department of Defense."
http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/bio_gorelick.htm
August 19th, 2005 at 8:59 pmI just love how outraged the Right is with Gorelick. Let's see, Bush the Dimmer who spent 40% of his time on vacation prior to 9/11 and on whose watch 9/11 happened; he's the one who slow walked and stonewalled a public investigation for over a year. He then tried to underfund it by bugeting a paltry $3MM. He also got to choose the chairmen, Thomas Kean, who had his own conflict of interest given his business relationship with OBL's brother-in-law, Khalid bin Mahfouz and Lee Hamilton, designated Democrat who specializes in Bush whitewashes (see Iran-Contra).
Yeah, Jamie Gorelick is a real problem on the 9/11 commission. Typical RNC bullshit distraction. But I'll play along...lets get a real independent investigation with an independent prosecutor going....let's put both Clinton and Bush under oath and lets grill them on what they did and didn't do on terror up to 9/11.
Republicans impeached a popularly elected President for lying about consensual sex...lets talk to this "hard working" pResident, under oath, about a few of his lies that have led to the killing of 10's of thousands of innocent people.
August 19th, 2005 at 9:02 pmPlease folks get a grip. The appointment of feckless icompetents like Gorlick are now comming home to roost, and we will see that Clintons "legacy" will be the deaths of 3000 Americans because of the idiots he appointed, in Gorlicks case at the insistance of his wife, Hillary. Demonracts need to wake up and see what their assinsi ne policy have acomplished, which is nothging but deaths and a war didn't want but now are forced to fight. A war that they almost demand we lose. Thanks Bill.
August 19th, 2005 at 9:21 pmKindness says...
So why do these hitler youth continually try to blame stuff on Clinton?
Because there is so much "stuff" about Clinton's terms in office that helped the terrorists. For example, He tried the first group of World Trade center bombers as criminals in a public trial which let the terrorists know we could tap cell phones. Then the Terrorists started using other means of communication. I want to know better how to run a country under attack by Islamic Terrorists. There was a wall between the civilian and military intelligence services and that wall was erected by the left side political spectrum. In spite of the evidence, the left continues to act like Americans are the most dangerous people around. Please give up your hate, we are not Hitler. Clinton (and others) made mistakes about terrorism and it cost us. I don't think Clinton is responsible for terrorism, I just want my children to grow up burka free. Asking questions and getting answers does not make me Hiter youth.
Next time you see Howard Dean, tell him "Hate is not a family value".
August 19th, 2005 at 9:25 pmFunny how this thread got swarmed by Reichwingers all sudden like. Who's following marching orders now? Was it a post on FreakRepublic or Little Green Dirtballs?
And please tell me how the Clenis was responsible for Somalia/"Black Hawk Down" occurring after 10 months in office, but King George the Turd was not responsible for 9/11 after 9 months in office. Did that extra 3 weeks make for some kind of threshold? If you dittoheads have the rule book, you should let us all have a look at it.
But get the Cheetos stains off of it first.
Hail! to the 101st Keyboard Kommandos and 82nd Chairborne. We await your visit to the local military recruiting office of your choice. Many of the fine men and women currently serving would love to be replaced by your valiant personages. Candy and flowers await you!
August 19th, 2005 at 9:25 pmWhat lies? Are you talking about the thinking there were WMDs because all the international intelligence said there were? Could those WMDs possibly have been moved?
August 19th, 2005 at 9:34 pmIf anyone, on any side, starts to tell you what others think, stop listening and ask them for proof. If they have none, stop listening. Truth be told, most of our current troubles with Islamofascim started with Carter. I don't blame him, though, I blame the terrorists.
August 19th, 2005 at 9:38 pmIf someone steals your wallet, you don't ever want someone to tell you, "You are stupid because you didn't lock the door". The problem is the theif and, not your absentmindedness.
Republicans impeached a popularly elected President for lying about consensual sex…
Comment by Innocent Bystander
I could stay here all day.
Clinton was impeached and disbarred for lying under oath in a sex abuse trial. My God, how old were you when that was in the news and how did you learn it wrong?
August 19th, 2005 at 9:42 pm"I could stay here all day."
I really wish you wouldn't.
August 19th, 2005 at 9:49 pmIn all honesty, I don't really see a point in all of this. He said she said nonsense will get us nowhere, but that's precisely where most folks in the blog-o-sphere want to be.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:03 pmThe Republican party is full of idiots.
Proof?
They keep winning elections.
#135
Robert Byrd ring a bell?
#125
Don't stop. Please don't stop. Please keep this issue alive.
Also don't throw me in the briar patch. BTW you can call me Brother Rabbit.
Mr. B,
Acids and bases mixing sometimes yeild salts of the earth. Without explosions. You need to go back to bomb belt chemistry 101.
Judd,
What was the impact of the memos? I want a detailed history of every CIA and FBI and law enforcement investigation of terrorists from 1995 on. Plus interviews with all those involved (administrators, investigators, etc.) Please submit all files for review. I want to be sure.
If you don't have the files for review how can you be sure? Please advise ASAP.
In the mean time please keep this alive, at least til Dec 2008. The Democrats NEED your help. You are doing a GREAT job making the Republicans look bad.
And keep spamming those Republican shills. You get extra points for that. Every body loves spammers and this will show those evil Republicans what kind of high class folks support the Democrats.
Did I mention the briar patch?
==============================
#92
What happened to the WMDs Saddam had in his inventory? He was supposed to account for them. My guess is that he gave them to the Republicans to hold until needed to win an election. You need to shout this one from the roof tops. Republicans are planning chemical warfare on Democrats in order to steal the next election.
I have also hear that Karl Rove is planning to steal your orgones. Wait til that one gets out. Americans of all political stripes will be livid.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:12 pmInocent Bystander Wrote
"Yeah, Jamie Gorelick is a real problem on the 9/11 commission. Typical RNC bullshit distraction. But I’ll play along…lets get a real independent investigation with an independent prosecutor going….let’s put both Clinton and Bush under oath and lets grill them on what they did and didn’t do on terror up to 9/11.
Republicans impeached a popularly elected President for lying"
How could you trust either one of them to tell the truth?
August 19th, 2005 at 10:23 pmCan we repeat #156 in capital letters here?
August 19th, 2005 at 10:40 pmJOHN ASHCROFT MAINTAINED THE "WALL" IN THE MONTHS PRECEDING 9/11.
JOHN ASHCROFT CUT FUNDING FOR COUNTERTERRORISM.
This has been common knowledge for anyone who has been reading and keeping up with genuine news reports - not just what Fox News reports.
#161 Bill
August 19th, 2005 at 10:45 pmYou are so wrong, so close minded, so blinded by the right -- you pathetically continue to blame Clinton for everything. Bush was President. He ignored memos. His team disregarded intel. He stalled the investigation. He is to BLAME. Did you see Clinton blaming Bush the first when the WTC was first bombed in the early weeks of his Adminsitration?
Inability to accept responsibility is immature at best. Lying to cover up screw ups is deceitful and unethical. Deliberately manufacturing evidence to start a war is criminal.
Republiclans are gleeful because they have bought the entire government, so for now they are untouchable -- be warned, the end is coming. And when it does, the Republicans will have hell to pay.
SNAKES!
August 19th, 2005 at 11:03 pmOne has to recall the state of relations between the FBI and the Clinton administration. FBI director Louis Freeh declared war on the Clinton Administration and declared his allegiance to the GOP in Congress. Freeh was rabid about running down any possible lead that could damage Clinton. Freeh was incompetent and failed to keep the FBI up to date with the latest technology. Freeh did not believe that the FBI should stop terrorists. Freeh believed that the FBI should only be involved after terrorists committed a crime. (How is this supposed to work against suicidal mainiacs?)
Clinton did not fire the incompetent Freeh because of the political heat he would have taken from the GOP. They would have claimed payback for Whitewater, etc. Big mistake. Clinton should have fired his ass anyway. Bush knew that Freeh was incompetent and fired his ass ASAP. Freeh was gone in less than 3 months after Bush took office and replaced with an acting director. Bush could not even wait till the new guy was confirmed to cut Freeh loose.
Had DOD come to the FBI and the FBI determined that the info was gathered illegally, Freeh would have gone after Clinton, not the terrorists. This was the mindset of the GOP when Clinton was president. When Clinton went after bin Laden, the GOP went after Clinton. The GOP was more concerned about political power than protecting the nation. They have always been that way. No one has ever held the GOP accountable for interfering with Clinton administration efforts to combat terrorism.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:40 pm#171 Marie...
Umm... I guess you intended that for Mike?
Regarding Clinton... What's to blame--he was pathetic:
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york-issue112901.shtml
"We will not resist" — the president corrected himself — "we will not rest in our efforts to find who is responsible for this outrage, to pursue them and to punish them."
"As Clinton spoke, his top political strategist, Dick Morris, was hard at work conducting polls to gauge the public's reaction to the bombing. "Whenever there was a crisis, I ordered an immediate poll," Morris recalls. "I was concerned about how Clinton looked in the face of [the attack] and whether people blamed him.""
http://www.cnsnews.com (long link at bottom of post);
""From the time President Clinton took office until May of 1995, a Presidential Decision Directive, PDD 39, sat in the National Security Council, in the In Box of one of the officials with no action taken. The significance of PDD 39 is that it was the document defining what the missions and roles were of combating terrorism," Johnson said.
""Despite what happened at the World Trade Center in 1993, the Clinton administration did not finally act on [PDD 39] until after the attack in Oklahoma City," Johnson said, referring to the 1995 incident in which an American, Timothy McVeigh, detonated a bomb outside the federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people.
""The only reason for that is because in the two weeks prior to Oklahoma City, the front page of both Newsweek and Time Magazine carried the question: 'Is President Clinton Relevant?'"
Clinton did not blame Bush I because nobody thought Clinton was at fault for something that happened so soon in his admin... But, here, many think that Bush II was at fault...
August 19th, 2005 at 11:45 pmJudd said ".... Instapundit.com pushes outrageous allegations about Gorelick....."
Judd, that is an untrue statement.
Judd, you are either deluded or a liar.
This is not about Gorelick but about you. You made a false accusation then continue to spout it in spite evidence to the contrary.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:48 pmSorry, Judd and others, but changing the subject doesn't work. The subject is not the actions and/or personal qualities of Ms. Gorelick. The subject, as introduced by the subject line of this post, is your, Judd's, actions and personal qualities.
Ann Althouse, guest-blogging on Instapundit, cited an editorial about Gorelick, and qualified it as "harsh". Based on that, you went ballistic -- "Right-Wing Smear of Gorelick Rooted In Ignorance" says the topic line. You started an astroturf campaign, possibly escalating to a denial-of-service attack, against Glenn Reynolds, who was fifty feet down in the clear waters of the Caymans at the time. This is not reasonable. It's not even the action of a rational partisan. It is pure raving paranoia. You might have a complaint against the writer of the original editorial. You have no rational beef against Reynolds or Althouse, and your attempt to deflect the criticism by pulling the "look, over there!" trick does not help either you or your cause.
Had you written a post pointing out what you see as the facts of the matter -- that the "wall" has existed for many years under Presidents of both parties; that it is a very good, perhaps necessary provision to avoid violation of American Citizens' civil rights; and that in any case Ms. Gorelick's actions had no material effect on the detection and apprehension, or failure thereof, of M. Atta and company -- and pointed it out to him, Reynolds might have linked you in a way that would let his readers approach you positively. You did not. You blew it, and you should back off, admit it, and try something else.
--
For the record: I think Ms. Gorelick's actions were a mistake made in good faith, and that if the 9/11 Commission has any purpose other than as a platform for political posturing it is, or should be, to discover what mistakes were made and try to figure out how to avoid them in future. (I am also cynical enough to think that this will only result in bigger, better, but different mistakes.) If Ms. Gorelick made a mistake, we should know that. If proposing that that be investigated constitutes "demonizing" in your book, I shudder to consider what your reaction might be to a real disagreement, let alone an insult.
Regards,
August 19th, 2005 at 11:57 pmRic
How old am I?
Old enough to remember when Republicans used to stand for principles. Like:
balanced budgets
state's rights
stay out of foreign entanglements
the right to privacy
smaller government
Check the 2000 Republican platform. They even paid lip service to that stuff there.
The only principle they stand for today is the status quo and whatever it takes to keep themselves in power.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:02 amSo much hate and contempt for those who disagree with you... it's so sad really -- for both sides.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:20 amShut up, Jesus!
8)
August 20th, 2005 at 12:34 amDavid lists Buffy The Vampire Slayer as one of his top ten favorite shows. I think we can cross him off the list.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:48 amWhy don't you just be a normal boy and take a Playboy into the bathroom with you, David?
August 20th, 2005 at 12:49 amHey Linda wasn't that the Chairman of your party saying sorry about that Southern Strategy thing two weeks ago? Or was that Mr Ed? I have trouble telling them apart. I bought a bag of pea gravel today, I think I'll name it Linda. She make me laugh. 8)
August 20th, 2005 at 12:59 amRegarding Clinton… What’s to blame–he was pathetic:
Don't be an ignorant moron, you ignorant moron. (See? A leopard can't change his spots.)
Clinton was the best conswervative Republican preznit since Eisenhower, you John Birch POS!
August 20th, 2005 at 2:54 amHey, enough with the party bickering! Let's all agree that Bush, although not even close to as great as Reagan, is a good man doing good things.
No one can disagree with that, right?
I for one, agree :)
August 20th, 2005 at 4:23 am"Clinton was impeached and disbarred for lying under oath in a sex abuse trial. My God, how old were you when that was in the news and how did you learn it wrong?
Comment by tyree — August 19, 2005 @ 9:42 pm "
A warped version. Starr was unable to get Clinton for Whitewater, so he and the elves manufactured a perjury trap. Did you forget that? You comment about "learning it wrong" conflicts with historical reality.
August 20th, 2005 at 4:39 am"Hey, enough with the party bickering! Let’s all agree that Bush, although not even close to as great as Reagan, is a good man doing good things.
No one can disagree with that, right?
I for one, agree
Comment by Kevin — August 20, 2005 @ 4:23 am"
Reagan? How ironic that you reference one traitor with another. Remember Reagan's "October Surprise"? How about Iran-Contra? What are you smoking?
August 20th, 2005 at 4:42 amRE comments #73 and 74, I also read "Instapundit" regularly, and don't recall and discussion of this subject on the blogsite. A search of archived pages supports this.
What criteria did you use to compile this "target" list?
August 20th, 2005 at 10:18 amClinton is to blame. If Clinton had the integrity to resign after beating impeachment. Al Gore, running as incumbent would have prevented the election theft, and we would have has a President who knew that if your PDR says "Terrorist to attack US" your damn job is to stop the attack, not go on a vacation/fund-raising tour.
And all your Republican traitors: Alexander Hamilton warned that factions and love of party over nation were the greatest dangers to a Republic. Your absolute refusal to deal with your Party Leader ignoring clear and present danger and your prizing of blind loyalty to cult over loyalty to Nation is a reprise and rebirth of the Confederate treason that nearly destroyed the nation 150 years ago.
The fact that someone could excuse Bush's admitted dereliction of duty by saying he'd only been on the job for 8 months is beyond satire. May God forgive you, because I can't.
August 20th, 2005 at 11:16 am[...] Everyone can judges for themselves whether it’s right to reprint attacks on someone without any clue as to whether they’re true. But maybe now that we’ve pointed out that her information was wrong, she should let her readers know. [...]
August 20th, 2005 at 11:17 amIts hilarious to see a post title with "Rooted in Ignorance" when the entire post is rooted in ignorance. First, Glenn Reynolds made no post on this.
anyway:
1. Gorelick served as general counsel of the Department of Defense.
2. On March 4, 1995 Jamie Gorelick--then Deputy Attorney General instructed then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and United States Attorney Mary Jo White in a memo stating ""We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation"
3. Judd States "The second point is whether the Gorelick memo created a “wall.†This is also false."
--THAT IS FUNNY MAN!
From the 9-11 commission report itself:
"In July 1995, Attorney General Reno issued formal procedures aimed at managing information sharing between Justice Department prosecutors and the FBI..."
"These procedures were almost immediately misunderstood and misapplied. As a result, there was far less information sharing and coordination between the FBI and the Criminal Division in practice than was allowed under the department’s procedures."
4. Page 271 9/11 Commission Report:
“Jane†sent an email to the Cole case agent explaining that according to the NSLU, the case could be opened only as an intelligence matter, and that if Mihdhar was found, only designated intelligence agents could conduct or even be present at any interview. She appears to have misunderstood the complex rules that could apply to this situation.
The FBI agent angrily responded:
"Whatever has happened to this—someday someone will die—and wall or not—the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain “problems.†Let’s hope the National Security Law Unit will stand behind their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, UBL, is getting the most “protection.â€
5. Keep marching on Judd, insisiting there is "no wall", ignorant and proud...
August 20th, 2005 at 12:32 pmUM. That “wall†was put up during the Reagan admin
How so? Given that FISA was passed in 1978?
My God, you leftisist are an embarassement.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:44 pmAfter the first attack on the World Trade Center, just 28 days into the presidency for Clinton, you never heard one utterance of blame mentioned on George Bush I. Not one. Yet the Bush monsters can't take an ounce of responsibility for anything they do. They reward ineptness and criminal neglect and criminal actions with promotions and praise. They create only more of the same. This country is in the control of madmen defended by simpletons who have no power of investigative thinking. How will we maintain 3 more years of this madness?
August 20th, 2005 at 1:35 pmJeez, poor wittle Georgie only was in office for EIGHT MONTHS, he couldn't stay up late like them party-in Clintonites did when they stopped the Millenium plot, he doesn't have time to explain why his Attorney General who slashed funds for counter-terrorism STOPPED FLYING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES before 9-11, and he didn't see a need to fire a single person associated with security after 9-11, in fact he gave a PRESIDENTIAL AWARD to the bureaucrats who blocked the prosecution of Moussaki and you know why - Because Bill Clinton is responsible for every error and failure of the personal responsibility regime.
August 20th, 2005 at 2:27 pmSimple as that.
Jack (191) and I think this was terribly irresponsible of Clinton. He had an opportunity to clear the National Security establishment of the Bush/Reagan power-point rangers and he never did. He could have opened the Iran Contra files, pushed that clown Freeh out of the FBI, and supported his people in the DOD - like Clark. But he let Les Aspin and Louis Freeh and Colin "Nearly a half a gram of integrity" Powell stay in office and decided to be overly magnanimous about the massive national security failures of Reagan/Bush ("Oh I don't know, let's give a cake and some stingers and a lot of money to the Mujadeen, seems like a good idea?").
August 20th, 2005 at 2:35 pmNostradammit!, Excellent retort. And to pick out the one item that defines me and my views was just incredible. I'm in awe. And then your second post.. The way you were able to side-step the issue and immediately attack me and make insinuations about my life-style. Very well done.
Kind of reminds me of my grand-daughter when you give her rational argument that undermines what she wants.
"You stupid you!!"
August 20th, 2005 at 2:37 pmGot to the post by judd where he wonders if Oliver Stone will get it right in his film on 9/11 and had to give up.
August 20th, 2005 at 3:11 pmMight as well ask M. Moore to pass up a Twinkie.
Kind of reminds me of my grand-daughter when you give her rational argument that undermines what she wants.
How do you know that's your grand-daughter, even if you don't live in a red state?
August 20th, 2005 at 4:54 pmWhat criteria did you use to compile this “target†list?
They are the enemy.
August 20th, 2005 at 4:57 pm[...] Elsewhere, though, Althouse and Eschaton also get into a pissing contest over Mohhamad Atta and Jamie Gorelick. Think Progress claimed she “smeared” Jamie Gorelick when all Althouse did was quote and Investor’s Business Daily op-ed. A silly skirmish, but I have to agree with Althouse. [...]
August 21st, 2005 at 3:13 amCitizen K,
Please call the hospital. Please call your doctor. Please call home. If you continue like this without your medication we will have to put the "implant" back in.
Seriously though. Do you believe for a minute that Bush administration actively caused 9/11? That's your problem if you do.
Was 9/11 preventable? Probably not. It could have had one plane or 20 but with what we were doing at that time with air security etc it still would have happened IMHO.
Who is to blame? The terrorist.
Should we have party above country? Good question but it is the "party" that sets the direction for the country for next 4 years(and we do have 3 branches of government still the last time I checked) and you can go with it or cross party lines when you vote. Enough said and good observation though and point to make.
You've said alot above with providing any factual links to any of that. That's a disservice to other readers who would like to "fact check" you and gross disservice to those that have the same beliefs as you and you keep them locked in a perpetual state of mis-information and do not allow the reader to check the facts. That's why the most popular blogs and commenters provids links that reference when a point is made as fact. The street goes both ways.
Nobody.
August 21st, 2005 at 9:35 amHere are some FACTS for you.
In the entire history of steel frame high-rise buildings, only three have collapsed due to fire.
All three collapsed on one day - September 11, 2001
Larry Silverstein owned all three.
In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement in reference to WTC 7;
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." [mp3]
Building 7 had small fires on just a couple of floors.
Building 7 was a block away from WTC 1 and 2 and was not hit by debris.
Buildings NOT owned by Larry Silverstein that were adjacent to buildings 1 and 2 did not collapse and sustained more damaage than building 7.
What do you suppose he meant by “Pull it�
Are government buildings routinely pre-fitted with explosive charges?
Understand that throughout history, tyrannical governments have used terror against their own people for political gain. Its a fact, jack.
August 21st, 2005 at 9:45 amNobody:
Do I believe that the Bush administration was complicit in 9/11? Seems unlikely, but since I found out that Oliver North did deliver stingers and a cake to Islamic extremists in the 1980s, I find it hard to rule anything out.
Extreme incompetence is enough for me.
As for links:
Ashcroft's unexplained avoidance of commercial airlines here
Bush's PDB Vacation here
And read what Richard Clarke said about the total lack of interest that followed his attempts to raise the alarm.
August 21st, 2005 at 11:37 amCitizen K wrote
"Do I believe that the Bush administration was complicit in 9/11? Seems unlikely, but since I found out that Oliver North did deliver stingers and a cake to Islamic extremists in the 1980s, I find it hard to rule anything out."
I had heard about the stingers as well as the TOW's, but I missed the cake. :)
August 21st, 2005 at 1:24 pmYou liberals will stop at nothing to protect Clinton; Jammey on the 9/11 commision, so she don't have to testifly(sp). Sandy Buglar stealing documents that incriminate(sp) Clinton. What next? I see you all are still smoking dope.
August 21st, 2005 at 3:41 pm203 bigjosh - so why did your blessed Republican Congress and President appoint a cover up commission? PowerPoint Rangers - our motto "It's never our fault".
202 Eddie:
"McFarlane was one of the first principals to speak publicly about the Iran arms sales after they were exposed in the press in early November 1986. These reports focused on the fact that McFarlane had made a secret mission to Tehran bringing spare weapons parts and a cake. Iranian Parliament Speaker Rafsanjani confirmed the reports, calling the mission a sign of U.S. ``helplessness.'' "
-- http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_01.htm
Along with Reagan's failed mission to Lebanon where we showed terrorists the we both lacked the ability to take care of our soldiers and also that we would retreat when bloodied, the cake and missiles adventure to Teheran was a watershed.
Of course, Carter and Zbig started this blowback, but Reagan turned on the fans.
August 21st, 2005 at 5:25 pmWhile Clinton's DoD is being attacked for not acting on the information in 'able danger',why is the Bush DoD getting a pass for disbanding 'able danger'in the spring of 2001?I think the commission was covering up for the incompitence of our current leaders who scuttled an anti-terrorist group that indentified 4 highjackers just months before we were atacked.
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:53 amTim,
I would like answers about both questions personaly.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:17 amI love how so many people commenting here are content to just point fingers and call names. If someone disagrees with you then why take the time to refute their arguments? It's much simpler to just say, "Well, you're one of those people who don't deal with reality" or "You listen to Rush so you're an idiot." The out of hand dismissal of a source because you don't agree with their politics is asinine. I'm not a big fan of Rush but he has good points occasionally. I'm not a big fan of Al Franken but he occasionally has good points. What I find most amusing is that you guys are complaining about a 'smear' campaign and go off about how all the repulicans just call names and then you turn around and do the exact same thing. There's a principle of basic psychology that I think applies here: you most often attack in others what you despise within yourself.
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:18 amSo far, in all of this, I see two or three intelligent reponses in the first 100 posts - Blue State Red and Dumb Fox. Honestly, I couldn't get past that since it was like wading through mud to find something worth while. The majority of left leaning posts are insults, profanities and general garbage. To someone who is looking for a good conversation, I guess joining in with left wing posts isn't an option.
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:31 am[...] At Instapundit.com, Glenn Reynolds continues to smear Jamie Gorelick by pushing the theory that her 1995 prevented the Department of Defense from sharing Able Danger data with the FBI. Here is his post today: DEFENDERS OF JAMIE GORELICK seem to have mostly succeeded in raising her profile with regard to Able Danger matters. [...]
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:04 pm[...] This is completely wrong. The Gorelick memo imposed no restrictions on information sharing between the FBI and the Department of Defense. It only addresses information sharing between the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department. Repeating a false claim doesn’t make it true. [...]
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:08 pmDetailed report can be found here.
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:16 pm