The Gorelick memo did not create a ‘wall’ with regard to intelligence information.
The Gorelick memo created a ‘wall’ inside of the Department of Justice. The ‘wall’ was already in place prior to Gorelick’s memo and Ashcroft’s deputy Larry Thompson retained this ‘wall’.
The joint House and Senate Intelligence Committees’ report of pre-September 11 intelligence failures did not find that the “wall” originated in the Clinton administration; their report states: “The ‘wall’ is not a single barrier, but a series of restrictions between and within agencies constructed over 60 years as a result of legal, policy, institutional and personal factors.” Similarly, a ruling by the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review – when it met for the first time ever in 2002 – traces the origin of the “wall” to “some point during the 1980s.”
Most recently, in his April 12, 2004, testimony before the 9-11 Commission, Ashcroft conceded that his own deputy attorney general, Larry Thompson, reauthorized the “wall” in August 2001.
Wild accusations against the other party by the NY Post and the Nation respectively are usually false.
I am sure I will get flamed but know this…I have never pointed a finger at Bush for 9/11. Blaming Clinton is beyond pathetic.
I am ashamed of bashing Clinton to my left wing friends when he bombed the Sudan factory and Afghanistan on the same day. Little did I know he should have done much more of this then regardless if it was rightly or wrongly construed as ‘waging the dog’.
Just in case you want to formulate your own opinion you can read the memo for yourself:
I don’t get a hard on about “who is to blame for 9/11.”
I do agree with Rainjack that some of the most recent investigations have been decidedly Anti-Bush.
Maybe it’s simply because I couldn’t possibly think any less of bill “fly the somalian warlord to the Kenyan peace conference after our soldier’s where dragged through the streets by his henchmen” clinton.
The only real positive from all of these investigations would be to learn lessons. I think finger pointing has just about run it’s course on this one.
CONSERVATIVE[/quote]
Is that because you know Clinton and Bush are equally culpable for 9/11?
On a side note…Clinton built Gitmo just before he left office and H.W. and Slick Willy are chums now.
Looks like Clinton wanted to be a part of the ‘illuminati’.
In America all things are possible. White trailer trash can become president and be accepted into the power elite club.
I come from trailer trash but there is not a snowball chance in hell that I could (or want) to become POTUS.
Elk hunter I have to agree slightly with you. But you must admit you and I have this special gift of for seeing the past, some call it hind sight As far as someone being culpable for 911 it would only be Osama Binladin, no one else.
[quote]DDeviant wrote:
First off, the idea that 9/11 was just a big misunderstanding resulting from an inter-agency communication failure is pure propaganda…the media puppets give you a simple explanation that makes you go “Damn, what a shame” without investigating the issue further. Go back to sleep, your government has everything under control.
Secondly, there are so many facets of this event that are far more interesting than the notion that somehow it is Clinton’s fault. Where was NORAD? What caused the collapse of building 7? What about the reports of bombs going off in the buildings? Why was the debris immediately sold as scrap to China, despite numerous calls for a forensic investigation? Isn’t it almost too convenient that the majority of the steel beams and columns came down in sections less than 30 feet long? Each tower had 47 steel core columns, each measuring 14" by 36" and was 4" thick at the base. How is it that the WTC collapses after being on fire for around an hour, but the Windsor Building in Madrid burned for more than 24 hours and DID NOT COLLAPSE? What about…
Now before you fire off some brilliant comment about my tin foil hat and wild conspiracy theories, investigate this for yourself. Got a minute? here’s some links:
And look, no name calling or temper tantrums.[/quote]
Sorry,
A poster named JustTheFacts beat you to posting these – I think he posted them all about 2 years ago or so. Do a search for his posts – you guys could have hours of fun together via PMs.
As for me, I’m going to go invest some money in tin-processing companies…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
DDeviant wrote:
First off, the idea that 9/11 was just a big misunderstanding resulting from an inter-agency communication failure is pure propaganda…the media puppets give you a simple explanation that makes you go “Damn, what a shame” without investigating the issue further. Go back to sleep, your government has everything under control.
Secondly, there are so many facets of this event that are far more interesting than the notion that somehow it is Clinton’s fault. Where was NORAD? What caused the collapse of building 7? What about the reports of bombs going off in the buildings? Why was the debris immediately sold as scrap to China, despite numerous calls for a forensic investigation? Isn’t it almost too convenient that the majority of the steel beams and columns came down in sections less than 30 feet long? Each tower had 47 steel core columns, each measuring 14" by 36" and was 4" thick at the base. How is it that the WTC collapses after being on fire for around an hour, but the Windsor Building in Madrid burned for more than 24 hours and DID NOT COLLAPSE? What about…
Now before you fire off some brilliant comment about my tin foil hat and wild conspiracy theories, investigate this for yourself. Got a minute? here’s some links:
A poster named JustTheFacts beat you to posting these – I think he posted them all about 2 years ago or so. Do a search for his posts – you guys could have hours of fun together via PMs.
As for me, I’m going to go invest some money in tin-processing companies…[/quote]
Boston B
I do not question your intelligence. But you do have a habit of giving overwhelming argument when presenting your point .Case being you made a post with 5 links and each link has at least 5 more links so to honestly have a debate with you it would require several days reading. That would take some of the fun out of the process of debate
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Elk hunter I have to agree slightly with you. But you must admit you and I have this special gift of for seeing the past, some call it hind sight As far as someone being culpable for 911 it would only be Osama Binladin, no one else.[/quote]
Past experience and events give us the material with which we make our decisions now. You are saying this is all hindsight but for me it formed my view and outrage when lies and BS were presented as fact.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
NY Post = The Nation (i.e. Not Credible)
The Gorelick memo did not create a ‘wall’ with regard to intelligence information.
The Gorelick memo created a ‘wall’ inside of the Department of Justice. The ‘wall’ was already in place prior to Gorelick’s memo and Ashcroft’s deputy Larry Thompson retained this ‘wall’.
The joint House and Senate Intelligence Committees’ report of pre-September 11 intelligence failures did not find that the “wall” originated in the Clinton administration; their report states: “The ‘wall’ is not a single barrier, but a series of restrictions between and within agencies constructed over 60 years as a result of legal, policy, institutional and personal factors.” Similarly, a ruling by the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review – when it met for the first time ever in 2002 – traces the origin of the “wall” to “some point during the 1980s.”
Most recently, in his April 12, 2004, testimony before the 9-11 Commission, Ashcroft conceded that his own deputy attorney general, Larry Thompson, reauthorized the “wall” in August 2001.
Wild accusations against the other party by the NY Post and the Nation respectively are usually false.
I am sure I will get flamed but know this…I have never pointed a finger at Bush for 9/11. Blaming Clinton is beyond pathetic.
I am ashamed of bashing Clinton to my left wing friends when he bombed the Sudan factory and Afghanistan on the same day. Little did I know he should have done much more of this then regardless if it was rightly or wrongly construed as ‘waging the dog’.
Just in case you want to formulate your own opinion you can read the memo for yourself:
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Elk hunter I have to agree slightly with you. But you must admit you and I have this special gift of for seeing the past, some call it hind sight As far as someone being culpable for 911 it would only be Osama Binladin, no one else.
Past experience and events give us the material with which we make our decisions now. You are saying this is all hindsight but for me it formed my view and outrage when lies and BS were presented as fact. [/quote]
My point being with hind sight we now know this is Bull Shit and lies .But it was Sadam that was the liar. The question is, is Bush is a liar or misinformed. I personally believe misinformed
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Elk hunter I have to agree slightly with you. But you must admit you and I have this special gift of for seeing the past, some call it hind sight As far as someone being culpable for 911 it would only be Osama Binladin, no one else.
Past experience and events give us the material with which we make our decisions now. You are saying this is all hindsight but for me it formed my view and outrage when lies and BS were presented as fact.
My point being with hind sight we now know this is Bull Shit and lies .But it was Sadam that was the liar. The question is, is Bush is a liar or misinformed. I personally believe misinformed[/quote]
I personally believe he is a politician, therefore…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Elk hunter I have to agree slightly with you. But you must admit you and I have this special gift of for seeing the past, some call it hind sight As far as someone being culpable for 911 it would only be Osama Binladin, no one else.
Past experience and events give us the material with which we make our decisions now. You are saying this is all hindsight but for me it formed my view and outrage when lies and BS were presented as fact.
My point being with hind sight we now know this is Bull Shit and lies .But it was Sadam that was the liar. The question is, is Bush is a liar or misinformed. I personally believe misinformed
I personally believe he is a politician, therefore…
[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Elk hunter I have to agree slightly with you. But you must admit you and I have this special gift of for seeing the past, some call it hind sight As far as someone being culpable for 911 it would only be Osama Binladin, no one else.
Past experience and events give us the material with which we make our decisions now. You are saying this is all hindsight but for me it formed my view and outrage when lies and BS were presented as fact.
My point being with hind sight we now know this is Bull Shit and lies .But it was Sadam that was the liar. The question is, is Bush is a liar or misinformed. I personally believe misinformed[/quote]
I see your point. I agree, before the invasion it wasn’t known what he had. I believe this unknown factor was used by this administration, well manipulated to win approval for their cause. Maybe an element of wishful thinking “Yeah when we find them (WMDs) our case is made” with an element of “Who gives a damn if we find em are not, this is our justification, and when roses are thrown at us it won’t matter anyway, people will forget”.
At any rate, I think it was a situation where they knew it wasn’t as bad a picture as they were painting, but willfully painted that bad picture to again get justification for their action.
If Saddam could have been incapacitated and democracy given to people who wanted it I don’t think anyone would be against that. Even with Haliburton fat cats getting richer due to this, but much like Bush Sr. saw during Desert Storm the experts knew it wasn’t going to be easy and could easily disintegrate into a resource and life wasting quagmire with no real benefit for us strategically or in terms of oil.
But, the non military trained experts, the Billy Kristols, Carl Roves, Perles, Wolfewitz’s, Cheney’s, all the hawks of the current neocon movement pushed ahead with their fantastic adventure and you see what we have now.
The right wing experts on these boards won’t say it, but when you have the Hagel’s (Vietnam vet) and others in their party finally speaking up you better listen.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
NY Post = The Nation (i.e. Not Credible)
The Gorelick memo did not create a ‘wall’ with regard to intelligence information.
The Gorelick memo created a ‘wall’ inside of the Department of Justice. The ‘wall’ was already in place prior to Gorelick’s memo and Ashcroft’s deputy Larry Thompson retained this ‘wall’.
The joint House and Senate Intelligence Committees’ report of pre-September 11 intelligence failures did not find that the “wall” originated in the Clinton administration; their report states: “The ‘wall’ is not a single barrier, but a series of restrictions between and within agencies constructed over 60 years as a result of legal, policy, institutional and personal factors.” Similarly, a ruling by the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review – when it met for the first time ever in 2002 – traces the origin of the “wall” to “some point during the 1980s.”
Most recently, in his April 12, 2004, testimony before the 9-11 Commission, Ashcroft conceded that his own deputy attorney general, Larry Thompson, reauthorized the “wall” in August 2001.
Wild accusations against the other party by the NY Post and the Nation respectively are usually false.
I am sure I will get flamed but know this…I have never pointed a finger at Bush for 9/11. Blaming Clinton is beyond pathetic.
I am ashamed of bashing Clinton to my left wing friends when he bombed the Sudan factory and Afghanistan on the same day. Little did I know he should have done much more of this then regardless if it was rightly or wrongly construed as ‘waging the dog’.
Just in case you want to formulate your own opinion you can read the memo for yourself:
Cheers!
Shameless bump
Facts suck don’t they?[/quote]
Marmadogg,
I don’t think this is something that’s going to be “proved” incorrect. Especially given Gorelick was in the DoD for 10 months prior to becoming Assistant AG.
I don’t think she can be blamed wholly, but she certainly did more than her share of advocacy for a “wall of separation,” particularly between the FBI and any sort of intelligence-gathering information. And given she was actually overseeing both FBI and DoD compliance and policy-making while in her positions, she should definitely face some criticism.
BTW, NY Post isn’t the greatest of papers, but given it’s an interview I would think the credibility of the source would be more important than that of the newspaper. You may argue that the NY Post reflects on the actual source, but that’s really guilt by association. Nothing about the record of the guy who gave the interview indicates any problems, axes to grind or general weirdness.
[Jim Lindgren, August 20, 2005 at 8:34pm] 2 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
Did Lawyers Hinder Bin Laden Capture?–
It is quite depressing to read descriptions of how investigations or captures of Osama Bin Laden or other Al Qaeda were hindered by lawyers, rules developed by lawyers, or fears of lawyers. For example, there were the FBI lawyers who wouldn’t allow seeking a search warrant to look into Zacarias Moussaoui’s laptop computer in Minnesota just before 9/11/2001 ( MSN ).
The latest set of lawyers’ restrictions to be alleged grew out of a plan to capture Bin Laden. So great was the lawyers’ concern for Bin Laden’s comfort that a special chair was built to hold him and they were concerned whether the tape used to hold him would hurt his beard. This latest nonsense was revealed by the man who for 10 years headed the CIA’s desk tracking Bin Laden, Michael Scheuer, interviewed by Nora O’Donnell on Hardball.
[i]O?DONNELL: But many people have made the impression that something in the Bush administration was done wrong. But there?s evidence that the Clinton administration knew full well that bin Laden had the wherewithal and was planning to attack the United States. Who is to blame and did the president, Clinton, get this information?
SCHEUER: Certainly the president got the information. And most certainly his closest adviser, Sandy Berger and Mr. Clarke?Richard Clarke, had the information from 1996 forward that bin Laden intended to attack the United States. There?s no question of that. And in terms of which administration had more chances, Mr. Clinton?s administration had far more chances to kill Osama bin Laden than Mr. Bush has until this day.
O?DONNELL: . . . From what we know now and what you know, how many missed opportunities were there to prevent the 9/11 attacks?
SCHEUER: Well, we had?the question of whether or not we could have prevented the attacks is one you could debate forever. But we had at least eight to 10 chances to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in 1998 and 1999. And the government on all occasions decided that the information was not good enough to act. . . .
O?DONNELL: Let me ask you what you know about what we?ve read recently about a secret military operation known as Able Danger. There are people involved in that that say that the United States knew about Mohammed Atta a year before the 9/11 attacks. Is that true? And was there a massive failure by our government?
SCHEUER: I don?t know firsthand information about Able Danger, ma?am, but from what I?ve read in the media, that the lawyers prevented them from passing the information to the FBI, that certainly rings true. [b]The U.S. intelligence community is palsied by lawyers.
When we were going to capture Osama bin Laden, for example, the lawyers were more concerned with bin Laden?s safety and his comfort than they were with the officers charged with capturing him. We had to build an ergonomically designed chair to put him in, special comfort in terms of how he was shackled into the chair. They even worried about what kind of tape to gag him with so it wouldn?t irritate his beard. The lawyers are the bane of the intelligence community. . . .[/i][/b]
Scheuer goes on to say that, in his opinion, the Iraq War has been a disaster in the effort to stop terror.
SCHEUER: . . . The war in Iraq has broken the back of our counterterrorism effort. I?m not an expert on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, but the invasion of Iraq has made sure this war will last decades ahead and it has transferred bin Laden and al Qaeda from being man and an organization into being a philosophy and a movement. We?ve really made sure that the war against us is going to be a long and very bloody one. Iraq was an absolutely disastrous decision.
As Tom Elia notes (tip to Althouse: Althouse: Osama and the comfy chair. ), this concern for Bin Laden’s comfort sounds like a Monty Python skit:
[i]"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition ...
Fetch ... THE COMFY CHAIR ...
Put [him] in the Comfy Chair! ...
Now ? you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven....
Confess! Confess! Confess! Confess!"[/i]
[Jim Lindgren, August 21, 2005 at 11:14pm] 0 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
The Intelligence Wall and the Culture of the Wall.–
At Captain’s Quarters, a member of the intelligence community writes in describing his experience with the wall that was observed before 9/11 against sharing intelligence about terrorists:
[i] From 1984 until 2002, I worked as a contractor doing mainly threat assessment and projection for most of the USG intelligence services but primarily CIA, DIA, Air Force and ONI. I assert that the main point about the Wall is that it was not a memo or a directive ? it was a culture. There were many walls, throughout the Intelligence Community, as well as between the Intelligence Community and Law Enforcement. Most of these were of long standing and existed for good reasons ? security and protecting civil liberties. But under Clinton, all the walls got taller and new ones were added. The reason for all this was that the Clinton Adminstration viewed the Intelligence Community much more as a source of potential embarrassment than as a trusted advisor. . . .
Not believing there were critical national security issuses for which the support the Intelligence Community was vital; acutely concerned about the potential for scandals and political embarassements . . . , and having a strong personal distaste for the whole business, Clinton set out to reduce the risk that the Intelligence Community could do him harm by making it as difficult as possible for the Intelligence Community to do anything. He did this thru his appointments, seeing to it that political animals and risk-adverse adminstrators got key postions; by changing the rules by which intelligence could be collected ? for example, banning using people with crimnal associations or "human rights abusers" as HUMINT sources, which meant that no one in the Intelligence Community could talk to a disaffected terrorist; a huge blow that badly hurt our ability to keep tabs on terrorist organiszation after 1998 ? and by building walls.
To give you a concrete example of how far the "Wall" culture went, I offer the following personal anecdote:
In Oct 1999, my group, of which I was lead analyst, was given a task to evaluate threats from about 6-8 different countries. State-sponsored terrorism was one of the threats. In our proposal, we argued that evaluating state-sponsored terrorism without considering the actual terrorists organizations themselves made little sense. . . .
All such projects have a kickoff meeting where we and the customers go over the analysis plan in detail, discussing data issues, security issues, potential problems and limitations, and the scope of the conclusions we expect to be able to produce. Attending our kickoff meeting were us, the DIA team for whom we were doing the analysis, and a CIA rep acting a liaison. Everything went great until the topic of terrorists came up.
At once, the DIA guys explained that maybe they?d been too optimistic about the "wall" issue. Our tasking included suggestions for threat mitigation, and since that was clearly counter-terrorism in this case, that was right out. We can?t give any counter-terrorist advice, they flatly said. OK, we said, what about assessment?
That depends, they replied.
So we starting giving them examples of things we thought we might be able to say. No, we can?t say that, they would say, it still sounds too much like advice.
Well, what about this? we?d ask. Maybe not, they?d say, such-&-such organization vets those kind of conclusions; they?re the experts and we can?t step on their charter.
This went on for more than an hour and finally, somewhat exasperated, we asked them exactly what we could say; what type of conclusions we were allowed to draw. At this point, the DIA guys and CIA rep got together and basically gave us a dump on who in the government was doing what with respect to terrorism and what the rules of cooperation [or lack of it] were. At one point, they started talking about an organization we recognized as being in DIA. Wait a minute! we said, those guys are DIA! If they are working that, then we can say this and this and this!
[b]"Yeah," the head DIA guy said, a bit sheepishly, "they are DIA, but they?re a different part of DIA and we can?t talk to them." [/b]. . .
We blinked a few times, and then all consideration of terrorism was dropped from the task. . . .
That is what Clinton and Gorelik's Wall culture did. It just didn't just prevent more effective cooperation and data sharing; it prevented the whole question of terrorism being addressed in a coherent fashion at all. No one was working the problem effectively, but I bet they all thought ? just like we were told ? that someone else was. That?s the "I thought you brought the matches" school of intelligence analysis, and that was the end effect of Clinton's intelligence policy: it turned the whole process of intelligence into one big game of "Who brought the matches?"
And on 9/11 we found out who: Al Qaeda brought the matches.[/i]
[Juan Non-Volokh, August 22, 2005 at 11:50am] 0 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
Gorelick Should Have Gone:
The todo about Able Danger and what the FBI should or should not have known about Mohammad Atta has increased scrutiny of the 9/11 Commission report and renewed the debate over the “wall” between law enforcement and anti-terrorism efforts (see, e.g., here ( Captain's Quarters ) and here ( http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011378.php )). Time will tell whether there is anything to the Able Danger story – and whether or not the “wall” inhibited information shargin – but it is clearer than ever that Jamie Gorelick should not have served on the 9/11 Commission. Whether or not she deserves credit or blame for the “wall” and other Clinton Administration policies, her presence on the commission undermines its credibility, and provides undo fodder for political partisans and conspiracy theorists. This is a point I made last year (see here ( The Volokh Conspiracy ) and here ( The Volokh Conspiracy ). As I wrote last May:
[i]the issue is not whether Ms. Gorelick made reasonable decisions as a Justice Department official. I have no interest in seeing the 9/11 Commission's work devolve into partisan finger-pointing about which administration is most at fault. Many people, in multiple administrations, made decisions that -- it can be seen in hindsight -- were in error. These people should be testifying before the 9/11 Commission, not participating on it. For this reason, and this reason along, Ms. Gorelick has no place on the Commission. Unless the Commissioners recognize this fact, the Commission will not fulfill its mandate of producing a neutral and credible report on the policy failures that led to 9/11.[/i]
Boston B
I do not question your intelligence. But you do have a habit of giving overwhelming argument when presenting your point .Case being you made a post with 5 links and each link has at least 5 more links so to honestly have a debate with you it would require several days reading. That would take some of the fun out of the process of debate
[/quote]
pittbulll,
Please tell me you don’t think I posted those links…
Bush’s approval numbers are lower than Nixon’s during his impeachment.
You better hope and pray that the evangelicals come out in full force to vote during the mid-term elections because if the inept Democrats take the house and/or the Senate the GOP will be in serious trouble.
I would prefer the GOP stay in power but Delay, Frist, and Bush need to be replaced by people that are not swayed by a very small minority.
Impeachment will be horrendous for my firm and my personal holdings.
I am banking on the fact that the Democrats ‘blow it’ as the GOP has given them much too much fodder.
Using facts to show you that your partisan assertions are off the mark is like trying to dig through Hoover dam with a piece of rebar.
"The Pentagon has been unable to validate claims that a secret intelligence unit identified Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta as a terrorist more than a year before the attacks, a Defense Department spokesman said Monday.
Larry Di Rita said that some research into the matter continues, but thus far there has been no evidence that the intelligence unit, called “Able Danger,” came up with information as specific as an officer associated with the program has asserted.
“What we found are mostly general references to terrorist cells,” Di Rita said, without providing detail."
I would do the same thing Anthony Shaffer is doing if I was trying to sell a book.
Just in case you are too partisan to ‘get it’:
[b]What 9/11 Commissioner Slade Gordon, a Republican, had to say about the Gorelick memo:
The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else.[/b]
You either didn’t read, or didn’t understand, what I wrote. I’m guessing the former.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
ROTFLMFAO!
It does not matter now.
Bush’s approval numbers are lower than Nixon’s during his impeachment.
You better hope and pray that the evangelicals come out in full force to vote during the mid-term elections because if the inept Democrats take the house and/or the Senate the GOP will be in serious trouble.
I would prefer the GOP stay in power but Delay, Frist, and Bush need to be replaced by people that are not swayed by a very small minority.
Impeachment will be horrendous for my firm and my personal holdings.
I am banking on the fact that the Democrats ‘blow it’ as the GOP has given them much too much fodder.
Using facts to show you that your partisan assertions are off the mark is like trying to dig through Hoover dam with a piece of rebar.
Cheers![/quote]
How does this relate to the 9/11 commission’s doing its job, Gorelick’s suitability for appointment to the 9/11 commission, or anything related to the point?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
How does this relate to the 9/11 commission’s doing its job, Gorelick’s suitability for appointment to the 9/11 commission, or anything related to the point?[/quote]
Pinning 9/11 on Bush would solve nothing.
This thread was started to discuss the following question:
‘Did Gorelick’s memo have anything to do with the intelligence failures that allowed 9/11 to happen?’
The answer is NO.
The 9/11 commission did not believe it had anything to do with it and Ashcroft’s deputy decided to keep ‘the wall’ in place when Bush took office.
I don’t give as crap about Gorelick or any of your diversionary assertions.
I am so glad that congress wasted $70+ million to convict Clinton of perjury when we should have been bombing Afganistan.
Boston B
I do not question your intelligence. But you do have a habit of giving overwhelming argument when presenting your point .Case being you made a post with 5 links and each link has at least 5 more links so to honestly have a debate with you it would require several days reading. That would take some of the fun out of the process of debate
pittbulll,
Please tell me you don’t think I posted those links…
[/quote]
As far as someone being culpable for 911 it would only be Osama Binladin, no one else.