And it defintly builds a wall.
U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White was concerned that
Gorelick's new guidelines for investigations had made
it too complicated for the FBI to contact the U.S.
attorney's office and launch a probe of suspicious
activity. White suggested that only the Office of
Intelligence Policy and Review at the Department of
Justice needed to approve such an investigation, and
not the department's criminal division.
However, the Vatis/Gorelick memo offered a blunt
reply.
"I recommend rejecting this change," the June 19, 1995
document stated. "[A] USAO (U.S. attorney's office)
should not be notified of a national security
investigation -- particularly one that has not yet
developed into a criminal case -- without the approval
of the AAG (assistant attorney general), Criminal
Division."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200404%5CSPE20040429b.html
-sm
--- "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It interesting to see all the misstatements in
> Limbaugh's transcript.
> For instance if you actually read the Gorelick memo,
> she was proposing
> that the so-called wall between the intelligence
> services and the FBI
> be lowered.
>
> Nice to see that the right wing still has trouble
> with their reading
> comprehension.
>
> larry
>
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:16:21 -0600, dana tierney
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ::sigh:: according to CNN there are copies of what
> the man took. I
> > can't get too excited about this cause it just
> seems bizarre, like
> > there are major portions of the story missing.
> >
> > As for absolving Clinton -- the 9/11 commission
> said today that this
> > unsupported opinion that Iraq and al-Qaeda were
> collaborating seems to
> > date back to his administration.
> >
> > So my question to Rush would be this. Why
> cooperate with the
> > commission then send someone in to steal *copies*
> of documents? It
> > does not make sense.
> >
> > Dana
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:44:40 -0700 (PDT), Sam
> Morris
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I know, I know, a lot of people aren't going to
> like
> > > this. I can't resist. It's right on target.
> > > Pretty good for a junkie I might add :)
> > >
> > > Transcript from yesterdays show:
> > >
> > > They have been doing everything they can to
> erase the
> > > Monica Lewinsky image from everybody's frontal
> lobe
> > > when they think and hear the name Bill Clinton,
> and so
> > > Clinton has been doing everything he can to
> rehab his
> > > image. He has a very large coterie of loyal
> > > supporters, one of whom is on the 9/11
> commission, one
> > > of whom should have been a witness, not a member
> --
> > > one of them, Jamie Gorelick, whose memo erected
> the
> > > wall that prevented intelligence from sharing
> > > information it gathered with law enforcement,
> and now
> > > we find out that Sandy Burglar, Clinton's #1
> spook
> > > outside of the CIA. I mean this is the national
> > > security advisor guy! Look it, Sandy Berger was
> to
> > > Bill Clinton as Condoleezza Rice is to George
> Bush,
> > > and if this were Condoleezza Rice and George
> Bush she
> > > would already be in an orange jumpsuit. If this
> > > investigation had been going on since last
> October or
> > > January, Condi Rice would be wearing an orange
> > > jumpsuit and be setting in a cell next to Martha
> > > Stewart. That would be what's going on. Now,
> with this
> > > case, we get "sloppiness;" we get
> "inadvertently."
> > >
> > > We get, "Oh, damn, we hate when this happens.
> Isn't it
> > > a shame? I don't know what I could have done
> with
> > > these documents that implicated my
> administration. Gee
> > > it's just too bad." So you will pardon us if we
> have
> > > some doubts and suspicions about this when it's
> the
> > > critical assessments that are suspiciously
> missing.
> > > The former national security advisor himself,
> Sandy
> > > Burglar, had ordered his anti-terror czar
> Richard
> > > Clarke in early 2000 to write the after-action
> report.
> > > He has spoken publicly about how to review
> brought to
> > > the forefront a realization that Al-Qaeda had
> reached
> > > America's shores and required more attention.
> That's
> > > what's missing. Berger testified that during the
> > > millennium period, "We thwarted threats, and I
> do
> > > believe it was important to bring the principals
> > > together on a frequent basis to consider terror
> > > threats more regularly."
> > >
> > > "The missing documents involved two or three
> draft
> > > versions of the report as it was evolving and
> being
> > > refined by the Clinton administration, officials
> and
> > > lawyers say. The archives are believed to have
> copies
> > > of some of the missing documents. Samuel Burglar
> is
> > > the second high level Clinton-era official to
> face
> > > controversy over taking classified information
> home.
> > > Former CIA director John Deutsch was pardoned by
> > > Clinton just hours before Clinton left office in
> 2001
> > > for taking home classified information and
> keeping it
> > > on unsecured laptops in his home during his time
> at
> > > the CIA and the Pentagon. Deutsche was about to
> enter
> > > into a plea agreement for a misdemeanor charge
> of
> > > mishandling government secrets when the pardon
> was
> > > granted." So we're still, ladies and gentlemen,
> having
> > > Clinton scandals during the Bush administration.
> We
> > > still are. Another Clinton scandal here has
> erupted.
> > >
> > > Now, let's go back, and ask: "What is this
> really all
> > > about, folks?" because this, despite the obvious
> > > humorous aspects, this is really serious stuff
> because
> > > there is an ongoing effort to spare the Clinton
> > > administration -- and Bill Clinton personally --
> of
> > > any responsibility whatsoever for anything that
> has
> > > happened deleteriously to this country in the
> world of
> > > terrorism. Now, F. Lee Levin, our legal advisor
> here
> > > at the Limbaugh Institute, wrote a great piece
> for
> > > National Review Online on April 15th, shortly
> after
> > > John Ashcroft testified before the 9/11
> commission,
> > > and let me read to you excerpts of F. Lee's
> piece.
> > >
> > > "In his public testimony before the 9/11
> Commission
> > > the other day, Attorney General John Ashcroft
> exposed
> > > Commissioner Jamie Gorelick's role in
> undermining the
> > > nation's security capabilities by issuing a
> directive
> > > insisting that the FBI and federal prosecutors
> ignore
> > > information gathered through intelligence
> > > investigations. But Ashcroft pointed to another
> > > document that also has potentially explosive
> > > revelations about the Clinton administration's
> > > security failures. In part, Ashcroft stated:
> "...
> > > (T)he Commission should study carefully the
> National
> > > Security Council plan (that's where Berger
> worked) to
> > > disrupt the al Qaeda network in the U.S. that
> our
> > > government failed to implement fully seventeen
> months
> > > before September 11. The NSC's Millennium After
> Action
> > > Review declares that the United States barely
> missed
> > > major terrorist attacks in 1999 � with luck
> playing a
> > > major role. Among the many vulnerabilities in
> homeland
> > > defenses identified, the Justice Department's
> > > surveillance and the FISA operations were
> specifically
> > > criticized for their glaring weaknesses. It is
> clear
> > > from the review that actions taken in the
> Millennium
> > > Period should not be the operating model for the
> U.S.
> > > government."
> > >
> > > Again, these documents are the ones missing. "In
> March
> > > 2000, the review warns the prior Administration
> of a
> > > substantial al Qaeda network and affiliated
> foreign
> > > terrorist presence within the U.S., capable of
> > > supporting additional terrorist attacks here.
> This is
> > > what is reputed to be missing. Furthermore,
> fully
> > > seventeen months before the September 11
> attacks, the
> > > review recommends disrupting the al Qaeda
> network and
> > > terrorist presence here using immigration
> violations,
> > > minor criminal infractions, and tougher visa and
> > > border controls. These are the same aggressive,
> often
> > > criticized law enforcement tactics we have
> unleashed
> > > for 31 months to stop another al Qaeda attack.
> This is
> > > Ashcroft still speaking. These are the same
> tough
> > > tactics we deployed to catch Ali al-Marri, who
> was
> > > sent here by al Qaeda on September 10, 2001, to
> > > facilitate a second wave of terrorist attacks on
> > > Americans. Despite the warnings and the clear
> > > vulnerabilities identified by the NSC in 2000 -
> Sandy
> > > Berger -no new disruption strategy to attack the
> al
> > > Qaeda network within the United States was
> deployed.
> > > It was ignored in the Department's five-year
> > > counterterrorism strategy.
> > >
> > > Ashcroft continues, "I did not see the
> > > highly-classified review before September 11. It
> was
> > > not among the 30 items upon which my predecessor
> > > briefed me during the transition. It was not
> advocated
> > > as a disruption strategy to me during the summer
> > > threat period by the NSC staff which wrote the
> review
> > > more than a year earlier. I certainly can't say
> why
> > > the blueprint for security was not followed in
> 2000. I
> > > do know from my personal experience that those
> who
> > > take the kind of tough measures called for in
> the plan
> > > will feel the heat. I've been there; I've done
> that.
> > > So the sense of urgency simply may not have
> overcome
> > > concern about the outcry and criticism which
> follows
> > > such tactics.'" Now, what is he talking about?
> One of
> > > the things that Ashcroft is saying, and if you
> go back
> > > -- and I remember these hearings. Remember, many
> of
> > > the Clinton people that came up, said, "There
> wasn't
> > > the political will to be tough to catch
> terrorists,"
> > > meaning they didn't think the public would go
> along
> > > with Patriot Act-type measures, or tougher
> > > immigration, tougher this, you know. "Go get
> these
> > > guys? People wouldn't (stand for it)."
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_072004/content/truth_detector_2.guest.html
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free
> storage!
> > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
