18

Aug

by Moonage

Folks, this is getting weird.  First, my own personal background on this.  On August 6, 2004, I copied a post I had written for a previous blog to this one.  I had written almost immediately following the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission.  In that post, I blamed 9/11 squarely on Jamie Gorelick.  I also dismissed the Commission as useless since Jamie Gorelick was on that commission.  Anyone who had done rudimentary background checks on the members would have seen immediately that Jamie Gorelick was too involved with the inteligence process to be objective.  Since the Committee dismissed any blame for the breakdown in procedure, it did not answer the basic question of what we could do to protect ourselves in the future.  In other words, it rendered itself moot.  In that post, I also touched on the fact that there was evidence that the intelligence community was aware of the actions of several of the terrorists, and did not respond due to procedural blocks put in place by none other than Jamie Gorelick.  Now, all of a sudden, that evidence is becoming front page news.

Dr. Sanity has apparently come to some of the same conclusions I have.  He does what I was going to do, he paints a timeline of events.  However, he kind of skips around a little.  This is his, with my slight additions and modifications:

  1. 2002 – 9/11 Commission set up by Congress
  2. March, 2003 – 9/11 Commission begins first hearings. One of its members is Jamie Gorelick, the person most responsible for the legal firewall between FBI/CIA and sharing intelligence information
  3. Fall, 2003 – Briefing given to four 9/11 staff members by defense intelligence officials during an overseas trip to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia
  4. Oct, 2003 – Sandy Berger observed by Archives staff removing documents
  5. Oct, 2003 – 9/11 Commission is made aware of "Able Danger"
  6. May, 2004 – Berger testifies before the 9/11 Commission; (testimony is here) ( why was the Commission not notified of Berger’s activities by the Archives director? If they were, why didn’t they investigate it? )
  7. July, 2004 – Berger steps down as an advisor to the Kerry campaign after it is revealed that he was being investigated for removing classified documents from the National Archive
  8. July 12, 2004 – 9/11 Commission report issued without any mention of the Able Danger information.
  9. April, 2005 – Berger pleads guilty to removing classified documents.
  10. July, 2005 – Berger’s sentencing is delayed to September, 2005.
  11. August, 2005 – News breaks about the existence of Able Danger and its ID of 9/11 hijackers in 1999 and attempts to pass this information to law enforcement

Sandy Berger gets busted, the 9/11 Commission is made aware of "Able Danger".  The 9/11 Commission concludes nothing could have been done to prevent 9/11 and the intelligence community could not have prevented it ( totally omitting and ignoring "Able Danger" ).  Sandy Berger pleads guilty, gets a very light sentence recommended, and Able Danger immediately becomes public giving evidence that the 9/11 Commission was not only 100% wrong in their conclusion, but KNEW they were wrong before they released it.

Why would they do that?  Why would Sandy Berger be sneaking through the archives before his testimony?  Why would the 9/11 Commission totally ignore the "Able Danger" information?  Why would the 9/11 Commission totally contradict evidence given and come to the conclusion that intelligence would not have prevented 9/11?  Given that evidence implicated Jamie Gorelick to the intelligence issues that led to 9/11, and, given the impropriety of Sandy Berger’s actions in the National Archives and his long standing relationship with Jamie Gorelick, WHY THE HELL WAS SHE ON THE COMMISSION?

Sadly enough, we need another commission to examine the 9/11 Commission.  Since their justifications for their conclusions are based on obviously flawed evidence, their recommendations for the security of the United States has to be flawed as well.

And this time, Jamie Gorelick needs to be testifying.

This is pathetic.

More blogs on: Sandy Berger, Jamie Gorelick, 911 Commission, Able Danger

Tags: Filed Under National Politics 

Comments

Comments:

  1. Independent Sources on 08.21.2005

    Able Danger: Do we need a new commission?

    Do we need a commission to examine the 9/11 Commission? 
    Moonage thinks so and argues in detail that since the 9/11 Commision’s justifications for their conclusions were based on flawed evidence, their recommendations for the securit…

Leave a Reply




Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE