Friday, August 12, 2005
Able Danger Update
The cover up of the info leads to at least ONE possible conclusion, and that is the name that pops up everywhere: Jamie Gorelik. This is one of the worst Clinton appointments on almost every level. Now it turns out that she was actually Hillary's appointment. It was Hillary's desire to place so-called "walls" between all government agencies whereby they were forbidden to share information, no matter how important to the security of the United States. Her hard and fast rules were allegedly being obeyed. Gorelik implimented the policies, with a vengence. It must also be noted that these "walls" began with the Church Commission in the 70's in response to clear violations of citizen rights at the time. They were built higher and higher, but when Gorelik entered the mix they grew higher and thicker and woe to the person who violated the walls; meaning their careers would be over.It does seem to me that Gorelik should not have been on the 9/11 Commission. She had a clear conflict of interest. However, as Howard points out, the omission of the Able Danger warning can't be laid at the feet of the Democratic party. This was clearly a bipartisan failure. Tom Carter also wrote a comment about the wall and its significance which is at the top of my last post.
Jamie Gorelik is an interesting character. She left the justice department to become Vice Chair at Fannie Mae, which is now under intense regulatory scrutiny. It seems there were considerable problems with accounting practices. Which special skills gained through her work at the Justice department were so necessary to Fannie Mae is a matter completely beyond my feeble imagination unless it was to gain access to the Clinton administration. Fannie Mae also hired Franklin Raines, another clintonista. Gorelik was definitely a part of the Berger/Clarke clique and an FOB. See this 1999 transcript regarding cyber-security. See Dagney's Rant. See My Net Worth for more on the Fannie Mae problem (think William Shatner saying "It's big").
That said, it seems to me that the 9/11 Commission matter is a bi partisan coverup. Members may hay have had their reasons, but there is strength in numbers, as they say- and I suggest the numbers are looking to cover their collective rear ends.
As Letterman would say "In My Pants"
Tommy, I think these facts are bound to come out.
Abdul, I am a bit confused. That translation isn't very clear. I think you are saying that if you were more traditional you might be very opposed to our ways. But you aren't so you won't oppose us if we can make our way work. Let me know if I am wrong.
A democracy is difficult. It reguires a lot of responsibility and attention to duty from the people who live in it.
But even so, if it provides a way for different peoples to be friends and not enemies with each other, it is worth it. And it has for us, so we work hard to make it work.
We believe in different things, yet we can work together to do those things that are good. And taking care of poor people, or sick people, or people who have been hit by misfortune is the good thing to do. It helps everyone.
If you go to http://sigcarlfred.blogspot.com/ we will be talking there about what to do next.
Links to this post: