• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Bush administration exploits 9/11 for anti-American agenda again

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Salon's Glenn Greenwald, a one-man army of reporting important political stories, does it again (with others).

The Attorney General of the United States made up an incident to try to argue, wrongly, that the FISA laws prevented a call from being intercepted that would have stopped 9/11.

The AG is a person you would like to see have some honesty and integrity. Oh, well.

You can read the info here, with ad.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,716
6
76
Does anyone get the feeling "the squeeze" is put on some people to say things that may not be true?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
This is what Glen Greenwalds says---It's unacceptable for Hamilton to refuse to comment on Mukasey's claims. The whole purpose of the 9/11 Commission was to ensure that there was full-scale investigation and disclosure of all facts relevant to the 9/11 attacks, including the Government's actions and inactions in preventing that attack from occurring.

And if you read the story circumstances, the guy calls up Lee Hamilton right after he gets back from a long and exhausting meeting, reads him brief quote, and demands to know if Hamilton remembered this one allegation coming up before. First Hamilton noted he would want to read the Mukasey speech first, and when Grrenwald still pressed, Hamilton told him he would not comment. After all, Hamilton was just a part of a full commission that heard a huge volume of information, the full report is already rendered, GWB&co. has already basically ignored the conclusions, and now Greenwald is basically demanding the whole commission reconvenes to correct one omission. Something Hamilton cannot do all by himself.

I can't say I disagree with the overall Greenwald conclusion that Mukaseys puzzling contention should be aired and vetted, but there are right ways and wrong ways to go about it. And IMHO, Greenwald comes off as some arrogant prig in love with his own self importance.

As for Mukasey, were I in the Senate, I would not have voted to confirm him. And Mukasey's idiotic remark does nothing to shake my confidence in the idea that he should not have been confirmed.

You would have thought that Mukasey could have come up with a better argument than that. The fact is they could have
have tapped that phone call and sought permission later which was in the FISA law at the time. Its a red herring and not a well thought out one at that. It may fool the stupid and little else. Just one more piece of Washington Stupidity, as if there is any lack of that.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
675
0
0
i wouldnt trust the guy. check out this

Judge Michael Mukasey And A Curious Omission In The Omar Abdel-Rahman Trial
http://intelwire.egoplex.com/2...09_17_blogarchive.html

Former federal judge Michael Mukasey -- President's Bush's new attorney general nominee -- has quite an impressive resume. But his highest profile case is also among his most problematic -- the 1995 prosecution of Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman.

There's one big fish that got away in that case, and his name is Ali Mohamed, an al Qaeda infiltrator who had trained some of the Rahman conspirators while serving in the U.S. Army at Fort Bragg. Mohamed was also an FBI informant who had provided information about al Qaeda to the FBI in 1993.
The defense investigators couldn't find Mohamed. But the prosecutors did.

The defense problem was laid out by Stavis in open court on September 1, 1995:


15 MR. STAVIS: Your Honor, we are requesting a
16 asked missing witness instruction with regard to Ali
17 Mohammed. Ali Mohammed, your Honor will recall, was the
18 person who came from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, who was
19 assigned to the United States Army Special Forces --
20 THE COURT (Mukasey): Yes, we saw him on that splendid
21 videotape.
22 MR. STAVIS: And trained Mr. Nosair and others
23 for Afghanistan. When we attempted, Mr. Barrett attempted
24 to find Ali Mohammed, he found a friend at Fort Bragg who
25 knew his wife was in California. His wife hadn't seen him for over a year. We could not bring him in. Although he was very much, I would submit, a part of the defense case, we couldn't bring him in and we understand that he may have some connection with the government at this time.
THE COURT: I don't think a missing witness charge on that gentleman is warranted and I am not going to give one.

Here's where the story gets interesting. Despite Stavis' inability to locate Mohamed, the prosecutor -- Andrew McCarthy -- had no such problem.


ali mohammed is one of those uber terrorist guys that everyone needs to be familiar with.

http://www.cooperativeresearch..._informants=aliMohamed

1984: Ali Mohamed Works Briefly with CIA; Then Let Go Because of Connections to Islamic Fundamentalist Groups

did they really let him go considering they were catering to islamic fundamentalist groups. he did go to afghanistan and proclaimed to kill a few soviets.

 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
17,516
7,936
136
This administration transcends left vs right, and is well into the realm of evil.

Throck...that is dead on. :thumbsup:



The Bush Admin exploiting 9/11...again. *puke*


 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Looking forward to reading Mukasey's reply. Delay delay delay...
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,760
11
81
So many people are smart enough to recognize that trading away civil liberties in the name of "security" is a bad bargain, yet many of these same people are not smart enough to recognize that trading away free speech (a civil liberty) in the name of "campaign reform" is equally bad. Why is that?
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
So many people are smart enough to recognize that trading away civil liberties in the name of "security" is a bad bargain, yet many of these same people are not smart enough to recognize that trading away free speech (a civil liberty) in the name of "campaign reform" is equally bad. Why is that?
Because it is a bogus argument. It is also a diversion from this topic.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY