Berger's sentencing for the theft had been delayed. Will Berger be forced to fall on his sword? What did Berger know and when did he know it?
Of equal concern, what did 9/11 Commissioner and Clinton Justice Department flunkie Jamie Gorelick know and when did she know it?
But even more important than that...what did President Clinton know and when did he know it? If you've read Losing Bin Laden by Buzz Peterson, you know that Clinton was more interested in his golf game than he was in catching Osama bi Laden.
"Now watch this drive." Indeed.
12:40PM Update
Deborah Orrin from the New York Post (subscription/registration required):
IT'S starting to look as if the 9/11 Commission turned a blind eye to key questions that could embarrass one of its own members — Clinton-era Justice Department honcho Jamie Gorelick.Were there any real Republicans on the 9/11 Commission at all? The few that were there appear to have hoodwinked by a bunch of Democrats out to protect Clinton's legacy...
This week brought the stunning revelation that elite military spies pinpointed Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers as a terror cell more than a year before 9/11 — but were barred from alerting lawmen to try to lock them up.
A prime reason why that warning never came is that Gorelick — as top deputy to then-Attorney General Janet Reno — issued a 1995 order creating a "wall" that blocked intelligence on terrorists from being shared with law enforcement.
Commission staffers at first denied knowing about the elite military unit known as Able Danger, but later admitted they were briefed — twice — and Atta was specifically named. Still, it was conveniently left out of the 9/11 report.
It gets worse. Gorelick's defenders might argue that hindsight is 20-20. But that excuse doesn't work in this case, because she was warned way back then — when the see-no-evil wall was created.
That warning came right from the front line in the War on Terror — from Manhattan U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, who headed up key terror probes like the prosecutions for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.
Mark's Remarks
Able Danger was an amazing experiment. These special forces gathered inoformation and discovered Mohammed Atta before the 9/11 attacks. They were told to not reveal to the FBI their information. Why? The Clinton lawyers at the Pentagon were concerned about the Gorelick Wall, the memo that 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick wrote as no.2 at the Justice Dept. That memo said that in order to protect Americans, the different intel branches could not share information. The led to the FBI never knowing that Mohammed Atta was a known terrorist. He could not be put under surveillance by those charged with domestic security. Thus, Atta was able to run freely. The lawyers even said you cannot touch these guys because they were in the country legally.
All of this because of Gorelick's wall. However, was this key failure in domestic intelligence policy highlighted in the 9/11 report? No. In fact, Able Danger is not even mentioned. Why is that? Wasn't this commission charged with finding out what went wrong? This certainly classfies. I mean, we knew the leader of the attack, and three or four other hijackers. Yet, because Jamie Gorelick and the Justice Dept. were worried more about potential lawsuits and bad P.R., they decided to not let the intel community talk to each other. Genius! Surely they would investigate this terrible decision with impunity, right?
Wrong. The same Jamie Gorelick, who wrote one of the most handcuffing directives in national defense history, became a commissioner on the investigative body. Richard Ben Veniste, a Clinton impeachment lawyer, became a commissioner. The commission became mostly a blame game of who did what, mostly for political reasons. The Groelick wall would never have been addressed if John Ashcroft had not brought it up. Gorelick refused to recuse herself, and her fellow commissioners ignored this blatant conflict of interest in the interests of collegiality.
Now we hear that the commission staffers interviewed members of Able Danger. They had access to the memos from the New York Attorney in the New York Post article. Yet, they saw fit, apparently, to sit on this data. Were the staffers who did the interviewing from Gorelick or Ben Veniste's staff? Why would they not report this important screwup to the commission?
The key lies in the context. The context is that the report was due in an election year. The report did not examine a key misstep of the Clinton administration that seemed to have let the terrorists get by with planning the attacks. Yet, the commission spent plenty of time in seeking to defame many in this or that agency, and seemed to go out of their way to investigate an administration that had been in office eight months, as opposed to the one who had eight years to figure things out. Something is wrong with that picture.
The saddest part is that ultimately, the Pentagon lawyers were scared because of Justice Dept. intimidation. The information could have been shared, because the Able Danger group was an experiment, it was not a criminal investigation. According to the letter of the Gorelick memo, only info in criminal investigations could not be shared. However, the fear had been put into all intel levels by the Clinton Administartion that we would not be sharing information, period. And, Mohammed Atta could plan with no fear.
This sheds new light on the Berger theft. Could he have been stealing documents implicating Clinton knowledge of Able Danger's findings? Could he have been covering up intermnal communications between Justice and the Administration?
Other questions: why would the Clinton Adminstration not act on Able Danger? Why did they hide behind this artificial wall of Gorelick's, especially considering they had the "genius" of Richard Clarke shaking trees?
The answer lies in the context. The year was 1999-2000. Clinton was a lame duck. He was worried about leaving a peaceful country legacy, ie, the fictional peace dividend, the 1990s fake bubble of prosperity, etc. He was worried about Al Gore winning. He was planning his library and his farewell tours. The administration had lived through the travesties of Ruby Ridge and Waco, along with Elian Gonzalez. The last thing Bubba wanted was to have it known that a terror cell was blooming in the US. That is not a good legacy, is it? And even more to know that Clinton had not allowed the intel community to talk to each other...
So, nothing gets done. Nothing gets passed on. The liberals in Congress made sure to squash the intel process Able Danger used. Then, 9/11 happens. Uh, oh. Three goes the legacy. So, we get the situation we are in. Gorelick and BenViniste are sent in to "handle" the commission. Berger "cleans up" the archives.
When you look at the great lengths that were taken to try to pin the blame on George Tenet and George Bush, you would think htis august commission would have looked into this key blunder. However, the Republicans were too busy being collegial and the Democrats were playing coverup. It became more about collegiality than in getting to the truth.
This commission failed in its chartering. Its staff and commissioners are culpbale in key causes and issues not being addressed and discussed. We need to know who the staffers were who decided not to share this key misstep with the commissioners. If the commissioners were found to know about Able Danger and not put it into the report, then they should be investigated and revealed. This is bigger than finding out about a break-in to another party's headquarters (Watergate). This is about the biggest blunder in national security since Pearl Harbor. Whoever did not publicize this information and report on it needs to be investigated and prosecuted for hindering a federal investigation. Whoever is culpable in squashing Able Danger should be exposed. Gorelick should be prosecuted for not recusing herself over the blatant conflict of interest.
This is a real scandal that could affect all of us. This should be on the front pages, not the self-serving greving mom in Crawford or the Rove nonscandal. However, because the MSM played such a huge role in creating a legacy for Clinton, they have buried the story. It is an afterthought with most MSM sources, the NY Times buried it on page A9, and even then only mostly repeated an APwire note.
Don't tell me if this had happened under Bush, that it would not have appeared on Page 1. It would have. This further illustrates that the MSM cannot be trusted to tell the truth, it cannot be trusted to objectively report.
