June 23, 200818 yr Not if it was an executive order. Anaylisis of Clinton's effect on gathering intelligence Google "Presidential Decision Directive 24" Clinton may not have expressly banned communication between the two but he did a whole lot to hinder it by redefining their roles. Also look into "impartial" 911 comission member Jamie Gorelick and her role in keeping Clinton's name out of that. Not only did Gorelick fundamentally change the rules on the type of cooperation that was permitted between the FBI and the CIA - the Bush Justice Department did not divulge the fact that Sandy Berger destroyed highly classified documents related to the inquiry until after the commission's final report was released. In other words, Berger testified under oath before the committee and was never questioned about his criminal destruction of 9/11 related documents. The reason for accepting Berger's testimony at face value and not allowing his crime to be divulged to the committee has always puzzled me.
June 23, 200818 yr Author :lol: I think I morphed you and aces full together... BTW, your a good one to tell me to have a sense of humor!Why so? Most people on here that know me will tell you I have a good sense of humor. I still would like to know why you feel the need to come to HB's defense so often. Edited June 23, 200818 yr by Run To State
June 23, 200818 yr Why so? Most people on here that know me will tell you I have a good sense of humor. I still would like to know why you feel the need to come to HB's defense so often. Keep on topic!
June 23, 200818 yr BTW about the first attack on the WTC. Some federal agencies had information that it might happen and I believe they chose to ignore that information. Before 9/11 our national security was a joke. I'm not sure if it is much better now, but pre 9/11 it was awful. There were terrorists running free in the U.S. making money off of our government and sending it back to support terrorist organizations in the Middle East. Not to mention terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda were operating training camps inside the U.S. in the early 90's. Wouldn't it be great if we could monitor phone calls from known terrorists originating outside of the U.S?
June 23, 200818 yr For those who dislike the source, I challenge you make the case why the rules used during the Nueremburg trials were more favorable to the defendents than those recently rejected by the Supreme Court (which is what Obama suggested.)
June 23, 200818 yr 2 different organizations (CIA and FBI?) had certain pieces of info, but were not allowed to talk to each other, because Pres. Clinton signed a bill not allowing them to discuss such matters with each other. They were following the law as passed by Congress and signed by Pres. Clinton. The FBI has been known to keep their information private for a while. They (before 9/11) would not share anything at all. Even if they borrowed information or received information from another agency, if they found something new inside that info, they would not relay that to the agency that gave it to them in the first place. I have read that while there might be some good agents inside the FBI, they're policy on sharing information pre-9/11 was awful. And I don't think i was all Clinton's fault either because they wouldn't share it with anyone.
June 23, 200818 yr So does that mean that all of the links from Soros fronted groups that have been posted on here are not credible? No it means one side can't complain about sources being biased and then go on and post biased sources themselves. That my friend, is hypocrisy, isn't it?
June 23, 200818 yr You are right. Is it possible we may possibly even flourish and prosper under Obama? Of course it is. I personally think that after a couple rough years the economy is going to rebound no matter who is president. The housing crises is unusual but we're not facing anything we haven't seen before. These things are cyclical. We flourished under Reagan, Clinton and for several years under Bush. This country is a lot stronger than a lot of people seem to give it credit for.
June 24, 200818 yr For those who dislike the source, I challenge you make the case why the rules used during the Nueremburg trials were more favorable to the defendents than those recently rejected by the Supreme Court (which is what Obama suggested.) The rules were more liberal here, but the Court placed a lot of emphasis on the locale of detention and trials.
June 24, 200818 yr We flourished under Reagan, Clinton and for several years under Bush. This country is a lot stronger than a lot of people seem to give it credit for. Good point. Interestingly enough, Bush bashers rarely mentioned the overall good health of the economy during his first 7 years, but they love to discuss the current economic downturn at length because of course it is 100% the fault of the prez.:sssh:
June 24, 200818 yr The FBI has been known to keep their information private for a while. They (before 9/11) would not share anything at all. Even if they borrowed information or received information from another agency, if they found something new inside that info, they would not relay that to the agency that gave it to them in the first place. I have read that while there might be some good agents inside the FBI, they're policy on sharing information pre-9/11 was awful. And I don't think i was all Clinton's fault either because they wouldn't share it with anyone. Speculation on your part, but they where not allowed to share by law.
June 24, 200818 yr Speculation on your part, but they where not allowed to share by law. I can't find any information on any such law. Where is your source?
June 24, 200818 yr Speculation on your part, but they where not allowed to share by law. Not speculation on my part. I read it in this book. They also refused to help the University of South Florida with their problems related to Sami Al-Arian.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.