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?

But you do that exact thing. :lol:

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.

 

I enjoyed that book.

I can't find any information on any such law. Where is your source?

There was a law dating back to 1978 but the Clinton administration raised the wall higher by adopting a policy of even greater separation. Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick was the author of the policy and there was testimony about it during the 9/11 commission's public hearings.

 

Gorelick's Wall

The Commissioner belongs in the witness chair.

 

We predicted Democrats would use the 9/11 Commission for partisan purposes, and that much of the press would oblige. But color us astonished that barely anyone appreciates the significance of the bombshell Attorney General John Ashcroft dropped on the hearings Tuesday. If Jamie Gorelick were a Republican, you can be sure our colleagues in the Fourth Estate would be leading the chorus of complaint that the Commission's objectivity has been fatally compromised by a member who was also one of the key personalities behind the failed antiterror policy that the Commission has under scrutiny. Where's the outrage?

 

At issue is the pre-Patriot Act "wall" that prevented communication between intelligence agents and criminal investigators--a wall, Mr. Ashcroft said, that meant "the old national intelligence system in place on September 11 was destined to fail." The Attorney General explained:

 

"In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall.

 

"When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists.

 

"At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, 'Whatever has happened to this--someday someone will die--and wall or not--the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain 'problems.' "

 

What's more, Mr. Ashcroft noted, the wall did not mysteriously arise: "Someone built this wall." That someone was largely the Democrats, who enshrined Vietnam-era paranoia about alleged FBI domestic spying abuses by enacting the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

 

Mr. Ashcroft pointed out that the wall was raised even higher in the mid-1990s, in the midst of what was then one of the most important antiterror investigations in American history--into the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. On Tuesday the Attorney General declassified and read from a March 4, 1995, memo in which Jamie Gorelick--then Deputy Attorney General and now 9/11 Commissioner--instructed then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and United States Attorney Mary Jo White that for the sake of "appearances" they would be required to adhere to an interpretation of the wall far stricter than the law required.

The way that the 93 attack was handled led to future ramifications regarding 9/11.

We treated the 93 attack as a crime scene.

If we would have treated as we would today, you would have found that al-Qeada was involved and had a reason then to take bin Laden in 96 from Sudan...which Clinton/Berger said we had no reason to take him.

We would have been able to seize the computer of one of the hi-jackers in the 9/11 attack.

The Goreliek Wall, along with Janet Reno's philosophy was a great inhibiter of a full scale investigation.

 

This stance is an opening for McCain to go after Obama in my opinion.

Thanks for the link. :thumb:

 

It sounds like the problem was as much in the 2 groups and Clinton's people "chose" the FBI as their main arm and "squeezed" the CIA. If you follow my link and the history of the two there was always a problem but it does appear that some presidents may have accentuated the problem. My guess is that is why Bush felt it important to create a third group instead of revamping the relationship between the current 2 agencies.

 

Nice post Hatz :thumb:. I hadn't read before the link that All Tell provided. I don't know the author and thus any biases that he may have, but if his info is accurate, it doesn't seem that Clinton made the correct call, but then again, its easy (but unfair) to criticize someone's decision with the benefit of hindsight. To Clinton's credit, he did realize that there was a problem between the two agencies and at least tried to correct it. Again, with the benefit of hindsight, I can somewhat understand why having the FBI as the lead agency was a mistake. I wonder how much, if at all, the personalities of Reno and Berger, and their relationships with Clinton, affected Clinton's decision. Based on what I was told by some of my Marine friends stationed in the Pentagon during the Clinton Admin, the Clintons (including Hillary) had a distain for military intelligence and the CIA. Dont know if that was accurate, but that was supposedly the majority sentiment in the intel community. If accurate, such could also help explain why Clinton chose the FBI and not the CIA as the lead agency to handle counter terrorism.

 

This will surely upset the civil libertarians on here, but a law enforcement agency like the FBI is extremely concerned about abiding by the law themselves and most of the time, that's a good thing. But in combatting terrorism, the "we'll do what it takes to protect America" approach of the CIA is probably better suited than the FBI's law enforcement approach. I know that sounds bad, but I think it is real world. Of course those of you that know I'm an Ollie North fan will not be surprised that I have that viewpoint.

But you do that exact thing. :lol:

 

I did it in response to the constant whining about my links being "biased" or sponsored by George Soros. Normally, I probably wouldn't have challenged the links credibility. However since mine are consistently challenged simply based on one person who donates to the site or based on the POTENTIAL that the writer might be liberal...I figured I could do the same thing.

 

You can't do it and then not expect others to do the same thing...

This is big for Obama, in referencing the 93 bombing, because of that prosecution, and the ground rules for it, had more to do with our inability to avert 9/11 than any other single factor.

 

Because we treated the 1993 WTC bombing as simply a crime, our investigation was slow, sluggish and constrained by the need to acquire admissible evidence to convict the terrorists.

There was a law dating back to 1978 but the Clinton administration raised the wall higher by adopting a policy of even greater separation. Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick was the author of the policy and there was testimony about it during the 9/11 commission's public hearings.

 

Interesting read and good link, thanks. So, you are confirming that no law was passed during Pres. Clinton's terms in office regarding such? I guess what I am asking (and not trying to pit the two of you against each other) is the following not accurate, then?

 

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.

I can't find any information on any such law. Where is your source?

 

Thanks to those who helped to provide the info that I could not.

Thanks to those who helped to provide the info that I could not.

 

You do realize that there was no law signed by Pres. Clinton, as regards this, correct?

Interesting read and good link, thanks. So, you are confirming that no law was passed during Pres. Clinton's terms in office regarding such? I guess what I am asking (and not trying to pit the two of you against each other) is the following not accurate, then?

There was no need for a law. The law was passed under Jimmy Carter.

 

Jamie Gorelick was the Deputy AG and her memo raising the wall between the FBI and the CIA higher was as good as law as far as the FBI was concerned. Through Gorelick's official memorandum, the Clinton administration's Justice Department was gave marching orders to its subordinates in the FBI. No law was required for the policy change.

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.

 

 

:thumb: