Revealed: Ashcroft, Tenet, Rumsfeld warned 9/11 Commission about 'line' it 'should not cross', page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 70 times
Topic started on 17-3-2010 @ 12:45 PM by Leo Strauss

Revealed: Ashcroft, Tenet, Rumsfeld warned 9/11 Commission about 'line' it 'should not cross'


rawstory.com
Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, according to a document recently obtained by the ACLU.

The notification came in a letter dated January 6, 2004, addressed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George J. Tenet. The ACLU described it as a fax sent by David Addington, then-counsel to former vice president Dick Cheney.
(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 17-3-2010 @ 12:45 PM by Leo Strauss
Here is the link to the document.

Link

Yet another example of a compromised investigation.
What is it going to take before a critical mass is attained?

Will there ever be a new investigation?

"In response to the Commission's expansive requests for access to secrets, the executive branch has provided such access in full cooperation," the letter read. "There is, however, a line that the Commission should not cross -- the line separating the Commission's proper inquiry into the September 11, 2001 attacks from interference with the Government's ability to safeguard the national security, including protection of Americans from future terrorist attacks."

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Leo Strauss]


reply posted on 17-3-2010 @ 07:33 PM by MaxBlack
Just so no one forgets, Bush Jr. was having heated discussions with Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle who was threatening a 911 investigation within days after 911 because Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and others had received a CIA intelligence report in August 6, 2001 and as such Daschle was pressing for investigations into who knew and why they did nothing.

Second on the list of key things to remember is that also at this same time frame, Tom Daschle was fighting Bush and the Republicans about warrant-less searches and the early version of the Patriot Act that Bush offered up right after 911. For these two reasons, Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy became political enemies and were in the days to follow would receive the infamous Anthrax envelope addressed to Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, Tom Brokaw and others.

This Anthrax attack to me said that telling Bush within days of 911 that there needed to be an investigation over the CIA Intelligence report and into 911 was something that had to nipped in the bud. They then authorized the Anthrax attack and people died and guess what? Tom Daschle dropped his quest for a 911 investigation. Imagine that.

While the next majority leader tried to pick it up, by that time Cheney had already begun to swing his weight and who knows, he may have used most likely that secret military assassination team to take care of loose ends. At least we know the investigation demands ceased and we know the investigation we got was bogus or at least false, contrived and full of holes.

The other matters of who knew what when and where is another issue, but Tom Daschle was on to something when he was within days of 911 aware enough to see that Bush and the gang had prior knowledge and allowed 911 to occur by doing nothing to stop it.

This latest revelation about the rest of the Bush team is no surprise. Everyone had to be on the same sheet of music and if the boss says make sure no one stirs up any type of investigation that he cant control from behind the scenes, then that is what the boys are going to do no matter what. This is raw, criminal political power but without the threat to kill you, it means nothing.

Well, most know the investigation is a joke and who knows, if Tom Daschle had actually gotten some early support for the investigation but alas, remember that the media was not always willing to challenge the Cowboy from Texas because remember Bush stated " you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" Now who could stand up to that challenge? Or is it a threat? Oh well, I think I made my point.

Thanks for the posting.


reply posted on 17-3-2010 @ 07:50 PM by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by warisover



So, wiil I just have to Assume that Any Administration can Deflect Serious Questions pertaining to 9/11 simply on the basis of Information being Denied to Investigators because of " National Security " Reasons alone ? Isn't this just some kind of " Loop Hole " for those in high Goverment Positions that wish to not Incrimidate themselves Under Oath to use as an Excuse to not be Accountable for their actions ? ..Geez......

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Zanti Misfit]


reply posted on 17-3-2010 @ 10:32 PM by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by ExPostFacto



" There is, however, a line that the Commission should not cross. The line separating the, Commission's proper inquiry into the September 11, 2001 attacks from interference with the Government's ability to safeguard the national security, including protection of Americans from future terrorist attacks. The Commission staffs proposed participation in questioning of detainees would cross that line. "


in Other words , a COP OUT . I see...........


reply posted on 17-3-2010 @ 10:36 PM by ExPostFacto
reply to post by Zanti Misfit



It looks to me like the CIA didn't want the commission knowing they were torturing, to gain confessions. Since Bush authorized the 'enhanced interrogation techniques' later found to be torture, CIA must have been protecting that national security directive from the commissions need to know.


reply posted on 17-3-2010 @ 11:54 PM by Crito
Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to
post by Zanti Misfit



It looks to me like the CIA didn't want the commission knowing they were torturing, to gain confessions. Since Bush authorized the 'enhanced interrogation techniques' later found to be torture, CIA must have been protecting that national security directive from the commissions need to know.


I'm not buying that line of reasoning because Central Command's Abu Ghraib investigation was already in full swing at that point. Attempting to cover-up the torture and abuse would have been futile. They wanted to keep the content of the interrogations secret. Perhaps because they didn't obtain any confessions, only denials, which would have just added to the pile of treasonous lies told to justify wars of aggression against people who had nothing to do with the events of 9/11.

www.dod.mil...


reply posted on 17-3-2010 @ 11:57 PM by ExPostFacto
reply to post by Crito



I don't think I have ever starred someone for disagreeing with me...but you get one. I was sugar coating a bit and you called me on it



reply posted on 18-3-2010 @ 12:02 AM by constantwonder
Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Here is the link to the document.

Link

Yet another example of a compromised investigation.
What is it going to take before a critical mass is attained?

Will there ever be a new investigation?



[edit on 17-3-2010 by Leo Strauss]


Not that there shouldn't be but the answer is no. Who's going to initiate it? The Obama administration?


reply posted on 18-3-2010 @ 12:49 AM by skeptic_al
Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Here is the link to the document.

Link

Yet another example of a compromised investigation.
What is it going to take before a critical mass is attained?

Will there ever be a new investigation?

"In response to the Commission's expansive requests for access to secrets, the executive branch has provided such access in full cooperation," the letter read. "There is, however, a line that the Commission should not cross -- the line separating the Commission's proper inquiry into the September 11, 2001 attacks from interference with the Government's ability to safeguard the national security, including protection of Americans from future terrorist attacks."

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Leo Strauss]


This document is bit funny....
Link


The document was scanned, then OCR'd with the OCR Text placed
on top of the Scanned Images. It is neither an Original Scanned Image,
or a Text Reproduction but still looks like a really bad Image Scan.
The other thing, the Text on pages appears to have been bashed on
a Typewriter, as the characters on the Pages are different shapes and
the letters are not sitting on a straight line. And is also written in a
Mono Spaced Font, consistant with typewriters.

Am I to beleive the White House still uses Typewriters instead of
Printers for their Corespondence?

On the other hand, why would somebody who wanted to fake a document
use a Typewriter?
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 3 days ago with 81 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 4 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 15 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 3 days ago with 48 member flags
Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists
  Posted 10 days ago with 37 member flags