9/11 Commission

[Shapley]

OT,

RE:It's most likely beyond coincidental, but it is possible he simply screwed up while shuffling papers.

If you read the links, you would see that Berger pleaded guilty to intentionally destroying classified documents.

Yes, I was speculating, just as you do when you claim the war in Iraq is based on "Bush's greed", or orders from the House of Saud. That's the fun thing about the BB, we can do that.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

I read the links. I think it's safe to assume it's common knowledge that the wording of an entered plea is often a result of negotiation, and may not reflect actuality.

[Shapley]

Wait a minute! You accept the wording of the DailyKOS and Moveon.org, but a legal document like a guilty plea may not reflect actuality?

[OperaTenor]

Oh now, that wasn't me you were referring to on that.......................right?

I'll admit to quoting the DailyKOS(I think they are truthful and nearly objective), however, I've never quoted MoveOn. You may want to sit down for this one: I'm not so sure of their objectivity, and therefore tend to not get too wound up in whatever they have to say.

I've known a few trial lawyers over the years - a good friend of mine was the former right hand man to the San Diego county DA - and I know for a fact they negotiate the verbiage(sp?) of pleas all the time. All I'm saying is what is actually pled to and what actually happened are often two different things.

[OperaTenor]

This situation is becoming more alarming:

Officer: 9/11 panel didn't receive key information

"A former member of a classified Pentagon intelligence unit told CNN on Wednesday that information he tried to provide to the commission investigating the September 11, 2001, attacks never made it to the panel's members."

Nuts.

[Jared Gerlach]

However "nuts" this may be it is impossible to believe that anyone can claim to know what actually happened before, during, or after the fact of this atrocity. For matters of national security and the personal intrest of those involved on the government intelligence level, we lack the knowlegde of many important events in our nations history to include 9/11.

[OperaTenor]

Hi AOAUSMCS, welcome to the Pit!



This is extremely short notice, but if you want to meet some of the San Diego B.com crowd(wow, a whole six of us), we're heading to Valley Center tomorrow evening for the best beef ribs in the world. let me know if you want more info.

As for your post, are you saying Lt. Col. Shaffer might be taking us all for a ride? I've heard essentially that much on the radio from an ex-CIA antiterrorism guy(no, not Richard Clarke). He came right out and said Shaffer is generally considered a "flake" by the intelligence community, and has a reputation for making a mountain out of any mole hill he encounters.

Me, I have no idea.

[Shapley]

AOAUSMCS, welcome to the B.com BB!

I take it you're in the Marine Corps band? I tend to agree that, if there were information that reasonably could have been used to prevent 9/11, we would have prevented it.

I believe the concern here is that, if the 9/11 panel is to make useful recommendations on how to use information resources to prevent future 9/11's, then they need access to all the information. It is possible that the information was out there, and was unable to be effectively used to "red tape". I believe the commission was charged with finding out how to "cut the red tape" to streamline the intelligence services access and use of data.

I think, for some of us, the question revolves around figuring out what it was the Sandy Berger thought was worth risking his career over to keep it out of the hands of the commission. So far, only Haggis, OT, and I have tried to connect that to Shaffer's statements, and it could be there is no connection, but it is a mystery waiting to be answered.

V/R
Shapley

<small>[ 08-23-2005, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

Hi Shap,

Where did Haggis try to connect Berger and Shaffer's statements?! I was the one who asked Haggis if he thought there might be a connection. This, from the first post after Haggis started this thread:

"Do you suppose Sandy Berger's little paper pilfering episode had anything to do with this? If so, would that connection tend to discredit the Warren comissi...............uh, I mean, the 9/11 comission?"

That's two factual fouls in two days. For that, you have to read every liberal link I post for the next week.

Consider yourself duly chastized!

[Shapley]

OT,

From the post that started this thread:

Staff members now are searching documents in the National Archives to look for notes from the meeting in Afghanistan and any other possible references to Atta and Able Danger, Felzenberg said.”

And so now we come back to the National Archives -- and October 2003. One of Sandy Berger's last visits to the Archives where he took highly classified material out the door with him was in October 2003, around the time that the Commission first heard about Able Danger. Does this start to sound just a little too convenient and coincidental?

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Nevertheless, I believe I'm included in "So far, only Haggis and I have tried to connect that to Shaffer's statements, and it could be there is no connection, but it is a mystery waiting to be answered.".

So far it would appear there is no connection, and that whatever Sandy Berger did is as much of a "tempest in a teapot" as the exposure of Valerie Plame.

A good conspiractist would view Shaffer as a plant of Propaganda Minister Rove's, designed to sling a little more mud at the Clinton administration's antiterrorist activities.

Speaking of whom, it's a sure sign of acute national apathy to find that, coming back from vacation, that Herr Rove is still employed by the GWB administration.

[Shapley]

OT,

I don't know what you're talking about. And I didn't edit my post, I don't care what that little footnote thingy says.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Oh my, I'm sorry I missed that in your "original" post!!!

Guess I better learn to read more closely before I go off half-cocked......



<small>[ 08-23-2005, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[BigJon@Work]

So we need a Commission to Investigate the Commission to Investigate Sept. 11

[Shapley]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166504,00.html

[Shapley]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168828,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/index.html

[OperaTenor]

It would seem to be pretty clear Berger didn't have anything to do with tampering/witholding information regarding Atta, i.e., the original topic of this thread.

It is amazing you can be so vigilant about this, yet overlook the heinous crimes being committed under our very noses by the GWB administration.

[Marye]

You are reliable Shap!

[BigJon@Work]

As is OT . . .

[Shapley]

OT,

How is that obvious? He first lied about having done it. Then, when cornered, he admitted that he destroyed documents, but said it was "inadvertent". Finally, he admitted that he took scissors and shredded the documents intentionally. We cannot trust his assessment of what was in those documents, because he has thrown his credibility out the window. The timeframe of the documents in question coincides with the timeframe of the reported Atta information, i.e., the millenium celebration in 2000 (remember that Clinton moved the start of the millenium to 2000 in order to be in charge of the festivities, rather than celebrate it, as should have been the case, in 2001).

I posted the Berger information as a follow up to discussions earlier on this post. I included no comment, just an FYI. I also included both the correct-wing and the regular version of it, just for you.

What heinous crimes are you talking about? Do you have evidence that a high crime has been committed by this administration? :confused:

V/R
Shapley