tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8796818.post-1134096602165937112005-12-08T20:32:00.000-06:002005-12-08T20:50:02.236-06:00Andy McCarthy has <a href="http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200512080830.asp">an article</a> on NRO reviving the Able Danger story, something that has been conspivuously absent from most of the blogs I've read. After the immediate surge of interest in it, many in the right blogosphere got spooked when Weldon was attacked and seemed to back off his story. So when he came throttling back with witness names and evidence (six officials now, plus Louis Freeh and some documentation), they were still a little leery of picking it up. But <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007559">Louis Freeh's</a> article about a month ago and now McCarthy's should stir the waters again. This was an irresponsible, reprehensible, spotlight-chasing, butt-covering schill of a committee which apparently became little more than a bipartisan effort to defend Jamie Gorelick, her "wall" of protection and citizenship rights which were extended to casual travellers, and the Clinton administration. These are the people who had Osama bin Laden. They had Mohammed Atta, and possibly two other 9/11 hijackers. They ignored the first WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers, USS Cole, and embassy bombings. They extended a "wall" with the sole effect of <em>protecting foreign actors with designs on the US</em>. And then they put key architects of that policy on the commission created to investigate it. And then they covered the evidence, smeared the dissenters, and started holding regular press conferences to announce their virtue and wisdom.<br /><br />McCarthy:<br /><blockquote>The 9/11 Commission .... didn't report the dissent [of Able Danger] at all. Not in the text, not in the footnotes, not anywhere. <strong>It tried, <em>Pravda</em>-like, to erase completely from historical memory any version of events but its own.</strong><br /><br />Think about that. The commission's mandate was to conduct a thorough investigation and tell us exactly what it found. Its job was not to produce a carefully marketed narrative so media-starved commissioners would have a best-selling launch-pad from which to score sugary interviews. This panel was not supposed to have a vested interest in a single, definitive, air-brushed version of events. It was supposed to give us the facts as it found them, including on disputed issues it could not resolve. <strong>Why on earth did it decide to kill Able Danger?</strong></blockquote><br />[Emphasis mine.]<br /><br />This is a woman (Gorelick) who should wake up every morning with the knowledge that her idealistic incompetence directly caused the deaths of 3,000 Americans and, subsequently, two wars and the deaths of American servicemen and contractors, hostages, foreign armies, and Afghan and Iraqi civilians (not to mention the bad guys). I would pity her if she weren't too arrogant and dense to recognize it, and so now I'm pretty close to despising her and the atrocious committee that protects her and the administration she worked for. Have these people no principles?Deonnoreply@blogger.com