CIA threatens "Press for Truth" producers over release of new documentary

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by paloalto

What possible reason would Corsi have to deny Fuller permission to get this credit card number, especially since Fuller said he had made no progress in the Choicepoint data base without this number and Corsi and her boss Rod Middleton knew that this huge al Qaeda attack that was going to kill thousands of Americans was just about to take place inside of the US.

That answer is unknown, and probably shall remain so for lack of mind - reading abilities and also due to the 5th amendment. Do you propose to waterboard him?

[jimd3100]

Quote:

"We would have found those ********-Those guys would have been arrested within 24 hours"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKhw-o9-B1g

Originally Posted by paloalto

With the names and passport numbers for Mihdhar and Hazmi and even Hazmi's address in California, and Mihdhar credit card number they should have been able to find these terrorists very quickly. Information on Hazmi was in the FBI Choice point data base used by the FBI.

Had Corsi not shut down Bongardt’s investigation with out right lies, and then Robert Fullers intelligence investigation by denying him permission to get Mihdhar’s credit card number from Saudi Arabian Airlines, (they knew Mihdhar had flown into the US on Saudi Arabian Airlines on July 4, 2001) these terrorists could have been found quickly.

Would you please stop stating facts? It's upsetting to some members of the forum.

Quote:

"The Chief of the FBI’s Financial Review Group – which had been only a section in the FBI’s White Collar Crime Unit before September 11-- and the Director of the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) both testified before the Joint Inquiry that, prior to September 11, they had capabilities to develop leads on terrorist suspects and link them to other terrorists and to terrorist funding sources."

"They both agreed that they would have been able to locate Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar in the United States in August 2001, if asked, through credit card and bank information. The use of these capabilities in the first weeks after September 11 enabled the FBI, with assistance from the Secret Service, to connect almost all of the 19 hijackers to each other very quickly by linking bank accounts, credit cards, debit cards, address checks, and telephones. Despite the existence of those capabilities, the FBI did not seek their assistance in the search for al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar in late August 2001."

page 147/858
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_rpt/911rept.pdf

Originally Posted by LSSBB

That answer is unknown, and probably shall remain so for lack of mind - reading abilities and also due to the 5th amendment. Do you propose to waterboard him?

Of course not! Promotions and medals are clearly in order.

[paloalto]

Originally Posted by jimd3100

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKhw-o9-B1g



Would you please stop stating facts? It's upsetting to some members of the forum.

page 147/858
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_rpt/911rept.pdf



Of course not! Promotions and medals are clearly in order.

I agree, there is no reason on this forum for posters to get confused with the facts. What are people on this forum going to do with facts, after all aren’t we told this is all nonsense.

Why don't the people on this forum, who don't like the facts, talk to the relatives of those who were killed on 9/11, and tell them it was all nonsense that members of their families had been killed on 9/11 when the CIA had the names of at least two of the al Qaeda terrorists who took part in 9/11 for 19 months, and even knew when INS found them in the US on August 22, 2001 that they were here for no other reason than to take part in a massive terrorists attack. But this is all nonsense or so we have been told.

[jimd3100]

Originally Posted by paloalto

Why don't the people on this forum, who don't like the facts, talk to the relatives of those who were killed on 9/11, and tell them it was all nonsense that members of their families had been killed on 9/11 when the CIA had the names of at least two of the al Qaeda terrorists who took part in 9/11 for 19 months, and even knew when INS found them in the US on August 22, 2001 that they were here for no other reason than to take part in a massive terrorists attack. But this is all nonsense or so we have been told.

But the head of the CIA explained all that when he lied under oath during the joint Inquiry and 9-11 Commission.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cIo3...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF38P58-rdo

[paloalto]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

That answer is unknown, and probably shall remain so for lack of mind - reading abilities and also due to the 5th amendment. Do you propose to waterboard him?

Dina Corsi is a she. But her boss, Rod Middleton, who worked closely with Corsi to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi was a he. And Tom Wilshire the CIA Deputy Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit who came over to the FBI ITOS unit of the FBI to supervise Corsi and Middleton and their shutting down of Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, is also a he as are Blee, Black and Tenet who were secretly controlling Wilshire in this obstruction of the Mihdhar and Hazmi criminal investigation.

Do I propose waterboarding her. That might be a good start.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by paloalto

Dina Corsi is a she. But her boss, Rod Middleton, who worked closely with Corsi to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi was a he. And Tom Wilshire the CIA Deputy Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit who came over to the FBI ITOS unit of the FBI to supervise Corsi and Middleton and their shutting down of Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, is also a he as are Blee, Black and Tenet who were secretly controlling Wilshire in this obstruction of the Mihdhar and Hazmi criminal investigation.

Do I propose waterboarding her. That might be a good start.

Apologies for the gender mistake. Any proof of intent yet?

[jimd3100]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Any proof of intent yet?

I think the "intent" to intentionally lie to the American people has been proven.

Originally Posted by jimd3100

But the head of the CIA explained all that when he lied under oath during the joint Inquiry and 9-11 Commission.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cIo3...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF38P58-rdo

Quote:

Sen. Graham: Bush covered up Saudi involvement in 9/11

http://www.salon.com/2004/09/08/graham_8/

Quote:

Sen. Bob Graham talks about government coverup involving the joint inquiry into the intelligence failure of September 11, 2001

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOHGR4RxZVs

There might be something good on TV though....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR3KwODDzeY

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by jimd3100

I think the "intent" to intentionally lie to the American people has been proven.

Well, at least you got a perjury charge. I guess that's something.

[paloalto]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Apologies for the gender mistake. Any proof of intent yet?

Let's see.

Corsi shuts down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when he discovers these two al Qaeda terrorists are inside of the US on August 28, 2001. First she says he can’t have her EC to start any investigation because her EC has a NSA cable in it that was prohibited from being given to FBI criminal investigator. But she had already been approved in writing just the day before to give this NSA information to the FBI criminal agents in New York City, Steve Bongardt and his team. So she was lying to Bongardt for no other reason than to shut down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Bongardt tells Corsi that after reading the NSA cable, it clearly had no connection to any FISA warrant. This means he can have this cable and there is no restriction on Corsi giving Bongardt her EC. When she says he still can’t start any investigation, due to the NSA restriction, because he does not understand this NSA restriction, he asks her to get a ruling from the NSLU, attorneys at the FBI HQ to see if she is correct.

She, and her boss Rod Middleton, tell him the next day, August 29, 2001 that the attorneys have ruled he cannot have any part of any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. But according to the 9/11 Commission report, Sherry Sabol tells Corsi and Middleton, on August 28, 2001 that since the NSA cable had no connection to any FISA warrant, Bongardt can take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. So now Corsi, and Middleton are both lieing to shut down Bongardt's investigtaion of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

During their phone and email communications Bongardt says that these terrorists are in the US for only one reason, to take part in a horrific al Qaeda terrorists attack and that people will die because she and her boss, Rod Middleton, are shutting down his investigation.

Then after shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, and this investigation is given to Robert Fuller, an inexperienced FBI intelligence agent. On September 5, 2001 Fuller calls Corsi to get permission to get Mihdhar's credit card number from Saudi Arabain Airlines. But Corsi refuses to give him permission to call Saudi Arabian Airlines to get Mihdhar’s credit card number. His investigation of Mihdhar had completely stalled out and without this number he felt he could make no further progress in his search for Mihdhar. In spite of Fuller telling Corsi this, she knowingly blocks any further progress in his investigation by refusing him permission to get this number.

But we are asked where is the intent. When she and Middleton shut down Bongardt’s investigation there is no proof they intended to do this. When she sets up a road block to Fullers’ investigation there is no proof she intended to do this. When FBI HQ and Corsi and Middleton know that a huge al Qaeda attack is just about to occur in the US and they have stopped all FBI investigations of al Qaeda terrorists inside of the US, and they even know these terrorists were here to take part in these attacks and have even been told by FBI agnets on these investigtaions that because they are shutting down the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, people in the US will die, they never "intended" to block investigations that could have stopped these attack.

We are told that when the CIA mangers, Blee, Black and Tenet, refused to allow Tom Wilshire, who as Deputy Chief of the FBI ITOS unit was supervising Corsi and Middleton, permission to give the Kuala Lumpur information to the FBI, and not having this information allowed Corsi and Middleton to block Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, an investigtaion that would have prevented that attacks on 9/11 that they never intended to do this.

Corsi in an email back to Bongardt on August 29, 2001, stated that “if at such time as information is developed of a substantial Federal crime (by Mihdhar and Hazmi) this information will be passed over the wall”. Yet right in the DOJ IG report, it says Corsi knew by August 22,2001 that the CIA had the photo of Walid Bin Attash, known by the FBI to be one of the masterminds of the USS bombing, taken at Kuala Lumpur, knew that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had also been at Kuala Lumpur at the same time. She knew that this tied both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the crime of planning the Cole bombing with bin Attash. So she already had proof of a substantial Federal crime, but in a out and out lie indicates to Bongardt that this information had never been developed.

Middleton also was even sent this photo of Bin Attash on August 30, 2001 by the CIA, so he clearly knew that this tied both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the crime of planning the Cole bombing with bin Attash and yet he never calls Bongardt to pass this horrific information on to him so he can then restart his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

And yet we are told we have no proof of intent. YAH RIGHT!

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by paloalto

Let's see.

Corsi shuts down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when he discovers these two al Qaeda terrorists are inside of the US on August 28, 2001. First she says he can’t have her EC to start any investigation because her EC has a NSA cable in it that was prohibited from being given to FBI criminal investigator. But she had already been approved in writing just the day before to give this NSA information to the FBI criminal agents in New York City, Steve Bongardt and his team. So she was lying to Bongardt for no other reason than to shut down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Bongardt tells Corsi that after reading the NSA cable, it clearly had no connection to any FISA warrant. This means he can have this cable and there is no restriction on Corsi giving Bongardt her EC. When she says he still can’t start any investigation, due to the NSA restriction, because he does not understand this NSA restriction, he asks her to get a ruling from the NSLU, attorneys at the FBI HQ to see if she is correct.

She, and her boss Rod Middleton, tell him the next day, August 29, 2001 that the attorneys have ruled he cannot have any part of any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. But according to the 9/11 Commission report, Sherry Sabol tells Corsi and Middleton, on August 28, 2001 that since the NSA cable had no connection to any FISA warrant, Bongardt can take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. So now Corsi, and Middleton are both lieing to shut down Bongardt's investigtaion of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

During their phone and email communications Bongardt says that these terrorists are in the US for only one reason, to take part in a horrific al Qaeda terrorists attack and that people will die because she and her boss, Rod Middleton, are shutting down his investigation.

Then after shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, and this investigation is given to Robert Fuller, an inexperienced FBI intelligence agent. On September 5, 2001 Fuller calls Corsi to get permission to get Mihdhar's credit card number from Saudi Arabain Airlines. But Corsi refuses to give him permission to call Saudi Arabian Airlines to get Mihdhar’s credit card number. His investigation of Mihdhar had completely stalled out and without this number he felt he could make no further progress in his search for Mihdhar. In spite of Fuller telling Corsi this, she knowingly blocks any further progress in his investigation by refusing him permission to get this number.

But we are asked where is the intent. When she and Middleton shut down Bongardt’s investigation there is no proof they intended to do this. When she sets up a road block to Fullers’ investigation there is no proof she intended to do this. When FBI HQ and Corsi and Middleton know that a huge al Qaeda attack is just about to occur in the US and they have stopped all FBI investigations of al Qaeda terrorists inside of the US, and they even know these terrorists were here to take part in these attacks and have even been told by FBI agnets on these investigtaions that because they are shutting down the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, people in the US will die, they never "intended" to block investigations that could have stopped these attack.

We are told that when the CIA mangers, Blee, Black and Tenet, refused to allow Tom Wilshire, who as Deputy Chief of the FBI ITOS unit was supervising Corsi and Middleton, permission to give the Kuala Lumpur information to the FBI, and not having this information allowed Corsi and Middleton to block Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, an investigtaion that would have prevented that attacks on 9/11 that they never intended to do this.

Corsi in an email back to Bongardt on August 29, 2001, stated that “if at such time as information is developed of a substantial Federal crime (by Mihdhar and Hazmi) this information will be passed over the wall”. Yet right in the DOJ IG report, it says Corsi knew by August 22,2001 that the CIA had the photo of Walid Bin Attash, known by the FBI to be one of the masterminds of the USS bombing, taken at Kuala Lumpur, knew that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had also been at Kuala Lumpur at the same time. She knew that this tied both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the crime of planning the Cole bombing with bin Attash. So she already had proof of a substantial Federal crime, but in a out and out lie indicates to Bongardt that this information had never been developed.

Middleton also was even sent this photo of Bin Attash on August 30, 2001 by the CIA, so he clearly knew that this tied both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the crime of planning the Cole bombing with bin Attash and yet he never calls Bongardt to pass this horrific information on to him so he can then restart his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

And yet we are told we have no proof of intent. YAH RIGHT!

Intent to play office politics, or intent to allow the deaths of some as-of-yet unkown number of citizens?

[paloalto]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Intent to play office politics, or intent to allow the deaths of some as-of-yet unkown number of citizens?

MY GOD!

You are claiming the almost 3000 people were murdered by the al Qaeda terrorists because of office politics?

SAY WHAT? Where is your evidence for this?

[carlitos]

Actually, that's a pretty good summary of my view. The "Gorelick Wall" for starters.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by paloalto

MY GOD!

You are claiming the almost 3000 people were murdered by the al Qaeda terrorists because of office politics?

SAY WHAT? Where is your evidence for this?

I don't have evidence for office politics, I only have human nature and experience. Humans being what they are, they can become blinded to the fact that their decisions affect human lives when they are blinded by their goals, ambitions, and the immediacy of their social environment.

I am fully aware I can't read minds, can you? Or do you have evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that anyone involve intended for Americans to die, beyond the Al Qaeda perpotrators manning the plane and their mastermind?

[paloalto]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Actually, that's a pretty good summary of my view. The "Gorelick Wall" for starters.

The "wall" was a fiction, as FBI Agent Steve Bongardt told Corsi. The caveat at the bottom of all NSA cables said that this information cannot be passed to FBI criminal agents, and was intended to alert them to the possibility that the material in the cable may have been connected to a FISA warrant. The originator of the cable wanted FBI criminal agents notified that this material could not be used as is in a court of law if it was connected to a FISA search warrant. A court requires a search warrant only after there is probable cause that the target has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime, a much higher level of evidence than the target is a member of or connected to a foreign terrorists organization. If evidence was introduced into a court of law without the proper search warrant, it would be excluded from the trial.

This caveat was placed on all NSA cables regardless whether the material it contained came from the use of a FISA warrant or not out of bureaucratic laziness. No surveillance outside of the US or information obtained from a surveillance outside of the US was connected to a FISA warrant, this warrant only applied to terrorists targets inside of the US. When the caveat was encountered, all the FBI criminal agents had to do was have the material reviewed by a NSLU attorney and have them OK it for use in their investigation. This is exactly what Bongardt had done when asked Corsi to get a ruling to see if he could take part in an investigation for Mihdhar because of this caveat.

It is also clear that she told Bongardt that no FBI criminal agent could even be present during an interview of Mihdhar, if he was found. It is clear that had Mihdhar been found, and interrogated and talked he would have said that he was with Walid bin Attash at Kuala Lumpur, where the planning of the Cole bombing took place. Had this happened Bongardt would have immediately known that his criminal investigation of the Cole bombing had been criminally obstructed numerous times by Dina Corsi, Rod Middleton, Clarke Shannon, Tom Wilshire, Louis Freeh and perhaps many others at FBI HQ and at least Blee, Black, and Tenet at the CIA.

All of these people including the 50-60 people at the CIA named in the CIA IG report, including CIA officers at the CIA Yemen station, the CIA Pakistan station, perhaps the CIA Thailand station, and many of the people at the CIA Alec station, and almost all of the CIA’s top managers who knew about Mihdhar and Hazmi’s travels to the US, and criminally withheld this information from the FBI would have faced very long prison sentences.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by paloalto

MY GOD!

You are claiming the almost 3000 people were murdered by the al Qaeda terrorists because of office politics?

SAY WHAT? Where is your evidence for this?

When someone robs you, do you blame the CIA/FBI? Why not post to the thread topic?

19 terrorists did 911. Do you know what the topic of the thread is? Why is the OP nonsense?

[Axxman300]

Quote:

It is clear that had Mihdhar been found, and interrogated and talked he would have said that he was with Walid bin Attash at Kuala Lumpur, where the planning of the Cole bombing took place.

This is where your argument falls apart.

Prior to 9/11/2001 he would have been read is rights and been assigned a lawyer to be present during questioning. He would have been advised to remain silent, and the FBI would have to prove its case. We have already seen the hurdles they had to jump through to get scraps of information from the CIA and FBI, and the more likely scenario is Mihdhar would have sent back to his country of origin without any serious prosecution.

If the FBI did successfully link him to Cole then he goes to prison without divulging anything about the Planes Operation.

[paloalto]

Originally Posted by beachnut

When someone robs you, do you blame the CIA/FBI? Why not post to the thread topic?

19 terrorists did 911. Do you know what the topic of the thread is? Why is the OP nonsense?

The topic of this thread is CIA threatens "Press for Truth" producers over release of new documentary and CIA Goes After Producers Nowosielski & Duffy. This was the result of the interview by Nowosielski & Duffy of Richard Clarke three years earlier.

Based on this interview of Richard Clarke, Nowosielski & Duffy were releasing information on their web site entitled "Who is Richard Blee", the mystery man right in the middle of the massive criminal conspiracy to criminally withhold the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi and the fact that they had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with Walid bin Attash planning the Cole bombing from him and the FBI.

The information on “Who is Richard Blee” included the real names of two CIA employees that had taken part in this criminal conspiracy but were up to this point never named except as aliases. Clarke stated in his interview that the CIA managers Richard Blee, Cofer Black and George Tenet had deliberately withheld information from him and the FBI on Mihdhar and Hazmi. He further stated that with holding this information blocked him and the FBI from preventing the attacks on 9/11. Clarke said that even if Tenet had given him the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi as late as September 4, 2001 when Clarke, Tenet and the other principles were at a White House meeting on the al Qaeda terrorists, the US government could have mounted a huge search and located them before the attacks on 9/11.

Clarke was and perhaps is still unaware that much this information had been given accidentally to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt on August 28, 2001, but that former CIA manager, Tom Wilshire, using FBI HQ agents that the CIA had corrupted, Dina Corsi and Rod Middleton, illegally shut down Bongardt’s investigation of these al Qaeda terrorists even when Bongardt knew these terrorists were inside of the US to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill many Americans.

The import of all of this is this is the first time Clarke, who had been at the center of counter terrorism in the White House, had publically stated that Tenet had withheld this information from him and the FBI, a crime of immense proportions. This was also the first time the name Richard Blee had even been reveled in the main stream press, up to that point the name Richard Blee had been kept completely secret from anyone outside of the CIA and NSC.

The denial by Tenet, Black and Blee, to the Clarke interview was a non-denial denial. In effect admitted guilt in allowing the attacks on 9/11, when they left out the fact of what they knew about Mihdhar and Hazmi, and the fact that these terrorists were inside of the US on August 22, 2001 and even knew that these terrorists were in the US only in order to take part in the massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans.

Tenet was in effect admitting he knew this information. When he says in his denial he stood by his 9/11 Commission testimony, where he stated he had not talked to the President in all of August 2001, about the fact that he knew a huge al Qaeda attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans, he was lying and is still lying about this even to today. Since we now know he flew down to Crawford for a 6 hour meeting with the President on August 24, 2001, the big question remains what did the tell the President about Mihdhar and Hazmi and the fact that he knew that these terrorists were inside of the US as to take part in a plan by KSM to hijack several large commercial aircraft and fly these into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon, and US Capital building.

This was the information Tenet had on August 24 2001. It is inconceivable that he did not give this horrific information to the President, after all why then did he fly down to Crawford Texas for this secret urgent meeting. And why has Tenet and the White House kept the facts surrounding this meeting so secret even to today, with Tenet even going so far as to out and out lie to the 9/11 Commission at their public hearings on April 14, 2004 about this meeting with the President. What was he and the White House trying to hide.

And then the big question is if the President had this horrific information, then why did he not do anything to prevent this horrific al Qaeda attack?

But of course there are people on this forum who will say this is all nonsense, you are jumping to conclusions, but then why should they get confused with the facts.

[paloalto]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

This is where your argument falls apart.

Prior to 9/11/2001 he would have been read is rights and been assigned a lawyer to be present during questioning. He would have been advised to remain silent, and the FBI would have to prove its case. We have already seen the hurdles they had to jump through to get scraps of information from the CIA and FBI, and the more likely scenario is Mihdhar would have sent back to his country of origin without any serious prosecution.

If the FBI did successfully link him to Cole then he goes to prison without divulging anything about the Planes Operation.

But had the FBI just put them under surveillance they would have uncovered the plot for the attacks on 9/11 and found the 10 other terrorists that Mihdhar and Hazmi had purchased airline tickets for.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by paloalto

But had the FBI just put them under surveillance they would have uncovered the plot for the attacks on 9/11 and found the 10 other terrorists that Mihdhar and Hazmi had purchased airline tickets for.

That is to mind the action that should have been taken, and as to why it wasn't ordered no real answer has been provided by the previous administration.

[carlitos]

So, 20 / 20 hindsight and government agencies FUBAR. Why is this being posted in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories section?

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by carlitos

So, 20 / 20 hindsight and government agencies FUBAR. Why is this being posted in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories section?

Because it seems in the absence of clear evidence speculation tends to fester... oh wait, even when there is clear evidence speculation festers and denies the evidence...

[paloalto]

Originally Posted by carlitos

So, 20 / 20 hindsight and government agencies FUBAR. Why is this being posted in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories section?

Because this is the US government’s official version of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory, and is documented right in the actual reports from the government's own investigations on 9/11. But most of this information has been kept secret from the American people.

[carlitos]

I read the Looming Tower in 2007, I think, so that part wasn't much of a secret.

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by paloalto

Because this is the US government’s official version of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory, and is documented right in the actual reports from the government's own investigations on 9/11. But most of this information has been kept secret from the American people.

Ironic then the government was willing to freely declassify this information then wouldn't you say?

[mike3]

Originally Posted by newton3376

YOU should care JihadJane

I know more about those agencies then Sibel Edmonds ever will in her wettest dreams....

She is irrelevant....her opinion on ANYTHING outside of her very brief experience in that world doesn't matter to.....well.....anyone really.

Actually....she matters to truthers like yourself for some unknown reason....of course you know as little about these matters as you do Engineering, Math, or any other topic....

So have at it Keep JAQing off to irrelevant nonsense.

How did you get all this knowledge?

[Axxman300]

Quote:

But had the FBI just put them under surveillance they would have uncovered the plot for the attacks on 9/11 and found the 10 other terrorists that Mihdhar and Hazmi had purchased airline tickets for.

The same FBI that took forever to connect Al Qaeda to the first WTC bombing?

Yeah, I'm sure they'd have put all that together. Just like they were all over Zacarias Moussaoui - whom they had in custody yet still couldn't convince FBI lawyers they had probable cause to search his laptop.

While you speculate about things which might have happened "only if" the facts of what actually happened are loud and clear.

[paloalto]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

The same FBI that took forever to connect Al Qaeda to the first WTC bombing?

Yeah, I'm sure they'd have put all that together. Just like they were all over Zacarias Moussaoui - whom they had in custody yet still couldn't convince FBI lawyers they had probable cause to search his laptop.

While you speculate about things which might have happened "only if" the facts of what actually happened are loud and clear.

FBI Agent Harry Samit, the FBI Agent who had arrested Moussaoui, in court under oath, said that Michael Maltbie and David Frasca blocking his attempt to get a search warrant for Moussaoui duffle bag was a crime and that both Maltbie and Frasca were criminals for blocking his investigation. Samit's boss told Frasca that Minneapolis FBI though Moussaoui wanted to hijack a large commercial aircraft and fly it into the World Trade Center Towers.

But what is beyond belief and clearly points to a massive and wide spread criminal conspiracy at the FBI HQ is that Tom Wilshire, made email contact with Maltbie over the Moussaoui investigation, according to DE 939 entered into the Moussaoui trial on March 11, 2006. The email from Maltbie back to Wilshire on August 24, 2001, says “ignore the previous email that suggested Moussaoui has engaged in nefarious activities. We have found nothing to suggest Moussaoui is connected to any nefarious activities”.

This is at a time when FBI Agent Harry Samit has almost gone ballistic trying to get a search warrant for Moussaoui’s duffle bag. At no time did Samit ever make any statements that Moussaoui was anything other than a terrorist who wanted to train on B747s in order to hijack one of these aircraft and crash it into a large buildings in the US. Maltbie was not the FBI criminal investigator on the Moussaoui investigation Samit was, and Samit never said anything other than Moussaoui was clearly connected to some nefarious activities. So why Maltbie is saying this in this email has never been explained.

But it is clear that on August 24, 2001, Wilshire has all of the information necessary to prevent the attacks on 9/11 and yet instead of alerting the FBI criminal agents to this information, he continues to supervise Corsi and Middleton as they illegally shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. He was directing Corsi and Middleton to sabotage Bongardt’s investigation of al Qaeda terrorists, and as of August 24, 2001, he and Corsi were keeping completely secret the fact that both Midhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans, and he even knows that someone is sabotaging Samit’s investigation of Moussaoui.

Samit and his fellow agents were not even allowed to request a search warrant for Moussaoui’s duffle bag until after the second WTC tower was hit by United 175. When they were able to look inside of his duffle bag, they found a receipt for $14,000 from Ramzi bin al-Sheibh from Hamburg, traced this to his phone calls and the al Qaeda paymaster in the UAE and then connected almost all of the al Qaeda terrorists to this phone in matter of days.

No one from the FBI has ever explained any of this. After Samit called Maltbie and Frasca criminals in court in the Moussaoui trial, the FBI said it would make no comment and that Maltbie and Frasca would make no comment to explain any of this. The fact that these FBI HQ managers had sabotaged Samit’s investigation and as a result almost 3000 innocent people in the US were murdered was just something the FBI was never going to explain.

Both Maltbie and Frasca worked in the same FBI unit as Corsi and Middleton, the FBI ITOS unit that had as their Deputy Chief the same Tom Wilshire who was supervising criminal activities of Corsi and Middleton. What appears to be a massive coincidence has never been explained by the FBI or in fact anyone. All of the US government investigations of 9/11 have covered over the crimes by Maltbie, Frasca, Corsi, Middleton and Wilshire to hide the FBI criminal culpability in allowing the attacks on 9/11 and protect the CIA managers Blee, Black, and Tenet who were secretly directing the actions of Wilshire to criminally block FBI criminal investigations of all al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US.

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by paloalto

FBI Agent Harry Samit, the FBI Agent who had arrested Moussaoui, in court under oath, said that Michael Maltbie and David Frasca blocking his attempt to get a search warrant for Moussaoui duffle bag was a crime and that both Maltbie and Frasca were criminals for blocking his investigation..

This is the problem you have when uninformed people cherry pick "facts" to support their POV.

SA Samit wanted to obtain a court order to search. He was told be his supervisors - based on their years of training and experience - that he did not have enough probable cause to obtain a court order. After the fact, SA Samit venting his frustration calling their decision "criminal" is no more pertinent than your teenager calling you the worst parent in the world.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Monday morning is a great time to be a quarterback. Etc...

[paloalto]

Originally Posted by Robrob

This is the problem you have when uninformed people cherry pick "facts" to support their POV.

SA Samit wanted to obtain a court order to search. He was told by his supervisors - based on their years of training and experience - that he did not have enough probable cause to obtain a court order. After the fact, SA Samit venting his frustration calling their decision "criminal" is no more pertinent than your teenager calling you the worst parent in the world.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Monday morning is a great time to be a quarterback. Etc...

Samit could not get a search warrant because Maltbie and Frasca said that although the French intelligence had connected Moussaoui to Khattab and the Khattab terrorist organization, which was closely associated with al Qaeda, the Khattab organization was not a "recognized terrorist organization". Getting a FISA warrant required probable cause that the search warrant target “belonged to or was associated with a foreign terrorist organization”. Maltbie and Frasca stated that they would not even allow Samit to request a search warrant from the OIPR unless Samit had probable cause that Moussaoui was connected to a "recognized foreign terrorist organization".

But both the OIPR and the FISA court stated that they had no concept of a “recognized terrorist organization”, any terrorist organization could be used to get a FISA warrant if the subject was connected to that organization. The term recognized terrorist organization was just an excuse dreamed up by Maltbie and Frasca to illegally deny Samit any chance to request a search warrant from the OIPR. What's even more horrific is that Samit and his FBI criminal investigators were aware of this.

So Maltbie and Frasca arguments were spurious and were only used to illegally deny Samit a search warrant. Maltbie and Frasca had no legal right to prevent Samit from requesting a search warrant from OIPR since he had probable cause that Moussaoui was connected to the Khattab terrorist organization, an organization that was closely associated with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.

These two FBI ITOS managers were clearly aware of this huge al Qaeda attack and knew that every effort should have been used to pursue every lead and yet shut down Samit’s investigation with this illegal reason. The result was that 3000 people were murdered by the al Qaeda terrorists on 9/11. This attack would have been prevented had Maltbie and Frasca not illegally and criminally blocked Samit’s criminal investigation of Moussaoui.

Let me repeat your own statement; “"This is the problem you have when uninformed people cherry pick "facts" to support their POV."

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by paloalto

Let me repeat your own statement; “"This is the problem you have when uninformed people cherry pick "facts" to support their POV."

Yep, SA Samit's supervisors made a decision based on their years of training and experience. In hindsight we wish there had been more probable cause to obtain a court order. Unfortunately in their judgment there wasn't. For all you know, if they had authorized SA Samit to write the search warrant, the judge would have rejected it.

Quote:

So Maltbie and Frasca arguments were spurious and were only used to illegally deny Samit a search warrant.

Out of curiosity, how many search warrants have you written? As I'm sure you probably know, anyone can write a search warrant affidavit. You don't even have to be law enforcement to write one. All you have to do is get a judge to sign it. SA Samit feels guilty he didn't simply walk down to the Federal Building and get a judge to sign his warrant so he blames his supervisors?

Yeah, my comment stand about when uninformed people cherry pick events with 20/20 hindsight.

[paloalto]

Originally Posted by Robrob

Yep, SA Samit's supervisors made a decision based on their years of training and experience. In hindsight we wish there had been more probable cause to obtain a court order. Unfortunately in their judgment there wasn't. For all you know, if they had authorized SA Samit to write the search warrant, the judge would have rejected it.

Out of curiosity, how many search warrants have you written? As I'm sure you probably know, anyone can write a search warrant affidavit. You don't even have to be law enforcement to write one. All you have to do is get a judge to sign it. SA Samit feels guilty he didn't simply walk down to the Federal Building and get a judge to sign his warrant so he blames his supervisors?

Yeah, my comment stand about when uninformed people cherry pick events with 20/20 hindsight.

It was a violation of FBI rules for Samit to directly request a search warrant from the FISA court. First the managers at the FBI RFU had to approve his request before it could even be sent to the OIPR unit of the FBI for approval. It was actually the NSLU under the OIPR that had to approve the request. If they approved it, it went to the FISA court for review. In over 18,500 search warrant requests to the FISA court only 5 had ever been rejected.

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by paloalto

In over 18,500 search warrant requests to the FISA court only 5 had ever been rejected.

Yes, because the affidavits are vetted by the supervisors first.

So essentially your evidence of a crime is the supervisors did their jobs?

You are familiar with the concept of Monday Morning Quarterbacking, right?

[jimd3100]

Quote:

Samit said he was effectively "shut down" by FBI headquarters, and his office was "denied every tool at the division's disposal."

He never made another request for an intelligence warrant and was forbidden from contacting local federal prosecutors for a criminal one.

Samit later told the inspector general he felt the Washington supervisors performed "misconduct of the most serious kind."

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-03-20/j...es/3?_s=PM:LAW

But that's their job right? Samit doesn't know what he's talking about --because we have a jref poster who knows better...

Originally Posted by Robrob

So essentially your evidence of a crime is the supervisors did their jobs?

So their job is to bother the head of the CIA with a briefing on every warrant they refuse to grant no matter how often the agent begs for it?

Quote:

Tenet was briefed about Moussaoui after Moussaoui was arrested because his behavior at a Minnesota flight school was suspicious. The title of the briefing: "Islamic Extremist or Islamic Fundamentalist Learns to Fly."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111301007.html

You're probably missing some real good TV....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR3KwODDzeY

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by jimd3100

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-03-20/j...es/3?_s=PM:LAW

But that's their job right? Samit doesn't know what he's talking about --because we have a jref poster who knows better...

Have you ever disagreed with your boss? Samit felt he had PC, his supervisor didn't. Interesting Samit never made another request or tried to develop more PC. I asked you before, how many years do you think Samit had been an agent? How many years do you think his supervisor had been one?

From your own link: "Samit said Maltbie preferred to deport Moussaoui to France, where he could be searched more freely."

Sounds like his supervisor was trying to accomplish the same thing, just not the way Samit wanted it.

Quote:

So their job is to bother the head of the CIA with a briefing on every warrant they refuse to grant no matter how often the agent begs for it?

Their job would be to brief the CIA about a credible threat, yes. You do understand the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, right? Just because they did not have enough PC to get into that bag does not mean there weren't concerns. Out of curiosity, do you actually have a background in law enforcement or are you just a hobbyist?

Quote:

You're probably missing some real good TV....

See, that's where you kind of ceased discussing the subject and turned into a conspiracy theorist.

Let's get this back on track. Yes, Samit was correct in his suspicions. Unfortunately, his superiors did not think he had enough PC for a warrant. Samit's job was to write the best affidavit he could. His supervisor's job was to decide if it was enough. The decision not to go forward was a legal call they had to make, separate from the accuracy (or not) of Samit's belief. Even if Samit had obtained a warrant, there is no telling if the search results would have had any effect or not on the events of 911.

From another point of view, one could blame Samit for not doing a good enough investigation in the first place. I don't think that for a minute but it's the same kind of spin.

"As a certified private pilot himself, Samit was suspicious, suspecting that Moussaoui was plotting an act of international terrorism against the United States. He therefore sought permission to search Moussaoui's belongings which were known to include several bags and suitcases, and a laptop computer. The first application to obtain a criminal search warrant was denied by FBI Headquarters on the ground of insufficient evidence. A second application to search was made under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, but this was also denied. The FBI did obtain a search warrant for the belongings, but only after the September 11th attacks. The Minneapolis Field Office had received a report from Moussaoui's home government of France that linked him to Islamic terrorism, but the FBI Headquarters in Washington did not believe that evidence was sufficient to present to the FISA court for a search warrant. On the question of using foreign government intelligence to validate a request for a domestic search warrant through the FISA court, it is unclear if the Field Office could have appealed administratively to the White House National Security Council. Had the belongings been opened before September 11, knives, flight manuals, and other clues would have been found. Whether these clues would have sparked a national emergency or simply been treated like the August 6 memo entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US is subject to debate."

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by paloalto

I In over 18,500 search warrant requests to the FISA court only 5 had ever been rejected.

But hundreds have been modified before being granted. And I think these numbers are a bit dated.

[paloalto]

Originally Posted by Robrob

Have you ever disagreed with your boss? Samit felt he had PC, his supervisor didn't. Interesting Samit never made another request or tried to develop more PC. I asked you before, how many years do you think Samit had been an agent? How many years do you think his supervisor had been one?

From your own link: "Samit said Maltbie preferred to deport Moussaoui to France, where he could be searched more freely."

Sounds like his supervisor was trying to accomplish the same thing, just not the way Samit wanted it.



Their job would be to brief the CIA about a credible threat, yes. You do understand the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, right? Just because they did not have enough PC to get into that bag does not mean there weren't concerns. Out of curiosity, do you actually have a background in law enforcement or are you just a hobbyist?



See, that's where you kind of ceased discussing the subject and turned into a conspiracy theorist.

Let's get this back on track. Yes, Samit was correct in his suspicions. Unfortunately, his superiors did not think he had enough PC for a warrant. Samit's job was to write the best affidavit he could. His supervisor's job was to decide if it was enough. The decision not to go forward was a legal call they had to make, separate from the accuracy (or not) of Samit's belief. Even if Samit had obtained a warrant, there is no telling if the search results would have had any effect or not on the events of 911.

From another point of view, one could blame Samit for not doing a good enough investigation in the first place. I don't think that for a minute but it's the same kind of spin.

"As a certified private pilot himself, Samit was suspicious, suspecting that Moussaoui was plotting an act of international terrorism against the United States. He therefore sought permission to search Moussaoui's belongings which were known to include several bags and suitcases, and a laptop computer. The first application to obtain a criminal search warrant was denied by FBI Headquarters on the ground of insufficient evidence. A second application to search was made under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, but this was also denied. The FBI did obtain a search warrant for the belongings, but only after the September 11th attacks. The Minneapolis Field Office had received a report from Moussaoui's home government of France that linked him to Islamic terrorism, but the FBI Headquarters in Washington did not believe that evidence was sufficient to present to the FISA court for a search warrant. On the question of using foreign government intelligence to validate a request for a domestic search warrant through the FISA court, it is unclear if the Field Office could have appealed administratively to the White House National Security Council. Had the belongings been opened before September 11, knives, flight manuals, and other clues would have been found. Whether these clues would have sparked a national emergency or simply been treated like the August 6 memo entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US is subject to debate."

Whoever wrote the Wikipedia piece you posted about searching Moussaoui’s duffel bag deliberately was trying to be deceptive, but that is also exactly what the DOJ IG did in his DOJ IG report. The DOJ IG stated that not getting a search warrant for Moussaoui’s duffle bag did not make any difference because there were no plans or other information that could have allowed the Minneapolis agents to uncover the plans for the attack on 9/11.

But Samit testified at the trail of Zacarias Moussaoui that once he obtained a search warrant for Moussaoui's duffle bag he found the receipt for $14,000 from Ramzi bin al-Sheibh, traced that to his phone in Germany and then from phone records to the UAE paymaster and then to most of the terrorists who took part in the attacks on 9/11.

But the Wikipedia piece left out this horrific detail. But anyone who has followed this case knew this information, so why did you post a deliberately deceptive account of what was found in Moussaoui’s duffel bag, when it was the contents of Moussaoui’s duffel bag that broke the case wide open, unfortunately after the attacks on 9/11 had taken place and almost 3000 people murdered?

It turns out in terrorism cases, very little information will be known about the target especially since most of the time they were overseas. But from a common sense point of view Samit had more than enough probable cause to get a search warrant for Moussaoui’s duffle bag. No has explained when the RFU mangers blocked Samit’s search warrant, and they already knew that a huge al Qaeda attack was coming, knew that Moussaoui was thought to be a terrorist trying to get training on a B747 without even a pilot’s license, and had large amounts of money in his bank account he refused to explain where it came from, why they did this?

Even his flight trainers thought Moussaoui was a terrorist trying to get training on a B747 in order to carry out some terrorists attack. When they blocked Samit’s search warrant they had to know that the result could be that thousands of Americans would be murdered by the other terrorists who were still left in place after Moussaoui’s arrest. NOBODY COULD BE THAT STUPID!

These managers at the RFU were supervised by Tom Wilshire, a former CIA officer and CIA plant at the FBI whose job initially was to spy on the FBI Cole bombing investigators and find out what they knew about the Kuala Lumpur meeting and then in July 2001, his job changed to criminally obstruct the FBI Cole bombing investigation and make sure the Kuala Lumpur information never reached Bongardt and his team. Once Bongardt found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, Wilshire supervised FBI Agent Dina Corsi and her supervisor Rod Middleton to criminally and illegally shut down Bongardt's investigation, even when Wilshire knew the result would be blocking the one investigation that could have prevented the attacks that he and his managers knew were just about to take place inside of the US and result in the murder of thousands of Americans.

One wonders what influence he had over the decision of Maltbie and Frasca to block Samit’s investigation of Moussaoui. This is especially true in light of Maltbie’s bizarre August 24, 2001 email to Wilshire, that stated there was no evidence of any nefarious motives by Moussaoui, during a time when Samit was going ballistic trying to get a search warrant in order to prevent any potential terrorist attack, and when there was a monumental amount of evidence to the contrary, an email that even today makes no sense and that no one has ever explained.

[paloalto]

Originally Posted by paloalto

Whoever wrote the Wikipedia piece you posted about searching Moussaoui’s duffel bag deliberately was trying to be deceptive, but that is also exactly what the DOJ IG did in his DOJ IG report. The DOJ IG stated that not getting a search warrant for Moussaoui’s duffle bag did not make any difference because there were no plans or other information that could have allowed the Minneapolis agents to uncover the plans for the attack on 9/11.

But Samit testified at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui that once he obtained a search warrant for Moussaoui's duffle bag he found the receipt for $14,000 from Ramzi bin al-Sheibh, traced that to his phone in Germany and then from phone records to the UAE paymaster and then to most of the terrorists who took part in the attacks on 9/11.

But the Wikipedia piece left out this horrific detail. But anyone who has followed this case knew this information, so why did you post a deliberately deceptive account of what was found in Moussaoui’s duffel bag, when it was the contents of Moussaoui’s duffel bag that broke the case wide open, unfortunately, after the attacks on 9/11 had taken place and almost 3000 people murdered?

It turns out in terrorism cases, very little information will be known about the target especially since most of the time they were overseas. But from a common sense point of view Samit had more than enough probable cause to get a search warrant for Moussaoui’s duffle bag. No has explained when the RFU mangers blocked Samit’s search warrant, and they already knew that a huge al Qaeda attack was coming, knew that Moussaoui was thought to be a terrorist trying to get training on a B747 without even a pilot’s license, and had large amounts of money in his bank account he refused to explain where it came from, why they did this?

Even his flight trainers thought Moussaoui was a terrorist trying to get training on a B747 in order to carry out some terrorists attack. When they blocked Samit’s search warrant they had to know that the result could be that thousands of Americans would be murdered by the other terrorists who were still left in place after Moussaoui’s arrest. NOBODY COULD BE THAT STUPID!

These managers at the RFU were supervised by Tom Wilshire, a former CIA officer and CIA plant at the FBI whose job initially was to spy on the FBI Cole bombing investigators and find out what they knew about the Kuala Lumpur meeting and then in July 2001, his job changed to criminally obstruct the FBI Cole bombing investigation and make sure the Kuala Lumpur information never reached Bongardt and his team. Once Bongardt found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, Wilshire supervised FBI Agent Dina Corsi and her supervisor Rod Middleton to criminally and illegally shut down Bongardt's investigation, even when Wilshire knew the result would be blocking the one investigation that could have prevented the attacks that he and his managers knew were just about to take place inside of the US and result in the murder of thousands of Americans.

One wonders what influence he had over the decision of Maltbie and Frasca to block Samit’s investigation of Moussaoui. This is especially true in light of Maltbie’s bizarre August 24, 2001 email to Wilshire, that stated there was no evidence of any nefarious motives by Moussaoui, during a time when Samit was going ballistic trying to get a search warrant in order to prevent any potential terrorist attack, and when there was a monumental amount of evidence to the contrary, an email that even today makes no sense and that no one has ever explained.

Of course all of this leaves out the giant elephant in the room. The FBI HQ and the CIA knew a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US in August 2001. The recent documents at http://news.intelwire.com/2012/05/ex...ts-on-911.html reconfirm that the CIA and FBI HQ and many other high level US officials US knew this threat was imminent and real.

So why did the management of the FBI HQ and the CIA allow the Samit's Moussaoui investigation to be blocked and Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi to be completely shut down when the FBI HQ management and the CIA management knew that sabotaging these investigations would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks the FBI HQ and the CIA had been warned about and knew would kill thousands of Americans.

So the comment that "Yep, SA Samit's supervisors made a decision based on their years of training and experience. In hindsight we wish there had been more probable cause to obtain a court order. Unfortunately in their judgment there wasn't." overlooks the obvious question if the FBI HQ knew about this massive al Qaeda attack, and the CIA and even high level White House officials knew about this attack, why did the let these FBI criminal investigations of any and all al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US to be either blocked or shut down, when they knew it would result in the murder of thousands of Americans? The FBI HQ knew this because it was their own FBI HQ agents either blocking the Moussaoui’s investigation or shutting down the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. The CIA knew this because Tenet had admitted he knew about the Moussaoui investigation and the issues Samit was having trying to convince FBI HQ to let him have a search warrant. And it was the CIA's own spy inside of the FBI, Tom Wilshire, who was secretly working for his CIA managers Blee, Black, and Tenet while ostensibly working as the Deputy Chief of the ITOS unit over both the RFU with Maltbie and Frasca and the bin Laden unit with Corsi and Middleton, that was shutting down the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

To date no one has answered this very simple question.

[paloalto]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Perfect 20/20 hindsight. Well done.

That is why the US taxpayer spent 44 billion a year, to get foresight.

Explain why when the CIA and FBI knew a huge al Qaeda attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans they shut down all FBI criminal investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found to be inside of the US. Explain why in 19 months and 44 Billion dollars a year the CIA and later the FBI HQ were somehow unable to give the information on the Mihdhar and Hazmi to the FBI Cole bombing investigators and allow them to pursue these al Qaeda terrorists known to be in the US so they could take part in a massive al Qaeda attack. What would just a simple email have cost, to have alerted FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and allow him to undertake the very investigation he had wanted to undertake for Mihdhar and Hazmi. What did we get for our 44 billion dollars spent each year on intelligence?

It looks like we got criminal obstruction of FBI criminal investigations and finally the murder of almost 3000 people on 9/11. It looks like the 44 billion dollars actually in fact was used to criminally obstruct FBI criminal investigations to allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11, and this information incredibly now comes from US government reports on the official investigations of the attacks on 9/11. This is what the US government is actually now saying!

[kmortis]

Keep it on topic. Keep it civil. The topic is not the other posters.

Posted By:kmortis

[Robrob]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/aba0435l.jpg

Edited by LashL:

Changed hotlink to regular link. Please see Rule 5.