911 Commission Democratic Scam Exposed

As I blogged last year, so it seems to be happening now. Last year I posited that the Clinton Administration had the 'fix' in on the 911 Commission from the beginning. My observations led me to believe that Slick Willie and his harpy wife scammed and threatened everyone and their brother in order to stack the commission in their favor. With the new revelations coming from the DOD's Able Danger intelligence group, the fascade has been torn for all those who wish to see - the truth is imminent:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165594,00.html

The Clinton Administration worked very hard through their operatives on the Commission, Gorelick and Ben Veniste, and their behind the scenes 'Bergler' - Ole Underpants Stuffer Sandy Berger, to squelch any idea that the US was aware of the 911 murderers before Bush was elected. The Able Danger information confirms that the US military was aware of Mohammed Atta in 1998, and that Atta was planning a major US attack. Combined with the ignored evidence of Atta's visit with Iraqi Intelligence in 1999, the Clinton scam begins to unravel.

As I suspected from the beginning, and the Able Danger information begins to prove, the Clinton Administration was well-aware of the danger posed by Atta and his cronies well before the 911 attacks. They were also well-aware of the potential involvement of Saddam Hussein's Iraq in supporting and funding these terrorists. But due to Democrats desire to attack the President and deflect blame from themselves and their poster boy Clinton, a clever but short-sighted scam emerged.

It seems obvious to me that ALL of President Bush's reasons for attacking Iraq have been validated to a level that gave W no choice. Plenty of evidence of WMD production has been found, despite Democrat 'head in the sand' reactions of 'No WMDs!!'. Very suspicious connections between the 911 murderers and Saddam Hussein's Iraq - not to mentoin the Al Queda TRAINING CAMP by Mosul - have virtually proved that Saddam was involved in this attack on the US in one way or another. The fact that Saddam's Intelligence Service was trained by the KGB also leads me to believe this - the KGB pioneered the idea of using terrorists as cut-outs to attack Soviet enemies.

But Clinton's 911 Commission scam was clever: Jamie Gorelick was installed on the Commission to defend the Democrats against obvious abdication of responsibility and dereliction of duty. Gorelick herself should have spent the entire time in the witness chair rather than on the Commission, explaining to the American people why the Clinton Administration policy that she authored - no coordination between military and civil intelligence with regard to terrorism - was put in place. Democrats avoided having to explain why their 'terrorists as criminals' and 'politically correct treatment of murderers' mindset was a primary cause for the 911 intelligence failure. Gorelick managed the Commission from inside, carefully misdirecting the investigation any time it got too close to the truth - Democrats virtually invited the 911 attacks through their ignorance and personal agendas.

The second part of the Clinton 911 Scam involved ensuring that the Bush Administration would be the target for as much blame as possible. This is where Richard Ben Vineste came in. Ben Veniste is an old cohort of Hillary "Taking From You for the Common Good" Clinton, and was installed on the Commission to be the attack dog. If anyone watched Ben Vineste ask a question of a Bush Administration staffer, I won't have to explain the strategy. Standard partisan-press tactics - make a damning speech for 30 minutes; ask a rhetorical question and then answer it yourself; spew misleading and unsubstantiated rumor; and make personal attacks in hopes to make the questionee look defensive. I have no idea where Republicans were during the drafting of the Commission participants, but the fact that they would allow a liberal, slimey lawyer on the Commission is, in my view, futher evidence of the behind-the-scenes power playing of the Clinton and Democratic operatives.

I loved Condi Rice's reaction to Ben Veniste's questioning; "Would you please let ME answer one of the questions you're asking me?"

The other large part of the conspiracy was Sandy Berger's role in managing the Clinton Administration evidence being requested by the Commission. Berger was tasked to hide any incriminating evidence of malfeasance and idiocy on the part of the Democrats and Clinton. NO ONE believes that Sandy 'Bergler' MISTAKENLY stuffed documents into his pants, socks, brief case, pockets, etc. Please! Sandy was caught in a flagrant violation of security laws, as a former National Security Advisor there is NO WAY he can float a 'sorry, I made a mistake' defense.

But that's exactly what he did. The fact that he's gotten off with just a wrist slap only confirms my suspicions that Berger was acting on orders from Clinton and his traitorous Democrat politicos.

The bottom line is that Clinton and the Democrats put the fix in on the Commission from the beginning. In order to protect their hides and inflict as much damage on Bush as possible, it MUST be a Commission finding that Atta and the rest only came up on the intelligence radar AFTER the Bush Administration took over. All contrary evidence had to be hidden, discredited, or minimized. All evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 911 plot had to be squelched so that Democrats could portray Bush as a warmonger, instead of the deliberate, pro-American man he is.

The 911 attacks impacted an even deeper fundamental difference between modern Democrats and the rest of the country. Eight years of modern liberal leadership, for the first time in history in the US, resulted in a weakening of American might and security around the world. For the first time in US history terrorists felt secure in attacking the US - it started with US embassies, the USS Cole, and the '93 World Trade Center bombings. The half-assed reaction from the Clinton Administration only encouraged the terrorists to keep it up and even plan bigger murders.

I've said it from 9/12/01 onward - the 9/11 attacks were the fault of liberal and Democrat dogma pervading our foreign policy in the State Dept., intelligence organs, and politicians. The liberal and Democrat (pretty much the same thing these days) view of a global society requires that the US be humbled and stripped of any will or power to enforce freedom, human rights, economic fairness, and anti-terrorist/tyrant protection around the world.

Liberal/Democrat goals of world socialism, with Libs firmly in charge of course, are the reason that the UN is the center of corruption and scandal that it is, the reason that terrorists are emboldened, the reason that tyrants firmly hold on to their power, and the reason that millions of poor around the world starve. Liberals fall in to every terrorist trap due to their tenuous hold on reality and their ignorance of human nature. Liberals and Democrats only goal in life is power, over everyone and everything, and they'll do anything to get it and keep it.

Obviously, that includes allowing 3000 Americans to die on 9/11/01. But it also includes letting entire countries continue to suffer under tyrants (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc.), letting entire peoples be exploited and killed (Sudan, Zimbabwe, China, etc.), and keeping all Americans in the dark about the true nature of the terrorist threat against us.

But the truth will aways come out in the end. If anyone still wonders why Democrats continue to lose election after election, I believe it's because more and more Americans see the bankruptcy and ignorance of their liberal positions. Increasing Democrat and liberal desperation to maintain power and advance their socialist agenda would be comical if it didn't involve placing so many Americans at risk at home, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the world. But terrorists know that their future is ensured by only one political party, one ideology, in the western world - Democrats and liberals.

I have a t-shirt that I bought during the last Presidential election: "10 out of 10 Terrorists Agree - ANYBODY but Bush". Another clue was Usama Bin Laden's cryptic but obvious endorsement of Kerry in the last election.

How much do you want to bet that the terrorist vote will go to Hillary in the next election? They owe her already for her part in making their lives easier due to the Democratic derailment of the 911 Commission.

Adios MF,

Doug