RUSH: All right, here’s the latest on Able Danger ( news | story ). “The chairman of the September 11th Commission,” this will be Tom Kean, “called on the Pentagon…” Did I not predict this? I told you that by the time all this settled in, they were going to start blaming a building. “The chairman of the September 11th Commission called on the Pentagon yesterday to move quickly to evaluate the credibility of military officers who have said that a highly classified intelligence program managed to identify Mohamed Atta in the year before the 2001 attacks. Tom Kean, former Republican governor of New Jersey, offered no judgment about the accuracy of the officer’s accounts but he said in an interview that if the accounts were true and suggested that detailed information about the intelligence program, Able Danger, was withheld from the commission.” It was not withheld. It was presented twice. They weren’t interested in it. They had their agenda. It was like news people: they go out and do a story; the story’s already written, then they go out and interview people and cover things to fit the story as written. The 9/11 Commission had its agenda, and this thing came along. This Able Danger came along, “Oh (grumbling) doesn’t fit the agenda, and we can’t use this business about Atta. What do you mean he met with the Iraqi security chief in Prague? Why, why, we have his cell phone records and he was on a cell phone in the United States the very day before and after he was in Prague.”
Well maybe he didn’t take his cell phone to Prague because it wouldn’t work there and maybe somebody else was using his cell phone in his cell at the flight school in Florida! Wouldn’t that be worth looking into? But to just discount the factual: “The cell phone was used in Florida. Obviously he had to be there.” They didn’t want any part of this. The CIA didn’t want any part of that, either. The CIA didn’t want any part of this accuracy of Atta meeting with the Iraqi and Prague and the <a target=new href=”http://www.czech.cz/”>Czech Republic</a>, because they blew that, they missed it. Everybody was in the CYA mode here. The purpose of this commission was twofold. 1) To dump it as much on Bush as possible. Take a look, take a look at the makeup of the commission, will you? Richard Ben-Veniste. Watergate? What else did Ben-Veniste do? Watergate and what else? Whitewater, yeah. He was right there defending the Clintons and Whitewater. He’s the Democrats go-to guy when you’re either going to nail a Republican or circle the wagons around a Democrat — and also on that committee, Jamie Gorelick, architect of the wall. You know why she was there. She was there to protect that aspect of whatever the investigation might find because you know they’re not going to dump on a commission member, and the Democrats in the House got to choose the Democrat members on the committee. Look at the Republicans on the committee. John Lehman. Nice guy, secretary of the Navy, but he’s not a Ben-Veniste, and he’s not a Jamie Gorelick. I hate to… Slade Gorton. A moderate Republican from the state of Washington. I can’t remember any of the others. I don’t want to know. The point is I can’t remember who they are. They were nondescript. They were nondescript. So we know that one purpose of the commission was to dump as much of this on Bush as possible, and how can we not be more curious now about Sandy Burglar?
Sandy Burglar (Trousergate) going into the National Archives not just taking stuff out, but what did he put back when he we want back in and not just once but twice while preparing for his testimony, and he’s right there. He’s the national security advisor, folks. He would be in the loop. He’d be in the chain if somebody knew of Able Danger, and there are people out there now saying that Able Danger was known by Clinton and known by the White House. There who are people saying, “Of course it was known. It would have been impossible for it not to get to Clinton. He didn’t meet with the CIA guy, but he did get a presidential daily brief every day. It would be absurd to think that he didn’t know. The absurdity would be to think that he didn’t.” Yeah, that would be the absurdity. It would make more sense to think he had to know. He’s the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief — and he certainly knows that Osama bin Laden was offered by the Sudanese, and Madeleine Albright said, “Yeah, we thought he’d be less danger in Afghanistan.” Why did you think that? Afghanistan doesn’t even have a government! He could go in there, get together with the Taliban and turn it into what it became: a terrorist training camp. It wasn’t that in the Sudan. “Weeell, (grumbling).” You were fighting it on grand jury grounds, on legal grounds. “Oh, we didn’t have any evidence to hold him.” Well, we had all this Able Danger stuff. We had enough information out there to there to be some curiosity.
2) The second phase of this commission — and I’m convinced of this, the second phase of this commission — the Democrats have two phases, two purposes, and one phase is to make sure that they dump as much of this on Bush as possible during an election year to hopefully defeat him. The other purpose of a “blue-ribbon panel” is to insulate the whole Washington political class, the elites in the political class from taking a hit on this, and so now they’re blaming it on a building. “In a statement last week, Kean and the vice-chairman of the commission, Lee Hamilton, said that Able Danger, a computerized data mining operation run from within the defense department’s Special Operations Command, quote, ‘did not turn out to be historically significant, set against the larger context of US policy and intelligence efforts.'” That’s what they said last week. “But Kean suggested yesterday that the statement would need to be revised if information from officers in Able Danger proved to be true.” Man, they’re running for the tall grass. They’re changing their stories every day. Let’s go the audiotape from this morning. Fox and Friends: the guest, US Air Force retired lieutenant colonel and senior military aide to President Clinton, Buzz Patterson. Now, Buzz Patterson, we must admit is the closest thing we’ve got besides Dick Morris to a whistle-blower in the Clinton White House. He’s the author of <a target=new href=”http://service.bfast.com/bfast/click?bfmid=2181&sourceid=38461944&bfpid=0895260603&bfmtype=book”>Dereliction of Duty</a>. Brian Kilmeade asked him, “Colonel, as we talk more about what went wrong leading up to the nineties, in the nineties to by him is it correct to say that the administration took its eye off the ball or realized that this threat was real but just not important enough to make a priority?”
PATTERSON: Yeah, I think, Brian, if you look at the fact that there were eight separate terrorist attacks under President Clinton’s watch in the 1990s and I can attest personally that my time at the Clinton White House in ’96, they were very well aware of bin Laden — and also they were well aware of it possibility that Al-Qaeda might use commercial airliners as a weapon.
RUSH: You know, I keep hearkening back to Tuesday when Clinton puts this story out (impression), “Hey, you know, I took bin Laden far more seriously than Bush did. If I’d a known — if I’d a known — what Bush knew about bin Laden I’d have fired everything we’ve got into Iraq. I’da been into Afghanistan. It may not have mattered to 9/11 but it might have made some difference,” and, lo and behold, the next day we get the news that he couldn’t have been lying more than when he spoke on Tuesday. Took bin Laden more seriously? How does he say that anyway? Because he’s Bill Clinton and he’s a sociopath, and he’s pathological. He’s one of these guys that lies and believes the lies that he says — and so whatever he says, he thinks in his mind it’s the truth. Another question to Buzz Patterson by Kelly Wright, Fox and Friends: “You talked about the fact that there were so many missed opportunities to get bin Laden. President Clinton, his entire staff may have known about these attacks or these plots. So what was the problem? Were they treating it as a law enforcement issue? Were they on a war footing against the terrorism issue? What was it?”
PATTERSON: That’s a great point. It was always treated as a law enforcement issue. Even as the threat grew and grew, I think President Clinton really failed to grasp the growing threat, number one. When he treated it, he treated it as a law enforcement issue, number two. I think it’s also important to point out the fact that President Clinton met privately with Monica Lewinsky many more times than he met with his CIA director or his FBI director. In fact I don’t think he ever met with James Woolsey —
PATTERSON: — privately a single time.
RUSH: And only twice with George Tenet. He’s right here. Patterson is right. He had more private meetings with Monica Lewinsky. He had more cigars with Monica than he had with these guys. But it’s what we’ve been saying all along: The Clinton administration treated this as a law enforcement issue and that’s why the wall was constructed. When you treat it as a law enforcement issue, whatever is learned goes to a grand jury where it gets wrapped up. It is secret, and nobody is entitled to know what it is. So whatever one agency learns goes to the grand jury before it goes to another agency. The FBI learns something, it goes to the grand jury before the CIA can get it, and they can’t “connect the dots.” It’s because of the Gorelick wall and that’s how Clinton was choosing to fight this — and we all know that there were other reasons for this wall other than to prevent information being passed from the FBI to the CIA and the DIA and other intelligence agencies. There was another reason. I don’t know what it was. We can all guess, but I mean, you don’t create this wall because you think it’s a great idea — unless you think it’s a great idea for something you don’t want, once it gets in the grand jury to ever get out of there. One more from Patterson. This is Brian Kilmeade again with the question. “Colonel Patterson, what do you think Sandy Berger stuffed in his socks or his pants, his shirt, whatever. He really escaped without any jail time for some reason, what do you think he was worried about?”
PATTERSON: Obviously incriminating documents that point the finger at what the Clinton inner administration —
KILMEADE: What documents?
PATTERSON: Well, I guess the speculation has been number one millennium plot — the 2000 millennium plot — but we don’t know because those documents were destroyed by Sandy Berger. I mean again I think the commission really failed to grasp, the 9/11 Commission really failed to grasp, just when they knew that the situation and the possible threat and Berger was complicit along with Richard Clarke and President Clinton.
RUSH: They didn’t “fail” anything! They succeeded. Ben-Veniste succeeded! Tim Roemer succeeded! Jamie Gorelick succeeded! That’s the whole point. They didn’t fail at anything. Their job was to keep this away from the Clinton administration. Their job was to try to steer this as close to Bush as they could. Hello, Richard Clarke, for example. Remember the delicious detail? Remember the deal-making going on between Ben-Veniste and Roemer over who was going to get to interview Condoleezza Rice about that August 6th presidential daily briefing? Ooooooh, they were rubbing their hands together! They were salivating. They just knew that they were going to destroy Condoleezza Rice and at the same time destroy George W. Bush, and they failed because once again they’re on a mission that was predominantly a lie. But let’s go back. Let’s turn back the hands of time. September 3rd, 2002, Larry King Alive, the guest is former President Clinton and former Senator Bob Dole, and King says to Clinton, “You remember what you were thinking, Mr. President? What would go through the mind of the immediate former president watching this?” He’s talking about 9/11 and bin Laden.
CLINTON: I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, “My God, a second plane has hit the tower,” and I said, “Bin Laden did this.” That’s the first thing I said. He said, “How can you be sure?” I said, “Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this, and they wouldn’t do it because they have a country and targets. Bin Laden did.”
KING: Did you also think at the same time, “We came pretty close to getting him”?
CLINTON: Yeah. I thought that my virtual obsession with him —
RUSH: Oh-oh-hoo! (Laughing.)
CLINTON: — was well-faced and I was full of regret that I didn’t get him. I mean, I immediately thought that he’d done it.
RUSH: (Laughing.) He’s sick! (slapping desk) He is sick! (Laughing.) (Impression) “Oh, yeah, yeah, I thought my virtual obsession with him was well-faced.” (Laughing.) Can we go back to cut 12 here and listen to Buzz Patterson who was senior military aide to President Clinton, author of Dereliction of Duty? “Colonel, we talk more about what went wrong leading up in the nineties to bin Laden. Is it correct to say the administration took its eye off the ball or realized this is not really a real threat?”
PATTERSON: Yeah. I think, Brian, if you look at the fact that there were eight separate terrorist attacks under President Clinton’s watch in the 1990s and I could attest personally that my time at the Clinton White House in ’96, they were very well aware of bin Laden — and also they were well aware of it possibility that Al-Qaeda might use commercial airliners as a weapon.
RUSH: (Clinton impression) “I knew it was bin Laden. I knew it. I tell you what, I thought my virtual obsession with him was well faced, and I fully regret that I didn’t get him. I immediately thought he had done it. I never worked harder in my life to get bin Laden, and I cared about him more than George Bush ever did. I knew he was a bigger threat than George Bush ever did.” (chuckles) It’s stuff like this, folks (chuckles), that makes you live to do this again another day.