@okie,
okie wrote:
revel wrote:
Here we go again with that famous "wall" thing. The guidelines of the memo from Gorlick were only applied to the internal justice department and not sent to any other agency. Moreover the guidelines were already in place before she sent the memo. (I guess they felt the need to reenforce the guidelines) The 9/11 commission was not in any way compromised by Jamie Gorelick's memo except in the fevered imaginations with people such as yourself.
media matters debunked this myth with supporting links
Quote:As Media Matters has noted, even Ashcroft acknowledged that it was actually a "culture" that developed from the memo, not the memo itself, that severely restrained intelligence sharing.
revel, I do not take any analysis by Media Matters seriously. It is clearly a liberal organization with an agenda.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150
The
National Review is clearly a Conservative organization as an agenda. Yet you quote them as an authoritative source. They are no more so than media matters. Levin in particular is a pundit, not a reporter, not a factual writer. He deals in opinion. So linking to his characterization of Ashcroft's testimony, as if it some sort of positive evidence about Clinton or anyone, is foolish. Media matters at least provides supporting links to document their claims; your source does not.
Your above link, Discover the Connections, is run by FrontPageMag, a notorious Republican smear site with a penchant for fabricating smears and making up outright lies. The fact that you consider them to be an authoritative or truthful source for
anything is ludicrous.
You might be tempted to say, 'Oh Cyclo, you just don't like them b/c they are Conservative, obviously'; but that's a ridiculous argument as well, for there is no objective difference between the right and left wing when it comes to trustworthiness. Both sides have people who fabricate information and make false arguments. You haven't shown a single thing that Media Matters has claimed which was false; you've just asserted they were, and backed your assertion with a link to a website as questionable as the one you criticized.
Do you honestly not see the irony, or the hypocrisy, in your posts? I find it somewhat hard to believe.
Cycloptichorn