TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1756 times:
WASHINGTON - A Pentagon employee was ordered to destroy documents that identified Mohamed Atta as a terrorist two years before the 2001 attacks, a congressman said Thursday.
The employee is prepared to testify next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee and was expected to identify the person who ordered him to destroy the large volume of documents, said Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa.
Weldon declined to identify the employee, citing confidentiality matters. Weldon described the documents as “2.5 terabytes” — as much as one-fourth of all the printed materials in the Library of Congress, he added.
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1728 times:
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3): Nah, he didn't burn anything. Send in Nixon's crew of "plumbers" to do the job. That's historically how the GOP does it anyway.
You're making an assumption that this Pentagon employee is a Republican trying to protect the GOP. I think that the limited facts would support the exact opposite conclusion. If the memo relate to info that was available 2 years before the Sept 2001 attacks, the Pentagon and the White House were under different management.
It might be very beneficial for the GOP to show what was known during the Clinton presidency. In fact the requesting Member of Congress is a Republican so I don't think that the info would be damaging to the GOP. Before rushing to conclusions think about what you write instead of just trying to make everything you read related to the vast right wing conspiracy you believe exists.
ME AVN FAN From Algeria, joined May 2002, 13937 posts, RR: 23
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1684 times:
Quoting Cornish (Reply 1): Hmm why would a "suicide" or "tragic accident" in the next few days not surprise me...
because the USA keeps up that medieval "tradition" that witness-statements even when confirmed by witnesses only is "valid" when the "original witness" can appear in front of the relevant tribunal, thereby giving the opponents ample time to terminate the "validity" of that witness