Jamie Gorelick; 9-11 Commission; Mohammed Atta; Able Danger

The blogosphere has begun to document thoroughly the revelations that Mohammed Atta had been identified more than one year prior to 9-11 and that this information was kept out of the hands of the FBI by the Jamie Gorelick memo. Captain's Quarters summarizes here and here. TKS summarizes here. TKS provides advice for those looking to break through the MSM/DNC wall of silence and misinformation:

(An aside: Can we please avoid giving this story some excessively cute suffix-gate nickname? Every time some over-eager blogger or talking head does that, the rest of the country rolls their eyes. This thing is too serious for our usual bad habits. Let's just call it "the Able Danger revelations" and leave it at that.)

emphasis added

I think it has been established at this point that the 911 commission is a partisan disgrace. Its main task has been to rewrite history and protect the Clinton administration, thereby preventing an understanding of 9-11 that might avoid the next attack. They don't understand (or don't care) that lives are at stake.

In order to set history straight, we should give Jamie Gorelick her proper association with the events she helped bring about.



These photos belong together in history as surely as Neville Chamberlain's photo has been weighed down with the images of Nazi aggression.
Here is a rhetorical question.
What is worse:
-the Gorelick Wall that protected Atta as he planned his murderous attacks?
-the activities of MSM/DNC, Richard Clarke etc. in trying to blame the attacks on Bush?
-Gorelick's role on the 9/11 commission despite her conflict of interest?
-the Commission's failure to report the Able Danger documents so that it could preserve its mission to whitewash the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history?

It doesn't matter at this point which disgrace is worse. It only matters that we look at the photos, remember the dead, and rid our government of those who treat 9/11 like just another political game.