Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Democrats blast Mukasey for 9/11 call remarks

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 07:57 AM
Original message
Democrats blast Mukasey for 9/11 call remarks
Source: SFGate

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Washington -- Attorney General Michael Mukasey's assertion that an unmonitored terrorist phone call before the Sept. 11 attacks showed the need for more government wiretapping authority drew a scathing retort Monday from Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, who accused him of rewriting history and ducking questions.

In a March 27 appearance before the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Mukasey said the 2001 terrorist attacks could have been prevented if the government had been able to determine the destination of a call from a known safe house in Afghanistan to the United States.

In a written response to questions from Judiciary Committee leaders, who said such a phone call had never come up in post-Sept. 11 investigations, Mukasey said Thursday that the call hadn't come from Afghanistan, but from another nation he declined to name. But he said the incident still showed that Congress was interfering with efforts to monitor terrorist communications, with catastrophic results.

On Monday, committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., and two Democratic colleagues issued a statement saying they wanted "answers, not public relations spin."

In an accompanying letter to Mukasey, they said the phone call he now appears to be describing was reviewed in 2003 by congressional intelligence committees, which found that the National Security Agency had intercepted the message but failed to relay it to other intelligence agencies.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/14/BAD7105C5F.DTL&feed=rss.crime
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. What's the big kerfuffle?
So Mukasey made a factually inaccurate, politically wrong statement in a private meeting with constituents in a private meeting in San Francisco. I don't think Democrats are going to get all jazzed about something like that, are they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Bullseye! NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. This is how urban legends are born
Democrats are right in nipping it in the bud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
2. Just like always. We're a dollar short and a day late
Confirming this schmuck was a big mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
4. Was this one of those phone calls which Bush said we were not listening in to
before 9/11 which he said we were listening in to only after getting a warrant which we didn't need because of 9/11 which was too late because it was before 9/11 and we would have been monitoring which would have prevented 9/11 from ever taking place?

Now, if you're confused, so am I. What I just typed is about as logical as a Republican explaining illegal wiretapping ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Snooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
5. Remember this in November...
Any Democrat who voted to approve Mukasey needs to be retired along with the administration he, and they, serve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zambero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
6. In 2001 Bush-Cheney put national security on the back burner
Edited on Tue Apr-15-08 09:29 AM by Zambero
from the get-go so that they could focus solely on their skewed tax cuts. Nothing else mattered. Reports went unread. Scheduled homeland security meetings were routinely cancelled. Ashcroft directed subordinates to refrain from discussing the threat of terrorist attacks. Intelligence agencies closely guarded "their" information and didn't share it with other agencies. This is a really swell attempt at expressing 20-20 hindsight from Mukasey, but given the administration's pre-9/11 mindset and inability to foster cooperation amongst agencies, all of which allowed the attacks to proceed unabated, it's only so much hot air.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Couple that with Cheney/Rumsfeld's wet dream of a...
"New Pearl Harbor" they posted on their favorite website :puke: (PNAC is the Project for a New American Century for newbies to search: "where have you been for the past decade, huh?") they oh so-oh-oh-oh needed in order to complete their dictatortot junta and enrich themselves and the BFEE beyond their wettest dreams...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
8. The call originated in Washington D.C.
It was traced to Crawford, Texas. Something about, "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
10. You don't get law and order with the AG you want, you take the one you confirmed
What did they expect?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ToughLuck Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
11. Freaking Liar Enabler for BUSH...screw you Mukasey
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KJF Donating Member (792 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
12. The other country was Yemen
There was more than one call, and they were all intercepted. The NSA's not bothering to trace the call is ridiculous, because the phone in Yemen was registered to a key player in the 1998 embassy bombings and the 2000 Cole attack.

Timeline here:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&projects_and_programs=complete_911_timeline_yemen_hub
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. NSA under Bush is no security so that explains that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC