Thank You for your service to Our Nation !
I have included an entry to your Blog, on my Blog
http://inademocracysilenceisperm...?
post_id=244338
At yesterday’s House Armed Services Committee hearing on Able Danger, Congressman Curt Weldon (R-PA) repeatedly asked witnesses if a chart produced by the Land Information Warfare Activity (LIWA) / Information Dominance Center (IDC) on Chinese front companies operating within the United States played a role in the dismantlement of Able Danger. The answer was consistently yes.
What exactly was this document that was developed and what were the implications of it for the Clinton Administration? As you will see, the information raised serious questions for the Democratic Party and the Clinton White House in regards to the transfer of sensitive military technologies to China, and how export controls were relaxed in favor of individuals and companies who gave heavily to the election campaigns of Democratic candidates and President Clinton.
In response, the Clinton Administration set about disbanding LIWA and its sister organization, Able Danger, which was investigating Al Qaeda. They wanted to sweep this information under the rug and were, for the most part, successful. But later, when word began to trickle out that Able Danger had actually uncovered some information that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, Democrats loyal to the Clinton Administration were shocked. They could not let the truth come out about Able Danger and its successes, or else they would have to answer for why the group was disbanded. The reason, of course, being that Able Danger and LIWA were dismantled to cover up the Clinton Administration’s complicity in transferring technology to China.
In short, Able Danger was a collateral victim of the successes of the data mining efforts being performed by LIWA. 9/11 could have been prevented if the Clinton Administration had not disbanded Able Danger and LIWA, which it did to cover up very embarrassing information that the data mining efforts of LIWA were uncovering in regards to China.
History
In mid-1999, Congressman Weldon requested that LIWA develop a chart of Chinese front companies operating within the United States. The results were staggering, showing a complex web of organizations within the United States, including major U.S. defense contractors, who were involved in the transfer of sensitive technologies to Communist China. It also showed how Chinese agents had successfully funneled ten of million of dollars in campaign contributions to the DNC and President Clinton’s reelection campaign.
An accompanying timeline developed by LIWA was equally shocking, showing how the Clinton Administration had liberalized exports rules for a number of extremely sensitive dual use technologies that China could utilize for military purposes. These included very advanced encryption technologies that
americaprd, where is that from?
Its a piece I wrote here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...s/1579772/
posts
If Able Danger was so damning for the Clinton Administration, where were all the Congressmen during the hearing? Wouldn't you expect Republicans to be slobbering over the testimony? McKinney, a Democrat, pointed out the absence of most of the Committee, noting that these were people testifying that 9/11 could have been prevented. p.s. I'm not a Democrat.
This will probably tic us all off when we watch, but Lou Dobbs on CNN at 6p.m. Eastern time, will have Former 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer, on for his reaction to the congressional hearings on Able Danger. Roemer, has been very critical of Congressman Weldon and Able Danger, so we shall see if he has changed his attitude after yesterdays hearing.
bb said: If Able Danger was so damning for the Clinton Administration, where were all the Congressmen during the hearing? Wouldn't you expect Republicans to be slobbering over the testimony?
I suspect that Republicans have some culpability in the demise of LIWA and Able Danger. Porter Goss was Chair of the House Intelligence committee at the time and to scrap LIWa probably required his tacit sign off. He may have done so based on input he received from the CIA or because he did not like the idea of agencies "freelancing" on intelligence matters to other members of Congress.
Commenting by HaloScan
