"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- With congressional hearings set for this week on intelligence failures before September 11, FBI Director Robert Mueller said Sunday he was glad to get a letter from a whistle-blowing FBI agent and had no problem with any testimony she might give to Congress."
Hmmm. We all know that whoever is in political power is going to sift through the data and figure out the best way to do damage control. Doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or Republican. Therefore, the GOP has figured out a way to clear (make immune to any charges that may come) FBI Director Robert Mueller from any blame. And the only way to make someone blameless is to make someone else the scapegoat.
My guess as to the identity of the scapegoat will be the previous FBI Director, Louis Freeh. That's because he's a (GASP!) Clinton appointee and this is going to be used as a way to bash the Democratic Party and Clinton somemore. Wait and see!
posted on June 2, 2002 01:53:49 PM new
Borillar
Like I said in a previous thread about wanting an investigation; Be careful what you ask for, you might not like the results.
We will just have to wait and see what an investigation brings and make our own judgements based on the facts. That is if you can get past that horse$hit about the GOP controlling and having ultimate power over everything.
posted on June 2, 2002 03:44:38 PM new
Borillar - Are you saying that Mueller should be blamed for all that has happened? According to your link, "However, he said Sunday that having begun as FBI director a week before the attacks he had not seen Williams' memo when he made the earlier statement"?
I think this shake-up is a good thing. It is helping to identify the FBIs weak points and make changes come about.
I'm glad more manpower is going to be focusing on possible terrorists now. I'm glad some of the restrictions have been lifted from what the FBI was not allowed to do before. My thought is you can't tie their hands behind their backs and then tell them to find those who wish to destroy us.
I think that you got the wrong impression from Mueller. He is one of the biggest rascals in the FBI. The following excerpt is just a brief history of Mueller. I'll try to post some other links that may be helpful.
The man who replaced Louis Freeh as FBI director that summer was Robert Mueller, a man
whose name was way near the bottom of the list of people the FBI considered best for the job. But
Mueller had qualities that put him at the very top of G.W. Bush's list. In the 1980s, Mueller was third
in command in the FBI under under George Terwilliger. Mueller apparently put in a lot of overtime
working to keep the Iran-Contra scheme under wraps, and then, once things got sticky for Reagan,
helped the Dept. of Justice's Domestic Criminal Secition Chief Dave Margolis and International
Criminal Section Chief Mark Richards limit liability for Reagan, and then Bush, Sr. According to
political watchdog Al Martin, Mueller personally handled damage containment for Bush Sr. during
Bush's potentially scandalous dealings with Jordanian coffee merchant Mansour Barbouti. Barbouti
was involved in the illegal exportation of chemicals used in chemical weapons to both Iraq and Iran.
So, while on the FBI payroll technically, Mueller appeared to have worked in actuality as a master
cover up artist for Republican presidents involved in scheming and intrigues. So...what better man
could Bush, involved up to his eyebrows in scheming and intrigues, want? If Mueller could shield
Bush, Sr. and Reagan from consequences while just the No. 3 man — just imagine the tracks he
could sweep clean as FBI director!
O'Neill, on the other hand, had had enough. He simply quit and went to the WTC to work as
chief of security. It was there, trying to help others escape after the planes struck the center, that he
was killed. Unlike Bush, his heroics during 9/11 were real and spontaneous — not politically expedient
afterthoughts (Bush's photo op at the WTC site nearly a week after the fact.)
So, for the past year, we have been reading headlines like this: FBI BUNGLES
INVESTIGATION, FBI MISSES CRITICAL CLUE,: or BUSH ADMINISTRATION
CONCERNED BY LOSS OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN FBI, when we should have been reading
honest headlines like this: BUSH ADMINISTRATION THWARTS FBI AGENTS' EFFORTS,
HIGH-RANKING FBI/BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL IGNORES YET ANOTHER FBI
WARNING, FBI EFFICIENCY HAMPERED BY UNQUALIFIED APPOINTEES TO TOP
POSTS, or maybe FBI FORCED TO CARRY OUT ASSIGNMENTS AGAINST BETTER
JUDGEMENT.
But want to know the headline I can't wait to read? FBI DEMANDS ANSWERS FROM THE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
The link above is the article about Robert Wright's heroic efforts to stop this act of terrorism.
"Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - In a memorandum written 91 days before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, an FBI agent warned that Americans would die as a result of the bureau's failure to adequately pursue investigations of terrorists living in the country.
FBI Special Agent Robert Wright, Jr., who wrote the memo, led a four-year investigation into terrorist money laundering in the United States.
"The FBI has proven for the past decade it cannot identify and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States and its citizens at home and abroad," he continued. "Even worse, there is virtually no effort on the part of the FBI's International Terrorism Unit to neutralize known and suspected international terrorists living in the United States."
The Bush administration effectively prevented the FBI agents with integrity such as FBI Special Agent Robert Wright and Colleen Rowley from doing their jobs and protecting all of the people who died in this tragedy. This horrible tragedy could have been prevented. Now, these agents lives and jobs are in jeopardy.
posted on June 2, 2002 09:18:55 PM new"Borillar - Are you saying that Mueller should be blamed for all that has happened?"
Lesse: Mueller's boss Bush is Neck-Deep into the Taliban, Al-Queda, and Afghanistan. Bush styfles FBI investigations into said friends and places. A smear campaign by the Republicans forces out the former FBI Director, Louis Freeh, and an unqualified Damage Control Operator is put into his place. Then, Mueller sweetly tells the media: "We WELCOME such Whistle-Blowers! We WELCOME investigations and questions into this and all FBI matters! C'mon and join us for the revel!"
posted on June 6, 2002 10:23:55 PM new
I only got to watch a few minutes of the Congresssional hearings today. The Whistle Blower got her chance to go before the Blue Ribbon panel and andswer questions. Now I know what was in the works.
The question of this thread is What did they plan to do? The Answer: make sure that no other FBI agents blow the whistle anytime soon!
It plays like this: the memo was intentionally "leaked" to the press in order to get FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley out into the open, onto the stand, and to humilliate her. The questions that were posed by the panel were as if saying,"Look - if you blow the Whistle, then you have all of the answers on how to fix everything and were're going to roast you for it or make you look like a fool!" They mentioned a new agency and asked for her input on how to make it run properly -- that sort of thing.
Basically, any agent who watched what happened today will certainly think twice before going out on a limb and making a report of this nature again!
Well, at least we have our answer now: the issues that were complained about seemed to have been side-stepped or minimized and all attention was focused on making a fool out of FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley.
posted on June 7, 2002 08:47:42 AM new
Borillar - I just see the same situation differently than you.
It plays like this: the memo was intentionally "leaked" to the press in order to get FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley out into the open, onto the stand, and to humilliate her. To humilliate her? I don't agree. It's my belief that those on the committee/panel where genuinely interested in hearing an 'insider' voice their opinion on what needs to be corrected to make things run more efficiently. And, to me, they appeared eager to hear what she felt were the serious problems in communication between the lower lever workers to the one's that make the decisions. Anyone who has worked for a large company knows that those lower level workers ususally have great suggestions to offer on what would improve the system because they're the one doing it.
The questions that were posed by the panel were as if saying,"Look - if you blow the Whistle, then you have all of the answers on how to fix everything and were're going to roast you for it or make you look like a fool!" To me, they seemed willing to hear her recommendations.
Basically, any agent who watched what happened today will certainly think twice before going out on a limb and making a report of this nature again! Again, I see that differently. I think rather than thinking twice about coming forward [because of what happened with her] they will remember that many on that panel stated they would tolerate NO repercussions against her for doing so.
posted on June 7, 2002 08:55:20 AM new
"they" can't humiliate you, you have to do that to yourself. And if you attempt to humiliate a truthful person with integrity, it just boomerangs back.
posted on June 7, 2002 01:00:45 PM new
Linda_K, you are entitled to your opinion of events, just like everyone else. I thought that the scope of the questions were way beyond the scope of the complaint letter. FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley seemed shocked at most of the questions and was at a loss to make any suggestions at such a high level of decision making. Reporting incidents is one thing, it is another to assume that she has the "answers" to all of the beauro's problems. Certainly, no one in the future will blow the whistle at problems unless they have all of the solutions worked out ahead of time and are prepared to go before a Congresional Committee broadcast live all over America. I can assure you that this will crimp efforts at whistle blowing, because recognising a problem does not imply that you automatically know the solutions.
Of course, anyone can read whatever they like into it.
posted on June 7, 2002 01:29:32 PM new
Borillar - You got a chuckle out of me on that one: Certainly, no one in the future will blow the whistle at problems unless they have all of the solutions worked out ahead of time and are prepared to go before a Congresional Committee broadcast live all over America.
Seriously though...maybe that's a good idea. You want to criticize what's being done wrong...then offer a better solution.
You know....kind of like here on AW....everyone complains about everything that the Bush administration does....but I don't read too many 'suggestions' on how the 'problem' can be best dealt with. Just criticism.
posted on June 7, 2002 01:53:57 PM new
[i]"Anyone who has worked for a large company knows that those lower level workers ususally
have great suggestions to offer on what would improve the system because they're the one doing it"[/i]
Having done so, I know that "those lower level workers" THINK that they have great suggestions, but the truth is that their vocalization of their ideas is often what keeps them "lower level employees" because their "great suggestions" are most often unworkable, poorly thought out, and even idiotic. When they present them they give a clear portrayal of their limitations.
posted on June 7, 2002 02:14:54 PM new
Mueller said he appreciated FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley's pointing out what she saw as some very important problems her department was facing. He also stated he didn't agree with everything she had said.
To me that's a person [Mueller] keeping an open mind....open to suggestions from subordinates [lower level workers] to improve problems but understand he see's the 'larger' picture and is in charge for making the final decisions.
Any manager who doesn't listen [not necessarily follow] their workers input....is a poor manager.
posted on June 7, 2002 02:24:03 PM new"You know....kind of like here on AW....everyone complains about everything that the Bush administration does....but I don't read too many 'suggestions' on how the 'problem' can be best dealt with. Just criticism."
That's because all 'solutions' point to either a violent overthrow of the President or wait to vote him out next election cycle. Congress and the media, who were so quick to punish and smear Clinton with criticism over all networks everytime he blew a fart won't do the same for this President. All that's left is to remind voters of why it was such a bad idea to vote for Bush in the first place. Unless you have a third alternative, Linda_K, which we'd like to hear.
posted on June 7, 2002 02:33:26 PM new"their ideas is often what keeps them "lower level employees" because their "great suggestions" are most often unworkable, poorly thought out, and even idiotic."
Having been on both sides of the coin, I can tell you that making suggestions from the bottom are often faulty because the person making the suggestion does not have access to all of the facts in order to make a valid suggestion. However, the Japanese were the first industrialists to realize that lower-level employees often had first-hand knowledge and experience with things that was obscured from managemtn view and they trreat every suggestion by a lower-level employee with much concideration. It was only within the last 10 years that Detroit tried to keep up in that area.
But certainly, this case is different from other 'suggestions' sent up the chain of command. This memo reveals either an incrediable conspiracy at the beauro to allow terrorists do the 9-11 attack, or incompetance so great that the whole FBI department tree needs to be shook up entirely to root out the monkeys. That this points to criminal behavior on one or more high-level individuals is more than implied, but is blatantly appearent, whether said criminal behavior is negligent or downright criminal.
Instead, the Congressional Committee decided to not pursue criminal wrong-doing, but to patronize FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley by demoting the memo to the level of 'suggestions to higher management'. That's called White Washing the matter. Others would call it a blatant cover-up.
posted on June 7, 2002 02:42:06 PM new
Borillar - You're right....people need to vote for those who's policies they agree with. And if in 2004 the majority don't approve of how President Bush handles [whatever] they will vote for someone else. So from the three choices you gave me, I'll choose voting. It's safer
To your statement, "Congress and the media, who were so quick to punish and smear Clinton with criticism over all networks everytime he blew a fart won't do the same for this President. Could that be because most support the changes he's implementing???...I think so. Even after last nights speech, the Congress was supportive. The majority *are* supportive.
All that's left is to remind voters of why it was such a bad idea to vote for Bush in the first place. Really???? The last time I checked the polls his approval rating was still high.
posted on June 7, 2002 03:15:36 PM new
So what to do when ALL the choices look corrupt and unimaginative? Or just ignorant. For example a President that is so ignorant of the history of the hemisphere that he can ask if there are blacks in Brazil.
