Dark Rantings

This is from Dave Farber's list. Could it really be possible that people think we are THIS stupid? Is this real? Is it a hoax? I'm confused.

Weldon: Atta Papers Destroyed on Orders

Thursday September 15, 2005 11:31 PM

By DONNA DE LA CRUZ

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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 name the person who ordered him to destroy the large volume of documents, said Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa.

Weldon declined to name 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.

A Senate Judiciary Committee aide said the witnesses for Wednesday's hearing had not been finalized and could not confirm Weldon's comments.

A message left Thursday with a Pentagon spokesman, Army Maj. Paul Swiergosz, was not immediately returned.

Weldon has said that Atta, the mastermind of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and three other hijackers were identified in 1999 by a classified military intelligence unit known as ``Able Danger,'' which determined they could be members of an al-Qaida cell.

On Wednesday, former members of the Sept. 11 commission dismissed the ``Able Danger'' assertions. One commissioner, ex-Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., said, ``Bluntly, it just didn't happen and that's the conclusion of all 10 of us.''

Weldon responded angrily to Gorton's assertions.

``It's absolutely unbelievable that a commission would say this program just didn't exist,'' Weldon said Thursday.

Pentagon officials said this month they had found three more people who recall an intelligence chart identifying Atta as a terrorist prior to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Two military officers, Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott, have come forward to support Weldon's claims.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5281566,00.html

Posted by mikki at 10:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I am constantly amazed at the twisting and turning people go through as they torture facts and truth in order to avoid personal responsibility. Just about every day, the words "it's not my fault because...." ring through the air. And you know, sometimes it gets downright hilarious in its hypocritical undertones. Case in point...

Man A dumps Woman A and Child A for Woman B he met on the Internet. Woman B has Child B who got Child A's room, toys, etc. As Child A grows up with Woman A, he shows destructive behaviors. Man A, who did not pay child support when he was supposed to because he had to support Woman B and Child B, then claims that none of his actions could possibly be to blame for Child A's destructive behavior, and all was the fault of Woman A.

Get a GRIP ON REALITY you lazy piece of worthless doggie dung! Of COURSE it is partially your responsibility how your child turns out, and all claims of not going to assist Child A because Woman B "can't fly" because she's so FUCKING FAT that she has a heart condition are irrelevant to your relationship with Child A, and are mere excuses for being a lazy shit yourself. Think maybe Woman B can STAY HOME for a day while you go straighten out your child?

How's about this one? Woman B claims to be a UU minister, yet commits adultery and breaks up a family because she has decided that Man A is her "soul mate." Man A obviously agrees, and sees no problem. Woman B continues to attempt to spread Christian like pontifications and platitudes, as if her behavior has not been so "anti Christian" as to merit her de frocking in most circumstances. But still, somehow it's ok to take on a leadership position in a religion, break the tenets of that religion in a very public and very irrevocable way, and still continue to be a minister of that religion, without seeing anything wrong with your behavior.

Or how's this? Man A claims that Woman B is a "professional therapist" after she took some course in hypnotherapy. Woman B then writes a newsletter in which she tells the world that Child A is living with them and getting therapy. Do professional therapists actually breech confidentiality across the Internet? Does she or Man A see anything WRONG with broadcasting to all and sundry that a third party is "trying to become normal?" Are we having fun yet?

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, given that Man A continually complained that he was "not encouraged" as a child, and wasn't given money to throw away on pinball while the other siblings were given money for music lessons and sports. Perhaps if he had been given pinball money he would have developed something called a character? Naw, I doubt that. Stupid me.

Sometimes you just have to shake your head at the idiocy of people. Sometimes you just have to wonder what could possibly go through someone's head that make actions like this "ok" or "justified" in any practical way.

Posted by mikki at 06:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)