For example:

"THE 9/11 COMMISSION IN MORTAL DANGER," that he "9/11 Commission staff did hear about intelligence-gathering efforts that hit pay dirt on the whereabouts of Mohammed Atta -- in 1999 -- and deliberately chose to omit word of those efforts. And why? Because to do so might upset the timeline the Commission had established on Atta."

In "Doing The Clinton Shuffle," Powerline posts: "Jamie Gorelick purports to tell "The truth about 'the Wall'" in a column for the Washinton Post this morning. The column performs an exercise in bobbing and weaving that recalls the glory days of the Clinton administration and that can stand as a lesson to spinmeiesters everywhere."

The counterintelligence investigations referred to in the memo include the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 1995 al Qaeda plot to blow up twelve American airplanes simultaneously over the Pacific Ocean, which had been uncovered shortly before the memo was written. Notwithstanding the acknowledged seriousness of the terrorism problem addressed by those investigations, Gorelick responded not by trying to enable sharing of information among agencies, but rather by "go[ing] beyond what is legally required" to raise barriers to such communication. Also, while manifesting no concern for the potential victims of terrorist attacks, she was solicitous of the welfare of criminal defendants in terror-related cases:

This is a stunning revelation about the Clinton administration's role in preventing intelligence from passing from the military to law enforcement concerning the 9/11 hijackers.

Of course, the first thing that lept to my mind was that, if true, this could possibly have been the motive behind former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy "docs in his socks" Berger's inexplicable actions in removing classified documents at the National Archives at about the same time as the 9/11 Commission was reviewing documents associated with terrorism.

I know this is a loose association on my part, but it seems to me that if anyone in the Clinton adminsitration knew about Able Danger, it would have been Mr. Berger as National Security Advisor. A revelation that he was behind the decision not to allow military intelligence to pass on information to law enforcement officials about a terror cell that included Atta and other 9/11 murderers provides the first, possibly significant motive for Berger's bizarre behavior in spring of 2004. It would have to be something sensational like this to have made the Clinton official do something that egregiously antithetical to his professional reputation. His actions in stuffing documents into his clothing were those of a person in a state of panic, or high emotion (e.g. fear).

Berger also took the handwritten notes he made in the National Archive about the after action review.

And there's two other 9/11 tidbits that didn't make the 9/11 Commission's report: 9/11/2001 hi-jackers used ID of dead 9/11/2000 attacker to rent car. And "THE RAW DATA FROM FOXNEWS. " Apparently, Gorelick was deeply compromised by a conflict of interest obvious to anyone with a lick of common sense.

And let's not forget - Datamatix Personalities from other parts of the World: (Al Gore, Tipper, Howard Dean, Sandy Berger, Robert Gates (CIA).

All this leaves me scratching my head and wondering, if I was a conspiracy enthusiast, would I be considering the posibility of a subversive alliance between the intelligence bureaucracy, the Democratic Party and the media?

Let's just say that I look forward to a fresh look with new hearings (without Gorelick), with Able Danger at the top of the list. I quess it would be too much to ask why Berger got off so easily for stealing national secrets.

I hope they air all the dirty laundry, It will take down a whole lot more republicans than democrats.