25-08-2013, 09:10 PM
Tony, you note
In that case those involved can say they did not actually commit a crime
This is deniability. It's possible because Curt Weldon could not expose Able Danger. Because John O'Neill's warnings were buried with him.
Earlier you had said
Of course, people involved in a cover-up can admit to some vague unethical behaviors, by what they sometimes use generic terms for, like the MIC, but these generalities would never lead to investigations and identifications of perpetrators.
A cover-up can always admit to general overall poor behaviors that will cause no harm. That way they don't sound completely off the wall while denying the part that can cause harm. What they can't admit to and vigorously attempt to point away from are specific crimes and behaviors which would show they were capable of those crimes.
You describe a limited hangout, A but not B because B would lead to C
While in theory no investigation of the Savings and Loan and 2008 China Syndrome were conducted, pro forma investigations were launched.
As with JFK and 911, S & L and 08CS were without punishment, except of course for the Boldens and O'Neills, et cetera.
The discussion concerns the repression of action, in this case, buildings fell to precipitate profitable wars.
The prime agency of the security state is clear, and yet, denied with only token statements by the extant subject.
Paul Simon advised the nearer "your destination, the more you slip-slide away"
Nothing concrete--pun-ishing clouds of dusty rhetoric notwithstanding
In that case those involved can say they did not actually commit a crime
This is deniability. It's possible because Curt Weldon could not expose Able Danger. Because John O'Neill's warnings were buried with him.
Earlier you had said
Of course, people involved in a cover-up can admit to some vague unethical behaviors, by what they sometimes use generic terms for, like the MIC, but these generalities would never lead to investigations and identifications of perpetrators.
A cover-up can always admit to general overall poor behaviors that will cause no harm. That way they don't sound completely off the wall while denying the part that can cause harm. What they can't admit to and vigorously attempt to point away from are specific crimes and behaviors which would show they were capable of those crimes.
You describe a limited hangout, A but not B because B would lead to C
While in theory no investigation of the Savings and Loan and 2008 China Syndrome were conducted, pro forma investigations were launched.
As with JFK and 911, S & L and 08CS were without punishment, except of course for the Boldens and O'Neills, et cetera.
The discussion concerns the repression of action, in this case, buildings fell to precipitate profitable wars.
The prime agency of the security state is clear, and yet, denied with only token statements by the extant subject.
Paul Simon advised the nearer "your destination, the more you slip-slide away"
Nothing concrete--pun-ishing clouds of dusty rhetoric notwithstanding