Was FBI director Louis Freeh a traitor? Why wasn't he fired?

[fujiyama]

Ok, I was just reading on the 9/11 timeline on cooperative research

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline

and I found an interesting part "the New York Times later reports on Emad Salem, an undercover agent who ends up being the key government witness in the trial against the bomber. Salem testifies that the FBI knew about the attack beforehand and told him they would thwart it by substituting a harmless powder for the explosives. However, this plan was called off by an FBI supervisor, and the bombing was not stopped. < [New York Times 10/28/93> ] Why did the FBI seemingly let the terrorists go ahead with the bombing? Others suspects are ineptly investigated before the bombing (see July 1990 and November 5, 1990)."

Another part says that Yousseff, the accused WTC '93 bomber was stopped when he first entered the US. He was released, but the man he was with was arrested and then released after 6 months (but that man had bomb making booklets, videos, fake passports, and all sorts of other stuff).

So why were these people released like they were? Why was the '93 WTC bombing investigation bungled so badly?

I'm more convinced that Freeh was a trojan horse of the right, and he plays an even larger role than Clinton himself claims, in trying to bring him and his presidency down (btw, I haven't read "My Life"...What does Clinton have to say about Freeh? I heard he blasts him several times).

Now, I'm not excusing the administration for the intelligence/other failures, but I'd have to place a LOT of the blame on the FBI, atleast during the Clinton administration.

But Freeh himself was a CLINTON APPOINTEE. He was nominated by Clinton...WHY? Was his membership of Opus Di known already? Was it public?

Were the constant failures of the FBI on purpose? That's what I think and I think Freeh is a criminal. In his zeal to bring down the administration, he is quite possibly a traitor.

[housewolf]

1. Sometime last spring

I heard Clinton say that he wanted to fire Freeh, but it was during the time he was too busy fighting the impeachment charges and basically his hands were tied.

[JI7]

2. it was all political, if he fired Freeh it would be used against him

and the right wing would say he did it because Freeh was independent or some other shit.

you have to remember that the media was very much anti Clinton and they would have just pushed the right wing angle if it happened and it would have hurt Clinton even more.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Freeh got a free pass. IMO, Freeh was a major mistake as a

political appointment. Clinton tried too hard to triangulate by giving the Republicans positions in his administration. He didn't recognize that the party was no longer made up of independent minded "fair" Republicans. And Freeh, in his new position, fucked up big. One way to brush off criticism, was to add more fuel to Clinton's problems. As long as he did that, the media and the Republican Congressmen would not look at his blunders with Waco and with Wen Ho Lee.

So, the media gets the herpes-infested donky dick award for helping the right-wing conservative machine by displacing scrutiny where it belonged in the 90s.

http://www.zpub.com/un/fbi-freeh.html