Posted on 11/10/2004 1:26:42 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Edited on 11/10/2004 1:28:47 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Fan base? I call it earning respect. If a scurrilous and unfounded charge is made I will refute it.
You may think there is something noble in flinging about baseless charges. I don't agree.
That does not make me part of a "fan base". It makes me decent and sensible.
Secondly, in an almost forgotten incident just a few weeks before 9/11 - when the Macedonian Slavs - a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace were attacked by Albanian (Muslims of course) rebels with links to al-Qaeda in an attempt to create a breakaway Albanian majority state - Rice flew to the Ukraine and string armed them against selling any weapons such as tanks to the Macedonians - a member of the UN and thus a nation that had a right to use armed force for self defense. Rice's left the Slav Macedonian nation defenseless by forcing the Ukraine to withdraw its already announced arms sales. Rice's stated aim was that she wanted to force the Slavs to the negotiating table with the rebels.
Sorry. Your hero worship of Rice is unfounded.
I pinged A.Pole as conformation of this little remembered episode if you doubt me.
I find your need to insert phrasing like "fan base" and "hero worship" into the discussion offensive.
BTW, without looking it up, I am quite confident that she made that comment about "nobody could imagine planes being used as missiles..." (paraphrase) during a press conference in May 2002, pertaining to the August 2001 PDB. The existance of the PDB had been leaked (most likely from the rogues over at CIA and mischaracterized per their scheme to harm the administration).
She was responding to the charge that the Bush administration should have anticipated the attack exactly as it was orchestrated and where and when.
On its face that is an absurd expectation to lay at their feet.
I place the bame for 9/11 80% or more to Clinton era and 20% or less to the Bush era.
How does that square with you if I may ask?
I place the bame for 9/11 80% or more to Clinton era and 20% or less to the Bush era. How does that square with you if I may ask?
I see no response to your question, so let me give my view: Clinton is 99% responsible, at least.
The reason I'm so hard on Clinton is that I firmly believe there was a very active effort to conceal terrorism in the U.S. during the 90's. As Jack Cashill is working toward this bottom line, notice "If he (Clark) tells the incoming administration or the 9-11 commission what he knows about the potential use of planes as bombs, he opens the door on a stunning deception in which he himself is a key figure. He also exposes the potential Iraqi thread that he has more recently built his literary career on denying."
"Earlier in this series, Jack shows the STAR witness for the TWA800 CIA fiction said "WHAT SECOND INTERVIEW?"
Then factor in the way the Clintons (Rats) get away with their lies by blaming the other side for their crimes BEFORE the issues arise. Then Clinton says they're just trying to "blame me for what they did." Brilliant? NAW, he just knows about his lies and acts BEFORE the headlines expose him.
Does it make sense about the PJB now? Bush should have known when actually Clinton did but Clinton put up barriers, h&^^ll, he LIED about it for probably political reasons. Who knows why, the facts are he lied and thousands died because of what Jack Cashill says were deceptions. I'm sure that's how the Clinton's, Jamie Gorelick, Richard Clark, Sandy Berger, George Stephanapolis sleep at night. Deceptions!
The sad part, The fools in the press, the left wing and the right wing (being us) keep letting them get away with it.
You can fool all the people some of the time... Clinton must love the lies he can cover with "conspiracy theories." He's lying and few seem to understand the real purpose of the 9-11 commission.
It's time to make sure history doesn't show Clinton fooled all the people about 9-11. I believe once the truth of 9-11 is known, and it will be, that history shows the REAL criminality of the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration IS the Democratic Party.
As Jack Cashill has said in this series on the MEGA FIX, they would have gotten away with it except for 9-11. Mention conspiracy events, eveybody shuts their brains down and moves on. The truth is there, start thinking before it's too late.
I think Gorelick was on the panel solely to keep her off the witness list.
John
You know, I need to send an email to Congressman BillyBob's friend, Jerry Agar. Jack used to be on the same station that Jerry's currently on. I'd loce to hear Jack on the air in KC again.
Thanks for this posting.
Mark
No kidding!
I got into an argument with an aquaintance about Kerry, and how he missed all those meetings for the Senate Intelligence Committee... He went to the Kerry web site, and do you know that his 8 years on that committee is NOT MENTIONED ONCE on the web site? I believe it was there, until the big "no-show" brouhaha came up... Then it "disappeared!"
He insisted that since it wasn't there, I was lying. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to find committee membership lists for former years on the Internet? However, it occurred to me that the Senate Intelligence Committee has to submit the intel budgets as spending bills, and the committee members names would be on the bills as sponsors. That's how I had to prove that Kerry was on the Committee!
Mark
900 FBI files under Hilary's watchful eye
The Arkansas Canada tainted prison blood scandal was also connected to Slick but nothing ever came of it. It was a good foreshadowing of what was to come from the toons.
John:
I believe there were two reasons, both were important to the survival of the Clinton crowd after 9-11.
Besides keeping her (Gorelick) from testifying as a witness, she was used by the committee to pick what they would look at. Just think, one of the foxes guarding the hen house. That was pointed out in one of my earlier posts about 9-11 by one of the replies.
There was plenty of press about how hard she worked, was indispensable on the committee. Actually, she was petrified of the truth about the Clinton cover ups coming out.
Clinton probably smiles every time he thinks about how easy it is to trick all the Sheeple, the press, and the FREEPERS.
Now, where I leave most people is that I see the 9-11 commission as the equivalent of the Warren Commission. Remember, it's the 41st anniversary this month of the biggest lie in Human History. The Gate Keepers can't let the sheeple know what the President screwed up in either decade. Notice they were BOTH democrats
So, how to proceed? This cannot be allowed to go quietly into the night. Writing letters to senators and congressmen/women - bc they've all read about this, and some are appraised of postings here at FR - hasn't done any good....They've done nothing to bring the truth into the light and prosecute those who've manipulated it.
This is why I've called the 9-11 commission a dog-and-pony show. It was nothing but a show - by both Repub. and Dem. alike.
So, what do we do about it? ....
I agree with your post regarding her completely.
Having thought about a plan, I think of the Biblical "The Truth will set you FREE". The witnesses know the truth.
I was listening to Jayna Davis on WARROOM earlier this year and she described a government coverup on OKC that would be comical if it wasn't so serious. But David Schippers (House Attorney for the impeachment of Clinton) and her seemed to have NO idea WHY there was a coverup. She KNEW beyond any doubt that Iraqis were involved.
I told her later the ONLY person in the world with the power to make lies into truth is the POTUS (I believe that because of work I've done earlier on something else). As I started to look at things from that angle, the "conspiracy" stories began to make perfect sense.
It seems to me the only way to get truth out of this is to look to the witnesses and follow your way up the chain of command to where the TRUTH stops.
Jack Cashill (TWA800) is doing just that. He recently stated a couple of things: The inexplicable involvement of the CIA in creating an animation to discredit the 270 FBI eyewitnesses who saw objects ascending in the direction of TWA Flight 800. And then he has them: The ONE witness which the CIA based their computer animation on said "WHAT SECOND INTERVIEW" when asked WHY he changed his story!
That's enough to kill that silly scenario IMHO. None of the 270 witnesses saw what the simulation showed....
My point is the witnesses have been discredited simply by being ignored. And "they" get away with it. A President makes a decision and he has people who's job it is to make it happen. The NYT doesn't interview any witnesses. According to Jack, not one!
"They" just never realized that thousands of people would die because of their lies.
Now, when there is enough people who can say what they saw, could we do a SWIFTBOAT style of attack and put some of these people on commercials and let them tell the truth?
For example, how about the woman who saw a man get out of the Ryder truck with McVeigh in OKC? How about pilots who saw a missle go up and destroy TWA800. None of this is hard if you accept the simple fact that powerful people in our government had a reason to tell a lie.
Remember Clinton's "It's the economy stupid!
In conspiracy theory, "It's the President, STUPID!"
You know the answer to your question.
The Old Media protected the one and attacked the other.
And, while the other had a measure of honor, the one had none at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.