Maybe even for Holloween call it the "Clintons Tricks or Treats!"
Tricks on America and Treats for the Offsprings of the Devil!
Posted on 09/07/2006 11:21:19 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
go to the website of Burglar's company....www.stonebridge-international.com...bottom of that letter...Burglar is listed as a principal, and none other than Lee Hamilton (9/11 Commission co-chair) is on the Advisory Board...sweet, eh?
Tricks on America and Treats for the Offsprings of the Devil!
Just about every media company in America subscribes to that policy, for protection from litigation by angry creative types insisting that "someone stole my idea."
So unless you view a statement of standard office procedure as "threatening," the answer is no, it doesn't come across as threatening at all.
Thanks.
That's the first time that type of statement has shown up in any emails I've received from the networks. Kinda caught me off guard and I wasn't sure what they had in mind.
The answer to the question is ... They couldn't decide *what* to do until it was too late to do anything at all...
Fact is the entire Clinton Administration was in deep over their heads, from the word go. They had less idea about how to actually run the country than your average Joe Sixpack, for all their fancy education, when push came to shove, they froze, repeatedly, in utter indecision...
the infowarrior
Not exactly... The "backlash" against the Reagan hit-piece was done strictly and solely by private citizens. There were absolutely *NO* GOP Congresspersons, or Senators, threatening CBS with FCC sanctions as was done here, nor did *any* former GOP President (nor any former member of a former GOP President's staff) utter a single word, either for, or against the production. The comparision is apples to watermelons, anyone who says otherwise is either totally "out to lunch" (permanently), too stupid to draw breath, or is pushing an agenda... You decide which it is for yourself, as I have...
the infowarrior
bttt
so the bend over, drop their panties and take it like monica...what a suprise...
I'm guessing that's because vaguely, in the "mind" of some e-mail filter setting deep in the bowels of the mail server, the content of your e-mail was deemed to have some relation to show content, so that boilerplate got automatically sent to you.
At least, that's how I'd set it up if I had the doing, which clearly I don't. ;)
Yes, have Mansoor say what he said in his own words in his column on the subject. Which is that Sudan offered OBL not directly to us, but to the Saudis, who refused. And that subsequently Sudan offered a deal to get him to us through an unidentified third-party Gulf ally (later revealed to be Qatar) - and that Qatari intel officials decided not to tell us that OBL was coming through until his plane had already left for Afghanistan.
Were we stupid and inept and dealing with the Sudanese on this? Sure. But the concept that they offered him directly to us is just factually inaccurate, and not even Ijaz claims that.
Monsoor details many offers to take OBL; the Mob, formerly known as the Clinton administration, wanted nothing to do with those offers.
From Monsoor:
In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.
The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.
Here is one video, they can't censor or eliminated.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JuH1xwLUnbg
Nothing.
Just why is it the Bush admin. won't call a spade a spade? I'm mystified as to why they don't take the opportunity to pound the Clintonistas with the truth!
Is there a protocol they are following about being kind to a former President and his administration?
The problem with this gloves on approach to the Clinton apologists is that it lends truth to their lies.
These people need to be roundly condemned for what they are doing here... and it would help if the condemnation came from the bully pulpit.
I wrote. Hopefully many others do also.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
Good reading for the second or third monitor....took me a couple of days.....Screw ABC and Clinton
Read what actually happened...
From the little I have culled about this miniseries what they are saying has been common knowledge to conservatives like me for a long time. There is nothing new here that we have not known during Clinton's time in office. It is just the fact that a MSM agent, ABC is willing to show it and more people will view it. I imagine the Clinton machine is trying to coerce ABC with the threat of challenging their broadcast status with some bogus ethics or some such charge.
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.