Clinton is not a tennis player and had never attended a major tennis match.
Swatting at flies?
Posted on 12/10/2001 9:08:36 PM PST by umbra
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:03:59 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Clinton's EO putting Reno in charge of "emergencies" as of 10/1/2000 wouldn't have had her in charge for this attack, but it would have been in time for the Cole attack. OTOH when did Cohen ever let him down anyway? I'm sure Cohen would have been fine for initiating martial law after a 9/11 type attack and Reno would have been all ready to take over any quashing of dissent a few weeks later in case Cohen was too squeamish... Also, this has the advantage of not being TOO obvious--as having the Butcher of Waco take over just in time to respond to an attack Clinton couldn't afford to have known about in advance.
I don't know NYC very well, but I'm pretty sure that the U.S. Open would have been in NO direct danger from destruction of the towers.
Also, remember that Clinton/Reno made sure that AKAL got a bunch of lucrative contracts--including security for a number of major courts. I said before that I thought someone may have expected certain really controversial cases before these courts. I still think so and finding out that this was originally planned for a time when it made a perfect tool for Clinton to have declared martial law and cancelled elections... Thank God for the Argenbright investigation! I wonder who initiated it and whether they have any idea of what they headed off. Yeah, the atrocity wasn't headed off, just delayed, but the Clinton coup was headed off IMO.
In the OBL videotape released today, they used that word "coup" and it didn't make sense to me. Here it is from the transcript, it's at the end:
[Note: Ayman Al-Zawahri says first he commended UBL's awareness of what the media is saying. Then he says it was the first time for them (Americans) to feel danger coming at them.]
Had the maximal plans of the Islamofascists been carried out, and our government been decapitated, with president, vice president, and Congress wiped out, I suppose it's conceivable that the Clintons might somehow have been able to seize power.
By the way, do we know yet where Hillary was the morning of 9/11? Didn't it turn out she was not at the Congress when it was evacuated?
Bill, of course, we know was in Australia. I think Gore and Greenspan were also out of the country at the time.
OK, there's always a danger in reading too much into a translation, but "...thinking there was a coup" is pretty interesting. It's possible that he meant realizing when he said thinking and he could have meant sudden strike when he said coup. OTOH if he meant we thought (as in mistakenly) it was an overthrow (usually we mean 'from within') of our government, that would be very significant.
Why would we think it was a coup instead of just an attack? Did this guy know of an earlier coup planned? If so, does that mean this one WASN'T a coup attempt? Or might it have become one if our government was obliterated as planned? I know what I suspect, but I gotta admit translation problems make the implications uncertain. No wonder the administration sat on the tape so long to be sure they got a reliable translation, and even so--who knows?
One other thing. As often happens, I can't find the dang thread but right after the atrocity, somebody posted that F-16s (14s?... sorry I'm not fluent in military equipment) had been stationed at a nearby AFB in NJ to be available to cover NYC in case of an attack, but that Clinton had ordered them to be removed as no longer needed. I don't remember the source for that, but, if true, it would be interesting to see if the date Clinton decided it would be better not to have them available was a little before 9/9/00...
Sal- I think you are right about Akal. It may be that Bush knows more than we think and that it's one reason he's pushing for military tribunals.
aristeides- I agree there is the possibility of cooperation between al-Qaeda and the Sikhs.
Thanks again to all who have worked on this thread.
Why would we think it was a coup instead of just an attack? Did this guy know of an earlier coup planned? If so, does that mean this one WASN'T a coup attempt? Or might it have become one if our government was obliterated as planned? I know what I suspect, but I gotta admit translation problems make the implications uncertain.
It is tempting to make that stretch, but I agree with you that the translation may have altered the meaning of what he meant. The word "coup" jumped out at me when I heard that tape today, mainly because not once has that thought entered my mind. The instant the second plane hit the second tower, my mind was thinking it was another outside terrorist attack on the WTC. Americans don't normally think in terms of "coup," I suppose.
One other thing. As often happens, I can't find the dang thread but right after the atrocity, somebody posted that F-16s (14s?... sorry I'm not fluent in military equipment) had been stationed at a nearby AFB in NJ to be available to cover NYC in case of an attack, but that Clinton had ordered them to be removed as no longer needed. I don't remember the source for that, but, if true, it would be interesting to see if the date Clinton decided it would be better not to have them available was a little before 9/9/00...
I've looked in several different search engines but can't find anything on this. If it's there, it's probably buried on some .gov website and I just don't have the time to look for it. And if this is true, it would throw a new light on the 911 attack and the possibility that it was supposed to happen in 2000.
You and I both know (as well as many others here) that Clinton would have done whatever he needed to do to make that Third Term if he thought he could have pulled it off. Something happened to prevent it, but we'll probably never know what it was. Either (1) someone made sure he knew he couldn't pull it off without getting hurt, or (2) he played the dice and put all his eggs in the "election theft" basket, or (3) his wife talked him into waiting another four years, or (4) he missed his chance when the 911 attack was postponed and didn't have any workable contingency plans other than vote-stealing, or (5) some variation of the above. (Did I cover everything? :-)
Oh, yeah... There is a small chance, however miniscule, that he grew a conscience and did what was right. LOL!
Thanks for all your thoughts. I enjoyed reading them.
And thanks for the invitation. :-)
That would have been awfully hard to pull off, short of Bush, Cheney and Hastert getting killed and Hillary somehow being elected Senate President pro temp in the midle of the action.
If you go for the angle that "something bigger" was behind the Islamofascist op, Hastert *is* CFR, and i do'nt think Bush or Cheney really are. It might be interesting to see what the affiliations of the Cabinet, starting with Powell are.
As I've been noodling this around my head in recent weeks, it's not really necessarily the person who takes power behind the "coup", but who the people behind the coup would prefer to be in power.
Cf. the (probably brainwashed) Hinckley shooting Reagan, whose family was close to the Bushes; the JFK hit . . . maybe you could make an exception for the two tries on Ford, those Rockefellers are crafty. . .
But I digressingly babble semi-coherently. . .
But it really did catch my attention.
This is very true when we're talking about the 9/11/01 attack, but it would have been very possible for them to pull off pre-election--9/9/00. In 9/01 the NYC Mayoral election was postponed and there was talk of finding a way for Giuliani to be elected for another term or at least extending his term for some amount of time. Guiliani opted not to try it. I doubt Clinton would have been so restrained.
Swatting at flies?
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.