I detect some hatred in your reply. Have you considered following your own motto?
Posted on 10/03/2002 8:14:28 AM PDT by aculeus
No, but if in or shortly after 1992 Clinton had thought he might again face Bush I in 4 years, having specific knowledge of Bush-Hussein dealings prior to or during the Gulf War similar to those that Bush had previously maintained as CIA Director with Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega could have been at least as potentially useful to the Clintons as those 400+ FBI files Clinton had on other political adversaries- and allies.
-archy-/-
Uh, well I couldn't think of a worse choice of words to write off any further opinion offered in the article.
Premise: I am a knucklehead.
Text: Nothing else I say will have any credence.
Anyways i am not here to start a flame fight over a thread that (as i said) i am neutral about. There are threads i will engage in silly rhetoric over but not this one. There are too many unknowns still and discussing about 'newbies' and such types of logical progression is a waste of time for me.
However as to your answers (the ones that had nothing with newbies and other 'tricks' Freepers who have been on FR for years use) i think you have some rather good points. The three points you gave were quite enlightening. I just wish you went straight to them instead of flexing feeble muscle about your veteran status on FR during the 'Clinton impeachment era.' That was weak.
And just because i am several months old on FR (and several more as a lurker) does not mean Freepers like yourself should equate that with what you refer to as 'politically frozen attitudes' (your words). If i did have 'politically frozen attitudes' i would nto have inquired in the first place ......but rushed ahead and spouted forth how sure i am on the matter (and maybe given unrequested 'info' on Freepers, like lets say i was a 'veteran of the Clinton impeachment era')
However again thanks for your answers ....but you could have still given them to me without telling me of your impeachment battlescars and how i must have 'politically frozen attitudes.' I needed the answers not the lecture!
As for the links on your profile (you told me i could get good info on this topic) thanks a bunch. Another Freeper had actually used private Freepmail to link me to more such sources, and i have to admit there is stuff that shows what happened in OKC is very fishy and there is a coverup. Thus thanks for the links.
However you also said the following when telling me to go look at the links: If you are serious about being interested dig up some of the articles on my profile. Unfortunately the owner of this forum agrees with your views and may be intending to remove this info. Let me say this FlameFront, i have no views on this subject apart from the fact i think there is a coverup that happened. However i do not know what the coverup is on. And that is why i posted the questions. I do not know what Jim Robinson's views are, and chances are i would not even care to know (no harm intended). Thus saying my views correlate with his is a non-starter, and it would be prudent to target your vitriol towards someone who deserves it! I was merely asking a question, and yet you somehow feel led to chastise me for asking! And what is funny this is a topic that concerns me as much as you do (that there is a coverup involving the lives of Americans). Use your bullets well Flamefront ...against those deserving of them.
To. Triple: When i said there were 'several holes to this theory' i was not saying it was a silly! All i said is there were some parts that did not make comprehensive sense to me ...and that is why i went ahead and asked for answers (thankfully some Freepers Freepmailed them to me ...but others decided that they would also give me a 'lecture' on their old war wounds on FR ...not you by the way). Anyways i am still debating on this topic. I think there is a coverup, but i am trying to define (to the best of my ability plus the links various freepers have either posted or freepmailed to me) what that coverup is about.
"I thinkt hat there is some basis to this theiry, but the reason it has not been emphasised is due to the fcat there are no facts and the linkages to Iraq are at best nebulous" - Spetznaz
Why do you think there is basis to this theory, if you think there are no facts or strong links to Iraq?
If you don't answer, I won't know where to begin. (and It will confirm that you are disingenuous)
Regards for now,
Ugh...I dont have the juice to pull threads. Jim Robinson pulled your thread stupid.
Next time you'll provide a link to the stroy wont you? Putz.
"and you show up here asking "If this is true""
I asked no such question. You must be a criminal without comprehension skills.
Grow up and stop being a tin foil cry baby....if you cant follow the rules. Log off and go play in traffic.
I detect some hatred in your reply. Have you considered following your own motto?
Wow, where simple questions lead!
Anyways let me explain to you why i think there is a basis to this yet i do not see any strong linkages to Iraq on the OKC bombing. It is as follows.
I see a basis in this 'conspiracy' because a lot of things do not make sense. The reports coming aftre the bombing are totally different from those a few days later. There are also people who are saying (and are in positions that allow them to know) that there was some sort of coverup, that the suspects were changed, and that what should have been a pretty straight forward investigation has become mired in controversy and thoroughly nebulous.
Hence my saying there seems to be a basis for a conspiracy since the ground is well seeded for it. And that is also why i said i believe there is something here the public does not know.
However that is where i go to the second part of my premise where i said that although i think there is a basis for a conspiracy theory (after all there are very many question marks), even though there are questionmarks there is no direct solid proof. Up to now what we have is hearsay and speculation (there are people who have solid credentiasl who are saying there is something nefarious afoot, however officially they are marginalized). This is not to say there is no conspiracy ...it just means no concrete linkages have been established (or maybe a better statement is that no concrete linkages have been released to the public domain).
Hence my assertion that although i think there is a basis for this theory yet i do not see any strong links or facts. I hope that answers your question.
at this point let me re-emphasise that i do not know why you are being so acerbic! I was just asking some darn question yet you are acting like i threw stones at your holy cow!
and then you make statements as follows: If you don't answer, I won't know where to begin. (and It will confirm that you are disingenuous)
Please tell me how i am being 'disingenous' in asking a question. And also how come only you two are feeling disturbed by my questions (i have had 4 Freepmail messages from Freepers and they have answered my questions comprehensively without trying to tell me how long they have been on FR or calling me 'disingenous!'
However you and FlameFront seem to be acting like i commited anathema or something! FlameFront accused me of having a 'politically frozen attitude' while you have said my not answering your question will 'confirm that i am disingenous!' Actually this is hilarious. FlameFront had made a point that i am a 'newbie' because i registered months ago instead of years ago ....and both of you are people who have been on FR for years. However your statements nullify and completely negate any point that states being on FR for years makes someone 'better.' After all all the people who freepmailed me have been on FR for much less time than either of you two, however none of those people tried to 'confirm i am disingenous' or called me 'politically frozen.' None of them ...they just answered the questions and then gave me their personal opinions. However you two fellas seem to try to dig up things that are not there!
And if that makes me 'disingenous' Triple all i can say is i am glad you are the only one who thinks so.
And if my saying so is 'disingenous' then ....hmmmmm.....i guess i must be!
However i can assure you that no matter how 'disingenous' you might think me to be when i asked the questions i was simply asking questions and looking for answers. However i guess when Freepers stay on FR for years they acquire clairvoyant abilities to detect 'disingenous newbies!'
Now i need to rush off and do something Triple, so if you ask another question with the following tag (If you don't answer, I won't know where to begin. (and It will confirm that you are disingenuous) and i take too long to answer then that is because i am away from my computer. Hence my 'disingenuity' will be due to my being away not from hiding due to my 'political freeze' and unabated disingenuity.'
LOL
Awe...
I see the admin jacked another one of your posts huh? Man you have a pretty lame average. Good boy finally giving a link what...three or four days later? Haha...
Michael asked if he could sit in this conference and broadcast it .. I think Spector said something like I'll have to let you know ..
Getting Arlen Specter involved would be great for the blowing the lid of this conspiracy. He certainly didn't take the Warren Commission lying down. </sarcasm off>
Comment #90 Removed by Moderator
______________________________________
Awe....HAHAHA...."L".
Huh ... sounds like a possible Klintoon connection. All I want to know is what did he know, and when did he know it.
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.