Replies

OK, I will bite and overlook the fact that you are such a newbie around here to have not been through much of the discussion during the Clinton impeachment era. What I am about to respond should not be viewed as complete answers, only sufficient ones, to explain the present state of this conspiracy -- a term which to your open mind appears to imply meaning something that is implicitly doubtful (since you conclude "the OKC-Iraqi conspiracy will go the way of ..."). Nevertheless, the amount of tin-foil being worn by those non-newbies of politically frozen attitudes who should know better here prompts a slight comment. Regarding your points:

The best and obvious guess I have is domestic political value of this to Clinton is that it allowed the continuance of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" (Hillary and Morris Dees) propaganda thesis promulgated early in the Clinton regime. Remember politics is item number one to the Clintons. Whether or not the imported Iraqis were actually intended for harm here is hard to tell but unnecessary to the political goals. And that VRWC thesis is what has continued to this day to be pushed in the media -- leaving many doubtful about "extremism" of the right.
George, you will recall, chose to "move on" as part of his political 'strategery.' Perhaps he at least understood the rope-a-dope legalist morass he could get into if he stepped into fighting Clinton directly. Also keep in mind that a major part of the unionized government employ still to this day are Clinton holdovers -- George really has little control or support from most of the inflated beast. Further, the FBI appears to have been embarrassed by failing to keep a grip on their attempted sting operation and would rather not make that visible, especially because of international linkages (Strassmeir), it is a domestic agency after all.
Congress never removed Clinton for the same reasons. Perhaps Hillary's FBI dossiers on members of Congress mean something and have a purpose? The forces involved are pretty constraining and those Congresscritters don't want to lose their jobs by being embarrassed. Republicans are mostly RINO's without backbone and are afraid of Hillary. Seen Terry Lenzner recently? Who runs the Dem. Party, anyway?

None of this may likely do anything to convince you of what are ongoing issues, but someone needs to say the obvious while facing into the wind of media-constucted misunderstandings you have fallen into.

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.

Now, was that any help?

To. FlameFront: Whoa Flamefront, hold your horses! I was just asking questions and requesting for feedback not digging for some Freeper to come and tell me i am a 'Newbie' or something! Actually the fact that i may not have been on FR for years is a moot point and you bringing it up instead of just going and giving me your answers is rather wierd (it is tantamount to an old timer telling a baby boomer 'you do not know about finance because you were not alive through the Great Depression).

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.