Posted on 03/01/2002 10:52:56 AM PST by watsonfellow
No I dont accept Chris Ruddy or Judicial Watch as reputable sources. Pulling something off NewsMax.com and presenting it as "fact" doesnt make it so. When an indictment is reported in the Ron Brown or Vince Foster "murders" I will listen to what you have to say. Until then you are pissing into the wind.
On this filegate thing, if as you state both Clinton and Starr say the FBI files were returned to the FBI, who are you to disagree? Do you work at the FBI? You seem to accept in full everything any conspiracy writer tosses out there as the full truth. I dont.
You also seem to define conservativism by acceptance of weird conspiracy theories. Not true. Conservativism is a political philosophy while belief in weird conspiracies is just KOOKY.
I did make the mistake of voting for Clinton in 92 as you said but you left out the rest of the record. Campaigned for Goldwater in 64, voted for Nixon in 68, did protest vote for McGovern in 72 (after all he wasnt goign to win and I was draft age), voted for Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dole and Bush. My car has three bumper stickers on it: Dole (R) for President, Bond (R) for Senator, and Talent (R) for Congress. I served as area coordinator on two congressional campaigns for Jim Talent, the Republican congressman who write the Welfare Reform bill. Detect a pattern there.
So now why dont you admit you dont know my politics, you are just miffed that I think your views are kooky and not worthy of discussion. Its the 21st century. Quit living in the past.
Of course you won't tell us SPECIFICALLY why, will you? Go ahead ... point out just one inaccuracy or untruth in the articles by Ruddy about Ron Brown. I asked you this before. Instead, all you did was suggest that the pathologists named and quoted by Ruddy in his articles don't exist. It doesn't get any lamer than that ... especially given that you could have gone out and listened to interviews by people like Captain Janowski who verify everything that Ruddy quoted those pathologists saying and everything else Ruddy reported in the Brown case.
Also, I'd be curious to know what sources of information you consider "reputable" ... and whether even ONE of those sources reported the facts in the Brown case, or the Riady non-refund, or the allegations of rape against Clinton or any of a dozen other FACTS that put the Clintons and DNC in a bad light. I rather suspect your "reputable" sources didn't, if you can even name one.
Pulling something off NewsMax.com and presenting it as "fact" doesnt make it so.
And ignoring facts doesn't make them go away either. It just PROVES that you aren't the conservative you claim to be. You'd rather IGNORE facts that are easily verified than speak ill of Clinton (or for that matter Bush's "move-on" approach to the Clinton/DNC crimes). You'd rather say something mean about Tripp (and believe me, your pal Clinton, Monica and your "reputable" sources had a lot more to do with reducing the morals of this country than Tripp EVER did). What you said is just what democRATS would say to point the finger away from Bill and his crew.
When an indictment is reported in the Ron Brown or Vince Foster "murders" I will listen to what you have to say. Until then you are pissing into the wind.
No. You are hiding behind a corrupt criminal investigatory system just like you did when we discussed this earlier. You suggest that nothing illegal must have happened because Clinton's law enforcement agencies didn't indict anyone. You are claiming the same for Bush's DOJ. You hide behind government officials (like democRATS often do) rather than explain the statements of the pathologists and the evidence that supports their concerns and the facts that show the government AFIP managers LIED. Why is that?
And speaking of indictments ... tell us democRAT. Why hasn't Bush's DOJ either investigated the Riady non-refund and indicted some of the criminals in the Clinton/DNC campaign funding organizations or revoked Riady's plea agreement? One of the two groups has to be LYING. There is no escaping that fact and proving which one should be simple since there has to be a paper trail for the illegal money Riady supposedly gave the Clintons/DNC and a paper trail for the return of that money to Riady (which he says never happened despite what the Clintons and DNC publically claimed). So where are the indictments?
On this filegate thing, if as you state both Clinton and Starr say the FBI files were returned to the FBI, who are you to disagree? Do you work at the FBI? You seem to accept in full everything any conspiracy writer tosses out there as the full truth. I dont.
As usual, you don't have your facts straight because you only depend on your reputable (sic) sources. Since you obviously don't know (even though you were told this previously) it was the Independent Counsel RAY (Starr's replacement) who said in a live TV interview that the files had NOT been returned. Conspiracy "writers" had nothing to do with it. That's just your lame attempt to spread democRAT disinformation. Only a democRAT biased mind would do that. Any REAL conservative would know that Ray was the source of this information. Haven't you been paying attention?
You also seem to define conservativism by acceptance of weird conspiracy theories. Not true.
No. I define conservatism as being willing and able to deal with facts ... rather than running from them whenever they are inconvenient or threaten one's world view. I also define conservatism as being interested in upholding the law and defending the constitution ... a characteristic that democRATS clearly don't have. You haven't shown the Brown theory is weird ... you've only dishonestly called it that.
Conservativism is a political philosophy while belief in weird conspiracies is just KOOKY.
Like ALL democRATS, when you can't argue the facts you just fall back on that tried and true approach of labeling something "kooky". I invite all the readers of this thread to visit the two threads I mentioned in the previous post and read the facts surrounding the Brown death. Then note Dave S's rebuttal to those facts. Or should I say non-rebuttal since his arguments against those facts primarily consisted of calling them "kooky" or something equivalent. Pretty much what you would expect from a democRAT.
I did make the mistake of voting for Clinton in 92 as you said but you left out the rest of the record. Campaigned for Goldwater in 64, voted for Nixon in 68, did protest vote for McGovern in 72 (after all he wasnt goign to win and I was draft age), voted for Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dole and Bush. My car has three bumper stickers on it: Dole (R) for President, Bond (R) for Senator, and Talent (R) for Congress. I served as area coordinator on two congressional campaigns for Jim Talent, the Republican congressman who write the Welfare Reform bill. Detect a pattern there.
Sure ... that is what you CLAIMED. Makes for a nice cover if you are in reality a democRAT PRETENDING to be conservative just so we will all "move on". Or perhaps you are a "new Republican" ... one of those who in many ways are similar to those democRATS we all despise ... the ones who can't face the facts .... the ones who have no real respect for the law or constitution. The pattern is that you time and time again dismiss clear evidence of criminal behavior by the Clintons and DNC without providing any arguments to show that evidence is not valid. The pattern is that you suggest we just "move on" even if murder, treason and a sundry other crimes were committed. The pattern is that you argue like a democRAT, smearing any source or any individual (like Tripp) that you don't like.
So now why dont you admit you dont know my politics, you are just miffed that I think your views are kooky and not worthy of discussion. Its the 21st century. Quit living in the past.
And thank you for proving exactly what I posted about you, the way you debate and your positions. This isn't about living in the past ... its about being decieved by someone who isn't what he PRETENDS to be.
I'm not arguing that Tripp deserves a job. If fact, I believe she has stated that Bush has a right not to hire her.
I am responding to a poster who said in a very vindictive manner that Tripp and not Bill/Monica's dragged this country through a disgusting episode in our history. I am responding to a poster who is deceiving people when he claims to be a conservative Republican. Conservative republicans would not be as fast and loose with the truth and the law as he has proven himself to be with regards to the death of Brown, Foster and several other scandals.
Prove Clinton murdered anybody. Give it your best shot. Saying he would benefit from it doesnt prove it. Your rationale for anything is nothing but kook juice. So drink some of your kook, mr Kook Chooser because you are foolish little twirp. Hell I wouldnt give you the pleasure of saying I was a Democrat because in your warped twisted world you would come back and challgenge that too. So I am a Republican and you fool are a kook. Talk too loudly about your theories and youre likely to be hospiltalized in some kook chamber. Farewell kook.
Run democRAT.
Run from explaining the fact that ALL of the pathologists in the Brown case who examined the body or who have examined the x-ray and photos (except Dickerson, the director of AFIP and who has demonstrably LIED about the views of his staff and the nature of the evidence) say that the wound has the appearance of a bullet wound and Brown should have been autopsied.
Run from explaining why the government choose to DESTROY the careers of so many top rated military pathologists and photographer rather than just sit them down and show them that they were wrong about the facts.
Run from explaining how the originals of the x-rays and photos that show the lead snowstorm could have disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP and why the AFIP showed no interest in investigating that disappearance.
Run from explaining the SWORN TESTIMONY by Janowski that another military officer (Sentell) told her that Gormley (the military officer who examined Brown's body) tampered with the x-ray machine in order to produce a second set of x-rays which don't show the lead snowstorm.
Run from explaining why Gormley LIED to the public about the existance of the first set of x-rays and lied about the nature of the wound on live TV (and was caught doing it).
Run from explaining why Gormley has now admitted that Brown should have been autopsied but wasn't because the WHITEHOUSE and JCS ordered there be no autopsy ... even though the LAW requires there should have been one given the suspicions about a bullet wound being voiced at the examination by pathologists.
Run from explaining why the Air Force skipped (for the first time in their history except a friendly fire shootdown in Iraq where the cause was clear) the phase of the normal crash investigation process which is specifically chartered with "finding the cause" of the crash.
Run from explaining what caused an AWACS and the airport to loose both transponder and voice contact (two separate systems) with the plane when it was still 8 MILES from the airport and crash site.
Run from explaining why the chief maintenance officer at the airport ... who was in charge of a portable beacon that went missing just before the crash (and several sources say could have been used to spoof the plane into crashing as it did) ... would be so preoccupied as to commit suicide with a shotgun to the chest over a failed romance (that according to the "reputable" NY Times) just days after a crash in which he was an important party (and before he could be "interviewed").
Run from explaining the timeline sent to Warren Christopher from Abe Sockowitz (friend of Chinese Spy John Huang) which stated that there were 2 survivors to the crash, not just the one who unfortunately died 10 hours after the crash ... once a doctor arrived to "care" for her.
Run from explaining why the Accident Investigation report put out by the Air Force failed to mention ANY of the above facts even though the purpose of that type of report is supposedly to provide the lawyers of the victims with information they might need if they choose to file suit.
Run from explaining why NONE of the families were told about any of the above suspicious facts until Ruddy broke the story years later?
Run from explaining the sworn testimony indicating that Brown told Clinton he was going to turn state's evidence in Chinagate and Campaign Finance gate only days before the crash.
Run from explaining the myraid other incriminating facts in the Brown case that point to a murder to silence him.
Run democRAT. You only make my case.
Loyalty should not supercede respecting and upholding the law. Clinton demanded loyalty from his people too! And look what sort of government we got.
Are the same people who are trashing Linda the same people singing praise of the whistle blower in the Enron mes?
After her extensive treatments for BC, she may be able to get another job, but it will be hell getting Medical Insurance for at least 5 years.
Also, it isn't likely she's going to get good job references. She is in bad shape. I wish her well.
sw
Who swore that Brown was going to turn states's evidence ni Chinagate and Campaign Finance gate only days before the crash? Clinton? I dont see why he would do it. Brown? No he was dead by then. Who was it that swore to what Brown intended to do if he had lived? Wasnt it convenient that they came forward with this testimony after he wasnt around to say it wasnt true?
See thats the thing about you kooks, if you cant get evidence one way, you turn it around and say that the lack of evidence proves that someone must be covering it up and who else but the Anti-Christ himself, after all if we are to feel conspired against its only right that we ought to create significant villains.
Run from explaining the myraid other incriminating facts in the Brown case that point to a murder to silence him.
If all these so called statements you made are "facts" and they lead to incontrovertible proof that Ron Brown was murdered by Bill Clinton (you failed to establish who did it, how they did it, and how they escaped), then why havent you been able to get a grand jury hearing much less an indictment? Because this is paranoia run amok. You are delusional and you are a Kook. Run Kook run. May you win a case of Reynolds wrap. You need it to block out those voices leading you astray.
Watsonfellah, I believe you're living in the past.
Just one more example to prove that you don't know anything about this case (it was Nolanda Hill, a close associate and confidant of Brown, testifying UNDER OATH) and don't want to know (since this information was posted to you in our previous discussions).
Wasnt it convenient that they came forward with this testimony after he wasnt around to say it wasnt true?
Don't you know that Brown publically stated he was open to a deal with Pearson, the independent counsel investigating him? Don't you know that Brown was in serious legal trouble ... so serious that he had just hired a REALLY expensive lawyer ... and was very likely to go down for a LONG TIME?
And here you are, once again, DEFENDING CLINTON. A real conservative wouldn't use Brown's unavailability as his argument.
See thats the thing about you kooks
Run democRAT. Go ahead ... call me a "kook" and run from debating the facts LIKE DEMOCRATS ALWAYS DO. Go ahead, label anything you can't debate a "conspiracy" and anyone who bests your arguments a "kook". Run democRAT.
If all these so called statements you made are "facts" and they lead to incontrovertible proof that Ron Brown was murdered by Bill Clinton (you failed to establish who did it, how they did it, and how they escaped),
IF? These facts are easily verifiable ... and you've been pointed in the direction for verifying them several times.
And as to establishing who did it, how they did it and how they escaped ... you have the cart before the horse. First you do an autopsy based on the statements of the EXPERTS and find a bullet. THEN it will be time to investigate the who and how. And again, you apparently haven't been paying attention here at FreeRepublic. Possible scenarios for who and how have been suggested repeatedly. Have you been sleeping?
Then why havent you been able to get a grand jury hearing much less an indictment?
Here you go again using inaction by corrupt investigatory bodies as your defense. Did you miss the part about the Whitehouse and JCS ORDERING that there be no autopsy? Do you think Reno would EVER have looked into this? ONLY a democRAT would. Rather than address the issue of the pathologists and x-rays and photos that support their concerns ... rather than address the question of why their careers were destroyed ... you tell us that we should have TRUSTED the Clinton controlled agencies that should have to investigated this matter. How expected ... for a democRAT. Or if you are a NEW REPUBLICAN, would you like to explain why Ashcroft has not looked into ANY of the other clear instances of Clinton criminality? Perhaps you'd like to suggest there wasn't any criminality? But ONLY a democRAT would suggest that, right?
Because this is paranoia run amok. You are delusional and you are a Kook. Run Kook run.
Still RUNNING from the facts. I see you still REFUSE to actually debate any of those facts I listed? In fact, as you've repeatedly demonstrated, you won't even read the material provided as the source of those facts. You are too lazy or too afraid. Or perhaps your handlers are just standing over your shoulder preventing you from doing so? I can back up every single item I listed with reliable sources and have done so previously many times. Go ahead, democRAT, prove that ANYTHING I've stated is untrue. Go ahead democRAT. OR RUN, as I expect you to do.
Now I think the World of Linda, and I think she is getting a raw deal.
I would hope that some conservative employer out there would give her a job suitable to her talents. But that is their decission to make, not yours. It certainly shouldn't be President Bush's place to ensure she is hired.
Maybe once you get out into the working world you will understand that deserving has nothing to do with getting hired. I'm sure Linda is well aware of that as well. With her computer skills, she could search for and find a job outside of the DC fishbowl (she did try and get a job in Germany, that the media hounded her out of).
But given her latest battle with the big "C", I suspect that her priorities have changed a bit. I wish her well in this battle and hope that the media will eventually let her fade into the obscurity that she desires.
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.