September 11th: Conspiracies & Cover-ups - Original Version

[Tesha Dodge]

Tempest

Member
Member # 2634

Member Rated:
   posted 12-25-2006 01:44 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, during the 9/11 hearings revealed that all throughout the 1990's, the intelligence agencies (and even the Internet) had information that Al Queada planned to used fully fueled planes as weapons, putting to lie Condaleeza Rice's phony words, "who would have thought they would use planes as weapons>"


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of planes as weapons

This contention was the subject of lengthy questioning by 9/11 commission member Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democrat and former Watergate prosecutor, in the course of the appearances by two witnesses, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and former FBI Director Louis Freeh. Ben-Veniste established two central facts: that US intelligence agencies had long considered the danger of hijacked airplanes being used as weapons; and that the Bush administration was aware of these concerns.

Responding to a comment by Rumsfeld during his appearance before the 9/11 commission in March, echoing Rice’s mantra of “no one could have imagined,” Ben-Veniste went through the litany of warnings assembled by the commission staff. These were based not even on intelligence sources, but on published reports widely available on the Internet. He challenged Rumsfeld, who was appearing side-by-side with General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to respond.

Ben-Veniste: With respect to your comment about domestic intelligence and what we knew as of September 10, 2001, your statement was that you knew of no intelligence to suggest that planes would be hijacked in the United States and flown into buildings.

Well, it is correct that the United States intelligence community had a great deal of intelligence suggesting that the terrorists, back since 1994, had plans, discussed plans, to use airplanes as weapons, loaded with fuel, loaded with bombs, loaded with explosives. The Algerians had a plan in ’94 to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower. The Bojinka plot in ’95 discussed flying an explosive-laden small plane into CIA headquarters. Certainly CIA was well aware of that.

There were plans in ’97 using a UAV. In ’98, an Al Qaeda—connected group talked about flying a commercial plane into the World Trade Center. In ’98, there was a plot broken up by Turkish intelligence involving the use of a plane as a weapon. In ’99, there was a plot involving exploding a plane at an airport. Also in ’99, there was a plot regarding an explosive-laden hang-glider. In ’99 or in 2000, there was a plot regarding hijacking a 747. And in August of 2001, there was information received by our intelligence community regarding flying a plane into the Nairobi embassy, our Nairobi embassy.

And so I suggest that when you have this threat spike in the summer of 2001 that said something huge was going to happen and the FAA circulates, as you mentioned, a warning which does nothing to alert people on the ground to the potential threat of jihadist hijacking, which only, it seems to me, despite the fact that they read into the congressional record the potential for a hijacking threat in the United States, in the summer of 2001, it never gets to any actionable level.

Nobody at the airports is alerted to any particular threat. Nobody flying the planes takes action of a defensive posture.

I understand that going after Al Qaeda overseas is one thing. But protecting the United States is another thing. And it seems to me that a statement that we could not conceive of such a thing happening really does not reflect the state of our intelligence community as of 2001, sir.

Rumsfeld: A couple of comments. I quite agree with you, there were a number of reports about potential hijacking. I even remember comments about UAVs [Unmanned Aerial Vehicles—i.e., drones]. I even have seen things about private aircraft hitting something. But I do not recall ever seeing anything in the period since I came back to government about the idea of taking a commercial airliner and using it as a missile. I just don’t recall seeing it. And maybe you do, Dick?

Myers: No, I do not.

Ben-Veniste: Well, the fact is that our staff has—and the joint inquiry before us, I must say—has come up with eight or ten examples which are well known in the intelligence community. My goodness, there was an example of an individual who flew a small plane and landed right next to the White House.

Rumsfeld: I remember.

Ben-Veniste: Crash landed that. The CIA knew that there was a plot to fly an explosive-laden plane into CIA headquarters. So we do, within our intelligence community, have very much in mind the fact that this is a potential technique.


What US intelligence agencies knew

At the April public hearing, the 9/11 commissioner took FBI Director Freeh through the following discussion, which confirms that US intelligence agencies had considered the danger of hijacked airplanes being used as weapons as far back as the mid-1990s:

Ben-Veniste: Let me turn to the subject of the state of the intelligence community’s knowledge regarding the potential for the use of airplanes as weapons, a subject of obvious interest to this commission. Did the subject of planes as weapons come up in planning for security of the Olympics held in Atlanta in 1996?

Freeh: Yes, I believe it came up in a series of these, as we call them, special events. These were intergovernmental planning strategy sessions and operations. And I think in the years 2000, 2001, even going back maybe to the 2000 Olympics, that was always one of the considerations in the planning. And resources were actually designated to deal with that particular threat.

Ben-Veniste: So it was well-known in the intelligence community that one of the potential areas or devices to be used by terrorists, which they had discussed, according to our intelligence information, was the use of airplanes, either packed with explosives or otherwise, in suicide missions?

Freeh: That was part of the planning for those events, that’s correct.

Ben-Veniste then focused on the transition from the Clinton to the second Bush administration, and particularly the planning for the Genoa summit of the G-8 countries, in June 2001:

Ben-Veniste: Did that come up, the same subject, come up again? I know you carried on from the Clinton administration through six months, more or less, of the Bush administration. Did that subject come up again in the planning for the G-8 summit in Italy?

Freeh: I don’t recall that it did, but I would not have been involved in that planning. The FBI would not have been involved in that particular planning.

Ben-Veniste: We were advised that there was a CAP or no-fly zone imposed over first Naples, in the preplanning session, and then Genoa during the meeting of the eight heads of state. And that subsequently it was disclosed the President Mubarak of Egypt had warned of a potential suicide flight using explosive-packed airplanes to fly into the summit meeting.
Freeh: I don’t dispute that. But that planning would be done by the Secret Service, probably the Department of Defense. We would not have been involved in that event outside the United States in terms of the special planning, although we probably detailed some people there.

The questioning then shifted to air defense plans against such suicide hijackings:

Ben-Veniste: Let me ask you this: To your knowledge, coming back to the United States, was the intelligence information accumulated by the year 2001 regarding various plots, real or otherwise, to crash planes using suicide pilots integrated into any air defense plan for protecting the homeland, and particularly our nation’s capital?

Freeh: I’m not aware of such a plan.

Ben-Veniste: Can you explain why it was, given the fact that we knew this information, and given the fact that, as we know now, our air defense system on 9/11 was looking outward in a Cold War-posture, rather than inward, in a protective posture, that we didn’t have such a plan? Was that a failure of the Clinton administration, was that a failure of the Bush administration, given all of the information that we had accumulated at that time?

Freeh: Well, I mean, I don’t know that I would characterize it as a failure by either administration. I know, you know, by that time there were air defense systems with respect to the White House. There were air defense systems that the military command in the Washington DC area, you know, had incorporated. I don’t think there were probably—at least I never was aware of a plan that contemplated commercial airliners being used as weapons after a hijacking. I don’t think that was integrated in any plan.

Significantly, according to Freeh and Ben-Veniste, the Pentagon was involved in air defense plans for the Genoa summit, where for security reasons Bush slept on a US Navy ship anchored offshore, rather than in an Italian hotel. Anti-aircraft weapons were deployed around the city with orders to shoot down a hijacked plane that might target the assembled presidents and prime ministers. But no such precautions were taken in Washington DC.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/911-m01.shtml

Of course, I expect all the frantic Bush lovers still here to ignore all this information (like they have ignored all the other bad stuff that happened during his administration, or worse, tried to shift the blame), but it is clear that intelligent people would have put all this together:

-Intel all throughout the 1990's that hijackers planned to used fully-fueled planes as weapons, a plan from the outgoing Clinton administration how to deal with Al Quaeda, a frantic meeting between Tenent and Rice that Al Queada was going to attack in July, 2001, another meeting with Senator Gary Hart five days prior to 9/11. Lastly, the memo to Bush hand-delivered to the guy whie he was on vacation entitled, "Bin Laden determined to attack in the U.S." Bush said, "now you've vovered your ass," and apparently got back to his golfing.

So either he wasn't interested in stopping 9/11 or actually intended for it to happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 285 | Registered: Aug 2005


http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000094;p=3

[Tesha Dodge]

Tempest

Member
Member # 2634

Member Rated:
   posted 12-25-2006 02:07 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like the conservatives here are in the minority to the general public. Then, I've always found that conservatives tend to be more naive and believe whatever their government tells them:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence
October 14, 2006

(only 16% believe the government telling the truth)

- Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.

Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002.

Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes in the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people. In October, after Afghanistan’s Taliban regime refused to hand over al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the U.S. launched the war on terrorism.

On Aug. 6, 2001, a Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." mentioned "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

On May 17, 2002, Bush discussed the situation, saying, "The American people know this about me, and my national security team, and my administration: Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people."

On Sept. 11, Bush referred to the attacks, saying, "Five years after 9/11, our enemies have not succeeded in launching another attack on our soil, but they’ve not been idle. Al-Qaeda and those inspired by its hateful ideology have carried out terrorist attacks in more than two dozen nations. And just last month, they were foiled in a plot to blow up passenger planes headed for the United States. They remain determined to attack America and kill our citizens—and we are determined to stop them."

Polling Data

When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Oct. 2006
May 2002

Telling the truth
16%
21%

Hiding something
53%
65%

Mostly lying
28%
8%

Not sure
3%
6%



Source: The New York Times / CBS News
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 983 American adults, conducted from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8, 2006. Margin of error is 4 per cent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469

[ 12-25-2006, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: Tempest ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 285 | Registered: Aug 2005   

[Tesha Dodge]

Allison-

Member
Member # 2967

Member Rated:
   posted 12-25-2006 03:53 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's an easy one Allison... He allowed it to happen. He didn't know it was coming, so he did nothing to prevent it, then it happened. Nuff said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean, too dumb to realize it was going to happen because he isn't smart enough to pay attention.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrupt and arrogant as this administration has been proven to be...

Hold up... Compared to whom? Compared to which administration? Clinton? ROTFLMAO!!! OMG that's a hoot! You really do crack me up - God, that's was a great joke... Thanks, I needed that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, at least Clinton had a successful presidency and all the scandals he had were harmless ones, totally hyped up bs, courtesy of Fox News.

Bush is a liar and a crook, and he is too dumb to even do it convincingly.

Say, did you happen to see this poll on Bush vs. Clinton, Merlin?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poll: Clinton outperformed Bush

Monday, May 15, 2006; Posted: 10:16 a.m. EDT (14:16 GMT)

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll/

(CNN) -- In a new poll comparing President Bush's job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.

The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush).

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.

Clinton was impeached in 1998 over testimony he gave in a deposition about an extramarital sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinksy. He was later acquitted by the Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you see that, Merlin? Clinton even polls more honest than George W. So I guess your maniacal laughter is a bit out of the mainstream.

People like Bill Clinton (except you, of course). They don't like George Bush (again, except you).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...does anyone even doubt anymore that he and his people had something to do with 9/11??

So, you folks accuse him of being stupid, strategiacly deficient and his admistration of being incompetent, but you attempt to blame this on him and his administration.

The preparation required to pull this off rivals troop movements overseas, the strategy necessary would rival a Chess Champion's skills, and the secrecy required has never been demonstrated since World War One. Even the Manhattan Project couldn't keep that many secrets. Beyond that, it requires that the mainstream media buy into the plan "hook-line-and-sinker", yet not a one of them has helped Bush one iota!

So which is it? Is he a genius or a dumbass? A strategizer extraordinaire or a dunce? A super-secret keeper or a blabber mouth? You can't have it both ways.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, you can. We all know that Bush is a dumbass with no morals or seense of decency. However, he does have Rove and Cheney working for him, and we do know how devious those two bastards can be.
 



[ 12-25-2006, 04:07 AM: Message edited by: Allison- ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 412 | From: nowhere | Registered: Feb 2006   

[Tesha Dodge]

Ishtar

Member
Member # 736

  posted 12-25-2006 07:54 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you merl,

this was my fav.

Don't confuse them with logic..lol


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, you're right, he doesn't care about people - all he wants to do is further his political aspirations....

What's that? He's already the president of the U.S. and at the political pinnacle of his career? So, he must be trying to further the Conservative agenda by grooming other "wannabes" for the future... So he picked a V.P. that had no political aspirations, a Secretary of Defense who didn't want to do it, and certainly had no political aspirations, a Secretary of State (Colin) who didn't want to do it and has no political aspirations, and a second SecDef who has no aspirations... What could the pundits be thinking?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and this,


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 So, you folks accuse him of being stupid, strategiacly deficient and his admistration of being incompetent, but you attempt to blame this on him and his administration.

The preparation required to pull this off rivals troop movements overseas, the strategy necessary would rival a Chess Champion's skills, and the secrecy required has never been demonstrated since World War One. Even the Manhattan Project couldn't keep that many secrets. Beyond that, it requires that the mainstream media buy into the plan "hook-line-and-sinker", yet not a one of them has helped Bush one iota!

So which is it? Is he a genius or a dumbass? A strategizer extraordinaire or a dunce? A super-secret keeper or a blabber mouth? You can't have it both ways.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[ 12-25-2006, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: SOPHIA-777 ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10257 | Registered: Feb 2002

[Tesha Dodge]

Ishtar

Member
Member # 736

  posted 12-25-2006 08:31 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sociologist Theodore Sasson at Middlebury College in Vermont.

By providing simple explanations of distressing events -- the conspiracy theory in the Arab world, for example, that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were planned by the Israeli Mossad -- they deflect responsibility or keep people from acknowledging that tragic events sometimes happen inexplicably.

IMHO opinion the C.T.'s regarding 9/11 rob not only us but humanity,

It clouds our vision of who the real enemy is,this is what they want.

Sadly the real enemy seems to be Americans that give an Islamic radical a "not guilty verdic", with a desire to vilify they own country and leaders.

WE are not even allowed to morn.

So if there is another 9/11 will we continue to falsify and twist the facts?

Will we do this everytime America has been attacked?

What does it profit us to believe a lie, and why do we desire to believe it?

"HATE", hate is why we believe the lie, hatred clouds ones vision.

It certainly profits radical Islamic terrorist and propagandists.

I can only imagine how happy it makes them when we turn on ourselves, and destroy one another from within.

For the time will come when people will not tolerate "truth" but, following their own desires and "insatiable curiosity", and will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be "diverted to myths",with all deceit of unrighteousness; because they received not the love of the truth,

--------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10257 | Registered: Feb 2002

[Tesha Dodge]

19Merlin69
unregistered


  posted 12-25-2006 12:13 PM                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Allison-:
You mean, too dumb to realize it was going to happen because he isn't smart enough to pay attention.

Alright, too dumb to pay attention blows the whole conspiracy theory then. I'll stipulate to stupidity or ADD in order to shut the nuts up.

Well, at least Clinton had a successful presidency and all the scandals he had were harmless ones, totally hyped up bs, courtesy of Fox News.

Do you create demons just to fight them, or do you really see conspiracy everywhere you turn? Let's take a look at Slick's "Successful presidency", the one known as "The Most Corrupt Presidency in the History of America"


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECORDS SET

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of ****.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.

Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."


STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION

- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3

CRIME STATS

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

SMALTZ INVESTIGATION

- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million

CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES
FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED

Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.

OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS
AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA

Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.

ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER'S

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1

THE CLINTON LEGACY:
LONELY HONOR

Here are some of the all too rare public officials, reporters, and others who spoke truth to the dismally corrupt power of Bill and Hill Clinton's political machine -- some at risk to their careers, others at risk to their lives. A few points to note:

- Those corporatist media reporters who attempted to report the story often found themselves muzzled; some even lost their jobs. The only major dailies that consistently handled the story well were the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times.

- Nobody on this list has gotten rich and many you may not have even heard of. Taking on the Clintons typically has not been a happy or rewarding experience. At least ten reporters have been fired, transferred off their beats, resigned, or otherwise gotten into trouble because of their work on the scandals. Whistleblowing is even less appreciated within the government. One study of whistleblowers found that 232 out of 233 them reported suffering retaliation; another study found reprisals in about 95% of cases.

- Contrary to the popular impression, the politics of those listed ranges from the left to the right, and from the ideological to the independent.


PUBLIC OFFICIALS

MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ was a prosecutor on the staff of Kenneth Starr. His attempts to uncover the truth in the Vincent Foster death case were repeatedly foiled and he was the subject of planted stories undermining his credibility and implying that he was unstable. Rodriguez eventually resigned.

JEAN DUFFEY: Head of a joint federal-county drug task force in Arkansas. Her first instructions from her boss: "Jean, you are not to use the drug task force to investigate any public official." Duffey's work, however, led deep into the heart of the Dixie Mafia, including members of the Clinton machine and the investigation of the so-called "train deaths." Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports that when she produced a star witness who could testify to Clinton's involvement with ****, the local prosecuting attorney, Dan Harmon issued a subpoena for all the task force records, including "the incriminating files on his own activities. If Duffey had complied it would have exposed 30 witnesses and her confidential informants to violent retributions. She refused." Harmon issued a warrant for her arrest and friendly cops told her that there was a $50,000 price on her head. She eventually fled to Texas. The once-untouchable Harmon was later convicted of racketeering, extortion and drug dealing.

BILL DUNCAN: An IRS investigator in Arkansas who drafted some 30 federal indictments of Arkansas figures on money laundering and other charges. Clinton biographer Roger Morris quotes a source who reviewed the evidence: "Those indictments were a real slam dunk if there ever was one." The cases were suppressed, many in the name of "national security." Duncan was never called to testify. Other IRS agents and state police disavowed Duncan and turned on him. Said one source, "Somebody outside ordered it shut down and the walls went up."

RUSSELL WELCH: An Arkansas state police detective working with Duncan. Welch developed a 35-volume, 3,000 page archive on drug and money laundering operations at Mena. His investigation was so compromised that a high state police official even let one of the targets of the probe look through the file. At one point, Welch was sprayed in the face with poison, later identified by the Center for Disease Control as anthrax. He would write in his diary, "I feel like I live in Russia, waiting for the secret police to pounce down. A government has gotten out of control. Men find themselves in positions of power and suddenly crimes become legal." Welch is no longer with the state police.

DAN SMALTZ: Smaltz did an outstanding job investigating and prosecuting charges involving illegal payoffs to Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, yet was treated with disparaging and highly inaccurate reporting by the likes of the David Broder and the NY Times. Espy was acquitted under a law that made it necessary to not only prove that he accepted gratuities but that he did something specific in return. On the other hand, Tyson Foods copped a plea in the same case, paying $6 million in fines and serving four years' probation. The charge: that Tyson had illegally offered Espy $12,000 in airplane rides, football tickets and other payoffs. In the Espy investigation, Smaltz obtained 15 convictions and collected over $11 million in fines and civil penalties. Offenses for which convictions were obtained included false statements, concealing money from prohibited sources, illegal gratuities, illegal contributions, falsifying records, interstate transportation of stolen property, money laundering, and illegal receipt of USDA subsidies. Incidentally, Janet Reno blocked Smaltz from pursuing leads aimed at allegations of major drug trafficking in Arkansas and payoffs to the then governor of the state, WJ Clinton. Espy had become Ag secretary only after being flown to Arkansas to get the approval of chicken king Don Tyson.

DAVID SCHIPPERS was House impeachment counsel and a Chicago Democrat. He did a highly creditable job but since he didn't fit the right-wing conspiracy theory, the Clintonista media downplayed his work. Thus most Americans don't know that he told NewsMax, "Let me tell you, if we had a chance to put on a case, I would have put live witnesses before the committee. But the House leadership, and I'm not talking about Henry Hyde, they just killed us as far as time was concerned. I begged them to let me take it into this year. Then I screamed for witnesses before the Senate. But there was nothing anybody could do to get those Senators to show any courage. They told us essentially, you're not going to get 67 votes so why are you wasting our time." Schippers also said that while a number of representatives looked at additional evidence kept under seal in a nearby House building, not a single senator did.

JOHN CLARKE: When Patrick Knowlton stopped to relieve himself in Ft. Marcy Park 70 minutes before the discovery of Vince Foster's body, he saw things that got him into deep trouble. His interview statements were falsified and prior to testifying he claims he was overtly harassed by more than a score of men in a classic witness intimidation technique. In some cases there were witnesses. John Clarke has been his dogged lawyer in the witness intimidation case that has been largely ignored by the media, even when the three-judge panel overseeing the Starr investigation permitted Knowlton to append a 20 page addendum to the Starr Report.


OTHER

THE ARKANSAS COMMITTEE: What would later be known as the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy actually began on the left - as a group of progressive students at the University of Arkansas had formed the Arkansas Committee to look into Mena, drugs, money laundering, and Arkansas politics. This committee was the source of some of the important early Clinton stories including those published in the Progressive Review.

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS E-LIST: Moderated by Ray Heizer, this list has been subject to all the idiosyncrasies of Internet bulletin boards, but it has nonetheless proved invaluable to researchers and journalists.


JOURNALISTS

JERRY SEPER of the Washington Times was far and away the best beat reporter of the story, handling it week after week in the best tradition of investigative journalism. If other reporters had followed Seper's lead, the history of the Clintons' machine might have been quite different.

AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD of the London Telegraph did a remarkable job of digging into some of the seamiest tales from Arkansas and the Clinton past. Other early arrivals on the scene were Alexander Cockburn and Jeff Gerth.

CHRISTOPHER RUDDY, among other fine reports on the Clinton scandals, did the best job laying out the facts in the Vince Foster death case.

ROGER MORRIS AND SALLY DENTON wrote a major expose of events at Mena, but at the last moment the Washington Post's brass ordered the story killed. It was published by Penthouse and later included in Morris' "Partners in Power," the best biography of the Clintons.

OTHERS who helped get parts of the story out included reporters Philip Weiss, Carl Limbacher, Wes Phelan, David Bresnahan, William Sammon, Liza Myers, Mara Leveritt, Matt Drudge, Jim Ridgeway, Nat Hentoff, Michael Isikoff, Christopher Hitchens, and Michael Kelly. Also independent investigator Hugh Sprunt and former White House FBI agent Gary Aldrich.

SAM SMITH of the Progressive Review wrote the first book (Shadows of Hope, University of Indiana Press, 1994) deconstructing the Clinton myth and the Review developed a major database on the topic.

The Clintons, to adapt a line from Dr. Johnson, were not only corrupt, they were the cause of corruption in others. Seldom in America have so many come to excuse so much mendacity and malfeasance as during the Clinton years.

THE CLINTON LEGACY
The Hidden Election

USA Today calls it "the hidden election," in which nearly 7,000 state legislative seats are decided with only minimal media and public attention. The paper took brief notice because this is the year the state legislatures perform their most important national function: drawing revised congressional districts based on the most recent census.

But there's another important national story here: further evidence of the disaster that Bill Clinton has been for the Democratic Party. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of last November that lead had shrunk to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats control only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans.

Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November, the Republicans control one more than the Democrats. Not only is this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it is the first time since 1954 that the GOP has controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968).

Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton, based on our latest figures:

- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8
- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254
as of 1998
- State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9
- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became
president: 439 as of 1998
- Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became president: 3

NATIONAL CONF OF STATE LEGISLATURES
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/hstptyct.htm
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/demshare2000.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush is a liar and a crook, and he is too dumb to even do it convincingly.

Yes Allison, you have made your personal feelings on the issue quite clear. No conspiracy - Got it.

Say, did you happen to see this poll on Bush vs. Clinton, Merlin?

(CNN)

I quit reading as soon as I saw your source. CNN holds the liberal banner tightly, just like FOX does the conservative one. I discount both extremes and gravitate toward the truth... I mean the middle.

Did you see that, Merlin? Clinton even polls more honest than George W. So I guess your maniacal laughter is a bit out of the mainstream.

That is simply a sign of the times Allison. The fact that the guy can have the most corrupt administration in history, cheat on his wife, lie - cheat & steal, and still be considered a "decent guy" simply means that our standards are too low. I would certainly not brag about that Allison if you personally have any morals. I know I wouldn't see it as any sort of "victory" if I were anti-Bush.

People like Bill Clinton (except you, of course).

Me and millions more.

They don't like George Bush (again, except you).

I don't like "W", but I don't dislike him either. I like some of his policy, and I dislike some other. But there are also millions of others who like him as well - I'm not lonely here in the middle.

Sure, you can. We all know that Bush is a dumbass with no morals or seense of decency. However, he does have Rove and Cheney working for him, and we do know how devious those two bastards can be.

Wow, you're just all over the place with that one... No morals, or sense of decency? Cripes - you must be talking about Slick Willy, because you darned sure aren't talking about Bubba; morality and decency are the only two things he really does have going for him.

As for Rove and Cheney, as usual, you provide no evidence whatsoever - only wild accusations. Try a little evidence next time... Ooops - that's right, there isn't any. Must be a conspiracy!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Tesha Dodge]

Allison-

Member
Member # 2967

Member Rated:
   posted 12-25-2006 01:05 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merlin,

My aren't you the frantic cut and paster! I never want to hear you complaining about cut and paste in the forum from this time on, Merlin, as it's plain you aren't against doing it either, when it suits your right wing agenda.

I'm supposed to debate all your cut and pasted material? Lame.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECORDS SET

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which everyone knows was a witch-hunt. Clinton was at 70% in the polls when this happened, Merl!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most number to come under "crminal investigation cause they were victims of the partisan witch-hunt by the lame Republican Congress.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A right wing fantasy, I'm so sure that Clinton killed all those guys! Vince Foster's death, by the way, was ruled by right winger Ken Starr a suicide, by the way. I imagine Clinton also was supposed to have had Ron Brown killed, too? What idiocy.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, old bitty Paula Jones was funded by right wing enemies of Clinton who wanted to embarrass him. Take a look at her, is she worth sexual harrassment? White trash wanting attention is more like it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- First president accused of ****.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another right wing fantasy, no evidence!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, as part of the partisan witchhunt? How many charges were brought against her. or Buill, for that matter?

0.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More over-hyped Fox News bs.

How many if these things were Bill or Hillary ever convicted of? Again, the number:

0

They spent 80 million dollars on Whitewater alone and turned up 0. All the other crap you cited, the Clintons had only marginal involvement in, and the public knew it too.

Most corrupt President in history, my ass.

Most over-hyped when it comes to corruption by hateful right wingers(like yourself) is more like it.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is simply a sign of the times Allison. The fact that the guy can have the most corrupt administration in history, cheat on his wife, lie - cheat & steal, and still be considered a "decent guy" simply means that our standards are too low. I would certainly not brag about that Allison if you personally have any morals. I know I wouldn't see it as any sort of "victory" if I were anti-Bush.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who cares if the guy cheated on his wife? Were you married to him? Because, as far as I care, if she has no problem with it, personally I could care less.

What I care about is how the guy governed:

Under Clinton, we had the longest period of economic prosperity, mostly peace, and everyone around the world loved us. He was a successful President.

Unlike Bush who is a complete screw-up, incompetent, corrupt and stupid.





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't like "W", but I don't dislike him either. I like some of his policy, and I dislike some other. But there are also millions of others who like him as well - I'm not lonely here in the middle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure you are, you are just stubborn and don't want to give up on him. 


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, you're just all over the place with that one... No morals, or sense of decency? Cripes - you must be talking about Slick Willy, because you darned sure aren't talking about Bubba; morality and decency are the only two things he really does have going for him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope, I'm talking about Bush, your buddy. All the Clinton scandals were manufactured and hyped by Fox News. All the Bush scandals have mostly gotten people killed.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for Rove and Cheney, as usual, you provide no evidence whatsoever - only wild accusations. Try a little evidence next time... Ooops - that's right, there isn't any. Must be a conspiracy!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have to have investigations before we can find proof, Merlin! You know, like the hundreds of investigations that the Republican Congress wasted on the Clintons all to prove that they were't guilty of anything.  



This must be the pic where Clinton and Gore got the news that W. was running for President!

[ 12-25-2006, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Allison- ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 412 | From: nowhere | Registered: Feb 2006 

[Tesha Dodge]

 
Allison-

Member
Member # 2967

Member Rated:
   posted 12-25-2006 01:30 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



 DO THESE PICTURES PROVE THE WTC SOUTH TOWER CRUMBLED MANY FLOORS BELOW THE ACTUAL IMPACT POINT?

Greetings.

Attached are a few pictures of the WTC collapse.

First, "WC 2" is the South Tower at the moment of collapse. I have drawn lines on the picture to show the breaking point floor and its relation to the NE corner column.

When I first saw this picture back in September, something seemed askew. It almost looked fake. Once the lines are placed upon the image, to me the obvious shows. There are "puffs" of concrete, or something else shooting out from the tower almost 20 floors below the point of collapse. Remember, this picture was taken in the first second of the collapse.

There is also some steel beams falling ahead of the collapse, maybe 40 floors below the breaking point. Seen along the northeast column in the dust is some sparking, or fireball, or flames or something glowing some 20 floors below the collapse floor. Draw your own conclusions on this one if you may.

Now for "WT109 A" and "WT109 B". This is a shot taken perhaps 2 seconds later.

Much has been said about the top section turning to dust. But there is a little anamoly in the form of a "poof" about 10 floors below the leading edge of the dust. I have circled it on picture "B".

Anyway, just some of the strange things from 911. I hope it reveals more of the (to me) obvious.

Good day,
James

www.propagandamatrix.com/collapse.html
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 412 | From: nowhere | Registered: Feb 2006
 

[Tesha Dodge]

19Merlin69
unregistered


  posted 12-25-2006 01:34 PM                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tempest:
Sounds like the conservatives here are in the minority to the general public. Then, I've always found that conservatives tend to be more naive and believe whatever their government tells them:

Of course, that could be said a little differently. Liberals tend to believe the opposite of everything their government tells them, which is stupid. I would rather be naive than an idiot.

To choose to disbelieve something simply because you do not like someone, their policies or their personality is absurdly adolescent. It is the mark of under-education. The poll data clearly demonstrates that most "under-educated" voters tend to vote for the party that promises to give them something for nothing. That is the hallmark of the liberals, whereas most "educated" individuals gravitate to the conservatives; leaving the middle wide open.

"...only 16% believe the government telling the truth)

- Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.

That isn't very specific. What is the administration lying about? Let's use an analogy for exposition, shall we?

A man comes home and finds his girlfriend in the shower in the middle of the afternoon (she never does that to his knowledge). He sneaks in on her, and trys to get a bit "frisky", but she's having NONE OF THAT. He asks her, "what's wrong?" To which she replies, "Nothing, I'm just not in the mood." He's convinced she's not telling him the truth, but no matter how much he pressures her, she tells him the same thing, "Nothing is wrong." So - is she lying just because she unexpectedly got her monthly visitor, but doesn't feel like telling him? Does it matter that he thinks that he interrupted a post-coital shower? Is she lying by ommission, or is it really none of his business?

In other words, maybe we do know the truth, maybe we know most of it but there is still some aspect that hasn't been shared - who knows. One thing is for certain, the fact that we do not have evidence for a conspiracy is NOT EVIDENCE FOR A CONSPIRACY!

Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002.

Actually, that is not what it says, I have the link to the article and the poll below. What it says is that only 16% believe it "willy-nilly". 53% think they are "hiding something" but only 28% believe it is an outright lie. here is the link to the actual article: NY Times CBS (ultra-liberal) poll results

I find polls most interesting considering I can locate some that say something completely different. Hell, I can even find polls that make the public look like complete nitwits:


USA TODAY poll
USA TODAY poll - A big one!
CNN/USA TODAY - GALLUP poll report
SCRIPPS NEWS poll

On Aug. 6, 2001, a Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." mentioned "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

This information in and of itself would have been misleading, would it not? "Hijackings or other types of attacks"? That means the attacks could have been anything... How about, "surveillance of Federal Buildings in New York?" To my knowledge, no Federal Buildings were hit in NY, and only 1 government (military) building was hit in Washington (hundreds of miles away).

On May 17, 2002, Bush discussed the situation, saying, "The American people know this about me, and my national security team, and my administration: Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people."

I agree with him. The American public agreed with him too - until the conspiracy nuts got a broadband connection. 

Polling Data

When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Oct. 2006
May 2002

Telling the truth
16%
21%

Hiding something
53%
65%

Mostly lying
28%
8%

Not sure
3%
6%



As I said before, this is due entirely to the fact that people don't like him. There are no new facts to make anyone believe otherwise, so this is simply a popularity poll in disguise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

[Tesha Dodge]

Allison-

Member
Member # 2967

Member Rated:
   posted 12-25-2006 01:55 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, that could be said a little differently. Liberals tend to believe the opposite of everything their government tells them, which is stupid. I would rather be naive than an idiot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, that would depend on who is in office, there, Merlin. If it was a Democrat, we'd be more apt to trust them, because a Dem can't get anywhere without supporting the people, the average people. A Republican president, on the other hand, tends to only support the rich people.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To choose to disbelieve something simply because you do not like someone, their policies or their personality is absurdly adolescent. It is the mark of under-education. The poll data clearly demonstrates that most "under-educated" voters tend to vote for the party that promises to give them something for nothing. That is the hallmark of the liberals, whereas most "educated" individuals gravitate to the conservatives; leaving the middle wide open.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, no you don't get away with that, Mr. Frantic Cut and Paster! Most uneducated people vote Republican! Most of the people who vote Republican are rural, ultra-religious (or ultra-rich) and get their news from Fox.

Liberals tend to be more intellectual, more-people oriented, and more forward thinking.

Conservatives tend to be stuck in the mud, not wanting things to change, hence the name, "conservative," which, to my mind, is synonymous with Bible-thumping, homophobic, racist idiots.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 412 | From: nowhere | Registered: Feb 2006   

[Tesha Dodge]

19Merlin69
unregistered


  posted 12-25-2006 02:04 PM                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMG Allison, should we all just start screaming witch hunt everytime you say something negative about Bush? You dismiss everything that way, including items with evidence!

By the way, Star did not proclaim Vince Foster was a suicide - check your facts. Oh, while I'm on a roll - This was my first C & P, and it was done simply to protest the massive C & Ps prior. No one gives a darn anyway, so, when in Rome....


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allison: How many if these things were Bill or Hillary ever convicted of? Again, the number: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But only because he and she made restitution for so many of the items. Such as, repayment of the illgotten gains, refund of the illegal contributions, matching for the illegal funds that had already been spent. Also, plea deals were made under a gag and seal order to convict other members of the indictments. In other words, they ratted out their partners and their buddies did time instead of them. Don't ignore the facts Allison, it won't be pretty when Clinton dies and the records are unsealed... Kind of like JFK's records.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allison: "They spent 80 million dollars on Whitewater alone and turned up 0.

Read the above statement - they turned in a number of convictions, but none on Slick and his wife; all plea deals with those two "fair-weather friends".

All the other crap you cited, the Clintons had only marginal involvement in, and the public knew it too.

Marginal??? As if that makes it all better. You live in denial Allison.

Most corrupt President in history, my ass.

I cannot comment on your hind end (I have no direct knowledge of it), but if you are comparing it to the train-wreck that was the Clinton Whitehouse, I don't think I want to know it. You cannot ignore the facts just because you don't like them.

Most over-hyped when it comes to corruption by hateful right wingers(like yourself) is more like it.
"

I'm no right-winger, and you know it, it just makes you feel more comfortable thinking that you can dismiss me based upon the same uneducated bias that you employ. It doesn't work with me since my politics are clearly stated and on the record.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allison: "Who cares if the guy cheated on his wife? Were you married to him? Because, as far as I care, if she has no problem with it, personally I could care less"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I cannot imagine why you would feel that way. Not only is it counterintuitive, it's the type of answer someone with low self-esteem (and respect) would give. No wonder you like Slick and his wife.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allison: "Yeah, old bitty Paula Jones was funded by right wing enemies of Clinton who wanted to embarrass him. Take a look at her, is she worth sexual harrassment? White trash wanting attention is more like it. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh huh, that sounds like it's coming from a male chauvanist... Are we certain that Allison is a man? Yeah - I know, you are female - it just stuns me to hear that sentiment from you: "Only pretty girls can be harrassed". By they way, there was TONS of evidence from the Arkansas days that implicated Slick; audio tape & letters. Somehow, I think all of the "Hype" is coming from you. You do realize that Willy admitted to wrong-doing; right???


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allison:"All the Clinton scandals were manufactured and hyped by Fox News"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are delusional! That is the single biggest pile of steaming B.S. I have ever heard, and the first time I have ever heard it, from anyone. Clinto was a perfect angel - who never did anything wrong and all of this is made up??? You really do hold the record for revising history!

After reading that crack-pot line, I have nothing at all to say - you are too far gone to be brought back.

[Tesha Dodge]

19Merlin69
unregistered


  posted 12-25-2006 02:09 PM                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Allison-:
Oh, no you don't get away with that, Mr. Frantic Cut and Paster!

Frantic? Who are you referring to?

Most uneducated people vote Republican! Most of the people who vote Republican are rural, ultra-religious (or ultra-rich) and get their news from Fox.

Liberals tend to be more intellectual, more-people oriented, and more forward thinking.

Conservatives tend to be stuck in the mud, not wanting things to change, hence the name, "conservative," which, to my mind, is synonymous with Bible-thumping, homophobic, racist idiots.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, let's see the facts on that Allison. No Wikipedia, no CNN, no NY Times... In fact - let's hold the media outlets alltogether and cite data from "evidenciary stores" only.

Allow me to point out that I said - UNDEREDUCATED - not "un-educated". I'm ready to "go to the mat" on this with you, so I challenge you to prove me wrong. 

[Tesha Dodge]

19Merlin69
unregistered


  posted 12-25-2006 03:13 PM                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make very certain that you pay close attention to the words I used; it will make a big difference in the end.

Here's another helpful hint for you: I said "conservative" and "liberal" - NOT - "Democrat" & "Republican".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

[Tesha Dodge]

Allison-

Member
Member # 2967

Member Rated:
   posted 12-25-2006 03:48 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[ 12-25-2006, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Allison- ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 412 | From: nowhere | Registered: Feb 2006   

[Tesha Dodge]

Volitzer

Member
Member # 245

Rate Member   posted 12-25-2006 03:54 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Allison-:


 DO THESE PICTURES PROVE THE WTC SOUTH TOWER CRUMBLED MANY FLOORS BELOW THE ACTUAL IMPACT POINT?

Greetings.

Attached are a few pictures of the WTC collapse.

First, "WC 2" is the South Tower at the moment of collapse. I have drawn lines on the picture to show the breaking point floor and its relation to the NE corner column.

When I first saw this picture back in September, something seemed askew. It almost looked fake. Once the lines are placed upon the image, to me the obvious shows. There are "puffs" of concrete, or something else shooting out from the tower almost 20 floors below the point of collapse. Remember, this picture was taken in the first second of the collapse.

There is also some steel beams falling ahead of the collapse, maybe 40 floors below the breaking point. Seen along the northeast column in the dust is some sparking, or fireball, or flames or something glowing some 20 floors below the collapse floor. Draw your own conclusions on this one if you may.

Now for "WT109 A" and "WT109 B". This is a shot taken perhaps 2 seconds later.

Much has been said about the top section turning to dust. But there is a little anamoly in the form of a "poof" about 10 floors below the leading edge of the dust. I have circled it on picture "B".

Anyway, just some of the strange things from 911. I hope it reveals more of the (to me) obvious.

Good day,
James

www.propagandamatrix.com/collapse.html
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Remember their were photos shot of people setting explosives when the 1993 attacks happened. Whose to say the Bilderbergs didn't give some high ranking official the authority for a "maintenance crew" to come in and do some "repair work".

Obviously if the Bilderbergs are going to order bombs planted they are going to cover their tracks with "official" records to pacify gullible conservatives and the clueless public.

Think of all the maintenance the WTC would see in a month. Plumbers, electricians, structural engineers, HVAC people. Of course all these people are going to fill out their proper logs. All this while the undercovers go and place the explosives at the joints.

Not all that hard to concieve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6864 | From: Jacksonville, Florida | Registered: Oct 2000