Thank you for these threads. One thing I am stuck on is the reference date timestamp of 2.12.09. I believe in this format it is read Dec. 02, 2009 and not what everyone ran with and Q just commented “The timestamp is key.” to a question from an anon as to whether this was about Bev Eckert.
What did happen on Dec. 02, 2009?
Maybe it was this... very bad...
...that Q is pointing us to.
Just a thought of mine for a while now but after post 985 I’m more convinced than ever. Would make a great Q card.
SS1
From above linked article...
“Heavily redacted documents began to emerge only after the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit in 2013. So far, the department has not committed to a date to produce all of the records.”
“In the case of the Shanghai Sports Development Foundation gala, department ethics attorneys exchanged seven emails with President Clinton’s office over two weeks, struggling to get basic information about the event’s hosts, their possible connections to the Chinese government and the financial arrangements offered to Bill Clinton.”
The Clintons say they backed out on the deal but what if they didn’t. The Clintons will find a way to take the money wouldn’t they? Is Q team following the money?
MAGA.
SS1
I think before we go looking at other dates maybe we should spend a little time on the date mentioned, also that Q picked that post and commented makes me believe it is the right track.
Here is what I found so far going down that rabbit hole:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=6870794&page=1
Direct quote from Eckert:
I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I have not gone that far I guess in my analysis of the situation. I know that incompetence can be very great. I work in a field of insurance where I handle claims, accidents, negligence, and it’s downright stupidity at times, what people do and causes harm to others. It can seem, there’s something called willful, reckless, wanton. It is just so close to intentional, yet it is not intentional, reckless wanton behavior. So I guess I’m used to the distinction: that it can be so bad, and seem like they actually wanted it to happen (but it’s not).
I think the most sinister thing that I ever read was the PNAC, the Project for a New American Century, and the fact that they alluded to the need in some way for a Pearl Harbor event to happen, before the American public would be mobilized in supporting some of their agenda. That’s a very frightening thing to say, and to hear, and to know that those people are in this current administration. I think that is something that they need to explain. I think everybody who participated in that at a high level, in PNAC, need to be called by the Commission and asked to explain their line of thinking and their expectations, given the suggestion that this would be a good thing. This would be a good thing!
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128491&page=1
The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for “the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power” and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.
And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were “some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.”
That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.
The next morning — before it was even clear who was behind the attacks — Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam’s Iraq should be “a principal target of the first round of terrorism,” according to Bob Woodward’s book Bush At War.
That day is also when Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Remarks With Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Ali Aboul Gheit Before Their Meeting
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
February 12, 2009
https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2009a/02/117239.htm
Gheit is who said: “The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.”
That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV’s “Round Table Show” in January, on which he said that “he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda.”
Obama allegedly said this in the context of reassuring Gheit that he would soon deal with Israel:
He asked that the Moslem world show patience. Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic American problems (Healthcare) [sic], that he would show the Moslem world what he would do with Israel.
Could this be true? Even if Gheit’s claim isn’t true, or was misreported, every country in the free world must be cognizant of the catastrophic sea change that has taken place in the leadership of the free world — as witnessed by events over the past year. Barack Obama took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and yet whether he is a Muslim or not, he has undeniably gone around the world promoting Islam and Sharia (Islamic law).
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html#ixzz5Bc37rHyv
Also Killed on the Colgan air flight was Allison Des Forges
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Des_Forges
An expert on the Rwanda Genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide#United_States
United States
Intelligence reports indicate that United States president Bill Clinton and his cabinet were aware before the height of the massacre that a “final solution to eliminate all Tutsis” was planned. However, fear of a repeat of the events in Somalia shaped US policy at the time, with many commentators identifying the graphic consequences of the Battle of Mogadishu as the key reason behind the US’s failure to intervene in later conflicts such as the Rwandan genocide. After the battle, the bodies of several US casualties of the conflict were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by crowds of local civilians and members of Aidid’s Somali National Alliance. According to the US’s former deputy special envoy to Somalia, Walter Clarke: “The ghosts of Somalia continue to haunt US policy. Our lack of response in Rwanda was a fear of getting involved in something like a Somalia all over again.” President Clinton has referred to the failure of the U.S. government to intervene in the genocide as one of his main foreign policy failings, saying “I don’t think we could have ended the violence, but I think we could have cut it down. And I regret it.” Eighty percent of the discussion in Washington concerned the evacuation of American citizens.