Long but a very worthwhile read.
We can use the information in here against Hillary and her cohorts.
1 posted on
12/19/2003 2:04:52 PM PST by
Peach
To: Peach
I think something big is brewing about Saddam and 9-11. I'd like to see a confirmed connection made if only to shut up the likes of Chris Matthews.
2 posted on
12/19/2003 2:08:38 PM PST by
Hillary's Folly
(Imagine there's no Hillary. It's easy if you try.)
To: Peach
btt
3 posted on
12/19/2003 2:09:49 PM PST by
GailA
(Millington Rally for America after action http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/872519/posts)
To: Peach
We can use the information in here against Hillary and her cohorts.In this case, I don't think it's a good idea - because, from what I've seen, the EMPTA/soil sample intel was not very good, as EMPTA also can result from the breakdown of Roundup. Considering that the attack on the Sudanese asprin factory is a classic example of bad intel, we should not therefore use it to bolster our arguments.
4 posted on
12/19/2003 2:11:07 PM PST by
dirtboy
(New Ben and Jerry's flavor - Howard Dean Swirl - no ice cream, just fruit at bottom)
To: Peach
"We can use the information in here against Hillary and her cohorts."
We had ALL better get this info down pat! I have been listening to several talk radio shows today, and the DNC has apparently gotten out some potent talking points! What the callers are saying is, of course, pure baloney...unfortunately, there are many people who will choose to believe these lies and pass them on to THEIR friends. Just writing letters to the editor and calling yourselves!
7 posted on
12/19/2003 2:13:25 PM PST by
Maria S
("…the end is near…this time, Americans are serious; Bush is not like Clinton." Uday Hussein 4/9/03)
To: Peach
Ambassador Bill Richardson, at the time U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, echoed those sentiments in an appearance on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," on August 30, 1998. He called the targeting "one of the finest hours of our intelligence people." Note the date: less than two weeks after the attack, in the face of blistering criticism that this was a wag-the-dog attack. And note the source - Richardson, a leading Clintonista spinner. I personally think this is radioactive and best left alone.
18 posted on
12/19/2003 2:20:14 PM PST by
dirtboy
(New Ben and Jerry's flavor - Howard Dean Swirl - no ice cream, just fruit at bottom)
To: Dog; All
Thoughts you'd be interest, Dog, in reading that CLinton believed in an OBL/AQ and Iraq link.
Gotta run for dinner; later.
21 posted on
12/19/2003 2:25:11 PM PST by
Peach
(The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: Peach; Dog
Hi Peach. Thanks for posting this long piece.
23 posted on
12/19/2003 2:29:53 PM PST by
Molly Pitcher
(I miss Bob Bartley....)
To: Peach
I can state logically that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for 9/11:
1) In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded and took over Kuwait.
2) In response, the USA and the coalition assembled a force that drove the Iraqis from Kuwait in 1991.
3) The USA kept 100,000 troops in Saudi Arabia, for which Osama bin Laden took great offense.
4) As a consequence, ObL and Al Qaeda proclaimed war against the USA and the west, and proceeded to bomb the WTC in 1993, helped drive the US and UN out of Somalia in 1993, set up Project Bojinka and tried to kill the Pope in 1995, attacked the US embassies in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000, and the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11/2001.
Ergo, Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. If he hadn't invaded Kuwait, would any of this happened?
The best documentation of this is in the book "Losing Bin Laden" by Richard Miniter. Fascinating read.
25 posted on
12/19/2003 2:41:33 PM PST by
RandyRep
To: Peach
To: Peach
To be fair is it time to drop the wagthedog and aspirin factory taunting at FR
28 posted on
12/19/2003 4:53:41 PM PST by
larryjohnson
(ducking from flames)
To: Peach
37 posted on
12/19/2003 6:17:14 PM PST by
ALOHA RONNIE
(Vet-Battle of IA DRANG-1965 www.LZXRAY.com)
To: All
To: Peach
Seems like this puts the RATS in a difficult position. If the pharmaceutical company was manufacturing chemical weapons (can anyone say WMD) then arent prominent Klintoon RATS supporting GWB? And why did Klintoon reimburse the Sudan government for it after he blew it up? (Something rarely mentioned.)
If it was a legitimate pharmaceutical company than this would lead credent to the argument that Klintoon blew it up only to divert attention from Monica. If the RATS want to have hearing on GWB lying to us then calling these people before the Senate would make for some interesting hearings.
40 posted on
12/22/2003 4:59:06 AM PST by
HarleyD
To: Peach; dirtboy
William Cohen discussing this on Fox News now.
Going to be a hard go to convince many FReepers of this, because they spent so much time gathering evidence showing that bombing the aspirin factory was "wag the dog" and evidence of Clinton's poor military strategy.
41 posted on
12/22/2003 5:20:19 AM PST by
Amelia
("We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson