Posted on 07/20/2004 7:44:02 PM PDT by BILL_C
"But we are entitled to the truth"
That's a sentiment worth repeating.
What do they call that? Occam's Razor? The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Rush is also right about this. He said that things like this never remain secret forever. Eventually they are revealed. It is a serious investigation of a high profile ex-official. Just when would be a good time for the Dims for this to come out? After sKerry is elected his national security advisor is revealed to have stolen classified documents? Sure, the Dims would consider that good timing. /sarcasm
To paraphrase Seinfeld, "He's like some sort of Svengali." What is it about X42i that makes so many people support him to the end and take the fall for him? Is it because others disappear if they don't? It's creepy. No wonder he didn't really go after Saddam. They're 2 peas in a pod, just operating in different cultures.
Don't count on it. Gorelick and Berger will fall on their swords if needed.
Read the book and then tell us what you think. For now you can read this.
***(Thurs 7-8) ASK JAYNA DAVIS QUESTIONS ABOUT HER BOOK -- "THE THIRD TERRORIST"***
Ock·ham's razor also Oc·cam's razor
A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.
The Democrats are relying the short attention span of the American sheeple. NOW is much better time for this to come out than, say, September or October.
I don't think this "investigation" is any more serious than Clinton's impeachment. Nothing will come of it. Pols (esp. Democrats) cover for one another, and, if all else fails, Hillary still has her copies of the FBI files.
He was a animal that butchered men, women and children.
I did not intend to imply any respect toward him. I was trying to say how he viewed HIMSELF. I agree with your thoughts.
Up until 9/11, Al Qaeda had never admitted culpability in any terrorist attack, let alone claimed it.
"Sorry, I don't view this POS as a "freedom fighter".
He was a animal that butchered men, women and children."
"I did not intend to imply any respect toward him. I was trying to say how he viewed HIMSELF. I agree with your thoughts."
Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.
Good story, but it doesn't fit into reality.
Actually, the American Public's reation, the Press' reaction, even Free Republic's reaction doesn't fit into reality. In EVERY ONE of these "Conspiries" the common thread is that the investigation IGNORES the witnesses. The investigators ignore the witnesses so they can ignore the truth. The truth is obvious, but some don't think it fits into reality.
I'll use your comment in my book as typical. I would be curious what your explanation is of OKC, TWA800, Sandy Berger, 9/11 Commission, Jamie Gorelick, Able Danger? Do you still think these events are unrelated?
August 15, 2000. The Washington Times carried a full page ad from the TWA 800 Eyewitness Alliance demanding that they be heard. The ad claims that the FBI and NTSB have lied to the American public and that hundreds of people witnessed a missile shoot down Flight 800. It concludes: "We, the eyewitnesses know that missiles were involved. We don't know who launched them, but we know that for some reason our government has lied and tried to discredit all of us to keep that question from being addressed." ... "The claim that our evidence is worthless is false and we want to know who is behind it. Hundreds of us SAW what happened. The FBI, the CIA and the NTSB must not be allowed to get away with this cover-up by defamation of the eyewitnesses. We appeal to those who know why this is being done to share their information with us. Confidentiality is guaranteed.
http://www.twa800.com/eyewitnesses.htm
The AD:
http://twa800.com/images/times-8-15-00.gif
Relevant data from the Eyewitness Group Factual Report:
* Based on the data, 183 witnesses said they saw a streak of light, 201 said they saw one or more explosions, 100 said they heard one or more explosions, and 339 said they saw a fireball.
* Of the 183 who observed a streak of light, 102 gave information about the origin of the streak. Six said the streak originated from the air, and 96 said that it originated from the surface. Of the 96 who said it originated from the surface, 40 said it originated from the sea and 10 said it originated from land.
*
One hundred and twenty-eight witnesses reported an immediate end to the streak, 85 described it ending in an explosion, 32 said it ended in a fireball, and 11 said it ended in a flash.
Absolutely, and that pathetic creep is also a natural born killer, imo.
Did not know one of the Oklahoma bombers penned a defense of Iraq in his swan song. That is very interesting info.
Bump for later read.......
Interesting...McVeigh's loyalty to some cause took him to the grave. Out of spite he did not reveal who else was involved (as far as what the opublic knows) If he knew he was going to die, though, what did he have to lose if it wasn't spite?
Excellent!
bttt
Out of spite he did not reveal who else was involved (as far as what the opublic knows) If he knew he was going to die, though, what did he have to lose if it wasn't spite?
I'm not going to look up it up now, but McVeigh in his writings from prison took the stance that the people killed in Iraq during Gulf War I were no more guilty than the people in Oklahoma City. He appeared to me to side with Iraq and felt guilty (maybe ashamed) to have fought against them.
Therefore, if he participated in the bombing with Iraqi defectors in Oklahoma City, why would he "sell them out."
His refusal to talk is, IMHO, consistent with what he did in OKC. In some ways he saw himself as a freedom fighter, pathetic as he was.
Of significance, though, is there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that Iraq was involved with terrorism in the United States during CLinton's terms. The theme here, is that Bill Clinton, as President of the United States, prevented real investigations from taking place.
If you look at Able Danger and the implications of that, it is entirely consistent with "the coverup" goes on no matter who is President.
There is too much dirt to pull up the rug now and look.
I'll use your comment in my book as typical. I would be curious what your explanation is of OKC, TWA800, Sandy Berger, 9/11 Commission, Jamie Gorelick, Able Danger? Do you still think these events are unrelated?
I am not at all sure what you are getting at but I do see how all of those events and people can be connected with a common thread. Or threads. Quite simply terrorism is one. Bill Clinton is another. Cover-ups is another. National security threats would be another. SAP (Stone Age Media) spin is common to all those stories but then that is so ubiquitous as to be meaningless.
I guess what confused me this morning (because this thread is over a year old) is what comment of mine you were responding too. You did see that the above quote was not mine but God-fearer's and that I was quoting him in my post didn't you?
So, what is this book of yours and has it been published yet?
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.
