Posted on 11/12/2004 5:28:06 AM PST by Calpernia
Thanks for the ping!
I don't know you, or anything about you, but something tells me you are right. Do you think the bombing of the Murrah Federal Bldg. in Oklahoma City was part of this? If so, will it see the light of day?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1222207/posts
The Oklahoma City bombing: Jack Cashill exposes early efforts by Clintons to exploit bombings
JohnHuang2
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1225601/posts
Oklahoma City: The aftermath/Jack Cashill exposes how FBI helped White House cover up terrorism
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b27cd163df2.htm
Oklahoma City Bombing Cover-Up
FormerLurker
(This posts still have active video download links)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1144
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 28, 1998
An "investigative" piece by Murray Waas and Jonathan Broder, has ratcheted up the Clinton assault on special prosecutor Ken Starr. (Disclosure: this author has never met or spoken to Ken Starr). The Salon piece purported to reveal that the "right-wing conspiracy" (aka Richard Mellon Scaife), provided cash payments to anti-Clinton witness David Hale. The payments were made through intermediaries running his "Arkansas Project" which apparently was a project to fund investigative reports by The American Spectator into various threads of the Clinton scandals. A follow-up piece by the same reporters explained: "The nagging problem for Starr is that the same Scaife-controlled foundations that funneled money to the Arkansas Project have also contributed more than $1 million to the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy in California, where Starr will become dean after he completes his duties as independent counsel. Following the money trail of the alleged payments to Hale inevitably would lead to Pepperdine benefactor Scaife."
As I have pointed out before, the Pepperdine connection does not rise to being a tenuous thread of conspiracy. It flatly contradicts the conspiracy assumption. Richard Scaife famously underwrote journalist Chris Ruddys efforts to insinuate that Vince Foster was murdered, the very hypothesis Starrs own investigation and report shot down. Equally indigestible for the conspiracy hypothesis is the fact that if Starr had taken the Pepperdine job when and as it was offered, there would be no Starr investigation of Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey, Vernon Jordan et al. If one nonetheless insists on a conspiracy explanation of these events, then the only plausible interpretation of Scaifes gift to Pepperdine would be that he wanted to buy Starr off the case because he thought Starr was not pursuing his investigation of Clinton malfeasance aggressively enough. This, indeed, was the conventional conservative wisdom before the Clintons launched their scorched earth campaign against Starr a first strike that seems to have forced him into an aggressive mode out of sheer self-defense.
Janet Reno, Clintons attorney general, has now taken up the Broder-Waas lead. But others, less obligated to Clinton, may wonder about the reliability of their story about Judge Hale. The chief sources of this story (which Hale denies) are an ex-girlfriend of one of the Arkansas project sleuths and her son. The ex-girlfriend is a psychic who claims to know where Jimmy Hoffa is buried. This doesnt mean her story is conjured, but one would have more confidence if the reporter wasnt Murray Waas, one of the conspiracy hounds who has tried unsuccessfully to persuade the journalistic fraternity and the rest of the country that Ronald Reagan and George Bush are responsible for the crack cocaine epidemic in our inner cities.
Heres a question for the editors of Salon: Where did the Broder-Waas story actually originate? Was Murray Waas in contact with the Clinton camp before they wrote the story? Did he visit the White House and get a briefing on the "Arkansas Project?" Is he on Sidney Blumenthals direct feed? Salons rival, Slate, has already reported seeing Waas, Broder, and Waass other Scaife-conspiracy writing partner, Joe Conason, at a Salon party with Blumenthal. At this festivity, Waas and Blumenthal were seen to step outside for a private consult. Its an intriguing possibility, and Im just asking.
Having asked, I guess it is now incumbent on me, in the present political atmosphere, to engage in a ritual disclaimer: I am not now and have never been a member of any right-wing conspiracy. If I had failed to swear as much, in the current atmosphere of suspicion generated by the Clinton hot-air machine, I would subject to automatic dis-creditation. I would also, in all likelihood, be the target of yet another letter from Waas cohort and Clinton apologist Joe Conason, similar to the one he sent to me after my last column:
"Unlike Horowitz, Im just a journalist, not a hired propagandist. My views are my own. I have never taken a penny from anyone resembling Richard Mellon Scaife, on the left, right or center, let alone the White House or any of its friends. But Horowitz himself dines regularly at the Scaife trough. Just for the record: Between 1994 and 1996 Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture received at least $1.75 million from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, one of the two tax-exempt entities that funded the anti-Clinton Arkansas Project.
The records for 1997 are not publicly available yet. So tell us, David, how much did Scaife give your outfit last year? How much are you getting this year, while you defend the poor, beleaguered billionaire in the pages of Salon? And how big a tip do you expect next year, in recognition of services rendered?"
This is a nice hit. Richard Scaife, who it should be noted was also (and ecumenically) a leader of the campaign to topple Richard Nixon, has been funding conservative policy projects and intellectuals for decades. Given Scaifes resources, these are not as numerous as the liberal and left-wing projects funded by Rockefeller, Ford and MacArthur, but they are considerable and would include most of the conservative intellectuals engaged in the nations debates over policy and ideas. How convenient, if ones purpose is to link and destroy by association every conservative in sight, especially if one doesnt have an actual conspiracy like a Communist Party to make the links. (Richard Scaife, it must be reiterated, has so far not been accused let alone convicted of anything more terrible than funding investigative reporting into the shadowy activities that the Clintons have spent millions of tax-payer dollars in an effort to cover up. (Just to invoke a less partisan opinion, according to Stuart Taylor, writing in the National Journal of March 21, "[there is] powerful evidence ... implicating the President of the United States in dozens of perjuries [and] efforts to obstruct justice and cover up" matters both sexual and financial. Taylor voted for Clinton.)
Conasons accusation that I am a "hired propagandist" is actionable, but unlike his friend, Sid Blumenthal, Im not a particularly litigious fellow and I think these matters should be left to the arena of public debate. Anyone who has followed my long public career or read my autobiography, Radical Son, knows at what personal cost I have arrived at my present opinions. They could probably guess, therefore, that having paid so high a price to remain faithful to what I have learned and believe, I would be a poor candidate at this late stage in life for a career as a hired gun.
It is true that, like the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Institute for Justice, and similar efforts, my Center for the Study of Popular Culture has received funding from the Scaife charities, all public, all on the record. But there is an irony even in this fact. In addition to monies that the Center receives from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, Scaifes personal fund, the Carthage Foundation, regularly gave the Center $250,000 annually prior to the launching of the Arkansas project. In 1995? that sum went to zero, as Scaife apparently directed his resources into the investigation of the Clintons. In other words, my operation lost money as a result of the campaign that Joe Conason thinks I am an enthusiastic participant in.
Personally, as I have elsewhere noted, I have met Richard Scaife the man so unjustly maligned only twice in my life, and not at all since the launching of the Arkansas adventure. I have not had one conversation with Richard Scaife or with any officer of the Sarah Scaife Foundation since the fall of last year, before the Matt Drudge suit and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Moreover, despite my low opinion of Bill Clinton the man, I had not written a single anti-Clinton paragraph during the first six years of his presidency. It was only when my effort to provide legal help for Matt Drudge, elicited attacks on me from the Clinton camp that I was thrust unavoidably into the fray.
Heres a more hopeful irony. In the midst of this descent into the least attractive practices of the nations political past, the brightest spot for me, at least is Salons ecumenical provision of a platform from which I can write these columns and respond to these slanders.
The present political donnybrook affords us many examples of why a two-party system and a multi-vocal dialogue are essential to a democracy like ours. It was conservatives who were the original targets of the special prosecutors office and the sexual harassment laws, and who were its original critics. It was liberals, on the other hand, who were the archetypal victims of McCarthy-like witch-hunts, and accusations of guilt-by-association. Now the shoes are on the other feet. We would all do well to take a deep breath, and think twice about this, before we rush precipitously to judgment about conspirators and conspiracies.
Kosovo province, Serbia
Racak Massacre hoax staged by Clinton Administration . It was later used as an excuse to bomb Serbia.
January 15, 1999 Washington, DC
President Clinton Impeachment Trial.
Rep. Bill McCollum brings the House's factual presentation to a close.
Rep. George Gekas begins outlining the legal grounds for removing the president.
"Why won’t the current administration in the U.S. denounce Clinton’s support of bin Laden’s allies in the Balkans?"
That's the question I've been asking for 4 years.
Milosovic had this to say about uncontrolled "migration" by the islamic Albanians. Whatever we think of Milosovic, he's right on this.
A reminder of the words of Slobadan Milosevic from his International Court trial transcript on 9/27/02:
“So he is holding a head, the head of a Serb that he cut off. So those are the 20,000 Mujahedin that were brought to the European theatre of war through Clinton's policy, and most of them remained there and some went to America and to other countries, and they went all around Europe. And then when they start beheading your own people in wars to come, then you will know what this is all about."
Milosevic quote from internat'l court transcript:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/020927ED.htm
Scroll down to Page 10307, beginning with line 23.
Interesting. Thanks.
bttt
" And then when they start beheading your own people in wars to come, then you will know what this is all about."
I first read this line within days of the Nick Berg beheading. Milosovic may well be a monster, but his words are prophetic. The Serbian people understand what happens with uncontrolled "migration". They are now 10% of their country, the rest Albanian muslims.
But then what happened in Serbia has been another one of those "untouchable" subjects.
People that say "Milosovic may well be a monster," are no more less guilty than the people that cretaed that hoax
I hope to learn more about Milosovic. I haven't formed an opinion.
Hey, some people loved Slobo!
It's rare that one administration will go back and "denounce" what a previous administration did in terms of foreign policy. We're going to see a gradual decrease in US troop numbers in the Balkans, but don't expect an apology from the White House.
Slobo & his wife Mira were two of the biggest beneficiaries in Europe of Saddam's oil voucher program. Go to this list of voucher beneficiaries and scroll down to Yugoslavia. The Socialist Party (1 million barrels) was headed by Milosevic and the Yugoslav Left Party (Communist--9.5 million barrels) was headed by Slobo's wife Mira.
Slobo was also buddies with Arafat & Qaddafi and Yugoslavia had a nice business evading sanctions and selling arms to Iraq. So--at the risk of imposing major cognitive dissonance--Slobo had a lot more to do with Arab terrorists than did the vast majority of his enemies--whether they be Croats, Bosniaks, or Albanians.
Unanswered for only those who choose to deceive themselves or avoid researching the issue.
Uh, Aunt B, did you read the link you posted? You've got the right quote, but it has nothing to do with Albanians or "uncontrolled migration"; you've got the wrong war, wrong people, wrong topic, wrong year. Although the consistent part is Slobo was involved in war crimes in both Bosnia & Kosovo, so you're OK there.
But look at this!! On your link, scroll down to the next page (10308) where Slobo says:
This has nothing do with Muslims. These are Islamic fundamentalists who are the enemies of the entire world. Not only of Christians or some others but of Muslims as well.
Who'd of thunk it? Even Slobo says it the fundamentalists, not Isalm itself that is the problem. I think the court took a break shortly after this or they might have heard him call it "The Religion of Peace!"
>>>but don't expect an apology from the White House.
I would never expect an apology from the White House.
I would expect an investigation into the prior administration and charges to be applied for criminal activity or treason if founded.
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.