Posted on 04/05/2006 10:30:54 AM PDT by doug from upland
Even McViegh's lawyer Steven Jones said in his book, "Others Unknown" that Nichols met with Yousif.
Can we have an Ann Coulter rule for Jayna Davis? Even her drawing in the WSJ looks good.
BTTT and bookmark. Thanks for the new info and links.
Grassy Ass
bttt
Oops, don't click that - go to namebase.org, do proximity search with Rohrabacher.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1608606/posts
Ramzi Yousef, Oklahoma City, and Al Qaeda: Linked in Documents?
I have to admit that Clinton and his antics had me fooled. I really bought into the idea that a crazy white guy had a bone to pick and acted on his own or with a couple buddies.
A certain book really opened my eyes to serious gaps and questions that are due serious answers. I started to read a bit more about the happenings.
I think the Clinton regime buried this in order to keep the liberal agenda alive. His liberal agenda was based on the idea that Al qaeda ( or any other terrorist entity) really thinks they have won the war the instant their enemy begins to battle back.
I really think he had the idea that the only way to beat them was to deny them battle alltogether.....like they would just give up and go on to something else. This resulted in attacks that gained frequency and scale culminating in 9 11. Failure to admit that today is where I think all the bush hate comes from....frustration from being so wrong.
Now maybe I am simply nuts and finding things in ideas that make no sense in reality but one truth I know.....Clinton would not go after Saddam no matter what.
He would have lost his liberal base support so action was a non starter.
One question, I saw a picture of jose padilla next to a sketch of a possible third terrorist. Is it my imagination that I see similarities there? Am
i a looney tune for thinking that maybe, just maybe this would explain all the hub bub about him?
Gorelick was "the fixer" alright. OKC, TWA800, 9-11, all covered up to hide the incompetence, malfeasance, and corruption of the Clintons.
I would say that her intelligence and resolve that she has shown command an entrance to that rule. I would say though, that should up to her. :)
After her being on the side of the 9 11 commissions panel that she sat on I would offer she has a wicked set of "tools" that support her being labeled a "fixer".
Everything I have seen says that she should have been answering questions rather than asking them or pondering answers given.
That Padilla had a resemblance was a total coincidence.
Clinton used OKC to save his presidency and get those on his side to dig in their heels and battle us --- the vast right wing conspiracy. He did it brilliantly.
Clinton cared only about a domestic agenda and keeping people dumb and happy. That got him re-elected and saved his conviction in the senate. Remember --- it's the economy, stupid. He knew that is what people cared about, and he used it to his advantage. He did not want to confront Iraq and have a costly foreign war. Dubya did that because he is a true commander in chief. But look at what it has done to Dubya's ratings.
We had 9-11 because Clinton would not deal with Islamic terror. Until 1998, he tried to make everyone believe that domestic terror was our greatest threat.
This is a little off the subject....but was there ever an investigation concerning the suicide bomber who blew himself up at the Oklahoma vs.K-State game last fall? Seems like I remember he had questionable ties to an Islamic group in OKC, but after a few days the news died out.
Thanks doug.
ABout the ratings though. I don't think it is his actions that made them low. I think most people approve of his actions and the pollsters ask pointed questions that mislead people into giving them the results they are seeking in their poll.
Do you approve of the presidents actions in Iraq?
People that want less or no action in Iraq will answer no to this question.
OTOH people that want more action in Iraq will also answer no.
Pollsters will lump both no answers together in order to gain the negative impression even though they are direct opposites.
I offer that it is the MSM and the pollsters that play the game with them that make it appear W is on the losing end of poll numbers. I think that the Kerry (and even gore) exit polls show that W has alot more support than what is portrayed.
I agree that clinton turned us onto the idea we have a serious domestic threat. We do and that enemy consists of our MSM and the liberal left.
More likely they buried it because Clinton blamed Talk Radio and the Right Wing for the bombing. The lift he got from the bombing probably saved his reelection to his second term. I don't think he cared much one way or another about Al Qaeda, until he needed a "Wag the Dog" opportunity on the eve of his impeachment.
BTTT
After her being on the side of the 9 11 commissions panel that she sat on I would offer she has a wicked set of "tools" that support her being labeled a "fixer".
Everything I have seen says that she should have been answering questions rather than asking them or pondering answers given.
In a more just world, this treasonous b*tch would be found hanging from a lamp-post.
WTOMP
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.