Posted on 10/10/2001 6:15:46 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
I rarely post vanities, but in response to some recent threads about the "evidence" that David Schippers has regarding the Oklahoma City bombing and the September 11th attacks I wanted to post a few points for all of my fellow Freepers to consider. I offer them here because I have had my suspicions about Schippers' motives for some time, and I hope either Schippers himself or someone who is in a position to interview him could address them. Forgive me for re-posting them from another thread, but I think these points are worth noting.
1. Mr. Schippers is presenting (actually, not presenting but mentioning) his "evidence" in the wake of the September 11th attacks, when people are interested in any information related to terrorism. I suspect his "evidence" is going to be presented in an upcoming New York Times bestseller, ad it will cost you $19.95 to see exactly what this "evidence" is.
2. Mr. Schippers voted for Bill Clinton not once, but twice. I can barely forgive anyone who voted for X-42 in 1992, but for anyone to vote for him in 1996 and then stand up in 2001 as a pillar of integrity is an utter disgrace.
3. Mr. Schippers also claims that he knew an awful lot of details about the September 11th attack a month in advance, but somehow this was never mentioned during the month before September 11th. One would think that anyone who can make the rounds on television and radio shows today could have done the same thing on September 10th and saved a few thousand lives in the process.
4. Mr. Schippers claims that the September 11th attack on the WTC was originally supposed to be a nuclear attack with a suitcase bomb. He says he spoke to an "underling" at the Justice Department about this, but never followed up on it. Who the hell has credible evidence of a nuclear attack in New York City and leaves the matter in the hands of a janitor at the Justice Department?. If I had such information, I wouldn't even have called the Justice Department. I would have contacted the offices of the CEOs of every major brokerage house on Wall Street instead, and John Ashcroft, President Bush, and maybe even God Himself would have been at my door within 20 minutes.
I would like every Freeper who has heard Schippers over the last few weeks to consider these points. If you have a chance to speak to him personally, please mention them to him and report back to me with his response.
I'm just not buying this, folks.
I'm with AmericainCanada on this one. What in the world is this about. Is there a thread here on FR about this?
Where possible he should name names and provide intricate details. The lady with the binder seems a good place to start. I'd sure like to get a load of what she's actually got.
Sorry we couldn't agree on this one right now, but who knows, we may come together on it later on.
Thanks for the comments. I wish you well.
Well, I, for one, can tell you that I learn something new practically everyday about the Clintons that I didn't know in 1998 and beyond. Believe me, I have had 20 plus years of dealing with them and it just never ends. So don't be too swift to start making up your mind on that reason alone.
But that's not the real issue here -- the question is, what have you learned about them since 1998 that has changed your mind about whether or not you would vote for him again?
So don't be too swift to start making up your mind on that reason alone.
That would be a valid point, except that I have not made up my mind for one reason or another. I am simply providing reasons for my suspicions about him, based not on one reason or another, but on a combination of several reasons.
The questions nobody has answered is: "Where were all these experts and sources of inside information on September 10th?"
By Edward Zehr
The question is being asked by many thoughtful people: "Is this guy sick, or what?" The secrets contained in those documents provided by the independent counsel that were so persuasive to wavering members of the House who viewed them at the Ford Building before voting to impeach President Clinton are leaking out. They paint a picture of a president with severe psychological problems. What was in those documents that left congressmen "horrified", according to Rep. Chris Shays, and "nauseated", in the words of Rep. Mike Castle? (Shays was able to keep his "horror" sufficiently under control to vote against impeachment and subsequently introduce a constitutional amendment that would allow the president a third term). NBC presstitute Tim Russert reportedly let it be known that watching the full five hours of the uncut Juanita Broaddrick interview had made him "physically ill," though obviously not so ill that he thought to mention it on his talking head "news" show the following Sunday. (It's only about sex, you know). What is it about President Clinton's "private" behavior that has such an emetic effect upon pols and press alike?
*snip*
Published in the Mar. 1, 1999 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 1999 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com)
==================================
You can find more in a concise keyword search if you so desire.
I read an interview and would like to find it again. Anyone have a link?
22cal
I would like to introduce you to a concept called capitalism.
Please, read up on it.
In a capitalist system, goods and services are bought and sold in a free market, and the producers are compensated according to demand for their output. Of course the producers take the risk that there will be sufficient demand such that their expenditures are recovered and that profit will be generated. Generally, the quality of the output is directly proportional to the output.
I hope this helps.
One thing you forgot to mention is that in a capitalist system, a producer who markets an item under false pretenses is guilty of fraud, though admittedly this does not seem to apply to the publishing industry these days. My original post is not an attack on David Schippers for writing a book, but a series of points about the veracity of his claims. While there is nothing wrong with writing a book for the purpose of generating a profit, you might want to ask yourself why someone who allegedly has all this inside information about terrorism hasn't come forward with it before now, when doing so may have saved many lives.
See post #22 in this thread for some clarification. I hope this helps.
I agree. You make my point. I am sure Schippers, being a former prosecutor, knows the law as well, and would not violate it. He has a ton to lose.
There was a case on Long Island, New York several decades ago in which a family that purchased a house filed a civil suit against a publisher or movie producer. They claimed that the book or movie rendered their home worthless because nobody would go near it (now that I think about it, it may have been the house that was the basis of "The Amityville Horror"). The plaintiff lose the suit because the defense was able to show that at no point in the book or movie did they ever say that the story was true. With that kind of burden of proof, you simply can't win a lawsuit (nobody, even those who make documentaries that are inherently "true," make an explicit claim that the book or movie is true).
In the publishing industry, the only real legal threat involves a libel lawsuit. Watch Schippers very carefully, and see if he makes any specific allegations involving actual names of real people. If he doesn't do so, then you know he is covering his @ss against such a suit.
BTW, I only posted the book item as point #1 because it specifically dealt with the "evidence" that had prompted all those Schippers threads yesterday.
So, it was your primary concern, because it dealt with "evidence".
Wait, which is it? hmmm
Oh I see, it is point one due to "evidence," but not a primary concern, because the assertion is empty because that is how a capitalist society works. Further it is point #1 because our jucicial system is unfair.
Thanks, clear as mud.
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.