[Sic Luceat Lux]

In Sean's reply, I don't know why he used the word "we" when he stated..."I don't know why we have not followed up on this subject."

As Senator Inhofe pointed out in this 2nd Chinagate speech -...all of our nuclear secrets are gone and to quote from Inhofe's speech:
"Next, we move to the other eight major technology breaches revealed in the Cox Report. All of these were not only discovered during the Clinton administration, they also happened during the Clinton administration."

* * *

As soon as I finished my question I heard the click that ended my call and ended any further comments by me on this very important Chinagate topic. I was hoping to conclude my call by asking Sean if he would start mentioning -during his radio program- that folks should read this Inhofe Chinagate speech and Sean could simply say for folks to go to our U. S. Congressional Record for the date of June 23, 1999. - - I got the feeling that Hannity didn't want to really discuss Chinagate. Seems like no one does? (and with Hillary possibly being the Democrat candidate in '08, is or isn't her and Bill's Clinton's Chinagate treason -a topic which needs to be brought back to the table? - I think so.)

[Sic Luceat Lux]

fyi

[sure_fine]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1142229/posts

How Chinagate Led to 9/11 By Jean Pearce FrontPageMagazine.com | May 25, 2004

As the 9/11 Commission tries to uncover what kept intelligence agencies from preventing September 11, it has overlooked two vital factors: Jamie Gorelick and Bill Clinton. Gorelick, who has browbeaten the current administration, helped erect the walls between the FBI, CIA and local investigators that made 9/11 inevitable. However, she was merely expanding the policy Bill Clinton established with Presidential Decision Directive 24. What has been little underreported is why the policy came about: to thwart investigations into the Chinese funding of Clinton’s re-election campaign, and the favors he bestowed on them in return.

/snip

[Northeast]

Well, congratz on getting through. But your whole Question basically comes down to "I want to talk about something that happened 7 years ago!'

Nice try

[Txsleuth]

Welcome to Free Republic...I looked at your home page...it seems you are a one topic person...

Are you Sen. Inhofe by any chance???

[wtc911]

I heard your question...your sin was making cubby try to think.

[frankiep]

this is off topic but....

can we please stop putting -'gate' at the end of every story involving wrongdoing?

[infidel29]

Seems like no one does? (want to discuss Chinagate)

You've never listened to Jim Quinn I take it?

[sandbar]

I heard your call today and found it sad that Sean, in his usual "I can only speak the phrases that have been programmed in me and they yank my cord" way, he avoided it completely. You threw him off man! haha I also found it very similiar to when he claims a statement a caller has as if it were his own. For instance, he will have Ann Coulter, or Michael Reagan on with a "big lib" (I can't stand to hear him do that childish crap) and they will comment on something and then he will declare it to the 'big lib', as if he researched it and has something on them.

God, I gotta get off this thread. I don't know why I listen. I guess it's to get SOME conservative information, and the only other alternative in Atlanta on the way home is the Kimmer. Of course that Denny Schafer guy in the morning isn't much better.

[rodguy911]

Trying to get the talkers to do the right thing can be a frustrating event. Many of them will hardly tackle a topic unless they are sure it's timely, in the news and bound to attract lots of audience attention. Stuff that they have to carry on their own is always risky and even the ones that can carry topics like that such as Rush or Savage or a few others don't always do it.
Plus you have the ego factor, if they don't think of it themselves than sometimes it doesn't exist, but you do have a truly important topic and don't let anyone here turn you off.
The clintonistas giving away our nuclear secrets to the chinese will haunt this country forever and if we don't pursue their punishment, who will. Keep up the good work.

[Mobile Vulgus]

Dude, when a radio guy says "WE" he means HIMSELF.

It is an old radio affectation to say we all the time when he really means himself. Because, in most of radio, a discjockey is not speaking by himself, but representing the radio station. It is an OLD and annoying radioism.

[Roverman2K]

The reason we do not hear of this ghastly betrayal is again, nothing that comes from the Bush administration is taken at face value, these have to come bubbling up though the non msm media to even see the light of day.

[satchmodog9]

welcome senator.

[humblegunner]

In Sean's reply, I don't know why he used the word "we" when he stated..."I don't know why we have not followed up on this subject."

He was using the ROYAL "we".

Don't listen to talk radio, it'll rot your mind.

[Stentor]

THE CLINTON NATIONAL SECURITY SCANDAL AND COVERUP

[TankerKC]

Yeah, but what about Dingle Norwood?

[opbuzz]

Sean can't talk without flash cards.

He had no concept of what you were talking about.

He reads on the radio at a fourth grade level, trying to make it sound extemporaneous.

[OldFriend]

As you well know, the show is well screened. You were allowed on the air and spoke in language that did not make clear what it is you wanted to be discussed.

A few simple sentence about what it was the X42 did with regard to China and our secrets would have been informative.......keeping in mind that the purpose of the show is not to inform but to entertain.

[DariusBane]

We absolve you of all injury to our person.

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

Well you can't say I am not trying to bring attension to it....

[TerryGale]

Feel free to come post about it in the Hannity section of my forum (see tagline). Maybe he's saving some anti-Clinton venom for when Hillary's campaign starts in earnest?