Replies

It was OK with these? Like Mancini said, this is confusing. There has been other discussion about the possibility of Remote Control of airliners. I don't believe the thrust of the article was that Bush was totally aware of any overt action. That wouldn't allow "Plausible Deniabilty". As a matter of interest, I went back and scanned thru the whole article and the only Bush mention I noted was at the end when it mentioned Bush the Elder and Carlyle.

The Democratic Party's Presidential
Drug Money Pipeline

Charles Manatt, Clinton 's New Ambassador to the Dominican Republic Demonstrates the Importance of Drug Money to Election 2000 and to Al Gore

Originally Published as the Cover Story in the April 30, 2000 issue of From The Wilderness (Vol. III, No. 2) Posted on the Worldwide Web July 10, 2000
Written by Michael C. Ruppert

THE TIMELINE TELLS THE STORY
OF HOW THE CIA-DRUG CONTROVERSY
WAS CLINTON'S HOLE CARD IN THE IMPEACHMENT!
Written by M. Rupert

CIA - Drugs and Campaign Fundraising --The Dominicans, The Democrats and New York -----Parts 1&2
by Michael C. Ruppert

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D) Covert Action in Africa: A Smoking Gun in Washington, D.C.
by M. Ruppert

Do you really believe that George Bush is involved in a plot to hijack airliners full of people and crash them into buildings?

I believe it's more along the lines of the Bush Administration's committing to certain actions in Afghanistan -- out of a mixture of good faith, alliance-building and self-interest -- and other Interested Parties, former friends or ultimate betrayers of a sort seeing to it that we engaged on schedule.

Unfortunately, there always will be those who see Crisis as an Opportunity and we've certainly got our share of that sort running around. It's their actions which serve only to confuse the issue by drawing attention away from the actual perps in the process by spinning the wheel for those with an axe to grind.

If I come across garbage, I usually throw it out.

I can understand and do respect your prerogative to toss any source you don't wish to have sitting on your site. Where you've made clear that a Ruppert sort is not welcome, I think we're equal to the task of digging up the same information from more reputable sources who don't carry a lot of baggage in with them.

Because it's the house rules in this instance, maybe it's worthwhile to keep a "No Thanks, Not Here" thread open to which only you can post which alerts folks to any persona non grata ... with or without explanation, as you see fit. If folks felt compelled to dog you on a particular decision, they could do so privately and keep the wrangling over it off the forum. The last thing I want to see is your personal vigilance in protecting yourself and the integrity of your property being whipped up into censorship.

I still do hope, though, that where a person's made the proper caveats, certain "leftist" garbage can be posted. I think it's helpful to keep a pulse of sorts on the "garbage going in" that's certain to be the "garbage out" disinformation used both to confuse the truth with lies and keep the left and right polarized on certain key issues or events.

Where these writers or pieces don't end up on the Unwelcome Mat, we might cut down on all the static that is posting to a thread only to smear the source instead of address what's presented as the Pertinent Portions of the piece.

I'll grant you that a lot of the leftist garbage has a stench of deceit or hate so powerful, it's nothing but offensive. I just think that where a liberal or leftist actually makes a cogent argument or presents some good hard facts, it's nice not only to see it from their perspective but to realize there are some essential things on which even totally disparate parties -- but all still humans with consciences -- can agree.

We know what we're fighting against where they're concerned. Sometimes it's good know what, if anything, we've got to fight "with", so to speak.

All the best.