Guest American Woman Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 Well then. I guess the Clinton Administration has a lot of explaining to do. Is that why the Bush administration and FBI was so desperate to hush her? To defend Clinton? How thoughtful of them. Here's something you obviously missed. I wasn't arguing what she said, I was pointing out that she said "Taliban," not "al Queda." Quote
M.Dancer Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 Is that why the Bush administration and FBI was so desperate to hush her? Who says? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
noahbody Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 I wasn't arguing what she said, I was pointing out that she said "Taliban," not "al Queda." When she said bin Laden, she said al Qaeda. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 (edited) When she said bin Laden, she said al Qaeda. Bin Laden and al Qaeda are not synonymous. This is what she says, and I'm quoting here, from the link provided in Topaz's link: I have to jump in here and say that I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know. For example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban - those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11. I know you are going to say 'Oh my God, we went there and bombed the medical factory in the 1990s during Clinton, we declared him Most Wanted' and what I'm telling you is, with those groups, we had operations in Central Asia, and that relationship - using them as we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict - we used them all the way until September 11. She's not at all clear as to who "those people" or "those groups" are, and she's not even clear who "we" is in reference to since she claims the FBI hired people "who may have loyalties to other governments," but she does not mention al Quaeda in any interviews/transcripts I've read, so it's paraphrasing at best to say she said what is being claimed that she said. I don't doubt that there was some incompetence in the FBI and intelligence at the time, but I think a person has to be careful in what they conclude in regards to what she's said. I sincerely doubt the U.S. government had contact with bin Laden "up to September 11." It sounds way too far-fetched to me. Edited August 10, 2009 by American Woman Quote
Oleg Bach Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 We relegate the word "Mafia" to the lowly unestablished crimminal - the class of barbaric freebooters...It's unpleasant to understand that our "establishement" those above elected officals are mafia - and mafia families on these levels - are no different than low level crimminalists - they do NOT - kill or capture the offspring of mutually co-operative publically percieved competators - Bin Ladin if alive - is an "untouchable" If America or others harm him - then their own enterprising offspring are targets.... Bush was no better a man than Bin Laden...in fact they are cut from the same cloth - the Kennedy clan was the same way..except THAT killing was not the norm but the exception...both sides have tons of dirty laundry - and neither is about to hang it out - let alone hang Bin Laden. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.