New CIA document dump on 9/11 attacks

28 posts / 0 new

From Salon.com

Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.

The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida’s relationship with America’s ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn’t get the institutional support they needed,” says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.

-------

And by institutional support, what the writer means is that the Bush White House failed to protect America, failed to be engaged in the defense of the US, at the critical moment. And this is because it is an inherent flaw in conservative/ libertarian minds that as strong actors they control events, and they lead and others follow in rational ways. Which is a total falsehood. In a multidimensional space, with a wide range of characters each with their own motivations, Bush never had any control.

Exporting violence and depleted uranium ammo onto Muslim countries was bound to have repurcussions. At some point training 10's of thousands of Muslims to conduct guerilla warfare operations against the Soviet Union would generate "blowback" and the chickens would come home to roost.

Spending 5 decades interferring in Iran, Afghanistan, Lybia, and everywhere else really, means that along the way the CIA has made plenty of enemies for the USA.

And these papers show that at least 7 separate intelligence warnings were given to Bush detailing an immenent attack. And these papers show that Dr. Rice's assertion that the Bushies continued Clinton's policies are a flat out lie, because the Bushies were pulling back on anti terrorism.

Of course, the worst terrorist strike in US history killing 3,000 Americans, 1 bungled Afghan war (200,000 dead), and 1 needless Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) (1.2 million dead according the last Lancet survey) complete with crony capitalism tied to Imperialism and genocide all pale in comparison to the Fast and Furious program (1 dead Border agent with weapons from the program found nearby (have they been able to use ballistics to prove that one of the FF guns killed him?))

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Comments

They didn't want to bring down Bin Laden as he and his group made convenient scapegoats for the corporate planned 9-11. The event was the first "shock and awe" of the decade, not the one in in Baghdad. It was planned to bring Americans to their knees and buy the country out for pennies on the dollar. Don't believe it? Just look around you.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:

Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration

-------

A full year before the 911 attacks Bush was not president. Bill Clinton was. 911 occured nine months into Bush's first term. So the CIA did could not pull the trigger on Bin Laden because they were too poor? Huh?

Even if this is true, you guys have so completely worn out the blame Bush line that you have fatigued everybody. Nobody wants to hear it anymore. It's a broken record. It sounds desperate.

Do you remember when the CIA had the drone video of Bin Laded and were begging for permission to take him out? Bill Clinton would not permit it. What do you think of that?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote rigel1:Do you remember when the CIA had the drone video of Bin Laded and were begging for permission to take him out? Bill Clinton would not permit it.

When was this and is it documented?

This apparently is documented:

Quote CIA documents:And these papers show that at least 7 separate intelligence warnings were given to Bush detailing an immenent attack. And these papers show that Dr. Rice's assertion that the Bushies continued Clinton's policies are a flat out lie, because the Bushies were pulling back on anti terrorism.
Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

My Grandfather, Stuart Hedden, was one of America's famous fascists, who along with his friend, Thomas (Tommy the Cork) Corcoran, had infiltrated the Roosevelt Oval office and Supreme Court in the 1930's. They were instrumental in convincing FDR to support the fascist Franco regime in Spain, which directly aided Hitler and Mussolini's rise to power. Corcoran was almost convicted later of collusion with the Nazis, but he beat the rap.
In the 1950's, my Grandfather, Inspector General of the CIA, was the Eichmann of the plan to make friends with the Nazis and begin killing people of color through 'revolution', dividing and conquering the world along with the Russkies, world-wide.
Corcoran represented United Fruit when he and Gramps struck the deal that killed 200,000 Guatemalans. He represented CAT as it became Air America.
The ghosts of everyone in the world who died in this killing machine are reading this from just behind you.
A CIA mind-control experiment began at the time, which explained the fascist agenda to Americans as "Conservatism", from birth. This created millions of Manchurian Candidates, about half the voting population more or less.
Sadly, it worked, and made real Goebbels' promise that Americans would deliver fascism to America. Anyone who would dispute the direct line of CIA control of our foriegn policies through the Bush family, my family's young apprentices, would be one of the brainwashed. The elder Bush visited my Mother and her Mother, just before he left office, in Orinda, CA.
This makes you, should you be planning to vote for Conservative ideals, a figment of the imagination of people who have been dead for a long, long time, but who were trying to take over America in a secret coup.
Fascists, who brainwash you from the grave, every day of your life.
And you placed a great Country in their dead hands, and let their children steal everything you had.
This is the magic of fascism: You can fight against it, and you will be destroyed. Or, you can sign up to get paid in an Arab shooting gallery, and your life will be destroyed.
Or you can accept like sheep, and fly and buy what they are selling.
Or you can outlaw fascism.
Imagine, as John Lennon said, how nice it would be if we could all get along.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am
Quote Karolina:
Quote rigel1:Do you remember when the CIA had the drone video of Bin Laded and were begging for permission to take him out? Bill Clinton would not permit it.

When was this and is it documented?

This apparently is documented:

I saw the video years ago. I may research it again. But yes, it is a fact that has never been disputed.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

As soon as you document it, I'll believe it.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

The 2 times the CIA had good intel on OBL in the Clinton era, the one was the cruise missile strike that wiped out the camp but mssed OBL (this was the one the Republitards screamed "wag the dog" over, and on the same day we bombed the baby formula factory in Iraq). The other time was the Navy Seal strike where the camp was empty by the time we got there, but hot food in bowls and warm cups of tea. The Seals also scouted about hit an ambush, defeated it but could not find OBL.

The only "video" showing Clinton waffling on a strike against OBL was a made for tv movie made by a conservative producer/ writer, and was completely fabricated for TV.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Thanks, Phaedrus.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

If the 9/11 truthers are right, the American people are not ready for that kind of info. Remember, over 50% of Bush supporters thought Saddam was behind 9/11. Like in families, some secrets may be best left uncovered. Heck, we still don't really know the truth behind the JFK, RFK and MLK killings.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 12:06 pm

Right. The implications are unacceptable...American exceptionalism.

hb091666's picture
hb091666
Joined:
Jun. 14, 2010 2:32 pm

I wish Thom would allow a discussion on his excellent show of the 9/11 Truth movement; he waxes eloquent about the power of movement politics, but completely avoids the discussion of this one. And this is a cross partisan movement which includes citizens from both the US and the rest of the world. If he would like to debate Richard Gage, Steven Jones or David Griffin, great! I would hope and assume that he would let them present their viewpoints.

The 9/11 Truth movement is an academeic movement that has uncovered a mountain of scientific evidence that shows that the three World Trade Center buildings (1, 2 & 7) could only be destroyed by means of controlled demolition. Is there anyone reading this who doesn't know that a third building--a 47 story steel framed skyscraper called Building 7--collapsed into its own footprint at 5:20PM on 9/11? David Chandler proved that the buiding was in free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds or 8 stories which means there was zero structural resistance during that interval and the global collapse took around 6.5 seconds; Houston we have a problem. Fire can't cause that and that building was not hit by a plane. Many people were unaware of this event, and some still are, because the media didn't and still doesn't cover it.

This is not some wakadoodle conspiracy theory foolishness like the birther 'movement' or FEMA concentration camps. And Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are not purporting to know whodunnit, they just know that the official account cannot be true. They are calling for a new, independent investigation that employs forensic analysis of the evidence to provide a scientifically valid theory of the building collapses. Once that is established, the individuals who were responsible need to be found and held accountable. To date, 1700 licensed architects and engineers have signed a petittion calling for a new investigation, here they are: http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

If 1700 architects and engineers told you there was a problem with your house, would you listen to what they had to say? I don't need to be a doctor in order to believe that smoking causes cancer and heart disease. I don't need to be an environmental scientist to believe that global warming exists. Likewise, I don't need to be an architect to believe that WTC 1, 2 & 7 were destroyed by controlled demolitions.

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."--Albert Einstein

For those who are interested, following are links to excellent information:

Blueprint for Truth (a seminal presentation by Richard Gage founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth): http://youtu.be/-vb7o-OOe20

AE911Truth evidence page: http://ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html

hb091666's picture
hb091666
Joined:
Jun. 14, 2010 2:32 pm

Bush had Iraq invasion plans ready from the get go. He just needed a trigger event, and the intel on a terror attack fit well into their planned operations. He probably thought the attack would be similar to the earlier WTC bombing, which to a war planner is an acceptable loss if it leads to a goal of military retribution. 9/11 was a little bigger than they thought, oops. It was still acceptable for them since they got all legislation they wanted, got their war, got elected for the first time in 2004, which got them SCOTUS lock for 30 years on 2 seats. It allowed them to run the budget into the ground to justify killing all the new deal/great society programs. 9/11 was a big win for gop, and I'm sure they are pleased with themselves.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

We need to start The Grandfather Project apparently. I have met several of us with strangely interlocking stories.

leighmf's picture
leighmf
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The trouble with the 9-11 truthers is they take the event, and attach all manner of conspiracies to it.

Here are some simple facts.

In the official 9-11 report, Pres. Bush signs 52 separate Presidential Daily Briefings that have details about an imminent attack by Al Queda in the US. Including one that lays out the exact means, including skyjacking airliners and crashing them into buildings.

Nowhere have I yet seen a report on what actions Bush, Cheney, Rumsnamarra or Dr. Rice took to prevent against or defend the US from such attacks. No extra airport security. No extra F-16's in our airspace, no extra air marshalls. Not one memo, directive or new regulation.

I also have yet to be given a reasonable answer as to how a nation with more than 2500 warplanes at our disposal could allow the 2nd or 3rd planes to strike buildings. Especially since the Pentagon was at the time the most secure building, with land to air defenses, and more good security cameras on it than any place else on Earth. And it took 6 yrs for them to release 4 still photos of the Pentagon crash.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

I heard Liam Scheff on Gary Null's show on the Progressive Rado Network last week. Scheff calls himself a "conspiracy realist" and has an excellent article on 9-11 here:

http://liamscheff.com/2010/08/understanding-911-the-purpose-is-the-present/

And what would have the Middle East have to gain in 9-11 anyway other than bringing the worlds strongest military down on their heads? They're not that stupid.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Karolina:

As soon as you document it, I'll believe it.

Believe it.

in the fall of 1998, the watch officer in the White House Situation Room notified the president’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, that they had located bin Laden and had “a two-hour window to strike.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2011/05/05/bin-laden-lived-to-fight-another-day-thanks-to-bill-clinton/

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/08/video-flashback-us-drone-had-osama-onscreen-in-2000/

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/blog/detail/60-minutes-highlights-president-clinton-missing-bin-laden-opportunity

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote Phaedrus76:The 2 times the CIA had good intel on OBL in the Clinton era, the one was the cruise missile strike that wiped out the camp but mssed OBL (this was the one the Republitards screamed "wag the dog" over, and on the same day we bombed the baby formula factory in Iraq). The other time was the Navy Seal strike where the camp was empty by the time we got there, but hot food in bowls and warm cups of tea. The Seals also scouted about hit an ambush, defeated it but could not find OBL.

The only "video" showing Clinton waffling on a strike against OBL was a made for tv movie made by a conservative producer/ writer, and was completely fabricated for TV.

I don't think so. Phaedrus' seems to know what he is talking about.

But, anyway, Bin Laden had not yet become the supposed "man behind 9/11" and had not yet supposedly "made a virtual bombing attack in America, murdering thousands' of people." Had 9/11 been predicted by a federal soothsayer, told to Clinton, and the killing been okayed by Congress? What?

The real slimey situations, the human killing attacks and the subsequent meaningless, self-aggrandizing wars happened in the w. administration. You just need to face that, and stop trying to push the horrendous tragedies, the national demoralization, and the blame on anybody else.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm
Quote Karolina:
Quote Phaedrus76:The 2 times the CIA had good intel on OBL in the Clinton era, the one was the cruise missile strike that wiped out the camp but mssed OBL (this was the one the Republitards screamed "wag the dog" over, and on the same day we bombed the baby formula factory in Iraq). The other time was the Navy Seal strike where the camp was empty by the time we got there, but hot food in bowls and warm cups of tea. The Seals also scouted about hit an ambush, defeated it but could not find OBL.

The only "video" showing Clinton waffling on a strike against OBL was a made for tv movie made by a conservative producer/ writer, and was completely fabricated for TV.

I don't think so. Phaedrus' seems to know what he is talking about.

But, anyway, Bin Laden had not yet become the supposed "man behind 9/11" and had not yet supposedly "made a virtual bombing attack in America, murdering thousands' of people." Had 9/11 been predicted by a federal soothsayer, told to Clinton, and the killing been okayed by Congress? What?

The real slimey situations, the human killing attacks and the subsequent meaningless, self-aggrandizing wars happened in the w. administration. You just need to face that, and stop trying to push the horrendous tragedies, the national demoralization, and the blame on anybody else.

Well the CIA agent did say that Clinton had a two hour window to launch. Clinton refused because there was no guarantee that OBL would still be there. At least that was his excuse. The missle would have cost about a million bucks. He should have launched. At worst he would have killed nobody or the people who were harboring OBL. At best he may have gotten OBL himself. The CIA thought the opportunity was there. This is not my opinion, the CIA did want to launch.

Remember when Clinton blew up that African Pharmaceutical plant while Lewinski thing was going on? Hundreds of Africans got whacked. Do you consider that to be "slimey" as well?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

Thanks for asking.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

2003 book Dereliction of Duty, Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson

That is your source? Any guy can write a book. Filling it up with rumors and innuendo generally discredits the source.

Further, his claims that Clinton was unavailable to approve the strike is ridiculous, since they had what the CIA calls a "green light" to take any action, at the start of 1998. The Patterson claim occurring at the end of the year would not have required the President's approval. They had a green light.

Patterson also repeated the rumor as a first hand account of the "aide who wouldn't talk to military people" and the first hand account of the "Hillary wanted to ban military uniforms" rumor. Both rumors began almost immediately upon Bill Clinton getting going into the White House, but Patterson claims both happened to him in 1996. Both rumors were spread on among other sources, The Rush Limbaugh Radio Show as early as 1993.

Patterson at the least has memory issues. At worst, he is a liar.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:2003 book Dereliction of Duty, Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson That is your source? Any guy can write a book. Filling it up with rumors and innuendo generally discredits the source. Further, his claims that Clinton was unavailable to approve the strike is ridiculous, since they had what the CIA calls a "green light" to take any action, at the start of 1998. The Patterson claim occurring at the end of the year would not have required the President's approval. They had a green light. Patterson also repeated the rumor as a first hand account of the "aide who wouldn't talk to military people" and the first hand account of the "Hillary wanted to ban military uniforms" rumor. Both rumors began almost immediately upon Bill Clinton getting going into the White House, but Patterson claims both happened to him in 1996. Both rumors were spread on among other sources, The Rush Limbaugh Radio Show as early as 1993. Patterson at the least has memory issues. At worst, he is a liar.

Nope. Forget the book. Watch the 60 minutes interview with the CIA agent. They wanted to take a shot. There is no doubt about that.

I ask again:

Remember when Clinton blew up that African Pharmaceutical plant while Lewinski thing was going on? Hundreds of Africans got whacked. Do you consider that to be "slimey" as well?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

This thread is about new CIA documents being published that reveal the evil done to the American people by the Bush administration and those working with them.

If you want to talk about Lewinski and Clinton and my feelings and Clinton's White House—start a new thread!

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm
Quote rigel1:
Quote Phaedrus76:2003 book Dereliction of Duty, Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson That is your source? Any guy can write a book. Filling it up with rumors and innuendo generally discredits the source. Further, his claims that Clinton was unavailable to approve the strike is ridiculous, since they had what the CIA calls a "green light" to take any action, at the start of 1998. The Patterson claim occurring at the end of the year would not have required the President's approval. They had a green light. Patterson also repeated the rumor as a first hand account of the "aide who wouldn't talk to military people" and the first hand account of the "Hillary wanted to ban military uniforms" rumor. Both rumors began almost immediately upon Bill Clinton getting going into the White House, but Patterson claims both happened to him in 1996. Both rumors were spread on among other sources, The Rush Limbaugh Radio Show as early as 1993. Patterson at the least has memory issues. At worst, he is a liar.

Nope. Forget the book. Watch the 60 minutes interview with the CIA agent. They wanted to take a shot. There is no doubt about that.

I ask again:

Remember when Clinton blew up that African Pharmaceutical plant while Lewinski thing was going on? Hundreds of Africans got whacked. Do you consider that to be "slimey" as well?

Come in rigel. You are the one who's always demanding that people not change the subject on your threads. Yes, that is very very slimey as well.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote anonymous green:My Grandfather, Stuart Hedden, was one of America's famous fascists, who along with his friend, Thomas (Tommy the Cork) Corcoran, had infiltrated the Roosevelt Oval office and Supreme Court in the 1930's. They were instrumental in convincing FDR to support the fascist Franco regime in Spain, which directly aided Hitler and Mussolini's rise to power. Corcoran was almost convicted later of collusion with the Nazis, but he beat the rap.

In the 1950's, my Grandfather, Inspector General of the CIA, was the Eichmann of the plan to make friends with the Nazis and begin killing people of color through 'revolution', dividing and conquering the world along with the Russkies, world-wide.

Corcoran represented United Fruit when he and Gramps struck the deal that killed 200,000 Guatemalans. He represented CAT as it became Air America.

The ghosts of everyone in the world who died in this killing machine are reading this from just behind you.

A CIA mind-control experiment began at the time, which explained the fascist agenda to Americans as "Conservatism", from birth. This created millions of Manchurian Candidates, about half the voting population more or less.

Sadly, it worked, and made real Goebbels' promise that Americans would deliver fascism to America. Anyone who would dispute the direct line of CIA control of our foriegn policies through the Bush family, my family's young apprentices, would be one of the brainwashed. The elder Bush visited my Mother and her Mother, just before he left office, in Orinda, CA.

This makes you, should you be planning to vote for Conservative ideals, a figment of the imagination of people who have been dead for a long, long time, but who were trying to take over America in a secret coup.

Fascists, who brainwash you from the grave, every day of your life.

And you placed a great Country in their dead hands, and let their children steal everything you had.

This is the magic of fascism: You can fight against it, and you will be destroyed. Or, you can sign up to get paid in an Arab shooting gallery, and your life will be destroyed.

Or you can accept like sheep, and fly and buy what they are selling.

Or you can outlaw fascism.

Imagine, as John Lennon said, how nice it would be if we could all get along.

Anonymous green, I know that you are speaking here about your family's history.

I am very interested in what you have touched on, and am wondering — do you know if this is written up someplace in a book or on the web? Maybe as US or fascist history?

I would like to read more about it. Thank you.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm
Quote Karolina:

This thread is about new CIA documents being published that reveal the evil done to the American people by the Bush administration and those working with them.

If you want to talk about Lewinski and Clinton and my feelings and Clinton's White House—start a new thread!

Using my own tactic against me? Hmm. Nicely played Karolina, Nicely played! :)

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote rigel1:
Quote Phaedrus76:2003 book Dereliction of Duty, Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson That is your source? Any guy can write a book. Filling it up with rumors and innuendo generally discredits the source. Further, his claims that Clinton was unavailable to approve the strike is ridiculous, since they had what the CIA calls a "green light" to take any action, at the start of 1998. The Patterson claim occurring at the end of the year would not have required the President's approval. They had a green light. Patterson also repeated the rumor as a first hand account of the "aide who wouldn't talk to military people" and the first hand account of the "Hillary wanted to ban military uniforms" rumor. Both rumors began almost immediately upon Bill Clinton getting going into the White House, but Patterson claims both happened to him in 1996. Both rumors were spread on among other sources, The Rush Limbaugh Radio Show as early as 1993. Patterson at the least has memory issues. At worst, he is a liar.

Nope. Forget the book. Watch the 60 minutes interview with the CIA agent. They wanted to take a shot. There is no doubt about that.

I ask again:

Remember when Clinton blew up that African Pharmaceutical plant while Lewinski thing was going on? Hundreds of Africans got whacked. Do you consider that to be "slimey" as well?

Come in rigel. You are the one who's always demanding that people not change the subject on your threads. Yes, that is very very slimey as well.

And like the history books show, the CIA had a green light to act.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote rigel1:
Quote Phaedrus76:2003 book Dereliction of Duty, Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson That is your source? Any guy can write a book. Filling it up with rumors and innuendo generally discredits the source. Further, his claims that Clinton was unavailable to approve the strike is ridiculous, since they had what the CIA calls a "green light" to take any action, at the start of 1998. The Patterson claim occurring at the end of the year would not have required the President's approval. They had a green light. Patterson also repeated the rumor as a first hand account of the "aide who wouldn't talk to military people" and the first hand account of the "Hillary wanted to ban military uniforms" rumor. Both rumors began almost immediately upon Bill Clinton getting going into the White House, but Patterson claims both happened to him in 1996. Both rumors were spread on among other sources, The Rush Limbaugh Radio Show as early as 1993. Patterson at the least has memory issues. At worst, he is a liar.

Nope. Forget the book. Watch the 60 minutes interview with the CIA agent. They wanted to take a shot. There is no doubt about that.

I ask again:

Remember when Clinton blew up that African Pharmaceutical plant while Lewinski thing was going on? Hundreds of Africans got whacked. Do you consider that to be "slimey" as well?

Come in rigel. You are the one who's always demanding that people not change the subject on your threads. Yes, that is very very slimey as well.

Point taken. Even the best of us mess up from time to time.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

Currently Chatting

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system