.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to brian_dc.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="brian_dc:497772"]hungtableed said:[QUOTE]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/4/03534.shtml http://www.prisonplanet.com/010903clinton.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1764035,00.html what a fucking faggot pussy, but nooooooo, all the red diaper commie libs would still defend clinton's legacy and hold till their death that 9/11 was bush's fault. I wonder what exactly clinton was trying to hide when he had sandy berger (burgler) steal documents out of the national archives during the 9/11 commission? http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/remember_sandy_berger/[/QUOTE] "The documents included an after-action report prepared by Richard Clarke that asssessed the Clinton administration's response to the terrorist threats accompanying the millennium celebrations. "From our standpoint, the primary matter of concern was: Had we seen all of the documents we needed to see? The answer to that question was yes....[B]Berger was reviewing copies of documents that the commission had already acquired.[/B] "After his interview with commission staff, Berger went to the Archives and found documents that the commission had not yet seen that he wanted us to see. In February, Bruce Lindsey complained that the White House had failed to give the commission the full 10,080 pages of Clinton documents that the Archives had assembled in response to our document requests. Apparently, the White House had taken a narrower view than the Archives of what was responsive to our requests." (all from [I]Without Precedent The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission[/I] which was co-authored by the co-chair's of the Commission, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton (Republican and Democrat respectively). Hell, I'll give you the page numbers. 183-4, also look at 297. First of all, when you go and substantiate a claim that Berger was acting on behalf of Clinton with some random blog on the internet you: a) sound like a lot of the liberal conspiracy theorists people waste so much energy on hating and b) don't actually substantiate anything. Judging by your link the only thing that suggests that it was Clinton's bidding is this crap: ""Honest mistake" my white ass. Berger is taking one for the Clinton team. Those documents pointed to something big. Big enough to convince a former cabinet member that jail time and a heavy fine is an acceptable price to pay for making it all go away." So...because she thinks that...it's true. Oh, ok then. She sounds she hasn't done her research. It's obvious because she's talking about the documents Berger removed like they're mysterious...THEY'RE NOT. The documents in question have been declassified. This was a non-issue until months after the incident it went public. Then each party's go-to pot stirrer got on their soapbox and said ignorant shit and made it into a faux consipiracy. He didn't hide anything. It's proven that the commission saw everything Berger saw months before he removed the documents. I love how people are trying to figure out who did a shittier job not getting a job done. What exactly is going to come from any conclusion (which we'll never have)? We'll have that one person to blame? Christ, people. They both fucked up, blame them both. Then do your research and realize that you can blame about another 100,000 people on top of them. I don't know, whatever. [/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.003 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][