01-05-2019, 03:44 AM
I love harsh posts (especially when I get called a crackpot or a hare-brain, which has happened).
As for the issue of terrorism and the Clinton vs the Bush administration policy on terrorism, please allow me to chime in.
I was lucky enough to be watching both Waco and 9-11 in real time on live TV. My only resource on these things is "The Road To 9-11" by Peter Dale Scott, in addition to just ordinary tv watching.
I think Clinton had the first WTC bombing in 1993 on his watch as well as the USS Cole in 2000. On the USS Cole, when listening to Chicago radio on the day of the Cole bombing, a lady called into the radio show and said her son had been a sailor at the time on the USS Cole. She said her son mentioned that they had chronic problems with natural gas leaks on the Cole that were never fixed.
I also heard someone call in to a radio show and he said his grandfather had served on the USS Maine (that exploded in Havana Cuba). He said his grandfather told him that a a nearly identical sister ship to the USS Maine had also exploded.
https://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/de...95#history
This link only says that coal dust explosions were common on the sister ship the USS Texas. The caller said that his grandfather believed that the Maine was sunk by just such an accidental explosion.
As for trying to pair Clinton with red-neck terrorism and GW Bush with Islamic terrorism, I don't buy that theory.
I would suggest that any sort of terrorism was beneficial to the National Security State because it justified their bloated budgets in the lean days after the fall of the evil empire, the USSR.
It seems like Timothy McVey had links to the Philippines and possible terrorists there but that the linkeage was never pursued by the investigators or the commission that was involved.
Terrorism was (and is) the bread and butter of the National Security State and I don't think they give a darn whether it's red-neck or Islamic.
James Lateer
As for the issue of terrorism and the Clinton vs the Bush administration policy on terrorism, please allow me to chime in.
I was lucky enough to be watching both Waco and 9-11 in real time on live TV. My only resource on these things is "The Road To 9-11" by Peter Dale Scott, in addition to just ordinary tv watching.
I think Clinton had the first WTC bombing in 1993 on his watch as well as the USS Cole in 2000. On the USS Cole, when listening to Chicago radio on the day of the Cole bombing, a lady called into the radio show and said her son had been a sailor at the time on the USS Cole. She said her son mentioned that they had chronic problems with natural gas leaks on the Cole that were never fixed.
I also heard someone call in to a radio show and he said his grandfather had served on the USS Maine (that exploded in Havana Cuba). He said his grandfather told him that a a nearly identical sister ship to the USS Maine had also exploded.
https://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/de...95#history
This link only says that coal dust explosions were common on the sister ship the USS Texas. The caller said that his grandfather believed that the Maine was sunk by just such an accidental explosion.
As for trying to pair Clinton with red-neck terrorism and GW Bush with Islamic terrorism, I don't buy that theory.
I would suggest that any sort of terrorism was beneficial to the National Security State because it justified their bloated budgets in the lean days after the fall of the evil empire, the USSR.
It seems like Timothy McVey had links to the Philippines and possible terrorists there but that the linkeage was never pursued by the investigators or the commission that was involved.
Terrorism was (and is) the bread and butter of the National Security State and I don't think they give a darn whether it's red-neck or Islamic.
James Lateer