Originally Posted by BeAChooser
This is just another tactic that you folks always bring out in an effort to avoid discussing the evidence.
Yes, it is another tactic and it is relevant.
Well at least you admit it's another tactic
to avoid discussing the evidence I presented above. But I'll play your *game* for a while.
When someone claims that there is a widespread conspiracy that has remained covered up for 15 years, then it is appropriate to ask why very disparate agents are acting in concert.
What disparate agents?
Most *journalists* in the liberal mainstream media are simply working for the democrats. This election has made that obvious, even if that was previously unclear to the clueless. Most of them voted for Clinton and his wife long after their criminality was obvious to a blind man. Clearly they have a vested interest ... if not their politics, then in not looking like the fools they are for not covering this matter years ago. They'd have to admit they
didn't do their job those 15 years. This could be career destroying. If only ...
And some of them might even be culpable since helping to coverup a murder is a crime in and of itself. Surely some of the executives in these "news" organizations were aware of some of what I posted above. And didn't investigate. Surely they aren't that clueless when they are in charge of a major national news organization. Surely.
Afterall, Miquel Rodriquez (remember him?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0307/S00277.htm ) is on record saying that after resigning, he tried to go public. And ran into a stone wall. Says he told his story to reporters from "Time Magazine, Newsweek, Nightline, the New York Times, Boston Globe, the Atlanta whatever" and the New York Times (spent six hours with one of their reporters) and no one reported it. No one. Read that link and you have to agree there is a story there. Yet no one reported it.
Patrick Knowton has the same sad story. In
http://www.aim.org/publications/special_reports/2003/foster/rodriguez_transcript_new.html he states "Every major newspaper and media outlet including the Network News, Dateline, Nightline, 20-20, Larry King Live, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, New York Times, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, Time, U.S. News and World Report, CNN and countless others ignored us."
Would that make them (those media outlets) culpable? I think so.
Or maybe it's something else. In an above link, Rodriguez claims that the Independent Counsel and FBI agents threatened his physical well-being if he did not shut up about the Foster case ... go with the suicide story. If they would do that to someone in his high profile position, you think they wouldn't threaten the CEO of a news organization? Get a clue. We are talking about a possible murder at the highest level of government. In which case, these people were/are playing for keeps. Threats against life and limb of a CEO and his family would be small potatoes. And the orders all trickle down from there.
You seem to naively think covering up serious allegations is a new behavior on the part of the media, FBI or police where the Clintons are concerned. That the Foster case would be some errant example. You couldn't be more wrong.
Look at the Broaddrick rape allegation ... an allegation that David Schippers said was so credible that he (a democrat who voted for Clinton twice) would have prosecuted Clinton for it had the statute of limitations on the crime not expired. An allegation so credible (and apparently horrific) that it convinced numerous members of the House of Representatives who were not planning to vote for impeachment to do so. David Schippers said he'd have gone after Clinton for mob-like intimidation of Broaddrick if he'd hadn't been sold out (ever read his book?). Yet that got very little, if any, coverage in the mainstream media.
The Los Angeles Times, for instance, buried the accusation on page 13 in a story that began with a denial from Mr. Clinton's lawyer. A few years ago, George Wills gave them a column to publish where he made a passing reference to it. In it he wrote "It is reasonable to believe that [Clinton] was a rapist 15 years before becoming president, and that as president he launched cruise missiles against Afghanistan (a nearly empty terrorist camp), Sudan (a pharmaceutical factory) and Iraq to distract attention from problems arising from the glandular dimension of his general indiscipline." You know what the LA Times did? Without telling him, they edited reference to the rape allegation out of that sentence then publishing it. He was furious and eventually, they had to apologize. On page 13, of course.
And then there is the Ron Brown allegation. You heard about that one, right? That's another story that the mainstream basically ignored. Here's a challenge for you, Ladewig. Cite an instance where a mainstream source (ABC, PBS, NBC, CBS, CNN, the LA Times, the NY Times, etc) even mentioned the fact that military pathologists and a military photographer had blown the whistle and raised the possibility of foul play in that death? That the xrays of Brown's head went missing from a locked safe at Dover. Or mentioned any of the other highly incriminating facts in that case. I bet you can't find one.
But I know what you will ask next. What about the mainstream media journalists who aren't democrats? Why didn't they report it? Maybe some are just a bit too gullible. Maybe some don't want to think about the unthinkable. Maybe some were interested but their management was not. No sense writing a story if your management won't publish it. Right? Conservative journalists aren't dumb. They know who butters their bread.
For example, Larry Elder (you know who he is, right?) reported on the Ron Brown story for quite a while. He even had some of the whistleblowers and the few REAL journalists who reported the story on his program to discuss it. By what he said and his continuing interest in the story, one might conclude Larry was convinced. Yet one day he just stopped covering that story. Completely. Not another word. And you know who Elder worked for? ABC. Got to earn a living you know and I think ABC's management finally put a foot down. Or maybe he got *visited* by *someone* like Rodriguez and Broaddrick apparently did.
At the same time, please describe why neither the Bush DOJ nor the Republican congress nor the Virginia State police has investigated this murder.
Many of the same reasons above apply here.
Who says Bush and the Clintons are not peas in the same pod? Should I post the photos and quotes showing how much Bush and the Clintons admire one another and have worked together (are still working together) on various matters over the years?
And Bush seems to be a politician who thinks that by cooperating with democrats they will like him and help him in his agenda. He chose to "move on" to further that agenda. He knew that pursuing the criminality of the Clintons would make it impossible to get any progress in his agenda. Democrats would wage war. And Bush does have an agenda. It just didn't involve cleaning out the corruption in government. Haven't you democrats been telling us that over and over for the last 8 years?
And who says the Bushes and the Clintons (republicans and democrats) didn't/don't have a policy of mutual assured destruction in place involving their respective criminal activities? Ever hear of Mena, Ladewig?
Did you listen closely to what George Stephanopoulus (a Carville-type former Clinton advisor) said one day on TV back during the impeachment (on ABC's "This Week")? He said White House allies are "starting to whisper about what I'll call the 'Ellen Rometsch' strategy." Stephanopoulos explained it. He said "Robert Kennedy was charged with getting her
(BAC - an East German spy who had slept with President Kennedy) out of the country and also getting [FBI Director] John Edgar Hoover to go to the Congress and say, 'Don't you investigate this, because if you do, we're going to open up everybody's closets." He then added: "I think that in the long run, they have a deterrent strategy" (referring to the on-going impeachment). Sam Donaldson asked "Are you suggesting for a moment that what they're beginning to say is that if you investigate this too much, we'll put all your dirty linen right on the table? Every member of the Senate? Every member of the press corps?" George Stephanopoulos replied "Absolutely. The President said he would never resign, and I think some around him are willing to take everybody down with him." In short, this still Clinton loyalist (who just happened to be working for ABC) was delivering the message that if they let Shippers and the House Manager do what they wanted, there would be "scorched-earth" and everyone who had skeletons in their closet would be exposed. You think that was an empty or idle threat? You think the same threats aren't in place now?
Also give an explanation why Kenneth Starr felt the need to cover up this murder.
Who knows what hold the Clintons had on him. But what else explains the obvious incompetence shown by this man who we were all told was soooo competent? What else explains Starr choosing as his right-hand man, Deputy Independent Counsel Mark H. Tuohey III, who was a left-wing Democrat with close ties to the Clinton White House? What else explains Nolanda Hill's observation that "when Starr was appointed, they were opening champagne bottles in the White House, they were celebrating"?
Maybe it had to do with a threat to his person or family? Or a promised reward? Or maybe it was just in his character? Maybe as Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote "He will never confront the U.S. Justice Department, the FBI, and the institutions of permanent government in Washington. His whole career has been built on networking, by ingratiating himself. His natural loyalties lie with the politico-legal fraternity that covered up the Foster case in the first place." Do did you hear that recently he made an overture for dinner with Senator Hillary Clinton? Let bygones be bygones. Right?
Maybe it had to do with one of Starr's business dealings? Do you know that in his private legal practice, during the time he was investigating the Clintons, he represented (and won for) a company owned by China's Peoples Liberation Army and arms dealer Wang Jun? Wang Jun was a Chinese military intelligence operative and one of the big participants in the Chinagate scandal. This fact was known at the time. Starr should have recused himself because of this alone. But he didn't. One might reasonably wonder why? Wouldn't you agree?
Now do you wish to actually discuss or challenge the evidence presented in the first post? Or are you just going to continue this tactic of yours and ignore the evidence of foul play while spinning for Clinton?
