Since you insist, you said:
"If Clinton had met with the CIA, there would be no freaking war"
There's an interesting hypothesis.
When you examine that further you notice that the CIA met with OBL in Paris a few months into the Bush administration, and did nothing, in spite of the fact he was on the wanted list of known terrorists.
(Note you did not say say "may have met" or "according to foreign sources, met" or "is alleged to have met").
That story was recorded and appeared in the French paper Le Figaro.
guardian.co.uk
After being printed that story was later culled from the database. Who owns that newspaper -- our favorite whipping boy - Bush-controlled Carlyle Group.
webactive.com
It's just a coincidence tho'
(Thus implying that some nefarious conspirators had tried to obliterate the truth).
Then, when gao showed the CIA denial, you did not say, "well, of course it is hard to know who to believe", or "well, there are two sides to every story". You made a dismissive joke, along the lines of "Whew! Glad we got that cleared up". Then, after I chided you, you told me that you had no bias in the matter, and merely liked to see a variety of points of view. Sorry, doesn't compute. I would be happy if you could show how I misinterpreted. |
