Help him out with what? He just gave his opinion about your scource, you and Aces full give opinions about peoples scources all the time, I think we all remember the George Soros rants!

Have a little sense of humor, GO CATS.

Why do you feel the need to come to HB's aid so often? He does fine on his own.

 

BTW, name one time I said anything about Soros.

Have a little sense of humor, GO CATS.

Why do you feel the need to come to HB's aid so often? He does fine on his own.

 

BTW, name one time I said anything about Soros.

 

:lol: I think I morphed you and aces full together... BTW, your a good one to tell me to have a sense of humor!

The source isn't credible at all. It's very biased...

 

So does that mean that all of the links from Soros fronted groups that have been posted on here are not credible?

Released because we did not have sufficient evidence. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? I read all these threads of everyone bashing the others candidate and how if Oboma is elected some hope we will still have a country. I am of the opinion if the good ole USA can survive 8 years of this idiot that's been running the country we can just about handle anything.

So does that mean that all of the links from Soros fronted groups that have been posted on here are not credible?

 

:D Hard to find sources linked on here that aren't biased one way or the other.

Released because we did not have sufficient evidence. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? I read all these threads of everyone bashing the others candidate and how if Oboma is elected some hope we will still have a country. I am of the opinion if the good ole USA can survive 8 years of this idiot that's been running the country we can just about handle anything.

 

You're right that the country will survive Obama. We made it thru Carter but it took Ronald Reagan to bring us back. Unfortunately, there are no Reagans out there on the horizon. These are dangerous times and the country may be more wounded by some presidents more so than others but our decline will come over a long period, not sudden.

You're right that the country will survive Obama. We made it thru Carter but it took Ronald Reagan to bring us back. Unfortunately, there are no Reagans out there on the horizon. These are dangerous times and the country may be more wounded by some presidents more so than others but our decline will come over a long period, not sudden.

 

On a side note - I was watching a show on Discovery Channel last night called "When We Left Earth." (Great show, btw!) They showed Pres. Reagan's speech after the Challenger accident. This may suprise some of you, but he was a president that I loved and respected. :thumb:

:D Hard to find sources linked on here that aren't biased one way or the other.

 

I don't disagree

BTW about the first attack on the WTC. Some federal agencies had information that it might happen and I believe they chose to ignore that information. Before 9/11 our national security was a joke. I'm not sure if it is much better now, but pre 9/11 it was awful. There were terrorists running free in the U.S. making money off of our government and sending it back to support terrorist organizations in the Middle East. Not to mention terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda were operating training camps inside the U.S. in the early 90's.

 

2 different organizations (CIA and FBI?) had certain pieces of info, but were not allowed to talk to each other, because Pres. Clinton signed a bill not allowing them to discuss such matters with each other. They were following the law as passed by Congress and signed by Pres. Clinton.

You're right that the country will survive Obama. We made it thru Carter but it took Ronald Reagan to bring us back. Unfortunately, there are no Reagans out there on the horizon. These are dangerous times and the country may be more wounded by some presidents more so than others but our decline will come over a long period, not sudden.

 

 

You are right. Is it possible we may possibly even flourish and prosper under Obama?

You are right. Is it possible we may possibly even flourish and prosper under Obama?

 

I find it highly unlikely, but I guess anything is possible...

2 different organizations (CIA and FBI?) had certain pieces of info, but were not allowed to talk to each other, because Pres. Clinton signed a bill not allowing them to discuss such matters with each other. They were following the law as passed by Congress and signed by Pres. Clinton.

 

That's the first I've heard of that. I'd love to see a link about that. Most of what I've seen and read through the years reveals a simple rivalry of 2 powerful agencies that wanted their share of funding and the credit for their jobs. CSM had this article:

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0605/p01s01-uspo.html

 

which said among things:

 

The tit-for-tat CIA-FBI rivalry isn't new. At one low point three decades ago, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and CIA chief Richard Helms simply stopped talking to each other.But many inside the two agencies say the mythic clash of cultures – between tweedy CIA analysts and square-jawed FBI gumshoes – is often overblown in the media.

 

 

My understanding is that they did not communicate because they choose not to, not because of some bill by President Clinton that would shut them up. BTW, if it was a bill - wouldn't it have had to come from Congress? If it came after 1994 then it would be a GOP backed bill. I'm sure there were enough blunders to go around on 9/11 but your inference is something I've never seen (but would be glad to read about if you can link it.).

Not if it was an executive order.

 

Anaylisis of Clinton's effect on gathering intelligence

 

Google "Presidential Decision Directive 24"

 

Clinton may not have expressly banned communication between the two but he did a whole lot to hinder it by redefining their roles.

 

Also look into "impartial" 911 comission member Jamie Gorelick and her role in keeping Clinton's name out of that.

That's the first I've heard of that. I'd love to see a link about that. Most of what I've seen and read through the years reveals a simple rivalry of 2 powerful agencies that wanted their share of funding and the credit for their jobs. CSM had this article:

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0605/p01s01-uspo.html

 

which said among things:

 

The tit-for-tat CIA-FBI rivalry isn't new. At one low point three decades ago, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and CIA chief Richard Helms simply stopped talking to each other.But many inside the two agencies say the mythic clash of cultures – between tweedy CIA analysts and square-jawed FBI gumshoes – is often overblown in the media.

 

 

My understanding is that they did not communicate because they choose not to, not because of some bill by President Clinton that would shut them up. BTW, if it was a bill - wouldn't it have had to come from Congress? If it came after 1994 then it would be a GOP backed bill. I'm sure there were enough blunders to go around on 9/11 but your inference is something I've never seen (but would be glad to read about if you can link it.).

 

I believe he was talking about the first WTC attacks back in 93....

Not if it was an executive order.

 

Anaylisis of Clinton's effect on gathering intelligence

 

Google "Presidential Decision Directive 24"

 

Clinton may not have expressly banned communication between the two but he did a whole lot to hinder it by redefining their roles.

 

Also look into "impartial" 911 comission member Jamie Gorelick and her role in keeping Clinton's name out of that.

 

Thanks for the link. :thumb:

 

It sounds like the problem was as much in the 2 groups and Clinton's people "chose" the FBI as their main arm and "squeezed" the CIA. If you follow my link and the history of the two there was always a problem but it does appear that some presidents may have accentuated the problem. My guess is that is why Bush felt it important to create a third group instead of revamping the relationship between the current 2 agencies.