nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + +
Hooey
::::Evidence suggests he was destroying Clinton admin info about its failure to deal with bin Laden & al-Queada. As an historian, this is unholy. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:04, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
::::Evidence suggests he was destroying Clinton admin info about its failure to deal with bin Laden & al-Queada. As an historian, this is unholy. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:04, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::that's just speculation. He only had xerox copies of the documents (the originals were electronic and on a hard drive). The issue for conservatives is how Clinton dealt with Al-Queada and that is obscured by excessive attention to the court case. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:25, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::that's just speculation. He only had xerox copies of the documents (the originals were electronic and on a hard drive). The issue for conservatives is how Clinton dealt with Al-Queada and that is obscured by excessive attention to the court case. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:25, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
Jim Baker, Henry Kissinger, and others, all have speculated, said, it is a foregone conclusion he destroyed evidence, supplanted it. I don't know a single policy person, Democrat or Republican who doubts this, even if they might not state it publicly. As conservatives, we don't need a court conviction to prove what common sense tells us. Not everything, ''at that time'', was digitized. If he wasn't there to destroy evidence, you want us to believe he took such a huge risk for clap-trap? Open your mind! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 21:32, 6 August 2009 (EDT)