Not Bush's, but Clintons?
" In December 1997, a delegation from Afghanistan’s ruling and ruthless Taliban visited the United States to meet with an oil and gas company that had extensive dealings in Texas. The company, Unocal, was interested in building a natural gas line through Afghanistan. Moore implies that Bush, who was then governor of Texas, met with the delegation.
But, as Gannett News Service points out, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What’s more, Clinton administration officials did sit down with Taliban officials, and the delegation’s visit was made with the Clinton administration’s permission."
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
2006-09-11 03:54:00 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
HEYWOOD, ARE YOU STUPID?
THAT IS WHAT THIS QUESTION IS ABOUT, CHECK THE LINK.
2006-09-11 03:58:25 · update #1
Yes, Clinton did meet with them (don't forget the CEO of ENRON had donated to Clinton's campaign and was in turn given unprecedented access to the white house). Though Clinton failed to have any energy policy ( gas milage standards were not enforced in fear of the lost union jobs) it is clear he was pro oil.
That gas line is now being built by the way.....
2006-09-11 04:00:27 · answer #1 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
read this. this is what the professor from brigham young university was suspended for. read it yourself and judge its legitimacy. this offers what the right hates the most: true intelligence.
addendum: the steel used to construct the buildings melt at 800 degrees fahrenheit. the diesel fuel in the jetliners could not have reached that level (read the paper). there were no gas tanks near where the planes hit. 47 core columns disintegrated. i'm not saying one way or the other, but he's saying it's worth investigating this as the FEMA, NIST, 9-11 commission reports did not address vital parts. read it yourself before you judge. he cites all of his info.
"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not..?
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know.. it -- now."
- Patrick Henry, 1775.
"Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it."
- Abraham Lincoln, February 27th, 1860
and to respond to your question: cite the articles!
2006-09-11 11:05:55 · answer #2 · answered by Oly 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't doubt it. After all, it was Slick Willie who said we (the US) need to be prepared for the time when we are "no longer the big kids on the block." He set into motion many things that began the slide. He had the chance to take out OSB (sniper had him in his sites), but didn't.
2006-09-11 10:59:53 · answer #3 · answered by Spirit Walker 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
so he got it wrong? Not that what Michael Moore says changes my mind on the TRUTH of anything...BTW, where is Bin Laden, and when will we finish that war in Afghanistan?
2006-09-11 11:01:13 · answer #4 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Watch Michael Moore's film, that is all you need to see.
2006-09-11 10:57:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Aw sure. Both administrations did.
2006-09-11 11:02:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋