|
|
| Author |
Message |
bdh3
|
|
| 
Apr 12 07:59 UTC 2002 |
A Special Message from Christopher Ruddy, Editor, NewsMax.com
Re: FBI Agent Gary Aldrich Reveals Truth About Bill and Hillary
Clintons' Role in
Sept. 11 Attacks
Dear Fellow American:
Since 9-11 there has been an almost total news blackout on the role Bill
and
Hillary Clinton played in making America vulnerable to a major terrorist
attack.
Nothing surprising about that.
Despite the most scandalous and corrupt administration in history, the
liberal
big media still will not say a bad word about Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Even after years of the Clintons' negligence that helped cause thousands
of
American deaths on 9-11!
Even after Bill Clinton's own top aides have admitted that his skirt
chasing may
have allowed Osama bin Laden to slip through our fingers.
Even though it is widely acknowledged that Bill and Hillary's
politically correct
policies severely curtailed the ability of the CIA and FBI to catch
terrorists
like bin Laden.
But NewsMax Media, my company that publishes NewsMax.com and NewsMax.com
magazine, is not afraid to tell the truth.
My name is Christopher Ruddy. The Washington Post has called me the No.
1 press
enemy of the Clinton White House. I have exposed the Clintons' cover-ups
from the
strange death of Vince Foster to the demise of Ron Brown.
NewsMax is committed to telling the truth no matter how much the
liberals hate to
hear it.
That's why NewsMax is bringing to light the full story of former FBI
agent Gary
Aldrich in a powerful new tape, available now:
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/aldrich.cfm?refid=11
<a href="https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/aldrich.cfmrefid=11">AOL
users click
here</a>
Agent Aldrich isn't afraid to tell you the real story of what happened
in the
Clinton White House that led directly to 9-11.
In a new audiotape just released by NewsMax - "Off the Record with Gary
Aldrich"
- the one-time top FBI agent assigned to the White House reveals things
never
before revealed, the sordid and shocking truth about the
Clintons.
Few know the truth like Gary Aldrich.
Aldrich is a 26-year veteran of the Bureau. After his best-selling book
"Unlimited Access" revealed how Bill and Hillary had scandalized the
White House,
he became the most famous G-man since J. Edgar Hoover.
After Aldrich broke the FBI's "code of silence" - because he cared more
about his
country than he did about his pension - he became a pariah for the
top-level
bureaucrats in Washington and a reviled figure by the left-wing press.
Now, in a stunning one-hour audiotape, Aldrich once again breaks the
"code of
silence" and reveals new, incredible details of what went wrong during
the
Clinton-Gore years - and why 9-11 became inevitable and future 9-11s may
still
await us.
That's why you need to get this new tape, and you can even get it FREE:
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/aldrich.cfm?refid=11
<a href="https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/aldrich.cfmrefid=11">AOL
users click
here</a>
In "Off the Record with Gary Aldrich" you will find out:
How the Clintons orchestrated a wholesale breakdown of America's
national
security apparatus - not just the FBI but also the CIA, National
Security
Council, Department of Justice, Customs and every other federal law
enforcement agency.
Why Aldrich believes the Clintons had sinister motives in undermining
the
nation's security.
How the Clintons' blatant disregard of national security procedures -
everything
he saw, from gay sex in the White House to acceptance of drug users -
made the
U.S. government weak and vulnerable.
How Hillary and Bill, as well as Al Gore, were absolutely "paranoid"
about their
political opponents - something Aldrich had never witnessed in previous
administrations, which were more worried about foreign enemies!
Why Aldrich believes Hillary was the mastermind of the "slow train
wreck" over
eight years to purposefully weaken America's national security.
How diversity policies and politically correct "silliness" became the
main
objectives of the White House and FBI.
New information from Customs insiders who warn that the U.S. borders are
so
porous that terrorists and drug dealers still can cross with ease.
The full truth about former FBI Director Louis Freeh and how he was a
knowing and
willing accomplice to the Clintons' reign of terror. (Freeh, Aldrich
says, even
sought to "punish" agents who warned about the Clintons'
sellout of national security.)
Aldrich's opinion of John Ashcroft and new FBI Director Robert Mueller.
This will
surprise you!
The threat posed by Janet Reno, and her real activities as a state's
attorney in
Florida and later as Attorney General.
Why Aldrich believes both the CIA and FBI may need to be completely
dismantled
and rebuilt if we are to make America safe again.
An inside view into how top management at agencies like the FBI and CIA
are
"incompetent lunkheads and deadheads," yet still call all the shots -
making
America unsafe.
Why the FBI's mission needs to be downsized, taken out of the business
of
enforcing state and local laws - and re-chartered with its original
mission of
protecting the American people.
Aldrich's disbelief that, to this day, not a single person in the
federal
bureaucracy has been held responsible for the catastrophic intelligence
failures
of Sept. 11 (and his shock that some in the media suggest it is
irresponsible for Americans to demand accountability.)
Bill Clinton's foolish efforts to bring terrorism and terrorists into
federal
courthouses.
Why Aldrich believes America remains vulnerable today to future attacks.
Why Aldrich believes the anthrax attacks were not domestic attacks, as
the FBI
claims, but came from a foreign enemy.
New threats Aldrich warns of, including sleeper terrorists, Iraq and
even
Castro's Cuba.
..and much, much more.
You can hear with your own ears Gary Aldrich's account - unedited and
uncensored.
Find out about our special FREE offer for the tape:
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/aldrich.cfm?refid=11
<a href="https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/aldrich.cfmrefid=11">AOL
users click
here</a>
This has much more information than has been previously reported.
NewsMax has a special offer. You can even get this special tape with
Gary Aldrich
absolutely FREE.
Yes, you can get the Aldrich tape for FREE by subscribing to NewsMax
magazine.
There's one publication in America breaking news - NewsMax magazine.
Each month you'll read my hard-hitting investigative reports, with
special
commentaries from Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, Carl Limbacher Jr.,
David
Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, Col. Stanislav Lunev, Michael Savage, Barry
Farber and many others.
Nationally syndicated radio host Michael Reagan, President Reagan's son,
says:
"NewsMax.com has become my favorite news Web site. I guarantee that
you'll love
their magazine. The liberal media moguls hate NewsMax. Not only does it
expose
'liberal' shenanigans without mercy, it's dedicated to making America
once again
a 'shining city upon a hill.'"
Let's face it: NewsMax is the only news outlet in the country with the
guts to
reveal Gary Aldrich's story.
In the wake of 9-11 America needs NewsMax - and needs to know the full
truth.
You need to hear Gary Aldrich's account of what went on in the Clinton
White
House - and what he thinks needs to be done now to avoid future 9-11s.
Get this special tape today - you'll never hear this on CNN! Click Here
Now:
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/aldrich.cfm?refid=11
<a href="https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/aldrich.cfmrefid=11">AOL
users click
here</a>
Thank you.
Yours for America,
Christopher Ruddy
Editor, NewsMax.com
Click Here Now: https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/aldrich.cfm?refid=11
<a href="https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/aldrich.cfmrefid=11">AOL
users click
here</a>
****************************TO
ADVERTISE**********************************
For information on advertising at NewsMax.com please contact Julie
Greenberg at
jgreenberg@newsmax.com.
****************************TO
SUBSCRIBE**********************************
If you would like a subscription to NewsMax.com News Alerts, please
visit
http://NewsMax.com/email.shtml
<a href="http://NewsMax.com/email.shtml">AOL users click here</a>
Sign up for free e-mail alerts today!
**************************************************************************
|
| 32 responses total. |
other
|
|
response 1 of 32:
|
Apr 12 10:59 UTC 2002 |
Wow. That's some pretty harsh comedy. If this guy had even the
slightest appearance of credibility he might actually be worth paying
attention to.
|
flem
|
|
response 2 of 32:
|
Apr 12 15:55 UTC 2002 |
NewsMax is, ah, not considered a reliable news source by the internet
community. </understatement>
|
jp2
|
|
response 3 of 32:
|
Apr 12 18:02 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
rlejeune
|
|
response 4 of 32:
|
Apr 12 18:33 UTC 2002 |
What abouWhat about the Onion? I get most of my knews from there.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 5 of 32:
|
Apr 12 19:36 UTC 2002 |
ROFLOL (though I only read the first few paragraphs, it was so silly).
|
senna
|
|
response 6 of 32:
|
Apr 12 23:06 UTC 2002 |
I started skipping after I read the part where "Clinton's skirt-chasing" cost
thousands of lives, or however that went. Clinton's skirt-chasing was far
more likely to create life (and that does mean what you think) than destroy
it.
Of course, it could also explain his stance on abortion...
|
russ
|
|
response 7 of 32:
|
Apr 13 02:25 UTC 2002 |
Maybe I should order this tape (under an assumed name) and then
see about ordering all the junk mail which comes with it returned
as "RETURN TO SENDER - OBSCENE". That's bound to cost them a bundle.
Newsmax.com seems to be a really popular site for readers of
Lucianne Goldberg's not-so-free speech forum. Not surprising.
|
mdw
|
|
response 8 of 32:
|
Apr 13 05:57 UTC 2002 |
I take it this guy wasn't around during the Nixon days. Nixon was definitely
much more paranoid about his domestic opponents than he was of foreigners.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 9 of 32:
|
Apr 13 13:54 UTC 2002 |
yeah...he was partying with that monster MAO but was
*worried* about a silly little punk like LENNON.
<laffs>
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 10 of 32:
|
Apr 15 05:22 UTC 2002 |
Well, I find this silly, too, but I'm surprised that it had to raise
even a hint of defensiveness. Again, I hear the sound of squirming or
head-shaking whenever the 'liberals' are supposedly attacked in a post
here.. including cut-and-paste ones.
I was of the opinion that the Twin Towers attack was something that
happened to slip through the notice of the CIA and the FBI-- I can
believe that we have many such threats daily, and this one was a
threat that happened to slip through.
What I generally find more plausible is to believe that many political
trends, policies, etc. generally occur over a number of
administrations, although a particular President may have instigated
initial policy or Congress of that particular administration passed
certain legislation. Rarely is something 100% the blame of an
individual President, which honestly, in my eyes, makes political
bickering seem hollow and unsubstantiated, if not merely ritualistic.
In my observation, those who are loudest on the subject of politics
are often very subjective and dogmatic. I struggle to get an
objective story-- so many are quick to tell me Democrats, Republicans,
bleeding-heart liberals, unfeeling conservatives, etc., etc. are to
blame.
I also suppose I'm one of the few fairly moderate and Independent
folks willing to speak out. But it gets so old sometimes.
|
mdw
|
|
response 11 of 32:
|
Apr 15 05:45 UTC 2002 |
Actually, if you look at the "statistics", "moderates" make up the
largest part of the voting population. This is why so many political
trends and policies continue across administrations. Er, that, and also
that giant mega-corporations have so much to say about our trends and
policies today. Generally speaking, both candidates work hard to look
"appealing" to the central moderates, even at the cost of disaffecting
members of their respective "camps". The moderates elected Reagan to
the white house twice, and 4 years after that, elected Clinton to the
white house twice. Seemingly, those moderates weren't particularly
bothered by Ollie North's escapades, nor do they seem to have been
particularly disturbed by Clinton's wandering penis. Today, those same
moderates don't seem particularly disturbed by the Federalist society,
which has quietly replaced the ABA as the people who screen our federal
judges.
You can read more about the federalist society vs. the ABA here:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/04/columns/fl.dean.aba.screen.04.03/
|
senna
|
|
response 12 of 32:
|
Apr 15 06:49 UTC 2002 |
Wait, would these things be solved if the moderates just made up their minds?
Can we then re-transfer the blame transferred to the moderates back to the
extremists who disgust the moderates with their childish infighting?
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 13 of 32:
|
Apr 15 08:22 UTC 2002 |
I hope that's sarcasm. ;)
I don't know how it's like where you are, but the political parties
can't even get people to hardly come out to caucus meetings.
Times have changed, apparently. Back when Eisenhower was pres, the
parties were moderate, if I have reliable sources. A friend of mine
describes himself as an unreconstructed liberal. He votes Independent
these days, although he was a registered Republican in the past. He's
not real fond of the way Republican ideology has gone down South, and
seems to be convinced that many good ol' boy legislators are thinking
to keep those 'damn n***ers' in their place. From what I have heard
of the South from a number of other sources, I suppose that might not
be far off the mark.
The Democrats, as I remember, have been through some interesting
twists and turns. I suppose it began when the hippies to the yippies
started protesting.. which ones were they who crashed the 1969 DNC
Convention? Recently, I remember that the party has largely embraced
fiscal conservatism, although Presidential nominees (before the last
election) Bill Bradley and Al Gore were seeking to return the party to
its ideological roots. I remember that some past Democrat
presidential nominees (the names escape me now) sought to form a third
party but were rebuffed.
What alternatives do we have? Ralph Nader tried hard for a long time
to raise the Green Party to high enough status that it would receive
federal funding, but he failed. There was the Reform party, but well,
H. Ross Perot appeared to look less than committed, and Pat Buchanan
seemed to take it over. Jesse Ventura seems to be doing fairly well
as governor of Minnesota, but he doesn't seem to be running for
President just yet.
Colin Powell would be a *wonderful* candidate for the next presidency,
but he has said he would not seek the office. Maybe he sees things
behind the scenes a LOT better than we do.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 14 of 32:
|
Apr 15 16:58 UTC 2002 |
he prolly doesn't want to put his wife thru that morass.
he's a good feller.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 15 of 32:
|
Apr 15 17:12 UTC 2002 |
i'd kinda like to see him be prez tho.
|
oval
|
|
response 16 of 32:
|
Apr 16 01:57 UTC 2002 |
he would win by a landslide.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 17 of 32:
|
Apr 16 11:57 UTC 2002 |
If Marcus is right, oh shit yeah. He doesn't need to look appealing
to the political moderates, because more or less, he is one.
I figure he may be compared quite comfortably to Eisenhower if he does
run and win.
|
gull
|
|
response 18 of 32:
|
Apr 16 14:32 UTC 2002 |
I don't think the Republicans would nominate him, though. He doesn't
have a pedigree the way Bush did, and he's too moderate on some of the
Republicans' litmus test issues.
|
oval
|
|
response 19 of 32:
|
Apr 16 23:16 UTC 2002 |
he should run libertarian.
|
other
|
|
response 20 of 32:
|
Apr 16 23:34 UTC 2002 |
Around here, "Libertarian" is virtually synonymous with "Lunatic Fringe."
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 21 of 32:
|
Apr 17 05:58 UTC 2002 |
resp:18 That's quite sad, and would seem to indicate the Republicans
honestly have moved to the right, despite protests to the contrary.
|
mdw
|
|
response 22 of 32:
|
Apr 17 06:35 UTC 2002 |
The Republicans have a well organized "christian" conservative movement
within their ranks, which at the very least has become a dominant voice
in determining who of their party represents them. I'm surprised you
haven't noticed. It's true they have had to tone their rhetoric down in
order to avoid scaring away the moderates and business wing of their
party. Nevertheless, it shines through -- the president's faith based
initiative is one such example - though that may also have been a clever
ploy to appeal to black voters. The president's public opposition to
fetal tissue and stem cell research is another example. The federalist
society is a less visible but perhaps more insidious example.
The Democrats, so far as I can see, have no such equivalent liberal
influence in their organization. There may be many individual members
who are quite in opposition to conservative Republican goals, but this
is by no means uniform. In congress, it seems to be more common for
some Democrats to vote with the Republicans than visa-versa.
|
void
|
|
response 23 of 32:
|
Apr 17 18:53 UTC 2002 |
The Republicans are not what they used to be. Nixon's 1972 platform was
anti-war, pro-reproductive rights and pro-affirmative action.
|
gull
|
|
response 24 of 32:
|
Apr 18 19:11 UTC 2002 |
Didn't Nixon also create the EPA?
|