Hillary Clinton gave order for Waco massacre

a reply to: randomthoughts12

I don't care if she pressured them or not. If you're the one in charge and you make the call but do it because the first lady was being a bitch about it. You're still at fault. It's called taking a stand and doing what's right and what you've been put in a position of authority to do.

That is a lame excuse to use for why multiple officials who had authority folded. If you're in charge and you give in to some pressure from the first lady who isn't in charge and doesn't make your decisions for you, you're pretty worthless in that position and don't need to be in charge of sh*t.

The theory you're pushing has more details as well which become more and more implausible as it continues on BTW. How did she put pressure on anyone??? What gave her that kind of influence??? Just because you have some hunch about something doesn't make it correct.

Was there deception and lies happening. Sure, all around. But you're trying to tie up some conspiracy with nothing but hunches and suspicious rumors being pushed by people who have something against the Clinton's. I suppose you also believe that Foster was Hillary's other Lover and the other guy who I forget his name at the moment is really the father of Hillary's daughter and not Bill??? Because that's also part of the theory you're alluding to.

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE

And tell me why we believe Snopes? Do they have some magical powers?

Well, for one they have more than just rumors and BS. But if you don't want to believe them, then don't. You don't need to if you just do some research in to what was going on.

But you won't do that because it's easier to just believe some story with no evidence at all that fits your agenda and what you want to believe so you'll choose that instead. Everyone here has made it very clear that is exactly how they go about things. As long as the story agrees with what they want to believe they'll stick with it regardless of it having no evidence and even evidence to the contrary.

youtu.be...

What the Clinton's will do if you cross them is crucify you, if they can't find any skeletons in your closet to destroy you with, they will put them there.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

So you give us a youtube video produced by Citizens United talking to Extreme Right Wingers such as Anne Coulter, Dick Morris and Rudy Giuliani.

Because that won't be a Hack Video of Extreme Bias now will it???

Real quick before I waste time watching over an hour of propaganda produced by the very people who caused Corporate Money to legally flood our election system. Is there even anything in this video about Waco??? If so could you give the time where it starts??? Otherwise this doesn't even belong in this thread.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: xuenchen
Excellent Topic !!!

This exposure is going to trigger lots of responses.

I have no doubt this is true.

The real Hillary in action behind the scenes.

Didn't you forget your usual this will give Trump a million votes?

That's only when the MSM or Hillary tries to slander him and fails.
This is just another example of weird happenings in the life of Hillary and the Clinton presidency.

Back on topic.
I think it's safe to assume Hillary wears the pant suits in the relationship. Waco happened under the Bill Clinton presidency. Same with ruby ridge and the Oklahoma city bombing. I suspect events like this would be rather common if Hillary were elected(again).
Like usual the same suspects are here deflecting.

a reply to: JAY1980

And like usual the same people are here pushing theories without any evidence to support it and refusing to even look at the evidence to the contrary.

So yeah, same sh*t different day.

Hillary was more involved in the Clinton Administration than they want to admit now. Besides the Vince Foster murder, she also pushed her failed health care agenda. I might add that Hillary was all over the Obama administration as well. She hand picked his staff, named his appointments for him, and got him to endorse HER healthcare agenda a second time. People friendly to Obama that crossed her were pushed aside. So she had leverage on Obama from the get go. They say she began the birther movement and I think she did and she had something she found. Waco was just a screw up from the get go and the feds botched it from start to finish and then covered it up. Janet Reno was a spineless jellyfish who did what she was told just like her protégé, Eric Foster and now that Lynch woman.

originally posted by: ColaTesla

Hillary ordered Waco Massacre

If no one has pointed it out yet, this is one those "satire" click bait sites that tries to get people to spread their links around the internet.

Like you've done.

originally posted by: Dutchowl
... and got him to endorse HER healthcare agenda a second time.

The ACA was based on what Romney implemented in Massachusetts.

a reply to: schuyler

I presented circumstances in which it would be possible for her to be involved. I based that belief on personal information I am privy to that you are not. Such as knowing one of the key people involved personally, having actually met david koresh, speaking at great length with the parents of one of the people slain there who were there for the event itself. You have nothing but denial. What I have is compelling enough for people to be suspicious. Which is no more than most people have on the clintons. At least the ones still living...

I am also not afraid to admit I was mistaken. Which I did. Regarding the next assignment of the agents killed by friendly fire, I was mistaken and I admitted it. Those agents were assigned to the clinton security detail but not immediately prior to the waco attack.

And still, through all of this, you have nothing to offer of any significance. At least I have inside information I was willing to share, though it is painful to do so. This was one of my best friends. I am sorry your blind devotion to the royal clinton is more important to you than even the suggestion that the great royal may have had her dirty fingers on this debacle too.

I guess a first lady has never influence their husband President. Glad that is settled.

a reply to: mOjOmreally you yhink bill was the one really in charge when he was president?

a reply to: proteus33

I think that the person in charge needs to take responsibility for what they're in charge of. As president he would in fact be that person. So if you want to blame Bill Clinton for Waco I suppose that would at least make more sense than blaming Hillary for it.

However, Janet Reno made the call so in this case it's her that accepted that responsibility and is the one responsible.

Mainly I think anyone who is trying to blame Hillary for pressuring others to act when they shouldn't have is just giving an excuse for those in charge who ultimately are the ones who made the wrong choice. Pressure comes with the job and if you can't take some pressure from the first lady and still be capable of making the right choices in office, then you don't belong in office to begin with.

DP

Simple common sense would tell you this is pure BS. Hilary Clinton was First lady. She had no official power or authority back then to make any decisions of the kind, or give orders. Janet Reno was the beast in charge, it was her orders, her choice.

One would think, with all the legitimate, solid dirt on Hilary Clinton, that one could stick to the facts, but I guess not.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Simple common sense would tell you this is pure BS. Hilary Clinton was First lady. She had no official power or authority back then to make any decisions of the kind, or give orders. Janet Reno was the beast in charge, it was her orders, her choice.

One would think, with all the legitimate, solid dirt on Hilary Clinton, that one could stick to the facts, but I guess not.

You would think so wouldn't you. But as you can see we aren't dealing with the normal kind of ignorance. The kind which is simply misinformed but with a desire to educate themselves. What we're dealing with now is the kind of ignorance that has no desire to know anything or hear anything outside their own bubble. They are happy and arrogant about what they don't know. Not only that but it seems the more they don't know, the more they are able to stick in their own version of reality and the more certain they are that their made up reality must be true regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

It's true that you can't argue with stupid because stupid is too stupid to realize when it's wrong.