Hey, Jeff!

by **JerkyLeBoeuf** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:40 pm

Today, you wrote: "That's how we get people who can say "Bush knew" while they call Mena "tinfoil," and for whom Skull and Bones was a forbidden topic after Kerry's selection." Please explain, in as much detail as you can, your take on a) Mena and b) Skull and Bones. Because, to me, your comment seems like an attempt to be a "fair and balanced" conspiracy theorist... or conspiracy implicationist, as the case may be. Are Clinton and Kerry REALLY the same as Bushco? Because, if that's true, why the fuck do you even bother with this page?

by **heath7** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:09 pm

I'm not Jeff, but I'll be happy to get this opinionating rolling. Clinton and Kerry are both subsidiaries of Bushco, As are most of the rest of the Democrats. For me, Mena is the only remote explanation for how Clinton came from nowhere to being president, and the two Georges' friend; Careful observation of Clinton's presidential record finds a lot of backdoors opened that Bush has exploited, like the unified statement in '98 that Saddam should be removed from power. Kerry refused on national TV, before the election, to talk anything about Skull and Bones; I found this highly suspicious, coupled with his immediate concession of the election, seemingly only for the purpose of making it seem nothing was fishy about the 2004 election, its hard not to think of Kerry as dubya's butt buddy.

by **JerkyLeBoeuf** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:23 pm

>Clinton and Kerry are both subsidiaries of Bushco, As are >most of the rest of the Democrats. Sorry, but I don't see it. >For me, Mena is the only remote explanation for how >Clinton came from nowhere to being president, and >the two Georges' friend; You're throwing out clear evidence of 12 years of brutal enmity in favor of a vague conspiracy theory that has yet to be explained in a clear and reasonable fashion by anyone with any semblance of credibility. >Careful observation of Clinton's presidential record >finds a lot of backdoors opened that Bush has exploited, >like the unified statement in '98 that Saddam should be >removed from power. Considering the toll of the sanctions, was that really such an unreasonable statement? >Kerry refused on national TV, before the election, >to talk anything about Skull and Bones; Skull and Bones? What's your theory about Skull and Bones? >I found this highly suspicious, coupled with his >immediate concession of the election, seemingly >only for the purpose of making it seem nothing >was fishy about the 2004 election, its hard not >to think of Kerry as dubya's butt buddy. Consider the totality of his position. Fewer Democratic Conresspeople and Senators. A hostile counter-establishment firmly entrenched at the pinacle of national power, no subpeona capability, barely any public outcry to speak of. What would YOU have done in his place? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=jerkyleboeuf>JerkyLeBoeuf</A> at: 2/2/06 4:24 pm

by **Quentin Quire** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:07 pm

Jerky -- Bush, Gore, Kerry et al are fingers on the same hand. One finger may operate individually, but there is the same motor-process controlling them all. The 'elite' have controlled US politics since JFK's head went back and to the left. S*** - they've been controlling it since the US was invented. Anyone who has done any any reading or research into parapolitics can see this. They may have very different opinions on the where/why/when and how but this is held as the acceptable truth. To paraphrase the late and very f***ing great Bill Hicks -- 'This puppet to the right is to my liking. Well - I like this puppet to the left.' A multitude of puppets, many strings and a great deal of puppeteers. Such is the way of the world. Jerky - you are coming at this with a very partisan angle. I can understand that. I'd like to to give you a whole host of links to back-up Jeff's points but I'm not the research guy. But tell me - don't the recent pics of Bush Senior and Clinton paint more than ten thousand words?

by **Dreams End** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:25 am

Mena was indeed a favorite conspiracy of the rightwing. I don't remember details, but I found myself convinced that there was some fire in that smoke. And if the contras were running drugs up to the States..they had to land somewhere. (Here is a brief digression. I lived in L.A. I didn't know too many famous people, but I did talk to a guy who is a producer who works on very big films. He seems to have gotten his start in the...ahem...underground economy. He said they way THEY flew in drugs was to simply fly in with a declared flight plan but make a very quick stop on an Indian Reservation. Less likely to run into federal or state authorities. Take off again quick and no one even notices the variation in the flight plan.) As for Skull and Bones...if nothing else the statistical unlikelihood of the two candidates for US President coming from the same "secret" fraternity that accepts only 15 students per year should be at least a yellow flag. And Yale itself is spook central...I think that's pretty common knowledge. It's a bit of a cart and horse thing. The elite are certainly likely to join the same clubs and socialize in the same groups, so does Skull and Bones have any relevance beyond being their "hangout"? Really seems to, to me. Add in the German roots and the human sacrifice... Yes, it's "staged", but it is documented that they bring in a young woman and pretend to slit her throat in a sacrifice. It was even on film, but I can never find the footage. And it's also known that each candidate must reveal all his sexual secrets, so there is certainly an element of control. This is all acknowledged stuff. I think we make a mistake to assume that this means skull and bones is running the show. But it's definitely got some bigtime connections.

by **chiggerbit** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:49 am

Scheeze, you do realize they are going to have to kill you for that little leak, don't you DE?

by **Dreams End** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:26 am

If you mean the drug dealer one...I doubt it...he told it to us easily enough. Actually, it was because we were looking into smuggling someone out of Mexico who was somewhat high profile...things were looking bad for him but he's fine and it was probably a little grandiose thinking on our part anyway.

by **JerkyLeBoeuf** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 3:24 am

About Mena, I found this at the Netizen website, and it sums up my feelings about it: Mena, Arkansas: Contra & Drug Smuggling Center? Even though this issue has been adopted by the conspiracy nuts, there does really seem to be something behind it. Unlike almost every other Clinton scandal, this one in non-partisan -- it actually began with Bush and Oliver North, and still seems to implicate them much more than the President. In a nutshell, it's pretty well established that both weapons for the Contras and cocaine were smuggled through the small, obscure airport in Mena, Arkansas during the 1980s and late 1970s. But other than the fact that Clinton was governor during part of this time, there really isn't much of a link to him. There is a lot of drug smuggling in Florida, but no one assumes that Florida Governor Jeb Bush is connected to it. The Contra operation of course was run by the Reagan/Bush White House. So when you read about Barry Seal or Kevin Ives and Don Henry (two teens apparently killed because they knew about drug deals), the charges are partly true but mostly unconnected. Yes, these guys all were killed because they got too close to drug smugglers, but there is no evidence connecting any of it to Clinton. Clinton-haters try to make hay out of his brother's personal cocaine habit, or Bill's admitted pot smoking, but that's ridiculous.

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 3:34 am

I think of it kinda like I wrote in <a href="http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/08/things-go-sliding.html">this post</a>: "Clinton's fault, Bush's fault: these aren't serious positions. The fault lies far deeper, beneath the sham spectacle of "partisan politics," and only a few heads, such as Dick Cheney's, ever come bubbling to the surface of public life." Insofar as the Democratic and Republican parties are legitimately competitive, I see them as competing wholesalers marketing the same goods. They have boutiques that appeal to niche customers, but those are meaningless distinctions. The Octopus doesn't hibernate during Democratic Administrations. In my judgement, there's solid stuff on Mena's having been an Iran/Contra cocaine hub. It was a VP Bush/CIA operation. It wasn't, as the right attack dogs had it, a Clinton coke ring. But the Treasury of Arkansas, and Clinton's coterie, were rewarded for their looking the other way. Cockburn and St Clair's Whiteout has good material on this, as does Terry Reed's Compromised. Daniel Hopsicker, too. Here's a post I wrote about a year ago - <a href="http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/02/bill-and-george-happy-at-last.html">Bill and George, Happy at Last</a>: It's funny how the sight of Bill Clinton standing shoulder to shoulder with a Bush can still raise the blood pressure of some Democrats. You'd almost think the left hand of Jackson Stephens doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I'm always up for a good Bush-bash, but if we're serious about exposing unpleasant truths we shouldn't balk when our own pleasant assumptions are exposed as little more than comfortable lies. And it seems to me that quite a few who study the high crimes of state do so not for the sake of justice, but rather to score points against political adversaries, as though politics still mattered. Invariably, the conclusions then drawn are shallow and incomplete, and the systemic, bipartisan corruption again fails to receive the radical critique it deserves. (I find this sometimes with the 9/11 short-hand "Bush Knew," which backward-masks the mere political over the parapolitical.) For an illustration of what I mean, spend some time digging through the Clinton-era archives of a number of conservative websites. You'll recover lots of good material on BCCI, the Inslaw affair, Mena drug trafficking and more. But almost invariably, it's all dumped at the feet of the Clinton White House, rather than the true perp which has cast a shadow over every White House since Harry Truman's: the perpetual, criminalized and increasingly privatized National Security State. It was no surprise that, when Bush was selected President, most Republicans lost interest in the material, which again became the domain of "wild-eyed conspiracy theorists." Likewise for Democrats. A number have no trouble entertaining the notion that 9/11 was an inside job, but they have persuaded themselves that Mena drug-trafficking was a right-wing lie (even though it was a Bush Iran/Contra operation for which Clinton provided cover, earning for Arkansas a tithe of laundered money), and that there was nothing suspicious about Vincent Foster's death (even though it stinks of PROMIS and BCCI). I mentioned Jackson Stephens. Let's take a quick look. The Arkansas billionaire was the principal domestic bagman for both George HW Bush and Bill Clinton. The Kerry Committee identified Stephens as "possibly BCCI's principal US broker," having facilitated its first American acquisitions, the National Bank of Georgia and its former parent, Financial General Bankshares. Stephens in fact introduced the bank's Pakistani financier, Agha Hasan Abedi, to Bert Lance way back in 1975. And Stephens, along with Salem bin Laden via James Bath, became the financial saviours of George W Bush's troubled Harken Energy. Stephens' name is linked to everything from BCCI to Mena to PROMIS to 9/11 (Daniel Hopsicker has found Stephens "active" in Venice Florida, where the 9/11 pilots trained and were sheltered.) Enough spirals to make even the late Mark Lombardi dizzy. So, is Stephens a Republican or Democrat? What a silly question. His first allegiance is to the National Security Agency: The chief government effort to spy on U.S. domestic banking transactions was directed by the electronic spy agency, the National Security Agency (NSA), working in connection with the Little Rock software firm Systematics. Systematics, half-owned by billionaire Jackson Stephens (of Stephens Inc. fame), has been a major supplier of software for back office clearing and wire transfers. It was Stephens' attempt to get Systematics the job of handling the data processing for the Washington-D.C. bank First American that led to the BCCI takeover of that institution. Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster represented Systematics in that endeavor, and later Foster became an overseer of the NSA project with respect to Systematics. Working together, the NSA and Jackson Stephens' Systematics developed security holes in much of the banking software Systematics sold. Now we face a crisis in banking and financial institution security, according to John Deutch, Director of the CIA. "One obstacle is that banks and other private institutions have been reluctant to divulge any evidence of computer intrusions for fear that it will leak and erode the confidence of their customers. Deutch said 'the situation is improving' but that more cooperation was needed from major corporations, and said the CIA remains willing to share information with such firms about the risks they might face." What Deutch failed to mention was that this "banking crisis" in large part was itself created by one of the U.S. intelligence agencies--the NSA in cahoots with Stephens' software firm Systematics. And what about Mena? If the drug trafficking really happened on Clinton's watch as Governor, some Democrats argue, then why didn't Kenneth Starr go after it? It may have something to do with what Starr was doing in 1982: aiding Attorney General William French Smith excise drug trafficking from a long list of crimes the CIA was legally bound to report if Agency operatives were found to be perpetrating them. This laid a premeditated cover for Iran/Contra's guns for drugs, of which Mena was a critical hub. As Hopsicker wrote: This explains the dichotomy between Starr's handling of the Foster murder and the Arkansas Horrors versus his handling of the Monica Lewinsky/ perjury issue. Starr isn't protecting Bill Clinton per se, he is protecting the CIA.... Starr is not afraid to press on the Monica Lewinsky issue because that scandal does not risk exposure of the CIA's Iran-Contra smuggling. Starr...is connected to the CIA drug cartel. He helped write their "license to smuggle". This is why Starr covered up Foster's murder, to protect that operation. This is not a Republican scandal. This is not a Democratic scandal. This is a CIA drug scandal. And both parties are dirty as hell. So enough of gaming left or right "conspiracy theories." They're either right or wrong. Enough, even, of politics. The truth isn't out there, it's down there: below the surface of things. And as usual, that's where things get really stinky.

by **Dreams End** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:56 am

I think I like my own use of "left vs. right" conspiracism. Has nothing to do with dems vs repubs. Has to do with how much you think the various "conspiracies" are simply the more secret elements of the state's business as usual, or the result of "outsiders" secretly controlling a system that on its own would be free of such activities. Looking at the other post on Peter Dale Scott, I worry about his "Force X" idea. I'm sure that network exists, and I look forward to learning more about it, but it again gets back to this theme of some outside force subverting "democratically minded" countries' affairs. Surely it is the reverse. The elites use government, as it is currently constituted, and they also have other networks. Maybe force x is COMPETING with longer established elites...or maybe they are simply another avenue the elites use to do "what needs to be done." Like the OSS using the mafia in WW2...all for the good of freedom, you know. So, in that sense, attacking Clinton with Mena wouldn't be "right-wing", though it would not be, in my opinion, a very full picture of what's up. The dems have worked very hard to make sure they aren't too far behind in corporate "sponsorship", and let's remember that much of our national security state was created by Democrats and "cold war liberals". I'll leave as an exercise for the reader the determination of whether various factions "compete" or whether it's fairly unified at the top. Mainly because I don't know. I love the blanket pronouncements from some about knowledge of "THEIR" agenda. I assume that if we know the agenda in great detail...it's not their agenda. Broad stroke ideas of it...yes...but exactly how it all fits together...people die with that kind of knowledge. But watching Clinton pal around with Bush sr to bail out Bush Jr., it's not hard to envision a scenario that has them having worked together from the start.

by **heath7** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:55 pm

You're throwing out clear evidence of 12 years of brutal enmity 'Brutal enmity' that Clinton easily survived. It was a charade. Because Clinton worked so well with the Gingrich revolution, it had to be made to look like he wasn't their friend. ...And regarding today's democrats, how are you going to feel when their leadership comes out swinging as hard for war with Iran as Bush did for Iraq. Where exactly was the democrats' leadership on Iraq? Oh, that's right, most of them voted to give Bush authorization for war.

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:31 pm

<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110007120">August 18 05</a> Barbara Bush is reported now to call Mr. Clinton "son." <a href="http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/clinton_barbara_bush_calls_clinton_son.htm">Clinton</a> "I think we're good friends. I like him very much. I've always liked him. When he was vice president, I was still a governor. We worked together on a number of things. He hosted the governors, in 1983...at Kennebunkport. [When they made an announcement about raising funds for Tsunami relief in Houston former First Lady Barbara Bush] "announced us. And she said she has started to call me son." <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3556468a4560,00.html">Jan 30 06</a> Is there a new member of the Bush family? WASHINGTON: President George W Bush says Bill Clinton has become so close to his father that the Democratic former president is like a member of the family. Former President George Bush has worked with Clinton to raise money for victims of the Asian tsunami and the hurricane disaster along the US Gulf Coast. Asked about his father and Clinton, Bush quipped, "Yes, he and my new brother."

by **heyjt** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:52 pm

...Maybe they shared the same teenage girls...

by **Connut** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 3:06 pm

more likely underage boys.

Hey, Jeff!

Hey, Jeff!

Re: Hey, Jeff!

Re: Hey, Jeff!

RE

Re: RE

Re: RE

Re: RE

Re: RE

Hey, Jerky

Re: Hey, Jerky

Re: Hey, Jeff!

'son' and 'brother'

Clinton & Bush Senior

Clinton and Bush Senior

Who is online