<p>You have missed the point, once again. Neither the fifth estate nor the New York Times is likely to believe that 9/11 was the result of some nefarious conspiracy. Your claim that the link I presented was a site which claims that it was, is a clear indication that you didn’t bother to even read any of it. It was an investigative report of conspiracy theories, and in the process of the investigation, there is a multitude of information that was gathered about the parties involved in the discussions, including the Bin Laden family.</p>
<p>poetsheart,</p>
<p>I don’t think that ANYone, even the conspiracy theorists, have proposed that the Bush family had any connection to Osama Bin Laden himself, just to the family.</p>
<p>Back to the point. The Clintons accountants have the returns easily available to her with just a phone call. </p>
<p>Why she wants to release her return and schedules as late as possible? She knows people will trace every item of income and every deduction on it and compare it to the last returns released while Bill was President.</p>
<p>My personal guess is they have some tax shelters on the return that will be hard to explain to blue collar voters.</p>
<p>what about the donors to the Presidential Library in Arkansas? Yes, Bill is not (officially) running anymore, but as potential first spouse it might be nice to know who funded that beautiful building in Little Rock. Perhpas a few million in donations came with Mark Rich-like plans?</p>
<p>“what about the donors to the Presidential Library in Arkansas? Yes, Bill is not (officially) running anymore, but as potential first spouse it might be nice to know who funded that beautiful building in Little Rock. Perhpas a few million in donations came with Mark Rich-like plans?”</p>
<p>Yes, especially since he would be occupying the White House and it would be good to know to whom he’s sold access. I mean, heck, for enough money would he sneak into the Oval Office, roll up documents to hide in his socks, and then hand them off to the Chinese? (I’m only half kidding here.) Seriously, though, hasn’t Hillary recently said that she will release the tax returns after winning the nomination? What about her papers as First Lady? Don’t those speak to her role in the Clinton White House? If she is running on that record, put it out there. Clearly, there are ugly financial dealings (when are there not with the Clintons) and a paper trail that puts the lie to her claims. They’re gambling that they can wait till they’ve won the nomination and then democratic voters will forgive their transgressions in the name of partisanship.</p>
<p>That wasn’t what I was assuming would be the criticism. I was wondering if the very name, Bin Laden, is taken to mean that Bush is “in bed” with a family that supports the terrorist acts of its famous relative.</p>
<p>That’s a bit disingenous! There’s nothing in the article you linked that says Hilary is claiming to be from Pa.</p>
<p>poetsheart, </p>
<p>I agree with you. I think that there was, indeed, limited criticism about the situation between the Bushes and the Bin Ladens, but it was definitely limited. Although this discussion has veered off topic, I think it’s an important comparison that was made initially (sorry, I forget now by whom!) because the complaints about Bill Clinton’s possible ties to individuals in Dubai being raised now are very different, in my opinion.</p>
<p>Maybe she didn’t say it, but her campaign did. "Her Scranton appearance is being trumpeted as a homecoming event by her campaign staff who said the candidate’s roots in the region run as deep as a seam of anthracite coal. "</p>
<p>I am not the one being disingenuous. You can decide whether she is.</p>
<p>1sokkermom, accuracy is important. What you initially posted is not the case, in either link.</p>
<p>simba, yes. A few are so overly involved in searching out negatives,(and if they can’t be found they make them up!) it would seem that it would be difficult to hire paid candidates for negative campaigning who would be better at the job.</p>
<p>“If she is running on that record, put it out there.”</p>
<p>She’s not only running on that record, she’s running against someone else’s record – someone who HAS put his documents out there. If it’s a big deal that Obama paid for his house with a scumbag’s assistance years ago, it ought to be a big deal whether the Clintons paid for their home/library/travel/etc. with questionable help.</p>
<p>Now simba, don’t be so modest. If you’re not an “avid” Clinton supporter, Michael Jackson doesn’t want to be a white woman! A person who isn’t an avid supporter doesn’t run to caucus for his candidate late into the night, even though he believes the whole process amounts to a “circus”. A person who isn’t avid doesn’t admit to liking his koolAid, “Orange Tangerine” flavored, “with a twist of lemon”. Go ahead and admit that you’re ga-ga for Hillary, and don’t have any reservations about the prospect of her being President—erm, I mean, Co-President…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>I’ll tell you the reservations I have about each of the possible candidates (which is one reason why I’ve not yet determined who I’ll vote for—though I’m pretty sure I’ve determined who I’ll not be voting for). Come on.</p>
<p>I’ll show you mine, if you’ll show me yours…;)</p>
<p>You really want to know why I went running to caucus?</p>
<p>Yes it is true that I wanted to support my candidate. Other reason is that on the day of Texas Primary, I would have been retired with plenty of time on my hand. I wanted to experience the caucus (circus). I also want to go up to Austin, but wife unit does not want me to. (I also went the night before and helped my precinct chair set up the polling place. He was very appreciative - I was the only one who went to help. It took us more than 3 hrs.)</p>
<p>I have said it before, if Obama wins the nomination, I will vote for him (In TX it wouldn’t matter any way). There is no way a half dead man will get my vote.</p>
[Hillary</a> Clinton in PA today, Phila. Tuesday | Philadelphia Inquirer | 03/10/2008](<a href=“