• @800XL@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    54 months ago

    Which came thru Arkansas while Clinton was governor. Not defending Ollie since he is human garbage.

    • grilledcheesecowboy
      link
      fedilink
      174 months ago

      The cocaine came through Arkansas and Clinton had something to do with it? You got a source for this?

      • @postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        94 months ago

        From wikipedia, look there to chase footnotes for sources

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking_allegations

        Several journalists state that the CIA used Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport in Arkansas to smuggle weapons and ammunition to the Contras in Nicaragua, and drugs back into the United States.[27][28] Some theories have claimed the involvement of political figures Oliver North, then vice president and former CIA director George H. W. Bush and then Arkansas governor Bill Clinton.[28][29]

        • @TheOtherThyme@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          34
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Wow, did you read any of that. Ctl-f "Clinton " in that wiki article. Zero.

          Judicial Watch (great source) is trying crazy hard in that article to suggest that judicial watch is saying there is a connection but they seem have nothing. Serious, they reference themselfs. It reads like a twelve year old with a clear bias wrote it. He was governor at the time. If you want to claim more, show real evidence. Your feeling don’t count, snowflake.

            • @Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              You’re affirming that your statement regarding Bill Clinton is a meaningless inclusion.

              Then why include it in your comment at all?

              I’d love to know!
              Please tell me why you thought a statement that strung unrelated pieces of information together without establishing a relationship between them or drawing a conclusion about their relationship was a worthwhile contribution to the discourse.

              When pressed, you linked to sources without elaborating your position or reason for linking to them.
              Was that intentional? Did you mean to give any person who might engage with you a completely blank slate, in which you could then simply accuse them of arguing against something you had not actually asserted?
              Bait them into making a straw man argument, and insinuate that validates the premise you still have not stated?

              I am curious how this conversation thread would have gone if you had actually stated your premise so others could dismiss it as its own logical fallacy: correlation is not causation.
              But noooo, I had to read through someone putting forth genuine effort to call you on your nonsense while you offered low quality, dishonest responses that use the same sort of shifty rhetorical techniques that “journalists” employ on rage-bait news-otainment TV programs.

              And then - after the self-adulatory statements, pseudo-intellectual nonsense, and pointless insults - you claim the links you shared which do not support your implied premise are proof that you have adequately supported your not-claims? Weak.

        • grilledcheesecowboy
          link
          fedilink
          114 months ago

          None of that really provides any evidence that Bill Clinton was involved. Is Clinton being the governor germane or are you just stating random facts?

          • @800XL@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            24 months ago

            It doesn’t provide evidence because it has to do with the fact it happened in Mena, AK. And Bill Clinton was the Governor at the time.

            Appearently stating a fact triggered the fuck out of this thread. It’s so stupid too because there are people (maybe you are in this category, maybe not - and this is not an insult so don’t take it as such) who weren’t born at the time he was Governor or even when he was President and wouldn’t know or care.

            Where I went wrong was I forgot that facts aren’t facts to the Redditors here and they are frothing at the mouth waiting to make up strawmen arguments, argue in bad faith and unleash their vitriol over a it.

            That being said, thank you for an honest question. Here is the answer and a link for further reading:

            Bill Clinton served as the 42nd president of the United States (1993–2001) and as the 40th and 42nd governor of Arkansas (1979–1981; 1983–1992).

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Bill_Clinton

    • @Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      114 months ago

      You attempt to involve Clinton in the smuggling failed. Do everyone, including yourself, a favor and just delete your comment.

      • @Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        34 months ago

        He provided sources. While there’s nothing definitive pinning most of the accused, that’s by design. Successful criminals don’t take notes at a criminal conspiracy.

        Let’s be clear, Clinton was better than many Republicans before him. Better than all that came after him. But that’s not an achievement. It’s a bar so ridiculously low it’s hard to even trip on.

        • @Dagwood222@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 months ago

          You funny.

          By your logic, everyone in New York on 9/11 is a potential co-conspirator.

          “They were there, and they don’t have proof they weren’t involved!”