Democrats have made up a silly talking points strategy that Republicans have a "Culture of Corruption"
Which Republicans have been convicted of crimes? Remind me again?
The left's entire mind set is to get away with whatever you can until you get caught, then say "everyone's doing it"
Well, Former FBI Director Louis Freeh says publicly for the first time that his relationship with President Bill Clinton – the man who appointed him – was a terrible one because Clinton’s scandals made him a constant target of FBI investigations.
In the book, “My FBI,” he writes, “The problem was with Bill Clinton -- the scandals and the rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended. Whatever moral compass the president was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out.”
Freeh says he was determined to stay on as FBI director until President Clinton left office so that Clinton could not appoint his successor. “I was concerned about who he would put in there as FBI director because he had expressed antipathy for the FBI, for the director,” he tells Wallace. “[So] I was going to stay there and makcouldn't he couldn’t replace me,” Freeh tells Wallace.
The man who the Left defends scandal after scandal has been caught again. The left really needs to shut up about corruption. They are the side that is caught and convicted even though the media does its best to cover it up. (Newsweek with the Monica story)
Thursday, October 06, 2005
FBI FREEH UNLOADS ON CLINTON: 'CLOSETS WERE FULL OF SKELETONS'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
27 comments:
Interestinig that Freeh would claim that he was determined to stay on as FBI director so that Clinton couldn't appoint his successor. There is no statutory restriction on the authority of the president to remove the FBI director.
Does Mr. Freeh note that most of the "rumored scandals" that plagued Clinton were cooked up by the Arkansas Project funded by conservative Richard Mellon Scaife? Of course they never ended because as long as the right could keep the pressure on Clinton to constantly defend himself, he wouldn't be able to implement policies which they feared.
Clinton lied under oath. This is not defensible. However, it does not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and the Senate so ruled.
What other crimes were either of the Clintons convicted of?
At the risk of sounding like I'm patting myself on the back, I've been saying for years that it's a wonder that Clinton accomplished anything.
He was so busy covering his ass, he must have had a hard time finding time to get any actual president type work done.
Uh, Jim, perjury is more than a misdemeanor. It is a felony.
Yes, perjury is a felony. But the Republican-controlled senate did not convict him. "Covering his ass" from what exactly? Don't bring up Monica; I've alread stipulated to that.
I cite from another blog...
How is it that Bill Clinton was such a bad actor that Freeh couldn't get anything else done because he had to spend so much investigating him and yet Freeh never caught him doing anything? Which of Clinton's associates did Freeh indict?
Maybe Clinton "didn't get anything done", but during his presidency, the budget went from a deficit to a surplus and the poverty rate went from 15.1% at the end of Bush 41's term to 11.7% at the end of his.
Congress balances a budget...controlled by Republicans...
Since you must have missed it on the last blog..
- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of imprisonments: 14
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pled the 5th Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 124
14 people were put in jail for God sakes...don't even think about saying ANYTHING about Rove, Delay or any other Republican than has not been convicted of anything when you defend the Clinton sandal machine....by far the most corrupt Presidency in history...yes, even more than Jackson.
I saw your post and I looked at the link from it, but I see no citations or links to any factual source that would corroborate these assertions. They are just right-wing numbers pulled out of someone's butt until you point me to a reputable news source, court records or government source which actually names these people, their crimes and their convictions.
Otherwise you have:
Freedom Eden who links to...
The Clinton Legacy which lists a whole bunch of supposed stats and records but cites no sources with any factual information. It's just the same old Clintons had Vince Foster killed and 47 other people connected to the Clintons who died under mysterious circumstances. It's all Kool-Aide stuff.
Jim is in deep Clinton denial as all his supporters were and still are. Jim either did not pay attention to news for eight scandal riddled years or he choose to give the Clintons a pass. Even now I bet he believes Sandy Berger is good people.
The hypocrisy of the left is if even one of the accusations that plagued Clinton were leveled at Bush there would be a firestorm that would be non-stop.
Clinton was his own worst enemy and I hope Freeh finally nails his ass to the wall.
If Mary can cite the source I would appreciate it...I am just trusting her...
Ummm...Clinton did have Vince Foster killed...
Your defending Clinton gives you no credibility at all...he loaded his own gun
How will Freeh "nail his ass to the wall?" He wrote a book. Lots of people write books. Want another good book? Read "The Hunting of the President."
Espella,
A number of accusations have been leveled at Bush, insider trading for example. Where is the OUTRAGE?
Did you notice that I never wrote that Clinton didn't do anything? I asked for actual documentations of indictments, convictions, etc. All I see is somebody's link to somebody's list citing somebody's rant. Where are the actual FACTS?
Game,
You have witnesses, pictures, indictments that the Clintons had Foster killed? No, you don't. All investigations have found that Vince Foster committed suicide. You only have right-wing Kool-Aide.
To question my credibility when I ask for actual facts is absurd. Facts? Where are the facts? No facts, no credibility.
No Jim, I did not question your credibility about asking for facts...but to defend Clinton as being a moral/scandal free president is idiotic...I really don't feel like going through the miles and miles of paperwork that shows Clinton was the most corrupt President ever...
And yes, Foster was found to have comitted suicide....and OJ was found not guilty too
I didn't say Clinton was scandal-free. He was haunted consistently by scandal, but the "scandals" were manufactured by a group that wanted to make Clinton's presidency ineffective. You have this long list of accusations but there is no actual documentation as to the validity of these accusations or disposition of the "cases."
There was overwhelming credible evidence that OJ was guilty, but a jury of his peers decided to acquit him. There is no credible evidence that has convinced officials of anything but suicide in the Foster case.
You perpetuate this myth that Clinton's presidency was the most scandalous ever, but you provide no facts that any of it actually ever happened (other than Monica and Hubbell).
It's like saying everybody knows that Bush was AWOL but I'm not going to be bothered by showing you any evidence or fact about it because "everybody knows it's true."
Game: I don't agree with your political views, and I hope that you would agree that I don't have to - that's part of what makes America great.
It's your right and choice to speak what you believe, and speak it loudly. I have no issue with that at all, and I hope you return that sentiment.
What does bother me are the generalizations you make about the left side of the fence. Perhaps I missed it; I'm a new reader, but I'd love it if you'd acknowledge that we aren't all crazy fanatics.
Thanks,
Staying Anonymous
Good luck with that! :-)
Scorpion says--
Seeing that baloney was cited many times, it is a fine sandwich or an excellent explanation for all these so-called cites of factual sources that is basically an example of the "U.W."(uninformed whining)that keeps us coming back for good laughs and information a competent person would never have time to waste looking for,let alone time to read about. Anonymous-nice post-being reasonable instead of full of yourself always allows for trying to validate that not all are left-wing fanatics. Most things posted are usually good liberal comedy. If you are into common sense this would be a good change of pace. SEE--BALONEY-offered on another post,and quite often in many comical retorts.
Thanks for defending Billy, Jim.
Now come visit my site, where I've been trying to help revive Clinton's reputation for years. :)
http://therightisright.blogspot.com/
Staying Anonymous
Hope to see you here lots...I know I generalize...so I guess you shouldn't take it personally if I am not talking directly about your comments. Jim, same with you....hey look...this is a debate...and I wish I had more time to get all the facts and links on my blog...I try my best but I teach, coach and I am going to school for my masters...and I have a wife, 4 cats and some sort of life...
But hey, rip into me if my arguement sucks...I agree I should always have sources, but sometimes I just want to get my point out there for debate.
I like having libs here..it makes it more fun..
I just hope to have more come here...along with all my conservative friends who got mad at me for drilling Bush this week
I don't know if you'll be seeing me lots...but you might be seeing lots of me. ;)
Still Staying Anonymous
my mind is in the gutter...that sounded sexual to me...hope you are a very attractive woman.
I think I know who you are...don't I?
I don't know...do you? You should write a sex blog in addition to this.
SSA
We must stay focused in this important time..
That's what I'm saying. A separate blog would allow this one to retain its focus on bashing liberals and touting the wonder that is our current president.
(BARF)
:) SSA
Yes, Game showed a lot of guts to criticize Bush. Most of Bush's supporters wouldn't criticize him under any circumstances.
Game also mentions the word "debate". That's why I'm here, and Game does some debating, but most of the rest come here to read while they...oh never mind I'm not supposed to say anything about Game's readers. Only they can say things about me. :-)
Thats right Jim!!!! ha ha ha..
No, no...
you go right ahead...you have to remember I am not fiar and balanced...I am a conservative...
I just hate it when the media is not fair and balanced...the main point of my blog
So can I point out incidents of media bias towards the right?
I would love to hear what you come up with...I'm sure it will be easy to bash down...even though the many, many instances I have cited can not be denied
Game,
They certainly can be denied, and I've done so with reference and citations.
I'll have some counter examples soon.
Post a Comment