|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShaniFaye
I am asking that question in isolation of the blame people put on him for 9/11 (not iraq, or Saddam....JUST Bin Laden). Im sorry, but you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that Bush wouldnt have had to deal with that if Clinton had been worried about more than the definition of certain words.
I hated Clinton then, I hate him even more now, I dont deny that....but what I want is a clinton supporter to tell me why he's not villanized for any of the 5 bombings (there were aimed at americans)
|
Shani....I am located no more than a couple of miles from you, and I wonder if your posting of your "hate" for Clinton, comes from the influence of your environment, how much of it is because of the influence on your incoming "information stream", which probably is filtered by the apparatus built by, and during, L. Brent Bozell's 19 year crusade against the "liberal media", a "creature", labelled and designated, outlet by outlet by Bozell, himself, who I posted about, quite frequently, in this forum, over the weekend, and to what degree the politization of "christiandom" in our locale, effects your political POV?
Shani, consider that Mr. Bozell has been funded appreciably, and consistently by Mr. Richard Mellon Scaife and the Sarah Scaife foundation....the same Scaife who funded Paula Jone's legal appeal that could not have unmasked Clinton, without the court decisions that Scaife's money made possible, as an adulterer, as was JFK and Eisenhower (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Summersby">Kay Summersby</a>).
Consider that Mr. Scaife was reported in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm">Scaife:Funding Father of the Right</a>, to have changed:
Quote:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299b.htm">From Page 2 from the report in the preceding link :</a>
................<b>from Quiet Benefactor to 'the Arkansas Project'</b>
Today it is difficult to find an important organization that depends on Scaife's money. The pattern of his giving hasn't changed much, but more and more individuals, corporations and foundations have become contributors to Scaife's causes. The Olin Foundation (assets of $103 million at the beginning of 1998) and the Bradley Foundation (assets of $545 million) have become particularly important. The success of the conservative movement has made Scaife a less significant player.
In many Scaife-supported organizations, the founders have been supplanted by successors unfamiliar with his role. Robert K. Best, president of the Pacific Legal Foundation, oldest and perhaps most influential of the conservative public interest law firms, was surprised to learn that Scaife contributions had constituted at least half the group's budget in its early years.
It is tempting to speculate that the routinization of Scaife's role might have prompted him or his key aide, Larry to get involved in more adventuresome anti-Clinton activities. Their involvement in what became known as "the Arkansas Project" an aggressive and ultimately fruitless attempt to discredit a sitting president marked a clear departure from years of relatively anonymous philanthropy, and Scaife could not have foreseen the consequences: He became a celebrity.
The full realization of the trouble he had made for himself probably came one day last September when he appeared, under subpoena, before a federal grand jury in Fort Smith, Ark., that was investigating possible tampering with a federal witness. On that day, Scaife could have felt he was being treated like a suspect not the status a Mellon from Pittsburgh worth perhaps a billion dollars expects. According to several associates, Scaife was furious.
The Arkansas Project was apparently cooked up largely by Larry, 63, who has worked for Scaife for 30 years. A former Marine with a deeply ideological view of the world, Larry had developed a powerful dislike for Clinton. "I noticed a change in Dick Larry at the mention of Clinton he became almost hyperthyroid," said one prominent figure in the conservative world who knows Larry well. A second prominent conservative close to him said: "I never saw Dick Larry do anything like this before. The only thing I can figure is that Larry dislikes Clinton intensely."
As the chief administrative officer of Scaife's philanthropies for many years and the main contact for anyone seeking a grant, Larry has long been a controversial figure among conservatives. They discuss him with the same reluctance to go on the record that many demonstrate when Scaife is the subject. "Sometimes [Larry] makes you wonder if it is the Richard Scaife foundations, or the Richard Larry foundations," said one source who worked with both men.
In his written answers to questions from The Post, Scaife attributed his support for the project to his doubts that "The Washington Post and other major newspapers would fully investigate the disturbing scandals of the Clinton White House." He explained those doubts: "I am not alone in feeling that the press has a bias in favor of Democratic administrations." That is why, he continued, "I provided some money to independent journalists investigating these scandals."
The Arkansas Project itself relied on several private detectives, a former Arkansas state police officer and other unlikely schemers, including a bait shop owner in Hot Springs, Ark. The two men running the project were a lawyer and a public relations man. Scaife's role became the subject of a special federal investigation because of accusations that the money he donated ended up in the pocket of David Hale, a former Clinton associate and convicted defrauder of the Small Business Administration who had become a witness for Starr's investigation of the president.
Sources at the American Spectator say it was Larry who played an instrumental role in the project. But there is no doubt that Clinton had gotten under Scaife's skin.
Scaife's penchant for conspiracy theories a bent of mind he has been drawn to for years, according to many associates was stimulated by the death of Vincent W. Foster Jr., Hillary Clinton's former law partner and a deputy White House counsel. He has repeatedly called Foster's death "the Rosetta stone to the Clinton administration" (a reference to the stone found in Egypt that allowed scholars to decipher ancient hieroglyphics).
Last fall Scaife told John F. Kennedy Jr. of George magazine, "Once you solve that one mystery, you'll know everything that's going on or went on I think there's been a massive coverup about what Bill Clinton's administration has been doing, and what he was doing when he was governor of Arkansas." And he had ominous specifics in mind: "Listen, [Clinton] can order people done away with at his will. He's got the entire federal government behind him." And: "God, there must be 60 people [associated with Bill Clinton] who have died mysteriously."
Even before the Arkansas Project had gotten underway, Scaife personally hired a former New York Post reporter named Christopher Ruddy to write about Foster's death for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the daily newspaper Scaife has owned since 1969. Ruddy's stories about Foster's death most of them challenging the suicide theory, without offering an alternative explanation began to appear in January 1995.
Scaife has funded other Clinton efforts as well: Two zealous and resourceful (and rival) public interest law firms that have pursued Clinton and his administration relentlessly, the Landmark Legal Foundation and Judicial Watch, have received more than $4 million from Scaife. Judicial Watch, which is aggressively suing several branches of the government and has questioned numerous White House officials under oath, has received $1.35 million from Scaife sources in the last two years, a large fraction of its budget.
The Fund for Living American Government (FLAG), a one-man philanthropy run by William Lehrfeld, a Washington tax lawyer who has represented Scaife in the past, gave $59,000 to Paula Jones's sexual harassment suit against Clinton. FLAG has received at least $160,000 in Scaife donations. And lawyers who belong to the conservative Federalist Society, which has enjoyed Scaife support for 15 years (at least $1.5 million), were members of a secretive group who provided important legal advice to Paula Jones and who may have pulled off the key legal maneuver in the Clinton case by connecting the Jones suit and the Starr investigation.
Officers of the Scaife-supported Independent Women's Forum have appeared on many television programs as Clinton critics. William J. Bennett, author of "Death of Outrage: Bill Clinton and the Assault on American Ideals," is on the board of the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and has received Scaife support as a fellow of the Heritage Foundation and other enterprises.
One of the most publicized allegations of a tie between Scaife and Clinton's enemies was the suggestion that Scaife was trying to set up independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr in a posh deanship at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif. Starr briefly toyed with accepting the job early in 1997.
Scaife has been a generous supporter of Pepperdine, donating more than $13 million since 1962 (in personal gifts as well as foundation grants), according to the school. But Scaife and the current president of Pepperdine, David Davenport, both have said that Scaife played no role whatsoever in the offer to Starr. Scaife and Starr have said they don't know each other, and have never met.
Only the Arkansas Project has caused Scaife serious trouble. The possibility that money from the project had tainted Hale, a federal witness, led to the appointment of Michael J. Shaheen, a former senior Justice Department official, as a special investigator. It was Shaheen who summoned Scaife to the Fort Smith grand jury.
Shaheen's investigation apparently is complete. Lawyers involved said they don't expect any indictments. .....
|
Shani, I have lived in your community for less than five years. It is a "world" where the only talk show hosts on the radio.....every station, are "conservative", or "right wing".....in this "world", <a href="http://www.boortz.com">Neil Boortz</a> seems to be a moderate in comparison to the competition, (of course, he isn't...). Maybe I am more shocked at the political "climate" here, because I came from living in Manhattan for a few years before I moved. Here, it is normal from people to call "the Kimmer" during his afternoon talk radio show on 640 AM, and open with, "Hey Kimmer, I read in the Aljazeera Constituition ( ajc.com )today, that....blah, blah, blah.....", from my POV, Shani, the onesided view down here is "off the wall". In NY, The governor, and the NY City mayor were republicans....there was some balance.
In October, 2004, in our church...a minister subbing for our pastor, opened a sunday sermon with requested that we all pray....on the spot.....out loud, to God....for the re-election of president Bush.
I've posted all this, Shani, because I want you to examine why you post that you "hate Clinton"? How much of your opinion is based on accounts of what he actually did, what was done to interfere with his presidency, and how did his behavior differ from other presidents? Reagan opened his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, MS, with a speech that centered on his "commitment to state's rights". Reagan was from California. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia,_Mississippi">Philadelphia, MS</a> was a place best known for the murder there, in 1964, or three civil rights workers. Do you think Reagan's decision to open his first presidential campaign in that place, and to make the speech there, that he made, was an act of "unity". Was it even a good thing to do, for a man who's memory is held now in such high regard, by so many?
I am posting to plead with you, Shani, to examine how you came to hate Clinton, and to hold the political views that you hold? How much of what you believe is true, was influenced by Scaife's money, Bozell's "reasearch" and intimidation of the media, and the political action of christian leaders who you hold in high regard, and how much comes from you doing your own fact checking? If you end up believing exactly what you believe today, after you have taken the kind of "inventory" that I'm suggesting, so be it.
I'm biased...everyone is. But the reason my posts are so effing long, is because I qualify nearly every "effing" statement that I post. It's a politics thread. How can you be credibly political...in the eyes of others, if you can't or won't explain how you come to believe what you are saying/posting?
Forgive the "richness" of the following presentation. I look forward to just a couple of reasons to justify your "hatred", that are rooted in excerpts from non-Bozell sources, since....say....1993
Here is why I don't "hate" Clinton or Bush, democrats or republicans. This is a "game", and all we can do is look at where the "playas" end up....just as one could look at the preacher with his own TV network, mercedes, mansion, "gettin" rich" by extolling his faith in Jesus! Ken Starr is living his dream, on Malibu Beach, at a law school endowed by Richard Scaife.......
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4568982
Government failed you, Clarke testifies
Ex-counterterror chief apologizes to victims
at 9/11 hearing, says Bush didnt consider terrorism an urgent issue
MSNBC
Updated: 9:15 a.m. ET March 25, 2004
WASHINGTON - The former counterterrorism chief in the Bush and Clinton White Houses apologized Wednesday to the families of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, saying, Your government failed you. But he placed the bulk of the blame on President Bush, accusing his administration of not making terrorism an urgent issue.
In contrast, the Clinton administration had no higher priority, said Richard Clarke, the star witness at two days of hearings by the independent panel examining diplomatic, military and intelligence efforts to fight Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network.
Clarke has accused Bush in a new book of ignoring al-Qaida before the Sept. 11 attacks, in which about 3,000 people were killed at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and in a field in Pennsylvania. He has said the president then rushed to blame Iraqi President Saddam Hussein....
|
Quote:
http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/ind...ange_well_id=2
........The 9/11 commission determined that Clinton's 1998 missile attack was not, after all, a wag-the-dog attempt to deflect attention from the Lewinsky scandal. But the commissioners also said that <b>the intense partisanship of the time "likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against bin Laden.''</b>
|
Quote:
Bob Deans
The Atlanta Constitution. Atlanta, Ga.: Dec 18, 1998. pg. A.01
Washington - U.S. and British missiles struck at the heart of Iraq's military and intelligence operations Thursday, reportedly pounding to rubble more than 50 sites. New strikes were launched today with no sign of letup.....
.....The attacks on air defenses were designed to make it safer for piloted aircraft to strike deeper into Iraq in attacks that are expected to continue today.
Some 51 combat aircraft from the United States, including F-117 Stealth fighters and F-15 fighters, were ordered to the gulf Wednesday, along with a Navy carrier and 5,600 soldiers from Georgia, Texas and New York. They will join the 24,000 troops already in the region and are expected to arrive this weekend.
Meanwhile, President Clinton told reporters he had no regrets about launching the attacks --- criticized by some of his political opponents as being timed to interfere with a looming impeachment vote in the House of Representatives.
"We're going to complete this mission," Clinton said. "And the Republican leadership will have to decide how to do their job. That's not for me to comment on."
House Speaker Newt Gingrich, however, took issue with fellow Republicans who have accused Clinton of ordering military strikes to divert attention from pending impeachment proceedings and cautioned that "there is no alternative" to U.S. leadership.
Russian President Boris Yeltsin denounced the attacks. And Thursday night, Russia pulled its ambassador here, Yuli Vorontsov, for "consultations," in protest.
In the Arab world, Iran --- which fought a 10-year war against Iraq in the 1980s --- denounced the allied strikes.....
|
Quote:
Wendy Koch, Judy Keen
USA TODAY. McLean, Va.: Dec 17, 1998. pg. 09.A
THE IMPEACHMENT DECISION
WASHINGTON -- As if they weren't agonized enough, lawmakers wrestled Wednesday yet again with the wrenching question: Can they trust President Clinton?
Some Republicans, furious that Clinton launched U.S. strikes on Iraq as he faced a near-certain House vote this week for his impeachment, accused the president of base political motives. Other lawmakers defended him.
Word of the impending military attack shot across Capitol Hill like a cruise missile aimed at Baghdad. It prompted Republicans to question Clinton's motives during a heated three-hour, closed-door meeting, during which they argued about whether to postpone the impeachment vote and ultimately decided to do so.
When they emerged, some members were clearly angered and determined to get on with the business of impeachment promptly.
"The timing of this raises suspicions," said Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla. "The general sentiments were the delay should be brief. If these attacks are going to go on for days and weeks, we have no option but to take up this resolution."
Weldon said about 75 Republicans spoke on both sides of the issue during the meeting.
"The only thing that we need do is go forward and pass a resolution of support for our troops," said incoming House Speaker Bob Livingston, R-La.
"The country's agonized enough," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla. "We need to get this over with."
Even some Democrats were skeptical about the timing of the bombing. "This is just out of control," said Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn. "I don't know what's going on, but it doesn't look good."
But House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt, after Democrats held their own own closed-door discussion, said his members agreed that the vote should be postponed.
Even before the decisive meetings, the day was drenched in tension as lame-duck House members returned to prepare for the first floor debate in 130 years on the impeachment of a president.
On a mild, sunny day, Capitol Hill bristled with activity. Phones rang incessantly in some offices as constituents called to express their views.
The House had been scheduled to begin debate this morning, with votes on four articles of impeachment late today or Friday. Democrats had requested 36 hours of debate time, perhaps without a break, allowing each of the House's 435 members to speak for five minutes. Republicans were figuring 6 hours would be appropriate.
Meanwhile, the White House continued to try to fight impeachment as well as prepare to win a Senate trial should it lose the House vote.
The timing of the Iraq attack intensified the views of some lawmakers who argued that they don't believe anything Clinton says -- not on Monica Lewinsky, not on Iraq.
"This president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office. He will use our military and he will use our foreign policy to remain president. I do not put it past him," said Rep. Tillie Fowler, R-Fla.
Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y., a former Marine and the outgoing chairman of the House Rules Committee, said Clinton planned the attack to delay the impeachment vote.
"For him to do this at this unbelievable time is just outrageous," Solomon said. "I know he is not a military man, and he doesn't understand this. But those of us who have been in the military do."
Democrats rose to Clinton's defense.
"This president has to respond to a national security emergency no matter what is happening on Capitol Hill," said Rep. Sam Gejdenson, D-Conn. Retiring Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., said the Iraq crisis was not triggered by Clinton but by Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who blocked United Nations weapons inspectors' access.
Some Republicans also gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt.
Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., chairman of the Judiciary Committee that voted last week to approve four articles of impeachment, said he did not think the military strike was a "cynical ploy."
Wisconsin Rep. Scott Klug, one of the few House Republicans who remained undecided Wednesday about impeachment, said "everybody believes that Saddam Hussein has got to be kept in check."
But Klug said the peculiar nexus of events raises an important question.
"Part of the issue for those of us who are trying to decide (on impeachment) is the president's credibility," he said on ABC. "That's the real danger in this situation, that if the president essentially tries to draw a line in the sand in an international issue, will the international community now believe him?"
Tom Mann, director of governmental studies at the Brookings Institution, said Clinton had no choice but to act. If he held off, with the holy month Ramadan approaching this weekend, he would have seemed incapable to doing his job.
"He would add support to those arguing for his resignation," Mann said.
The military attack is not expected to undermine support for an eventual impeachment vote. But it created "funky political dynamics" for everyone, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute. He added: "Just when you think it can't get weirder, it does."
Contributing: William M. Welch, Jessica Lee
|
Quote:
Author(s): Peter S. Canellos, Globe Staff
Document types: Commentary
Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: Oct 11, 1998. pg. D.1
.....This is not to say that the president did not break the law, or even that he should not be impeached for it. But if the independent counsel investigation has made anything clear, it is this: The president stands at a unique intersection of law and politics, and any standard used to judge him must, by its very nature, be special.
As Congress and the public gird for the impeachment inquiry launched last week, they would do well to consider the following:........
...........-- Would the Paula Jones case have been filed were Clinton not president?
Clinton allegedly propositioned Jones on May 8, 1991, when the White House was only a gleam in the Arkansas governor's eye. She didn't sue for three years, filing her sexual harassment case on May 6, 1994, 15 months after President Clinton took office. She came forward at a press conference organized by Cliff Jackson, a conservative agitator who had made a career of exposing Clinton's alleged financial and sexual misconduct.
-- Would the Jones case have been settled were Clinton not president?
In September 1997, Jones's lawyers thought they had a deal: For enduring the alleged harassment by Clinton four years earlier, Jones, who earned $19,000 a year in 1991 would receive $700,000 plus a statement of support from the president. Jones, however, refused the deal, reportedly insisting she wanted a full apology in which the president would admit exposing himself to her. Frustrated, and believing they had negotiated a fair deal, <b>her lawyers quit. Within days, they were replaced by a legal team financed by the conservative Rutherford Institute.</b> The lawyers and the institute alike were ardent opponents of the president, particularly because of his stance on abortion rights.
While accepting donations from Clinton opponents around the country, the Rutherford Institute financed hundreds of thousands of dollars of litigation expenses, including a nationwide hunt for other women who had had sexual encounters with Clinton. Last April, the Jones case was thrown out of court.
Normally, lawyers in this type of civil litigation work for a percentage of the award; like Jones's original lawyers, they quit if the client refuses a huge settlement in favor of a costly, risky litigation campaign that, even with its best outcome, was unlikely to yield any more money than the settlement.
-- Would Clinton have answered questions about his alleged relationship with Lewinsky were he not president?
At the time that Jones's lawyers deposed the president, there was little legal significance, one way or the other, to the president's relationship with Lewinsky. It was clearly consensual, and thus had only a tangential relationship to Jones's allegation of sexual harassment. A defendant who is not president could admit to the affair with few, if any, legal ramifications. Were the defendant truly resistant to admitting the affair -- for example, for fear of hurting others -- he could refuse to answer, and would likely prompt a further hearing into whether to compel him to answer.
As president, Clinton was in a deeper bind. Admitting an affair might have no legal ramifications, but it would have devastating political consequences. Refusing to answer might win sympathy from right-to-privacy types, but to the vast majority of Americans, it would be seen as an admission of impropriety.
-- Would Clinton's alleged perjury have been investigated were he not president?
Generally, questions about the accuracy of testimony in ongoing civil cases are referred to the trial court for investigation and possible civil sanctions -- without a criminal probe. In Clinton's case, the questions probably would have remained unanswered until the case was thrown out.
Moreover, federal prosecutors almost never bother to investigate allegations of perjury in civil cases. What few cases get brought generally deal with lying that is "material" to the claim -- in this case, lying that relates to the central question at hand, Clinton's alleged harassment of Jones, not a stray channel of inquiry such as Clinton's relationships with other women.
-- Would Clinton's alleged perjury have been exposed were he not president?
Normally, criminal investigations are limited by common-sense considerations weighing the seriousness of the alleged crime against the cost of the probe. Kenneth W. Starr, as an independent counsel empowered under a law applying only to members of the executive branch, expended virtually limitless resources. He also chose not to follow Justice Department guidelines that discourage such hardball tactics as forcing the testimony of a suspect's close family members except in extremely important cases.
Also, the Justice Department generally does not call suspects themselves before the grand jury, for reasons including fear of unreasonable inquisitions.
Moreover, in such a case, any defense lawyer would advise his or her client to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination. But as president, Clinton was under intense pressure not to use the legal protections available to any average American or, for that matter, any other public figure. He knew his videotaped testimony, conducted under oath, would become his statement to the country on the Lewinsky matter.
Federal rules require that grand jury testimony be kept secret, at least up to the point when a witness is about to testify at criminal trial. But those rules, like so many others, didn't apply to Clinton.
As president, Bill Clinton is not above the law, nor is he the same as anyone else under the law. His status, etched in the Constitution, is unique. Congress, the courts, and the country should be guided by that truth.
|
Quote:
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcol...mns/042198.htm
Independent Counsel With Dependencies
By Robert Scheer
Published April 21, 1998 in the Los Angeles Times
Who does Kenneth Starr think he's kidding? His case against the president has been tainted by allegations relating to billionaire right-winger Richard Mellon Scaife, and we are now supposed to be impressed that Starr is not going on a Scaife-funded university payroll any time soon....
<b>...."host" sez....Shani...Ken Starr had to wait a bit, after he was criticized...but for the past several years, he has been dean of Pepperdine Law School (described above) at Malibu beach.....</b>
.........* The Arkansas Project millions were funneled through the ultra-right American Spectator magazine, whose attorney and board member, <b>Theodore B. Olson</b>, who also represented Hale, is a close friend and former law partner of Starr. It was the American Spectator that published the lurid "troopergate" story that gave rise to the Paula Jones lawsuit. Starr offered to write a friend of the court brief supporting Jones' case before being appointed special prosecutor. The story's author, David Brock, recently recanted the article, which he said was based on sleazy sources.
* Starr had to know that Hale was hanging out with Parker Dozhier, the self-described local "eyes and ears," on the payroll of the American Spectator; Hale was being guarded by FBI agents, who reported to Starr on his witness' frequent visits to a fishing cabin owned by Dozhier, where Hale met with the two leaders of the Arizona project. Dozhier's former girlfriend and bookkeeper, Caryn Mann, and her son told reporters and the FBI last month that Dozhier passed money to Hale.
* While denying the cash payments to Hale, American Spectator publisher Terry Eastland, who described himself on "Crossfire" as far back as 1994 as "a friend of Starr," recently admitted that the magazine paid Dozhier $48,000.
* Starr, in refusing to turn the case back to the Justice Department, claimed last week that he did not have a conflict of interest because the favors allegedly extended by Dozhier to Hale occurred before he took over the case. But that claim was undermined when Caryn Mann produced auto insurance receipts dated in 1995 showing that Hale's wife was added then as an owner of the three cars belonging to Dozhier.
* Ronald Burr, publisher of the American Spectator for 30 years, was suddenly dismissed late last year amid reports that he became suspicious of how the Scaife money was being used and demanded an outside audit. Instead, Starr's friend and former law partner, Olson, a director of the American Spectator Educational Foundation that owns the magazine, conducted an internal audit. Olson claims he found no evidence that money from the magazine corrupted Hale, Starr's key witness.
Isn't it the least bit questionable that this audit was conducted by the attorney, Olson, who represented Hale in 1995 and 1996 in his dealings with congressional committees investigating Whitewater? Has Starr never asked his friend Olson how Hale, who declared he was destitute, managed to afford one of Washington's highest priced lawyers? These are the questions that Starr claims he can pursue in an unbiased fashion.
Can Starr be trusted now to subject Burr, Olson and his other friend Eastland, who replaced Burr as publisher, with the same sharp scrutiny that he has applied to a wide array of individuals who might undermine the president?
That is hardly likely, given that all of the conflicts mentioned above went unnoticed by the independent counsel during his four-year, $ 40-million investigation. Clearly when it comes to investigating the anti-Clinton machinations of the ultra-right, there is nothing independent about Kenneth Starr.
|
Please read about Mr. Bush's solicitor general of the United States, in my thread here:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=1847163&mode=linear#post1847163"> Are Ted Olson and Al Zarqawi both "Supermen"?</a> |