1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Republicans move to protect DeLay

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by The Galatian, Nov 18, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 4 of 4
  1. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As Starr admited, that was all he had. </font>[/QUOTE] Starr was commissioned nor empowered to look at all of Clinton's potential wrong-doing.

    Actually, we do. For example, all those folks cited for deaths in Mena, are actually more closely connected to Daddy Bush via CIA connections and Ollie North, than to Clinton.[/quote][/qb] I would agree that Bush I was dirty (doubts about North though). I actually think Bush I set Saddam up. I think we knew what he was planning and sent signals that we wouldn't do anything more than diplomatic protest. Bush I was in love with the idea of uniting the world against a rogue.

    Not many degrees of separation for Ron Brown, Vince Foster, and a few of Clinton's former body guards.
    Not aware of a White House counsel ever committing suicide then having his death investigated by people who have little expertise in homocide... especially when all the FBI agents you could need were available.

    Statistically, I would say that it is highly improbable that so many people who were being pursued as witnesses should die so conveniently... without help.

    But since it is your contention, use two degrees of separation as a standard and tell me what the suicide rate is among people who are potential witnesses against a President.

    In fact, Kenneth Starr was given the freedom to hire his own as independent counsel. Did you know that Clinton (unlike Delay) waived his statute of limitations rights for Whitewater? That doesn't make him a hero in my eyes; he clearly had done nothing wrong and knew they wouldn't find anything.</font>[/QUOTE] This of course after the files were thoroughly purged.

    For a regular person, Whitewater was pretty minor league stuff. But for a politician who wanted to run as a populist, it would have been devastating... so, get people in the right positions to make it all go away.

    Filed a false report, or rather induced others to do so. As you know, Starr looked at the FBI file case, and found no evidence of wrongdoing.</font>[/QUOTE] I can't say what Starr found. Maybe he didn't think he could prove anything serious. However, possession of those files was in and of itself illegal.

    Why were they there Galatian? Those files had no business being in the WH. There is nothing in them that is of legitimate concern that could not have been reviewed legally.

    Really? How would that reflect on Clinton?

    Actually, I hope you aren't serious about a father being a curse on his son.

    But just one point of interest, W seems to not be all that concerned about world popularity while his dad was fixated on it.

    As you saw in DeLay's case, that's not against the law. </font>[/QUOTE]It is when the information was illegally attained.

    Clinton didn't need the Patriot Act to invade the privacy of his political enemies.

    I notice you didn't address Clinton's Chinese problems.
     
    #61 Scott J, Nov 29, 2004
  2. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    He said he couldn't. And keep in mind, Starr was funding enemies of Clinton, and had accepted a cushy job at a university from one of the wealthiest and most rabid Clinton-haters. (reversed himself after public outcry when it was discovered)

    Should be, if it isn't. The problem, I suppose, was two-fold.

    1. Couldn't show that Clinton did it.

    2. Apparently, a good number of files predated the Clinton administration. Apparently Daddy Bush was checking out more than Clinton's momma.

    True.

    Barbarian observes:
    Ironically, Daddy Bush actually did a background check on Clinton's mama to look for dirt. Like father, like son.

    Don't know what they expected to find, or if they were just fishing. Can you think of an innocent explanation? I can't.

    The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Remember Grandpa got nailed for trafficking with the Nazis during WWII. This is not the most ethical of families.

    His dad was a former CIA director, a realist. He was quite aware of the damage that would accrue from bullying, even if we could pull it off.

    Barbarian observes:
    As you saw in DeLay's case, that's not against the law.

    Yep. And that's what's got DeLay sweating right now. Clinton was a lot more careful.

    That's assuming the records were requested by Clinton, and that he was looking at records on his enemies.

    But it's a bad assumption. We know Bush did it, because he got caught.

    But where's the evidence that Clinton did it?

    Did you know that it was the Bush administration which first granted a waiver to China allowing the launching of US satellites on Chinese rockets, shortly after Tiananmen Square and the crushing of the Chinese democracy movement?

    And then there's this, from Judicial Watch (you may remember how they frequently and ferociously attacked Bill Clinton):

    Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and legally prosecutes government corruption and abuse, stated today that the Bush Justice Department prevented the full and complete testimony of former Commerce Department official and Chinagate Scandal figure John Huang, by deliberately withholding a grant of limited immunity for the purposes of obtaining Huang’s testimony concerning the Chinagate political campaign contribution scandal. Not coincidentally, Huang revealed during the deposition that he has made illegal contributions to Republicans, as well as Democrats. When asked if he contributed to George W. Bush’s various campaigns, he invoked the 5th Amendment. May 3, 2002
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/1795.shtml

    Imagine that.
     
    #62 The Galatian, Nov 30, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 4 of 4
Loading...