Innocent victims of the VRWC [irony, sarcasm]
Bill: "I did nothing wrong."
"It depends on what meaning of the word 'is' is..."
Posted on 06/14/2005 6:11:14 PM PDT by wagglebee
Former FBI Director Louis Freeh has written a book detailing his career, including his eight years as head of the bureau during the Clinton administration - where he describes his frustration over the fact that Bill Clinton wouldn't take his warnings about the terrorist threat seriously.
Freeh's book - due out in October and titled "My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Waging War on Terror" - promises to be the first in-depth account by the nation's former top cop of his days presiding over FBI investigations into one Clinton scandal after another. According to publisher St. Martin's Press, "Freeh tells his story, from Catholic school to law school to U.S. district attorney to head of the FBI, where he battles his boss, Bill Clinton, and tries to make everyone wake up to the threat of terrorism."
The former top lawman has previously complained about Clinton abuses of power in the Filegate and Chinagate scandals.
He told the Wall Street Journal in 2002 that the Clinton administration had a cavalier attitude toward terrorism.
That'll be a good one too.
Doubtless, Screwy Louie will yet again try to pass himself off as being "victimized" by the Klintoons.
Eight years of frustration, huh? If you wanted to be taken seriously, Freeh, you should've resigned in protest. But you didn't, did you?
Look for Freeh to write about the OKC Bombing and how Clinton covered up the Iraqi connection. I would also like to kn ow what Freeh knows about Hillary's use of FBI files against her political enemies.
I can't wait for this book if Louie unloads on the Administration he despised
My FBI: 8 Years of Letting Terrorists Go Freeh.
"Clinton wouldn't take his warnings about the threat of terrorism seriously"
Oh, that runs against the Clinton message. The Clinton Administration was very diligent in fighting terrorism, yes sir. Just ask Sandy Berger.
Can't wait to see Freeh castigated in the press.
It's difficult to take much of what anyone says serious who was in a position of authority during the Clinton years. True, they may not have been able to stop him, but they could have gone on the record.
I'm sure Freeh to this day sees absolutely nothing wrong with the FBI director before him being forcably removed from his office the day before Foster was assassinated.
He saw nothing wrong with the TWA Investigation. Saw nothing wrong with the events at Waco or the subsequent investigation.
Yeah Louis, tell us in glowing detail what a fine upstanding terd you are.
This should be interesting!!!
BTW, what does Louis say about those 900+ FBI files? Why didn't he demand them returned to the FBI?
That's Clinton's fault, not Freeh's
Oh, I forgot, "I don't recall" was good enough for ya. Wuss!
I can't believe Freeh doesn't have blackmailable skeletons in his closet. Otherwise, why would Clinton have picked him? This doesn't smell right...
I have no interest in what Freeh has to say now...he had 8 years to say/do the right thing, but he choose to whore his job...
Not to nit pick, but it's doubtful that Freeh or anyone else for that matter has the Constitutional authority to arrest a sitting president.
I would love to know what is in those files and I hope Freeh writes about them
You might change your mind after what (I Think) he will write about
This can't be right. Bill Clinton himself, said he was 'obsessed' with tracking down Bin Laden during his administration.
What do you think he has to say?
Then was shocked at the outcry.
He also presided over the distribution of over 900 FBI files to the Klintoons.
He has nothing to say of any interest.
Wow, Freeh has been low on the radar over the past few years. If treason is the reason I wonder about Hillary's cracking up and involving herself in desperate diversions. You know she probably does have long term goals and being a chameleon is just her method.
Clinton was obsessed, all right, but it wasn't with Bin Laden. And it's an article of faith among Democrats that everything was just dandy on the terror front until Bush came along.
I'm very much looking forward to this book.
Louis Freeh knows all about the FBI files Hillary illegally obtained to attack Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers, and even Ken Starr
Freeh will get as much ink as the Swift Boat Vets for Truth got.
Well, we'll all be listening, but it's hard for me to take anything too serious on the subject of Clinton, when he's not only walking around free as a bird, but the current President still appoints to projects from time to time.
When it comes to Clinton, I feel that the nation was sacrificed for his pleasure, and both sides of the isle participated. The Republicans pulled too many plugs on too many investigations for my liking.
If he really had anything to say of interest during his years as FBI director under Clinton, then he was dutybound to become the "Mark Felt" of that era.
But, noooo... he is coming out with the 'secrets' way after Clinton is out of office.
Thanks a lot, Freeh!
I doubt that he will do too much fingerpointing,he still has kids to put through College. We know he detested the Clinton's and it may look like sour grapes because Clinton really wanted him out of his Director's post. I would say this will be his first "toe in the water" book just to see how he is either cheered or reviled. If he is thought to be truthful and well received then we can look forward to other beneficial books from him.
One thing that has bothered me for the longest is why was Louis Freeh not called to testify about the FBI's failures in the run-up to 911. How he remained above the fray and was never questioned is still a mystery. Does anyone have the answer (or is it possible that he did testify?)
That is an excellent point.
I think the have a Mexican standoff going. Don't expect everything in this book as Freeh probably has to keep something in reserve as protection.
I have for awhile suspected that Slick's depressed look was the result of his knowing someone had something on him that was about to pop. Maybe this is it, maybe not.
Ditto that, But I believe Clinton was such an embrassment that exposing him for all of his corruption would damage the Nation more than his Presidency.
Chinagate has never been fully addressed and if it had been exposed to 1/4 of the scrutiny of Iraq's WMD's, Bill Clinton would be in a Orange Jumpsuit
Are you holding your breath? Don't! We need all of the conservatives we can get.
I agree that he probably knows all the skeletons the Clinton's have hidden, but I wish he would have outed them years ago....I may read this afterall...I'll wait to see if he tells all..Im betting it will be heavily sanitized...
Very interesting. My theory is that he knows a lot of damaging stuff. If he were pro-Clinton, he would have been interviewed on all the networks. Since he has been nearly invisible since he left, I can only conclude he is not a Clinton fan.
Probably a lot of the trickery from the Clinton years was related to Chinagate. While Ron Brown is obvious, it is quite possible that many other accidents and diversions had duel purposes.
Trust me when I tell you, Louis Freeh knows where the bodies are buried. I'll send you a FR Mail in a few :-)
Freeh won't/can't offer any new info on any of the attrocities of the Klintoons. He understands all to well the effectiveness of Arkancide.
"This should be interesting!!!"
Indeed!!
If he does, Watergate will look like the non-story it actually was
I understand where you're coming from, but it strikes me that when world leaders know what type of man Bill Clinton was and what his serious crimes were (and they do), that it just destroys this nation's credibility for the likes of him to get away with it. Not only that, we allowed citizens to think he was innocent, just like Michael Jackson's fans do.
Not only that, admitting what he knew all along makes him tantamount to an accessory.
Freeh kissed so much Toon butt he needed a stamp.
Innocent victims of the VRWC [irony, sarcasm]
Bill: "I did nothing wrong."
"It depends on what meaning of the word 'is' is..."
In 1999 Senator James Inhoff delivered a speech on the Senate Floor that outlined how China was able to steal our Nuclear secrets and I will post his remarks here in a few minutes, One day the truth will come out, and I hope it's before I die
Its "turd" not "terd"
Freeh was a decent, honest professional who had the bad luck to be head of the FBI under clinton. I believe the reason he did not resign was that he knew clinton would jump at the opportunity to put a full-fledged crook in his place. He did the best he could in very difficult circumstances.
In his last year or two in office, clinton tried very hard to force Freeh out, but evidently didn't want to be known as the president who fired TWO FBI directors in a row, plus every U.S. Attorney in the country.
Haven't we all wondered why Louis Freeh has gotten a total pass on 9-11?
http://www.bigmagic.com/pages/blackj/column75o8.html
The Man Who Wasn't There
How Louis Freeh escaped responsibility for 9/11.
By Joshua Micah Marshall
Posted Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 9:26 AM PT
For more than a month, congressional committees have been investigating America's recent track record on intelligence and counterterrorism. Members of Congress have heard from Robert Mueller, the current chief of the FBI, and George Tenet, the current chief of the CIA. They've heard from former heads of these agencies, such as William Webster. They've taken testimony from a star-studded array of other intelligence and counterterrorism worthies. But along the way, it somehow hasn't occurred to any of the committees doing post-9/11 investigations to call up Louis J. Freeh, the man who headed the FBI---the country's primary domestic intelligence and counterterrorism agency---from 1993 to June 2001, the most critical eight years in question.
Freeh ran the bureau from the rise of al-Qaeda in the early 1990s until just two months before Bin Laden landed his roundhouse blow on the United States. Under his leadership, the FBI made many mistakes and missed many opportunities that paved the way for 9/11. He presided over a bureau that fell almost laughably behind in information technology. On his watch, the counterterrorism division languished as a career-killing backwater. As David Plotz noted in Slate more than a year ago, Freeh's chief accomplishment as FBI director was to oversee an almost endless litany of fiascos while successfully ducking responsibility for all of them.
True, some of Freeh's failures were rooted in problems that long predated his tenure. But even if you subscribe to the unlikely notion that Freeh did a bang-up job under the most difficult of circumstances, why not bring him up to the Hill and hear what he has to say?
Simple. It's not in anyone's political interest to have him there. Freeh's feckless and unfortunate tenure was a bipartisan blunder of immense and perhaps tragic proportions. The normal rules say that politics is a zero-sum game and that even if both parties have egg on their face, one must have more than the other. The party with two eggs on its face should be trying to stick it to the party with three. But in this case, it's pretty much just eggs all around.
Democrats don't want to talk about Freeh. Yes, Freeh---a Republican---never got along with the Clinton White House, outspokenly pushed for independent counsels and investigations of various Clintonites, and bickered with his nominal boss, Attorney General Janet Reno. But much as Clintonites and Democrats might loathe Freeh, at the end of the day, Bill Clinton appointed him, and whatever mistakes Freeh might be responsible for happened on Bill Clinton's watch. True, a president can fire an FBI director only for cause, not just because he wants to. But that doesn't make it impossible. Clinton dismissed Freeh's predecessor, William Sessions, in July 1993 for abusing the perquisites of his office. Firing Freeh, however, was never politically possible because of the FBI's involvement in the various investigations of the Clinton White House. If you're a Democrat or a Clintonite, that's the sort of defense that makes you not want to get the argument started in the first place.
Given the Republicans' eagerness to pin pre-9/11 failures on the Clinton administration, you would think they would be clamoring to bring Freeh to the Hill. But congressional Republicans are even more to blame for Freeh's fecklessness than Clinton. If the White House found Freeh obstreperous and unmanageable, it was largely because he had so much support from Republicans on Capitol Hill. Whether it was the Richard Jewell disaster, or the Wen Ho Lee debacle, or the cover-ups of Waco and Ruby Ridge, whenever a new problem at the FBI would come to light, a senatorial Freeh-booster like Orrin Hatch or Arlen Specter would use the occasion to give a tongue-lashing to Janet Reno or Bill Clinton. If congressional Republicans started attacking Freeh today, they would have to admit that they shortchanged their oversight responsibilities while he was in office because they were such fans of his endless Clinton-bashing.
Freeh became a key player in the long-standing war between the Clinton White House and the Republican Congress. And he, unlike the country, profited from it immensely. He carved out a pocket of freedom for his agency and himself in which he was accountable to pretty much no one. Both parties bear responsibility for that. Now they are both conspiring to sweep the truth under the rug.
And once again, Louis Freeh gets to skate away scot-free." ##
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.