Skip to comments.CLINTON CORRUPTION: the more things change. . . .
Posted on 11/30/2005 9:41:29 AM PST by Mia T
clintonCORRUPTION: the more things change. . . .
By Paul M. Rodriguez
Recent polls among American readers (and viewers) of the press continue to show a reluctance to trust the once vaunted U.S. mainstream media. And the recent brouhaha at the New York Times over the Judith Miller fiasco only further muddies the public's trust, not only on how reporters and editors report but also on what they choose to publish (or broadcast).
For example, there have been whole forests cut down to provide enough paper for stories about Rep. Tom DeLay, the Texas Republican indicted recently on allegations of money laundering through state political action committees that helped the GOP secure a majority of U.S. congressional seats from the Lone Star state.
DeLay Vs. Hillary
The coverage has been relentless, not only of late but so too going back a number of years as a result of DeLay's hard-charging tactics on Capitol Hill and run-ins with the House ethics committee, formally called the Committee on Standards.
DeLay, much like some predecessors from both political parties, makes for an easy target of erstwhile newsmen in search of good copy. And with so many high-profile lawmakers, even opposition party members don't need to do much to bring about negative coverage.
But a question needs asking: What are the standards used by the press to determine who gets caught in the cross-hairs? And does this standard get applied evenly or does it (like so many in the public believe) vary from target to target?
Consider the contrasting coverage of DeLay with that of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Virtually every detail of alleged DeLay transgressions gets reported and in very great detail. But scant coverage has been given to equally serious allegations against the junior senator from New York.
There have been no front-page stories in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald or any other so-called major daily with respect to serious allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Hillary Clinton and her Senate election campaign committee.
While tens of thousands of inches (and scores of hours on broadcast and cable TV) have been used up to discuss allegations that DeLay "laundered" about $190,000 from corporate donors in Texas through the Republican National Committee and then back to GOP candidates in Texas races, there's been virtually nothing mentioned about accusations that Hillary Clinton and senior Democrats "laundered" nearly $2 million of improper or illegal gift-giving during the summer of 2000 when she began her run for the Senate.
Whether one is for or against Hillary or Tom DeLay is irrelevant when it comes to a simple truth that generally is taught in journalism schools, or even at home. Apply a single standard and stick with it. But in the cases of Clinton and DeLay that's far from daily practice.
For example, one would have thought that it'd be big news that the California Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that both Hillary Clinton and her husband could be sued in a civil case filed by Peter Franklin Paul involving serious allegations of wrongdoing. But virtually nothing has been mentioned.
Then there's the example of press outlets initially hammering some congressional Republicans for not properly filling out their annual disclosure statements both with congressional authorities and the Federal Election Commission, or FEC. Though the press began to expand coverage, e.g., that Democrats also fail to always fill out forms correctly, there's been no mention of Clinton to speak of involving an ethics complaint filed in the Senate and one still pending at the FEC.
There's also been virtually no mention of serious allegations of wrongdoing contained in FBI 302 statements unsealed during a recent trial of David Rosen, Hillary Clinton's former national campaign finance director. Nor of prosecutor memos to a federal judge in a separate case involving Paul in which FBI allegations of improper campaign fundraising schemes were detailed.
As Tim Russert might say, let's go to the tape:
Peter Paul organized, hosted and funded a handful of high-society events during the spring and summer of 2000 for both Hillary and Bill Clinton. In all, he spent about $1.7 million and arranged for hundreds of thousands of dollars of other in-kind contributions for both the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton. Such expenses are supposed to be reported to the FEC in a timely manner. But they were not.
The funds that Paul tapped into were, according to federal prosecutors, ill-gotten gains from margined accounts of Stan Lee Media stocks that Paul obtained as a founder of the now-defunct Internet media company co-founded with legendary comic book creator Stan Lee.
Paul was indicted as part of an investigation into why the Stan Lee Media company collapsed, allegedly as a direct result of Paul's manipulation of stock shares he and others caused to be inflated. In all, according to prosecutors, Paul et al were responsible for a loss to banks, trading companies and SLM to the tune of $25 million.
The press in early spring and summer of 2001 reported some on the criminal aspects following unsealing of indictments and an attempt by Paul to cast light on his allegations that 1) he was innocent and 2) that the Clintons and DNC were hiding illegally obtained campaign funds, both direct and indirect.
In the intervening four years there has been some news coverage of the continuing saga of Peter Paul's criminal case and civil complaints he's filed in California and at the FEC. For example, the Los Angeles Times and Vanity Fair magazine, along with Insight Magazine and some East Coast papers have given some coverage. And some of it has been quite good if not spotty.
Perhaps one reason is Paul himself, a two-time convicted felon with some outlandish claims and currently a confessed securities violator on one count from the original indictments handed up in New York and California. (Paul is awaiting sentencing while being held on home detention.)
But as outlandish as much of Paul's claims appear to be, there is ample evidence mustered up by federal prosecutors and agents that document the central charges of the former Hollywood mogul.
That is, that he provided tons of money to Hillary Clinton's campaign, that despite a public distancing by Hillary Clinton in late summer 2000 after Paul's criminal background was revealed in a gossip item, she and Bill Clinton continued to privately stay in touch with him and even orchestrated a tour of Air Force One for him and then-California Governor Grey Davis, and that Democrat bigwigs kept in touch for political donations.
Yet for all such documentation of wrongdoing, scant press attention has been paid to the allegations involving Hillary Clinton.
One has to ask why, if only because of the avalanche of coverage of DeLay of late and reports on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's alleged ethics and securities violations over insider stock sale deals.
Even a recent Washington Post Magazine cover story of roughly 8,000 words sidestepped the hard news at the center of its feature story on Hillary Clinton's former national finance director, a fellow named David Rosen. Rumor of the impending article had both Democrats and Republicans in Washington buzzing whether Hillary Clinton would get slammed or, at least, have her troubles with Peter Paul exposed in depth in a mainstream press outlet.
When it was finally published, however, it hit like a dud among both camps, one relieved that Hillary wasn't pilloried and one throwing up its hands for the same reason.
As Peter Paul himself said in a brief interview, "if this had been an exposÈ on Tom DeLay you could bet the farm that it would have skewered the guy and thrown up all sorts of mud and exposed allegations of wrongdoing going back years."
Yet none of that was contained in the Washington Post Magazine article despite ample evidence that could have been explored involving the junior senator from New York and, if political bets are accurate, the next presidential contender for the Democratic Party.
There was no mention of serious allegations of wrongdoing by her campaign in 2000 that was detailed in sworn affidavits from FBI agents and statements by prosecutors to federal judges, both in the Paul case and during the recent criminal trial of Rosen, who ultimately was acquitted by a jury that didn't believe the story woven by prosecutors that he violated FEC rules by not reporting the true costs of those Paul-backed fundraisers way back in 2000.
The Hillary Connection
The press covered Rosen's trial in some detail but certainly not with the same gusto as say, the DeLay travails of late. For example, despite the attempt of prosecutors in Rosen's trial to distance Hillary Clinton from the alleged wrongdoing, the press failed to ask some fundamental questions, especially after Rosen's acquittal.
For example: If Hillary Clinton didn't violate any laws and didn't conspire to hide the true costs of her political events then who did besides Rosen? How could it be possible that Hillary Clinton herself didn't know anything was wrong with those fundraising events and FEC forms given the fact that she's been fighting Peter Paul in civil courts for the last couple of years, has been dealing through surrogates with the FEC and, obviously, was aware of charges of campaign violations at the center of Rosen's trial.
But the impression from stories that have run on the Paul and Rosen cases paints a picture of a powerful U.S. senator who had no idea anything was amiss in her campaign or had any responsibility or oversight of finances for her Senate race. Believable?
It's as though a May 30, 2002, affidavit in support of a search warrant of a storage locker once rented by Peter Paul, by FBI special Agent Smith, didn't exist.
Outlining a then-ongoing secret probe of Clinton's campaign with regard to "allegations of violations of the federal campaign finance statutes, and of false statements to federal government agencies," Agent Smith said this: "In particular, on August 12, 2000, while the Democratic national Convention was underway in Los Angeles, [Peter] Paul was responsible for hosting a fundraising event known as 'THE HOLLYWOOD GALA SALUTE TO PRESIDENT WIL-LIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON' ("the event"). The event was a fundraiser for the benefit of New York Senate 2000, the campaign organization that supported the United States Senate Campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"The event's costs exceeded $1 million, but the required forms filed by New York Senate 2000 with the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") months after the event incorrectly disclosed that the cost of the event was only $523,000. It appears that the true cost of the event was deliberately understated in order to increase the amount of funds available to New York Senate 2000 for federal campaign activities."
This is one of the central claims Peter Paul has made for years but generally dismissed by the mainstream press even though memorialized in complaints in California courts and at the FEC, and even in a detailed and lengthy memo hand-delivered to Hillary Clinton prior to Paul's own indictments back in 2001.
Despite such direct connections to Clinton involving "documented" allegations of wrongdoing, few press outlets have followed, or followed up, such explosive charges involving a sitting U.S. senator. Or if they have, press reports simply report that Hillary Clinton denies any knowledge or wrongdoing. End of story.
The Media Pack
Yet for Tom DeLay there appears to be no end of those stories, stories that even his own detractors have said appear to be thin stuff based on what's known so far in the state prosecutor's case against the Texas Republican. No doubt DeLay and his supporters feel the press has been unkind to the former House majority leader but, frankly, the role of the press is to investigate allegations of wrongdoing and run to death every hint of evidence.
The result of not applying the same standard to far more serious charges of wrongdoing involving Hillary Clinton and various DNC operatives only makes starkly clear the differing standards at play, differing standards that the public believes the press applies when the mood suits it despite the claims of being fair, balanced and ethical.
If the California civil courts, which have overruled numerous attempts by Hillary Clinton's legal team (including her personal attorney David Kendal), think there's merit to Peter Paul's pursuit of claims that he was hoodwinked into giving nearly $2 million under false premises of future support for his now-failed company, shouldn't the press be digging into the background of the charges?
And where are the stories post David Rosen's acquittal concerning who at Hillary Clinton's campaign broke the law if not the former finance chairman? In reporting on the collapse of Enron, WorldCom and other financial debacles, such was the standard in exploring who, what, when, where and how was involved in each scandal.
Where are the stories about numerous leads contained in the Rosen trial transcripts and at the FEC that, to date has not brought any civil action against Hillary Clinton or her campaign?
Ample leads to unsavory characters associated with the various Clinton fundraisers are well documented in the handful of stories the L.A. Times, Vanity Fair and Insight Magazine published, including a nifty scheme Rosen authorized on behalf of Hillary Clinton to divert money to a state-controlled political action committee in New York that later supported her Senate run.
Such end arounds in political fundraising have been going on for years but seldom brought to public light despite the good attempts by groups such as Common Cause.
When Tom DeLay does it, however, it's page-one newsóbut not so when Hillary Clinton does it?
No doubt many skeptics will suggest that allegations against Hillary Clinton are politically driven or that the country is tired of Clinton-related scandals. Maybe so. But it's not the job of the press to pick and choose which stories it pursues once the standard has been established about what types of stories should be reported. And such standards have been set down as recently as the DeLay mess.
Political scandals ý la the Tom DeLay, Bill Frist and long ago former House Speaker Jim Wright and Dan Rostenkowski (just to name a few) should be the stuff of good investigative reporting regardless of which party is in power and regardless of who's ox is gored.
Whether Hillary Clinton did anything wrong criminally or civilly has yet to be determined either in courts of law or before regulatory authorities. But as so often is the case, such decisions are not made unless the press is relentless in its job of exploring, exposing and reporting allegations of wrongdoing.
The Jury Is Out
One beneficial unintended consequence of such zeal on the part of the press is that it provides the public with as clear a picture of whether a politician is guilty of wrongdoing, or not. In the case of Hillary Clinton, the junior senator from New York may be riding a wave of popularity and stardom few could musteróbut should be tapped or cleared once and for all of any scandal.
The failure by the press to pursue the allegations raised by Peter Paul in his civil suit, for which depositions already are underway, is a crime unto itself.
Ditto for the failure of the press to link up Paul's allegations with the documentation and testimony presented in the Rosen case, where evidence appears undisputed that Hillary Clinton and her 2000 Senate campaign machine violated the law and perhaps broke some criminal statutes as well.
Sadly, the public may not ever get the chance to find out unless the press does its job and reports with equal treatment the case(s) against Hillary Clinton as fully as it seems determined to report on the case(s) against Tom DeLay. Given that Hillary Clinton appears headed to a presidential run, the public deserves to know before the heat of a White House battle what's been going on.
That's one reason the public so distrusts the press, bias aside. Too much gets dumped on them during political contests that smacks of political manipulations. Maybe if the press were to do its job evenly throughout each year then the public might feel better about an industry now seen as having an agenda. And, it seems, it's not the public's interest.
What You Can Do
Paul M. Rodriguez, the former managing editor of Insight Magazine, is a media and public policy consultant in Washington, D.C.
KnowNothing's brother, Hugh Rodham, secured two of the 141 clinton midnight pardons, one for a cocaine kingpin and the other for a snake-oil swindler. Rodham netted a quick $400,000 for his "work" according to various rodhams and clintons and their assorted lawyers. KnowNothing's campaign treasurer, William Cunningham III, himself a law partner of longtime KnowNothing adviser Harold Ickes, helped obtain last-minute pardons for two convicted felons.
Displaying a willingness to throw her brother (along with her husband) to the wolves, Sen. Victim Clinton was quick to make a distinction between her big, bad brother's pardon "work" and that of her campaign treasurer, "a fine lawyer and a fine man." The "family" connection of brother Rodham to Clinton rendered Rodham's "work" offensive, whereas the campaign treasurer Cunningham's connection to the senator and her campaign coffers made his securing of two pardons in record time a sterling example of highminded, effective public service.
KnowNothing is apparently not the best of thinkers. If the "family" connection makes lobbying for cocaine-kingpin and snake-oil-swindler pardons unsavory for brother Rodham, then the "family" connection makes lobbying for the Hasidim 4 (see Keating 5) pardons even more distasteful for the wife, First Lady and senator-elect. Moreover, pardons for votes is arguably a greater offense than pardons for cash.
EFFECTIVELY PLEADS 5TH BY INVOKING SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE
KnowNothing specifically declined to answer when asked whether she discussed the pardons with her husband, effectively pleading the 5th. Turning aside questions about the pardon decisions her husband had made, she told reporters they should address those issues with him and his staff. She refused to say whether he should agree to appear voluntarily before congressional committees investigating the pardons. Interestingly, no one asked her whether she would agree to appear voluntarily before those same congressional committees.
"I did not have any involvement in the pardons that were granted or not granted," insisted Sen. KnowNothing, seeming to forget her presence at the New-Square/Oval-Office schmooze that secured pardons for the four Hasidic felons who set up a phony school in Brooklyn to swindle the government out of millions intended for the poor.
KnowNothing noted that her"best memory" was that she never spoke to her brother or to Mr. Cunningham about the pardons. With variations of "I don't have a memory" and "my best memory, and avoiding the more obvious "I don't recall" and "my best recollection," KnowNothing reprised the Ruffian standard used during the clinton years to commit perjury without penalty.
I GET LETTERS
...or more precisely, envelopes. During her denials of involvement in any of the pardons, KnowNothing made the curious claim: "People handed me envelopes, I passed them on [and never opened a single one. Honest.]"
Reprising the role of victim that enabled her to win a senate seat in spite of low poll numbers, high personal negatives and consistent public failures, the senator peppered her answers about big, bad Hugh (understanding that the subtext was big, bad Bill) with "saddened" and "disappointed" and "heartbroken" and "shocked."
UTTER CONTEMPT FOR THE PEOPLE
This session today was cut short by a staffer when reporters appeared dissatisfied by Senator KnowNothing's lack of candor.
In the end, this press conference full of poses, poll-tested phrases and prevarication was just another display of the clintons' utter contempt for the people. Bill Clinton committed the same error last Sunday in his shameless, lie-filled New York Times Pardongate Apologia.
The clintons' fundamental error: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.
BY ERIC ORMSBY - Special to the Sun
The surviving photographs of Franz Kafka have a ghostly feel. This is not only the result of his extraordinary slimness. In several shots, he seems to bow toward the viewer, but his slight forward tilt suggests some imminent withdrawal, as though he were merely paying a courtesy to the lens before dissolving into the darkness of the backdrop. In an early jotting, he once mused about remaining in bed while sending his suit to attend a party. The photographs reproduce this fantasy with an eerie fidelity. Only his eyes, remarkably large and unusually luminous, give life to the reluctant suit that must stand up for its owner on such posed occasions.
A sense of insubstantiality haunted his life, and here his drastic thinness did play a part. "I am the thinnest person I know," he told Felice Bauer, going on to compare his skeletal frame to his stripped-down prose. In his expressive doodles and sketches, the figures are always skinny as rails. His ascetic practices seemed designed to slim him ever further. But the fasting, the vegetarianism, the courses of exercise, the disciplined deprivation, had as their real object not diminishment, but distillation. He reduced himself as a cook reduces a broth.
The secret of Kafka's power seems to have lain in such stubborn self-concentration, or what he termed "purity." This had nothing to do with hatred of the body. On the contrary, it was a regimen for strengthening his constitution. Only when he felt his vital forces massed within him could he hope for the miracle, that exalted state in which his greatest prose was born.
He learned this in a single night, and we know the exact date: September 22, 1912. That was the night on which, between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., Kafka wrote his terrifying story "The Judgment" in one sustained trance of inspiration. In his diary he noted the circumstances and added, "How everything can be hazarded, how for everything, even for the strangest idea, a great fire is ready in which it expires and rises up again." In the few years left to him, he would bend all his efforts to kindling and stoking that "great fire." Despite his admiration of Flaubert, Kafka was not the sort of writer who steadily, day by day, perfected a paragraph or a page. Instead, day by day, he courted the energy and illumination out of which alone, and in a rush, his best work might come.
Though his fiction has a dream-like aura, Kafka was as scrupulous about details as any naturalistic novelist. The details enhance both the horror and the comedy of his characters' predicaments. Gregor Samsa, transformed overnight into a gigantic cockroach, learns all the vexations of an exoskeleton when he topples onto his back and then thrashes to right himself with his six new wiggling legs. His struggle, in Kafka's pitiless description, is all the more appalling for being so slapstick.
Despite the sharpness of his descriptions, Kafka himself has remained a sketchy figure. This has not been for lack of biographies, beginning with one by Max Brod himself. Thanks to these efforts, we are more or less familiar with Kafka's family life, his conflicts with his parents, his legal work in an insurance office, his maddeningly frustrated engagements and romantic debacles (worse, I think, for the women involved than for him), the sanatoria and the cures, the final happy liaison with Dora Dymant in Berlin, and his early death of tuberculosis, at the age of 40, in 1924. But these lives of Kafka lacked that specificity of vivid detail that makes his prose so compelling.
Now, however, the first of a projected three-volume biography has appeared, which promises to illumine the shadowy background into which Kafka keeps vanishing. "Kafka: The Decisive Years" (Harcourt, 581 pages, $35) is the result of a decade of research by the writer and editor Reiner Stach; the German original, here translated by Shelley Frisch, appeared in 2002. Mr. Stach is that rare creature, a scholar who is not an academic. He writes well (though he tends to ramble) and has no patience with the pieties of those whom Czechs call "Kafkalogues." In fact, he takes a rather refreshing delight in skewering academics who use Kafka merely as a footstool to promotion.
Through Mr. Stach's labors, we gain a palpable sense of how Kafka lived and worked and wrote. We also come to understand the milieu within which he struggled and suffered (and made others suffer). Kafka's genuine strangeness is not thereby diminished but is made at least partly comprehensible.
By holding fast to what mattered to Kafka himself - his writing, first of all, but also his conflicted yearning for marriage - Mr. Stach avoids facile inferences and glib conclusions.
This first volume examines the years 1910-15 in considerable detail. (Mr. Stach sidesteps the earlier years because the pertinent documents are still locked away in the papers of Max Brod and remain closed to scholars.) During those "decisive years" Kafka wrote several of his greatest works: "The Judgment" and "The Metamorphosis" as well as "The Trial." He also came to understand what conditions he had to have to make writing possible.
Unfortunately, these stringent requirements - solitude, quiet, freedom from social obligations - clashed with the married state. What woman could live with a man determined to reduce his needs, and himself, to the smallest imaginable circumference? As Mr. Stach shows, during Kafka's long troubled engagement with Felice Bauer, even the prospect of shopping for furniture caused him absurd frenzies of anguish; their tastes differed widely and to him, every chair or table or credenza she admired had the look of a tomb.
Mr. Stach relates the painful story of this engagement with great thoroughness, making extensive use of the 350 or so tortuous letters which Kafka wrote to her (hers do not survive). He reconstructs the social milieux of Felice's Berlin and Kafka's Prague, particularly the protocols, strictures, and taboos that governed middle-class assimilated Jewish life within them. He is especially good on small but significant details - for example, such lost conventions as letter-writing, with its binding implications. For Kafka even to write to Felice was in itself a fateful first step toward eventual marriage. Both parties knew this and kept their letters hidden.
Kafka dreaded marriage as much as he longed for it; though he sometimes frequented brothels, he had a neurotic loathing of sex. The prospect of children dismayed him, too (not least because they were noisy). What made Felice, and matrimony, so alluring was that his meeting, and budding epistolary relationship with her, inspired his first unmistakably authentic writings. He even dedicated "The Judgment" to her, though he delayed showing her "The Metamorphosis." That she had inspired a tale of a man transformed into a cockroach was too weird a tribute, even for Kafka.
The history of the Kafka-Bauer engagement, as Mr. Stach tells it, is both excruciating and comical - much, in fact, like a Kafka novel. But the book is also informative on Kafka's professional life as a lawyer; we almost catch a whiff of that gloomy and bustling fourth-floor Prague office with its hapless customers and eccentric clerks. Mr. Stach provides details of early office equipment - telephone exchanges, primitive typewriters, crude dictaphones - which intrigued Kafka (though he hated telephone conversations) and which resurfaced tellingly in such later works as "The Castle."
The accumulation of these homely details never becomes pedantic because Mr. Stach knows how to relate them to the work, and this is what sets Mr. Stach apart from other Kafka biographers. He loves Kafka's writing, and it shows in astute, and sometimes critical, comments. His discussion of "The Trial" is especially impressive and has the rather startling effect of bringing that enigmatic work into sharper focus without compromising its mysterious power.
On Kafka the man, Mr. Stach is sympathetic but hardly all-forgiving; he describes, and sometimes chastises, his rather labyrinthine selfishness and has no patience for his frequent whining. He is harder on Max Brod (with good reason) and on Kafka's boorish and overbearing father (whom he manifestly dislikes), but I ended up feeling rather sorry for Hermann Kafka. Mr. Stach even berates him for "inconsiderately" yawning too loudly in his bed and thus disturbing his neurasthenic son (who slept - or rather, lay sleepless - in an adjoining room). But if a man can't yawn in his own bed, where can he?
Mr. Stach acknowledges that we will probably never coax Kafka fully into the light and that even if that were possible, mere factual illumination would scarcely explain his genius. But he has given solid flesh to this thinnest of ghosts, and that is no small accomplishment.
November 29, 2005 Edition > Section: Arts and Letters > Printer-Friendly Version
'It' seems like yesterday .. sigh
The WH and the Clinton Coffee Club breakfasts with the Reds and their 'agents' in attendance.
'Cheap' Haircuts at LAX
More convictions of administration personnel since I don't know when..
More attacks on the homeland since the War of 1812
the good old days.
Regarding the Clinton confab at Hofstra to discuss his 'legacy', I happened to catch about one minute of it on CSPAN over the weekend. Who should be speaking but Arianna Huff-and-puff! Ugh!
As for the show Commander In Chief, did anyone catch last night's episode where the President stays the execution of an inmate in Texas, directly ordering the governor to do so? What happened to the Constitution?
<< .... evidence 'appears' undisputed that [Missus] Clinton and her 2000 Senate campaign machine violated the law and 'perhaps' broke some criminal statutes as well. >>
Why, Dearest Mia, you are by far too kind.
Blessings -- B A
make that 'fomented" ;)
The Clinton's ARE a 'Kafkaesque' short-story in American history.
Mia T. Bump.
You can say that again. And again. And again.
Check this out:
<< America's problems invariably reduce to the corruption and dysfunction of the clinton years ... >>
Although it must also be acknowledged that the traitor, Jimmah Carter, laid the groundwork.
<< Marc Rich tied to Iraq oil >>
And, along with Soros and Riady and the Jiang Gang et al, is also tied to Chelsea Cli'ton's Three+ Billion Dollar and growing 'Trust' Fund.
New subject: Can you imagine to horror of a Hillary McCain presidential contest in 2008?
Doctor Strangelove McCain can.
Defeating them both in the Primaries or before will not be enough. Both are dangerous and both must be politically annihilated.
That matchup would certainly eliminate three variables: mental dysfunction (cognitive as well as psychological), megalomania and a psychopathic lust for power.
bump. Let's hope the story IS short.
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.