Replies

Believe it or not.............I agree with you completely. My point is this: The media are going way out of their way to paint a picture of Enron - Bush coziness because they supported him. Period. No evidence of quid pro quo. Zip. Nada. Here, we have direct evidence that the Clinton administration put tremendous pressure on Indian officials (if you follow the link that MJY1288 put up in reply #7, you'll see that this was ONLY after they had contributed a HUGE chunk of cash) to allow this project. Many may argue that "that's just the way things get done"; that may be. BUT.............isn't it convenient that the press ignores this, something this big, smack in front of their faces, while trying to pin something on Bush that they're fabricating out of whole cloth?

P.S. I'm not surprised, by the way..........

I don't have a link for you, but the Clinton Administration was even more blatant in squeezing Mozambique for Enron in exchange for more contributions. The Clinton Administration, I'm convinced, didn't do this for America; they did it for political donations.

And, sure, the press is totally hypocritical in not reporting this, which surpises none of us here. The press isn't interested in the truth. They are interested in gotcha politics, and Clinton doesn't interest them anymore.

Eventually, the Republicans will get the truth out about this, but they're having a hard time getting the media out of its current frenzy. The GOP can't yell that corporate money corrupts everyone, because it didn't corrupt the Republicans. Plus, they don't want to play into McCain's hands and his unconstitutional campaign finance reform.

The Republicans have time on their side here, because there is obviously no smoking gun, and the frenzy will stop once people realize it. Fortunately, the elections weren't last week.

This is from a post of mine a couple of days ago but I think it bears repeating anytime Clinton's name is mentioned between now and the day I die.

Clinton's legacy is over 3,000 combined American Dead from the WTC, Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Not to mention the two embassies in Africa, the Rangers in Somalia, the Air Force dead at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the 27 dead sailors from the USS Cole, the dead in Bosnia, and the 8 dead in the first WTC bombing. Then there are the ongoing question marks about OKC and TWA Flight 800. Without putting on too much tinfoil, "Were those some of the early shots fired by Bin Laden that the Clinton Administration covered up so that the facade of 'It's the economy stupid' could continue."

Another very real legacy of the Clinton Administration and the foreign policy team is the pending conflict in South Asia between Pakistan and India. Both countries were suspected to have nuclear weapons for decades. Until Clinton made the world doubt US resolve and changed the policy on US Nuclear retaliation in 1993 both countries were happy to allow the ongoing speculation about their nuclear stockpiles. But thanks to Clinton, both countries felt compelled to assure each other - and China - that they were nuclear capable. This little foray is what has helped escalate the current situation to the nearly untenable level that we are currently experiencing.

History will be a much harder judge of Clinton than we on FreeRepublic have been. Historians will have the graves and the statistics to back them up. We still have to debate about whether his legacy is a stained blue dress or treason.

Regards,