Posted on 10/08/2005 5:22:54 PM PDT by Zeppo
Under strong pressure from former President Bill Clinton's advisers, CBS's ''60 Minutes'' has agreed to read a statement denying an explosive charge being made on Sunday nght's program by former FBI director Louis Freeh, the WASHINGTON POST reports.
In the statement, Samuel ``Sandy'' Berger, Clinton's national security adviser, challenges Freeh's assertion that Clinton failed to press Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to cooperate with an investigation of the 1996 bombing of Khobar Towers in that country, and used the occasion to ask for a contribution to his presidential library. The Saudis made such a donation last year _ six years after the 1998 meeting.
Berger, who was at the meeting, said: ``The president strongly raised the need for Saudi officials to cooperate with us on the investigation into the attack on Khobar Towers at the time when the FBI was attempting to gain access to the suspects. The president did not raise in any fashion the issue of his library.''
Clinton spokesman Jay Carson said he told CBS's Mike Wallace that he had supportive accounts from five other former officials at the meeting, including those briefed about a private conversation between Clinton and Abdullah.
``The fair journalistic question is why they didn't call and get comments for their story from people who were in the room, such as Sandy Berger, and why they took until Friday afternoon to get that done,'' said Lanny Davis, a former White House lawyer, who tried to persuade ''60 Minutes'' producer Jeff Fager to allow him or another Clinton spokesman to appear on Sunday night's segment.
Carson, who called the Freeh book ``a total work of fiction.''
Developing...
The Clinton's are a pimple that needs to be lanced. Hope this book is the beginning of the office visit.
"She said" Maybe now we'll find out where all the bodies are buried!" "
Tell her that Fort marcy Park is probably a good starting point.
Well my wife asked me that magical question this weekend, "why are you so cold to my mother?"
I told her very calmly that I will only talk to a liberal if I must. She wasn't thrilled with it. So I had to call my MiL. Up came Halliburton again. So I asked her if she read the Star Ledger this weekend about the companies that got contracts for NO. She said yes. I then asked her who were the companies that got contracts. She said, Bechtel, The Shaw group and one other. I asked if it was Halliburton as she so claimed. She said that Conservative newspapers wouldn't print that.
I hung up on her.
Exactly right. Because if the toon comes out with a statement that can be refuted (and I hope Freeh has something tangible since he said "I state that as a fact") then klintoon will have egg on his face all over again.
Since he sent Sandy Burglar out there, everyone knows Burglar's a sleazebag and he'll lie, so if Freeh comes out with evidence, it'll go bad against Burglar and not the toon.
Then toon can say "Well he wasn't very organized and I guess he's a liar too".
It would be great if someone could make the klintoons speak the lies and not just say "I don't recall" 167 times.
Right - where's the model of our rule of law? Why no cross-examination of Sandy on 60 Minutes?
There should be some sort of law requiring 60 Minutes to scroll the following warning on its screen: FOR ENTERTAINMENT ONLY, THIS IS NOT A NEWS STORY. Too many TV-watching Americans are confused on that point.
We also must add the addendum to what has now become the standard of journalism, ala Rather:
'And even if the document is forged, the charges are true.'
" If his book is fiction then the Clintanistas can prove it wrong."
The Clinton-ites will blow long and hard, but it's ALL hot air!
Considering his track record of brazen acts, it's not really all that "amazing", is it...
Several of my relatives are ultra-liberal and we co-exist best just by declaring a truce -- we try to NEVER discuss politics together. I know some/many will think that's a cop-out, but I think it's better than hating each other, which is the path we were starting onto when we decided we could co-exist as a family but just stay away from politics (most of the time). Then, every so often my dad sends a conservative email around to all of us and the libs just go bonkers - but mostly we just try to keep our family outside of the political universe entirely.
I did that for 17 years. It was the last conversation that was the straw that broke the camels back.
I have no problem with someone who has an opposing political view than I do. But give me facts and be prepared to back them up with more than a NY Slimes editorial.
They did that tonight on the O'Reilly Factor with Lanny Davis. How these people can still go out in front of this country, with a straight face, and smear someone else is beyond me. Without a willing OLD MEDIA they couldn't get by with that. How many times can a group of people claim everyone else is NUTS & a LIAR but they are all always RIGHT & TRUTHFUL?!
And now the whole world knows the answer to the question, "Sandie, is it boxers or briefs?"
LOL... Boxes of Briefs more likely...
<< Amazing that Clinton would recruit another criminal to try and rebut the words of the former FBI director, huh ... >>
Amazing.
He and his "spouse," Bruno, will each soon speak out to refute the former FBI Director's calm assertions.
And then the psychopathologically-narcissistic gangster bastard and said lying, looting, thieving, mass-murdering co-serial rapist, gangster-bastard spouse will each speak directly to the every-bit-as-calm-and-as-credible calm assertions of the half century's collection of victims of his/their serial sexual attacks.
BUMPping
Has berger been sentenced yet?
Sorry 'bout your in-law prob.
I've had fights with lots of relations re: politics, so now
I try a different tack.
I tell them that most arguments start due to the fact that most
people come from different starting points.
Their world views can differ.
The different parties have incomplete knowledge regarding the
history of whatever subject they are discussing.
They have different life experiences so are unable to comprehend
certain facts, or concepts. And there are other reasons.
So before I begin a discussion(soon argument), I tell them
I want to know what they know about the issue, and their
world view, and their life experiences...soon the discussion
fizzles cuz they realize they haven't really thought deep
on their own biases, or the topic, and they soon are not
in any argumentative mood. Unless they agree to discuss issues
that relate to their level of understanding, I don't argue.
It would be like two drunks fighting in an alley.
If he were innocent no one would have to say a word.
hehe... I did this today.
I asked my MiL who she would rather vote for John Kerry or John Kennedy. She said Kennedy. I then asked her if Kennedy was a Republican who she would vote for. She said Kerry.
Ann Coulter is so right.
Freeh was FBI in the Vince Foster homicide...oops..
"suicide"..and was discarded....He KNEW something but didn't come forth back then...why???
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.