[Irma]

My comment above was quite vague, sorry.

Klayman was suing Cheney or Bush a month or so ago, wasn't he?

Not only that, he was indirectly blaming Bush for the terrorists' attacks:

JUDICIAL WATCH BLAMES PRESIDENT BUSH FOR TERRORIST
 ATTACKS --Promises Investigation (mine)

Sounds to me that Newsmax, who is sympathetic to JW and often covers JW stories, is now trying to slant Klayman's latest "investigation" (based only on NY Times reports btw) against Clinton.  Here is JW's OWN  press release of this same story here which I posted a couple of days ago:

JUDICIAL WATCH ASKS THAT IRS INVESTIGATE  AND SHUT DOWN TERROR FINANCIAL NETWORK LIKELY LINKED TO BIN LADEN NETWORK

There was little mention of Clinton in JW's original press release of this new "investigation".  Now apparently since the funds are not rolling in, there is an effort to link the attack more to Clinton (and perhaps they should be) but now drop the references to Bush.  

Interesting.

[alrea]

ARE YOU LISTENING, NY JEWS WHO HELPED TO ELECT HILDEBEAST LAST FALL?

there are missing pieces all over the queen hillary of york map.

[bayourod]

It would be interesting to know why Judicial Watch made its initial decision to oppose President Bush back in September of las year.

Was it a calculated risk that President Bush would be so liberal that there would be a lot of potential conservative contributors?

Or was it fear that if Bush won the election that all contributions would dry up?

Or was is a personal vendetta because he didn't agree to let JW host one of the presidential debates? Or some other personal slight?

I bet JW is kicking itself in the arse right now seeing the President's approval in the 90s.

[timestax]

bttt