Skip to comments.
Bill O'Reilly blasts Ashcroft and Reno for Corruption
WorldNetDaily.com ^
| January 4, 2002
| Bill O'Reilly
Posted on 01/04/2002 8:52:30 AM PST by editor-surveyor
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 1,441-1,452 next last
To: editor-surveyor
Bill O'Reilly is dead on. I had such hope for Bush's Justice Dept and FBI. But there is little distinction between Bush's crew and Clinton's. In fact Ashcroft may be more dangerous than Reno. And that's hard to fathom. So my question is.......who is controlling Ashcroft?? Who is muzzling this guy?? Are the Clintons involved? How bout Papa Bush? What is up with this???
81
posted on
01/04/2002 11:42:46 AM PST
by
hove
To: GROUCHOTWO
Pilots? They can't figure out whether these dudes were on any of the passenger lists or not.
If I'm not mistaken even North noticed that.
How about those put options? Did they call the brokers yet? Anybody picked up $2.5 mill check?
Now, let me go back to stalking comrade Osama.
To: editor-surveyor
Why in the world would John Ashcroft be interested in covering up for Reno and Clinton? That Ashcroft-bashers need to come up with a reasonable explanation for that. Otherwise, this story just smells.
83
posted on
01/04/2002 11:50:31 AM PST
by
XJarhead
To: editor-surveyor
I didn't comment on this immediately because I think that O'Reilly sometimes bends over backward in his attempt to appear fair and balance.
My gut feeling is that Bush doesn't want to discuss the past, including the Clintons because he knows that the liberal media will immediately take the opportunity to push Clinton to the forefront of the news. The Clintons are basicly irrelavant right now, and I for one, would like to keep them that way.
84
posted on
01/04/2002 12:00:46 PM PST
by
Eva
To: GROUCHOTWO
Last I heard, there were questions about 7 of them. A couple of them are supposedly still flying the friendly skies: one with a Saudi airlines and another in Yemen. It was in the news once and there've been no retractions that I know of, so far.
To: Howlin
Ma'am, I think you're mistaken. You're saying that most on FR don't suspect Ashcroft or Bush of covering for Clinton. What I've been seeing is a handful of people trying to defend the current administration in this respect, not most people on FR.
86
posted on
01/04/2002 12:04:08 PM PST
by
Twodees
To: editor-surveyor
The current attorney general, John Ashcroft, has made no attempt to examine Ms. Reno's bizarre behavior or update the public about the Marc Rich investigation or anything else. Mr. Ashcroft specializes in looking dour and stonewalling. While Congress is attempting to get documents about President Clinton's dubious foreign fundraising and FBI abuses in Boston, Ashcroft is refusing to cooperate at all. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely! So why would this be a surprise? It is necessary to protect those that went before so those that will come after will protect you. It is easy,even for a Christian to lie to himself about this..
87
posted on
01/04/2002 12:05:59 PM PST
by
RnMomof7
To: CommiesOut
Right on! The pre-911 brokerage manipulations have gone down the memory hole. Is some one hoping that we will forget this?
To: Twodees
You don't seem to understand that MOST people on FR avoid these silly discussions like the plague; the ones of us who show up are a glutton for punishment and like beating our heads against the wall, which gives you all the false impression that everybody else agrees with you all.
Don't believe me? Search for Judicial Watch or Keyes or Ashcroft; then take a look at how SHORT the threads are when "we" don't show up to defend Bush and Ashcroft from the silly accuastions.
89
posted on
01/04/2002 12:07:49 PM PST
by
Howlin
To: Twodees
What I've been seeing is a handful of people trying to defend the current administration in this respect, not most people on FR. Ah, not to put too fine a point on it, but there ARE just a handful of you guys.
90
posted on
01/04/2002 12:09:00 PM PST
by
Howlin
To: editor-surveyor
Thanks so much for the ping. I appreciate it very much.
Maybe if O'Reilly gets on the band wagon like this it will help. I sure hope so.
I only agree with O'Reilly about half and half... sometimes he is way too liberal for me and other times I sit here cheering him on big time for what he says and does. LOL
But when he is on target and I agree with him he is a good one for not letting go of things.
Thanks again ES !!!
(((HUG)))
To: caisson71
So, once a day has passed, any crime is a "past issue"? Would you want your county prosecutor to take that attitude the day after your mother was murdered, when everyone in the county suspects one person? Imagine him and the sheriff telling you that they just want to move on, that your momma is dead and the crime is in the past.
Clinton's crimes were massive in scope and their effects will continue to become apparent for decades. Bush's little pinche political plans can go hang. Presidents have no business trying to manipulate the economy anyway, but the President is the chief law enforcement official in the country. Investigating Clinton's crimes is definitely part of Bush's job. He'd better do his job or we'll be caught flatfooted again by another Clinton time bomb like 9/11.
92
posted on
01/04/2002 12:33:47 PM PST
by
Twodees
To: Askel5
Unbelievable.
Having said all that, let me add that when the country is attacked, it is necessary, as foul as it is to swallow down, to support the existing government.
To: Eva
Ma'am, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The Clintons are most certainly not irrelevant. They're still very dangerous to our country, particularly if they're left unpunished. Letting them skate so that there will be fewer news reports of them will accomplish what, exactly?
You don't let criminals go to keep their faces off of the TV news. Letting them go allows them to recreate their image and mount another atack on our country once the liberal media has had a chance to gloss over the public perceptions formed toward the end of Clinton's tenure.
Wherever you got this idea, I suggest you examine what you're saying. Maybe your sense of the ridiculous will kick in for you.
94
posted on
01/04/2002 12:46:08 PM PST
by
Twodees
To: editor-surveyor
I was hoping for an administration that I could get behind 100% I'm growing tired of carping; I'd like to smile for a while. A man of my heart.
95
posted on
01/04/2002 12:48:29 PM PST
by
AAABEST
To: editor-surveyor
Clinton with a Reno hair-cut.
96
posted on
01/04/2002 12:48:53 PM PST
by
markn
To: Howlin
FR has about 75,000 members, correct? It's accurate to say that most FReepers avoid commenting on anything. I know it's important to you to feel that GOP koolaid drinkers are the majority here, but that's absurd. You folks are simply the loudest minority here at the present time.
97
posted on
01/04/2002 12:49:52 PM PST
by
Twodees
To: Ridin' Shotgun
This is small consolation to those families whose loved ones died on that terrible day.
To: editor-surveyor
I heard O'Reilly's rant on this. Good grief! If John Ashcroft weren't there, we'd probably all be dead. For victory & freedom!!!
To: editor-surveyor
Thanks for the ping....O'Reilly proscribes to the idea that the 'powerful protect the powerful' so he thinks this is what Ashcroft is doing for Reno but the final score isn't in yet....
I'm willing to be a bit more patient. I have a hunch that a lot will be coming out during the investigations into why the 9-11 attacks happened as well as during the JEB/Reno race for FL governor.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 1,441-1,452 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson