Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

There is something very wrong inside the Justice Department of the United States and there has been for some time.

Various newspapers are now reporting that under President Clinton, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was ordered to stand down on various terrorist investigations.

One of the most egregious examples is the failure of the bureau to investigate fundraising organizations like "The Holy Land Fund," based in Arizona, which allegedly funneled millions of dollars in donations to Middle Eastern terrorists.

Although the Bush administration has now frozen the assets of the fund, it was apparently allowed to operate for 8 years despite the FBI intelligence that was presented to Mr. Clinton and then-Attorney General Janet Reno. One bureau source told the press that Ms. Reno felt any investigation of "The Holy Land Fund" would lead to anti-Arab sentiment and therefore was opposed to such an investigation.

As always, Ms. Reno will not comment on any aspect of her tenure as attorney general that is at all controversial.

There is no question now that under Ms. Reno and then-FBI Director Louis Freeh, Americans were put at great risk. The Wen Ho Lee-Chinese espionage case still has not been explained, and the fact that the 19 Sept. 11 terrorists weren't even on the FBI's radar screen is about as frightening as Janet Reno's passion for political correctness.

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.

And this isn't a political issue. Conservative Congressman Dan Burton and liberal Congressman Barney Frank have actually joined forces to try and pry this information from Ashcroft's hands. If that's not amazing, then nothing is.

The truth is that for nearly 8 years, the Justice Department has been corrupt and inefficient. Janet Reno botched nearly every important decision she had to make including Waco and Elian Gonzalez. Time after time, Ms. Reno refused to approve investigative initiatives sought by the FBI. And time after time, Mr. Freeh sat in his plush government office refusing to let the American people know what was happening.

Now Mr. Ashcroft is doing the same thing. There is no reason on this earth why the public should not know the status of the Rich pardon probe. Or the anthrax investigation. And what about Enron, Mr. Attorney General – are you going to look into that? Millions of Americans were hosed while some Enron executives made millions.

How about a comment on that, Mr. Ashcroft?

Here is the whole article.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,361-1,3801,381-1,4001,401-1,420 ... 1,441-1,452 next last
Comment #1,381 Removed by Moderator

To: malador
I have a feeling you could care less .. but I believe it was the name calling that turned people off ..

The debate of issue here had seem to be going pretty well until your posts and insults appeared .. and totally threw it off topic

But as you stated this is a public board and you have the right post anything you wish .. just don't expect others to take to kindly to insults .. that's all

Now I am off .. if you want to flame me .. do as you wish ... because I am now the one who could care less

1,382 posted on 01/12/2002 11:45:35 PM PST by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1381 | View Replies]

To: exodus
I say Gail Norton is incompetent, at best. She may very well be corrupt,

I think I can help. There are gradients to doing bad things. There's negligence, harm, mistreatment, abuse, malevolence and evil. Hitler was evil. Saying Hitler is corrupt is a gross understatement and insult to Jews. You get the drift.

No doubt you've heard the term, "voting for the lesser of two evils".  Voting for the lesser of two "evils" begets "evil".  Evil in quotes because few are actually evil. Almost every member of congress is corrupt for the simple reason that congress is corrupt. When you think about it, saying a senator or representative is corrupt is stating the obvious. Plus it will be expected of you to back up your claim with reasoned argument.

Many of your opponents are comfortable making emotional based arguments. Going head to head against that is an uphill battle. You can win them over if they're at least willing to learn but you'll likely face many emotional arguments that will be up to you to debunk. Not to mention it's up to you to keep pulling the discussion back on track.

Rather using a seemingly moral based terminology such as corrupt and evil, I recommend using "ignorance" and "incompetent". Both are quantifiable. Ignorance is lack of pertinent knowledge while incompetence is unqualified for the task, project or job. The real nifty thing about using those is you don't necessarily have to identify which one is the failing of the object/senator/politician/bureaucrat.

For example; why did the Senator vote in favor of another unconstitutional gun law? I don't know whether he did it out of ignorance or just plain incompetence but clearly he is unqualified to be a Senator. Unless we consider...

I can carry that further because I have differentiated among objects and quantified them. I'll continue where I left off... Unless we consider that he is actually corrupt because congress is corrupt, but that is stating the obvious as we know that it is congress that empowers the bureaucratic alphabet agencies of the Executive branch in which we are lucky if we are able to get even one unconstitutional law before the Supreme Court to be overturned for every twenty unconstitutional laws passed by congress. Clearly we are loosing the battle and we can't expect to win anytime soon if we keep chasing after laws that are but the symptoms/sores of a much more perverse disease/cancer that is outpacing our band-aid relief efforts. It's a disease/cancer. That's The Problem. I've set my sights on the goal and am working on a solution to The Problem.

Using 'ignorance' and 'incompetence' will help you to quantify. After a little practice you can begin to take on additional objects and differentiate between them quantifiably.

1,383 posted on 01/13/2002 12:57:57 AM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1367 | View Replies]

To: catpuppy
Hi catpuppy
Sweeping the clinton corruption under the carpet is not carrying out the Law
Bringing it all to the Justice Department for full investigation -- is
There is no one on FR who does not believe he committed many many crimes
However some crimes others think he did, I don't
But I think he committed some crimes, that no one does
I have no idea why he does not want his DOJ to investigate

Posters who support his decision give as reason the media would have a frenzy with it
or it would guarantee his non-election in the election
or it would interfere with passing his agenda
now that the war is occurring
they say it can't be done because of the war

The reason I say he is a normal decent President is because he is
Perhaps all Presidents, with the exception of George Washington, put politcal considerations first
I don't think President Bush is ambitious for himself -- he is not on an ego trip
But either he is a team player and thinks this is best for the Republican Party
or he thinks this is best for the country
but in either case he isn't carrying out the Law (as I see it)

Posters who never supported him to begin with, may use this to bash him with
But that is not the case with me
He has every personal attribute I value -- and I am perplexed by his choice
Love, Palo
1,384 posted on 01/13/2002 2:51:44 AM PST by palo verde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1341 | View Replies]

To: BillofRights; catpuppy; Servant of the Nine
hi sweetie
I want to encourage you there is much more appetite for the changes you want than appears on the surface
Because I think it is true
If idealistic youth are removing their idealism from liberalism -- and looking for a new vision, this is revolutionary
the new vision would be libertarian
because it is a vision of liberty
This election -- where they rejected the liberal candidate is the first sign of this switch
You don't yet know how to look for first signs -- think of it like spring
the snows melt, new grass comes up, the birds have a different lilt in their tune
warm breezes blow
Full spring is not apparent
but the signs of spring's coming are
Have faith in truth -- it is an irresistable force
catpuppy is an impossible nut to crack -- if you and I can't succeed, no one can, but we love him dearly
I think Servant sees this shift tho
Love, Palo
1,385 posted on 01/13/2002 3:18:18 AM PST by palo verde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1348 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
hi habs
I agree with your post
President Bush is the story now
If the next election were held now he would win hands down
because the whole country is getting to see why we liked him so much to begin with
I have reiterated many times now the forces at work why I think things will be very different in 3 years than they are now
Altho I think President Bush's popular appeal will continue to expand and grow
You and I have different ways of predicting the future
You look at how things are now and see it changing incrementally over time
I look at the forces at work both above and below the surface -- and try to guage their power
Based on how I see things -- these are fast moving times, and I think big changes are to be expected
Love, Palo
1,386 posted on 01/13/2002 3:39:35 AM PST by palo verde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1345 | View Replies]

To: palo verde
Good morning, palo,

We've got to give them credit - the Clintons are the most developed, devious criminals America has ever seen. They are both lawyers who are trained to recognize the fine line between legal and illegal and certainly know how to cover their tracks. They have committed untold crimes, yet they are too criminally savvy to leave blatant clues, witnesses, or substantiating evidence laying around. They had an entire administration of accomplices to assist them in their cover up of crimes - people so loyal (brainwashed) that they chose to leave the country or spend time in jail rather than testify against their cult leaders. They play dirty.

At this time, we don't know whether the Bush Administration is developing a case against them as we type, as it wouldn't be wise to give the Clintons advance warning so they could destroy and cover the next phase of any possible investigation. President Bush is known to play his hand close to his chest. He is also aware of how many of us feel about the Clintons. If they discover something concrete, evidence that couldn't be written off as a bureaucratic snafu or similarly swarmy excuse, I believe they would go for it. Yet, if all applicable evidence has been destroyed, if there is not a provable case, the administration would not be wise to persue this course.

We are fortunate to have one of the most highly qualified administrations ever amassed in our nation's history. I for one, have faith that they will continue to perform at the high standard we are currently witnessing. If they happen to nail the Clintons while fighting a war on terror, fighting the Daschle's of the world, and running a country on schedule, that will be icing on the cake.

Love,
Quilla

God Bless President Bush.

1,387 posted on 01/13/2002 3:39:37 AM PST by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1384 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
Hi Quilla
Your post is exquisite and true
I'm starting to wish there was less emphasis on nailing clinton
He never left his fingerprints anywhere near his crimes
but everything he did in the dark must be brought to the light of Law
I no longer think this will happen
and I don't see it as a positive
but perhaps others do
Love, Palo
1,388 posted on 01/13/2002 3:56:56 AM PST by palo verde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1387 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
He includes Aschroft because the libs keep yelling at him and accusing him of being (GASP) a conservative - so he needs to look bipartisan or noncomittal.

I'm sorry to see him give in to this.

I'd rather see a response like - "Clean up your own act - the bias is on the liberal side - not here."

1,389 posted on 01/13/2002 4:03:51 AM PST by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #1,390 Removed by Moderator

To: The Raven
"He includes Aschroft because the libs keep yelling at him and accusing him of being (GASP) a conservative..."

I'd like to disabuse one and all of the notion that O'reilly is in any way a conservative, he is a Globalist, top to bottom, inside, and out.

1,391 posted on 01/13/2002 8:19:58 AM PST by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1389 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Here we go again .. let's just face facts ..
you don't like President Bush
and regardless what he says
or does on ANY matter/issue ..
you still will not like him
# 1379 by Mo1

************************

I would consider Bush one of the best Presidents ever
IF he investigated, and prosecuted the wrong-doing of,
Bill Clinton, the Justice Department, the FBI, etc.

If he fulfilled the major duty of any President,
upholding the Rule of Law,
he would have my undying support,
and he would have my respect.

1,392 posted on 01/13/2002 9:48:24 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1379 | View Replies]

To: malador;BillofRights
Whatever ....

As for Bill .. he is a friend of mine and I have much respect for him and his opinion regardless if I agree with him or not .. my intentions were not to jump on him .. but to understand his points better ..

I think and hope Bill feels the same

1,393 posted on 01/13/2002 9:58:24 AM PST by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1390 | View Replies]

To: exodus
As I stated .. IMO .. from your posts there is NOTHING President Bush could do that would please you ..

It is very clear from your posts that you never liked him and I doubt you ever will

Lets just face reality on this issue instead of beating our heads up against the wall

1,394 posted on 01/13/2002 10:06:23 AM PST by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1392 | View Replies]

To: exodus
The only way to stop voter fraud is to give jail time to the violaters.

Florida had many instances of voter fraud, including the creators of the surplus "chads." Other states also had fraud problems.

There were no charges filed. Just a lot of talk about the need for "reform."

1274 posted on 1/12/02 10:02 PM Central by exodus

exactly, that's all there ever is, a lot of talk.

1,395 posted on 01/13/2002 10:12:23 AM PST by christine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1274 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
Very well stated Quilla .. and thank you for your input ..
1,396 posted on 01/13/2002 10:21:29 AM PST by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1387 | View Replies]

To: Zon
"I say Gail Norton is incompetent, at best.
She may very well be corrupt..."
- exodus

************************

To: exodus
"...Almost every member of congress is corrupt
for the simple reason that congress is corrupt.
When you think about it, saying a senator
or representative is corrupt is stating the obvious...

Rather using a seemingly moral based terminology such as corrupt and evil,
I recommend using "ignorance" and "incompetent..."

For example; why did the Senator vote in favor of another unconstitutional gun law?
I don't know whether he did it out of ignorance or just plain incompetence
but clearly he is unqualified to be a Senator.
Unless we consider...

Using 'ignorance' and 'incompetence' will help you to quantify.
After a little practice you can begin to take on additional objects
and differentiate between them quantifiably."
1383 by Zon

************************

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas is not corrupt..
"Congress is corrupt" is not an excuse for corruption.

The act of doing an un-Constitutional thing
justifies the charge of corruption.
Any Congressman who votes for a gun control law qualifies.

There is no "ignorance" strong enough to avoid the charge of "corruption."
There is no "incompetence" strong enough to avoid the charge of "corruption."

The Soviet Union was based upon ignorance,
and typified by incompetence.
It was still evil.

Just as Ronald Reagan called "evil" when he saw it,
even against the advice of his advisors,
so will I will call "corruption" when I see it.

1,397 posted on 01/13/2002 10:26:44 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1383 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
I agree OReily isn't the first one I'd head to for advice...but he brings libs down to reality when they start dreaming.

On the other hand...he seems to be heading down the liberal line (dreaming) on things like SUV's. His solution, of course, is government.

1,398 posted on 01/13/2002 10:27:29 AM PST by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1391 | View Replies]

To: Zon
To: exodus
Rather using a seemingly moral based terminology such as corrupt and evil,
I recommend using "ignorance" and "incompetent..."


1383 by Zon

************************

Stupidity is the first thing to consider.
Gail Norton isn't stupid.

Ignorance is next.
Gail Norton isn't ignorant, I'm sure you'll agree.

Next we consider incompetence.
Incompetence doesn't require stupidity, or ignorance.
You can be smart and knowlegable and still be incompetent,
if you don't have a talent for the job.

Gail Norton might be incompetent.
That was my first argument.

IF she's not incompetent,
she is corrupt.
She might even be "evil."

1,399 posted on 01/13/2002 10:28:08 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1383 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
To: exodus
As I stated .. IMO ..
from your posts there is NOTHING President Bush could do that would please you ..
It is very clear from your posts that you never liked him and I doubt you ever will
Lets just face reality on this issue instead of beating our heads up against the wall
# 1394 by Mo1

************************

You act like I made a snap decision
when Bush started running for President

Mo1, I'm a Texan.
He was my Governor.
Before that, he was always in the public eye.

I decided that I didn't like Bush
during the time he was governor.

He hasn't done anything as President to change my mind.

1,400 posted on 01/13/2002 10:36:20 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1394 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,361-1,3801,381-1,4001,401-1,420 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson