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?
Why, indeed.
I have previously remarked elsewhere that should the names Bush/Ashcroft been changed to Clinton/Reno in that matter, FReepers would be outraged but instead we have a bunch of people here who jump to their defense with a bunch of what I consider rather lame excuses.
I'm with you.
I'm still waiting for you to do what you claimed you would do. Turns out you're a blowhard and a liar as well.
I notice you don't answer about Reagan. That means you didn't vote for him at all. Either you were too young or you were still voting democrat when Reagan ran.
During the primary and later, during the campaign, Bush's supporters online were making all these promises for him. They're the ones who decieved voters, not Bush. After all, Bush's campaign was based on his being able to get Gore's agenda passed better than Gore could.
We can all be grateful that this is JR's forum and not yours.
Read it again.
Only try mouthing the words to yourself as you read.
Then, come back at me with that statement & see if you don't feel as stupid saying it as I did reading it.
Hell's Bells, I suppose I should be grateful.
I could've recieved another enigmatic little riddle from you involving little blue men, loves lost & the like -- yet again.
...so I guess in the scheme of things this response might be viewed a marked improvement; real progress.
geshhh.
I don't think I even insinuated that another term is all he thinks about. Personally, I'm not interested in seeing algore, hillary!, or tommy dacshund in the White House in 2004.
The point of my post is that, lacking any REALLY incriminating evidence, continuing to pursue The Great Impeached will be spun and perceived as the VRWC continuing their hateful vendetta. I'll leave it to you to ponder how that might affect congressional elections this year and the next presidential election.
As I said, I don't like it a bit. But, I think I understand Bush's reasoning.
Landru's going to try to be uncharacteristically charitable while remaining polite here, & make a suggestion.
How about:
..."The Garbage Can"?
GEEZ. Try to get out more.
And you still haven't indicated any facts, or made any substantiated claims against John Ashcroft, that are valid and show a premeditated action which led to an illegality, or wrong doing on his part. Everything you've mentioned so far, is based solely on your perception as an anti-govt political wacko extremist.
Just for the record dummy, I campaigned for Reagan three times, in `76,`80,`84 and enjoyed every minute of my time. I'm sure you enjoyed your time voting for McBride, Clark, Browne and Perot, as much as I did voting and supporting the greatest American president of the 20th century, Ronald Wilson Reagan. You have nothing in common with the philosophy, ideology and general politics of Reagan and never will. Reagan was a mainstream conservative and an American patriot. Reagan was a winner. Remember, you're a loser.
Unless you can post something thats both intelligent and relevent to the topic, I'm afraid you'll have to find someone else to attack, with what are feeble efforts at best. I've wasted enough time with you and your endless attempts to validate your existence on this website and in this world.
Yes. We have lost power. We are only along for the ride. And to supply labor. An overpowerful central government with an invincible standing army ensures the future of this arrangement. That's why some of the Founders wanted most of the power retained by the states.
Reagan described himself as a libertarian.
His policies were based on libertarian ideas.
Unless you've had the rules changed,
I can respond to any post I want.
Try to be polite, nopardons.
Good morning, lovely palo.
I wish it wasn't true,
but I believe that Bush
is just as corrupt as Clinton.
I base my belief on Bush's active protection of Clinton.
Any President's agenda MUST include enforcing the rule of law.
Any President who participates in a cover-up is corrupt.
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.
