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?
Do you think GW is impotent, and can do nothing about what is going on in his own administration?
Will you please respond to the question?
The hate people in media, hollywood spout towards him only raises his status, as most peeple hold the source of the hate in such little esteem. Bill's reasoning on many situations is positively child like, and embarrasing. Or, am I being much too critical? Time will tell.
I'd say that you people have an unrealistic view of government, at the very least.
You are right Howlin.
It is unrealistic to think the government should be of the people for the people.
256 posted on 1/6/02 12:21 AM Central by carenot
Is this the post you are talking about?
You have already explained to me how ignorant I am.
I am trying to learn by asking questions.
You shouldn't make fun of me for asking questions.
It is not nice to make fun of me. You hurt my feelings.
LOL.. your silliness knows no bounds. I was merely speculating as to the "why," which may or may not be valid. BTW, you have not a clue who I do or do not support, but you must think you are entertaining when making these silly comments. Have at it, I truly could careless about anything you post.
************************
To: browardchad
:...(O'Reilly's) rise to the top has surprised him
and his ego has taken control of his mind.
He is about to implode.
Remember, what goes up has to come down,
and what goes up quickly comes down faster.
# 423 by wingnuts'nbolts
************************
O'reilly didn't have any sudden "rise to the top."
He's been aroung for decades.
He spent years as a foreign correspondent,
as an example covering the Fauklins War
between England and Argentina.
Though America supported England,
and thus were considered an enemy,
O'Reilly covered the war from within Argentina,
and came close to losing his life at lease once.
He covered the Indian rebellion in Mexico,
again going deep into the dangerous areas,
even areas that the Mexican Army wouldn't go into.
Then he worked for years working
for a major network as a TV correspondent,
and won many national awards
for his incisive investigative journalism,
and for his excellent coverage of the news.
THEN he got his cable news show,
and became a household name.
He worked for his position.
I'm only surprised it took so long
for him to develop a national following.
WRONG. He took an OATH to defend the constitution and uphold the laws of this land. Whether he made it a campaign promise or not is IMMATERIAL. He has NO EXCUSE for not investigating credible evidence of crimes as serious as treason, mass murder, election tampering, campaign finance violations, blackmail, intimidation of witnesses, etc.
In a now famous 1975 interview in Reason magazine, Reagan mentioned his desire for a smaller and less intrusive federal government. Reagan was promoting the agenda of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. He believed, as all conservatives do, that there was a need for a return to a limited federal government.
Reagan wanted to see a smaller federal government that followed the path of fiscal responsibility. Reagan never claimed to be a libertarian, nor did he support the libertarian agenda, philosophy and ideology. Reagan was a moral conservative above all else. Reagan never supported the legalization of drugs, or prostitution in America. The LP Party supports both the legalization of drugs and prostitution in America. Reagan supported a strong military armed forces, quite the opposite of the Libertarian Party platform, which would have the US military fighting wars with sling shots! Reagan didn't support the dismantling of our criminal justice system as the LP Party does. Reagan didn't support abortion on demand, but he did support the right to life for the unborn human child. The LP Party is pro-choice. Reagan also strongly supported the War on Drugs, something the LP Party is dead set against.
Heres some of what he said that you seemed to have left out.
Now, I can't say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don't each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves.
Reagan also said:
Well, third parties have been notoriously unsuccessful; they usually wind up dividing the very people that should be united. And then we elect the wrong kind-the side we're out to defeat wins. Reagan was talking about the LP Party in this statement.
Lets not confuse Ronald Reagan's conservatism with the current extremist agenda of the Libertarian Party. Reagan was a strong believer in individualism, as all conservatives are, but he didn't support allowing individuals to walk all over society and he didn't support the libertarian idea of upholding the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty. That behavior breeds chaos which leads to anarchy.
Ronald Reagan was a pragmatic, practical and reasonable man. Libertarianism has very little, if nothing at all in common with Reagan's philosophy, ideology and basic political beliefs.
Can't help but notice that you won't respond to my post #200. What's the problem? Can't you come up with even ONE indication that Bush/Ashcroft have or are investigating any of the CRIMES that I listed? How about the Riady non-refund? How about Filegate? Come on ... just ONE?
I never said or suggested that Bill had not worked at being a journalist/ reporter, but until he got his Fox gig not many were aware of him. He was not a household word. I enjoy seeing people who work for it suceed, and that incudes O'Reilly. But the present unbearable size of his head may prove to be difficult for him to support.
Oh? You claim that Ron Brown wasn't murdered. So just post the material on which you base this claim.
Would finding a bullet in the head of Ron Brown do it?
Would finding that the wounds in Foster's head don't match the description provided by Fiske do it?
If not, then what would be REALLY incriminating evidence?
I thought Bush's Presidency would be about restoring it
It is baffling and alienating (for me) that this is not happening
Same here.
It is a good-sized hat rack, isn't it?
I agree, he does have a high opinion of himself.
I like seeing that in a person.
We should all be as high on ourselves as he is.
Reagan was not a member
of the Libertarian Party.
He considered himself
to be following libertarian ideas,
however.
From the July 1975 Reason article--
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart
and soul of conservatism is libertarianism..."
- Reagan
"...The basis of conservatism is a desire
for less government interference
or less centralized authority
or more individual freedom
and this is a pretty general description also
of what libertarianism is..."
- Reagan
"...I can’t say that I will agree with all the things
that the present group who call themselves Libertarians
in the sense of a party..."
- Reagan
"...I stand on my statement
that I think that libertarianism and conservatism
are travelling the same path..."
- Reagan
Only a well armed (which we are) citizenry will stop them from taking complete control. One good thing I've seen since WTC is a little more resolve on the part of Americans. But somehow I just can't bring myself to believe it's going to 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.