Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Our Ignoring Clinton's Character Flaws Lead To 9-11?
Toogood Reports ^ | Septemebr 25, 2002 | Mary Mostert

Posted on 09/25/2002 6:55:09 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen

It was on page five of the Washington Post on Saturday, September 21st, obviously not considered an important story. Titled, "FEC Issues Record Fines In Democrats' Scandals," the story notes, "The Federal Election Commission disclosed yesterday it has imposed record-setting $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fundraising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources."

Why, do you suppose, would the Washington Post, a liberal paper that has always downplayed any criticism of Bill Clinton and his scandals even print an article about the FEC levying a record-setting fine against the Democrats? As long as Clinton was in the White House, the Post generally viewed ANY charges against Clinton as merely partisan political attacks by Republicans. The few media outlets that have even mentioned the FEC story have generally quoted the Washington Post article, which concentrates entirely on the fines.

While the fines, and the intrigue surrounding how the money was collected is interesting to those involved in politics, the crux of this story, the reason why the Congress tried, unsuccessfully, to get Clinton´s former attorney general Janet Reno to appoint an independent Counsel in 1997 involved another issue entirely – national security. It is an issue that may also explain why, after eight years of Bill Clinton in the White House and Janet Reno as Attorney General, the FBI failed to head off the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

In March of 1997, Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah and then Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee said on CBS´ Face the Nation the "Clinton Administration was made aware of China's efforts to buy political influence in America a full year before the 1996 Election. Hatch charged the Chinese communists planned to "…spend upwards of $2 million illegally through laundered funds to influence the election" to get Clinton elected.

Yet, the Post left that out, only reporting how "John Huang, a DNC finance vice chair in 1996, ‘set a goal of raising $7 million from the Asian-American community.´ This effort included the luncheon with Gore at the Buddhist temple, as well as a "coffee" at the White House and a "birthday dinner for President Clinton" at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York.

"Huang, a central figure in the fundraising controversy, pleaded guilty in 1999 to conspiracy to defraud the FEC. He was sentenced to one year's probation and fined $10,000. The FEC documents detail several illegal contributions stemming from Huang's efforts…"

The Post ignored the foreign policy "favors" China, Indonesia, and other "foreign nationals" received for their contributions to Clinton´s 1996 re-election and the fact that Attorney General Janet Reno, as head of the Justice Department, ignored FBI recommendations to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the illegal foreign contributions to Clinton´s 1996 re-election.

As former White House FBI Agent Gary Aldrich put it recently, during the Clinton Administration

"…As FBI agents fanned out to discover new pockets of religious fanatics, (after Waco) abortion clinic protesters and old men wearing flannel shirts with red suspenders who were oddly intent on protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Osama bin Laden, a real terrorist, moved his pawns into place, ready to inflict catastrophic damage.

"An incompetent and dishonest Clinton, distracted by young interns, a wrathful wife and determined political opponents, failed to recognize the scope of danger bin Laden posed to our national security, leaving us vulnerable to even more devastating attacks. Clinton remained distracted, mired in his own muck, as Saddam Hussein chased our inspectors out of Iraq."

Why is it almost no one has seen the connection? Why has it taken six years to get ANYTHING done about Clinton´s illegal campaign contributions from foreign governments in 1996? Why did America ignore "evidence that the Secret Service was sometimes ordered to admit people to the White House who actually had warrants out for their arrest," as Aldrich put it? And, why were we caught by surprise by 20 young terrorists who murdered thousands of Americans, caused hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage and shook America´s self-confidence?

Perhaps it is because, instead of searching for real threats to America´s security we were willing to believe that character, in our president, didn´t matter and, as Gary Aldrich wrote in his book, Unlimited Access published in 1996, we just got used to, and ignored, evidence of "criminal activity" and the "willful endangerment of the president, the White House staff and national security."

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aldrich; clinton; clintonscandals; fbi; fec; gore; independentcounsel; intern; janetreno; johnhuang; nationalsecurity; orrinhatch; terrorist; washingtonpost

1 posted on 09/25/2002 6:55:09 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
What is more imporatant is Why Bush has allowed so many Clinton appoinntees to stay in their positions? Why has he refused to follow up or open any new investigations against Clinton? The muck of Clinton is so deep and disturbing that if it were to be revealed would bring down the entire beltway.
2 posted on 09/25/2002 7:12:20 AM PDT by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Did Our Ignoring Clinton's Character Flaws Lead To 9-11?

When I heard the enviro-wackos in San Francisco were slapping those "I Caused 9-11"
bumper stickers on those gas-guzzling SUVs,
it occurred to me that a variant bumper-sticker should go on the Volvos, Saabs, etc.
at the parking lots of our university campi:

"I Caused 9-11
I voted for Clinton"
3 posted on 09/25/2002 7:23:55 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
I've wondered that myself and am bothered by it...
However..given the numbers of Clintler supporters in Govt and in the media and in non flyover country..I guess Ive decided to let Bush be Bush et al...and trust him to do the right thing both in the war on terror and handling the unbelievable mess the clintons left for him to clean up...
How much would the media and congress take if Bush were to try to bring them to justice...
wouldnt he have to secure congressional approval...before bringing them to trial..
The fed prosecutors and judges clinton appointed ,arent they guarranteed a certain amount of time in their positions, or can they be fired and hired at will?..
Perhaps Bush wished to show that he is not like clinton and will not throw people out of work for the sake of nepotism or political pandering?
Bush is our last best hope...imo...who else is there?...
4 posted on 09/25/2002 7:31:07 AM PDT by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Federal Prosecutors can be hired and fired at will of the Executive. But many are left on when in themiddle of large cases or merely because the position was not seen as poltical. Bill Clinton was the first President to fire every single US Distric Attorney and oppoint his own hand picked people upon first entering office. IT was an ill omen of things to come and an ominious sign that was only commented upon byt "right wing nuts" at the time.

One reason Bush won't go after Clinton is that it would evoke a tremondous negative media reaction (the media has a stake in protecting Clinton and keeping the full story from coming out becasue they tied their reputations to his a long time ago.) So Bush can't waste time going after Clinton- too many people with a lot ofpower would be sept up in it as well. But that doesn't explain why Bush has allowed idiots like Norman Mineta to remain in power or George Tenet?
5 posted on 09/25/2002 7:37:14 AM PDT by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
In a word, "Yes."

Just a little something for you brain-dead SOCCER MOMS to think about as you pack little Johnny off to some God-forsaken hell hole of a desert to deal with a "problem" made far worse than it would have been if Willie hadn't been getting his knob polished in the Oral Office.

So far, the klinton body count -- we KNOW about -- is 19 murdered in Somalia when he and his morons refused our guys the armor they requested plus some 2,800 in NYC and DC...

6 posted on 09/25/2002 8:00:55 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
He had 8 years to damage the nation, but Clinton's final days in office were a special brand of selfish, childish and dangerous revenge on the Republican Party and President Bush...and on the nation. A series of actions that assured our new President would have many difficulties, and proved that Clinton put his ego before the welfare of our nation.

Clinton's parting gift to Bush?
Poking the Taliban hornet's nest...and running:

"Today, the United Nations removed all its remaining relief workers from the country, fearing a backlash from the Taliban, who will be almost completely isolated diplomatically when the resolution takes effect in 30 days, a grace period during which the Taliban could avoid sanctions by meeting the Council's demands." UN, Dec. 20th...2000.

Link to copy of original NY Times article, scroll down to near bottom.

Why did Clinton wait until Dec. 19th, 2000 to push the UN for tougher sanctions against the Taliban?

Clinton's 1999 State Dept. Report on Terrorism shows that his administration knew much about the international terrorist threat....complete with weapons, locations, history of terrorist actions, etc. The UN understood the danger...they pulled their own people out the same day they issued the new threat.

On Dec. 18th, 2000, the electoral college elected President Bush, officially ending the lengthy 2000 election. On Dec. 19th, Clinton went to the UN to push for tougher sanctions on our most deadly enemy. On Dec. 20th, the UN reluctantly issued the threat with the 30 day grace go into effect Jan. 19 th, 2001 - President Bush's inaugeration eve.

Other Clinton gifts left for the new President:
Clinton's peace proposals, which he unveiled at a meeting in Washington last week, call for a Palestinian state in 95 percent of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip. They also envision Palestinian control over Arab neighborhoods in east Jerusalem and the Temple Mount area, which is in the eastern part of the city.
CNN, Dec. 24, 2000.

See also:
Clinton Timing Release of New Peace Proposal, Sept.28, 2000.
US Embassy - press conference, Dec. 20, 2000

And more:
Last minute regs. putting ANWR and more than 5.6 million acres of federal land and our resources essentially off limits, signing the "Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000" (the "Act") on December 21, 2000..."record funding" - 5 years worth, killed the program created by Congress in 1999 to allow imports of low-cost prescription drugs, repealed the "tough new ethics rules" regarding lobbying he imposed on senior White House staff and other high-level administration appointees when he came into office, chose the UN over US sovereignty by signing us onto the ICC, changed arsenic level regs. for drinking water (and destroyed the "scientific evidence")...among the added 30,000 pages of new federal regulations, awarded $1 billion in grants for inner city housing, relaxed export controls on military grade computers, vandalized government property, appointed 21 of his own Dems. to protect our nation from cybersecurity threats- including Gore advisor Jack Quinn and Wellington Webb.
Just three weeks before his scheduled return to private life, Clinton instructed White House domestic policy aide Bruce Reed and economic chief Gene Sperling to "keep coming up with new ideas," according to Reed.
One morning at the nub end of Bill Clinton's presidency, Clinton chief of staff John Podesta walked into a senior staff meeting in the Roosevelt Room waving a copy of USA Today. Holding the paper aloft, Podesta read the headline out loud, "Clinton actions annoy Bush." The article detailed the new rules and Executive Orders the outgoing President was issuing in his final days, actions aimed in equal measure at locking in Clinton's legacy (in areas like environmental protection) and bedeviling his successor. "What's Bush so annoyed about?" Podesta asked with a devilish smile. "He's got four years to try to undo all the stuff we've done."

"We laid a few traps," chirps a happy Clinton aide.....

7 posted on 09/25/2002 9:39:34 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
That is one Masterful Post!Thank You for that.

Did Our Ignoring Clinton's Character Flaws Lead To 9-11?
Not OUR IGNORING , but the Medias Loathing of anything Republican (in General) and Trent Lotts (Specifically) having No Spine, allowed us to come to where we are today.He must get alot of 'Pork' For his state, because the man doesn't know how to lead IMO and has never raised his voice or taken a passionate position ( on anything )in his life.There is half a country and their entire families who know that #42 was a corrupt and inherently bad (sorry excuse for a )President.

8 posted on 09/25/2002 10:54:12 AM PDT by Pagey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Thanks for compiling that post and all the links...appreciate it.
9 posted on 09/25/2002 11:32:08 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Careful, I drive a Volvo.

Except it's in the shop this week.

10 posted on 09/25/2002 11:53:23 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen; Pagey
You're very welcome.

There are many excellent articles documenting Clinton's conduct. We really need to own at least one of the few remaining Big Media conglomerates.

Clinton was mostly talk, but oh those powerful, destructive words- Anatomy of Treason, Washington Times, Balint Vazsonyi....from the WT's Clinton's Role in This Attack Page.

11 posted on 09/25/2002 11:58:31 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: *clintonscandals
12 posted on 09/27/2002 1:44:11 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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
Topics · Post Article

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