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."
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...
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 period....to 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
CLINTONWORLD.
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.
Except it's in the shop this week.
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.
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.