Replies

but some secrets just can't be let out-- they're too damaging, too dangerous.

Agreed.

But can you think of a hypothetical scenario for Vince Fosters's death that would be best to keep secret for resons of national security?

The simpler explanation is that x42 had lots of corrupt schemes going on. (*This is known*) People were often killed to keep them quiet. ( Pretty certain also). Foster's death had all the earmarks of an organized crime syndicate getting rid of a liabilty.

All indications were that Vince Foster wanted "out" and Clinton and friend "helped" him. I believe that there was corruption on both sides of the aisle that would have been exposed. RNC operatives like Caspar Weinberger, Oliver North and Bush senior come to mind. I agree that that a deal was brokered to protect the guilty. The scope of it all is the cause of my disillusionment.

Are John Ashcroft & GWB clueless or part of the coverup?

I don't like either choice. I wish there was another...

I read one of those books on the Vince Foster case, but can't remember many of the details. I think your read on it sounds reasonable, though. The corruption I think was known, or suspected, but they didn't have enough to prove it.

What really brought down Clinton, I'm convinced, was the Chinese cash and what they got for their money. Can you imagine if the impeachment had been over that? What the repercussions in the world would have been? That the Chinese communists had bought off a U.S. President? I could be wrong on this, though-- might be some other national security issue.

Does Bush know? I think he knows all about the national security issue, whatever it is, as do the rest of his inner circle-- the details of it would be important as they would affect his foreign policy decisions. Ashcroft? Who knows. I do think Bush made a conscious decision not to dig into all of the old Clinton scandals, botched investigations and coverups-- it wouldn't have done any good, you know. The media would have spun it horribly as the "politics of personal destruction", the Democrats would have screamed, and the Republicans would have been murdered at the midterms. It just would have been extremely destructive, you know, and didn't we all get enough of that during Clinton's 8 years? I think Bush just made the decision that that would not be the best thing for the country. I agree.