Clinton’s actions occurred long before September 11, 2001, long before we were a nation formally at war. Nor were we at war when Hillary Clinton “accidentally” reviewed more than 2,000 secret FBI files of Americans."A Very Good OpEd." Jim Simpson, Truth and Consequences, 1/1/05.
A blog about Islamic intolerance and fanaticism; socialism; communism; government stupidity; and lying weasels everywhere, hopefully couched in vibrant and literate English and foreign words that make us look good.
January 10, 2006
Sweet memories.
My good friend Jim Simpson over at Truth and Consequences lights yet another candle by highlighting for us Hillary Clinton's special sensitivity to the rights of citizens to be free of government (sort of) surveillance of their most personal details:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Great piece! Thanks for the link back to truth and cons. Another one for the bookmarks!
Weird
YW.
I followed Clintongate very closely at the time and the tidal wave of sleeze was entertaining in the extreme. I had forgotten that partickaler example of the Clintons' willingness to surf the wave.
To be fair to Hillary, here's a report on "Filegate" referenced in the Wikipedia: Independent counsel: No evidence to warrant prosecution against first lady in 'filegate'." CNN.com, 6/3/00.
In this report, Independent Counsel Robert Ray is quoted as saying, "The Final Report in the FBI files matter concludes that there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved in seeking confidential Federal Bureau of Investigation background reports of former White House staff from prior administrations of President Bush and President Reagan."
Note that Mr. Ray didn't say that there is no evidence, only that he didn't think that the evidence that DOES exist is -- in his personal opinion -- substantial or credible.
Undoubtedly, Mr. Ray would have to read it in the Intergalactic Source of Truth before he would call any evidence substantial and credidible.
Mr. Ray also did not say that a JUNIOR White House official had been involved in seeking the files. Was Craig Livingstone, head of the WH office of personnel security, a low-level or a high-level official? Or did the evidence reveal that a worker bee in that office was the one who requested the files?
We infer that Mr. Ray did not report who actually DID request/demand the files. The name(s) would be interesting to know, I confess. Or was the FBI clueless, CLUELESS, mind you, on the issue of who had requested the files? This is an organization that documents tabasco sauce usage by suspect crinimals but we are axed to believe there was no sign out sheet for those bad boy files going over to the WH!
Sure. Nothing out of the ordinary about THAT!
Note also that Mr. Ray did not say that Hillary hadn't reviewed the files. He merely said there was no SACE that she was involved in "seeking" the files.
Some of the background to this is revealed in a story (FBI Files Fiasco, CNN, __/__/97) in which it was reported that, "security office head Craig Livingstone was not a security professional, but a political operative, a one-time advance guy, a former bouncer who had spent a large part of his 37 years working on political campaigns."
Ergo, Mr. Livingstone was probably acting as a political operative in his office, bringing with him the nice ethical sensibilities for which former bouncer/political operatives are justly famous. The CNN report states that congressional Republicans discovered that "Clinton personnel security office improperly collected some 700 background FBI files of Republicans -- including former Secretary of State James A. Baker, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft and former spokesman Marlin Fitzwater . . . ."
We guess only an Independent Counsel could come up with an Official Hohumsky with that kind of info at hand.
Notwithstanding the 6/3/00 CNN report, the Colonel reaches the inevitable conclusion that Hillary was reading those FBI files every night in the bathtub.
Or are we being too cynical?
Us cynical? Nooo... Caustic and Sarcastic? Noooo...
Anyway, thanks for all the info, it was quite educational!
I was busy being self-involved during most of the Clinton Era. I only caught what the radio fed me while I was driving around (no TV for much of that period... THANKFULLY, LOL).
What I remember most was VAGUE DISSAPPOINTMENT in Perot politically shooting himself in the foot. And watching a guy that, at minimum, seemed like a phony getting into office.
Both parties have pretty much been a failure on many points, but I still find myself leaning, OK toppling, toward (what they tote as anyway) conservative economic philosophy.
The amount of corruption, control, and spin implemented in Washington could reverse the Earth's rotation.
The whole Alito hearing is making taste bile! Who are they looking for? Marx? Lenin? THEY ARE DEAD!
Stupid socialists!
Thanks again,
Weird
I too was disappointed that Perot went walkabout. Here was a guy who didn't parse every comma in his mind before he spoke and it was obvious that he wasn't "on message" by any standard known to the two major parties. What a rush.
But then he got weird, if you'll pardon the expression, and that was that.
See my post today on the Alito hearings.
The Colonel
Post a Comment