New York Times: Bill Clinton supported a dictator

"blush"

 

Your silence on Mark Rich is telling

 

If you are the President of the free world you have to be doing better than the "portly pepper pot"

 

You're forgetting about the additional $100 million the "Canuck" has pledged.

 

That's still a great phrase.

It will resonate through history.

Thanks, NYP.

 

Love this little passage from story:

Eleven months before Mr. Clinton’s statement, Mrs. Clinton co-signed a commission letter to the State Department that sounded “alarm bells” about the prospect that Kazakhstan might head the group. The letter stated that Kazakhstan’s bid “would not be acceptable,” citing “serious corruption,” canceled elections and government control of the news media.

 

1) Yes, and that proves that she does not agree with her husband, again an questionable concept invented by the Clintons in their quest for galactic domination.
2) Doc, $100 million to a foundation that, as far as I know, has done nothing but good in the worst parts of the world. Yes, that's a drag.
3) And Boom? I did not like the Marc Rich pardon much -- certainly not as much as VP chief-of-staff and convicted perjurer Scooter Libby did when he brokered it -- but the power is absolute, alas, which is how Daddy Bush pardoned everyone excpet Shoeless Joe Jackson on his way out of town so that his involvement in Iran-Contra would vanish. I'll take garden-variety venality over terrorist-enabling arms sales any day.

 

Fen's made my point exactly. If we assume that virtually every president was in some way crooked, then it comes down to the degree of their crookedness. So far, the signs pointing to Bush/Cheney's crookedness display a far greater severity than the Clintons. But don't let that get in the way of your thinking.

 

Damn that uppity woman, not in agreement with her husband. How dare she?!

 

GOP's been playing for keeps in a broad, malicious way, since Nixon. Recognize it and look to protect youself against the consequences of such behavior as best you can, or consign yourself to the peanut gallery and accept the consequences.

 

Just because ...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801310014?f=h_latest

Media Matters pretty much took down the whole premise of the Times story.

Some rather good reporting by the Canuckistani press on this form more than a decade ago. Blow's the whole premise of the article right out of the water.

Times in 2008

Canadian coverage in 1996

Yep, our liberal media, hard at work.

 

Somewhere, Jeff Gerth is smiling.