Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (263952)	6/14/2002 6:45:35 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

Oh the poor dem's, already stepped in it. LOL Dems Fear Freeh's 9-11 Testimony Will Implicate Clinton Democrats on Capitol Hill now probing U.S. intelligence failures before last September's terrorist attacks are reluctant to seek the testimony of former FBI Director Louis Freeh because they fear his account would implicate ex-President Clinton in pre-9-11 national security lapses. "To spotlight any Freeh failures risks implicating [former Attorney General] Janet Reno, now a Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Florida, and, ultimately, Mr. Clinton," the Wall Street Journal reported Friday. Senate Democrats have discussed the former FBI director's role behind closed doors but so far haven't decided whether to bring him before the intelligence panel, probers involved in those discussions told the paper. Any 9-11 hearings that taint the former administration could severely impact the Democratic Party's fund-raising ability, since Clinton remains one of the party's biggest money draws. Democrats are also believed to be wary of damaging the White House prospects of New York Senator Hillary Clinton, whom polls show would be the party's first choice to run for president in 2004 if former Vice President Al Gore decides not to make a second run. In stark contast to the investigative blackout on Freeh, probers of both parties have shown no reluctance to grill Bush administration FBI chief Robert Mueller, with leading Democrats like Sen. Joseph Biden publicly slamming his testimony as "unacceptable." Mueller took charge of the FBI on Sept. 4, just a week before the 9-11 attacks. Freeh resigned last June 21. In the interim, acting FBI Director Thomas Pickard filled the job. Though some say Freeh's most lasting imprint on the bureau was to make investigating global terrorism a top priority, he has so far declined to make any comment on the 9-11 attacks. Now a senior vice president with banking and credit card giant MBNA Corp., Freeh refused to be interviewed by the Journal for its Friday report. Republicans say they may get around to calling the ex-FBI director one of these days, but hardly seem enthusiastic about the prospect. "I don't think anyone should have a free pass, and there won't be any free passes," Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., the lead Republican on the intelligence panel, told the Journal. "I see no reason that he wouldn't" be invited to testify eventually. Privately, however, GOP senators are said to be reluctant to subject Freeh to any 9-11 scrutiny out of a sense of loyalty to the ex-director - who was the one Clinton administration official to sometimes testify candidly about imbroglios like the Filegate and Chinagate scandals. "Republicans so embraced Mr. Freeh in their pursuit of Clinton administration scandals that their inclination now isn't to put him in the hot seat," the paper said. Another problem: Congressional Republicans would find it difficult to criticize Mr. Freeh now without acknowledging that Congress hadn't provided enough oversight of the agency, according to Kris Kolesnick, executive director of the National Whistleblower Center. Kolesnick is a former staffer to one of the FBI's chief critics, GOP Sen. Charles Grassley. newsmax.com tom watson tosiwmee

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (263952)	6/14/2002 7:34:54 PM
From: bonnuss_in_austin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

LOL!! Molly Ivins is GOOD, ain't she? I heard a rumor yesterday that the Aga Khan's son, I believe, is (might, etc) engaged to marry Rick Perry's daughter. Interesting that would be to some extent because the Aga Khan is the 'Pope' of the Ismaili Muslim religious sect. He's a rich dude, no doubt. So I would be inclined to imagine that where there's wealth, religion doesn't really matter much to the stumping Baptist Belt fundamentalist Republican preacher-policitians, like ... 'Get thine hands on the money,' like. That kinda thang. -g- I'll try to check out this rumor but thought I'd mention it here. bia