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 : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (3229)	6/23/2004 12:38:16 AM
From: abstract	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35834

AL GORE TO ACCUSE BUSH ADMINISTRATION OF INTENTIONAL DISTORTION ON IRAQ/AL QAEDA TIES IN DC SPEECH THURSDAY Tue Jun 22 2004 17:28:24 ET Washington, DC-- In a major Washington policy address this Thursday, former Vice President Al Gore will accuse the Bush Administration of intentionally misleading the American people by continuing to falsely claim a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. He will charge that Bush and Cheney have "institutionalized dishonesty as an essential element of their policy process." Gore will also urge the broadcast media to further resist Administration efforts to manipulate and intimidate them, to fearlessly report the fact that there is no Al Qaeda/Saddam collaborative relationship, as the 9/11 Commission staff report has concluded. Gore will also discuss the implications of the Administration's claim to be above the law in ordering the torture of suspects - and their claim that the Commander in Chief's power trumps all other laws. He will call for the Administration to reveal all orders given the military on the treatment of prisoners. drudgereport.com

To: Sully- who wrote (3229)	7/1/2004 6:31:08 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

THE LIES OF SLICK WILLY: Former President Blows His Top www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,5-2004290413,00 June 23, 2004 Betrayal ... Clinton cheated on his wife with Monica Lewinsky FORMER President Bill Clinton blew his top on BBC’s Panorama last night when quizzed about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Asked if he was sorry, a furious Clinton – busy plugging his autobiography My Life – launched into a tirade about media bias. Here TREVOR KAVANAGH assesses the man whose public and private lives clashed. <font size=4> BILL CLINTON is entitled to rewrite history. That’s what memoirs are for. But for those who witnessed his Grand Jury evidence and the Starr inquiry, his book borders on self-justifying fiction. The ex-President, known as Slick Willy, uses his 1,000-page autobiography to whitewash eight flawed years in power. Independent prosecutor Ken Starr concluded that he committed perjury, obstructed justice, tampered with witnesses and abused his power. “The President continued to lie and lie and lie,” he said. He fibbed about drug-taking — saying he “didn’t inhale” — and his relentless adultery. Not only did he lie on oath by saying: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” He also persuaded Monica Lewinsky and others to lie. Clinton destroyed the reputation of an innocent woman, Paula Jones, whom he allowed to be denounced as “trailer trash”. Many of his closest aides and friends felt betrayed when a man they revered was exposed as an insatiable and indiscriminate predator. He was pursued by scandal and money worries and disgraced his seals of office as leader of the free world. He now pretends his irresponsible relationship with an awestruck junior intern was a rare marital betrayal. And that his wife Hillary felt as if she had been “punched” when he woke her to confess. Smiler ... Clinton uses charm to make the world forget his bad behaviour But Hillary knew he was a serial womaniser and he virtually admits the real reason she was shocked was that he had been found out. To be fair, there were successes. His eight years as President from 1992 coincided with the most stable and prosperous period in American history. But that was largely due to the deft stewardship of Federal Bank chief Alan Greenspan. There was a near-triumph over Middle East peace — sabotaged by treacherous Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Clinton’s negotiating charm played a part in Northern Ireland and he was decisive in the first Gulf War against Saddam Hussein. But however he whitewashes his years in the White House, he will be remembered not for those achievements but for his personal misconduct. There have been other Presidential philanderers. But unlike the most famous of them, John F Kennedy, who faced down the Kremlin over the Cuban missile crisis, Clinton can claim no great accomplishments to offset seedy personal conduct. Americans didn’t have to be prudish to be shocked that their leader enjoyed oral sex with Monica Lewinsky while on the phone to senior Congressmen. They hated the embarrassing public testimony that, as Arafat waited outside the Oval Office, Clinton used a cigar as a sex aid, then lit up and said: “This tastes good.” Even in this liberated age, it was hard, as they sang Hail To The Chief, to realise they were saluting a man who had ejaculated over his secretary’s dress. These were the sorry stories one White House insider described as “clinically graphic, not the sort of thing you’d want your children to hear”. Still, Clinton remains the hero of the sentimental Left. <font size=5> They condemn Republican George Bush for joining the National Guard rather than fighting in Vietnam. But for Clinton, his draft-dodging in that conflict is a badge of honour. <font size=4> When Republican President Richard Nixon was chucked out of office over Watergate, the Left whooped with approval. But when Clinton sailed close to impeachment over persistent, calculated lies, fans dismissed it as a lapse of judgment. To be fair, it is not just the Left who now see the Clinton years through a rosy glow. His sunny smile and megawatt personality have endeared him to many who once despised him. He is even manoeuvring now to install Hillary as the next US President but one. So it is no accident that Bill Clinton has timed his memoirs to overshadow the candidacy of lacklustre Democrat John Kerry. He will do nothing to help Kerry in the 2004 election while his wife has a chance of succeeding Bush in 2008. Clinton may have made life hell for Hillary as First Lady. Now he aims to restore his image as America’s First Man. Clinton in his own words <font size=3> Compiled by MARTIN PHILLIPS ON Monica Lewinsky: “I misled people, including my wife. I deeply regret that. I was involved in two great fights. A struggle with the Republicans, which I won. And a struggle with my old demons, which I lost.” Why he had an affair: “Because I could. I’ve thought about it a lot. There are lots of more sophisticated explanations . . . but none of them are an excuse.” Confessing to Hillary that he had lied about Lewinsky: “It was a bad day. She looked at me as if I had punched her in the gut – almost as angry at me for lying to her as for what I’d done. We were each other’s best friends. We’d been through everything together. I deserved a kicking all right.” Confessing to daughter Chelsea: “Sooner or later, every child learns that their parents are not perfect.” Saving his marriage: “We did it together. We did it individually. We did family work. There was obviously a lot of pain involved, because I had made a terrible personal mistake which I didn’t try to correct until almost a year later.” Exhaustion: “Almost all the mistakes I’ve made in my life, personal and public, happened to me when I was so tired I could hardly lift my arms above my shoulders. I bet it’s true in every White House that’s ever existed.” Special prosecutor Kenneth Starr and the bid to impeach him: “It was fundamentally a political move. It was not rooted in any established principles of constitution, or law, or precedent. People strongly disagree with what I did. I did, too. Ken Starr spent $70million to find out I’m a sinner. You could have told him that for free.” On himself: “Whether I’m a good man is, of course, for God to judge. I know that I am not as good as my strongest supporters believe or as I hope to become, nor as bad as my harshest critics assert.” Forgiving himself for his mistakes: “I’ve had a wonderful life since I left the White House. I’m thrilled with how Hillary’s doing. And we’re still laughing, having a good time together. My life had a lot more good than bad.” His triumphs: “The day the Kosovar war ended and I knew Milosevic’s days were numbered was a great day. I had a lot of great days.” His failures: “I regret that I didn’t succeed in getting Osama bin Laden. And, equally, I’m sorry that I wasn’t able enough to convince the Israelis and the Palestinians to make peace.” September 11: “My first thought was, ‘Osama bin Laden did this.’ ” The Queen: “I was taken with her grace and intelligence and the clever manner in which she discussed public issues, probing me for information and insights without venturing too far into expressing her own political views.” Tony Blair’s alliance with George Bush over Iraq: “I think he thought, ‘In for a dime, in for a dollar.’ The most important thing now is for all of us to support a stable, peaceful and pluralistic Iraq.”

To: Sully- who wrote (3229)	11/16/2004 6:24:54 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Clinton's legacy AMERICAN THINKER The Clinton Presidential Center and Library opens this week in Little Rock. Like him or not, we must admit that William Jefferson Clinton leaves a powerful legacy, one that vastly expands the ability of political leaders to misbehave and remain in office. One of the most embarrassing but in many ways illuminating endeavors of academics, media pundits, and certain recent inhabitants of the White House, is to focus on something called a “Presidential Legacy.” Bill Clinton spent an inordinate amount of time “building” his. Of course, most presidential legacies take years to develop and evolve. Harry Truman, for example, was basically deemed a failure at the end of his term, requiring the election of war hero Ike to repair the damage. But because of his acknowledged strength during the Cold War, and the promotion of a socialist “Fair Deal,” Truman is now considered by many historians as one of the, “Great Presidents.” In contrast, John Kennedy, due most certainly to the shock of his tragic death, was instantly acclaimed with accolades that would embarrass a Churchill, Lincoln, and Jefferson combined. Now, slowly, his legacy is being revised to its more proper status as an interesting, transitional, style over substance, three-year episode. Bill Clinton is truly unique, to say the least. His legacy, one can argue, began even before he was elected. It is based on a pure, now uncontestable, although lamentable, political truth. It is this: no matter what gaffe or crime one commits, there is little danger of long-term harm. He quite clearly recognized that the public has a tremendous capacity for forgiveness, a love of the sensational, and, most important of all, the attention span of a flea. How can a serial-adulterer, a lying, draft-dodging, dysfunctional pot-smoker get elected to the presidency? Bubba, in his genius, showed us the way. Poor old Tricky Dick, getting caught trying to cover-up the crimes of his underlings made a big mistake, -- resigning. Clinton proved that the key to survival is to hang tough, be disgraced gracefully, and then forget about it, because soon everyone else will forget about it too. Of course, in Nixon’s defense, Clinton was aided and abetted, not hounded unmercifully, by a sympathetic big media press corps. But the suspicion remains nonetheless, that Nixon need not have resigned. Imagine if you will, that instead of a burglary occurring on Nixon’s watch, something else happened. Perhaps a key aid and trusted friend committed suicide while the First Lady ransacked his office? Or, perhaps, hundreds of FBI files of potential political enemies were discovered stolen by a man no one seems to have hired? Or what if Pat Nixon fired the entire White House travel office to help old friends? Or what if China gave laundered money toward his re-election? Or what if Nixon were caught having sex after church on Easter Sunday with an intern in the Oval Office? Or what if Nixon were caught lying to a federal grand jury? Or maybe convicted felons were pardoned for no good reason in the last hours of his term? Had these and a couple of dozen other unpleasant things occurred, what should he have done? Bubba knew. Deny. Deny again. Blame enemies. Admit, with an ingratiating (or repulsive) Tom Sawyer like smirk that mistakes were made. And then, the most magical of all words, “move on.” A simple formula, but more effective than ever was imagined by lesser political beings. Clinton understood that issues, policies, and legislation, hold no interest for the vast majority of Americans. To be honest, he himself had little interest in such things except as a means to an end, being President. What really matters is appearance, style, the charismatic persona. Events come and go, but what excites or enrages today induces yawns tomorrow. The Legacy lives on, but not everyone gets it right. Jim McGreevey in New Jersey almost got it right. After 9/11 he gave the job of his state’s homeland security chief to his unqualified secret boyfriend. Pretty bad doings it must be admitted. But he needn’t have “pledged” to resign. Two months later his approval ratings are up! Clinton’s own Assistant National Security Advisor Samuel Berger knew better. Proximity to the Master led this unelected official to grasp the lesson by osmosis. In July it was discovered that he “accidentally” stuffed highly classified notes into his pants and socks to take home and “misplace.” He quietly announced it was a “mistake” and disappeared from public view to let time do its magic. He was soon enough able to become a key member of the Kerry’s campaign staff. Clearly he learned the lessons of the “Legacy” of the Master.

To: Sully- who wrote (3229)	11/18/2004 1:29:51 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Whitewashing Whitewater By Joseph Curl THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published November 18, 2004 LITTLE ROCK -- In his new presidential library that opens today, Bill Clinton defiantly mocks the impeachment proceedings against him, charging that the independent counsel who investigated him had "a bias against the president" and blaming Republicans for engaging in the "politics of personal destruction." The former president, in exhibits he approved, repeatedly castigates Newt Gingrich, accusing him of instructing Republicans to label Democrats as "sick," and asserts that the former House speaker led a cabal of radical right-wing "revolutionaries" bent on destroying Mr. Clinton for one reason: "Because we can." "The impeachment battle was not about the Constitution or the rule of law, but was instead a quest for power that the president's opponents could not win at the ballot box," says one exhibit placard in a library alcove titled "The Fight for Power." "In this combustible climate, the congressional Republicans took the politics of personal destruction to a new level, using the subpoena power to investigate Democrats, attack them in a number of public hearings and attempt to change popular public policies by discrediting the president and members of his administration personally," says another. All of the text included in the exhibit was personally approved -- and in some cases, even written or "tweaked" -- by Mr. Clinton himself, said Bruce Lindsey, a longtime Clinton confidant who served as White House deputy counsel for the former president. Although Mr. Gingrich would not comment on the new exhibit, his spokesman did. "Why should anyone expect that a dishonest administration would produce an honest library?" Rick Tyler said. "It looks like we have the first 'I pity me' presidential library." The alcove -- one of 15 on the first floor of the William J. Clinton Presidential Center that recount the administration's achievements over eight years -- covers a slew of scandals that engulfed the Clinton presidency, including Whitewater, an Arkansas land deal that went bad; the White House travel office firings; and the former president's sexual affair with an intern his daughter's age, Monica Lewinsky. The exhibit includes several attacks against former independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, who is labeled "a conservative activist who had never prosecuted a case and who had already shown a bias against the President." "Starr repeatedly expanded the scope of his investigation. Witnesses complained that Starr and his staff would threaten them with jail in an attempt to get them to change their stories. In January 1998, Starr began to look into the President's testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky," one placard in the alcove reads. In the only instance in which the library's exhibit acknowledges wrongdoing, the text stops short of admitting that Mr. Clinton lied to the American people when he asserted that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." "In September 1998, President Clinton acknowledged that he had not been forthcoming about the relationship," the exhibit says, but goes on to say, "On this basis, Starr, the Republican Congressional leadership and their allies launched an impeachment drive that the overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars said was unjustified." The combative text in the impeachment alcove returns often to Republicans, who won a majority in the House in 1994 and have picked up seats in almost every election since then. "From the start of the Clinton presidency, the administration's opponents waged an unprecedented fight for power. Seeking to steer America sharply to the right, Republican leaders pursued a radical agenda through radical means. They used new tools and tactics -- lawsuits, investigations, new partisan media, front groups, a secret slush fund, and deeply divisive rhetoric -- in their battle for political supremacy," one placard says. After Democrats picked up House seats in 1998, which the exhibit concludes was the voters' way of telling Republicans "to stop their impeachment drive ... Speaker Gingrich was asked why Republicans were proceeding anyway, instead of finding another remedy such as censure or reprimand." "The Speaker replied, 'Because we can,' " according to the exhibit. Clinton aides on hand for a media walkthrough yesterday of the $165 million library defended the exhibit. "Impeachment was a part of an eight-year struggle beginning in '93, escalating in '94 after Republicans took the Congress," Mr. Lindsey said. "The Congress did it because, as Newt Gingrich said, because they could, because they had the votes. That is the context in which he believes it should be viewed." Mr. Lindsey added that although the text of the exhibit contains no words of regret, a video display in the alcove shows a clip of "when he went out to the lawn and said, 'For the part that I played in doing this, I apologize.' " John Podesta, Mr. Clinton's chief of staff from 1998 until 2001, also said the impeachment section of the library strikes the correct balance. "It is a look back at the times, a reflection about what was going on over the course of a very long series of investigations that didn't amount to anything," he said. "That dealt with this in the context that it was an important event in the presidency but put it together with what was really going on at Washington at the time. I don't think it's defensive." Mr. Podesta noted that none of the other 11 presidential libraries deal as frankly with scandal. "I don't think there's an 'Iran-Contra' alcove in the Reagan library," he said, laughing, unaware that the library does treat the affair. "There'll be partisans on both sides who think it's too much or too little, but I think it's an honest treatment that will stand the test of history." But there are instances in the exhibit that, while technically true, skirt the edge of truth. For instance, one placard in the alcove states that although seven separate investigations of the Clinton administration cost more than $100 million, "none of these efforts yielded a conviction for public misconduct." In fact, at least 14 persons were convicted in the Whitewater investigation for fraud or conspiracy involving bogus loans through public institutions, mail fraud and income-tax evasion, among others. Mr. Clinton himself agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as a means to end the Lewinsky inquiry and head off an Arkansas court move to punish him for misleading answers in a deposition taken during the Paula Jones sexual-harassment suit. •Jerry Seper contributed to this report.

To: Sully- who wrote (3229)	11/19/2004 8:54:15 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Reigning Like a Dog By George Neumayr - George Neumayr is executive editor of The American Spectator. God sent his rain down on the just and unjust at Bill Clinton's presidential library opening on Thursday -- a celebration of his "glorified house trailer," as Clinton put it, quoting a British publication's description of the architectural monstrosity next to the Arkansas river. Looking unwell and spent from his heart surgery, Clinton spoke of "red and blue" coming together, though there was little blue apart from the color of panchos in the audience at what looked like a rained-out U2 concert. It was an event held in the South but it might as well have been held in Hollywood. The press regarded it as a moment of great American majesty, but it smacked of the depressing cultural shabbiness that Clinton's Fleetwood Mac inauguration augured. The 1970s America that Clinton's events always epitomize is so devoid of distinctively American high culture that it has to outsource cultural performances to foreign rockers like Bono. The press purred over the proceedings, though strangely the Clinton News Network and pro-Clinton gabbers on MSNBC felt safe enough to come out and acknowledge that Clinton as president had the morals of a strip club owner. "A rascally dog," Hillary Rosen on MSNBC called him. What happened to the left's agnosticism about attacks on Clinton's character? The infidelity charges against him were "uncorroborated," "baloney," "unbelievable," they used to say. Gennifer Flowers and all the others were lying connivers, they assured the American people. The right called him a "rascally dog" and they cried foul. Now they call him a rascally dog and pat themselves on the back for honesty that comes about 14 years too late. Clinton is even calling his conduct "public" now. Well, not quite. In an interview with Peter Jennings, he says that it was "public-personal." "I made a terrible public-personal mistake, but I paid for it, many times over," he blubbered angrily. "No other president ever had to endure someone like Ken Starr inviting innocent people, because they wouldn't lie, in a systematic way, and having respectable news outlets treat them like they were serious, and parroting everything they leaked. No one ever had to try to save people from ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, and people in Haiti from a military dictator that was murdering them, and all the other problems I dealt with, while every day, an entire apparatus was devoted to destroying him." Herod Antipas is still attacking John the Baptist. Clinton's only real legacy was on display at the library opening: he succeeded so well in normalizing scandal and lawbreaking that he can still receive a gaudy reception at a library opening. Many historians will wonder: What erosion occurred in American culture under liberalism that made it possible for a thoroughly disgraced president, a disbarred lawyer, and de facto felon to be so lavishly honored just years after a historic impeachment? Not so long ago, after Clinton granted pardons to one of the most wanted fugitives in the world, people were calling him a pathological grifter, but all is forgotten in the age of celebrity, even as Clinton's pathological lying resumes in interviews like the one with Jennings where also he says "there's not any example of where I ever disgraced this country publicly. And in spite of it all, you don't have any example where I ever lied to the American people about my job, where I ever let the American people down, and I had more support from the world, and world leaders, and people around the world, when I quit than when I started." Clinton had plenty of "the world" on hand at Thursday's ceremony, ready to congratulate him for his noble retirement plan to fight sexually transmitted diseases in Africa. Clinton's solace in the opinion of the "world" is one more illustration of the Democrats' blue-state crisis: the less support they find in America, the more they seek comfort in the approval of the world. And what does the "world" mean? It means the decadent elite they fraternize with at global events that invariably make the problems of the world worse. Democrats use the phrase "the world" with a reverence that would make one think they were referring to the Trinity. They just take it for granted that the world, however they define it, is right and ordinary Americans are wrong, and then wonder why they can't win national elections. Clinton's final observation at the ceremony was curious. He basically said conservatism "draws lines" and liberalism crosses them, and that's the glory of liberalism. He prided himself on knocking down "barriers." He draws esteem from knowing that illegitimate children can now answer the question, "What does your Mom do for a living?" thanks to his many employment initiatives.

To: Sully- who wrote (3229)	11/19/2004 1:02:29 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Bill 'Captain Queeg' Clinton Threatens Peter Jennings A paranoid-sounding Bill Clinton threatened ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings in an interview broadcast Thursday night, in a bizarre rant about his impeachment that laid bare the ex-president's persecution complex. "You don't want to go here, Peter," Clinton warned, after Jennings told him that historians ranked him second to last of all presidents in terms of moral authority. Squinting his eyes, an angry Clinton seethed, "You don't want to go here. Not after what you people did. And the way you - your network - what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every little sleazy thing he did. No one has any idea of what that's like." The amazing exchange came after Clinton at first claimed he didn't care about the verdict of historians. "I had more support from the world when I quit than when I started," he claimed. "And I will go to my grave being at peace about it. And I don't really care about what [the historians] think." Immediately, Jennings challenged Clinton, all but calling him a liar. "Oh, yes you do . . . Excuse me, Mr. President. I can feel it across the room. You care very deeply." Jennings' challenge sent Clinton into a thinly veiled rage, prompting him to threaten, "You don't want to go here, Peter." The full exchange went like this: JENNINGS (Discussing rankings by presidential historians]: They gave you a forty-first in terms of moral authority - after Nixon. CLINTON: They're wrong about that. You know why they're wrong about it? They're wrong about it. JENNINGS: Why, sir? CLINTON: Because we had $100 million spent against us in all these inspections . . . In spite of it all, you don't have any example where I ever lied to the American people about my job, where I have let the American people down. And I had more support from the world when I quit than when I started. And I will go to my grave being at peace about it. And I don't really care about what they think. JENNINGS: Oh, yes you do. CLINTON: They have no idea . . . JENNINGS: Excuse me, Mr. President. I can feel it across the room. You care very deeply. CLINTON: No, no. I care. I care. You don't want to go here, Peter. You don't want to go here. Not after what your people did. And the way you - your network - what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every little sleazy thing he did. No one has any idea of what that's like.

To: Sully- who wrote (3229)	11/20/2004 5:56:01 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Bill Clinton: Narcissist with a Martyr Complex Patterico blog By now you've surely heard about Peter Jennings's interview with Bill Clinton: The former president, a Democrat, said he would go to his grave at peace that, while he had personal failings, he never lied to the American people about his job as president. Clinton added that he did not care about what his detractors thought about him. Jennings said it seemed to him that Clinton did care. The former president then rounded on the media, saying: "You don’t want to go here, Peter. You don’t want to go here. Not after what you people did and the way you, your network, what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every, little sleazy thing he leaked. No-one has any idea what that’s like." I don't understand why people are surprised by this. It's the same damn thing Clinton did when confronted about Monica Lewinsky by a BBC interviewer: One of the reasons he [Kenneth Starr] got away with it is because people like you only ask people like me the questions. You gave him a complete free ride. Any abuse they wanted to do, they indicted all these little people from Arkansas, what did you care about them, they’re not famous, who cares that their lives were trampled. Who cares if their children were humiliated? I watched that entire BBC interview recently when I flew to England, and I came to the conclusion that Clinton is a pathological narcissist, to the point of having a martyr complex. It's all about him: he is the saint who has been put upon for his entire life, as he simply tries to make life better for others. The clips I have heard of the Jennings interview merely confirm this opinion.

To: Sully- who wrote (3229)	11/22/2004 6:38:04 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Why should the Saudis, et al, give millions to Bubba? Can anybody say, "Hillary?" Saudis, Arabs Funneled Millions to President Clinton's Library BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun November 22, 2004 LITTLE ROCK, ARK. - President Clinton's new $165 million library here was funded in part by gifts of $1 million or more each from the Saudi royal family and three Saudi businessmen. The governments of Dubai, Kuwait, and Qatar and the deputy prime minister of Lebanon all also appear to have donated $1 million or more for the archive and museum that opened last week. Democrats spent much of the presidential campaign this year accusing President Bush of improperly close ties to Saudi Arabia. The case was made in Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11," in a bestselling book by Craig Unger titled "House of Bush, House of Saud," and by the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Kerry. "This administration delayed pressuring the Saudis," Mr. Kerry said on October 20. "I will insist that the Saudis crack down on charities that funnel funds to terrorists... and on anti-American and anti-Israel hate speech. "The Media Fund, a Democratic group whose president is a former Clinton White House aide, Harold Ickes, spent millions airing television commercials in swing states with scripts such as, "The Saudi royal family...wealthy...powerful...corrupt. And close Bush family friends." Perhaps as a result, the Saudi donations to the Clinton library are raising some eyebrows. Mr. Unger said he suspects that the Saudi support may have something to do with a possible presidential bid by Senator Clinton in 2008. "They want to keep their options open no matter who's in power and whether that's four years from now or whatever," the author said. "Just a few million is nothing to them to keep their options open." The chief financial officer for the William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation, Andrew Kessel, said that the vast majority of the roughly 113,000 donors to the foundation are ordinary Americans who made small gifts. "We have 91,000 who gave $100 or less," he said in an interview Friday. "It's not all Saudi princes." Information about the donors is available to the public on a single touch-screen computer mounted on a wall on the third floor of the recently opened library. Eventually, most who have contributed $100,000 or more will be listed on a wall in the museum's lobby, Mr. Kessel said. However, some donors have asked that their names not be released. "We don't have many," Mr. Kessel said, adding, "It doesn't involve anyone controversial." The computer lists donors by categories that correspond to the size of the gift. But there are no dollar figures provided for each of the funding levels. Asked why the donor categories were not publicly defined, Mr. Kessel said,"It was a decision we made.We really don't need to at this point." As a charitable organization, the Clinton Foundation is not required to make the names of its donors or the amounts of their gifts public. However, some of the other foundations that contributed to the library have disclosed their gifts on financial reports that are available from the Internal Revenue Service. By comparing those reports with the donor categories on the third-floor computer screen in the library, The New York Sun was able to match donor categories with approximate dollar amounts. The highest tier, "Trustees," includes donations from 57 individuals, couples, or other entities. IRS reports reviewed by the Sun show that the foundations at this level have generally given or pledged $1 million or more. The Wasserman Foundation of Los Angeles, founded by movie mogul Lew Wasserman, gave the Clinton library $3 million. The Roy and Christine Sturgis Charitable Trust pledged $4 million. The Anheuser-Busch Foundation has given $200,000 annually for the last several years as part of what appears to be a $1 million pledge. The Annenberg Foundation also gave $1 million. The Saudi royal family and the governments of Dubai, Kuwait, and Qatar donated at this "Trustee" level, as did the governments of Brunei and Taiwan. Also listed as trustees are three Saudi businessmen - Abdullah Al-Dabbagh, Nasser Al-Rashid, and Walid Juffali. Other notables at the "Trustee" level include the deputy prime minister of Lebanon, Issam Fares; Hollywood director Steven Spielberg and his wife, actress Kate Capshaw, and an heir to the Wal-Mart fortune, Alice Walton. The next tier down is labeled "Philanthropists." A major New York labor organization, Local 1199 of the Service Employees International Union, donated at this level, which appears to correspond to gifts of $500,000 to $1 million. Also donating in this range was the editor of the Las Vegas Sun, Brian Greenspun, who was one of Mr. Clinton's roommates at Yale. On the level below that are the "Humanitarians." Based on benchmarks available from other sources, the "Humanitarians" seem to have given between $100,000 and $500,000. In their ranks are the King of Morocco, Mohammed VI, as well as a Pakistani-American businessman from California, Farooq Bajwa. Several perennial Clinton donors are on this list, such as the Big Apple Supermarkets chief, John Catsimatidis, and a San Diego class action lawyer, William Lerach. The U.S.-Islamic World Conference gave at the Humanitarian level, as did several Jewish groups, the Jewish Communal Fund, the Jewish Community Foundation, and the University of Judaism, according to the information available on the computer screen in the Clinton Library here. The most controversial known donation to Mr. Clinton's library is also recorded at this level: a gift from a Manhattan socialite and singer, Denise Rich. Ms. Rich gave the foundation $450,000 while her fugitive ex-husband, Marc Rich, was seeking a pardon on tax-evasion and racketeering charges. Mr. Clinton granted the pardon hours before he left office, triggering a federal criminal investigation, as well as congressional inquiries. As a result of that flap, a House committee voted in 2001 to require public disclosure of all large donations to presidential libraries. But the legislation stalled. Another confounding aspect of the donor list available at the Clinton library is that, in nearly every case, it lacks any information beyond the name of the individual or company who gave. There are no hometowns or addresses for the donors and only in rare instances is there mention of an employer. Campaign finance records generally include this data. Many of the numerous $100 gifts were for the inscribed bricks, or "pavers," that surround fountains just in front of the building. The same computer that lists the major donors also shows the minor ones where to find their paver. As a result, lines at the sole terminal are sometimes long. President George H.W. Bush's library, which opened in 1997 in College Station, Texas, also received significant financial support from overseas. The governments of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Japan each gave $1 million or more, while the People's Republic of China donated between $50,000 and $100,000. The Chinese communist government may also have chipped in for Mr. Clinton's library. The Chinese Overseas Real Estate Development company gave at the $100,000 or higher level. So did the National Opera of Paris. Fund-raising for the Clinton Library began in 1999, while Mr. Clinton was still in office. However, the fund-raising team reportedly refrained from soliciting gifts from foreigners or foreign governments until Mr. Clinton left the White House in January 2001. Aides to the former president said the donations support not only the library complex, but also the foundation's other work, such as distributing AIDS drugs abroad and shoring up small businesses in Harlem. Mr. Unger, who wrote "House of Bush, House of Saud," said he thinks the gifts to Mr. Clinton's library pale in comparison to business deals that Mr. Bush's family has done with the Saudis. The author said the gifts to ex-presidents are designed to encourage a pro-Saudi attitude on the part of present or future occupants of the White House. "It would be surprising if they didn't give," Mr. Unger said."The Saudis have given to every presidential library for the last 30 years, Republican and Democrat." A Washington Post editorial on Thursday decried the lack of disclosure of the Clinton Library's funders, calling it "outrageous." Said the editorial,"the presidential libraries, though built and endowed with private funds, are public property, run by the National Archives. The public has a right to know who's underwriting them." nysun.com

To: Sully- who wrote (3229)	11/29/2004 12:44:45 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The Clintons' win-loss record Published November 28, 2004 Washington Times Editorial Two weeks after yet another Democratic debacle at the polls, a crowd estimated at 30,000 celebratory partisans joined Bill and Hillary Clinton in a literal and metaphorical rainstorm to commemorate his two-term presidency at a ceremony dedicating the William J. Clinton Presidential Center in Little Rock. With Bill reportedly still weak and tired from his recent heart-bypass surgery, Hillary handled many of the non-stop media interviews, including a lengthy prime-time appearance on the Fox News Channel the night before the dedication. How appropriate. Having been clobbered in the Nov. 2 elections, the Democratic Party lies in tatters. Meanwhile, Hillary, emerging as her party's front-runner for the 2008 nomination, turns in a co-starring performance at the Clinton library celebration in Little Rock, where the all-Hillary-all-the-time media extravaganza effectively turned into a debutante party with all the presidential trimmings. While the last 12 years have obviously been great for all Democrats named Clinton, perhaps their party colleagues should take a closer look at how they have fared since the self-styled "Comeback Kid" turned a 25 percent, second-place performance into victory in the Feb. 18, 1992, New Hampshire primary. The record for the Democratic Party is as definitive as it is devastating. Going into the 1992 elections with Bill Clinton at the top of his party's ticket, Democrats occupied 266 seats in the House, producing a 100-seat advantage over Republicans. With only 166 representatives, Republicans hadn't controlled so few House seats since the day after the 1982 election, when the highest post-World War II unemployment rate (10.8 percent) contributed to the defeat of 22 incumbent Republicans. In November 1992, as the coattails-free Mr. Clinton captured the presidency, the GOP picked up 10 seats in the House by defeating 16 Democratic incumbents. Democrats fared better in the Senate, but they were still unable to add to the 57 seats that they controlled in the 100-member chamber before the election. The first electoral experience of House Democrats with Mr. Clinton as the head of their party wasn't very good. But those results were nothing compared to the debacle that was about to envelop them (and their party colleagues in the Senate) during the 1994 midterms. Less than a week after his inauguration, Mr. Clinton appointed his wife to head a new commission to reform health care. The plan she produced evolved into a political catastrophe. On Sept. 26, 1994, six weeks before the midterm elections, the health-care overhaul overseen by Mrs. Clinton was officially declared dead by Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell. The very next day, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich gathered more than 300 Republicans on the Capitol steps to unveil the party's 10-point Contract with America, which Mr. Gingrich intended to use to nationalize the congressional elections. The Nov. 8, 1994, election was a landslide of historic proportions. Republicans: 1) defeated 34 Democratic incumbent representatives (without losing a single Republican incumbent in the House) and captured 52 Democratic-held seats in the House; 2) won majority control of the House (230-204 with one independent) for the first time in 40 years; 3) defeated the Democratic speaker of the House; and 4) recaptured majority control (52-48) of the Senate for the first time in eight years by beating two Democratic incumbents and winning six open seats vacated by retiring Democrats. The next day, Democratic Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama switched parties. He was followed three months later by Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, whose defection to the GOP produced a 54-46 Republican majority. The 1994 election produced epochal political results at the state level as well. Three-term New York Gov. Mario Cuomo was one of five Democratic incumbents defeated as Republicans gained control of 30 governorships, the same number controlled by Democrats after the 1992 election. In 1992, Democrats controlled 29 state legislatures; control of 14 others was split; and Republicans held majorities in six state legislatures. After the 1994 elections, Republicans controlled 19 state legislatures, one more than Democrats. Mr. Clinton easily won re-election in 1996, but Republicans maintained control of the House and increased their majority in the Senate. While Democrats again achieved incremental gains in the House in 1998 and 2000, and actually tied the GOP in the Senate (50-50) in 2000, Republicans continued to exercise majority control in both bodies after both elections. In large part due to the Clinton-related baggage that Vice President Al Gore had to carry throughout the 2000 presidential campaign, Democrats lost the White House despite the fact that the unemployment rate had fallen below 4 percent by Election Day. On the other hand, Mrs. Clinton won her Senate race in New York. Republicans temporarily lost control of the Senate in June 2001, when James Jeffords became an independent, but the GOP regained majority status at the ballot box in November 2002. Republicans improved their majority in the House in the 2002 and 2004 elections. Today, the GOP controls more House seats than it has since the 1946 election. Republicans also added four Senate seats in 2004 (55-44-1) as George W. Bush won re-election by 3.5 million votes. Today, Republicans continue to control more state senates and state houses than Democrats do. Indeed, the 20 state legislatures over which Republicans exercise complete control today represent more than three times the six legislatures the GOP controlled in 1992 before Mr. Clinton won the presidency. Meanwhile, with Washington state's gubernatorial race still undecided, GOP governors outnumber Democrats (28-21). That's 10 more governorships than the GOP held after the 1992 elections. And Republicans now control the governorships of the four largest states (California, Texas, New York and Florida). Yes, yes, yes. But Mrs. Clinton is the front-runner for 2008. Well, maybe that simply represents a continuation of the Democrats' political problems.

To: Sully- who wrote (3229)	12/3/2004 1:32:20 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Meet the Newest Member of the Faculty Clinton pardons a terrorist, and now she's teaching in Clinton, N.Y. BY ROGER KIMBALL - WSJ.com Friday, December 3, 2004 12:01 a.m. At Hamilton College--an elite liberal arts institution in Clinton, N.Y.--you can take courses in Roman civilization, Shakespeare and the "Emergence of Modern Western Europe, 1500-1815." All well and good. You can also take something called "Resistance Memoirs: Writing, Identity and Change." That last course--a month-long, half-credit seminar--is scheduled to begin next month. Its teacher is Susan Rosenberg, formerly of the Weather Underground. Remember the Weather Underground? Its self-described revolutionaries, mostly middle-class, dedicated themselves to supporting radical black causes and tearing apart American society in the 1970s and early 1980s. In 1970, they blew up a townhouse when a bomb detonated prematurely and killed a few of their troops. Kathy Boudin, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and other high-profile members of the group spent the next decade or so running from the police and, some of them, continuing to pursue careers in criminal violence. Ms. Rosenberg did her part. In October 1981, in an operation code-named "The Big Dance," several black radicals and members of the Weather Underground held up a Brinks armored car in Nanuet, N.Y. In the course of that act of domestic terrorism, they murdered Peter Paige, a Brinks guard, and police officers Edward O'Grady and Waverly Brown, the only black officer on the Nyack, N.Y., force. Ms. Rosenberg, then still at large, was indicted as an accessory. According to John Castellucci's "The Big Dance," an account of the Brinks robbery, Ms. Rosenberg's role in the Brinks job was performing surveillance, driving a getaway car and transmitting orders. "Any white who had taken part in the robbery," Mr. Castellucci writes, "would have received orders from her." Mr. Castellucci reports that the Brinks robbery was only one of several violent episodes that Ms. Rosenberg was involved with in the late 1970s and early 1980s. She was finally apprehended in November 1984 while unloading a cache of weapons--including 740 pounds of explosives--at a storage facility in Cherry Hill, N.J. As it happens, a key witness in the Brinks case refused to testify as the trial approached. Prosecutors dropped their earlier charges against Ms. Rosenberg, figuring that she could serve a long prison term anyway for weapons possession. At the time, she was quoted in the New York Times saying: "We're caught, but we're not defeated. Long live the armed struggle!" When she was indeed sentenced to 58 years, she announced that "we were busted because we vacillated on our politics. . . . Our own principles were not strong enough to fight to win." According to Mr. Castellucci, one of the officers who apprehended her interpreted this statement to mean that "she regretted not shooting them." Given the context, Mr. Castellucci notes, "he was probably right." So why isn't Susan Rosenberg still in prison? Because in January 2001, Bill Clinton commuted her sentence. The outcry at the time was loud and furious. And no wonder. Just as important: Why is Hamilton College opening its doors to her? Ms. Rosenberg is coming to Hamilton under the auspices of the Kirkland Project for the Study of Gender, Society, and Culture, a left-wing enclave run by Nancy Rabinowitz, a professor of comparative literature (and, incidentally, the daughter-in-law of Victor Rabinowitz, of the radical law firm Rabinowitz, Boudin, et al., which defended, among others, Kathy Boudin). It was Ms. Rabinowitz who invited Ms. Rosenberg. And it was she who rechristened an "artist/scholar-in-residence program" as an "artist/activist-in-residence program." According to Ms. Rabinowitz, Ms. Rosenberg is "an exemplar of rehabilitation" whose "story is about how you can make something productive out of something that was really awful." It is by no means clear that Susan Rosenberg is "an exemplar of rehabilitation." In an interview on Pacifica radio soon after she was released, she tentatively renounced individual violence. But nowhere in her evasive circumlocutions did she renounce collective violence, what she described in 1993 as "the necessity for armed self-defense" in the pursuit of "revolutionary anti-imperialist resistance." She still denies having taken part in the Brinks job and likes to call herself "a former U.S. political prisoner." And what is Ms. Rosenberg going to teach students? In a statement, Hamilton administrators described her as "an award-winning writer, an activist and a teacher who offers a unique perspective as a writer." In fact, her "writings" consist of political doggerel and radical exhortation, while her awards are PEN commendations for prison writing. Here is a representative passage from her poem "To Mumia Abu-Jamal," the convicted cop killer now on death row: Their message so clear Do not be Black Do not be radical Do not be a political prisoner There is still time to SHAKE IT LOOSE." As for offering a unique perspective--well, so might Osama bin Laden. Robert Paquette, a professor of history at Hamilton, was quoted by the Post Standard of Syracuse, N.Y., saying: "If you're going to bring Susan Rosenberg here . . . why not bring in David Duke on race or O.J. Simpson on the sociology of sports?" Mr. Paquette is not the only unhappy faculty member. Steven Goldberg, a professor of art history, noted that "there are nine children today who will never see their father . . . three women who are widowed" because of the crimes with which Ms. Rosenberg is associated. Edward Moore, the Saratoga Springs, N.Y., chief of police, is the father of a Hamilton student. He recently e-mailed Joan Hinde Stewart, Hamilton's president, to express his distress that "a convicted terrorist having a violent criminal background is welcome at Hamilton College." Under fire, Hamilton administrators have wrapped themselves in the mantle of free speech. "As long as public safety and the rights of others are not compromised," they stated, "the college does not normally put limits on which voices can be heard and which cannot." Well, that depends. In 2002, it is true, when Annie Sprinkle, a pornography star and performance artist, came to Hamilton to regale students and members of the local community about the proper use of sexual appliances, Hamilton administrators stood high on the pedestal of free speech. But when Brendan McCormick, a Hamilton alumnus and official class representative, sought to alert his classmates to the Rosenberg appointment, the college's development office refused to send out a letter from him, as it normally would. "I pointed out the hypocrisy of sending out a press release claiming that you do not censor speech and then turning around and doing just that," Mr. McCormick later said. Ah yes: Free speech for me, but not for thee. Hamilton College is set to kick off an ambitious capital campaign today in New York. Mr. McCormick suggests that alumni consider withholding contributions. Call it the right kind of resistance. Mr. Kimball is the author of "The Rape of the Masters" (Encounter). Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

To: Sully- who wrote (3229)	12/16/2004 2:38:27 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Mickey Kaus gets personal with Bubba. Even if the latest allegations about Marc Rich--that he helped broker Saddam's oil-for-food deals--prove accurate, that won't be the main reason Clinton's pardon of the fugitive financier was scandalous. Saddam could presumably always get someone to broker his lucrative schemes--if not Rich, then another high-level operater. The Marc Rich pardon was scandalous mainly because it taught a generation of Americans that you could buy your way out of punishment. ... But buy with what? ... Here's an instance where the convenient case for public figure privacy in matters of sex--made most conveniently by Clinton himself, but also by Jeffrey Toobin,* Andrew Sullivan, etc.--completely breaks down. It turns out to be fairly important whether Clinton was or wasn't not having sexual relations with Denise Rich, Marc's glamorous ex-wife, who lobbied for the pardon (or with someone else who might have gotten to Clinton). It's hard to explain Clinton's gross error any other way. Lord knows I've tried! ... Someday some historian will focus on this sort of interpersonal causal chain and win a National Book Award for his provocative thesis--as Philip Weiss memorably put it, "Follow the nookie." But if reporters had been more irresponsible in reporting on Clinton's personal life--and less cowed by the Stephanopouloses and Carvilles--actual voters would have had this highly relevant information in real time when they made their decision in 1992. ... P.S.: Do Democrats really want to elect the woman who let all this happen under her nose? Just asking! ... * When defending Clinton, Toobin ludicrously declared that a politician's sex life "tells you absolutely nothing about their performance" in office. Marc Rich might disagree. .. slate.com

To: Sully- who wrote (3229)	1/13/2005 2:13:44 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 35834

The Clinton Dossier By George Neumayr Published 1/13/2005 12:07:34 AM American Spectator Inside: A Top G-Man Exposes Spies, Lies and Bureaucratic Bungling Inside the FBI. by I.C. Smith (Nelson Current, 376 pages, $26.99) Historians sympathetic to Bill Clinton often say that the final chapter on his life hasn't been written, implying that Clinton's life will appear more impressive over time. What's far more likely is that it will appear more buffoonish and corrupt than even critics during his lifetime realized. In Inside: A Top G-Man Exposes Spies, Lies and Bureaucratic Bungling Inside the FBI, I.C. Smith provides historians with more testimony on Clinton's astonishing carnival of fakery. The FBI dispatched Smith as special agent in charge to Arkansas in 1995. Smith quickly found himself wading through the sludge of the White House Travel Office scandal. "Lying, withholding evidence, and considering -- even expecting -- underlings to be expendable so the Clintons could avoid accountability for their actions would become the norm," Smith concluded. While the liberal media played dumb about Clinton's corruption, Arkansans didn't, Smith noticed. They supplied him with endless stories of scandal and mischief, many serious, some risible, such as the time Clinton accidentally bought a $400 purse on a visit to a Little Rock boutique owned by one of his mistresses. "One day Clinton came in and was fidgeting about while the owner waited on a customer when he suddenly spied one of Hillary's friends enter the store," writes Smith. "He quickly grabbed a purse and loudly told a sales clerk, 'I think Hillary will like this one.' She rang up the purchase, and Clinton discovered he had just bought a $400 purse." Traveling around the state, Smith saw that "there was very real 'Clinton fatigue' in Arkansas well before those became buzzwords to describe the condition many Americans felt when he was president. On more than one occasion, Arkansans told me that the only way to get rid of Clinton was 'to send him to Washington.'" Smith met one Arkansas judge -- a "lifelong member of the Arkansas Democratic Party" -- who would take his Arkansas lapel pin off on his travels during the Clinton years. Even Arkansans in the tank for Clinton grew "disillusioned" with him, writes Smith. Journalist Gene Lyons, famous for positing the Lewinsky-is-a-stalker thesis on Meet the Press, felt like an ass after Clinton was backed into acknowledging the affair. "I asked Lyons how he felt after it became apparent that Clinton had lied," writes Smith. "Lyons said it had been easier for him to forgive Clinton than it had been for his wife, who had taken Clinton's picture off the wall in their house. 'I'm not sure she will ever hang it up again.'" Smith grew familiar with the Arkansas political machine that Clinton had manipulated effortlessly. He observes that Clinton used the machine to keep at bay potential Democratic challengers -- a practice that explains the dearth of Democrats once Clinton left the state. Arkansas became a red state Al Gore couldn't even win because Clinton's solipsism made a vibrant Democratic party in the state impossible. The Clintons, writes Smith, "would not tolerate any political challenger. The spotlight was to shine on them and them alone. Consequently, when Clinton left office and was followed by a still wounded politically (and future felon) Jim Guy Tucker, there was no Democratic party heir apparent to the governor's office." According to Smith, Clinton made sure Tucker would never challenge him by torpedoing his Senate run against David Pryor through a "whisper campaign." This neatly put Pryor in his pocket and cleared away Tucker as a future rival. Smith's fund of anecdotes -- which range over 25 years of service in the FBI -- throws light not only on Clinton but on an era of porous defense in American law enforcement that made the U.S. a soft target on 9/11. He records a staggering number of blunders in the FBI but leavens the tale with moments of gallows humor. He can chuckle over the time Bill Clinton's portrait was ripped off from the Arkansas State Capitol but recovered when a homeless man "tried to sell it on the street for two dollars." Clinton's legacy isn't worth much more than that. It's said that every generation gets the leader it deserves. Clinton was certainly the leader the media thought this generation deserved. As Osama bin Laden plotted, a late-night comedy culture accepted a punchline presidency -- and the media prided itself on a lack of vigilance towards its occupant. In the final pages of the book, Smith reaches a conclusion that the old media still can't admit: "Had the media done its job, there would arguably have never been a Clinton presidency."