Political Double Standard

[pmoon6]

Lewis Libby has now been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of
justice for lies that had absolutely no legal consequence.

It was not a crime to reveal Valerie Plame's name because she was not a covert agent. If it had been a crime, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald could have wrapped up his investigation with an indictment of the State Department's Richard Armitage on the first day of his investigation since it was Armitage who revealed her name and Fitzgerald knew it.


With no crime to investigate, Fitzgerald pursued a pointless investigation into nothing, getting a lot of White House officials to make statements under oath and hoping some of their recollections would end up conflicting with other witness recollections, so he could charge some Republican with "perjury" and enjoy the fawning media attention.

As a result, Libby is now a convicted felon for having a faulty memory of the person who first told him that Joe Wilson was a delusional boob who lied about his wife sending him to Niger.

This makes it official: It's illegal to be Republican.

Since Teddy Kennedy walked away from a dead girl with only a wrist slap (which was knocked down to a mild talking-to, plus time served: zero), Democrats have apparently become a protected class in America, immune from criminal prosecution no matter what they do.

As a result, Democrats have run wild, accepting bribes, destroying classified information, lying under oath, molesting interns, driving under the influence, obstructing justice and engaging in sex with underage girls, among other things.

Meanwhile, conservatives of any importance constantly have to spend millions of dollars defending themselves from utterly frivolous criminal prosecutions. Everything is illegal, but only Republicans get prosecuted.

Conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh was subjected to a three-year criminal investigation for allegedly buying prescription drugs illegally to treat chronic back pain. Despite the witch-hunt, Democrat prosecutor Barry E. Krischer never turned up a crime.

Even if he had, to quote liberal Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz: "Generally, people who illegally buy prescription drugs are not prosecuted." Unless they're Republicans.

The vindictive prosecution of Limbaugh finally ended last year with a plea bargain in which Limbaugh did not admit guilt. Gosh, don't you feel safer now? I know I do.

In another prescription drug case with a different result, last year, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (Democrat), apparently high as a kite on prescription drugs, crashed a car on Capitol Hill at 3 a.m. That's abuse of prescription drugs plus a DUI offense. Result: no charges whatsoever and one day of press on Fox News Channel.

I suppose one could argue those were different jurisdictions. How about the same jurisdiction?

In 2006, Democrat and major Clinton contributor Jeffrey Epstein was nabbed in Palm Beach in a massive police investigation into his hiring of local underage schoolgirls for sex, which I'm told used to be a violation of some kind of statute in the Palm Beach area.

The police presented Limbaugh prosecutor Krischer with boatloads of evidence, including the videotaped statements of five of Epstein's alleged victims, the procurer of the girls for Epstein and 16 other witnesses.

But the same prosecutor who spent three years maniacally investigating Limbaugh's alleged misuse of back-pain pills refused to bring statutory rape charges against a Clinton contributor. Enraging the police, who had spent months on the investigation, Krischer let Epstein off after a few hours on a single count of solicitation of prostitution. The Clinton supporter walked, and his victims were branded as whores.

The Republican former House Whip Tom DeLay is currently under indictment for a minor campaign finance violation. Democratic prosecutor Ronnie Earle had to empanel six grand juries before he could find one to indict DeLay on these pathetic charges -- and this is in Austin, Texas (the Upper West Side with better-looking people).

That final grand jury was so eager to indict DeLay that it indicted him on one charge that was not even a crime -- and which has since been tossed out by the courts.

After winning his primary despite the indictment, DeLay decided to withdraw from the race rather than campaign under a cloud of suspicion, and Republicans lost one of their strongest champions in Congress.

Compare DeLay's case with that of Rep. William "The Refrigerator" Jefferson, Democrat. Two years ago, an FBI investigation caught Jefferson on videotape taking $100,000 in bribe money. When the FBI searched Jefferson's house, they found $90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer. Two people have already pleaded guilty to paying Jefferson the bribe money.

Two years later, Bush's Justice Department still has taken no action against Jefferson. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently put Rep. William Jefferson on the Homeland Security Committee.


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat, engaged in a complicated land swindle, buying a parcel of land for $400,000 and selling it for over $1 million a few years later. (At least it wasn't cattle futures!)

Reid also received more than four times as much money from Jack Abramoff (nearly $70,000) as Tom DeLay ($15,000). DeLay returned the money; Reid refuses to do so. Why should he? He's a Democrat.

Former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger literally received a sentence of community service for stuffing classified national security documents in his pants and then destroying them -- big, fat federal felonies.

But Scooter Libby is facing real prison time for forgetting who told him about some bozo's wife.

Bill Clinton was not even prosecuted for obstruction of justice offenses so egregious that the entire Supreme Court staged a historic boycott of his State of the Union address in 2000.

By contrast, Linda Tripp, whose only mistake was befriending the office hosebag and then declining to perjure herself, spent millions on lawyers to defend a harassment prosecution based on far-fetched interpretations of state wiretapping laws.

Liberal law professors currently warning about the "high price" of pursuing terrorists under the Patriot Act had nothing but blood lust for Tripp one year after Clinton was impeached (Steven Lubet, "Linda Tripp Deserves to be Prosecuted," New York Times, 8/25/99).

more....

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2007/03/07/shooting_elephants_in_a_barrel

Hmmm, with all the talk about double standards, why weren't these Democrats prosecuted? Why is all the talk of corruption centered around Republicans when the Democrats are just as guilty?

[unklechucky]

Excellent post moonie. I've said for years that the liberals are guilty of the same things we are, but nothing happens. Historically, they are the pot calling the kettle black.

[Matt]

There is a good reason that nobody is keeping tally as to who, on each side of the political spectrum is victimized for actions that would otherwise, reasonably, probably go unpunished: Because nobody has the time to tally that much.

As a voting Democrat, I was in Ohio at school during the November elections. I'm now completing this semester from home on medical leave, but even in a battleground state I can tell you that the moderate and independent voters are not voting explicitly in favor of Democrats, but rather giving a vote of no-confidence to the entire political spectrum in general.

This recent rash of 'scandals' and nonsense is a retaliation to the actions brought against the Clinton Administration, who's actions were directly in combat with Reagan Conservatism, which was at war with Carter Liberalism, which saw it fit to change the Nixon ideology which blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

This is the state of American politics since friggin' Van Buren is what I'm saying.

People didn't walk around with their pockets out, calling them Hoover flags, because they thought the state of the American economy was funny. The Roosevelt administration didn't disguise his inability to walk because they thought he'd be more comfortable in a chair.

It's always been this way. What has changed is the amount of media constantly crapping out this nonsense.

We talk about looking for candidates who will create a unified political atmosphere, but people have always hated the opposition -- in one way or another.

We've just become complacent about the fact that the entire system has ignored it's original intent, corkscrewed itself into a cluster**** and strayed from actually solving any problems. As nature would have it, your political career is much like your life: Some day, somehow, eventually, no matter what you do, it's going to die. You simply can't stop that.

The Republicans are in power. So they're taking the heat.

Just like Clinton did for getting a blowjob.

And just like Obama will when a cokehead he used to know in college crops up, or when one of Giuliani's mistresses doesn't take the buyout, etc, etc, etc.

It's never ending. The only kind of remedy is to begin stating it for what it is.

[nehemiah]

if you lie to the FBI - they are going to prosecute you.

FACT.

[Matt]

if you lie to the FBI - they are going to prosecute you.

FACT.

nehemiah figured this out when they wouldn't let him wear a crown on the witness stand.

[nehemiah]

btw, william jefferson is still under investigation and an indictment is expected.

[K-Gun]

Hey Moon, who did the CIA send to Africa to see if Saddam really did try to buy uranium?

Was it, Joe Wilson? Holy shit, it WAS Joe Wilson!

When Joe Wilson told the press about his findings, George Tenent (head of CIA) states in public that he doesn't know who Joe Wilson is....

WHAT? WHo the **** did the CIA send to see if Saddam tried to get uranium then?

IMPEACH BUSH NOW, BEFORE HE CAN DO ANY MORE HARM!

[pmoon6]

Hey Moon, who did the CIA send to Africa to see if Saddam really did try to buy uranium?

Was it, Joe Wilson? Holy shit, it WAS Joe Wilson!

When Joe Wilson told the press about his findings, George Tenent (head of CIA) states in public that he doesn't know who Joe Wilson is....

WHAT? WHo the **** did the CIA send to see if Saddam tried to get uranium then?

IMPEACH BUSH NOW, BEFORE HE CAN DO ANY MORE HARM!Joe Wilson is and was nothing but a liar and a blowhard who had no business being sent to Niger in the first place. The left takes everything that comes out of his mouth as some sort of golden nugget. Why? Because it supports their view of the President. Not everybody thinks that way.


Joe Wilson's cover has been blown. For the past year, he has claimed to be a truth-teller, a whistleblower, the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy — and most of the media have lapped it up and cheered him on.

After a whirl of TV and radio appearances during which he received high-fives and hearty hugs from producers and hosts (I was in some green rooms with him so this is eyewitness reporting), and a wet-kiss profile in Vanity Fair, he gave birth to a quickie book sporting his dapper self on the cover, and verbosely entitled The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir.

The book jacket talks of his "fearless insight" (whatever that's supposed to mean) and "disarming candor" (which does not extend to telling readers for whom he has been working since retiring early from the Foreign Service).

The biographical blurb describes him as a "political centrist" who received a prize for "Truth-Telling," though a careful reader might notice that the award came in part from a group associated with The Nation magazine — which only Michael Moore would consider a centrist publication.

But now Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV — he of the Hermes ties and Jaguar convertibles — has been thoroughly discredited. Last week's bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report concluded that it is he who has been telling lies.

For starters, he has insisted that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, was not the one who came up with the brilliant idea that the agency send him to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had been attempting to acquire uranium. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson says in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, the Senate panel found, she was the one who got him that assignment. The panel even found a memo by her. (She should have thought to use disappearing ink.)

Wilson spent a total of eight days in Niger "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people," as he put it. On the basis of this "investigation" he confidently concluded that there was no way Saddam sought uranium from Africa. Oddly, Wilson didn't bother to write a report saying this. Instead he gave an oral briefing to a CIA official.

Oddly, too, as an investigator on assignment for the CIA he was not required to keep his mission and its conclusions confidential. And for the New York Times, he was happy to put pen to paper, to write an op-ed charging the Bush administration with "twisting," "manipulating" and "exaggerating" intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs "to justify an invasion."

In particular he said that President Bush was lying when, in his 2003 State of the Union address, he pronounced these words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

We now know for certain that Wilson was wrong and that Bush's statement was entirely accurate.

The British have consistently stood by that conclusion. In September 2003, an independent British parliamentary committee looked into the matter and determined that the claim made by British intelligence was "reasonable" (the media forgot to cover that one too). Indeed, Britain's spies stand by their claim to this day. Interestingly, French intelligence also reported an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium from Niger.

Yes, there were fake documents relating to Niger-Iraq sales. But no, those forgeries were not the evidence that convinced British intelligence that Saddam may have been shopping for "yellowcake" uranium. On the contrary, according to some intelligence sources, the forgery was planted in order to be discovered — as a ruse to discredit the story of a Niger-Iraq link, to persuade people there were no grounds for the charge. If that was the plan, it worked like a charm.

But that's not all. The Butler report, yet another British government inquiry, also is expected to conclude this week that British intelligence was correct to say that Saddam sought uranium from Niger.

And in recent days, the Financial Times has reported that illicit sales of uranium from Niger were indeed being negotiated with Iraq, as well as with four other states.

According to the FT: "European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq."

There's still more: As Susan Schmidt reported — back on page A9 of Saturday's Washington Post: "Contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence."

The Senate report says fairly bluntly that Wilson lied to the media. Schmidt notes that the panel found that, "Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on a document that had clearly been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"

The problem is Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel discovered. Schmidt notes: "The documents — purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq — were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."

Ironically, Senate investigators found that at least some of what Wilson told his CIA briefer not only failed to persuade the agency that there was nothing to reports of Niger-Iraq link — his information actually created additional suspicion.

A former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, told Wilson that in June 1999, a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations." Mayaki, knowing how few commodities for export are produced by impoverished Niger, interpreted that to mean that Saddam was seeking uranium.

Another former government official told Wilson that Iran had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998. That's the same year that Saddam forced the weapons inspectors to leave Iraq. Could the former official have meant Iraq rather than Iran? If someone were to try to connect those dots, what picture might emerge?

Schmidt adds that the Senate panel was alarmed to find that the CIA never "fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin."

I was the first to suggest, here on National Review Online a year ago ("Scandal!" and "No Yellowcake Walk"), that Wilson should not have been given this assignment, that he had no training or demonstrated competence as an investigator, that his inquiry had been obviously superficial and that, far from being a "centrist," he was a partisan with an ax to grind.

more...http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

[nehemiah]

In particular he said that President Bush was lying when, in his 2003 State of the Union address, he pronounced these words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

We now know for certain that Wilson was wrong and that Bush's statement was entirely accurate.i really tried to read the whole thing.......... couldn't get past this point.

[pmoon6]

i really tried to read the whole thing.......... couldn't get past this point.:rofl:

[Angus]

Lewis Libby has now been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of
justice for lies that had absolutely no legal consequence.

It was not a crime to reveal Valerie Plame's name because she was not a covert agent. If it had been a crime, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald could have wrapped up his investigation with an indictment of the State Department's Richard Armitage on the first day of his investigation since it was Armitage who revealed her name and Fitzgerald knew it.


With no crime to investigate, Fitzgerald pursued a pointless investigation into nothing, getting a lot of White House officials to make statements under oath and hoping some of their recollections would end up conflicting with other witness recollections, so he could charge some Republican with "perjury" and enjoy the fawning media attention.

As a result, Libby is now a convicted felon for having a faulty memory of the person who first told him that Joe Wilson was a delusional boob who lied about his wife sending him to Niger.

This makes it official: It's illegal to be Republican.

Since Teddy Kennedy walked away from a dead girl with only a wrist slap (which was knocked down to a mild talking-to, plus time served: zero), Democrats have apparently become a protected class in America, immune from criminal prosecution no matter what they do.

As a result, Democrats have run wild, accepting bribes, destroying classified information, lying under oath, molesting interns, driving under the influence, obstructing justice and engaging in sex with underage girls, among other things.

Meanwhile, conservatives of any importance constantly have to spend millions of dollars defending themselves from utterly frivolous criminal prosecutions. Everything is illegal, but only Republicans get prosecuted.

Conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh was subjected to a three-year criminal investigation for allegedly buying prescription drugs illegally to treat chronic back pain. Despite the witch-hunt, Democrat prosecutor Barry E. Krischer never turned up a crime.

Even if he had, to quote liberal Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz: "Generally, people who illegally buy prescription drugs are not prosecuted." Unless they're Republicans.

The vindictive prosecution of Limbaugh finally ended last year with a plea bargain in which Limbaugh did not admit guilt. Gosh, don't you feel safer now? I know I do.

In another prescription drug case with a different result, last year, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (Democrat), apparently high as a kite on prescription drugs, crashed a car on Capitol Hill at 3 a.m. That's abuse of prescription drugs plus a DUI offense. Result: no charges whatsoever and one day of press on Fox News Channel.

I suppose one could argue those were different jurisdictions. How about the same jurisdiction?

In 2006, Democrat and major Clinton contributor Jeffrey Epstein was nabbed in Palm Beach in a massive police investigation into his hiring of local underage schoolgirls for sex, which I'm told used to be a violation of some kind of statute in the Palm Beach area.

The police presented Limbaugh prosecutor Krischer with boatloads of evidence, including the videotaped statements of five of Epstein's alleged victims, the procurer of the girls for Epstein and 16 other witnesses.

But the same prosecutor who spent three years maniacally investigating Limbaugh's alleged misuse of back-pain pills refused to bring statutory rape charges against a Clinton contributor. Enraging the police, who had spent months on the investigation, Krischer let Epstein off after a few hours on a single count of solicitation of prostitution. The Clinton supporter walked, and his victims were branded as whores.

The Republican former House Whip Tom DeLay is currently under indictment for a minor campaign finance violation. Democratic prosecutor Ronnie Earle had to empanel six grand juries before he could find one to indict DeLay on these pathetic charges -- and this is in Austin, Texas (the Upper West Side with better-looking people).

That final grand jury was so eager to indict DeLay that it indicted him on one charge that was not even a crime -- and which has since been tossed out by the courts.

After winning his primary despite the indictment, DeLay decided to withdraw from the race rather than campaign under a cloud of suspicion, and Republicans lost one of their strongest champions in Congress.

Compare DeLay's case with that of Rep. William "The Refrigerator" Jefferson, Democrat. Two years ago, an FBI investigation caught Jefferson on videotape taking $100,000 in bribe money. When the FBI searched Jefferson's house, they found $90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer. Two people have already pleaded guilty to paying Jefferson the bribe money.

Two years later, Bush's Justice Department still has taken no action against Jefferson. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently put Rep. William Jefferson on the Homeland Security Committee.


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat, engaged in a complicated land swindle, buying a parcel of land for $400,000 and selling it for over $1 million a few years later. (At least it wasn't cattle futures!)

Reid also received more than four times as much money from Jack Abramoff (nearly $70,000) as Tom DeLay ($15,000). DeLay returned the money; Reid refuses to do so. Why should he? He's a Democrat.

Former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger literally received a sentence of community service for stuffing classified national security documents in his pants and then destroying them -- big, fat federal felonies.

But Scooter Libby is facing real prison time for forgetting who told him about some bozo's wife.

Bill Clinton was not even prosecuted for obstruction of justice offenses so egregious that the entire Supreme Court staged a historic boycott of his State of the Union address in 2000.

By contrast, Linda Tripp, whose only mistake was befriending the office hosebag and then declining to perjure herself, spent millions on lawyers to defend a harassment prosecution based on far-fetched interpretations of state wiretapping laws.

Liberal law professors currently warning about the "high price" of pursuing terrorists under the Patriot Act had nothing but blood lust for Tripp one year after Clinton was impeached (Steven Lubet, "Linda Tripp Deserves to be Prosecuted," New York Times, 8/25/99).

more....

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2007/03/07/shooting_elephants_in_a_barrel

Hmmm, with all the talk about double standards, why weren't these Democrats prosecuted? Why is all the talk of corruption centered around Republicans when the Democrats are just as guilty?


The predicate of your entire analysis is in error, she was a covert agent. However, the law requires knowing intent. In other words, Fitzgerald has to prove that Libby knew she was a covert agent when he disclosed her identity. Such "state of mind" predicates are notoriously difficult to prove. How do you prove what a man was thinking at any given time?

Her own mother and her best friend didn't know what she did for a living. The CIA itself, who ought to know, stated that she was covert. All that initial right wing nut blog fest over the notion that "everyone knew she was at cia, she bragged about it at neighborhood barbecues" has long since been disproved. Its rare to hear that meme repeated anymore. Some lies, die hard I guess, especially one like this which just has to be true for so many on the right not to explode in a cloud of hypocrisy. Imagine, that, the supposedly national security obsessed, uber patriots of the right defending the outing of a covert CIA agent for political gain. If that had been done by the left they'd be calling for a firing squad, not manning the excuse ramparts.

There is a double standard here alright, just not the one you are alleging.

[Angus]

There is a good reason that nobody is keeping tally as to who, on each side of the political spectrum is victimized for actions that would otherwise, reasonably, probably go unpunished: Because nobody has the time to tally that much.

As a voting Democrat, I was in Ohio at school during the November elections. I'm now completing this semester from home on medical leave, but even in a battleground state I can tell you that the moderate and independent voters are not voting explicitly in favor of Democrats, but rather giving a vote of no-confidence to the entire political spectrum in general.

This recent rash of 'scandals' and nonsense is a retaliation to the actions brought against the Clinton Administration, who's actions were directly in combat with Reagan Conservatism, which was at war with Carter Liberalism, which saw it fit to change the Nixon ideology which blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

This is the state of American politics since friggin' Van Buren is what I'm saying.

People didn't walk around with their pockets out, calling them Hoover flags, because they thought the state of the American economy was funny. The Roosevelt administration didn't disguise his inability to walk because they thought he'd be more comfortable in a chair.

It's always been this way. What has changed is the amount of media constantly crapping out this nonsense.

We talk about looking for candidates who will create a unified political atmosphere, but people have always hated the opposition -- in one way or another.

We've just become complacent about the fact that the entire system has ignored it's original intent, corkscrewed itself into a cluster**** and strayed from actually solving any problems. As nature would have it, your political career is much like your life: Some day, somehow, eventually, no matter what you do, it's going to die. You simply can't stop that.

The Republicans are in power. So they're taking the heat.

Just like Clinton did for getting a blowjob.

And just like Obama will when a cokehead he used to know in college crops up, or when one of Giuliani's mistresses doesn't take the buyout, etc, etc, etc.

It's never ending. The only kind of remedy is to begin stating it for what it is.

Not to quibble but I am not so sure the original intent was anything different. It was just as bad in Washington's day. I also think that a bj is pretty much a personal issue, especially an adulterous one even if political enemies have manufactured a way to force you to testify on an unrelated, irrelevant yet none the less embarassing escapade. Funny thing about the questions asked of Clinton, ultimately, if the case had gone to trial, Jones' atty's would not have been allowed to even ask those questions but the peculiar rules of depositions allow you to ask anything, even irrlevant stuff asked for the sole purpose of creating a perjury trap (answer truthfully and it will be leaked, illegally, ruining your political fortunes, or dodge & lie and then have to worry about perjury).

Outing a covert CIA agent is just not even in the same league, it endangers lives and national security.

[shiva2999]

Just when you think the right can't get any stupider...

[Matt]

Not to quibble but I am not so sure the original intent was anything different. It was just as bad in Washington's day. I also think that a bj is pretty much a personal issue, especially an adulterous one even if political enemies have manufactured a way to force you to testify on an unrelated, irrelevant yet none the less embarassing escapade. Funny thing about the questions asked of Clinton, ultimately, if the case had gone to trial, Jones' atty's would not have been allowed to even ask those questions but the peculiar rules of depositions allow you to ask anything, even irrlevant stuff asked for the sole purpose of creating a perjury trap (answer truthfully and it will be leaked, illegally, ruining your political fortunes, or dodge & lie and then have to worry about perjury).

Outing a covert CIA agent is just not even in the same league, it endangers lives and national security.

It's cool.

The severity of the case hasn't determined the opposition's reaction. That was kind of my point.

[Green Lantern]

btw, william jefferson is still under investigation and an indictment is expected.

Revealed! A second 'Monica' in Bill's life

NEW YORK: A new book on Bill Clinton's post-presidential life reportedly claims that he had an affair with New Yorker Denise Rich whose ex-husband, Marc, was famously pardoned by the former US President.

'The Clinton Crack-Up' authored by R Emmett Tyrrell Jr, a prominent anti-Clintonite who founded the American Spectator also claims that Madame Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, knew about the whole affair.

"Denise Rich's contact with Clinton began long before Hillary confided her allegations to Representative [now Speaker] Nancy Pelosi that Bill 'f—' Denise," the New York Daily News quoted Tyrrell as writing...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/World/The_United_States/Revealed_A_second_Monica_in_Bills_life/articleshow/1738495.cms

[г]

Aqua, where do you find these Indiatimes links LOL

[Green Lantern]

Aqua, where do you find these Indiatimes links LOL

The home page for Indiatimes English edition.

[г]

It's just odd...they're obviously wire service stories, but they don't accredit which wire servce they're geeting this shit from ?

[35Pete]

Bwahahaha.

For some here the feigned concern for any CIA agent or employee of that agency just smacks of crocodile tears. I mean it is just so incongruent.

It's a convenient anvil to hammer on.

[Green Lantern]

It's just odd...they're obviously wire service stories, but they don't accredit which wire servce they're geeting this shit from ?

They do credit wire services. If you go to the link, the wire service is listed after the time and date of the post. They list: AP, PTI, ANI. My current story is listed under ANI...whatever org that is.

[Angus]

Bwahahaha.

For some here the feigned concern for any CIA agent or employee of that agency just smacks of crocodile tears. I mean it is just so incongruent.

It's a convenient anvil to hammer on.

Why do you characterize it as "feigned" or "incongruent"?

The right has tried to create a false sterotype of democrats that we are somehow uninterested in national security, that if you are a democrat, you must therefore have the politics of a Haight Ashbury Hippie circa 1968. Is that what you beleive?

The fact that this false stereotype is so often pushed by chickenhawks like Limbaugh and others is almost surreal.

I assure you my concern is anything but feigned. If there is any false beating of the breast here it is by those who modestly think of themselves as uber secruity patriots. Their sudden lack of concern with this issue simply because of the politics involved certainly, in my opinion, shows just how deep their patriotism is.

[г]

They do credit wire services. If you go to the link, the wire service is listed after the time and date of the post. They list: AP, PTI, ANI. My current story is listed under ANI...whatever org that is.

Yeah, I saw that. First off, I didn't recognize ANI, but on further review it's a New Delhi-based wire service. http://www.aniin.com/

Don't you think it's odd that a New Delhi-based wire service would post articles about Wilson, Plame, etc ?
Make you wonder what dog belongs to them in this fight ?

[Green Lantern]

Yeah, I saw that. First off, I didn't recognize ANI, but on further review it's a New Delhi-based wire service. http://www.aniin.com/

Don't you think it's odd that a New Delhi-based wire service would post articles about Wilson, Plame, etc ?
Make you wonder what dog belongs to them in this fight ?

Americans are the only people who fail to realize that we are an Empire. Any "world" news section I look at around the world is top-heavy with US news. Everyone is concerned about what happens here. That is why I look at the sites: I am interested in seeing what they think is important about the US.