A note on the Amazon ads: I've chosen to display current events titles in the Amazon box. Unfortunately, Amazon appears to promote a disproportionate number of angry-left books. I have no power over it at this time. Rest assured, I'm still a conservative.
|
Saturday, February 15, 2003
That dog won't hunt: The latest on the Marc Rich pardon scandal. Yes, I know it's two years old, but in a recent interview with NBC's Katie Couric, former President Bill Clinton has the cajones to try the "big lie."
Couric: In this month's edition of The Atlantic Monthly, James Fallows writes, ‘Clinton had the worst beginning of an ex-Presidency since Richard Nixon flew to San Clemente in 1974; Certainly you did ignite a firestorm of criticism, with your pardon of Mark Rich. Had you the opportunity to do it over again, would you have pardoned him
Former President Bill Clinton: No. I would have waited and let President Bush do it. Because Vice President Cheney's a -- chief of staff was his main lawyer. And there would have been no media firestorm, and he wouldn’t be being investigated. That only happened to us. There’s a double standard there. It’s been two years now, and the Justice Department has not charged him.
So, if I was wrong, and they're right, why don't they charge him, and get the taxpayer's some money? I'm still waiting.
I have two words for Bill Clinton: Paul Krugman. If Bush had pardoned Marc Rich, Krugman -- at the very least -- would have been all over him -- with good reason. Whether you think Bernie Goldberg is right or Eric Alterman when it comes to media bias -- the fact is, when it comes to the scent of a scandal, we're all bloodhounds.
Then there's the whole issue of blaming Bush because the Justice Department under Ashcroft has not pursued charges against Rich. Maybe the reason they haven't chraged Rich with anything is because Clinton pardoned him. Couric, of course, doesn't call him on this major act of chutzpah.
11:46 PM
|
|
