• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Talk about a wolf guarding the sheep ...

BeAChooser

Banned
B
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
11,716
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-panetta-20110622,0,5295850.story

Panetta confirmed as Defense secretary
Click to expand...

Oh lovely. A guy with ties to the Communist Chinese is named Secretary of Defense by Obama. Why am I not surprised?

Has everyone but me forgotten Chinagate and CampaignFinancegate?

Am I the only one here at JREF that remembers Nolanda Hill (a close associate and confidant of Ron Brown) testifying under oath that Brown told her that then White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered him to defy court orders and obstruct a Judicial Watch suit that was aimed at gathering information related to Chinagate and CampaignFinanceGate by withholding documents until after the 1996 federal elections. According to http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/ois/specials/interim_report/interim_HTML.htm :

in both her January 17, 1998 affidavit and at the March 23, 1998 evidentiary hearing, President Clinton's two top deputies, then White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta, directly ordered Brown to defy the Court's orders and obstruct the Judicial Watch suit until after the 1996 elections:

I further learned through discussions with Ron [Brown] that The White House, through Leon Panetta and John Podesta, had instructed him to delay the case by withholding the production of documents prior to the 1996 elections, and to devise a way not to comply with the court's orders. (Emphasis added.)

****

Q: And that Leon Panetta had told Ron that, quote, "He had the responsibility of containing the Judicial Watch lawsuit"?

A: Yes.

Q: And you responded to Ron, did you not, by telling him that that strategy of stall, stall, stall would not work forever?

A: Yes, in part.
Click to expand...

Weekly reports sent by Secretary Brown to Chief of Staff Leon Panetta at the Clinton White House confirm Panetta's involvement, as they discussed the status of Judicial Watch's FOIA requests.(186)

Ms. Hill would later testify about Mr. Panetta's and Mr. Podesta's efforts to obstruct justice and cover-up the sale of trade mission seats for the President's re-election effort:

Q: And you learned that Leon Panetta and John Podesta had instructed him to delay the case for political reasons?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, do you remember Ron saying to you that Panetta and Podesta wanted him to, quote, "slow pedal" the case until after the [1996] elections? Those were the words that were used, was it not?

A: Yes.

Q: And that Ron mimicked Leon Panetta and laughed when he used the words "slow pedal"?

A: Well, he did a pretty good Leon Panetta.

Q: Imitation?

A: (Nods head affirmatively.)
Click to expand...

Ms. Hill's testimony indicates that the President was personally aware of this unlawful obstruction. She would later testify that, shortly after she saw Commerce Department correspondence indicating that trade mission seats were being sold in exchange for political contributions, Secretary Brown and the President had a meeting. This meeting occurred just before Brown took his fateful trip to Croatia
Click to expand...

Am I the only one here at JREF who remembers that Panetta was also involved in other Clinton scandals? Like Filegate?

In 1996, White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta issued a statement blaming the "the procedures in place for some three decades" for being inadequate. He called it "a completely honest bureaucratic snafu." Now we all know that procedures weren't the problem in Filegate and it was hardly a completely honest bureaucratic snafu.

Oh yes ... Panetta is a man whose judgement we can trust in the position of Secretary of Defense. :rolleyes:

A Chinese Naval Base -- at Long Beach

by Patrick J. Buchanan

March 13, 1997

And last year, Johnny Chung, who gave $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee, showed up for a Clinton radio broadcast at the White House, with six Chinese in tow, including an adviser of Cosco.

... snip ...

And who was chief lobbyist for handing over the historic naval base to China? None other than the president of the United States. Clinton held two meetings, one in the White House with Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and a deputy secretary of defense, to press Long Beach to make the deal.
Click to expand...

Or can we?
 
Confirmed 100-0. Is every Republican in the Senate a liberal stooge, or what?

Anyway, what have we got here? Someone swears that a dead guy told her that another guy tried to slow down discovery in a lawsuit. Looks like a friggin' wildfire!
 
Upchurch said:
What kind of ties are we talking about, B? After all, Nixon made contacts with Communist Chinese, too.
Click to expand...

And;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush#Envoy_to_China

Gerald Ford, Nixon's successor, appointed Bush to be Chief of the US Liaison Office in the People's Republic of China. Since the United States at the time maintained official relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan and not the People's Republic of China, the Liaison Office did not have the official status of an embassy and Bush did not formally hold the position of "ambassador", though he unofficially acted as one. The time that he spent in China – 14 months – was seen as largely beneficial for US-Chinese relations.
Click to expand...

I knew Bush looked like a subversive!
 
BaC I agree with you. I just wish the senate republicans agreed with us.
 
Director of CIA "widely praised for successful mission to find and kill OBL."

Director of CIA "credited with restoring the reputation of an agency tarnished by torture allegations and intelligence failures, most notably the false claim that the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq."

Director of CIA unanimously confirmed as defense secretary.

Source.

What were they thinking? ;)
 
Last edited:
in both her January 17, 1998 affidavit and at the March 23, 1998 evidentiary hearing, President Clinton's two top deputies, then White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta, directly ordered Brown to defy the Court's orders and obstruct the Judicial Watch suit until after the 1996 elections:
Click to expand...

Wow. An affidavit. People are never wrong or lie under oath. Testimony should be accepted as fact without further evidence...right?

Stand back. I've set two biases on a collision course.
 
Last edited:
Several posts moved to AAH. This thread is not about BeAChooser's previous threads. Stay on topic please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
KingMerv00 said:
Stand back. I've set two biases on a collision course.
Click to expand...

You mad fool!! The last time that happened it caused the black hole known as Fox 'News'!

On topic: Wellll, if Ron did a good impersonation of Panetta while telling Ms Hill what he allegedly said then it is a slam dunk. If it had been a bad or so-so impersonation then it would have just been hearsay. But a good Panetta? Slam dunk!
 
Personnally, I cannot imagine how Panetta will work out worse for america than did most of his predecessors in the position. Obama would be hard-pressed to find a drooling moron less fit to be Sec Def than was that arfing lunatic whom Cheney told the Shrub to name to the post.

From 2001 to 2008, our soldiers had to suffer the stupidity of the worst Sec Def of my lifetime.

If Panetta were really as bad as BAC claims, the only logical conclusion that I can reach is that the Shrub's DoJ was run by utter morons who could beat a dead man for election or figure out the definitions of simple words like "torture" or...Oops!

:dig:
 
It's a shame that someone with relatively competent google-fu generally makes such retarded threads.
 
leftysergeant said:
If Panetta were really as bad as BAC claims, the only logical conclusion that I can reach is that the Shrub's DoJ was run by utter morons
Click to expand...

They certainly were eager to "move on", like Bush promised he would do during the election. The Bush adminstration and a clear majority of republicans didn't want a pursuit of Clinton and Clinton administration crimes to interfere with Bush's *agendas* during his term. Remember that George Stephanopoulus warned that if they went after Clinton there would be "scorched earth"? Well, they were afraid that pursuing those crimes would overshadow/prevent everything else that Bush might want to accomplish. Here's a clear illustration of them doing just that:

James Riady (you remember, the Indonesian billionaire who had close ties to China's intelligence agency) stood in front of a judge in a California courtroom during the first year of the first Bush term. He was there to be sentenced in a plea agreement (for serious campaign violations) where he would get only a slap on the wrist for trying to illegally tamper with the US elections. The agreement required that he tell the truth about what had transpired. And he told the judge, under that agreement, that contrary to public statements by Bill Clinton and DNC officials, the millions of dollars in illegal foreign campaign contributions that he'd given them had not been returned. When the judge asked if this was true, the prosecutor told the judge that to the best of their knowledge that was indeed true. The Clintons and DNC had not returned the millions of illegal dollars they got from Riady despite having claimed they had. They instead used those millions to steal a variety of elections in 1996. I like to call it the Riady Non-Refund. And nothing came of that. Noone ever reported the money being returned and the Bush DOJ failed to follow up on that stunning accusation. You want to learn more about it? Read these:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2001/879.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/cf021098.htm

http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/riady31601.htm

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/1997/01/davis.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/15/opinion/15SAFI.html?
ex=1219204800&en=7972765325c29651&ei=5070

New York Times

Riady Cops a Plea

By WILLIAM SAFIRE

... snip ...

Staring us in the face is this stunning assertion now harder than ever to controvert: An American president's foreign policy decisions were substantially influenced by unlawful campaign contributions at critical times from a foreign source. In my view, that inescapable judgment will be more damning in history's eyes than Whitewater cover-ups or any abuses for which Clinton was impeached.
Click to expand...

Indeed, one of my biggest complaints about the Bush adminstration (the one that got me tossed off Free Republic, a site run by conservatives who wanted to "move on") was/is that he didn't pursue many clear cases of criminality in the Clinton administration. Like the Riady Non-Refund.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom