5th General to say Rumsfeld has to go

barry2952

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
0
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The commander who led the elite 82nd Airborne Division during its mission in Iraq has joined the chorus of retired generals calling on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to leave the Pentagon.

"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him," retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack told CNN's Barbara Starr on Thursday.

Swannack is the second general who served in Iraq under Rumsfeld to call for him to resign.

Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste -- who led the 1st Infantry Division in northern Iraq in 2004-2005 -- called for Rumsfeld's resignation during an interview Wednesday on CNN.

He also suggested other changes among the top brass at the Pentagon.

"I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is," he told CNN.

Former U.S. Central Command chief Anthony Zinni, former Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, and retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold also have called for Rumsfeld to step down.

Swannack is critical of Rumsfeld's management style.

"Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there," Swannack said in the telephone interview.

"And I believe he has culpability associated with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and, so, rather than admitting these mistakes, he continually justifies them to the press ... and that really disallows him from moving our strategy forward."

Swannack, who served more than 30 years in the Army, said part of the problem at the Pentagon is Rumsfeld's system of promoting senior leaders.

"If you understand what Secretary Rumsfeld has done in his time in the Pentagon, he personally is the one who selects the three-star generals to go forward to the president for the Senate to confirm."

Swannack also criticized the way the war was being run before he retired.

In May 2004, while still on active duty, Swannack told the Washington Post that he thought the United States was losing strategically in Iraq.

General defends secretary

The White House has defended Rumsfeld, saying he is "doing a very fine job."

A former top aide to Gen. Tommy Franks, a former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, also stepped forward Thursday to defend Rumsfeld.

"Dealing with Secretary Rumsfeld is like dealing with a CEO," retired Marine Gen. Mike DeLong told CNN's "American Morning" on Thursday.

"When you walk into him, you've got to be prepared, you've got to know what you're talking about. If you don't, you're summarily dismissed. But that's the way it is, and he's effective."

DeLong was the deputy commander of the U.S. Central Command from 2000 to 2003 under Franks.

Calls for a fresh start

Batiste said this week that the United States needs "a fresh start" at the Pentagon.

"When decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision-making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes," Batiste told "American Morning" on Wednesday.

"When we violate the principles of war with mass and unity of command and unity of effort, we do that at our own peril." (Watch as the Iraq veteran criticizes the Pentagon's decision-making -- 1:30)

In addition to commanding the 1st Infantry in Iraq, Batiste also was a senior adviser to former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of the U.S.-led invasion.

"You know, it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense," Batiste said.

Zinni, who also appeared Thursday on CNN, blamed Rumsfeld for "throwing away 10 years worth of planning."

Those plans "had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq," Zinni said.

"We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from them was critical to us," Zinni said. "When we don't see that happening it worries us. Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission."

White House stands by Rumsfeld

Rumsfeld said earlier this week that he wasn't stunned by the criticism from former military leaders. He said there have been "hundreds and hundreds and hundreds" of generals during his latest tenure as defense secretary, and it wasn't unusual for "several" to have unflattering opinions.

"And there's nothing wrong with people having opinions," he said Tuesday at a Pentagon briefing. "And I think one ought to expect that. When you're involved in something that's controversial, as certainly this war is, one ought to expect that. It's historic, it's always been the case, and I see nothing really very new or surprising about it." (Watch Rumsfeld take on his critics -- 2:39 )

In February 2005, Rumsfeld told CNN that he had twice offered President Bush his resignation during the height of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, but the president refused to accept it.

In the White House briefing Thursday, spokesman Scott McClellan said Rumsfeld has the full support of the president.

"The president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation's history," McClellan said.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, also defended Rumsfeld this week, telling reporters that "nobody works harder than he does."

"People can question my judgment or his judgment, but they should never question the dedication, the patriotism and the work ethic of Secretary Rumsfeld," Pace said Tuesday.
 
No one finds it interesting that all of these "critics" all seem to have book deals or plans to go into politics as Democrats.

And, this article glosses over it, but the people who were actually in the know at the time still support Rumsfeld. That doesn't mean they think every decision made turned out to have ultimately been the best choice, but that he's done his job effectively- and they aren't about the undermine the military or the country in their partisan pursuits.
 
Book deal? Couldn't be that things are really :q:q:q:qed up and he's simply pointing it out? I can't believe you, especially, are still defending the job we're doing in Iraq. You seem so level headed about everything else.
 
You...........................

barry2952 said:
Book deal? Couldn't be that things are really :q:q:q:qed up and he's simply pointing it out? I can't believe you, especially, are still defending the job we're doing in Iraq. You seem so level headed about everything else.

"Yes I want the truth"
"You can't handle the truth."
 
barry2952 said:
Book deal? Couldn't be that things are really :q:q:q:qed up and he's simply pointing it out? I can't believe you, especially, are still defending the job we're doing in Iraq. You seem so level headed about everything else.

Why don't you try reading into why this particular General is unhappy with Rumsfeld? If you actually did, you would find out that it has nothing to do with what we are doing on the ground.

I can give you hints. I just can't reveal the answer.

Hint #1: "I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is," he told CNN.

Hint #2: Swannack is critical of Rumsfeld's management style.

HInt #3: "Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there," Swannack said in the telephone interview.

Hint #4: "And I believe he has culpability associated with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and, so, rather than admitting these mistakes, he continually justifies them to the press ... and that really disallows him from moving our strategy forward."

Hint #5: Swannack, who served more than 30 years in the Army, said part of the problem at the Pentagon is Rumsfeld's system of promoting senior leaders.

Hint #6: "If you understand what Secretary Rumsfeld has done in his time in the Pentagon, he personally is the one who selects the three-star generals to go forward to the president for the Senate to confirm."

Give it a crack. The guy has an agenda. Is it apparent yet or are the rose-colored glasses all fogged-up.



There is a great book out. It is called...Reading is fundamental. Good read.
 
Funny post Bryan. You know better than a General that was in the field of battle.
 
So this cry-baby doesn't like who Rummy is hand-picking for promotion. Boohoo. Rummy didn't run from the Abu-Graib with his tail between his legs. Boohoo. Rummy is not as mean and nasty as he should be and is holding his troops back. Boohoo.

You know Barry, your hatred for this administration has clouded any possibility of you having an unbiased opinion. EVERYTHING the United States does is wrong as far as you are concerned and the Democrats would be doing it so much better with the EXACT same personnel in the field. That to me is the really funny part.

The guy is a cry-baby. Figure it out. There are some personal issues there that have nothing to do with whether or not we are performing and WINNING on the ground over in Iraq. Maybe the guy was passed over for a promotion. Maybe he didn't get a bonus. Maybe he was removed from command for poor performance. Think any of these are a possibility?
 
Now there's a sixth General coming out against Rummy. They're all cry-babies?

Winning the war in Iraq? By who's standards, Rummy's?

You're blinded by your faith in GWB and his minion.
 
Barry, it's really simple, I put it in picture format...:rolleyes:

DNC_Cry_Babies.jpg
 
The problem with this situation is that Al Qaeda must be laughing their heads off right now because of this. We're in the middle of a war, and there seems to be a concerted public effort to undermine Bush, Rumsfeld, and this country's ability to wage war.

I understand many of you are invested in our country's defeat and want us to cut and run. But we still have tens of thousands of soldiers in harm's way. Whatever you think of Bush, it's very dangerous for our soldiers to have these people publicly castigating our leaders, and the media trumpets this as loud as possible. They are effectively aiding and comforting our enemies in wartime.

What would you think if you were Al Qaeda? Would you be encouraged to keep fighting? That potentially kills more of our soldiers. That's dangerous.
 
Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Saturday, April 15, 2006 11:50 a.m. EDT

Anthony Zinni Flashback: Saddam the Biggest Threat

Retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, who now complains that President Bush cherry-picked pre-war Iraq weapons intelligence and misled the country into going to war, warned six years ago that Saddam Hussein's WMD program was the biggest threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East.

"Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region," Zinni told Congress on March 15, 2000.

"Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased," the general-turned-war critic said, "Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, and is concealing extended-range SCUD missiles, possibly equipped with CBW [chem-bio-weapons] payloads," Zinni said, in quotes unearthed Friday by the American Thinker blog.


Gen. Zinni is currently leading to charge to get Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign - a campaign he began two weeks ago on NBC's "Meet the Press."

During the same broadcast, Zinni addressed the issue of Saddam's WMD threat - sounding like someone who'd developed acute amnesia about his earlier testimony.

"What bothered me," Zinni told host Tim Russert, "[was that] I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn’t fit what I knew. There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD.

"Now, I’d be the first to say we had to assume he had WMD left over that wasn’t accounted for: artillery rounds, chemical rounds, a SCUD missile or two. But these things, over time, degrade. These things did not present operational or strategic level threats at best."


In fact, Zinni's flip-flop was so acute he should be suffering from a case of rhetorical whiplash. Here's more from the old Zinni - here telling Congress that Saddam would remain a threat even if he gave up his WMDs:

"Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months."

The old Zinni even warned of a potential collaboration between Osama bin Laden and Iraq, telling Congress:

"Extremists like Osama bin Laden and his World Islamic Front network benefit from the global nature of communications that permits recruitment, fund raising, and direct connections to sub-elements worldwide . . .

"Terrorists are seeking more lethal weaponry to include: chemical, biological, radiological, and even nuclear components with which to perpetrate more sensational attacks . . . Three [Iraq, Iran and Sudan] of the seven recognized state-sponsors of terrorism are within this potentially volatile area, and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has been sanctioned by the UN Security Council for its harboring of Osama bin Laden."


Now Zinni wants Bush to apologize and Rumsfeld to resign for taking his advice in the first place.
 
Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Sunday, April 16, 2006 8:51 p.m. EDT

Ex-Joint Chiefs Gen. Myers Defends Rumsfeld

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld did not intimidate members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during planning of the Iraq war as some retired generals have charged, a former chairman said Sunday.

With Rumsfeld described by his critics as a micromanager who did not listen to military leaders, the Pentagon circulated a one-page memo late last week detailing the defense secretary's frequent contacts with numerous military and civilian advisers.

Richard B. Myers, the Air Force general who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs from 2001 until last fall, dismissed criticism that military leaders failed to stand up to Rumsfeld and President Bush when they disagreed with those civilian officials.

"We gave him our best military advice and I think that's what we're obligated to do," Myers said on "This Week" on ABC. "If we don't do that, we should be shot."

A half-dozen retired generals have called for Rumsfeld's ouster, citing mistakes in the conduct of the war in Iraq. Some have suggested that intimidation by Rumsfeld kept military leaders quiet even when they thought policies were flawed.

"You'd have to believe that everybody in the chain of command is intimidated, and I don't believe that," Myers said. He added that Rumsfeld allowed "tremendous access" for presenting arguments.

"In our system, when it's all said and done ... the civilians make the decisions," he said. "And we live by those decisions."

The Pentagon memo, which was not dated or signed, put onto paper information that had been provided orally to reporters on Friday. It is not unusual for the Defense Department to distribute such information to analysts, military officials and others who might be reporting or commenting on a Pentagon policy.

Senior military leaders "are involved to an unprecedented degree in every decision-making process" in the Defense Department, according to the memo. Rumsfeld, it said, had met 139 times with members of the joint chiefs and 208 times with combat commanders from 2005 to the present.

Bush on Friday said that Rumsfeld "has my full support" and praised the defense secretary "for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our nation."

On Sunday's news shows, Republican lawmakers either backed Rumsfeld or declined to take issue with Bush's support for him. Democrats continued to call for a change in Pentagon leadership.

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., suggested that people are looking for a "scapegoat," yet he called the retired generals who have criticized Rumsfeld "people of credibility."

Allen, on CBS' "Face the Nation," questioned whether replacing Rumsfeld would have any impact on the insurgents in Iraq, the training of security forces there or on how Iraqi leaders form their government.

Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that Bush is making "a good call" in retaining Rumsfeld. Facing a large agenda of foreign-policy issues, the president should not be distracted by operational disputes, said Lugar, R-Ind.

Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., who called for Rumsfeld to resign two years ago, said the issue now is about "the president's decision-making and judgment."

Bush's inability to put more important concerns ahead of keeping Rumsfeld as defense secretary "is not healthy for our country," Bayh said in a joint appearance with Lugar on ABC's "This Week."

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., told "Fox News Sunday" that criticism from retired generals "is a very, very important event."

"We ought to pay a lot of attention," Dodd said. "And the president would be very wise, in my view, asking him to step aside."



Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Sunday, April 16, 2006 11:08 a.m. EDT

Gen. Richard Myers: Criticizing Rumsfeld Wrong

Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers is blasting the six ex-military men who have called in recent days on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign.

"I think it's really bad for the military," Myers told Fox News Channel's "Special Report" on Friday.

"I think it's bad for civil military relations and I think it's potentially bad for the country because the role of the military is not to judge or criticize our civilian bosses."

Gen. Myers rejected complaints that Rumsfeld was arrogant an imperious, taking particular issue with retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who said last week that the defense chief was someone who "was abusive, who was arrogant and who didn't build a strong team."

"I certainly wouldn't ever call Secretary Rumsfeld abusive. That's just ludicrous," Myers told Fox.


If anything, the former joint chiefs chair said, Rumsfeld bent over backwards to take into account the advice of his military team

"I don't think people understand how collaborative he is when we are working tough issues and trying to come to how we feel about this," Myers explained. "Most of the meetings he comes to he does not have a preconceived notion of what the answer is. He is very collaborative, I think almost to a fault."
 
Whatsamatter, barry? Got no reply???

You're getting your a$$ kicked in this thread.


Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 12:09 p.m. EDT
Gen. Anthony Zinni Admitted USS Cole Blunder


Former CENTCOM Commander, Gen. Anthony Zinni - who has called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign because of his alleged incompetence in running the Iraq war - admitted six years ago that he made the disastrous decision to have the U.S.S. Cole use the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling, where the ship was blown up by al Qaeda terrorists.

Worse still, at least one report indicates that Gen. Zinni may have played a role in an August 1998 leak that tipped off Osama bin Laden to an impending U.S. cruise missile attack - allowing the top terrorist to escape.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in October 2000, a week after the Cole attack, the then-recently retired Zinni said: "I pass that buck on to nobody."

The Rumsfeld critic explained that he personally signed off on berthing the Cole in Yemen even though "their coast is a sieve for terrorists."

"The threat conditions in Aden were better than elsewhere," he insisted, citing risk assessments for Sudan and Saudi Arabia.

Gen. Zinni said that cutbacks in the size of the Navy's fleet during the Clinton years made it necessary to use regional ports for refueling, noting: "Ten years ago, we did all refueling at sea" using Navy oilers.

Still, prior to the Cole attack, there's no record that Gen. Zinni ever complained about Clinton era defense cuts.

In what may be an even more troubling development, a report indicates that the leading Rumsfeld critic may have inadvertently played a role in tipping off Osama bin Laden to an impending U.S. cruise missile attack two years before the Cole episode.

Two days after President Clinton ordered the attack on bin Laden's encampment in Khost Afghanistan, the Associated Press reported:

"Kuwait's Al-Watan newspaper, quoting unidentified sources in London today, reported that Pakistan leaked to bin Laden news about an impending U.S. strike. The sources said the leak was aimed at limiting casualties, so that bin Laden would have less justification for a counterattack.

"A Pakistani government source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Gen. Anthony Zinni, commander of the U.S. Central Command, was in Peshawar the day before the attack to meet with Pakistani officials.

"Other Pakistani sources said Zinni came with a team of U.S. intelligence experts whose task was to pinpoint the camps and determine bin Laden's exact whereabouts."

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE:

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

The Generals War
What's behind the attacks against Rumsfeld.


Monday, April 17, 2006 12:01 a.m.

So when did Generals cease to be responsible for outcomes in war? We ask that question amid the latest calls by certain retired senior military officers for Donald Rumsfeld to resign over U.S. difficulties in Iraq.
Major General Charles H. Swannack Jr., for one, was quoted last week as saying the Defense Secretary's "absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq" mean he is not "the right person" to continue leading the Pentagon. Mr. Swannack, who commanded the 82nd Airborne in Iraq, joins other ex-uniformed Iraq War critics such as former Centcom Commander Anthony Zinni and retired Army Major General John Batiste. But there's far more behind this firefight than Mr. Rumsfeld's performance.

Mr. Zinni in particular neither fought the Iraq War nor supported it in the first place. He is a longtime advocate of "realism" in the Middle East, which is fancy-speak for leaving Arab dictators alone in the name of "stability." What Mr. Zinni really opposes is President Bush's "forward strategy of freedom," not the means by which the Administration has waged the Iraq campaign.

As for those who've raised the issue of competence, we'd be more persuaded if they weren't so impossibly vague. If their critique is that Mr. Rumsfeld underestimated the Sunni insurgency, well, so did the CIA and military intelligence. Retired General Tommy Franks, who led and planned the campaign that toppled Saddam Hussein, took a victory lap after the invasion even as the insurgency gathered strength.
If their complaint is that Mr. Rumsfeld has since fought the insurgents with too few troops, well, what about current Centcom Commander John Abizaid? He is by far the most forceful advocate of the "small footprint" strategy--the idea that fewer U.S. troops mean less Iraqi resentment of occupation.

Our point here isn't to join the generals, real or armchair, in pointing fingers of blame for what has gone wrong in Iraq. Mistakes are made in every war; there's a reason the word "snafu" began as a military acronym whose meaning we can't reprint in a family newspaper. But if we're going to start assigning blame, then the generals themselves are going to have to assume much of it.

A recent article by former Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor for the Center for Defense Information details how the U.S. advance on Baghdad in March and April 2003 was slowed against Mr. Rumsfeld's wishes by overcautious commanders on the scene. That may have allowed Saddam and many of his supporters to escape to fight the insurgency. General Abizaid also resisted the first assault on Fallujah, in April 2004, which sent a signal of U.S. political weakness. We don't agree with all of Mr. Macgregor's points, but it is likely that these Rumsfeld critics are trying to write their own first, rough draft of historic blame shifting.

Our own view is that the worst mistakes in Iraq have been more political than military, especially in not establishing a provisional Iraqi government from the very start. Instead, the U.S. allowed itself to be portrayed as occupiers, a fact that the insurgency exploited. But the blame for that goes well beyond Mr. Rumsfeld--and would extend to then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and to Mr. Bush himself.

Mr. Rumsfeld's largest mistake may have been giving L. Paul Bremer too free a hand to govern like a viceroy in 2003 and 2004 when a more rapid turnover of political power to Iraqis, and more rapid training of Iraqi forces, might have made a big difference. More than anything else, that unnecessary delay in Iraq's political and self-defense evolution has contributed to the current instability.

But that is for the historians to sort out. What matters now is doing what it takes to prevail in Iraq, setting up a new government and defeating the terrorists. How firing Mr. Rumsfeld will help in any of this, none of the critics say. They certainly aren't offering any better military strategy for victory.

More than likely, Mr. Rumsfeld's departure would create new problems, starting with a crisis of confidence in Iraq about American staying power. What do Mr. Rumsfeld's critics imagine Iraqis think as they watch former commanders assigning blame? And how would a Rumsfeld resignation contribute to the credible threat of force necessary to meet America's next major security challenge, which is Iran's attempt to build a nuclear bomb? Sacking the Defense Secretary mid-conflict would only reinforce the Iranian mullahs' belief that they have nothing to worry about because Americans have no stomach for a prolonged engagement in their part of the world.

The anti-Rumsfeld generals have a right to their opinion. But there's a reason the Founders provided for civilian control of the military, and a danger in military men using their presumed authority to push elected Administrations around. As for Democrats and their media allies, we can only admire their sudden new deference to the senior U.S. officer corps, which follows their strange new respect for the "intelligence community" they also once despised. U.S. military recruiters might not be welcome on Ivy League campuses, but they're heroes when they trash the Bush Administration.
Mr. Rumsfeld's departure has been loudly demanded in various quarters for a couple of years now, without much success, and on Friday Mr. Bush said he still has his every confidence. We suspect the President understands that most of those calling for Mr. Rumsfeld's head are really longing for his.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008249
 
Keep stompin' them little feet.

I'd believe 6 Generals over your lunatic rantings, any day.

No comment from you on the Republican scandal list?
 
barry2952 said:
No comment from you on the Republican scandal list?

Here are 7 good ones. I even tossed another one in for good measure. can you figure out which one it is?

Billygate — U.S. President Jimmy Carter's brother, Billy Carter, legally represented a Libyan terrorist "Billygate - 1980", The Washington Post, 1998.

Chinagate (also "Campaign finance scandal"). Allegations that China illegally attempted to funnel campaign funds to the Democratic Party of the United States during the 1996 elections.

Filegate — The illegal possession and scrutiny of 300-900 FBI files by the Clinton Administration without the file's subject's permission.

Monicagate or Sexgate ("Zippergate", "the Lewinsky scandal") — named after Monica Lewinsky who had an "inappropriate relationship" with the then–US President, Bill Clinton.

Nipplegate — Justin Timberlake reveals Janet Jackson's nipple during the halftime show of Super Bowl XXXVIII. Called "teatgate" by Jon Stewart.

Rathergate (also "Memogate") — Faxed copies of unauthenticated memos, that were presented on 60 Minutes in 2004, claimed President George W. Bush was derelict in his duty in the Texas Air National Guard in 1972.

Travelgate — Linked to Filegate, the firings and reinstatement of several people at the White House Travel Office. "How Clintons took control of federal law enforcement", WorldNetDaily, 2005-07-07.

Troopergate — the allegations by two Arkansas state troopers that they arranged sexual liaisons for then-governor Bill Clinton.
 
Here Barry. Try this on for size.


ADMINISTRATION RECORDS SET

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad

HISTORICAL CONTEXT
- Number of independent counsel inquiries since the 1978 law was passed: 19
- Number that have produced indictments: 7
- Number that produced more convictions than the Starr investigation: 1
- Median length of investigations that have led to convictions: 44 months
- Length of Starr-Ray investigation (7/00): 67 months.
- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions to date (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 15
- Median cost per Starr investigation conviction: $3.5 million as of 3/00
- Total cost of the Starr investigation (3/00) $52 million
- Total cost of the Iran-Contra investigation: $48.5 million
- Total cost to taxpayers of the Madison Guarantee failure: $73 million
- Number of Clinton cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3

CRIME STATS

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of imprisonments: 14
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pled the 5th Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 124

CAMPAIGN FINANCE INVESTIGATION
- As of June 2000, the Justice Department listed 25 people indicted and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals.
- According to the House Committee on Government Reform in September 2000, 79 House and Senate witnesses asserted the Fifth Amendment in the course of investigations into Gore's last fundraising campaign. [These figures are included in the larger figures elsewhere].
-James Riady entered a plea agreement to pay an $8.5 million fine for campaign finance crimes. This was a record under campaign finance laws.

STARR INVESTIGATION
- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas to date (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 15
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3

SMALTZ INVESTIGATION
- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Cost of investigation: $22.2 million through 9/99
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million
- Amount Tyson Food still has in annual government contracts: $200 million
- Reasons individuals other than Espy were convicted or pled guilty: Concealing knowledge of gifts to Espy and his girlfriend (1), providing illegal gratuities to Espy(4), illegally supplementing the salary of a government official (2), concealing receipt of illegal funds on behalf of Espy (1) (Espy's chief of staff sentenced to prison in this case)

CRIMES FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED
Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery(4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts(1), illegal campaign contributions(5), money laundering (6)

POSSIBLE CRIMES AND SUSPICIOUS MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS, CONGRESS,
AND/OR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS

Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, illegal acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, illegal futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, as well as providing access to the White House to drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime.

UNEXPLAINED PHENOMENA
- FBI files misappropriated by the White House: c. 900
- Estimated number of witnesses quoted in FBI files misappropriated by the White House: 18,000
- Number of witnesses who developed medical problems at critical points in Clinton scandals investigation (Tucker, Hale, both McDougals, Lindsey): 5
- Problem areas listed in a memo by Clinton's own lawyer in preparation for the president's defense: 40
- Number of witnesses and critics of Clinton subjected to IRS audit: 45
- Number of names placed in a White House secret database without the knowledge of those named: c. 200,000
- Number of persons involved with Clinton who have been beaten up: 2
- Number of women involved with Clinton who claim to have been physically threatened (Sally Perdue, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Elizabeth Ward Gracen): 5
- Number of men involved in the Clinton scandals who have been beaten up or claimed to have been intimidated: 10

ARKANSAS SUDDEN DEATH SYNDROME- Number of persons in the Clinton machine orbit who are alleged to have committed suicide: 9
- Number known to have been murdered: 12
- Number who died in plane crashes: 6
- Number who died in single car automobile accidents: 3
- Number killed during Waco massacre: 4
- Number of one-person sking fatalities: 1
- Number of key witnesses who have died of heart attacks while in federal custody under questionable circumstances: 1
- Number of medications being taken by Jim McDougal at the time he was placed in solitary confinement shortly before his death: 12
- Number of unexplained deaths: 4
- Total suspicious deaths: 46
- Number of northern Mafia killings during peak years of 1968-78: 30
- Number of Dixie Mafia killings during same period: 156

ARKANSAS ALZHEIMER'S- Number of times Hillary Clinton said "I don't recall" or its equivalent in a statement to a House investigating committee: 50
- Number of paragraphs in this statement: 42
- Number of times Bill Clinton said "I don't recall" or its equivalent in the released portions of the his testimony on Paula Jones: 271
- Total number of facts or events not recalled before official bodies by Bill Kennedy, Harold Ickes, Ricki Seidman, Bruce Lindsey, Bill Burton, Mark Gearan, Mack McLarty, Neil Eggleston, John Podesta, Jennifer O'Connor, Dwight Holton, Patsy Thomasson, Jeff Eller, Beth Nolan, Cliff Sloan, Bernard Nussbaum, George Stephanopoulous, Roy Neel, Rahm Emanuel, Maggie Williams, David Tarbell, Susan Thomases, Webster Hubbell, Roger Altman, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton: 6,125
- Average occurrence of memory lapse by top administration figures while before official bodies: 235

ARKANSAS MONEY MANAGEMENT- Amount of an alleged electronic transfer from the Arkansas Development Financial Authority to a bank in the Cayman Islands during 1980s: $50 million
- Grand Cayman's population: 18,000
- Number of commercial banks: 570
- Number of bank regulators: 1
- Amount Arkansas state pension fund invested in high-risk repos in the mid-80s in one purchase in April 1985: $52 million through the Worthen Bank.
- Number of days thereafter that the state's brokerage firm went belly up: 3
- Amount Arkansas pension fund dropped overnight as a result: 15%
- Percent of Worthen bank that Mochtar Riady bought over the next four months to bail out the bank and the then governor, Bill Clinton: 40%.
- Percent of purchasers from the Clintons and McDougals of resort lots who lost the land because of the sleazy financing provisions: over 50%

THE MEDIA

- Number of journalists covering Whitewater who have been fired, transferred off the beat, resigned or otherwise gotten into trouble because of their work on the scandals (Doug Frantz, Jim Wooten, Richard Behar, Christopher Ruddy, Michael Isikoff, David Eisenstadt, Yinh Chan, Jonathan Broder, James R. Norman, Zoh Hieronimus): 10

FRIENDS OF BILL
- Number of times John Huang took the 5th Amendment in answer to questions during a Judicial Watch deposition: 1,000
- Visits made to the White House by investigation subjects Johnny Chung, James Riady, John Huang, and Charlie Trie. 160
- Number of campaign contributors who got overnights at the White House in the two years before the 1996 election: 577
- Number of members of Thomas Boggs's law firm who have held top positions in the Clinton administration. 18
- Number of times John Huang was briefed by CIA: 37
- Number of calls Huang made from Commerce Department to Lippo banks: 261
- Number of intelligence reports Huang read while at Commerce: 500

POLITICAL FALL-OUT- According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of November 2000 that lead had shrunk to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats controlled only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans.

Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November, the Republicans control one more than the Democrats. Not only was this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it was the first time since 1954 that the GOP had controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968).
Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton:
- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8
- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254
as of 1998
- State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9
- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became
president: 439 as of 1998
- Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became president: 3

=============================================================
And Clinton is your hero. LMAO.
 
Try staying on subject. You're still way behind in the number of Republican scandals.
 
barry2952 said:
No comment from you on the Republican scandal list?

Try staying on subject. You're still way behind in the number of Republican scandals.

Confused again by your own words I see.
 
You boys better learn how to read. Your ignorance is showing.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top