THE ECONOMY

Who’s Watching the Money?

With the economy worsening and the Bush team adrift, queasy markets are looking to Obama to set the course. But is naming a Treasury secretary enough?

By Michael Hirsh and Daniel Gross | NEWSWEEK
Published Nov 22, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Dec 1, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: gary goldbladt @ 11/27/2008 6:31:08 PM

    Regarding a mortgage bailout, I think it will be money down the loo. I can't see any way to prop up housing prices when an old 4 bedroom house in the suburbs, 60 minuites from San Fransisco, sells for $730,000. If prices were to drop to around $150K, there would be a tremendous housing boom in short order. What we really need to do is let nature take it's course in the housing industry.
    Money would be much better spent on keeping teachers in thier classrooms, replacing worn out bridges, building public transit, and manufacturing plug-in cars in the USA. It is imperative to keep people working. But, propping up housing prices is not going to do that.
    The same is true for trying to prop up stock prices. Just think what life would be like if Congress had tried to keep stock prices up during the dot com crash of 2001. Yeah, my 401K value dropped to a third of it's original value. But, my children didn't go hungry. And, the dollar still kept it's value.
    Judges need to be given flexibility with mortgages during bankruptcy proceedings. That would be a much better way to help people who gambled their life savings in real estate.

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/25/2008 6:28:52 PM

    My position never changed he had no legitimate government reason to have those files they were obtained for his own personal use in an effort to find dirt on his enemies that is a felony. Hhe lied under oath about having sex with LEWINSKY A FELONY. Both lied about not seeing the documents despite the fact Hillary's fingerprints were all over them. I think mst people with common sense knows he committed these crimes I am amazed you refuse to acknowledge those facts. Were you on the OJ Simpson jury? You sure sound like it. As far as the Clinton White House being irrelevant you are right about that

    • Posted By: bighappy @ 11/25/2008 7:02:26 PM

      Please stop mentioning that Monica nonsense. He was not elected the Pope, so what Monica sucked - was ony theirs and Hillary business, every man has right to disobey the stupid law. I can agree with you on others issues.

      • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/27/2008 2:16:22 AM

        Dough's just a simple Limbot, please don't confuse him with advanced concepts, like there are areas of private life that RepubliCONs have no business intruding into, even when their blood lust runs high. I think the poor daft man said somewhere down the page that Clinton molested Lewinski. LOL she was 21 years old at the time and her account of the affair was that she seduced him, not the other way around. Could any of you folks be kind enough to send Mr. Dough a clue, cause he just doesn't have one.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 11/26/2008 9:10:35 AM

      Clinton was not convicted of any felonies.

  • Posted By: bighappy @ 11/26/2008 4:51:22 PM

    Year 2012. To revive economy, Obama proposes new $50 trillion bailout. Senators object because it will increase our tax rate by 1%.

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/25/2008 7:39:00 AM

    jARCHER1 DID YOU NOTICE IN THE ONE ARTICLE "NONE OF THE FILES WERE EXAMINED" ANOTHER LIE UNLESS BUSH SOMEHOW PUT HILLARY'S FINDERPRINTS ON THEM IN HIS DIABOLICAL SCHEME TO BECOME PRESIDENT AFTER CLINTON. ALSO DO YOU REMEMBER THE ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING OF NEWT GINGRICH'S PHONE - I SUPPOSE THAT WASN'T ILLEGAL EITHER BUT THE GOVERNMENT LISTENING IN ON POTENTIAL TERRORIST PHONE CALLS IS ILLEGAL. CLEARLY THE LAW ONLY APPLIES TO REPUBLICANS.

    • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/25/2008 8:13:36 AM

      Neither you nor I *know* the files were examined, you're simply assuming something on the basis of no knowledge of the situation. As for Newt, I remember something about his cell phone conversation being intercepted by an overzealous gentleman with a scanner who then recorded it, and forwarded it to the White house, or maybe it was news outlets, I really don't recall which. In fact as I remember it, this gentlemen did have to pay a fine and was convicted of a misdemeanor for his efforts, so it was clearly criminal. As for the NSA eavesdropping it is clearly unconstitutional the way the Bushies were practicing it. There is a method that is in place allowing eavesdropping under a court order that is Constitutional, but Bush figured it didn't apply to his administration. Actually we never should have gotten to this point without Bush being impeached, but of course his own dear RepubliCONs were in power in Congress for the first six years of his term, so that simply wasn't an available option.

      • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/25/2008 3:02:39 PM

        Hillary's fingerprints were found on the documents many of them so she didn't read them just stared at the blank page like Bill when he smoked dope but didn't inhale. You must be doing the same at least have the courage to display some creditability integrity and backbone or maybe you agree with all illegal activity in that White House which despite your best efforts makes the Bush White House look like a Sunday Schol bunch.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/26/2008 3:52:40 PM

          "Hillary's fingerprints were found on the documents many of them "

          Post link, please.

  • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/24/2008 11:20:25 AM

    Throwing $500B or whatever number it turns out to be and that 2.5M jobs being created by infrastructure projects and alternative energy is no going to stop the bleeding. this will not create growth. without growth you get nowhere. We need to the free enterprise and free markets to be left alone and if that means cleansing the marketplace by letting companies fail, then so be it, that is how it is supposed to work. All this stuff we are doing with bailouts, rescue packages,etc are creating more and more government and long term that is not good for growth.

    • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/24/2008 12:40:28 PM

      Mighty odd that a big wheel on Wall St. like yourself is posting during business hours. Posting from your rosewood paneled office with the computer on your teak desk are you? Thank you ever so much for taking a few minutes to just let millions in profits go down the hole while you set us simpletons straight. LMAO.

      • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 11/24/2008 1:03:43 PM

        Everyone on the internet is an independently wealthy wall street shark/hedge fund manager, yes?

        At least while they're on the internet.

        • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/24/2008 2:03:33 PM

          See down at the bottom of this thread for Marley's claim to be a wheel on the St. He won't actually make a forthright claim, he mealy mouths around stating it, but its clear he wants to give the impression he's major player there.

          • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 11/24/2008 2:28:02 PM

            Yes, I saw that. Very amusing...we all know Wall Street execs have lots of time for posting on blogs.

            • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/24/2008 11:00:55 PM

              I never said anything about being a wall street excutive. I think you listen to the media a little too much in that you think that is all wall street is, wealthy executives.

              • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 11/26/2008 12:55:08 PM

                So, what, you make the tea?

          • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/24/2008 11:05:41 PM

            horrible b...once again assuming something you have no information about. wall st execs and hedge funds, is that all wall st is made up of? do you even know what a hedge fund is? what they do? their strategies? how they put positions on? would love to hear your thoughts.

      • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/24/2008 3:58:26 PM

        By the way, half the reason i read this stuff is sinmply for knowledge of what the public thinks as they are good to use as a contrarian indicator.

        • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/24/2008 6:56:04 PM

          Perhaps participant observation is not the way to gather this data. Especially with you interfering with the culture by posting. Any lop eared, whomper jawed, wet behind the ears, boy Anthropologist would know that.

          • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/24/2008 11:12:10 PM

            there are never too many ways to gather data. It is always good to know how people respond. Oh by the way, you guys are good with assumptions of what wall street is made up of....i love the rosewood paneled office..that was good.

  • Posted By: chris s. @ 11/24/2008 4:43:00 PM

    Obama isn't in power yet; still they are calling this the Obama recession! Just wait until after jan 20th.! Somebody better be watching the Bush administration during their lame duck days. They can be a tricky bunch. We'll never know who started it. Too complicated.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 11/24/2008 5:03:48 PM

      "Obama isn't in power yet; still they are calling this the Obama recession! "

      You're joking, yes? Nobody could be that stupid.

      • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/24/2008 8:26:03 PM

        Eisenhower inherited Truman's recession, Nixon Johnson's mess, Reagan Carter's God awful destruction of our economy, Clinton Bush I's recession, Bush II Clinton's recesiion and Obama will inherit this recession. Despite the losses in the stock market and the credit crunch unemployemnt is still as lw as it was in 1994 with Clinton in office. The problem I see is Bush will beblamed for everything period, He was blamed for high gas prices but no one is crediting him iwth the low price now. The truth is this was a global correction that affected all economies not just ours. Too much tinkering will foul up the recovery and prolong the recession.

        • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 11/26/2008 12:51:38 PM

          " The problem I see is Bush will beblamed for everything period,"

          Good. It's the least the little knob deserves.

      • Posted By: chris s. @ 11/24/2008 8:24:30 PM

        Sorry, unfortunately I heard it on FOX. Really! Fair and balanced Hannity said it. Couldn't believe it either.

        • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/24/2008 10:02:14 PM

          Ahh, lets give them a break, they're still in denial, coming down after 8 years of being drunk with power.

      • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/24/2008 7:27:02 PM

        RepubliCONs and Fox News could. LMAO.

    • Posted By: bighappy @ 11/24/2008 8:06:23 PM

      They are wrong, it is still Bush recession. In a year they will call it Obama depression.

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/24/2008 6:59:58 PM

    The photo below captures a disturbing trend that is beginning to affect wildlife in the US.

    Animals that were formerly self-sufficient are now showing signs of belonging to the Democratic Party... as they have apparently learned to just sit and wait for the government to step in and provide for their care and sustenance.

    PHOTO DELETED FOR SPACE

    This photo is of a Democrat black bear in Montana, nicknamed 'Bear-ack Obama'!

    • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/24/2008 7:40:54 PM

      Photo deleted for space. LMAO, what a genius. But you're wrong about the bear. He doesn't just sit and beg. The other thing he does is chew up RepubliCONs and spit out the pieces.

      • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/24/2008 7:56:22 PM

        Must make you feel proud to sit back and have everything paid for by the labor of another. I know it would me!!! The republicons as you call them pay for the Bear. It was a great picture - a bear belllied up to a picnic table waiting for his sustenance = reminded ot Yogi Bear. I found it humorous but sadly, all too true!!!!

        • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 11/26/2008 12:50:05 PM

          "The republicons as you call them pay for the Bear. "

          Then why do most blue states get back less than $1 on every dollar they send to Washington, and the red states get back more than $1/dollar?

          Because "republicans are paying the way", or because republicans are on the dole?

        • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/24/2008 9:45:57 PM

          No makes me very proud of the bear. At least he has the good sense to spit the pieces out.

        • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/24/2008 9:43:24 PM

          LOL truth according to your lights. Now why is it that a guy dull enough to stereotype 53% of the voting population as people living off the labor of the other 46% just doesn't inspire my confidence that he's on to some great truth?

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/25/2008 3:39:37 PM

    Gee HarleyisHere you accuse the GOP of being hateful and call me an idiot and a twit. Gee I guess your hate and bitterness is ok but everyone else's is evil. I have never said a hateful thing about Obama, Clinton or any democrat just stated facts that you guys can't deal with and spew hate when confronted. I disagree with the platform of the democratic party from abortion to taxes and pretty much everything in between. I do not hate any of them or even you. I do disagree with your hateful posting making fun of the way Bush talks - a lot of Americans talk iwth accents, drawls, ebonics and yes some of it is not always pleasant to listen to at times.
    As far as Bush and Cheny wanting to stay there forever why in the world did they negotiate this pullout by 2012 they seem to be even outsmarting you. I also get a kick out it every time dems say Bush is dumb including Gore and Kerry who made fun of his grades in college all the while not releasing their own college grads until after the elections. The funny thing the media didn't cover it but it seems ole Georgey boy had a better GPA then both of them. Just a quick blip by most media that even covered it. Of course Bush somehow magically slipped into their alma maters and change their GPA's to make him look better he sure is a little devil that GWB!!!

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 11/26/2008 12:47:16 PM

      "you accuse the GOP of being hateful "

      Yes. In addition, they aren't very bright.

    • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/25/2008 6:24:49 PM

      Gee the GOP IS hateful, and you are a twit. So what's your complaint against Harley for telling the truth?

  • Posted By: kkhan @ 11/26/2008 9:19:17 AM

    Obama will take office soon & then what - he will wave his magic wand & all the problems & dilemmas that faces the nation will disappear. Don't worry folks, change is coming but don't forget what Socrates said '' If the winds of change blows hard enough, the most TRIVIAL of things could become deadly projectiles''

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/25/2008 7:33:50 AM

    President Clinton apologized Wednesday for the first time for the White House's collecting FBI files of Republicans. ``I would never condone or tolerate any kind of enemies list,'' he declared.

    With presidential rival Bob Dole comparing the action to Watergate ``tricks,'' a contrite Clinton said the private files were obtained from the FBI in 1993 because of ``an honest bureaucratic mess-up.''

    ``I am sorry that it occurred, and I believe that we will correct it,'' the president told reporters. ``And I think the FBI will correct it on their end as well, so that nothing like this will happen again.''

    Dole, campaigning in Kansas, called ...

    Well genius if this was all legal why is he apologizing saying it will never happen again etc... It WAS ABSOLUTLEY ILLEGAL TO OBTAIN THOSE FILES FOR THE PURPOSE THEY WERE OBTAINED IT SERVED NO LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT PURPOSE IT SERVED CLINTON'S DESIRE TO TRY AND DIG UP DIRT ON HIS ENEMIES.

    • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/25/2008 7:54:05 AM

      First you say it was illegal, they you say you never said that, now you say its illegal again. Make up your mind, although RepubliCONs often think they can have it both ways, it just ain't possible. And calm down, you'll have a stroke man. Now as to your latest rant, you still don't get it do you? If the POTUS is the supreme classification authority, which he is, he has the final judgement about what is or is not legitimate use. As to you're wild imaginings about Clinton's motive for having the files in the first place - do you read minds, cause otherwise I can't figure how you came by the information he had the files to dig up dirt since he never said that. Like I said, do try to calm down, just doesn't look professional. What if you lost it testifying in a trial like that? Hmmmmm.

      • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/25/2008 3:09:45 PM

        The president can look at documents for legitimate government reasons - his reasons were neither legitimate or for government reasons he was trying to dig up dirt on his political enemies thereby using his office for personal gain not governmental reasons which now follow this is MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE IT IS A "FELONY" SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU OR DO I NEED TO GET OUT A COLORING BOOK!!

        • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 11/26/2008 9:14:11 AM

          What? Are we talking about Nixon, now?

  • Posted By: neocon @ 11/25/2008 4:39:31 PM

    Those of you who elected him will and probably are soon to realize what a huge mistake you???ve made. Maybe next time you will consider all the facts and issues about your candidate before electing someone because they seem ???cool??? or because they are an eloquent speaker. At least those of us who aren???t naive enough to have fell for his bull sh _ _ promises won???t be kicking ourselves in the a _ _ in a few months asking ourselves what in the world was I thinking. I???m trying to give this guy some slack, but so far I am NOT impressed and having a real tough time. Mainstream media should be ashamed of themselves for not reporting accurately, fair and balanced. I mean the guy has a track record of bad judgment. Just look at his associations. You voted for change, well get ready folks you???re about to get it.

    Those who voted for him are already making excuses for why he can???t do what he promised. Started the day he was elected. They???ll never admit to screwing up.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 11/26/2008 9:12:21 AM

      " I???m trying to give this guy some slack, but so far I am NOT impressed and having a real tough time. "

      No you aren't trying to give him anything. He hasn't even taken office yet.

  • Posted By: neocon @ 11/25/2008 4:39:53 PM

    Those of you who elected him will and probably are soon to realize what a huge mistake you???ve made. Maybe next time you will consider all the facts and issues about your candidate before electing someone because they seem ???cool??? or because they are an eloquent speaker. At least those of us who aren???t naive enough to have fell for his bull sh _ _ promises won???t be kicking ourselves in the a _ _ in a few months asking ourselves what in the world was I thinking. I???m trying to give this guy some slack, but so far I am NOT impressed and having a real tough time. Mainstream media should be ashamed of themselves for not reporting accurately, fair and balanced. I mean the guy has a track record of bad judgment. Just look at his associations. You voted for change, well get ready folks you???re about to get it.

    Those who voted for him are already making excuses for why he can???t do what he promised. Started the day he was elected. They???ll never admit to screwing up.

    • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/25/2008 6:22:29 PM

      Those of you who elected him will and probably are soon to realize what a huge mistake you???ve made.

      I wouldn't bet my life on it. But tell me have you neocons come to see what a huge mistake Bush was? And BTW, even the rest of the the RepubliCONs don't think much of their neocon brethern since Perl and Wolfie. You're sure behind the curve.

      • Posted By: bighappy @ 11/25/2008 6:56:46 PM

        Similar to Clinton, Bush junior was elected as a regular moron, acceptible in good times. Who new that the idiot will have to deal with 9/11 and inherited casino-like market? But in hard times americans before always elected somebody special. Why now they were out of their minds - may be it is God's punishment?

        • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 11/26/2008 9:11:25 AM

          You Yanks do love to blame everything on God, don't you?

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/25/2008 6:22:59 PM

    You obviously have clearly demonstrated you are the latter.

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/25/2008 7:47:39 AM

    Yeah change the subject Freeh was picked by Clinton to be FBI director not the GOP. Just for once admit that Clinton was a felon and a criminal and you can restore your creditability. Otherwise... be quiet

    • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/25/2008 8:38:27 AM

      If you don't take the cake. You've made no point to support your claim that Clinton was a felon, having to completely ignore the Executive branch classification system and Federal Law concerning it. I'm not worried about my credibility in this matter in the least. You are the guy who claims Clinton's actions were illegal, then no I never said they were illegal, then yeah they're illegal all over again. You're floppiing around like fish on the beach. Then, its my state law says...we weren't talking about your states laws, we were talking about your claim that Clinton commited a crime, based on the Executive branch classification system and law pertaining to that system. Now, at long windy last, all you can say is concede my point or I won't respect your credibility. Not much of an inducement, bub.

      • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/25/2008 4:07:02 PM

        Anyone who believes Clinton did not commit perjury when he testified under oath in regard to his sexual indescretion with Monica Lewinsky and waved his finger at the camera and told the American people I never had sex with that woman Miss Lewinski and I never told anyone to lie. Then somehow magically 408 FBI files of Clinton's GOP political enemies from all over the alphabet somehow magically appear in the White House get Hillary's fingerprints all over them, then they deny having or seeing them, then they refuse to respond to a subpoena then they magically find them in a box after all in an area of the White House that was under renovation Geez were sorry it was a mistake, we never looked at them, and we promise it will never happen again, it was just inadvertant some kind of a mistake golly 408 files accidently must of fallen of the turnip truck into a box in the White House yeah that's it. What is your definition of is mine is different every time. Sex is not oral sex, interns can consent, travel gate whitewater, and on and on it wwnt for eight years but boy they were great years (thanks to a GOP Congress that is) honesty and integrity abound int he Clinton White House yeah that's it honesty that is my definition of is. Did I answer your question?

        • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/25/2008 6:17:00 PM

          Mr. Dough, the Clinton White House was 8 long years ago, its pretty much irrelevant now, you may remain stuck back in that era if you want, your choice. In fact this whole subject of was or was not Clinton guilty of this or that is pretty much irrelevant to the present. I've spent far too much time with it as it is. I have not misrepresented your positions, I have answered them to my satisfaction and probably the fatigue of everyone else on this board. I do not concede in any shape, form or fashion that you are correct vis a vie Clinton and the 408 FBI files, I'll let the weary reader interested enough to slog through all your changing positions make up his/her own mine. As for me, I think any thing further is a complete waste of time. There are the ignorant, then there are the willfully ignorant.

  • Posted By: neocon @ 11/25/2008 4:26:46 PM

    obama was given several opportunites to concede that he could not make good on all his promises but he refused to do so???until the day after the election! He built all you folks up and now he is backing down before he even gets in the whitehouse in hopes you can???t remember what he said or when he said it. It is all so that he won???t look like such a failure???and people won???t finally acknowledge they were only CAMPAIGN PROMISES???politics, that???s all it was.

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/25/2008 12:49:21 AM

    Jarcher1

    Still waiting.....As far as your statement that the Bush administration were the "lyingist" admin ever I think youforgot about Nixon and certainly Clinton who would not recognize the truth standing in front of him. The Nixon admin lied about a stupid burglary on their part i'm not sure Clinton told the truth about anything.

    • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/25/2008 7:19:45 AM

      No I hadn't forgotten Nixon, he just had a shorter administration. Clinton certainly told lies, but his lies were generally inconsequential as far as governance was concerned. There was nothing to even begin to rival the magnitude of "Saddam has WMD, so we must invade." You defending Bush are you Bubba? Looks like I found one of the 20% odd percent who approves of Bush's performance in office. Keep on posting, you may get voted RepubliCON of the year.

      • Posted By: neocon @ 11/25/2008 4:10:55 PM

        ???Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation???s wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them???.I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, ???You cannot defy the will of the world,??? and when I say to him, ???You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.???
        Bill Clinton State of the union address January 1998

        I can be more generous than many who find it easier to say ???Bush lied??? than to actually look at the facts; I happen to believe that Clinton was telling the truth as he understood and believed.

        Nancy Pelosi agreed: ???Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.???
        -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
        Tom Daschle and lots of other Democrats completely agreed.
        ???[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq???s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.???
        Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
        ??? Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

        Maddie Albright agreed:
        ???Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.???
        ???Sec. of State Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/25/2008 2:56:56 PM

    He lied under oath - he obtained federal documents under false pretences to use for his own personal gain that is misconduct in public office a felony in every state of the union. his chief of staff stole classified documents and was shredding them falling on the sword for him how blind do you want to be perjury is a felony in every state of the union. You're right he did nothing wrong see rule one democrats are always right. Even I am smart enough to know and admit Nixon and his cronies committed felonies Geez quit defending the perjurous liar and admit what he is already.

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/25/2008 7:44:41 AM

    jarcher1 at least admit you were wrong. You know you are, if you work in government you would know that and if you worked in a hospital you would know it too - those records are protected and he violated federallaw 28CFR by having them for the purpose he had them period.... If you don't believe me get someone's FBI file illegally and see what happens to you bet you will not walk away so easily. Don't drop the soap is where you would be.

    • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/25/2008 8:17:47 AM

      I'm not wrong, and I don't know anything of the sort. You prattle on and on about your state law - irrelevant, we're talking about Federal law. You prattle on about me taking a piece of criminal intel - irrelevant, I'm not the POTUS. Give it a break man, time to quit, even other wingnuts are probably thinking you look pretty silly by now.

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/25/2008 7:22:16 AM

    I knew I wouldn't get an alic Office, anpology - I never said Clinton could not look at those documents he could as long as he had a legitimate reason but to take 408 FBI Files to dig up dirt on your republican enemies because of your own perjury, lying, and illegal activity is under my state's law Misconduct in Public Office a felony but that dwsn't mattert to you everything Clinton did was acceptable including sexually molseting an intern. Any person in private enterprise and government office would have been fired for thqt keep on defending him it weakens everry argument you make about Bush.

    • Posted By: jarcher1 @ 11/25/2008 7:41:35 AM

      Comment: Jarcher1
      "You need to read 28CFR on the federal control of intel. You may have to revise your cutsey answer for his illegal possession of those files and he ca nt show them to just anyone they are classified and protected." Sure sounds to me you were claiming his possession of the files was illegal. Or is it a typical RepubliCON case of "words mean what I say they mean, not what other people think they mean." So very typical, in fact keep on, you may get your own show on talk radio.

      BTW, Republicon's have rewarded Louis very, very well for his actions in this little propaganda play they staged. Here's what he's doing now:

      .He???s been networking in corporate, government and political circles, making money all the while.

      Freeh is a director of Fannie Mae and Bristol Myers, positions that pay a combined $335,000 annually. He???s also an adviser to duPont. Last year President Bush appointed him to the Homeland Security Advisory Council.

      Until Rudy Giuliani dropped out of the presidential race, Freeh was his senior homeland security adviser and head of campaign operations in Delaware, his home state. More recently, he has contributed to the McCain campaign.

      Freeh???s primary focus, though, is Freeh Group International, a consulting firm that keeps a low profile and doesn???t publicize its client list.

      The Freeh Group isn???t registered as a lobbyist or as a government contractor. Its services, such as homeland and global security and ???strategic management of complex and sensitive queries,??? are aimed at corporations operating in the global marketplace.





  • Posted By: John Dough @ 11/25/2008 7:27:40 AM

    The White House yesterday acknowledged that during four months in late 1993 it wrongly collected FBI background reports on more than 300 people, including prominent Republicans such as former secretary of state James A. Baker III and the press secretary to House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

    White House officials said the files came into their possession inadvertently and said they had no evidence that any of the improperly received files were examined. But the Army aide who collected the files -- based on a list provided by the Secret Service -- said last night he read the reports, looking for signs of potential security problems. He said he culled those that contained "derogatory ...

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse