United Nations Oil For Food Scandal Takes Another Ugly Turn
Local and federal prosecutors believe that Marc Rich, the one-time fugitive financier who received one of Bill Clinton’s last-minute-in-office pardons, was a central figure in negotiating illicit oil deals on behalf of Saddam Hussein.
Moreover, it appears that Rich began spreading Saddam’s oil largesse to on-the-take international politicians after Clinton, at the end of his term, gave Rich full legal exoneration from the nation’s biggest tax-fraud case ” over the heated objections of his own Justice Department.
Talk about a slap in the face to America. Of course, it’s not as if Rich hadn’t indulged in such anti-American behavior before.
Rich has had many questionable business relationships with people like Iran’s ayatollahs, Moammar Khadafy, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, Nicolai Ceasuescu – - just to name a few. All of which took place during times when Americans were barred from such actions.
Marc Rich was going to be sentenced to prison for his multi-million dollar tax evasion case, but chose to he flee the country and live in Switzerland. That’s where he assembled an international team of lawyers to begin the pardon process. A pardon no one wanted except Rich, Clinton and the many organizations and nations Rich threw money at while in Switzerland. Even Bill’s White House Deputy Counsels Beth Nolan and Bruce Lindsey both recommended against the pardon as did his Chief of Staff John Podesta.
In the time since the pardon the Rich’s (both him and his ex-wife) have given very large donations to Clinton causes – - and Bill continues to defend Rich. But will Bill keep defending Rich now that ties between him and Saddam are being made? Will the Clintons continue to be his “friend” now that chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer made a report stating Rich played a major role in helping Saddam undermine UN santions – - and that those UN sanctions were in place to keep Iraq from resuming it’s WMD programs?
This investigation needs to go much deeper to uncover just who was involved and to what extent – - and pardons should not be an option.
I wonder if Bill will write an op-ed piece in the NYT’s explaining this:wink: He can title it “Why I still defend Marc Rich and his disregard for the US”
This is just appalling, but not the least bit surprising.
Looks like another one of slick willies acomplences is going derectly to jail without passing go and without collecting $200 whats this tell you about him?:razz:
tells me that getting too close to a Clinton or a Kennedy is bad for your health and/or freedom…Susie McDougal? Vince??? Where are you buddy??? Mary Jo? Swim much????
1 – Don’t Go There, Peejz, Just Don’t Go There!
3,
Mike Kilo – glad to see you are accusing the Clintons and Ted Kennedy of being murderers again. It kind of lowers the standard of sourcing for the rest of us, eh?
Clinton admitted his pardon of Rich was wrong, and I think it was. He’s not the first person to be pardoned who dealt directly with a murderous regime (Oliver North’s pardoning for Iran-Contra). Rich could probably be charged under newer laws for this.
i could go one about the corrupt crimnal pardons given to felons by Reagan & Bush – but that wouldn’t be appropriate. that would be partisan.
not just unpopular, but a sympton of the whning liberals who don’t toe the popular line. i bring the lloking glass with me now so i can constantly go thru it in an attempt to understand the catch22
thinking that passes for wisdom here.
quite a club. i’ll be leaving soon, one less voice of dissent that you can forget and thus remain secure in your righteousness. i guess i’ll make guest appearances when fancy takes, but most will be pleased there are fewer points of view to consider.
ONCE UPON a time there was an emperor who wanted new clothes. He had ascended to the same throne upon which his father had sat. But for eight long years previously usurpers had ruled. Now they were gone, and the new emperor decreed that everything done in the last eight years would henceforth be considered wrong. From now only the right would prevail.
shalom
You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free, then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest.”Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.â€