Thursday, January 19, 2006
Any chance the Democrats mean what they say on TV?
One day after the Democrats, with much pomp and fanfare, claimed to be the party of honest and open Government they have the chance to show us. The Barrett report is being released today, well at least the parts that the Democrats haven't fought to keep secret. Captain's Quarters gives the newly minted open and honest party some starting points. Will Hillary join in the call to release the full report? An excerpt from Captain's Quarters illustrates the quandary Mrs. Clinton finds herself in.
Someone has a lot of explaining to do. And while she tries to come up with an explanation, this will remind everyone what a "culture of corruption" really looks like, as this will bring up the ethical morass of the Clinton years all over again. The Democrats may well have to rethink their electoral theme for 2006 -- again.
OK, Democrats we're watching. Are you for open and honest Government or not? Demand the full release of the Barrett report and maybe we will take you seriously.
UPDATE: Newsbusters has a rundown of the New York Times wild spin job as they join in the cover-up.
The article points out at several points that former Attorney General Janet Reno had clamped down on the investigation, limiting it to the investigation of one tax year (which limited the investigation so much that it appears to have “killed” it). The NYT yawns. She also fostered an atmosphere of obstruction among administration officials under investigation, causing them to “grow resistant to referring issues to outside prosecutors…at the request of Mr. Reno.” So the Clinton Justice Department, aware that a lid was going to be blown off with the case, obstructed and limited the special prosecutor into such a narrow investigation that only 18 felony indictments could be brought against the subject. That seems rather…NIXONIAN of the Clinton Administration, no? Of course, you could theoretically indict a ham sandwich (and an indictment is not proof of guilt), but the NYT forgot that during the DeLay smearing (and in its coverage of Bob Ney’s situation, which I wrote on the other day).
Someone has a lot of explaining to do. And while she tries to come up with an explanation, this will remind everyone what a "culture of corruption" really looks like, as this will bring up the ethical morass of the Clinton years all over again. The Democrats may well have to rethink their electoral theme for 2006 -- again.
OK, Democrats we're watching. Are you for open and honest Government or not? Demand the full release of the Barrett report and maybe we will take you seriously.
UPDATE: Newsbusters has a rundown of the New York Times wild spin job as they join in the cover-up.
The article points out at several points that former Attorney General Janet Reno had clamped down on the investigation, limiting it to the investigation of one tax year (which limited the investigation so much that it appears to have “killed” it). The NYT yawns. She also fostered an atmosphere of obstruction among administration officials under investigation, causing them to “grow resistant to referring issues to outside prosecutors…at the request of Mr. Reno.” So the Clinton Justice Department, aware that a lid was going to be blown off with the case, obstructed and limited the special prosecutor into such a narrow investigation that only 18 felony indictments could be brought against the subject. That seems rather…NIXONIAN of the Clinton Administration, no? Of course, you could theoretically indict a ham sandwich (and an indictment is not proof of guilt), but the NYT forgot that during the DeLay smearing (and in its coverage of Bob Ney’s situation, which I wrote on the other day).
