home

Freeh Plays the Blame Game

by TChris

John Podesta debunks former FBI Director Louis Freeh’s attempt to rewrite history by shifting blame for the FBI’s failures to Congress and Bill Clinton.

From the embarrassment of the Russian mole Robert Hanssen to the bungling of the Wen Ho Lee investigation to the wasting of hundreds of millions of dollars in a failed attempt to build a modern, computerized case management system, the bureau under Freeh's leadership stumbled from one blunder to the next, with little or no accountability. The nadir, as the nation knows too well, was reached in the astonishing string of failures that helped leave America vulnerable to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In the face of this record, Freeh has now published "My FBI," a book distinguished by its shameless buck-passing. Nothing, it seems, was ever Louis Freeh's fault.

< Condi Rice on Meet the Press | Sunday Musings: Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Freeh Plays the Blame Game (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    Never before in the history of human events has so much been obfuscated, by so many, for the benefit of so few. With apologies to Sir Winston... ;)

    Re: Freeh Plays the Blame Game (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    he had all way put me as a man that wood pass his troubles to the next person or group og people. he was his problem that money was spent wrong and a lot of other things.

    Re: Freeh Plays the Blame Game (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    et al - I'm no great fan, but judging by the response of the Clinton cadre, I would say there is some fire causing that smoke.

    Re: Freeh Plays the Blame Game (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    And what response is that, PPJ? Outrage over an incompetant spook blaming everyone but for the failures under his watch? You would prefer that they said nothing, so you could say that their silence indicts them, correct? Where was your analogy when the White House was dousing the Wilson Op-Ed flames? Or "Plames," if you wish? Are you really this dense or do you actually enjoy spending your twilight hours on a site populated by people you call traitors and bleeding-hearts? One has to wonder, if you so disagree with this site and its leanings, why you come back to show us your ignorance...

    Re: Freeh Plays the Blame Game (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    recipe for a blog troll: 1 cup of crow pie 2 spoonsful of hot air 1 gallon of Kool-Aid Heat thoroughly, drink while steaming and bugger off...

    Re: Freeh Plays the Blame Game (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    "One has to wonder, if you so disagree with this site and its leanings, why you come back to show us your ignorance..." Don't wonder Laughing Jackal, it'll just make your brain hurt. Ignore if you can.

    Re: Freeh Plays the Blame Game (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    Laughing Jackal writes:
    Are you really this dense or do you actually enjoy spending your twilight hours on a site populated by people you call traitors and bleeding-hearts?
    If you have read the book, which I doubt, you will note that there are many things in it of which there is no doubt. I refer to the budget requests that were not met, the computer sustem dollars not provided, the Arabic translators not hired, etc. Now, was Clinton soft on the Prince when he should have demanded FBI access? Freeh says so. Clinton's Cadre says no. I believe Freeh. You are, of course, free to believe as you choose. Now, to other things. 1. I have never called anyone a traitor. 2. I have never called anyone "bleeding hearts." Your apology for these false accusations is expected. As to why I come back, it might be to demonstrate to the world how you make false claims and attack those you disagree, rather than engage in a rational debate. mfox - Please reference the last paragraph of the above comment. Cheers!

    Re: Freeh Plays the Blame Game (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    Laughing Jackal apologise for offending your sensibilities, PPJ, but you're dead in the water. You have made many, many references to "bleeding hearts" and "traitors" in your TL posts, if not in those words then by your insinuations...waiting for your apology with bated breath. As for whatever book you're referencing, one hopes it's not one scrawled with the same snarky, fact-bypassing smugness with which you populate your TL posts... You blame Clinton for 9/11? Why didn't Bush declare war on the Sauds if Clinton was so remiss in stepping on them for Kobar? 3,000 dead isn't enough to outrage you? Why didn't Bush declare war on the Sauds when it was learned that all of them except a couple were from that great holy land? Why didn't Bush do something about his "Bin Laden gonna put a hurtin' on the U.S. using hi-jacked planes" memo? Still Clinton's fault? Seems that you want to blame Clinton for doing what Bush obviously did...except for one thing...you blame Clinton for the things that happened on Clinton's watch...and you blame Clinton for things that happened on Bush's watch...you'd probably blame Clinton for Watergate and Iran-Contra if you could photo-shop him into the crucial evidence. Bush-Stooge, go away...

    Re: Freeh Plays the Blame Game (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    Laughing Jackal writes: You have made many, many references to "bleeding hearts" and "traitors" in your TL posts, if not in those words then by your insinuations I have never called anyone “bleeding hearts.” In fact, if you had read my comments, you would know that I am a social liberal who has called for, among other things, national health care, gay rights and a rationalized drug policy. Your problem is that you do not understand that there was a time when it was perfectly normal to final a liberal who was strong on national defense. In fact, that was the case until the mid-60’s when the Left managed to take control of the Democratic Party and cause millions of us to leave, with the result that it has had very little success since that time. And you admit that I have never called anyone “traitors.” As for your “insinuations” remark, I totally reject them. My position is plain. I believe that the protests/demonstrations of the anti-war Left encourages the enemy to hang on in hopes of a political settlement, just they did in Vietnam. I ask that the Left understand this, and to not protest. But these actions by them do not make them traitors. It does make them terribly misinformed, uneducated, wrong-headed and deplorable. You will also not be able to find where I have blamed Clinton for 9/11. He himself has admitted he made a mistake when he didn’t arrest OBL, but that no more makes him responsible than does Bush not grounding all commercial air traffic. The people responsible for 9/11 are the terrorists. Smug? No. Confident? Yes. Bush stooge? Nope, though I have voted for him twice. What choice did I have? Go away? Put down the cross, LJ. I thrive on sunshine and have no fear of the night. Cheers!

    Re: Freeh Plays the Blame Game (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    Correct the Jackal if he's wrong, PPJ, but weren't you calling Richard Clark a lying, disgruntled former "Clintonite" who got pushed aside by Bushco after 2000? And now you are hanging every word from another "disgruntled former Clintonite" onto your scabbard...it wouldn't be because believing one suits your purpose as much as does calling another one a liar?

    Re: Freeh Plays the Blame Game (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    Jackal - Nope, I was merely quoting his earlier statements, and comparing them to his statements when he was courting the MSM Lefties to sell his book. From a transcript of his early 8/02 interview.
    QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy? CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me. JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct? CLARKE: All of that's correct.
    Now, was Clarke telling fibs then, or in his book and to the 9/11 Commission? Inquiring minds want to know.