There is simply no way the alleged "conversation" between Joe Sestak and Bill Clinton is even remotely the complete story.
Readers know that Mr. Sestak, a Democrat, claims the White House offered him a major job in the Obama Administration if he would withdraw from running for the US Senate seat held by Arlen Specter. If his claim is true, the offer is a felony and, quite possibly, an impeachable offense.
Here's my answer to the big revelation about Mr. Clinton: No White House would spend more than three months building a stonewall around a discussion that was essentially harmless. If Mr. Clinton and Mr. Sestak met and their discussion was legal, casual, informal and innocuous, the White House would have immediately declared it so. However, anyone paying attention knows that the White House, particularly through its media conduit, Robert Gibbs, spent months promising a clarification was imminent -- and then the clarification never came. Mr. Gibbs constantly promised an "answer," and then never gave one.
Moreover, it's complete buffoonery on display when the White House tells us that it offered an aspiring politician an "unpaid" position in the White House as an "advisor." Are you kidding? Mr. Sestak has ambitions, and he even has prospects. Does anyone believe such a man would be swayed by an offer to serve somewhere without pay? Is this White House so stupid not to know that a man who might attain a US Senate seat would never surrender that possibility for an advisor's seat in the White House? Do you believe the White House is that incompetent? If so, how profound is that incompetence? If not, what level of deceit are you willing to countenance?
It appears that two administrations, or, at least one administration and one former president, are colluding in an effort to cover an egregious misdeed.
This is America at its hopeful best.
If someone were to tell me that we are witnessing a Democratic effort to sabotage Mr. Obama, I would not be one bit surprised. Old Clinton henchman James Carville recently turned on Mr. Obama; and now we have Mr. Clinton right in the thick of a scandal.
Behold, all things are new.
©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
4 comments:
Evidently, both Clinton and Sestak were at the White House yesterday.
Further, if it is as described, then Sestak has spent three months promoting speculation of a felony on the President's part.
Why would he make a President from his own party look bad, if it were not true.
Frankly, Mr. Obama's spent too much time in Chicago and isn't used to a place where eventually, it winds up "every man for himself."
Cheers.
R.S.,
The logic seems rather clear: either Mr. Sestak is wrong or he is not. If he is wrong, he puts in jeopardy a seat that could have easily been held by a Democrat: if Sestak is wrong, the Republicans gain his Senate seat in a heartbeat.
If he is right, the Republicans win his seat AND perhaps many other congressional seats, and make major advances against the administration. No matter what, this is bad for the Democrats. Really bad.
However, we can see that the administration is Clintonizing this thing, parsing words, obfuscating here, equivocating there, in order to render the whole affair a "misunderstanding." Of course if it was merely a "misunderstanding," a statement would have been immediately forthcoming; none was, and the administration stonewalled so long there was no choice but to drag in Mr. Clinton. Hence, Americans who care to pay attention will overwhelmingly conclude that the failure to instantly clarify an alleged misunderstanding is a tacit admission of guilt.
If I am not mistaken, Mr. Bush occasionally called in Mr. James Baker for help. Alas, it seems Mr. Clinton might be the new Baker, perhaps even the Anti-Baker.
What kind of party hands out high-ranking positions as favors? Those Democrats are no better than Republicans.
G.,
Illegal? I can't recall any similar parallels with the GOP. But if you know of any, please pass them along.
B.
Post a Comment