I Did Not Take A Bribe From That Woman…Denise Rich

Bill Clinton, shamed former US President, never uttered those words. We all know when he uttered similar words and how those words turned out to be, how shall we say, A LIE.

It appears that Marc Rich, the billionaire oil man and former US fugitive, as well as the former husband of the aforementioned Denise Rich, might have been involved in the oil for food scandal at the UN. I know that many on the left like to dismiss the oil scandal and make claims that the US was involved. This has been commented on before and as it turns out, not quite the way the left likes to make it sound. Rich, on the other hand, has been dealing in oil with sanctioned countries. Rich, who lives in Switzerland, confirmed that he was an authorized trader with Iran, though oil sales were banned at the time. In the 1980s Rich dealt with Iran, confirming what his company failed to reveal to Fox when questioned about it last year. Rich made his statements by responding in writing to the House International Relations Committee. Committee chairman, Rep. Henry Hyde, stated that he felt Mr. Rich was being less than forthright with the committee.

Rich has been living outside the US as a fugitive of justice and his statements come as a Federal Grand Jury in New York probes whether his pardon by President Clinton was the result of a bribe. Denise Rich gave $400,000 to the Clinton Library just prior to his pardon. Both Ms. Rich and President Clinton deny the payoff money was a bribe. Given the veracity of past Clinton denials, it is only reasonable that this is being investigated.

Strange thing is, the left has been all over President Bush about Iraq. They have maintained that the invasion was all about oil. There have been protests with signs reading “No Blood For Oil.” I think any reasonable person will conclude that we did not go in for oil. If we did gas would be cheaper and we would have tankers bringing the black gold to the US. It is interesting that the left will deride the President for, what they call, helping his buddies in the oil business get rich, but they do not bat an eyelid over Marc Rich making billions of dollars dealing the forbidden substance.

Maybe it is because Rich has been exonerated through a Presidential bribe pardon. In any case, the man is a criminal and he disgraced himself. Clinton helped to further disgrace the country by accepting money to let this man off the hook. Given that there is indication that Rich was involved with the Iraq oil for food scam then it is reasonable to assume he has not changed his ways and was not worthy of a pardon.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

9 Responses to “I Did Not Take A Bribe From That Woman…Denise Rich”

  1. Adam says:

    “I think any reasonable person will conclude that we did not go in for oil. If we did gas would be cheaper and we would have tankers bringing the black gold to the US.”

    Your statements just show an utter lack of understanding of US foreign policy since WWII. We do not have to take the oil to get rich off of it. We just have to ensure the people in charge of the oil are friendly to US corporations. If you think for one minute that it has anything to do with gas prices then maybe you should stop holding your breath. It has already damaged far too many brain cells.

    What I personally think is most annoying to you about our “shamed former US President” is that, despite all the scandals, he still kept a higher job approval rating than George W. Bush. He did a better job than Bush is doing, and America knows it. Your moral “compassionate conservative” president is a total loser compared to the “disgrace” Bill Clinton. You just can’t stand that fact, can you? Oh, but at least Bush is a “great leader”…

  2. Big Dog says:

    I don’t care about job approval ratings. In Clinton’s case they demonstrated that he pandered to whatever the polls said Ameica was thinking. A true leader must make tough decisions despite what those who are not in command think. Clinton decided to run his administration by seeing what a poll said and then doing that. In case you do not know, and I doubt leadership training is something youu have ever had, a leader can not take a poll and then make a decision.

    Putting people who deal the oil in a position to be more friendly toward us is a sound BUSINESS pracrtice. I am sure that you would not do business with entities that are unfriendly to you. I is human nature. The fact is, if we were such bad people as you claim, we could have just gone in and taken the oil and anything else we wanted. We did not do that.

    As for holding my breath and losing brain cells, I can only say that no matter how many I lose, I will still come out on the better end than a person who has the brain cells but does not know how to use them.

    It is your opinion that Clinton was a better leader and that Bush is a loser. Of course you know what they say about opinions. It was Clinton who passed all the problems on by his inaction.

    One last thing. I like when you attack me instead of the argument. One of the fallacies of logic is when you can not attack the argument you attack the person making it. Oh, and BTW. This site contains my opinion. I am still entitled to that. I know the left believes a person is only entitled to an opinion that agrees with them but I feel I am entitled to any opinion so I will continue to exercise that entitlement. Geez, for a group of people who is all about entitlements, you sure don’t like to entitle differing opinions.

  3. Adam says:

    “Geez, for a group of people who is all about entitlements, you sure don’t like to entitle differing opinions.”

    First of all, never do I tell you what to say or write. I just tell you when I think it’s horseshit. You’re confusing me with GOPBloggers.

    “…a leader can not take a poll and then make a decision.”

    I’m sorry, but I believe it is our leader’s job to do just that. A leader should know when to take a stand, but a leader is nobody if they are not leading to the will of the people. That’s why we have a representative democracy.

    “Putting people who deal the oil in a position to be more friendly toward us is a sound BUSINESS pracrtice.”

    Yes, but…we’re talking about peoples lives here, not money. Our government (yes, Clinton too) has been more concerned with money and control than people and freedom. We were not opposed to Saddam or bin Laden when they were killing soviets for us. Too bad for those evil bastards that the cold war ended, and we still needed more, more, more, war.

    “The fact is, if we were such bad people as you claim, we could have just gone in and taken the oil and anything else we wanted.”

    Again, I will accuse you of having no understanding of what we are doing in the world. We may be the most powerful nation on Earth, but we can not run over people like you suggest. It’s not because we aren’t evil, it’s because we aren’t that dumb. Instead of the direct approach we can take an indirect approach. Enter regime change. We put in bad leaders and prop up lousy governments just so long as they pander to our greed. If not, which often becomes the case, we have a mess to clean up.

    “It was Clinton who passed all the problems on by his inaction.”

    What problems are those? If you’re speaking about bin Laden, and Saddam, you should look a bit further back before Clinton to our good buddy presidents during the cold war. You’re just basically blaming Clinton for failing to clean up the problems another president created. Read the book Blowback. It will help you place blame in the right place. It sure wasn’t Clinton who caused 9/11.

    “I like when you attack me instead of the argument.”

    I’m going to keep attacking you when it comes to your bizarre hatred of people like Clinton. What is there to argue? You hate Clinton despite how good of a president he was, and how favored he still is. Clinton, like the people in the UN, is just a sex criminal to you.

  4. Surfside says:

    Just for the record, Adam, we do not have a democracy. We have a Republic. You may want to update your education on this point: http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvdem.htm

  5. Big Dog says:

    I do not hate Clinton the man, I just think he was a lousy president. You have a different opinion and we could cite statistic after statistic to make our claims but that will not change our feelings about the man.

    I really appreciate what you think a leader should do. Fact is all leadership principles deal with making decisions. If you take a poll and then do what the people people in the poll say you are just being a follower, not a leader. Suppose a poll showed that everyone in the Red states wanted all the democrats to lose their right to vote. Should the president say, well most red states want that so I will do it because of the poll or should the president lead and say, no, we are not going to do that?

    As for who we supported in the past and who we support now. Alliances change. We were the enemies of Germany, Japan, and Italy and one time. Now we are allies. It is a false assumption to think we willalways keep the same friends.

    Clinton’s failure to act after the Blackhawk down incident emboldened bin Laden to attack America. bin Laden himself said that and called the US a paper tiger because we pulled out when a few people got killed. Clinton’s actions were the direct cause of bin Laden’s attack per bin Laden. I don’t know how much clearer it can get than the man who attacked us telling us why.

    As for the book. We can both find plenty of books that support our arguments. That does not make them correct, it just means the author agreed with us. If you want a bird’s eye view of the Clinton White House read this book, Dereliction of Duty: How Bill Clinton Compromised America’s National Security (LTC Buzz Patterson) by a man who worked there. I guess he will not count because he serves in the military but I could not find a UN guy who worked in the White House.

    BTW, you are right I have no understanding of what we are doing in the world becasue I only served all over it in the military. Perhaps I should have you tell me what you know about the world having experienced it from your campus in Little Rock.

  6. Surfside says:

    Also, if you believe “the masses” always know what’s good for them or their country, you are so sadly mistaken. Sometimes, the people can’t/don’t have the proper intelligence to make a descent decision regarding extremely important issues. If we ruled purely by the voice of the people, why elect representative and Presidents?

    President Ronald Reagan made some very hard, unpopular choices — and it turned out he was right. History may view him as one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century.

    The truth is Bill Clinton did embarrass the country, whether you like it or not. He was absolutely a criminal — he perjured himself under oath. He was a lawyer and had a slew of legal representation. He knew better. Even if you address no other issue, you have to admit to that.

    And, just for the record, just because someone is “likeable” — and I agree Bill Clinton is very likeable — does not make him a good leader. Don’t make the mistake of confusing popularity with leadership skills. That would be a mistake best left in high school.

    There are also many books that point the finger at the Clinton administration for the al-Queida, Bin Laden problem. However, I agree with you that no administration holds the full blame. I do think it’s totally unreasonable to blame much on the Bush administration as they had come to the table at such a late date vis a vis September 11, 2001.

    Bush has had considerably more success than you Dems give him credit. Look at Libya and Lebanon. His administration has handled those situations adroitly. Our economy has rebounded. The Iraqi people are beginning to take control of their country and beginning to fight the terrorists on their own. Syria is finally realizing the futility of its situation and acquiescing in Lebanon and handing over Iraqi criminals. At least at this point, Bush’s plan seems to be working.

  7. Surfside says:

    BTW, Adam, even Jimmy Carter came out and said publicly that he believed the Rich pardon was connected to the political donation made by Denise Rich. So, a key member of your own party believed the Clintons sold end-of-term pardons.

  8. Adam says:

    Sorry, Surfside. I was under the impression that Representative Democracy was just a type of Republic. Be picky if you must…

    Big Dog, From all the talk about a leader leading, I guess you didn’t read what I said. I’ll repeat it. A leader should know when to take a stand, but a leader is nobody if they are not leading to the will of the people.

    As far as seeing the world, yes you’ve seen more if it, Big Dog. How does that qualify you to tell me the reason for our actions? I’ll drop it I guess…

  9. Big Dog says:

    It is up to the individual representatives of the Congress to act in accordance with the will of their constituents.
    The President is part of the executive branch and leads by doing what is right and sometimes it is not the popular choice. Remember that ALL actions taken by any leader will represent the will of some people and will not represent the will of others.
    Since the will of the people was to reelect Bush then we can assume that what the majority wants is the will of the people so as long as he does what the majority wants there will be no problem, right?
    What happens if he does something the minority wants but the majority does not? What will you say then?
    I am no more qualified to tell you the reasons for our actions than you are I. I would say my experience gives me more insight into what we are doing.