Fred gave the right non-answer to the question. However, he looked pained. I think he knows more than he is letting on. If my reading of his expressions is any good.
Which is going to lead next to some rampant speculation.
Fred and Hillary were both Watergate lawyers. This is a fact.
Here is an interesting Youtube on Watergate that asks what did the Mafia get out of its alleged connections to the White House?
Here is my theory. If the Mafia had connections to the Whitehouse perhaps the drug war got ramped up as a favor to them. When the drug war ramped up the country went dry for about 6 months after Nixon “closed the borders” and then Thai Stick flooded in for about a decade or more afterwards.
IMO we are screwed no matter who wins. Things are not what they seem.
In any case I still like Fred on most issues. However, I think he knows where the skeletons are buried and because of his Watergate connections would be a formidable opponent to Hillary. Bill ran his campaign in ’92 as a “nod, wink” anti-drug war guy and then ramped up the drug war to heights even staunch Republican’s couldn’t have imagined. There was something fishy there. Very fishy.
Fred, Federalism, and Medical Marijuana
by
Tags:
Comments
2 responses to “Fred, Federalism, and Medical Marijuana”
Interesting. I notice he said “there are federalism issues involved” and he did make an honest attempt to at least answer the man’s question.
Contrast with Mitt Romney….
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A
My problems with Fred start with his much vaunted background: everyone points to his Watergate work and previous and then glosses over his Senate work which did not hold the Clinton Administration accountable during the Chinagate scandal. The threat by an outside group to expose Republican fund raising problems while that went on, coinciding with Thompson’s ending of the hearings and going to ‘legislative remedies’ without even identifying the source of the problem does not speak well of the man.
If he couldn’t stand up for his job and duty *then*, even if it hurt some Republicans like Arlen Specter, then just how will the man handle a Clinton in the Senate and those exact, same organizations? Not to speak of someone like A-jad or Putin… I have seen no clear reason for him to do so, beyond ‘frustration at low level witnesses to testify’, and *no one* actually dug into the Chinagate problem fully and looked at Red Chinese influence in US elections.
Fred Thompson looks to be likeable as an individual, but his post-Watergate investigative credentials and determination to do his constitutional duty as a Senator leave me less than impressed. That is a common failing in Congress, which is why I am voting for no Congresscritter for higher office.
Which Fred Thompson will we get? The 1974 version or the 1997 version? The voters deserve to know why he stopped his investigation and did not do his job of holding the Executive accountable for such activities as was alleged in Chinagate.