Why on earth would Clinton ever appoint a turn-coat like Louis Freeh?

[Blue_Roses]

The man is a republican--devout at that--and makes no bones about who he supports. Is there any doubt Clinton walked right into the trap with Monica:eyes: I always suspected it was, but to walk right into it:shrug:

Clinton is too damn trusting...

http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Louis_Freeh.php

[JI7]

1. it was a compromise

the Republicans wanted him and that was one of the things Clinton did in order for them to support his other appointees.

Clinton has said that appointing Freeh was one of his biggest mistakes. andi think he believed this while he was still in office.

[Blue_Roses]

2. now we know why they wanted him in office

the plan was clear to them. Clinton never saw it coming...

[napi21]

4. OK, so why didn't he fire him? These people all serve at the pleasure

of the President. If that would have been anything but the Gov't, Freeh would have been GONE!

[JI7]

15. because it would have looked political

like Clinton was only firing Freeh to save him own ass rather than incompetence or anything.

it's too bad John O'Neill is not alive to help tell the truth .

[jobycom]

9. I never thought the Republicans liked him much, either.

Wasn't Freeh blamed for Ruby Ridge and Waco by a lot of conservatives? Or am I confusing him with someone else?

[tx_dem41]

11. Freeh wasn't around then....

I think you're confusing him with Sessions.

[Carolab]

13. Larry Potts. Freeh was criticized for "covering up" for Potts.

http://www.waco93.com/latimes7_15_95.htm

Ruby Ridge happened BEFORE Reno and Freeh took office.

[jobycom]

18. I was thinking of Potts. I thought Freeh was a deputy director before

taking over in 1993, but I was wrong. I was conflating him and Potts.

[sasquatch]

3. Clinton was always trying to work with the other side

They were always trying to throw him in front of a train though.

[Blue_Roses]

5. yes, he was and still does

as evident with working with poppy now.

Once again, too damn trusting:eyes:

[napi21]

6. Well, Cohen still seems to be one of the good guys, even though

he was one of the first "Pub" pick Clinton made to form a mutual Party aliance.

I hear Cohen even now at least sounding like a reasonably honest guy.

[Blue_Roses]

7. you're right about that

Cohen seems like a decent enough guy, but Clinton is still too damn trusting

[napi21]

8. I don't think he is anymore! He was back in 92 though.

I think he really believed that there could be a workable 2 party system. We hear a lot about that from the old guys in the Senate. They always refer back to the days when almost all the Senators were friends. They could be arguing all day long, in very heated arguments on the Senate floor, but would go have a boor (or Martini) that same night. They actually respected each other.

I think that's what Bill was trying to do. Bring that atmosphere back to DC.

I think he's learned a lot since then, through a lot of pain and badgering. I think what you see now is a BC who has learned to play their game!

[Lexingtonian]

10. probably because it didn't make that much difference

Nixon and the Reagan people filled the middle and upper ranks of the CIA and the FBI with true believer Republicans. Bush Sr. was a CIA director under Ford, iirc.

There were too many people of the kind still in the ranks for a decent Democrat to run them. And probably still are. And they account for why both agencies worked against Democrats, e.g. failed Carter consistently, and were the reason the KGB was largely superior to them throughout.

Clinton was looking at poisoned agencies without the power, or in some quarters of Congress desire, to do the purges of the upper ranks. Putting in a decently connected Republican in each job was a capitulation to political necessity; if he'd done otherwise the agencies would have failed him and these people worked against their directors. This way he had a recreation of the Hoover problem, but the advantage was that he only needed to deal with one or two people who couldn't beat him on political ability.

[democracyindanger]

12. Opus Dei

Just like Scalia.

Not saying that's why Clinton appointed him, just saying...Opus Dei.

[glarius]

14. All I know is, looking at Freeh's face,especially his eyes...I would NEVER

trust this man...He has the look of so many of the duplicitous, self-serving phonies who are a part of the right wing....Uuuuuugghhh!

[tom_paine]

16. I don;t think Clinton has ever understood what he and we were/are facing

Politics makes a person cautious, and far more unwilling to open eyes to a monstrous truth.

I believe that he and the Dems continue to think they are simply dealig with another political party, when they are actually dealing with a revolutionary cabal with as much respect for democracy as the Nazis or the Tonton macoute or Pinochet or Marcos or any number of Bushfriends throughout the ages.

Maybe he does know, but is ignoring it becaiuse he might get an envelope of anthrax. Who the hell knows?

But my take on it, is the truth is so monstrous that denying it is preferrable to most.

[JNelson6563]

17. In this regard Clinton is a brainless wonder

Don't worry, soon Freeh will join Bill and Hillary for dinner.