Sauce for the Gander
By Chris Bennington
May 21, 2002
The Bush opposition to investigations of 9/11 is raising the art of the double-standard to new heights.
For eight years, we endured accusations and investigations about anything and everything Clinton. Why should the Bush administration be above review?
We sat through the seven-year investigation of a small-time land deal which occurred long before Clinton became President. Clinton was exonerated.
On the other hand, we KNOW FOR A FACT that Bush violated SEC regulations in the Harken Oil stock trading -- which was worth much more than Whitewater. So why don't we have a Harken investigation?
We sat through accusations about missing FBI files. So why aren't there calls for an investigation of Bush's improper avoidance of the Presidential Records Act?
We were browbeaten with tales about Clinton's womanizing. So why is there no hue and cry over Bush's clear pattern of drug abuse? This would appear to be especially relevant now that we are being told -- at taxpayer expense -- that drug use supports terrorism. So why no investigation of the terrorist-supporter-in-Chief?
Even though Clinton is out of office, we have calls for investigations of his late term pardons. So why isn't Poppy being grilled for his pardon of the Iran-contra gang, especially Cap Weinberger, who had the goods to link Bush to the crime?
It was okay to spend $70 million over the fallout of "I did not have sex with that woman." So why can't we have an investigation over a preposterous claim that no one ever imagined that planes could be hijacked and used as missiles?
Why no investigation of THE FACT that more than 50,000 mainly black, mainly Democratic voters were improperly deleted from the Florida voter rolls by Bush's brother and his Florida campaign manager before the 2000 election?
Why no investigation of the administration's involvement in the Enron scandal? Thomas White was, after all, in charge of the Enron division that gave us Fat Boy and Death Star.
Why no investigation of the Bush administration's orders to stand down on the FBI's pursuit of Bin Laden and the Saudi connection?
Why are calls for investigation one-sided? Why can't Bush's actions stand the test of sunlight?
And I for one don't want to hear any "patriotism" answer. If we are at war with Al Qaeda now, then presumably we were at war in 1998 when our embassies were bombed and Clinton retaliated with the cruise missiles. Did he get unfettered support against the terrorist threat as commander-in-chief (actually elected version)?
Of course not. He was accused of firing "Monica missiles," despite the fact that he appears to have come a lot closer to getting Bin Laden than Bush has. So why isn't it fair to ask if Bush isn't firing "Enron bankruptcy bombs" or "mortars for oil" or "Carlyle clusters"?
Chris
Bennington
Moorpark, California
* * *
