Reply #17: Dowd's column mentioned Rich, not Pelitier

[karynnj]

The Clintons' have brought up the disagreement on Pelitier to change the question from:

- Was it unethical and wrong to pardon Rich, before he was even tried or fully investigated - even though he was wanted for commodity speculation and was possibly involved with BCCI in illegal activitities. He was on Kerry's list of people and things that needed to be investigated. This does not mean he was guilty, but I doubt Kerry, who was pretty cautious on his recommendation would have listed him without having seen some damaging evidence. Kerry's caution was for good reason - his charges were explosive and one charge easily blown out of the water would have damaged his credibility on everything else.

to:
- Who was worse, Pellitier, who Geffen thought should be pardoned or Rich, who Clinton pardoned?

In fact, when the controversy started the NYT didn't even include the Rich comment in the article that was not behind the "for pay" curtain.

To me, the Dowd column was typical Dowd snark - most of the Geffen comments were juvenile (just like Dowd's usually are). The Rich question floats above them - as it really is a legitimate question and it should be more seriously investigated.