That Louis Freeh piece on 60 Minutes really bugged me

[MindPilot]

It was nothing more than another CorpMedia grant to a rethuglican shrieking it’s somebody else’s fault so he can cover his own sorry incompetent ass and sell his book.

But, correct me if I’m wrong, did I not hear Freeh say that one of the reasons he failed so miserably was because congress would not allow him to deploy agents to investigate terrorism?

Yes, I did hear that. This is from the transcript on CBS’s site:
“Well, what they’re referring to there is the fact that when Congress appropriates FBI resources, particularly FBI agents, the Congress dictates where those people are assigned,” explains Freeh, adding that he couldn’t assign his own people to the jobs that he felt were most important.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/06/60minutes/main923095.shtml

Does congress actually dictate what FBI agents are deployed where? I really have a tough time believing that congressmen sit around and decide which case Scully and Mulder are going to be working on. If we have a congress that has to micromanage agencies like the FBI to the point of making personnel assignments, then we got even more problems than I ever imagined. I was really disappointed that Mike Wallace didn’t ask that.

So either I’m really stupid for not knowing that one of the fundamental functions of the country’s legislative body is deploying Fibbies, or Louis Freeh is bullshitting.

And if it is true, I believe that would've been a Republican congress that misappropriated those resources.


Edited to fix tags & add link

[slor]

1. That occurred to me also...

yet somehow, it was all Clinton's fault. And then freeh-per complained about Clinton and all of the investigations! It was pretty amazing, the gall he must have to say such things!

[hfojvt]

2. probably Mike should have retired a decade ago

he is no longer the fiery young muckraker who speaks truth to power, now he is the power, or comfortable with it. It used to be that people would only talk to 60 minutes because they knew they would look bad if they didn't, but they usually found in the middle of the interview that their BS was being exposed. Now 60 minutes no longer skewers the powerful and corrupt, they are just another Entertainment Tonight or a nightime version of "Good Morning America".
Too bad he did not find a young Mike Wallace to take his place.

[ClintonTyree]

3. So Congress must have tasked all of those FBI agents....

to investigate Clinton's penis from top to bottom? What bullshit! For Freeh to say something like this is completely over the top. Yeah, the Director of the FBI has no say in where his agents are tasked. What the fuck IS his job then?

Nice try, Louis. Just another fuck-up trying to cover his own ass and direct blame where it really belongs. Bill Clinton's penis. What a douche-bag.

[Jon8503]

4. CBS' double standard:

Network refuses to interview former Clinton administration officials for Freeh story

The October 9 broadcast of CBS' 60 Minutes will feature an interview with former FBI director Louis Freeh, whose upcoming book My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror (St. Martin's Press) reportedly contains "scathing" criticism of President Clinton.

But, according to an October 7 New York Sun article (subscription required), CBS "refused to tape interviews with former Clinton administration officials who disagree with the former FBI director's allegations, according to people familiar with the situation." Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz reported that "he Clinton camp says '60 Minutes' would not accept any surrogate to rebut Freeh on camera once the former president declined to be interviewed."

60 Minutes' refusal to accept a surrogate in place of Clinton is inconsistent with the way the show handled a similar story about a book critical of President Bush. On March 21, 2004, 60 Minutes ran a segment about former National Security Council counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke's then-upcoming book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror (Free Press, March 2004). The segment included not only an exclusive interview with Clarke but also an interview with Bush administration National Security Council official Stephen Hadley, who was given time to defend Bush from Clarke's criticism.

You can get the form to send to CBS at the link below:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510070001

[Solo_in_MD]

7. The difference is that Bush was in office at the time and

Clinton is not.

Also note that Freeh was an official in the Clinton administration, far from an outsider.

Of more interest (at least to me) are the shots he purportedly took at others than the Clintons.

Finally, we need to remember that the Clintons were not saints, and defend them and their record accordingly.

[Jon8503]

10. Understand where you are coming from and agree what you said

about the Clintons not being saints & defend them & their record accordingly. I agree with that.

However, I don't care if it is republican, democrat, conservative, whoever. If you are going to put on a public program such as this one, I want to see the other side as well. You can reverse this and let it be Nixon. I want to see his side as well.

There is something going on at CBS. Just like they are not going to let Rather continue on where he can prove about his escapade.

[serryjw]

5. Wasn't the "Phoenix Memo" found on Louis's

watch?

[win_in_06]

6. Lesson Learned for Future Dem Presidents: Appoint Progressives

[LittleClarkie]

8. Why was Rush whining today that Freeh picture wasn't all over

Time and such. Why did he think this guy should get major coverage?

[laylah]

9. Correct me if I am wrong

but didn't we have a repub congress at the time? Ya know, the ones that refused Clinton any funding re: terrorist investigations?

Jenn

[MasonJar]

11. I guess he's putting his plug in for a medal before Stump is run

out of town.

[MasonJar]

12. I guess he's putting his plug in for a medal before Stump is run

out of town.