Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton served on the board of a French chemical company that was implicated in shipping war materials to Saddam Hussein’s government.

Clinton served on the board of the American subsidiary of Lafarge Corporation before the first Gulf war. Attorney Marianne Gasior, whose veracity has been verified by a long-serving Department of Defense investigator, brought attention to Clinton’s conflict of interest and her culpability in violating the U.S. and UN embargoes against Iraq and the U.S. Trading With the Enemy Act. Gasior was the corporate counsel for Kennametal, a Latrobe, Pennsylvania-based firm that was connected to Lafarge.

Clinton was reportedly part of a covert CIA arms export network designed to ship embargoed war materials to Iraq. A Solon, Ohio warehouse owned by the British firm Matrix Churchill, Ltd. allegedly collected from manufacturing plants, including Teledyne, Kennametal, Mannesman-Demag, materials that were warehoused at Allied’s Marblehead plant on Lake Erie, a one-time steel armor manufacturing plant for the US Army. Lafarge owned the property on which the Marblehead plant was located. The materials bound for Iraq were shipped up the St. Lawrence River to the UK for further transfer to Iraq.

Gasior maintained that as late as 1996, the Marblehead facility continued to be a part of the secret CIA arms and war material export network. Late House Banking Committee Chairman Henry Gonzalez began to see the Clinton connection to the scandal in his investigation of the smuggling network’s major banking contrivance, the Atlanta branch of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) of Rome, Italy. In 1992, Gonzalez’s investigation of BNL was blocked by the George H. W. Bush administration and the Bill Clinton campaign in Little Rock because it threatened to expose both Bush operatives and Hillary Clinton’s role in the covert arms network. One of the chief people used to block the Gonzalez investigation was House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Lee Hamilton.

If Karl Rove were brought out of retirement to help elect John McCain president, even he in all his evil genius could not have a schemed up a better way to breathe new life into his fellow Republican’s campaign than the New York Times’ inept effort to tie the Arizona senator to a comely young lobbyist.

Simply put, as it’s playing out right now, the story was — probably unintentionally, although who knows — timed perfectly to help out McCain. Its insinuations of an improper relationship between the powerful senator and Vicki Iseman came too late to hurt McCain with the “values voters” in the GOP primaries, but at exactly the right time to rally right-wing talk radio against the Times, and thus for a candidate they can now support in November while holding their collective nose.

http://www.attytood.com/2008/02/the_new_york_times_grooves_one_1.html

Why do you think the NYT sat on Sen. McCain story until now?

It seems a bit suspicious(?)
that it coincided
with Sen. McCain attacks of Sen. Obama and that this happened now before March 4th (as opposed to after the Dems. nomination is settled).

What’s your take? Thanks.

And how many stories has the media sat on for GW? PRIOIR TO AN ELECTION? Wiretapping? and that one for a year.

Some of which would have made an impact in 00 and 04.

Luch was a sandwich and coffee, with BowTie Man saying “I was with McCain back then…I never saw her, unless she was in the back with a g-string”
referring to the other women Lobbiest.

My sane half’s jaw dropped with mine in unison and My sane half’s has a high threshold.

Has anyone else been saying out loud and
somewhat knee jerked “OHHH, no he did not say that”, I can’t recall this level of sexist remarks and for want of paying attention. This crap is getting a pass.

McCain may however have locked up the old goat with young woman fantasy vote. And lost the old bat who hates the old goat with young woman fantasy vote.

Lady,

LOLOLOLOL!

I understand that you support Hillary and are helping the GOP at the same time by digging into this old news.

I’ve said that I believe Americans won’t be swayed by these attacks. Nobody wants to live in the past. Not with Obama. Not with McCain either.
Did the neocon stinkers who support him now decide to get the NYT to break that story so that Limbaugh will feel sorry for poor John?
I think so.

Now, back to talking about the next war in KOSOVO!!

What I’d like explained is why Rezko would buy an empty parcel of land, then sell 1/6th of it to Obama for – according to Obama – ABOVE the appraisal value (which is suspicious on its own)…and then, months later sell off the now less-than-appealing remainder. Seems like an awful lot of paperwork for…nothing, doesn’t it? Did Rezko actually profit on this? Who did he sell the remainder to? Perhaps my analytical comprehension on this is askew…if so, please feel free to explain. (I’m not being sarcastic.)

Fifteen yards and loss of down for botched metaphor.

2. Think it’s acceptable for Obama to ask a Syrian national – Rezko – who was being investigated for govt. kickback schemes to help him get his dream home even though Rezko’s own buildings were boarded up and in foreclosure.

Look, perhaps I’m missing where any sourcing is for the various allegations against Senator Obama, but the Washington Post just investigated this particular one — the money came from his book, and the sellers came forward to say the Obamas had simply made the highest offer for the property, and the sale was in no way influenced by the separate purchase made by Rezko.

I don’t claim to *know* that this is The Truth, but excuse me for saying that the claims being made against Obama on this website are very hard to assess, as I am not finding any link to factual support. If those putting these ideas forward are interested in convincing others, it would be helpful to have some easy reference to publicly documented facts. The information I have access to seems to disprove some of these allegations, which leads me not to give credence to the rest of them.