Why Bill Clinton Must Remain Under a Microscope

Tuesday, February 20, 2001

By JULIA MALONE

WASHINGTON--For more than eight years, the news media, with a few notable exceptions, failed to expose the full, breath-taking scope of the Clinton dishonesty.

Now that Bill Clinton has left office, however clumsily, his defenders are telling his critics to leave the guy alone. He’s gone. Get over it, they say. Even President Bush speaks of moving on.

The trouble is, that would just be putting icing on a burnt cake.

Unless we face up to the errors, we’ll never really move beyond the Clinton era.

Fortunately, Mr. Clinton’s opposite-editorial in The New York Times last Sunday is a great assist in this endeavor. Stripped of the trappings of office and with only a few diehards to defend him, he is revealing the underlying deception and the routine pandering to wealthy donors that characterized his presidency.

His justification of pardoning billionaire fugitive Marc Rich, laid out in his thrice-corrected New York Times column, has familiar patterns: It omits inconvenient facts and offers numbered arguments that appear to be based on substance until you take a hard look at them.

Here are just a few of the most obvious contradictions in his excuse-laden op-ed article: The basic reason for granting a pardon, he says, is “the desire to restore full citizenship rights” to people who have served their time and want to vote again. Bu that doesn’t have a thing to do with Rich. What the column never mentions is that Marc Rich wasn’t interested in regaining the vote or any other right of citizenship. He renounced his U.S. citizenship, as well as the obligation to pay U.S. taxes, when he refused to face the 50 federal charges against him.

As to the crimes for which Rich and his business partner, Pincus Green, were pardoned, Clinton speaks of various charges "arising out of their oil business." He fails to mention that they were charged with illegally trading with Iran while that country was holding Americans hostage.

Acknowledging the Rich/Green pardons to be "unusual," Clinton says he granted them anyway based on "legal" reasons. Yet he kept the decision far away from the normal legal channels of the Justice Department and ignored legal advice inside the White House. He cites foreign policy reasons, such as support Rich had from Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel (although how hard Barak pushed is now a subject of debate in the news media). Exactly what this would do for world peace is anyone’s guess. As several commentators have pointed out, it seems odd that Clinton did not consult with any of his foreign policy advisors on the matter. Next, he uses the "they made me do it" excuse, which for the first time reached beyond Jack Quinn, lawyer for Rich and former Clinton White House counsel. Clinton says he also was acting on the strength of arguments from three Republican lawyers, Leonard Garment of Nixon White House fame, William Bradford Reynolds of the Reagan Justice Department and Lewis Libby, now chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Each has publicly said he never had a connection with the pardon attempt. Clinton loyalist Joe Lockhart led the hasty retreat by admitting that the three should not have been wrapped into the Clinton column.

For all the uproar it caused, Clinton maintains that the Rich pardon was in "the best interest of justice."

Not a single prominent Democratic officeholder is jumping on this band wagon.

Now that the Clinton White House "spinners" are no longer around to work their spell, the public can see what was really behind the curtain in the Land of Oz. Here in plain sight are the thought processes; here is the broken moral compass that led the nation for two presidential terms.

The "spin" for the Rich pardon is that Clinton granted it "on the merits," without regard for the some $1.5 million that Rich’s ex-wife Denise poured into Democratic coffers and the Clinton library.

Doubters might consider Clinton’s more spontaneous remarks in an earlier telephone call to his most ardent media fan, Geraldo Rivera. There is "not a single, solitary shred of evidence" that the pardon was granted for donations, Clinton said.

So, he did not get cash for pardoning that man, Marc Rich? Kind of has a ring to it, doesn’t it?

But somehow, it’s difficult to imagine that a Marc who was not rich would have been accorded so much presidential mercy. It’s time to move on...to the reexamination of the real Clinton legacy.

(The writer is a Washington correspondent for Cox Newspapers.)

© 2001 Capitol Hill Blue

http://chblue.com/Article.asp?ID=1268

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

Answers

Irony of the situation is without the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, Bill would still be THE PREZ.

And without the 12th Amendment, AL would be PREZ.

As it is, we have Junior, who wants to redo the 1st Amendment, go figure.

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

So far, thank goodness for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, huh.

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

woops! and those who dared to amend the Constitution

(a totally illegal corruption of the people's rights, right Doc?)

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

CL, Indeed. :) We need term limits on all elected officials, but the only way we'll get that is a Constitutional Convention. The Congresscreatures in Washington aren't about to propose such an amendment themselves (or if they did, it would contain so many grandfathering clauses and exceptions that it would be meaningless).

It's possible -- not likely, mind you, but JUST possible -- that this could become Clinton's real legacy: he was the guy who finally illustrated to the American people that ALL politicians should have strictly-limited terms of office, from Jesse Helms to Ted Kennedy.

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

Perhaps there is another reason why BC stays in the spotlight.

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20393-2001Feb17.html

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

In reading Paul's article it hit me. Clinton is being beat at his own game. For eight years, with all the scandals, he just pushed forward with, "I need to get back to doing the people's work". I will ignore all this stuff and do what the people elected me to do. Meanwhile in the background, his war room spinners like Carville were busy putting out the damage control and the GOP looked like fools tripping over themselves.

Now Bush has pretty much the same slogan, "Bring the country together". Just ignoring the scandals and the dems are now tripping over themselves, trying to distance themselves from Clinton (with that op-ed piece). Turn around is fair play.

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

The author complains that the media "failed to expose the full, breath-taking scope of the Clinton dishonesty." That is why, she claims, Clinton must remain under a microscope.

So, Julia, instead of bitching and whining about this presumed (but shamefully unreported) dishonesty, why didn't you tell us one thing that hasn't been widely reported? That is such a cheap and sleazy trick - claiming to know more than you tell us.

So, Julia, here's the scoop: your job isn't to sit on a story and make vague innuendos with a wink and a nod, but to inform the public. So, Julia, it's time to put up or shut up. Either "expose the full, breath-taking scope of the Clinton dishonesty," or get a real job.

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

If you allow a fox to live in the chicken coop, it really doesn’t matter for how long, does it?

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

OK, Think About It, I'll take a shot. Barely scratching the surface:

Filegate: The official explanation ("mistake" by a low level official) is an insult to the intelligence even for people who know nothing about the Privacy Act.

Insisting that John Hwang (sp?), who had raised dirty money for him (for which he was convicted, and then included in this huge number of pardons), absolutely insisted he be rushed into the number 4 or 5 job at Commerce. Insisted that the need for his services was so great that regular security checking had to be dispensed with, in spite of worrisome ties with the Riady family.

In that job, he basically did nothing, according to Congressional investigation. (One of his performance evaluations had as his #1 accomplishment the fact that he had attended every single Equal Opportunity meeting given. Wonderful.) Not to say that he wasn't busy, though. He checked out a great deal of classified material, where he had no need to know. They just let him because of his high rank. He also set up a private office across the street from Commerce, with copying and fax capability. He was often seen going into that office, carrying his briefcase.

But of course attempts to look into all this, really get to the bottom of it, were met with cries from the White House (spokesman Mike McCurry) of "Asian bashing."

Mr. Think About It, I could go on and on about this miserable liar that we foolishly elected President. You want to call me on this, I'll do just that.

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

Peter,

I would be happy - no, more than happy - for you to go on. Go on at any length you deem desirable. I promise to read it all. I promise to think about it all.

You seem to think that I have some personal stake in Clinton being blameless or immaculate. I don't. I just know trash talk when I see it. Julia Malone wasn't reporting; she was talking trash. She wasn't backing her insinuations with anything weighty, such as , for example, facts. But facts are stupid things, to quote a great American. They are inconvenient to find, to verify, to write and to read.

I notice you didn't give any citations for your own "facts". Does this mean you were a witness to John Hwang's activities, or was it just an oversight?

As for Filegate being "an insult to the intelligence even for people who know nothing about the Privacy Act", I am so glad you have an opinion on that. Thanks for sharing it.

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

While we are in the process of investigating the pardens by ex-presidents, why not go back a little further and find out why Bush SR. pardened people who could have testified against him. Notice how Bush lied under oath.

George Bush

It was in his capacity as President that Bush committed what will likely become his most memorable act in connection with Iran/contra.

On December 24, 1992, twelve days before former Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger was to go to trial, Bush pardoned him.

1 In issuing pardons to Weinberger and five other Iran/contra defendants, President Bush charged that Independent Counsel's prosecutions represented the "criminalization of policy differences."

1. President Bush also pardoned former National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, a former Assistant Secretary of State, and , former CIA Central American Task Force Chief Alan D. Fiers, Jr., former CIA Deputy Director for Operations Clair E. George, and former CIA Counter-Terrorism Chief Duane R. Clarridge. The Weinberger pardon marked the first time a President ever pardoned someone in whose trial he might have been called as a witness, because the President was knowledgeable of factual events underlying the case. The criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete.

Before Bush's election as President, the investigation was primarily concerned with the operational conspiracy and the careful evaluation of the cases against former National SecurityAdviser John M. Poindexter and Lt. Col. Oliver L. North of the National Security Council staff, prior to their indictment in March 1988.

This included a review of any exculpatory material that might have shown authorization for their conduct. In the course of this investigation, Vice President Bush was deposed on January 11, 1988. A year later Bush was President-elect, and OIC was engaged in the intensive preparation for the trial of North, which began on January 31, 1989.

After the completion of the trials of North and Poindexter and the pleas of guilty of retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Richard V. Secord and Albert Hakim, OIC broadened its investigation to those supporting and supervising Poindexter and North.

This investigation developed a large amount of new material with which it intended to question President Bush. His interrogation was left to the end because, as President, he obviously could not be questioned repeatedly. It was Independent Counsel's expectation that he would be available after the completion of the 1992 Presidential election campaign. In light of his access to information, Bush would have been an important witness.

In an early interview with the FBI in December1986 and in the OIC deposition in January 1988, Bush acknowledged that he was regularly informed of events connected with the Iran arms sales, including the 1985 Israeli missile shipments.

2. These statements conflicted with his more extreme public assertions that he was "out of the loop" regarding the operational details of the Iran initiative and was generally unaware of the strong opposition to the arms sales by Secretary of Defense Weinberger and Secretary of State George P. Shultz. He denied knowledge of the diversion of proceeds from the arms sales to assist the contras.

3 He also denied knowledge of the secret contra-resupply operation supervised by North.

4. 2 Bush, FBI 302, 12/12/86; Bush, OIC Deposition, 1/11/88.
But Bush's recollection was very general and he did not recall specific details of meetings in which the Iran arms sales were discussed.
3 Bush, FBI 302, 12/12/86, p. 3;

Bush, OIC Deposition, 1/11/88, p. 17.
During his interview with the FBI, Bush said he would be willing to take a polygraph examination concerning his lack of prior knowledge of the diversion.
4 Bush, OIC Deposition, 1/11/88, p. 154.
In 1991 and 1992, Independent Counsel uncovered important evidence in the form of withheld documents and contemporaneous notes that raised significant questions about the earlier accounts provided by high Administration officials. The personal diary of Vice President Bush was disclosed to Independent Counsel only in December 1992, despite early and repeated requests for such documents. This late disclosure prompted a special investigation into why the diary had not been produced previously, and the substance of the diary.

Following the pardons, Bush refused to be interviewed unless the interview was limited to his non-production of his diary and personal notes. Because such a limited deposition would not serve a basic investigative purpose and because its occurrence would give the misleading impression of cooperation where there was none,

Independent Counsel declined to accept these conditions. A Grand Jury subpoena was not issued because OIC did not believe there was an appropriate likelihood of a criminal prosecution. Bush's notes themselves proved not as significant as those of Weinberger and Shultz aides Charles Hill and Nicholas Platt, and the statute of limitations had passed on most of the relevant acts and statements of Bush.
The Bush Diary On December 11, 1992, Chester Paul Beach, Jr., associate counsel to President Bush, informed the OIC that a diary, kept by Bush, dating back to his vice presidency, had not been produced to Independent Counsel.

"http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-rep ort.html

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

We might as well show who Bush did favors for that donated money.

http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4096508,00.h tml

"The key to Dubya's money empire is Daddy Bush's post-White House work which, incidentally, raised the family's net worth by several hundred per cent. Take two packets of payments to the Republican Party, totaling $148,000, from an outfit called Barrick Goldstrike. That's quite a patriotic contribution from a Canadian company. They can afford it.

In 1992, in the final hours of the Bush presidency, Barrick took control of US government-owned property containing an estimated $10bn in gold. For the whole shooting match, Barrick paid the US Treasury only $10,000. Barrick made deft use of an 1872 gold rush law meant to allow pan-and-bucket prospectors to gain title to their tiny claims. In 1992, Clinton's newly elected administration was ready to prevent Barrick's stunning grab. But Barrick is a lucky outfit. Bush's Interior Department expedited procedures to ram through Barrick's claim stake before Clinton's inauguration. Ex-Pres George Bush was lucky, too. When the electorate booted him from the White House, he landed softly - on the Barrick Goldstrike payroll, where he comfortably nested until last year.

Who is Barrick? Its founder, Peter Munk, made his name in Canada in the 1950s as the figure in an infamous insider stock-trading scandal. Munk headed a small speaker manufacturer that went belly-up, just after he sold his stock. This is not quite the expected pedigree for an international minerals mogul. If we look in the shadows behind Munk we can see the more accomplished player who provided the capital to set up Barrick - Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi.

During Bush's presidency, Khashoggi was identified as conduit in the Iran-Contra conspiracy. He had already run into trouble with US lawmen when, in 1986, he was arrested and charged - but not convicted - of fraud. He was bailed out of the New York prison by Munk, who provided the $4m bond.

Bush performed an even bigger favour for Khashoggi: as his last act in office, the president pardoned Khashoggi's alleged co-conspirators, key members of Bush's own cabinet. As a result, no case could be made against Khashoggi. In 1996, a geologist prospecting in Indonesia, Mike de Guzman, announced his discovery of the world's richest gold field. Munk rapidly deployed his president.

Bush, on behalf of Barrick, contacted officials of the former dictator Suharto who were in control of mining concessions. Thereafter, De Guzman's company was told it would have to turn over 68 per cent of its claim to Barrick. Barrick didn't have long to gloat. Jim-Bob Moffett, the tough, old, Louisiana swamp dog who heads Freeport-McMoRan Mining, had a private meeting with his old benefactor Suharto. At the end of the meeting, Jim-Bob and the dictator stood on the steps of the presidential palace to announce that Freeport-McMoRan would replace Barrick. (Ironically, Barrick lucked it again. The gold find was a hoax. After Jim-Bob learnt he'd been suckered, his company invited geologist De Guzman to talk it over. Sadly, on way to the meeting, De Guzman fell out of a helicopter.)

While Mr Munk's president did not pay the cost of his rental in Indonesia, Bush could redeem himself in Africa. In 1996, as genocide in Rwanda fomented civil war in Zaire, Barrick smelt opportunity. We have learnt that, at that time, Bush spoke with his old golfing buddy, Mobutu Sese Seko (then dictator of Zaire) about diamond concessions. I don't know what ex-CIA director Bush told the panicked dictator, but we do know that Mobutu granted Barrick exclusive rights to mine diamonds in north-west Zaire. Maybe Bush talked about Barrick's mining experience in neighbouring Tanzania where, according to Amnesty International, Barrick's subsidiary carried out 'extra-judicial killings'.

Amnesty reports that 50 independent miners who refused to move off the Barrick unit's concession were buried alive in the pits by company bulldozers. Barrick denies the allegations.

Beyond Barrick, Daddy Bush has many other friends who filled up his sonny-boy's campaign kitty while Bush performed certain lucrative favours for them. In 1998, Bush père created a storm in Argentina when he lobbied his close political ally President Carlos Menem to grant a gambling licence to Mirage Casino corporation. Bush wrote that he had no personal interest in the deal. That's true. But Bush fils did not do badly.

After the casino flap, Mirage dropped $449,000 into the Republican Party war chest. The ex-president and famed Desert Strormtrooper-in-Chief, also wrote to the oil minister of Kuwait on behalf of Chevron Oil Corporation. Bush says honestly that he, 'had no stake in the Chevron operation'.

Following this selfless use of his influence, the oil company put $657,000 into Republican Party coffers. Most of that loot, reports the Center for Responsive Politics, came in the form of 'soft money'

That's the squishy stuff corporations use to ooze around US law which, you may be surprised to learn, prohibits any donations to presidential campaigns in the general election. Not all of the elder Bush's work is voluntary. His single talk to the board of Global Crossing, the telecoms start-up, earned him $13m in stock. The company also kicked in another million for his kid's run.

And while the Bush family steadfastly believes that ex-felons should not have the right to vote for president, they have no objection to ex-cons putting presidents on their payroll.

In 1996, despite pleas of US church leaders, Daddy Bush gave several speeches (he charges $100,000 per talk) sponsored by organisations run by Rev Sun Myung Moon, cult leader, tax cheat - and formerly, the guest of the US federal prison system.

There are so many more tales of the Bush family daisy chain of favours, friendship and campaign funding. None of it is illegal - which I find troubling. But I don't want to seem ungrateful. After all, the Bushes helped make America the best democracy money can buy.

As they said, none of it was illegal, but then neither was the money donated to Clinton's causes.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

Look at the Rich parden then look at the Bush parden, Bush profited directly from the parden he gave. Defend these facts and then you hint about Clinton's motives, you will sound foolish.

"The key to Dubya's money empire is Daddy Bush's post-White House work which, incidentally, raised the family's net worth by several hundred per cent. Take two packets of payments to the Republican Party, totaling $148,000, from an outfit called Barrick Goldstrike. That's quite a patriotic contribution from a Canadian company. They can afford it. In 1992, in the final hours of the Bush presidency, Barrick took control of US government-owned property containing an estimated $10bn in gold. For the whole shooting match, Barrick paid the US Treasury only $10,000. Barrick made deft use of an 1872 gold rush law meant to allow pan-and-bucket prospectors to gain title to their tiny claims. In 1992, Clinton's newly elected administration was ready to prevent Barrick's stunning grab. But Barrick is a lucky outfit. Bush's Interior Department expedited procedures to ram through Barrick's claim stake before Clinton's inauguration. Ex-Pres George Bush was lucky, too. When the electorate booted him from the White House, he landed softly - on the Barrick Goldstrike payroll, where he comfortably nested until last year.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

I am going to respond to "Think About It", starting off with Filegate, in which he has expressed an interest. This thread has gotten pretty confusing, what with charges and countercharges involving both Republican and Democratic administrations. So I am going to start a new thread. I would appreciate help in keeping it focused on one President (Clinton) and one scandal (Filegate).

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

Pardons are small potatoes when it comes to the Clintons.

Want to talk about all their close associates, potential witnesses in cases that tended to incriminate them back in Arkansas, etc. etc. etc. who are dead?

Found mysteriously murdered in cars by the side of the road? Or in seedy Arkansas motel rooms?

If the full truth were to come to light, they'd both be on Death Row.

I have no doubt whatsoever.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2001

Chicken ya need a break, a walk.

Ya you babe, are without doubt. Hell I reckon folks who were actually close to all these "mysterious" goings-on must be downright giddy with confidence. Be swell at some point if one of-em implicated Bill and Hillary with some evidence now wouldn't it? Hell must be hundreds if not thousands of seperate people willing to come forward. Hmm wonder why they ain't? oh ya, they might be next I furgot.

Logic reminds me of Y2k. And people say I have changed? Nah, Y2k just went away exposing who is who is all.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2001

Well Doc, why not pull up a chair and enjoy the show? My guess is that many of those folks you mention WILL be coming forth now that the Clinton’s are on the run. Check in next week and tell us again how terrible it is for us to be ‘picking’ on this wonderful couple who served our country so well over the last 8 years. You might want to keep a barf bag handy.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2001

tap tap tap tap

Hey Barry is this waiting for the witnesses deal like that old Reagan dump about trickledown? Lol....

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2001

Hey while we wait for "the evidence" and them thousands of witnesses to come forward, how bout some readin material?

Subject(broadband) is rather boring cause I chose not to include any real meat intentionally, but maybe of interest to some. Missing is the main reason the bandwidth never showed, i.e. TPTB would lose way too much of their control(have been). But all in all not a bad start to a new section of my website I am pondering.

http://stand77 .com/issues_answers/broadband.html

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2001

BTW folks, when trying to decipher why Wall Street isn't buying into Junior's plans, his "vision" for America, consider the direction he wants the Digital revolution to take.

Sure all the "other factors" play a part, but dig and ye shall uncover. So why was it simply unacceptable to have Mister "I invented the Internet" as the Prez? Whos feelings would have been hurt? Who fears competition? Who don't like that thar internet thingee?

The Digital Revolution unfortunately collided with the New World Order and had to be contained.

Is it too early to use the term "the good olde days" yet?

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2001

Doc,

You crack me up every time I read one of your zany posts. I can't help it but every time I finsh reading one of your kooky posts that song by Napoleon XIV starts playing in my mind.

You know which one I'm talking about doncha?

They're Coming To Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa!

Remember when you ran away and
I got on my knees and begged you
Not to leave because I'd go berserk?
Well,You left me anyhow and then the
Days got worse and worse and now you
See I've gone completely out of my mind.
And,

They're coming to take me away, ha-haaa.
They're coming to take me away, ho ho, he he, ha ha,
To the funny farm, where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see those nice young
Men in their clean white coats and
They're coming to take me away, ha-haaa!

You thought it was a joke and so you
Laughed, you laughed!
When I had said that
Losing you would make me flip my lid - right?
You know you laughed, I heard you laugh,
You laughed, you laughed and laughed, and then you
Left, but now you know I'm utterly mad.
And,

They're coming to take me away, ha-haaa.
They're coming to take me away, ho ho, he he , ha ha,
To the happy home with trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile
And twiddle their thumbs and toesAnd they're coming to take me away,
ha-haaa!

I cooked your food, I cleaned your house
And this is how you pay me back
For all my kind, unselfish loving deeds? Huh?
Well, you just wait--they'll find you yet
And when they do they'll put you in the
ASPCA you mangy mutt!
And,

They're coming to take me away, ha-haaa.
They're coming to take me away, ho ho, he he, ha ha,
To the funny farm, where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see those nice young
Men in their clean white coats and

They're coming to take me away, ha-haaa!
To the happy home with trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile
And twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away, ha-haaa!
To the funny farm, where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see those nice young
Men in their clean white coats and
They're coming to take me away!


-- Anonymous, February 28, 2001

Glad you are entertained.

But I think you have the names confused..Chicken Little & his sidekick Barry are the guys who think a pile of murder witnesses are soon coming forward to finger Bill and Hillary(Clinton Death List ya know). See these witnesses have been hiding for years, decades for some, cause Bill would have done them in as well with the power he used to have. Course now Bill is just no threat Bill. So according to Barry they will be coming in waves really soon like.

See the story is familar. Member all them "chips"? All them bugs just waiting to time-out and cause untold hell? Y2k? same thing friend, just redone with Bill.

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2001

I am sure them Clinton Death List "witnesses" will be surfacing real soon like now. Maybe about the time Barry resurfaces my guess. Their black helicopters probably got caught in the bermuda triangle or something and are just late in delivering the truth to us alls.

Better shut-up now. I am probably offending Chicken Little, ya know how he is when the issue of free speech raises its ugly head, how dare I!

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2001

15 days and counting………………….

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2001

16.....

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001

ah make that 21..or 50 or 8years what's the dif anyhow right boys?

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2001