
Over at the busblog, Tony Pierce has the news and links regarding Riggs Bank, which has been conspicuously *not* in the news lately:
i didnt know you could sell a bank that was being investigated by everyone from the fbi to the 9/11 commission for allowing money-laundering to happen.
a bank whose former manager yesterday pleaded the fifth as a Senate panel investigation tried to get to the bottom of the fact that fomer Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was allowed to bring in a 60-pound suitcase to a branch filled with $3 million in cash wrapped in plastic without raising an eyebrow.
but Riggs bank is a special bank. the president's uncle, after all is the CEO of its investment branch, so when the 9/11 Commission spent 28 pages reporting about how the Saudis funded terrorists through the bank, the president redacted those pages.
riggs bank, who the Associated Press described as having a "near exclusive franchise" on the banking needs of Washington DC embassies, serving 95% of them including the Saudi embassy, the one who funded at least the two terrorists in san diego and probably more.
so special is this bank that the instapundit wont even talk about it. has never ever mentioned riggs bank, and probably has no plans on mentioning it, especially since it will soon just be PNC Bank, and Riggs Bank nevermore.
why does the instapundit take it easy on Riggs?
probably because the president's uncle johnathan, gw bush's brother, is probably knee-high in dirt from these dealings, and the attitude has always been from conservative bloggers that it's not news unless drudge says its news.
and drudge sure aint gonna talk about it.
why on earth would drudge or the instapundit be interested in a once-respected bank being run by the president's uncle that is being embroiled in controversy and fines and bad dealings?
i dont know... cuz its news. 9/11 news at that.
things are completely fucked when you have to go to the busblog for your news.
A guest poster for Atrios offers further perspective, noting that the NY Times *has* talked about Riggs Bank but has never mentioned Bush's uncle or his close friend and longtime fundraiser Joe Allbritton, who has owned controlling interest in the bank for the past 23 years.
Just for fun, imagine that a close relative or longtime business associate of Bill or Hillary Clinton had been involved in a bank that laundered money for terrorists. What do you suppose the mainstream media coverage would look like? Keep in mind the to-do raised over Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Vince Foster, the blowjob and everything else. Now tell me we have a liberal media. Go on, make yourself look like a joke.
Jon Stewart had a funny line on "The Daily Show" when he was interviewing Wolf Blitzer from CNN. This is going to repeat on Wednesday night this week, I think, and it is worth watching for that great interview because absolutely NO ONE ELSE is holding media whores like Wolf accountable, even with a smile and a laugh, for their disservices to the nation. Stewart (paraphrased) said, "Look, this whole thing about Iraq, going to war under false pretenses, including a preemptive strike, intelligence failures and all that. I mean, this sounds to me like one of the biggest scandals in history. Do you think just maybe you guys over at CNN could make it a bigger story than, say, Filegate?"
Is there any accountability at any level for anything this administration does wrong? Is anyone *ever* going to get fired for anything? Or maybe at least asked a difficult question with a follow-up or two? You know, the whole reporting thing, where you keep on asking questions until you get a real answer?
Posted by Observer at July 21, 2004 06:58 AMComments on entries can only be made in pop-up windows while those entries are still on the main index page. Sorry for the inconvenience this causes, but this blocks about 99.99% of the spam the blog receives.
The big news today seems to be a case against Sandy Berger for supposedly stealing classified files from the National Archives. ABC news reported that the Bush admin has known about the charges for months, but for some reason they are just now talking about it.
And yes, if this had been in the Clinton family and White House, you know for damned sure it would be all over the news. Drives me batty!
So nope. No Riggs Bank info out there yet. However, I did see a scroll on ABC news the other day about Nader accepting 43,000 REPUBLICAN signatures to get himself on some ballot somewhere. Guess those conservative dittoheads aren't as secure in their guy's run for the office as they'd like us to think.
Posted by: Perkusi on July 21, 2004 09:49 PMJosh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has the lowdown on the Sandy Berger thing. You should read the transcript from CNN that Marshall points to where Berger's lawyer tells his side of the story. Right now, all you hear out there is RNC spin points (surprise!).
It's definitely weird for Berger to have done this, but it looks pretty innocuous. Just sloppy. Of course, *now* Republicans have their panties in a wad over exposing national secrets for political purposes, yet they remain curiously uninterested in the identity of the Valerie Plame leaker or all the different selective leaks from Ashcroft's office over the past three years.
Before you go into "pox on both houses" mode, be sure to note the difference here: Even though Berger's wrongdoing (wasn't even a crime) wasn't a big deal, he has come forward, admitted he was wrong, cooperated fully with investigators, resigned his position from the campaign, etc.
You know, it's that whole "taking responsibility for your mistakes" thing. Bush-supporters shouldn't be expected to understand. It's a grown-up thing.
Posted by: Observer on July 21, 2004 10:32 PM