Nobody's buying the silly "trashing" story
Harry Hope
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ipms/20010601/cm/two_black_eyes_1.html
Two Black Eyes
By Mark Shields
The next time a serious press seminar is held on just why so many
readers are so skeptical, so disbelieving and so hostile about who we
in the press are and what we write, I have an answer:
the Nationally Circulated Hoax in the mainstream press that Clinton
staffers had vandalized the White House and Air Force One.
The whole story was a fabrication and, to be blunt, a lie.
It was a deception carefully cultivated by the Bush White House and
then fed to friendly conservative journalists who were duped into
perpetrating this fraud upon their readers and their listeners.
Are the Bush people that arrogant not to care or that dumb not to know
how embarrassing circulation of the phony story of the January
pillaging of the White House by departing Democrats would prove to be
for these conservative commentators?
The dean of conservative columnists, Robert D. Novak, wrote on Jan. 28
of "the unprecedented trashing of the White House," including "cut
telephone wires, pornographic pictures in fax machines and garbage in
refrigerators" and of old White House hands "who had never encountered
damage at the level caused by the Clinton crew."
On Jan. 27 on CNN, the National Review's Kate O'Beirne declared:
"Clinton aides abused the office of the presidency, literally. Phone
lines were cut, offices trashed and computers vandalized."
Conservative Linda Bowles of Creators Syndicate wrote on Feb. 3 that
"this degenerate attack on one of America's most cherished
institutions cries out for retribution" and of "the looting of Air
Force One ... by the juvenile delinquents Clinton assembled around
him."
Of course, nobody in the press ever personally saw the alleged
"vandalism" or even saw a picture of it.
It was a story built solely on unattributed smears from unidentified
sources.
As the General Accounting Office's Bernard Unger observed after his
agency's official investigation of the charges, "There was no proof of
anything matching the allegations."
The White House press office left next to no fingerprints upon the
impression it carefully fostered to support the anti-Clinton story.
As rumors of vandalism increased, on Jan. 25 White House press
secretary Ari Fleischer took the high road:
"I choose not to describe what acts were done that we found upon
arrival because I think that's part of changing the tone in
Washington. ... President Bush chooses to set a different tone."
A day later, Fleischer continued on the high road:
"We're just going to focus on doing our jobs here. Any of the things
that took place upon our arrival here are not in our focus. We are
just going to put our heads down and do our jobs and go to work. It's
in the past."
By way of illumination, Fleischer added that President George W. Bush
"understands that transitions can be times of difficulty and strong
emotion."
Translation: "It" happens, but The Big Guy is a Big Person.
The plundering of the president's plane myth was shot down by Bush
himself in his own unscripted statement.
"All the allegations that they took stuff off of Air Force One is not
true."
You have to give Fleischer credit.
His answers, while bereft of candor, turn out to be absolutely
Clintonian.
But when Fleischer, as all presidential press secretaries inevitably
do, runs into that rough patch when reporters are certain they have
caught the White House in a conscious act of deception, he should not
be surprised when the press corps, remembering the clever phrasing of
his "vandalism" non-responses, brims with deadly skepticism and doubt.
My conservative colleagues know now that they were "burned" by sources
who deceived them and have thus weakened the already fragile bond of
trust between writers and readers.
Nearly everybody who wrote or spoke about the pillaging and plunder
stories knows that they uncritically accepted and unfairly circulated
a slander and a hoax.
We in the press owe the Clinton staffers and the American public a
profound apology.
_________________________________________________
Now the Bushie liars are now deperately trying to prove that their lie
somehow is true. Bushie words are gonna fall on a lot o' deaf ears
from now on.
Harry
"The administration I'll bring is a group of men and women who are
focused on what's best for America, honest men and women, decent men
and women, women who will see service to our country as a great
privilege and who will not stain the house."
Georgie W. Dimwit - Des Moines Register debate, Iowa, Jan. 15, 2000
Roger Shouse
theirs.
White House walls smeared with permanent marker, pornograpic photos left in
printers and copiers, phone lines sliced, etc.
One thing you can bank on. If you hear a disgusting rumor about Clinton or his
staff, it's true. The evidence will always come out in the end.
theRadical
or lack there of which is the case with a vast majority of republiCON
charges against clinton.
Riggs
> Struggle as they may to regain some face, the Dems have crow grease all
> over theirs.
>
> White House walls smeared with permanent marker, pornograpic photos
> left in printers and copiers, phone lines sliced, etc.
And your proof of this is?
>
> One thing you can bank on. If you hear a disgusting rumor about Clinton
> or his staff, it's true. The evidence will always come out in the end.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
New look, new stuff, same old Duhbya.
http://beam.to/duelingbushes
http://duelingbushes.tripod.com/duel.html
Clintonholics Anonymous: We feel your pain.
Mark D. Bass
Roger Shouse wrote:
For eight years the Republicans have been saying that there is soon to be released
evidence of Clinton malfeasance. For eight years they have been unable to provide
any such evidence. Why would the situation be different this time?
Roger Shouse
>Roger Shouse wrote:
>> Struggle as they may to regain some face, the Dems have crow grease all over
>> theirs.
>>
>> White House walls smeared with permanent marker, pornograpic photos left in
>> printers and copiers, phone lines sliced, etc.
>>
>> One thing you can bank on. If you hear a disgusting rumor about Clinton or his
>> staff, it's true. The evidence will always come out in the end.
>For eight years the Republicans have been saying that there is soon to be released
>evidence of Clinton malfeasance.
For eight years you've been failing to read or watch the news.
Every rumor about Clinton has either been shown to be true, or soon will.
Mark D. Bass
Roger Shouse wrote:
Can you name one rumor other than the Monica/blue dress rumor that has been shown to be true?
CB
the attention of the press, proof has been the requirement. Newsgroup
postings are mostly opinion unless a URL can back it up.
When the democraps alleged vast voter fraud in Florida, Janet Reno's
investigation turned up NOTHING but wide spread fraud on the part of DNC
shills and prescient workers. The LA times chronicled the way in which
master of voter fraud, former Mayor of Chicago, Richard J. Daley
orchestrated election fraud in Florida, That is a fact beyond URL's.
I posted an opinion yesterday in which I stated the GOP is the party of law
abiding citizens where the DNC does anything including shedding the
Constitution to win at all cost, despite a higher ruling authority. The DNC
is the party of low life style.
Democrapic political leaders feel the requirement to politicize the Justice
Department to cast disparaging innuendo on the motives of career law
enforcement officers, sworn to uphold the laws of America.
Judicial Watch "is" on the case, be sure the Truth will be revealed.
CB
"theRadical" <x...@home.net> wrote in message
news:3b2098b1...@news.erols.com...
Roger Shouse
>Roger Shouse wrote:
Exposing himself to that gal in Arkansas.
Groping the other woman in the WH.
Lying under oath.
Bombing aspirin factories to take the heat off himself.
Vandalizing WH walls with disgusting graffiti.
Staffers stockpiling pornography at Camp David.
A strategy of trashing the character of anyone who raised charges against him.
Trashing innocent people (e.g., the travel office people).
And I haven't even mentioned the ones that we know are true and will someday
be proven so, e.g., the rape of Juanita Broadrick, etc.
theRadical
>BS, in all cases in which allegations if inappropriate behavior has came to
>the attention of the press, proof has been the requirement. Newsgroup
>postings are mostly opinion unless a URL can back it up.
>
>When the democraps alleged vast voter fraud in Florida, Janet Reno's
>investigation turned up NOTHING but wide spread fraud on the part of DNC
>shills and prescient workers. The LA times chronicled the way in which
>master of voter fraud, former Mayor of Chicago, Richard J. Daley
>orchestrated election fraud in Florida, That is a fact beyond URL's.
>
>I posted an opinion yesterday in which I stated the GOP is the party of law
>abiding citizens where the DNC does anything including shedding the
>Constitution to win at all cost, despite a higher ruling authority. The DNC
>is the party of low life style.
>
>Democrapic political leaders feel the requirement to politicize the Justice
>Department to cast disparaging innuendo on the motives of career law
>enforcement officers, sworn to uphold the laws of America.
>
>Judicial Watch "is" on the case, be sure the Truth will be revealed.
>
prove any of the allegations are true or shut the fuck up.
theRadical
>In article <3B1BB794...@ecn.purdue.edu> "Mark D. Bass" <ba...@ecn.purdue.edu> writes:
>
>
>
>>Roger Shouse wrote:
>
>>> In article <3B1BAC90...@ecn.purdue.edu> "Mark D. Bass" <ba...@ecn.purdue.edu> writes:
>>>
>>> >Roger Shouse wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Struggle as they may to regain some face, the Dems have crow grease all over
>>> >> theirs.
>>> >>
>>> >> White House walls smeared with permanent marker, pornograpic photos left in
>>> >> printers and copiers, phone lines sliced, etc.
>>> >>
>>> >> One thing you can bank on. If you hear a disgusting rumor about Clinton or his
>>> >> staff, it's true. The evidence will always come out in the end.
>>>
>>> >For eight years the Republicans have been saying that there is soon to be released
>>> >evidence of Clinton malfeasance.
>>>
>>> For eight years you've been failing to read or watch the news.
>>>
>>> Every rumor about Clinton has either been shown to be true, or soon will.
>
>>Can you name one rumor other than the Monica/blue dress rumor that has been shown to be true?
>
>Exposing himself to that gal in Arkansas.
where is the indictment?
>Groping the other woman in the WH.
where is the indictment?
>Lying under oath.
the only thing ever proven against him.
>Bombing aspirin factories to take the heat off himself.
that is an opinion, not a allegation.
>Vandalizing WH walls with disgusting graffiti.
gee, the whitehouse told the gao there wasn't any? who should be
believe?
>Staffers stockpiling pornography at Camp David.
even if true, where is the crime?
>A strategy of trashing the character of anyone who raised charges against him.
again, even if true, where is the crime?
>Trashing innocent people (e.g., the travel office people).
yes, like the 8+ year jihad against clinton.
>
>
>And I haven't even mentioned the ones that we know are true and will someday
>be proven so, e.g., the rape of Juanita Broadrick, etc.
again, where are the indictments. clinton survived the largest
investigation in history. i hope you hold your breath waiting for
some legal action against him. after all, millions of dollars at two
ICs couldn't get it done.
Garrett
> One thing you can bank on. If you hear a disgusting rumor about Clinton or his
> staff, it's true. The evidence will always come out in the end.
That's whay you would like us to believe. Too bad for you that
this claim isn't true. Just like Whitewater, TravelGate, Vincent Foster's
"murder", the Arlington Plots "scandel", Clinton's "love child", etc. etc.
Roger Shouse
>On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 12:38:42 -0400, "CB" <C...@prayforme.com> wrote:
>>BS, in all cases in which allegations if inappropriate behavior has came to
>>the attention of the press, proof has been the requirement. Newsgroup
>>postings are mostly opinion unless a URL can back it up.
>>
>>When the democraps alleged vast voter fraud in Florida, Janet Reno's
>>investigation turned up NOTHING but wide spread fraud on the part of DNC
>>shills and prescient workers. The LA times chronicled the way in which
>>master of voter fraud, former Mayor of Chicago, Richard J. Daley
>>orchestrated election fraud in Florida, That is a fact beyond URL's.
>>
>>I posted an opinion yesterday in which I stated the GOP is the party of law
>>abiding citizens where the DNC does anything including shedding the
>>Constitution to win at all cost, despite a higher ruling authority. The DNC
>>is the party of low life style.
>>
>>Democrapic political leaders feel the requirement to politicize the Justice
>>Department to cast disparaging innuendo on the motives of career law
>>enforcement officers, sworn to uphold the laws of America.
>>
>>Judicial Watch "is" on the case, be sure the Truth will be revealed.
>>
>prove any of the allegations are true or shut the fuck up.
Bite us.
That's not how this game is played. Certainly, at least, when it comes to
charges made against Bush or other Republicans.
Roger Shouse
>On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 12:45:14, rc...@psu.edu (Roger Shouse) wrote:
>>>Can you name one rumor other than the Monica/blue dress rumor that has been shown to be true?
>>
>>Exposing himself to that gal in Arkansas.
>where is the indictment?
>>Groping the other woman in the WH.
>where is the indictment?
He settled with her. After lying under oath. Acts of a guilty man.
>>Lying under oath.
>the only thing ever proven against him.
>>Bombing aspirin factories to take the heat off himself.
>that is an opinion, not a allegation.
No other explanation is reasonable. He didn't even confer with his experts
before ordering the drop.
>>Vandalizing WH walls with disgusting graffiti.
>gee, the whitehouse told the gao there wasn't any? who should be
>believe?
The GAO never investigated it. Now it turns out there was serious vandalism.
Get with the news.
>>Staffers stockpiling pornography at Camp David.
>even if true, where is the crime?
I'm not just talking about crime. I'm talking about how every disgusting rumor
about Clinton's lack of character has been--or soon will be--shown to be true.
>>A strategy of trashing the character of anyone who raised charges against him.
>again, even if true, where is the crime?
See above.
>>Trashing innocent people (e.g., the travel office people).
>yes, like the 8+ year jihad against clinton.
We had a 4 year "jihad" against the Axis powers a few years back, but I'd
hardly call it tit for tat.
>>
>>
>>And I haven't even mentioned the ones that we know are true and will someday
>>be proven so, e.g., the rape of Juanita Broadrick, etc.
>again, where are the indictments. clinton survived the largest
>investigation in history. i hope you hold your breath waiting for
>some legal action against him. after all, millions of dollars at two
>ICs couldn't get it done.
I'm not waiting for anything. But you know he's a bum, and that history will
show it.
Roger Shouse
>Roger Shouse wrote:
When it comes to Clinton and his suck ups, "not true" simply means "not proven
*yet*."
theRadical
>In article <3b21bf92...@news.erols.com> x...@home.net (theRadical) writes:
>
>
>>On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 12:45:14, rc...@psu.edu (Roger Shouse) wrote:
>
>
>>>>Can you name one rumor other than the Monica/blue dress rumor that has been shown to be true?
>>>
>>>Exposing himself to that gal in Arkansas.
>
>>where is the indictment?
where is the indictment?
>
>>>Groping the other woman in the WH.
>
>>where is the indictment?
where is the indictment?
>
>He settled with her. After lying under oath. Acts of a guilty man.
or someone who wished to bid rid of a lawsuit which had already been
dismissed once.
>
>>>Lying under oath.
>
>>the only thing ever proven against him.
>
>>>Bombing aspirin factories to take the heat off himself.
>
>>that is an opinion, not a allegation.
>
>No other explanation is reasonable.
really?
>He didn't even confer with his experts
>before ordering the drop.
who did he give the order to?
>
>>>Vandalizing WH walls with disgusting graffiti.
>
>>gee, the whitehouse told the gao there wasn't any? who should be
>>believe?
>
>The GAO never investigated it. Now it turns out there was serious vandalism.
>Get with the news.
the gao wrote congress that there was no evidence to back the
vandalism claims.
>
>>>Staffers stockpiling pornography at Camp David.
>
>>even if true, where is the crime?
>
>I'm not just talking about crime. I'm talking about how every disgusting rumor
>about Clinton's lack of character has been--or soon will be--shown to be true.
right.
>
>>>A strategy of trashing the character of anyone who raised charges against him.
>
>>again, even if true, where is the crime?
>
>See above.
>
>>>Trashing innocent people (e.g., the travel office people).
>
>>yes, like the 8+ year jihad against clinton.
>
>We had a 4 year "jihad" against the Axis powers a few years back, but I'd
>hardly call it tit for tat.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>And I haven't even mentioned the ones that we know are true and will someday
>>>be proven so, e.g., the rape of Juanita Broadrick, etc.
>
>>again, where are the indictments. clinton survived the largest
>>investigation in history. i hope you hold your breath waiting for
>>some legal action against him. after all, millions of dollars at two
>>ICs couldn't get it done.
>
>
>I'm not waiting for anything. But you know he's a bum, and that history will
>show it.
yes, i am sure. or maybe history will see what the IC's investigation
and the house's impeachment for what they really were, an attempted
coup to remove a popularly elected president from office for behavior
which had absolutely nothing to do with his execution of office.
theRadical
no thanks, i already had lunch.
>
>That's not how this game is played.
that is how you have been playing the game since clinton hit the
whitehouse. if you say something enough times, it must be true.
>Certainly, at least, when it comes to
>charges made against Bush or other Republicans.
pandora's box asshole.
theRadical
please hold your breath waiting.....
Shel Scott
>BS, in all cases in which allegations if inappropriate behavior has came to
>the attention of the press, proof has been the requirement. Newsgroup
>postings are mostly opinion unless a URL can back it up.
>
opinion. It is amusing to see folks quote a work by some academic as
proof of anything, as if no academic ever published a biased or
opinion- based (or simply erroneous) "study".
--
tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com
ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
ab...@earthlink.com
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
Garrett
You've got that ass-backwards. The right way is:
When it comes to Clintonophobes accusations are the same things as proof.
And no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to change your minds.
./
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
rb
news:rcs8.240...@psu.edu...
Please. All we have is more flimsy, unsubstantiated claims from the Bushies.
Your double-standard for evidence is amazing. The most salacious rumor
about the opposition is assumed to be true unless concrete evidence
indicates otherwise.
Roger Shouse
If you tell me that a known bum is acting like a bum, I will intuitively
believe you. That's how it is with Clinton and his butt boys. We know they're
bums. When someone tells us about another shameless act, we believe it. And 99
times out of 100 it turns out to be true!
Garrett
> In article <OHpywKT7AHA.257@cpmsnbbsa09> "rb" <nos...@nospamx.com> writes:
> >Please. All we have is more flimsy, unsubstantiated claims from the Bushies.
>
> >Your double-standard for evidence is amazing. The most salacious rumor
> >about the opposition is assumed to be true unless concrete evidence
> >indicates otherwise.
>
> If you tell me that a known bum is acting like a bum, I will intuitively
> believe you.
And you believed a whole bunch of other false accusations as well.
The known factor here is you believing every accusation without any
evidence. Most of the times in contradiction to the known evidence.
.
..
.
..
rb
We know nothing of the sort. The only think I know for sure about Clinton is
that he got a blow job in the Oval Office. Using your standard, I would
freely accept without proof all of the following allegations about Bush:
1. Cocaine Use
2. Paid for abortion of his own out of wedlock child
3. AWOL during guard service
4. Accepted kickbacks in exchange for political favors re: Texas Funeral
Industry
p@u.c
Shel Scott <ssc...@unispam.com> wrote:
>"CB" <C...@prayforme.com> wrote:
>>BS, in all cases in which allegations if inappropriate behavior has came to
>>the attention of the press, proof has been the requirement. Newsgroup
>>postings are mostly opinion unless a URL can back it up.
>>
>Not really, often the URL in question is merely another person's
>opinion. It is amusing to see folks quote a work by some academic as
>proof of anything, as if no academic ever published a biased or
>opinion- based (or simply erroneous) "study".
Agreed. Particularly funny are the people who as "proof" post links
to sites like Newsmax, World Nut Daily, or Judicial Watch.
--
Patrick Crotty e-mail: prcrotty @ midway.uchicago.edu
"Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace
to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an
assignment." -- Washington, D.C. resident George W. Bush
Love Shack
theRadical wrote:
Yeah they fucked her too...youthful indescreation.
YoDA
Bush is a Crook
>
>
And all you screwballs can find to support your story are other
screwballs!!
Honestly, would you believe a party member of a party that stole the
presidency??!!
Republicans probably trashed the white house and are now trying to pin it
on the demos...well maybe not, not smart enough, after all how smart can
they be if they selecte the screwball Bush to run for president?
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>Struggle as they may to regain some face, the Dems have crow grease all over
>theirs.
>
>White House walls smeared with permanent marker, pornograpic photos left in
>printers and copiers, phone lines sliced, etc.
A janitor cited today says that the reports of walls marked are false.
When you move furniture out to paint, phone lines sometimes get
inadvertently sliced.
There was one copier with naked photos in the paper, but you said
printers plural.
>
>One thing you can bank on. If you hear a disgusting rumor about Clinton or his
>staff, it's true. The evidence will always come out in the end.
But the comments you posted are in fact all false.
Each and every comment was wrong.
Why should we believe you since you are proven to be unable to stick
to the truth?
Roger Shouse
>Roger Shouse wrote:
Nope, there's where you're quite wrong. I didn't vote for Clinton in 92, but
when he was elected I gave him a chance to win me over. Instead, he
continually showed himself to be a political opportunist with a real sleezy
side. It took 8 years of Clinton bad behavior to get me to the point I am now.
So now, as I've said before, if it's a negative rumor about Clinton, it's got
to be true.
Tom J
>
> So now, as I've said before, if it's a negative rumor about Clinton, it's got
> to be true.
Can anyone make a comment stupider than that? We should have a contest for stupidest
claim in the Internet. I'll put up this one, at least by someone who seems to be
serious.
Tom J
Evidence based reasoning
Garrett
> Roger Shouse wrote:
> > So now, as I've said before, if it's a negative rumor about Clinton, it's got
> > to be true.
>
> Can anyone make a comment stupider than that?
I've learned that you don't have to shut someone down.
You only have to get them to say something so that no one need take
them seriously again.
Bill
> In article <3B1C0118...@deja.com> Garrett <midt...@deja.com> writes:
> > And you believed a whole bunch of other false accusations as well.
> >The known factor here is you believing every accusation without any
> >evidence. Most of the times in contradiction to the known evidence.
>
> Nope, there's where you're quite wrong. I didn't vote for Clinton in 92, but
> when he was elected I gave him a chance to win me over. Instead, he
> continually showed himself to be a political opportunist with a real sleezy
> side. It took 8 years of Clinton bad behavior to get me to the point I am now.
>
> So now, as I've said before, if it's a negative rumor about Clinton, it's got
> to be true.
It's rare to see a Clinton critic admit that. In fact, you should probably be
commended for taking an entire eight years to reach that point. Lots of folks were
there before he even took office.
rb
news:3B1D2BB7...@deja.com...
LOL! I completely agree.
I particularly enjoy seeing ole Pineapple pee all over himself...
Tom J
Have you ever "debated" the guy "CB"? Naw, that's too easy. It's like setting
your computer chess game to "sub-moron" and watching it move it's queen in
front of your pawn. No challenge. But you can engage "Sam Barber" or "Prince
Appleburger" for cheap sport. Sam, though, gets a little too full of ad
hominem. You start to worry that he might implode if you slap him around
anymore.
Tom J
Evidence based reasoning.