[PNEWS] More Clinton Scandal Clips
od...@atlantic.net
[Scandal Clips from The Progressive Review]
QUESTION OF THE MONTH:
To whom does the Democratic National Committee return money if the
contribution was not only illegal but from a phony source?
As the spin wars of Whitewater intensify, it is becoming harder to
separate media fact from fiction. Journalists relatively new to the
story are particularly vulnerable to the agit prop, serving as
reliable megaphones for the White House, legislators of both parties,
intelligence agencies, and prosecutors. Some media have their own
agendas -- especially those large dailies that played such a
significant role in helping us choose as president a resort land scam
artist qua third rate governor from one of the most corrupt states in
the union.
Thus, this is a good time to ignore speculation and perceptions and
stick to the facts. For example, Kenneth Starr is coming under attack
from the White House, conservatives and even, most recently, left
columnist Alexander Cockburn -- for different and sometimes
contradictory reasons. Some of this criticism is plausible, even at
times convincing, but much of it is based on the sort of inside
information that has in the past proved quite inaccurate as far as
Starr is concerned -- witness the oft-repeated assurances over the
past few years that the prosecutor was just about to release a
suicide-affirming report on the Foster death.
Shortly after this story was posted Starr finally did release
a finding of suicide, but without releasing any evidence to support
the finding. Absent a full report it is impossible to know whether
Starr addressed accurately and convincingly the scores of anomalies
surrounding Foster's death. If he did not, or if the court refuses to
release the report promptly, then critics of Starr's handling of the
case will be fully vindicated and Starr will have to be considered a
part of the Foster case problem rather than of its solution.
The Washington Post, incidentally, was at its most polemical in
describing such critics following the Starr announcement. We challenge
any ombudsman, media critic or journalism review to come up with a
journalistic justification for the following sentence in the Post's
story: "Whether Starr's report will finally resolve the suspicions of
conspiracy theorists
[sic] who suspect Foster was murdered remains to be seen."
Cockburn's attack on Starr raised the worthy point that Susan McDougal
was being subjected to unduly harsh and degrading treatment abnormal
for cases of civil contempt. From this, however, Cockburn extrapolates
ubiquitous maliciousness on Starr's part that is proclaimed but not
demonstrated -- a tradition of anti-Starr pieces of all stripes.
Our own position on Starr is agnostic. There is a long and
unproductive media tradition of beating up on police and prosecutors
for not solving crimes quickly enough. We prefer to let results speak
for themselves. And while it is true that Starr has represented
tobacco companies so has just about every one of Clinton's own
lawyers. To date, Starr has produced most of the convictions he has
sought, but this may not necessarily predict the inevitably more
complex and risky future. The best guide as far as Starr is concerned
is to judge the man by what he actually does and not by what the media
says he might have done or is going to do. [See update above on what
Starr has done most recently]
It's not advice being widely followed. For example, the mockingbird
media quickly picked up the anti-Starr call of the Washington Post's
Bob Woodward when he reported that state troopers were being asked
about Clinton's sex life.
The story was quite stale, having been run some months earlier by the
Arkansas Democrat Gazette. There were several other curious things
about Woodward's reporting. First, someone apparently leaked the story
to the White House, allowing the Clintonistas to prepare a massive
anti-Starr campaign in its immediate wake. Second, Woodward (despite
having all the clips in the world at his command) failed to tell a key
fact about his trooper source, Robert Perry -- namely that it was
Perry who a couple of years ago stated that he had received a phone
call from a White House aide telling him about Vince Foster's death
hours before the White House claims it learned of the fact. If Perry
was such a good source, his Foster phone call story is infinitely more
newsworthy that what some FBI agents asked him during an interview.
There are some other things that might have filled out Woodward's
story. Such as the threats allegedly relayed to Perry and another
trooper from a Democratic official in 1993 that they would be
"destroyed" if they spoke to the press. Or the phone call from
Clinton's security chief Buddy Young (by far the most interesting of
the troopers) warning them not to reveal anything. Or the fact that
after these calls, Woodward's other source, Ronnie Anderson, declined
to go on the record with the American Spectator's David Brock. Perry
on the other hand said, "The more I'm threatened, the more determined
I become." Or that a month after that, Perry was demoted to an
entry-level position in the state police.
The attack on Starr that followed Woodward's story was elegantly timed
and collated. Headlined Time: Has Starr Gone Too Far? The same week in
Newsweek: A Starr-crossed probe? Delving into Clinton's alleged sexual
past, the special prosecutor ends up embarrassing himself. From US
News & World Report's Mortimer Zuckerman: "It is time for the
independent counsel to prove his case -- or quit."
But none of the major media bothered to suggest why the FBI might have
been pursuing its particular line of questioning. For example, during
the earlier Whitewater hearings, the GOP counsel had asked Arkansas
cocaine figure Dan Lasater about his many visits to the governor's
mansion. He cited a trooper deposition that reported Lasaster as a
frequent visitor and that no records were kept of his arrival and
departure and that he entered through the kitchen area. Another
trooper said that Roger Clinton often visited the mansion with women
and did drugs there. While sex and drug use may not be the heart of
the Whitewater story it is hard to get far into the tale without
running into them. It is not surprising that a cop would ask some
questions about them.
Then there are the other troopers who have had things to say about
drug dealing at Mena, the role of the CIA, and envelopes of cash
flowing in the direction of the governor's mansion. None of this has
interested the Post, however -- only a stale tale about the FBI line
of questioning.
What is occurring is an immensely baroque and dangerous game involving
manipulation not just by politicians of both parties and the media but
intelligence agencies and foreign interests. One thing is certain:
anyone -- journalist or politician -- who tells you this story is
overblown is either lying or ignorant. It is too early to tell whether
we will ever get the full story but nothing is more important than for
Americans to try the best they can to find out what really has been
going on in the scandal called Whitewater. It would be nice if the
major media gave us more help.
Those friends trying to look after Web Hubbell in the days following
his notorious departure from the Justice Department may not have been
watching close enough. LA controller Rick Tuttle now says Hubbell
defrauded the city after leaving Justice by submitting consulting
bills that were "materially false" and which "greatly exaggerates the
services provided." Tuttle thinks Hubbell should face criminal
prosecution. The LA contract -- dreamed up by some Clintonistas -- was
just one of at least a dozen or so sweetheart deals provided Hubbell
to help him wile away the time before going to jail and also perhaps
to remember fondly his friends in high places when talking to
prosecutors. It is believed that these deals amounted to more than a
million dollars and perhaps as much as $3.5 million.
Gary Martin has rescued this interesting snip from Sidney Blumenthal's
1993 New Yorker piece on Foster qua innocent victim of Washington:
"Foster sought perspective through a number of conversations with
Walter Pincus, a reporter for the Washington Post, whose wife is from
Little Rock. 'He couldn't understand why the press was the way it
was,' Pincus said. 'It was a sense that the people would print
something that was wrong, and that other people would repeat it. I'd
say, 'You can't let the press get your goat; you have to go on. This
is how the game is played.; He'd say, 'Fine.'" Pincus' name is often
on stories related to the CIA and intelligence that are, shall we say,
interestingly well informed. Blumenthal was recently hired as a flack
for the Clintons . . . Looking ahead, one WW Irregular wonders whether
Bill Clinton will get Secret Service protection if he goes to jail.