Shouldn't the media be covering Debatgate, the scandal of seeking to influence the election through dirty tricks. It is at times like these that we should perhaps acknowledge the national treasure that was lost in John F. Kennedy Jr.,a man who injected passion, ethics and a sense of justice into the political system. Now, all we have is Debategate, a scandal which reflects a very nasty and a very hostile political climate. The media should be covering Debategate extensively because it manifests a serious scandal, but it evidently prefers to chase after the gossip, the rumor and the slander which is routinely doled out by sleazy, political operatives. This is the cause of widespread, political cynisism, and the failure to investigate serious scandal is just as irresponsible as the Whitewater fishing expedition. Cleary, if genuine, investigative journalism was not on life support, Debategate would be the front page story of every serious newspaper.
Does the media have the right to ignore Debategate? Does it not owe the public the duty to pursue and to expose the truth, prior to the election of the next President of the United States? The FBI Inquiry of the Debategate fiasco focused on Yvette Lozano, a disgraced liar who was fired from her job when she worked for the Democrats because she lacked Integrity. Lozano was filmed by a security camera mailing a package in an Austin Texas post office and the label on the Express Mail package containing the Bush debate videotape corresponds to the date and time that Lozano was caught on tape
Lozano now requires a Criminal Attorney to dispute the claim that she had anything to do with Debategate. The suspicion that the Bush team engaged a dirty tricks scheme to entrap the Gore team by secretly sending the Democrats material they were not supposed to have, is difficult to dispute. Columnist David Nyhan exposed the dirty tricks operatives who are probably responsible for the debate tapes fiasco. Karl Rove, the foreman of Bush's presidential campaign has a history of making false allegations about the other camps'so called spies. In 1986, he claimed that Democrats had planted a listening devise in Republican headquarters. Rove conveniently discovered a planted bug hours before a televised debate and shifted the focus away from the substance of the political campaign, by saying; "Finding the bug convinced me that the opposition would say anything and do anything to win an election." The Bush camp is using these exact same lines, to slander Al Gore. When is enough, enough?
George Bush, a reputedly poor debater, is handled by advisers who believe that their champion could never survive a political contest without unfair advantage. Absolutely terrified about Gore's reputation as a top notch debater, they would do and say anything to survive this combat, and while the effort is admirable, the tactics are repugnant. Beyond Karl Rove, the other player in this sorry saga is Mark McKinnon, a political operative who got his start in the game by volunteering for the Texas Democrat's Senate campaign. McKinnon is now providing Bush campaign worker, Yvette Lozano, the alibi she requires, to deny wrongdoing. He claims that he had asked her to mail a pair of pants back to the Gap, on the day that the Bush tape was mailed to the Gore camp. When George Bush was running against Anne Richards, McKinnon was supposed to help the silver-tongued Governer clobber the election prospects of George W. Bush Jr. The question that emerges now is how does a poor debater survive the silver tongue of Anne Richards? Or to put it another way, when was McKinnon, a onetime Democratic strategist, really placed on the Bush payroll? Was it before, after, or during the time he was supposed to help Anne Richards defeat George Bush? The question is very serious because when Anne Richards was running for re-elction as the Governor of Texas, Mark McKinnon and Karl Rove were hostile, bitter, irreconcilable enemies -one a Republican, the other a Democrat -or was that just an act? These are disturbing questions, and the fact that the media ignores them is equally troublesome. In particular, if McKinnon's assistant, Lozano, was not in on the plot to send Bush's debate tapes to the Gore camp, who was?
The FBI is very good at tracking every mailbox, and when the FBI determined that Lozano was in the post office mailing a package on the very same day that the debate tape was sent to the Democrats, the match is quite obvious. How long and by what tactics, will the truth about Debatgate be denied? Why doesn't George W. Bush Jr. fire Yvette Lozano?
On Sunday October 1st, at the urging of the Bush camp, which kept pointing a finger at the Gore camp for allegedly stealing their debate tape, the FBI interviewed a young aide who was suspended from Al Gore’s Democratic presidential campaign because he had claimed knowledge about a mole. Ironically, the young man's claim strongly suggests that he had absolutely no material knowledge about Debategate and to their credit, the FBI did not waste more than half an hour interviewing 28 year old Michael Doyne. Clearly, any bright young man who was presented with the knowledge of access to the debate tape of the opposing camp, was prone to instantly leap to speculation about moles, and if Michael Doyne did not, one would have better reason to suggest that he had something to hide. Michael Doyne did not even have an attorney present when the FBI questioned him, and anybody who is politically motivated enough to create a situation where he is forced to hire one, will ultimately become another Ken Starr.
News about the fact that Michael Doyne was questioned by the FBI was not widely promoted until October 3, the date of the first presidential debate between Gore and Bush, and that is hopefully just a coincidence. Because if this is the latest version of October surprise, nobody is buying. And if the Bush camp is desperate enough to point a finger at Michael Doyne, this October surprise has clearly backfired.
When debate documents from President Carter's 1980 re-election campaign turned up in the files of Republican challenger Ronald Reagan, that potential scandal was ignored. But when you have so called journalists like Chris Matthews practicing a steady diet of Republican, Attack Dog Politics, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
On April 22 2000, just before dawn, armed federal agents stormed the home of Elian's Miami relatives, seized the six year old boy and reunited him with his father for the first time since November. It took less than 3 minutes to rescue Elian and given the resolve of the protesters who surrounded the house, the fact that nobody was seriously injured was a clear, undeniable testament to how well planned and executed the entire operation was. The days preceding the raid were filled with wishful reports which strongly suggested that Janet Reno did not have the backbone to enforce a raid. She was, according to the common taunt, a Waco flashback victim, and the exceedingly high prospect of violence in Miami was supposed to keep Janet Reno in check. But Janet Reno responded swiftly, when it was least expected and when the crowd of protestors was small.
The fact that Janet Reno averted a violent, Waco-style confrontation, was absolutely miraculous. Hostile, anti-Casro hysteria had clearly erased every opportunity for the peaceful transfer of Elian Gonzalez, from the Miami relatives to the father, and a violent confrontation was inevitable. Elian was treated like a symbol of the 40 year long, violent confrontation with Fidel Castro, and and as Janet Reno herself discovered, in the context of the war against Fidel Castro, it was simply not possible to reason with hysterical people. It was only possible to violently rescue Elian Gonzalez, because in the final analysis, hostile terrorists refuse to negotiate, and Janet Reno certainly provided the opportunity to prove that.
The Elian Gonzalez fiasco is a reflection of the media circus that politics has become. Politics has become a circus illusion where black is called white and white is called black. The magic of the circus is the novelty of the gimmicks, but after eight years of developing plots in effort to disgrace the Clinton Administration, the magic has died. The Elian Gonzalez fiasco was certainly one circus where every effort to revive the schemes of passionate, Cold War fanatics was effectively denied. The lunacy of "black is white" politics was simply too transparent and the abuse that was heaped upon a six year old boy was too brutal to tolerate. Clearly, the passionate fanatics who kidnapped Elian betrayed the extreme lunacy of “black is white” politics when they claimed that the US government had violated their civil rights in the process of rescuing Elian Gonzalez. What about the civil rights of a child who deserved to be with his father? What about the civil rights of a father who was denied access to his own son?
When hysterical extremists claim that their civil rights have been abused, they merely manifest the determination to abuse the legal system for the sake of terrorizing their victims. It is no coincidence that criminals and terrorists begin to cite civil rights abuses whenever the law catches up to them? It is an amusing strategy. Linda Tripp's supporters, for example, claim that she is an honest whistle blower, to cover up the fact that she is a pathetic pawn of the vast right wing Inquisition. Her cohorts, repugnant spies like Lucianne Goldberg, enthusiastically engaged the campaign to criminalize the President they hate, and since they failed to destroy Clinton, they seek to justify the effort. They can hide behind immunity agreements, they can continue to cover up he truth and they can terrorize innocent people through McCarthyite charges, but that is the entire extent of their contribution to society.
It is not surprising that "lunatic fringe character assassins" like Anne Coulter would call an unindicted criminal like Linda Tripp a genuine hero. They are, according to the reasonable characterization that Coulter denounces, The Insane Clown Posse, and they have no mission beyond the relentless effort to fraudulently criminalize the President of the United States. It is certainly no surprise that as long as they are in town, the circus is never very far away. In the good old days, you needed a ticket -today, it’s in your living room. Just turn on the set and you cannot possibly avoid the politically motivated stage managers like Chris Matthews, who routinely give the likes of Anne Coulter, Larry Klayman, Joe DiGenova, Barbara Olson and Lucianne Goldberg, the uninterrupted opportunity to rant and rave about the world according to the lunatic fringe. Geraldo Rivera tries to balance his show by challenging the lunacy, but the ultimate goal of the Insane Clown Posse is to dominate and to control through the force of propaganda. In the view of the lunatic fringe, reason is a nuisance, it is not an obstacle.
But like the Elian Gonzalez fiasco, their ranting and raving is dominated by the predictable, lockstep unity of hysterical pronouncements. The clowns are all the same. The scripted tale that dolphins escorted Elian’s inner tube to safety, reflects the behind-the-scenes, maneuvers of a well oiled, ministry of propaganda. The nauseating tales disseminated by self-satisfied political operatives like Ronald Reagan's former speechwriter, Peggy Noonan, who claimd that a school of dolphins rescued Elián from the perils of the Florida Strait and "surrounded him like a contingent of angels" is absolutely astounding -she should write for Fidel Castro. Peggy Noonan in fact cited "possible evidence of the reasonable assumption that God's creatures had been commanded to protect one of God's children." Peggy Noonan did not explain why the almighty God and the miracle dolphins that escorted Elian, refused to rescue his mother. Why did the magic dolphins allow Elizabeth Gonzalez to die? Peggy Noonan ignores the question because the convenient death of Elizabeth Gonzalez granted passionate fanatics the opportunity to speak for Elian's mother as if they knew her. The implicit nonsense that Peggy Noonan promotes is that the purpose of the magic dolphins was to grant Republicans the opportunity to speak for Elian's mother? Even Tom Delay promoted the need "to adhere to his mother's wishes", as if Tom Delay has the right to deny a father the right to be with his own infant son. In the final analysis, Elian Gonzalez and his father were terrorized by irrational fanatics, and in the absence of the Clinton Justice Department, the tragic consequences of this grotesque fiasco would have been compounded to the point where the entire Gonzalez family would have been irrevocably victimized. If that's what Peggy Noonan means when she salivates over the "every willing heart" rhetoric that she enthusiastically embraces, she should try promoting substance over her delusions of White House grandeur.
The Elian Gonzalez case has exposed deeply held delusions, and the only thing that this fiasco has failed to carefully explore is the simple truth. In particular, the barbaric cruelty of the obsession to deny a father the custody of his own child is an act of terrorism, and that is the context of this fiasco -it is rooted, not in a miraculous, dolphin-centered rescue, but in the cruel schemes that ruthless terrorists develop, to advance a political agenda.
It is perhaps no coincidence that the nightmare that Juan Miguel González endured coincided with the 36th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. Militant, anti-Castro fanatics consider the 22nd of November to be the day that justice was served. Kennedy had allegedly betrayed anti-Castro exiles because he refused to launch a full scale invasion of Cuba, to rescue the botched Bay of Pigs fiasco and to get rid of Castro once and for all. These dreadful memories are extremely high on emotion, because those who risked or sacrificed their lives to free Cuba blame Fidel Castro and John F. Kennedy for the deaths of their comrades in arms, and they never abandoned the zeal to get even. And so, on November 22nd 1999, as Juan Miguel Gonzalez panicked because his 5 year old son was nowhere to be found, the miracle that was supposed to free the Cuban people from 40 years of Castro's domination, was about to miraculously land in Little Havana. Was it really a miracle or was it a pre-planned, politically motivated, anti-Castro agenda? Forty years of history suggests that when it comes to declaring war against Fidel Castro, every single detail, no matter how bizarre and how outlandish, is pre-planned, executed and botched up by hysterical fanatics, and there is no reason to believe that the "Bay of Dolphins" is anything more or anything less.
The forty year battle to destroy Castro has generated unprecedented hatred and hysteria. Former FBI agent Robert Maheau, J. Edgar Hoover's patriotic soulmate, exposed the perverse sense of law and order that the war against Castro has produced, when he claimed that John F. Kennedy was a certifiable murderer because he had refused to use the full force of the American military, to invade Cuba during the aborted Bay of Pigs invasion. It is difficult to believe that people actually think that way, but Robert Maheau's feeble attempt to "educate" the US Senate, removed all doubt. Brimming with pride and self-righteous indignation, Robert Maheau said, "Senator, I find it difficult to understand all the time and money that is being spent to determine if our country plotted to murder a foreign leader -a murder that never took place -when there is no evidence that any time and money is being spent to turn the spotlight on the murders that in fact did take place. The murders I mean were the boys killed during the botched Bay of Pigs invasion...as our volunteers attempted to land or actually did land on the beaches, they were destroyed by Russian hardware that we should have destroyed according to the plan. And that, gentlemen, is murder." And now it appears, at least half of the Senate is well educated. It is all very difficult to comprehend, but the prevailing mindset of "Patriots" who operate in realm of absolute lawlesness is well sourced.
Law and order is no longer about truth and justice but about "turning up the spotlight" and creating one media circus after another. When corrupt, convicted felons like Mark Fuhrman turn the spotlight on a so-called Kennedy related murderer, do you get the sense that the law is being perverted, and that the only beneficiaries are real murderers like OJ Simpson? To be sure, if there was a single shred of reliable evidence that pointed to Skakel guilt, one could accept Fuhrman's contribution in the effort to solve the Moxley murder mystery. But who needs another obvious mockery of justice? Indeed, the perversion of justice has become so common, that the media frequently fails to determine the difference. When Janet Reno successfully reunited Elian and his father, as mandated by Immigration and Naturalization Service law, she was called a criminal. Demonstrators in front of the Miami home of Lazaro Gonzalez waved a "Clinton Murderer" sign, as they protested the federal government's use of force to remove Elian. In the meantime, the responsibility for kidnapping Elian Gonzalez was never claimed. So much for law and order.
Perhaps, Janet Reno is fortunate to have had the INS involved in this raid, because the Justice Department has proved to be somewhat unable to wrap up investigations in a timely and competent fashion. As a matter of fact, while Janet Reno frantically struggled to avoid the apparent inevitability of a Waco-style cofrontation, a prosecutor, four FBI agents and an additional court reporter interviewed the President of the United States about campaign financing. The Justice Department's task force was assembled soon after Clinton and Gore were elected to their second terms in the fall of 1996, and there is something extremely grotesque about repeatedly rehashing the same old issue over and over and over again. Vice President Al Gore was also interviewed about alleged 1996 campaign finance abuses, and if this perpetual campaign fund-raising investigation is not politically motivated, nobody has ever provided any other credible explanation. Needless to say, Janet Reno was too preoccupied with the Elian Gonzalez fiasco, to be concerned about the blatant campaign to politically damage Clinton and Gore. To be sure, staunch Clinton foe, Congressman Dan Burton may be the public voice behind the relentless, anti-Clinton assault, it is ultimately the cooperation of the politically motivated wing of the Justice Department, which makes a never-ending Inquisition possible. Interviewing Al Gore for the fifth time in five years, in the middle of a potentially violent hostage crisis, not to mention a Presidential election, was absolutely inexcusable. Politically motivated, Justice Department wackos wasted five years trying to lynch Al Gore on the foundation of a single incident, and given the fact that there exists no evidence of criminal impropriety on the part of Al Gore, the repeated demand to appoint a Special Council where none is required, does not get any more credible with time or with ignorant, 'piling on' tactics.
Thankfully, despite the divided Justice Department, the Elian Gonzalez fiasco was derailed by a professionally executed, carefully timed law-enforcement operation. Florida Governor Jeb Bush and anti-Castro Hispanic lawmakers aggressively challenged the tactics used by the armed feds who seized six-year-old Elian, but under the circumstances, the criticism was absurd because it was essentially suicidal to enter a hostile environment without being fully armed, and any suggestion to the contrary was pure demagoguery. INS agents had spent a week planning the raid and had observed teams of self-appointed bodyguards, several were camped in a tent in the backyard of the house behind the Gonzalez home, and many of them were members of radical anti-Castro groups that promoted violence. Janet Reno had done everything humanly possible to affect a voluntary transfer, and it is absolutely petty and futile to protest a seizure which was clearly provoked by the illegal detainment of Elian Gonzalez. Indeed, under the curcumstances, critics are essentially lamenting the avioidance of a Waco-style confrontation. The showdown between law enforcement and anti-Castro terrorists demanded a heavy show of force and that is exactly what was delivered. In the meantime, the potential political fallout was volatile. Al Gore, who was obviously obsessed by the determination to deny George Bush the opportunity to exploit anti-Castro hysteria, was widely criticized for dodging the media circus and for being as vague as possible, to limit the fallout. George Bush pointed the finger at the lack of confidence that the Clinton-Gore Justice Department inspired, at a time when the reverse was in fact true. If George Bush is not widely supported by predictable, media spin, it is difficult to make sense of the fact that he was not widely criticized for condemning a successful law enforcement operation. Indeed, journalists who felt the need to criticize Gore had to dig deep and spin hard, because Gore did not give mouthpieces like William Saffire the ammunition they would have liked, to demonize him the way they demonized Janet Reno. But if Gore denied them the opportunity to call him an agent of Fidel Castro, in the end, it didn't matter, because Janet Reno "cut off" the political currency that anti-Castro hysteria would have generated, if Elian Gonzalez was not rescued.
Prior to the raid that freed Elian, Florida Governor Jeb Bush wrote to Clinton and Reno, to tell them that "the forcible separation of Elian and his current caregivers is unwise and unwarranted." George W. Bush was "profoundly saddened . . . that the administration . . . decided to use force to take a little boy from the place he calls home in the middle of the night." A Boston Globe editorial succincly defined the legitimacy of the raid to rescue Elian in the following terms: "If humanity and the rule of law were to be preservered, the federal government had no other choice. Attorney General Janet Reno, herself from Miami, had exhausted every last avenue of compromise - even into early Saturday." The New York Times criticized what it called "A Precipitous Raid" and claimed that Attorney General Janet Reno "should have applied more legal pressure on the Miami relatives before battering down their door to remove Elian." Needless to say, the reasonable opinion that the Boston Globe promoted was like a breath of fresh air in a sea of politically motivated propaganda.
Donato Dalrymple, the imposter fisherman who is credited with rescuing Elian Gonzalez is in fact a rabidly anti-Castro fanatic. In his own words, "We are aiding and abeting in this country, a murderer and a criminal by the name of Fidel Castro." It is not possible to reason with such hysterics, and the only certainty is that whatever they say is not reliable. Like Larry Klayman, who claimed that President Bill Clinton "cut a deal with Fidel Castro," they manufacture politically motivated delusions. In the meantime, the truth is slaughtered beyond all recognition, and it is frequently so bizarre, that it is difficult to believe. Is it, for example, even remotely possible for a five year old to survive a 50 hour ordeal at the hands of the merciless sea, without some very calculated assistance? By the testimony of Elian Gonzalez himself, the child was essentially doomed, in the absence of his undisclosed protectorates. When Elian Gonzalez repeatedly told his cousin Marisleysis Gonzalez that he kept sinking and "that every time he tried to fall under because he couldn't hold on, it would push him, something would push him up, and he said it was the dolphins." And what did these "dolphins" look like? When Elian Gonzalez played "pictionary" with Diane Sawyer, his dolphin had what looked like an arm and a frogman's mask. Now that certainly sounds like a man-made miracle, of the sort that is cruel enough to allow Elizabeth Gonzalez to perish at sea, for the sake of declaring war against Communism.
It is all extremely difficult to comprehend, but the politics of the Bay of Pigs era are not ancient history. As late as August 25, 1998, the US government indicted seven aging Cuban exiles for plotting the assassination of Fidel Castro. The Bay of Dolphins is evidently the latest translation of Bay of Pigs-style politics. To be sure, we are supposed to believe that dolphins escorted Elian’s inner tube to safety, but we do not need to embrace the delusions of anti-Communist hysterics, to acknowledge the power of God. [posted July 6, 2000]
Integrity is the only Authority
The years 1960-2000 ultimately prove that Integrity is the only Authority. It is the only consistent, persistent and absolute lesson of the past 40 years, and it is a good lesson to begin forging the path of the 21st century.
It all began with Nixon versus Kennedy. Kennedy was cool, intelligent and a firm believer in the power of the human intellect. Nixon was square, ideological and a fierce advocate of the determination to destroy political adversaries. Kennedy won the election in 1960 because he captured the hearts and the minds of the people. His critics claim that he won because he was corrupt or simply because he looked good on television. In actual fact, Kennedy won because he was open and intelligent. Nixon lost because secrecy and deception are not endearing.
When Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, secrecy and deception triumphed because voices of reason were silenced, ignored or dominated. While Kennedy was in power, intellectuals like Michael Forrestal and Arthur Schlesinger were the driving forces behind foreign policy decisions. When Kennedy died, they became voices in the wilderness and the wolves were so deceptive and so secretive, they did not even howl as they slaughtered their prey. But in the end, the deceptive deployment of the Vietnam war destroyed Johnson and Watergate destroyed Nixon.
The emergence of Jimmy Carter was supposed to rid the scourge of secrecy and deception, but Richard Nixon was the cloak-and-dagger comeback kid, and October Surprise [when the release of American hostages was secretively and deliberately delayed, for the political purpose of creating the impression that Jimmy Carter was a weak, foreign policy President] was the signal that Cold War Patriots were back in town. But this time around, it was going to be different. If the Democrats could produce a John F. Kennedy, the Republicans could produce a Ronald Reagan, and this faulty analogy turned politics into a high stakes, tit-for-tat, public relations battle. In the process, the substance of the great intellectual was destroyed and replaced by the great communicator, and if he was simply a vehicle for the secrecy and deception that Nixon routinely deployed, it didn’t really matter as long as the media recorded the communication and ignored the deception. To put it very bluntly, the 1980’s were the decade where Ronald Reagan had the cake and Richard Nixon ate it.
Twelve years of Reagan and Bush culminated with the shock of the Clinton election victory, and the time to reach out and to destroy somebody re-emerged. As far as Richard Nixon and his cronies were concerned, Clinton manifested the “revenge of the 1960’s” and the relentless effort to rid the world of that scourge produced the most investigated President in world history. The contrived perjury trap which failed to derail the Clinton Presidency was merely the ploy that Nixon had successfully used to destroy former adversaries like Alger Hiss. The courts have not exposed that travesty, but Ken Starr, who brags about his capacity to win in a court of law, needs to be reminded that truth is the subject of philosophers and historians, not judges. The historical truth that Starr conveniently ignores is that Richard Nixon and his cronies routinely and deliberately set out to target and to destroy every powerful intellectual who threatened their world vision, and there is no question about the fact that Bill Clinton was the target of their wrath. And if Starr wants to continue to brag about his capacity to win in court, somebody ought to use the civil courts to test his capacity to justify the wasting of public money, for the purpose of embarrassing the President of the United States.
Those who still claim that the Lewinsky affair was about perjury do not understand history. If you really want to know what the Lewinsky affair was all about, just listen to what Clinton’s enemies say. Appearing on the Geraldo show on December 8, 1999, Barbara Olson proudly said, “we proved that he (Clinton) is a cad”. Isn’t that a wonderful ambition? Jonah Goldberg said that Hillary Clinton is going to run for the Senate and then she is going to run for the Presidency. In a previous show, Barbara Olson had also claimed that Hillary Clinton is ultimately going to run for the Presidency. What about the terrifying prospect that JFK JR. would one day claim the Presidency for the Democrats, did that also preoccupy their minds before his plane conveniently nose-dived and derailed that potential scourge? On November 30, 1999, speaking about Hillary Clinton, Barbara Olson said: "She's an icon of the liberal party, and I understand." If a so called Liberal icon like Hillary Clinton is fiercely targeted, is it logical to assume that JFK Jr. was not? These lockstep ideologues never fail to trade one obsession for another, and this current, post-impeachment wrath for the Clintons and for anybody who supports them reflects the extreme lunacy of the vast right wing conspiracy -and like the inmates of the asylum, reality is the only threat to their sanity. Indeed, they have found solace in the prospect of destroying their enemies, and Clinton’s survival continues to fuel their hatred. Regardless, their unfulfilled fantasies do not grant them license to destroy and whether they refuse to bury the hatchet or not, history proves that in the end, they become their own, worst enemies. In the meantime, they should recall the simple lesson of the simple fact that Integrity is the only Authority. [posted December 9, 1999]
We don’t like to waste our time talking about people like Dick Morris. This guy wears so many phony hats, it is simply not possibly to find a single, genuine bone in his entire body. During the Starr Inquisition, Dick Morris was in bed with Ken Starr. At the time, Dick Morris criss-crossed the nation promoting the claim that President Bill Clinton was a “Nixonian creep”. It didn’t work. Morris’s effort to become the John Dean of Watergate, did not pan out. Clinton survived. Dick Morris failed to mold public opinion.
And now, Dick Morris has adopted a new strategy to revive his failed bid to control public opinion. Having failed to get his way with the support of the mainstream media, Morris is now seeking to infiltrate the world of alternative media. Dick Morris is now a self-professed Internet Guru who claims that the will of the people cannot be contained because the people have the Internet. What a clown! Dick Morris is a political operative who pursues covert agendas like the failed effort to destroy Clinton. The next time you see Morris on television, take a close look at him. Isn’t he beginning to look more and more like Richard Nixon? Richard Nixon believed that he could control the entire world if he could control the media. Dick Morris now thinks that he can control the entire world through the Internet. Go Dick go... [posted November 20, 1999]
When you signed our guestbook today, to thank us for keeping the spirit of John F. Kennedy Jr. alive, you reminded us that we are the misfits. We are the misfits because we had warned every single person we could possibly reach, that as long as the murder of Liberal Steve Kangas was unresolved, serial murderers would target another Liberal. We are so, so sorry we were not vigilante enough to determine that the next Liberal to be targeted, would be John F. Kennedy Jr.
We should have known better. The writing was on the wall of George magazine’s January editorial, wherein John F. Kennedy Jr. wrote that “the press has mutated into a separate constituency, with its own particular aspirations and agendas increasingly divergent from yours.” Tragically, we failed to grasp the fact that JFK Jr. was essentially a fellow misfit who quietly challenged the disconnect between the will of the people and the power of mass promotion.
You can only live a lie for so long, and sooner or latter, the truth either emerges, or it is buried. The truth that JFK Jr. ultimately threatened to expose was buried on November 22, 1963. Unfortunately, even CNN, Turner’s so called Liberal media, is a party to promoting the big lie about the assassination of John F. Kennedy Jr.’s father. CNN recently ridiculed the common claim that Kennedy was murdered because he planned to withdraw from the Vietnam war, by countering with the claim that Kennedy in fact escalated America’s commitment to that war. Of course, the claim that Kennedy escalated is technically correct, but the significant historical issue is Kennedy’s refusal to commit ground troops to the War in Southeast Asia, and having promised to end America’s entire, Vietnam War commitment by 1965, Johnson’s divergent determination to deploy American combat troops reflected a stark, foreign policy reversal. If CNN is too stupid to acknowledge this elementary historical reality, it should leave the news business to people who are committed to reporting the truth. In the meantime, it can continue to cover up the truth, without having to worry about being exposed by a misfit like John F. Kennedy Jr. [posted October 1, 1999]
Why Waco, why now?
Here we go again. Another meaningless, “who knew what, when” charade, is providing pundits the opportunity to demand another "investigation". Don’t go spending your money trying to figure this one out folks, it’s just more politics as usual. For the sake of argument, let’s assume the worst. Let us assume that irresponsible, lose canons started the fire at Waco. We are talking about a situation that had deteriorated to the point of warfare, and as we all know, “everything is fair” and truth is always the first casualty. And regardless of whether we embrace or whether we reject these tactics, we also know that whoever is guilty in this case has gotten away with it, and it is not very likely that any amount of investigation will produce the truth unless the guilty parties confess. The evidence has produced no suspects and it is not very likely that any will arise in the near future.
So what we have is a case where something has gone wrong and anyone can blame his or her favorite target. That is what calls for the resignation of FBI Director Louis Freeh and Janet Reno are all about. Louis Freeh is somewhat of a mystery man who is evidently serving the interests of some unspoken master. Janet Reno is an honest, intelligent woman, besieged by career Justice Department officials who evidently lie to her. The entire Waco mess sounds more like “Whitewater part 2” than a genuine interest to get to the bottom of the truth about Waco. Once again, the attention of the Justice Department will be diverted, to give politically motivated bigots the opportunity to further erode public confidence in the administration of justice. Stay tuned, but don’t worry, it’s just more of the same. Do not expect any justice any time soon.
Let us give you a little hint about how to identify the difference between a genuine, bona fide investigation and a phony, politicaly motivated charade. A genuine, bona fide investigation identifies a criminal and charges him or her with a real crime. A political charade is what you hear when pundits demand the resignation of honest law enforcement officials like Janet Reno. Now you know everything that you will probably ever learn about Waco.
When sources of reasonable input are dominated by the incredulous rhetoric of Waco related hysteria, it is because the truth is routinely marginalized and vigorously opposed. John F. Kennedy Jr. had matured to the point where he seriously grappled with the elusive nature of declamatory nonsense, and his even handed input will be sorely missed. In his own words; “As always, the truth resides somewhere in between, in subtleties and muted shades of meaning that get overwhelmed by today’s declamatory public discourse.” Having interviewed the elusive Richard Mellon Scaife, John F. Kennedy Jr. knew what he was talking about, and the decision to reject "today's declamatory public discourse" reflected the calibre of his intellect and integrity. Moreover, when Kennedy rejected the indoctrination efforts of Richard Mellon Scaife, who tried to convince Kennedy that Clinton was a murderer, he exposd himself to the wrath of the "shadow Justice Department." Remember Susan McDougal and Julie Hiatt Steele? Remember Jim McDougal? Can anybody seriously claim that Jim McDougal was anything more than a casualty of the effort to destroy the Clinton Presidency?
There is no greater teacher about “muted shades of meaning” than Richard Mellon Scaife, and it took John F. Kennedy Jr. to expose the dangerous vanity of a man who routinely cultivates and abuses power. Indeed, Richard Mellon Scaife told Kennedy that he funded groups like Judicial Watch to "shadow" the Justice Department, and doesn't that betray the current force behind the effort to use Waco as an incident to cripple the authority of Janet Reno? Richard Mellon Scaife claims that he funds Judicial Watch because they're "doing the work Janet Reno ought to be doing. It's almost a shadow Justice Department." The only problem with that assessment is that Janet Reno is a credible authority, Larry Klayman is not, and Richard Mellon Scaife does not appoint the Attorney General of the United States.
While Richard Mellon Scaife essentially manifests the secret passion to be America’s judge, jury and executioner, he doesn't leave any room to doubt the path of destruction that his direct contribution sows. And it is not very difficult to identify the public soul mates or the “muted” advocates of the current desire to cripple the Clinton Justice Department. Take the inflamatory rhetoric of Tony Blankley, who claims that “Reno has been a front person for the Justice Department from the beginning. And White House operatives have been running the Justice Department and they’ve been running it terribly -and running it into the ground.” Who does Tony Blankley think he is? If he is not an abusive front person for the Scaife cabal, then why does he sound like one? Not surprisingly, Tony Blankley lambasted the Clinton White House on the September 2nd airing of the Chris Matthews show Hardball, and as far as this writer is aware, it was his first appearance since the death of JFK Jr. Is there a muted shade of meaning behind that? Is the effort to selectively lay blame over Waco more important than the unanswered questions that surround the death of JFK Jr.? If Tony Blankley refuses to publicly pay tribute to JFK Jr., then why did he work for the man? We do not pretend to define Blankley's agenda, but we certainly question the practise of using a tragedy like Waco for the irresponsible purpose of promoting shadow Justice Department interests, and it is high time to hold anyone who betrays the public trust, publicly accountable. In the final analysis, if Tony Blankley, Richard Mellon Scaife and Larry Klayman want to act like public officials, they should be held publicly accountable.
You do not have to be a genius to figure it out. Is anybody surprised over the current zeal to dump Janet? After all, the Attorney General of the United States has been under the gun for years because she rejected astounding pressure to appoint an Independent Counsel to look into allegations of fund-raising abuses in Clinton's 1996 reelection campaign. But who, in his or her right mind, would accept such a blatantly politically motivated recommendation? When Newt Gingrich funneled money illegally into Republican Party-building promotions, he was not criminalized. Who can possibly see justice in the prospect of appointing another Ken Starr, to target Clinton’s fund-raising activity? Zealots may refuse to concede Bush’s failed reelection bid, but we have seen enough of the Paula Jones legal team, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky, David Hale and Linda Tripp, to be very confident about the fact that on the merit, the effort to criminalize the Clinton White House is disingenuous, to say the very least. Instead of firing Ken Starr, they want to fire Janet Reno. I guess it's all relevant. [posted September 2nd, 1999]
Blame it on Rio
The toxic culture that produced the Columbine school massacre is too common for comfort. But instead of cleaning it up, Monday morning quarterbacks who are intellectually challenged are lining up scapegoats and demanding the whole sale slaughter of everything and anything that smells offensive. Blame it on the movies, blame it on guns, blame it on parents, blame it on the Internet, blame it on video games... Censor, sanitize, immobilize and ostracize. If that’s the plan, the Columbine school massacre is like a ticking time bomb. There is certainly a toxic culture at work, and it is called mass hysteria, ignorance and confusion. A Ph.D. psychologist who used national television to give his “talking heads” version of the massacre, blamed it on high self-esteem. In his own words, “there is nothing worst than crossing a kid with high self-esteem”. If you believe that, then I AM GOD. The kids that caused the massacre were emotionally disturbed and brainwashed, they did not have high self-esteem. All they needed was good counseling and a good education, they did not need a moron with a diploma who was hell bent on beating the self-esteem out of them. To be sure, it is much easier said than done, but do not expect any light bulbs to shine, until the obvious is acknowledged. The kids that caused this massacre were emotionally disturbed and brainwashed. That is what they were before the massacre. Now, they are just cold blooded murderers. The “talking heads” who monopolize television news should assume some responsibility for the mass produced ignorance they espouse, because the need for emotional stability and clarity has never been greater. In the absence of a media that provides reliable information, alternative sources like the Internet give students the unprecedented ease of opportunity to explore ideas they would not ordinarily confront until they reached a certain level of maturity, and if we are talking about students who are filled with hatred, it isn’t difficult to determine who they are likely to hero worship. Alexander Pope put it best many centuries ago when he said “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or taste not...” Now that everything is up for sampling, the need for reliable guidance has never been greater, and schools all across America are doing a wonderful job meeting the challenge. Good teachers and good schools routinely avert potential massacres, but a media that does not understand the relationship between high self-esteem and a healthy, stable society, routinely ignores the obvious. We hate to “blame it on Rio” and that’s not the point. But the need to upgrade responsibility is so obvious, it speaks for itself. Glenbrook South, a large Chicago high school with 2320 students was named one of the “Outstanding Schools in America”, and it doesn’t take very much time to determine why. Students at Glenbrook South have evidently taken the huge, “EXPECT RESPECT” sign that dominates the school stairwell to heart, and it is very difficult to imagine an outbreak of violence in a school where every teacher and every student expects and receives respect. In the final analysis, it is all a matter of attitude. You can demand obedience and create the impression that you are strict, punitive and vindictive, or you can create an environment where order and discipline are a consequence of the mutual respect and the dignity that every individual deserves. In particular, hatred and hostile rivalries are a malignant disease, and in the absence of mutual self respect, the cancer will never be rooted out.[posted May 5, 1999]
President Clinton is maligned for suggesting that Monica Lewinsky was a stalker. When you are young, immature, in love with the President of the United States and manipulated by Linda Tripp, you are a stalker. Linda Tripp made Monica a stalker and Monica made it plainly obvious during her interview with Barbara Walters when she said that Tripp encouraged her to have an affair with the President even before Tripp was aware of the relationship between Lewinsky and Clinton. Why did Linda Tripp want President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky to have sexual intercourse? Who was she working for? Linda Tripp encouraged a young, immature girl to have sex with the President of the United States. Lewinsky is admirably independent and if she does not appreciate the implications of the fact that she was manipulated, she certainly will if she is as intelligent as she claims. There is certainly enough blame to go around. Monica Lewinsky is young and immature, the President foolishly succumbed to temptation, but it is Tripp and Starr who are responsible for the terror that Monica Lewinsky is still feeling. It is Tripp and Starr who are the secret police in this entire ordeal. Even Ginsburg, who is repeatedly ridiculed and criticized, did a superb job protecting the rights and interests of Monica Lewinsky. Ginsburg faced off with the terrorists and made it absolutely clear that Ken Starr was the problem. The deluded few who believe that Starr is capable of reaching a compromise may criticize Ginsburg, but they did not take a single step in the shoes of an underrated giant who refused to be intimidated. To be sure, the old pros that Lewinsky latter hired were smoother than silk, but Ginsburg was the ground troop, and he clearly defined the battleground. And so, when Monica grows up, she should give Ginsburg the bonus he so rightly deserves.[posted March 4, 1999]
Juanita Broaddrick claims that she said “stop, I’m a married woman!” But this “holier than thou” attempt to defame Clinton is rendered fraudulent. Clearly, the claim that she summoned the sanctimony of marriage to ward off an alleged rapist is an absolute fraud. A verified adulterer like Juanita Broaddrick was not prone to using a wedding vow to ward off a rapist and Bill Clinton was not even the subject of her affair. Even Ken Starr clearly understands the fact that Juanita Broaddrick is the sort of liar who cannot possibly survive cross examination. Does Starr actually believe that this back door introduction of absurd rape allegations is proper? If he agrees with the maintenance of a perpetual, anti Clinton crusade, it is proper. If he believes in justice, it is extreme obstruction. But do not expect any reason or logic from Starr or from any of his supporters any time soon. In particular, the effort to resist the need to fire Starr has overwhelmed reason. Starr supporters vehemently posit the absurd claim that while Attorney General Janet Reno can fire Starr, she must be denied the authority to investigate Starr. Try following that ludicrous proposition to its logical conclusion. The Doctor has a duty to cure the patient but is denied the opportunity to diagnose potential illness. As usual, Starr and his supporters continue to spin reason on its head. The New York Times has even picked up the spin and claims that Janet Reno is a politicized Attorney General. On the contrary, Janet Reno has earned the right to claim her independence. Having been pressured into appointing a Special Counsel to investigate Clinton when none was required, she has demonstrated her willingness to go the extra mile, to prove her independence. In retrospect, she went too far and was too accommodating and Starr proved that in nauseating spades. The purpose of the current effort to demonize the so called “politicized” Attorney General is to make Janet Reno a lame duck or to re-write the Independent Counsel statute to in effect, abolish the Attorney General’s right to fire Ken Starr. It’s a cute scam and it would give Ken Starr the power of an absolute monarch, but Starr doesn’t have a Kingdom to command. The lunatic fringe will continue to manipulate the legal system in effort to produce a Joe DiGenova to clear Starr, but even OJ Simpson did better than that -the entire jury cleared him. [posted February 25, 1999]
Linda Tripp says that Clinton is out to murder her. And she’s so scared, you know what she’s gonna do. She’s gonna write a book to expose the Clinton Mafia. But we heard her say she is scared, is that what terrified people do? Welcome to the new and improved Linda Tripp -the one who describes her fear with a smile. If you didn’t almost fall off your chair laughing during her Larry King Live performance, we did. In particular, Linda Tripp had the unbearable audacity to use the words “pattern of evidence” to justify her plight. Let’s take her warning seriously and look at the “pattern of evidence”.
The only pattern that most people see is an out of control Independent Counsel who exploits desperate people and if Linda Tripp is desperate, it isn’t because Bill Clinton is after her. It is because she is Starr’s agent and she is under pressure to make the case against Bill Clinton. The fact that Starr has not muzzled Linda Tripp makes that quite obvious doesn’t it? It is a classic fraud operation -muzzle the witness who disputes the fiction and unleash the liar. We can write an entire manuscript to prove the point, but we have better things to do. [February 16, 1999]
Fire Starr Now !
The effort to discredit the need to fire Ken Starr is gathering force. “The Justice Department is more partisan than it has been in a long time”, Starr apologists thunder, to dissuade a Justice Department investigation of Ken Starr. Starr apologists further emphasize the New York Times, unnamed sources claim that Clinton is out for revenge, in order to simultaneously further the impression that anyone who goes after Starr is simply vindictive. It’s like blaming the Clintons for the murder of Vincent Foster, to make every plausible claim of foul play, sound absurd. These are old, tired tactics and they do not wash in the light of day. The simple fact of the matter is that every thinking being is clearly aware of the fact that Ken Starr has abused his office and that he must be fired. The purpose of the Independent Counsel Statute is to take the politics out of the law, and having done the exact opposite, there is no excuse for continuing to retain Ken Starr. The failure to fire Starr without delay is pure negligence, and if the Justice Department fails to do at least that, it certainly requires a major overhaul. [posted February 11, 1999]
American Bar Association
The American Bar association has spoken out. It has overwhelmingly decided to recommend that the Independent Counsel statute be discarded when it comes up for renewal in June. Why? Because the statute has failed to take the politics out of the law. Will somebody please wake up and stop blaming “the statute” for this Inquisition. It is Ken Starr and his allies who have failed to take the politics out of the law. The American Bar association should maintain professional standards, it should not provide tyrants the opportunity to hide behind the law. Clearly, at every turn, it is Ken Starr and his perpetual need to “search his recollection” that is responsible for failing to take the politics out of the law and it is Ken Starr, not some stupid statute, that should be held accountable. For twenty years, the American Bar Association supported the statute when the potential for abuse was as real as it is today. It is not the statute, it is Ken Starr who abused the spirit of his Office, and the laughable suggestion that the statute made him do it, will never wash. Perhaps, instead of making the Independent Counsel Statute the scapegoat of this travesty of justice, the American Bar Association should seek to hold everybody accountable. Reasonable, seasoned prosecutors have testified under oath, they would not touch the Lewinsky allegations, and when the American Bar Association targets the statute rather than the Prosecutor, words fail. The irony of this entire fiasco is that if the Independent Counsel Statute was enforced, this would not be happening. Follow the simple logic: In the 1980's, Oliver North and his band of merry outlaws believed that the United States of America needed a better Congress -so they did everything they could possibly think of to subvert the Congress. Today, a similar band of outlaws believe that the United States needs a better President, so they are doing everything they could possibly think of to subvert the President. The American Bar Association should abandon the delusion that the statute did it because people rely upon the law for protection, not from the Independent Counsel statute, but from tyrants like Ken Starr. [posted February 9, 1999]
Motions to Dismiss
The vote to dismiss charges of perjury and obstruction of justice was defeated, but the 44 Senators who voted to approve dismissal was 10 counts over the number that Clinton requires to survive a vote to convict. In that respect, the second Senate vote, which approved the request to re-depose witnesses who have repeatedly testified, was needless and meaningless. When 44 out of 45 Senate democrats share the conclusion that this impeachment process is seriously impaired, prosecutors cannot possibly hoodwink the Senate into believing otherwise. What is going on here? Isn’t it time to abandon the effort to force the verdict? Is the decision to subpoena Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal, patently absurd, or is it a genuine effort to expose the truth?
First and foremost, the choice of witnesses is certainly fascinating. To begin with, Monica Lewinsky is anything but a credible witness. Monica Lewinsky is an excessively debriefed and muzzled witness -she can’t even talk to the media unless Ken Starr approves it. Moreover, what she says in the Senate is largely dictated by a Starr immunity agreement, unless of course, she errs on the side that Starr approves. It takes a huge stretch of the imagination to call Monica Lewinsky a truthful witness -yet the House prosecutors chose her and deliberately excluded Betty Currie, who carries none of the baggage that strains Lewinsky’s credibility. Why aren’t the House prosecutors seeking to resolve the conflict between the testimony of Monica Lewinsky and Betty Currie? What are they afraid of? Republicans keep insisting that they must resolve discrepancies in testimony, but they selectively maintain them. If trends speak louder than words, a cynic would leap to the conclusion that the truth is not at issue and that they are merely seeking to control the testimony of Monica Lewinsky, in effort to prove the outrageous allegations of discredited House prosecutors. Clearly, the "pitiful three" to quote the characterization of the witnesses, as ascribed by chief House prosecutor Henry Hyde, are certainly a pitiful choice if truth has anything to do with this fatally flawed end game. In particular, every impartial body places justice above party politics, and it is certainly disappointing to watch overzealous prosecutors and a partisan Senate squander the opportunity to derail an impaired impeachment. But it’s only a matter of time... [posted January 27, 1999]
To call or not to call...
The House managers are demanding the opportunity to call witnesses. On the surface, they need witnesses to resolve conflict in testimony. In fact, the House members are desperate. They have failed to prove their case and they seek a handful of prepared witnesses to further distort the truth by limiting the focus. Indeed, in cooperation with Ken Starr, the House managers forced Monica Lewinsky to further cooperate and to provide the Prosecution with yet another bout of testimony, under the threat of imprisonment if she refused to do so. They never fail to deservingly earn the wrath of the public. Clearly, Ken Starr and the House managers have never acted in a manner which is consistent to the claim that they seek the truth, and that makes their legal maneuvers exceedingly repugnant. House Republicans betrayed their reluctance to call witnesses for the intent of exposing the truth when they had contemplated introducing the Kathleen Willey sexual assault allegations, not through Kathleen Willey herself, but through her lawyers. The focus on process and legal maneuver has frustrated every sense of fairness, and the Democratic claim that this has been an impeachment in search of a crime is not rhetoric. It it an absolute travesty of justice. And the vast hypocrisy of citing the ‘rule of law’ to justify this witch hunt is beyond the comprehension of every reasonable human being. [posted January 23, 1999]
Julie Hiatt Steele
It all began when Julie Hiatt Steele opened her door and allowed Lucianne Goldberg’s favorite investigative journalist, Michael Isikoff, to enter her home. In the 1980's unindicted felon Richard Nixon operated on the assumption that a crime had not been committed unless the press reported it, and that is evidently the mentality that motivates people like Goldberg and Isikoff. By implication, Michael Isikoff created the impression that Julie Hiatt Steele is a criminal, and that, in the final analysis, is why Ken Starr indicted Julie Hiatt Steele.
Clearly, if the press functioned as it should, Michael Isikoff would be in the corner of an innocent underdog like Julie Hiatt Steele. If the press functioned as it should, Lucianne Goldberg would despise Michael Isikoff. If arrogant, cover up artists denounced Richard Nixon’s perverted insinuation that the truth does not matter, this would not be happening. But despite Michael Isikoff, Lucianne Goldberg, Linda Tripp and Ken Starr, the simple truth is always the strongest advocate. And that is why Julie Hiatt Steele has single-handedly disgraced Isikoff, Goldberg, Tripp, Starr and everybody else who hides behind the claim that crimes are not committed, unless the media reports them. Crimes are committed every single day, and the criminals who targeted Julie Hiatt Steele Steele are not any less guilty, simply because they may evade criminal prosecution.
In the final analysis, we are witness to the indefensible abuse of power that corrupt journalists and corrupt, "political refugees" unleash. Lucianne Goldberg, Linda Tripp, Michael Isikoff and Ken Starr may fudge their collective recollections to evade criminal prosecution, but innocent victims like Julie Hiatt Steele betray the travesties of justice they embrace. No American, let alone a law abiding citizen like Julie Hiatt Steele, should ever face the ludicrous prospect of 35 years in prison, for telling the truth. And if Michael Isikoff ever knocks on your door, do not expect him to tell you who he is working for. [posted January 20, 1999]
The Senate Trial is over
We started the week of January 4, 1999 with the frustration that it does not matter what we say or do -nobody is listening. So we just fired off 800 e-mails to 800 newspapers across America. That should get their attention. Here's what we had to say:
Lest you have failed to discover the truth, the current assault on Clinton is merely the work of paranoid, anti-Communist hysterics. If you listen to Clinton's enemies very carefully, you'll get the clear impression that the reason that Clinton is under assault is that he has been perceived to be a Communist -but they don't openly call him that because they know it is a tough sell -so they call him a rapist, a murderer, a pervert, a perjuror -anything will do as long as it works. Wake up and smell the coffee -are you or have you ever been a Communist?
Much is made about the so-called trail of death that follows Clinton: The pattern is crystal clear. Any Clinton associate who does not promote anti-Clinton bullshit is targeted and destroyed. Look what happened to Jim McDougal. After his conviction, the party line was that he was cooperating with Starr, but the feeble McDougal claimed that he was the victim of fraudulent documentation -he was not actually guilty. In that context, his death was extremely convenient. And then there's Susan, who spent 18 months in prison for refusing to lie about Clinton. [Our brilliant readers bring this fact to our attention: Susan McDougal was in prison for refusing to answer questions. But there is a rich history of corrupt authorities who use the grand jury to prove the opposite of what is in fact true. Jim Garrison used the grand jury to "prove" that organized crime did not exist. Susan refused to testify because Starr asked her to lie, and if she told the truth she would be walking into a perjury trap. And so my dear Forrest Gump, we all know WHAT happened, but it is all a consequence of WHY.] Does anybody miss the pattern here? Weren't the lies of the desperate Kathleen Willey carefully cultivated because the only other available option was the pure torture that is reserved for anyone who refuses to cooperate with Starr? Look what happened to Julie Hiatt Steele and her family when she told the truth? Was Ed Willey murdered because he refused to cooperate with Starr's henchmen? Is there a single reason to doubt it? [Willey's death preceded Starr's appointment, but so did the witch hunt, and it is the Inquisition, it is not Starr's formal status, which claims innocent victims.] Did Starr hire former FBI agents like G. Gordon Liddy? If the Senate wants to hold a trial, shouldn't these questions be top priority, or are they more interested in sex? Should we all demand answers to these questions, to make it absolutely certain that we want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? If she is in fact a liar, why didn't Starr charge Julie Steele with perjury? Her testimony was under oath -or is Starr just after Clinton? The evidence is very clear. Starr is very predictable. If Willey was alive, Starr would have granted him immunity in exchange for evidence to hang Clinton. But if Mr. Willey threatened to expose the plot to hang Clinton, what then? I guess we now know the "what then".
Damn it, we used the word bullshit again. Frustration certainly has it's price -we hate exposing our limited language skills. We'd give anything to be able to write like William Saffire and even more to be able to restore his credibility. When Julie Hiatt Steele was indicted, only somebody like William Saffire is gifted enough to explain it away. On January 7, 1999, Ken Starr's Virginia grand jury indicted Julie Hiatt Steele for obstructing justice and for lying. That would be fine and dandy, but Julie Hiatt Steele is credible and Ken Starr is not. The truth is logical, methodical and beyond a reasonable doubt. The truth is not a paintbrush that you dip in a bucket every time you seek to create a public impression. When Ken Starr indicted Julie Hiatt Steele, he signed, sealed and delivered his own self-destruction. Ken Starr had a choice to make. He could choose to include the Willey allegations in the Starr Report, or, like every reasonable prosecutor, he could choose to dismiss the frivolous allegations. Ken Starr did the right thing. But when Ken Starr indicted Julie Hiatt Steele, he became more of a joke than a serious prosecutor. Ken Starr is obviously getting some pretty bad legal advice -where is Sam Dash when he needs him?
And now that Ken Starr has chocked on his own smoke, the final chapter of this tragic saga is clear. The simple fact of the matter is, the United States Senate has two choices -it can be fair and impartial, or it can self-destruct. Unfortunately, in this case, to be fair and impartial is the equivalent of denying a full blown trial. For starters, if the Senate wants a full blown, impartial trial, it would have to seek and to find answers to questions like: If the Willey allegations are so credible, why didn't Starr charge Clinton with sexual assault? Who, in his right mind, would charge Steele for lying, because Bill Clinton is allegedly guilty of sexually assaulting Kathleen Willey? Who is the target, is it Bill Clinton or is it simply a campaign to destroy Julie Hiatt Steele, so that Bill Clinton will look guilty? Isn't it nice to know that your life is subject to be destroyed if you simply tell the truth? Ask Susan McDougal and Julie Hiatt Steele, they are living examples of the fact that the simple truth conspires to destroy innocent people. And if the Senate wants to get to the bottom of the entire mess through a thorough, impartial trial, it would have to grant President Bill Clinton a third term, to expose all the puppeteers behind the Starr puppet. If we discount that unlikely prospect, President Clinton cannot be fairly prosecuted and for all practical intent, the witch hunt is over. It may take a while for the media to figure it out, but the Senate trial of the President is over.
Ironically, it is ultimately Monica Lewinsky who saved the Clinton Presidency. If it wasn't for Lewinsky, Clinton's enemies would have eventually pulled fraudulent Whitewater documents out of the pumpkin and would have held a public Bill and Hillary hanging. As it turns out, Joe McCarthy was right about spies in the State Department, but they were not Communists. They were the public relations-oriented, Linda Tripp-style hit squads. They are very easy to identify. They have a very distinct crawl and they shun the media. But they crawl out of their holes to promote themselves and the garbage which is supposed to destroy their political targets. Their claim to fame is the repulsive fact that they commissioned the motivation to murder their targets and you can clearly expect the Senate to wash its hands clean of this bloodbath -or to self-destruct. The Senate is too mature and too dignified to maintain a witch hunt. And while there is absolutely nothing that we would love more than a full blown trial, even the Courts have limits. [posted January 10, 1999]
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
What are high crimes and misdemeanors? Is it too much to assume that rational people would rise up in protest if the President defendant had indeed committed high crimes and misdemeanors? Does anybody who is reasonable and seeks to uphold the rule of law, actually believe that the public would tolerate a President who is in fact guilty of perjury, of obstruction of justice and of abuse of power? The standards of the vast majority are clearly too high to dismiss the sort of abuse that is alleged. But most of the charges have proved to be so utterly preposterous that they collapsed on their own transparent frivolity. The only thing that remains is the McCarthyite charge that crimes were committed but details cannot be exposed. It's the old, perpetual, pending investigation gimmick -keep the target under investigation, claim phony secrecy privileges and he or she is always a suspect. And that is the sort of suspended animation that produced the desperate charge that President Clinton is guilty of perjury -but who says?
That is the question and it not entirely facetious because it goes to the heart of "specific intent". In particular, perjury is a specific intent crime that relies upon the mindset of the defendant. When, for example, Monica Lewinsky said she hadn't had a sexual relationship with Bill Clinton, she was telling the truth because Monica Lewinsky made a clear distinction between what she called "fooling around" and sexual intercourse. It is Linda Tripp who ultimately insists that Monica committed perjury because she is the one who persistently quareled with Monica, in effort to plant in her mind, the necessary elements that are required by law, to expose a target to the charge of perjury. It all sounds absurd and difficult to imagine but it's all on tape and the charge cannot simply be dismissed. Blinded by the mentality that the end justifies the means, criminal perpetrators do not appreciate the scope of self-incrimination. On tape, Linda Tripp is heard clearly insisting that Lewinsky and Clinton had sex, and she aggressively disputes the "fooling around" characterization that Lewinsky firmly believed. Indeed, she pushed and pushed and pushed to the point where Linda Tripp claimed that if you have an orgasm, it's sex. Can you imagine a grown woman, any grown woman, arguing with a young girl, any young girl, about the definition of sex? Can you imagine a grown woman, any grown woman, insisting that orgasm equals sex? Is masturbation also sex? If they are willing to re-write the dictionary to expose the President of the United States to the charge that he committed perjury, is there anything that they are not willing to do?
Like Linda Tripp, attorneys for Paula Jones were preoccupied by the bizarre obsession to define sex. In the end, the tortured definition they produced provided Bill Clinton a cover to deny a sexual relationship -and the trap was sprung. But it was a trap with an illusory bite. Perjury is not the failure or the reluctance to expose a sexual play by play. It was a nice try, but it was a trap that lacked substance and demanded the sort of zeal that reasonable prosecutors reject. Moreover, if collusion between Linda Tripp, the Jones camp and the Office of the Independent Council is responsible for the parsimonious definition about sex, the astounding scope of the behind-the-scenes set-up reflects unethical, clever lawyering, to say the very least. Having deliberately limited their questions to encourage Clinton to mislead, it certainly takes extraordinary contempt for the law to turn around and call that perjury. There is indeed no limit to the stretch of reason that Clinton's accusers claim. They even have the unbridled arrogance to call Jones versus Clinton a Federal civil rights action. Frivolous on merit, bogus on substance, Jones versus Clinton was about abusing the court system to procure a perjury charge about a non-criminal matter. Lawyers for Paula Jones essentially betrayed the fact that they were more anti-Clinton crusaders than advocates for Paula Jones when they claimed that Clinton was guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power. Having obliterated the distinction between the Jones camp and Starr's office, it is certainly naive to deny the evident collusion. Indeed, the assault was essentially treasonous, because Monica Lewinsky and the Jones case were used in a manner which was tantamount to manufacturing justification to criminally indict the President of the United States.
And when the Jones case was thrown out of court, even the inconsistent Dick Morris, the very man whose rhetoric is selectively used to demonize Clinton, claimed that Paula Jones owed the entire country an apology. Isn't it ironic that Paula Jones owes Bill Clinton what she in fact demanded from him? Indeed, isn't everything about a witch hunt ironic, when the rule of law comes to bear? Isn't the effort to turn Dick Morris into the John Dean of the Whitewater scandal, a laughable, transparent fraud? Black is not white and white is not black. Service justice my friend. Service justice well because if you do not, anybody can call you a murderer, and instead of substantiating the charge, they will simply compare you to other murderers and demand a confession. Confess and die fast, defy and die slow. Guilty today, or guilty tomorrow. You will be confined and the switch will be pulled. Your body will convulse and your eyes will pop. Justice for one, justice for all.
Resist the temptation to label and destroy. To borrow Mary Bono's repeated boast, this is not the work of lawyers. This is not a defense for Bill Clinton. This is simply a reflection of every single, reasonable person who is sick and tired of all the bullshit and you can take that poll to the bank. [posted December 14, 1998]
The Problem with Prosecutors
The problem with certain Prosecutors is that they do not know when to be tough, when to be human, when to back off, and how to be objective. Take Marcia Clark for example. What kind of a prosecutor was she? The entire world saw her in action, and it still does as media pundit Marcia Clark takes regular pot shots to condemn, to ridicule and to make a laughing stock out of the President of the United States, whom she suggests should have joined a band so that he could get the chicks. Perhaps, Marcia Clark should have been a cleaning lady and then, murderers like Simpson would not roam the streets and the neo-Nazi tactics of Starr's Office would not be defended by the likes of a media that bends over backwards to make Starr look like a Prosecutor. Clearly, Ken Starr is nothing more than the obsessive compiler of the anti-Clinton garbage that predictably flows into the OIC Office. Of course, according to the brilliant analysis of people like Marcia Clark, it cannot possibly be an organized, illegal plot to topple the President of the United States because the flow of information is all one way -that means there is no conspiracy, doesn't it? As long as we have Prosecutors like Marcia Clark, there is certainly no conspiracy.
But if Marcia Clark was a real Prosecutor, she would have charged Mark Fuhrman with abuse of power, perjury, obstruction of justice and every other possible charge which relates to assaulting the competence and the integrity of the Prosecution. What if, for example, Lucianne Goldberg and Mark Furhman were secretely hired to help O.J. Simpson evade a murder rap? During an interview where she was just about to compare the Clinton saga with the O.J. trial, Goldberg abruptly backtracked and refused to elaborate because she evidently did not want to reveal salient facts. What is she hiding? Does Marcia Clark appreciate the serious corruption that her own Office manifested during the trial of O.J. Simpson? Of course not, Marcia Clark would rather blame the jury, the Prosecution is infallible. Don't blame others for your own incompetence Marcia, in a world where justice prevails, O.J. Simpson and Mark Furhman would be cellmates. And then, you would have secured both justice and a jury which was willing to listen.[posted December 1, 1998]
Ken Starr provides the Proof
Ken Starr has done the world an enormous favor. Ken Starr has proven once and for all, when he claims that he is vindicating the rule of law, he is seeking to make the world safe for hypocrisy. Ken Starr has proven once and for all, that corrupt authorities who suborn perjury are guilty of obstructing justice. Ken Starr has proven once and for all, that corrupt, career Justice Department officials are still paying tribute to the felonious legacy of J. Edgar Hoover. Ken Starr has proven once and for all, that the capacity to manipulate the court system is responsible for covering up, rather than exposing the truth. Ken Starr has proven once and for all, how easy it is to fill our prisons with innocent people. Ken Starr has proven once and for all, that bragging about the capacity to win in court is like being thankful that Jim McDougal is dead and is consequently denied the right to every appeal. Ken Starr has proven once and for all, that "the facts" are a figment of his vast, hitherto unfathomable capacity to pervert justice. Ken Starr has proven once and for all, that it is simply not possible to have an Independent Special Prosecutor as long as Grand Inquisitors exploit the Courts. Ken Starr has proven once and for all, that he would rather defend Paula Jones and Linda Tripp, rather than the duties and obligations of the President of the United States. [The Paula Jones lawsuit was consistently and repeatedly used to divert the media and that is clearly an improper use of the judicial process.] Ken Starr has proven once and for all, that he can hide behind the practise and policy of legal manoeuvres, but he cannot find an independent jury to support a grand plot to topple a President. [posted November 19, 1998]
Fear is the Biggest Motivator
Linda Tripp said it all when she said: "He's not letting you in. He's not letting you in because it's dangerous to let you in. He let you in and now he's afraid. He's afraid! Fear is the biggest motivator. Self-preservation is everything. I don't think that your last conversation with him would have been the same before the fear took over." That is the world that Linda Tripp lives in, a world where everything is dictated by fear. It is really the grand revelation of anything that anybody can say about Linda Tripp because therein lies the point where people with kindness and compassion, and Linda Tripp part company. Intelligence can be kind and compassionate or it can be dangerous and treacherous, and is anybody confused about the category that Linda Tripp occupies?
Since fear is the key to unravelling the world according to Linda Tripp, this scandal will remain a mystery until every source of every fear is fully exposed. In terms of available evidence, the "talking points" appear to be one of the underexposed elements of the Monica affair. The notorious, highly publicized "talking points" document was supposed to substantiate perjury and obstruction of justice charges, but the effort did not survive the light of scrutiny. Regardless, the emotion that the "talking points" sparked has certainly heightened the perception that unanswered questions dominate. In particular, there is clearly a sense that fear lurks in the background. Indeed, with her entire body shaking like she was scared to death, Linda Tripp's voice trembled in fear as she publicly denied having had anything to do with the development of the "talking points" document. Who was Linda Tripp afraid of? Was she afraid of Monica Lewinsky? Was she afraid of President Clinton? Or was she afraid of betraying the plot to topple a President? [posted November 17, 1998]
Nazis Don't Know When To Back Off
Starr's conspiracy theories have failed to ignite public opinion. But instead of backing off, Starr's Office continues to target anybody who refuses to promote anti-Clinton hysteria. His latest targets, Julie Hiatt Steel, her family, her friends and even her accountant are all under investigation. There is no mystery about what Starr is currently seeking from them. Kathleen Willey had convinced her friend Julie Steele to tell Michael Isikoff of Newsweek that President Clinton had groped her. Linda Tripp enthusiastically promoted the sensational claim and fraudulent corroboration was desperately cultivated. But Julie Hiatt Steele refused to cooperate. She was supposed to tell Isikoff that Clinton had groped Kathleen Willey, that she was humiliated, distraught and upset about it and that she had exposed the details of the assault on the very night that it happened. While the effort to make the charges believable was exhaustive, the dramatic claim was obviously not authentic and an honest, experienced reporter should be in the business of exposing the truth. Isikoff was evidently more interested in documenting an obvious lie while Kathleen Willey pulled the equivalent of tape recording a good friend -albeit, in this case, a "human" tape recorder was used. Not surprisingly, the hysterical Goldbergs claim that Michael Isikoff is a fine investigative reporter, and that is exactly the sort of recommendation that strains credibility. All the deception and the "double dealing" is exceedingly repugnant, save for the integrity of Julie Hiatt Steele, who assumed her responsibility when she said: "Over a year ago, I made two mistakes. I did a favor for a person I thought was my friend, and I trusted a reporter." And that is all that is required to produce a fraudulent scandal.
There is plenty of scandal to refrain from simply echoing the tape recorded musing that are supposed to topple a Presidency. In the context of seeking to develop fraudulent evidence, Ed Willey was deliberately murdered because he got in the way. In particular, Ed Willey did not trade fraudulent testimony in exchange for leniency or for immunity from prosecution. And what has happened since Willey's untimely death? Ed Willey's wife was befriended and exploited to the point where the Office of the Independent Counsel escorted Mrs. Willey before the Grand Jury without a lawyer. If the Starr Inquisition has made one thing absolutely clear, it is the fact that there is absolutely no relationship between integrity and the willingness to cooperate with Ken Starr. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the entire plot to topple the Clinton Presidency is linked to Starr's willingness to accept the evidence of anti-Clinton hysterics and their fraudulent "talking points" efforts to corroborate lies. In retrospect, the fact that anti-Clinton hysterics have declared an all-out, covert war against the President of the United States cannot be seriously disputed, and if the blood of Vincent Foster, Jim McDougal and Ed Willey reflects the tyranny of the assault, the truth about these untimely deaths has never been told. We have made our position about the death of Vincent Foster absolutely clear, and you do not even have to take our word for it, to acknowledge the venom that targeted Vince Foster. As a matter of fact, the man was still alive when the Wall Street Journal made the case that Vince Foster was the embodiment of evil. On June 24, 1993, the Wall Street Journal compared Vincent Foster to Oliver North because he was allegedly the pointman of every evil plot that emanated from the White House. Foster was blamed for being the driving force behind the hated, Clinton agenda -in particular, he was allegedly responsible for making Hillary Clinton the head of the White House health task force, and that was viewed to be an unpardonable crime. Hysterics like Richard Nixon had claimed that the enactment of the Clinton health care policy would be the "revenge of the 1960's" and the battle lines were clearly drawn. Vincent Foster conveniently received a bullet in the head and his death was used to launch the Senate Whitewater/McCarthy Hearings. These are the basic, repugnant facts and even if you do not believe that Foster was murdered, only a fool can deny the existence of the hysterical plot to destroy the President of the United States.
Clinton's enemies did not think that he would survive the plot to destroy his Presidency past January and they are now in a state of improvisation. How long will they be granted the opportunity to improvise? How many bodies will the Nazis claim before they are stopped?How many liars will they seek to cultivate? Who has the unmitigated gall to call this an investigation? The battle lines are clearly defined. If you do not oppose the Nazis, you are a Nazi collaborator, and that is the only urgent proposition that the Congress of the United States must deal with. [posted November 5, 1998]
We cannot predict the future, but a single day after indicating that the Jones case and the Starr case are one and the same, we find out that there is no distinction between the serious allegations that both camps are making. Indeed, if the motivation of the Jones lawyers is to impeach the President, then allegations of perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering are right on cue. But does that make the Jones lawsuit a serious case or is it an unprecedented example of "keystone lawyering"? [posted October 20, 1998]
Jones versus Clinton
In case you haven't figured it out, the Jones case and the Starr case are one and the same. It is popular to assert that both Jones and Clinton want to settle the case, but get a grip on reality, neither Jones nor Clinton are in charge of what is going on. This is a legal charade. Clinton simply wants the case to go away and Jones is simply going along for the ride. Anybody who thinks that Paula Jones has anything to do with this lawsuit is absolutely clueless. If a battery of self-righteous lawyers routinely lined up to protect the rights of American citizens, it is Paula Jones, not Bill Clinton, who would be in the hot seat. This case is an absolute joke. Merits are not decided by the capacity to cause trouble and if the Jones case ever amounts to anything beyond what Allan Dershowitz called "extortion," it will never amount to anything in the minds of reasonable people. [posted October 19, 1998]
Desperately Seeking Malleable Democrats
The effort to organize bi-partisan consensus to dump Clinton has a very dark precedent. In 1964, the bi-partisan consensus between Democrat Lyndon Johnson and Republican, Richard Nixon, is responsible for the longest, dirtiest, most futile war in American history. How do we know? Richard Nixon, who was always obsessed by the determination to oppose John F. Kennedy, did not oppose Lyndon Johnson in 1964, even though Johnson repeatedly pledged "to continue" the policy course Kennedy had charted. Why? Nixon knew that Kennedy had been assassinated because he obstructed the determination to prosecute the Vietnam War, and elections took a back seat to bipartisan scheming.
Nixon's memoirs betray the fact that Lyndon Johnson's pledges of continuity with the Kennedy administration were absolutely phoney. According to Richard Nixon: "I was disturbed by some of Kennedy's early foreign policy actions. During his first week in office, he was confronted with a crisis involving Communist aggression in Laos. After an initial show of strength in one of his press conferences, he pulled back and ended up accepting a supposedly neutral government that everyone knew would be heavily influenced by the Communists. I decided that it was time for the administration's honeymoon to end, and I agreed to give a speech before the Executives Club of Chicago on May 5, 1961." Given the extreme, anti-Communist paranoia that Kennedy's foreign policy incited, it is a rare degree of certainty which prompts the conclusion that Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson were secret allies of the determination to prosecute the Vietnam War. Clearly, if Johnson's pledge of "continuity" was anything more than a public relations ploy, Richard Nixon would have gone ballistic and, to use his term, the "honeymoon" would have been over as soon as Johnson pledged continuity. The evidence is astoundingly conclusive because when Richard Nixon said that Dean Rusk was "one of the ablest and most honorable men to serve as Secretary of State," it doesn't take a genius to determine the fact that John F. Kennedy was the only obstacle of the determination to prosecute the Vietnam War
Nixon initially denied being in Dallas on the 22nd of November, 1963, but by 1978, his memory was miraculously restored to the point where he said: "Early on the morning of November 22 on the way to the Dallas airport I saw the flags displayed along the motorcade route of the presidential visit." Wild horses couldn't keep Richard Nixon away from the stage of the plot to assassinate the President of the United States.
The media holds a vigil around Clinton's bedside and claims that he will die when Democrats and Republicans join forces to condemn him. It's very amusing to watch. If the media was in fact independent, it would have been clamoring for a bipartisan consensus which reflects the will of the American people.
Richard Nixon destroyed a couple of tapes, erased part of another and spent millions of dollars in legal fees to keep the majority of the tapes away from the public, in effort to bury his dirtiest secrets. Bill Clinton had a private, inappropriate sexual relationship of the sort that should not be discussed in public [posted September 30, 1998]
manufacturing a perjury trap
According to Howard Fineman of Newsweek, the claim that President Clinton did not technically commit perjury is ludicrous. Howard further describes Starr's additional interview with Monica Lewinsky, a secret meeting which was not before the grand jury but produced a sworn deposition, without offering a single word of objection. Clearly, the deposition of a liar like Lewinsky is as credible as the person behind it, and unless Howard Fineman is merely a cheerleader of the plot to charge the President with perjury, he should practice balanced reporting. It is one thing to allow Ken Starr to set a perjury trap and quite another to allow him to use excessive zeal and tactics that are practically unheard of, in effort to destroy the President of the United States. [posted September 5, 1998]
Chairman Nixon versus President Clinton
The word in the media is that impeachment is a political process while resignation is a matter of honor and integrity. Get it? The media is implicitly suggesting that an unindicted felon like Nixon was an honorable man. Just when you think that media integrity cannot possibly sink any lower... Where is the perspective? Criticizing President Clinton for lying about sex is like criticizing a rape victim for lying to her captor to avoid being murdered. That is what the road from Whitewater to Monica Lewinsky absolutely demonstrates, and that is why President Clinton should never, ever resign. By the way, if Nixon was an honorable man, I guess we are supposed to believe the same about Starr. Fat chance, Starr's well earned disapproval rating is a clear reflection of what we in fact think. And if the media does not represent the very same public that has clearly had more than enough of Starr's excessive abuses, then who does it represent? [posted September 4, 1998]
the consequence of suicide or murder
Gennifer Flowers advanced the possibility that Monica will commit suicide. Vince Foster did. At least that's what the authorities say, isn't it? But the evidence suggests that Foster was murdered. Why? Because if he was alive, the speculation of the Senate Whitewater Hearings would have been denied by the testimony of Vince Foster. Every witch hunt exploits ignorance and the purposeful speculation that the Senate Whitewater Hearings advanced would have all been denied, but for the death of Vince Foster -whether it was suicide or not. If that makes us conspiracy kooks, what does it make CNN and Fox? First they tell you about reports of Monica's dress, then they tell you that they proved to be false, and then they're true again. In the meantime, they miss the story. In terms of Foster, an analysis of all the available evidence leads to the terrible, detestable conclusion that Foster was murdered in a deliberate, calculated effort to exploit the void that a silent voice leaves behind. Vincent Foster was an honest, intellectual giant and in the absence of solid evidence that he committed suicide, it is difficult to accept the speculation. We do not seek converts nor do we invite ridicule, because in the final analysis, we are all victims of what we in fact believe. We can call each other ignorant and we can call each other conspiracy kooks, but we cannot dictate the truth.
And the leak out of Washington is that Starr is planning to charge Clinton with abuse of power because it reminds people of Watergate. Now that's very serious. Maybe he can get a wordsmith like William Saffire to write the editorial. Moreover, since her grand jury testimony, Monica is providing Starr with additional, written, sworn statements. Isn't that stretching it abit too much? [posted September 2, 1998]
E-mail the webmaster
Do you have a website that wants to link to us? We'll even link back to you! Click here for a free image link.
JFK, Jr. JFK, Jr, Memorial, jfk,jr,memorial,john,f,kennedy,junior,life,history,books,
[ Latest | Media | Politics | News | Weather | SEARCH | Sports | Leadership | Credits | Links ]
Go To The Top
Copyright © 1999 - 2000