Replies

Q ERTY6 REALITY CHECK ping!

If the impeached ex-president's own claim is true, that he understood fully the capability and inclination of bin Laden to carry off a 9/11, then by passing up Sudan's offer, including one as late as last year, to hand over the terrorist and data on his network, reveals both the depth and danger of clinton dysfunction and the utter malfeasance of the Senate and the fourth estate.

"WHAT HARM CAN HE DO?"


Most interesting about the impeached ex-president's revisionist schemes is his calculation that incompetency is a preferable legacy to idiocy or a sui generis narcissistic sedition.

The Placebo President (aided and abetted by the media myrmidons of the left) strikes again
more...

11-30-01

New York Times Chairman/Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. admits to Brian Lamb:

"Times dropped ball during Holocaust by failing to connect the dots"
Times was able to endorse clinton by separating clinton's "policies" from "the man" [i.e., by failing to connect the dots!]

by Mia T, November 30, 2001

Malpractice and/or malfeasance by "compartmentalization" redux...

It appears that The New York Times doesn't learn from its mistakes. Will it take The Times another 50 years to understand/admit that by having endorsed for reelection a "documentably dysfunctional" president with "delusions" -- its own words -- it must bear sizeable blame for the 9-11 horror and its aftermath ?

(Note, by the way, the irony of Sulzberger's carefully worded rationalization of the clinton endorsements, pointing to clinton "policies," not achievements, (perhaps understanding, at last, that clinton "achievements" -- when legal -- were more illusory than real--perhaps understanding, at last, that The Times' Faustian bargain was not such a good deal after all).).

If we assume that the clintons were the proximate cause of 9-11 --- a proposition not difficult to demonstrate --- it then follows that The New York Times must bear sizeable blame for the 9-11 horror and its aftermath.

The New York Times clinton Endorsements: Then and Now

by Mia T, October 22, 2000

The New York Times' endorsement today of hillary rodham clinton is nothing more or less than a reprise of its shameless endorsement of her husband four years ago. Like the 4-year-old disgrace, this endorsement reveals more about The Times than it does about the candidate.

The Times' endorsements of the clintons are not merely intellectually dishonest--they are laughably, shamelessly so. An obscene disregard for the truth, a blithe jettisoning of logic, a haughty contempt for the electorate, a reckless neglect of Constitution and country, they are willful fourth-estate malfeasance.

Inadvertently, ineptly, ironically, these endorsements become the metaphor for the corrupt, duplicitious, dangerous subjects they attempt to ennoble. The New York Times must bear sizeable blame for the national aberration that is clintonism and for all the devastation that has flowed and will continue to flow therefrom.

I have included both endorsements below. One has only to re-read the 1996 apologia today, in 2000, after eight long years of clinton depravity and destruction, to confirm how spurious its arguments were, how ludicrously revisionist its premises were, how wrong its conclusions were, how damaging its deceits were.

The Lieberman Paradigm

I have dubbed the Times' convoluted, corrupt, pernicious reasoning, (unfortunately now an all-too-familiar Democratic scheme), "The Lieberman Paradigm," in honor of the Connecticut senator and his sharply bifurcated, logically absurd, unrepentantly Faustian, post-Monica ménage-à-troika transaction shamelessly consummated on the floor of the Senate that swapped his soul for clinton's a$$.

Reduced to its essence, the argument is this:

clinton is an unfit president;
therefore, clinton must remain president.

(You will recall that Lieberman's argument that sorry day was rightly headed toward clinton's certain ouster when it suddenly made a swift, hairpin 180, as if clinton hacks took over the wheel. . .)

Nomenclature notwithstanding, (nomenklatura, too), it was not the Lieberman speech but rather the 1996 Times endorsement that institutionalized this Orwellian, left-wing ploy to protect and extend a thoroughly corrupt and repugnant--and as is increasingly obvious-- dangerous -- Democratic regime.

"A Tiger Doesn't Change its Spots"

Reprising its 1996 model, The Times cures this clinton's ineptitude and failure with a delusional revisionism and cures her corruption and dysfunction with a character lobe brain transplant.

But revisionism and brain surgery didn't work in 1996, and revisionism and brain surgery won't work today.

...prior attempts at presidential brain surgery
have proven less than brilliant.
You will recall that, as recently as 1996,
The New York Times insisted that
Bill Clinton undergo the surgical procedure;
its endorsement of Clinton was predicated
on Clinton undergoing a partial brain transplant:
specifically of the Character Lobe.

Clinton assured us immediately (if tacitly)
that this would be done post haste (or was it post chaste?),
that whatever crimes he never did, he would never do again.

If brain surgery was ever performed on Clinton,
it has produced no discernible improvement.

Perhaps our approach to the problem
of deficient presidential brains
is itself wrong-headed;
that the problem is really
a problem of deficient electorate brains.

Voters would be wise to heed
the old roadside ad:

Don't lose Your head

To gain a minute

You need your head

Your brains are in it.
--Mia T, Pushme-Pullyou

October 22, 2000
The New York Times: Hillary Clinton for the Senate

When Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived in their state 16 months ago, New Yorkers deserved to be deeply skeptical. She had not lived, worked or voted in New York State. She had never been elected to any public office, yet she radiated an aura of ambition and entitlement that suggested she viewed a run for the United States Senate as a kind of celebrity stroll. She seemed more at home at East Side soirÈes and within the first lady's question-free cocoon than in unscripted conversations with voters or the political press. She encountered civic doubt and open hostility from predictable sources, as well as a surprising resistance from feminists offended by her passive response to the marital humiliations inflicted by her husband.

But in the intervening months, Mrs. Clinton has shown herself to be an intelligent and dignified candidate who has acquired a surprising depth of knowledge about the social-services needs of New York City and the economic pain of the upstate region. Her political growth has been aided by her combat with two worthy Republican opponents, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and his successor as the G.O.P. candidate, Representative Rick Lazio. With full respect for their abilities, we endorse Mrs. Clinton as the one candidate who will best fill the vast gap that will be left in the Senate and within the Democratic Party by the retirement of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

As a neophyte, Mrs. Clinton began her campaign with a number of clumsy statements about sports teams and girlhood vacation visits to the state and with a much-ridiculed listening tour among handpicked audiences. But as her confidence mounted, she outdid her opponents in visiting the state's 62 counties. Through the collection of firsthand stories, she learned about economic deprivation, energy costs, taxes, health crises and troubled schools. She came out of those grueling months knowing more about the state than most candidates who qualify by birth as what Mr. Lazio calls "real New Yorkers."

Handshaking her way through town squares and state fairs, she also shed her earlier political shell as a cosseted, sloganeering ideologue. The first lady from Arkansas evolved into an Empire State candidate whose grasp of local issues complements a deep, if untested, understanding of national and international matters from her days in the White House. She also communicates an unfeigned empathy for the struggles of poor families, schoolchildren and professionals in the health care, education and social-service fields.

The hesitancy among some voters, however, has been understandable, and we share some of those concerns. Her health care task force failed to deliver the promised reform. The investigative literature of Whitewater and related scandals is replete with evidence that Mrs. Clinton has a lamentable tendency to treat political opponents as enemies. She has clearly been less than truthful in her comments to investigators and too eager to follow President Clinton's method of peddling access for campaign donations. Her fondness for stonewalling in response to legitimate questions about financial or legislative matters contributed to the bad ethical reputation of the Clinton administration. If she should choose to carry these patterns and tendencies into the Senate, her career there could be as bumpy and frustrating -- and ultimately, as investigated -- as her White House years.

We believe, however, that Mrs. Clinton is capable of growing beyond the ethical legacies of her Arkansas and White House years. She has shown a desire to carve out a political identity and create a legislative legacy separate from her husband's. Certainly, no one can doubt that she combines his policy commitments with a far greater level of self- control and a steadier work ethic.

In a move that should serve as an example to other campaigns around the country, Mrs. Clinton bucked the advice of old-line Democrats and agreed to a ban on soft money for this campaign. It was a bold and important step since the ban hurt her own campaign more than that of Mr. Lazio. Although she has come late to the cause of campaign reform, we believe that she would be a firm vote in support of the McCain-Feingold soft-money ban and that she would work tirelessly toward the long-term goal of full public financing of election campaigns.

Although we are endorsing Mrs. Clinton, we want to commend Mr. Lazio for his effort. He has refused to complain about getting a late start. Despite his moments of macho exuberance and his excessive persistence in trying to exploit the carpetbagger issue, he has so far resisted making this a low-road campaign. He has described himself as a Republican moderate who would fight to increase the power of his party's small, but important, centrist bloc in the Senate. On housing, banking laws and the environment, he has taken positions far friendlier to working people and the Northeastern region than those espoused by his party's Senate majority leader, Trent Lott.

Even so, most Republican members of the Senate will be pulled to the right and pressed to support programs that are generally tailored to the needs of the South and West, rather than to those of Northeastern urban areas. Mr. Lazio argues that if the G.O.P. holds control of the Senate in the Nov. 7 election, it would serve the state to have him in the majority caucus. We understand the logic of that position and might find it persuasive in some races. But we have concluded that Mrs. Clinton is an unusually promising talent and it would be better for New York to fight for its causes with two powerful, progressive voices: hers and that of the state's senior Democrat, Senator Charles Schumer.

On foreign policy, Mr. Lazio and Mrs. Clinton have presented themselves as firm friends of Israel, and in our view, Mr. Lazio has not enhanced his foreign-policy credentials by trying to take advantage of Mrs. Clinton's comments on Palestinian statehood and the awkwardness of her encounter with Suha Arafat. Mrs. Clinton has, in fact, acquired a useful education in international affairs through her travels and activities as first lady. The speech that she made to the Council on Foreign Relations last week set forth a broader, more sophisticated vision of America's place in the world than anything Mr. Lazio has offered so far. He has simply stated misgivings about the Clinton administration's record of foreign engagements, while Mrs. Clinton has sketched a program that looks at environmental, health and human rights issues, as well as security concerns.

Contemplating Mrs. Clinton's campaign convinces us that she fits into two important New York traditions. Like Robert F. Kennedy, she taps into the state's ability to embrace new residents and fresh ideas. She is also capable of following the pattern, established by the likes of Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Moynihan and Jacob Javits, that finds New York senators playing a role on the national and world stages even as they defend local interests.

The building of such potent Senate careers requires a grasp of foreign and domestic policy, coupled with negotiating ability and, usually, a burning commitment to one's home state and to a few key concerns. We think Mrs. Clinton better represents the full package of skills than does Mr. Lazio. Her economic plan for upstate offers hope for an area that has not reaped its share of today's financial harvest. Her understanding of how to balance energy issues with crucial environmental protection seems sharper. Mrs. Clinton can guard against Supreme Court nominees who would compromise the constitutional right to abortion, while Mr. Lazio would be hobbled by party ideology and discipline.

Finally, on the key issues of health care and education, Mrs. Clinton has the knowledge and the instincts to make a lasting impact on the Senate, on national policy and on the everyday lives of New Yorkers. We are placing our bet on her to rise above the mistakes and difficulties of her first eight years in Washington and to establish herself on Capitol Hill as a major voice for enlightened social policy and vibrant internationalism.

October 27, 1996, Sunday Editorial Desk
The New York Times

Bill Clinton for President


Today we endorse the re-election of President Bill Clinton. Readers of this
page will know that we share many of the public's concerns about Mr. Clinton's
resoluteness and sensitivity to ethical standards in government. But our
endorsement is delivered in the unequivocal confidence that he is the best
candidate in the field and in the belief that because he has grown in the job
he can build on the successes of his first term while correcting its defects.
Toward that end, our endorsement comes with a set of recommendations for how
Mr. Clinton can, before Election Day, address voters' concerns about his
personality and character.

First, however, we want to outline the case for Mr. Clinton's re-election
based on policy, performance and growth in office. Our view of Mr. Clinton
mirrors that of millions of swing voters who are choosing him over Bob Dole and
Ross Perot. He is clearly the candidate of hope and progress in this race. No
one can doubt his commitment to using government to spur the economy, protect
the environment, defend the cities, promote racial justice and combine
compassion with fiscal prudence.


The choice of Mr. Clinton is easier because of Mr. Dole's halting campaign.
Neither his 15 percent tax cut nor his wild charge that newspapers have pulled
their punches on Whitewater stands the test of logic or represents Mr. Dole at
his best. He is a good man whose service on behalf of the nation, in the Army
and the Senate, will be well remembered. Indeed, many voters are dismayed that
Mr. Dole has strayed from his moderate record and look to Mr. Clinton as a
protection from Republican excess.


A Revived Party and Presidency

But a vote for Mr. Clinton is more than a defensive measure. He is clearly
the most skilled navigator of today's contrary political seas. Even his most
notable defeat, on health care, arose from his correct judgment that Americans
want universal, affordable coverage. Mr. Clinton understands that the
electorate makes contradictory demands. Voters are sullen and suspicious about
government, yet anxious that it serve them. Americans have grown conservative,
yet they want their interests and values protected. Mr. Clinton's Presidency
has tacked this way and that, in part because it had to. He always calculates
how far he can go and at what cost. We have disagreed with some of his
calculations, but over the past two years he has not only revived his
Presidency, he has also refashioned the Democratic Party's approach to
government.

Some argue wrongly that Mr. Clinton has had no sense of direction. In several
areas, though, he has picked his destinations and risked his political
interests to get there. The pattern of the last two years provides a template
for success in a second term.

The Economy

The campaign has produced no more fallacious statement than Mr. Dole's
assertion that the nation has the worst economy in 100 years. The real
situation is that Mr. Clinton's drive toward a balanced budget has helped keep
interest rates low and promote an economic expansion now in its fifth year.
Mr. Clinton stood up to the spendthrifts in his own party at the start of his
term. He curbed the Federal deficits that had piled up over years of
Republican Presidents proclaiming devotion to fiscal conservatism. Yet he
wisely opposed a balanced-budget amendment that would tie a President's hands
in a military or fiscal emergency.

Mr. Clinton raised taxes primarily on those most able to pay while pushing
through one of the most important initiatives of his Presidency, the
earned-income tax credit, which channeled billions of dollars into the poorest
segment of the work force and lifted more than three million people out of
poverty.

International Trade

Today both parties are driven by differences over trade, which accounts for a
third of the economy.
The temptation to demagogue about job flight is ever present. Yet Mr. Clinton
has performed with a tough sense of purpose, helping to educate the public that
foreign competition cannot be wished away.
Although accused of unwillingness to take on his own party's interest groups,
Mr. Clinton bucked the Democratic leadership to secure the free-trade
agreement with Canada and Mexico. He then went on to support the global trade
agreement that created the World Trade Organization. At the same time, he has
been more aggressive in pressing Japan and China to open their markets.

Foreign Policy

In 1993, Mr. Clinton lacked experience in foreign affairs, and he stumbled
early by confusing consultation with leadership when it came to Bosnia. Now he
is regarded internationally as a leader with a sophisticated grasp of a
superpower's obligation to help the world manage its conflicts and economic
contests.

The hallmark of this new sophistication is Mr. Clinton's timing of those
moments when American prestige and resources can be decisive. His decision to
throw political and financial support behind the election of President Boris
Yeltsin in Russia, then mired at below 10 percent in the polls, was a
successful, high-risk intervention.

In applying American prestige to the Middle East process of reconciliation,
Mr. Clinton was building on a bipartisan tradition. But without his intense
efforts, the process would have foundered. In Bosnia, Mr. Clinton ignored
persistent bad advice about how to use force, invented a peace process from the
most unpromising situation and finally stabilized a war that posed a security
threat to Europe and endangered NATO.

Health Care


In the field of health care, the Clinton Administration failed through a toxic
combination of hubris and secrecy. But Mr. Clinton was headed in the right
direction. Americans need and want a health care system that covers everyone
and keeps costs down through competition. If Mr. Clinton is elected, the
journey toward this valuable goal will continue. If Mr. Dole is elected, that
journey will end, and the assault on Medicaid and Medicare will continue.
Instead of quality care for all, the country will move toward making Medicare a
second-class program for the elderly poor and toward a health-insurance system
favoring the affluent and the healthy.

Political Values

The last few years have seen an ugliness of tone in American politics toward
the poor, minorities and immigrants. Mr. Clinton has been the most important
voice for conciliation, but even he has bowed to expediency. We opposed his
signing of the welfare bill, but he has promised to ease its unfair attacks on
the poor and legal immigrants. His lack of backbone on this issue was at least
balanced by a courageous stand in favor of affirmative action.

In sharp contrast to the two previous Administrations, Mr. Clinton has used
common sense on guns.
By supporting local police, he erased the Republicans' unearned copyright on
the crime issue. He has defended choice on abortion, and his re-election will
help produce a Supreme Court that protects this and other freedoms.

Another value asserted by Mr. Clinton is reverence for the earth. Electing
the Democratic ticket will return to office Vice President Al Gore, the most
knowledgeable and consistent defender of the environment in Washington. He
converted Mr. Clinton from a relaxed to a muscular guardian of clean air and
water. In a second term, they can generate a new wave of sensible
environmental laws.

Ethics

Obviously, we could not ask our readers to vote for Mr. Clinton without
addressing his most significant leadership problem. Many Americans do not
trust him or believe him to be a person of character. We do not dodge that
issue, nor should Mr. Clinton. Indeed, he must view it as a prime opportunity
of his second term. A fraction of the electorate, of course, will never
forgive his reputation for philandering. But he can reclaim the trust of the
great majority by demonstrating a zeal for financial integrity and for
protecting the machinery of justice from politics. Toward that end, we urge
Mr. Clinton to close the campaign with a series of dramatic gestures.

First, he should accept the Republican dare and pledge not to pardon anyone
convicted in prosecutions arising from Whitewater, the White House travel
office firings, the mishandling of F.B.I. files, or the raising of funds for
the 1996 campaign. He should promise that he, the First Lady and every member
of the executive branch will cooperate with all investigations, whether they
are from the Justice Department, special prosecutors or Congressional
committees.

Next, Mr. Clinton should deal with his party's Indonesian fund-raising scandal
by acknowledging that both parties' financial practices are wrong even if not
illegal. He can then credibly pledge to recapture one of the main themes of
his 1992 campaign. We saluted then and we still believe in the stirring call
in his inaugural address ''to reform our politics so that power and privilege
no longer shout down the voice of the people.''

The Democratic Congressional leadership talked him into shelving campaign
finance legislation because their members wanted to keep lapping up
contributions from political-action committees.
Now is the moment for Mr. Clinton to renew his promise by sponsoring campaign
laws that end foreign donations and ''soft money'' dodges and that give all
credible candidates a level playing field when it comes to mail and
advertising.

Such dramatic pledges would do more than defuse the criticisms of Mr. Perot
and Mr. Dole in the closing days of this election. They would also enlist
public opinion on Mr. Clinton's side as a protection against Republican
excesses in the Congressional investigations that are coming whether Mr.
Clinton opts for openness or sticks to the hunker-down strategy that has done
his Administration such damage.

More important, Mr. Clinton would be demonstrating that he regards winning on
Nov. 5 as a necessary prelude to the important work that lies ahead. Mr.
Clinton's original vision of a country where no one waits for health care,
social justice and economic opportunity to trickle down is still valid. His
education in the leadership burden that rests on the world's strongest nation
and its President has proceeded more rapidly and successfully than anyone could
have dared hope. The Presidency he once dreamed is still within his reach if
he brings the requisite integrity to the next four years. By adding self
discipline to vision, he can build on the achievements he has already made and
make a fair bid to leave Washington in 2001 as one of the notable Presidents of
the 20th century.

12-22-00

The Times Reaps What It Sowed

December 22, 2000
The New York Times

Mrs. Clinton's Book Deal

rs. Clinton's Book Deal

We are sorry to see Hillary Rodham Clinton start her Senate career by selling a memoir of her years as first lady to Simon & Schuster for a near- record advance of about $8 million. The deal may conceivably conform to the lax Senate rules on book sales, though even that is uncertain. But it would unquestionably violate the tougher, and better, House rules, and it is an affront to common sense. No lawmaker should accept a large, unearned sum from a publisher whose parent company, Viacom, is vitally interested in government policy on issues likely to come before Congress ó for example, copyright or broadcasting legislation.

Mrs. Clinton's staggering advance falls just below the $8.5 million received by Pope John Paul II in 1994. We wish as a matter of judgment that she had not sought an advance but had voluntarily limited her payments to royalties on actual book sales, as the House now requires of its members. That way there would be no worry that she had been given special treatment in an effort to curry political favor.

The Senate will judge Mrs. Clinton's deal in the context of outmoded rules that, regrettably, still permit members to accept advance payments for their books provided they fall within "usual and customary" industry patterns. Mrs. Clinton held an open auction for her book, so the $8 million advance emerged from a process that presumably represented the industry's consensus about what the book would be worth. But Mrs. Clinton has a duty to reveal the entire contents of her contract so that the public and members of the Senate Ethics Committee can judge for themselves whether its terms fulfill her pledge to comply with existing Senate rules, inadequate though they are.

As it is, Mrs. Clinton will enter the Senate as a business associate of a major company that has dealings before many regulatory agencies and interests in Congress. It would have been far better if she had avoided this entanglement. As she above all others should know, not every deal that is legally permissible is smart for a politician who wants and needs to inspire public trust.

Only a few years ago Newt Gingrich, at that time the House speaker, accepted an ethically dubious $4.5 million book deal with a publishing house owned by Rupert Murdoch, an aggressively political publisher seeking help with his problems with federal regulators. This was the issue that ultimately forced Mr. Gingrich to abandon his advance, and led the House to ban all advance payments for members' books.

That is the right approach, and it would be nice if Republican critics of Mrs. Clinton's deal now devoted real energy to persuading the Senate to adopt the House rules for the future. Both bodies need maximum protection against entangling alliances between lawmakers and government favor- seekers now that nearly all major publishing houses are owned by large corporations with a lot of business before Congress.

02-18-01

bill clinton lies in Times Op-Ed Pardongate apologia

Times allows clinton to replace lies in later edition
with deceptive statement that seems to mean the
same thing

The Times Reaps What It Sows

The Late Edition of the Sunday New York Times contains the following; text of Clinton's reason number (7) for the Marc Rich pardon:; "(7) the case for the pardons was reviewed and advocated not only by my; former White House counsel Jack Quinn but also by three distinguished; Republican attorneys: Leonard Garment, a former Nixon White House; official; William Bradford Reynolds, a former high-ranking official in; the Reagan Justice Department; and Lewis Libby, now Vice President; Cheney's chief of staff; ..."; However, the reason (7) contained in the Sunday Times Early Edition,; which went on sale Saturday night in New York, said:; "(7) The applications were reviewed and advocated not only by my former; White House counsel Jack Quinn, but also by three distinguished; Republican attorneys: Leonard Garment, a former Nixon White House; official, William Bradford Reynolds, a former high-ranking official in; the Reagan Justice Department; and Lewis Libby, now Vice President; Cheney's chief of staff; ..."; The op ed Clinton statement in the Early Edition was objected to by,; among others, the Bush White House. However, instead of withdrawing the; false statement, the New York Times clearly allowed Bill Clinton to; replace it with a highly deceptive statement that seems to mean the same; thing. (Before I noticed the text alteration, I had read only the Late; Edition and I thought Clinton was simply saying the three Republicans; had supported the pardon. I did not realize that it all depends on what; the meaning of "for" is, as in the phrase "the case for the pardons was; reviewed and advocated....; Rumors about Bill Clinton's diminished clout may be greatly; exaggerated. After all, once Clinton was caught, Clinton was able to; force the New York Times, in its later editions, to replace his own lie; not with the truth but with a classically balanced Clinton statement: it; seems to mean something false, but it can later be spun as having a; hidden meaning that falls just short of outright falsehood. IMHO, the; Clinton mob remains in perfect health.".....
Alex Mulkern

"There's a rumor going around Washington that Osama bin Laden has written a letter to Clinton, asking for a pardon. I guess he doesn't know that Clinton isn't president anymore."
--Bob Dole to Jay Leno