Posted on 01/11/2002 3:13:15 AM PST by Mia T
The clintons, Ron Brown, Robert Rubin, Vernon Jordan, Robert Strauss, and Enron . . . and Helen Thomas |
by Ken Silverstein, The Nation
The cries of outrage coming from the White House over Republican threats to eliminate the Commerce Department have as least as much to do with self-interest as with fealty to the corporate cause. Through the department's efforts to promote exports, the Clintonites argue, American businesses landed foreign deals worth $47 billion last year. But a little cross-referencing of the companies thus helped and of campaign contribution records and internal Democratic Party fundraising memorandums shows that for both corporations and the Administration, to give is truly to receive. Early last year, for example, Saudi Arabia was looking to expand its commercial air fleet and examined proposals from U.S. and European aircraft makers. After being furiously lobbied by President Clinton and Secretary Ron Brown, the Saudis placed a $3.6 billion order with Boeing. Within six months of closing the deal, the company had laden Democratic National Committee (D.N.C.) coffers with $65,000, four times more than it had donated during the previous three years. At about the same time, Administration pressure won Raytheon a $1.4 billion deal with Brazil for building a satellite surveillance system in the Amazon. In the 1992-94 election cycle, Raytheon donated $175,110 to Democratic candidates. Export promotion - precisely what the Republicans have singled out for cutting - is at the heart of Brown's strategy at Commerce, and indeed of Clinton's strategy in foreign policy. When it comes to drumming up commerce for U.S. corporations, this Administration has outstripped its two wildly pro-business Republican predecessors. In Brown's "War Room," bureaucrats monitor bidding on dozens of global deals, gathering intelligence (with help from the C.I.A.) and coordinating financing from government sources to give U.S. firms an inside track. More directly, Brown leads select groups of executives on commercial trips abroad. Last year corporations fought to accompany the Commerce Secretary to Brazil, Argentina, Chile, China, Hong Kong, South Africa, Russia, India and the Middle East. Some 300 C.E.O.s applied for seats on the trip to Russia alone; only twenty-nine were chosen. Details of those trips have been obscure because Commerce has been stingy about providing information. That will soon change, since in mid-May the courts forced Commerce to turn over to Judicial Watch 30,000 pages of documents concerning which companies were picked, which were left behind and what the basis for the decision was. But from what I have been able to piece together from Ron Brown's V.I.P. Junkets published reports and from various internal documents (including some now ordered for release), it is already clear that the relationship of donations to access is like that of spring rain to garden blooms. Melissa Moss, head of the Commerce Department's Office of Business Liason, decides who accompanies Brown. She has said firms "are chosen on merit and real business consideration." But, like her boss, she is also intimately familiar with party money matters. Prior to joining the Administration, Moss was a top fundraiser for the D.N.C. under Brown, and before that, for the Democratic Leadership Council, which Clinton helped found and once chaired. The group she assembled for Brown's September 1994 trip to Beijing is revealing. Embarking three months after Clinton extended most-favored-nation trade status to China, Brown's entourage included: ° Lodwrick Cook of Atlantic Richfield, which gave $201,500 to the Democrats between 1992 and 1994. Cook is also close to Clinton, who last June presented the Arco chief with a birthday cake during a White House lunch for executives. ° Edwin Lupberger of Entergy, who closed an $800 million deal to build a power plant in China. Lupberger is a personal friend of Clinton, and in the last election cycle Entergy donated $60,000 to Democratic candidates. ° Bernard Schwartz of the Loral Corporation, who negotiated deals that will net his telecommunications company $1 billion over the next decade. Three months before the trip Schwartz donated $100,000 to the D.N.C. ° Raymond Smith of Bell Atlantic, which has given nearly $200,000 to the Democrats since 1991. According to Democratic fundraising memos I obtained, Smith is also a party "trustee," meaning he has personally helped raise $100,000 or more. ° Leslie McGraw of Fluor, which came through with $108,450 for Democratic candidates in the last election. McGraw, like several of the executives who have been picked to accompany Brown, is also a donor and board member of the Democratic Leadership Council. All told, at least twelve of the twenty-five firms whose officials made the trip to China are major donors or fundraisers for the President's party. Those companies gave almost $2 million to Democratic candidates during the last election cycle. "I only believe in coincidences occasionally," says Chuck Lewis, head of the Center for Public Integrity. "Here you see consistent patterns." It's the same with Brown's other trips. Traveling with the Commerce Secretary to South Africa were Donald Anderson, an adviser to the president of Time Warner, which donated $508,333 to the Democrats between 1992 and 1994, and Ronald Burkle, C.E.O. of the Yucaipa Group and a "managing trustee" of the D.N.C. The title designates him as having helped the party raise $200,000 or more. Even some of the smaller businesses that have had access to Brown's expeditions have paid their dues in advance. Robin Brooks, director of Brooks Sausage Company out of Kenosha, Wisconsin, got to go to South Africa. In 1992 she organized a fundraiser for Clinton, and in the last election cycle, her firm gave $23,000 to the Democrats. The currency of influence is not limited to cash. For instance, the chances that a U.S. firm seeking business in Russia will receive official support seem to grow in direct proportion to that company's links to Democratic power broker Robert Strauss. A senior partner at the law firm Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld - where his colleagues include Vernon Jordan, President Clinton's friend and golfing partner - Strauss served as U.S. Ambassador to Russia from 1991 to 1992. Two years ago he set up the U.S.-Russia Business Council, which has received government funds to promote commerce between the two countries. At least eight of the twenty-nine companies that were invited to go to Russia are linked to Strauss and his firm. AT&T, Westinghouse, Dresser Industries (a Dallas-based oil equipment company) and Enron (a Houston-based natural gas conglomerate) are all Akin, Gump clients. Litton Industries and General Electric have representatives on the board of the U.S.-Russia Business Council. Rockwell International and Bristol-Myers Squibb are former clients of Strauss. Several of those companies are also major contributors to the Democrats. AT&T alone gave the party's candidates $765,763 over the past two years. Among high-donor companies represented on the Russia trip were Occidental Petroleum ($152,549 over the same period) and US West ($147,667). US West signed a telecommunications agreement while in Russia that will be backed by a $125 million loan guarantee from the U.S. government's Overseas Private Investment Corporation. OPIC is headed by Ruth Harkin, wife of Senator Tom Harkin and, prior to joining the Administration, a top corporate lawyer at Akin, Gump. Enron, which closed a deal, backed by the U.S. Export-Import Bank, to develop European markets for Russian gas, has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Administration's export policy. During the past two years, the Ex-Im Bank has supported Enron's agreements with Turkey, India, the Philippines and China - deals worth nearly $4 billion. Kenneth Brody, head of the Ex-Im Bank, is a close friend of Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, having worked with Rubin at Goldman, Sachs. Enron is listed on Rubin's 1993 financial disclosure statement as one of the forty-four companies with which Rubin had "significant contact" during his years at the investment firm. (Brody, by the way, is said to be a leading candidate to take over at Commerce if Brown, under investigation for everything from slumlording to collecting $400,000 for his "share" in a company in which he had invested nothing, is forced to resign.) Like Boeing, many companies have larded the Democrats after being helped by the Administration on the export front. Westinghouse executives have traveled with Brown to South America, Russia and China, where the company racked up $430 million in sales. It also received Ex-Im backing for a $300 million plan to complete and upgrade the Temelin nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic. (When that deal was originally hatched in 1993, Warren Hollinshead, Westinghouse's chief financial officer, chaired the Ex-Im Bank's nonvoting private advisory committee.) Westinghouse has traditionally favored the G.O.P. for political contributions, but during the last election cycle the company gave $149,350 to the Democrats, compared with $78,825 to the Republicans. Given these kinds of disparities, it's no wonder some Republicans are now talking about shutting down Ron Brown's export-boosting operation. It would be surprising if they moved very far on that front, though, since their bread is buttered on the same side as Brown's. As James Treybig, who negotiated a $100 million joint venture agreement for Tandem Computers while in China with the Commerce Secretary, told the Wall Street Journal, "Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you really have to respect this guy for what he's done for corporate America." [This article was reprinted with permission from The Nation and Ken Silverstein. Ken Silverstein is co-editor, with Alexander Cockburn, of the bimonthly, Washington-based newsletter Counter Punch.]
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 1995 |
|
The complex of symptoms associated with Helen Thomas Syndrome, (also known as 'habituated doyenne-iosis'), includes the following:
|
Post 9/11, even the most hopelessly ignorant and partisan, (with the inexplicable exception of ), are able to comprehend their collective posterior's precarious position; and they are able to connect the dots rather easily from it to clinton hyper-narcissism, ineptitude and depravity. Mia T, Will Riefenstahl-esque "editing to perfection" resurrect the clintons? |
|
Clinton reviewing inaugural plansby Helen Thomas, 29-NOV-1996 14:29 The president, still suffering from a raspy voice, and ordered by his doctor to rest his vocal chords, carried a briefcase as he strolled to the waiting helicopter to return to Camp David. He wore a leather jacket and was followed by an aide carrying a huge box of inaugural papers. ASHINGTON, Nov. 29 (UPI) -- President Clinton briefly interrupted his Thanksgiving holiday weekend at Camp David Friday with a quick trip to the White House to gather data he wants to study in planning his second inauguration and then returned to the mountaintop retreat. The president returned to the Executive Mansion with his wife Hillary and daughter Chelsea, 16. Along with him was Hollywood producer Harry Thomasson, who with his wife Linda Bloodworth Thomasson, a prominent sitcom writer, spent Thanksgiving Day with the Clinton clan at the mountaintop retreat. Clinton conferred with Thomasson in the Oval Office on his return and discussed preliminary plans for the inaugural on Jan. 20, including choosing a poem he will have read at his second swearing in as president. The Thomassons played a prominent role in writing the script for his first inauguration in 1993. The president, still suffering from a raspy voice, and ordered by his doctor to rest his vocal chords, carried a briefcase as he strolled to the waiting helicopter to return to Camp David. He wore a leather jacket and was followed by an aide carrying a huge box of inaugural papers. But before plunging into further study, Clinton arranged to take time out to play golf with Hillary's brothers at a course near Camp David. The first lady and Chelsea did not return to the presidential hideaway with him. Mrs. Clinton had the Christmas decoration of the White House to supervise as it got underway Friday and Chelsea had to attend a rehearsal for her performance in the Washington Ballet's annual Christmas performance of "The Nutcracker Suite." In addition, an aide said Mrs. Clinton had to prepare for her trip to Bolivia Monday afternoon where she will attend the annual meeting of the first ladies of the Americas. Before she departs, she will host a press preview of the White House Christmas decorations. The president arranged to deliver his weekly Saturday radio address from Camp David. White House press secretary Mike McCurry said the subject would be: "Thanksgiving." Clinton plans to return to the White House on Sunday, and will face a busy week ahead as he makes important decisions on the make up of his next national security team. Clinton took a binder of recommendations with him to Camp David on possible Cabinet appointments prepared by his transition team. Most of the interest centered on who he would pick to succeed Secretary of State Warren Christopher who is leaving the Cabinet. The president wants to have his chief diplomatic and military advisers on deck before Christmas, and the entire new Cabinet selected by Inauguration Day. On the social side, next week the President and Mrs. Clinton will begin a series of nightly Christmas parties leading up to the holiday. The Clintons, in keeping with tradition, will spend Christmas in the White House. |
15. Mr. Grafeld told me, referring to Judicial Watch's allegations that Commerce Department trade mission seats were sold in exchange for campaign contributions, that "(Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel) Klayman is right on target" but that he believes that the trade mission issues were "only the tip of the iceberg -- that the really big money went towards Presidential access." Mr. Grafeld indicated to me that he believes that Ms. Moss was asking for political contributions in exchange for seats on Commerce Department trade missions, likely at the direction of Hillary Rodham Clinton, ---from DECLARATION OF SONYA STEWART |
ASHINGTON, Nov. 29 (UPI) -- President Clinton [upon the discovery of the body of Barbara Wise in the Commerce Department offices] briefly interrupted his Thanksgiving holiday weekend at Camp David Friday with a quick trip to the White House to gather data...and then returned to the mountaintop retreat... The president, still suffering from a raspy voice, and ordered by his doctor to rest his vocal chords, carried a briefcase as he strolled to the waiting helicopter to return to Camp David. He wore a leather jacket and was followed by an aide ... Clinton reviewing inaugural plans, Helen Thomas, 29-NOV-1996 |
Missy Kelly's Analysis of Mysterious Commerce DeathWhitewater Bulletin Board on the Prodigy Network For some background to this analysis, here is the original AP wire story concerning the mysterious death of a Commerce Department worker that occured over Thanksgiving weekend.
|
The decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to set up a special task force to spearhead a criminal probe of the circumstances surrounding the sudden collapse of Enron Corp. should come to no one's surprise.
After all, this isn't the Reno/Clinton DOJ anymore.
Recall the myriad stunts the Clinton White House would roguishly pull to frustrate, stonewall, impede or choke-off legitimate inquiries into Whitewater, Chinagate, Travelgate, Filegate, impeachment, etc. Indeed, in the Tyson Food case alone, tallying up the number of roadblocks and backroom maneuvers to bottleneck the work of Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz could easily fill the Clinton library -- and then some.
Moreover, the department's decision to plumb the depths of the looting and fraud -- the mammoth shellgame -- which led this erstwhile energy trading colossus, whose stock once traded at $90/share, straight into bankruptcy court last December has wider implications, beyond the prosecutorial.
The Justice Department, by taking this unprecedented step, steals the thunder right from under the partisan Bush-haters on Capitol Hill. U.S. Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn) -- the latter mulling a run for the White House in '04 -- had planned to launch a lavish fishing expedition, featuring highfalutin, made-for-TV, dog-n-pony 'show-trial' "hearings", all in the "noble" pursuit of trafficking in innuendo, in the hopes of inflicting maximum damage on the Bush administration.
Senator Levin et al wouldn't want to jeopardize the Enron investigation, or undermine the tedious work of prosecutors while tipping-off potential criminal targets, just to indulge their cheap, political vendetta against this President, now would they? (Wink, wink).
In coordinating the work of prosecutors in cities across the land, and mustering the dept's fraud section to the task, DOJ catapults this probe on the fast track, rendering any shrieks of 'cover-up' wholly vacant and silly.
As in all investigations, expect the unexpected. In the end, ironically enough, the Democrats may rue having foolishly politicized the fall of Enron. DOJ, un-encumbered by petty political considerations, will probe ALL of Enron's nefarious dealings/machinations. Particularly delicious are the links between former TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) director Johnny Hayes, Charles Bone of Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, a Nashville law firm and one former U.S. vice-president who's sporting a beard these days. Gore pals Hayes and Combs, according to a recent MSNBC report, were paid lucrative sums last year by -- you guessed it -- Enron Corp. for lobbying purposes.
But that's not all. According to the Tribune-Review, Enron and the Clinton-Gore administration were joined at the hip, profiting mutually from their incestuous relationship. Bill Clinton personally opened up many overseas markets for Enron especially, and Enron, in return, introduced Clinton-Gore to the infamous Lippo Industries and John Huang. But there's more -- much more, all of which will now come under the proverbial kleig lights.
And they say character doesn't count, eh?
My two cents..
"JohnHuang2"
================================================================================
Democrats, who still bear the scars from the Clinton scandal machine, believe they've (finally) hit pay-dirt with the Enron debacle.And so does the media.
The 'Grey Lady' of yellow journalism, predictably, was on the warpath yesterday. In a piece ominously titled, "White House Moves to Contain Political Damage From Enron Turmoil", "reporter" Jack Lynch wrote in his opening paragraph that Enron chief Kenneth Lay "had contacted two Cabinet members a few weeks before the giant energy company's collapse to warn of it's growing difficulties".
Clearly, the writer's implicit aim was not to inform so much as to cast aspersions on the Bush administration with derogatory innuendo and smear. The reader is beckoned to assume the worst -- ergo, some malfeasance had taken place -- sans a smidgen of evidence. By artfully lifting these calls wholly out of context, Mr. Lynch ipso facto maliciously insinuates guilt -- guilt on Bush's part, as much as the two Cabinet officers Mr. Lay contacted.
Indeed, only well into his article (paragraph 7) does Mr. Lynch, after weaving his mudslinging web of innuendo, finally divulge the actual mission behind these calls, one to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, the other to Commerce Secretary Don Evans. Both calls were reportedly made last October, prior to Enron's spectacular collapse in early December.
The reason for Lynch's beguiling foot-dragging? Simply this: Far from snarling Bush administration officials in wrongdoing, the calls were inherently exculpatory. Yes, you heard right -- exculpatory. After warning Secretaries O'Neill and Evans of Enron's precarious financial position, Mr. Lay beseeched them for a bailout. Absent massive government assistance, the troubled company would slide into bankruptcy, the officials were told. Their answer, according to White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, was flat-out no. No bailout.
Agree or disagree with the decision, the refusal is inconsistent with the notion of Mr. Lay having undue influence over this administration. In fact, the bailout denial is the opposite of what one would expect if campaign money and friendship were what they are cracked up to be.
Imagine the outcry had the bailout request been granted. The raging firestorm among frothing Bush critics would rival Nixon's Watergate.
"Quid-Pro-Quo! Quid-Pro-Quo!", they would shriek. As far as punishment, the haters would be divided, however: Some would demand impeachment, others a public hanging.
Instead, the erstwhile oil trading colossus, with 20,000 employees, and marketing business in everything from pulp to bandwidth, was allowed to go belly-up. It's high-flying stock tumbled from $90 per share to under a dollar today.
So much for the 'Ken Lay-controls-George W. Bush' urban legend.
Moreover, the Justice department's decision to convene a national task force to probe Enron's demise -- an unprecedented maneuver -- only further debunks the nitpickers' swill. But the department went even further yesterday. To avoid even the appearance of 'conflict-of-interests', Attorney General John Ashcroft (who had received Enron contributions during his Senate campaign) announced his recusal from all matters pertaining to the Enron investigation. The recusal includes his chief-of-staff, David Ayers.
To get even further ahead of the curve, President Bush yesterday directed the Treasury, Labor and Commerce departments to comb the plethora of rules governing 401 (k) and other pension plans with a fine tooth comb. His goal is to ferret out the flaws in a system which allowed Enron employees to lose their life's saving when the company went under.
The President wants reform in corporate disclosure rules, as well. To this end, he's ordered the formation of a 'working group', consisting of Sec. O'Neill, the Federal Reserve, the S.E.C. among other agencies.
Bottom line? The President has grabbed this bull by the horns and, for all the prattle about political "damage", he's handled this teapot-sized tempest with aplomb, to the chargin of all of the Bush-haters and bashers.
Another thing: If the vengeful Democrats, gung-ho on exacting revenge over Clinton's impeachment, see Enron as Bush's Waterloo, they're in for a crushing disappointment.
Their Enron obsession is understandable, of course: Bush's rock-solid popularity is holding steady, even as their party wallows in disarray and dysfunction. On the other hand, one thing does unite the beltway Democrats like nothing eles: Hate. Their shared hatred of Bush. It's ugly, it's spiteful, it's vile. And it's unseemly. For Bush-haters, it's not enough to disagree with the President: Policy differences must be criminalized.
This is the root of their Enron fixation. But unfortunately for them, Enron won't save them either. Their fanatical putsch will not only fail, it will backfire. The reason is simple: This President has forged a powerful bond with the people, especially in the wake of September 11. There's a chemistry there, one which Democrats, blinded in their hatred, have yet to fathom. This rapport, this wonderful chemistry, this mighty solidarity transcends race, ethnicity, party, religion, gender; Americans of all walks of life see in this humble man, this down-to-earth, straight-talker from Midland someone whom they can trust, someone they can believe in again. His persona embodies the optimism, the idealism, the cheerful self-assurance and confidence which makes us Americans.
America can not -- and will not ever -- say die.
So let the Democrats flail away in their smoldering anger; let them scour, let them probe, let them hound, let them stalk, let them rummage, let them shake their fists at this President: They will only hoist themselves on their own petard.
For America loves George W. Bush -- and nothing's going to change that.
God bless our President, God bless our troops and God bless the United States of America!
My two cents..
"JohnHuang2"
ENRON BACKSTORY THREAD II: Clinton-Gore, Ron Brown, Lippo, PLA
MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "WHITEWATER" AND ENRON? I HAVE THE ANSWER
And you know, I am sitting here wondering if I ought to send a "Friday Data Dump" to about 50 newspapers & talk show hosts..... there is a case to be made for encouraging the 'Rats & Media to dive into this investigation, because I think it will be a Tar Baby- once they hit it, it will stick all over them.... and remind the public once again of Little Big Fraud® and all his doings.....
ASHINGTON, Nov. 29 (UPI) -- President Clinton [upon the discovery of the body of Barbara Wise in the Commerce Department offices] briefly interrupted his Thanksgiving holiday weekend at Camp David Friday with a quick trip to the White House to gather data...and then returned to the mountaintop retreat... The president, still suffering from a raspy voice, and ordered by his doctor to rest his vocal chords, carried a briefcase as he strolled to the waiting helicopter to return to Camp David. He wore a leather jacket and was followed by an aide ... Clinton reviewing inaugural plans, Helen Thomas, 29-NOV-1996 |
Rather than admitting to the typo, I suppose I could claim that ASHINGTON
is a portmanteau construction of New York and Washington, which would be an especially apt device to use to describe the "Through the Looking-Glass for real" Humpty Dummy clinton years. (Lewis Carroll and Humpty Dumpty were fond of using the device...and Humpty Dummy was fond of using the two cities.) "'O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy." Carroll coined the word chortle (combining 'chuckle' and 'snort') in Through the Looking-Glass. |
ASHINGTON, Nov. 29 (UPI) -- President Clinton [upon the discovery of the body of Barbara Wise in the Commerce Department offices] briefly interrupted his Thanksgiving holiday weekend at Camp David Friday with a quick trip to the White House to gather data...and then returned to the mountaintop retreat... The president, still suffering from a raspy voice, and ordered by his doctor to rest his vocal chords, carried a briefcase as he strolled to the waiting helicopter to return to Camp David. He wore a leather jacket and was followed by an aide ... Clinton reviewing inaugural plans, Helen Thomas, 29-NOV-1996 |
Rather than admitting to the typo, I suppose I could claim that ASHINGTON
is a portmanteau construction of New York and Washington, which would be an especially apt device to use to describe the "Through the Looking-Glass for real" Humpty Dummy clinton years. (Lewis Carroll and Humpty Dumpty were fond of using the device...and Humpty Dummy was fond of using the two cities.) "'O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy." Carroll coined the word chortle (combining 'chuckle' and 'snort') in Through the Looking-Glass. |
= rodham-clinton-DNC-media corruption REALITY CHECK bump! |
Democrats, who still bear the scars from the Clinton scandal machine, believe they've (finally) hit pay-dirt with the Enron debacle. 3 posted on 1/11/02 4:29 AM Pacific by JohnHuang2 |
11-30-01 alpractice 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).). The New York Times clinton Endorsements: Then and Now 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$$. (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
by Mia T, October 22, 2000
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. |
|
12-22-00
Mrs. 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
|
|
|
What in the world do missing documents have to do with the Bush administration, I wondered?
But of course.... The media are just beginning the vicious game of trying to tie everything bad about Enron to Bush. The sharks are moving in.
...The geniuses of the 21st-century marketplace will now learn a sobering and exceedingly painful truth. The kindly, gentle and truly awful socialist pediatrician, Dr. Benjamin Spock, was effectively responsible for Dumpty Enron's collapse and for much else that is wrong with our Republic today. Because of the genial old doctor, generations of decent American babies developed into troll-like kids ready to stamp and scream until they got what they wanted. Undisciplined, and having forfeited love for abhorrence, they became gargoyle-like adults, liberally laced with Prozac, whose creed was, "If you get away with it, it's cool. Getting caught is bad, so be more careful next time." Dumpty Enron got caught! The so-called "popular press," in its usual searches for the clay feet with which they invest every well-known person, will now try to link Enron's present woes to the White House. Too bad, guys, you should have started investigating Enron's ties (ties not links) in 1993 and onward to the sales team of Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Ron Brown... |
|
chelsea clinton's choice of nursery rhyme character was more than slightly unfortunate: the irreversibly shattered ovoid is the perfect metaphor for her parents. Or as Christopher Hitchen once put it, the clinton years were "Through the Looking-Glass for real." It is entirely conceivable then, that on the morning of 9-11, thoughts of Humpty-Daddy would race through chelsea clinton's head, a head -- if we are to believe the mother -- in imminent danger of being buried by Twin Towers debris. After eight years of the parents, no one still sentient, and certainly not the daughter, could miss this latest detritus of clinton fecklessness and depravity. What is not believable--what not only calls into question the truth of the entire statement, but exposes the depth of the abuse of chelsea by her parents -- is chelsea's claim that while she was dodging debris -- virtually running for her life if we are to believe the mother -- she had the political presence of mind to simultaneously assault Bush and praise mommy-dearest, i.e., to claim that while she watched the towers collapse she "was worried that with the [Bush] tax cut, we wouldn't have enough money to repair New York and D.C., and to help the families of the thousands I knew must have died...Once we stopped running . . . [I] thanked God my mother was a senator representing New York." Standard issue, balkanizing, insulting clinton claptrap. Economic and psychological non sequiturs, to be sure, and political logic of the arrogant, dimwitted clintonian sort facilitated by equally dimwitted, arrogant media.
In her new book, Political Fictions, Joan Didion indicts the fakery of access journalism practiced by vacant politicos like the clintons, whom she sees as "purveyors of fables of their own making, or worse, fables conceived by political strategists with designs on votes, not news." The dysfunctional Humpty Dummies had a great fall, indeed. It was inevitable...and it was inadvertently documented by their very own daughter.
|
|
The clintons, Ron Brown, Robert Rubin, Vernon Jordan, Robert Strauss, and Enron . . . and Helen Thomas
|
Amazing...the Department of Commerce cannot help but be Corrupt beyond any benefit it could possibly be to the industries it purports to serve.
BTW...who do ya reckon actually Murdered Ron Brown?!
FReegards...MUD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.