Wednesday, September 04, 2002

I am trying to snaz up my blog I have added on the right an archive link for August. I also am trying to add a "Best Post" section, but it didn't work the first time I tried it. 9:48:20 PM    comment []

MWO has a piece about Bill Clinton, which reminded of this piece I wrote back in January, 2001: Last week, there were lots of Bill Clinton retrospectives and there were lots of stories on Clinton's plea bargain. Every mainstream retrospective I read expressed disappointment with Clinton in that he was unable to do as much as he should have because of his scandals. In the plea bargain stories, they announced that Clinton agreed to a fine, to admitting to giving false statements and to losing his law license for 5 years, and in return the independent counsel investigation of him would come to an end. What I thought odd was that nobody made the obvious connection between the two. Clinton was indeed constantly hobbled by scandals - Whitewater, the Madison S&L, Hillary's cattle futures, Filegate, murder allegations concerning Vince Foster, Travelgate, the Buddhist temple fundraiser, Chinagate, etc., etc. There of course was the impeachment based upon charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. But what became of all the non-Monica scandals? All of those scandals that so hobbled Clinton for the first five years of his presidency? They all came to nothing because there was nothing to them to begin with. As for the Monica scandal, what Clinton agreed to is comparable to Bush admitting that he had left his DWI conviction off a mortgage application. It is no where near level of "high crime" that would justify impeachment. The retrospectives I read implied that the scandals were all Clinton's fault, but if there was nothing to the scandals, how can they be Clinton's fault? During the Clinton years, we saw an unprecedented opposition by accusation and investigation. The Republicans knew that Clinton's programs were popular, so rather than oppose the programs, they smeared Clinton. And it worked wonderfully for them - they energized their base, seized control of the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years, and put a weak candidate into the White House. Despite talking so much about honor, character and integrity, they climbed into power primarily on lies and misstatements. So why didn't the retrospectives mention that there was no verified substance to virtually all of those scandals? Because that would mean discussing how the media was a willing accomplice to the Republican smears. The media breathless put new accusations on page 1, but buried their disproving. "The Hunting of the President" does a great job of documenting how the media stretched the truth almost as much as the Republicans. Now, I think the media wants to blame Clinton for their embarrassing performance and move on. To cover up their misdeeds, the media has adopted a curious attitude - Clinton is indeed slightly guilty of one of the accusations, so all the rest are justified. The Daily Howler picked up this attitude towards Clinton's Gennifer Flowers testimony. Despite the glaring holes in Flowers' story and despite that Clinton's testimony didn't support any of the accusations Flowers had made, we had commentators saying on TV, "The president said Gennifer Flowers was not telling the truth; we now know she was." By taking that attitude, the media is covering up how little truth there was in the Republicans' accusations. I sadly agree with all the right wing pundits who say an unprecedented amount of immoral actions occurred in Washington over that last 8 years. Too bad no one in the mainstream media has the courage to say that the immoral actions were not done by Clinton, but to Clinton. 9:34:48 PM    comment []

Ann Coulter - White is Black, Up is Down I know that finding errors in Ann Coulter's stuff is like shooting fish in a barrel.  Still, it is amazing that someone who writes such obvious errors can get published.  From her latest piece of nonsense on how "liberals never reciprocate the love conservatives keep sending their way": After the dignified staff of the dignified former president trashed the White House on their dignified exit, Bush downplayed the property damage, saying: "There might have been a prank or two. Maybe somebody put a cartoon on the wall, but that's OK." Anyone who knew anyone moving into the Bush White House knew that it was more than a "prank or two." But instead of stopping while they were ahead, pocketing Bush's gracefulness and moving on, the Democrats aggressively attacked Republicans for having falsely accused the Clinton staff of trashing the White House. They cited Bush's magnanimity as evidence that this was a lie. Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., demanded an apology from the White House. USA Today ran a snippy article titled "Ex-Clinton staffers on vandalism: Got proof?" Former Clinton press secretary Jake Siewert insinuatingly asked why there were no records of the alleged damage. And then the full GAO report came back: The Party of the People had done $15,000 worth of property damage to the People's House. Extend an olive branch to Democrats and they bite your hand off. Of course, it was Clinton who was gracious and professional, having his administration do a thorough briefing of the incoming team despite the fact that George H. W. Bush had done virtually no turnover and despite Dubya's constant disparaging of Clinton while he was campaigning.  Dubya then immediately stabbed Clinton in the back with a smear campaign of off-the-record rumors about how the Clinton team trashed the White House and Air Force One on their last day.  As Salon reports, Ari Fleischer never did anything to stop the rumors and, instead, helped fuel the speculation.  When former Clinton staffers demanded proof of the White House trashing, the White House played coy, neither confirming or denying the rumors and instead saying "We have moved on".  In April, a formal review by the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative agency, "had found no damage to the offices of the White House's East or West Wings or EOB" and "the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy."  How can she get stuff printed that is so obviously wrong?  I forgot - she is just making a joke. (Note: no animals were harmed in the writing of this piece) 7:07:37 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2002 Unrelated Disney. Last update: 10/1/2002; 10:10:33 PM.