- October 27, 1996, Sunday Editorial Desk
- The New York Times
-
- Bill Clinton for President
-
(EXCERPT)-
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....
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. |
-
...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
-
|
|
"I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.' I thought that my virtual obsession with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him." bill clinton
Sunday, Sept 3, 2002
Larry King Live
|
|
"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in '91 and he went to the Sudan. We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden]. At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer
|
-
|
- The Real Danger of a Fake President:
- Post-9/11 Reconsideration of The Placebo President
-
by Mia T, 1.06.02
-
-
|
Richard Gere stunned fellow liberals Monday by suggesting that President Bush is doing a better job of fighting AIDS than President Bill Clinton did. Introduced by Sharon Stone at a fund-raiser at Cipriani 42nd Street for the American Foundation for AIDS Research, the "Chicago" star hailed Bush for his State of the Union proposal to contribute $15 billion toward the AIDS battle in Africa and the Caribbean. Gere then addressed the track record of Bush's predecessor in the White House. "I'm sorry, Sen. [Hillary] Clinton, but your husband did nothing about AIDS for eight years," Gere said.
-
GERE TAKES ON BILL
NY Daily News
2/5/03
-
F A C T O R 8: THE ARKANSAS PRISON BLOOD SCANDAL
(How can Hollywood support a clinton, Mr. Gere?)
|
- In May, 1996, American diplomats were informed in a Sudanese government fax that Bin Laden was about to be expelled -- giving Washington another chance to seize him. The decision not to do so went to the very top of the White House, according to former administration sources.
They say that the clear focus of American policy was to discourage the state sponsorship of terrorism. So persuading Khartoum to expel Bin Laden was in itself counted as a clear victory. The administration was "delighted". Bin Laden took off from Khartoum on May 18 in a chartered C-130 plane with 150 of his followers, including his wives. He was bound for Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. On the way the plane refuelled in the Gulf state of Qatar, which has friendly relations with Washington, but he was allowed to proceed unhindered. Barely a month later, on June 25, a 5,000lb truck bomb ripped apart the front of Khobar Towers, a US military housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The explosion killed 19 American servicemen. Bin Laden was immediately suspected...
-
US missed three chances to seize Bin Laden
|
- Just look around this chamber. We have members from virtually every racial, ethnic, and religious background. And America is stronger for it. But as we have seen, these differences all too often spark hatred and division, even here at home. . . This is not the American way. We must draw the line. Without delay, we must pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. And we should reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.
bill clinton, State of Union Speech, January 27, 2000 |
-
- "I'm sorry, but the president is one of the crudest men I have ever encountered in government service," says one female agent. "He has no respect for women."
Among the comments clinton made in presence of Secret Service agents:
- . Frequent speculation on the oral sex skills of women the president saw or met in receiving lines;
- . References to the size of a woman's breasts, legs or figure;
- . Sexual jokes.
After the Monica Lewinsky story broke, however, clinton toned down his rhetoric and behavior in front of his Secret Service agents, but those who guarded the president say enough of them saw and heard things which could be damaging to clinton.
-
- "It depends on who Ken Starr calls," says one ex-agent. "The people who are on the job today are not necessarily the ones who know the most."
Turnover In clinton's Secret Service Detail 'Highest That Anyone Can Remember'
|
-
- In the months that follow, reporters drop the issue. Feminists say little or nothing. Rape crisis center workers acknowledge that Broaddrick's case, including her reluctance to come forward, is typical of victims of sexual assault. But they decline to speak against clinton. Some cite the federal funding they receive as a result of the Violence Against Women Act, which was signed into law by clinton.
Why does the press continue to ignore the Juanita Broaddrick story?
|
-
-
-
- The Placebo President:
- How a Rapist can be a Policy Feminist
-
- placebo effect n.
- A beneficial effect in a patient following a particular treatment that arises from the patient's expectations concerning the treatment rather than from the treatment itself.
-
- Every woman adores a Fascist,
The boot in the face, the brute
Brute heart of a brute like you.
- Sylvia Plath
he placebo effect immediately came to mind as I listened to Shelby Steele, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, debunk the following pernicious spin intended to save clinton.
To wit: A proven felon and utter reprobate can remain president; clinton can be a failed human being but a good president. The error in these statements arises, says Steele, from the belief that virtuousness is separate from personal responsibility so that one's virtuousness as an individual is determined by one's political positions on issues rather than on whether or not in one's personal life there is a consistency and a responsibility. Steele's contention is that this compartmentalization, rather than being the amazing advantage the clintons would have us believe, in fact, spills toxicity into, corrupts, the culture. If mere identification with good policies is what makes one virtuous then those policies become, what Steele calls, iconographic, that is to say they just represent virtuousness. They don't necessarily do virtuous things. If clinton's semantic parsing strips meaning from our words, clinton's iconographic policies strip meaning from our society, systematically deconstructing our society as a democracy. . . I would take Shelby Steele's thesis one step further. I maintain that iconographic policy functions like a placebo, producing a real, physiological and social effects. The placebo effect is, after all, the brain's triumph over reality. Expectation alone can produce powerful physiological results. The placebo effect was, at one time, an evolutionary advantage: act now, think later bill clinton is the paradigmatic Placebo President. Placebo is Latin for "I shall please." And please he does doling out sham treatments, iconographs, with abandon. To please, to placate, to numb, to deflect. Ultimately to showcase his imagined virtue. Or to confute his genuine vice. clinton will dispense sugar pills (or bombs) at the drop of a high-heeled shoe... or at the hint of high treason... clinton's charlatanry mimics that of primitive medicine. Through the 1940s, doctors had little effective medicine to offer so they deliberately attempted to induce the placebo response. The efficaciousness of today's medicines does not diminish the power of the placebo. A recent review of placebo-controlled studies found that placebos and genuine treatments are often equally effective. If you expect to get better, you will. Which brings me back to the original question: Can clinton be a failed human being but a good president? Clearly he cannot. These two propositions are mutually exclusive. clinton's fundamental failure is a complete lack of integrity. He has violated his covenant with the American people. Because clinton has destroyed his moral authority as a leader, he can no longer function even as a quack; the placebo effect is gone. And so the Placebo President must now go, too.
-
-
|
"There are only two years left. What harm can he do?": Sen. Dale Bumpers
|
September 11 changed a lot of things for me, Bill [O'Reilly]. I will say this, before September 11, I was definitely mildly myopic in terms of my political agenda. If you were Democrat you were probably right, and if you were a Republican you were probably wrong. Everything changed for me that day...
My entire worldview changed. If you would have told me September 9 that I would have been at the world series game filming George Bush throwing out the first pitch with my 6-year-old son crying, I never would have believed you, but I was. Because my whole worldview changed. ROSIE O'DONNELL
|
WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
by Mia T, December 29, 2005
-
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006
|
|
Our subject makes pygmies of us all. Our location evokes memories so raw and profound that I end up thinking: "there but for the grace of God go I." ... In July, Gerhard Riegner, a representative of the World Jewish Congress in Switzerland, reported to London and Washington for the first time that Hitler had in fact ordered the extermination of European Jewry. "Received alarming report," he wrote, "that in Fuhrer's headquarters plan discussed and under consideration, according to which all Jews in countries occupied or controlled [by] Germany, numbering 3 1/2-to 4 million, should, after deportation and concentration in [the] East, be exterminated at one blow to resolve once [and] for all the Jewish question in Europe." In London, the Foreign Office said that any official British response "might annoy the Germans" and besides, officials added, they had no confirmation. In Washington, the State Department was suspicious of what scholar Walter Laqueur described as the "unsubstantiated nature of the information." In October, 1942, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency published the whole Riegner cable without attribution. A month later, Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles confirmed to Rabbi Stephen Wise that the cable was accurate in every depressing detail. Worse, he said, two of the four million Jews had already been killed. The United States then pushed for an Allied condemnation of the Nazi program of extermination which was announced in mid-December 1942. At this point there could be no doubt about the authenticity of the reports of Nazi atrocities against the Jews. And yet, amazingly, the coverage was marginalized. It lacked the explosive force that would carry it from the inside pages to the front pages, from a duckable option to unavoidable action. How come? Elie Wiesel, in a recent conversation, explained by drawing a distinction between "information" and "knowledge." On its own information meant only the existence of data. It lacked an ethical component. It was neutral. Knowledge, implied Wiesel, was a higher form of information. Knowledge was information that had been internalized, crowned with a moral dimension that could be transformed into a call for action.... My final reason, after "unconditional surrender," after antisemitism, after the unbelievability of the Holocaust, after the strange silence of American journalism, focused on the culture and personalities of the people who ran The New York Times, which also failed in its journalistic responsibility during the war. Not that it didn't cover the war -- it did, with an exceptional and costly burst of energy and professionalism; it simply did not cover the Holocaust; and to this day the people who run (or have run) this great newspaper are baffled and embarrassed by this extraordinary omission. The logo of The New York Times read and reads "All The News That's Fit To Print," but during the war The Times, which was and is so special to American journalism, knew much more than it printed about the Holocaust; and what it did print, it printed, as a rule, inside, cut, often trivialized. What was the reason? Here things get very complicated. Arthur Hays Sulzberger was publisher during the war. According to family history, his ancestors came to America in 1695. Two were among the Jewish notables of Newport, Rhode Island, in 1790, when General-turned-President Washington visited their synagogue. Not surprisingly, Sulzberger considered himself to be a member of the establishment, an American, who just happened to be Jewish. During a trip to Palestine in 1937, he confronted the reality of zionism, and it profoundly discomfited him. "Never have I felt so much a foreigner as in this Holy Land," he later wrote. On his return to New York, he found that his old fears of divided loyalty led him, to quote journalist Peter Grose, "to minimize, if not ultimately deny, his Jewish identity." Sulzberger helped found the anti-zionist American Council for Judaism, which Isaiah Berlin called "an assembly of mice who say that they will bell the zionist cat." Interestingly, The Times gave this splinter group as much coverage as it gave to all the other Jewish groups combined -- and much, much more than it gave to the Holocaust. Sulzberger, as high brow among American Jews as Bernard Baruch or Walter Lippmann, was an ultra-assimilationist, a civilized man who simply wanted to avoid being categorized as a Jew. Baruch, denounced by the Jew-baiting Detroit radio priest, Father Charles Coughlin, as "the uncrowned King of Wall Street," fled from too close an association with Jews. Lippmann, one of the great figures in American journalism in this century, frequently criticized Jews as "rich, vulgar and pretentious." He suggested that Harvard limit the enrollment of Jews. He dismissed Hitler's antisemitism as "unimportant," adding that the German leader was "the authentic voice of a genuinely civilized people." From 1933, when Hitler came to power, until 1945, when Hitler was destroyed, Lippmann never wrote a word about the Holocaust, never once mentioned the death camps. In The Times, the murder of millions of Jews was treated as minor-league stuff, kept at a proper distance from the authentic news of the time. For example, on July 2, 1944, The Times published what it called "authoritative information" to the effect that 400,000 Hungarian Jews had been deported to their deaths, and another 350,000 were earmarked for similar action. This news was published as four inches of copy on page 12. The Times was making a statement with editorial judgments of this sort, and other editors, other reporters, other news organizations, all took their cues from The Times. Everyone knew that its foreign coverage set the standard. A perception then spread that if the Jewish-owned Times covered the Holocaust in this skimpy manner, then so could they, with impunity. The Times's foreign editor during the war was Ted Bernstein, described by a colleague as "a brilliant Jew running away from his roots." Was it then any surprise that Jewish news, other than the Holocaust, was also shortchanged in The Times; that bylines, such as A.H. Raskin and A.M. Rosenthal appeared, rather than Abraham Raskin and Abraham Rosenthal? Cyrus Sulzberger, a columnist covering the war, used his clout as a member of the family to discourage the hiring of too many Jewish reporters. Daniel Schorr said that he was told in the early 1950s that he would not be hired by The Times, because there were already too many Jews on the paper. Of course the times and The Times have changed, and the journalism of the 1990s -- the journalism after Vietnam, after Watergate, after the technological revolutions which produced CNN, faxes, computers and the O.J. trial -- is significantly different from the journalism of the 1940s. We cannot impose the journalistic yardsticks of the 1990s on the 1940s. Nor can we fairly expect the journalists of the 1940s to perform as though they lived and worked in the 1990s. Now journalists are obsessed with sex and scandal, fires and sports, weather and murders, tilting towards sensationalism whenever the competitive opportunity beckons. Negative and cynical, they distrust the government and disparage politicians. Back then, journalists operated in a narrower environment, with simpler rules. They marched to the government's beat; they hated Hitler and Tojo; they supported the boys at the front. And, their technological opportunities were comparatively primitive. It should be clear that the Holocaust was unique, the reporting of the Holocaust was unique, and neither can be duplicated. So long as there is a strong Israel and an articulate, influential Jewish community in the United States, I feel confident in saying that another Holocaust -- another foreign, state-run program of extermination of the Jews -- would be impossible. But other mass killings? These are not only possible but likely. Given the unprecedented gobbling up of substantial media enterprises by even bigger media conglomerates, it should not be surprising these days that there is not even a commonly accepted definition of "news." Yet, if a story broke about another Holocaust, there could be no doubt not now that it would be front-page news. Such horrible secrets could no longer be kept for months and years. Responsible officials are constantly reminded that what was tolerated during the Holocaust is unacceptable behavior today. For example, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, during a recent visit to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, read with dismay John McCloy's 50-year-old negative response to a demand by the World Jewish Congress that the Allies bomb the rail lines leading into Auschwitz. The response and the demand were on a wall here flanking a huge blow-up of the death camps. "Remember, Strobe," said his companion, the Museum's Director Walter Reich, "any letter you write may end up on a museum wall."
-
The Journalism of The Holocaust
by Marvin Kalb
delivered at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
February 27, 1996
-
|
|
Politicos and reporters are not rocket scientists . . . 
"Impeachment did not have to be for criminal offenses -- but only for a 'course of conduct' that suggested an abuse of power or a disregard for the office of the President of the United States ... A person's 'course of conduct' while not particularly criminal could be of such a nature that it destroys trust, discourages allegiance, and demands action by the Congress...The office of the President is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States."
Twenty presidents rank higher than bill clinton and 20 rank lower. But this placement assumes equal weight for each of the dimensions. And therein lies the flaw.
Sulzberger quickly explained that The Times was able to endorse clinton by separating clinton's "policies" from "the man."
