Brock's conspiracy theory ("Hillary .. was absolutely correct .. a "vast right-wing conspiracy.")

CNN (!) ^ | 03/02 | Wolf Blitzer

[MarkWar]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Having covered the Bill Clinton presidency, I was fascinated to see the remarkable conversion of David Brock. As many of you probably will recall, Brock was the author of the original "Troopergate" article in the American Spectator in 1993. That was Bill Clinton's first year in the White House. The article caused a huge uproar -- alleging that Clinton, while governor of Arkansas, routinely used his state troopers to solicit women. In that article, there was a reference to a "Paula." That, of course, turned out to be Paula Jones -- and the beginning of the eventual impeachment process against the president began. She accused Clinton of sexually harassing her in a Little Rock hotel room. He denied it.

[MarkWar]

Much of the content of this has appeared in other threads. But I think it's worth recognizing that CNN and their star reporter Wolf Blitzer are adding themselves to the people promoting this book, this guy, and the concepts behind all this (i.e., that "Hillary...was right...")

This really ramps up the war between the Right and the Left. And, for what it's worth, this appears to be more red carpet laid down in front of Hillary for her eventually run at the presidency.

Mark W.

[gorush]

"I was fascinated to see the remarkable conversion of David Brock."

For every David Brock we could find dozens of David Horowitzs...but I guess that's neither fascinating nor remarkable in Blitzer's opinion.

[week 71]

He is just trying to sell books, that is all. One cannot undo clinton's pathetic legacy.

[fightu4it]

Clinton"s scandals speak for themselves. No amount of spin by David Brock can change that.

It can be said of Bill Clinton that he seems to be the only President in this Countries history who was in it just for the money and the p@ssy.

[cicero's_son]

In 1492, Columbus, Ferdinand, and Isabel were part of a "conspiracy" out to prove that the world was round.

Truth is an absolute defense against libel, as it is against charges of "conspiracy."

[sinkspur]

Brock was on America Now on CNBC last night. Larry Kudlow beat him over the head like a child, and Brock just sat there and took it.

Kudlow said he was disingenuous, that he needed to get his life in order before he took out after anyone else, that everything in his book was PERSONAL, nothing about policies or issues; and, finally, he said that Brock had slandered some very good conservatives (like Ted Olson) and should be ashamed.

I loved it. It had the appearance of a father lecturing a kid.

Brock is a disgraceful human being whom NOBODY should now believe. He'll whore himself out to the last person he talked to.

[eureka!]

Not to worry. Wolfie's few viewers already share his love for the Sink Emperor and his grifting wife. The main of the sheeple now know what the Clintons are....

[DocCincy]

Question is, how much hype and promotion did Wolfie give the original work in American Spectator. Surely he gave it equal press time.

[MarkWar]

>For every David Brock we could find dozens of David Horowitzs...but I guess that's neither fascinating nor remarkable in Blitzer's opinion.

When the "Shakedown" book came out about Jackson, the first news from CNN wasn't a report on the book, but an internal memo warning reporters about taking the author seriously.

Now, for the Brock story, the first news is that CNN gives it to their star reporter right away.

[sighs] No, there is no bias in the news...

Mark W.

[js1138]

Excuse me fo breathing, but what is news about politically active people dumping on their opponents? Of course it's a conspiracy. But that doesn't mean that the mud being thrown doesnt contain the truth.

I've seen nothing that makes me question the truth of troopergate.

[Truebador]

I don't think you can add Blitzer to the Clinton defenders on the basis of this article. All he says is what Brock says. He doesn't say Brock is right, or that he is believable or anything else to make us think that Blitzer supports Brock. Personally, I think Blitzer hates the Clintons. Because what he does say, is:

This book is going to generate lots of debate. Clinton critics will argue that they've been vindicated. They will point to his $850,000 payment to Paula Jones to settle the case. They will cite Clinton's belated admission to the Independent Counsel that he did offer misleading testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky during a deposition. They will note that Clinton was forced to give up his law license for five years. And they will note that he was impeached by the House -- though he was acquitted by the Senate.

IOW, Blitzer rebuts Brock's charges by citing exactly the same facts conservatives always cite when referring to Clinton.

If Wolf were defending Clinton, it isn't likely that he'd close this article with what amounts to a repetition of negative facts about Bubba. That "spin" leaves the reader thinking of what Clinton did wrong, not what the vast right wing conspiracy did to trap and catch him.

[gunnedah]

If he names names we will see if he gets his ass sued off and if not it will be a vast left wing conspiracy.Conservatives dont need to rush out and buy this book-we need to maybe read it and pass it around if it appears to be lies.One thing for sure no one can do anymore damage to this country than the Democrats did under Clinton and continue to do. The Republicans do not have the stomach to fight them and they are turning this country socialist and prostituting themselves to the highest bidder.A friend of mine ask me to read the book of Hosea in the bible over a discussion we were having and I did so and it appears this is where America stands today as well as Israel.I am not a religious sort but if their is a God we certainly need help in this country.The Democrats like Daschle,Biden,Kennedy,Byrd,Hollings,Edwards and least of all Leahy a man who is a known leaker of our internel security are more evil than Bin Laden.Either one of them could pass for satin himself.

[Frank Grimes]

Geez, is this from the Onion? What the heck is a "Wolf Blitzer" anyway? Good one, dude!

[AmishDude]

Actually, just finding out who the guy's been sleeping with would probably explain it all. Ordinarily, I wouldn't want to know, but here it makes a difference.

Also, I think he's still mad that conservatives didn't buy his Hillary whitewash book. I mean, who (left or right) is going to go out and spend $25 on a book that says "She isn't so bad, not that I investigated very thoroughly."

[MarkWar]

>In 1492, Columbus, Ferdinand, and Isabel were part of a "conspiracy" ...

MAD magazine once did a cartoon where a mother asked her teenage son was a "lesbian" is, and the son told his mother, "Any girl that doesn't go out with me is a lesbian."

The way the word "conspiracy" gets used these days, my impression is that the liberals in general use a similar definition of that word.

Anything which doesn't go their way, anything which even hints at conservative values, is the result of a conspiracy.

I heard CNN read some "viewer" comment on the air, whining that "...everything was stacked against Andrea Yates from the start and she never had a chance..."

Apparently, according to the liberals now, when the justice system convicts a child killer, even that is the result of a conspiracy...

Mark W.

[Chi-townChief]

"Now, Brock has made a huge about-face."

Follow that money, boy!

[Attillathehon]

It's not a conspiracy to shine the light of truth on people who break the law. Got my "Charter Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" mug right here on my desk and I'm proud of it!

[dead]

My wife watches whichever network has Matt Lauer on in the morning. He was interviewing Brock yesterday.

At one point I thought Matt was going to drop to his knees and lewinsky Brock.

I guess they had to send Matt in there, because there would have been no way to stop Katie, short of strapping that midget down.

[SuziQ]

Kudlow said he was disingenuous, that he needed to get his life in order before he took out after anyone else, that everything in his book was PERSONAL, nothing about policies or issues; and, finally, he said that Brock had slandered some very good conservatives (like Ted Olson) and should be ashamed.

I always considered David Brock's 'turnaround' to be closely tied with his 'coming out'. I figured he was trying to impress his new 'friends'.