Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Times Reaps What It Sowed 2
The New York Times ^ | 5.11.03 | Mia T

Posted on 05/11/2003 3:57:10 PM PDT by Mia T

The Times Reaps What It Sowed 2

by Mia T, May 11, 2003


"It's a huge black eye," said Arthur Sulzberger Jr., chairman of The New York Times Company and publisher of the newspaper, whose family has owned a controlling interest in The Times for 107 years. "It's an abrogation of the trust between the newspaper and its readers."

The Deception
Reporting Process Riddled With Lies…

There was no inkling, Mr. Raines said, that the newspaper was dealing with "a pathological pattern of misrepresentation, fabricating and deceiving."

But Mr. Sulzberger emphasized that as The New York Times continues to examine how its employees and readers were betrayed, there will be no newsroom search for scapegoats. "The person who did this is Jayson Blair," he said. "Let's not begin to demonize our executives -- either the desk editors or the executive editor or, dare I say, the publisher."

Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception

CNNs of Commission, Rapist Demagogues and 9/11

the movie


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

Aalpractice 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 indeed 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. (NB: This was written more than two years before 9/11.)

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.



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.



The Times Reaps What It Sowed


December 22, 2000

The New York Times



Mrs. Clinton's Book Deal


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.

for more info on "book" deal, goto:

Why we were compelled to hit on Simon & Schuster,our personal agitprop & money-laundering machine)

The no-show manuscript
hillary clinton Infrastructure Answers Simon & Schuster: A TRANSLATION


bill clinton lies in Times Op-Ed Pardongate apologia
Times allows clinton to replace lies in later edition with deceptive statement

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

I think that history will view this much differently. They will say I made a bad personal mistake, I paid a serious price for it, but that I was right to stand and fight for my country and my constitution and its principles...

-----the First Psychopath, himself





...[bill clinton], a man who will be regarded in the history books as one of our greatest presidents.

-----Al Gore at clinton's post-impeachment rally



I suspect that, to spite us all,

Arthur Schlesinger will live to 120

just so he can write

the definitive clinton hagiography.

--------Mia T, Musings: Senatorial Courtesy Perverted


History Lesson

by Mia T


Someone--was it Maupassant?--

once called history "that excitable and lying old lady."

The same can be said of historians.


Surely it can be said of Doris Kearns Goodwin,

the archetypical pharisaical historian,

not-so-latently clintonoid,


(i.e., clinton is an unfit president;

therefore clinton must remain president),

intellectually dishonest,

(habitually doing what the Arthur Schlesingers of this world do:

making history into the proof of their theories).


The Forbids 400's argument is shamelessly spurious.

They get all unhinged over the impeachment of clinton,

claiming that it will

"leave the presidency permanently disfigured and diminished,

at the mercy as never before of the caprices of any Congress."


Yet they dismiss the real and present--and future!!--danger

to the presidency and the country

of not impeaching and removing

this admittedly unfit, (Goodwin)

"documentably dysfunctional," (The New York Times)

presidency-diminishing, (Goodwin)


psychopathic thug.


Doris Kearns Goodwin and those 400 other


retrograde-obsessing historiographers

are a supercilious, power-hungry,

egomaniacal lot in their own right.


For them, clinton validates

what Ogden Nash merely hypothesized:

Any buffoon can make history,

but only a great man can write it.




KEYWORDS: abuseofpower; accessjournalism; billclinton; clinton911; clintoncorruption; clintonfailure; clintons911; demobsolescence; hillaryclinton; jaysonblair; mediamalfeasance; newyorktimes; nyt; pinch; rag; relics; sulzberger; theterrorismstupid; thetimes; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent

Mia T, 5.5.03


hyperlinked images of shame
copyright Mia T 2003.

by Mia T, 4.6.03


If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.




Al From is sounding the alarm. "Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security," he warns his party, "Democrats will continue to lose elections."

Helloooo? That the Democrats have to be spoon-fed what should be axiomatic post-9/11 is, in and of itself, incontrovertible proof that From's advice is insufficient to solve their problem.

From's failure to fully lay out the nature of the Democrats' problem is not surprising: he is the guy who helped seal his party's fate. It was his Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that institutionalized the proximate cause of the problem, clintonism, and legitimized its two eponymic provincial operators on the national stage. The "Third Way" and "triangulation" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason.

That "convince" is From's operative word underscores the Democrats' dilemma. Nine-eleven was transformative. It is no longer sufficient merely to convince. One must demonstrate, demonstrate convincingly, if you will… which means both in real time and historically.

When it comes to national security, Americans will no longer take any chances. Turning the turn of phrase back on itself, the era of the Placebo President is over. (Incidentally, the oft-quote out-of-context sentence fragment alluded to here transformed meaningless clinton triangulation into a meaningful if deceptive soundbite.)

Although From is loath to admit it -- the terror in his eyes belies his facile solution -- the Democratic party's problem transcends its anti-war contingent.

With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively… and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity.

With policy ruled by pathologic self-interest -- witness the "Lieberman Paradigm," Kerry's "regime change" bon mot (gone bad), Edwards' and the clintons' brazen echoes thereof (or, alternatively, Pelosi's less strident wartime non-putdown putdown)… and, of course, the clincher -- eight years of the clintons' infantilism, grotesquerie and utter failure -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity.

The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11.

The REAL "Living History" -- clintoplasmodial slime

Q ERTY8Either THEY are obsolete… or civilization is bump!

1 posted on 05/11/2003 3:57:10 PM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand; looscannon; Lonesome in Massachussets; Freedom'sWorthIt; IVote2; Slyfox; Registered; ..

"Free Republic is one of those groups obsessed with the Clinton era."

Word's out: Protest at Hillary's tonight
U.S. News & World Report (Washington Whispers) |
March 11, 2003 | Paul Bedard




I'll bet that Mr. Bedard is a member of "one of those groups" so "obsessed" with voting in -- and having access to -- the clintons that they--ooops-- failed to notice the obvious danger of the lovely couple.
Thanx for 9/11, Paul...

Mia T

It's time to take out the trash...
A Senate en passant capture is THE MOVE...
NEW AUDIO! Hear the Bill Bennett epilogue .

WRITTEN IN STONE 2: the clintons define the clintons

Norwegian Braves clinton's Implicit Threat ("If you give my Nobel to Bush, you'll go to hell.")

The REAL "Living History" -- clintoplasmodial slime

hillary clinton A SECURITY RISK: Removal Calls Begin


Another mistaken 'conceptzia'


Utter-Failure clintons Concoct Left-Wing-Radio Scheme FIG LEAF
Flower Children Fall for the 2 Self-Evident Thugs & Opportunists Yet Again
(Liberals have always had problems figuring out causation)

THE CLINTONS--AMERICA'S BIGGEST BLUNDER: Hear Bush 41 Warn Us--October 19, 1992

COMING APART: What clinton was REALLY saying... and why... when he bashed Bush in Canada

the logic of pathologic self-interest

The only thing that can stop American power now

Yet More RapeLies: CNNs of Commission, Rapist Demagogues and 9/11

Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent

Mrs. clinton's REAL virtual office update



2 posted on 05/11/2003 3:59:17 PM PDT by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Buddy web sites quickly exploded in cyberspace. (Socks web sites, too, Socks would add.) Mrs. clinton, a long-time adherent of synergistic exploitation, "authored" an instant book about three groups favored for exploitation by the clintons: dogs, cats and children. "Dear Socks, Dear Buddy: Kids' Letters to the First Pets" was published by the clintons' personal agitprop-and-money-laundering machine, Simon & Schuster.

MIA T, Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers


Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs; Hillary is getting $8 million dollars for hers, for a total of $20 million. Not bad for a couple that for eight years swore under oath they couldn't remember anything.


YOO-HOO Mrs. clinton
A '68 Mustang is not exculpatory
by Mia T, 1-29-03

link to movie

Why we were compelled to hit on Simon & Schuster,our personal agitprop & money-laundering machine)

by Mia T

Hillary Clinton's equal and inapposite reactions seem to be, at first blush, instances of the immutable First Law of The Betrayed and Humiliated Wife: Outdo the errant hubby's all cost.

Thus, Vanity Fair's glamorous Marilyn-Monroe spread of Monica's digitally reduced spread was answered by Vogue's lushly Elizabethan, gauzy-focus, hindquarter-cropped-pleated-and-flounced, Queen-Hillary-for-President cover.

And now we have Hillary Clinton doing a Martha Stewart, who herself, is purported to have been "done" by the aforementioned errant rogue (notwithstanding the plain fact that Martha is more well-known for her tarts than for being one).

Seems Hillary Clinton is now writing a book titled "An Invitation to the White House" in which she will follow the format of the Martha Stewart classic, "Entertaining", claim multifarious Martha-Stewart talents and wrap her indecorous and corrupt, backwoods, backroom style of White House "entertaining" in Martha-Stewart elegance and purity. (NB: Written years before Martha ImPloded.)

"The Clinton White House has been noted for the...innovation of its events," said Carolyn Reidy, president of Simon & Schuster's Trade Division, the book's publisher.

Hillary Clinton's spokeswoman, Marsha Berry, added that the book will focus on how the Clintons have "advanced the availability" of the White House by increasing the number and diversity of people; that it will "highlight the access that the Clintons have given to more people, more types of entertainment..."

It should be emphasized that it was without even a trace of irony or the slightest smirk that both women related the above.

On closer inspection, Hillary Clinton's bizarre behavior is more than simple Ivana Trump-eting. It is vulgar, compulsive, shameless, smarmy, contemptuous, demagogic, megalomaniacal, in-your-face naked clintonism.

It is one thing for the frumpy, chipmunk-cheek, huge-hindquarter fishwife to insinuate her image -- albeit Elizabethan-shrouded and low-res-clouded -- onto the cover of Vogue; but it is quite another for the corrupt harpy to trumpet White House access even as new charges emerge of the clintons' rapes and other predations, of the clintons' corrupt quid-pro-quo arrangements with a menacing and motley assortment of drug dealers, gun runners and nuclear weapons makers.

For Hillary Clinton to vaunt White House access just as the clintons' China treason is becoming increasingly, patently manifest to all requires a certain level of contempt for the people and for the country that is uniquely clinton.

Thank heaven for small favors...

Or as the real Martha Stewart would say,
"That is a good thing."

The no-show manuscript
hillary clinton Infrastructure Answers Simon & Schuster: A TRANSLATION

by Mia T, 4.8.03
One Clinton intimate explains: "In all fairness, she has been preoccupied with serving New York during these challenging times... [But] the writing is wonderful, touching, and will lift Hillary to a new level of respect."




Fairness? You little people just don't get it. This is no simple second-story thief. This is HILLARY!

Haven't you noticed? She's been preoccupied with serving herself during these challenging times, what with juggling






all while hedging her bets on the war / homeland-security thing, (the primary reason for the delay, BTW… It is unwritten HILLARY! policy not to put her stupidity in writing; obviously, we're awaiting the outcome of the war thing in order to demonstrate her "prescience." )

[Nonetheless] the writing is wonderfully revisionist in its scope even as it reprises her victim status; it is intended to lift HILLARY! from toilet to bidet. (VIVE LA FRANCE!)



Executives at publishing powerhouse SIMON AND SCHUSTER are dismayed over Hillary Clinton's failure to turn in a completed manuscript for her book, due out in August, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The senator of the Empire State has already received a $2.85055 million cash advance on her memoirs, from a total deal valued at more than $8 million.


"We must be off to the printer next month, but the manuscript isn't in yet!" said one SIMON AND SCHUSTER source last week. "Advance sales are lagging. And there is no title. Without a title it's been difficult to market."

One top source says the situation has not reached a legal concern, rather it is being described as an "annoyance."

The former first lady signed the deal before the 9/11 terror attacks.

One Clinton intimate explains: "In all fairness, she has been preoccupied with serving New York during these challenging times... [But] the writing is wonderful, touching, and will lift Hillary to a new level of respect."

NO TITLE | 4/7/03 | Matt Drudge




3 posted on 05/11/2003 4:02:19 PM PDT by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Thanks for the posting.

It's not that FREEPERS are obssessed with Clintoon but rather extremely angry in REACTION to the harm he and his minions inflicted against the American people.
4 posted on 05/11/2003 4:08:09 PM PDT by Publicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Hello Mia
Thanks for the ping
& bttt
5 posted on 05/11/2003 4:11:02 PM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Thanks for the posting.

It's not that FREEPERS are obssessed with Clintoon but rather extremely angry in REACTION to the harm he and his minions inflicted against the American people.
6 posted on 05/11/2003 4:11:41 PM PDT by Publicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

Mr. Raines, who referred to the Blair episode as a "terrible mistake," said that in addition to correcting the record so badly corrupted by Mr. Blair, he planned to assign a task force of newsroom employees to identify lessons for the newspaper. He repeatedly quoted a lesson he said he learned long ago from A. M. Rosenthal, a former executive editor.

"When you're wrong in this profession, there is only one thing to do," he said. "And that is get right as fast as you can."

Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception

Note that Sulzberger made his admission about The Times' endorsement of clinton within weeks of 9/11.

Was he following Abe Rosenthal's sage advice... or was he just covering his own feckless, corrupt rear?

7 posted on 05/11/2003 4:13:13 PM PDT by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
....There was no inkling, Mr. Raines said, that the newspaper was dealing with "a pathological pattern of misrepresentation, fabricating and deceiving......

This guy apparently doesn't read the Old Gray Whore very often. The whole purpose of the reag is to misrepresent, fabricate and deceive. He should pay closer attention.

8 posted on 05/11/2003 4:15:00 PM PDT by bert (Don't Panic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
PC reporter........given enough rope to.....oh whatever!
9 posted on 05/11/2003 4:18:46 PM PDT by mickie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Thank you, as always for your efforts Mia.
10 posted on 05/11/2003 5:25:25 PM PDT by Leisler (Scots/Irish book thieves are the worst.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

May 11, 2003
Raines Ponders NY Times Scandal, His Next Move
by Jayson Blair

(PALESTINE, West Virginia) -- Howell Raines leaned against a post on his front porch wistfully overlooking acres of tobacco fields and cattle pastures. The pain of recent revelations of fraud and plagiarism by one of his New York Times reporters was etched on his face as with a diamond stylus.

Mr. Raines, executive editor of the Times, kicked a manure-caked boot against the post, and threw his unfinished cigar into a patch of red, white and blue petunias with a bit more force than necessary.

"We told that little varmint to use anonymous sources, not imaginary ones," said Mr. Raines. He paused and spat vigorously. "Our 152-year reputation of revealing the honest feelings of unnamed sources is now jeopardized by this one renegade, loose-cannon, cowboy...."

Mr. Raines' voice trailed off as he gazed at the North Carolina sunset casting its magenta splendor over the Dover Air Force base just outside the window of his semi-private room at the Walter Reed Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio.

Next to Mr. Raines in the hospital room lay an Iraq war vet who had lost half of his leg when alleged sniper John Lee Malvo shot him outside a Home Depot store in Chevy Chase, MD.

In Mr. Raines heart and mind, a smoldering rage grew. Although he told no one, not even a visiting reporter, his thoughts ran helter-skelter from plans for resignation, to contract details for the tell-all novel that will make his career in journalism worth all the heartache.

by Scott Ott | Link | Comment (9) | TrackBack (1) | Donate | Email Story | Top
11 posted on 05/11/2003 5:29:00 PM PDT by Leisler (Scots/Irish book thieves are the worst.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
Raines Ponders NY Times Scandal, His Next Move

Leave Raines alone in a room with a gun and two bullets.

Why two bullets?

Has the NYT ever gotten anything right on the first try.....

12 posted on 05/11/2003 6:21:54 PM PDT by Doctor Raoul (The "Anti-War Leaders" Have Blood On Their Hands, look and you'll find, they are NOT anti-war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
13 posted on 05/11/2003 6:25:16 PM PDT by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
Excellent. LOL.

Seems "Jayson" missed an opportunity to work in a little gore...

Howell Raines leaned against a post on his front porch wistfully overlooking acres of tobacco fields. The painful death of his sister played over and over in his head to the beat of his heedless huckstering. "I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it, I've dug in it, I've sprayed it, I've chopped it, I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it."

14 posted on 05/11/2003 6:44:39 PM PDT by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
You'd thing Mo Dowd would write about something closer to home, so to speak. But I doubt she will.

Elephant? In the newsroom? What elephant?
15 posted on 05/11/2003 7:01:39 PM PDT by Leisler (Scots/Irish book thieves are the worst.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
16 posted on 05/11/2003 7:02:05 PM PDT by Leisler (Scots/Irish book thieves are the worst.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
"It's an abrogation of the trust between the newspaper and its readers."

I learned not to trust the New York Times a long time ago. Many people did.

17 posted on 05/11/2003 7:11:36 PM PDT by Savage Beast ("Liberalism" is decadence. It has nothing to do with liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
For a long time I have tried to get it through my liberal friends heads that the only difference between Pravda and the New York Times was that at least the readers of Pravda knew they were being lied to.


18 posted on 05/11/2003 8:21:54 PM PDT by Incorrigible
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
19 posted on 05/12/2003 6:30:38 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Semper Gumby - Always flexible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible
For a long time I have tried to get it through my liberal friends heads
that the only difference between Pravda and the New York Times was
that at least the readers of Pravda knew they were being lied to


All the news that's print to fit.)

20 posted on 05/12/2003 6:16:21 PM PDT by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson