Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

1-03-02 | Mia T

Posted on 01/03/2002 10:40:58 AM PST by Mia T


by Mia T, 1-03-02

"If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog."

If I were in an especially kind frame of mind, I would say that Helen Thomas is the exception to that rule, a rule, BTW, that applies even more today, post 9/11, to the clintons than it did when they made their cynical purchase.

Purchase? Did I say "purchase"??? Was purchase in fact the operant process? Or was Buddy booty, like the clinton-klepto-bribery-scheme Socks bag?

The clintons certainly exhibit a curious eagerness to exploit their pets

along with their kid,

and, of course, "the chilrun," blacks, women, the poor, the disenfranchised, the vulnerable, and so on...


Helen Thomas Syndrome

Helen Thomas Syndrome: THE SYMPTOMS

Speaking of the doghouse, last fall the president's lawyer Bob Bennett gave a speech to the National Press Club in Washington. On a single day- so he informed an openmouthed audience- he had had four substantial conversations with Clinton about the Paula Jones case, and feeling this excessive, "I had to cut it short and the president said, 'Yeah, I've got to get back to Saddam Hussein,' and I said, 'My God, this is lunacy that I'm taking his time on this stuff.'" Well, I hope Mr. Bennett didn't charge for that day, or for the other time-wasting day when he naively introduced Lewinsky's false affidavit on Clinton's behalf. But, if he hoped to persuade his audience that Clinton should be left alone to conduct a well-mediated Iraq policy, his words achieved the opposite effect. Policy toward Baghdad has been without pulse or direction or principle ever since Mr. Clinton took office. As one who spent some horrible days in Halabja, the Kurdish city that was ethnically cleansed by Saddam's chemical bombs, I have followed Washington's recent maneuvers with great attention. The only moment when this president showed a glimmer of interest in the matter was when his own interests were involved as well.

And thus we come to the embarrassing moment last December when Clinton played field marshal for four days, and destroyed the UN inspection program in order to save it. By November 14, 1998, Saddam Hussein had exhausted everybody's patience by his limitless arrogance over inspections of weapon sites, and by his capricious treatment of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectorate. In a rare show of Security Council solidarity, Russia, China, and France withdrew criticism of a punitive strike. The Republican leadership in both houses of Congress, which had criticized the Clinton administration for inaction, was ready to rock 'n' roll with Iraq. The case had been made, and the airplanes were already in the air when the president called them back. No commander in chief has ever done this before. Various explanations were offered as to why Clinton, and his close political crony Sandy Berger, had make such a wan decision. It was clearly understood that the swing vote had been the president's, and that Madeline Albright and William Cohen had argued the other way.

But in mid-November the president was still flushed with the slight gain made by his party in the midterm elections. Impeachment seemed a world away, with Republican "moderates" becoming the favorite of headline writers and op-ed performers alike. This theme persisted in the news and in the polls until after the pre-Hanukkah weekend of December 12-13, when, having been rebuffed by Benjamin Netanyahu at a post-Wye visit in Israel, Clinton had to fly home empty-handed. This must have been galling for him, since he had only imposed himself on the original Wye agreement, just before the November elections, as a high-profile/high-risk electoral ploy. (He had carried with him to Tel Aviv, on Air Force One, Rick Lazio and Jon Fox, two Republican congressmen widely hailed as fence-sitters regarding impeachment. So it can't easily be said that he wasn't thinking about the domestic implications of foreign policy.) But by Tuesday, December 15, after Clinton's last-ditch nonapology had "bombed" like all its predecessors, every headline had every waverer deciding for impeachment after all. On Wednesday afternoon, the president announced that Saddam Hussein was, shockingly enough, not complying with the UN inspectorate. And the cruise missiles took wing again. Within hours the House Republicans had met and, "furious and fractured," according to the New York Times, had announced the postponement of the impeachment debate, due to begin Thursday morning.

This was not quite like the preceding dramas. For one thing, it could and probably would have happened- unlike Sudan and Afghanistan- at any time. For another thing, the president was careful to say that he had the support of his whole "national security team," which he wouldn't have been able to say of his cop-out decision in November. Presidents don't normally list the number of their own employees and appointees who agree with them about national-security questions, but then, most presidents don't feel they have to. (Though most presidents have avoided making their Cabinet members back them in public on falsehoods about "private" and "inappropriate" conduct.) Having gone on slightly too long about the endorsements he'd won from his own much - bamboozled team, Clinton was faced with only a few remaining questions. These included:

  • Why, since Saddam Hussein has been in constant noncompliance, must bombing start tonight?
  • Why has there been no open consultation with either Congress or the United Nations?
  • When did you find out about the Richard Butler report on Saddam Hussein's violations?

The last question, apparently a simple one, was the most difficult to answer. It emerged that Clinton had known the contents of the Butler report at least two days before it was supposed to be handed to the UN secretary-general Kofi Annan. It was Kofi Annan's job, furthermore, to present it to the world body for action. Members of the National Security Council in Washington, however, were leading the report (which "discovered" Saddam Hussein's violations) to friends of mine in Washington by Tuesday, December 15. This timeline simply means that Clinton knew well in advance that he was going to be handed a free pretext in case of need. Mr. Butler might care to explain why he hurriedly withdrew his inspectors without Security Council permission- leaving some 400 United Nations humanitarian aid workers to face the music- at least a day before the bombs began to drop.

Once again the question: What was the rush? It must have meant a lot to Clinton to begin the strikes when he did, because he forfeited the support of the UN, of Russia, of China, of France, and of much of the congressional leadership- all of which he had enjoyed in varying degrees in November. (The Russians, whose volatile stock of "weapons of mass destruction" is far more of a menace than Iraq's, actually withdrew their ambassador from Washington for the first time in history, and threatened again to freeze talks on strategic-arms limitation.)

To the "rush" question, Clinton at first answered that the weekend of December 19-20 marked the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, and one would not want to be bombing an Islamic people while they were beginning their devotions. However, the postponed impeachment debate continued well into Saturday, December 19, and so did the bombardment, which concluded a few hours after the impeachment vote itself. Muslim susceptibilities were therefore even more outraged, even in morally friendly countries such as Kuwait, by the suspicious coincidence of timing. During the debate, the House Democratic leadership took the position, openly encouraged by the White House, that a president should not be embarrassed at home while American troops were "in harm's way" abroad. Again, it is made clear by Clinton's own conduct and arguments that, for him, foreign policy and domestic policy do not exist in parallel universes, but are one and the same.

And, again, I found myself talking to someone who is normally more hawkish than I am. Scott Ritter, who served with UNSCOM from 1991 until August 1998 and who was the chief of its Concealment Investigations Unit, had been warning for months that Saddam Hussein was evading compliance inspections. This warning entainled a further accusation, which was that UNSCOM in general, and Richard Butler in particular, were too much under the day-to-day control of the Clinton administration. (An Australian career diplomat who, according to some of his colleagues, was relinquished with relief by his masters Down Under, Butler owes his job to Madeline Albright in the first place.) Thus, when the United States, did not want a confrontation with Iraq, over the summer and into the fall, Butler and the leadership acted like pussycats and caused Ritter to resign over their lack of seriousness. But then, when a confrontation was urgently desired in December, the slightest pretext would suffice. And that, Ritter says, is the bitterest irony of all. The December strikes had no real military value, because the provocation was too obviously staged.

"They sent inspectors to the Baath Party HQ in Baghdad in the week before the raids," Ritter told me. "UNSCOM then leaves in a huff, claiming to have been denied access. There was nothing inside that facility anway. The stuff was moved before they got there. The United States knew there was nothing in that site. And then a few days later, there are reports that cruise missiles hit the Baath Party HQ! It's completely useless. Butler knew that I'd resign if the U.S. continued to jerk UNSCOM around, and he even came to my leaving party and bought me a drink. But now he's utterly lost his objectivity and impartiality, and UNSCOM inspections have been destroyed in the process, and one day he'll be hung out to dry. Ask your colleagues in Washington when they got his report."

From the Washington Post account by Barton Gellmen, on Wednesday, December 16, written the day before the bombing began and on the day that Kofi Annan saw the Butler report for the first time:

Butler's conclusions were welcome in Washington, which helped orchestrate the terms of the Australian diplomat's report. Sources in New York and Washington said Clinton-administration officials played a direct role in shaping Butler's text during multiple conversations with him Monday at secure facilities in the U.S. mission to the United Nations.

"Of course," Ritter told me almost conversationally, "though this is Wag the Dog, it isn't quite like Sudan and Afghanistan in August, which were Wag the Dog pure and simple."

Well, indeed, nothing is exactly like Wag the Dog. In the movie, the whole war is invented and run out of a studio, and nobody actually dies, whereas in Sudan and Afghanistan and Iraq, real corpses were lying about and blood spilled. You might argue, as Clinton's defenders have argued in my hearing, that if there was such a "conspiracy" it didn't work. To this there are three replies. First, no Clinton apologist can dare, after the victim cult sponsored by both the president and the First Lady, to ridicule the idea of "conspiracy," vast or otherwise. Second, the bombings helped to raise Clinton's poll numbers and to keep them high, and who will say that this in not a permanent White House concern? Third, the subject was temporarily changed from Clinton's thing to Clinton's face, and doubtless that came as some species of relief. But now we understand what in November was a mystery. A much less questionable air strike was canceled because, at that time, Clinton needed to keep an "option" in his breast pocket.

On January 6, two weeks after I spoke to Scott Ritter, UN secretary-general Kofi Annan's office angrily announced that, under Richard Butler's leadership, UNSCOM had in effect become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clinton administration. The specific disclosure concerned the organization's spying activities, which had not been revealed to the UN. But Ritter's essential point about UNSCOM's and Butler's subservient client role was also underscored. This introduces two more canines- the UN inspectors being metamorphosed from watchdogs into lapdogs.

The staged bombing of Iraq in December was in reality the mother of all pinpricks. It was even explained that nerve-gas sites had not been hit, lest the gas be released. (Odd that this didn't apply in the case of the El Shifa plant, which is located in a suburb of Khartoum.) The Saddam Hussein regime survived with contemptuous ease, while its civilian hostages suffered yet again. During the prematurely triumphant official briefings from Washington, a new bureaucratic euphemism made its appearance. We were incessantly told that Iraq's capacities were being "degraded." This is not much of a target to set oneself, and it also leads to facile claims of success, since every bomb that falls has by definition a "degrading" effect on the system or the society.

By acting and speaking as he did, not just in August but also in December, Clinton opened himself, and the United States, to a charge of which a serious country cannot afford even to be suspected. The tin pots and yahoos of Khartoum and Kabul and Baghdad are micro-megalomaniacs who think of their banana republics as potential superpowers. It took this president to "degrade" a superpower into a potential banana republic.


So overwhelming was the evidence in the case of the Sudanese atrocity that by January 1999 it had become a serious embarrassment to the Clinton administration. The true owner of the El Shifa plant, a well-known Sudanese entrepreneur named Saleh Idris, approached Dr. Thomas Tullius, head of the chemistry department at Boston University, and asked him to conduct a forensic examination of the site. Samples taken from all levels, and submitted to three different laboratories in different world capitals, yielded the same resut. There were no traces of any kind of toxicity, or indeed of anything but standard pharmaceutical material. Armed with this and other evidence, Mr. Idris demanded compensation for his destroyed property and initiated proceedings for a lawsuit. His case in Washington was taken up by the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld- perhaps best known for the prominence with which Vernon Jordan adorns its board of partners.

As a capitalist and holder of private property, Mr. Idris was always likely to receive due consideration if he was prepared to hire the sorts of help that are understood in the Clintonoid world of soft money and discreet law firms. The worker killed at the plant, the workers whose livelihood depended upon it, and those further down the stream whose analgesics and antibiotics never arrived, and whose names are not recorded, will not be present when the recompenses are agreed. They were expendable objects of Clinton's ruthless vanity.

Christopher Hitchens, NO ONE LEFT TO LIE TO


by Mia T 

I went to the movie to today to see "Wag the Dog,"
fully expecting to be entertained by its wicked satire.
For an artistic work to qualify as satire,
it must attack human vice or folly through irony, derision, or wit.
If it merely recounts what actually is, it is reportage.
If it underestimates what is, and does so not by design but by miscalculation, it is a flop.
"Wag the Dog" -- notwithstanding De Niro and Hoffman -- is a flop.
 A farce of a greater farce just doesn't parse.
You can blame it on bad timing,
and to some small extent this is the case.
Clinton's latest round of
and sexploitation
and press-ploitation
and U.S.-ploitation
and us-ploitation
did make a preemptive,
low-life-imitating-art strike.
But the film's obvious references to this president
render that excuse grossly inadequate.

And yet, this flop-as-a-farce shocks, nonetheless.

What is shocking is that Hollywood made it.
That Hollywood made a film about a clintonesque president
who has sex with a Girl Scout in the Oval Office;
who shamelessly, reflexively defrauds the media and the electorate;
who will do anything to cover up his crime:
(it is only eleven days before his expected re-election);
who confects a fake war to deflect attention away
from the statutory rape on federal property;
and finally, who murders a coconspirator
threatening to go public about the coverup.
Dog-ear this: A clear case of canine distemper on celluloid, this movie is not without a certain irony. It is between the frames, however -- the inadvertent, interstitial whimpering of the wagged lapdogs of LA-LA-land.


the operant definition of 'clinton classlessness' --
Although a reliable source had previously warned me about the wife's designs on the White House furnishing -- she had apparently acquired the nasty habit of pilfering from the White House drapery fund -- when I created the following metaphoric musing a year before the clintons "moved," I never imagined that she would -- that they would -- in real life -- in real time -- actually swipe the sofa.
Smaller objects neatly tuck-able in nuncupative deals & unnumbered Swiss accounts, without question...


Jan. 1, 2000
hillary's "interior" design scheme
(an animated how-to)

by Mia T

copyright Mia T 2000

The White House Booty
Letters .. thanked Lee and Joy Ficks for their 1993 donation of a
kitchen set to the White House. Joy Ficks said she was surprised to
hear the Clintons are keeping the kitchen set as a personal gift.

White House Gifts List

• $19,900 two sofas, an easy chair and an ottoman from Steve Mittman,
New York.
• $3,650 kitchen table and four chairs from Lee Ficks, Cincinnati.
• $2,843 sofa from Brad Noe, High Point, N.C.
• $1,170 lamps from Stuart Schiller, Hialeah, Fla.
• $1,000 needlepoint rug from David Martinous, Little Rock.
Following are gifts the Clintons received in 2000 and are paying for:
• $9,433 china cabinet, chandelier and a copy of President Lincoln's
Cooper Union speech from Walter and Selma Kaye, New York.
• $7,375 two coffee tables and two chairs from Denise Rich, New York.
• $7,000 dining room table, server and golf club from Mr. and Mrs. Ron
Dozoretz, Washington.
• $6,282 two carpets from Glen Eden Carpets, Calhoun, Ga.
• $5,000 rug from Martin Patrick Evans, Chicago.
• $5,000 china from Mr. and Mrs. Bill Brandt, Winnetka, Ill.
• $4,994 flatware from Ghada Irani, Los Angeles.
• $4,992 china from Iris Cantor, New York.
• $4,967 flatware, Edith Wasserman, Beverly Hills, Calif.
• $4,967 flatware, Mr. and Mrs. Morris Pynoos, Beverly Hills, Calif.
• $4,787 china from Mary Steenburgen and Ted Danson, Los Angeles.
• $4,920 china from Mr. and Mrs. Steven Spielberg, Universal City,
• $3,000 painting from Joan Tumpson, Miami.
• $2,993 televisions and DVD player from Paul Goldenberg, La Habra,
• $2,400 dining room chairs from Arthur Athis, Los Angeles.
• $2,110 china and jacket from Jill and Ken Iscol, Pound Ridge, N.Y.
• $1,588 flatware from Myra Greenspun, Green Valley, Nev.
• $595 pantsuit and sweater, Margaret O'Leary, San Francisco.
• $524 golf driver and golf balls from Richard Helmstetter, Carlsbad,
• $500 antique book on George Washington, Mr. and Mrs. Bud Yorkin, Los
• $499 golf driver from Ely Callaway, Carlsbad, Calif.
• $450 leather jacket from Vin Gupta, Omaha.
• $350 golf driver, Jack Nicholson, Beverly Hills, Calif.
• $350 framed tapestry, Mr. and Mrs. Vo Viet Thanh, Vietnam.
• $340 two sweaters from Robin Carnahan and Nina Canci, St. Louis.
• $300 flatware from Colette D'Etremont, New Brunswick, Canada.
• $300 painting of Buddy, Brian B. Ready, Chappaqua, N.Y.


Chair Lift

Among the gifts that former president Bill Clinton says he is keeping as
personal presents he accepted last year are $28,000 worth of furnishings
that documents and interviews indicate were given to the National Park
Service in 1993 as part of the permanent White House collection...
Two of the furniture makers whose donations Clinton took with him on
leaving the White House last month say they gave them to the White House
as part of a widely publicized, $396,000 redecoration of the executive
mansion and not to Clinton personally.
"When we've been asked to donate, it was always hyphenated with the
words, " 'White House,' " New York manufacturer Steve Mittman said of
his family-owned business, which gave two sofas, an easy chair and an
ottoman, worth $19,900 and listed by Clinton as part of the gifts he
took with him. "To us, it was not a donation to a particular person."

Gifts Were Not Meant for Clintons, Some Donors Say

Sen. Clinton made another assertion - one that is equally misleading.

She contends she was not obliged to report the first Leiber bag she received "because it was received before the Clintons entered the White House."

But this bag, valued at $3,500, was received after the election and during the transition and therefore obviously was related to the Clinton presidency.



But he said the Socks purse was given to Clinton during the transition in late 1992, before her husband took office...

TRANSLATION: An earlier example of the clinton post-election/pre-swearing-in klepto-bribery scheme...




TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Extended News

1 posted on 01/03/2002 10:40:58 AM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Priceless - and so are you - thanks much, JL
2 posted on 01/03/2002 10:51:43 AM PST by lodwick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Your chronicle of clinton family exploits are much appreciated. Nothing defeats revisionist spin like a good direct quote. I hope you are zipping these files and forwarding them to the clinton library (just to be a pain!)

Thanks for the memories... and entertainment!

3 posted on 01/03/2002 11:01:37 AM PST by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
You don't miss a thing. Thanks for the great entertainment.
4 posted on 01/03/2002 11:07:02 AM PST by In Chiefs Honor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Mia T
Great show!
6 posted on 01/03/2002 4:05:50 PM PST by RJayneJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand; looscannon; Lonesome in Massachussets; river rat; Freedom'sWorthIt; IVote2; Slyfox...
posthumous Q ERTY6 ping
7 posted on 01/03/2002 5:24:32 PM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Your fire-weather report-forcast you did 3 mos. ago was pretty it again?
8 posted on 01/03/2002 5:35:43 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
This Clinton dog story ran all day today...just to get that filthy bastard Bill Clinton and whorehouseface Hillary back on the tube/bttt
9 posted on 01/03/2002 5:46:46 PM PST by ChaseR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Thanks for this post and all the pics and info Mia T, (please keep pinging me-bttt
10 posted on 01/03/2002 5:48:49 PM PST by ChaseR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
I linked this to here:

DUBOB 9-- even *more* tales from the Dark Underbelly of the Beast.....

But it's a shame about Buddy... like Chelsa, he was merely a prop on an empty movie set....

11 posted on 01/04/2002 12:24:50 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
along with their kid,
Huh????? I heard that Chelsea was Webb Hubbell's child. . .

Former Associate Attorney General
Webster Hubbell meets reporters
outside his Washington home in
this April 30, 1998, file photo.
(Ron Edmonds/AP Photo)
12 posted on 01/04/2002 5:37:55 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing, Mia T
Bump and Bookmarked for Posterity!


13 posted on 01/04/2002 5:49:59 AM PST by Geezerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Geezerette
Oooops! Where is the Bookmark thing now??


14 posted on 01/04/2002 5:52:29 AM PST by Geezerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
15 posted on 01/04/2002 6:57:19 AM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
Topics · Post Article

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