Posted on 01/22/2008 10:04:30 AM PST by K-oneTexas
What Fred Thompson Knows About Hillary Clinton - Part 1
Barring the calamitous, former United States Senator from Tennessee, Fred Thompson, will be the next president of the United States.
Thompson’s masterful use of the online interview—a vastly smarter and cheaper way of campaigning for those with something to say—has all but secured him the Republican nomination.
In the general election, in a fair fight, either Obama or Hillary—or Gore for that matter--will have a hard time winning any five states against Thompson.
But for Hillary at least, it is too late in the game to fight fair. Desperation will push her and her soulless minions to fight otherwise. No fool, Thompson knows what he is up against.
In 1997, then Senator Thompson chaired a committee that investigated what he rightly called “the most corrupt political campaign in modern history.” Hillary’s fingerprints were all over that campaign.
Beginning early in 1995, the Clintons launched an unprecedented series of expensive, untruthful, arguably illegal TV ads. For cover, they laundered the campaign through the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
According to Clinton advisor Dick Morris, Hillary signed off on everything. The media, true to form, chose not to notice the ads or their financing. Here, the Thompson Committee report proves instructive:
The president and his aides demeaned the offices of the president and vice president, took advantage of minority groups, pulled down all the barriers that would normally be in place to keep out illegal contributions, pressured policy makers, and left themselves open to strong suspicion that they were selling not only access to high-ranking officials, but policy as well. Millions of dollars were raised in illegal contributions, much of it from foreign sources.
Johnny Chung, who admitted funneling $100,000 from the Chinese Military to the DNC, would tell the Thompson Committee, “The White House is like a subway: You have to put in coins to open the gates.”
No one understood this investment opportunity better than James and Moctar Riady, an ethnic Chinese father and son team who ran the powerful Indonesian firm, the Lippo Group.
The Riadys had sensed Clinton’s sleaze potential back in Arkansas and bailed out his 1992 primary campaign at it shakiest moment. As a quid pro quo, the Riadys sought a job for their “man in America,” John Huang.
Aware of his many talents, the DNC put Huang on its “must consider” list. And what were Huang’s talents? A letter sent by an Asian outreach advocate on the stationery of David Roberti, the president pro tem of the California state Senate, was frank to a fault.
“John is the Riady family’s top priority for placement because he is like one of their own.” The Riady family, in case anyone needed reminding, “invested heavily in the Clinton campaign.”
Huang ended up in Ron Brown’s Commerce Department as a deputy assistant secretary. Curiously, he got the job on the same day that embattled Clinton aide, Webster Hubbell, got a $100,000 check from a Riady company, and Hubbell “rolled over” once more.
Brown confidante Nolanda Hill would tell ABC’s Prime Time Live that, according to Brown, “the White House put [Huang] there,” and in this instance, added Hill, “The White House meant Hillary Clinton.”
Whoever was responsible, Huang went to Commerce not to advance America’s interests but those of the Riadys and, by extension, those of China.
“Over the past five years,” reads the Thompson report, “the Lippo Group has shifted its strategic center from Indonesia to the People’s Republic of China.” Those five years, by the way, backdated to 1992, the year of Clinton’s election.
On one particularly revealing occasion, Huang left a CIA briefing at the Commerce Department and walked across the street where, according to the Thompson Committee, he had “a secret office.”
This office was located within the larger offices of Stephens Inc., the Little Rock-based investment-banking firm with which the Riadys and the Clintons had a long relationship. There, in private, Huang proceeded to place a three-hour call to his former employer, the Lippo Group.
Lippo had a lot at stake. The CIA briefing concerned the development by an international consortium of a massive coal-fired power plant in Indonesia called the Paiton plant.
The Lippo Group just happened to control one of the only two commercially viable low-sulfur coal mines in the world, this one conveniently located near the Paiton plant.
At the Clintons’ urging, Ron Brown helped put the Paiton deal together, and the various players thanked him profusely for his help. Among the players, as usual during these years, was the Enron Corporation.
What happens next on the American end of this saga raises a host of troubling questions. The CNN.com report on the day it happened, September 18, 1996, well captures the general tenor of the reporting.
“Clinton Declares Utah Canyons A National Monument,” reads the headline.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer reported that using the Grand Canyon as “his picture perfect backdrop,” Clinton “unilaterally” declared a new 1.7 million-acre national monument seventy miles away in southern Utah.
“We’re saying, very simply, our parents and grandparents saved the Grand Canyon for us,” Clinton told the cheering crowd. “Today, we will save the Grand Escalante Canyons and the Kaiparowitz Plateaus of Utah for our children.”
To his credit, Blitzer did not shy from the implicit controversy. He reported the people of Utah were “furious.” They claimed it was “a land grab” by the federal government “at the economic expense of the state.”
The rationale for the move puzzled Blitzer as Clinton already had the environmental vote, and there were many safer gestures he could have made with less than two months left in the campaign.
Blitzer raised the issue of coal, perhaps $1 trillion worth of clean, low-sulfur coal that would never be mined. Just the year before Utah had approved an environmental-friendly mining contract on the Kaiparowitz Plateau with Dutch-owned Andalex Resources.
Said Clinton of this grand environmental gesture, “We can’t have mines everywhere, and we shouldn’t have mines that threaten our national treasures.”
No, not everywhere, just in Indonesia. In a stroke of the pen, Clinton had handed the Riadys a monopoly on the world’s supply of low-sulfur coal.
One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to connect the dots between Utah and Indonesia. The FBI had made the connection as well. Consider the following field notes from an FBI interview with Huang:
Huang laughed in response to questions concerning j. riady’s interest in Utah coal restrictions. j. riady’s coal interests were minimal. Indonesia had significant infrastructure problems which prohibited the development of its coal resources.
Huang was lying. The Riadys had a powerful interest, and they would exploit it for all it was worth. In fact, at the Paiton plant, the price of the coal exceeded the price of the electricity produced.
In 1999, PLN, the state Indonesian power company, sued the Clinton administration. Its attorneys charged that U.S. officials knew the Paiton power plant contract to be awash in “corruption, collusion, and nepotism” from the beginning.
By this time, though, James Riady had fled the country, and Huang had pled the fifth.
Worse, Huang’s immediate boss, Charles Meissner, and Meissner’s boss, Ron Brown, had died in the “inexplicable” crash of an Air Force CT-43A on a Croatian hillside.
Yes, Fred, watch out for the calamitous.
======================================== What Fred Thompson Knows About Hillary Clinton - Part 2 of 2
Last week I documented some of the consequences of what Senator Fred Thompson called “the most corrupt political campaign in modern history,” namely the Clinton re-election campaign of 1996.
In 1997, Thompson chaired the Senate committee that investigated the campaign. Here is how that campaign began.
Following the Democratic electoral debacle in November 1994, President Clinton’s approval rating dipped to an unnervingly low 45 percent. The rating of his most likely Republican opponent, Senate majority leader Bob Dole, was cresting at 62 percent. Bill Clinton was staring down the barrel of a one-term presidency.
“I can tell you,” DNC finance chair Terry McAuliffe would later testify, “the political mood at the time clearly was that he had no chance of winning again.”
The Clintons had few options but to fight on. In early December 1994, in the White House treaty room, Bill and Hillary Clinton held a secret meeting with the one man who could possibly turn the tide of battle, political consultant Dick Morris.
More than a decade earlier, Morris had helped Clinton regain the governor’s office after an embarrassing post-first term defeat. In 1990, however, Morris and the Clintons split over an incident that reveals both Bill Clinton’s capacity for violence and Hillary’s for covering it up.
To date, Hillary Clinton has shown no inclination to share unpleasant truths. Living History, her autobiography, is almost as free of conflict as her book on Socks the Cat. She casually attributes Morris’s refusal to work on the disastrous 1994 congressional campaign to his problems with their staff.
In an open letter to Hillary Clinton in National Review Online, Morris offered a more vivid accounting of the events of 1990 that caused their split.
Worried he was falling behind his opponent in a primary campaign, Clinton “verbally assaulted” Morris for not giving the campaign more time. When the offended Morris turned and stalked out of the room, Clinton followed.
“Bill ran after me,” Morris writes, “tackled me, threw me to the floor of the kitchen in the mansion and cocked his fist back to punch me. You [Hillary] grabbed his arm and, yelling at him to stop and get control of himself, pulled him off me.”
Morris also volunteers that when the story threatened to surface again during the 1992 presidential campaign, Hillary told him to “say it never happened.”
Desperate times, however, called for desperate measures, and so Morris was summoned once again, this time by Hillary herself. At their first get-together, Morris insisted on weekly meetings thereafter, and the president agreed. For the first month, Hillary attended the meetings and then strategically withdrew.
As Morris relates, Clinton would share Morris’s advice and the polling data with Hillary, and “she read every word.” When he encountered Hillary, Morris adds, “She showed familiarity with every bit of it.”
The rules of the game, which had been only loosely followed to this point, were about to be scrapped altogether. In a more disciplined fashion than they had done anything else since coming to town, the Clintons set about getting re-elected.
From the beginning, Morris insisted on one strategy above all others: filling the airwaves with TV ads early and relentlessly. “Week after week, month after month,” says Morris, “from early July 1995 more or less continually until election day in ‘96, sixteen months later, we bombarded the public with ads.”
In the 1992 campaign, the unknown Clinton spent roughly $40 million on advertising. In the 1996 campaign, the incumbent Clinton would spend $85 million. Morris also insisted on a “virtually unlimited budget” for polling, and he got that too.
With the DNC broke and demoralized after the 1994 rout, raising this much money was not easy. “For the Democrats,” McAuliffe noted, “it was not a very optimistic time.” The lack of enthusiasm for Clinton even within his own party put the onus for raising money on the White House itself.
“You don’t know, you don’t have any remote idea,” Clinton would tell Morris, “how hard I have to work, how hard Hillary has to work, how hard Al [Gore] has to work to raise this much money.”
The bulk of the money went to TV. An adept strategist, Morris understood the sympathies of the media and devised a strategy to accommodate their willful innocence. It was painfully simple, and it worked.
To achieve “relative secrecy” he chose not to advertise at all in New York City or Washington DC and only occasionally in Los Angeles. “If these cities remained dark,” recalls Morris, “the national press would not make an issue out of our ads—of this we felt sure.”
“No one in the media really caught on,” confirms Robert Woodward in his book on the election, The Choice. The reason they did not catch on, as Morris well knew, is because they did not want to.
The story the media chose not to watch unfold was an extraordinary one. The Thompson Committee does a concise job of summarizing what that story was:
The president and his top advisors decided to raise money early for his re-election campaign. To accomplish their goal, the president and his top advisors took control of the DNC and designed a plan to engage in a historically aggressive fund-raising effort, utilizing the DNC as a vehicle for getting around federal election laws. The DNC ran television advertisements, created under the direct supervision of the president, which were specifically designed to promote the president’s re-election.
In the afterword to the paperback edition of The Choice, Woodward had the grace to admit he “vastly underestimated the significance of money” in the campaign. He notes too that the Clinton ads themselves “were deceptive enough to be appalling.”
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas, primary author of Back from the Dead, also admits that “one of the great underreported stories” of the campaign was how the Democrats, not the Republicans, engaged in “the really effective negative campaigning.”
Neither Thomas nor Woodward explains why, during the campaign itself, no one in the major media chose to tell the true story. An unprecedented series of untruthful, arguably illegal ads, which reached about 125 million Americans three times a week, should have been obvious to the media and scandalous from the outset.
The scandal would have exploded if the media had asked where the money was coming from to pay for the ads—Red China, for instance--and how it was being raised. They chose not to. They collectively shuddered at the thought of giving hated House speaker Newt Gingrich a Republican president.
Expect even less from the media in 2008—and even more of the same from Hillary.
You apparently haven't seen the FR poll.
I'm a Fredhead, but this is just silly. Things don't look good for Fred at this point. I will continue supporting him (unless and until he drops out), but it takes smokin' something to make this kind of statement.
What, pray tell, exactly is a fredtard?
well, i for one will with hold judgement until after super tuesday......
Fredtard eh? You know that you’re not going to endear yourself or your candidate by insulting Fred or his supporters. Why don’t you grow up?
ANOTHER CLINTOON PRESIDENCY TRULY SCARES ME.
Thanks.
I think...
odd, I missed the part where you stand up on a daily basis and denounce freepers who call us paultards - Im just sharing the love
Now it is really funny...
“This article connects the dots on the question of why the MSM has been against Fred Thompson from the beginning. He knows too much about the Clinton machine to risk open battle in the general election. He has heard inside information about the inner workings and is bold enough to use it in against Hillary. He had to be stopped before the dark secrets are revealed...”
Amen to this!
To equate those with a low IQ because of a fact of birth instead of being dumb by choice is an insult to the mentally challenged, who are God’s special gift.
its a term of endearment for fed supporters whove hit paul threads most obnoxiously with same
I see what you mean. We have a bunch of people acting like they’re in jr. high on here. They should just go and support their own candidate, and leave Fred’s supporters alone.
They seem to have a neurotic need to come on all these threads and howl about how terribly he’s doing, he’s dropping out, he’ll never win, and that we all need to face facts/reality, etc. They’re not doing their own candidate any good by going on here scolding, guilt-tripping and lecturing Fred’s supporters into going along with them!
"Fredtards" - my kids could do better than that in gradeschool.
Barring the calamitous, former United States Senator from Tennessee, Fred Thompson, will be the next president of the United States. “
I suppose possible calamaties that could derail this prediction of last summer turned out to be unleashing Fred Thompson on the campaign trail. If he had never announced that he was running, he might well have won.
But it was all downhill after that.
Now where did I do that? That’s funny too, maybe I have a body double or something/s? Even if I were to say something like that, isn’t it kind of childish of you to go along with me?
I have never, ever called Ron Paul’s followers anything of the sort. I can’t stand it when people like you do that, so I’m not going to go there. I’m going to defend my candidate whether you like it or not, because it wouldn’t serve my candidate to get into childish name-calling battles, thank you!
How many caucus/primaries has Paul beat Fred in?
And how many has Fred beat Paul in?
Aren’t they about even now?
youre candidate just quit LOL
dead even - cept youre boy just bailed (prayers for his mother)
you are right - my apologies - I should know better
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.