Starry, Starry Night!!
"So," CNN anchorperson Bernard Shaw asked the correspondent, "would it be fair to describe the White House today as being the scene of turmoil?"
Talk about a leading question. The correspondent, however, promptly agreed. Frankly speaking, none of the footage I have seen over the past couple of days came anything close to scenes of turmoil, and let's be honest here, networks only show their most graphic and gripping footage. Right?
Well, allow me to qualify my previous statement. If there was turmoil in the White House, it was confined to journalists the briefing room. Perhaps Bernard was trying to get the correspondent to assess the mental state of White House employees. Bearing in mind that well-known rogues and anti-American despots such as Saddam Hussein, along with zillions of people "in 212 countries and territories" were probably tuned in, my advice would be for Bernard to stick to the facts and leave that sort of analysis to the experts. Subjective opinions suggesting that it is not business as usual in the White House can only hurt US interests and credibility. Let's face it, the allegations are damaging enough.
The story has captured headlines around the world. The networks here in Hong Kong tended to ignore the Paula Jones deposition last weekend. This affair is different. A few minutes ago I sat through a CBS re-broadcast on Hong Kong's TVB that claimed taped conversations with young Lewinsky identified by name at least four other White House women who've allegedly enjoyed the President's favours.
As the allegations mount, US credibility sinks. I'll bet Obi-wan Netanyahu and Yassir Arafat were tempted to whisper questions into Clinton's ear when they really should have been thinking about more important issues. These two guys probably couldn't give a hoot if the POTUS has been whipping down his zipper for every young thing that crossed his path. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if they weren't doing the same thing. The important reality is, Netanyahu and Arafat see Clinton as a catalyst for peace in the Middle East. I doubt anyone would dare dispute his success in that role.
I also seriously doubt if the reformed terrorist and the right-wing thug of Israeli politics would even raise an eyebrow if they learned that Clinton did lie under oath to protect his marriage and the reputation of a young White House intern. They're not interested, they just want him to focus his attention and broker a sustainable peace deal. And, c'mon people, these two clowns have lied often enough over more important things. Try asking Obi-wan how many strategic nuclear weapons Israel has in its arsenal? Ask him where
they got the raw materials from and where they are targetted? Better still, ask Nobel Peace Prize winner Shimon Peres - the 'father' of Israel's nuclear capability.
There is a lot of hypocrisy here too. I remember sitting in a Bangkok go-go bar discussing the President's alleged lack of sexual restraint with a respected correspondent for a rather well-known news magazine. His 'girl-friend' ignored our conversation, she was busy doing things under a cushion strategically placed in his lap. I didn't mind, a female 'acquaintance' of mine was doing the same thing. I won't mention names - that's his business and mine. If he reads this he'll know who I am talking about. Why do we set standards for people that we couldn't hope to keep ourselves?
Today, I watched a five or six-times married CNN personality discussing the latest developments. I like this guy, and I put a lot of stock in his product. In fact, I would say I admire what he does and the professional way he does it. I'd like to meet him one day and say, "Hey, guy, I've been a fan of yours for years." (Except for the inordinate amount of time you spent covering the O.J. story). The fact that he apparently has a problem with maintaining personal relationships, and an equal difficulty with keeping 'it' in his pants does not detract from his ability or credibility as a journalist.
I think the character in question will forgive me if I also say he ain't no Clint Eastwood. So what is it about him that some very attractive women find so irresistable? The same thing that attracts women to the POTUS. Power, position, prestige, and last but certainly not least, personality.
If indeed Clinton has lied about his sexual affairs, they are probably the least of the lies he has told since becoming a politician. I am surprised, therefore, why the great American media should see fit to pillory the guy for allegedly lying about his sex life, and yet ignore the fact that he is party to - or at least fully aware of - some of biggest political and military cover-ups and scams ever perpetrated on the American public.
The US media seem to be making a big deal that he allegedly lied under oath. I think you people are forgetting something important here. Clinton took an oath to tell the truth well before he sat before Paula Jones. I watched the swearing-in ceremony on television last January. Don't GOP Senators and Congressmen also have to swear an oath? And haven't they lied? Whoa, I guess we could have a bulk impeachment here, what?
Jeez, three of the most corrupt countries in Asia are recipients of more than 120-BILLION dollars in aid, brokered by the White House backed pseudo-independent International Monetary Fund. Nowhere in the the agreements does it demand that heads of state who have 'minor wives', who have sponsored genocide, or who are guilty of the most blatant corruption must give up their posts. Yet Ken Starr wants to bring down the POTUS for allegedly lying about getting his leg-over a willing and consentual White House intern. And Starr used the taxpayer funded FBI to mount a sting operation to get the 'evidence' in order to further his case against the President of the United States. This ain't Watergate, y'know.
Smell a rat? A GOP-rat?
Bottom line? I tell ya, you people have your priorities all f****d up.
Search American Politics Provided by Hot Bot |
