 |  |
| |
| Home • Latest • Archive • Search | |
| |
| |
| Home • Latest • Archive • Search | |
 |  |
 search engine by Netcreations |
by David J. Gonzo
Monday, July 5, 1999 --- New York (APJP) -- Pity the ultra-right-wingers who wanted Bill Clinton out of office at any cost.
They are still smarting from Clinton's exoneration by the Senate on the phony, trumped-up charges that thirteen neo-fascist House "Managers" tried to force down their throats. They just can't live with the fact that the horrible Bubba remains in the White House.
All they have been able to do -- on ultra-conservative Web sites, on hate radio, in minor-league 'zines -- is lash out in frustration and rage. They call the President names, say that he is not "their" President, continue to pedal myths of massive criminal conspiracies, even paint him as a rapist using the implausible claims of a woman with her own closet full of skeletons -- then lash out at a public that refuses to buy her story.
Most of the Clinton-haters remain in incredulous denial. To them, everything is in black and white -- and the rest of the world is wrong.
And now, one of them has gone over the deep end -- Christopher Ruddy.
You may remember him as the flaky "investigative" pseudojournalist who wrote a book purporting to "prove" that Vincent Foster was murdered -- a book chock-full of half-truths, omissions, silly speculation and errors -- and the favorite writer of one Richard Mellon Scaife, the billionaire widely acknowledged as the Daddy Whorebucks of the "get Clinton" movement. Ruddy's been called a "conspirawacko" by many following the Clinton "scandals."
In his latest excuse for a major "investigative" exposè, Ruddy claims that William Jefferson Clinton was involved in a conspiracy with none other than (brace yourselves) Kenneth Winston Starr!
Ruddy, one of the "fools for scandal" who insisted -- despite the overwhelming proliferation of evidence to the contrary -- that the Whitewater fiasco was a massive criminal conspiracy involving the Clintons, claims that Ken Starr intentionally "botched" the investigations of the President in yet another lame effort by the writer to pin the Whitewater "scandal" on Bill and Hillary.
And, once again, Ruddy selects his "facts" in an attempt to fool the public and reinvigorate the faith of Clinton-hating "true believers" in the "criminality" of the Clintons -- while ignoring fact after fact and an overwhelming pattern and practice of conduct that prove Starr was going to any lengths necessary to find the Clintons guilty of something, of anything.
But what more should you expect of a man who is such a poor fact-checker that he misspells the name of independent Counsel Donald Smaltz?
Ruddy sees collusion between Starr and Clinton in the plea deal granted to Webb Hubbell. Obviously, he has ruled out the possibility that the case against Hubbell just might have been so problematic that the plea bargain was the best outcome Starr's office could hope for -- and that the evidence that did emerge with regard to Hubbell, the Rose Law Firm and the various deals involving the Clintons pretty well shows that Bill and Hillary were the victims, not the perpetrators, of a scam.
And Ruddy pulls out his "trump card" -- one Nolanda Hill, reputed to be the ex-lover of Ron Brown, to "corroborate" his claim.
Who does he think he's fooling? Ruddy claims that Hill said that " 'when Starr was appointed, they were opening champagne bottles in the White House, they were celebrating' " and that Starr was under the White House's thumb.
Right, Chris -- as if this woman knew exactly what was on Bill and Hillary's mind, let alone the late Ron Brown's.
And Ruddy twists the words of Hill to revive the idiotic notion that Clinton was behind the death of Brown, who died in a plane crash while on a trade mission.
Ruddy even undermines his own argument in a list of bullet points detailing "how Starr has betrayed the American people and his oath as an independent counsel." Here is just one example: "Starr trashed a fundamental principle of American jurisprudence: equality before the law. Starr created a new and bizarre standard for deciding when to issue indictments. Under Starr's new formulation, ordinary citizens and lower-level officials needed little evidence of wrongdoing to warrant an indictment. But Starr raised the bar absurdly high for White House officials."
Absurdly high? Starr issued dozens upon dozens of subpoenas of White House employees and officials in a hunt for -- sex! Does Ruddy assume that simply saying something makes it so?
He must -- to which this writer says that Ruddy might want to seek professional help for what looks to be delusional behavior.
it is indeeed sad, but as I said at the outset of the piece, pity the ultra-right-wingers who wanted Bill Clinton out of office at any cost. Including their own credibility and sanity.
| |