"I was right to stand and fight."

"I was right to stand and fight"
Clinton defends his stance
But are his words a prediction... or a warning shot?

by David J. Gonzo

Tuesday, November 9, 1999 -- Las Vegas (APJ) -- This morning's Washington Post ran an article on the series of interviews that President Clinton has recently granted. The article chose to quote the President's replies to questions surrounding the most controversial and touchy aspects of his presidency.

Of course, most of Clinton's interviews -- plus an online "chat" held last night -- have been obscured by larger corporate media's incessant flogging of Microsoft monopoly woes and the presidential horse race. And all of the presidential reportage seems to have missed important aspects of the stories. The brouha, ha over Al Gore's so-called "debacle" concerning his hiring of feminist author Naomi Wolf as an advisor missed the important point of a major shift in gears at the Gore campaign along with the fact that it's way too early to analyze a long-term strategic shift. And the wringing of hands over Governor George W. Bush's failure to name three out of four world leaders in a sneak-attack "pop quiz" given him by a Boston reporter glossed over the fact that he seems to approve of military coups as a means to bring stability to democratically elected governments.

Start reading between the lines of the Post story. Once again, the most overrated newspaper in the land has missed signs and portents of not only possible but probable news to come.

Instead, Harris chose to hone in on Clinton's personal failings in the seamiest of ways. For example, Harris made sure that the words "Monica S. Lewinsky" appear prominently in the first sentence. He also made much of an exchange between Clinton and Newsleak magazine's weasel-correspondent Jonathan Alter. Alter asked Clinton if he might see a shrink after he leaves office -- and Harris essentially joined Alter in helping to perpetuate the hard-right, damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't "speculation" concerning personal counseling (spiritual or otherwise) that Clinton has sought to help set private matters right. The spin: Clinton's a sicko that we should hate for being a sicko.

Of course, he downplayed Clinton's nose-tweaking rejoinders to Alter, which this writer is sure must have infuriated the slick pundit.

The article also "played up" Clinton's "resentment" while making mention of Clinton's "belief that history will vindicate him." It also gave short shrift -- as has most of the media for the last year -- to the fact that Clinton admits his shortcomings and continues to express his regrets.

And Harris -- along with most of the press -- missed the point of much of what Clinton is saying, and has been for the last couple months. One hint comes in one sentence quoting Clinton: "I made a personal mistake, and they spent $50 million trying to ferret it out and root it out, because they had nothing else to do, because all the other charges were totally false--bogus, made up, and people were persecuted because they wouldn't commit perjury against me."

Now, I've had a chance to see and read a few of these interviews in full. And I know that I'm not alone in noticing that Clinton is saying that the matter of the impeachment attempt is not over -- by a long shot.

Sure, there are plenty of references to his legacy and how history will "see" him and his opponents. It is Clinton's repeated reference to bogus charges that now have a number of his fiercest opponents a bit more than concerned. Thanks to the inexcusable blundering of our Supreme Court, Clinton may for the time being find himself in a position where he can't name names -- at least while he's in office, where he might be subject to a civil suit.

So let's pause to do a little simple math here -- add to the above something Clinton said during a news conference that he will have "much, much more to say" on the matter of the so-called "scandals" once he is out of office.

Many in the press thought that Clinton was referring to the memoirs he will pen. And there's no denying that Clinton plans to do that -- and that certain pundits are already casting them in the light of a "defense" of his conduct.

But more and more people in the Beltway (the Washington Post apparently being oblivious) think that Clinton has been keeping his powder dry in advance of going on the offensive -- and believe that he and his legal team have a lot more powder than he is letting on to.

There's also increasing speculation that Clinton may not have to wait until after his term of office ends to see some comeuppance. Give some thought to these two bits of news that seem to have come in under the media radar:

The Washington, DC Bar association -- who are reportedly conducting an investigation into the conduct of Clinton's chief antagonist, former independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr -- have just elected a new president, a Beltway heavyweight named John W. Nields. You may have heard of one of his clients -- a certain Webster Hubbell, from whom Starr reportedly tried to suborn perjury.

Meanwhile, Starr's appearance last week before the Fairfax (Va.) County Chamber of Commerce created a small buzz in the Beltway. Yes, there was the standard "blame Clinton, blame Reno, blame everyone but me" boilerplate Starr has adopted, but there was also a comment regarding his new status as "Mr. Mom." Mr. Mom? What's going on there? He didn't just plow back into his full-time job as a seven-figure-a-year mouthpiece at Kirkland & Ellis? Are the clients -- even the ones that traditionally ally themselves with conservative politics -- a little antsy about having the hopelessly conflicted, learn-on-the-job, politically motivated ex-prosecutor represent their interests?

Or could things be getting a little hot for "Fudge" Starr in the near future? If so, it should come as no surprise that Clinton is talking vindication more than a year before he leaves office -- he may just see a good part of it during his term.