American Politics Journal -- Bob Woodward: Misleading us again.

Bob Woodward
Misleading Us Again?
by Mac MacArthur

Bob Woodward, a good guy mislead, or a bad guy misleading?
Friday, November 14th, 1997 -- NEW YORK -- Well, you can't say this week wasn't amusing. Saddam says he's kicking us out because we're spies trying to kill him. Congress-nut Dan Burton's calling campaign finance clown Johnny Chung to testify., a guy who'll simply "invoke the 5th." Janet Reno is supposedly red-faced again, though for no reason. Senator Orrin Hatch came out as the racist he truly is. The President and Vice-President were grilled by the FBI. And the Pentagon is salivating -- hoping the President can convince us Iraq must fall.

My opinion? Saddam's probably right. So what? Dan Burton is a bigger clown than Chung. Ms. Reno ought not to worry about China trying to influence U.S. elections. Orrin Hatch ought to be recalled -- just for fun. And the President should launch a simultaneous attack against Iran and Iraq to
1) out-strut George Bush, and
2) make sure Iran doesn't overrun the Middle East -- 'cause that's what'll happen without Saddam keeping the Ayatollah in check.

Think about it.

But let me turn to Mr. Bob Woodward, in my opinion the most highly overrated investigative reporter on earth.

Now, don't get your hackles up. Woodward did sort of a great job in the seventies. But remember, that was his last big hurrah, and his ascension to journalistic sainthood was largely the doing of "Deep Throat," who fed Woodward everything he wrote. The congratulations should have gone to, and remained with, the Washington Post Company, who had the courage to print Woodward's -- I mean "Deep Throat's" -- revelations.

Woodward, since then, has had it easy. For decades he's tried to reinvent himself and return to glory. Now, he's after Clinton -- but doing only a fair job. His books aren't selling well. His stories seem reaching at best.

His latest story, in today's Washington Post, can only be sub-titled "A pitiful resurrection of Fred Thompson."

Woodward seems to think that new evidence, which "might" link some Chinese people who were close to the White House back to Beijing, is a big story.

Well, maybe it is to him -- but I smell a rat.

I don't think Janet Reno is as upset with the FBI because they didn't tell her about alleged, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated "facts" as Woodward was led to believe -- and has now attempted to lead us to believe. Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh are smart enough to know that whether or not China tried to influence us is, in itself, a yawn. It's who let them -- which policymakers -- that is important.

Important if there were some, that is.

You might recall I've asked repeatedly, "Where's the beef?" with respect Fred Thompson's charge that China was attempting to influence U.S. congressional elections. My snide inquiry wasn't because I thought Beijing was sitting on the bench in this game, but because foreign government influence-peddling and congressional-meddling is a full-time outrageous Washington pastime. Other nations spend a lot of money and get a lot of nothing, according to our Congress.

The Prez with Johnny "The Wad" Chung

Foreign governments spend about $150 million a year just maintaining their embassies and consulates in the Capitol and around this nation. They don't do it just for show, do they? They spend another $100 million entertaining elected officials, cabinet secretaries, staffers and the press. People will consider murder for a ticket to a British Embassy party.

Foreign "threats" including Norway, Spain and New Zealand have staff who try to influence votes on the House and Senate floor. Diplomats from Lichtenstein, Sweden and Iceland lobby the President -- inside the White House!

It's such a scandal.

Who knows what support Austria, Germany, and Iceland send in legal campaign cash through U.S. subsidiary corporations owned by their home-country multinationals?

A better question is, "Who cares?"

Face it, folks. The U.S. is the biggest market in the world. It's also the most powerful military stronghold on earth. What nation wouldn't try to influence our policies? What nation wouldn't try to get a "friend" elected to Congress and thereby seal its friendship with America?

One hopes the FBI will search the French Embassy for documents showing it's finagling with U.S. elections. After all, look what they did for Jefferson and Ben Franklin, and let's not forget who financed the Revolutionary War.

It's monstrous.

Now comes China. Wondering why she isn't a "player?" She watches the "allies" and the "foes" lined up at the American trough getting foreign aid, most-favored-nation trade status, entry into NATO, tariff benefits, heavy-duty military contracts, pentagon base rentals, forgiven billion dollars loans, free passes to Disneyland. What are they to think?

Let's play, they say. And, they probably did.

But the real question, Mr. Woodward, is not whether China, or any foreign government, tries to influence U.S. policy. They do. Believe me. Case closed. The question we should be asking ourselves is whether our elected officials are "on the market". Isn't that the proper inquiry? If congress couldn't be bought; if all presidents were above taking money for favors; and if all federal employees were completely trustworthy we'd have nothing to worry about.

Newt Gingrich takes a few million in "soft money" from Iran to underwrite his bogus college courses. So what? We know he'll just tell Khomeini and the mullahs to go $#%@ themselves when they demand his vote. So what if Dick Gephardt got a few thousand from Tahiti? Does that mean he'll vote yes on a bill annexing that Island to the United States? No way. Gephardt's not for sale. Gingrich is aboveboard. The world is at peace.

Yet we hear every day, from both sides of the aisle, that Congress does take campaign money from corporations -- billions -- but that this money never, ever, ever buys a vote. Not on your life! What do we think they are, those 500 or so elected guys and gals -- crooks? No way, Jose.

So what's all the fuss?

Or maybe Woodward is on the right track, simply forgetting to get off at the right station?

You bet. Because it doesn't mean squat if China was funneling billions through Pat Robertson to control the Christian Coalition. If Ralph Reed didn't want to be controlled he wouldn't be. Ralph is a collector, not the collected.

So Johnny Chung will waltz into the Burton Committee this morning and plead the fifth. Burton will then use the constitution against the White House alleging that Chung is a "Chinese agent" aided by the foolish Maria Hsia, Charlie Trie and Clinton "ol' buddy" Jim Riady --all of them in the Chinese CIA, all of them effecting and affecting U.S. policy. Burton will go further, accusing the President of hosting Chinese President Jiang because he owed it to Chung et al. Burton will claim that Madeleine Albright is "soft on China" because the White House owed them so much in campaign cash. He'll be suspicious that the Clintons eat take-out from Washington Chinese restaurants. He'll mutter to himself for all to hear -- "Whew, isn't it great we crucified Bill Lan Lee?"

Janet Reno

So what do we owe Bob Woodward for his latest incomplete story?

Not much. He criticizes Reno and the FBI for not arming Republicans with more petty inconsequential trivia with which to pillory the White House. If Woodward thinks the President is up for sale in Shanghai, he ought to say it. But it doesn't appear he even thought of that angle. He's too busy trying to sell more books that no one reads. (Well, okay -- I read them.)

Do I seem un-American? I'm anything but. I love my country. But witnessing this ludicrous money chase -- now led by Bob Woodward, whose credentials seem more and more questionable -- is just too much.

Does Woodward ever consider that maybe Louis Freeh didn't want to reveal his information on China? Does Woodward imagine that the FBI might be able to ferret out those elected officials (if there are any) who ARE for sale to Beijing or Geneva? No. because if he did, he would have shut up and waited to see what "popped out of the box."

Instead, Woodward and his publishers are interested in keeping the story going, yet uninterested in exploring the truth or having any of their elected friends fingered as co-conspirators. That truth is simple. Everyone wants a piece of America. They'll do almost anything to get it. They only thing standing in their way is the trust we place in our officials. Nothing else will guarantee our freedom. If politicians are crooks then we'll lose. If not, we'll win.

We are winning so far, aren't we?

So Mr. Woodward, stop looking for the enemies without, and start looking for the traitors within. Without them, it doesn't make a bit of difference what China does.

Does it?

PS: For those of you keeping track of my "debate" with right wing Tucker Carlson, read this courtesy of Dave "Doctor" Gonzo:

I say CONGRATULATIONS, TUCKER -- but you should have done Mullen, too!

From Today's New York Post:

Drinks "accidentally" flew at the American Spectator's annual dinner Wednesday night when two enemies in the right-wing camp went on the warpath. Guests at the magazine-sponsored dinner -- held at the Sheraton Washington Hotel and featuring such headliners as Robert Bork and Rush Limbaugh -- say the Weekly Standard's Tucker Carlson opened the waterworks by pouring a drink on Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform.
Carlson recently attacked Norquist in a New Republic story, leading Norquist to hit back with a nasty retaliatory letter. With the bad blood still boiling, Carlson walked onto the hotel's stage toward evening's end as guests were mingling in the thinned-out crowd. Positioned above and behind unknowing Norquist, who was on ground level chatting with guests, Carlson "accidentally let his Bloody Mary pour out of his glass on top of Norquist," said one source. Added another, "The celery stuck behind Grover's ear, making him look like a conservative Carmen Miranda." After a half-hearted apology, Carlson left.
But our spies say soon Norquist's loyal colleague, Audrey Mullen, tracked Carlson to the Sheraton's bar where "she confronted him and he explained again that it was an accident," said one witness. "So Audrey said, "Well maybe this is an accident, too,' and threw her full glass of wine in his face. People jumped between them, as Tucker told her, "I would never hit a woman.'" Carlson had no comment. Norquist says Carlson's stage trick was no accident: "Right after it happened, a crewman from "60 Minutes' told everyone, "You should know, he did it on purpose.' If you're going to pull a stunt like that and lie about it, you better not do it in front of a "60 Minutes' crew member."