Sunday, Feb. 11, 2001 -- NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (APJP) -- Pity poor Usurper Boy "Shrubya" Bush.

He's been doing everything to push his unwanted tax cuts -- but the press, especially right-wing cable news, has been bashing the last honestly-elected President, Bill Clinton, in their 24-7 news cycle over the Marc Rich pardon.

Never mind the fact that Rich was the target of prosecutorial abuse by Rudy Giuliani, who misused RICO laws to torment the billionaire -- and that there may have been New York politics involved.  Never mind that some cable news reporters and pundits have been caught in a lie when they said Rich fled the country -- when in fact he was indicted while he was in Switzerland.  Never mind that many people think Denise Rich is his wife -- when in fact they are divorced.  All that matters is the ratcheted-up "appearance" of a quid-pro-quo (Rich's ex-wife, a big-time Democratic player, paid many visits to the White House and has given a generous donation to the Clinton library) and insinuations that a crime was committed by Denise Rich in that she wisely elected to use her Fifth Amendment guarantees rather than face corrupt weasel Dan "Melonhead" Burton and his Starr Chamber (a.k.a. the House Government Deform and Overlord Committee), featuring Burton's wacky blackshirt sidekick Bob "Proud to Be a Black Republican" Barr.

And remember -- we have not heard word one from Denise or Marc Rich. 

We actually think that Clinton, one of the sharpest politicians out there, should testify and make monkeys out of Burton and Barr -- and we believe that there is more to this story than the press is telling involving new and troubling revelations tied to the Iran-Contra scandal.

The other upside: Little Smirkster's plans to promote his risky tax scam throughout the last week were eclipsed.  He was hoping to make them item one on the Sunday Blab-fests.

Instead, the pundits tripped over themselves looking to bash Clinton.  It was genuinely embarrassing -- especially when creepy Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter dropped a massive stink bomb during FAUX News Sunday. 

FAUX New Sunday
Specter plays the impeachment card -- has he lost it completely?

How does FAUX News manage to get their "eye candy" anchorette Laurie Dhue out of bed on a Sunday morning to do the headlines before Tony Snow and his Gang of Wrong-Wingers start spinning?

Guest one: Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld.  Question one: how could a U.S. submarine collide with a Japanese fishing boat?  Neither Tony nor "Rump" Rumsfeld mentioned the fact that this incident has instantly exacerbated already bad relations between the U.S. and Japan over American armed forces -- the Japanese are still rightfully upset about American servicemen raping women at Okinawa.

Tony turned to financing of the armed forces.  Tony pushed spending on equipment (defense contractors including GE advertise on FNS); Rumsfeld wants the "quality of life" to be fixed, and then -- catch this -- said the Bogus POTUS was going to "engage his brain" to determine which programs and equipment would stay or go before "opening the taxpayers' wallet."

We roared with laughter!  Engage his brain?  Does that involve Dick "Big Time" Cheney and defibrillation paddles?  What a joke -- everyone knows Rump wants missile defense -- even as he said that old Cold War tautologies are moot.  And Tony did say that small rapid teams are a military priority -- Rump parroted this by saying "speed and lethality" are key to the modern strategy as opposed to "nuclear exchanges."

So why the missile defense plan, asked Tony?  Rump claimed it was a "deterrent" (we'd hear a lot of this word from Colin Powell on the other Sunday shows) -- which contradicts diplomatic experts who look at the unilateral deployment of such a scheme as a potential disaster for U.S.  foreign relations.  Rumsfeld said the idea is to control a relatively small number of ballistic missiles -- and Tony brought up Bush's plan to get out of the ABM Treaty; is that still his plan?  As Rump spun about reviews, discussions and consulting our allies, it was clear he meant "You betcha!"

Rump tried to counterspin arguments that an antimissile system is too expensive and won't work as "old" arguments -- but did not do anything in the way of factual evidence to counter these issues.  He can't -- and he knows it.

Talk turned to Osama bin Laden and "cyberwarfare" -- which Tony described as emerging threats.  Bin Laden -- emerging?  Tony mentioned wingnut Bob Barr's bill that would make assassination of bin Laden types legal -- and Rump brushed it off.

Neither talked about the FACT that congressional approval of such a "law" would INCREASE attacks on Americans abroad -- and at home.

When FOX isn't bashing Clinton, they love to bash Saddam -- heck, who doesn't?  Rump built him up as a continuing threat, ginning up the rhetoric as others in the Cheney-Card Cadre had. Of course, this rhetoric is also an invitation for Saddam to step up his anti-American efforts -- after all, it's all just oil business!

One could only conclude that Rumsfeld is an obsolete Cold Warrior looking for new bogeymen now that Russia's going free market and China is moving in the same direction and far more quickly than the press is reporting and no matter how much Commie-bashing you may hear coming from the hard right.  Hey, Donald, you idiot -- the Eighties are DEAD!  Get over it!

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) was next -- Tony said that Biden's against missile defense, but when Reagan started SDI, Gorbachev said the Soviets went broke!  Biden said there are no more Soviet Unions -- and while a limited defense shield MIGHT (emphasis) be worth discussing, there are too many problems; even a limited system targeted at defined threats might cause an arms race.  Brit "Fume" Hume said this was an old argument -- similar to Pershing missiles being stationed in Europe.  Fume called it a moral issue --  but then, everything with Hume is a moral issue if he can bash liberals.  Biden had to correct Fume, pointing out that the only power that objected was the Soviet Union -- and do we really need megaton-plus "city busters" to rein in China?  "If we can stop 16 out of 20 [missiles] that come our way [and a missile war escalates], is that in our national interest?"

Good point.

Biden said that he supports a small Aegis system as opposed to "a bullet taking out a bullet."  Aegis would be applicable for Iran, Iraq and Korea.

Of course, nobody talked about the hottest nuclear hot spot -- India and Pakistan.

Mara started the FNS Clinton-bashing, chiming in on the Marc Rich pardon.  And Biden joined in, calling it "indefensible" unless it was "based on a lack of information."

Oh, please -- you mean like Rudy "RICO" Giuliani mounting a BOGUS racketeering prosecution against Rich?  There's PLENTY of information to bolster that FACT, Joe!

Fume bashed Hillary for "taking furniture" from the White House.  Biden said there is no reason for Congress to call Clinton to testify.

Here's the truth -- Congress FEARS calling Clinton.  He'd tear fresh new holes for Barr, Burton, Specter, Thompson and even Biden, who should know better.

Fume continued to bash Clinton over gifts and furnishings -- but Biden suddenly grew a spine and said that if the Clintons paid for everything, Fume STILL wouldn't let it go!  Way to go, Joe!  But don't forget the TRUTH -- Reagan and Bush Daddy got far more in gifts than the Clintons, and both now look NOT to have been entitled to many of them.

Where's the "liberal" PRESS ON that?

Next up was Arlen Specter, who will be holding his own hearings into the Rich pardon.  Tony played up slanted FAUX "O-spin-ion" poll numbers.  Tony asked OUTRIGHT if Clinton took a bribe.  Specter insinuated that there's evidence, and Denise Rich refuses to testify.  Specter wants Clinton to testify.  Tony said that Specter wants to give Denise immunity -- what about Clinton?  Specter kept playing up Denise Rich pleading the fifth -- which is what people under attack in a political witch-hunt do.  Should Mrs. Clinton recuse herself from the hearings?  Yes, said Specter, claiming that a spouse should not be involved.  Tony went after the issue of e-mails, and Specter wants them, along with financial records of Clinton's foundation and library.

Tony then brought up the key issue -- Rich was the target of an abusive prosecution -- then played up the FAKE New York Post story that would somehow nullify a pardon.  Puh-leeeze -- you can't nullify a Presidential pardon.  Specter LIED when he said this Presidential power is NOT sacrosanct.  It is, Arlen.

Tony played a comment by Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is against amending the Constitution to institute unnecessary checks and balances on pardons.  Specter whined about "sound bites."  Tony, doing his best to jack up this latest fake scandal, asked if there were other "questionable" pardons.   Hume said there were.

Oh, boy -- expect payback by the Democrats in the form of new questions about Bush Daddy's Iran-Contra pardons.  And... wasn't Marc Rich trading oil during the Iran-Contra scandal?  What if he drops the dime on unindicted and unpardoned Iran-Contra figures?

Specter then dropped the sound bite that we knew would be the most quoted of the weekend: he said that Clinton could be impeached AFTER leaving office, and implied he could lose his Secret Service protection!

This is unbelievable -- Clinton haters will stop at NOTHING to "get" Bill and, without protection, see him killed.  Specter is now fanning the flames of hatred for a guy who was doing his level best to help people, who was MORE popular than Reagan upon leaving office, and whose agenda was far more in line with mainstream America than the current illegitimate occupant of the White House.

We recommend that EVERY reader contact Senator Specter and tell him that he has lost ALL credibility as a respectable politician.  He is promoting blind hate using half-baked "facts," innuendo, insinuation, and myth -- and now he looks like he's out to strip Clinton of protection from hate-mongering nutcases.

Don't e-mail Specter -- fax him at (202) 228-1229.

The Clinton-bashing continued with the new FAUX news feature, "The Ex-Files," which we ignored in its entirety.

The FINAL agenda point of the panel was touched on for about one minute -- Bush's tax cuts.  Mara said that hard-wrong GOPers pushing for bigger tax cuts are good for Smirk -- they make him look moderate (or as he'd say, "moderable").

Right -- the guy who named Southern Partisan reader and bigot John Ashcroft to head the Justice Department is a moderate.  Dream on, Mara...

Issue one: Cornered Clintons!  John McLaugh-In showed Henry Waxman bashing Marc Rich -- then claimed "Democrats are beside themselves... with bile" and that the Clintons are somehow tainting the party.

"What was the most damaging revelation?"

Of course, John is basing his biased bloviating on arguments made by lunatic Congress-Fascist Dan Burton.

Mike Barone said that Denise Rich gave a fortune to the Clinton Library and that she visited the White House a lot -- and it "looks like a bribe."  Eleanor Clift said that the confluence of big money and politics -- plus bad judgment mixed with good lawyering -- will lead to the GOP overdoing the Clinton vampire hunt and driving the stake into their own hearts.

YES!  Eleanor is right -- but for reasons NOBODY in the press is talking about.  Marc Rich is a THREAT to the GOP -- and finally, Democrats are starting to realize that.

Tony Blankley claimed that Clinton called Beth DeSoris, a DNC finance officer, and was "orchestrating" money and pardons.  How does Tony know what -- if anything -- was talked about?  Is he a psychic?  Maybe he should appear on the Psychic Friends Network instead of McLaugh-In!  John "asked" if he was over-reading the anger of Democrats and Larry O'Donnell said that Denise Rich took the fifth because she might be subject to a criminal investigation.

Well, no kidding -- with Neo-Nazi thugs like Barr, Burton and Giuliani involved, most sane people would plead the fifth.  Eleanor fired back -- "is this the whole prosecutorial team" warming up?  She bashed Sen. Specter for proposing a Constitutional amendment to rein in pardons.  Barone said that bypassing the DOJ is no surprise from "the Clintons." 

What a riot!  "The Clintons!" Mike dragged Hillary into this -- exposing his personal loathing for all to see!

John  tried to raise suspicions about other recipients of presidential pardons.  For some reason, Cap Weinberger's name did not come up.

Larry: "Jack Quinn was BOUGHT.  It took a LOT of money to BUY Jack Quinn."  No duh!  He bills more than you, Larry!

John continued his Clinton-bashing over Clinton's speech to Morgan Stanley.  Larry O'Donnell said that some golf course Clinton played on is restricted (i.e., discriminates against blacks and Jews) -- and the story will be featured in Talk magazine.  Then John turned to the Clintons being forced to return gifts.  Eleanor said that Hillary was off to a shaky start.

Have we seen the worst of the Rich pardon?  Barone: it's waxing; Eleanor; moderate waxing; Tony: waning; Larry: waxing (Mary Jo White in NY's Southern District wants to investigate); John: waxing.

Issue two: Bush's risky tax cut scheme.  Note how once again this Smirk priority took SECOND place to Clinton-bashing!  Daschle's "Lexus" press conference also figured in the fun -- but for the most part, John sounded as if he were parroting a White House press release.  Barone, an imbecilic supply-sider, said the cut would be good for the economy.  Eleanor said that the top 1% of American earners get 42% of the givebacks -- and it will hurt the economy.  John wants the top tax bracket cut.

Pointless predictions -- reinterpreted!
Barone: Rumsfeld’s DOD "will have missile defense specifics within six months" -- a space-based fiasco that will have GE and aerospace companies feeding at the trough.

Eleanor: Snippy "will veto a campaign finance reform bill, if it reaches his desk" -- but it's going to be a bitch keeping it away from the Oval office, and he may be overridden.

Tony: "... Sharon will put Shimon Peres into his cabinet" --  and his coalition will crumble within a year

O'Donnell: "Bush will, in the end, make a deal on the litigation provisions of the patients’ bill of rights" -- just like this weakened, bogus POTUS will have to compromise on everything he tries!

John: "Instead of the Israel-Palestine track, [Smirky] will pursue dominantly the Israel-Syria track" -- or, more accurately, Powell will , because the current "Administration" lacks the sophistication and prestige of Clinton's team among other nations!

Face the Nation

Colin Powell, Cheney's Secretary of State, was the first guest.  The first topic -- the sub accident off of Hawaii that resulted in the drowning of a number of Japanese students.  Reading between the lines, Powell knows he is up against a real problem here -- the U.S. military has not only killed Japanese civilians, but offered no help after the accident.

The "revelation" of the Powell interview (Schieffer seemed surprised) was that Powell has added Syria to his itinerary.  That should be no surprise -- Israel will have an easier time settling differences with Syria than the Palestinians, primarily because the Smirk team does not command the same respect that Clinton's State Department did.

Powell said that Saddam is weakened as opposed to his situation ten years ago -- but while he cannot invade his neighbors (including the ones STEALING from Iraq using diagonal drilling), they can attack.  Schieffer pointed out that sanctions are a failure and the embargo is no longer operative.  Powell immediately deflected to controlling weapons of mass destruction and the "oil-for-food" program, but finally conceded that the embargo is not working although he claimed that the alliance against Iraq is still in place.

Dream on, Colin!

Powell is insisting on Iraq allowing inspectors to verify that the nation has no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs in place.  The sanctions, said Powell, stay until the inspectors are allowed in -- huh, Colin? They're dead already!  Powell also pointed out that Iraqi opposition groups supported by the U.S. are quite separate from U.N. initiatives to settle the Iraq crisis.

Gloria Borger turned to the issue of the Marc Rich pardon -- and possible national security implications in that Ehud Barak wrote supporting the pardon.  Powell said he saw no national security implications.

Schieffer said that John DiIulio, who is going to head Smirk's Office of Forcing Your Tax Money to be Spent On Religion, said that estate tax elimination would kill charities.  Powell said he likes tax cuts.  Gosh -- we're shocked to hear that.

Powell said that a missile defense program would be part of a total deterrent strategy, and claimed that calls for setting such a system aside are "irresponsible."

Good grief -- isn't destabilizing the balance of power and encouraging nuclear proliferation irresponsible?

Joe Lieberman was the next guest -- and topic one was the Rich pardon.  Lieberman said there should be guidelines -- including notification of the DOJ.  Schieffer pointed out that Gerald Ford testified concerning a certain pardon he granted.  Lieberman conceded that this Rich matter keeps America "trapped in the past" and that it's time to deal with real issues.  Schieffer said that New York prosecutors want to look into it -- saying outright that there's a "quid pro quo."  Lieberman said that he can's blame prosecutors for being angry.

Borger brought up the ginned-up "gifts" flap -- should the Clintons take a lower profile?  Oh, please, Gloria -- it is YOU in the media who are giving this fake scandal a high profile!

Lieberman sounded more like a moderate GOPer than a Democrat on all the issues -- especially tax cuts.  Why are we not surprised?

Schieffer's last word: Al Gore is allowing his class content and students to "go on the record" -- after Gore-bashers in the press got all upset about Columbia University requiring students not to go "on record" about the course as if Gore were to blame.  Good grief -- even Schieffer, in applauding this "reversal," was piling on.

Special to Pundit Pap -- The following is a line-by-line answer to right wingnut Bill O'Reilly's latest piece of mindlessness foisted upon the public under the guise of respectable journalism (Judith's comments in red & parentheses).

How the Clintons Do It (Do what?)
By Bill O' Reilly
CNS Commentary
February 06, 2001

Do you care about the gifts the Clintons received while inhabiting the White House? I don't. (I care.)

If people want to give the first couple stuff, that's fine with me (Yes, it's fine with you because you make your living off the backs of the Clintons -- they are your shill, and without them you would still be planting tomatoes back on the farm). But if they then turn around and do the old "quid pro quo routine" and allow those gifts to influence public policy, that's when I start caring. (Can you prove it? Huh? Either prove it -- or shut up.)

The Clintons have always been bold in their dubious dealings because they fully understand the short attention span of the American public and the reticence of the elite media to investigate the powerful -- especially the powerful with whom they ideologically agree. (You don't know what the Clintons think, do, or anything else -- other than what you read in the newspapers. So where do you get off making these sort of proclamations about what they think, do or say? You have no idea about what the Clintons do, think or say, and you don't have an inside track -- so that makes you an irresponsible journalist or a liar.  Take your pick!)

Therefore Mrs. Clinton gladly accepted an $8 million dollar book advance, even though she knew full well that Senate bylaws require ethics reviews of such business transactions. However, she took the cash a few weeks before being sworn in. So, technically, she did not break any Senate rules. (So what's your point? She did nothing wrong, and you would have done the same thing and you know it! The difference between you and Hillary is that she has something to write about besides degrading someone else in order to make a living; you on the other hand are a Rupert Murdoch hired hand who prefers to manipulate and sensationalize gossip and innuendo to line YOUR pockets. You're a two bit punk with no ethics or training; therefore you have no business being in a position to influence public thinking about anything other than what you know best: tomato farming.)

What about ethics, you ask? Well you can keep asking until the earth melts, but you'll never get an answer from Hillary. And if you ask in public, you'll immediately be labeled a "Clinton hater." (Stop stealing my style, O'Reilly -- it doesn't look good on you! Asking rhetorical questions of my readers is MY style, not yours! YOUR style is to pretend to have ALL the answers!)

Everybody knows there is something fishy about the Marc Rich pardon President Clinton signed at 4 a.m. on his last day in office. Rich, a fugitive living in Switzerland, spread plenty of cash around to various charities and political people. It has been well documented that his ex-wife was a big Clinton donor. (Who is "everybody" Bill?  You don't speak for anybody other than yourself! By the way -- have you ever heard of due process, Little Hitler?)

Yet Clinton will not explain himself, saying only that the pardon was legal. He also will not explain why he wants to rent an office in Manhattan that would cost the taxpayer about $700,000 a year. Of course, once there's an outcry over something the Clintons do -- they reverse strategy. They are now returning the gifts they took during their last year in office, and Clinton's "library fund" will pay part of his office rent. (Clinton doesn't HAVE to explain himself, particularly to a Murdoch sycophant and pretend journalist punk like you!)

This "library fund" is another very questionable enterprise. The former president spent a considerable amount of time during his last year in office running around the country raising money for his presidential library, which is to be built in Little Rock, Ark. Dollar Bill has raised far more money than he needs to build the library, so now he can pay some rent in Manhattan with the "surplus." Bill Clinton loves that word "surplus." It has been very, very good to him. (There you go again, Bill -- pretending to know something "from the inside" when in fact you're nothing but an "outsider" -- which is where you'll always be!)

The point here is that the Clintons are ethically challenged, but you already knew that (Oh, really?  You don't know what I know -- and stop speaking for me or anyone else). The larger question is why they remain so popular. The answer lies in their acceptance by the elite media. Recently, The New York Times editorialized about Hillary: "We applaud her decision to forgo the gifts. We accept it as sincere. It gives her a chance to start in a new direction that will encourage voters to feel that she will put public service ahead of personal gain." (You're either an anal retentive or a control freak -- one or the other -- but where do you get off telling another business enterprise what to write about? Are you paying their bills? you Are paying for the paper and the ink? Huh? Can't hear ya, O'Reilly!)

Now, why would the Times editorial board feel that Mrs. Clinton would put public service ahead of personal gain? Is there anything on the record in the past eight years to demonstrate that? (There you go again -- redefining the issue. Problem is, that's not what the editorial board said, and you know it! That makes you a liar, Bill!)

Here's the sad record. The independent counsel said Mrs. Clinton misled the Justice Department during her testimony on Whitewater and the Travelgate affair. You may remember the missing Whitewater billing records were found in the White House residence with her fingerprints on them but she denied knowing how they got there. (I'm not sure why you have chosen to place these two separate issues in the same paragraph and attempted to "simplify" them, but you have omitted plenty, and I suppose it's because you're just too damn lazy to write a decent, well- researched, and thoughtful piece.  Guess you were too busy cranking out something -- anything -- to make money!)

Mrs. Clinton still has not explained how she made nearly $100,000 in the commodities market and, indeed, one of the last-minute pardons her husband doled out was for a convict represented by a lawyer who also represents the man who made Mrs. Clinton the 100 grand. Ah, serendipity. (Ah, how juvenile and sophomoric, Bill -- you sound more like a high school yearbook editor than a journalist! Jeez -- go back to school, grow up, and then maybe you can play with the adults!)

Hillary also snookered the system by using taxpayer money to campaign for a New York Senate seat. As first lady she cited security reasons and flew around the state on government aircraft. But when the bills rolled in she only reimbursed the taxpayer for a commercial fare. She gained huge monetary and logistical advantages by using Air Force jets. (Mrs. Clinton did not snooker anyone -- and you know it. You are a sleazy, opportunistic wanna-be looking for an entrée to society -- but Mrs. Clinton isn't going to let you in Bill, no matter how much attention you try to grab!)

Mrs. Clinton's many trips overseas also cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. The expense was staggering -- so much so that when I called the General Accounting Office for an exact accounting of the junkets, employees there actually laughed. There is no accurate expense report on Hillary's trips because the money came from many different government agencies, and there is no central oversight. Once again, Mrs. Clinton and her various entourages lived large at the expense of the taxpayer. (Bill, if you couldn't find the real figures, how do you know it was tens of millions of dollars? This is simply another instance of your lies and "factual" manipulations .  You're a real case for a psychiatrist, O'Reilly -- get help soon!)

So why would The New York Times accept Mrs. Clinton's decision to give back some gifts as an expression of "sincerity"? The answer is because Hillary and the Times' editorial people think alike on abortion, taxes and a variety of other subjects. (So what? They can think alike if they want to -- after all, they have that right under our Constitution -- or do you want to legislate thinking? You're looking and sounding more like Stalin every day, Bill!)

Ideology trumps honesty. That is the new reality in the new century: "Think like me, and I'll let you be." Has a nice ring to it, right? Might even be a fine replacement for the words that adorn the top of The New York Times: "All the News That's Fit to Print." (Whose ideology? Thanks for giving thinking readers one last example of your "outside looking in" crap that you're trying to peddle as sincere journalism.  You're just another bottom feeder, Bill.  Tell me -- how does the view from the bottom look and taste?)

Home • Latest • Archive • Search

Copyright © 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, American Politics Journal Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. Read our privacy policy. Contact us.
ISSN No. 1523-1690