Slick Wicker
My reply to Tom Wicker's so-called "review" of Sid Blumenthal's "The Clinton Wars" in The Nation
by Tamara Baker

Dear The Nation Staff:

In his emotion-filled "review" of Sid Blumenthal's "The Clinton Wars", Tom Wicker apparently defines "Clinton Worshiper" to mean "anyone who tries to set the record straight on Bill Clinton and his associates."

Certainly he can't use the term "Clinton Worshiper" to mean "liar" -- as Wicker well knows, there is not a single lie in that 800-page book.

So, instead, since he can't come right out and call Sid B. a liar, because that would itself be a lie -- and then Sid could rightfully swoop down and sue his lying ass -- he does his damndest, by using the term "Clinton Worshiper," to imply Blumenthal is lying without actually saying so in such a way as to invite legal action.

Let's turn this on its head here: for the purposes of argument, let's assume that, instead of Sid being a wild-eyed lying Clinton Worshiper, Tom Wicker has drunk Howell Raines' Kool-Aid.

That is, let's postulate that Wicker, being a loyal Timesman of long standing, has been trained by the labor of decades to automatically take the side of the NYT no matter what. He will take the Times' side even when, as in the case of Jeff Gerth's horrifically incorrect and GOP-biased reporting -- first with Whitewater, then with Wen Ho Lee, and in both cases, with the Clintons being his ultimate targets -- the Times is committing journalistic malfeasances.

Compare Jeff Gerth's and the NYT's overall truthfullness track record concerning the Clintons to that of Sid Blumenthal, Joe Conason, Gene Lyons, and the post-1998 David Brock.

Guess what?

The paper of record loses, and loses big.