High life
Defining ethics
Taki
New York eople are gasping over Taki's outra- geous remarks on the next family to occupy the White House. In the London Spectator he writes of Hillary Clinton that hers will be the "most powerful influence by a wife in the history of the United States. In fact, it could be the first time that an assassin might try the wife rather than the chief." Why is a wife's influence on her successful husband still looked upon so negatively?' Thus wrote syndicated gossip columnist Liz Smith back in the good old days of 1992. But for once the poor little Greek boy turned out to be wise. This was sup- posed to be the 'most ethical administra- tion ever', according to the Draft Dodger. Well, I'm afraid it depends on how one defines ethics. A reptilian creature like Sid- ney Blumenthal, whose every word is poi- son, has an obviously different interpretation of ethical behaviour than, say, the sainted editor of The Spectator. I knew we were in for it as soon as I saw people like Tina Brown and Sid Blumen- thal doing a Dr Goebbels during the 1992 campaign. Talk about a vast conspiracy.
Yet the greatest liar and fraud ever to inhabit the White House, aided and abet- ted by a bunch of crooks that make the Cosa Nostra look like Shirley Temple, claims a right-wing conspiracy is out to get him. It is a bit like Hitler complaining towards the end that the German people had let him down. That his generals had conspired against him. Think about it for a minute. Where could this right-wing con- spiracy be located? The three major televi- sion networks are controlled by liberals and leftists who fire anyone suspected of being anti Clinton and Gore. ABC recently fired their longest-serving correspondent, Bob Zelnick, for signing a contract with a con- servative publisher about Al Gore.
CNN is controlled by the loony Ted Turner, Hanoi Jane's man. Need I say more? The editor of the New Republic, Michael Kelly, was fired outright by the lefty rabbi that owns the magazine — with his wife's money, needless to say — for let- ting out too much of the truth about Clin- ton and Gore. Ditto for Michael Isikoff and the Washington Post. Isikoff believed Paula Jones.
There is National Review, the Weekly Standard and the American Spectator, all three opinion magazines with at best one fortieth of the circulation of, say, Time or Newsweek. These three along with a few brave small newspapers have carried the fight to expose the truth against the Ameri- can version of a Lavrenti Beria admini- stration.
Here is the essence of the charges: a small group of politically connected Arkansans, starting with Clinton and his wife, abused power and privilege and conspired in a series of thefts that ultimately caused the failure of a bank at a cost to the taxpayer of 58 million big ones. This is all it was. The reason it has got so complicated now is even simpler. Facing exposure, the Draft Dodger and his thieves engaged in a long campaign of obstruction of justice, perjury, intimidation of witnesses, abuse of power, illegal fund-raising in order to pay hush money — you name it, they did it.
Fortunately for them, they had hacks like the disgusting Blumenthal to carry the can. Let me give you just a small example of our very own Tina Brown's tricks, a woman whose nose could stop a Swiss clock at 30 paces. La Brown had Blumenthal report on the Clintons in the New Yorker, a bit like Martin Bormann reporting on Hitler for Der Sturmer. Sid did his grovelling so well he was finally drafted by the Draft Dodger and put on the public payroll. But Tina continues her tricks. Her latest victim is Linda Tripp, the woman who blew the whistle on the Groper. Very briefly: a New Yorker hack by the name of Jane Mayer is given access by an assistant defence secretary to secret Pen- tagon files concerning Linda Tripp. It is called Form 171, the standard government- employment document. Mayer wrote her New Yorker report 'exposing' Tripp as hav- ing been arrested in her youth for grand larceny. But, as it turns out, this was a total invention. Tripp was the victim of a juve- nile prank, perpetrated against her. A Judge ruled her infraction, if there was one, could not be ruled as an arrest. She had filled in her government form truthfully and accurately. But the damage had been done.
Tina Brown, fresh from arse-licking the Draft Dodger at the Tony Blair dinner, had faxed advance copies to everyone in the media who is not part of the 'vast right- Wing conspiracy'. The airwaves were filled with the exposure of Linda Tripp as a criminal. Yet again the Draft Dodger had created an environment of lies and cover- ups. When faced with the truth, Brown, Mayer and the rest of those involved with blackening Tripp's name have so far ignored it and chosen to do nothing about It. The Draft Dodger should draft Brown as he did Blumenthal. Even with that nose.
Previous page
