***THE IGNORED TRUTH ABOUT BILL CLINTON***
J. Adams
October 29th, 1996
"Mad world! Mad kings! Mad composition!"
('King John'; Act II, sc.1)
Also see info about The Death Of Vince Foster...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was just forwarded to me
by a *Spirit Of Truth* list member:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: MY DEMOCRAT FRIENDS
FROM: MARK F. (THOR) HEARNE, II
DATE: OCTOBER 11, 1996
MEMORANDUM: THE CASE FOR CHARACTER
"Bill Clinton would rather climb a tree to tell a lie than stand
on the ground to tell the truth." So said an Arkansas official
familiar with Clinton on CNN during the 1992 presidential campaign.
Democrat Senator Bob Kerry has said, "Clinton's an unusually good
liar. Unusually good. Do you realize that?" Senator Kerry did not
make this observation during the heat of a primary battle but this
past January in Esquire Magazine. Kerry is not only a Democrat
Senator but is a leader of his party and Chairman of the Democrat
Senatorial Campaign Committee. Senator Kerry knows whereof he speaks.
Forget what this says about Clinton - what does it say about us.
We are told that Clinton is leading by a significant margin in his
campaign to be our next president. (51% to Dole's 38% according to
last week's Wall Street Journal/ABC poll.) We are told that
"character" does not count. We are told that a candidate's "personal
life" has no relevance to the office of President and has no
"traction" as a political issue. Indeed, we are even made to feel
ashamed for raising the issue. (On July 15th Clinton said, "I think
character is a legitimate issue and I look forward to having that
discussion." But, whenever the issue of character is mentioned Clinton
dodges the discussion by claiming any question about his character is
a viscous, Republican-motivated "personal attack.")
Consider the current bestseller list. A list which includes an
astounding number of books about the corruption which is the Clinton
administration. Boy Clinton, Unlimited Access and Blood Sport are
only a few. But let's concede Clinton the benefit of his denials and
explanations. Even by this analysis, in the light most favorable to
Clinton and taking only those facts Clinton has acknowledged and
granting him his spin on these facts, Clinton is far and away the most
dishonest president or presidential candidate in the history of our
nation.
Assume that only 10% of what these noted authors and a career FBI
agent relate about Bill Clinton is valid. Assume that only 10% of the
drug use, rampant promiscuity, financial fraud and blatant violation
of state and federal law are accurate. Assume only 10% of the Wall
Street Journal's four-year, two-volume documentation of Whitewater,
Travelgate and FBI Filegate is not innuendo and conjecture. Assume
that Clinton's unlikely explanation of Whitewater is correct. (It
wasn't a crooked deal to funnel taxpayer guaranteed funds from a
Savings and Loan into his political campaign. Rather, we are told,
Bill and Hillary, naive in matters of money --notwithstanding
Hillary's wildly successful commodities speculation -- were duped by
the crafty McDougalls into a foolish real estate investment scheme
funded by kited checks and illegal loans. Frankly, even if valid, I
fail to find any comfort in this explanation. Do we want a sharp
crook or a financially unsophisticated waif in charge of our national
economy?)
Granted even these assumptions, impeachment should be likely,
reelection unthinkable. Consider the following:
> Richard Nixon's administration collapsed, Nixon resigned the
presidency and Chuck Colson was jailed over misuse of one FBI file and
the related cover-up. By contrast, Clinton and Craig Livingstone
spirited away FBI files on their political opponents by the hundreds
and the cover-up and stone-walling continues.
> Spiro Agnew resigned the vice-presidency over charges of tax
evasion stemming from $16,000 he accepted from contractors when he was
Governor of Maryland. By contrast, Clinton has conceded that he filed
misleading tax returns that did not properly disclose illegal loans
made by a now-defunct S&L the proceeds of which were used in his
campaign for Governor. The reason he is not charged with tax evasion
is that he released the tax returns after the statute of limitations
had expired. Equally well established is the fact that Hillary
enjoyed more than $100,000 in "profits" steered to her from
commodities trading orchestrated by Tyson Foods in exchange for
favorable treatment accorded Tyson Foods by her husband the Governor.
> Gary Hart bowed out of the 1988 presidential race because of one
wild weekend in the Bahamas and a sleep-over in Washington D.C.. By
contrast, Clinton is being sued in federal court for enticing a young
woman - against her wishes -- into his hotel room, dropping his
trousers and suggesting she engage in a lurid sex act. Clinton's
known sex-partners could form a single-file line longer than the
inaugural parade route. (At least JFK was honest about his
philandering. During a 1961 meeting in Bermuda with British Prime
Minister Harold McMillian Kennedy said, "I wonder how it is with you,
Harold? If I don't have a woman for three days, I get terrible
headaches.")
> Ginsburg is not a member of the U.S. Supreme Court because he
used marijuana during college. By contrast, during Clinton's term
national drug use has doubled due to Clinton eviscerating drug
enforcement. Remember also Josalyn Elders, Clinton's selection for
Surgeon General. In addition to her crusade to distribute condoms
(for which she earned the moniker "the Rubber Maid") and to have
masturbation taught in public schools, she campaigned for the
legalization of drugs. During her term as Clinton's Surgeon General,
Elders son was convicted of felony cocaine and crack distribution. (If
she couldn't keep her own son from pushing crack, how could she be
expected to reduce national drug use?) It is simply beyond belief
that, with someone of Elder's views as his pick for the nation's chief
medical officer, Clinton expects us to believe he truly wants to
battle illegal drugs.
On a personal level Clinton acknowledges that he used marijuana
but claims he "didn't inhale". Yet in an MTV interview with high
school students Clinton states that if he had it do over again he,
"probably should have inhaled." Roger Clinton described his brother's
appetite for cocaine by stating, "He (Bill Clinton) has a nose like a
Hoover." (Referring to the vacuum cleaner not the president. who
preceded Roosevelt.) But, we can discount this allegation because
Roger Clinton, along with Friend Of Bill Dan Lasater, have been
convicted of felony drug charges for the distribution of cocaine.
(As an entry for the "How'd They Do That" file consider this: Roger
Clinton served only two years for his cocaine distribution charges and
Dan Lasater only six months. Roger cut a deal with the prosecutor to
testify against Lasater. Lasater was convicted but pardoned by
Governor Clinton. (Clinton says the pardon was so Lassater could
qualify for a hunting license.) However, even as Lasater was being
investigated for drug dealing Clinton's Arkansas Finance Authority
awarded Lasater authority to underwrite a $30 million bond issue. An
undertaking for which Lasater pocketed $750,000. The purpose of this
bond issue for which the state of Arkansas awarded $750,000 to a drug
dealer? An Arkansas state police communication facility. Clinton's
pardon of Lasater raises an interesting point. Why won't Clinton
promise to not pardon Susan McDougal (who is currently in jail because
she refuses to testify about Clnton's role in the Whitewater scandal)
and other Whitewater defendants? Clinton has already indicated a
willingness to put the power of a presidential pardon to a personal
purpose. Clinton has pardoned Jack Pakis a Hot Springs, Arkansas
bookie and close friend of the Clinton family.
Given this, why is Clinton the favored candidate for president?
Have our standards for the office of president fallen this far this
fast? What does it say about us and our esteem for our nation that we
would trust Bill Clinton with the United State of America.
A question should be asked of each vice-presidential candidate in
the upcoming debate. "Would you want your daughter to marry a man with
the personal character of your running mate?" Recall the question to
Mike Dukasis about how he would view the death penalty if his wife
itty was raped. Well, why not a similar question to Hillary. How
would she feel if Chelsea brought home a boyfriend with the same
character and integrity as Bill Clinton? (Some may be upset with me
for bringing Hillary into the discussion. After all, they may retort,
she is not running for office. Would it have been fair they ask to
deny Lincoln the presidency because Mary Todd was a lunatic? To which
I reply, Yes, if Lincoln had threatened to put Mary Todd in charge of
the Union Army as Clinton tried to do with Hillary and health care.)
Two responses, and only two responses, are possible. One, all the
charges against Clinton are false and Clinton is, in truth, a noble
and honest - though much maligned - man. (This is the official White
House position.) Two, the charges are, in whole or part, true but it
just doesn't matter. Clinton's character is irrelevant to his fitness
to serve as president.
If you opt for option number one, "Clinton is a wrongly-maligned
honest man", than you probably also thought O.J. Simpson was framed.
Halley Barber's line, "Clinton may not believe anything but his
friends have convictions -for bank fraud, embezzlement, conspiracy..."
resonates because it is true.
Two-thirds of the Rose law firm, the source of Clinton's closest
colleagues including his wife, are either dead under suspicious
circumstances (Vince Foster), in jail after serving in the Clinton
administration (Webster Hubble) or under indictment or investigation
by a special prosecutor (William Kennedy). A similar fate has
befallen many of Clinton's other top advisors. Housing Secretary
Henry Cisneros and Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy subject to
independent counsel investigation; former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown
subject to an independent counsel investigation prior to his death;
Clinton understudy and friend Arkansas Governor Guy Tucker and Clinton
business partners Jim and Susan McDougal jailed for 24 count
conviction for bank fraud and conspiracy. Clinton testified on behalf
of the McDougals and Governor Tucker. After the trial, jurors told
reporters that they did not believe Clinton's testimony and several
jurors stated that, based upon the evidence they considered, Clinton
was definitely involved in the wrongdoing.
It is simply not possible to consider the incredible number of
Friends Of Bill who are under indictment, under investigation by
independent counsel, in jail or awaiting sentencing and conclude that
all the charges against Clinton are false.
Clinton apologists reply that it is unfair to paint Clinton with
the same brush as his jailed colleagues. Democrat Senator Chris Dodd
claims that to view Clinton in light of his friends is to engage in
"guilt by association". These defenders argue that Clinton has just
suffered the misfortune of being surrounded by dishonest people and is
not, himself, dishonest. This explanation, even if credible, is of
little comfort. Do we want as president a man so lacking in judgment
that he has a profoundly uncanny ability to choose as his closest
advisors a collection of crooks and felons.
Bluntly put, Bill Clinton is an unmitigated, dissembling liar.
What Clinton says is meant to deceive not to inform. During an
interview on September 23rd with PBS's Jim Lehrer Clinton said, "There
is not a single solitary shred of evidence of anything dishonest that
I have done in my public life." Most of us hearing this proclamation
would understand it to be a blanket denial of any wrongdoing. Clinton
clearly intended to communicate this understanding. However, reread
Clinton's statement. "There is not a single solitary shred of
evidence...." Clinton does not deny dishonestly, rather he denies that
there is any evidence of his dishonesty. Quite a different
proposition. Continuing with a further qualification Clinton said,
"...that I have done in my public life." The injection of "public
life" presumes a distinction with Clinton's private life. Given the
mountainous evidence of Clinton's dishonestly, we can only conclude
that Clinton believes using drugs, funding his Arkansas gubernatorial
campaigns, funding his presidential campaign, managing the WhiteHouse
travel office and FBI files and formulating national policy are all
part of his private life.
Option Two, "Clinton is dishonest but character doesn't count when
choosing the President", is equally untenable. Consider the purpose
of the election. For starters, this November we will decide who will
take the constitutionally prescribed oath next January. A candidate
for president does not become president by winning the election. The
candidate must also take the oath of office and does not become
president until he does so. (Recall the photograph of Lyndon Johnson
taking the oath of office in Air Force One on the tarmac in Dallas
standing next to a blood-splattered Jackie Kennedy.)
We do not make much of oaths now days. Yet, the men who crafted
our form of government, founded our nation and authored the
Constitution placed great significance on oaths and, correspondingly,
the integrity of the individual taking the oath. A man's honesty and
integrity were vitally important to our founding fathers. Thomas
Jefferson, founder of the Democrat party, wrote, "We mutually pledge
to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Of what
value is Bill Clinton's "sacred honor" and to what cause would he
pledge it? (Obviously not his wife, nor his country when called to
military service.) More importantly, would you believe him if he did?
This is a more troubling question for my principled liberal
friends. (Especially for those who make so much of Republican scandals
whether it be Watergate, Iran-Contra or the Teapot Dome.) The most
outrageous Republican is a piker compared to the mythomaniacs,
miscreants and poltroons which populate the Clinton administration.
(Will someone please tell me George Stephanopoulos's job description
and how whatever it is he does furthers the legitimate business of the
presidency.)
Those Democrats who support Clinton (and their allies in the media
who overlook the Clinton scandals) have lost the right to ever again
mention Watergate, Iran-Contra or any other allegation of Republican
corruption.
Most liberals acknowledge Clinton's fundamental dishonesty.
However, they appear willing to tolerate or overlook his moral
failings because they believe Clinton will advance a liberal ideology
and Bob Dole will oppose the liberal's agenda. But, in choosing
Clinton as their standard bearer, what are liberals saying about their
own integrity and the validity of their ideology?
How can the noble ideals proffered by the liberal be reconciled
with the tawdry and untrustworthy reputation of their candidate? What
does is say about the validity of liberalism that the adherents chosen
advocate is a consummate fraud? In choosing Clinton as their
candidate (a candidate who liberals support because they believe he
will govern with a liberal bent even though he publicly campaigns as a
conservative) aren't liberals saying that their agenda is best
advanced by disguising and concealing their ideology and, by
implication, recognizing that if American voters truly appreciated the
liberal agenda they will reject the ideology?
If I believed I had a worthy policy to advance I would not choose
an unworthy spokesman to advance the policy lest the message be
sullied by the messenger. If I was trying to sell a drug to cure
cancer I wouldn't choose Jack Kavorkian to be my spokesman.
Indeed, Clinton's failure to keep the faith even with political
bed-mates is why two high-ranking administration officials resigned
when Clinton signed the Republican welfare reform bill. A bill that
Clinton had previously promised to veto. Abandoning Clinton is the
only rational response available to honest liberals who truly believe
in the merits of their ideology.
Others don't defend Clinton but disparage us. They argue: "So
what if Clinton lies, uses drugs and cheats on his spouse, most
American's behave this way and it is hypocritical to hold a leader to
a standard higher than the standard by which we measure our own
behavior."
While I don't agree that Clinton's behavior is characteristic of
the typical American, I will grant this point for the sake of
argument. Granted even that assertion, I dispute the central premise.
Americans aspire to greatness and have always been an optimistic
people. Our leaders should be the best from among us not the worst.
A far sadder event than a second Clinton term will be a second
Clinton term because a majority of Americans believe a man of
Clinton's integrity is representative of the character of our nation.
It has been said that hypocrisy is vice's tribute to virtue.
Well, if so, Clinton should be Master of Ceremonies hosting a Telethon
for Virtue. Within hours of being elected president Clinton
proclaimed that his administration would be the most ethical ever.
This promise was made in the context of Clinton's campaign attacks
upon the Bush administration for, what Clinton claimed was, unethical
behavior such as the State Department official who allegedly tried to
pull Clinton's visa file and document Clinton's trip to the Soviet
Union during the time Clinton was leading anti-American rallies
overseas. Clinton was "shocked" at the Bush campaign's "outrageous"
use of official personnel and records to gain an advantage on a
political adversary. Clinton can not understand, however, why
everyone seems so exercised about the hundreds of FBI files on
Republican opponents he and Craig Livingston have squirreled away in
the White House.
What does it mean when the victor of this fall's campaign will
take the oath of office to lead our nation into the next millennium?
For me I want to believe the man who places his hand on the Bible and
says, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office
of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability,
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
November 5th is national examination day. The question is one of
character. Not Clinton's character but our character; our character
as a nation and as individual voters. And, if the answer is Bill
Clinton, we all fail.
Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, II
Thornet@ix.netcom.com
October 11, 1996
Permission is granted to freely copy and distribute this memorandum.