The Hunting of the President/Blinded by the Right

[shereads]

It's taken a few years, but thanks to Gene Lyons and Salon's Joe Conasan who followed the trail backward from Ken Starr to the early stages of the Clinton candidacy, the truth is out: the "right-wing conspiracy" was not Hillary's imagination. The Monica Lewinsky investigation and the impeachment hearings were the culmination of a 100% ethics-free campaign to disable the Clinton presidency, as confirmed in the upcoming documentary film based on Conason's book. The evidence includes an on-screen confession by the man who was paid $50,000 to invent the "Troopergate" scandal.

The picture that emerges in The Hunting of the President is supported by an unrelated book, Blinded By The Right, written by David Brock who admits to having trashed Anita Hill and says he helped Clarence Thomas threaten another witness into backing down.

June is going to be an interesting month. Moore's Farenheit 911, alleging that Bush/Cheney used fraudulent evidence of a Saddam Hussein connection with the World Trade Center attacks to achieve support for the Iraq invasion, is expected to draw more viewers than Bowling for Columbine, thanks to the Cannes Film Festival and Disney's refusal to distribute the film.

Bill's book will come out, and although he's not expected to do a hatchet job on Bush/Cheney, his book tour is likely to make Americans nostalgic for the day when, as one interviewer put it, "our biggest worry was the weapon of mass destruction in Clinton's pants."



(Not to mention, the nearly forgotten era of presidents who were familiar with books.)

Thank God for this movie. Instead of researching links to the pieces of evidence that reveal Ken Starr as the frontman for a war on the Clinton White House, I can relax while the neocons watch the films, read the books and see for themselves.



Or not. Whatever.

Movie trailer: http://www.thehuntingofthepresident.com/

"Riveting and revealing, whatever views you have on the partisan issues involved."
--DAVID STERRITT, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR


"incendiary... an alarming treatise on the political power of the media and personal interests"
--_ ELIZABETH RICHARDSON and JOSEPH BYER, SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL


"...an eye-opening and occasionally chilling look at the lengths to which some will go to destroy someone they perceive as a threat to their way of life... The message is clear, and powerfully told. Extra credit should be given for managing to get Susan McDougal to tell the story of her ordeal and imprisonment in her own terms."
--PETE VONDER HAAR, FILM THREAT

"This probing documentary... astutely allowing participants to tell their own tales... creates an emotional connection with people whose names are familiar from nightly news reports but whose intimate stories are not."
-- CATHY ROSS, AUSTIN CHRONICLE


"The Hunting of the President," a potent screen translation of Gene Lyons and Joe Conason's bestseller, methodically compiles evidence suggesting there was indeed (as Hillary famously put it) "a vast right-wing conspiracy" waged against the Clinton White House. No matter one's party affiliation, docu is worth seeing for its eye-opening look at how disreputable characters can impact government -- and how easily the mainstream media can be duped into covering scandal-smelling leads."
--DENNIS HARVEY, VARIETY.COM

"The big draw was "The Hunting of the President," a funny, frightening documentary about the 10-year campaign to discredit Bill and Hillary Clinton."

-- JANE SUMNER, THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS

 

[shereads]

Blinded by the Right

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0812930991/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-4496931-9737605#reader-page

"In a powerful and deeply personal memoir reminiscent of Arthur Koestler's 'The God That Failed,' David Brock, the original right-wing scandal reporter, chronicles his rise to the pinnacle of the conservative movement, and his painful break from it.

<snip>

"His reporting in The American Spectator as part of the nefarious 'Arkansas Project' triggered the events that led to the historic impeachment of President Clinton. Brock was at the center of the right-wing dirty tricks operation of the Gingrich era - until he could no longer deny that the political force he was advancing was based on little more than lies, hate and hypocrisy.

<snip>

"Brock gives us the first insider's view of what Hillary Rodham Clinton called 'the vast right-wing conspiracy.' <snip> He names names, from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on down, uncovers hidden links, and demonstrates how the Republican right's zeal for power created the poisonous political climate that culminated in George W. Bush's disputed election."

 

[dr_mabeuse]

A group of apolitical Washington insiders including former ambassadors who served under Bush I and Reagan, a former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, some former undersecretaries and others involved in maintaining American security through several administrations is scheduled to hold a press conference Wednesday in DC to urge a change in US administraion. They accuse the current administration of recklessness, alienating allies, and following policies that have put America at grave peril.

I heard this rather unprecendented piece of news on Public Radio today. They interviewed a former undersecretary at State who was part of this group who said that they had no political agenda but felt that they could no longer stand by and watch this administraion dismantle the work of the last 20 years, and so was making this recommendation.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

A group of apolitical Washington insiders including former ambassadors who served under Bush I and Reagan, a former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, some former undersecretaries and others involved in maintaining American security through several administrations is scheduled to hold a press conference Wednesday in DC to urge a change in US administraion. They accuse the current administration of recklessness, alienating allies, and following policies that have put America at grave peril.

I heard this rather unprecendented piece of news on Public Radio today. They interviewed a former undersecretary at State who was part of this group who said that they had no political agenda but felt that they could no longer stand by and watch this administraion dismantle the work of the last 20 years, and so was making this recommendation.

---dr.M.

Now things get scary: something will be done to distract the media from covering this, and the public from paying attention.

As god is my witness, I've never felt this kind of paranoia about my government before. But as the saying goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Ever hear of Richard Mellon Scaife?

 

[A7inchPhildo]

Now things get scary: something will be done to distract the media from covering this, and the public from paying attention.

As god is my witness, I've never felt this kind of paranoia about my government before. But as the saying goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Ever hear of Richard Mellon Scaife?

Since I first watched the movie "Wag the Dog" with Hoffman and De Nero. I though, "Man, Barry Levinson will be assasinated for sure, having spilled the best kept secret in America's goverment."



Richard Mellon Scaife; isn't he like some kind of senile oil billionaire from Pennsylvania who supports the KKK and is against most religions. I hear he dis-likes Clintons as equally the Bush family.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

As god is my witness, I've never felt this kind of paranoia about my government before. But as the saying goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

I've been checking Yahoo news and I haven't seen anything to confirm what I heard, but I wish you could have heard this woman on the radio. She was almost apologetic about coming out against the administration like this--these are all lifetime diplomats and national security professionals--but she she too said these people were really frightened for their country and their conscences had driven them to do this, that's why they were taking this unprecedented step.

I've been reading a book called "Weapons Of Mass Deception" about the run-up to the war and the way they manipulated the news and jobbed the entire country and it's pretty amazing. They've been jerking us around like a bunch of puppets. They say 'jump' and we just ask 'How high?'

A bit in the book talks about how they had American 'perception management' teams on the ground following the troops. They're the ones who told the cameramen where to stand to get those pictures of Iraqis pulling down the statue of Saddam on April 9, 2003 so it looked like a mass popular uprising when actually a picture of the square taken by Reuters showed that the entire 'mob' consisted of maybe 200 people. Most Iraqis were hiding under their beds with the doors locked. The marines had to pull the statue down using an APC.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

Since I first watched the movie "Wag the Dog" with Hoffman and De Nero. I though, "Man, Barry Levinson will be assasinated for sure, having spilled the best kept secret in America's goverment."



Richard Mellon Scaife; isn't he like some kind of senile oil billionaire from Pennsylvania who supports the KKK and is against most religions. I hear he dis-likes Clintons as equally the Bush family.

Scaife is a billionaire; I don't know about the KKK or his stand on religion, only that he is sited by David Brock as the financial backer of the "Arkansas Project," spending $2.4 million to pay for leads and hints of scandal that could be presented as fact in his papers; these were picked up by talk radio, and became part of the public consciousness - to the point where mainstream papers, reacting to criticism that they were protecting Clinton - would turn them into real news.

The stories Scaife "exposed" by paying informants were made into a film by Jerry Falwell that painted Clinton as a serial rapist and murderer. Among other things, he stabbed two teenaged girls to death before having their bodies placed on a railroad track to be crushed by a train. I wonder why Ken Starr didn't pick up the lead. That double-murder, plus the rape of the 12-year-old Girl Scout, would have made the impeachment a slam-dunk.

 

[shereads]

I've been reading a book called "Weapons Of Mass Deception" about the run-up to the war and the way they manipulated the news and jobbed the entire country and it's pretty amazing. They've been jerking us around like a bunch of puppets. They say 'jump' and we just ask 'How high?'

It is amazing that so few people asked the obvious questions until it was too late. "How does invading Iraq help find Osama bin Laden?" It just went without saying that if the President responded to 9/ll by planning a war in Iraq, Iraq must have been responsible for 9/ll.

The Karl Roves and Dick Cheneys of the world have learned that there's almost nothing people won't willingly believe if you push the right buttons: fear, self-interest, bigotry. They rely on the "willing suspension of disbelief" that makes fiction work.

 

[Somme]

Fortunately we've got lads 'n lasses of your who do ask the questions. Better?

 

[Pure]

ilk, indeed

 

[dr_mabeuse]

There's also a bunch of stuff in the book about the nerve gas agents we sold to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war under Reagan.

I wonder if that Sarin shell they found recently used chemicals made in the USA?

---dr.M.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

There's also a bunch of stuff in the book about the nerve gas agents we sold to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war under Reagan.

I wonder if that Sarin shell they found recently used chemicals made in the USA?

---dr.M.

The shell was I believe of german manufacture, but calling it a sarin shell is a little decieving. There is a name for this type of muniton, but I don't recall it. Basially the shell has 2 chambers, each holding part of the chemical mixuture. When the shell leaves the tube, it is rotating very fast and this roation mixes the components. Detonating it as a static weapon will produce only trace amounts of sarin as the explosion destroys or disperces most of the cemicals in their inert form.

-Colly

 

[rgraham666]

That's what's known as a binary nerve agent Colleen.

Two inert chemicals combine to form a lethal one.

I would find it very surprising to find anyone would sell such advanced chemical munitions to Iraq. It's generally not a good idea to give real or potential enemies, or even your friends the best weapons in your arsenal.

On the other hand, everything is for sale these days. And last I heard, weaponry is a $900 billion a year industry. That was ten years ago and did not include any of the secret deals that go on.

 

[overthebow]

That's what's known as a binary nerve agent Colleen.

Two inert chemicals combine to form a lethal one.

I would find it very surprising to find anyone would sell such advanced chemical munitions to Iraq. It's generally not a good idea to give real or potential enemies, or even your friends the best weapons in your arsenal.

On the other hand, everything is for sale these days. And last I heard, weaponry is a $900 billion a year industry. That was ten years ago and did not include any of the secret deals that go on.

Actually, nerve agents are not that advanced. Remember the use of sarin in the Japanese subway? It is pretty scary.

 

[shereads]

from salon:

Halliburton's egregious overcharges

Abandoning trucks because of flat tires: $85,000. Putting 100 workers up at a 5-star hotel: $10,000 a night. Lavish spending and mismanagement by a politically-connected firm: Priceless. Actually, there is a price being put on Halliburton's wasteful shenanigans in Iraq: $8 billion.

Knight-Ridder reports that: "Halliburton Inc. paid high-priced bills for common items, such as soda, laundry and hotels, in Iraq and Kuwait and then passed the inflated costs along to taxpayers, according to several former Halliburton employees and a Pentagon internal audit."

" ... The 36-page report by the Defense Contract Audit Agency said that Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root had a billing system that was 'inadequate,' had numerous deficiencies and billing misstatements and that KBR didn't follow laws and regulations relating to spending and recordkeeping. Its contracting practices are so bad, the auditors said, that KBR shouldn't be allowed to bill the Pentagon directly without the government poring over every detail in advance."


"Worst ever"

"We can't tell directly whether Mr. Ashcroft's post 9/11 policies are protecting the United States from terrorist attacks. But a number of pieces of evidence suggest otherwise. First, there's the absence of any major successful prosecutions ... Then there is the lack of any major captures. Somewhere, the anthrax terrorist is laughing. But the Justice Department, you'll be happy to know, is trying to determine whether it can file bioterrorism charges against a Buffalo art professor whose work includes harmless bacteria in petri dishes."

 

[Rusty914]

Wow, great work, can't wait to see this..........thanks for posting this.............

 

[rgraham666]

Actually, nerve agents are not that advanced. Remember the use of sarin in the Japanese subway? It is pretty scary.

I beg to differ. I'm pretty sure the States has the capability to make such weapons, and it's likely any of the Western European countries along with Japan, Russia and China have the know how to make, and the technical means to deliver weapons of this type.

Also I do not believe that the gas attack in Tokyo was sarin. One tenth of a gram of sarin is a fatal dose. Considering where the gas was realeased, I think that there would have been tens of thousands killed, instead of the few dozen who actually died.

Warning! Graphic description of horror ahead!

I've only read one report on a casualty of this attack. She was blinded because her contact lenses were welded to her eyeballs by the gas.

This sounds more like a blister agent (Mustard gas or some such) than a nerve agent. The number of dead and wounded, in my opinion, bears this out.

But those few were quite enough though.

 

[Edward Teach]

"... But the Justice Department, you'll be happy to know, is trying to determine whether it can file bioterrorism charges against a Buffalo art professor whose work includes harmless bacteria in petri dishes." [/QUOTE


I'll bet the liberal heathen art professor looks at statues of nekkid women. If you can't get him on terrorism, charge him with obscenity, Johnny.

Ed

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Now things get scary: something will be done to distract the media from covering this, and the public from paying attention.

As god is my witness, I've never felt this kind of paranoia about my government before. But as the saying goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Ever hear of Richard Mellon Scaife?

Paranoia? There's nothing to be paranoid about. Honestly. Liberals, bah. All right, we've got a code 5 danger on Literotica, send in the elimination and reprogramming squads on the double and take all resisters to Room 101 You'd think after all these years, you'd have realized that everything is fine and that these are the glory years. Hurrah.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Now things get scary: something will be done to distract the media from covering this, and the public from paying attention.

As god is my witness, I've never felt this kind of paranoia about my government before. But as the saying goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Ever hear of Richard Mellon Scaife?

The people in power tend to do whatever it takes to stay in power. Lies, deciet, cover ups, these are nothing new. Manipulating the media isn't either.

There is really no more reason to be paranoid now than when Nixon, LBJ, Ford, Reagan, Bush I or Clinton were president.

I really don't know how to say this without sounding callously cynical, but the media reports what it thinks people want to hear. The guiding principal in media is no longer truth, it's profit. While about one half of this country hates Bush and would like to see him tarred & feathered, about half like him and think he is doing a good job. If you report each scandal heavily, you will get slapped with the liberal tag, and you will loose about half your viewers. that ain't good for ratings, advertising, etc.

If you don't report, or under report the scandals, then you alientate about...Half the country. Unless you are FOX, then you have the best of both worlds. Your signature entertainment is irreverent, edgey and challenges the bonds of good taste, you probably don't have a very strong viewership in conservative housholds, minus the kids. But if your news is so right leaning, you pick up that conservative viewership.

Fox must be an Ad exces dream job. Your company wants to appeal to family values folks? No problem, we have slots open during the news. What's that you say? You want to get to kids or people with a more liberal slant? Hey, the Simpsons is in a great time slot. How can you loose?

-Colly

 

[shereads]

"... But the Justice Department, you'll be happy to know, is trying to determine whether it can file bioterrorism charges against a Buffalo art professor whose work includes harmless bacteria in petri dishes."

I'll bet the liberal heathen art professor looks at statues of nekkid women. If you can't get him on terrorism, charge him with obscenity, Johnny.

Ed

He should be prosecuted for bad taste.

 

[KarenAM]

The people in power tend to do whatever it takes to stay in power. Lies, deciet, cover ups, these are nothing new. Manipulating the media isn't either.

There is really no more reason to be paranoid now than when Nixon, LBJ, Ford, Reagan, Bush I or Clinton were president.

I really don't know how to say this without sounding callously cynical, but the media reports what it thinks people want to hear. The guiding principal in media is no longer truth, it's profit. While about one half of this country hates Bush and would like to see him tarred & feathered, about half like him and think he is doing a good job. If you report each scandal heavily, you will get slapped with the liberal tag, and you will loose about half your viewers. that ain't good for ratings, advertising, etc.

If you don't report, or under report the scandals, then you alientate about...Half the country. Unless you are FOX, then you have the best of both worlds. Your signature entertainment is irreverent, edgey and challenges the bonds of good taste, you probably don't have a very strong viewership in conservative housholds, minus the kids. But if your news is so right leaning, you pick up that conservative viewership.

Fox must be an Ad exces dream job. Your company wants to appeal to family values folks? No problem, we have slots open during the news. What's that you say? You want to get to kids or people with a more liberal slant? Hey, the Simpsons is in a great time slot. How can you loose?

-Colly

Quite so. Those in power become seduced by it. This was why the framers of the Constitution tried to disperse power widely in the government. It's also why people have been trying to undo the Consititution since before the ink was dry.

I do think there is more reason to be paranoid now, though, simply because Bush and Co. are benefitting from the efforts of every administration since the end of WW II and probably before to make the president into an emperor. As a result, they've been able to have a war without declaring one, censor information without due process under the guise of security, and so on. These are all hallmarks of a police state in the making, and very possibly the eventual end of the republic.

You're quite right about the media, though. Reporters are inherently corrupt. They want a good story, not the truth or even a reasonable facsimile of it. Fox News has a overwhelming conservative bias because that's what their target auduence wants to hear; al-Jazerra has an anti-American bias because that's what their audience wants to hear. Modern society is all about creating artificial truth, not seeking the real thing. Unfortunately, the truth, like mother nature, doesn't actually care what we think or want it to be. That's why eventually people get bewildered when we find that some 90% of Iraqis would feel safer without our troops in their country, because we haven't been told anything until the situation erupts in a crisis.

Then, of course, our news folks invent a reason for this to make us feel better, and the actual situation continues to deteriorate.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Quite so. Those in power become seduced by it. This was why the framers of the Constitution tried to disperse power widely in the government. It's also why people have been trying to undo the Consititution since before the ink was dry.

I do think there is more reason to be paranoid now, though, simply because Bush and Co. are benefitting from the efforts of every administration since the end of WW II and probably before to make the president into an emperor. As a result, they've been able to have a war without declaring one, censor information without due process under the guise of security, and so on. These are all hallmarks of a police state in the making, and very possibly the eventual end of the republic.

You're quite right about the media, though. Reporters are inherently corrupt. They want a good story, not the truth or even a reasonable facsimile of it. Fox News has a overwhelming conservative bias because that's what their target auduence wants to hear; al-Jazerra has an anti-American bias because that's what their audience wants to hear. Modern society is all about creating artificial truth, not seeking the real thing. Unfortunately, the truth, like mother nature, doesn't actually care what we think or want it to be. That's why eventually people get bewildered when we find that some 90% of Iraqis would feel safer without our troops in their country, because we haven't been told anything until the situation erupts in a crisis.

Then, of course, our news folks invent a reason for this to make us feel better, and the actual situation continues to deteriorate.

I don't have any problem with the government censoring sensitive information. I don't have any problem when national security issues outweigh my right to know something. If the government has information that could only have come from agent-X, who has worked his way into AQ's confidence, I think we would all agree that info should be witheld, to protect agent-X.

The problem comes when you loose faith in the people making the determination that national security is at risk. I have no trouble at all being kept in the dark when someone's life could be at risk or when the intelligence community's sources would be jepardized. I have a serious problem when the information is kept from me because it would make the President, the FBI, CIA, DOD or someone else look incompetant.

Withholding information in the interest of national security is one of those catch-22 situations. It is entierly right and proper, in fact neccessary that it be there, but the potential for abuse is also appalling. And I think this administration is abusing the hell out of it.

I don't fear a police state, this country is not really ripe for one. thisrty years from now, if the gradual erosion of rights continues it may be. What I fear is a psuedo-theocratic state. One that pays lip service to not having an established state church, but in practice does.

Faith based initives? Federal monies for church sponsored charities? Iex ney on stem cell research because it involves disecting human embryos? WTF?

This isn't conservatism. This is so bad I'd rather see Bill Clinton back in office. And that statement, more so than any color coded system, should show the depth of my alarm.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

You're quite right about the media, though. Reporters are inherently corrupt. They want a good story, not the truth or even a reasonable facsimile of it. Fox News has a overwhelming conservative bias because that's what their target auduence wants to hear; al-Jazerra has an anti-American bias because that's what their audience wants to hear. Modern society is all about creating artificial truth, not seeking the real thing. Unfortunately, the truth, like mother nature, doesn't actually care what we think or want it to be. That's why eventually people get bewildered when we find that some 90% of Iraqis would feel safer without our troops in their country, because we haven't been told anything until the situation erupts in a crisis.

I don't agree that reporters are "inherently corrupt" anymore than doctors or pharmacists or accountants are corrupt. The unregulated ownership of newspapers and broadcast media by conglomerates has created a system that is easier to monopolize with one viewpoint, though. Rupert Murdoch's, for one. Talk about corrupt.

 

[shereads]

The problem comes when you loose faith in the people making the determination that national security is at risk. I have no trouble at all being kept in the dark when someone's life could be at risk or when the intelligence community's sources would be jepardized. I have a serious problem when the information is kept from me because it would make the President, the FBI, CIA, DOD or someone else look incompetant.

Or when it would make Dick Cheney appear to have solicited no views other than those of his business cronies when he put together the "Energy Policy Roundtable." [/quote]

I don't fear a police state, this country is not really ripe for one. thisrty years from now, if the gradual erosion of rights continues it may be. [/quote]

It's not so gradual, Colly. Maybe because I'm older, I'm more accustomed to being able to say what I please without feeling nervous. That's simply no longer the case. People who say, "I don't care if they monitor my e-mails/phone calls/book purchases/library use, because I'm not doing anything wrong," are assuming that their definition of "wrong" applies now and will apply under future administrations.

Example? I donate money to environmental organizations, which have sometimes included Greenpeace. Ashcroft targeted Greenpeace for a lawsuit, recently thrown out of court. Suppose that by Ashcroft's definition, Greenpeace is a terrorist organization? Anyone associated with them could then be targeted, including those who donate funds. The absurdity of jailing supporters of organizations he dislikes would never need to come before a judge, if he gets his way and destroys the right of all citizens to due process. Habeas Corpus is the one solid barrier that separates the U.S. from the possibility of becoming a police state. As one columnist said, Ascroft "isn't just subverting the Constitution; he's subverting the Magna Carta."

What else is required for a police state to exist, than for citizens to fear being jailed without charges and not allowed to speak to a judge or an attorney in their own defense?