-Caveat Lector- The New Australian Defending Clinton: Murdoch's Australian sinks even lower By Gerard Jackson No. 105, 1-7 February 1999 To say that the thought of reading Cameron Forbes' US reports fills me with foreboding would not be an understatement. I believe the public basically wants one thing from the media — honesty. Well, they are not getting it from Rupert Murdoch's Australian. Last week I wrote* that Forbes' lied when he stated that DNA tests showed there was "near certainty" that Thomas Jefferson fathered Woodson Hemings, and that Forbes had done this to make Clinton look better. It is not surprising, therefore, that the man who cunningly libelled a Founding Father is perfectly willing to trash the reputation of a Republican Congressman by insinuating that he is a racist (The Australian 13/1/99). Forbes began in his usual honest and objective manner by claiming that Larry Flynt's description of Congressman Bob Barr as "Attila the Hun" was "fair". Because a Republican Congressman holds strong conservative convictions an Australian journalist compares him to a fifth century barbarian who was particularly noted for his cruelty and wanton destruction, and then tries to pass it off as fair comment. Of course, Forbes could laugh it off as mere hyperbole, just simple political point scoring. This will not do. He means what he says. This is what the Left really think of conservatives and that is why it treats them with contempt. He continued the assault on Barr's character by telling us that Barr spent eight years as a CIA agent, that he opposes homosexual marriages, is a member of National Rifle Association and that he helped put a stop to lengthy appeals by convicts on death row. Now to Forbes' left-wing mentality, these revelations are expected to prejudice readers against Barr whose real offence is to be one of Clinton's sternest critics. Getting into his stride, Forbes then accused Barr of having "been cozy with a US racist group." This is a brazen lie and it is time it was put to rest. Bob Barr was invited to address the Council of Conservative Citizens. As is the normal procedure, his staff checked out the organisation and gave it the all clear. However, it was only after Barr addressed it that it was found to be a front for a white supremacist group. When he found out, Barr immediately denounced the organisation and pointed out that if he had known its real views he would never have addressed it. And this is why the US meda has not pushed it. Yet Forbes maliciously writes as if Barr was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. The same self-righteous Forbes igored the fact that during his first run for Congress Democratic House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt spoke before Metro South Citizens Council, a prominent St. Louis white-rights organization, to ask for its endorsement. After he was elected he attended two of the group's social functions. The Metro South Citizens Council was also the precursor of the Council of Conservative Citizens, the same organisation that Forbes attacked Barr for addressing. It is facts like these that make us truly realise magnitude of Forbes hypocrisy and political bigotry. No wonder the man sickens me. Democrat Senator Robert Byrd is another who has spoken in defence of Clinton and against impeachment. Byrd is held in high regard by America's Leftist media and has even been called, among other things, the Senate's conscience. But this is the same Byrd who joined the Ku Klux Klan and who strongly opposed civil rights legislation in the sixties, all of which escaped Forbes attention — but then so much does. And speaking of racism, why not a word about Jesse Jackson? The same Jesse Jackson who called New York "Hymie Town"; the very same Jesse who only four years ago shared a platform with the viciously anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan. Instead, Forbes gives readers false stories about Republican racism. And Murdoch's Australian calls this journalism. Forbes made sarcastic comments about the case of Jane Doe # 5 (26/12/98), followed by a claim that she swore in an affidavit that Clinton had not made any unwelcome advances. Well, that was another strike against the dreaded Clinton-haters, or was it? Now Jane Doe # 5, real name Juanita Broaddrick, signed her affidavit on the 2 January 1998, but on the 8 April 1998, she told the Office of Independent Counsel investigators that her affidavit was false and that her original story of being sexually attacked by Clinton is true. Even though these facts are well-known in the American media, having been aired by NBC last March, Forbes still wrote eight months later as if the affidavit had not been repudiated! (Perhaps he would like to explain how he missed the story). Moreover, the Broaddrick story is not going away. About ten days ago she was given an 8-hour in-depth interview by NBC NEWS reporter Lisa Myers. Broaddrick was assured by Myers that the interview would immediately air on Dateline. It didn't. Last Tuesday Myers called Broaddrick and told her: "The good news is, you're credible. The bad news is, you're very, very credible," Myers also warned her that NBC's top brass were in a state of panic. It seems, backed up by White House pressure, members of the Friends of Bill Club, of which the left-wing Tom Brokaw is one, had the interview canned, at least for now. Another story that slipped by Forbes' investigative skills. Let us look at a few other things that Forbes neglected to report. He wrote an approving article (23/1/99) on Senator Bumpers' address to the impeachment trial in which he argued that Clinton's offences do not constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. Really? High crimes and misdemeanors includes negligence and improprieties while in office as well as common law offences and has done from the seventeenth century. So Senator Bumpers' assertion that Clinton's offences do not rise to the constitutional level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is pure baloney. We have no greater authority for this than the Clinton's themselves. "No question that an admission of making false statements to government officials and interfering with the FBI is an impeachable offense," Bill Clinton, 8 August 1974. How about this one: " . . . [a] factor that I think constitutes an impeachable offense would be willful, reckless behavior in office . . ." 1974. In her 1974 report Hillary Clinton quoted Alexander Hamilton in her statement that impeachment relates to "misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of public trust" that is "of a nature . . . political." Isn't odd that all of this has escaped Forbes attention? This is the same man who again falsely claimed that Starr and his team "have spent $US40 million for Zilch", even though he must know that Starr has successfully secured more than 15 prosecutions and that this is an excellent conviction rate for a special counsellor. But what can we expect from a man who accuses the Republicans of partisanship while ignoring the appalling behaviour of the likes of Democrat Senator Tom Daschle. In defending Clinton he has maligned Thomas Jefferson, made false accusations against Congressman Bob Barr, impugned Starr's integrity and misled readers about the Juanita Broaddrick case. Any wonder Forbes' style of partisan reporting leaves a foul taste in my mouth. As I have said before, Forbes left-wing prejudices literally define most Australian journalists, especially on The Australian. (Frank Devine and Greg Sheridan are two notable examples who have defied the 'party line' on Clinton). Focus (an opinion section of Murdoch's Australian) gave a page to the defence of Clinton. This is a lot of space for a broadsheet. The section even had an article by the particularly vicious Christopher Hitchens who maliciously called Bob Barr and Trent Lott "racist Republican creeps" while ignoring Byrd and Gephardt's past associations. But what else can we expect when the Focus editor is also a left-winger who seems to think conservatives and free marketeers are vermin. *Why did Murdoch's Australian trash Thomas Jefferson? Note: That most Australian political, social and even economic commentary is heavily influenced by left-wing ideology is something that has considerably damaged the reputation of the media. By its very nature left-wing ideology corrupts and politicises everything it comes in contact with, reducing even tragic events to ideological vignettes meant to highlight the injustices of capitalist society or justify progressive policies. This leads to figures like Nixon and Reagan, for example, being alternatively ridiculed and savaged while the likes of Clinton are excused every excess and act of corruption, even when the stink of corruption is overpowering. The New Australian http://www.newaus.com.au/news105forbes.html LOL Bard Visit me at: The Center for Exposing Corruption in the Federal Government http://www.xld.com/public/center/center.htm Federal Government defined: ....a benefit/subsidy protection racket! DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
