from: http://pages.about.com/search/chapter15.htm Click Here: <A HREF="http://pages.about.com/search/chapter15.htm">Preserving the legacy</A> ----- Whitewatergate in Perspective Chapter 15 On November 9, 1994, at approximately 12:20 am., the midterm elections in the United States had unfolded to the point where it had become clear that the Republicans were poised for a takeover of both the House and the Senate, when Bernard Shaw of CNN News read a letter which indicated that Richard Nixon had predicted the election results with uncanny accuracy. Richard Nixon died in April of 1994. How could he possibly predict the outcome of an election which was so dramatic that it practically changed the guard in Washington? It was, in the final analysis, absolutely impossible to make a "beyond the grave" prediction about an unexpected, historic election sweep which was so dramatic that according to historian Michael Beschlos, "Tuesday was potentially one of the most important days in 20th century political history.1 Clearly, for Richard Nixon, a historically ignorant ideologue, to be able to predict that sort of change from beyond the grave is akin to having foreknowledge about the assassination of John F. Kennedy -it reflects definite, inside knowledge of a sophisticated plot to cripple the Clinton presidency. A proponent of "blind justice" or the art of rendering services or injuries to friends or enemies, Nixon routinely targeted his enemies and made a mockery out of the American legal system in the process. To be sure, Richard Nixon was such an accomplished cover up artist, that even now that he is dead, he is still manipulating events from the grave. While he was alive, "Nixon spent about $1 million annually to keep historians away from the 3,000 hours of White House tapes [not to mention the tape that was partially erased and the ones that disappeared] and 150,000 pages of presidential documents. His will says the lawsuits will continue."2 Despite the obsession to cover up the truth, Nixon's perpetual tendency to obstruct justice by matching his perverted vision of the national security interest is like a roadmap which ultimately betrays his hidden agenda. In particular, the deliberate, carefully orchestrated, successful obstruction of justice, is the hallmark of his entire life, both in and out of office. Adept and active in the art of manipulating or dictating political outcome, the suggestion that a Nixon prediction had anything to do with a legitimate election is ultimately obscene. Nixon routinely victimized the American public through his "above the law" politics, and the only way to get to the bottom of all the fraud and the deceit that he encouraged, is to consider the implications of a single question: What did Richard Nixon plan to do to replace Bill Clinton with a President that he considered to be a worthy statesman? Richard Nixon always committed all of his time, energy, resources and power to the task of engineering a political outcome, and in Nixon terms, that invariably involved an elaborate, deliberate, illegal scheme to subvert the electoral process. Moreover, Richard Nixon was such an arrogant fraud artist that he matter of factly made his intentions absolutely clear. His book The Real War introduced and defined the tyranny that was imposed during the 1980's and in a similar fashion, his posthumous book Beyond Peace defined the nature of the dictatorship that he planned for the 1990's. In essence, Beyond Peace is about a relentless declaration of war against the so-called liberal agenda and a demand to "renew America" in the image of a strong leader who shares the prejudice, the paranoia and the bigotry that motivates Richard Nixon. Motivated by extreme contempt for the Democrats, Richard Nixon began to plot a renewed, anti-liberal crusade as soon as Bill Clinton was elected President, and that became quite obvious when Richard Nixon wrote: The 1960's counterculture created a moral and spiritual vacuum that weakens the foundations of American society. The new elite of its adversary culture has disdained traditional morality -the stress on hard work, thrift, frugality, deferred gratification, the sanctity of marriage, fidelity, sexual self-control, and individual accountability. Those who still believe in these values are branded by the new elite as quaint, politically incorrect throwbacks who "just don't get it."3 "They just don't get it" was the refrain that the Democrats used to criticize deficit-ridden Reaganomics, but in the eyes of Richard Nixon, it was an absurd, unjustified, unforgivable assault on the so-called "enlightened" 1980's -the pride and joy of senior statesman Richard Nixon. Astoundingly, Richard Nixon considered anyone who criticized the enlightened 1980's to be a 1960's style radical who challenged American ideals and threatened American civilization. The paranoia of Richard Nixon never ceases to amaze. Having defined the new enemy as the liberal/democrats at home, the new essential challenge was to declare an all-out war to "restore the best we have lost." Remarkably, the Nixon agenda appears to be right on cue and is unfolding with the uncanny accuracy of the tyranny that his book The Real War predicted. On November 22, 1994, the New York Times reflected the hidden, Nixon agenda through the front page report: In the ebb and flow of hot political strategists in Washington, the Republican victory of Nov. 8 has seemed to turn the clock back to 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected and conservatives gained the opportunity to set the terms of the nation's political discourse. Indeed, the clock was turned back to the political climate when John Lennon was assassinated and anyone who criticized the goal or the agenda of extreme zealots was targeted and destroyed. Richard Nixon in fact declared no less in Beyond Peace. Nixon's anti-liberal crusade was what he called a "moral imperative" and there is no question about the fact that Richard Nixon planned to deploy every single dirty trick that one can possibly imagine, to destroy the liberal enemy. According to Richard Nixon, liberals are committed "socially to an agenda of personal liberation from traditional morality" and they are "incubators of disunity, distrust and hatred." If he planned to target, to subvert and to destroy the so-called "enemies of American renewal," is anybody surprise? The assault that Nixon launched was extremely ruthless and sophisticated because it borrowed the tactics of an anti-Communist crusade which spanned over four decades and was ultimately responsible for the power that Nixon managed to cultivate. The end of the Cold War did not stop Nixon from developing a new "moral imperative" agenda for the twenty-first century and he mobilized all the dirty tactics, all the resources and all of the secret power that he could possibly cultivate, to destroy the new enemy. Having embraced the mission to re-deploy the resources of the Cold War, the threat that Nixon imposed was very ominous and very real. In his own words, the "real test of America.. lies in our ability to eliminate the bad while advancing the good", and there is absolutely no question about what Richard Nixon meant by that.4 The logic may be very simple but his judgment was extremely perverted, and since Richard Nixon defined "good and bad" in terms of the paranoia and the bigotry that motivated him, Nixon in fact planned to advance his agenda by destroying anybody that got in his way. Nixon, for example, claimed that in the 1960's, "criminal behaviour was celebrated as social protest" and while it is difficult to believe that the "time warp" patriot was still engaged in a life and death struggle to "criminalize" anybody who did not share his paranoia, Richard Nixon is very specific. He had declared war against liberals who allegedly deserved neither life nor freedom and vowed to "complete the victory" through the "muscular determination" to "demonstrate that freedom can produce what dictatorship promised but failed to produce."5 Indeed, the closet dictator could not contain his enthusiasm to deploy the methods and the tactics of the totalitarian state, to destroy his enemies. Having announced his intent to declare war against every single American who did not share the bigotry and the paranoia that motivated Richard Nixon, there is absolutely no question about the fact that Richard Nixon had engaged a plot to cripple the Clinton presidency. Nixon's contempt for Bill Clinton, the so-called inadequate statesman, was too acute to permit any doubt. Beyond the fact that Nixon considered Clinton to be an amateur in the foreign policy arena, Nixon believed that the Clinton health plan "flies in the face of everything it means to live in a free society" and his determination to oppose what was potentially "a self-inflicted wound for which there would be no cure," was absolutely relentless.6 Nixon further exposed the extent of his anti-Clinton health plan paranoia when he said that if "enacted, it would represent the ultimate revenge of the 1960's generation", and that is the clearest, the most obsessive and the most urgent de facto declaration of war that anyone can possible announce.7 The biggest irony of a tyrant like Nixon is that he always betrayed himself and instead of taking responibility, he always blamed the naughty press. In the words of Richard Nixon: "Some elements of the media even continue to give credence to the ludicrous notion that Lyndon Johnson and a host of other officials engaged a vast conspiracy in the assassination of John F. Kennedy."8 Imagine that! Richard Nixon defending a Democrat? Indeed, Richard Nixon is defending himself -the interesting thing about propaganda is that the so-called "ludicrous notions" that bigots ridicule are frequently the truth and Nixon's paranoia-motivated commentary is consequently very enlightening. Clearly, given his continued interest in denouncing the truth about the Kennedy assassination, it is reasonable to assume that Nixon and his cronies are responsible for hiring propagandists like Posner -that is certainly one solid explanation for the secretely funded, unadulterated garbage that Posner promotes. Back to the present, the midterm election which has effectively crippled the Clinton agenda was the "second shot" of a three part effort to give Nixon the ultimate revenge that he desperately craved ever since Watergate, the criminal conspiracy that cost Nixon the presidency. In Nixon terms, Watergate did not reflect a legitimate scandal, it was merely an unjustifiable assault by the so-called liberal media and by his political adversaries, the Democrats, and if they could cripple his presidency, then why couldn't he cripple Clinton's? Why couldn't Richard Nixon use the so-called conservative media and the Republicans, to do unto the Democrats as they had done unto him? The absence of a genuine scandal was certainly not the sort of obstacle that discouraged a Nixonian assault. Having established a history of exploiting common ignorance, an accomplished fraud artist like Richard Nixon operated on the assumption that a scandal was a deliberately manufactured fraud which was used to destroy a political adversary, it was not something that was uncovered through independent investigation. Whitewater as it has thus far unfolded, certainly reflects all the fraud and the faulty assumptions of a manufactured scandal. The "first shot", or the excessive media blitz of March 1994, diverted attention away from the economy, from social issues and from foreign affairs and directed attention to Whitewater, an issue which reflected scandal, everybody agreed, but nobody could determine what it was all about. According to the Los Angeles Times, the seven biggest newspapers published 92 Whitewater stories in one week and the major networks aired 126 Whitewater stories during the same month of March. At the same time, since the beginning of January, the networks aired an average of only 14 stories a month on the health care debate.9 In retrospect, the media blitz was in fact a propaganda blitz, and while the public did not miss the fact that it was merely the pawn of a political witch hunt, it was difficult to distinguish the so-called good guys from the so-called bad guys, and the only consequence of the deep anger and resentment was that it was subject to exploitation. After all, if the media did not understand the so-called Whitewater scandal, how could the public possibly distinguish head from tail? Most Americans were certainly disgusted by the political, partisan assaults that flooded the airwaves, and Jerry Ryerson, a common American farmer reflected the common viewpoint when he said: "You sometimes wonder if the effort put into things like Whitewater and Tanya Harding and those kind of things would be put into social efforts that would really do us some good, you wonder what the outcome would be.10 Jerry Anderson reflected the will of the majority, but he and others like him, were hostage to a sophisticated plot to cripple the Clinton presidency. In March of 1994, a Gallup poll indicated that 7 out of 10 respondents faulted the media for "paying too much attention to Whitewater."11 Despite the fact that the public was clearly fed up, the Whitewater issue was dragged into the Senate, and the consequent hearings reflected the most bizarre unfolding of the so-called scandal that anyone could possibly imagine. To date, the only consequence of the so-called Whitewater scandal is that the witch hunt has placed Clinton's friends on the defensive and has forced many of them to resign, not because of any ethical or legal violation but because they appeared to interfere with a so-called investigation which was in fact a witch hunt. Talk about fraud and deceit in action. The entire fiasco is so bizarre that it is difficult to explain, and a portion of the Senate Whitewater Hearings is all that is required to taste the tone of a witch hunt. The following exchange, between Senator Alfonse D'Amato and Treasury Secretary, Senator Lloyd Bentsen, relates to Roger Altman, the Deputy Secretary Treasurer who was harshly criticized for allegedly concealing the extent of his contact between the White House and Treasury over Whitewater. Mr Altman, it was argued, should have recused himself from the Whitewater related Madison investigation by the Resolution Trust Corporation, of which he was acting head. The Resolution Trust Corporation [politically motivated?] was investigating the Clinton Whitewater connection or it had mounted a witch hunt to suggest criminal impropriety where none existed, and Altman, it was argued, should have kept his nose out of it. If anybody knew what Whitewater was about, that would perhaps be a legitimate criticism, but under the circumstances, the roar was much ado about nothing. The following transcript reflects the frivolous assault mounted by an extremely arrogant, political opportunists like Senator Alfonse D'Amato: Senator D'Amato: Mr. Secretary, did Josh Steiner convey to you, the enormity of the pressure that he saw being placed on Mr. Altman, as it related to the issue of recusal? Senator Bentsen: No he did not. That obviously I got out of what I saw in his diary. Senator D'Amato: Did you feel, when Mr. Altman came to you the first time and thereafter, several days latter, and I understand that the sequence of exactly which date is not there but our information is on the 3rd after he came back -you knew he had visited the White House. And he told you that, he indicated to you that he had decided not to recuse himself. Did he indicate to you that Mr. Nussbaum or others wanted him to stay on. Senator Bentsen: I don't think he told me that. I thought he'd made up his mind. Senator D'Amato: And when he, when he came back and told you that he had changed his mind, did you tell him that- Senator Bentsen: I didn't understand that he had changed his mind. I understood that he had made up his mind. Senator D'Amato: What did you say to him at that point? Senator Bentsen: Acceptance and acknowledgment for what he had done -made up his mind. Senator D'Amato: Well Mr. Secretary, Roger Altman was under your jurisdiction. You know that. He had expressed obviously his concern that here was a case that affected the Clintons. It could affect them. It was a possibility. That he was a personal friend of the Clintons. In addition, he was in a unique role in working with Mrs. Clinton on the health task force. And that he was the ultimate decision maker. When he initially indicated to you that his inclination was to step aside, you said to him- Senator Bentsen: No, he didn't indicate to me -I've said that repeatedly. Senator D'Amato: He never indicated to you - Senator Bentsen: He certainly did not. Senator D'Amato: Well when he told you that he made up his- Chairman: Let's let the Secretary finish, he's trying to say what he said. Senator Bentsen: He was asking for counsel and advise was the way I read him. Senator D'Amato: Well, what counsel did you give him? Senator Bentsen: I told him it was his decision, that I didn't know the facts in the case, that he had to make that decision. Senator D'Amato: Well, he didn't talk about the case. He talked about his position of being close to the Clintons in being the ultimate decision maker didn't he? You knew that he was close to the Clintons. Senator Bentsen: Well of course I knew that he was a friend of the Clintons -obviously so. I don't recall the details of the discussion. Senator D'Amato: Well Mr. Secretary, as painful as this may be, and I said it a short time ago, I think you had an obligation then, to give him counsel to step aside. I think the matter is so- Senator Bentsen: Senator, I don't agree when I didn't know the facts in the case. Senator D'Amato: This is not a question- Senator Bentsen: I am not about to try and counsel someone on something that is as important as that to that person without knowing the facts. Senator D'Amato: Mr. Senator, we're talking about one case, and the question of the facts, excuse me, is irrelevant. Senator Bentsen: Well, I don't agree. Senator D'Amato: We're not talking about the merits of the case. We're talking about a person who comes to you and says, I have a decision to make, whether I should recuse myself or not in a case that affects the Clintons. You don't need to know more than that because you know he has a personal relationship and will be the ultimate decision maker -now that you knew. And you decided- Senator Bentsen: Senator, you and I have a difference of opinion on that. Senator D'Amato: Well tell me then how you differ from that opinion. Senator Bentsen: I just told you. I think you have to know the facts of the case before you arrive at that kind of judgment. Senator D'Amato: Well, I'm suggesting to you that given the facts- Senator Bentsen: I wasn't given the facts -and frankly I didn't want to get in a position of any intervention on my part. D'Amato certainly illustrates the vague, Whitewater realm where facts do not mean anything, where the aim is to proclaim every friend of the Clintons an enemy of truth and justice and where the only concern is to promote an image of impropriety to accuse the Clinton White House of covering up the truth. It is clear, from D'Amato's line of questioning, that he is not seeking to prove anything beyond create the impression of impropriety -that is the nature of the "first shot." Instead of engaging a critical investigation where the person asking questions is concerned about the facts in a case, D'Amato's only concern is to target the Clintons and their allies and to brand them irresponsible, regardless of the truth. Perhaps his former Long Island neighbour, Bill Casey, who was an expert at manufacturing any truth that satisfied his political agenda, had given D'Amato a crash course in the politics of fraud and deceit. At any rate, the fact that a political opportunist like D'Amato can make a decent, hard working, dedicated and competent public servant like Senator Bentsen squirm, is a clear indication that something is terribly amiss. Perhaps, as painful as it might be, D'Amato should come clean and expose everything he knows about the secret apparatus that Casey developed while he was alive, so that the American people, who care about the facts, can elect a government that works, rather than one that plots the political assassination of the President of the United States. Using the Rush Limbaugh show to air bigotry and propaganda does not exactly give the American people what they voted for. The relentless effort to create the appearance rather than the fact of a scandal raises some interesting questions which have thus far been ignored. Senator D'Amato, for example, used the diary of Joshua Steiner, the chief of staff at Treasury, to make Bentsen squirm. The diary indicated that the White House had pressured Roger Altman not to recuse himself so that he could be a sort of spy who kept the President abreast of the Whitewater investigation -suggesting improper White House interference. That is the allegation that D'Amato was trying to advance. The only problem is, save for a single diary, he failed to produce any evidence -except for Steiner's diary. To be sure, when fraud and deceit is the order of the day, Steiner's diary is potentially the perfect fraud artist -a diary cannot be cross-examined. But a witness can, and Steiner himself disavowed his own diary. And when somebody like D'Amato chooses to give more credence to the so-called "impressionistic" interpretation of events that Steiner's diary contained, you can rest assured that D'Amato was immersed in the effor to manufacture the impression of a scandal. In the final analysis, the significance of Josh's diary [as D'Amato fondly refers to him] is the failure to use it for the purpose of manufacturing scandal -the witch hunt dimension of Whitewater has made that absolutely clear and the "synthetic" Joshua Steiner, who has a reputation for being an uncanny image-ma ker, is way above his league if he thinks that his diary has the power to discredit Senator Bentsen. Moreover, when D'Amato [who does not care about the facts] simply used Josh's diary to create an impression rather than to prove a point, you could smell the anatomy of fraudulent documentation from every state in the union. From a psychological perspective, the written record is far more reliable than the written record, but Clinton's enemies have declared psychological warfare, and that is certainly cause to question the merit of "dead" documentation. Imagine, for example, the absurdity of giving credence to the Whitewater barrage of print and "airwave" propaganda, simply because it is recorded. The "second shot" of the plot to destroy Clinton was the midterm election which placed Nixon's "storm troopers" in a position to charge the White House, and since it was fired the "legitimate" national media has given Nixon clones the opportunity to expose the substance of their new agenda. In particular, Georgia Congressman Newt Gingrich, who is seeking to renew civilization in his own image, claimed that he was willing to cooperate but that he would not compromise and that certainly gives Bill Clinton, who rejects the bigotry and the ignorance that motivates Gingrich, very little room to work in. Gingrich in fact exposed his extreme contempt and ignorance even before the election when he said that his campaign strategy was to portray the Clinton Democrats as "the enemy of normal Americans" and proponents of Stalinist measures.12 By coincidence or more probably by design, that is exactly the strategy that motivated bigots like Rush Limbaugh and Richard Nixon and they are widely detested by normal Americans -the vast majority of the electorate. In retrospect, it is extremely ironic that Newt Gingrich, the self-professed social engineer who claims that he is going to "renew American civilization" is calling Clinton a Stalinist when he in fact exhibits the sort of delusions of grandeur that motivate tyrants. Indeed, like Mark David Chapman who murdered John Lennon to drive the final nail in the coffin of the 60's, Gingrich claims that Americans want to undo the legacy of the 60's, and only a tyrant can possibly understand what that means. Perhaps Gingrich and Chapman can explain it to the majority of Americans who do not understand the level of hatred and bigotry they espouse. Everything about the election results was dramatic, historic, unpredictable and bizarre. Tom Foley, for example, was the first House Speaker to be ousted by his constituents since 1860 -and the benefactor of his power was none other than Newt Gingrich, a partisan guerilla who is determined to cripple the Clinton presidency. The most unsettling fact of the election outcome is that it clearly does not reflect the will of the American people. Richard Burke, of the New York Times, alluded to the fact when he said: "While Republicans touted their electoral surge on Tuesday as a repudiation of President Clinton and an endorsement of conservative Republican policies, there was little evidence that these motivations moved most voters."13 The midterm election was an aberration in terms of delivering the outcome the public demanded -a CNN exit poll indicated that 49% of the public wanted to continue Clinton's economic policies while only 40% wanted to go back to the economic policies of the 1980's. In November of 1992, an angry and frustrated electorate threw George Bush out of the White House because Bill Clinton was deemed to be the best hope for change, and in symbolic terms, in November of 1994, Richard Nixon and George Bush unlocked the back door, to renew his lease. If Richard Nixon has proved anything at all, it is that you do not have to occupy the White House to exercise power in Washington, and fellow "patriots" like George Bush, are probably aware of that. According to Michael Duffy, George Bush was a cautious, reactive President who worked his will through Washington insiders rather than through Reagan-like appeals to public opinion and he possessed Lyndon Johnson's penchant for secrecy and Richard Nixon's feel for foreign policy.14 Like D'Amato, George Bush is perhaps versed in secret government within-a-government tactics, and if that implies potential conflict between Washington insiders and Washington outsiders, who are the targets and who are the assault troops? Vincent Foster is evidently one of the casualties of secret warfare and the fact that his murder is currently being used as a springboard to cripple the Clinton presidency through Whitewater, is repugnant and reprehensible. The common Iran/Contra practise of using secret government contacts with people who did not report directly to them may help "patriots" cover their tracks, but they cannot cover up the crimes that their victims betray. In the meantime, the dramatic, political reversal of 1994 can be measured through an assessment of the allied assault to cripple the Clinton presidency. When the only purpose of radio and television hosts like Rush Limbaugh is to ridicule committed public servants and to applaud extremists, they certainly share the responsibility for imposing what is clearly resented by the vast majority -political gridlock. Americans who do not know very much about politics cannot help but be influenced by a steady barrage of politically motivated garbage, but sooner or later, every declaration of psychological warfare to manipulate the American people is exposed. Limbaugh and the like can manufacture resentment and political parasites like Newt Gingrich can exploit common ignorance, but sooner or later, they will be exposed. Having reduced politics to the tactics of guerilla warfare, the foundation of the victories they rejoice is deception, manipulation and the subversion of the electoral process. Defenders of the garbage they repeatedly espouse make absurd claims like, at least they provide a forum to air views, which is essentially like suggesting that false advertising gives consumers the opportunity to purchase products they neither need nor want. Under normal circumstances, a media blitz exposes scandal, and Bill Clinton, the target of the assault would have been in serious trouble. To date, everybody who has investigated Whitewater, the media, the Senate and the Congress, has discredited itself -the integrity of Bill Clinton is intact. Mudslinging is mudslinging regardless of the forum and on Thursday March 24, 1994, Congressman Jim Leach unleashed a tirade of Whitewater allegations which were too vague to be anything more than mudslinging. Bill Clinton responded and CNN political analyst William Schneider recorded the odd discrepancy between the charges and the defense. In his own words: There is an interesting discrepancy between the charges that Congressman Leach made today and the responses that the President made tonight. Congressman Leach's charges were oddly impersonal. He said Whitewater came to be used to skim money from a failed S&L, he said, oddly, the family of the former governor received value from Whitewater in excess of the resources invested. That taxpayer funds were in all likelihood used to benefit the campaign of the former governor. Those were the kinds of charges that Congressman Leach was making, impersonal charges which essentially say -somebody did something wrong, but no direct accusations against the former governor or the President. The President's defense on the other hand was highly personal. He said my wife and I didn't do anything wrong. If anything wrong was done, I didn't know anything about it. That's, I think, the issue, where it stands right now -impersonal charges and a personal defense. If there was any reason to believe that Bill Clinton had done anything that merits rebuke, or if the truth about Whitewater was being exposed, then Congressman Leach would in fact be satisfying the will of the American people. Under circumstances where the truth is a bag of distortions however, an impersonal charge is essentially a sleazy, mudslinging tactic. To draw a comparison of how easy it is to promote a proposition that bears absolutely no semblance to any credible fact, one need only reflect upon the propaganda that a pro-Nixon/anti-Kennedy advocacy produces. Propagandists who paint a saint-like portrait of Richard Nixon, for example, claim that Kennedy used the Mafia to steal the election in 1963 and that Nixon should have been the President because Kennedy allegedly subverted the electoral process. Indeed, the allegation that Mafia Boss Sam Giancana helped Kennedy get elected, is not in dispute, but the Mafia was simply hedging its bet -it always sought to garner influence. Richard Nixon was always the primary beneficiary of Mafia money and assets, and it is wrong to suggest that Kennedy was corrupt simply because certain Mafia elements supported his candidacy. Clearly, the indisputable legacy of the Kennedy Justice Department is the relentless, unprecedented commitment to fight the Mafia, and "impressionistic" propaganda may give pro-Nixon assault troops the opportunity to allege scandal where none exists, but they cannot alter the substance of their charges. Such is the nature of the "impersonal" charges which have thus far confronted President Bill Clinton. Regardless, the relentless, malevolent assault persists. Immediately after the Nixon-predicted Republican landslide, Senator D'Amato did not waste any time proclaiming his intention to reopen the Whitewater investigation. Perhaps D'Amato is in the process of cultivating anti-liberal witnesses the way Nixon used to cultivate anti-Communist witnesses to bury his enemies and to pervert the law in the process. That is certainly the relentless, urgent motivation that Beyond Peace betrays, and Nixon never failed to find the right bigot for the right job. If history can be relied upon, D'Amato's shopping spree to produce propagandists or to acknowledge the documentation of Josh-like witnesses has not been concluded. Moreover, Congressman Leach slung all the mud he could possibly handle and gave Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr the green light to fire the "third shot". Perhaps, if Kenneth Starr was an independent, experienced prosecutor, there would be every reason to expect justice, but he is simply a politically motivated, anti-Clinton propagandist who is primed to fire the "third shot". Indeed, the course of manipulation is so obvious and the resources that have been invested are clearly so vast, than one can now expect the final, Hiss-like assault, complete with documented "evidence" and eyewitness testimony to boot. If history teaches anything at all however, it is the fact that when politics is the issue, there are two types of witnesses: Those who tell the truth and those who deliberately pervert the course of justice. Moreover, politically motivated propagandists routinely exploit liars through an arsenal of manipulative, coercive, and unlawful inducements to extract fraudulent testimony in effort to achieve their political ends. Unfortunately, the motivation to lie rivals the willingness to tell the truth, and zealots are all too willing to advance the course of a fraud. The Warren Report clearly reflects the pool of anxious liars and extremists who were used to advance the claim that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered the President. For example, in effort to prove that Oswald was violent, former Major General Ed Walker claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald had tried to murder him in April of 1963. Walker was a violent hatemonger who was fired by the military for indoctrinating his troops. When James Meredith enroled in the all-white University of Mississippi, Walker fanned the flames of bigotry and incited a bloody riot that led to the death of two reporters. Ironically, it is people like Ed Walker who incited violence and who were prone to engage a plot to murder the President, there is no evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald shared their hatred. Beyond the transparent Walker, the Warren Report used the more sophisticated intelligence spook, George De Mohrenschildt, to support the fraudulent claim that Oswald murdered Kennedy. The only absolute fact about George is that it is simply not possible to produce a comprehensive biography about him. A "dubious character" even by American intelligence standards, he was born in Russia in 1911, he claimed to be working for the British Intelligence Corps during World War II, he was closely monitored by the FBI since he was a suspected Nazi in 1941, and he was allegedly linked to French intelligence. Beyond his "extracurriculars", George settled in Texas in 1939 where he entered the oil business and travelled the world to countries like Cuba and Venezuela for American oil companies, and emerged in Guatemala at the time that the CIA was training exiles for the Bay of Pigs invasion. Oil and espionage was the common denominator that embraced the murky life of George De Mohrenschildt, and he always sought to cultivate a good relationship with the American State Department in the process. In the eyes of bitterly anti-Communist intelligence spooks like George De Mohrenschildt, the oil industry was not merely a business enterprise, it was the prized commodity of a hostile, east-west rivalry. The business of seeking to control oil production was linked to economic stability, democracy and to the containment of communism, and the object of this international "game" of intrigue, was to develop "strategic" alliances. If the foreign policy-motivated witness who supported the fraudulent claim that Oswald was a homicidal maniac, could further his standing with the State Department, George De Mohrenschildt was available -he was not credible. George Bush and his "judicial" friends may embrace the belief that they are above the law and they can cultivate politically motivated liars, but history indicates that those who promote fraudulent illusions in effort to subvert the electoral process are guilty of treason. The showdown between Clinton and his muddleheaded enemies has already reached the predictable standstill. Since the midterm landslide, Newt Gingrich said that he is not willing to compromise and that the American people want Bill Clinton to compromise with the Congress. According to his peculiar interpretation of the midterm Republican landslide, the people finally came to terms about why the Congress did not work and in his words, they all reached the so-called obvious conclusion: "It's the Liberal Democrats stupid!" Anyone who does not agree with Gingrich is deemed to be stupid and forced to compromise: A fine would-be dictator indeed. In the meantime, while Bill Clinton is still the President, young, Gingrich styled Republicans flood the national media with the slogan "the Great Society does not work!", in effort to garner support for the claim that the so-called welfare state is responsible for every single problem that plagues America. The message is relentlessly promoted. Preying on the weakest and the most vulnerable in society, they seek to dismantle the welfare benefits that single mothers and children receive, to satisfy Americans who are angry over high taxes. For those who like to make a career out of the art of deception, it is difficult to contrive a more fraudulent proposition than the one that is currently promoted. In the first place, fiscal irresponsibility reflected the biggest setback of the Great Society and when Lyndon Johnson, who was waging a war on every front, was simultaneously pouring about 25 billion dollars a year into the Vietnam war, it is rather trite to propose penny cutbacks. To the consternation of the ignorant, organized foray, the pennies that single mothers and children receive are not responsible for all the crime, all the violence, all the immorality, all the taxes and all the bigots who run for President. Gingrich may boldly assert that the midterm landslide has given him the mandate to govern, but the evidence suggests that it has given the American people everything they detest: The American people are fed up with a Congress that does not work yet they got a state of gridlock. The American people are fed up with partisan bickering yet they empowered partisan guerilla fighters. The American people resent fiscally irresponsible advocates yet they turned the reigns of power over to those who aggressively promote the failed economic policies of the past. The American people are sick and tired of Whitewater, as it was played out in the media, in the Senate and in the Congress yet the intention to dramatically escalate the witch hunt, has already been announced. Like the current campaign to impose a widely despised political agenda, the relentless Whitewater assault on Bill Clinton and his friends reflects a glaringly obvious, Alger Hiss-like fraud. It is ultimately foolish to ignore Nixon's accomplished, common, fiercely relentless tendency to fraudulently destroy his political enemies, and in the final analysis, Nixon has certainly been negotiating the "third shot" for the past twenty years -and that is the context for executing and exploiting the murder of intelligent "liberals" like Whitewater attorney Vincent Foster, in a calculated, sophisticated plot to bring down the Clinton presidency. Clearly, events following the so-called suicide have thus far reflected all the political guerilla tactics of cloak-and-dagger patriots who exploit tragedy and ignorance, and that is the only rational explanation that is fully accountable to the record. Richard Nixon, a patriot who was always preoccupied by the obsession to destroy his enemies, engaged virtual hand-to-hand combat in effort to thwart their political initiatives, and Vincent Foster is simply one of many casualties. Motivated by the determination to avoid what he called the ultimate revenge of the 60's, the enactment of the Clinton health care plan, Richard Nixon invariably waged a secret war to cripple the Clinton presidency. Clearly, Oliver North-style intelligence operations have perverted the course of politics so consistently since the Kennedy assassination that the existence of an extremely sophisticated, organized plot to hijack the Clinton presidency can be taken for granted. The secret, unaccountable empire that Nixon alluded to from beyond the grave when he predicted the midterm election, is certainly grounded in a long, murky history. When Angleton was fired from the CIA for example, he had been in the process of building a secret, parallel agency to evade Congressional oversight, and with one hand planted in the bottomless pocket of Howard Hughes [Nixon had his hand in the other pocket], the power of the phenomenal resources of the "party machine" was absolutely extraordinary. Like Angleton, Bill Casey shared the determination to work through an unaccountable empire, and the secret apparatus that he developed or expanded is certainly a powerful, unknown entity. At the same time, secret intelligence networks betray themselves when they subvert the American electoral process, and it is ultimately not possible to manipulate the evidence that history records, in a free and open society. They may do all their dirty work in secret and they may carefully cover up their tracks, but they can never shape the will or subvert the common decency of the American people. In the "patriotic" eyes of Richard Nixon, "Whitewater" is just revenge. During Watergate, he did everything he could possibly think of in a failed attempt to dismiss Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, and it is safe to assume that prior to his death, he did everything he could possibly do to plot the emergence of Special anti-Clinton propagandist, Kenneth Starr. Clearly, anybody who could predict the midterm election landslide could predict the fact that Kenneth Starr was poised to fire "the third shot" and to cripple the Clinton presidency in the process. Indeed, Richard Nixon's posthumous Beyo nd Peace, practically dictates the fact when he says: "True constitutional government requires an independent judiciary, empowered to strike down legislative and executive acts that violate the Constitution."15 Taken at face value, Nixon may be right, but we are talking about a violent criminal who routinely subverted the Constitution and who equated the terms independent judiciary and politically motivated hit squad. In other words, what Richard Nixon is spelling out in no uncertain terms is that a politically motivated Special Prosecutor like Kenneth Starr should be granted the power and the authority to cripple a 1960's style "criminal" like President Bill Clinton. Richard Nixon's sudden, relentless urge to promote Special Prosecutor-style justice clearly betrays a fraud in the making. In his own words: "one of the most urgent tasks for American Presidents in the future is to educate people on the need to restore the judiciary to its proper role as guardian of the Constitution, not its amender." Richard Nixon shops for propagandists wherever he can get them, and in his eyes, the only legitimate purpose of the press, the judiciary, the presidency, the Congress and the Senate, is to promote the bigotry, the propaganda and the hate that motivates Richard Nixon. To date, Richard Nixon has done an astounding job mobilizing all the like-minded resources of the Cold War to mount an illegal, all-out declaration of war against anyone who does not think or act like Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon is not around to claim the credit, but Robert Dole, who thinks that "the Whitewater matter is going to be a big problem for the President", is a fine torchbearer.16 And Oliver North, who once did everything he possibly could to subvert the Senate, is now convinced that America needs a better President. The sum of the plot to cripple the Clinton presidency is clear. The first shot was the senseless media blitz that followed the secret, scumbag-sponsored murder of Vincent Foster.17 The second shot was the "predictable" historic election which effectively crippled the Clinton presidency. The third shot is merely a formality -a reflection of the overkill mentality that motivates overzealous extremists. The third shot was immediately acknowledged when the intent to dramatically escalate politically motivated Whitewater hearings was instantly announced, following the near fatal second shot. On November 20, 1963, Rose Cheramie, a waitress who worked the bars in New Orleans was pushed from a car by a David Ferrie associate, Sergio Arcacha Smith. Tended for her wounds at a near-by hospital Cheramie frantically warned everybody that she came in contact with that the President was going to be shot. Doctor Victor Weiss described the content of Cheramie's story when he said: "Rose Cheramie arrived at East Louisiana State hospital on the 20th of November. She was treated on that unit for rather minor injuries from being thrown from the car. She quite openly told a number of the staff, including the doctors attending her, that she was aware that the President was going to be assassinated." Like Rose Cheramie, Jim Garrison, J. Edgar Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and the like, were also clearly in a position to predict the assassination of John F. Kennedy. In November of 1994, the fact that Richard Nixon had predicted the unpredictable political assassination of President Bill Clinton, was publicly exposed on CNN. Copyright 1994 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2E ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1The New York Times, November 19 1994. 2Toronto Star, April 29 1994. 3Richard Nixon, Beyond Peace, Random House, 1994. 4Ibid., p.252 5Ibid., p.245 & p.249. 6Ibid., p.210 7Ibid., p.209 8Ibid., p.193 9ABC NEWS Nightline, Whitewater: Overplayed, Underplayed?, April 19 1994. 10Ibid. 11Macleans, April 11 1994. 12The New York Times, November 10 1994. 13Ibid., 14Time, August 21 1989. 15Richard Nixon, Beyond Peace, p.181. 16The New Yorker, January 17 1994, p.32. 17In his November 10, 1994 analysis of the midterm American election, Jeffrey Simpson, a fine writer for the Globe & Mail, called Oliver North a scumbag, and that is where that adjective originates. ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, All My Relations. Omnia Bona Bonis, Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions 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, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== 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
