Clinton Bashing Book Burning
By Gary Aldrich (10/06/03)
It seems in spite of the endless stream of books and articles condemning the Clinton Administration, there will always be those who steadfastly defend Bill and Hillary Clinton’s record. Apparently DNA evidence, an impeachment, and the findings of a federal judge who concluded that Clinton lied under oath is not enough for the New York Times.
After we were attacked on September 11, 2001, people quickly lined up to report that a national security collapse (which I described as “ongoing” in my first book) was fostered during the Clinton Administration, leading directly to the terrorist attacks in New York City and the Pentagon. More than 3,000 innocents were killed that day, mostly in New York City.
The New York Times is the constant defender of Clinton and Clinton, and is “the newspaper of record” upon which many naive people rely upon to get their daily news. The Times knows this, and knows they have a loyal following ready to believe anything they print. It’s clear the editors of the Times play their readers like a Stradivarius.
“The newspaper of record” has severely crossed the line, and no objective person should remain silent in the face of such outrageous misuse of our nation’s First Amendment right. I do not believe our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor so that a giant corporation could print a constant dumb-beat in defense of the indefensible.
The New York Times is either in a constant state of denial, or they have thrown off all attempts to remain truthful and objective in favor of an ideological purpose. Just exactly what that purpose is remains locked in their cold hearts, but it has nothing to do with the love for President Bush or our Traditional American Values.
On the contrary, it has much to do with their illogical and irrational love of the Left – the Hard-Left—and I haven’t met a single person who can explain why people like those at the Times hate this country so much that they would try to undermine it.
But for some reason they do. Make no mistake, The New York Times is willing to print a daily lie to perform maintenance on a fiction that promotes their political agenda—salvaging some positive aspect of Clinton’s eight years in office.
Take the latest article written on September 23, 2003, by New York Times writer Michiko Kakutani. This writer, clearly on the lookout for any negative Clinton book, joins a mainstream media army – a propaganda machine, really - dedicated to the denial of the obvious.
Kakutani purported to review the newest biography of Bill Clinton, entitled “Bill Clinton – An American Journey,” written by Nigel Hamilton. Now, Mr. Hamilton is not an American citizen. He’s a well-respected British author who won a prestigious Whitbread award some years ago for his biography of Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery. Mr. Hamilton, having won such an award along with the financial rewards that come with it, would hardly be a candidate for membership in the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.”
Lacking any real evidence that Hamilton has aligned with me or any of my friends, the New York Times regurgitates the same allegations they made as early as 1996 against people like me who were then, and still are today, trying to tell the truth about Bill and Hillary Clinton. Why? Because Hamilton used some of the eyewitness information contained in my book. I have since been fully vindicated, but the NY Times must have missed that portion of US history when all my important allegations about Clinton were underscored by presentation of Monica’s infamous blue dress and the following lab results.
I met today with the author of one of the latest “Clinton bashers”. This reasonable, very intelligent investigative journalist never once cited any passage from my book, yet was still able to fill more than 317 pages with interviews, copies of documents, revealing photographs, important sources willing to go on the record, and footnotes, bibliography, index – the whole enchilada.
Never mind. Not only will the New York Times never review Richard Miniter’s book, “Losing Bin Laden,” they won’t even cover the release of this startling book as a news story.
What is doubly remarkable is that the book is on their own best-seller’s list and many former high-level Clinton Administration officials, including Sandy Burger, agreed to be interviewed for the book. What they have to say should shock every American – should shock every New Yorker—even the pathetic drones who work at the New York Times.
Don’t rely on my opinion; I’m just one author who has suffered from the purposeful blindness of the New York Times. Bernard Goldberg, a career investigative journalist and well-known media personality had this to say, in his block-busting book, “Bias:”
“…while newspapers all over the country were writing about the furor my column had caused, the New York Times, the newspaper of record, did not see fit to print a single word about the issue I had raised. The world’s most important newspaper, which would make room on page one for a story about the economy of Upper Volta or about the election of a lesbian dogcatcher in Azerbaijan or about affirmative action in Fiji, didn’t think a story about media bias, leveled by a network news correspondent, was worth even a few paragraphs.”
(Printer friendly version) Email: Gary Aldrich
