Prankgate: mistake or lie?

For you to complain about others’ misstating you views is rich indeed, as you might know from the replies to your posts by so many participants on this board. You’ve even had the unique and dubious honor of a recent Pit thread on the subject of your openness to debate and discussion.

As for the missile-defense thread, for just one example, I asked you repeatedly to explain the discrepancy between your stated conclusion and the reasoning you continually asserted. A number of others made similar inquiries. You refused repeatedly. Who owes an apology? People wanting to understand and be enlightened by a different point of view, or the one refusing to so participate?

For pity’s sake, where have you been the last nine years? In addition to elucidator’s initial list, one can add: Troopergate. FBIgate. Travelgate. Massmurdergate. The entire Ken Starr investigation laundrylistgate. Everything Bob Barr has said since 1992 gate. Ad nauseam gate. I know there’s a lot more; that’s just what comes to mind.

Evidence of Clinton’s official wrongdoing in each case: Zero.

Evidence of a coordinated smear campaign, including extensive “reckless disregard for the truth”, as the legal standard for libel states: Explain it away if you can.

Evidence of a continued state of denial by those gullible enough to buy into said smear campaign, or cowardly enough to avoid facing up to their conduct: Judge for yourself.

And, Elvis, you owe me an apology and retraction for misstating my position on this thread.

Maybe being a liberal is like being in love: It means never having to say you’re sorry.

So AGAIN what’s up with the big investigation ?
Pretending to be noble and forgiving while scrambling to find evidence you can use in court is hardly a virtue, nor does it fall with in the common sense definition of “moving forward”.

If you could point out where that occurred, I would gladly do so. I assume you’re responding negatively to my suggesting you seem to be condoning lying - if you in fact do not, an explanation of your apparent acceptance of the Prankgate lies by various conservative commentators would be most helpful.

FTR, like most people, I am a moderate with a sense of fairness, not a liberal. There are many more regular posters on this board far to my left on both social and fiscal issues.

It does seem to be common among the hard right to call anyone else “liberal”, as if moderates actually don’t exist, much less form the substantial majority. But their reasons for doing so are another thread topic.

In the 2nd post on this thread, I wrote: “Speaking as an enthusiastic Bush supporter, I cannot see any way to exonerate the Bush team. Even if they didn’t start the story, they knew that it was false or exaggerated. They should have put out a correcton.”

Thats because it actually did happen, just not enough to make a big deal out of it.

elucidator: Your take on recent history is … interesting. All of those investigations showed conclusively that the allegations had no basis in fact? Horseshit.

Why don’t you go back to my missile defense thread and read the New York University link on the Chinese gaining sensitive satellite and missile technology and know-how under the Clinton administration, a complete departure from past practices? Note also that Loral was one of the biggest contributors to the DNC, and one of the biggest benefactors from the change in policy regarding China. That’s at least one assertion down.

You’ll get no quibble from me that virtually all allegations involving Clinton could not be conclusively proven. In fact, “You can’t prove it” should be Clinton’s epitaph.

Elvis - I didn’t answer your questions in that thread, because before asking them you made a negative statement about me regarding what I’d posted that you couldn’t back up. I and others called you on it. Rather than apologize and retract, (or hell, prove it), you tsk-tsked and moved on. Like you are attempting to continue to do now.

To those who didn’t do what you did in that thread, I answered their questions rather succinctly, I’d say.

december - You’re obviously right, as he’s continuing to prove.

Rather, it only proves that a relentless investigation by a zealous prosecutor with millions of Fed money at his disposal could find no culpability. What do you want? A recount? One must suspect that no amount of investigation would satisfy you. Innocence is almost impossible to prove.

My dear sir, we have had almost nothing but quibbles! How much you manage to hide behind that single word “conclusively”! Your epitath might well be “It hasn’t been conclusively proved that I’m dead”.

So its “guilty, but unproven”? Or rather, “guilty because unproven”? By your jurisprudence, that poor shmuck security guard at the Olympics would be sitting next door to McViegh. By all accounts, Arkansas politics is very nearly as corrupt as Texas politics. No virgin is ever elected Queen of the Harlots. I was frankly surprised that after all that investigation, zero-zip-nada could be found. But to use a phrase you so admire, I “got over it”.

As to the Chinese brouhaha… Military secrets and tech to a hostile foreign power is not corruption, is not skirting the ethical edges of fundraising. It is treason.

This is a whole different level of malfeasance, rather stealing the little old lady’s purse as compared to pushing her in front of a bus. I would have thought you might tread lightly here, recognizing the awesome gravity of the charge.

I overestimated you. Won’t do it again, I promise.

OK, you’re correct, and I apologize for overlooking that one. My error.

Now, with that -gate out of the way, maybe you can answer this: What is the difference between this instance and any of the other stories that have been seemingly-endlessly invented and reported by the right wing? How many more stories that all of us (except the amazing Milossarian) have been subjected to since 1992 would you equally condemn for their lack of a factual basis?

Elvis, thanks for the apology. IMHO the left is more effective at putting out false stories than the right, because the media helps them.

E.g. after extensive research, nobody at all has ever found evidence of W’s alleged cocaline usage. The story has “No basis in fact.” (to use Elvis’s phrase.) It’s not even a proper rumor, because there’s no source. Will the left apologize for spreading this unsubstantiated story?

Ha!

How unfortunate that the Republican-led Congress got rid of the independent counsel statute! And so soon after their public flameout over the failed persecution of Clinton, and before their own man managed to squeak into the White House!

Alas, that we cannot see our current administration examined with the same loving exactitude that our former president enjoyed.

If we still had that statute, then an independent counsel could be appointed to get to the bottom of this mess; issuing subpoenas and so on, interviewing the “unidentified aides” (who?) who claimed to have “seen” this so-called “damage”. And who was told about it, and when, and what sort of arrangements were made to tell the press.

After all, lying to the American public is supposed to be serious … at least it was when Clinton was President.

But - that’s not all! There are SO many OTHER things an independent counsel could look into, should the “Case of the fake made-up damage and transparently libelous slander that immediately followed” somehow turn into a dry well - though I admit, that does not look very likely.

There’s always the Secret Service’s role in Jenna’s binge drinking, for example. Or Laura’s 1963 act of vehicular manslaughter and exactly why she was never prosecuted for it. There’s Jeb’s serial infidelity (um, “allegedly”) with the staff member who’s (by strange circumstance!) a former Playboy Bunny. October Surprise might be fun to revisit, should he want to talk to Dad. Then there’s always the S&L disaster (Neil).

There’s the years-of-cocaine-abuse thing, the vote-theft thing (that’s kind of a biggie), the conspiring-with-pals-in-big-energy-to-defraud-the-American-public thing …

I’d say there’s at least enough there to blow through about $40 million of the public’s money, and he might even come up with something! Come on people, what do you say?

Let’s bring back the independent counsel statute to begin an investigation of the lies and slander issued by well-placed Bush functionaries, and to find out where that investigation leads!

“The left is more effective at putting out false stories than the right, because the media helps them.”

Really? For the sake of argument, I’ll even accept that the mainstream media is a bunch of liberal lapdogs. But the “false stories” you’re talking about (more accurately described as “unsubstantiated rumors”) rarely are first reported in the mainstream media. They start in trash journalism–tabloids, amateur web sites, talk radio, and the like. Conservatives far and away dominate those outlets.

Good god, how many people are on Matt Drudge’s rumor-mongering mailing list? How many listen to that paragon of accuracy, Rush Limbaugh? And are there any liberal or moderate equivalents of these trash news outlets, where baseless rumors about conservative meanies are started every day of the week?

BTW, I thoroughly agree with elucidator that the Bush team’s response to the dissemination of outright falsehoods about the White House “vandalism” was so weak as to invite the impression that it really had happened. There’s a big difference between saying “Those incidents never occurred” and saying “There might have been a prank or two, but we want to move forward.” The latter is hardly a denial.

*Originally posted by minty green *
And are there any liberal or moderate equivalents of these trash news outlets [Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh], where baseless rumors about conservative meanies are started every day of the week?

Yes, all the sources that reported the unsubstantiated story about W’s cocaine.

Those who gave 3 days of blockbuster coverage right before the election to a 24-year-old, irrelevant misdemeanor DUI.

Those who promulgated the baseless stories about Jeb Bush and two different Florida women, but who ignored the sworn testimony of JB that Clinton had raped her.

In short, the liberal equivalents of Rush Limbaugh include TV stations CBS, NBC, ABC, and especially CNN.

eluc:

**
Great. Dramatically said. Now then, did you read the NYU link? Here; I’ll help you.

Just an odd series of unrelated coincidences, starting in the Clinton administration. Right?

That’s so paranoid as to be laughable, december. Let’s examine your examples:

Big freakin’ deal. The media reported that political opponents were spreading rumors of a candidate’s past cocaine use, as well as reporting on the candidate’s non-denial denials. Amazingly, I seem to remember precisely the same thing happen to a certain Democratic governor of Texas in the midst of a campaign a few years ago. The mainstream media started neither rumor, and reported on them only when they became so big that they affected the campaigns of the candidates. So where’s that big liberal media bias?

I ask for an example of a groundless rumor, and this is what you come up with? Like there’s some factual question about whether Bush was busted for driving while intoxicated? Pul-leeze. Remember, I’m looking for unsubstantiated rumors, not cold, hard, undeniable facts. And labeling Bush’s DUI “irrelevant” hardly makes it so to the millions of people who think drunk driving is pretty damn important. Or do only conservatives get to decide which facts about a candidate’s past are relevant and worthy of news coverage?

In what weird, parallel universe do you live? Like Juanita Broaddrick’s allegations of rape weren’t prominently featured on 60 Minutes and given weeks of coverage on every news program in the country? “Ignored,” my winterfresh ass.

Get your facts straight. There was never any allegation, or rumor, about that (and if there is, please so cite). What there was is a question that was asked of every candidate in the primaries, and answered by every one with some version of “Yes” or “No”. Except for one: Bush refused to answer at first, then came back with several evasively-worded rsponses about how he would have met the legal limitations for an FBI background check at specific times.

If he really had never blown any coke, don’t you think he’d have simply said “No”, with or without some comment, without the evasive legalistic nonresponses of a type the right has been so quick to condemn in Clinton?

You asked for evidence of Bush’s cocaine use history. Isn’t it pretty clear he has thereby provided such evidence himself?

*Originally posted by minty green *
Yes, all the sources that reported the unsubstantiated story about W’s cocaine.
[/quote]
Big freakin’ deal…The mainstream media started neither rumor, and reported on them only when they became so big that they affected the campaigns of the candidates. So where’s that big liberal media bias?

Minty, your response is reasonable. I’ll try to answer on an adult basis.

  1. Drudge and Limbaugh never started a rumor either. All their reports were based on sources. Let’s be fair and apply the same standard.

  2. The standard of reporting rumors “when they became so big that they affected the campaigns” wasn’t followed even-handedly. Normally the media don’t report groundless accusations at all. Rumors of Clinton’s messing with women in Arkansas were swirling around for a year or two, but they weren’t reported until Linda Tripp and Lucianne Goldberg went to Michael Isikoff. (It’s interesting that MI’s story was withheld, which allowed Drudge to get the scoop. If Drudge hadn’t been around, I wonder what would have happened.)

  3. There was at least one person who said he had done heavy drugs with Gore, which contradicted Gore’s admission of light drug usage. That was never addressed in the main stream press. However, they gave plenty of attention to Bush’s supposed usage, which nobody supported. Looks like bias to me.

** And labeling Bush’s DUI “irrelevant” hardly makes it so to the millions of people who think drunk driving is pretty damn important. Or do only conservatives get to decide which facts about a candidate’s past are relevant and worthy of news coverage? **
This is a stretch, isn’t it? Since Bush was known to have been a heavy social drinker at that time, since it was 24 years ago, and since he had stopped entirely, you don’t really think this was important, do you? Do you know anyone who vets candidates for 24 year old misdemeaner DUI’s before voting for them? Would you ask this question of a job applicant?

**Those who promulgated the baseless stories about Jeb Bush and two different Florida women, but who ignored the sworn testimony of JB that Clinton had raped her.
[/quote]
In what weird, parallel universe do you live? Like Juanita Broaddrick’s allegations of rape weren’t prominently featured on 60 Minutes and given weeks of coverage on every news program in the country? “Ignored,” my winterfresh ass. **
You may be right. I do remember Katherine Willey getting that sort of treatment. However, with JB I recall the story being reported by right wing sources for months before a TV station would interview her. I think it was NBC. Even then, they didn’t air their interview for weeks, until after the Wall Street Journal ran a serious article.

I don’t watch 60 Minutes, so if you say they gave the story a big spread, I’ll take your word for it. But, are you sure that you’re not mixing up KW and JB?
Elvis wrote** Bush refused to answer at first, then came back with several evasively-worded responses about how he would have met the legal limitations for an FBI background check at specific times.

If he really had never blown any coke, don’t you think he’d have simply said “No”, with or without some comment, without the evasive legalistic nonresponses of a type the right has been so quick to condemn in Clinton?

You asked for evidence of Bush’s cocaine use history. Isn’t it pretty clear he has thereby provided such evidence himself?**

Elvis, this makes some sense, but normal reporting standards wouldn’t allow reporting of the event. Basically, someone is allowed to say, “No comment” and leave it at that. E.g., you never saw a report of Clinton’s STD, which is “pretty clear” from his refusal to release his medical records. For that matter you never saw a report of HRC calling someone a Fuckin’ Jewish Bastard – even though there were 3 witnesses – until she went public with her denial.

Actually, I think the media bias is more in what they don’t report. There have been a lot of true, substantiated stories about Clinton and other Democrats, which were reported for months or years by RL and MD, before the main stream press ever picked them up.

As a current example, Fox and the big Chicago newspapers have been reporting for weeks on Jesse Jackson’s financial misdeeds. I don’t believe this story has gotten much coverage on the major TV stations, although they did give a lot of coverage to the mistress and the love child.

december:

Drudge and Limbaugh’s reports are naturally based on sources, but those sources far too often themselves are doing nothing more than repeating rumors they had heard themselves. Drudge in particular openly brags about the “uncensored” nature of his reports, by which he means “I haven’t actually bothered to check any of this stuff, I’m just reprinting what other people are saying.” This is vastly different than the mainstream media, which does not, as a matter of course, report rumors until there is either independent confirmation of their accuracy or the rumor itself has grown to the point that it becomes the story because of its effect on the politician/public figure/whoever. I notice you still haven’t offered a liberal or moderate equivalent of the conservative rumor-mongers I identified.

Naturally, it’s sometimes difficult to draw the line between repeating a rumor and reporting on the effect of a rumor. The Jeb Bush adultery charge is a good example of that. The difference is that the mainstream media usually makes an effort to draw such a line, unlike conservative rumor-mongers like Limbaugh, Drudge, and a fair portion of the stuff I’ve seen on Fox News.

Rumors of Clinton’s dalliances with women were indeed reported before Linda Tripp dumped the Lewinski story on Newsweek. For instance, you may remember Troopergate and all the follow-up to Gennifer Flowers, in which it was widely reported that Clinton was believed to be a serial philanderer. But without confirmation of those charges, the mainstream media quickly abandoned the rumor-mongering. Obviously, right-wing Clinton bashers did not.

As for Gore’s alleged “heavy drug use,” I remember significant coverage of that story in Newsweek and other outlets. (You’re talking about the guy in Tennessee who says Al smoked a ton of weed until he ran for Congress, right?) Since it was basically one person’s word against another’s, and Gore had already admitted to taking some trips on the ganja train, the story was quickly abandoned. On the other hand, I do not remember mainstream reporting on Bush’s alleged cocaine use, other than to the effect that he still refused to answer the question.

About Bush’s DWI conviction: Yes, I do know at least one person for whom driving while intoxicated is an absolute vote-killer. She wasn’t terribly likely to vote for Bush and Cheney in the first place, but their DWI’s sealed the deal. I’m quite sure other people feel the same way. Personally, I don’t really give a damn about a 24-year-old DWI charge. But I sure do care about Bush’s attempts to hide his criminal record from the public, which was the focus of the majority of the reporting on the issue once the story broke.

And yes, I would ask a job applicant about his criminal record, right down to the speeding tickets (and I have several). I’m a lawyer, and we’re held to a high standard of conduct when it comes to such matters. A candidate for President should be held to no lesser standard.

It does look like I was wrong about 60 Minutes and Juanita Broaddrick–it was indeed Dateline NBC where she (with much media fanfare) told her story, while Kathleen Willey was on 60 Minutes. Broaddrick’s story may have been the subject of Drudge Report muckracking for months or years before she came forward, but until she did come forward, it was nothing but the kind of unsubstantiated rumors the mainstream media does not report on. That’s especially true because, as “Jane Doe #5” in the Paula Jones suit, Broaddrick specifically denied via affidavit that Clinton had ever done any such thing. So what’s the repsonsible thing to do when faced with unsubstantiated rumors of rape and an alleged victim who denies everything? Lead with it on the evening news?

Interestingly, though, Kathleen Willey’s story was reported by Newsweek long before she went public. The difference there is that Michael Isikoff had Linda Tripp’s eyewitness testimony of Willey’s story and demeanor, even though Willey denied it to Isikoff. It got reported in Newsweek a year or so before the Lewinski story broke, although it didn’t get much media attention because the victim denied it and there was no other verification.

Elvis:

I’m a big fan of the Fifth Amendment and the principle that declining to answer a question is not the same thing as admitting its allegations. Dubya admits to having had a wild “youth” :rolleyes:, and I think his explanation that addressing any specifics of the party years would make everything about those years fair game is quite plausible. Answering “Did you use cocaine?” naturally leads to “What drugs did you do, and on what dates did you do them?” and “What about those two stewardesses and the golden retriever in the back office of your failed Midland oil business?”

**
Examples, please? Who’s demonizing whom without evidence here?

I hardly ever listen to Rush Limbaugh. But I love what’s said about him here in this forum, by a bunch of people that have probably never listened to an hour of him. You’d think he was slaughtering the first-born of Democrats throughout the nation.

Funny; it didn’t sound like that on the occasions when I tuned in. He talks about topical political issues, albeit from a conservative perspective that I frequently find too unwavering and annoying. He is certainly bombastic. But I haven’t heard anything wildly unlike what is posted here on political topics by opinionated people of both the left and right.

And the stuff about FoxNews is amusing to say the least. Again, gimme cites. Shall we get started on CBS, ABC, CNN?

I don’t understand what point you are getting at here. In the cases of Flowers and Lewinsky, Clinton admitted it (eventually). In the other, it was the word of troopers against his. Given the aforementioned admissions, people can draw their own conclusions.

If you’re asking why people should care, A) I think you’re at least aware of why people do; B) That’s another GD thread; C) That no doubt has already been another GD thread.