My opinion on Limbaugh is largely based on many afternoons of driving around with my father, a Republican who does at least listen to him with an open mind and a critical ear. Naturally, it’s a bitch to provide citations for a medium as transitory as radio. Nevertheless, my oft-confirmed impression is that Limbaugh gleefully repeats plenty of unsubstantiated rumors about his political opponents. Admittedly, he often accomplishes this with a wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more caveat that they’re only rumors. But considering that his followers ape his statements so uncritically that they proudly refer to themselves as dittoheads, I hardly think such disclaimers are intended or received as indicators that the story is likely B.S.
Nevertheless, if time permits, I will attempt to gather citations of the formerly fat one spreading unsubstantiated rumors. I honestly don’t think it will be too hard.
And as a matter of fact, Clinton has never admitted to a sexual relationship with Gennifer Flowers. But I guess if Rush and Drudge repeat a story enough times, somebody is bound to believe it, right? My point there, by the way, was to counter december’s claim that the mainstream media ignored allegations of Clinton’s philandering until Monica hit the news.
Not so fast, friend, you’re on record:
*Originally posted by december *
[/quote]
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!
[/quote]
Ha indeed. I’m glad you now see the difference between a lie and a question. Most of us learned that in kindergarten. Now where’s your apology for misstating the “Liberal” position on this simple statement of fact?
As for being allowed not to answer, you have to be saying that history of drug use is not relevant to the job. However, there are almost no jobs anywhere in this country that you can get if you refuse to answer a question about drug use, or submit to a test. If Bush’s nonresponse would disqualify him from a burger-flipping job, why should he or anyone else get a pass just because the job he was applying for instead involves having a finger on the button? And that isn’t even starting on his alcohol problem and its relationship to the most stressful job in the world.
[/quote]
E.g., you never saw a report of Clinton’s STD, which is “pretty clear” from his refusal to release his medical records.
[/quote]
I’m sure you can think of any number of reasons for that. Why do you infer there’s an STD involved? Most of the right-wing venom on that issue is speculation about cocaine use, not sex.
There was 1 “witness”, the alleger (allegator?) himself, not 3. There are multiple witnesses who said that did NOT occur.
Now, what else do we have from the alternate universe of Free Republic?
If you’re really saying that Bush’s DUI (and Cheney’s 3, let us not forget) is a “baseless rumor”, you’re further gone than I thought. Bush himself discussed it the day it came out. It’s fact, not allegation. You can debate its significance, or its timing, or the significance of how he hid it all those years, or “how [he] learned and grew from mistakes [he] may or may not have made” that would have helped us assess his character better, or how it indicated he’d handle the job. But you can’t debate its factuality, nor its materiality to many of us. Failure to report this fact would have been irresponsible, wouldn’t it? Comparing it to manufactured lies is even more irresponsible.
There were no stories about Jeb’s alleged affair in any press you could consider mainstream until he publicly denied the gossip going around Tallahassee. Can you name one?
The Broaddrick story you’re desperately trying to compare it to changed a number of times, and even the usual right-wing hatemongers wouldn’t touch it. Hint: If you can’t even get Larry Klayman to file a suit on your behalf against a Democratic politician, do you have anything at all? She even denied it under oath.
It finally “broke” in that bastion of objectivity, the Wall Street Journal, on its famously choleric EDITORIAL page due to its lact of fact, not a “serious article” as you stated. But the usual folks who will unquestioningly believe anything at all about Clinton, as long as it’s defamatory, automatically believed it as well. To do so, they even had to believe Broaddrick to be a perjurer. Shame on you.
Now, are you SURE you’re clear on the definition of a lie?
**
I’m basing that not on anything Rush or Drudge* might have said, but on Bill and Hillary on “60 Minutes” before he was elected for the first time. Perhaps my memory is failing me.
(*BTW … what does Drudge ever “say?” 99 percent of the time, the stuff on his website is links to major media outlets. The other 1 percent of the time, he’s taking potshots at Salon.Com ::shrug:
And I wish I would have known the standard is “incontrovertable proof and only if the person in question says it is true” earlier. Things would have been much quieter here in November and December.
I assume Minty is an intelligent, well-informed citizen who gets his or her news coverage from mainstream sources, If so, then Minty’s post, oddly enough, provides some support for my thesis.
Sometime during impeachment scandal, Clinton admitted to having sex with GF one time. (IIRC this was under oath, either during the Paula Jones deposition or to the Grand Jury.) Clinton’s admission contradicted his 60 Minutes statement made during the campaign during 1991 or 1992.
GF said that they had had an affair that went on for years, and that she had been rewarded with a state job.
GF had telephone answering machine tapes of conversations with BC, including him telling her to lie about thier relationship.
No main stream investigative reporter checked out GF’s tapes or searched for witnesses to an affair that GF said had gone on for years, although this could have been a juicy story. I maintain that their failure to do so is a measure of their bias. Minty’s lack of knowledge regarding this scandal shows that biased media coverage keeps even people as knowledgable as Minty somewhat in the dark.
If Clinton admitted to boffing Flowers* in his deposition or something, I missed it. Of course, considering everything else that was going on in the Lewinsky scandal, it would not surprise me at all if that fact didn’t exactly make the front pages. As I’m sure you and Milo are aware, all he admitted to in that 1992 60 Minutes interview was “doing things that hurt my marriage” or some such vague nonsense.
But come on, those tapes Flowers produced were so ridiculously–and obviously–doctored that I’d hesitate to draw any conclusions at all from them about what was said and in what context. The tapes were broadcast (remember her press conference) and quickly examined by experts, who determined pretty quickly they had been played with (cut and splice, if I recall).
And you’ve really got your patented Clinton-hating tunnel-vision goggles on for point number 4. The Gennifer Flowers story was gigantic news at the time, and led the news for several straight days. Are you seriously suggesting that hundreds of political reporters, from all ends of the political spectrum, just quoted Flowers from her news conference, printed Clinton’s denial, and went home? That’s so nonsensical I can’t believe you even suggested it. Christ, even the right-winger who printed the original “Troopergate” article (name and magazine escapes me at the moment) couldn’t come up with much in the way of verifying Flowers’ story.
[sub]*And I also want to say that “Boffing Flowers” would be a really cool name for a band.[/sub]
*Originally posted by minty green *
**If Clinton admitted to boffing Flowers in his deposition or something, I missed it. **
Right, and WHY did you miss it? Because it wasn’t given much coverage, even though it confirmed that a specific statment made by BC on TV was a lie.
But come on, those tapes Flowers produced were so ridiculously–and obviously–doctored that I’d hesitate to draw any conclusions at all from them about what was said and in what context. The tapes were broadcast (remember her press conference) and quickly examined by experts, who determined pretty quickly they had been played with (cut and splice, if I recall).
Now you are remembering something that I don’t recall. My vague recollection is that the tapes were attacked by Clinton suck-ups for the reasons you provide, but the attacks themselves were unconvincing. As far as I know, no reliable main stream group did a real evaluation of the tapes or searched for witnesses.
It would be great to resolve which side was right. If the tapes really were convincing evidence, but were portrayed as fakes, that would indicate media bias. If the tapes were really fakes, but were portrayed as valid by right wingers, that would indicate right-wing dissimulation. Can you think of a way to research and resolve the validity of the GF tapes at this late date?
And you’ve really got your patented Clinton-hating tunnel-vision goggles on for point number 4. The Gennifer Flowers story was gigantic news at the time…,
Hmm, upon further reflection, it appears that Clinton did admit in his deposition to boffing Flowers, once, in 1977. It also appears that this was given fairly significant press attention at the time, although I obviously forgot about it in the wake of about sixteen zillion other events related to Lewinsky and the impeachment.
My memory of the original Troopergate article was correct. Not bad for not having read it for 7+ years. David Brock was, needless to say, no fan of Clinton when he wrote the American Spectator article, but even he had to admit that Flowers’ credibility was suspect and there wasn’t much to verify her story of a long-term affair:
Well, I think that settles it! Ambiguous tapes with unexplained pauses and a girlfriend who says Clinton was boffing Flowers. Yep, everything she said must be true. How could the press have ignored it unless they were part of the vast, left-wing conspiracy? :rolleyes:
But more germane to december’s allegations that the mainstream press never followed up on Flowers’ allegations is the following quote from the same story. Remember, David Brock hates Clinton with a passion. Yet even he admitted:
december’s retraction of point #4 will be immediately forthcoming, I’m sure.
*Originally posted by minty green * but even [David Brock] had to admit that Flowers’ credibility was suspect and there wasn’t much to verify her story of a long-term affair
MG – I think you missed Brock’s meaning. Being a conservative, he honorably presented both sides of the argument. His personal conclusion was that the evidence was strong – which history has now validated.
[bWriting in the New Republic, Sidney Blumenthal described Flowers as “the woman in red, trimmed in black to match the roots of her frosted hair.”**
OK, now I see. GF was obviously lying, because she wore red and black and FROSTED her hair! Blumenthal makes weasels look honorable!
On the other hand, there was direct evidence weighing in favor of Flowers. Though they had some unexplained pauses and ambiguous references, Flowers had tapes of conversations with Clinton, including his instruction that she deny that they had talked about her obtaining a state job (“If they ever ask you if you’ve talked to me about it, you can say no”). She also had corroboration for her story from her mother Mary, as well as from her roommate at the time, Lauren Kirk, who declared in an interview with the New York Post’s Cindy Adams, "There can be no doubt that she and Bill Clinton had sex with one another."
Minty – you’re a lawyer; is testimony by a complainant, backed up by two witnesses and a tape, enough to make a prima facie case?
**But more germane to december’s allegations that the mainstream press never followed up on Flowers’ allegations is the following quote from the same story. Remember, David Brock hates Clinton with a passion. (“hated”, not “hates.”) Yet even he admitted:
[quote]
Surely a number of news organizations continued to scrutinize Clinton’s private life after the Flowers story faded, and even more so following his presidential nomination. Despite Clinton’s tacit admission of infidelity, however, after Flowers no other “bimbos” erupted.**
Minty – Whats your point? By now, quite a number of “bimbos” have “erupted.”
**december’s retraction of point #4 will be immediately forthcoming, I’m sure.
**A lawyer disproves a general statement by finding someone who says it isn’t so. A mathematician disproves it by finding counter-examples. I’m unconvinced by the Brock quote, because I don’t know its context or timing. I tend to believe that much more information came out subsequent to that article, whereupon the main stream media STILL didn’t investigate.
I will happily retract my point #4 when you provide counter-examples. E.g., “CBS hired famous sound expert Claudio Audio, who demonstrated that the voice on GF’s tapes was not that of Clinton.” Or, “A Washington Post special investigative team headed by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward has found evidence that GF and her two witnesses were lying.”
However, if you cannot find such examples, then I call upon you to retract.
Hang on. Before I answer any of that . . . do my eyes deceive me, or did you just claim that a journalist acted “honorably” because he is a conservative? Because frankly, if that’s the level of bias I’m arguing against, it would be more productive to see how many paper clips I can stick up my nose.
Aw, the heck with it. Your response is so inadequate that it will be my pleasure to refute it. Let’s start with your original claim:
I refuted this by pointing out the following facts, as reported by David Brock in the Troopergate article:
The New York Post’s Cindy Adams interviewed a Flowers friend (and apparent witness) who declared in an interview that “There can be no doubt that she and Bill Clinton had sex with one another.” Presumably, this interview was published.
Flowers’ mother, Mary, also confirmed the story to the press. Again, it is safe to assume reporters also published her comments, since Brock surely would have pointed it out if they went into “liberal cover-up conspiracy mode.”
“[A] number of news organizations continued to scrutinize Clinton’s private life after the Flowers story faded, and even more so following his presidential nomination.” Do you think these muckracking reporters just went around scrutinizing everything about Clinton’s life except Gennifer Flowers?
David Brock, a conservative investigative reporter who was part of the Gennifer Flowers feeding frenzy, gives credit to reporters looking into the story for their interest in the subject, and decries the lack of sources willing to speak on the record about what they knew. Now if the journalists hadn’t been looking for witnesses, how would Brock have known there were sources who didn’t want to speak on the record?
So are you going to retract the ridiculous assertion that no mainstream reporter ever searched for witnesses to Gennifer Flowers’ claimed affair? You might be able to complain that they didn’t investigate hard enough, but there is no question whatsoever that mainstream reporters did search for exactly what you say they ignored.
As for the doctored tapes, it’s a pain in the ass to find nine-year-old news stories. But here is a flaming-liberal site that says “the L. A. Times reported that her Clinton tapes were doctored, with naughty words being overdubbed on them.” George Stephanopoulos says in his book that “Later investigations by CNN and KCBS would show that the tapes were ‘selectively edited.’” I’m quoting there from what appears to be a GF defamation suit against him. Naturally, the original stories don’t appear to be online anywhere. So at least I have second-hand evidence for my factual assertion, in addition to my own memory of the news reports at the time. Thus, I will certainly not be retracting my charge that those tapes were doctored.
Minty – given your evidence of the LA Times, CNN and KCBS having listened to the tape, I withdraw my point #4 and apologize.
Regarding the Daily Howler, you wrote:
**
I guess your words “flaming-liberal” are meant to be sarcastic. Actually, Bob Somerby, ex-roommate of Al Gore, IS a flaming liberal, but he’s a honest person who works hard in seeking accuracy.
I ought to have been more careful in my original assertion, since I was thinking more of the early 1990’s, when David Brock’s article was published IIRC. At that point in time, Clinton’s candidacy would have been damaged by any evidence of just an extra-marital affair. By 1998 and 1999, the question was GF’s wilder charges, including murder, which the tapes evidently didn’t support.
However, my comment didn’t apply any time restriction, so I will have to admit defeat on this point.
Gracefully done, december. And I actually know nothing of the Daily Howler, other than the one page I came up with on the google search. I just figured anybody who was that concerned about discrediting the recrediting of Gennifer Flowers was, ipso facto, a flaming liberal. (Hey, even us moderates gotta use the “L” word as a pejorative every once in a while!)
Last night on Fox News Channel Special Report, Brit Hume said that a report denying the vandalism was incorrect. He said the report of no damage had been put out by FAIR, a liberal advocacy group. However, Hume said, the government agency had checked only for real estate problems, not for the types of damage that had been originally alleged.
So, if we believe Hume, the original reports of extensive damage have neither been confirmed nor disproved.
I haven’t found a cite, but will post one when it shows up.
When asked about an apology, AriFleischer responded with “No apology is merited. They are well-advised to leave it alone.”
Or else what, he’ll unleash yet more groundless attacks against his political opponents ? -Pretty cheeky !
An article in June 3 Washington Post says that the GAO report that no damage was done was premature.
The GAO report was based on the fact that the White House had not submitted a formal listing of said vandalism. "In April, the General Accounting Office said it was unable to confirm damage, in part because of what it called a “lack of records” from the White House. … The GAO said in April that it “found no damage” to White House real estate. The GAO did not prepare a report but said in a three-paragraph letter that it could reach no further conclusions because the White House said it had no written record of damage. The letter did not mention the Eisenhower building, where most of the damage had been reported.’’
quote:
White House officials yesterday released a list of damage they say was done by outgoing staffers of President Bill Clinton, including obscene graffiti in six offices, a 20-inch-wide presidential seal ripped off a wall, 10 sliced telephone lines and 100 inoperable computer keyboards.
end quote
quote:
(Press secretary Ari) Fleischer said that workers were able to affix new “W” caps to many computers but that 100 keyboards had to be replaced. …
Fleischer said 75 phones had been “tampered with,” which he described as having the number plates removed and the lines plugged into the wrong wall outlet. “Nobody knew their number, and nobody could call in,” he said. Six fax machines were moved around in a similar fashion, he said.
According to an article in todays St.Paul Pioneer Press, a listing of the damage was released today. Previous assessments did not include the Eisenhower building, which is where most of the damage occurred.
Again we see the claims of damage, but no actual evidence. Where are these 100 damaged keyboards ? Or does Fleischer claim that monkeys broke into government offices and made off with them ?
